The following is an excerpt from a speech given by Senator Obama:
You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years, and nothing has replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.”
“And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
Most of you, unless you are locked up at Guantanamo Bay, know that Senator Obama made the above statement that seems to be somewhat condescending toward rural America. It at least sounds like he thinks we are a bunch of bitter, backward, racist, gun-toting, religious zealots who just need government education, government health care, a government bailed-out mortgage, and a good job in order to evolve (that is how I interpreted it anyway). His statement smacks with an elitist attitude that looks down its long nose at ruralites no matter where they may dwell. He assumes that we need to be rescued from our God and our guns and that he is just the messiah to liberate us. What a life of bliss we would all lead if we were just like the good Senator from Illinois. If he really knew rural Americans, he would understand that our guns and our God really have nothing to do with bitterness at all.
There are many Christians who have an “Obama” view of the traditional rural church. There is a sort of ecclesiastical elitism that exists within Christendom, and although it is rarely expressed publicly it does, nonetheless, exist. Their seems to be a belief that rural and small churches “cling to tradition” because they fear change or because they are just not enlightened enough to do anything else. This elitism is expressed in the way denominations allocate resources. It is expressed in the way that denominational leaders are chosen. It is expressed in written material that is generated through market research and geared exclusively for people living in the suburbs and who attend large progressive churches. Perhaps the most insidious way it is expressed is in the way that we measure success through numbers and statistics. How many people did you baptize this year? How much money did you give to missions this year? What is your annual church budget? What was your average Sunday School attendance this year? I am convinced that ecclesiastical elitism is born in statistics. Rear-ends in the pews and dollars in the plate equals success.
Somewhere along the line someone decided that 1 baptism was bad and that 100 was good. We have bought into the idea that tradition is always bad and that progressive ecclesiastical thought is always good. We elect our leaders based on the size of their congregations and how much their churches are giving to missions. How many small church pastors do you know who are getting nominated for leadership positions within thier denominations?
Before you think I have some kind of Napoleon complex. . . don’t. I don’t have a problem with big churches. I embrace mega churches. I praise God that they are doing good Kingdom work. I do, however, have a huge problem in that my church’s success or viability seems to be measured by what First Baptist Big is doing. I have a GIGANTIC problem with this ecclesiastical elitism that seems to be driving everything from denominational leadership, church programing, and even my Sunday School curriculum. Am I barking up the wrong steeple here? What do you think? While you mull it over, since I am feeling a little bitter today, I am going to go pray while I clean my guns.