The Kuyperian Commentary

Politics, Economics, Culture, and Theology with a Biblical Viewpoint

Barack Obama, Evangelical President

Barack Obama was re-elected by Evangelical Christians. He was re-elected by both the Evangelicals who were confused and foolish enough to actually vote for him and Evangelicals who nominated a worthless “alternative” to him. He was re-elected by Evangelicals who sent their children to be enculturated and indoctrinated by a secular state. He was re-elected by Evangelicals who gave their children, as an alternative to a secular upbringing, an Anabaptistic, dropout version of the Christian view of the world.

Barack Obama was re-elected by hipster Evangelical churches that think real biblical condemnation that Jesus would make about people like Lloyd Blankfein, Jamie Dimon, Timothy Geithner, Hank Paulson, and Ben Bernanke means that the property of the poor should be expropriated by the state to the benefit of people like Lloyd Blankfein, Jamie Dimon, Timothy Geithner, Hank Paulson, and Ben Bernanke. He was re-elected by conservative Evangelical churches who would rather preach a personal, private, relationship-with-Jesus gospel and see the Mississippi red with the blood of the unborn than lose their precious tax-exempt status over proclaiming the Kingship of Jesus over every square inch. And lest anyone Evangelical stone be unturned, he was re-elected because conservative Evangelical Christians, in churches that believe and preach the sovereignty of Jesus Christ over all of life and give their children a Christian education that engages and reforms culture, regard our own “little,” besetting sins less worthy of mortification than other people’s “big” sins.

Barack Obama was re-elected because of generations of Evangelical Christian unbelief.

The only recourse we are left with, the only option we have ever had and will ever have is repentance and hating our cherished unbelief.


Single Post Navigation

5 thoughts on “Barack Obama, Evangelical President

  1. He was re-elected by … Evangelicals who nominated a worthless “alternative” to him.
    Let us not forget the Evangelicals who mistook arrogance for boldness, sporting it like a teenager sports his boxers as they supported their ‘worthwhile’ candidate against all the other ‘foolishness’ in the electoral marketplace, hence showing that their candidate was nothing more than a different quality and quantity of ‘lesser of two evils.’

    Let’s equally not forget that, and repent of it as well, shall we?

  2. Andrew Isker on said:

    I think so. One of the besetting sins of “our kind” that I made reference to would certainly be something like that. To be honest, it’s one that I personally have to guard against. And It’d be nice if the other Evangelicals repented of everything listed above, then the candidate people like me were sinfully arrogant about (Ron Paul), when lined up against all the other candidates that would exist in an environment of evangelical repentance, would look as totalitarian and libertine as we all agree Barack Obama is in actuality.

  3. That was pretty incomprehensible.

    • Andrew Isker on said:

      Then I must have misread your comment. My apologies. I guess I don’t understand your original comment. I assumed you were speaking about Evangelicals who were enthusiastic about the candidacy of Ron Paul and who opposed all other Republican candidates. Because I agree. A lot of us have been pretty arrogant.

      What I guess I don’t understand is, are you saying that it is arrogant of me to describe Mitt Romney as a worthless alternative? I think the results of the election bear that out. It sure seems to me that he was a worthless alternative, incapable of sufficiently differentiating himself from both Barack Obama and George W. Bush.

      My point simply was that the low caliber of Republican candidates for President, of whom it was my personal opinion Ron Paul was the head-and-shoulders best, is an indicator of how we in the Evangelical church are doing engaging politically. They are so awful because we have been doing so poorly. But if Evangelicals began to repent of many of the things I listed here, the caliber of candidates would so greatly increase so much so that looking back, we could hardly see “a dime’s worth of difference” between Ron Paul and Barack Obama. I do hope that I articulated this better this time and it was more intelligible.

      • Now I understand and I think we are in broad agreement.

        I think that what we would agree on is that we desire a candidate who represents the moving forward of the kingdom of God, the City of God. There is ground work to be done, however. We live in a country/time where Demos is ‘god.’ That is a reality both constitutional and existential. If Demos is not meek to be in submission to the reign of Yahweh, then ‘every man does what is right in his own eyes.’ It’s an ugly situation.

        Do ‘exit polls’ tell us that there is some Christian capital left which we might be able to leverage? Maybe. Lots of folks polled out with ‘conservative values.’ That might give us some hope for a ‘leg up.’ But it is just as likely that what they say and what is actually there are vastly different.

        This is a failure of Christ’s Church more than anything else, and it dates back to the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. What we are reaping as a nation is nothing more than 4-5 centuries of increasing unfaithfulness. May judgment start at the house of God, may we be blessed to be properly chastised, and to God be the glory in any case.
        Christ’s blessings on you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: