TDad's Purr and Roar

Food Stamps and Mr. Gingrich

2012-01-17T22:17:00.000-06:00

For those like Newt who are still confused that anyone wouldtake offense, the problem isn’t political correctness; it is factual andlogical correctness:

· Most African Americans are NOT on food stamps.

· Most people on food stamps are NOT AfricanAmerican, the greatest percentage are White.

· Most African American adults ARE working.

· Most adults on food stamps ARE working.

· Most poor adults are either working or trying towork.

· Great work ethics and poor work ethics persistacross the economic spectrum.

· Many hard-working people still can’t feed theirfamilies.

While Mr. Gingrich may be factually correct by stating, “More people have been put on food stamps byBarack Obama than any president in American history,” it is disingenuous tolabel President Obama “The Food Stamp President,” without considering WHY somany more people are now on food stamps.

Did I saydisingenuous? I mean it is a LIE to say that President Obama wants to makepeople dependent on the government. President Obama wants to dig the countryout of an economic rut and to provide relief to its struggling citizens in themeantime.

Mr. Gingrich’s solutions are based on a distorted, misguided,and erroneous perception of the problems. His rhetoric may resonate with lots of people, but he and those peopleare ill-informed—not that I think the right information will change theirminds.

A Father's Blessing

2011-10-21T23:56:00.000-05:00

I know this plays like a commercial, but it's really just another excuse to talkabout the grandkids. The occasion is the release of the updated version of The Blessing, John Trent and Gary’s Smalley’s popular family-oriented, Christian “self-help”book, originally published in 1986.

I read the book back then, and as aChristian with a fairly recent psychology degree and a strong desire to raise afamily, it punched all my buttons. Problem was I didn’t have a family of myown. I wasn’t married; I wasn’t even dating. So it was a bit like reading escapistfiction for me. But now, of course, myworld is different. I'm married and occasionally dating (my WIFE, silly people!);I count six kids and seven grandkids.

My grandson Damon had a tough time last school year. He is now in 1^st grade for the second time. Thisyear, he’s doing well academically, but it’s taken a while for him to deal withthis thing emotionally. It seems that repeating a grade and trying to fit intoa new school are not easy realities to get used to.

Laura, my wife, and I get to seehim every morning. Before we pick up his cousin Elliott for the day, we travelto Damon’s house to drive him to school. When we get to Damon’s house each schooldaymorning, his mom, Chrissy, has already taken his brothers Christian and Dylanto their schools on her way to work. Brother Michael is also at work. Damon is at home with his daddy, Thomas,who is there after having worked into the evening. Damon's little sisters, Chelsea andZoey, are usually sleeping.

Before leaving the house withDamon, we ask him, “Did you do you homework? Did you get your folder signed?Are you all set?” It’s the ritual. The last part of the ritual is when he goesto his daddy. Thomas hugs him, holds him close, and whispers a prayer for theday. He challenges Damon to do his best, to obey his teachers, to be kind tohis classmates. He says “I love you,” and kisses him. Damon is then ready toface his day.

That moment lasts less than aminute each day, but it makes all the difference in the world for how Damonnavigates that day. Thomas bestows a blessing on Damon.

That’s The Blessing John Trent andGary Smalley describe in their book. Their contention is that The Blessingbestowed upon our children (our grandchildren, spouses, other family membersand friends) can make a difference in how they navigate, not just one day, buttheir entire lives. For the authors there are five elements to The Blessing:

1. Usemeaningful and appropriate touch.

2. Use aspoken message of encouragement.

3. Attachhigh value. Communicate that person’s value.

4. Helpthem picture a special future.

5.Actively commit to helping them succeed.

I’d like to say that I taughtThomas everything he knows in this regard, but it wouldn’t be true. Thomas isone of those rare people gifted by God as a natural nurturer, a naturalencourager. Most of us are not like that. Most of us need help learning how tobestow that blessing. For us, the book, The Blessing, can help.

Why We Ignored Jesus

2011-09-15T21:52:00.000-05:00

And when you fast, do not look miserable as the actors and hypocrites do when they are fasting--they walk around town putting on airs about their suffering and weakness, complaining about how hungry they are. So everyone will know they are fasting, they don't wash or anoint themselves with oil, pink their cheeks, or wear comfortable shoes. Those who show off their piety, they have already received their reward. When you fast, wash your face and beautify yourself with oil, so no one who looks at you will know about your discipline. Matthew 5:16-18a, The Voice

If you know me on FB or IRL, you have probably heard about the fast that Laura I undertook for 5 days. It was a vegetable and fruit fast, which means we could eat and drink only those foods. If you've heard about it, it's because we haven’t exactly been quiet about it, even though Jesus said what you read above. To be fair, my transgression has been way more egregious than Laura’s, but she’s not exactly been closemouthed (except toward meat and bread and all grains and legumes and dairy and anything else you would ingest that isn't fruit or vegetable) either.

So how do we justify our total disregard for Jesus’ words?

Well, looking righteous wasn't our reason for advertising the fast. And if you're tempted to think we're wonderful for undertaking this fast, you are very generous (thank you), but you should know that we quit a meal short of our goal (unfortunately that one meal wasn't very satisfying). So we are at best one meal shy of wonderful.

We also did not publicize our venture to gain pity, although I sometimes live like a disciple of Seinfeld’s George Constanza who once said, "Pity's very underrated. I like pity. It's good." Any pity I solicited (one person called me "grumpy") or mock guilt I inflicted was just for entertainment, pretending that we were actually suffering. The truth is we burdened ourselves with eating and drinking only all the fruits and vegetables we could--no real burden.

Ours was not a true commitment; it was an experiment. It all started when Kimberly texted her mother to recommend a movie about fat. I didn't care to see it, but with only end-of-the-summer TV to relax with, I agreed to give it a shot. The movie was Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead, and 30 minutes in, we stopped it and went out to buy a juicer.

People fast for any number or reasons. Our fast was for physical health reasons, not for spiritual purification or growth or for political or spiritual leverage, although we are well aware of the connections between our spiritual, mental, and physical health. And we are aware that Jesus is an equal opportunity physician--healing body, mind, spirit, and even the social order.

In sum, I don’t believe our fast has anything to do with what Jesus was talking about. The attitudes and actions Jesus warns against were about self-congratulating and solicitation of pity. We had neither of those intentions.

We did, however, want people to know about our fast. Did I mention that we couldn't eat meat, bread, grains, legumes, or dairy? They even frowned upon potatoes. Potatoes!

Out of Tragedy, Triumph?

2011-09-11T19:09:00.000-05:00

This morning after listening to Neil Young’s “Let’s Roll,” Iplayed the collection America: A Tribute to Heroes, from the 9/11 telethon.Lots of moving music, but for me the standouts are always this rendition ofSting’s “Fragile,” and Celine Dion’s classic version of “God Bless America.”

Then we headed for church, where we read together Isaiah43:2-3b,

When you pass through the waters, I will be with you;

And through the rivers, they shall notoverflow you.

When you walk through the fire, you shallnot be burned,

Nor shall the flame scorch you.

For I am the LORD your God. (NKJV)

(When I got home, I heard similar themes reflected in Psalm 46, whichPresident Obama read at Ground Zero. It reads in part:

God isour refuge and strength,

Avery present help in trouble.

Therefore we will not fear,

Eventhough the earth be removed,

Andthough the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea;

Though its waters roar andbe troubled,

Though the mountains shake with itsswelling. Selah

Thereis a river whose streams shall make glad the city of God,

Theholy place of the tabernacle ofthe Most High.)

Our pastor, Stephen Handy, commemorated 9/11 with fourstatements.

He said, “In the midst of tragedy, there is triumph.” Surelyhe speaks truth. First we heard the heroics of firefighters, police officers,EMTs and ordinary citizens--not the least of whom were a small band of airplanepassengers--who risked their lives preventing further tragedy. The days andweeks that followed 9/11 showed a renewal of the American spirit of community,as President Obama highlights in his USA Today op-ed.

Reflecting on the horrors of the day, Pastor Stephen also noted,“God is still with us.” Look around, and while you might find reason toconvince otherwise, open eyes will se that if God was ever with us, God isstill with us.

Pastor Stephen concluded with the statement “So I thank Godfor 9/11.” I can share his gratitude, simply because I find it helpful to thankGod for nearly everything, looking for the good even in the midst of horrifyingbad.

But this commemoration taxes my gratitude efforts because of PastorStephen’s first statement. He declared, “We are better people because of thatday.” I love and respect our Pastor, but I can’t agree with this statement. Thanking God, even inthe midst of tragedy, draws on faith in a loving, just, good God. God’s goodness isat the core of my faith, a starting place.

I need that faith because humans do not command that same confidence. I can agree with both my pastor and our President that we saw betterpeople during the attack and in the immediately following days and weeks, and wehave seen better people in the sacrifices of those who have enlisted and servedto assure that this kind of tragedy won’t happen again. But I cannot say with anydegree of confidence that we Americans as a people are better. We came together as a community and we began to remember our presenceas part of the global community—all for a mere moment.

Since then we have seenthe most divisive and mean-spirited attitudes I can remember in my adult life—allwithout any real cause. To me we are an uglier people.

But perhaps with these memorable songs, these moving commemorations,these somber remembrances, we can also remember those post 9/11 days and try torecapture that spirit. Perhaps we can remember the God who walks with us throughfire, storm, and unbelievable horror. And perhaps we can become the betterpeople my pastor calls us.

Love & War & the Sea In-Between: A Music Review

2011-06-26T22:10:00.000-05:00

I’ve been downloading music from NoiseTrade for months now. Fortunately for anyone accessing my Facebook page, the NoiseTrade folks no longer insist that I announce to you every time I download free music. Often I download stuff that I haven’t fully appreciated yet, and I’m not sure I want you to know about it. Some of it is still sitting in a folder waiting for me to give it the time of day.

NoiseTrade is great! You can download a song, a few songs, or a preset sampler of indie music. I’m not sure who owns the place, but there is a good bit of folk, pop, rock, Americana, and singer-songwriter stuff; if you look for it, you can find R&B and hip-hop, as well. A good bit of it has a Christian bent, but I’m not sure why. The quality varies, and your personal taste will determine whether it’s worth your time and trouble. But it’s certainly worth your money, since you aren’t risking any (Feel free to tip, though).

Occasionally an artist will offer a complete album. Such was the case with Josh Garrels’ Love & War & the Sea In-Between: an 18-song collection. This daring songwriter demands that we believe that free music doesn’t have to sound cheap (or come cheaply).

To make his point right out of the barrel, Garrels dares to make the music itself interesting. I didn’t suspect he was a Christian believer when I began the listen, and the opening instrumental notes did nothing to divulge his secret. I know: Christian music is supposed to be defined by the words. But unfortunately too much Christian music resembles the caricature in the “Jesus Fish” episode of Seinfeld years ago. Before you even hear the words, the unimaginative instrumentation signals: You are beginning a Christian song. The opening sounds expose the agenda, as if the music holds no creative substance of its own; it exists only to service the lyrical message.

Forgive me if you are a Christian musician who proves otherwise. You are in good company with Josh Garrels. Before the lyrics threaten with some slave-driving whip, Garrels serves notice: this is a musical/lyrical collaboration. Then four songs in, he hammers the point with the first of several instrumentals! This one relies on electronica, the next one rests in Celtic acoustics.

But back to the first song. When the vocals do kick in, you know what you’re in for: Garrels is a Ray LaMontagne sound-alike. Or is it Dave Matthews, or David Gray? Not bad voices to sound like. Like them all Josh conveys raw emotion, his comes as raspy and folky expression. Then you realize that he’s no sound alike. But that’s the kind of artist you get with Garrels. Except on the instrumentals. Oh, and on #5, "The Resistance,” which is a rap song (a la Jason Mraz). So he’s a little difficult to pigeonhole.

Once you are taken in by the music and the voice, you get caught up in the poetry, the cinemascapes painted by word. The poetry, the songcraft, the orchestration, the stylistic diversity, the vocal range. All of these arrest the attention.

You catch the beauty, and it’s only later that you might recognize that the beauty is grounded in the Christian story. In fact, the truly remarkable accomplishment of this gallery is that Garrels uses both direct and allusive biblical references, without ever sounding trite. Anyone familiar with the biblical text or with gospel music will recognize the connections. This is no more evident than on “Farther Along,” the entrancing 4^th song, which lifts from Albert Tinley’s timeless gospel song, “We’ll Understand It Better By and By.” And like the best gospel songs and the biblical text, Garrels recognizes that religious topics cannot legitimately be removed from real life. Witness the various compositions (“For You,” and “Million Miles,” especially) that speak of romantic love better than your average pop song.

I finally went to Garrells’ website, driven largely by my curiosity of why a struggling musician would give away music of this quality. He says that he “felt led of the Lord” to release this album for a year for free. I’m not sure what the Lord had in mind; I mean this is not missionary music like Keith Green’s So You Wanna Go Back to Egypt way back in 1980. But I’m hoping Garrels’ (and the Lord’s) gamble pays off. I for one have already paid money to hear 15 more songs from Garrrels off of 2008’s Jacaranda. I’m counting on the same caliber of music as I’ve already heard. If you’re not willing to shell out 10 bucks just based on my recommendation, at least hurry over to NoiseTrade or to Josh’s own site to download the new free album. If you like it as much as I did, you’ll probably find yourself letting go of a few dollars to hear more.

I Love God and Country

2011-03-13T19:18:00.001-05:00

When I "liked" the "I love God and country" page on Facebook, I kinda suspected that many of my fellow "likers" meant something different from what I meant. I meant that I love God and I love my country. For me they are separate loves, not a joint-love.

Based on comments from the page, I was right in my suspicions: others see things differently. Some declare that only those who love God can love their country. Some say explicitly that only those who love the United States of America can love God. Some say that loving the USA is the same as loving God. Many suggest that God of the Bible belongs to America, as if we own the God of the Universe.

But God doesn’t belong to any of us in the US. We didn’t invent God. We didn’t in any way originate God. Truly my Bible tells me that God originated this nation. But it also says that God originated all other nations as well.

So when I say I love God and country, I am hoping that people in Germany and Cote d’Ivoire and Brazil and North Korea and Uzbekistan and Libya will chime in with “I love God and Country too!” And I hope they will mean the same thing I mean: As an American (or a German or a Brazilian) I am proud of my country (despite its imperfections). And as a Christian, I believe there is only one God (though numerous gods) and I love that God of All Nations.

The Word of God Is Alive and Active!

2011-03-08T20:30:00.003-06:00

Rena Peterson woke every morning for two years praying the same prayer, “God you woke me up this morning, and I’m still alive, so you better have something for me to do!” Rena, who is my mom, was grieving the loss of my dad, her husband of 46 years, who died after a prolonged illness. Mom had been his caretaker, and when he was gone, she wanted to be gone too. Day after day she prayed her indignant prayer. And week after week she attended church.

Mom and her Breakfast Club friends

Then one Sunday she heard about a ministry of feeding breakfast burritos to homeless people. She decided to join the group one Saturday. Then she returned the next week. Mom returned every week and began asking the displaced folks what else they would like to eat.

Now nine years later she spends her weeks preparing the Saturday morning meal. The menu has expanded from breakfast burritos to beans and rice, fried chicken, and greens. Mom continues to change the menu according to the needs and desires of new friends. She and the other members of “The Breakfast Club” also offer prayer, friendship and spiritual food to their displaced neighbors.

Mom’s story is featured in my first Bible project, which releases today! The Take Action Bible also introduces 14 other stories of ordinary people who have put God’s Word into action (There are even more stories here). The stories are covered in five full color sections inserted throughout the text of the Bible. Each section (Go, Serve, Give, Teach, Heal) includes three stories, a Scriptural passage and questions for reflection. This Bible also includes a list of 52 simple actions most anyone could take, based in Scripture.

I’m thrilled that my first project at my new employer is this Bible that emphasizes mission and action!

And the Idiocy Grows

2011-02-18T11:18:00.000-06:00

I am aware that ignorance and blinding suspicion are no respecters of parties. But this one I have to call out. According to Public Policy Polling, 51% of likely Republican voters believe that Barack Obama was not born in the USA. Another 21% say they are not sure. I suspect that that latter group doesn’t mean “not sure” in the same way that they are “not sure” of the birthplaces of our other 43 Presidents, whose birth certificates they likely have not seen.

That means that, regardless of what they think of his political philosophy or his stands on the issues, only 28% of likely Republican voters are confident that President Barack Obama is legitimately President of the United States. With that little confidence in his legitimacy, how can you even begin to listen to anything he has to say? If he is illegitimate, if he has perpetrated this fraud on the US public, you might as well assume that every act he makes, every word he says is all part of a plot to destroy America.

When it was just a handful of crazies during the 2008 presidential campaign, this birther nonsense was just silly. When it persisted after the election and against all the evidence, it annoyed me. Now that 51 % of voting Republicans have signed on to the idiocy, I am disgusted.

I am not disgusted by disagreement with the President; this is the United States of America And I know that some of my Republican and conservative friends simply differ with their President on the issues and on political philosophy. To those people, I offer my respect. I’ll be glad to discuss political philosophy with you, especially from a Christian perspective at another time. And if you get lumped in with your ignorant fellow conservatives, I offer my apology. But for those 51% or your Republican comrades, I have a few more things to say.

Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural

2011-02-12T10:44:00.000-06:00

I try to read this every year. It may be my favorite speech of all time. In honor of Abraham Lincoln's 202nd birthday:

Abraham Lincoln
Saturday, March 4, 1865
Fellow Countrymen:

At this second appearing to take the oath of the presidential office, there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement, somewhat in detail, of a course to be pursued, seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention, and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself; and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago, all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil-war. All dreaded it -- all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war -- seeking to dissolve the Union, and divide effects, by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came.

One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war, the magnitude, or the duration, which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses! for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh!" If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope -- fervently do we pray -- that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether."

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan -- to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.

From Every People and Nation, Intro

2011-02-06T13:46:00.001-06:00

Several weeks ago I promised to post excerpts from the provocative, insightful book From Every People and Nation: A Biblical Theology of Race, by Dr. J. Daniel Hays. The book, written by a self-identified conservative, white biblical theologian traces the picture of race issues throughout the Bible. This first installment is from the book’s introduction:

Not long ago, in a conversation with my colleague Dr. Isaac Mwase, a Black professor and pastor of a local Black congregation, I mentioned that the race problem was an important issue for the Church today. Isaac quickly corrected me by stating emphatically that it is the most important issue for the Church today. This conversation illustrates to some degree of phenomenon that I encountered regularly as I read through some of the recent literature dealing with the race problem in the Church today. Black scholars identify the racial division in the Church as one of the most central problems for contemporary Christianity, while many White scholars are saying, “What problem?”

Likewise, even among those who acknowledge the problem, there is a wide difference of opinion concerning just how bad the problem is and whether the situation is improving or deteriorating. On the one hand, in recent years tremendous progress appears to have been achieved. (D.A.) Carson, for example, documents evangelical churches on the east coast and the west coast of North American that are doing a remarkable job of integrating (Love in Hard Places, 2002, 95-96). Particularly among many White Christians, there is the perception that in these regions things have improved; even in the south and the Midwest many feel that although lagging behind the rest of the country, the race problem is not nearly as pronounced as it was a generation ago.

On the other hand, some have observed that the evidence for this perception is often anecdotal, and actual statistical survey data appear to suggest otherwise. Emerson and Smith in Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America (2000) study the problem, through statistical data based on actual nationwide surveys and interviews. They point out that there is tremendous disparity between the way Whit evangelicals view the problem and the way Black evangelicals view the problem. They also note that the phenomenon cuts across regional lines. Their studies indicate that two-thirds of White Christians believe that the situation for Blacks is improving, while two-thirds of Black Christians believe that the situation for Blacks is deteriorating. The survey data have led Emerson and Smith to pessimistic conclusions….

