Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Fear God, Honor the Emperor
We should all be making an effort to show Obama some respect.
As conservatives, this is often one of the hardest biblical instructions.* We focus heavily on the wrongs of the state and forget our duties not just to obey the law and pay taxes**, but that we should actively and explicitly honor our head of state. Worse still, we are called on not to honor the office of the emperor, but the emperor himself, a man whose authority is instituted by God. Often, the response is that this command is generally applicable, but in this instance we have a really bad president. For this, it is helpful to remember that while Obama is bad, he’s a lot better than Nero, particularly from a Christian perspective. Obama’s not always good to the Church, but he isn’t murdering and publically humiliating us with the intent of wiping out the faith. Or if he is, he’s a good deal more subtle about it than Nero was. Even if Obama was worse, and treated us worse than the abusive slavemaster that were are similarly instructed to support, it would still seem to me that the unconditional statement would hold true. (Disclaimer: I’m not terribly likely to respect those who claim that their lives are worse than those of particularly poorly treated slaves. I have seen this argued, with a straight face, and will respect an intelligent argument to this effect, but ask that anyone tempted to state this claim put some time and thought into it.)
There are a variety of approaches to the command. For Reformed Christians, the instruction is linked to the Fifth Commandment in a general pattern of hierarchical respect for authority (questions 123-133). This doctrine is important enough to be one of the 33 tenets of the Westminster Confession, the most widely supported constitution for Protestant churches. For Orthodox Christians, the theological guidance is slightly embarrassingly parochial, generally assuming that the emperor is an Orthodox Christian because most Orthodox theology was written in times and places where that was true. This means that the designation of the emperor as God’s vice regent on earth is a relatively simple and powerful one, although one that might be watered down somewhat when the vice regent is manifestly heterodox. Catholics, unsurprisingly, have a greater body of literature on the subject, struggling more than Orthodox because of the fragmented nature of authority in the West, but less than some Protestants because they have been less keen to deny the existence of human authority.
In all cases, I understand it to be proper to honor the emperor’s finer aspirations and downplay the less noble. For instance, it would have been appropriate to wish JFK success in protecting the Vietnamese from abuse, but one need not have supplemented that with a devout hope that he banged as many of the women he ran into as he might have wished. With Obama, I hope and pray that he successfully limits the harms inflicted by Boko Haram, that he inspires African Americans in particular, but also Americans in general, to work hard and make successes of their lives, and I honor his apparently successful marriage. He has worked hard to provide employment to various groups, and I pray that his awful misguided schemes work as well as might be hoped to improve the lives of those in need. Still, this approach feels unsatisfying.
So, my question to Ricochetti is: What do you do to honor Obama? Do you preach the gospel to others, and ask them to join you in those respects?
* I apologize for the chauvinism here, since I recognize that there are many amongst us who do not recognize some or all of the key scriptures that this doctrine is based upon. My advice for those members*** is twofold, with the first bit being the most important. First: Accept the Lord Jesus Christ into your life and adopt the beliefs and practice of the Christian faith as taught by the Eastern Orthodox Church. Secondly, once Christian, you should practice that in part by honoring Obama.
** Although you regularly see Christians denying Christ’s and Paul’s injunctions that we have those duties, too, that’s not what this post is about.
*** Mrs. of England insists that I include a disclaimer noting that my first footnote should be read as an attempt at a humorous disclaimer, not an overly aggressive missionary effort.
Published in General
Yes, interesting….
Are you saying I should renounce my previous statements that I would never shake Obama’s hand if given the chance — that instead I would actively avoid doing so?
The commandment to honor your mother and father does allow you to not like your parents but you are still required by this commandment to honor them. Dennis Prager talks about this and I don’t remember his explanation exactly. Is this what you mean by “honor”?
It’s entirely too late in the evening and I’m very much underwater with work duties, so I’m not sure my response will hit the target you’re presenting. But here goes anyway:
1) I’ve made a conscious effort from the beginning to keep referring to him as President Obama rather than simply Obama and definitely not joke or insult modifications to his name. I haven’t always succeeded; it’s so easy to fall into last-name-only “Obama”.
2) I’ve made a conscious effort to remember that he is likely not evil. He disagrees with me. Profoundly. That does not make him a monster. As a politician he is likely often communicating disingenuously. That also does not make him a monster. Though, it does make it harder to stay conscious of my goals here.
I think that those are precisely what I was looking for. Thank you.
It doesn’t make you less effective as a partisan and it probably makes you a better citizen as well as a better Christian. It’s much better than my list.
