I plan on sleeping in. I am almost sick of talking about the late election (even though I really haven't that much), and I am definitely sick of hearing about it. This whole election has put a finer point on something that's been developing for years. Americans put too much hope in elections. Christians put too much hope in Republicans. And of course Democrats are now putting too much hope in change. Isn't that what we've been hearing for so long? Hope for America. Vote For Change.
I'm hoping President Obama will change our minds. I think that he will show Americans that their love affair with change is in reality a love affair with death, and it is certainly nothing new. I think some people will become disillusioned with the savior they elected, and come to know the Savior who elected them.
I think a lot of good will come from this election, but we won't see most of it for a good four years. So, wake me up in four years please.
Beerbohm
6 years ago
Greetings all (I love the reference Rob). I'm sorry to get in on the discussion so late, but I have a few things to add concerning the comments section on Rob's confession. I sincerely hope that an Obama presidency is thouroughly normal. Democrat? yes. Socialist? no. Liberal? yes. Nevertheless, I have a funny feeling that where the country goes in the next four years will be similar to where it has gone with democratic presidents in the past. I am even willng to venture a guess that Obama will become popular with more people than blacks, young people, pagans, and rich liberal Christians. mpk, I have you as saying: "I would ask you to think of the potential good that America can and has accomplished." Really? The good that America has accomplished? Correct me if I'm wrong (you've seen me wrong before) but I think that should be: "I would ask you to think of the potential good that the Church, God's people, senators, presidents, judges, hobos, rich ceo's, and complacent christians can and have accomplished." Is it not odd to you that we often think of the good that "America" has done? How about the government overthrows we have accomplished. Ahh... sweet, sweet american victory. I don't advocate governmental abstinance from foreign policy, I simply find it a bit odd to refer to America as an entity capable of being sent to hell. I have no idea what that means! Please help me out. I think humans are capable of operating only on a human scale. You know, things that are small enough for us to get our tiny little brains around. Humans must operate in a community and in reference to that community. The more corporate, mechanized, and bureaucratic things get, the more in danger we are of creating a frankenstein.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I am fine with Rob not voting. I would have voted if I were of age, but if Rob either didn't register in time or is convinced in his own mind that voting is not helpful or beneficial, then let him be. Rob, you also have as much right to "complain" as anyone. You have as much of a right not to vote as anyone has to vote. Just because you didn't put his money down this go round, doesn't mean that you can't speak truth into a situation.
Well, I guess that post was long enough. Let me know if it made any sense.
BobbyLee
Hey Rob, I'd love to point something out. Just a small something, but it has been driving me crazy for the past week.
ReplyDeletePeople keep saying "President Obama". He's NOT the president yet!! Aaaaahhhggg. We've still got two months of freedom to breathe, yet even those of us who are not so happy about him having been elected are already calling him the president! *sigh* What a crazy world this is.
Bobby--
ReplyDeleteI have you as saying: "if Rob either didn't register in time or is convinced in his own mind that voting is not helpful or beneficial, then let him be." While I don't think we should be going at each other's jugulars, let's not interpret Romans 14:5 as a prohibition of discussion about topics on which we disagree.
Also, technically speaking, none of us have any right to complain about politics, life, etc. (see Phil. 2:14)
Faith,
ReplyDeleteI know he's not President yet, but we might as well get used to the name, eh? Plus, President-elect doesn't exactly roll off the tongue (or the fingers).
And we do not have 2 more months of freedom to breathe. I don't think America's known freedom since. . . I don't know. . . around 1865. Unofficially, I think we lost it when an earlier elected "savior", to name one of his unconstitutional acts, imprisoned members of Maryland's legislature to keep them from voting for secession. Take heart, It's highly unlikely that Obama will be any worse than Lincoln.
MPK,
ReplyDeleteI am really sick of responding to your comments about why I didn't vote. I didn't register in time. And, for the record - this post has nothing to do with my not voting.
By the way, did you not get the reference? It was probably lost in all my controversialities. I was pretty proud of it.
Sorry to sicken, but I was actually talking to Robert this time.
ReplyDeleteI did catch the reference, and you have every right to be proud of it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThanks MPK; I'm glad you listen to "The Postal Service" too. If you didn't, I was going to have a recommendation; because they are awesome.
ReplyDelete"Give Up" has some of my favorite lovesongs of all time: Such Great Heights, Nothing Better, and Brand New Colony.
