Now, before you accuse me of politicizing religion, realize that Palm Sunday has always been political. By riding into Jerusalem on a donkey, during the preparatory period of Israel’s national identity holiday, Passover, which commemorated Israel’s epic deliverance from slavery under the Egyptian Empire and their birth as a nation, Jesus was making a political statement. Not only were the Judeans’ messianic hopes at their highest during this season, riding in on a donkey was a direct allusion to Prophet Zechariah’s imagery of Israel’s king.

Moreover, the political rhetoric and progressive agenda of Obama and his followers are nothing less than religious. Their social gospel of secular salvation arises from sincere and fervent faith in a metanarrative of mythic proportions that posits the state as the all-encompassing savior. Thus, a theological critique of their political aims is well in order.

It’s fair for people to disagree over the best way to administrate resources and justly redress grievances. But the concern people are raising is that the epic proportions of Obama and the current ruling party’s plans to fundamentally restructure the terms of human interactions are directed by a set of beliefs that Americans do not want to have thrust upon them by the government. They’re alarmed by the progressive’s promise to remedy the existential condition of humankind by means of political will and regulatory fiat – a strategy that has been tried before by many false messiahs, with disastrous consequences, just as Jesus predicted.

It’s understandable why the people in Judea, circa first century CE, would want and expect a political savior. They were subjugated by the vastly powerful Roman Empire, whose promised vision of peace and prosperity for the world was advanced through oppressive taxation, massive public works projects that drained the occupied nation’s wealth, political patronage that subverted justice, and the sword. A major component of the Roman power apparatus was the belief system and propaganda of the Roman imperial cult, a cult of personality centered around a human emperor who was considered divine, and who eclipsed the power of the representative government only for the glory of Rome and the prosperity of its citizens. Sound familiar?

This, of course, was not only anathema to Jewish religious sensibilities but a shameful slight against their national honor and an impediment to the fulfillment of their collective hope. They felt exiled and dispossessed, even in their own land, denied their slice of the American – er, Judean dream. They wanted results, and they rightly recognized that God’s deliverance had always been a tangible repudiation of the excesses of empire. And yet, to achieve those results, many were eager to take the archetypal reins of empire. Obama and the Democrats seem to think they’re immune to that danger, which makes it all the more imminent.

Likewise, it’s understandable why so many Americans would cry out for a fundamental restructuring of society, since everyone suffers from the effects of the corruption that has metastasized throughout every sphere of culture. Theologians call it sin. The question is how far government can actually go toward solving the problem without making it worse. Answering that problem is not only a political but a theological task.

Make no mistake: Jesus did want to revolutionize the state of human affairs, but not by legislating it into existence. While Jesus respected the law in its proper place, he knew that the change we need requires a power greater than the state can muster and a command that exceeds what any regulatory agency can enforce: to love both God and neighbor.

I can foresee Robert Gibbs protesting, “The President is not trying to make people love one another, just treat each other fairly.” And yet the progressive definition of fairness as an ordained ministry of regulatory oversight is not only untenable and unsustainable but reductionistically soulless.

Progressives are right to point out that the concept of distributive justice is found throughout the Bible. However, the Marxist version of justice undergirding the progressive movement is a materialistic definition that reduces justice to everyone having an equal amount of stuff. This falls far short of the love God prescribes as a foundation of a just society.

Despite all the bluster from progressives about “community,” their prescriptions for distributive justice actually strip society of social capital, the glue of trust and goodwill that holds community together without statutory regulation. Social capital is needed because there will never be enough video cameras, auditors and police to make people do what they ought to do. The larger the regulatory apparatus in relation to the activity it regulates, the more it bogs down the entire system in the mire of inefficiency. But the voluntariness of love reduces the regulatory burden on human activities so that fewer resources are wasted on oversight and enforcement. And legislatively mandating social capital or calling one another “comrade” doesn’t produce more of it any more than printing money creates wealth. Love can do what law cannot.

As we enter the season of Easter and Passover, two holidays that reflect divine repudiation of tyrannical government and deliverance that political machinations could not achieve, Americans would do well to consider the deliverance that can only come from the reign of God in our hearts and reflect on the practical implications of a hope that no government program can fulfill.

