What's in a name?

I'm not feeling quite as frivolous this Friday as I consider how far we as the Church have set ourselves back with all of our political wranglings and machinations. Having said that, this will be my last political post regarding the elections. The idiocy of tracing Barack Obama’s ‘ties’ to terrorists is at best a remarkable display of how, uninformed yet blind allegiance can sometimes turn the best of intentions into the most embarrassing displays of foolishness. As Christians, we appeared singularly devoted to putting McCain (or was it really Palin) into the White House at the expense of objectivity and sometimes honesty. We were quick to point out, and consistently use Obama’s middle name, Hussein, so that it remained forefront on people’s minds that he had Islamic ties. Frankly, I found this rather bothersome largely because I am personally acquainted with quite a few Moslems that I would trust with my life before I would any number of Christians I know. The problem, as I’ve highlighted in a previous article, is not with Moslems in general, but with Radical Islam, yet the use of his middle name and constant references to his Islamic ties would seem to indicate that, if indeed he was secretly Moslem it lent credence to possible terrorist ties.

My given middle name is “Abdullahi.” It is of Arabic descent and it literally translates as “Son of Allah.” In addition, I have been in the Middle East on previous occasions. Ergo: I’m potentially associated with terrorism? That’s how foolish the arguments regarding Obama and his potential terrorist ties sound too! Why on earth do we think that he could have legitimate terrorist ties, and in his 2-year run for the office of President of the United States, with all the extensive background checks done on him, the FBI would not have found any damning evidence to prove that fact? It is one thing to stand vehemently opposed to his worldview and disagree with his choice as president on the basis of that. It is quite another, and in fact is entirely disingenuous to raise unfounded speculations as if they were proven facts, just to push our agenda of preventing him from attaining the highest political office in our nation.

In blindly pointing attention to an insignificant detail in order to create a desired impression, we are in danger of becoming the very thing that we fight against. How would we be any different from the pro-choice movement who will stop at nothing (no method seems beneath them) to promote their agenda? For example, to highlight their cause they refer to themselves as being pro-choice. To highlight ours, we refer to ourselves as being pro-life. In their unveiled attempt to deflect attention away from the real issue of human lives being arrogantly expended, they choose to refer to the pro-life movement as anti-choice. Wouldn’t it be more appropriate that they be called pro-abortion, since that is the larger issue at stake? Why are they not referred to as anti-life as a direct opposite of pro-life? After all, to be fair, both sides should get equal billing. If one side will be referred to as anti-choice in direct opposition to pro-choice, shouldn’t the other be referred to as anti-life in direct opposition to pro-life? Reality though is much different than what should obtain, and we must recognize that there is a bigger “war” being waged behind the scenes that cannot be won through rhetoric and incendiary remarks or comments.

For us to sink to the disparate level of indulging in such underhanded tactics by referring to Obama’s middle name, yet never making mention of McCain’s, is to suggest a hidden agenda. Such agendas ultimately do not promote godliness and serve to undermine God's greater purpose being fulfilled, which is to reach the lost, the hurting, and the next generation. So, as we begin the journey towards 'fence-mending' within the Body of Christ, let's refocus our attention on things that have more eternal value. Things such as loving and serving hurting people. Hurting people like the woman in the picture above.