Unlike most interpretations that see the Sermon on the Mount as an intensely moral, "God will punish you if you don't listen" kind of Sermon, I find that Jesus's most famous speech is full of rather practical admonitions. Some are more spiritual than others, to be certain, like "Lay up for yourself treasures in heaven, for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." But others are just good pragmatic recommendations, like the one quoted above. There is nothing in the text to suggest that Christ is saying that God will judge us in the standard we use against others, but rather warning us that if we judge people, other people will judge us in the same way.
Essentially, it seems, Jesus is giving perhaps the best advice I've ever read on not becoming a hypocrite. It is, I think, the same admonition St. James records in his epistle, saying "Not many of you should presume to become teachers, because you know that those who teach will be judged more strictly." Again, there is nothing in the text suggesting that James is writing about the judgment of God. It is merely convenient for many teachers of the text to assume that, in spite of the lack of textual evidence to support the claim. Yet on a human and practical level it makes much sense.
Jimmy Swaggart, the famous televangelist, was judged by others according to the standard he set. Republican sex scandals have been much worse for the perpetrator than Democrat ones precisely because many Republicans hold up family values as their crowning issue. And people, not surprisingly, say "well by his own standard he's unfit to serve." That is the measure we use being used against us. This is why Jesus says we probably shouldn't be in the business of judging at all.
I write all of this as something of a pretext for a thought I had this morning concerning Senator Obama's candidacy for the White House. I think it is time for the thinking members of the electorate to start judging him according to his own standard, and looking for some sort of reason to buy into his claims. I would be willing to admit fault, and even support the Senator from Illinois if I had reason to believe even some of his promises.
The main issue the electorate needs to examine is Senator Obama's claim that he will unite the country in some sort of a post-partisan utopia where party labels, racial differences, religious variations, etc. simply don't matter any more. In contrast, he suggests that Senator Clinton is a hangover of the divide and conquer method of politics, destructive, personal, and ultimately self-defeating.
As an entrepreneur and employer, I have hired and fired a number of people before. I have also conducted many job interviews. Imagine somebody walks into my office and says to me "I will be an excellent salesmen for you." My first response would be "show me where you've been an excellent salesman for somebody else." If they say "Well I haven't ever been a salesman, but I know I would be good at it," then i have two options. 1) Pass on the candidate and tell them to come back when they have experience or 2) Say "well, let's have a trial run and see how you do," that is to say "let's see if you aren't full of it." I would only do the latter if I really though the person had potential...they are energetic, intelligent, and seem dedicated.
Many might suggest that Senator Obama should be given a chance to prove himself. I tend to agree. Certainly if we ask him "If you are such a great uniter, could you give us examples of extremely hostile groups you have united before?" he would have to say that his promises of unity are purely theoretical. He certainly has not brought a post-partisan utopia to the floor of the United States Senate, or in the Congress generally, though it is something he promises to do as President since as President "[he] will set the agenda." (Though I wonder where in the Constitution he read that the President sets the agenda....for a Harvard Law Super Star, I would have hoped for somebody a bit better read in our nation's most important legal document)
Why don't we give him a chance to unify something, but without making him Commander-in-Chief. Senator Clinton claims 30 years of experience--I think she should be judged against her claims (the claims are clearly farcical). Senator McCain on the other hand claims that he's qualified, he's tough, and he will not be partisan. So far, Senator McCain is the only one who can point to his actual record to prove that he is capable of doing the things he promises.
Here's a thought. Senator Obama doesn't like the Senate much, because his star power isn't terribly influential there. (Thank God the Senate still retains some of its originally intended culture as the Upper House comprised of Senator Statesmen who are deliberative and slow). So let's give him a chance to be a uniter. I bet that John McCain won't run for re-election in 2012. President McCain could appoint Obama as a special envoy to the Middle East or the Sudan, or perhaps China--and let's see if Obama has what it takes to bring people together. Or perhaps President McCain could make Senator Obama his lead Congressional go-between to push through genuinely bi-partisan health care reform. Another possibility would be for him to be President McCain's energy task force Chairman, since the two agree on most climate change-related issues. There are many avenues that during the next four years Senator Obama could prove himself and make a fine Presidential candidate in 2012.
But today, the record is not there, and it is far too high a risk to let him prove himself with a four year term in the White House. The possibility of failure, and the far-reaching impacts such a failure would have, are something the country cannot afford in a time of war and economic turmoil.
No comments:
Post a Comment