To oppose Obama’s progressive “gospel” does not require adherence to any particular religious creed, only some or another ideological basis for limited government, and Christianity is just one example. The concept of limited government arises from the central conviction that there are certain good things that must be done by an entity other than the government, because they are beyond the practical ability and moral authority of government to accomplish.

As Jews await the messiah and Christians anticipate him coming again, most people know that Barack Obama is not him. We’re just a little concerned that Obama and his political disciples don’t seem to realize it.

The human dignity of people who are gay is already protected by the same laws that protect the human dignity of everyone else. Furthermore, homosexuals already have the option of contractual domestic partnerships that provide the same legal rights as marriage, protecting their rights to visit loved ones in the hospital, etc.

But marriage is not merely a contract between two consenting adults; it is a covenant between the couple, society and God.

Leaving God out of it, let’s talk about society and the couple. When you get married there must be witnesses. They are not merely spectators or cheering fans. They are participants, whose presence represents the community’s responsibility – its moral obligation – to hold the couple accountable for their marital vows, and to offer material support and encouragement for the couple to keep their vows. Proponents of gay marriage emphasize the community’s duty to affirm the free choice of the couple, not the couple’s responsibility to keep their vows or the community’s obligation to urge them to stay together. They want only the rights and the affirmation, not the responsibility and accountability.

Perhaps this is because gay marriage does not have the same “oughtness” as heterosexual marriage. When a man and a woman regularly engage in sexual intercourse it is normal to expect the population of humans to increase, and to expect the mother and father to be responsible for raising the child in a stable home. Therefore, the moral imperative, the oughtness of a man and woman being socially bound together by vows enforced by society, precedes the institution of government, both logically and chronologically. Although a relatively tiny heterosexual couples are infertile, same-sex genital intimacy always results in exactly zero children being born. Society therefore has no naturally vested interest in gay marriage.

For this reason, the analogy between interracial marriage and gay marriage is terribly flawed. The inherent validity of interracial marriage is proven by the children who are produced by the union of a man and woman of different races. Those children’s human dignity speaks for itself, demanding that society not only permit, but insist upon the marriage of their mother and father.

The argument that gay marriage could provide stable homes for orphans or foster children inadequately addresses symptoms while institutionalizing the root problem of how so many children came to be without parents. The reduction of marriage to a mere contract between two consenting adults is a major reason for the disarray of our society  rising from broken homes, “blendered families,” and children being born outside the protection of a marriage between their mother and father. We should lament this, and reverse it, not reinforce it. Gay marriage won’t necessarily destroy heterosexual marriage, but by defining the reason for vows out of existence it undermines the moral grounds upon which to restore heterosexual marriage. Legalization of gay marriage solidifies the reduction of heterosexual marriage to the moral equivalent of a domestic partnership that ignores the normative moral “oughtness” of a father and mother raising their child together.

Therefore, “homosexual marriage” is really an oxymoron. Without it, gay couples will continue to have the right to love whomever they wish for as long as they wish. And the rest of us won’t be criminalized for our deeply-held moral and religious beliefs.

Whether or not you believe homosexuality is good, you should be worried about the implications of the government forcing people to participate in that which they morally oppose. No, the government will not make you gay. But it will punish you for refusing to embrace the rightness of homosexuality and actively support it, even against your religious beliefs.

Whatever your view of homosexuality, do you really want the government to create for you a moral obligation to help gay couples make and keep traditional vows?

For many Evangelicals, Obama is the new Bush.

They are angry and disillusioned toward George W. Bush because, having started with greater faith in him, trusting him as a devout Christian to lead our nation by divine wisdom, they are all the more disappointed by his performance as president. Many Evangelicals are resolved never again to vote for a candidate based on his party or religious affiliations. To maintain the integrity of their primary religious loyalties, Evangelicals are on the market again.

While Evangelicals are divided on which candidate to support, they don’t want to carry water for anyone. But that doesn’t mean they have learned their lesson.

Many Evangelicals, in a reactionary response to Bush, are doing the same thing with Barack Obama that they did with Bush: they are choosing Obama because they identify with his religious persona rather than the substance of his record or policy views, especially to atone for getting fooled by doing the same thing with the last guy. That’s right, the same people who are so disillusioned with Bush – who believe they’ve been had, and who swear they will never be duped again by a candidate’s public personal piety nor the religious tone of his rhetoric, nor the hope that he will make the best policy decisions purely because he has a good heart – those same people have a similar hope in Obama.

