Sunday, November 09, 2008

Can't have it both ways

It intrigues me that, in 2000 when Dubya was elected, evangelicals tended to speak in terms of a godly man of convictions and biblical morality whose election God had a hand in.

And in the recent election, these same evangelicals concede that an American majority has spoken, democracy works, we may not like it, but they'll observe the law of the land and pray for our leaders, including president-elect Obama.

Why aren't evangelicals as enthusiastic about associating Obama with the will of God as they were Bush 2? Bush was God's man of the hour, but Obama is merely the sorry choice of a misled American electorate.

Okay, this is not entirely accurate, for American evangelicals have splintered deeply during the last four years, many of them having disagreed with the Bush-was-God's-choice theory, gradually realizing the need to clean up the eight-year frat party that has been Dubya's presidency and legacy.


At 12:34 PM, Blogger Cheri said...

I guess you can like the "will of God" or not. It does seem that people must at least feel awkward to say on the one hand that God's will prevailed in Bush's election and to say on the other hand that God's will didn't prevail in Obama's election.


Post a Comment

<< Home