Two weeks ago in this space, while still processing Election 2012, I wrote of my relief at the outcome, not because I approved of it, but because it provided a bit of needed clarity. Faced with a challenger whose most daring political strategy was to cultivate vagueness in his relentless pursuit of all things beige, and an incumbent gleefully willing to launch a daily barrage of splattering, oozing color bombs heedless of what or whom they hit–or whether their tints were environmentally toxic or even true–the voters chose “sound and fury” over “nothing.”
Experiencing unprecedented economic, spiritual, and constitutional challenges, Americans re-elected both a president of questionable competence and many of the same artless, priorities-challenged politicians who have already proved themselves unequal to the task of creative, co-operative leadership. They thereby declared their comfort with troubling “new normals” in an age of transition.
For many, and for me, the election signaled the crossing of a Rubicon of sorts: twin-towering notions of Exceptionalism and Indispensability toppled for less conspicuous walk-ups of Isolationism and Nanny Statism; the running out of a clock, all illusions lain aside.
As might be imagined, the column generated an unusual amount of email and social media action, some of it jeering at the hilarity of my “apocalyptic pronouncements,” some grousing but in agreement, and some wondering, “so, what now? What do you mean by ‘playing strictly for God’ and how do we begin?”
We begin, I think, by giving simple thanks to God for the election—without conditions or sly assumptions that we know anything or are somehow colluding with Providence. That sounds counterintuitive, I know, but whenever I think a circumstance precludes gratitude, I remember the story of two sisters offering prayerful thanks for the fleas that infested their barracks in a Nazi concentration camp. They were certainly distressed by their circumstances but recalling 1 Thessalonians 5:18 (“In all circumstances give thanks, for this is the will of God for you in Christ Jesus.”) they gave praise nonetheless, trusting that God’s hand was astir. They later learned that the fleas had afforded their barracks a relative freedom, unmatched at the camp, because the flea-phobic guards would stay away.
So, we first give thanks. We thank God for the re-election of a man whose commitment to our religious freedom, and to other commonly accepted notions, seems dubious to us. In our expression of gratitude, we open ourselves for the reception of joy, which can only be accessed through our willingness to give thanks, even when under duress, but then can permeate our beings.
Then, we pray for his salvation, as for our own, because that is the best prayer we can make for anyone. We daily consign him, and all of our secular “leadership”, completely to the Lord, in perfect trust; this releases us from the grip of resentment and anger (which the evil one nurtures until it becomes self-poisoning hatred) and thereby makes us free.
Prayer is a most subversive freedom. In making these two small ones daily, we begin our work from a place of joyful emancipation.
We will need it, because the work itself will be difficult: It will involve learning what is contained in the words “thy kingdom come” and “thy will be done” and then conforming ourselves to that understanding. In other words, we will have to surrender our old ideas of earthly greatness for what is truly exceptional and indispensable: the building up of the Kingdom of God in the midst of the secular, and delusive, territories belonging to the prince of the world. We will have to become, ourselves, the reality we want to see. Or, as theologian Timothy Muldoon phrases it, “The Lord of the visible and invisible is calling to us through the voice of our most authentic selves with the words “discover your real self. Then give it away.”
It is a call that is almost outside of our imagining unless we can find ways to shrink it in scope, and make it seem a little less frightening, and a little more doable. Something like that was managed, recently in England, where Luke Smith challenged two women to enact the Parable of the Great Banquet (Luke 14:15-24). Providing them with a small amount of cash they would have to replace, Smith told them to create a banquet based on the bounty of God, culled from ordinary people who were informed of a need, and responded. Twelve hours later, over a hundred people were fed, in a festive atmosphere, and over £600 had been raised for a local charity serving the homeless and destitute.
There was plenty for everyone, and with more, besides. There was “a good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over . . . ” (Luke 6:38)
It was a timely event, one showing us a way to begin.
Henri Nouwan wrote,
First Christ takes us as we are.
