David Murray - Leadership for Servants
Tag Archive - Politics

Franklin Graham apologizes to President Obama

Feb 29, 2012 • By David Murray • 6 Comments

Evangelist Franklin Graham has apologized to President Obama for questioning his Christian faith and said that he now accepts Obama’s declarations that he is a Christian. In a statement, issued Tuesday, Graham said:

I regret any comments I have ever made which may have cast any doubt on the personal faith of our president, Mr. Obama…I apologize to him and to any I have offended for not better articulating my reason for not supporting him in this election — for his faith has nothing to do with my consideration of him as a candidate.

This is the right decision and I admire Graham for doing this. While we are called to compare a person’s profession of faith with the fruits that are evident in their lives (Matt. 7:16-18), I believe that Franklin Graham’s original comments were wrong, and that for the following reasons:

  • It’s one thing to bring your concerns about a person’s faith to that person in private, it’s another thing altogether to raise these concerns in front of millions on breakfast TV.
  • While we can certainly question whether a person’s particular policies and practices are consistent with a Christian profession, it’s a huge step from that to proclaiming that a person is not a Christian.
  • There have been previous Presidents whose lives have been contrary to their Christian claims, yet they have not been treated this way by Franklin Graham or his father. That incongruity is where the unfounded allegation of racism finds its energy.
  • While the seemingly “Christ-less” testimony President Obama told Graham about how he came to faith is very worrying, it was told in private, and should not have been re-told in public.
  • Graham’s criticisms of the President’s faith were not based on Scriptural marks, the fruits of faith,  but on the way he told his testimony.
  • Graham not only refused to say if President Obama was a Christian, he ended up giving more credibility to the allegation that he is actually a Muslim.
  • While saying that he was not in a position to say if anyone was not a Christian, he did just that with President Obama, and then pronounced that Rick Santorum definitely was a Christian.

Three lessons to be learned from this debacle:

1. Train: We have to admire Graham’s bravery for going into the lion’s den and contending for the Christian faith in the public square. But public spokesmen like Graham should also be constantly and thoroughly trained to deal with the tactics of an extremely hostile media. In this interview at least, Graham seemed to walk straight into their trap and, judging by his rambling and defensive remarks, was completely unprepared for the question.

2. Honor: In opposing some of the anti-Christian policies of President Obama, Christians must stand out from the rest of the opposition by continuing to give honor to whom honor is due (Rom. 13:7). And if we honor God in this way, we have the promise that He will also honor us (1 Sam. 2:30).

3. Pray: We should be much more prayerful for men like Franklin Graham, Al Mohler, James Dobson, etc., who have the opportunity and the courage to represent Christ in such a difficult arena. May God give them much wisdom and wise counselors to help them continue to bear witness faithfully and persuasively.

But we should also pray for President Obama and all who lead us that they would all be truly converted to Christ, or that they would follow Him far more consistently.

Here’s the original controversial interview.

Contraception? Where’s the vision?

Feb 24, 2012 • By David Murray • 14 Comments

Looks like contraception could be President Obama’s ticket to re-election.

Despite handing the Republicans an open goal with his despotic attempt to coerce religious institutions to pay for their employees’ birth control and abortions, the Republicans have contrived not only to miss the goal but also to shoot into their own net by getting mired in a debate about the rights and wrongs of contraception, instead of keeping that debate focused on freedom of religion and of conscience. And while scoring own goals, for good measure let’s throw the whole game away by questioning Obama’s theology, and even whether Obama is a Christian or a Muslim.

Rick Santorum has been the worst offender among the candidates. It’s just so foolish for a Presidential candidate to not only allow himself to get drawn so deeply into the contraception issue, but to deliberately keep it alive, and then to launch out on Obama’s “phony theology,” followed by unconvincing attempts to say he was only talking about his “green theology.” And to top it all off, Franklin Graham disgraces himself with his horribly unconvincing, defensive ramblings about the genuineness of Obama’s Christianity, climaxing with the “Son of Islam” nonsense – on breakfast TV!

This is not just miles “off message,” it’s inter-planetary. And it’s so small-minded in the face of such huge societal and economic problems. At this rate, President Obama can start writing his inaugural address.

Where, O where is the grand vision? And where is the candidate who can cast the vision with attractive, compelling, and persuasive words – without getting distracted by every gnat that buzzes in his ears.

That vision must have two simple parts – The Economy and Society. And it’s got to be ruthlessly focused, rousingly big, and relentlessly positive.