No James, Barack Obama as Commander-in-Chief is just too dangerous to the safety of our families.
I’ve never been one to cotton to the argument- “Things could be worse” – as a way to rationalize disaster. This president has made definitive and successful attempts to dismantle the Constitution and the free market. He is the enemy and he must be repelled.
I don’t know enough about Prager’s position to speak with any confidence, but I respect him and would imagine that his position on parental honoring would be sound. I don’t go as far as the Presbyterians in saying that it’s the same commandment, but I’d say that they were similar enough that most things that work for one would work for the other.
I’m not saying that things could be worse. Nero would really struggle to get elected on a Christian murdering platform, even in San Francisco.
When St. Peter and St. Paul wrote about the relationship we have with the government, though, the most obviously relevant government was the one that killed them in terrible ways. I’m saying that the argument that they weren’t talking about bad governments doesn’t work.
Will he be more dangerous to the safety of our families if you refer to him as President Obama?
I give Barry all the respect he deserves, which is none.
For one thing I recall the despicable treatment George Bush received from the left- which I note even though I’m not a fan of his presidency either. I find it a bridge too far to pretend that didn’t happen, or that somehow the left respected Bush on any level, even because of the office he held.
For another I believe Barry despises me because of my skin color, my heritage, my appreciation of American history, and wishes me ill from that alone. I will not respect such a vile racist and traitor, and I will not pretend I do not wish Barry harm because of his avowed hostility to me and my country.
Third- Eastern Orthodox what? Have I missed a couple seasons of the James of England show?
James, the formula I employ for the Liturgy of the Hours is: “I bring before you all those in civil authority, all those charged with protecting and defending us, and their families.” This includes local/state/national chief executives, first responders, and our military. It also precludes my referring to him personally…I appreciate this post…Hopefully, there will be more forthcoming…
That’s actually a tough one. I think I would honor Obama by being respectful if I ever met him. I would not likely even attempt to argue with him, but I would treat him with respect. Then again, I don’t think there are many people who I wouldn’t attempt to treat respectful if we met.
I agree that they behaved poorly. I’m not sure that that necessarily means that we should behave similarly poorly. There are lots of bad leftist ides that I avoid.
I agree that an argument that he respects us and we should return the favor would be a weak one.
I converted when I was 18, 19 years ago, from Christian Science. My icon/ avatar is a little misleading since I don’t speak Russian (I generally go to Greek services), but I don’t think I’ve been reticent about my Orthodoxy.
You talk of an emperor, and I’ll remind you that in Christian (or more specifically Catholic and Orthodox) nations, emperor’s and kings were anointed by the Church as such.
I realize that Christianity started out during Roman times. But was the Roman emperor’s authority instituted by God? They worshiped false idols.
And what about communism, an atheistic endeavor. Did the Church claim that those nation’s authority was instituted by God? The Church specifically opposed communism.
As you say, Peter and Paul were not talking about an church anointed emperor. They were talking about Nero. Nero was not to be honored because he was nice. The parallel that Peter provides is that of an abusive slavemaster.
It’s true that it’s easier to honor good leaders who share your beliefs. As a wise man once said, though, 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
I don’t think that an atheist persecution of Christians is any worse than a pagan persecution of Christians; if anything, the difference is that atheists refrain from worshiping false gods, which seems like a positive. If God appointed Nero, I see no reason to believe he did not appoint Stalin. Occasionally in the Old Testament, he explicitly appointed unbelieving kings as a punishment for Israel. I don’t know if he was doing that with Stalin, but the claim that God is involved is not a claim that God thinks the ruler will be awesome.
Sal and I both acknowledge that getting elected president twice and graduating magna cum laude from Harvard Law are, in fact, achievements, even with racial preferences working in someone’s favor, and even if neither of us like what he did with those achievements.
Moreover, I think of Obama’s family life as off-limits. Not only for his daughters’ sake, but for his as well. As far as I know, he’s a decent enough father, and it seems unkind to pain decent fathers by personally insulting their families. (Though criticism of Michelle’s opinions on policy is definitely not off-limits: that’s policy, not family.)
Finally, I genuinely believe Obama has cute ears and a nice smile. I don’t believe that nice smile for a minute, but I can understand its appeal. “Cute ears” may, in fact, be the nicest thing I can say about our president. Which isn’t much, but I won’t lie about it just because I’m opposed to him.
Ok. I hope that didn’t come across as rude or disrespectful, but I was oblivious to your avatar, etc.
I missed that interesting thread; thank you for sharing it, and for your role in making it interesting.