He blesses us.
Then He breaks us.
And gives us to the world to bless.
A thing I have learned in life, and have tried to teach my children, is that the most difficult part of any task, be it writing a book or pursuing a course of study, is to simply “begin as you mean to continue”—to start the process of doing, in order to achieve being. If secular illusions are to be tumbled amid the building up of the Kingdom, let us get started where we are, today; in our families, and then in our neighborhoods and parishes and our schools. Let us begin, finally, to understand the true meaning of apocalypse by becoming it—not destruction and mayhem but revelation, as in the revelation of Christ to each other—in these strange and transitional days.
Elizabeth Scalia is the Managing Editor of the Catholic Portal at Patheos and blogs as The Anchoress. Her previous articles for "On the Square" can be found here.
RESOURCES
Moses, the Gipper and the End of America
Tim Muldoon on giving ourselves away
The Last-Minute Banquet
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
Salvation history is replete with instances where God punished (usually Israel) by leaving them to their own devices. They demanded a king; they got a king, much to their later dismay. Etc.
We have chosen a king. A man radically immoral, corrupt, and incompetent, but one capable of tickling our ears with all kinds of false teaching which sounds appealing. In other words, we have got the perfect president for the Culture of Death.
Left to our own devices.
Let's not wear the mantle of a political party. Let's not reduce our faith in Christ to the resounding gong of a political convention.
We are radicals. We bear the wounds of Christ. We rejoice in His truth.
Give our mind, our body, and our work to Him.
In short, we all are Kingdom people first. America is not the Kingdom, nor are our political representatives priests and prophets of Kingdom life.
I will not directly post my blog page here; but if you are interested in reading an evangelical Baptist rant with you, I'll be happy to email the site address by request.
Thanks,
Rev. John A. Loughlin
Associate Pastor
Dunn Memorial Baptist Church
McKinney, TX
It seems that many/most of us in America have lived in a world in which the truth remained veiled by illusions of power and wealth, the fumes of our prior worldly success.
The truth about the world was brutally revealed to Russia and Europe during the past hundred years, and it remains to be seen when and how the church will rise from those ashes.
Now, the unveiling is upon us. The shining city on a hill has been shown to be as corrupt and tarnished as the rest of the first world, and I think you are right, Elizabeth.
The way it occurred to me a day or two after the election was that America is still the land of opportunity, except that now the opportunity is to be a saint and, possibly, a martyr.
The point about abortion is worth repeating: He flip-flopped on the issue, as he did on so many others as well? Why this eagerness to believe him and trust him?
We should all be relieved that Romney was not elected. He would have pursued the interests of himself and his fellow members of the upper classes - at everyone else's expense - much more brazenly than will be the case under Obama. I am no friend of Obama's, but I don't understand why people come to the conclusion that he is any worse than your average politician. What exactly makes him the essential equivalent of the devil incarnate?
If you care about having something resembling a secure retirement and reasonable access to decent healthcare in your old age, then voting for him was the far better choice - merely a somewhat lesser evil, to be sure, but still, a better choice among the ones available.
I think I see a lot of what a Christ follower would want if he could believe the words - concern for the disadvantaged, a generous sharing of all we have, a desire not to make war, healing the sick, feeding the hungry, 'judging not'.
I still think an Obama biography should be sub-titled 'An American Tragedy', but I also can see in his re-election that within the wide electorate the architecture of America as a nation of Christian values is still firmly in place.
My evoling view is that we see and enter the work of the King. The kingdom and reign of God is made manifest in doing the work of Jesus in/with His Body, the Church. The kingdom exists. It only needs building up if there is too close an identification with the institutional Church or churhes. I see 'building up' more associated with the Body of Christ and the Church which in my mind is for the purpose of serving and furthering the kingdom/reign/kingship of God. As the Temple/Jerusalem was to Israel/Nations so the Church is to the kingdom.