Emerson and Smith (p171) also suggest that one of the underlying factors hindering evangelicalism’s ability to address the race issues adequately is that evangelicals have a tendency to define problems in simple terms and to look for simple solutions. The race issue, on the other hand is extremely complex, involving history, tradition, culture, religion, economics, politics, and a host of other factors.…

Although there are some significant exceptions, in general there is silence in White evangelical congregations concerning the biblical teaching on this issue. Within these congregations, the current attitude of many Whites often falls into one of three categories. First, some people are still entrenched in their inherited racism. They are interested in the Bible if it reinforces their prejudiced views; otherwise they do not care what the Bible says about race. Second, many people assume that the Bible simply does not speak to the race issue, and particularly the Black-White issue. Third many others are simply indifferent to the problem, assuming the status quo is acceptable and that the Bible supports their current practices.

These views appear to carry over into academia as well. Indeed evangelical biblical and theological scholarship has continued to remain nearly silent on this issue, even though indications of the scope of the problem are obvious.

So here's the first installment. What are your thoughts?

Dr. King, Persecution, and the Art of Prayer

2011-01-17T15:51:00.001-06:00

The 1960s, the heyday of the civil rights movement, saw a polarized, volatile American public. At the symbolic center of the vitriolic rhetoric stood the figure of Martin Luther King Jr., hailed by some as a messianic hero and demonized by others as an un-American antagonist with evil intent.

Today Dr. King is more symbol than human. And despite the exposed human faults of the actual man, his human virtues are worthy of the symbol. For his endurance in the face of opposition, for his subjection to a campaign of lies, for his refusal to retaliate, for his submission to physical violence, for his suffering unjust incarceration, for his brandishing powerful nonviolent rhetoric, and for his proclamation of clear, if not universally accepted moral truth, Martin Luther King Jr. remains one of our nation’s most revered figures.

The persecution Dr. King endured was not feigned. It was no perceived attack with roots in legitimate criticism. His life, the lives of his compatriots, and the lives of their families were continually threatened, and the threats were punctuated with a series of actual incidents of horrible physical violence. He had little recourse in local government, who threatened and imposed further violence and incarceration. And the federal intervention was obviously too little too late.

Still when it came time for MLK to mount a rhetorical defense, he always chose to defend the cause of the needy, the oppressed, the poor, and the outcast. He never defended himself. He stood up for justice and truth, not himself.

Where did that moral stance come from? How could he endure what he endured and remain focused on truth and justice rather than on charges of persecution, which were real and not imagined? What kept him from crying “Persecution!” even when the threats became everyday realities of actual violence?

Perhaps the difference between Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and those who claim persecution today is born of King’s prayer life. Vanderbilt University’s Dr. Lewis Baldwin hints at as much in one of two new Baldwin release on Dr. King, Never to Leave Us Alone, published by Fortress Press (the other release is The Voice of Conscience: The Church in the Mind of Martin Luther King, Jr., published by Oxford University Press).

In Never to Leave Us Alone, Baldwin traces King’s prayer life. He begins by capturing the wellsprings of the African American prayer tradition that fed the young King. He follows with Kings’ experiences and writings as a young man at Morehouse College, Crozer Theological Seminary, and Boston University.

In three more chapters Baldwin opens up the period of Dr. King’s civil rights career leading to his violent death. Each of these three chapters captures a different aspect of the same period. First Baldwin looks at prayer and preaching, then at the power of pastoral prayers, and then at prayer as the heart of movement of the civil rights movement. In a final chapter, http://www.smileyandwest.com/transcripts-pdf/101810_smileyandwest-transcripts.pdf reminds us of what we can learn from King and why he remains a respected figure around the world.

Discussing the book, radio and television host Tavis Smiley asked Baldwin, ”What was Martin praying for? It’s one thing to talk about his prayer life, but obviously it’s important to pray for the right things and to pray in the right way. Tell me more about what he was praying for and what his prayer process was. How did he call out to God?

Generalizing from his years of research, Baldwin answered, “He prayed for strength, his own personal strength, for guidance and direction in the movement. He also prayed for world peace. He prayed for guidance in the struggle for economic justice, in the struggle to overcome racial barriers, segregation in the society. He prayed for discipline and courageous leadership in the movement. He prayed for what he called “the least of these,” those who were in poverty, who had no jobs, who were devoid of medical care, who were ill-housed. His prayer, of course, had this social dimension. He majored in intercessory prayer—that is praying for others. His prayers were always relational.”

Baldwin documents Dr. King’s practice of renting a hotel room for a prayer-centered day, a “day of silence.” During those day-long retreats, King “poured his heart out to God,” he developed his own inner spiritual life, and he gained wisdom and the “attitudinal posture” required to keep moving forward in his God-ordained mission.

Central to Dr. King’s prayer life, according to Dr. Baldwin was the belief that prayers are to be lived as well as uttered. “Living prayer daily was, in King’s case, a cardinal principle, and this persists as part of his legacy for a nation and a world in which hypocrisy is perhaps more glaringly evident than ever before.”

Who can doubt that that living prayer sensibility is sorely needed in an age of commercially-driven bombast disguised as political rhetoric, when legitimate criticism is dismissed as illegitimate persecution. Dr. Baldwin reminds us that for Dr. King the method and the message can conspire to communicate truth. Prayer can keep the message and the method true. But even a true message can be dangerous.

A Biblical Theology of Race

2010-12-31T15:16:00.002-06:00

Just finished a provocative, insightful book, From Every People and Nation: A Biblical Theology of Race, by Dr. J. Daniel Hays.

I am aware that some of my Christian brothers and sisters believe the Bible doesn’t address race, except maybe to say “all men are created equal” (which the Bible DOESN”T explicitly say). Some Bible readers know that somewhere (Galatians 3:28) the Bible says something about “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Studious Christians have learned that the Bible was (and still is) used to defend slavery, racism, apartheid, and all the rights of the racially privileged, just as faithful Christians have employed the Bible in fighting against those atrocities.

But Dr. Hays aims for something more ambitious than these tidbits of Bible and race. First, I must say (and this, too will offend some of my white brothers and sisters) that Dr. Hays is a white, conservative (ThM, Dallas Theological Seminary; PhD, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary), evangelical professor (Pruet School of Christian Studies dean, and professor of Old Testament) at a southern Christian university (Ouachita Baptist University in Arkadelphia Arkansas). I mention his credentials in hopes that his arguments won’t be dismissed as biased, which is too easily done when the speaker is African American or some bleeding heart liberal atheist/agnostic.

This Dr. Hays makes the case that race issues permeate the Bible. While the Bible may be less than direct on these issues, it provides as much to draw from as it does for the proclamation of Four Spiritual Laws or Five propositional Points. Hays traces the biblical record from Genesis to Revelation and uncovers what just might be the heart of God on race. As a starting point he reveals the hidden racial nuances in those passages that we tend to graze over in the “begats,” the names of peoples, and the tables of nations. But his primary point is that race is not a peripheral issue in the Bible. For Hays, race issues are at the heart of the biblical story, at the heart of the mission of God, at the heart of the gospel of Jesus Christ!

Over the course of the next few days I hope to share Hays work by way of excerpt. I’ll begin with parts of his introduction and proceed with his chapter summaries (altered by adding in Scripture references from the meat of the chapters). I would love to hear responses to his words.

Prayer for National Leaders

2010-11-18T07:22:00.000-06:00

A 21st Century Worship Resource for Christ the King/Reign of Christ Sunday, Year CTony Peterson

(Inspired by Jeremiah 23:1 & 4)

Lord, we believe you when you say you will lead us. But we have suffered at the hands of those who would destroy and scatter your sheep. You promised that you would raise up shepherds who will gather us together so than no one will have to live in fear. So we look for those shepherds, Lord.

We pray for those who will do good and do right, for those who will protect the children, who will school the children, who will give the children hope.

We pray for those shepherds who will pursue peace, who will walk humbly, who will reconcile nations.

We pray for shepherds who will fight injustice, who stand on the side of justice.

We pray for shepherds who will feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and set at liberty the captives.

We pray for shepherds who will spread love, show mercy, and practice hospitality.

Lord, we pray for our shepherds; we pray for our people; we pray for our country; we pray for the nations.

Amen.

Tony Peterson, Associate Acquisitions Editor for Bibles at Thomas Nelson Publishers in Nashville, is a former employee of GBOD and a contributor to volumes A, B, and C of the Africana Worship Book.

From the Africana Worship Book for Year C. © Discipleship Resources. Used by permission.

Interested in reprinting this item? Please read Copyrights & Permissions

Stuff I Learned from a 15-Month Unplanned Sabbatical

2010-09-05T18:30:00.000-05:00

Labor Day Thoughts from a Guy Who is Recently Re-employed:

1. I love job security!

2. It is good and satisfying to work for a living.

3. Contrary to the human nature beliefs of some of my friends, most humans (even most Americans) believe, live by, and are motivated by no. 2.

4. There are hardworking people who can’t find a job and hard-working people who can’t provide for their families (OK, I already knew this one).

5. There are more important things than job security.

6. Looking for work is work. Looking for work during a recession takes patience, persistence and ingenuity. And the Patience and Persistence Award goes to: My wife, Laura.

7. Networking works, even if it takes 15 months (or longer) to work.

8. Contrary to some rantings from defenders of hard-working, successful people, there is no such thing as independence. No-one gets there purely by their own actions and abilities (See no.7).

9. There is no such thing as job security.

10. blah blahblah GRANDKIDS blah blah blah (See no.5)

For American Christians, Whose Need Matters?

2010-09-02T19:27:00.000-05:00

Deuteronomy 15:7-11 has got me ruminating:

If anyone is poor among your people in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward them. Rather, be openhanded and freely lend them whatever they need. Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: "The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near," so that you do not show ill will toward the needy among your people and give them nothing. They may then appeal to the LORD against you, and you will be found guilty of sin. Give generously to them and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to. There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward those of your people who are poor and needy in your land. (TNIV)

If we want to apply this passage to American Christians in the 21^st Century, what adjustments must we make? The “command,” “advice,” “directive,” or whatever it is, is clearly directed toward the Israelites at a particular time in a particular situation. (I am aware that I am unfairly mixing hermeneutical traditions and jumping ahead too quickly for any truly scholarly handling of Scripture.)

Can we assume that we (American Christians in the 21^st Century) are the “new Israel”? If so, who are our brethren, our brothers, the people around us, the members of our community (I’m citing various translations)? To whom are we supposed to be open-handed? Is it other Christians? Christians in my community? People of my race? People of my faith tradition, of my ideology, with my “blood”? Clearly in the original context it’s a defined people. How do we define who is in and who is out for our situation?

Relatedly, what are the towns of the land? Is it my ‘hood, my parish, my city, my state, my nation?

Or should American Christians just toss aside this scriptural passage because it doesn’t pertain to us. Maybe it pertains just to to “Israel”? If so, does that mean Jews by faith? Semites by blood? Israelis by citizenship? Does it pertain only to the “Holy Land” (whichever boundaries you accept)?

What do you think?

When you happen on someone who's in trouble or needs help among your people with whom you live in this land that God, your God, is giving you, don't look the other way pretending you don't see him. Don't keep a tight grip on your purse. No. Look at him, open your purse, lend whatever and as much as he needs. Don't count the cost. Don't listen to that selfish voice saying, "It's almost the seventh year, the year of All-Debts-Are-Canceled," and turn aside and leave your needy neighbor in the lurch, refusing to help him. He'll call God's attention to you and your blatant sin. Give freely and spontaneously. Don't have a stingy heart. The way you handle matters like this triggers God, your God's, blessing in everything you do, all your work and ventures. There are always going to be poor and needy people among you. So I command you: Always be generous, open purse and hands, give to your neighbors in trouble, your poor and hurting neighbors. (The Message)

Tony’s Annual NDOP Rant 2 (of 3)

2010-05-15T19:00:00.001-05:00

A second National Day of Prayer controversy this year opens the window on why all this matters. The dis-invitation of Franklin Graham to speak at the Pentagon’s observance of the National Day of Prayer is unfortunate, uncomfortable, and unpleasant. This difficult decision could have been avoided earlier, but once the issues were brought to officials, the Pentagon had no other legitimate option.

It is unfortunate because Rev. Graham has much to respect in terms of advancing the gospel of Jesus Christ. Beyond his iconic name, he has pushed for social and spiritual transformation through his organization, Samaritan’s Purse. Neither his good works nor his faith should be questioned by this rescinding.

Further, his fitness to be the honorary chair of the National Day of Prayer Task Force (which I will address in another post) or his appropriateness to pray at non-governmental public events should not be in question. The problem arises when that group with this prominent voice marries itself to a government event.

Rev. Graham is entitled to his opinion and has the right to publicly express his belief that Islam is “evil” and “wicked.” But that view is not consistent with the military’s practice of religious freedom, and after repeatedly expressing that view in public, Rev. Graham should never have been invited to speak at the Pentagon. To say so and to rescind this invitation does nothing to curtail (as a friend of mine suggests) Rev. Graham’s freedom of speech. He is free to express his views, just not these views as the featured speaker at a state-sponsored event.

In a nation that defends religious freedom, at an event that calls on all Americans to exercise that freedom in prayer, at the monument that represents all of our military regardless of religious affiliation, someone who continually maligns a major world religion should not be presiding. This is not about “appeasing Muslims.” It is about demonstrating our American commitment to religious freedom. A Muslim leader who repeatedly described Judaism as evil, citing atrocities done in the name of Judaism, would be just as unfit to speak at such events.

This is not about religious persecution of evangelicals. Any number of other evangelical leaders would be appropriate. They might believe that Islam is misguided, deceived and dead wrong. But if they believe that the religion in and of itself is “evil,” how could they pray on behalf of American Muslims who risk their lives in war for all Americans?

I’m a military brat. In my experience, no-one navigate the intricacies involving religion and government better than military chaplains. They must constantly support the religious practices of all of their service men and women, without maligning any of them. Surely they believed the views of Billy Graham’s son needed no significant vetting before inviting him.

And they might have been justified. To be fair, Franklin Graham has tried to explain his words. While some of his clarification is refreshing and helpful, other points only reveal his ignorance. When he speaks of the inhumane treatment of women, for instance, he is justified in decrying “evil.” Same with suicide bombing. But he is talking about particular evil expressions of Islam, not the religion itself. He seems to confuse Islam with Arab states, Middle Eastern customs, and political actions. There are more Muslims in the democratic nation of Indonesia than in any Arab state. And until recently that Muslim country was run by a woman, something “Christian” America has not managed to accomplish.

So far I’ve been defending the Pentagon’s unfortunate actions. But what grieves me more has to do with the cause of Christ. Ironically, the U.S. Army seems to have a better grasp on Christian charity than does one of our most prominent evangelists. And Christians who wear this incident as a badge of persecution are taking their eye off the evangelistic ball. This is a perfect opportunity to learn the truth about Islam without caricature. Committed Christians can do so without agreeing with or embracing the teachings of Islam.

More importantly Christians can use this incident to perfect their evangelistic strategies. I believe Franklin Graham means well, but in his boldness (and ignorance) he seems to forget his evangelistic mission. Calling another major world religion evil does nothing to win people to Christ. It does not speak the truth in love. It is not preaching the good news of Jesus.

Make no mistake: I want everyone to know and follow Jesus. It is because of that desire that I cringe whenever anyone, particularly a prominent evangelist of the gospel of Jesus says something that stands in the way of the advancement of gospel of Jesus Christ. But the opportunity to tell the truth in love remains.

Tony’s Annual NDOP Rant I

2010-05-08T16:05:00.002-05:00

I am a fan of the National Day of Prayer. But the precarious nature of the observance has reached higher heights than it did a year ago, when I expressed my uneasiness about it. This year I opted to offer my National Day of Prayer thoughts after the fact so that I comment on what has happened more than on what people fear might happen.

First of all, President Obama, like all of his presidential predecessors since Harry Truman, once again offered a proclamation of the National Day of Prayer. This year’s proclamation is outstanding in its specificity. Along with his specific prayers he gets specific about his belief in the constitutionality of the act.

Whether it is unConstitutional as a federal court has deemed is beyond my understanding of Constitutional law. The President obviously disagrees with the ruling and will be appealing the decision. What is clear to even my simple mind is that Presidents have issued prayer proclamations since George Washington. And similar proclamations were issued even before we had a Constitution!

No court ruling can take away the people’s right to gather annually (in case they are not praying daily) to pray for their country. No judge can declare a DAY unconstitutional, only certain state observances of a particular day. So the ruling and the ensuing controversy seem mostly silly to me.

And those who try to make this into another manufactured example of President Obama as un-American and unChristian are not paying attention.

And Then It Got Personal

2010-03-20T09:17:00.001-05:00

Laura and I had health insurance when I first started supporting health care reform. I had already been laid off from my job of 19 years, but because of my former company's generosity, I still had insurance. I spoke in support of reform measures even though it strained many of my personal relationships and even though the proposed bills were far from ideal. I criticized and supported because I was convinced that something needed to be done soon about the lack of health care options for many and the inadequate, unsustainable options for most Americans.

When my health insurance ran out, my wife and I went without for a while, but we eventually bought temporary insurance while I still had a steady income, again thanks to my former company. Good thing. One day very shortly after we purchased insurance, my wife came home from a cleaning job in extreme pain. I took her to the ER, and we learned that she had blood clots in her lungs brought on by treatments for menopause symptoms. She was in the hospital for five days.

The stay would have been much longer if not for the unrelenting efforts of a hospital community worker who negotiated and manipulated the insurance company and drug company, playing them against each other and finally securing thousands of dollars of treatment that Laura was allowed to receive at home. Had we stayed in the hospital longer, insurance would have cut us off.

That hospital worker's efforts were not lost on us, because in reality, it is the rare patient who gets that kind of treatment. God alone knows why that grace was wasted on us. And we will never forget it. But it is no substitute for comprehensive, reliable, responsible health care. Hope for special attention is not the answer for millions of Americans. I maintain that it should not be the answer for ANY Americans.

In a few weeks Laura felt sharp pain again. She was able to see her doctor who, after some testing, determined that she needed gall bladder surgery. We contacted a surgeon, and as we were awaiting an appointment date, our insurance lapsed. When we can afford it, we can purchase new insurance. But Laura's surgery will not be covered, as it is now a "pre-existing condition."

We've asked our friends and have learned that we do have options: We've been assured by a health care professional that we can

1. Wait for a painful, life-threatening gall bladder attack, then rush Laura to the ER where they MUST treat her (and fight about the payment later)
OR
2. PRETEND that Laura is experiencing a painful, life-threatening gall bladder attack and they MUST treat her (and fight about the payment later)

None of the options available to us offer the peace of mind that we need to care adequately for our health.

One (on again, off again) friend of mine and opponent of the current health care reform measures reminds me that this discussion is truly about health INSURANCE reform. He is right. Unfortunately even for those with insurance the current system steals the peace of mind that a word like "insurance" seems to promise. Premiums continue to go up as benefits go down. This is why I maintain that, while the current House health care bill falls woefully short of what Americans truly need, it deserves support because it moves us in the right direction. The bill

1. brings down costs for citizens and businesses
2. covers nearly all Americans
3. is deficit-neutral over the long-term
4. bans rejection for pre-existing conditions.

These are the criteria the President set forth at the beginning of this process. Specifically, the current House bill

* expands health insurance coverage to 32 million Americans, guaranteeing that 95% of Americans will be covered.
* makes health insurance affordable for middle class and small businesses -- including the largest middle class tax cuts for health care in history -- reducing premiums and out-of-pocket costs.
* strengthens consumer protections and reins in insurance company abuses.
* gives millions of Americans the same types of private insurance choices that members of Congress will have -- through a new competitive health insurance market that keeps costs down.
* holds insurance companies accountable to keep premiums down and prevent denials of care and coverage, including for pre-existing conditions.
* improves Medicare benefits with lower prescription drug costs for those in the 'donut hole,' better chronic care, free preventive care, and nearly a decade more of solvency for Medicare.
* reduces the deficit by more than $100 billion over next ten years, and by more than one trillion dollars over the following decade; reining waste, fraud and abuse; overpayments to insurance companies and by paying for quality over quantity of care.

