Change Your Clothes!

(Genesis 3:6-11; Colossians 3:5-17)

The other day, as I was driving home, making the first curve on Lake, I just about drove into a tree. No, I’m not that bad a driver, but I was most definitely that startled by the appearance of a new yard sign. If you’ve been out our way, I’m sure you’ve seen it: a big white wooden sign reading, “Impeach Obama Pelosi & Reid.” It’s not an isolated idea, either; on Facebook, there are already several “Impeach Obama” groups. I haven’t been invited to join one yet, and I don’t want to; for crying out loud, he hasn’t done anything except run for office—since when is campaigning a crime? This is just one more sign that our politics has gotten ridiculous, and not the good kind of ridiculous, either.

The problem here, at its root, is a theological one. That might sound strange, but it’s true: we’re out of whack politically because we’re out of whack theologically, in a couple different ways. First, and this is something we’ll talk more about later, is that our politics in this country has become idolatrous: rather than identifying ourselves simply as Christians, rather than finding our sole identity in Christ and letting that define us, we identify ourselves as Republicans or Democrats or Independents and define ourselves that way as well. How we vote isn’t who we are, it’s just part of what we do as we try to be faithful disciples of Christ. When we lose sight of that, we end up in this position—and conservatives get beaten up for this, but liberals are just as bad—in which we look to politics for answers to our problems, and a sort of secular salvation. We put our trust in earthly rulers, which is just what Scripture tells us not to do, as we saw last week.

When we get ourselves into that position, that leads naturally to the second theological problem, that of overidentifying our cause with God’s, and thus concluding that our opponents are necessarily God’s enemies. To be sure, there are real evils in this world, and thus in our politics, and some of them have powerful political constituencies and advocates; we as Christians have the responsibility to identify those evils and oppose them to the best of our ability. However, we need to be careful to avoid a couple traps which go along with that. One is the trap of assuming that those who disagree with us must necessarily do so out of evil motives; there are no doubt those for whom this is true, but there are many others who are seeking to do what’s best, to the best of their ability and understanding. We need to give people the benefit of the doubt unless and until they give us reason to do otherwise. The other is the trap of assuming the purity of our own motives—that because we are in the right, it makes us better people with purer hearts.

The truth is—and we must never forget this—we’re all sinners. Some of us sin less, some of us sin more, we’re at different levels of spiritual maturity and going different directions, but even the most godly people among us are still sinners saved by grace. We have died with Christ, we have been raised with Christ, we have been given new life in Christ—but in the same old flesh, well-practiced in all the same old sins. We are justified, we are saved, we are being transformed into the image of Christ, but we’re still in process. That’s just how it is in this world, and we need to keep that in our minds. In our disputes and disagreements, in our wants and desires, in the issues we face and the decisions we must consider, we must always remember that we too are sinners, and take that fact into consideration. No matter who we are, our positions, our preferences, our ideas, our desires, our plans, are all tainted by sin, and we have no right to pretend otherwise.

That said, while none of us is going to win free of that condition in this lifetime, that doesn’t mean we can’t make progress; God’s grace is at work in us, setting us free from sin, and while that work is unfinished, he never fails of his purposes. No matter how bad we might be (or might have been) or how holy we think we are now, no matter how old and set in our ways or how young and callow, God is at work in us, and he calls us to work with him, to align our efforts with his. Paul lays out two parts to that in this passage. First he says, all these things that belong to this fallen world and to your old selves, put them to death. It’s much the same thing he says in Romans 8:13, where he writes, “If you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.”

This isn’t something we can accomplish in our own strength; our own efforts need to be a part of it, and there’s an important place for spiritual disciplines such as prayer, worship, and silence, but it’s only by the power of the Spirit of God that we can make any real progress in dealing with our sin. The goal is the complete rooting-out and destruction of sin in our lives; we’ll never reach it in this life, but it’s nevertheless the goal toward which we work. It’s an ongoing struggle against the sin in our lives, to weaken and starve it, so that through loss of strength and lack of food, it dies away little by little, losing its ability to draw us into sinful actions. This requires us to know our own sinfulness, to be aware of the ways in which our sin tricks us and overcomes us, if we are to fight against it intelligently; and it requires constant vigilance—but then, as the Irish politician and writer Edmund Burke noted, that’s always the price of true freedom.

Along with this, Paul says, “Change your clothes!” The image here is of the old self with its sinful practices as a suit of clothes we wear, and of the new self, which is from God, as another suit of clothes. The more we come to appreciate the new life God has given us, the more we learn to see the old self, those old clothes, for the dirty things they are. Imagine coming home after some fiasco, soaked to the skin, cold to the bone, covered in mud and filth, and taking a long, hot shower, or perhaps a long, hot bath; when you’re warm and clean, are you going to put those clothes back on? And yet that, in a sense, is just what we do whenever we turn back to sin: we’ve been washed clean, and yet we put the filth of the old self back on. Paul says, “Don’t do that—put on the habits of your new life in Christ.”

If we put these two commands together, we get a complete picture. As we work to put to death the inward reality of sin, we are also to be at work stripping ourselves of our sinful habits, which are rooted in that inward reality, and replacing them with new ones. For the things we need to set aside, Paul points on the one hand to the disordered desires which lead us to pursue the pleasures and things of the world instead of God, and on the other, to the destructive passions, and the destructive language that goes with them; put those aside, he says, take them off and get rid of them.

In their place, clothe yourselves with a new way of living, one which is marked by compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, patience, and a forgiving spirit. These words describe an attitude that doesn’t give way to rage when one is done wrong but chooses to show grace, and is willing to waive one’s rights for the good of others, even when they don’t deserve it. The ultimate example of this is Jesus, who at times spoke quite sternly to the Jewish leaders who had set themselves against him, yet died on the cross for them, with a prayer for their forgiveness on his lips. Just so, says Paul, we should bear with one another and forgive one another just as Christ has forgiven us.

Of course, it would be very easy to take these things and turn them into just another legalistic religion, just another way of putting faith in our own ability to be good enough—just work hard enough at being compassionate, kind, humble, gentle, patient, and forgiving, and you’ll please God. But look what Paul says next: clothe yourself with love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony, and let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts. In other words, these virtues aren’t individual things to be worked on individually and to be accomplished by stern effort—they’re supposed to be the fruit of the love of God and the peace of Christ in our lives. When are we not compassionate, kind, humble, and so on? When we don’t love the people we’re dealing with, or when we’re not at peace—when we’re in conflict within ourselves, when we’re in conflict with those around us, when we’re anxious, when we feel the weight of our own lives resting on our shoulders. But if we open ourselves up to the love of God—because love, too, is not something we do in our own strength; love comes from God, it’s his gift to us and his work in our lives—and let him fill us with his peace, then these virtues are the result.

How do we do that? Well, you’ll note the end of verse 15—“be thankful”; we’ve talked about the importance of gratitude, and about the importance of worship in renewing our gratitude, and that’s part of what Paul’s talking about here. There’s another element here as well, though. “Let the word of Christ dwell in you,” he says—not pass through on the way to somewhere else, not just drop in for tea every now and again, not even buy next door, but move in, make itself at home, get its name on the title deed, and start rearranging the furniture. Let it fill your life, and let it do so richly. Don’t domesticate it, don’t just let it tell you what you expect to hear; don’t settle for the “elevated, obvious, and boring,” to use Frederick Buechner’s phrase. This isn’t just a library of clichés, trite sayings, and moral platitudes, it’s the word God has given us that we might know him. Open your heart to everything he has to say to you through it; dive deep into his will and his character. And as you do, and as you grow in your faith and in your relationship with God, don’t hoard that, don’t keep it to yourself, but turn around and use that to bless others, so that the word of Christ may dwell in all of us richly. That’s the goal, after all, that we would be a people in whom the word of Christ is living and active.

A key part of that is worship, and especially our worship together. “With gratitude in your hearts,” Paul says, “sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs to God.” It’s worth noting the variety he commends to them: psalms, songs to God from the Scriptures; hymns, the tried and tested songs to God produced by the church; and spiritual songs, new songs to God inspired by the Spirit. I don’t know if the first-century church had anything like our worship wars, or what other issues there may have been around what they sang, and when, and how, and how much; but Paul has no brief for any of it. Use whatever, he says; use all of it. Just sing to God, and teach his Word.

May our worship be about him and him only, and move our hearts to gratitude for who he is and all he’s done for us. May we focus our minds and our hearts and our lives on him and him alone, letting his word dwell in us richly, letting him fill us with his love and his peace. As we do that, he will teach us to live in such a way that everything we say and everything we do is a gift to God, a thank-offering to him, in the name of Jesus; and the more we look at him, and the better we come to know him, the more we will see that anything we can’t say or do in the name of Jesus, anything we can’t offer up to God for his good pleasure, is something we shouldn’t say or do at all.

Random thought stuck in my head

With all the messiah language that’s been floating around Barack Obama—how fitting is it that his chief of staff will be called Emanuel?I swear, you just can’t make this stuff up.(Further thought: here’s hoping he’s also called a wonderful counselor . . .)

O come, O come, (Rahm) Emanuel

Like a lot of political junkies, I’ve been thinking a fair bit about our new president’s first big hire: Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff. There are some things to be said about the fact that they botched the announcement, but leave that aside and consider Rep. Emanuel himself; his selection deeply concerns some conservatives but reassures others, including the folks at the Wall Street Journal—and has also provoked considerable consternation among some on the Left.For my own part, I have three thoughts on this pick. First, this means that you can take all that high-toned high-minded “new politics”/”post-partisan”/”new kind of politician”/”hope and change”/”heal the country” talk and throw it out the window. That was for the campaign, and it served its purpose; now it’s time to get real, and that’s going to look very different.Two, on balance, I think that’s a good thing, because Barack Obama is entering a very different world than the world of his campaign, and what worked then isn’t going to work now. I’ve believed for a while that the Democratic congressional leadership, the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Charles Schumer, have seen him not as the leader of their party but as someone they would be able to use as a figurehead for their own agenda, and that they would pull him hard to the left; of course, I’ve also believed that he would be perfectly comfortable going along with that. Rep. Emanuel is one of the nastiest partisans in Washington, but he’s also, on his record, a centrist, and hawkish for a Democrat; his selection is the first indication that Barack Obama may in fact want to govern from the center-left, rather than from the leftist positions that won him the primaries. Just as important, his appointment may well be a sign that Sen. Obama picked up on the same signs in his party that I thought I saw, and a signal that he has no intention of letting the likes of Speaker Pelosi dominate his administration—a shot across their bows to let them know that he is the president and he intends to be the president. As the WSJ put it,

As for Mr. Emanuel’s famously sharp elbows, they are as likely to be wielded against his fellow Democrats as against Republicans. With Democrats now so dominant, the fiercest fights—and the ones that really matter—will take place among Democratic factions in the White House and Capitol Hill. Mr. Emanuel can help Mr. Obama understand when he needs to ignore the pleas of the left and govern from the center.

Paul Mirengoff of Power Line echoed this when he wrote,

The ascension to the presidency of a given politician doesn’t repeal the rules of politics, one of which is that a president needs someone fierce and ruthless by his side. Whatever Obama decides to try and accomplish, he will require a key aide who answers to this description. . . .I suspect, moreover, that it is Democratic heads Emanuel will be knocking. Republican heads don’t count for much on Capitol Hill these days, and the Obama administration won’t be in much of a position to knock them, in any case.

I maintained, and maintain, that Sen. Obama has showed neither the instincts, nor the ability, nor the experience, nor quite frankly the willingness to upset people necessary to fight free of the left wing of his party and chart his own course; Rep. Emanuel gives him all of the above.And three, I agree with Jennifer Rubin:

It is quite remarkable that, even now, we are still reading the tea leaves and guessing which Obama will be taking office. The high-minded one? The Chicago pol? The ultra-liberal? The moderate? We’ll all stay tuned as, bit by bit, everyone learns who it was we just elected.

Is Barack Obama a good man?

I know there are a lot of conservatives who would answer that question resoundingly in the negative; but for my part, for all the questions and concerns I have about his judgment on people and policies, I can’t help coming down with Beldar: I think he is. I may be convinced otherwise later, but I hope not.

Final thought on John McCain

Though there’s much that I admire about John McCain the man, I’ve felt for a long time that his best qualities were all personal, and that (from a conservative point of view, anyway) there was little to say for him as a politician. Unfortunately, his conduct of this campaign only served to reinforce and underscore that judgment—the way money was spent, the persistent division in his campaign (he seemed almost constitutionally unable to operate with a single campaign manager), his poor personnel judgment (Rick Davis should never run another political operation at any level), his inability to put together a consistent, coherent message (much less to stay on message), and the awful decision-making (most notably the mind-boggling decision to pull out of Michigan) all indicate that whatever concerns anyone might have about Barack Obama’s ability to run the Executive Branch, John McCain wouldn’t have done much better.Unfortunately, the fact that he’s now allowing, and perhaps tacitly encouraging, his campaign staff to trash Sarah Palin further reinforces this. As Jennifer Rubin put it,

All of this, I must admit, also reflects on the non-leadership qualities of the former presidential nominee. John McCain was never known as one to resolve conflicts or knock heads. That’s how he wound up bankrupting his own campaign in the primary and then devolving into bitter infighting in the general election. Watching his team engage in vicious, public fighting suggests that perhaps he was never the ideal person for a chief executive role. After all, if the campaign was this bad, imagine what the White House would have been like.

As much as it pains me to say it, though, Rubin doesn’t go far enough. This doesn’t only reflect on Sen. McCain’s leadership qualities—it reflects on his honor. What Nicole Wallace and Steve Schmidt are doing, and what others are doing in propagating lies about Gov. Palin, is dishonorable; that Sen. McCain is allowing this to happen without challenging it is even more dishonorable. He owes it to his running mate to do better.

Whither Sarah Palin? (update/repost)

Taken all in all, I incline to think that John McCain’s loss this past Tuesday will prove a boon to Gov. Palin’s political career. To be sure, the folks who ran the McCain campaign are trying pretty hard to pin his loss on her, as a way of shifting the blame off themselves—but I don’t think anyone’s buying it; indeed, from the reactions I’ve seen so far, the only people they’re hurting are themselves. Throw in the interesting and quite plausible suggestion from Matt Lewis that this isn’t about 2008 at all, but rather is an attempt at a pre-emptive strike for 2012 by a potential competitor, and there just doesn’t seem to be any reason to take these criticisms seriously. As long as Gov. Palin keeps staying above the fray, she should come through unscathed by her ticket’s defeat.That’s a good thing, because a victory might well have done harm to her future career prospects. The odds are pretty good that things are only going to get worse over the next few years, and that the GOP’s current minority will prove to be a blessing in disguise; of course, for that to prove out, change will need to come to the party, but Gov. Palin is now in an unfettered position to help bring that change—which she would not have been as VP. As such, given that her geographical obscurity has been wiped out by two months in the national spotlight and that she now has a deep and strong base of support in the national GOP, she’s in a stronger political position going back to Juneau than she would have had in Washington, D. C.That still leaves the question, what next?At this point, Gov. Palin would have to be regarded as the frontrunner for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012, but a lot of things can happen in four years; if she just rests on her laurels, she’ll see others pass her by. She needs to take her position as a leader in (if not formally of) the national party and use it, both to strengthen her own position and to advance the GOP cause. To do this, of course, she needs to keep herself out there as a national politician. The usual way to do this is to run for the Senate, but in her case, that probably isn’t the best option.She could, of course; at this point, it looks like Ted Stevens has won re-election despite his conviction, which almost certainly will mean either his resignation or his expulsion by the Senate to serve his sentence. This will trigger a special election to fill his seat, and Gov. Palin could run—and some people are already urging her to do so. The benefit to that would be that if she runs, she’ll win, which will give her a safe seat through the next presidential election cycle; if she doesn’t, that gives the Left two years to hammer her and try to bring her down before her term as governor is up in 2010. The question is, would this be a good opportunity? Sen. Stevens earned a rock-solid seat by bringing home large quantities of pork, on which the state of Alaska is largely dependent, given how much of the state is owned by the feds. Gov. Palin has done a fair bit in her time in office to reduce that dependence, but there’s a lot more work to do in that regard; for her to run for the Pork King’s seat on a pledge not to seek pork and to keep that pledge could put her in a very difficult political position down the line—and for her to do anything else would ruin her nationally.Alternatively, Gov. Palin could wait until 2010 and challenge Sen. Lisa Murkowski in the Republican primary; if she did so, however, she would be running for that seat not in order to serve in the Senate, but to run for the Senate simply in order to facilitate a presidential run that would begin shortly after she took her seat would be the worst sort of politics, and it seems hard to believe that Alaskans would go along with it. What’s more, such a tacky move would only damage her standing and reputation.Given that, it seems that Gov. Palin will need to work by other means to keep herself on the national stage. There are several ways by which she can do this. One, as Adam Brickley notes, is to do her job as Governor of Alaska, and in particular to do everything possible to expedite the building of the natural-gas pipeline. This, combined with intelligent national advocacy of drilling in ANWR, will serve to strengthen the country both domestically and in its international position, to strengthen the identification of the national GOP with domestic energy production and energy independence, and also to help her maintain a high national profile as a conservative reformer who gets things done.Another thought Adam had, which hadn’t occurred to me, would be for Gov. Palin to establish a PAC and do fundraising for national Republican candidates for 2010. By doing this, she could give the congressional GOP a real boost two years from now, as well as building support and loyalty among other leaders in the party. Even better, along with sending them money, she could spend time campaigning for Republican candidates across the country, using her own formidable political skills directly to boost their chances. Given that she will be a marked woman for the national Democratic Party in 2010, it might even be better for her not to seek re-election, but to take the time she would need to spend campaigning for herself and invest it instead in other Republican candidates (including, of course, Sean Parnell or whoever would be the GOP candidate to replace her in Juneau). Of course, if she did so, she would need to find another job, but I’ll come back to that in a minute.Before addressing that point, it should also be said that Gov. Palin would do well to work to win over conservative skeptics like Charles Krauthammer, Kathleen Parker, George Will, David Brooks, and Christopher Buckley—not because their opinions are particularly important, but because impressing those who ought to be her supporters and currently aren’t is the most direct way to establish herself as the true standard-bearer of the Republican Party. The best way to do this is to address the current lack of a strong conservative identity in the national party, strengthening it and bringing it back to its roots, and to do so in a way which also dispells the easy caricature of her as an intellectual lightweight. Therefore, as one who framed the troubling challenge presented by Iran with the question “what would Reagan do?” I would suggest (as would Jim Geraghty) that Gov. Palin should ask herself the same question, and do what Gov. Reagan did in the 1970s:

Reagan . . . [spent] years in the 1970s mulling the great issues of the day, reading voraciously, and presenting detailed commentaries on everything from the SALT and Law of the Sea treaties to revultions in Sub-Saharan Africa to the future of Medicare. Then and only then, finally, after 16 years on the national stage, did the GOP give Ronald Reagan its nomination and present him as its candidate for the presidency.

Obviously, she’s still going to have her day job, at least through 2010; but in and around that, and raising her kids, I believe Gov. Palin should devote as much time as she can to studying and writing on the great issues of our own day. Keep building her governing experience dealing with the challenges of Juneau—and as much as possible, take advantage of that to use Alaska as a “laboratory of democracy” on issues like health care—but engage intellectually as well with the challenges of Iran and Pakistan, Social Security and judicial philosophy, the future of NATO and how to deal with a resurgent Russia, practical approaches to changing the system in D.C., and what our stance ought to be toward China. Co-author pieces with leading conservative intellectuals—maybe an article on judicial nominations with Antonin Scalia, to throw out one wild idea. Help rebuild the conservative intellectual treasury that was squandered by the GOP during its time in power. And off these articles (and perhaps books), I’d like to see her give speeches under the auspices of the Hoover Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, the Ethics and Public Policy Foundation, the Institute for Religion and Public Life, and other such organizations. If she does decide not to seek re-election at the end of her term, she could go to work for an organization like AEI, or perhaps in the national party leadership structure, and use that as a platform to continue developing and arguing for her conservative agenda.In short, I believe Gov. Palin should keep her name out there, not just by doing political things (though she should certainly continue as she has begun in Alaska), but by using both her position and her gifts to articulate, develop and defend conservative political philosophy and its applications. In so doing, if over the next four years voters become accustomed to seeing her name and picture appear along with insightful, well-argued, thought-provoking pieces in places like The Atlantic, the Wall Street Journal, conservative opinion magazines such as National Review, the Weekly Standard, and The American Spectator, websites like RealClearPolitics, and perhaps even on occasion in the MSM if they allow it—including, on topics which make it possible, illustrations from her own achievements in Alaska—then she’ll maintain her public profile but in a way that gives the lie to those who’ve tried to dismiss her; and along the way, she’ll reinvigorate American conservatism in much the same way as Ronald Reagan did, and help the GOP along in the necessary task of taking stock and getting back to being the party it needs to be. Two birds, one stone—and an entirely fitting task for one who would be her party’s leader, to start by leading it back to its soul.

On this blog in history: November 2004

This is a special-edition retrospective post; call it an opportunity to compare and contrast post-election responses from this year with those from four years ago.Electoral musings, part I
Howard Fineman (and others) on the one hand, and the moral arrogance of Peter Beinart on the other.Electoral musings, NYC edition
Nicholas Kristof, Thomas Friedman, and the failure of many liberals to understand conservatives on our own terms.Electoral musings, Canadian edition
A link to the great David Warren’s column on Bush’s re-election.Electoral musings, moral values edition
On the effect of “moral values” on the 2004 election, and the idea that branding liberal positions with the label “moral values” is the key to Democratic victory.Electoral musings, part V
The comforting explanation: “We lost because voters are stupid.”Electoral musings, attitude edition
On the Democratic Party and its attitude toward Christianity. (Barack Obama makes a cameo appearance, in one of the columns I linked here; the Denver Post column is no longer up.)Electoral musings, theological edition
A link to the invaluable Rev. Dr. Mark D. Roberts and his excellent reflections on a proper Christian approach to politics and elections.