I’m slightly surprised that you think “cute ears” is a bigger compliment than “decent enough father”.
I’m curious about your views of Ed’s list in comment #2. I’d say that “President” Obama was a more impressive honorific than Barack “Cute Ears” Obama.
In America, we have a different concept of the President and indeed all of our elected officials under the Constitution. They are people we hire to do a job for a set period of time on our behalf. I try to treat them, as I would other people, courteously, but feel no obligation to honor them. I honor the flag and our country. I hope that the temporary employees we hire do the same.
I assume he’s a decent father, since I have no evidence to the contrary. I know he has cute ears ;-)
If using the honorific “President” for the presidents you approve of and dropping it for those you dislike in order to disparage them were your habit, I could see why you might want to curb it.
But if it’s not a habit – if you’re simply used to calling all presidents by their last names… shrug. Calling politicians – even presidents – by their last names only (or even their initials) seems a natural part of American culture to me. How often do you think of Reagan in his presidential capacity as “President Reagan” rather than simply “Reagan”?
When I was a kid, our grade school basketball team went to a sub shop after practice one night and our coach bought us a soda. On the wall by the register they had various photos, and one was of President Reagan. He asked us, “Do you know who that is?” (I did). So I responded “That’s Reagan”. My coach looked at me and said, “That’s President Reagan to you.”
He was always Coach or Mr. Lacny to me and everyone else on the team too. It’s not about supporting or not supporting (Coach Lacny could be a ballbuster sometimes), it’s that the office, the system, and probably even the man deserve a little more care and honor. Open the gates to variation and it becomes a race to the bottom.
I don’t need any help in honoring Reagan. I think it’s probably a helpful mental crutch when I’m struggling.
I agree that America is in some ways what anthropologists call a low power distance culture, but I’m not totally certain that this is helpful in internalizing scriptural values, in which power distance is emphasized pretty frequently. We have a lot of framing images for God that rely on a degree of secular reverence for the analogy to work; Father, Lord, Master, King. The stuff about bowing and such makes more sense in a culture in which that’s a thing.
In this country, we honor the citizens, the people, the unwashed, the mob, the rubes. Any respect demanded by someone elected to office is a construct of self aggrandizement.
Our president deserves the same respect as any other citizen, no more, no less. This false concept of granting respect because of the office assumes the office is more than the current holder. The current occupant has removed that mythology for once and for all to see.
When people become deified elites because of title instead of actions, deeds, wisdom and achievements we as a culture are truly lost. Many of our judges, senators and bureaucrats seem to believe their position entitles them to obeisance. George III had similar delusions.
Are you arguing that Peter didn’t say to honor the emperor, or are you saying he was wrong to do so? Or are you claiming that the divine moral scheme changed when the ruler of the empire that governed, eg., London, changed his title from emperor to king? When Victoria added Empress of India to her titles, did that shift have major theological implications?
I should clarify that I agree that if Obama demanded that he was respected, that would not be admirable. I think that if God or St. Peter demands that you respect him, though, then self aggrandizement is unlikely to be the motivation.
I’m not in any way saying that we should respect Obama because Obama’s wonderful, just that we should honor him because that’s the teaching of the church. Unmerited grace is not a particularly unusual concept in theology. That said, I think Ed’s approach of building some genuine respect is probably the most effective way of honoring someone who is difficult to otherwise respect.
James: I like to think we have been sympatico since the 2012 electoral cycle, but you’re starting to make me nervous.
I respect the office. Obama lost my respect ages ago.
The biblical injunction is to respect 2 categories of people, those appointed over you and those to which you have sold yourself.
The President of the US is neither. Sovereignty in the US ultimately resides in the people and specific powers are delegated by them to local, then state and finally the federal government.
Mark in #18 has it right – the temporary employees we hire to represent us are entitled to no more (or less) respect that anyone else we might encounter.
The trappings of office (presidential transport aircraft, motorcades, deference to the office) serve two functions; Allow the president to focus on his job in a position of security and place to him on an equal footing with the leaders of other nations. They do not exist for his personal enjoyment or to encourage us to worship him.
What if the results of his policies do evil, monstrous things. I believe they will.
He is a liar, and purposely misleads people into supporting things they would not have supported if they understood the effects of those policies.
This is bad. I can’t support this man. I must stand against both his policies and his approach.
Many of our founding fathers were God-fearing, praying men. Were they outside the will of God, were they in direct disobedience to God, when they cast off their then government?
You know what you should do, James? Pray for good leadership for our country. Pray for the peoples’ eyes to be opened to the truth.
Its my prayer. Will you join me?