Economy
When the Republicans talk about the economy, all people actually hear is: “Cuts, cuts, cuts.” That’s so small, so expected, and so negative. It’s designed to appeal to the 50+1% who like to think that the cuts are going to fall on the other 49% or perhaps on the next generation.

Where is the Republican who can honestly and courageously articulate the benefits of proportionate shared sacrifice for huge long-term gain? Where is the Republican who can reach out to the poor (both “deserving” and “undeserving”), the “entitlement generation,” the takers, and persuade them that there’s a much better way for them and their families? Is there no one who can connect with them, motivate them, and unite them with the rest of society? Is no one even going to try?

Society
And, of course, the economic problems cannot be solved without addressing societal problems, especially that of family breakdown.

But when the Republicans speak about society, all people hear is “Wrong, wrong, wrong.” Gay marriage? Wrong! Abortion? Wrong! Single motherhood? Wrong!

These things are wrong, but angry condemning never helped anyone. We need a Republican who can paint a much bigger and much more positive vision of a renewed and revitalized society built on the basic building block of the family and respect for precious life. Holier-than-thou tones and denunciatory attitudes won’t cut it.

Again, is there no Republican who can compassionately reach out to the tens of millions of broken homes and broken lives with care, concern, and constructive efforts to at least slow down the rate of failing families and murdered babies. Is there no one who can inspire a new generation of young people to live lives of purity, commitment, and loyalty. Sounding like a whiny Pharisee won’t cut it here either.

The present range of candidates look terribly small, undisciplined, blinkered, and short-sighted. Maybe one of them could still grow into the desperately needed, big-vision leader who will be ruthlessly yet positively focused on the economy and society. But the time is very short.

And the opposition is very great. There’s a huge political class with an intense personal interest in growing the numbers of the dependent poor in order to maintain their own demoralizing and divisive power.

“Politics is God”

Jan 3, 2012 • By David Murray • 0 Comments

Given the amount of column inches and air-time given to politics, one could be forgiven for thinking that politics is actually a religion, or even a deity with Sovereign and Savior-like qualities. But no one really believes that do they?

In the communist era maybe, but not today, right?

In Russia maybe, but not in the USA, right?

In the extreme left of the Democratic party maybe, but not among conservatives, right?

Think again, last week, in the USA, a highly respected conservative journalist revealed that politics is his god. Dr Charles Krauthammer (yes, I’m afraid so) used his Washington Post column as a call to worship with him:

For all the sublimity of art, physics, music, mathematics and other manifestations of human genius, everything depends on the mundane, frustrating, often debased vocation known as politics…Because if we don’t get politics right, everything else risks extinction…

We grow justly weary of our politics. But we must remember this: Politics — in all its grubby, grasping, corrupt, contemptible manifestations — is sovereign in human affairs. Everything ultimately rests upon it…

Fairly or not, politics is the driver of history. It will determine whether we will live long enough to be heard one day [he means heard by aliens – I’ll get to that!]

I find this so hard to believe, coming as it does from a man whose opinions I respect and whose character I’ve admired. “Everything depends on politics…politics is sovereign…politics is the driver of history…politics determines the length of our lives and of the earth’s existence.”

(By the way, if you substitute “Jesus Christ” for “politics” in these quotes, you come pretty close to an orthodox confession of faith. But that would never have got past the Washington Post censors, would it!)

I found it doubly hard to believe because it came in the same article that Krauthammer expressed the opinion that extra-terrestrial life exists and that it shall soon be discovered, even within the next few years!

At this point, my incredulity was so far off the scale that I double-checked to see if it was all written tongue in cheek. I wasn’t sure which claim was the most outlandish, that politics was God, or that ET was just around the corner. But I couldn’t find any evidence that Krauthammer had written with his tongue in his cheek or with a New Year’s dram in his mouth.

And people say believing in God is difficult! For all my interest in politics, I find it easier to believe that ET will phone us one day than that politics is our last best hope. If ever there was an opportune time to call everyone away from vain hopes of societal transformation via politics, it’s now. The problems are too huge, the people are too small, the proposed policies are too trivial.

While Christians should strongly support the political process and play an active role, we must do so with the base belief that neither the best personalities nor the best policies give us any hope of “saving” a nation. If we believe otherwise, we are dishonoring God by substituting an idol for Him, and risk  therefore forfeiting His all-too-necessary blessing. We are also doomed to despair.