Pretty much Fox News is out there continually harping on this president. Its listeners are simply afraid of change, black, foreign sounding name, etc., etc. But if you can somehow drift away from Fox and even read the WSJ, I believe you will be surprised at how competent this guy is.....particularly compared to the array of clowns the GOP put up with Romney being the only adult in the room.
In the end the comment above by Ed Hamilton is the most perceptive. We should not be listening to the bishops when it comes to politics. We should be reading, for example, The Economist.
"One generation passes and another comes, but the world forever stays.
The sun rises and the sun goes down; then it presses on to the place where it rises. " -Ecc 1:4
So quoted Hemingway to describe the failed civilization of the 1920s (The Sun Also Rises) and then we got the greatest generation.
We've got work to do. Prayer is a good start. I'm not ridiculing it, but a farmer can pray for his fields all he wants but unless he plants seeds and cultivates nothing is going to grow.
With this in mind, I offer these thoughts: Mitt Romney and his associates worked to turn around failing businesses. Had they not succeeded, everyone working for those troubled firms would have become unemployed. If the firms were saved, and many were, they survived to prosper. If they prospered enough, the chance existed that they would hire again. In many cases, this did happen. In any event, the strove to make it happen.
Mitt Romney is the son of a wealthy father. Upon inheriting his father's estate, he donated the money to Brigham Young University - all of the money.
He earned huge amounts of money. This enabled him to donate millions of dollars through the years to help others. His carrying a long-term mortgage, structured to suit the budget of for a couple who had been his tenants was not advertised. It would not have become publicly known except for the efforts of a journalist who uncovered the story. I suspect there are many other stories like this that will remain unknown.
He, like many others, was initially in favor of abortion rights, thinking it was a matter of freedom of choice. When matters became more complicated, when tens of millions of abortions took place for any reason whatsoever, when embryonic research was thought simply a matter of scientific progress with no concern for developing human beings. he understood it better and did change his mind, as did many others who are considered worthy of respect. To learn, acquire wisdom, and change, and to be able to explain why the change was made, is an inevitable part of human life and growth.
He knew that our nation is spending money it does not have and that "taxing the rich" cannot solve the problem. He knew that in several states and more to come, more and more retirement promises cannot be kept.
He knew that the highly respected Chief Actuary of Medicare Services had publicly stated that the financial arrangements of the Affordable Health Care Act cannot be sustained.
He believed in our former system of private enterprise and thought it could be made to expand the economic "pie" so that all could benefit. Perhaps he was mistaken but this does not justify describing him as "callous".
If he had been elected, he had planned to donate his salary to charity and would, of course, have continued to pay his taxes.
Certainly you can disagree with Mitt Romney's positions, even think him seriously wrong. But I cannot understand describing him as 'driven by greed," "totally insincere" "having callous contempt". This seems presumptuous and displays a certain arrogance. I hope that the person who commented - Church of the East member - will find a more merciful judgement before God than he has been willing to grant to Mitt Romney, an imperfect, as are we all, but a good and generous man who was willing to give his all for the nation he loves.
Is anybody here genuinely worried about being nailed upside down to a tree or a cross in the next four years? If not then we all need to clam up and stop whining. The Roman Military Empire was the longest-lived yet in Western civilization. Its citizens actually demanded military supremacy from their leaders--above anything else in civic life--and none of us has any real idea how difficult it was for our ancestors in the Faith to strive toward Grace and Holiness in that environment. They died painfully and mercilessly for their God and their Faith.
And I am a baptized Catholic who wouldn't vote for a Democrat at gunpoint, but "Church of the East member" is painfully correct in a lot of what he is saying. Romney seems like a nice guy and a good businessman (probably not too difficult for the son of a US governor), but he is out of touch with young and working-class people (and should be grateful for that!) and his candidacy was doomed before it began. Republicans have only ourselves to blame for losing these elections.
