Wise as serpants, harmless as doves.

I do not like popular political labels; they are neither meaningful nor useful.

Most "conservatives" (even so-called 'Christian conservatives') are merely light liberals, i.e. they do not reject basic statist principles, just their application.

Liberals, on the other hand, are not really liberal at all, i.e. advocates of liberty. They are statists; they believe in advancing their vision of society by an ever increasing use of coercive government power.

So, conservatives (at least the social brand) oppose the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade, not because it was a usurpation of power by the federal court, but because of the nature of the decision, i.e. abortion is a right. They work for and hope for a reversal of the decision, but do not fundamentally object to the mechanism by which the decision was made.

In fact, Catholic pro-lifers must acknowledge that their church's official political views are decidedly statist, e.g. endorses redistribution of wealth by government coercion.

Conservatives, those who understand that liberty is indivisible, must acknowledge that a reversal of Roe v. Wade which does not repudiate the jurisprudential activism under which the decision was made will be just as illegitimate as the original ruling.

Our First Post-modern President, or Why Obama Can't Lie.

Because Christians and Christian institutions, both ecclesiastical and academic, largely abandoned intellect for emotion in the 20th century, and embraced a social/political view of salvation, Christians in the 21st century are unprepared to understand and articulate a meaningful response to the world-view which dominates post-modern culture and politics.

Christians cannot engage in meaningful dialog with or provide a distinctly biblical counterpoint to the standards upon which modern society is founded and by which it operates. Lacking an understanding of the inherent and inescapable antithesis that exists between biblical truth and all other systems, Christians seek common ground with unbelievers upon which all may operate.

Because this is a cultural and not just a personal condition, Christian political action based on "reclaiming the culture" by placing the right people in key positions of power and influence is pointless and bound to fail, especially and specifically when "the right" people are viewed as those who hold specific views on hot political issues, e.g. abortion, while denying a comprehensive, integrated Christian worldview that applies biblical law to all issues. So, the right person can oppose abortion while supporting economic justice/theft through oppressive taxation. The right person can support political intrigue because he opposes euthanasia. So, Christian leaders refrain from speaking against an unjust war because their president supports Israel.

This post-modern dilemma is, perhaps, nowhere more clearly drawn than in matters of political speech and nowhere more clearly illustrated than in our current president.

If Bill and Hillary Clinton were the embodiment of the radical socialist ideas of the sixties, where lying was justified in order to advance social/political/economic justice, Barack Hussein Obama is the incarnation of the post-modern idea that truth statements, as matters of fact are meaningless.

When the post-modern man makes statements that are in direct opposition to a state of affairs, he is not lying; he is speaking the truth. Truth is not measured by reference to some external standard, but is defined by whatever the speaker means at that moment - the truth does not correspond to a fact or set of facts; it is an existential experience. To argue for “original intent” or “limited government” is pointless when such terms, do not and cannot have specific content in a post-modern world.


So, when he says that he did not hear the incendiary, racists remarks made by his pastor during the 20 years he attended the church, he is not lying (or obfuscating) because his statement does not point to any situation that existed in the past, but to the truth that he is creating now by his act of speaking. When engaging in actions that are manifestly contrary to his oath to "protect and defend the Constitution," he is not thereby violating his oath - his oath is validated by the truth that his words create.

For Obama, as for all post-modern men (read all unregenerate), there can be no lying because there is no objective reference point for truth. Lying implies intent to deceive by deviating from what is known to be true. Where truth is not known (cannot be known) there can be no intent and, therefore, no lying.

Christians do not understand this because they do not believe that the bible, God's revealed word, is the only source of truth. They believe that truth can be abstracted from experience; that someone can know and speak the truth in certain areas while denying the One who claimed to be truth.

Obama, for all his public professions, is not a Christian. Not because he does not oppose abortion, but because he, like all infidels since Eve, believes that he, not Christ, is "the way, the truth and the life." Obama, like all unbelievers affirms that he, not Christ, is the Messiah. In that he, like all unbelievers, is the anti-Christ.

Obama does not believe in racial justice; he does not believe in helping the poor; he does not believe in universal healthcare. Obama, like all post-modern man believes only in one thing - himself. When he speaks, he speaks the truth because he speaks of himself.

Until and unless Christians understand this reality and adjust their thoughts, words and actions to it, they will continue to be ineffectual and unfaithful witnesses to their Lord and, therefore, fail to change their culture.