What can you do to support this reform? Urge your congressperson's support!

Why We Can’t Wait | The White House

Six Out of 1,914

2010-02-25T21:25:00.001-06:00

I recently asked a group of African American educators if they knew a) how many African Americans have served as US Senators. I also asked if they knew b) who was the first African America US Senator. No-one in the group could answer either question. One person accused me of posing a trick question, which is entirely plausible since we don’t always agree on how African a person must be to be considered African American, But I meant it in the commonly accepted definition that has persisted in this nation: if a person has any discernible African blood—either by appearance or admission—they are considered black. The answers are a) six and b) Hiram Rhodes Revels.

Since 1788, 1,914 people have served as US Senators, up to 100 at a time. Thirty-eight of them have been women (There are currently 17 female Senators), five have been Asian, six Latino, three Native American and six have been African American.

Since Carol Moseley Braun is both female and African American, your good math skills will tell you that historically 1,857 US Senators in history have been white males. For the record that is 97% of all of our Senators, even though white males make up only 37% of the US population.

There are lots of ways to go with this discussion. But in honor of African American History Month I just wanted to introduce you to our six African American Senators. The first two served under Reconstruction in the 1870s, when African Americans had first been given the right to vote. By the mid 1870s local and state Jim Crow laws had begun to make it difficult for African Americans to exercise the vote that the federal government guaranteed. Eighty-five years passed before a third African American was elected to the US Senate.

Hiram Rhodes Revels
(1870-1871) Republican from Mississippi

A freedman his entire life, preacher and educator Hiram Revels became the first African American elected to the US Senate. When Mississippi seceded from the Union at the start of the Civil War, Mississippi’s Senators Jefferson Davis and Albert Brown resigned. At the end of the war their seats were left empty. Under the influences of Union Reconstructionists, the Mississippi legislature decided to fill those seats with one white and one black Senator. In 1870, after the 15^th Amendment gave African Americans the right to vote. Mr. Revels was elected by the Mississippi legislature to serve in the US Senate.

Blance Kelso Bruce

(1875-1881) Republican from Mississippi

The second African American to serve in the US Senate, was the first African American to serve a full term. He was also the only ex-slave to serve in that capacity. Like Hiram Revels before him, he was elected to the Senate by the Mississippi legislature during Reconstruction.

Edward William Brooke III

(1967–1979) Republican from Massachusetts

Edward W. Brooke’s election to the US Senate in 1966 ended an 85-year absence of African American Senators. Brooke was the first popularly elected African American Senator, the first African American Senator outside of Mississippi, and first black politician from Massachusetts to serve in Congress. He is the only African American to serve more than one term in the US Senate.

Carol Elizabeth Moseley Braun

(1993–1999) Democrat from Illinois

The first and only African American woman to serve as US Senator, Carol Moseley-Braun was also only the second black Senator since the Reconstruction Era. She was the first Democratic African American Senator and the first of three black Senators from the state of Illinois.

Barack Hussein Obama

(2005–2008) Democrat from Illinois

Barack Obama won a landslide victory, defeating Republican African American Alan Keyes to become a US Senator from Illinois. He became the fifth African American in congressional history to serve in the US Senate, the second from the state of Illinois. On November 4, 2008, he was elected the 44th President of the United States, winning with 53 percent of the vote. As President-Elect, Obama resigned from the Senate on November 16, 2008.

Roland Wallace Burris
(2009-Present) Democrat from Illinois

Roland Burris is the only African American Senator to be appointed rather than elected either by his state legislature or by the people of his state. The third Senator from Illinois, Burris was appointed December 31, 2008, to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Barack Obama. He is currently the only African American in the 100-member US Senate.

Just One Punahou Carnival Pic

2010-02-06T17:41:00.001-06:00

One Punahou Carnival pic from 1976 classmate Steve Case.

Not Backing Down, But Sad about the Friends

2009-11-18T16:34:00.000-06:00

It seems I'm dropping friends like flies, but perhaps it's worth it. If I lose friends for trying to determine what we as a nation should do and what we Christians should do to care for the health of our fellow citizens, then I'll stay on my bandwagon and lose the friends.

This is not like choosing your favorite football team or political party. It's not even about deciding who you think would be the best President of the US. And it's certainly not about trying to win an argument. This is about people's health, livelihood, welfare, and their lives. It matters to me as a US citizen and as a Christian.

BTW, if you support government involvement in health care, but honestly disagree with the particular plans that have been publicized, then my questions are not about you, and you don't need to waste your time defending your stance to me. I don't ask these questions to backhandedly support any particular plan. I've spoken clearly about what I think is the best plan. That's not the question I'm asking.

My questions remain (but with some new wordings):

What is the Christian motivation for opposing government involvement in filling our massive current health care gaps? Since the gaps persist, what should be done to fill them?

If it is exclusively Christians' responsibility, how do we justify the continuing foreclosures, bankruptcies, and deaths while we wait for Christians to fill the gap?

If it is not exclusively Christians' responsibility (as I believe), who are the legitimate entities who should fill the gap and why is government not one of them?

Is there any legitimate role for our elected officials in health care while they wait for those legitimate entities to fill the gap?

As an explanation, I'll take scripture, Christian tradition, or anything else reasonably Christian. Help me out, folks.

Against President Obama

2009-11-07T13:34:00.002-06:00

My friend Tim asked me weeks (maybe months) ago to write something critical of President Obama. Now that the President has officially endorsed the House healthcare bill, H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, I have my chance.

First, to set the stage, Tim said that if I could describe where I differed with the President, it would help those who are not Obama-lovers to trust the judgment of those who are. He said that one thing that keeps them skeptical is the appearance that Obama supporters have no sense of discernment—that they seem to worship the man.

I’m not sure that Tim is right that many Obama-detractors would change their minds, regardless of anything (although I trust that Tim means well). Even if President Obama DID walk on water, many of those detractors would not become believers in his abilities, his character, or his legitimacy, let alone his policies. But then there are people like Tim, who at least want to be fair.

I have a hard time being fair because of my prior relationship with the President. My knowledge of him colors (and should color) my view of him today. But I am also critical by nature, and I was arguing with Mr. Obama long before we knew that one of us would be on the national stage. So in remembrance of those days and in response to Tim, here is an opening shot at criticism towards the President.

While I fully support the President’s criteria for health care reform, I do not agree that HR 3962, which he endorses, is the best bill to meet the real health care needs of all Americans. The bill will likely meet the minimal standards the President has demanded of anything he would sign:

1. bring down costs for citizens and businesses
2. cover nearly all Americans
3. deficit-neutral over the long-term
4. ban rejection for pre-existing conditions.

It matters to me that the AARP, the American Medical Association, the American Nurses Association, the National Farmers Union, and the Consumers Union all endorse the bill. This plan is better than no plan and is certainly better than that farce of a plan, the ‘‘Common Sense Health Care Reform and Affordability Act,’’ the GOP has finally come up with.

But HR 3962 still gives profit-motivated, deny-first, hope-not-to–pay-later insurance companies too much power (No, I am not opposed to putting them out of business). It leaves too many people struggling to pay medical bills whether or not they have insurance (been there, currently doing that).

Of real concern is that HR 3962 keeps Americans looking like and acting like ethical neophytes when we are supposed to be the greatest, most moral, most “Christian” country in the world. It is not reflective of the spirit of America where “we the people” came together “to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility” and “promote the general welfare” (that's the Constitution, folks). Coming together for the health of one another is a measure of our American character.

HR 3962 begins to reflect that character, but it doesn't go far enough. So I disagree with the President’s endorsement. It is not the best plan for the American people. To find out what is, go here.

Then urge your Representatives to support HR 3962--It is better than the status quo. Don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good. HR 3962 is better than nothing.

Of Gnats, Camels, and Health Care Reform

2009-10-01T21:00:00.000-05:00

I think I understand why political conservatives are antsy about health care reform. I understand their fears that this is socialized medicine, that it is federal encroachment into their lives, that it means that the government is taking their hard earned money to support an unproved program in order to protect the health of those who have failed to get reliable affordable health care. They fear that government involvement will only disturb the delicate balance of care and cost that only the free market should be allowed to mess with (and mess with they have). I disagree that their fears are fairly reflected in what is being proposed, but I understand the fears.

I agree that when liberals say health care is a right and not a privilege, that they can't back it up Constitutionally, just as conservatives can't back up the "right to life" (by which they mean, of course, the "right to be born," not the "right to keep living healthily" or the "right to abundant life"). But Constitutional silence should not dismiss decent human compassion and practice.

I have no desire to defend any specific health care bill or its particulars. The President has laid out reasonable principles regarding reform: That the reforms should bring down costs, increase access, promote choice, and be deficit-neutral. I also believe that a plan that gets more people protected will reduce the amount of money hard-working people are paying for the care of those lazy or stupid other people.

I think I understand the politically conservative view. What I don't understand is why Christian organizations are opposing health care reform. I don't understand why, according to the Washington Post, conservative Christians are increasing their support of Christian organizations in order to oppose health care reform. I don't understand what is Christian about opposing health care reform. Where in the Christian Bible does it say, "Thou shalt not provide health care? What in Christian history is a precedent for opposing the assurance that all people can get affordable care when they need it?

I know that some Christians talk about the idea that "the church" should be caring for people, not the government. They are half-right. It is our Christian duty to care for those in need. And if Christian individuals, congregations, and organizations were doing so, we would have no need for any other health care. But in the absence of such Christian action, when the vacuum of need is sucking the health and meager wealth of some (and the general wealth of us all), the least Christians could do is support any other entity that is doing their duty for them. And further, I see nothing in Scripture or in Christian tradition that prohibits Christians from doing their duty THROUGH another entity, such as government.

And then there's abortion: our postmodern example of straining at a gnat to swallow a camel. Don't get me wrong I am pro-life. But if done right, health care reform is all about being pro-life, even though it does not prioritize unborn lives over already-born lives. And the President insists that the health care reform he supports does not allow money for abortion. I am in favor of language that would give such assurances.

But suppose those measures are not passed. Will conservative Christians oppose any health care reform that would save us all money, stop the bleeding of the economy, cover (nearly) every American, give citizens greater control over their own health care decisions, and save countless lives--just because the abortion measure doesn't have their preferred language? Are unborn lives the only ones that matter?

If already-born lives matter as much as unborn lives (and according to the Bible, I think they do), just what is the Christian justification for opposing health care reform?

They Took a Chance

2009-09-15T19:16:00.001-05:00

The words I most dread hearing when listening to the local news are “The suspect is a black male.” It may seem strange to you that I dread those words more than something more imminent like “The suspect is just outside your door.” If the latter statement were common or even likely, you would be right to question me. But the words I dread are all too common and likely. So much so that when real criminals want to distract attention from themselves as suspects in their crimes, more often than not they blame it on a fictional black guy or two.

I mention the dread not to say that suspects shouldn’t be identified by race and gender. Nor do I fear that, since I too am a black male, I become automatically suspect (although the statement puts me into the suspect pool). No, the dread has to do with reinforcing the fear that grips our national psyche and its attachment to certain types of people.

It is not only black men who suffer from the attachment; just ask my tattooed and pierced young adult white sons. Or ask any group of teenagers who gather in a public place. But tattoos are chosen, piercings can be removed, and teenagers grow up. We black males will always be black males (like the brown people who speak Spanish or who come from the Middle East will always be who they are).

The image in the national psyche is so indelible that not even the traditional symbols of “having arrived” erase the connection. You could be a Harvard professor or President of the United States, and large segments of American society still see you as a dangerous black man. The fear simply takes on a different sophistication.

No pity and no guilt allowed! Even black people have internalized the myth of the dangerous black man, which is a tragedy that will take decades to rectify. And it is made more tragic by the fact that, despite the disproportionate number of black men who are arrested and incarcerated over any particular charge, the vast majority of black males are law abiding citizens just like the rest of y’all.

Against that backdrop, I write to express gratitude. I want to thank parents of white teenagers in four states—north, south, east, and west —who grew to trust me with their children week after week for nearly twenty years. Their trust is not unique in the grand scheme of youth ministry. But that they were mostly white Evangelicals, that their children were mostly young teens, and that I could easily be perceived (even with my small stature) as a dangerous black man, I thank them that they took a personal chance on me. Those kinds of courageous chances might begin to chip away at that national image of the dangerous black man.

Lest you think I’m making too much of their courage, let me describe how deep their trust got here in the American South. On one retreat, four white seventh grade girls challenged me to a basketball game. If memory serves, I won (yes I can only win at basketball against white middle school girls). The bet was that the loser takes the winner out for lunch. So the four girls took me to Arby’s. The retreat and the lunch are perhaps a common youth leader level of trust from the parents.

But let’s up the ante. In each church I worked in, I tried (with uneven resolve) to guide the kids into leadership. To that end I once asked Ken Ray, a high school junior, and Derek Waltchak, an eighth grader, to travel with me out of town to check out a campsite for an upcoming retreat. Their parents okayed the trip. We were out of town from morning into evening one Saturday. We had a great time and chose a great site, but even then I realized that I had been given great trust.

Their trust didn’t compare to that of the Hudsons. On another occasion I was talking to Nikki Hudson, a homeschooled eighth grader about another retreat site evaluation. She asked me if she could go with me. I hesitated, but then said, “I’ll take you if your parents allow it.” I figured that would be the end of the question.

I don’t know how much discussing Chuck and Carol Hudson did before making a decision. But I know that they loved their 3^rd of six children, their 2^nd of five girls. And to my surprise they agreed to this venture. I think Nikki and I traveled on a weekday, since it was seen as a sort of homeschool project. I remember us stopping on our out-of-town trip at a gas station. I walked in with this tiny blonde young teen. I admit that I enjoyed seeing people’s faces in rural Tennessee.

Daytime retreat trips are one thing. Overnight stays at the apartment I shared with another young guy are another. At least three times a group of white parents allowed their kids to stay the night at my bachelor pad. The fist time was with a small co-ed group of kids during the summer between their 8^th and 9^th grades. The second and third times involved a co-ed group of 7^th and 8^th graders.

In yet another experience, parents of four white high school girls trusted me to escort their babies on a two-week mission trip to Mexico City. That’s out of the country, folks—and not just over the border!

Most of these instances came with protections that made the parents feel safer. Sometimes the group setting eased their fears, sometimes other adults were along for the ride. And surely someone will say something like: “Tony, this only happened because you’re such a great guy.” Thank you for saying so.

But being a great guy is too often not enough to overcome the fear of the black guy. These parents forgot all about the image of the dangerous black man, because their kids loved me and they themselves had grown to trust me. I don’t think most of them even thought they were being courageous.

As long as we deal only in the abstract—black man, Latina woman, Asian man, white woman, etc.—we get nowhere on these issues. And I do not agree that color-blindness is a possible or valuable goal. But if we can just step back and treat persons as persons in all their racial and gendered glory, we might actually get somewhere that enriches us all.

If you start with the pity or guilt, I’m coming after you! I might be standing right outside your door.

A Way Forward on Race

2009-09-13T18:54:00.002-05:00

Reasons that discussions of race often go nowhere:

1. Some people are afraid the conversation will end with somebody being called a racist.

2. Some people believe that the conversations SHOULD end with someone being called a racist.

3. Some people believe that every mention of the racial element in a particular situation MEANS that you’re calling someone a racist.

4. Some people believe that racism should never be called out.

5. Some people believe “Racism only matters if I can see it.”

6. Some people (even those who think racism is real and really ugly) believe that racism only matters if you can prove it.

7. Some people believe that any mention of unprovable racism adds more to the problem than does staying silent about it.

8. Some people believe that race problems will only be solved if “those other people” would

a. stop their racist ways
b. stop calling racism out
c. stop mentioning race
d. grow thicker skin
e. pretend they are not in the skin they are in

I don’t agree with any of these.

I believe that we can talk about race without only talking about racism.

I believe that we need to talk about racism. That racism talk can be productive at the beginning of the conversation (rarely, when sparked by an incident) or in the middle of the conversation (preferable), but should NEVER be the end of the conversation.

I believe that, while race issues come with a host of possibilities of misunderstanding and over-reaction, the ability to perceive race problems rests with those who HAVE to deal with race on a daily basis, more than with those who do not.

I believe that in order for us to grow beyond our race problems in conversation, we have to be able to talk through stories and feelings even more than through logic, observation, objectivism and proposition.

I believe we will never achieve total healing of race relations in this life, but if we are willing to bravely and humbly enter the conversation we can get substantial healing and we will all be the better for it.

Lesson Plan: How to Do Ugly

2009-09-06T15:23:00.005-05:00

I’m no political historian, but from what I hear, when President George Herbert Walker Bush was planning to speak to schoolchildren in 1991, Democratic politicians called “foul.” They feared that the Republican president was trying to indoctrinate young minds with partisan ideas. Turns out Bush’s remarks were nothing of the sort. It was straight down the line “Work hard to get a good education” stuff.

But as innocent as the speech was, the Democratic politicians had reason to be suspicious, since when President Reagan, Bush’s former boss, was in office, he had also spoken to schoolchildren in 1986. And while President Reagan’s speech was also harmless, it clearly included more than glancing mention of his governmental ideology. No harm done. He probably inspired the minds of today’s brightest (as well as not-so-bright) young conservatives.

So if Democrats and other progressives objected back in 1991, why didn’t their objections reach the levels of today’s? Why were there no calls for nationwide boycotts? Why were school boards not forbidding the speech? Why weren’t parents choosing to keep their kids home because the President of the United States wanted to speak to them? Why weren’t permission slips sent home to allow the President to urge kids towork hard in school?

Some folks like the tit-for-tat and see the two episodes as equal. They clearly are not. CNN commentators almost uniformly suggest that the difference is today’s “politically charged atmosphere.” They are not far from the truth, but their assessment begs the further question: What is charging the atmosphere? I’ll leave that question to open speculation.

But I will take a stab at my first questions. And I will surely alienate at least as many as I amuse, educate, or inspire with my theory. But it’s a chance I’ll take in an effort to spark some positive change. I think there are two reasons effort of a President to speak to schoolchildren is different from the effort in 1991.

The first reason is that narrow-minded Republicans and conservatives do ugly politics way better than narrow-minded Democrats and progressives. I say this meaning no disrespect to the noble efforts at ugliness from the leftists. They try. But they are no match for their rivals. If the progressives throw the first punch, the conservatives knock them out with the counter. If the cons act first the liberals come back with an anemic response. It’s like their heart’s not really in it.

So in this example, Democratic politicians cried foul in 1991 and Republicans (both elected officials and unelected media leaders) never forget. So they up the ante with a thunderous “scare the parents, call the names, pressure the school boards and teachers, boycott the President” assault.

I say all of this without intending to attach moral superiority to either side. I’m no fan of ugly, especially when it comes with its own air of moral superiority. But on both sides (and to some degree in the middle) there are people who decide to operate out of ugliness. I’m just saying that when it comes to ugly, conservatives do it better.

But there is another reason that this time is different from 1991. It has to do with President Obama, the man in office, more than with his political philosophy, his policies, or his ideology. It has to do with other feelings people have about him. It has to do with denial of his legitimacy to the office of President of the United States. It has to do with something else lurking.

Equally Yoked, Part 2

2009-09-03T21:50:00.002-05:00

We lived at 3939-C Montague Street at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, when I was in fifth grade in 1969. Another black family, the Davises, lived next door at 3939-D, and for a few months their household included Sgt. and Mrs. Davis’s four-year-old granddaughter. She was the first person to say to me with resignation, “You’ll probably marry a white woman.” The second person was my black girlfriend when I was a teenager.

Popular opinion on interracial relationships has certainly shifted in the past few decades since 1967, when the federal Loving case struck down state laws against interracial marriage. Still there is no universal consensus; in fact everyone seems to have an opinion about the issue.

