Top
Browse > Home / Satire / A Vote for Barack Obama is a Vote for Jesus

A Vote for Barack Obama is a Vote for Jesus

Written by Mark Van Steenwyk : July 18, 2008

Editorial disclaimer: It is hard to write satire about Barack Obama. Why? Because even if you use ridiculously positive language about Obama, his supporters won’t think it is satire. For example, if someone says: “Obama incarnates the perfect love of Christ,” I will chuckle at the absurdity of such a statement. But one of my friends might go wide-eyed and nod their head in solemn agreement. Conversely, the New Yorker demonstrates the challenge of using negative imagery for Barack. Nevertheless, I offer this feeble attempt at satirizing the Barack Obamenon.

A vote for Barack Obama is a vote for Jesus…not that I agree with everything he stands for. I mean, I am an independent sort of thinker. I am firmly convinced that God is neither a republican or a democrat. But Barack Obama transcends such distinctions. He flies high over such petty concerns on shimmering gossamer wings. Golden light emanates from his perfect form. His smiling eyes looking down upon me with a look that pierces my soul! I get lost in his smile, and long for one of his chiseled arms to hold me close while the other smites a damning blow to poverty and oppression.

Don’t get me wrong. As a Christian, my ultimate hope is in Jesus alone. I don’t trust in politicians or the State to accomplish what the church is called to do–that is to bring transformation and true freedom if buy youtube likes and comments from service.

But Barack is a Christian. And I believe that Jesus is pouring his Spirit upon Barack Obama for a time such as this. Barack brings hope in the midst of darkness. He himself is our peace, who has made Republicans and Democrats one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility. He is like a father to the fatherless and a defender of widows!

Don’t get me wrong. There are things I don’t like about Barack. For example…he isn’t bold enough in speaking what is on his mind–his illuminated, brilliant mind. It is almost bordering on sinfulness for him not to share his thoughts, for his voice is a gift from heaven. His booming baritone bellows soft mysteries that only angels can truly comprehend. When he speaks, possibilities open. New futures are made possible. Women weep for joy and children laugh with gladness. Wicked men mourn their transgressions and hardened men melt like ice on a hot spring day. Every one of his delicately formed words is its own tender miracle. Why should he hold back a treasure that was meant as a gift to the whole world?

As you can see, I have thought this through. I have weighed the pros and cons and made the choice to vote for Obama–warts and all (of course, I’m being metaphorical, since I am certain no blemish or corruption has ever touched his gorgeous frame).

I encourage you to vote for Obama too. I’m not saying that voting for McCain would be a sin. Nor am I saying that it would be a horrible, disgusting sin for you to not vote at all. But I am saying that to vote for Obama is to vote for Jesus. And to NOT vote for Obama would mean that you don’t love Jesus, the poor, or your own mother. To NOT vote for Jesus would be to render Jesus’ life and message meaningless. That’s all I’m saying.

Mark Van Steenwyk is the editor of JesusManifesto.com. He is a Mennonite pastor (Missio Dei in Minneapolis), writer, speaker, and grassroots educator. He lives in South Minneapolis with his wife (Amy), son (Jonas) and some of their friends.


Print This Article Print This Article

for further reading . . .

· Filed Under Satire 

Comments

Viewing 19 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Is Barack pro-abortion? And how does that reflect on the values of Jesus?
    • ^
    • v
    [said with a gently sarcastic tone]: Wait a second, Edgar. Jesus never said: "I was an aborted fetus, and you let me be born" in Matthew 25!
    • ^
    • v
    Great stuff Mark. Thanks for a great post.
    • ^
    • v
    How is this constructive? I don't even think it's very good satire. There's nothing really incisive here, certainly nothing to challenge your constituency toward a more nuanced anti-constantinianism. Seems to me this is the same old, tired, generalizing, polarizing version of anti-constantinianism Yoder himself rightly rejected. Yes, Yoder critiqued the vote. I've read his Sojourners essay. But rather than merely mocking it, he challenged us to use it shrewdly.

    Now there may be some Christians out there who see a vote for Obama as tantamount to a vote for Jesus, but I haven't met any. I credit most Christian Obama supporters with more intelligence and faithfulness than that. Obama certainly hasn't made any such grandiose claims about himself. He has been very insistent that the real power to change politics is in the hands of ordinary people like you and me. Without equating Jesus and Obama, that strikes me as something Jesus said a time or two (e.g. Mt 5:9).

    Satire has it's place. Well, good satire does, anyway. But I expect more from Jesus Manifesto. Help us to critically evaluate the political climate. Give us something nuanced, patient, and constructive. I know the church is political and all that. I'm grateful for Yoder's and Hauerwas's persistence in driving that point home. But let's not limit politics to ecclesiology, or we'd be making just as big a mistake. As Yoder wrote after he was challenged by Glen Stassen to rethink the implications of his anti-constantinianism, the church is here "for the nations." As it is, you're just encouraging the same old polarizations and quietisms.
    • ^
    • v
    I think your reading more out of this that is warranted, Thom. I showed the piece to two different pro-Obama folks who fully intend to vote. They thought it was funny! This piece is satirizing the overenthusiasm about Obama...and on that level, I think it works. I stand behind it.