Be careful what you ask for: you just might get it

Words of wisdom at any time, but probably now more than most, at least with respect to the 2008 election. I’m not as sanguine as Perry de Havilland of Samizdata—I confess to a full measure of unease at what’s coming—but taken all in all, I don’t know that I’d be much happier if things had gone the other way; and if I were on the other side of the political aisle, I would still regard the election results as a decidedly mixed blessing. I’ve already noted Gerard Baker’s observation in the Times that this presidential election was a bad one to win, because of the daunting challenges our nation will face over the next several years; which is part of the reason why the aforementioned Perry de Havilland is so pleased that Barack Obama won:

Unlike many, well, most of my compatriots, I am not filled with a deep sense of gloom and foreboding at the prospect of the most left wing president since FDR gaining the Whitehouse. In truth, I can see many reasons to think it may well be a far better outcome than if a Big State Republican like McCain won.Of course Obama will bring an avalanche of policies that will be truly appalling and quite wicked, of that I have no doubt, much like his predecessors in office in that respect. As the global economy continues to come unglued, everything Obama does to deal with the mounting crises will in fact make things worse. Civil liberties will be hammered, all in the name of ‘fairness’, and the flood of regulations pertaining to every aspect of life will grow into a drowning ocean.And that is actually the good news.Why? Because in truth the Republicans under John “I support the bailout” McCain would scarcely have done much better. The economic global meltdown is only just starting to roll: if you think the sub-prime mortgage crisis was the biggie, just wait until you see the fallout from the fun and frolics of the impending mess in other areas, such as debt swaps. This is all going to get worse, a lot worse, and Obama is going to do absolutely everything to dig the holes deeper. Looking back on this period ten to twenty years from now, the Republicans crying into their beer tonight will be saying “thank Christ it was not us in office then”.The lesser evil is not going to win this time and much as it may not seem that way now . . . or any time soon I suspect . . . in the long run this has a far far better chance of leading to the rebirth of a genuine pro-liberty, pro-market political culture, something which the gradual incremental surrender of recent times made impossible (such as the ‘pragmatic voting’ of people who want a smaller state for Republican candidates who ended up growing the regulatory state).Many will find the glee of the statist left over the next few days and weeks hard to endure, but to be honest I have been walking around with a grin all day. Finally the era of gradualism is over and the masks are going to come off. The USA has voted for statism and it is going to get exactly what it voted for at a juncture in history where it will very quickly be impossible to hide the cost of those votes.Obama is not the start of a new era, he is the death knell for the old one.

I tend to agree, though without quite the same assurance; which is why I have the strong suspicion that many if not most of the folks who were celebrating Tuesday night will end up rueing their victory—and perhaps Barack Obama more than anyone. Be careful what you ask for . . .

Rounding up conservative reactions

I’ll use this as a catchall links post, and add more as I get to them. The first several are guest posters at Between Two Worlds, courtesy of Justin Taylor.Eric Redmond: “Living Soli Deo Gloria Under Obama”Randy Alcorn: “It’s Over; But It’s Not Over (One Day It Will Be)”Francis Beckwith: “Thoughts on the Election”Anthony Carter: “Poetic Providence”Stayin Alive: Pro-Life Advocacy in the Obama Era. An Interview with Scott KlusendorfAl Mohler: America Has Chosen a PresidentLigon Duncan: Some Initial Thoughts on Praying for President-Elect ObamaBaseball Crank: Obama Administration Survival GuideEd Morrissey: Learning to be the loyal oppositionClaudia Rosett: It’s Time To Restore Liberty (HT: Ed Morrissey)Michelle Malkin: Gird your loins, conservativesAaron Gardner: Back to The FutureRobert Bluey: GOP Has Been Down This Road BeforeVictor Davis Hanson: The Day AfterJohn Hawkins: The Rightosphere Copes with DefeatThe Anchoress: Bush, Obama, & Ghosts of HateJeff Wright: Hoping For, Even If Not Expecting, A Successful Obama AdministrationKarl Rove: A Way Out of the Wilderness