In the late 1970’s at Willamette University in Salem, Oregon, whenever my friends and I discussed interracial marriage, the most common comment was, “I think it’s okay except for one thing: what about the children?” The concern always amused me. My thinking was that (and I hope my biracial friends will set me straight), while biracial children would certainly have an upbringing different from other people, it is not likely that it would be more difficult than the experience of most black people.

Before Laura, I had only two “official” girlfriends—one black and one white. And, while in 18 years of single adulthood I had dated only black or white women, my “interests” came in many hues and ethnicities. That’s why the question of why some black men “prefer” white women always seemed strange to me.

In 1992, when Laura and I were dating, Ebony Man magazine published the article, “Interracial Dating: What Black Men Say About It.” They didn’t ask me, but I responded with this letter to the editor, dated March 24, 1992:

“Dear EM,

I was glad to see that someone is finally asking black men about interracial relationships. But if you had asked this black man, you would have gotten an answer that was not covered in your article. I am involved with a white woman because I love that woman. I did not search for a white woman. I did not

choose white WOMEN over black WOMEN. I chose this woman over all other women of any race. My involvement with this woman does not diminish my love and respect for my black mother, my black grandmothers or black sisters everywhere. The woman I love is strong, has come though hard times, is loving and selfless—just like my mother.

At the same time that you say Ebony Man does not endorse or condemn the choices black men make in women, you state that black men should “hurry home.” You are missing the point of relationships. I do not choose a mate to make a political statement. My home is with a woman I can love and who loves me. My home is with a woman whom I can love for a lifetime. There are women of every race who might fit that description. The woman in my life is white—not because I prefer white women but because I prefer THIS woman.

I am proud to be a black man. But if building up the black people means that I cannot love people of other races, then I’ll settle for just building up the human race. And I won’t be counting on Ebony Man or popular opinion to tell me whom I should love.

So thanks for running the article; but as far as my interracial relationship is concerned, Ebony Man, like most everyone in the media, has missed the point.”

Years later in 2005 I expressed similar sentiments in a blog post, saying,

"Let me make clear that Laura and I did not marry to make a point. It was (and is) pure love, but it was a hard-fought decision, trying to anticipate possible problems for us and our children. In the end, hard-fought (not mushy) love won out. The hard-fighting hasn’t ended, though I think we’d both say it is mostly internal, along the lines of the theological tension mentioned above. The love of God and one another, and the shared mission to follow Jesus have sustained us."

A commenter graciously replied with a series of provocative questions. The beginning of his comment:

    “Grace2U, and Peace.
    You obviously made a decision, and I assume that you grew up during the 60's, that you had some wrestlings with. I do have a question or two, though, and I hope that you don't mind...

    I grew up in Gary, IN AKA Choklit City. My wife grew up in Pomona, CA and Leavenworth, KS. We are both African Americans. Because of the complex issues relating to romantic relationships between blacks and whites, particularly the issue of the desirability of white women, I have always said that I would not disrespect a sista by rejecting her for a white woman.

My wife was formerly married to a black man who left her and her (at that time) 1 year old for a white woman. As you can well imagine, she views mixed race relationships somewhat differently than you and your wife do.

I believe you when you say that you married her out of love, but was there ever an element of “I married up” for you?”

When I read the comment to Laura, she laughed out loud. If we’re going to take seriously all of those ridiculous on-paper measures (race, income, education, family of origin, life experiences) of “marrying up” or “marrying down,” Laura’s assessment is that I got the short end of the stick. She does suffer from runaway humility, but the commenter’s question demonstrates why we have no business looking from the outside at someone else’s relationship and trying to determine how it happened or what it means.

Like I said: everyone has an opinion. Only a few weeks ago, Laura was having one of her regular breakfasts with Miss Emma, a seventy-something white woman. A mixed-race couple walked into the restaurant. Miss Emma leaned over and said sweetly to Laura, “I don’t know how you feel about this, Dear, I just don’t think that, you know, that people should mix like that.” Laura leaned over and whispered just as sweetly, “Miss Emma, I don’t have a problem with it. I’m married to a black man.”

Equally Yoked

2009-08-30T21:36:00.003-05:00

“March 24, 1992

Dear Grandpa,

I hope this gets to you in time for your birthday. And I hope that you have a nice day.

I’ve had a busy year. I suppose Mom and Dad have told you about Laura McBride and her kids—the people I spend most of my non-working time with. They are a family I have known for the seven years I’ve been in Nashville. I’ve spent most of my holidays with them, and I’ve been there for all kids’ birthdays and celebrations…

…I don’t mean to take up you birthday note talking about my life, but I do have a couple questions for you about this situation. I do love Laura and the kids and I am dating Laura now. I remember Grandma saying at one point that it was okay to associate with white people, but that “we should not be unequally yoked” (2 Corinthians 6:14). I don’t think that’s what that verse is about. I think it has to do with people who believe differently than we do.

Anyway, Laura is white (I guess that’s obvious now). I want to know what you think about this issue. If our relationship comes to that, I don’t have any illusions about the marriage being easy. But I still consider it because I love Laura, I love the kids, they love me, and I think we could be a family together. Obviously, I’m a grown man and I will make my own decisions, but I would appreciate hearing what you think.

I still hope to see you sometime soon. I hope to hear from you sooner. Again I hope your birthday is special. I’ll be praying for you.

Much Love, Your Grandson,

Tony”

The question I asked Grandpa Peterson was prompted by a conversation I had had with Grandma Peterson back in 1977. The bus tour of the US that I took that year included a visit to Grandpa and Grandma’s little farm in Grove City, Ohio. It was my first trip to the farm as an adult and my first trip to see Grandma and Grandpa without either of my parents.

We kids had grown up with great affection for our grandparents, even though we didn’t see much of them. With all of our moving around, we lived nearby in Columbus, Ohio, only two years, when I was in 2nd and 3rd grade. In those days Mom and Dad took us out to “the country” as often as possible. I remember strawberries, blackberries, and gooseberries, Concord grape vines, apple and walnut trees, and cornfields. We explored the old barn and walked along the railroad track at the edge of the property. We drank from the handpump. I can’t forget the smell of the cellar, which housed all of Grandma’s canned fruits. We always ate well.

We loved it out there, even though there wasn’t that much for kids to do. We always hoped our cousin Jeffrey would be there. Sometimes our other cousins from Mom’s side of the family would come out with us.

There was a lot of serious talking, but it usually didn’t involve us kids much. Dad and Grandpa spent a lot of time together; I gather Dad was trying to soak up Grandpa’s wisdom. Dad revered his father until the day Grandpa died in 1996, maybe even until Dad’s own death only four years later.

On this trip I had Grandma and Grandpa to myself. I was a little nervous. What would I talk about? How could I sound impressive or at least not stupid. All I knew to do was talk about my life. I was in the middle of my sophomore year at Willamette University in Salem, Oregon, so I talked about school—mostly about friends and activities. This particular conversation was just Grandma and me. She asked me if there were other “colored” students at the school. I replied that there were a few, but that most of my closest friends were white. “That’s okay for friendship” she said, “but just remember what the Scriptures say about being unequally yoked.” I wanted to correct her theological interpretation, but I remembered my manners and kept my objection to myself.

Grandma was, of course, a product of her generation. She was also a product of her scriptural teaching, the backing for what some thought to be a self-evident reality: Races should not mix.

I have never agreed with Grandma on this issue, but her words stayed with me until the days when I was contemplating marriage in 1992. I don’t know if her sentiments had changed by then. She died in 1990. I still didn’t know what Grandpa thought and although disagreed with Grandma’s comment, I did not want to disrespect my grandparents, so it was important to me to hear what they thought.

I have lost Grandpa’s response letter. But it must have encouraged me since I’ve found later correspondence from him on the matter. In one letter from September of that same year, he recounts all the mixed race couples he knows of in our family. And he goes on to talk about their love for one another and when appropriate, their shared Christian ministry.

Grandpa was not well enough to come to our wedding. Shortly after our wedding, my cousin Jeffrey bought the farm (No, people, I mean he literally bought Grandpa’s farm). Laura finally made it to the farm in 2000 for Dad’s burial, when Grandpa was already gone.

If Grandpa’s approval is based on the love between me and Laura and on our shared ministry, Grandpa would be thrilled with Laura. And she with him.

Oreos Aren’t for Everyone

2009-08-27T21:07:00.001-05:00

The story you are about to read is true. The names have been changed to protect…me.

When I was a younger man, I worked for three years as the part-time Jr. High minister of a large church in a major city of the American Southeast. The church buildings were in the inner city, but the congregation outgrew that property and began to hold its Sunday services across town at a school that accommodated more people. The church was predominantly white; if memory serves, I was the only black person in any kind of leadership. But they were vocal about their desire for racial integration and what they called in those days “racial reconciliation.”

I had been in my position for about eighteen months when the senior pastor suddenly (and I mean suddenly) hired a youth pastor to be my supervisor. Stan Olivier was a tall white man with short cropped curly, almost kinky hair. He and I met weekly on Wednesday afternoons. From my perspective, he seemed to have no sense of what teenagers were like, but he had a clear idea of what he thought Christian teenagers should be like. As we met weekly, we were learning to tolerate one another.

Stan had been on staff a few months when we were both called into an all-staff meeting, which followed one of our Wednesday meetings. The elders of the church were committed to serving their community, so they found a way to return home and build a larger facility. Staff members were brought together to discuss temporary use of facilities. Toward the end of the meeting, Ruby Smith, the white woman who directed the extensive ministry to the poorer, predominantly black residents of the community, made a comment. “You know when we get the building built, there will be a lot of people from the neighborhood joining us. We need to educate our teachers for a few weeks to prepare them for it.”

“Yeah,” I said, “but they will need more than a few weeks. We will have to continually educate because we’re gonna have a clash of cultures. We’ll have to learn from each other.” To which Stan responded, “I’m ready; I have the hair for it already!”—trying to be funny. I don’t remember if anyone laughed. I said nothing.

That night at youth group Stan began to impress upon the youth the importance of evangelism, bringing their non-Christian friends to church. In the midst of the predominantly white suburban group were three black inner city kids Oscar, Tykesha, and Maria —kids from the neighborhood who were part of the youth group since before I started eighteen months prior. Stan went on to say “It’s great that the Jr. High kids have brought these three kids from the inner city here. Now high school people, you need to start bringing your non-Christian friends too.

There were SO MANY things wrong with that verbal display. But let’s begin with only three. Stan assumed
1) that Oscar, Tykesha, and Maria were brought to the church by white kids (which means they are not “our” kids),

2) that they were not Christians, and

3) that they would not mind hearing themselves referred to as these second-class citizens.

He made several other unwise comments about younger adolescents in general, but those comments don’t fit this discussion.

By the end of the meeting, I was furious, too angry to think of anything constructive to say. I spent the week talking through things with friends and decided to wait until our next one-on-one meeting to address the issues with Stan. And so I began:

“Stan, last week you said a few things that bothered me. I know that they offended some other people and I just want to point them out to you to warn you of the possibility of offending more people with similar comments.” I started with the comment about his hair. I said. “Not only did you totally invalidate what Ruby and I were saying, and not only did you apparently miss the point, but it made me wonder what kind of experience you have had with black people.”

He responded boldly, “Extensive, I’ve had extensive experience with black people! I’ve told that joke about my hair many times to black people and they think it’s funny. You are an overly sensitive person, and that is sin. That comment doesn’t offend most black people. But you are not the typical black person. You are what they call an Oreo, black on the outside white on the inside. I know how to deal with black people. I don’t know how to deal with you.”

There was no way to respond. I took a deep breath and said, “Stan, there’s another reason I wonder about your relationships with black people.” I referred him to his comment in front of the youth about Oscar, Tykesha, and Maria. His response “You are reading something in that I didn’t intend. You’re being over sensitive again.”

I said, “What bothers me is that you assumed these kids are not Christians when they are.” Wrong thing to say.

“Oh they are Christians, huh?” he said. “Have they been baptized?”

“I don’t know.”

“You’re their youth minister, and you don’t know if they’ve been baptized?! Don’t you think baptism is essential to salvation?”

“I guess not. I think it’s important. I think Christians should be baptized, but I guess I don’t think it’s essential.”

And so began the examination of my beliefs. “I’m concerned,” he said. “Do you believe that the Bible is the inspired, infallible word of God? What about abortion? What about homosexuality?”

At the end of it all, Stan said, “You and I are very different. We have some different beliefs, but we also have different approaches to ministry. I am bold and say what I think. You are sensitive and deliberate. Of all the people on staff it is people like you that I have the hardest time dealing with.”

Okay, people, where to begin? Let’s start with this. One barrier to race relationships in the church is the racial assumptions we hang onto. The beauty of Stan is that in his boldness he says out loud what some others only think and others still can’t even bring to their own consciousness. I don’t mean to assume that racial assumptions only go in one direction. They go in all manner of directions. This is why talking openly with good will can help us all. And for the mission of the Christian church it’s the sacrifice we must make to be truer to the Good News of Jesus.

So I addressed three specific assumptions above. Are you aware of others that become barriers to our bridging races and classes? How do we move forward?

How Deep Is Your Love?

2009-08-24T21:24:00.001-05:00

We were late visitors to the worship service on Easter morning 1992. Laura and I had just started dating, and we were both without a church home. My friend and co-worker, Karen Williams, had invited us to her church, Braden United Methodist, for the Easter service.

We arrived at the entrance to the church, the back of the sanctuary, to find a full house. The usher greeted us and asked us to wait. He walked up to the second row and ushered out all of those men, the deacons. He signaled for us to come down the aisle and fill the row. So I walked with my white girlfriend and her four white children into this otherwise black assembly. Although I had prepared myself for this, I still felt self-conscious, especially for the children. As we were hurrying out at the end of the service, a few people greeted us. But the obligatory acknowledgement of our presence was not enough to erase the discomfort. I don’t know if the kids remember that church visit. I know Laura does.

After fifteen years worshipping and serving in another congregation, Laura and I started searching again for a church home in January 2009. We had visited around for a few months when we decided to save the actual decision for the end of the year. We wanted to be free simply to explore and enjoy the ways Christians worship in Nashville. We were six months into the worship tour when one Sunday as we were heading home, I said, “You realize that we have not visited a predominantly black church.”

There were a few moments of silence. And then some verbal wrestling. First Laura said, “I’ve been to black churches before.” In the early 1980s, Laura lived in a predominantly black New Jersey neighborhood working with black children (while I was living in a predominantly white Washington State community working with suburban white teens). For five years she interacted with children and their families and she occasionally attended black churches with white friends. “Although we were obviously visitors” she said about the church visits, “it seemed to me, that it didn’t really matter that we were there.”

Then she reminded me of our Braden visit. Of course the Braden experience was fraught with discomfort potential. And to be fair, the Braden people, who were not expecting this intrusion on Easter Sunday, took it in stride and acted with as much Christian hospitality as they could muster on short notice. But I don’t blame Laura for not wanting to repeat the experience.

Still there had to be something else. In our 2009 tour we visited many churches that treated us as if we didn’t matter. Finally Laura said, “There’s another reason I’m not excited about us going together to a black church. I would go WITHOUT you. I just don’t want to be the white woman who walks into the black church with her black husband, as if to say to black women ‘Look, I have him; you can’t have him.’”

I couldn’t let that go, “Well, Honey, they CAN'T have me. I don’t belong to black women. I belong to you.”

“I know,” she said, “but I don’t want to stir up that feeling in them.”

If you know Laura, you know she was speaking from her heart. And just like that, she demonstrated how complicated these issues are. This was not as simple as, “I feel fine in your church, why don’t you feel fine in mine?” No, the issues are myriad and interconnected. No wonder that individuals, racial groups, and churches don’t venture into them. This is not easy stuff.

The conversation that Laura and I had on the way home from church was eased by our love for each other. But we are still a man and a woman, a black person and a white person with drastically different backgrounds. If this husband and wife have to rely on our deep love for one another to get toward the core of these issues, why would anyone else bother to have these conversations? There is too much involved and too much at stake, and seemingly there is more to lose than there is to gain.

But Laura and I should not have needed to have this conversation at all. The travesty behind our predicament is the simple fact that the overwhelming majority of Christian churches are heavily single ethnicity gatherings (I hear your exception, people in Hawaii!). It’s as if we Christians believe that the first rule when establishing a church is “Gather a bunch of people who look like you.”

I know that historically there are some very good reasons for some single ethnicity churches. There are also some very bad reasons. And many of the original good reasons are now obsolete. It is time to examine them and to examine our own hearts. Don’t be mistaken; worship with people who do not look like us is not simply for the benefit of this interracial couple. I believe it is essential to the movement of God’s Good News.

So I am asking Christian people to accept no excuses. I am asking Christian people to look at their congregations and ask, “Is this single-ethnic gathering what God is up to? Is this what the Gospel is about?” If you agree with me that it is not, are you willing to have the conversations that move us forward? Are you willing to experience the discomfort that can lead to something better?

And whether or not you agree with me, are you willing to chase down anything in your congregation that would make a visitor feel unwelcome in your church?

Despite the potential landmines, we can exercise the Good News. It took the fierce, dedicated, patient love of a husband and wife to get Laura and me to a deeper level of understanding on this issue. But we Christians claim a love that is even deeper, broader, and more powerful.

Are We There Yet?

2009-08-22T11:57:00.007-05:00

It was 1987. The assassinations of MLK and RFK were nearly twenty years in the past. The Voting Rights Act was more than twenty years old. Ronald Reagan was in his second term in the White House. And the Cosby Show was in its third season as America’s favorite TV show.

In January 1987, The Vanderbilt Hustler, the university’s student newspaper, reported the news that an African American woman had pledged a white sorority. The pledging either sparked or was sparked by (which came first is unclear) a mandate from Vandy’s provost and chancellor demanding that the sororities and fraternities develop plans for integration. The story made national news; at least the Washington Post took brief notice.

The Hustler published a letter to the editor from Blair Robinson. That letter conveyed the sentiments of many people I talked to; they wanted to know: “Why is this front page news?” I was studying at Scarritt Graduate School at the time, taking my Bible classes at Vanderbilt’s divinity school. As a quasi-member of the Vandy community, I wrote my own letter to the editor in response to Ms. Robinson et al.:

"To the Editor

I agree with Blair Robinson’s letter in the January 23 issue of The Vanderbilt Hustler: The event of a black woman joining a traditionally white sorority should not be a big deal. Michelle Alexander and Pi Beta Phi should be applauded for not making an issue of the pledging. But The Vanderbilt Hustler deserves equal applause for recognizing and publicizing the significance of the event.

Eighty-three years of discrimination is a big deal! Perhaps we were all aware of racism at Vanderbilt. Perhaps we have grown sick of this annual focus on racism every January. Or perhaps we are content to ignore the problem, hoping that it will solve itself. Perhaps it will. But 83 years of history have shown otherwise. Any successive approximations to true integration and equality deserve to be recognized, if not for the celebration of the progress then for the acknowledgement of the continuing tragedy.

Blair Robinson understates our goal saying, “Until an action like this can happen without gaining front page attention, we still have a long way to go.” I would add that until an action like this can happen without prompting a controversial administrative mandate, we have a long way to go. Until blacks and whites can live together without denying their heritage, we have a long way to go. Until whites and blacks can recognize their dependence on each other, we have a long way to go. And while at Vanderbilt the issue is black and white, until we recognize that respect and interaction among ALL races is both just and mutually beneficial, we cheat ourselves out of the enrichment in diversity. Until we can learn, work, and celebrate together because of and in spite of our differences, we still have a very long way to go.

So Pi Beta Phi did not choose Michelle Alexander because she is black. And Ms Alexander did not join Pi Beta Phi to make a statement. But I suppose they are learning to live with the unsolicited publicity. Michelle Alexander is a black woman in an otherwise white sorority . And at Vanderbilt University in January 1987, that is still a big deal."

Now another twenty years have passed. Barack Obama is in the White House, and we haven’t had a bona fide American assassination in some time.

