Jun 11, 2012

Abraham Lincoln Vampire Slayer. Really?



20/20 Hindsight

Obituary Entry 4: Abraham Lincoln

Every Monday I look into the life of someone from the past and see how God worked. Today I want to talk about President Lincoln. Even with a new "biography" of his life hitting theaters, I believe something can be learned.

When I saw the posters and trailor for Abraham Lincoln Vampire Slayer I couldn't believe it. Then I heard that the author also wrote Pride and Predjudice and Zombies. Now it all makes since.

The funny thing is that Lincoln's life was already exciting. He was president during the bloodiest time in American history, freed the slaves, and was assassinated. Honest Abe doesn't need to hunt vampires to be remembered fondly by history.

I believe God works through people and sometimes in spite of them. In Abraham Lincoln's case I know that God worked, but I'm not sure if it was through or in spite of.

For starters every president swears to uphold the constitution which does not give the federal government the power to "preserve the union" or "free the slaves." It does give states any powers not specifically given to the federal government. This means they can secede or even have slaves.

The constitutional way would be for the Northern states to have allowed the south to leave over the many grievances that they had. Congress could have also defined personhood and then everyone of all ethnicities would be covered under the Bill of Rights (making the slaves free).

Regardless of his ability to lead or follow the constitution some good things came out of Lincoln's legacy. I still believe that all of the bloodshed was unwarrented and that the states should have been allowed to secede. But in hindsight God worked through a bloody mess of our own making to set people free.

Anyway you slice it freedom is a good thing. Lincoln took us one step closer towards freedom and equality. And to think he did it without have to slay any vampires.



View other 20/20 Hindsight posts  

Response to Anonymous commenter is Here

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

This post is irresponsible.

What you are implying is that states rights/sovereignty is more important than human rights. Slavery is suffering.

This logic applied to the rest of the world says that we should in no way come to the aid of those suffering in other countries, because in doing so we would be imposing on that countries sovereignty. Therefore genocide is acceptable.

Applied to history, this logic says Hitler's holocaust was a sad necessity because as chancellor of his country, he had the sovereign right to do whatever he wanted to his own citizens.

Applies to biblical history, this logic says that Egypt was justified in their enslavement of the Hebrews, and that Moses had no right to impose his/God's will against the sovereign nation of Egypt.

There is NOTHING in the bible that would support anything that you have written in this post.

You should think about the implications of the things you say, especially as someone who is responsible for caring and shepherding young people in their journey with God.

This post in no way speaks to a God who is love, a God who would work to end suffering, to hear the cry of those oppressed and free us from the bondage of sin.

Instead it speaks loudly to a god of a political system - a human construct that is flawed and is NOT God. It is worship of nation, of constitution, of political idealism. This is not God, and throughout the bible and history, those who worshiped their nation over God have never fared well.

You can say this blog is not political, but saying that and meaning that are two different things.

It would seem that this blog is rather completely political, and is not Christian - your posts do more to support American conservatism than they do the true biblical witness of God's love.

Again, as you have been called to lead others to Christ (and not simply to "Americanism"), you should be more thoughtful and careful with what you post.

Nate Garrett said...

Dear Anonymous, as these are common misconceptions I have chosen to address them in a post. Here is my response: http://bit.ly/LQKCNx

Anonymous said...

I have to somewhat agree with the first commenter. While the Civil War was not fought primarily for the purpose of freeing the slaves, but rather to keep the agriculturally lucrative South as a member of the Union, the notion that Lincoln was a less than great president because he overstepped his Constiutional constraints is insane. The Constitution was not written by angels, but by flawed men and is executed by flawed men. And had the North not won and the Union not been preserved, who knows how long slavery would have continued its horrific scrawl through history?

sheetal jain said...

Get your Summer Collections with over 50% discounts now!!! http://www.shopclues.com/index.php?dispatch=products.search&company_id=69063&search_performed=Y