Boy it sure did. It made clear that there are voters who feel no personal connection to our collective 16 trillion debt. They only feel personally connected to the single issue of fully expressing their personal sexuality, without regard to personal or collective consequences. Julia, Sandra, Cecile, Lena. Code Pink costumes. It was eye-opening to find out that DNC messaging... worked.
And so we have work to do if we have a different message for women as children of God. Spiritual, not political.
A Romney victory would have obscured the extent of the spiritual damage done by our culture.
Now we've got our marching orders.
Prayer is a most subversive freedom.
Even when you can't say out loud what you are thinking in your head, it's good to pray. God listens.
But I also think there's no use being polite and shying away from saying that, in this country right now, speaking out loud what is in your head -- using words -- will be punished.
Look at all the trouble Dan Cathy got into, just for saying that he is still married to his first wife. So many people's feelings were hurt by those words that people called on government to punish him.
Sure he can pray inside his head "Thank you Jesus that by your Grace I am still married to my first wife" but he can't say that outside his head. He can't recommend it to others.
Nor can he slander the prophet Mohammed.
The First Amendment is too special. It expresses the fact of our free will, our moral agency. How can we stand aside and let it go without a fight?
Might I recommend a viewing of "Treasure of the Sierra Madre" to those who want to dwell on what comes from disasters? I don't want to spoil it for those who haven't seen it. I personally only saw it a few years ago, and it's not a Christian film by any stretch. It *does* have a great conclusion that regards how we react to the disasters in our lives--we either lament over them, or we see an opportunity and give thanks. Again, I don't want to spoil it--just go rent a copy.
Perhaps you've seen too many Hollywood movies. Excuse me, but the Romans were highly civilized in many ways. In fact, our Founding Fathers quite consciously modeled many features of our Republic on ancient Rome. Their legal system is the foundation for ours, and the law of ancient Rome was far more sophistocated than what passes for a legal system in China today. Why do you suppose St. Paul struck fear into his persecutors merely by saying, "Civis Romanus sum"? (I am a Roman citizen.) It was because of the advanced and effective system of legal protections for all Roman citizens. They practiced slavery, you say? Yes, and so did we until we very belatedly abolished it. Sure, they were tough, martial imperialists, but for pure, inhuman brutality, the Aztecs with their mass human sacrifices, the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Mongols with their mountains of decapitated enemy heads, or the ancient Phoenicians with their child sacrifice--often by roasting children alive--made the Romans look highly civilized indeed.
“In all circumstances give thanks, for this is the will of God for you in Christ Jesus.” Think of the words thanks and praise as being interchangable.
The story of Jehoshaphat Defeats Moab and Ammon (2 Chronicles 20-29) is a good example of how to give thanks(praise) in all circumstances. Jehoshaphat was surrounded by a vast army, his first actions where to praise God and seek his help:
"For we have no power to face this vast army that is attacking us. We do not know what to do, but our eyes are on you.”
Jehoshaphat appointed men to sing to the Lord and to praise him for the splendor of his[e] holiness as they went out at the head of the army, saying:
“Give thanks to the Lord,
for his love endures forever.”
"the re-elected incumbent comes from a religious background of Christianity more closely associated with ours, "
I beg to differ. The incumbent was raised as an atheist with an absent Muslim father and a Muslim step-father. He later chose to join a Black Liberation Theology church. According to the press he nor his family attend church services on a regular basis.
The "nudey bar" comment reminds me that in my city we have an all-women ministry called Scarlet Hope. They actually go into those establishments and evangelize, with great success I hear.
When our financial system collapses under the burden of debt and obligations which are impossible to meet, perhaps many more will turn to the Lord.
One can pray that they do.
Barack Obama is not making you marry a gay person.
Barack Obama is not making you have an abortion.
Barack Obama is not making health coverage more difficult to get.
Barack Obama is not starting new wars.
Barack Obama is not coming for your guns.
Barack Obama is not taking away your religious freedom.
Barack Obama is not forcing you to live in such depravation that you bless fleas.
Barack Obama is not raising your taxes unless you are quite wealthy and if you are wealthy he is not raising them higher than they were when Ronald Reagan was president.
Barack Obama is not making the economy worse.
Barack Obama is not making your country change to the point that you will ever, ever, ever seriously consider leaving it for another one.
You don't have to love Barack Obama. But perhaps you could ease up on the apocalyptic despair and desperation, and spend more time making sure you are on God's side and less time proclaiming that God is on your side.
"Barack Obama is not making you marry a gay person."
True; he 's pretty wimpy, compared to most of those on his team, where that's concerned. And even the worst of those folks don't want to make you marry anyone; they just want to make you, your business, and your church legally obligated to treat gay "marriages" as equivalent to straight marriages in every way. Or did you intend the verb "marry" to mean "officiate at the marriage of?" ...in which case, leftists generally do plan to obligate that, but as I said before, Obama himself is pretty wimpy-waffle-y about pursuing that aspect of the leftist agenda.
"Barack Obama is not making you have an abortion"
True; he's just forcing you to subsidize another person's abortion.
"Barack Obama is not making health coverage more difficult to get."
False. It's becoming more expensive, keeping one's existing coverage is increasingly difficult, and doctors are fleeing the industry, producing shortages.
"Barack Obama is not starting new wars."
Iffy to determine truth or falsehood. Most accurately, one would say that he's perpetuating existing ones in a fashion that precludes victory and weakens U.S. power and prestige overseas, while contributing to increasing instability that threatens our allies and emboldens our enemies.
"Barack Obama is not coming for your guns."
False. Read the news. Read your own side's memos, for Pete's sake. I doubt he'll succeed, however.
"Barack Obama is not taking away your religious freedom."
False. Tell it to someone who isn't closely related to more than one business owner who's a Christian. Businesses with 55 employees will cut 6; businesses with too many to cut will pay an ever-increasing fine that starts at $2,000 per employee and goes up at the same rate as the rate of increase of health care costs, which ObamaCare is designed to artificially inflate. ObamaCare and the HHS mandate together constitute a religious test for business ownership: "Serious and traditionally-moral Christians need not apply." (And just forget about working/owning in the pharmacy or health insurance industry!)
"Barack Obama is not forcing you to live in such depravation that you bless fleas."
Granted. I don't suppose Saddam Hussein quite managed that. But what a low threshold of acceptability for a U.S. president! Will the memoir be titled, "Better Than Fleas?"
"Barack Obama is not raising your taxes unless you are quite wealthy and if you are wealthy he is not raising them higher than they were when Ronald Reagan was president."
False. Heard about the child tax credit? Tried to run a business under ObamaCare?
"Barack Obama is not making the economy worse."
Pardon me while I clean off my keyboard. You really shouldn't spring your wild hilarity on a guy unexpectedly, like that.
Are you remotely familiar with the economic numbers? The latest revisions make it likely that we slid back into recession in the middle of this year, and a comparison of this "recovery" versus all others demonstrates how undeserving it is of the name.
"Barack Obama is not making your country change to the point that you will ever, ever, ever seriously consider leaving it for another one."
Naturally not, or, not soon; the whole point of keeping the U.S. intact was to not lose what could have been, and was institutionally and culturally most likely to become, the last free and prosperous country. Once the best becomes as bad as the rest, but no worse than the rest, it follows naturally that there is noplace among the rest that is worth the hassle and expense of relocating.
At least, not immediately. I don't know about "ever, ever, ever." New Zealand is good in some ways; not in others. Ditto Chile. Hong Kong was good, while it was British, but that was then and this is now. Australia has benefits and drawbacks, as does Canada. But until one of them becomes what the U.S. could have been, why bother moving?



I could be mistaken, but I think the two sisters of the fleas were Corrie ten Boom and her sister Betsie at Ravensbrook concentration camp. I heard Ms. ten Boom speak at my mother's Pentacostal church in San Diego back in the seventies. Quite an inspiring lady!