ReplyDeleteOk wait. Who's prohibiting discussion? All I have to say is that Rob is in the clear and can "COMMENT" (notice my avoidance of the word "complain") on the status of the American government all he wants. (Also notice that the word "complain" was in quotes in my earlier post.) I figured that by including the part about Rob being able to speak truth into the situation, you would understand that THAT is what I mean by complaining. Sincerely sorry for the lack of clarity. Let's straighten this out: Rob has a right to speak truth into the situation, even though he didn't vote. Now that I've gotten that off my chest... No one has answered my question. Sorry that the post was so long, but I didn't think that anyone would be falling asleep so as to miss the question at the end. Okay, so I looked back and it wasn't exactly a question. Here it is: Is America capable of being sent to Hell?
ReplyDelete-BobbyLee
Rob, that is true, "president-elect" doesn't roll off the tongue. But is there a problem with just calling him Obama or Barack or whatever is was that we called him *before*?
ReplyDeleteBobbyLee, I'm inclined to think that American *is* capable of being sent to Hell. In case you hadn't noticed, America is pretty much a mirror image of Rome in its decaying days. Not a good sign for us under ANY circumstances.
Bobby Lee, I'd say that America isn't in Sheol/Hades/Dante's Inferno, but we're surrounded by everything that results in one going to those places and most everything that seems to bring down Hell on Earth (like Sodom). So no, not literally, and yes, quite really.
ReplyDeleteFaith, I think we're saying the same thing -- you're dead on target with the Rome thing. Preface to Livy's History of Rome, anyone?
MPK, just for the record, Give Up is about breaking up. Except for Such Great Heights, the other two are about splitting up. Especially Nothing Better. In fact, I can think of very, very few other songs that are MORE about breaking up than Nothing Better. "I've made charts and graphs that should finally make it clear" - heartbreaking.
But Gibbard just says the sweetest things:
ReplyDeleteTell me, am I right to think that there could be nothing better
Than making you my bride and slowly growing old together. . .
I know that I've made mistakes
And I swear I'll never wrong you again.
He is working for reconciliation, even though she is a jerk and leaves at the end.
From Brand New Colony:
I'll be the grapes fermented bottle served with the table set in my finest suit like a perfect gentleman.
Whether or not it's intentional, I love the reference to the Eucharist: We become the body of Christ for each other.
Sure, but it's too late. The album is about him having to give up because he's failed. Anyhow, yes, the things he says are beautiful, but words are not enough. It's that existential disconnect between desires and action that he bewails so often in both Postal Serv. & Death Cab.
ReplyDeleteRemember though what Gibbard and other pagans (assuming, since all the evidence I've seen points that way, that he is pagan) will never understand: we are the body of Christ for each other means we are eaten. We can only get by giving; we are exalted by serving; we live by dying. We eat each other in the Eucharist, when we eat the body of Christ we eat those united to Him as well. Life in community, life in fellowship, especially with your spouse, is about giving yourself to be eaten like bread, it's about pouring yourself out like a drink offering.
I know exactly what you mean Faith. But in a post like that I think it's more appropriate for the meaning I wish to convey to refer to him with as much respect as possible.
ReplyDeleteWhen I make fun of him (which will probably be rather often), I will definitely refer to him as "Barrack, or "Al-Obama" (if he ever gets all southern on us).
Bravo MPK.
ReplyDeleteCome on, Kaleb. I think MPK has a very good point. Sure he's a pagan (probably, who knows?); but he has hit on something truly beautiful. And isn't that the whole point of what he's saying? He is offering himself.
We've seen again, and again that pagans can and do say more profound things than most of the lubby dubby Christian music we're used to listening to. But the good news is that we don't have to look longingly at the pagan music through the glass and go back to our "Christian" music. We take the culture captive. We say "That's good - I'll take that." It's just like bringing back grapes from the promised land. We don't need to be afraid of them; let's just charge in with God on our side and destroy all their idols.
Right, here we go. MPK has a very good and valid point. I'm totally with you on the whole pagan-stealing thing, which you know better than most anyone here. After all, what were we listening to last night?
ReplyDeleteThat said, the whole problem with the relationship is that he wasn't giving himself up. He wanted love to look and sound like a movie (Clark Gable) - not be hard and difficult. People require sacrifice, and he wasn't willing to give that initially, which is why he is where he is. Any-old-how, that being said, Give Up is a brilliant album that is indeed about love. Just not all about getting together love (with the incredibly notable exception of Such Great Heights). More about love that tries to regain lost love, and fails. Unless I missed something exciting in Natural Anthem, which is entirely possible, because about 3/4 of the way through it gets really annoying to me and I cut it off.