Bu I can’t think of any top-rated TV shows that feature black (or Latino or Asian) casts. And we still seem to be squeamish talking about race.

Just Thinkin'

2009-08-21T19:34:00.011-05:00

I’m wrestling with when and whether I will meet Damon for lunch at school. At first it was a no-brainer: I’d love that, and so would he! After all he visited me at work on a number of occasions. And we first went out into public—just the two of us before he was two weeks old (We went to Home Depot).

But then I remembered: kids can be cruel. And innocent, curious kindergarteners can be unintentionally hurtful.

When Timothy was in kindergarten, I ate lunch with him once after his persistent requests. I met his friends, and we had a great time. Damon has his Uncle Timothy’s take-it-or-leave-it confidence. But he also has his daddy’s desire to make sure everyone is getting along (“No-one should be left out!”). What would my presence in these early days do to a little boy who is trying to fit in and to make sure everyone else fits in? How would he handle their innocently curious questions? What would their questions tell him about what is “normal”?

I knew those questions would be inevitable for our kids. Before I asked Laura to marry me, we had been close friends for ten years and had dated for three years. I had a lot to think about before deciding that this was what I wanted to do. At the top of my foot-dragging list was the knowledge that the kids would have to explain to other kids something that they did not choose.

One day, after we had been married about five years, I was down in the basement sorting through stuff (I have a little bit of stuff). The kids, all teenagers except Timothy, were gone for the weekend. My mind started working; and when I would let it go like that, it usually focused on the kids. All of a sudden I was overcome with emotion. The thought that prompted the flood was the realization that I had never once asked the kids what happens when people at school learn that they have a black stepfather. I had not asked, and they had not told. I started thinking of all the possible reactions.

During the next week, I asked each of our children in private.

Kimberly said, “I go to Hume-Fogg (Academic Magnet School). There are a lot more unusual family situations than ours!”

Thomas said, “My friends think it’s cool, and I don’t care what anyone else thinks.”

Charlie said, “Nothing happens.” When I pressed him, it wasn’t clear if to me if the subject never came up, if he was ashamed, or if he was protecting me. Now that he’s a little older and a lot more mature, I might ask him again.

Timothy said, “They ask me ‘So are you mixed?’ and I say, ‘Do I LOOK mixed?’”

So I finally asked them, and I think their message to me was, “It’s not a big deal.” But in case you’re wondering, I wasn’t asking about how much they love me or anything like that. I think the kids and I have all come through that “Can I trust that you really love me? stage.”

Likewise I have no doubt about the bond between Damon and me. But love often comes with a cost, sometimes with a burden. Real love can bear the burden, especially once we reach a certain level of maturity. By the time I asked my kids that question, they were all veterans of school society and they had already borne some burdens.

Damon is new at this. I think the lunch visit can wait until he gets his classroom and schoolyard legs under him. Unless he persists.

Some People Change

2009-08-18T21:38:00.015-05:00

It was no secret that Don McMillen hated black people. Don was a young American soldier who started dating my German sister, Karla, during the last months of our time in Germany. Don was not allowed in our home. And according to Dad, Don forbade (It was the early 1960s!) Karla’s coming to our home, but she would sneak over anyway. Don and Karla married, and Don moved his new wife back home to ol’ Kentucky.

When Dad was transferred to Fort Knox, Kentucky, in 1970, we were not far from Karla, Don and their girls in Louisville. Karla couldn’t have us that close for a year and not see us. So we would pile into the car and drive to Louisville to visit. All I remember about those visits is that regardless of the time of year or weather conditions, it was always the same scenario: We’d arrive. Don would go out to his car and stay there until we left. His racial prejudice became legendary in our family discussions.

I started getting brave in my young adulthood. During my sophomore year of college I decided to spend my winter break visiting family and friends around the country via Greyhound’s Ameripass. Louisville was one of my stops.

I have access to the hour-by-hour (in some cases, minute-by-minute) activities of that visit. I’ll spare you some of the tedium, but there were significant points.

The bus from Columbus, Ohio, was 50 minutes late. Karla and her family had just returned home from the bus depot when I called to say that I was in (This was before cellphones, people!). I waited and eventually saw Susie and Don coming. I recognized eleven-year-old Susie from a few days before when I passed through Louisville but didn’t stay. Karla and Susie had met me at the bus depot and brought me something to eat. This time we left the bus depot with Don talking to me about the damn cold and damn everything else with a little s--- mixed in. I wrote in my journal, “He was very nice, though.”

I was greeted at the door by Donna, only seven years old and acting like she knew me from years earlier when she was a newborn. After learning where I was to sleep, I went in to the TV room, where Don was watching the Dallas Cowboys beat the Minnesota Vikings in the playoffs. As we watched together, Don commented on all the damn plays, while Susie interjected all the news of her life. Donna was helping Karla in the kitchen. I kept hearing my name from her little voice, “Where will Tony sit? This chair’s for Tony. What will Tony drink?” She came out and whispered something to Susie, to which Susie replied, “I don’t know; ask him.” She asked, and I answered, “7-Up.”

We ate at halftime, and I was seated at the head of the table. Don did not eat, apparently distressed over a friend he just heard had died. But after supper Don invited me to go with him to “The Convenient.” I had no idea what he was talking about. Fourteen-year-old Nancy warned me that he was planning to go “drown his sorrows,” so I declined. I spent the evening playing board games with the girls as the two younger ones campaigned for my attention.

They were all in bed when Don got home. He came into the room I was staying in and asked if I needed anything. He apologized for “Fraulein,” the clock that would be chiming every hour while I tried to sleep (And Fraulein DID chime!).

The next day I had promised Susie that I’d go with her collecting for her paper route (against Donna’s wishes). We set out into the bitter cold. We had reached what Donna called the “stinky neighborhood,” when all I could think of was getting back home. But I was amused by all the people staring at this 12-year-old white girl in the company of this 19-year old black guy. Before long, I looked up and saw Karla arriving in the car. Seems several concerned citizens had called Karla to report that they saw Susie with some guy. I’m not sure how they described me, but I have some guesses.

At everyone’s insistence I stayed a day longer than I intended. There were a lot of board games to play; jigsaw puzzles to be put together; ballgames game shows, and soap operas (I was into “All My Children” at the time) to watch.

Don has since passed away. I’ve never asked Karla or the girls what transformed him from the legendary bigot to this gracious man falling over himself to make my stay enjoyable. I always give God the credit for that stuff, even if the subject isn’t aware of God’s intervention.

Don obviously did not die a perfect man, but in this one area he emerges as my favorite example of the foolishness of holding people to their past deeds. Some people do change. As a Christian, it is a basic tenet of my faith that every person CAN change. It gives me delight to remember Don McMillen as a man who, the last time I saw him, treated me like royalty in his own home.

Don't Tell Karla!

2009-08-18T20:16:00.016-05:00

It'll be news to my wife, Laura, but Karla was my first crush. She was a white German teenager and I was a black American preschooler, but I was determined to marry her when I grew up. Shortly after we moved to Germany, she became our babysitter. Within a few years she had essentially moved in with us. Knowing that most of our memories would fade, Dad later wrote about those days for his kids. Note that Dad intentionally misspells Karla’s name to match his, Carl:

"Carla Leipold had been coming to Camp King for a year or so before we arrived. She must have been about 14 then. She visited a black family who left shortly after we arrived. They were a really rowdy bunch and were partly responsible for the negative image of blacks which prevailed at Camp King.

Carla was dating David Morgan a black MP. I still must smile when I think of this little blonde-haired blue, eyed German girl with black American [language and accent] coming from her lips. When the other family left, Carla latched onto us. David was allowed to visit here at our house, but only under close supervision.

Eventually, Carla was spending every day after school and all weekend with us. She was our daughter, housekeeper, and live-in baby-sitter. She went to her real parents’ house to sleep unless we were going to be out late and we obtained permission for her to spend the night. She wanted blanket permission to stay overnight every night, but her parents would not consent, and we didn’t pursue the issue. Carla finished 8th or 9th grade while she was living with us…

By most people’s standards the relationship between the Leipolds and Petersons was a weird one. The daughter of Susie and Karl was also the daughter of Rena and Carl. And Susie and Karl considered us to be their schwartz (black) daughter, son, and grandchildren. Many times while Carla was at our house, one or more of you would be at their house…"

Dad had a lot more to say to us about Karla, but not all of it was intended for public consumption, so I’ll take over here with my memories. The Leipolds lived just outside the Army base gate about a five-minute walk. We kids loved going off-base to visit Karla’s parents, who were like grandparents to us. I remember them taking us to the candy store, where we would buy a ring wrapped around gummy candy. Later in high school when I bought Haribo Gummi Bears from the German Club, it took me immediately back to Germany.

Karla is still in my life today as are her kids and grandkids. She and her family were at my graduate school graduation,
they were at my wedding,
they were in Hawaii for my nephew’s wedding,
and they were at my daughter’s wedding.
Mom and Karla talk on the phone, Denver to Louisville, nearly every day.If you see Karla; her daughters, Nancy, Susie, or Donna; and her grandchildren hanging out in Louisville, Denver, Nashville, or Waipahu, with my mom, my siblings, my wife, my children, or my grandchildren, you could easily be confused by the brother, sister, daughter, aunt, uncle, mother, grandmother, grandfather language. It gets really complicated when you add in Karla’s German mother who still calls my mother her daughter.

But wait, there’s more. Our family history with Karla is a little more complicated...

And…nobody tell Karla about that crush thing!

My Bad

2009-08-17T17:28:00.005-05:00

If you walk up the hill from Wahiawa Intermediate School, after four or five blocks you end at California Avenue, the main street through the “country” town of Wahiawa, Hawaii, near the center of Oahu. California Avenue is itself a long hill leading about five miles into Wahiawa Heights. That four or five block trek to the main drag was a daily one for my three eighth grade friends and me.

Some days, we would part ways as soon as we reached California. John Imperial, a Filipino and Mark Faulkner, a white guy would head down the hill to their homes. Ron Nagasawa, a Japanese guy would head home straight through the Wahiawa Botanical Gardens. I began the long (maybe two mile) journey up the hill to the Heights. The journey was worth it, even in the Hawaiian sun or rain.

The four of us became friends simply from having signed up for Newswriting as our one elective course. As eighth graders we shared and rotated editorship of The Lance and Shield, our school newspaper. Later in the year we also worked on No Koala, the school’s literary magazine. The projects kept us after school many a day, and I loved it.

I also loved the days when we got out early enough to walk up our first hill and then to tarry before going in our respective directions. We would walk into the Botanical Gardens, rest on the bridge and talk. I remember the day I told them about Donna, the girl at church who I liked but was too shy to tell. This was my first group of confidantes. I had had a couple best friends in the past, but never a whole group like this.

By the end of the school year, we felt like we owned the school and we were well aware that our ride was about to end. We were headed to Leilehua High School, where we would be bottom-of-the-heap freshmen.

Our last gathering together was actually not the “proper” group. It was my 14th birthday in July.
By then my family had moved on Schofield Barracks, the Army post near Wahiawa. My parents let me invite whomever I wanted. John couldn’t come, so I added Lance and Lance, who were both Japanese, to replace him. I had gotten a stereo for a birthday gift, and Ron says he remembers my dad playing Bill Cosby records for us. I remember sitting on the porch talking. We were anticipating high school. We were guessing about where we would be hanging out and what we would be doing together.

And then at my birthday party I laid it on my best friends: I would not be hanging out with them at Leilehua. I tried to explain that my brother Carl and my sister Marcia were already at Leilehua and I would be expected to hang out with the other black students like them.

True to my word, I ignored my friends at Leilehua. Like most of the other black students, I arrived by bus from Schofield Barracks each day and headed directly to the front of the cafeteria, our area. I usually sat on the stage and looked out at everyone else. When the opening bell rang each day, most of the girls went to class, most of the guys disappeared. I went to class.

We started an official school club called the Soul Society. Marcia was the secretary, I was the treasurer, which meant that I held the dues after they were collected. I don’t remember if we ever used the dues for anything.

The black students were like family to me, but I had no close friends, no confidantes. My Leilehua experience was that sharp distinction between that social situation and my academic time. There were black students—most, but not all of them were girls—who negotiated those two worlds much better than I did.
More to the point: I was attempting something in my innocence, timidity, and ignorance that was unnecessary. I was afraid that someone would label me a “Tom”—in those days we left off the “Uncle” (If those imagined people could only see me now!) And I was afraid of embarrassing my siblings. Marcia and Carl both revealed to me years later that they had no expectations of me other than that I be Tony--that I do what Tony does.

And had I stayed at Leilehua more than two years, maybe I would have matured to the point of feeling more comfortable in my own skin (I don’t mean skin color), and maybe I could have merged my worlds better.

But we moved again. I looked for a new school and ended up at a school where “black community” was not much of an option. There I met a (half) black guy who years later would encourage America to “eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white.” While we’re at it, let’s also work on the assumption that says the only way to be “authentic” is to only hang out with people who look like us.

That mistake is not the fault of my multiracial group of friends, my African American group of friends, or my siblings. That mistaken assumption is on me.

Am I Black or Am I White?

2009-08-15T15:29:00.009-05:00

Damon, my five-year-old white grandson, announced to his Aunt Kimberly recently that he was black.

Kimberly: No, Sugar Booger; you’re white, just like Daddy.
Damon: Well when I get bigger, I’m gonna be black.

Only a few weeks later he asked his pregnant Aunt Kimberly, “Is your baby gonna be a Mexican?”

Kimberly: No silly, Uncle Drew is the Daddy. The baby will be white like me and Uncle Drew.
Damon: I don’t want Mexican; I like white.

And days later, Damon asked his mom “Am I white or am I black?”

For the record, Damon doesn't even know what "Mexican" is, but he has heard someone, probably not in his immediate family, say something negative about someone "Mexican."

Damon has learned the truth at an early age: Race matters. It is not just a matter of skin color. Somehow it means something. For Damon it’s an issue of identity as well as identification, preference, and (he thinks) choice.

When I was five, I don’t think I put any value on the differences among skin color. From birth I had been surrounded by a broadness of hue amongst those who loved me. I drew this picture of my family (I think it’s just us kids) and used the orange crayon even though a brown one was available. I think I perceived skin color as just gradations on a spectrum with no social significance (at five I probably used different language). If so, then biologically speaking, I was right.

But Damon knows that biology is not what matters with race. And he’s trying to figure out what does matter.

Whatsoever Things Are True III

2009-08-15T14:45:00.004-05:00

Almost a year ago (September 11, 2008) I drafted a post which I never published. It sat on my blogsite unfinished. I just re-read it, and I'm thinking its time has come. Eleven months later it sounds disgustingly familiar.

"I've ended my siege over Steve [Bell]'s Notes page on Facebook. Steve and I and another friend of his were going at it for a few days about the election, Christian values, the nature of our associations and stuff. I had to stand down and surrender his page because I was getting nowhere productive.

If you've read this blog before, you know that I made up my mind about the Presidential election a long time ago. My reasons are legion, but I will not delineate them right now. I am no undecided voter. In fact, my political mission right now is to persuade undecided voters to the ticket I believe is best for the country.

What I've faced is that many undecideds are not so undecided. It has baffled me how some claim open-mindedness but then argue only one side. I think I'm making a rational argument and the response is venomous demonization. I'm not interested in trying to force my opinion on anyone--that's not the persuasion I seek. But the selective hearing of some people, Christian in particular, is stunning to me.

I say 'Christian in particular,' because I'm disturbed at how many Christians believe the negative about any candidate when confronted with the overwhelming positive truth. I'm not saying that everything about my candidate is positive. I am decrying the bloodthirst that believes unsubstantiated innuendo and negative lies over positive truth. There are two issues here: obsession with the negative and willingness to believe lies."

Before some of my Christian brothers and sisters jump all over me:
If you disagree with my political views and are speaking the truth in love, then my exhortation is not about you. I applaud you. If you do not agree with me based on clear facts, I have no quarrel with you as a brother; we simply disagree. And if you basically agree with me politically, and are lying about the facts, this IS about you.

But here we are again with people willing to believe and disseminate lies that can be proven as such, and once again I am disgusted.

I Know How Chelsea Feels

2009-08-14T19:34:00.005-05:00

My memories of Germany are mostly impressionistic. I remember fearing the Germans on the other side of the fence, except for the ones we knew and loved. I remember idolizing my big brother, Carl, who we called “Co” --short for Cochise. I remember the feeling when my baby brother, Keith, was born (If he’s the baby brother, then what am I?). I remember a similar lost feeling when Marcia, my one and only sister, went off to German school.

We moved to Camp King, the Army base at Oberursel, Germany, before my first birthday. We lived there until I was five. For the first four years of my life, Marcia was my best friend. We were only thirteen months apart, and eventually people started to think we were twins. We loved that.

Once Marcia abandoned me for German school, Kelly Reinhart became my best friend during school hours. I have no specific memories of her, only fond feeling memories. She was a curly haired white girl (That's her on the tricycle). Our families lived in the same Army quarters. Her dad and mine were both soldiers and worked together at a second job at the NCO club. We got to go to the club at least on Sunday afternoons, so we saw a lot of the Reinharts.

But Army life is all about making friends and losing them in the next assignment. After Germany we lived in Kansas, Ohio, Virginia, and Hawaii; and I started seventh grade at Fort Knox, Kentucky. When Dad orchestrated a return to Hawaii, we were all relieved and thrilled, partly because the Reinharts were now there. I remember the anticipation of seeing my old best friend.

But thirteen-year-olds are not five-year-olds, and socialization was in full swing. I remember being at a backyard barbecue in Hawaii and someone telling me that that girl over there was Kelly; she had long wavy hair by then. I was shy. She probably was too. I don’t know if it was simply boy/girl stuff that kicked in or if anything else was lurking for either of us. But I don’t think we even spoke to each other—ever again.

But it was okay since Marcia and I were back to being “twins”—for a few more years. So I gotta assure Chelsea: Damon will be back.

Another SCOTUS Nominee

2009-08-11T07:18:00.007-05:00

More contentious than the Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court justice hearings, more salacious than the Robert Bork hearings and more racially devastating than the original OJ Simpson trial were the Clarence Thomas Supreme Court hearings. I was living single in a one-bedroom apartment. And I was sickeningly obsessed with the hearings. I could not stay away.

On October 14, 1991 I wrote in my journal:

“Thank you, God, for the merciful Joe Biden, who finally ended the proceedings. The fact is that no-one will ever know the truth besides Professor Anita Hill and Judge Clarence Thomas. Meanwhile souls are ripped apart--the soul of the nation, the soul of black America, the souls of black people.

I am torn as a supporter of Thomas on general grounds: that he is a black man who is apparently in agreement with my views. But he is apparently being coached by Republicans more than by his own conscience. I’m torn because Anita Hill, whose views I am probably less comfortable with is more convincing to me. I think she too is being coached, if not by the Democrats then by women’s activists. But somehow her charges still ring of greater authenticity than his denials.

It doesn’t help that they are both apparently Christian people with spotless reputations. The soul of Christian America is also ripped.

The sickest part is that confirmation will not answer the questions. This was not a confirmation hearing; it was a spectacle; it was a political war. It was not a confirmation; the parties have made it an issue of defamation of character. They’ve used a black man and a black woman to fight their wars, to further drive a wedge between in the race, to further strain the national image of black men and black women.

If I were Clarence Thomas (and it feels like I am) I wouldn’t want the nomination at this point. I’d rather retire to relative quiet in a less visible job than to live with the bittersweetness of an appointment under these circumstances. He is a severely wounded man, regardless of whether the charges are true. For some time he will be an inadequate justice. For much longer, he will be suspected, not trusted. That is the devastating blow this process has dealt. That, plus the stealing of black role models who 'deign to think for themselves.'

No, this process was not about blacks and whites, men and women, but the effect has been felt. So if I were Judge Thomas, I would prefer not to serve. It all leaves such a bitter taste in the mouth.”

A Lie Repudiated (Dad’s title)

2009-08-03T17:28:00.002-05:00

I will probably never forget my sixth grade school year at Solomon Elementary. Each week began with students lining up to meet with Mr. Waitt, our teacher, to draw up weekly contracts. Each week ended, weather permitting, with the much-anticipated Friday rocket launch, complete with the measuring of the rockets’ altitude using the trigonometry Mr. Waitt had taught us.

My favorite part of sixth grade was the after-school discussions I had with Mr. Waitt and with my best friend, Ted. For the record, both were white (and both were named Ted). Walking home from school one day, Ted told me about a private conversation he had had with Mr. Waitt. Their conversation, our conversation, and my letter to my dad (who was on his second tour of duty in Vietnam) are all immortalized because of Dad’s subsequent letter to the Honolulu Star-Bulletin.

Here is the beginning of Dad’s letter, which includes an excerpt from my letter. I include it intact with its 11-year-old logic:

“A few days ago I received a letter from my 11-year old son. As the day passed, it occurred to me that the beauty of this letter was worthy of a much wider exposure than it had received from my relatively few acquaintances.

In these chaotic times of racism, student and racial demonstrations, murder in the streets, war atrocities, sexual promiscuity and all of the other negatives which threaten to shake the very foundation of ‘Americanism,’ it is refreshing to know that in the society of the pre-teens there exists the simplicity—the obvious simple TRUTH, that in so few words effectively repudiates the LIE which has persisted for decades. Here is a portion of the letter written to me on Jan. 7:

‘…Next week we start debating. Ted told me that he and my teacher were talking. They said there is a man named Strong Thermon (or something like that). This man said that he thinks Negroes aren’t very smart; and that Negroes are good athletes. Then they said,

“Who’s the lowest jumper in our room?”
“Tony.”
Who’s the slowest runner I our room?
“Tony.”
Who’s the smartest person in our room?
“Tony.”

I told Mama about that, and she said that Negroes aren’t dumb. She said the reason Negroes didn’t get education is because white people were scared the Negroes were smarter.

What do you think?’”

I don’t resurrect these old conversations to gain adulation or pity. I don’t write to prove Strom Thurmond’s racism. His early rigorous fights against racial integration are well documented, despite his having fathered a (half) black woman 80 years ago. His later racial views are not as clear. I do not write to prove racism today based on conversations forty years ago.

I write to set up some ask questions:

1. Have we made progress regarding the image of African Americans as great athletes, but not great scholars?

2. If we haven’t, why haven’t we?

3. If we have made progress, what is it and is there any need for more?

4. If we have not made progress, what is your evidence and what would progress look like?

Just Imagine

2009-07-25T18:04:00.003-05:00

“Imagine,” says Chris Matthews at MSNBC, "that the roles and races in the Cambridge arrest were reversed (black cop, white prof). Would the public discussion be the same?”

I don’t think it’s a very illuminating question (not that I presume Mr. Matthews’ first intention is to illuminate). It comes with a number of underlying assumptions, perpetuating the view that race issues include only blacks and whites and are about “us” and “them.” At the risk of perpetuating some of those same assumptions, I offer my own series of questions that I hope will be more illuminating:

Just imagine that Lucia Whalen, the woman who made the 911 call (and whose ethnicity I don’t know), observed a short, WHITE, 58-year-old-man with a cane, trying to enter the house.

1. Would Ms. Whalen have “seen” something else—something so different that she wouldn’t feel the need to call 911?

2. How likely would it be that she would even know the guy, and might even go over to assist? (Whether Ms. Whalen DID know Dr. Gates and still made the call is a whole ‘nother question.)

Nothing of that scenario involves Sgt. Crowley, who was simply responding to a call.

3. But what if the short, white, 58-year-old man--indignant over this intrusion into his home—is ranting and raving (over some perhaps imagined offense) and calling Sgt. Crowley and his mama names, acting “a little bit stranger than it should have been”? Would Sgt. Crowley perhaps see an “angry uncle” who needed to be calmed down (as presumably police training would dictate) rather than a man so “uncooperative” in his own home that he needed to be arrested? What are the chances that this would have resulted in an arrest?

And alternately:

Imagine that rather than Sgt. Crowley, his black partner, Sgt. Leon Lashley, had confronted Prof. Gates.

1. How likely is it that the professor, still indignant and angry over the intrusion, would continue the ranting and raving?

2. If the professor did continue his rant, would Sgt. Lashley perhaps see an “angry uncle” who needed to be calmed down? How likely is it that it would have resulted in an arrest?

What do you think?

A Teachable Moment

2009-07-25T15:33:00.002-05:00

I don’t know if anyone is calling Sgt. James Crowley a racist after his arrest of Professor Henry Louis Gates in Cambridge, Mass. I am not. I don’t think the officer should lose his job. I don’t believe either one of these men should be bearing all the weight for the wrongness of the situation. But there is wrongness, and while each of them bears some responsibility for the wrongness, it goes beyond them—to us.

Last year candidate Obama bravely (and perhaps expediently) challenged Americans to a national dialogue on race. This time he is calling for a teachable moment and inviting both men for a friendly sit-down and the White House. But every day that the first African American President is in office is a reminder of his race challenge. I know that this will aggravate many people I know: I truly believe that much (not ALL) of the criticism of the President (stuff like: he’s not an American, he’s a Muslim, he’s a socialist, he’s a slimy liar, he’s the worst President ever) is born of our failure to address feelings about having an African American President.

But the challenge is not for a national argument or a national battle. A dialogue doesn’t have to have winners and losers. Raising race as an issue doesn’t have to declare bad people and good people. It is in that spirit that I posted my own story a few days ago. I’m thrilled that many of my friends understood the spirit, and responded accordingly.

Now, in the same spirit, I am prepared to address the actual situation in Cambridge. I do so again desiring no pity, no guilt, no winners or losers—just mutual understanding and perhaps further racial progress. In the post to come, just imagine…

Acting Stupidly

2009-07-23T22:22:00.003-05:00

For those who don’t believe the racial angle to the Henry Louis Gates arrest, I offer this personal story; not as proof, but as perspective:

Chrissy won’t forget that it was June 16, 2008. It was the day our dear Chelsea gave us a great scare. At about 9 pm we heard Chrissy screaming, “She’s not breathing!” Laura and I ran upstairs to find a limp baby in her mother’s arms. Laura took the baby and attempted CPR while Chrissy called 911. The household was going crazy. I’m sure the 911 operator could hear Thomas yelling in the background even after he went outside. Paramedics arrived and walked (leisurely, nonchalantly) up our walkway. They told us that Chelsea would be okay and asked if we wanted them to take her to the hospital. We did. They took Chelsea and Chrissy in the ambulance. The rest of us [Laura; our son, Thomas; and our grandsons Damon (4) and Michael (17)] piled into the car en route to meeting them at the hospital. After a few minutes on the road, Chrissy called from the ambulance to ask us to go back home to get Chelsea’s diaper bag.

We arrived home to see a police car out front and an officer at our door. I got out of the driver’s seat, to meet the officer. When I got halfway up my walkway, the officer met me. He stuck out a hand, while grabbing his gun with the other hand, as if to say, “No further!” He asked “And who are YOU!” Yes, just like that.

By then, my white wife and Michael, my white teenaged grandson, had also gotten out. They passed us unobstructed, walked up to the door, and entered the house. I responded to the officer, “This is my house. I own this house.”

He looked at me skeptically, then asked “So what was all the commotion?”

“Well, Officer, my granddaughter stopped breathing and there were a lot of upset people.”

“What happened to make her stop breathing? What was going on before she stopped breathing?” He was trying to figure out what I did to make her stop breathing.

“I don’t know; I just heard her mother screaming. But you know, Officer, we really need to get to the hospital.”

He extended his hand again, making sure that I didn’t go into my own house. He asked, “Who were you fighting with in the yard?”

“Excuse me?”

“Neighbors reported that there was fighting in the yard.”

“There was no fighting in the yard. My son was yelling because he was afraid he was losing his daughter. I came outside to calm him down.”

“Have you been drinking?”

“I had a glass of wine.”

By then Laura and Michael were out of the house. Laura spoke up, “We really need to get to the hospital.”

“Is there someone else who can drive?”

Laura said, “I can drive,” wisely not offering that she, too, had had a glass of wine.

Finally, the officer let me leave my own house to check on my granddaughter at the hospital, as long as I did so from my own passenger’s seat. Meanwhile my wife white, my white young adult son, and my white 17-old- and 4-year-old grandsons, all distraught over the plight of our Chelsea, have witnessed the added humiliation of my confrontation at my own house.

To re-clarify: I don’t write this to solicit pity, to inflict guilt, or even to make a political statement. I write simply to describe my reality to people whose reality is different and to validate the experience of Professor Gates.

Songs of Freedom

2009-07-04T08:42:00.002-05:00

I’m feeling especially patriotic this Independence Day. I’m actually flying an American flag from my house. A few months ago I wrote about my 40 years of patriotic cynicism’s triumph over patriotic devotion. Today the dominance in my patriotism has shifted from the critical to the more affectionate twin.

So I have assembled my favorite patriotic songs from my CD collection. For the most part I haven’t ranked the songs in my list. But I do have a #1 and a #2. The top song takes me way back almost to that 40 years ago. That’s when The Fifth Dimension recorded the medley The Declaration/A Change is Gonna Come/People Gotta Be Free. Today I can recite the preamble to the Declaration of Independence because of that song.

On the list, I tried to weed out those songs that just talk about treating people right (I have a lot of those songs) in favor of those that actually focus on this nation, this country, this land. That means I cut a bunch of peace and love songs in favor of freedom songs. Still I let a little of the peace and love shine through.

My list of roughly 100 songs includes songs called “America” by Neil Diamond, Pops Staples, The Vigilantes of Love, and Cornel West. In the end, there are songs by U2, , Jill Scott, Bruce Cockburn, the Neville Brothers, John Mayer, Jimi Hendrix, Patty Griffin., Common, Derek Webb, Tommy Sims. Eva Cassidy, Marvin Gaye, Bob Dylan, Usher, Norah Jones, Stevie Wonder, Marc Brouusard, Lenny Kravitz, Jennifer Hudson, Springsteen, John Legend, and Mellencamp. And the list includes brand new American anthems from the likes of will.i.am (It’s a New Day), Dave Stewart (American Prayer), and David Foster (America’s Song).

My #2 favorite song on the list surprises even me: Despite her unquestioned talent and her extensive catalog, there are only one or two Celine Dion songs that I actually like (“Because You Loved Me” comes to mind). Additionally, I’ve never been that fond of “God Bless America”; it’s always sounded a little exclusive to my ears. But when French Canadian Celine Dion sang “God bless America, land that I love!” in the aftermath of 9/11, it conveyed a different message than I had ever heard before. I wonder what Ms. Dion was thinking as she sang the song. Was she including herself as part of (North) America, was she singing as an adopted citizen of the USA, or was she simply singing as a gift to her friends across the border at the time of their tragedy? I don’t know; but in this performance her prayer is clear and heartfelt. So on this Independence Day, I echo her prayer: God bless America (and all the nations)!

What’s on your list?

Fully Alive!

2009-06-13T10:22:00.004-05:00

I woke up the other day remembering questions that kept coming up in the waning days of Hope Christian Fellowship. Back then I started asking about the difficult circumstances of life: “What does God want in this?” and then, “What does the enemy want in this?”

So this particular morning:

Laura: So how do you answer those questions today?

Tony: Today the easier question is, “What does the enemy want?” I think the enemy wants us to turn from God.

Laura: Well what does God want?

Tony: God is an egomaniac. God wants our total worship…for our own good.

I started reading a new book that day, Making the Best of It, by John G. Stackhouse, Jr. In the acknowledgements (yes I often read the acknowledgements), I read this tribute to the author’s father:

“I mourn the loss of someone who was, as Irenaeus put it, truly ‘the glory of God…a man fully alive’”

It struck me that perhaps what God wants is people fully alive—and alive in their relationships to God, to other people and to all of creation.

For your prooftexting pleasure:

“I am the way and the truth and the life.” John 14:6

“Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me and for the gospel will save it.” Mark 8:34-35

For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ! Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all. Romans 5:17-18

On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.” Luke 10: 25-28

“The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.” John 10:10

So what if you lose your job? What if you’re going to jail? What if your loved one goes to jail because he can’t find work? The enemy wants you to turn from God, to forget loving others, and to ignore the rest of the world. God wants you and your loved ones to be fully alive worshiping God, loving people, and serving the world.

I don’t know what it means that Adventists, Baptists, Church of Christ disciples, Disciples of Christ, Hindus, Methodists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, Unitarian/Universalists, United Church of Christ Christians, Unity followers, and other believers have all been praying for us in our current struggles. But if you are willing to continue praying, I ask you to pray against the enemy and to pray for what God wants for God’s glory: All of us fully alive!

...Even White Guys

2009-05-29T06:54:00.003-05:00

I have edited the previous post, adding the link to Judge Sotomayor's 2001 speech, which was printed in a 2002 journal.

In the interest of fairness (and to save you the effort), here is the offending line, which I have already criticized:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life."

But while we are quoting lines out of context, I also offer another example, which better reflects the thrust of the whole speech:

"The aspiration to impartiality is just that--it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others."

Still, where I stand against both Sotomayor and her critics is that they all operate as if white male judges have no background or experience to bring into the courtroom. Sotomayor thinks that's a bad thing, her critics think it's a good thing.

The truth is it's a fantasy. Aspirations of impartiality aside, even white males bring their background and experiences into the courtroom, for good or ill.

Everybody Brings Background and Experiences

2009-05-28T22:50:00.003-05:00

So God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. Genesis 1:27

Just to set the record straight, the Creator did not begin with a generic white male and then decide to get really creative and diversify. Even if you conclude that God created a male first (and not simply a human), that male was not a generic white American man. But the architects of the American experience WERE a bunch of white males (even though the nation was built on the backs of an extremely diverse populous), and, until 1967, ALL of our Supreme Court justices were white males (you knew that, right?).

So in 2001, Latina Judge Sonia Sotomayor, now the nominee to the Supreme Court, gave a speech to a Hispanic law group in which she explicated and defended the obvious: judges bring their experiences and backgrounds into the courtroom. One line out of the 8 pages (12-pt type, Times Roman) has made the rounds in the blogosphere. Once again a single line is taken out of context. One need only read or hear the whole speech to get the truth of it. But to be fair to her critics, this one line is ill-crafted. I don’t believe the judge meant precisely what she said (this was a speech, not a law brief). Still, the real problem with the statement is that it begins the same place her critics begin: with the presumption that everyone except white males has relevant backgrounds and experiences.

But the problem her critics present is that the judge admits to bringing her background and experiences into the courtroom. I can almost imagine the bathroom meetings “What’s worse is she seems downright proud about bringing her experiences into the courtroom! This is what’s wrong with having a woman or a non-white on the court: they insist on bringing that non-white non-male stuff with them. Why can’t they be generic like all of the tried and true white male judges of yore? Damn the Sixties! Now we have black people, women, and brown people all wanting a piece of the pie.”

Don’t worry, George Will, Rush Limbaugh, Tucker Carlson, Richard Land, WSJ and all you other complainers; white men are still allowed to bring their background and experience to the bench too, as they have done virtually exclusively for over 200 years. But somehow we’ve pretended that the white males are devoid of background and experience. And they pretend that they argue purely the law. They delude themselves.

BTW, if Judge Sotomayor becomes Justice Sotomayor, she doesn’t bring only the Latina experience and background. She brings the Sonia Sotomayor experience and background. Still with her confirmation, the court will reflect a bit more of the actual diversity of the American people than it ever has. And if Sonia Sotomayor is confirmed, white males with their background and experiences still maintain a massive dominance on the Supreme Court.

But we must begin to acknowledge: there is no such thing as a generic justice, a generic American, or a generic person. And whether we acknowledge it or not, our backgrounds and experiences go with us wherever we go.

Pray, America, Pray!

2009-05-06T21:26:00.002-05:00

For years I’ve had mixed feelings about the National Day of Prayer. I’m all for prayer. I practice it, encourage it, need it. But this particular observance has always felt strange. I think the uneasiness started when I saw the first music CD designed to support the day in 1997. I was highly disturbed that this official soundtrack for national prayer excluded the most prayerful ethnic group in the nation (African American Christians, according to various surveys). In fact, every artist on the collection was an evangelical white Christian. A few years later, a new CD—same thing.

I’m not opposed to evangelical Christians (of which I consider myself) or white people (of any faith) praying and celebrating prayer in their own way, But a national day of prayer should emphasize the prayers of ALL Americans, not just the ones who fit some narrow guidelines. That’s why the events sponsored by Shirley Dobson’s organization AT THE WHITE HOUSE seem unAmerican and unChristian. It’s like they go out of their way to be exclusive. They seem to revel in their exclusiveness. They miss the point. It’s not about making everyone think like you. It’s about praying to the God of the universe.

So I understand why the current President will lift up prayer with a proclamation, but not with an invitation to the Dobsons, who have been unChristianly critical (there is a way to be Christianly critical) of the President. It’s not that the President has anything against prayer—quite to the contrary. More than any President in recent memory, he actually talks about his own prayer life. And notably, prayer is featured at many of his events—a fact baffling to those who organized events for the previous President.

And I expect that President Obama will encourage ALL Americans to pray. Such an encouragement would actually be consistent with the proclamations of most US Presidents, including Mr. GW Bush. Despite his exclusivist actions, the previous President at least expressed this inclusive sentiment in several of his annual proclamations. From 2008:

“I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 1, 2008, as a National Day of Prayer. I ask the citizens of our Nation to give thanks, EACH ACCORDING TO HIS OR HER OWN FAITH, for the freedoms and blessings we have received and for God’s continued guidance, comfort, and protection. I invite all Americans to join in observing this day with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.”

But year after year, President Bush’s chosen way of observing the day has been the same: Sanctioning the Dobson’s exclusivist effort by inviting them to a White House observance.

I hope the new President will support this day with as much passion, but with a mind to include all pray-ers.

My friends and readers (and friends who are readers), I encourage you to pray even if you do not pray every day. Whether you are an evangelical Christian, as I claim to be, or some other believer or an almost-believer, I ask you to thank the God of the universe, to pray for this nation and for all the nations on this National Day of Prayer.

They Were Right: Redistribution!

2009-05-05T19:50:00.003-05:00

They warned me. And they were right. Back when I was supporting candidate Obama for the Presidency, several of my friends were concerned. They warned me that Barack Obama wanted to “redistribute the wealth.” They felt that this was unfair since hardworking, intelligent, godly and (consequently) wealthy people already pay more of their income in taxes than lazy, stupid, ungodly (and therefore) poorer people.

So now President Obama has gone and proved my friends right, at least on one count. Through his stimulus package, the President has given 95% of working Americans more of their own money to spend. That includes the working poor, the middle class and the pretty-darn-near-wealthy. Only the undeniable wealthy escaped this tax cut. This, my friends is a campaign promise fulfilled—signed, sealed, and delivered to your paycheck. So my concerned friends were right. Just like that, President Obama has redistributed the wealth.

But wait, there’s more. Now the President has announced his intention to close tax loopholes that help undeniably wealthy individuals and corporations hide untaxed or low-taxed money overseas. So now the wealthiest of Americans will have to pay their fair share of taxes on even more (though probably not all) of their wealth. There he goes again redistributing the wealth—taking from the few tax-sheltered ones and giving to the tax-paying millions who are just trying to make a enough money to shelter their families. It’s so unfair.

"If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. Then Jesus said to his disciples, "Truly I tell you, it is hard for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for the rich to enter the kingdom of God.--Matthew 19:21=24

An Example (or Two)

2009-03-28T18:45:00.004-05:00

We all know that the President wants a middle class tax cut. This policy will ensure that 95% of working Americans get a tax break, while the wealthiest 5% go back to the rates they were paying under Ronald Reagan.

Some folks sincerely and totally oppose this policy. They might believe that it is a “redistribution of wealth” (of course, it is; but so is policy that ensures that the rich get richer while the poor and middle class get poorer). They might believe that it is morally wrong (after all morally pure, hard-working people earned their great wealth; this policy rewards lazy, immoral working people for being…lazy and immoral). They might believe philosophically that government should stay out of it-- to let the laissez (lazy)-faire free market do its thing (gotta love that free market). They might believe that a middle class tax cut that lets 95% of working families keep more of their hard-earned money is tantamount to Communism (now that’s some convoluted logic!) They might simply believe that it’s bad policy.

But suppose the President does secure such a tax cut. And suppose that after the tax cut kicks in, Americans start getting their heads above water, stimulating the economy with purchases they can afford, confidence returns, homes are being built and bought, employment improves, and the economy begins heading in a better direction. Then we have a successful policy, a successful President, and a successful America. I know: That would be horrible!

Now suppose the President secures such a tax cut, but the effect is to strangle the economy. Americans far and wide struggle more. There is no economic stimulation. Consumer confidence worsens. More banks refuse to lend. More homes are foreclosed upon. Unemployment increases. I call that failure in America, failure of policies, and failure of the President. And we can all rejoice that the President and his policies failed. Nevermind that the American economy failed.

Once again, this is the only legitimate way to measure failure. Implementing a policy isn’t the measure of success or failure. The outcome of the implementation is the measure. So those who are hoping (and praying) for the failure of this President and/or his policies are hoping (and praying) for the failure of America. If they truly want America to succeed in the next four years, they will have to bite the bullet and hope (and maybe pray) for the success of this President and his policies, even the ones they don’t think are worthy. Otherwise, I suggest they take a tip from Usher, and :"Hush".

Now imagine that a President wants to save the world from terrorism. His plan, his strategy, his policy is to invade a sovereign country and start a war. I may disagree with this policy as a strategy for protecting our nation and the world from terrorism. I might actually believe his policies make the world less safe, but I’m not gonna wish for his failure. I’m gonna wish that his wrong-headed, immoral, ill-informed policy is successful in ridding the world of terrorism. Anything else would be un-American. But the measure of his success will not be the day he announces “Mission Accomplished,” unless his policy has actually made the nation and the world safer.

This Ain’t March Madness

2009-03-27T20:40:00.003-05:00

There are at least two ways to fill out NCAA Basketball brackets. There’s the predictive way: “Here’s who I THINK is gonna win.” But I don’t know enough about the teams this year to do that. So I filled out my brackets with the second way: “Here’s who I WANT to win.” And I had any number of reasons for choosing each of the teams I chose. I picked Syracuse in the early rounds because I think Orangemen is a funny name. I picked Tennessee because I live in Tennessee. I picked Dayton because my family’s from Ohio. I picked Temple because Bill Cosby went there. I picked the unlikely Cornell over Missouri because I always like to see Ivy League schools excelling in sports. Although my reasons for choosing teams are sometimes silly, by hoping my team succeeds, I am hoping the opposing team fails.

That’s how it works in sports. There are no really legitimate reasons to pick one team over another. I know people who believe with all their hearts that their ongoing rivalry with another team has some cosmic dimension or that there is something inherently evil about a particular team and something inherently virtuous about another, but they delude themselves. Fortunately it’s all in fun. It’s just basketball.

Unfortunately, too many people play politics the same way. Problem is the issues are deeper and more complicated, the stakes are much higher, so it’s understandable that folks would attach much significance to their preferred stance. These are not necessarily silly choices like my NCAA picks. But there’s another difference here: Governance is not primarily about choosing sides. It’s not a game!

And yet people get so devoted to their ideological team (party) and to demonizing-- or hoping for the failure of --the other team, that they forget what it means to win in government. They’ve convinced themselves that winning means that their own views prevail (I win, you lose—or vice versa). But the only win in government is when the govern-ers (elected or otherwise) succeed at making America a better place, either by what they do or by what they refrain from doing. If they fail, we all fail. If we cheer their failure, we are cheering for America’s failure.

Maybe political campaigns are a game. But this Presidential campaign is over. Somebody’s gotta be governing and not just gearing up for the next campaign, and I guess the next campaign is what all this hoping for failure is about.

This rhetoric is not necessarily about wanting this particular President to fail; it is perhaps more about NOT wanting him to succeed. But who loses if he succeeds? Not his supporters, not the nation, not even his detractors. Who wins if this President and his policies fail? No-one--except that narrow sliver of people who opposed him and will run for office soon. No wonder they hope for his failure, but they can't say that that's the reason.

It ain’t basketball, but it is some kind of madness.

The Measure of Success and Failure

2009-03-27T19:58:00.003-05:00

So here’s Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal (R):

The suggestion behind the “Do you want the President to fail question” is this – If you don’t answer their question with a loud “NO” immediately, if you don’t express instant obedience to the question, then you are not really a patriot, and you are essentially trying to undermine America.

Make no mistake, anything other than an immediate and compliant – “why no sir, I don’t want the President to fail” is treated as some sort of act of treason, civil disobedience, or political obstructionism.

This is political correctness run amok.

And let’s be clear, the very Democrat leaders who are now asking this phony question, are the ones who for so long wanted to see the last President fail, regardless of the issue, and regardless of whether he was right or wrong.

There is a very important role in our republic for the loyal opposition. And we must be both. We are loyal to this country, and to the republic on which it stands, one nation under God. And we will always be so. And we are loyal to the President of the United States, whether he is a Democrat or a Republican.

But make no mistake, loyalty does not mean we have to agree with his policies.

And we are also at present the opposition party. We are the party out of power. And it is altogether right and proper, and healthy for our Democracy, for us to speak up when we do not agree with the policies that this President pushes and proposes.

I will not be brow beaten on this, and I will not kow-tow to their political correctness. We will be the loyal opposition.

So…my answer to the question is very simple –

“Do you want the President to fail?”

It depends on what he is trying to do.

There is something far more important to us than whether the President or ANY politician fails.

Far more importantly, we don’t want America to fail.

Okay, people, this is getting silly. It’s simple: There’s only one measure of whether a President and/or his policies is/are successful. The measure is: Do they help the American people?

What is the meaning of failure and success when it comes to governmental policies? Success means that the American people are served. Failure means that the American people are not served.

So the inane and insane parsing of “I want the President to fail” versus “I want his policies to fail” is ridiculous. Either way, it’s a wish for the failure to serve the American people. People like Governor Jindal may be so blinded by ideology that they aren’t even aware of their folly. What these people are saying is that they are more devoted to their ideology than they are to the success of the American people. Not every issue in politics has to be us against them. I understand that cable news outlets and talk radio loudmouths make their living stirring up this “controversy” but elected officials have no excuse.

There’s certainly a place for “the loyal opposition”—for disagreeing with policies, for arguing against them and for proposing better policies--even opposite policies. There is definitely a time for saying out loud and repeatedly that you don’t think this is the right or best course of action regarding any particular issue. But arguing against is not the same as desiring failure.

Let me say what I mean straight out: Not only is desiring failure mean-spirited, it is unpatriotic, un-American. It is blind commitment to an ideology, even if an outside-your-ideology idea serves the American people better. That is a particularly self-righteous, self-serving, arrogant kind of insanity. Why would we want any governmental policy or any US president to fail?

One more time: There is no possibility that a proposed policy and its architect(s) succeed, while resulting in an America that is worse off. Worse off is failure. It’s failure for America, for the policies, and (whether you like him or not) for the President.

Why Laura and I voted AGAINST (and why we think you should too).

2009-01-21T18:36:00.003-06:00

When we were reading the biblical Book of Esther this fall, Laura and I were both struck by the same detail:

In Esther 8, the official pronouncement from the hostile Persian government--the pronouncement that was effected by Queen Esther’s bold support of God’s people, this godly but governmental pronouncement of deliverance --was to be written to

“the satraps, governors and nobles of the 127 provinces stretching from India to Cush. These orders were written in the script of each province and the language of each people and also to the Jews in their own script and language.”

Hundreds of years later on the day of Pentecost, which many Christians call the birthday of the Church, people from multiple nations gathered to worship in Jerusalem. On that day the Holy Spirit Himself chose to speak in multiple languages in order to accomplish godly purposes:

Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language. Utterly amazed, they asked: "Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans? Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language? Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome (both Jews and converts to Judaism Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues! Acts 2:5-11

So there’s this amendment to the city charter proposed in Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee. Laura and I voted early, but the official voting day is tomorrow, Thursday, January 22.The primary amendment states:

Official actions which bind or commit the government shall be taken only in the English language, and all official government communications and publications shall be in English. No person shall have a right to government services in any other language. All meetings of the Metro Council, Boards, and Commissions of the Metropolitan Government shall be conducted in English. The Metro Council may make specific exceptions to protect public health and safety. Nothing in this measure shall be interpreted to conflict with federal or state law.

I’ve listened to the arguments on both sides of the issue, and both sides agree on a staggering number of points.

1. Both sides agree that official business in Nashville should be conducted in English.

2. Both sides agree that official business IS and always has been conducted only in English.

3. Neither side can point to any past or present (or future) legal challenges to the conducting of official business in English.

4. Both sides agree that, should this amendment pass, it would change very little in actual conduct in Nashville/Davidson County government.

So with all this agreement, why do we even have this vote? It comes down to two more points of agreement!

First, both sides say that the devil is in the details. And they both try to make the point that their side will save money for the city and county. One side might be right, but truthfully neither side really knows the details. No-one knows what detail-ly things will happen if the amendments pass or if they don’t.

So that leads to the final point of agreement:

Both sides agree that if this amendment passes it will discourage people who don’t already speak English from locating to Nashville.

Let’s pause a moment to savor that prospect.

Proponents of the amendment believe this prospect would be good for Nashville. Opponents consider that attitude inhospitable. And some of us opponents consider it downright unChristian.

In fact, I challenge any Christian in Nashville to offer biblical or theological justification for support of this amendment. Laura and I stand with the Esther edict and the heart of the Holy Spirit at the beginning of the Christian Church.

What It Means to Me

2009-01-19T14:01:00.017-06:00

I was 5 years old when President Kennedy was assassinated. I came home from kindergarten and watched the news on our black and white TV. I remember going outside, climbing the dumpster at our Fort Riley, Kansas, Army quarters. There I pondered the significance. To my little mind, you might as well have said, “God has been killed.”

I was 9 years old, living in Fort Belvoir, Virginia, when Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated. Though I am African American, I was not really aware of who he was until he was killed. Dad tried to explain it to my innocent mind, “Martin Luther King was like the President of the Negro people.”

When Bobby Kennedy was assassinated only months later, I was much more alert. In my naive mind I still intertwined patriotism with religious devotion with general decency and strangely with academic excellence. That year my family took at least two trips to Washington DC. One was to see the national sites and structures. I cherish the pictures of the four of us kids standing obediently against the backdrop of the Washington Monument and facing the Lincoln Memorial. The other trip took us to 14th and U to see the devastation of the riots after the MLK assassination.

Two patriotic tracks began to emerge in my mind: one of continued pride and one of continued criticism. I insist that both were patriotism. In those days our family holidays were times to gather friends, often servicemen and women whose families were far away. We would, of course, feast; we’d watch sports; we’d listen to music; and we’d talk about issues. On the issues I was allowed to disagree even with my own Army officer father.

In high school I had the rare opportunity to continue those issue discussions with a couple other Black guys. During the 1975-76 school year at Punahou Academy in Honolulu, Hawaii, Rik Smith, a junior; “Barry” Obama, a freshman; and I, a senior had a standing date roughly once a week to talk. We discussed the social climate on our cosmopolitan campus (whether any of the non-black girls would date us black guys). We talked about sports and religion (I was a Christian; Rik and Barry were agnostics). We talked about our classes and the charges that a black person with a book was “acting white.” We talked about the social issues of the day and whether we would see a black U.S. President in our lifetime.

In my 1976 high school yearbook, I was given 1/3 of a page to express whatever I wanted to, to accompany my senior picture. I included this quote from Martin Luther King, Jr.: “I have a dream that one day…the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave-owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.” The quote has been a part of my life ever since.

Despite my hopes, by the time I was old enough to vote, my political cynicism was beginning to grow. Few Presidential candidates got my attention. Republican/Independent John Anderson got my attention in 1980. Democrat Jesse Jackson got my attention in 1984. Neither one prevailed, but they both interested me because their platforms were decidedly Christian and not particularly partisan. By 1988 Jesse Jackson had become a partisan Democrat, Anderson had faded from the picture, and my cynicism was completed. I continued to vote for Presidents, but today I can’t remember with assurance who I voted for each time. There was no excitement, no conviction; and as the culture wars ratcheted up, my Christian convictions were torn between party platforms.

When I read the memoir Dreams From My Father, which my brother Keith discovered in a remainder bin of a Boulder, Colorado, bookstore in the late 90’s, I was pleased by Barack’s transformation from an agnostic to a Christian. Despite my surprise, his account of coming to faith rang true to his thoughtful, fair-minded nature and his ability to continually grow.

Then I, like most of the country was taken aback by the soaring rhetoric first displayed nationally at the 2004 Democratic Convention. For me the voice sounded very familiar, like the conversations we had in high school. Still I was astounded by the audacious courage of saying in the Democratic keynote speech, “there is not a liberal America and a conservative America; there’s the United States of America!”

Then I heard the speech about the place of his Christian faith and politics at the Call to Renewal event in July 2006. After that speech, I began hoping that my high school friend would audaciously dare to run to be President of the United States. Over Christmas 2006, I heard that he was pondering such a run. I actually prayed for his decision during those days.

He announced, and then he ran a campaign that continued to stretch my pride. And my political cynicism began to melt. Barack Obama's Christian values showed through the nature of the campaign. He demonstrated how we can “disagree without being disagreeable.” Again I felt echoes of our days together. Barry and I have had in common a lifetime of learning to navigate different worlds. In our culturally rich state at a particularly cosmopolitan school and from each of our uniquely multicultural backgrounds, we were used to bridging communities.

And as he spoke with hope and inspiration, I never asked whether he had the “stuff” to back it up. I knew. I wasn’t saying, like most of America (some people for WAY too long), “Well, we don’t really know anything about him.” I knew. In Barack Obama I see a man who puts his God-inspired judgment above politics. He puts America above party.

That message of hope resonated with everyone in my family, and none of us had paid much attention to politics before. I was privileged to watch the debates with my white children and white grandsons (ages 9, 13 and 17!). We met together to early vote, taking the younger grandbabies with us. On election night we all gathered around anticipating and cheering the inevitable.

So these days are partial fulfillment of many of my dreams. I am certainly proud at this moment because Barack Obama is a black man, like me. I am proud because he is “Hawaiian,” like me. I am proud because he was shaped by Punahou, like me. I am proud because he is a Jesus Follower, like me. And I am proud that long ago we actually discussed the possibility of a day like this.

I don’t believe this is a messianic new age. I don’t believe the new President will be a Savior or even a king. I stopped believing a long time ago that the President is God. But I do believe that character, intelligence, and ability matter. And I believe we will all reap the benefits and blessings of those values.

For the first time since I was 5, I can find excitement about the possibilities of the political process. And I am thrilled that when my almost 5 year old white grandson, Damon, hears "President," he pictures someone who looks like Peepaw and he knows it's Barack Obama. And when my granddaughter, Chelsea, is 5 years old (and Damon is 9), her only Presidential memory will be someone with the character of Barack Obama.

Prayer for National Leaders (For national elections, inspired by Jeremiah 23:1 & 4)

2009-01-17T21:04:00.000-06:00

Lord we believe you when you say you will lead us. But we have suffered at the hands of those who would destroy and scatter your sheep. You promised that you would raise up shepherds who will gather us together so that no one will have to live in fear. So we look for those shepherds, Lord.

We ask for and pray blessings on those who will do good and do right, for those who will protect the children, who will school the children, who will give the children hope.

We ask for and pray blessings on those shepherds who will pursue peace, who will walk humbly, who will reconcile nations.

We ask for and pray blessings on shepherds who will fight injustice, who stand on the side of justice.

We ask for and pray blessings on shepherds who will feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and set at liberty the captives.

We ask for and pray blessings on shepherds who will spread love, show mercy, and practice hospitality.

Lord We ask for and pray blessings on our shepherds, We ask for and pray blessings on our people, We ask for and pray blessings on our country, We ask for and pray blessings on the nations. Amen.

Litany for Our Leaders #1 (Based on Psalm 72)

2009-01-17T19:11:00.001-06:00

Leader: O God, give our leaders your justice.

People: Give your righteousness to our leaders, our mamas and daddies, our local, regional and national officials, our aunts and uncles, our educators and legislators, our grandmas and grandpas.

Leader: May they judge your people with righteousness, and your poor with justice.

People: Blessed be the LORD God, who alone works wonders.

Leader: May they judge the doctors and the drug dealers, the addicted and the educated, the confident and conflicted, the comfortable and the afflicted, the wealthy and those struggling with justice.

People: May the mountains yield prosperity for the people, and the hills, in righteousness.

Leader: May our cites, our suburbs, rural areas teem with prosperity for all people.

People: Blessed be the LORD God, who alone works wonders.

Leader: May our law makers, law enforcers, and law defenders champion the cause of the poor, give deliverance to the needy, and crush the oppressor.

People: May our just and righteous leaders be like rain that falls on the mown grass, like showers that water the earth.

Leader: In their days may righteousness flourish and peace abound. May our peace officers offer peace.

People: Blessed be the LORD God, who alone works wonders.

Leader: May our leaders deliver the needy when they call, the poor and those who have no helper.

People: May they have pity on the weak and the needy, and save the lives of the needy.

Leader: May they redeem their lives from oppression and violence.

People: Blessed be the LORD God, who alone works wonders.

Leader: Blessed be the LORD, the God of all people, who alone does wondrous things.

All: Blessed be God's glorious name forever; may God's glory fill the whole earth. Amen and Amen.

Affirmation: God Is Our Refuge and Strength (Based on Psalm 46)

2009-01-17T18:57:00.000-06:00

One: O Lord we know you are our refugee and strength. You are a very present help in times of trouble. And we know trouble Lord, but we believe.

All:
We believe God is our refuge and strength.
We believe God is a very present help in times of trouble.

We believe and we will not fear.
We believe and we will not fear!

We believe God, though the earth should change.
We believe God, though the mountains tremble.

We believe there is a river that makes glad the people of God.

We believe there is a river.
We believe there is a river!

One: When our world seems dried up, we believe there is a river.

All:
We believe God is in the midst of the city, in the midst of the people.
We believe God will help when the morning dawns.

We believe God though nations are in uproar.
We believe God though kingdoms teeter and totter.

We believe God utters a voice and the earth melts.
We believe Almighty God is with us.

We believe and will not fear.
We believe there is a river.

God is our refuge and strength.
God is our refuge and strength.
God is our refuge and strength!

Prayer for Our Leaders

2009-01-17T17:03:00.003-06:00

The Upper Room is using my Litany on its home page this weekend!

Litany for Our Leaders #2
(Based on Psalm 72)

Give our leaders your judgments, O God,
and Your righteousness to the all the people.

Blessed be the LORD God, who alone works wonders.

May they judge your people with righteousness
And Your afflicted with justice.

Blessed be the LORD God, who alone works wonders.

Let the mountains bring peace to the people,
And the hills, in righteousness.

Blessed be the LORD God, who alone works wonders.

May they vindicate the afflicted of the people,
Save the children of the needy
And crush the oppressor.

Blessed be the LORD God, who alone works wonders.

Let them fear you while the sun endures,
And as long as the moon, throughout all generations.

Blessed be the LORD God, who alone works wonders.

In these days may the righteous flourish,
And abundance of peace till the moon is no more.

Blessed be the LORD God, who alone works wonders.

May they also rule from sea to sea
And from the River to the ends of the earth.

Blessed be the LORD God, who alone works wonders.

Let the nomads of the desert bow before them,
And his enemies lick the dust.