    Obviously I don't think anyone equates voting for Obama with voting for Jesus. That is why it is called satire. This particular piece is an example of using silly overstatements to make a light-hearted point. It isn't the sort of biting satire that requires subtlety.

    So, how does a silly piece using over-flowing rediculous affirmations about Obama become a reduction of politics to ecclesiology or a pure anti-constantinianism? You could certainly level that charge against me in other pieces, but not this one.
    • ^
    • v
    "So, how does a silly piece using over-flowing rediculous affirmations about Obama become a reduction of politics to ecclesiology or a pure anti-constantinianism?"

    Because I know where you're coming from, as you confirmed when you said that I could certainly level that charge against you in other pieces. My point is that this is counter-productive because it encourages those non-constantinians who are already disengaged from politics-beyond-ecclesiology to remain disengaged.

    Other people may think this is funny; I see the humor too, but it's cheap ("light-hearted," as you put it) because it's not incisive. Take my initial comment as a challenge for you to write seriously on the subject. Satire is welcome, even in a serious reflection. But take responsibility for your audience and challenge us to do more than tow the Christian-Anarchist party line.

    In the spirit of fellowship,
    Thom
    • ^
    • v
    Thom,

    This is offered with a fairly gentle tone: I would caution you that there is a fine line between assuming where I am coming from and judging motives. In this case, my motive is fairly straight forward. I can poke fun at the overflowing praise that gushes from many Barack supporters without it having to be tied to my anti-constantinianism.

    Nevertheless, your criticism has merit. I sometimes assume, at some level at least, that I am writing to people that are just like me. Just because i know when things are in good fun doesn't mean that this piece won't be used as ammo for those that are interested in mere polarization.

    I have a serious question for you: would you say that this piece specifically isn't offering a serious reflection, or that my articles in general lack the sort of substance you're hoping for?

    One last thought: I'm not sure that the typical Christian-Anarchist party line (I'm not even sure what that means) is a serious threat. It seems to me that the vast majority of Christians tend towards a unreflective political engagement not towards disengagement. I suppose many fall into the apathetic middle, but I'm not sure that Jesus Manifesto stirs up feelings of disinterested apathy.

    I'm not saying that to justify myself. I point this out because the large majority of JM readers are planning on voting (according to a 2 month old survey) and my writing tends to push towards the anarchist side of the "spectrum" rather than towards the citizenship side of the spectrum because of that. Perhaps I need to rethink that...I would love for more articles to be submitted that show nuance. My own stuff tends to be thrown together hurriedly.
    • ^
    • v
    ever notice how Obama sounds like he is trying to do a impression of The Rock from WWE when he gives speeches...

    can you smeeelllllllllllllllla...what the Obamanator is cooking?

    some senator: Mr President I just do not see clear to agree with you on this matter.

    Obama: No your role and shut your mouth!! You will vote for my bill or I will layeth the smack down on you senator jabronis
    • ^
    • v
    thank you mark. that was beautiful. i got pro-obamanites that would love to see this.
    • ^
    • v
    As showcased by the photo, Jesus thinks well enough of Obama to quote him.
    • ^
    • v
    Does all this nit-picking really matter? Do our votes even matter? Isn't what matters simply to love God and love our neighbors as ourself. If 10% of all Christians dropped the debates and just did that we'd be a whole lot closer to speeding the kingdom of heaven, eh?
    • ^
    • v
    I'm all for loving God and neighbor. Just tell me what that looks like. Love is a meaningless concept if it remains an abstract idea:

    http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/2007/02/09/resist...
    • ^
    • v
    I thought the satire was a little overdone until I hit that last paragraph. HAHAHA. Priceless! Especially, "And to NOT vote for Obama would mean that you don’t love Jesus, the poor, or your own mother. " It's precisely that way of dealing out inevitabilities that makes the empire machine tick.
    • ^
    • v
    Thank you for offering this as a radical attempt at poking fun at election 08 politics. I think that most people commenting don't understand where this is coming from; at least as I understand it this is partially working out of McLaren's whole little thing of coming out and endorsing Obama recently and the tension that has caused between people who tend to be on the more anarchist side of things but working alongside with McLaren's crowd. I know among some of my friends McLaren's endorsement created quite a bit of heated discussion.
    • ^
    • v
    Hi Mark:

    I am one of those Obama supporters you mention and I don't get where you get that there;'s anything tricky about making jokes about Obama. I like funny comments as much as anybody. For example, i think this was very funny: "And to NOT vote for Obama would mean that you don’t love Jesus, the poor, or your own mother. ". It's just that a lot of the jokes floating around are not funny at all. Seriously.

    your friend
    keith
    • ^
    • v
    Why not just do a post on intercession for America and how we need a move of God. The answer lies not in the White House or in Obama or McCain but in Christ alone! The hope of the nations is not to be found in any political movement but only in the kingdom of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
    • ^
    • v
    Isn't the Kingdom of God (vs. the Kingdom of Caesar) also a political movement (albeit of a different kind)?
    • ^
    • v
    You forgot the "t" on the first line of the fifth paragraph.
    • ^
    • v
    Ha...not bad. Sometimes I wonder if that is what some followers of Obama think. As far as satire goes, I think you'll appreciate this as well:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/column...