We so desperately need politicians who recognize and confess the limitations of even the best politics and policitians, and who will say instead, “Everything depends on God…God is sovereign…God is the driver of history…God determines the length of our lives and of the earth’s existence…Therefore let’s seek His blessing by honoring Him in all we say and do.”

Alternatively, and more briefly: “In God we trust.”

Republican Leadership “Fail”

Jan 2, 2012 • By David Murray • 2 Comments

It looks like the frantic and desperate and search for a non-Romney candidate has failed. On the eve of the Iowa caucuses, the leadership skills of each candidate have been tried and found wanting. Where did they go wrong? Although much could be said, I’m going to highlight just one leadership lesson from each failed candidacy.

And I include Romney in this “fail” too, because although it looks like he will eventually soon emerge as the nominee, his continued inability to capture the hearts of most Republicans, despite the “carnage” of fails around him, is a terrible reflection on his own candidacy.

Rick Perry: Think fast, speak clearly.
A leader must be able to communicate clearly and confidently, not just in set speeches, but in debates and interviews too. You can press the hot-buttons of pro-life and traditional marriage as often as you want, but it will never make up for an inability to think on your feet and articulate your thoughts under pressure.

Michelle Baachman: Be positive and happy.
People want leaders who are not just against things, but who also present a positive and hopeful message. Happy leaders are usually popular leaders.

Rick Santorum: Be a friend of tax-collectors and sinners
There’s a difference between being the moral-values candidate and being the holier-than-thou candidate, If you’re going to take the moral high ground, you must not make people feel as if you are looking down your nose at them.

John Huntsman: You can be superior without making people feel inferior
If Santorum sabotaged himself with an air of moral superiority, Huntsmen did himself in with an air of intellectual superiority. No one ever connected with the masses by projecting the image of a pin-stripped diplomat or of an intellectual snob.

Ron Paul: Distinguish between personal preferences and people’s needs
You can have lots of great ideas, but two or three loopy policies will close people’s ears to anything you say.  In a time of great national peril, Paul sadly and selfishly  failed to distinguish between what the nation desperately needs (fiscal responsibility) and his own personal hobby horses (e.g. legalizing of Class A drugs and prostitution). Sometimes pragmatism is a moral virtue.

Herman Cain: Be sure your sins will find you out
Cain was finished as soon as he starting aggressively attacking his accusers. We’ve all seen guilty people react this way. An innocent man in his position would surely have come in front of the media and said something like, “As a man of great moral integrity, I’m humbled and shaken by these accusations. Having prayed over this before God, I can honestly say that I have a clear conscience. However, I’m deeply concerned for the women making these allegations, and plan to meet with each of them to see if I have ever done anything that would have made them say what they are saying.”

Newt Gingrich: People hate hypocrisy
Newt grasps the size of the nation’s problems, and has the brain and courage to produce the necessary policies, but he’ll never get the opportunity because of his moral and financial hypocrisy.  Although he seemed to be overcoming the moral failings with his “redemption and forgiveness narrative,” the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac “history lessons” millions ruined the story.

Mitt Romney: Say “Sorry.”
Mitt Romney would have had so much more and so much warmer support if he’d simply said sorry for Romneycare. The defense that, “It was a tailor-made solution for my own state and never intended to be a model for the rest of the nation,” just doesn’t make any sense to anybody but his campaign.

Far better to have said, “We were pioneers in trying to find solutions to healthcare problems. I don’t apologize for trying, but with the benefit of hindsight, it’s obvious that we made mistakes for which I apologize. And with the benefit of that experience, I’m now in a position to lead our nation forward in finding a solution that will combine fiscal with moral responsibility.” Is it too late to say that? Of course, that alone won’t win over everybody to Romney. But it would at least indicate that he is sympathetic to, and wants to be supported by, the Tea-partiers and other Americans who rightly fear the over-reach of government into their lives.

Finally…
Although I’ve picked out a flaw, in some cases a fatal flaw, in each of these candidacies, I think we must also express considerable admiration for the courage and sacrifice it takes to put oneself up for election in today’s media climate. America has thousands of leaders, from all walks of life, who would make better Presidents than any of the present candidates. They have all the character, morality, experience, knowledge, skills and abilities to lead this great country. But when they look at the moral and social consequences for themselves, their families, and their friends, they conclude that the cost is simply too high. That’s understandable, but deeply regrettable.

While we continue to pray for better leaders and for those in authority over us, it’s at times like these when it really is a comfort to remember Christ’s words, “My kingdom is not of this world.”