Whew... great stuff. Alright, I have a few things to say about "Nothing Better". I've been there, I've said those "sweet things". "I admit that I have made mistakes, I swear I'll never wrong you again. I'll fix it. What will it take? There could be nothing better than making you my bride and slowly growing old together."
ReplyDelete"She is a jerk and leaves in the end?" Sorry, that's not the way it works. Granted, it would be so much more romantic if he were true until the end and she was just a jerk and left. Unfortunately, Gibbard (I) screwed up. After screwing up for long enough, she starts making charts and graphs and preparing lectures.
The reasons for Gibbard's situation are evasive in the song, but we know that her decision to leave was not based on his telling her that he dislikes limberger cheese.
Anyway, Kaleb is right on. Gibbard is the one at fault. He jacked up the relationship and wants to fix it but it's too late. She sees through his sweet talk and selfishness.
"Will someone please call a surgeon
Who can crack my ribs and repair this broken heart
That your're deserting for better company?
I can't accept that it's over...
I will block the door like a goalie tending the net
In the third quarter of a tied-game rivalry"
"I feel must interject here you're getting carried away feeling sorry for yourself with these revisions and gaps in history"
BAM. Brilliant writing Gibbard. You nailed it.
-BobbyLee
Back to America in Hell.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I would ask you to think of "America" as a conglomeration of souls, not as one whole cursed machine. Is every soul in America going to Hell, then neither is America.
Faith, (a pleasure to meet you)I don't think that Rome is in Hell either. Or that it was "sent to hell". Hellish things happened in Rome, but agian, I prefer to think of Rome as the citizens within it, not some giant thing with a soul. At the end of my first huge comment I said someting about stuff needing to be "human sized" to understand it. This is my point. I know it may seem that I am arguing symantics, but... well please just help me out with how it works to refer to a country as being "sent to hell".
Kaleb, sorry, as always I don't get what it is that you're saying. Also, it's been a few days since I've read the preface to Livy. A little refresher may be in order.
-BobbyLee
I agree with you there Pounder (BobbyLee); we should stop saying that "America is going to hell." But I think you're getting a little worked up over just its anthropomorphic language. No one literally means that "America" is going to hell. It's just simpler than saying "There's a lot of bad people in America. And they're in some big doo doo."
ReplyDeleteAnd I think it is legitimate to speak of a nation as a single entity. This is done many times in the Bible. The Lord says that he's going to bring blessing or cursing upon Israel. The Lord treated the covenant breaking of Israel the same way as He would treat an individual breaking covenant with Him. In a similar way, we can say that God is bringing or has brought judgment upon America.
Oh... I'm tracking now.
ReplyDelete(Disclaimer: Any of Flabbergasted's readership that doesn't know me should know that I am that one wierd friend who hangs around sometimes and asks stupid questions after everyone else has moved on)(my comments should not reflect on Rob and Kaleb except to say that they are gracious not to have disowned me when they moved to Idaho and not to have deleted all of my comments)
Okay. Your'e right, it is okay to refer to whole nations, and my gripe is mostly an anthropmorphic one, but my gripe (that's "question" or "concern" for mpk) concerns the kind of hyper-anti-patriotism that speaking of America as a whole fosters. It seems to be the opposite side of the "God bless America, it's flag and my guns" kind of patriotism. It seems to me that John McCain's quote: "America is the greatest force for good in this world" is countered often by Christians by refering to the hell that America has caused, is creating, and is living in. I've been dealing a lot with people being blown away by JM's quote and am sensitive to the extremes in regard to American patriotism. So here's the question: If America is not the greatest power for good in the history of the world, what is it? Surely not the greatest power for evil either? My gripe (concern) is with the specific phrasing of America being sent to hell. Nit picky? yes. Stupid? Quite possibly. I do see what you're saying about the nation of Israel being blessed or condemned.
So, you're right. I see over the course of this post that I have not been thinking very clearly. Sorry for the time that took. I know you all are busy people. This, for me, has been a great example of the wonder of the blog world. People with busy schedules somehow find time to correct the one stupid guy who's not yet on the train.
Thanks Mr. Blog. Or can I call you Cornelius?
-BobbyLee
Not at all Bobby, your comments are far from stupid. Maybe America is somewhere between what the anti-patriots think it is and the ultra-patriots.
ReplyDeleteAmerica is just alright.
America is a great blessing, it's from God. We should thank God for America every Sunday. But that doesn't mean we should accept what America is doing.
