I've watched, for the last few months, the discussion swirling around the interwebz about Barack Obama's Messianic Complex. There's even a name for him that goes along with it - ObaMessiah. I've stayed out of the discussion simply because I don't care to dilute the title and work of the person I believe to be the real Messiah by sullying His name and reputation by association and comparison.
Still, when you have a man making statements like, "I am the only thing standing between you and the pitchforks", it becomes difficult to argue that he does not have some sort of Messianic or Savior opinion of himself, regardless of the validity of such a claim or charge.
Which brings me to the point of my post. The terms Messiah and Savior are not isolated. They have meaning in our general lexicon only because they first have meaning in a very specific lexicon - that of Judeo-Christian theology. Because of that, it is legitimate to analyze any application of the titles to a person in terms of the meaning they have in that specific lexicon.
Most people understand that Judaism and Christianity, in using the terms Messiah and Savior, are looking to a Deliverer. A Person Who will save the people from their sin and from themselves and their inadequacies. This general description of the theological positions need not be agreed with in order to recognize that it is a valid description of the theology involved.
What is missed is the larger picture of the Savior or the Messiah. In order to be able to save the people, the people must believe in the Savior enough to do what He says - not just in the salvation process but afterward as that salvation is practically worked out in the followers day to day existence. What this means, in practical terms, is that anyone able enough to be a Savior will also be a Master.
Judeo-Christian thought as taught in the Old and New Testaments reveal a Savior and a Master that is worthy of following and obeying as He is at all times shown to have the best interests of His followers in mind. His actions are selfless and his instructions are for our good. The last part of the equation is of particular importance because it is precisely here we find out whether or not the person who we believed in enough to trust with "saving" us is really a Savior or just the next in a long line of selfish deceivers. It's not enough to be a good Savior. One must be a good Master, too.
Too many people believed Obama and his "Hope and Change" message would "save" them without considering what they were agreeing to be "mastered" by. Now that the Savior is in office and is handing out orders, we're seeing exactly the sort of Master a bit over 50% of the people in this country provided for themselves and the rest of us.
Mortgaging our financial future, devaluing our currency, surrendering our sovereignty, bankrupting our economy, dissolving our relationships, undermining our morality, denying our rights, dividing us to conquer us - all this and more is being required of you and me. There can be no dissent or objection, not even from the people who handed power to him in the first place. And the concept of Savior permits no objection when the Master speaks.
Except in one case. If it turns out that the Master is a harsh one with a hard burden and a heavy yoke, then it is clear he does not fulfill the proper role of Master. If he is an illegitimate Master, then he cannot be a legitimate Savior either. And if he is not the Savior ... then why should we trust him at all?
Those are the questions I find myself asking. When I consider Barack Obama, what sort of Savior is he? What manner of Master is he? I know how I have answered those questions. What say you?