Olbermann: Your words are lies, Sir.
This is simply incredible. Olbermann has been the best thing for television journalism since Edward R. Murrow himself. This is his latest “Special Comment”—and he takes direct aim on the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and those who signed it into law this past week. You can read the transcript here. Olbermann has no fear. I wish I could say the same about most Christians in the United States.
Comments
I admire much of what you've said. Ironically, most of it has been repeated on this blog in earlier posts. I suggest you read further back to allay your concerns.
In lieu of what just happened to Habeas Corpus, it's a shame that you've pigeon-holed Olbermann as leftist, and thus have refused to listen to the truth of what he has said in that video. No matter where you stand politically, torture is wrong - not because it's leftist or American to say so, but because the Gospel of Jesus Christ has given hope and true security to all people in all times. An "ecclesial politics" necessitates the sort of response that Olbermann has given to not JUST this administration, but to John Adams/Woodrow Wilson/FDR/etc. I fail to see any party-line in the video that David chose. David's endorsement of the video does not constitute a canonizing of all-things-Olbermann.
But let's assume there is a party-line in Olbermann's show, or the majority of its viewers. If Christ is the fountain of truth, we should listen to those that speak it, regardless of whether they are "ecclesial" or not. In this case, Olbermann has spoken the truth because it embodies a Christ-like and biblical rebuke to power. If you want to argue that it doesn't, that would be productive.
I suggest you invoke a more charitable hermeneutic towards this show so that you don't miss out. Being ecclesial does not prohibit us from keeping our TV's on, from staying informed, and from hearing commentary from former-sportscasters-turned-pundits.
We should be willing to hear God in the K.K.K., to be put it most bluntly and transcendentally. If I can do that, I can almost certainly here God speaking through O'Reilly, Trinity Broadcasting Network, and things that are most often caricatured (however wrongly) as "right-wing." When God speaks, there is no "right" or "left" anymore. Such a distinction is relativized by the Word of God.
Your rhetoric aside, we need to figure out who your actually opponent is. Who is the target of your criticism? If it's me, then you have me all wrong. If it's someone or something else, then you are wrong to include me in that criticism.
First, the former. If it's me you are targeting, then you simply have not read what I have written in the past or you have read them inappropriately and uncharitably. I have NEVER endorsed party politics. On numerous occasions I called for Christians to avoid identifying themselves along party lines. And I have specifically criticized Jim Wallis for baptizing the left in the name of Jesus. If this is your criticism, then we are in agreement and your heated prose is simply unnecessary.
I strongly support local, organic, and ecclesial political action. The church must be rooted in a particular place, and political action begins with our homes and families. I have never once spoken of Washington politics, at least not in any sort of favorable light. I am not apathetic, nor do I think we should wait for people 'on top' to pass legislation to solve our problems. If this is what you think I endorse -- and God knows where you could come up with such a notion -- then you have me entirely and utterly wrong.
I am rather Anabaptist when it comes to the church-state relation. I do not believe any Christian should be involved in the military, and I am very hesitant to support a Christian serving in the government. I rather believe the church should act as a witness to the reign and coming of God; the communion of the saints ought to reflect and embody the ethic of the Kingdom as a witness to the world. The church testifies to the sole authority of God, as the One who relativizes and, for Christians, nullifies the claims of all other earthly kingdoms. The church stands opposed to idolatry in all its forms.
But insofar as the church pursues this end, the church cannot extricate itself from responsibility to the national and global political scene. The church works on a local level primarily, but not at the expense of a broader national involvement. The church is global and so our witness should be a unified, global witness. That still does not mean following party politics; it means testifying to the truth. And all truth is God's truth wherever it may be found -- even in the mouth of Keith Olbermann or in the episodes of "Desperate Housewives."
Seriously, thanks to David W for a powerful critique of the wrong person, and well done to goodbyenelly for a gracious defence of DWC even before he was able to do the same.
"The only politics the church needs is a common shared local politics."
I'm sure I need not remind our audience here that many prophetic denouncements in the OT were directed at the nationwide level - to kings and kingdoms (usually for oppressing the poor and needy).
I, too, agree entirely with having an emphasis on local solutions, but we need not shy away from calling out national disgraces when they arise.
Great post, DW (I got here by way of Michael, from the Levellers blog).
[and, this isn't THE David Wilkerson, is it...?]