30 June 2008

God Created Hanging Chads to Test Our Faith

This November, don't be surprised if a lot of voters don't choose to vote the traditional Red or Blue, but Purple instead. No, not for homosexuality, that's ridiculous! I mean for the King of Kings.

That's right, if certain evangelicals have their way, Jesus will be President. Never mind that white guys shouldn't have dreadlocks, least of all a scrawny bug-eyed one whose name sounds vaguely like a Scottish broadsword. I mean, honestly, why waste what could have been a kick-ass name driving around an eco-friendly bus blathering on about peace?

But that's not the point. The point is, it's one thing to think about the church and the state and the relationship between the two, but another thing entirely to ignore the specifics of historical situations in favor of sweeping generalizations. And you know when sweeping generalizations are involved, it's always better to sweep the leg than risk getting crane kicked in the face.

That last reference was a bit of a stretch. The next sentence is not. Whatever the similarities, and my own predisposition to distrust and dislike the government, the United States is not the Roman Empire. I'll grant that there are tons of similarities. I'll grant that there is a huge problem when a President conflates their own policies with God's and makes more than a slip-of-the-tongue's share of theological justifications to their actions. But, no President has ever claimed to God. That was John Lennon, and by the transitive property, Noel Gallagher.

This isn't about John Lennon or Noel Gallagher. Neither of them could even register to vote (even if Lennon were still alive). This is about the problem of getting Jesus into politics in the first place. When a Roman Emperor claims to be the Son of God, it would seem appropriate that the actual Son of God would want to counter that claim.

As far as I know, and as shitty a President as he's been, W's never claimed to be anyone's son but HW's, and I don't think Jesus particular cares to contend for that title. But if he did, it would make Barbara Bush a virgin, which, depending on your politics and the sensitivity of your imagination, might be a comforting thought.

Anyway, I don't think the idea of Jesus for President is particularly counter-cultural, at least not in the way Jesus as Lord and Savior was during the Roman Empire. If the Emperor claims to rule by virtue of being the Son of God, it's a big deal, politically speaking, to follow some subversive who makes the same claim without the world's biggest army backing him. If you believe nothing else about Jesus, you have to believe he had balls.

But a President is another thing. Elections in America may not be entirely fair, or entirely representative, or particularly well attended, but I don't know anyone under the illusion that the President gets to be President by being divine offspring. And I know a lot of crazy people. To say that we picked our Savior from among us is not an idea I've known many evangelicals to support.

Jesus doesn't get elected. Jesus takes names and kicks ass, but not in a Chuck Norris kind of way, in a redemptive way. My point is, for Christians, voting for Jesus was never an option. For Christians, Jesus gets to be whoever he says he is, regardless of whether or not anyone else agrees with (or votes for) him.

Anyway, Jesus was a liberal hippie.

1 comment:

Corn Corn said...

Thoroughly enjoyable. I would also like to mention that this guy fails to realize the multiple instances that Jesus frowned upon such action for himself, and that many believe(although there are many other theories) that Judas' betrayal was an act to see if Jesus would take the political take over as an escape route (Judas as a Sicarii).