They trusted Bush, they say, not only because they were furious with Clinton, but because Bush sounded more “Christian,” so they thought Bush would make America a more “Christian” nation. They now describe Obama the same way.

For example, a devout, sincere Christian woman I met yesterday told me she learned her lesson after voting twice for Bush. But now, although she is staunchly pro-Life and has serious qualms about Obama’s track record, experience and the political philosophy undergirding his campaign promises, she is voting for Obama anyway, in the hope that once in the White House he will miraculously be transformed into the leader we need because his heart will be more moldable to the will of God through the prayers of the saints, than will the other candidate.

Her faith is breathtaking.

How does she support this belief? Because Obama he connects with her visceral anger at Bush, and he talks about change and hope, which resonate with her religious sensibilities. Disillusioned with Bush’s “compassionate conservatism,” she now swoons to the siren song of Obama, promising the federal government will be the father to the fatherless, an ever-present help in time of trouble. Never mind how. Upon taking the oath of office Obama will be anointed and things will just work out fine.

Lesson learned? Unfortunately, not. 

The blind, religious faith that once in office Obama’s record, his policies, and the political worldview that determines those policies will not matter, is as foolish as marrying someone because the sex is good but hoping to change him after the wedding day.

In this way, a large block of Evangelicals find Obama politically very sexy. He tells them all the things they want to hear, like social justice, and ending poverty and war, wooing them with his political pillow talk, promising everything and demanding only one thing. But can we trust him to keep his promises? Beyond words, what track record of behavior demonstrates that after we put out (our votes), he will take out the trash and help with the dishes, or will he demur and prevaricate?

Real change means more than just getting a new boyfriend who has refreshingly different personality than your ex. Sometimes, the real problem is yourself.

Contrary to dominant media depictions, Evangelicals are not a homogeneous voting bloc and were never the sole property of any political party.  Their desire to reclaim “Evangelical” as a primarily religious, rather than political, term has led to serious self-reflection and debate among Evangelicals about the nature of their involvement in politics, as outlined in the recently drafted Evangelical Manifesto. Precisely because the issues Evangelicals care about are often not found exclusively on one side of the aisle, a candidate’s character is a primary concern. While there is no uniform definition of character in Evangelical voters’ minds, they have become aware how problematic it is to judge a candidate based purely on party loyalty or by how “Christian” he or she sounds.  

But putting this awareness into practice is easier said than done. Old habits die hard.  

Case in point is how major marketing campaigns have been underway over the last eight years to promote discontent among evangelicals, and capitalize on it to rebrand the Democrat party’s same old platform of as a new social gospel ostensibly more aligned with the ethical heart of Christianity. For progressive Evangelical groups like Matthew 25 Network, who has endorsed Obama, it is actually more Christian to be a Democrat. Angry at Bush? Let your religious fervor fuel your loyalty to us. Vote for Democrats who will really make America a Christian nation – by the force of law.

This has the outward appearance of change and independence, but in fact reflects a worsening of the same error of hoping for the state to legislate into reality the substance of one's eschatological religious hope. Rather than recognizing the real limitations of human power and human officeholders, they insist on seeking an ordinary human worthy of the job of king and redeemer of the world. This election cycle, more are betting on a Democrat named Obama, but the deception is similar.

“Evangelical” will remain a political term as long as a critical mass of Evangelicals cling to the vain hope that simply electing this or that presidential candidate will make America a Christian nation.

Anger and disillusionment at Bush is driving us out of the frying pan and into the fire. Blaming Bush for our economic woes, people are turning to Obama to promote the sort of regulatory policies and market manipulation that actually caused the home lending problem, and will make it worse. Angry at Bush for a protracted war in Iraq, we are relieved when Obama promises not to bring the troops home from Iraq, but to send them farther away, to Afghanistan and the gates of Pakistan, where the terrain is more unforgiving, the terrorists more entrenched and the task more lengthy. Any president will have to do this, because the realities of the evil in the world demand it. But those who are voting for Obama pretend they won’t have to deal with these realities. They hope.

