Worried about Obama?
5 November, 2008 (John)
The election of Barak Obama as president has a number of Christians suddenly quite rattled. I’ve heard concerns ranging from his stance on Israel to his almost cult like following; and even some people hinting that he could be the Antichrist. As I reflect on it all I find myself incapable of any simplistic response. The issues are multi-layered, and ultimately go to the heart of what we believe Christianity is.
Like some of those now expressing distress, I also sense that the world around us is changing rapidly. In The Beast Now I talked about the accelerating process of change we find ourselves in. However, before we get too distressed about who is president of the United States, it would be good for us to stop and remember that in Paul the apostle’s day “the beast Nero” was emperor, and despite all he threw at the church he was unable even to slow down the work of God (the persecution actually fueled the spread of the Gospel). Coincidentally, as I was thinking about all this I opened an email from a friend which included the following:
The idea that one political party is better suited to accomplish God's will on earth than another is faulty, because God does not depend on politics to accomplish his will.
He’s absolutely right of course. Still, I am fascinated to observe what is taking place around me. Prophecy tells me there will be an end times and politics have suggested for some time that the forces behind it are gathering.
Personally I don’t believe Obama is a direct threat to Israel, however the fact that he has some sympathies with the Palestinians, and is not the kind of staunch supporter of Israel that president Bush is, does have potentially serious ripple down effects. Since the 2006 war with Hezbollah Israel has been quite forthright about its intention to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities if Iran won’t back down on its nuclear program. They have also said numerous times that they would prefer the US to carry out this operation due to the greater size of its air force1. While John McCain said that the option of a US strike on Iran could not be taken off the table, Obama wants to defuse tensions in the Middle East, withdraw in stages from Iraq and refocus US military efforts on Afghanistan. The difference in policy is significant to Israel. As long as Israel feels that the US has a strong presence in the Middle East, and at the same time is unwavering in its support for Israel, it can afford to wait and hope that either Iran backs down and dismantles its program or that the US destroys its facilities. It can also rest in the knowledge that if it did make the decision to attack Iran it could guarantee US support when the counterattack2 came. However, the moment Israel sees the wind shift in US politics it will envisage loosing this favorable scenario (especially also given the weakening of the US due to the financial crisis). Now, the real danger I see is that Israel may therefore decide, on the basis of an incoming Obama presidency, to launch an attack before George Bush leaves office in early 2009. This could be disastrous; most analysts believe it would spiral into a region wide war with massive implications for the whole world. So ironically, the election of the more hawkish McCain would, at least in the very short term, have seemed less likely to result in war than the election of Obama. (In my recent article, Lunch with Robert Fisk, I’ve gone into more depth on this).
If war breaks out the question will quickly arise for Christians as to what our involvement should or shouldn’t be. The modern state of Israel presents Christians with a dilemma. While we know God has promised them the land, they are also still a nation in unbelief and, like the nation that rejected Jesus 2000 years ago, their actions can often be quite ungodly. What’s more, there are many different views on how the modern state of Israel relates or doesn’t relate to the biblical prophecies concerning the Messianic kingdom. (For more on this have a look at Modern Israel in Prophecy).
Now, as for Obama being the Antichrist, this also is a nuanced topic. Most of us know that Antichrist naming has been going on for two millennia, and has sometimes erred on the ridiculous. Also, I don’t know that a US president being the Antichrist necessarily fits prophecy that well, though it’s not outside the bounds of possibility. I will say that Oprah Winfrey’s quote on the cover of Obama’s book which says “I do believe he is the one” sent chills up my spine. What really got me thinking though was a question I put to myself yesterday. ‘What if the Antichrist when he comes is just as plausible, warm, popular, rational and likable as Obama?’ That could really sow confusion. Even if Obama is not the Antichrist as such, he is coming to have an almost Messianic persona, which in itself comes with some dangers. If my theory about Israel and Iran comes to pass then I think Obama will serve as a popular focus to rally the support of many to fight a war that the US will have been inevitably dragged into by their presence in Iraq. Ultimately this would almost certainly lead to a backlash afterwards against fundamentalist Christians (whom the Neocons made their political base). I am quite sure that the misadventures of militaristic Christianity will at some point in time become a stick used by liberal Christians and non-Christians to persecute not just those Christian crusaders of the far right, but all who believe that the Bible is the word of God.
But what about Obama himself. I’m part way through reading his book ‘The Audacity of Hope’. The guy is a good writer and comes a across as warm, empathetic and genuine. There are one or two bits that I’m not quite sure I buy; in particular his own account of his rise to the senate which reads like a tale of “the accidental senator”. I can’t help wondering if he was chosen for success by powerful people in the party. How come he was given a seventeen minute speaking slot at the Democrats national convention when he was only a state legislator and senate hopeful? That must have given his campaign a massive lift and sent a signal to the media that he was a rising star of the Democratic party. How come two of his opponents were taken down by the press while he received very little negative publicity? How come the Republicans put forward such an obviously repugnant candidate who didn’t even live in Illinois? As is so often the case it’s hard to know whether we should smell a rat or accept him at face value. If at face value he seems pretty reasonable, though I disagree with some of his liberal policies just as much as I disagree with some conservative policies. We’re also coming up to an election in my own county of New Zealand, and while I’m not against participating I can’t find any candidate who I could endorse. Other Christians have suggested that I should vote for “the least worst candidate”. What would Jesus do? He said “My kingdom is not of this world”, so would he have even bothered with politics or would he have just invested his time into building the kingdom of heaven? Personally I suspect the latter.
Besides, I sometimes wonder if this whole great battle between left and right is like dribbling a soccer ball from right foot to left while running forwards down the field. The ball veers a bit to the left then a bit to the right and then back again, but all the time propelled forward in the direction the player wants it to go. It seems to me that time and again the conflict between left and right leaves us with the worst of both; a morally liberal society that worships money, constantly creates wars and has heavy handed government control over everything. I really wonder if the election of right or left wing governments really makes much difference. Are they not all leading us towards the beast of Revelation 13. (See: Prophecy and End Times eBook).