![74325: Kingdom Triangle: Recover the Christian Mind, Renovate the Soul, Restore the Spirit"s Power](http://ag.christianbook.com/g/tiny/7/74325.gif "74325: Kingdom Triangle: Recover the Christian Mind, Renovate the Soul, Restore the Spirit"s Power")
Just when you thought it couldn’t get worse…
…BO takes a trip overseas. He’s embarrassing enough on our shores but becomes unbearable when visiting foreign powers. Remember when he gave the Queen of England an iPod filled with his speeches? Just what the Queen mum looks forward to doing in her free time. Gordon Brown didn’t fare much better. He received a set of DVDs of classic American movies. May as well have given him the complete series of the Andy Griffith show. Sure, it’s classic but it’s reruns.
On this trip, BO decided it would be appropriate to bow to the Emperor of Japan. The LA times blog makes note of the potential issues for a couple of short paragraphs before launching into the history of the Emperors of Japan. Interesting stuff but it has nothing to do with BO and his ill advised bow. MacArthur may have been a bit gruff but at least he acted like a man.
One has to wonder if BO has any idea what the office of President of the United States is about. Doesn’t he know that as POTUS he represents the entire populace of the U.S. and should do so with dignity? Yet, I cannot escape the sinking feeling that he is not clueless. If he is not clueless then he does these things on purpose. Which means your president thinks you should bow as a subordinate to the Emperor of Japan.
Obama’s gift to the Queen of England is old news… but I think it highlights the principle that when a person doesn’t like someone, that person can’t do right. Obama’s gift was cheesy. But so what? Was it any less cheesy than the Queen’s gift of a framed portrait of herself? In my opinion, these were two silly gifts that reflect self-importance on both parts.
Criticize Obama, but criticize stuff of substance.
The issue of bowing is interesting and I think its significance depends upon the culture. Having worked with Asians I know that a bow is that culture’s equivilent of a handshake. Asians are norotiously “limp wristed” handshakers because they don’t do it in their culture. So bowing in that context is not a sign of submission, it is the sign of cultural awareness – I’m in your country so I’ll give a greeting that resonates in your culture. Granted, the etiquette of bowing is that the depth of your bow is consonate with the amount of respect you have for the other. Note the depth of Obama’s bow compared to the bow being rendered by the emperor and his wife.
The point is BO is inept when it comes to foreign policy. The bad gifts and bowing to everyone reflects the underlying understanding of his job: Butt-kisser-in-Chief. This guy billed himself (or allowed himself to be billed…all depends on how you look at it) as the Savior of the world. He knew how foreign policy should be conducted. It’s safe to say he has been a disaster thus far.
Everyone knows when in Rome to do as the Romans do. I was responding to this sentence in the article: “Very low bows like this are a sign of great respect and deference to a superior.” While BO looks like he’s only being deferential, he really is being a patsy and looks weak. In my mind, that is a substantive issue.
Check out the updated blog post for the video of the event and a picture of Cheney greeting the same man in a less emasculating way.
I think it wasn’t a bad gift. No worse than what the Queen gave. Seriously. If anything, since the Queen “traditionally” gives pictures of herself, I thought it was a good come uppance to give her something of like kind.
In our culture calling someone sir or ma’am is a sign of deference and respect. Is it weakness and patsyish to do so?
Eric, I don’t care if it IS standard practice to criticize anything and everything about one’s political enemies, it makes one look intemperate and spiteful to find fault with every little thing.
Do you believe that Scripture’s teaching about not being contentious and a fault-finder has any bearing on how we interact with worldlings? Or does a humanly contrived form of government with it’s attendant “rights” given to us trump the commands of Scripture?
Rev Nev Reply:
November 16th, 2009 at 8:21 PM
Ben –
The more I think about your reply, the more issues I have with it. The president did not merely show respect. He went above and beyond what world leaders are expected to do. It is an issue because of his underlying “Citizen of the World” philosophy. Instead of respecting America’s traditions and history, BO denigrates America. I’m not naive enough to say the U.S. is without warts but I still believe we stand for something worth standing for, no pun intended. And that is worth comment.
Nevertheless, your point about not being a criticizer is a good one. I will take it into advisement. Just let it be known I did not criticize just to do so, as you seem to believe. And thank you for bringing that to my attention. The question of how we as Christians interact with our government is exactly what I want to address here.
Lastly, I don’t accept many of your premises, especially the one behind your last question. Certainly, the U.S. government is a human institution and therefore does not deserve our ultimate allegiance. However, you imply that the government endowed the “rights.” This is contradictory to both Scripture and the Declaration of Independence. What makes America unique is the belief that certain rights are given by God and that government must be restrained from infringing on those rights. I don’t see them as being so far apart.
Ben Reply:
November 17th, 2009 at 8:32 AM
BTW – you have issues with my response because your mind knows I’m right, but your pride can’t stand it. :p
The source of our rights… It is a universal phenomenon that leaders everywhere try to gain legitimacy by claiming that God is on their side. Well, I’m not an 18th Century politician who is seeking to garner support by banking upon the heightened religious awareness resulting from the First Great Awakening by employing the generic “Creator” language of deistic Enlightenment philosophers to appeal to as broad a base as possible. There isn’t a single “right” spoken of in the non-authoritative (because it has no legal authority) Declaration of Independence attributed to the “Creator” that I can’t find instances of prescription in God’s Word to the contrary. God’s moral law reveals duties to God and my fellow man, and since God’s law applies to you as well as me then we can speak about some very basic things, but to call these “rights” reflects a very different, and humanistic perspective. Specifically, in context, of your post, I was referring to you making use of the constitutionally endowed right to ridicule and speak against those in authority over you. Are you actually going to try to argue that it is a “God-given right” to speak against those in authority? Especially since God, in Exodus 22:28 and then in its NT paraphrase and reapplication in Acts 23:5, says the opposite? (And what is especially shocking is Paul apologizes in verse 5 for his words in verse 3, which would appear to simply be Paul making an observation of hypocrisy. Yet it is deemed “speaking evil.” Wow. If the same yardstick were applied to us…) And this is the rub: Just because something is “time honored” in America, just because something is part-and-parcel of the American way, just because something is legally sanctioned and guaranteed in the Constitution… just because all of these are true does not mean that God’s Word does not forbid it. Furthermore, all this “rights” language is novel, historically and biblically. It is a product of the anti-Christian Enlightenment to argue that the purpose of government is to “secure the rights of individuals” or that the role of the people is to keep their government from infringing upon their personal rights. No, the ancient Christian understanding of the role of government is that it is to restrain evil and promote good. And the role of citizens is to submit to, honor, and pray for their rulers… even a ruler like Nero. How does this influence how we interact with a ruler like a US President or a Governor or a Mayor?