Over the years, America's pluralism has caught up with it. We are now realizing that there is no such thing as a "Naked Public Square" (to use Richard Neuhaus). People do disagree over moral matters, and someone's morals are going to come out on top in the legislature (and it's not the "morals of the people"; that's ridiculous).
In the name of freedom, we say that we are allowed to do things which are an abomination to God. Like killing approximately 3,700 babies a day (http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html). The war in Iraq is NOTHING compared to this; it doesn't compare at all. This is reason for indignation, Godly anger. If patriotism is support for the freedom that makes this possible, then I'm quite happy to be an anti-patriot.
Gotcha covered. Yeah, I'm down with indignation. I, like you (believe it or not), find it hard to stomach this ultra patriotism. I find it only a little less hard however, to be "anti-patriot". Southern indoctrination? O.D. on 4 wheel drive trucks, camo and country music? Maybe.
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned the "morals of the people". What if the stuff (for lack of a word that won't get my comment erased) that comes out on top is what the majority believes? Do you think it is? I have a hunch that the morals we see played out are not those of Bill Gates and the legislators willing to pay a buck (the paper not the animal).
I say, true patriotism is support through active participation in government to change the bad parts. (Constantine is rising up out of his grave in agreement) Patriotism doesn't support freedom. Belief in the one true God supports freedom.
So can we be patriots - pulling for our country to do better,
and Christians - condemning our country for sin and supporting freedom
at the same time?
-BobbyLee
We can be patriots insofar as it means praying for civil authorities and even giving thanks for them (1 Tim. 2:1,2).
ReplyDeleteThis might be an extremely stupid and/or naive question, but what constitutes a country's sin in light of Rom. 13: there is no authority except from God. . .rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. . .he is God's minister to you for good. . .they are God's ministers. . . ???
It almost sounds like (I know this can't be) what a country does is automatically/by definition approved by God.
Back to Clark Gable. I have Kaleb as citing this song as proof of Gibbard's unwillingness to sacrifice himself. I would like to suggest that Clark Gable is more of a Tiny-Vessels-type-song; he condemns what he describes.
How about David? How about Pharaoh? God used these men for good when they obviously did terrible things. I'm thinking of David and Bathsheba and Pharaoh's enslaving of Israel. These men were ministers of God. In the specific circumstances here, I don't think they were ministers to the people for good... but overall, I think the passage refers to the ability of God, in his authority, to use men like Pharaoh to do his will.
ReplyDeleteI think it's both. In Clark Gable, Nothing Better, and Tiny Vessels Gibbard refuses to sacrifice himself, then writes about his sin with regret. In all of the above songs his love looks romantic and meaningful at the beginning, but Gibbard reveals how vile and cheap it all is in the end because, like Kaleb said, he refuses to sacrifice himself. He doesn't know how to eat and be eaten.
Tiny Vessels is more explicitly regretful, but Clark Gable and Nothing Better are regretful by the songs' very existance.
-BobbyLee
BobbyLee, with regard to Gibbard & The PoServ - Word.
ReplyDeleteMPK, BobbyLee is right about this, although I do think he doesn't go far enough. So yes, the passage does declaratively state that the state is the minister of God. That means that Pharoah, Saul, David, Xerxes, Nero, Lincoln, and Obama are all ministers of God. They do, like Bobby Lee said, exactly and only what God wants them to do.
However. Paul loves to move from declarative to imperative, sometimes in the same sentence (we see very often something like this: "being cut off from the world [declarative], be transformed by the renewing of your minds [imperative]"). And in the same way Paul's sword, if you will, cuts both ways. Not only are we not to resist the state because of these things, that requires that the righteous state do these things. America has not done this. We have let the guilty live while the innocent are slaughtered. Abortion alone is enough to condemn our nation. We, however, must remain subject, even though the state is not fulfilling its half of the bargain.
A quick side note. In all of this talking I (and sometimes Rob) have come down pretty hard on our country. I am an American. Always have been, always will be. I'm stuck with it, whether I want to be or no. And I do want to be. America is a great country, and I would die to protect it. Make no mistake, I am a patriot(though not as much as some). America does, has done, and will do horrific and terrible things. But unless it acts directly against the Church, I am required by Scripture to be subject, and will most gladly do so.
This is serious stuff your saying... Seriously AWESOME. Way to go Kat, I'm proud to know you. I should just let you do the talking, it's your blog anyway right. Mostly I think I didn't go far enough because, dude, I don't even know what that means. Declarative and imperative? That's why your at NSA.
ReplyDelete-BobbyLee
Did you like how short my last comment was?
ReplyDelete-BobbyLee