Deborahs or Jezebels?

Oct 18, 2010 • By David Murray • 8 Comments

Tea_party_women

Before I was converted to Christ in the late 1980′s, I was a bit of a political zealot. After a monotonous succession of dull and disastrous male leaders, Margaret Thatcher, the daughter of a small shopkeeper, burst on to the UK scene with clarity, confidence, and courage. She took on the Unions and won. She took on Argentina and won. She took on the media and won. She took on the Labor party and won, and won, and won again. Many powerful men tried to take her on, and lost. Home ownership soared. Multiple privatizations formed a new army of shareholders. The stock market boomed and many made small fortunes.

These were good days to be a young man in the UK, especially if you worked in the financial services industry as I did. Inspired by Mrs Thatcher’s renewal of the UK, I joined the local Conservative party and campaigned for Winston Churchill’s grandson in a lost-cause of a seat in the socialist republic of Glasgow. We spent part of our time running from vicious dogs, and the rest of the time from violent people who didn’t take too kindly to an upper-class Englishman on their territory. The Conservatives seemed to think it was a valuable rite of passage for their rising stars to be battle-scarred while fighting unwinnable seats in the most socialist areas of the country.

The “Tea-Party” women
Anyway, not long after, I was converted to Christ and my life, thankfully, took another direction as my passion for a cross on a ballot was replaced by a passion for the cross of Christ. But I often think back to Margaret Thatcher and the condescending and cruel way the political and media elites treated her, when I see the way that some of the Republican women are being treated in the USA. Although Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina have suffered to some degree, it’s especially the “Tea-Party” women that are under all-out assault. Like Mrs Thatcher, Sarah Palin, Christine O’Donnell, Sharon Angle, Michelle Bachmann and others come from humble backgrounds. None of them come from big money or famous families. Like Mrs Thatcher (and most “ordinary” people), they have some pretty obvious character flaws and rough edges. Like Mrs Thatcher their “straight-talk” sounds abrasive in a world full of polished spin. Like Mrs Thatcher, they do not cower before power or hide unpopular views. Like Mrs Thatcher, their past life and family connections are often used to embarrass or shame them. Like Mrs Thatcher, they are mockingly impersonated and caricatured. (Yes, we had a Saturday Night Live in the UK then. It was called Spitting Image).

Without approving all that they say and do, I cannot but admire the tremendous courage and tenacity of these women. And I cannot but daily pray for them and their families. Can you imagine what it must feel like for these “ordinary” people and their families to be daily torn asunder and to have their past raked over and over and over. It must be terrifying at times to face the media in interview after interview knowing that every interviewer is out to kill you with questions.

Jezebels?
Yet, I’ve noticed that some Christians feel very strongly that none of these women should be in politics in the first place, and that these “Jezebels” are getting what they deserve for “deserting their families.”

Some of this is motivated by a commendable desire to uphold male headship. They say that women should not take leadership positions over men. I agree that this principle is unquestionable in the Church and in the family sphere. However, is it also true in the civil sphere? Always? Even if it may be the norm, the ideal, for men to lead in the civil sphere, might exceptional times sometimes call for exceptional measures?

For example, think of the time of the Judges. These were anarchic and leaderless times. Israel was hanging on to existence by the skin of its teeth. And just when everything seemed hopeless, God would raise up a Judge, a special temporary leader to deliver Israel from her enemies. These Judges were not so much judicial figures, but rather military deliverers with some limited civil leadership roles. They usually came from humble backgrounds, and had few resources and flawed characters. And one of them, and it was only one, was a woman – Deborah (Judges 4-5). She was a believing woman, and she was a brave woman. In fact her courage is in stark contrast to the cowardly men of the time, like Barak, who were too afraid to take on Israel’s enemies. And to emphasize this contrast, the story concludes with another brave women, Jael, driving a tent-peg through the head of Israel’s arch-enemy. As I said, these were exceptional times!

Deborah was the only female judge. She was not the norm, but the exception. She was a special Judge whom God, in His mighty grace, raised up to rebuke “the establishment” and to expose the cowardly failure of Israel’s male leadership.

Maybe we are living in similar times. And maybe God, in His grace, is raising up more exceptionally courageous “Deborahs” for such a time as this” and for similar purposes. If so, we should pray for these women and their families. And we should also pray that men in politics would hear the divine rebuke and bravely step up to the plate with some straight-talking and some straight-dealing.

Tent-pegs not required.