This vicious cycle is not unlike the cycle of sin and sacrifice that Jesus sought to end. Not only does our anger at the former president demand revenge, we are angry at ourselves and need to atone for our part in electing the former president. But since he is not a candidate, we at once vindicate ourselves and punish him vicariously by rejecting the candidate from the former president’s party. In the Sermon on the Mount, Christ called his followers to be free from vicious cycles like this. Letting go of the venom in our hearts toward Bush’s truly disappointing failures should free us to choose with wisdom and discernment between the candidates who are actually in this election, rather than a reactionary choice that is really more of the same.  

Hopefully, Evangelicals will learn their lesson and be more realistic about the claims and character of political leaders. Scripture informs us that God has called us to put our hope in him, not in mortal human princes who cannot save, and who cannot deliver. The more we hope in the government to be our savior, the more we will be disappointed. We must ourselves take responsibility to act justly, love mercy and walk humbly, precisely because no political party or policy can embody our hope.

So far, Obama’s path to the presidency vaguely mirrors Siddhartha Gautama’s path to Buddhahood. For example, the Buddha achieved enlightenment, or awakening, by escaping the cycle of reincarnation, or samsara, through a middle path that enabled him to cease generating karma, which chains the human soul to this substantive plane of reality. All while sitting there, under a tree.

Barack Obama roughly approximates this, first becoming an Illinois state senator by escaping a normal election cycle. Then, he acquired enlightened political judgment by refraining from doing anything substantive – thereby freeing his mind from reality. All while just sitting there, not accomplishing much. Alas, his far-left voting record was anything but a middle path, but he compensates with middle-of-the-road rhetoric.

Obama might in fact turn out to be the Buddha – that is, if his approach to foreign policy ever amounts to anything. Many Buddhists believe that simply being in a Buddha’s presence, or even just looking at a picture of him, can help his devotees achieve awakening. Obama and his devotees hope something similar will happen to evil totalitarian dictators, just by gracing them with his presence.

Sure, that portrayal of Buddhism is overly simplistic, but then again, so is Obama’s foreign policy.

It's doubtful Shi'a Muslims would mistake Barack Obama for the Twelfth Imam, who has been long hidden but will suddenly emerge to bring peace and justice to the world. Obama urges us to submit not to God, but to almighty government. Instead of giving alms as righteous Muslims do, we will pay the government to do our charitable work for us. In Obama’s version of Sharia law, anyone who makes over $150k a year will be the dhimmis, second-class citizens who must pay an extra tax, since capitalists are the real infidels in dar-al-Obama. No, the sheer thought is enough to get us all to pray five times a day – that Obama not become the prophet, er, president.

Obama’s actually more of a New Age guru. Hordes of Europeans hoping for something they can believe in were fortunate to sit at Obama’s feet when he uttered deeply mysterious, esoteric knowledge like, “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” (That’s Obama 3:16, for those who need the scripture reference.) And hearing his soaring rhetoric at the Democratic Party convention, many loyal delegates reported having ecstatic, out-of-body-experiences and seeing the dawning of the Age of Aquarius.

Or maybe he’s a voodoo shaman, since he wants to magically shrink the federal deficit by expanding an already bloated federal bureaucracy. He’s also been sticking pins in a George W. Bush doll, hoping to put a whammy on John McCain.

Yes, the feeble tools of metaphor are all we humans have to describe the transcendent, the divine. But if Obama isn’t the Messiah, the Buddha, the Prophet, or the next quantum leap in human evolution, what sort of eschatological religious figure is he?

Let’s see… He uses religious language with ease, but functionally posits the secular state as the world’s savior. He claims he doesn’t think government can solve all our problems, but it’s difficult to find one aspect of human life for which he doesn’t offer some government-funded solution. He wants a sprawling federal bureaucracy to annex all spheres of our culture.

In rocky economic times, he wants to institute policies that will ensure the economy slides into recession. He wants to micromanage the spending patterns of millions of households across America and raise taxes, which will raise unemployment by hamstringing entrepreneurship.

Faced with terrorism financed by oil-rich rogue states, he’s weak on foreign policy and doesn’t want the US to drill on our own territory – even as a stopgap measure to help us fund research and development for alternative energy.

He postures and bloviates on the world political scene with no real influence on policy, and can’t tell the difference between our allies and those who wish to destroy us.

It all adds up: if Obama isn’t the Messiah, he very well may be the second coming of Jimmy Carter.