Blessed be the LORD God, who alone works wonders.

Let those nations we oppose bring presents;
The leaders of nations offer gifts.

Blessed be the LORD God, who alone works wonders.

And let all leaders bow down before God,
All nations serve God.

Blessed be the LORD God, who alone works wonders.

For God will deliver the needy when he cries for help,
The afflicted also, and anyone who has no helper.

Blessed be the LORD God, who alone works wonders.

God will have compassion on the poor and needy,
And the lives of the needy God will save.

Blessed be the LORD God, who alone works wonders.

God will rescue their life from oppression and violence,
And their blood will be precious in God's sight;

Blessed be the LORD God, who alone works wonders.

So may he live, and may the gold of Sheba be given to him;
And let them pray for him continually;
Let them bless him all day long.

Blessed be the LORD God, who alone works wonders.

May there be abundance of grain in the earth on top of the mountains;
Its fruit will wave like the cedars of Lebanon;
And may those from the city flourish like vegetation of the earth.

Blessed be the LORD God, who alone works wonders.

May his name endure forever;
May his name increase as long as the sun shines;
And let men bless themselves by him;
Let all nations call him blessed.

Blessed be the LORD God, who alone works wonders.

Blessed be the LORD God, the God of Israel,
Who alone works wonders.

And blessed be His glorious name forever; And may the whole earth be filled with His glory. Amen, and Amen.

Christian Resources for the Inauguration

2009-01-15T22:24:00.002-06:00

The U-Methodists are collecting resources to celebrate their Human Relations Sunday, Martin Luther King Monday, and Inauguration Tuesday. I've written some worship resources that are featured on the UM Worship page. I'll post pieces in the next few days. Today:

Litany: God Is Our Refuge
(Based on Psalm 46)
One: God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.

Left Side: God is our refuge.
Right Side: God is our strength.
Left Side: God is our help.
Right Side: God is there in times of trouble.

One: Therefore we will not fear, though the earth should change, though the mountains shake in the heart of the sea;

Left Side: We will not fear.
Right Side: Though the earth should change,
Left Side: We will not fear.
Right Side: Though the mountains shake;

One: We will not fear though its waters roar and foam, though the mountains tremble with its tumult.

Right Side: We will not fear.
Left Side: Though the waters roar and foam,
Right Side: We will not fear.
Left Side: Though the mountains tremble.

One: There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God, the holy habitation of the Most High.

Right Side: There is a river.
Left Side: There is a river.

All: Thank God there is a river.

No Compromise with Evil

2008-12-18T19:07:00.003-06:00

He warned us. He warned us repeatedly and clearly. But many didn't believe him. They didn't believe he meant it. They didn't believe he could pull it off.

Barack Obama kept saying that he wanted to bring people together. And now he has. Barack Obama has done the almost impossible. He has united the left and the right in opposition to evil. And on both sides the opposition is vehement.

What is this evil that both left and right oppose with such venom? A preacher of gospel has been asked and has accepted the invitation to pray at the inauguration of the President of the United States. That's horrible!

Oh, I know: "It's not just any preacher," say the left. "It's a women-hating homophobe."

And "It's not just any POTUS," say the right. "It's the MOST liberal marriage-hating baby killer."

So let's not let HIM pray for HIM!--It's disgraceful!

And they said Barack Obama couldn't unite the left and the right.

This, my friends, is what 30 years of culture wars have gotten us.

And why doesn't anyone, left or right, have an opinion about that other inaugural pray-er and preacher of the gospel, Joseph Lowery?

Hell Might Just Be Getting Cooler

2008-11-14T12:03:00.004-06:00

I don't mean that hell is getting neater or hipper or "badder." I mean hell might actually be getting a tad colder. My Baptist brother Richard Land and I rarely agree on anything political. In An Open Letter to President-Elect Obama, Land actually supports effective, moral, compassionate policies to fight abortion!

And in the letter, Land congratulates, encourages, and celebrates with the President-Elect. Then he expresses concerns and exhorts toward positive behavior, all without demonizing the liberal. It's as if Land wants to approach disagreements from a Christian perspective with the purpose of finding common ground for the common good (especially for "the least of these"). What a concept!

It sure is pleasant to be dwelling in unity with my brothers and sisters. I'll pray that our brother Barack and all of our government leaders take these proposals to heart.

Anti-Abortion Groups Invigorated By Obama Win

2008-11-13T21:48:00.002-06:00

I think my liberal friends at HuffPost meant this as BAD news. They are, of course, mostly wrong—unless by our tactics we pro-lifers prove them right.

I find it curious that it took the misguided fear of the President–elect as “pro-abortion” to get pro-life people to remember the fight. I wish the energy were coming more from compassion than anger, and I wish the anger were not based on fears, and I wish the fears were not based on a misunderstanding of the President-elect’s views and hopes regarding abortion. But if anti-abortion is back with a new wave, especially an effective, loving, and strategic wave, I’ve gotta catch it.

I hope HuffPost is also wrong that, as the caption says, the “tactics for anti-abortion groups are likely to refocus on street protests, grass-roots activism and state legislation.”

I only pray that as we renew our fight against abortion, we pro-life Christians will remember Whose we are and fight with truth, love, and humility. I pray that we will opt to generate more light than heat. I pray that we will fight smarter, not louder. As I said in an earlier post, calling ourselves pro-life isn’t saving babies. Neither incidentally is labeling pro-choicers “pro-abortion.”

We pro-life Christians have at least five possible responses to the abortion problem. I list them here ranked in my opinion from least preferable to most preferable:

1. Do nothing, but complain about people who are trying to do something (This describes me for quite a while now, but the President-elect has inspired ME too!).

2. Simply do nothing.

3. Talk really loudly about how awful abortion is. Spend a lot of energy on protests that are not likely to bear fruit, but that make all pro-lifers and all Christians look…well… un-Christian.

4. Work for strategies that do work. Promote policies that make it easier for folks to choose life for people both inside and outside the womb. See some possibilities here and here.

5. Get involved in the lives of people faced with difficult life decisions. Connect with people (male and female) at risk for creating unwanted pregnancies. Be willing to walk the long road with people who have decided to choose life.

I think the new President will surprise a lot of people in this regard. I do not defend his pro-choice views, but I am convinced that he will make good on his promise to work toward reducing abortions. Hopefully he can harness this new enthusiasm into a coalition that will save lives of the unborn and strengthen the lives of the born.

A President Is Not a King

2008-11-11T19:41:00.002-06:00

Before the election, a Christian sister sent me a Bible verse, Psalm 146:3:

Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men, who cannot save.

It is, of course, wise advice. But I’m not sure of her objective in sending it before the election, other than to blunt my passion for a particular candidate. I think she mistook my discernment and passion for worship and total trust.

I don’t know if she was suggesting that Christians shouldn’t vote, or shouldn’t care, or shouldn’t campaign, or shouldn’t get up false hopes about a candidate’s chances or abilities. None of it made sense to me in the days before an election. Regardless of who won the election, someone could put undue faith in that person.

But that is no reason not to vote and not to campaign for-- and not to tell the truth about-- and not to hope and pray for-- the most just, righteous, godly, able, and wise person to become our leader.

I am drawn to the prayer in Psalm 72, which begins:

Endow the king with your justice, O God,
the royal son with your righteousness.

He will judge your people in righteousness,
your afflicted ones with justice.

The mountains will bring prosperity to the people,
the hills the fruit of righteousness.

He will defend the afflicted among the people
and save the children of the needy;
he will crush the oppressor.

He will endure as long as the sun,
as long as the moon, through all generations.

He will be like rain falling on a mown field,
like showers watering the earth.

In his days the righteous will flourish;
prosperity will abound till the moon is no more.

While I am well aware that it is God who establishes governmental leadership, God chooses to do so by using any number of governmental systems. The problem with applying too quickly the lessons from these Psalms in the USA is that we have neither princes nor kings. Unlike most governments throughout history—which choose their rulers by bloodline or violence--Americans vote. Such was the genius of the new idea of American democracy. So God establishes authority in the USA by the votes of the people.

And while we have had makeshift dynasties, the American system works against them. In this era, a President has only 4-8 years to pursue an agenda—not enough time to carry out a Messiah mandate and not enough time to do major damage.

So we elect a President and a Congress, and both are checked and balanced by the courts. And we try to remember that we are a government of, for, and by the people.

And we pray for our leaders that they will govern with wisdom and justice. That is what we elect them to do.

If they inspire us to participate in the American community, to care for our fellow citizens, to actually work for a more perfect union, that’s icing on the cake.

Prayer for National Leaders

2008-11-03T09:21:00.001-06:00

(inspired by Jeremiah 23:1 & 4)

Lord we believe you when you say you will lead us. But we have suffered at the hands of those who would destroy and scatter your sheep.

You promised that you would raise up shepherds who will gather us together so than no one will have to live in fear. So we look for those shepherds, Lord.

We pray for those who will do good and do right, for those who will protect the children, who will school the children, who will give the children hope.

We pray for those shepherds who will pursue peace, who will walk humbly, who will reconcile nations.

We pray for shepherds who will fight injustice, who stand on the side of justice.

We pray for shepherds who will feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and set at liberty the captives.

We pray for shepherds who will spread love, show mercy and practice hospitality.

Lord we pray for our shepherds, we pray for our people, we pray for our country, we pray for the nations. Amen.

To Help You Decide VIII: Closing Argument

2008-11-01T18:15:00.002-05:00

What I Can Tell You About Barack Obama

To promote Senator Obama during primary season, I wrote a letter to the editor of Nashville’s Tennessean. I then sent versions of the letter to other communities I’ve lived in. The letter was printed in Louisville, Kentucky’s Courier-Journal; Salem, Oregon’s Statesman Journal; and Honolulu, Hawaii’s Star-Bulletin.

For my closing argument, I present a slightly revised version:

In the 1975-76 high school year, four African American young men attended Punahou Academy in Honolulu, Hawaii. Though we each had our own personal circles of friends, three of us-- Rik Smith, a junior; “Barry” Barack Obama, a freshman; and I, a senior, had a standing date roughly once a week to talk. We discussed the social climate on our cosmopolitan campus (whether any of the non-black girls would date us black guys). We talked about sports and religion (I was a Christian, Rik and Barry were agnostics). We talked about our classes and the charges that a black person with a book was “acting white.” We talked about the social issues of the day and about whether we would see a black U.S. President in our lifetime. We discussed our vocational choices. I was going to be a lawyer (I’m not one). 14-yr old Barry wanted to be a basketball player. He even jokingly wrote in my yearbook that when I’m a bigshot lawyer and he’s a basketball star I could negotiate his NBA contracts.

We held these discussions sometime before the adolescent angst that Obama records in his memoir, Dreams from My Father. I went off to college the next year so I never heard the agony and never knew the regrettable choices he reveals in that text, but I believe him. The seeds of the agony were in our conversations. The forces of puberty and the depth of Barack’s mind surely drove the issues deeper.

But neither am I surprised by Barack’s subsequent ability to rise above the agony and poor choices. It is no surprise that he graduated form an Ivy League university, that he went on to devote his life to service, that at Harvard Law School he was the popular president of the contentious Harvard Law Review, and that he moved on to teach Constitutional law and to serve in elective office for these 12 years.

Three issues surprise me. First, when I read the memoir that my brother Keith and I discovered in a remainder bin of a Boulder, Colorado, bookstore in the late 90’s, I was most pleased by Barack’s transformation from an agnostic to a Christian. Despite my surprise, his account of coming to faith rings true to his thoughtful, fair-minded nature and his ability to continually grow.

Second, I, like most of the country, was taken aback by the soaring rhetoric first displayed nationally at the 2004 Democratic Convention. For me the voice sounded very familiar, but the announcement in the Democratic keynote speech that “there is not a liberal America and a conservative America; there’s the United States of America!” showed incredible courage and audacity.

Those words surprised me, but they shouldn’t have. Barry, Rik and I had in common a lifetime of learning to navigate different worlds. In our culturally rich state at a particularly cosmopolitan school and from each of our uniquely multicultural backgrounds, we were used to bridging communities. We still do so in our own lives today. And Barack continues to expand upon those views in his Presidential campaign.

So thirdly I have been unpleasantly surprised by the suggestion that because Barack Obama gives a good speech, he is somehow shallow—as if the gifts of speaking and leading are mutually exclusive. I know that this is not the case. And anyone who wants to know can know the same. His record and his policies have been readily available from his website and from his campaign headquarters. His Blueprint for Change is comprehensive, well thought out, and available for perusal and discussion.

Finally though, what impresses me most about Barack Obama is not simply that he has the stuff to back up his hope and inspiration. His approach to the presidency is one of deep thoughtfulness. He exhibits quick judgment when absolutely necessary, and when issues require deeper thought, he consults the best minds, reflects prayerfully, and then finds the way to solve problems.

I recognize the training from our high school days. Punahou is an incredible school that taught us to think, to pursue excellence in all areas, and to serve our communities and the world. Barack Obama’s Illinois state record, his US senate record and this 21-month campaign reflect this same thoughtfulness, excellence and service.

America could do much worse for President of the United States. They couldn’t do much better.

To Help You Decide VII

2008-11-01T15:15:00.000-05:00

The Elephant in the Room
(And I’m Not Talking About a Caged Republican)

People make their election choices based on various factors and for various reasons. Sometimes people consider the real good of the country, sometimes not so much. Sometimes it’s the issues and the platforms, sometimes it’s the party. Sometimes it’s the person who seems like me or the person whose look or personality I like. Sometimes it’s the one with the most ability. And sometimes we choose the lesser of two evils, the one who doesn’t make us gag as much.

Most of my undecided friends have explained their indecision using one of two scenarios:

1. “I like your guy, except this one thing.” Often when I address the one thing, they say, “Well there’s this one other thing. And then there’s this one other thing…”

OR

2. “I don’t really like either of them. They’re all crooks. But my gut leans toward McCain. Now don’t get me wrong: I don’t LIKE McCain, it’s just my gut.”

So if you’re among those people, if --after all the debates, after all the ink, after all the video, after all the bandwidth, after all my incredibly persuasive arguments-- you are still undecided, you still can’t choose either candidate (and if you are still reading), I have to ask you the elephant question.

I want you to ask yourself: What part does race play in my decision?

I’m not saying that anyone who supports John McCain is a racist. I’m not saying that anyone who votes AGAINST Barack Obama is a racist.

I AM saying that race is in this campaign. And I Am saying that as the Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson says, it’s Obama’s fault. Barack Obama injected race into the campaign—by being (half) Black!

I AM saying that race matters. And I think it matters at a deep place, especially for those who pride themselves on their colorblindness.

We are in uncharted territory. Forty-three of 43 US Presidents have been white men over 35. As my brother Keith put it in a Denver Post article:

"An image is conjured in your mind of the President of the United States, and Barack does not fit that image."

This image is in the minds of black people, too, which is why it took a win in lily-white Iowa’s primary caucuses to convince black Americans to support Senator Obama. It also explains a “gut feeling” that chooses McCain over Obama.

So the threshold of persuasion that Senator Obama has to meet is not just “Is he the best available person for the job?” but “Do I want this guy so much that I will do violence to my past images of what a President is? Am I willing to force the matter? Or will I ‘trust my gut’ --which is informed by the past—to choose the ‘regular,’ ‘normal,’ ‘safe’ white guy, even if he’s not the best for our country at this time.”

If Obama doesn’t make that threshold for you, that doesn’t make you a racist. But neither does it make you colorblind. And that doesn’t make your gut racist. But it questions whether your gut knows or cares about what is best for you and your country. Maybe your gut is not worth trusting. Maybe your gut is uninformed.

Quoting my brother again:

"I believe a real gut-check needs to happen with a lot of people, and I don't think we can underestimate that. It comes not with his policies or how eloquently he expresses his ideas. It's about what people will do when faced with having to vote for a black man."

I was way into this post when I was interrupted by the story of someone I know. This man grew up as a white Tennessee redneck. To protect him from embarrassment, I won’t use his real name; we’ll call him “Joe, the Redneck.”

Joe never got beyond a 6th grade education. He’s a workingman, serving the people of his community by picking up their garbage. He is also a quiet and loyal husband and father.

Although Joe has treated black people kindly, he has also talked ugly about them behind closed doors and he has forbidden his children to play with them. In the five years I’ve known him he’s been kind to me, but I could tell he didn’t like the possibility of being in my family.

And Joe had never cared to vote. His wife (“Joelene”) was paying attention way back in the primaries; but not Joe. Joelene’s “gut” told her to vote for Hillary Clinton in the primary. But she kept listening and paying attention. She listened to her daughter who was hearing from me. Joelene finally cast her primary vote for Barack Obama. She informed her gut.

Joe still wasn’t paying attention. But then he started. And then he made sure he was registered to vote. And he watched and listened and thought and decided. And he voted early in the general election. For his first time voting in 52 years, Joe, the Tennessee Redneck Garbageman, informed his gut and voted for the black guy.

If you’re still undecided, it’s probably time to find out what that “one thing” is in your gut. And maybe it’s time to inform your gut.

Next: My Final (and Beginning) Argument

To Help You Decide VI

2008-10-31T23:51:00.003-05:00

Distortions, Distractions, Characters and Character

Character matters. I want my President to be a person of character and judgment as well as of ability and vision. And one measure of the character of a candidate is to look at the company that candidate keeps. But this is not always a reliable measure. Ask Jesus.

And in this campaign a particularly insidious pattern of character assassination by distortion and association has emerged. The pattern:

1. Scour the Candidate’s biography to find every person he has ever associated with; whether the association is significant or tenuous doesn’t matter. Choose public servants, public services agencies, or men of God whom most Americans have never heard of. Make sure that, despite their public anonymity, they have done significant good for the American people, their local communities, and/or the Kingdom of God.

2. Scour the servants' histories, records and biographies. Ignore the significant good they have done through secular or spiritual means. Look only for their sins, perceived sins, or acts attributed to them as sins.

3. Tell the American people of those sins (or perceived or attributed sins) Define this person or agency by the sins. Be sure that Americans can never think of this person or agency without focusing on their sins (or perceive or attributed sins). Assure that the simple mention of their name calls to mind their sins.

4. Remember that most Americans are too lazy to assess the whole picture. Lazy Americans believe the first thing we hear. Not-so-lazy Americans verify the bad, but don’t bother to explore the good, or the timing (this happened a long time ago), the interpretation, the misunderstanding, or even the reason for the bad.

This is the recipe for the perfect feast of smear politics. Anyone who wants to can wallow in the scum and let it confuse them.

The last step (5) is to tell the voters that the Candidate’s association with this public servant, man of God, or service agency reflects bad judgment and character.

In the end, these folks assassinate the character, not only of the targeted Candidate, but of others who are actually working for good.

If you are truly trying to decide, I ask that you not believe the first thing you hear. I encourage to research who these people are, how God has worked in and through them, and what their intentions are for the good of this nation. Don’t assume that the first thing you hear about them is the truth.

To Help You Decide V (Part II)

2008-10-30T20:48:00.003-05:00

The Role of Government and Personal Responsibility

The question from an earlier post:

“Why is it the government's job to take care of people? I guess where I'm coming from is didn't Christ command the church to take care of those less fortunate? At what point did it become the taxpayer's responsibility?”

Obama resonates with the question to a large degree. In Kissimmee, Florida, on October 29, Obama explained his views: "Lately they've been calling me a socialist. They've found evidence that when I was in kindergarten I used to share my toys . . . They said 'look he's a redistributionist'… My Bible tells me there is nothing wrong with helping other people, that we want to treat others like we want to be treated. That I am my brother's keeper, and I am my sister's keeper. I believe that."

But if it is exclusively the church’s duty to care for people, I know of a church that agrees with my friend who asked the questions, except that they don’t exactly “take care” of people. What they do is to serve people who need jobs, homes, motivation, skills, health care, and Jesus.

They encourage their members to serve the community--to strengthen it in practical and godly ways. They hammer into their members the value of working to strengthen families and to not settle for the mediocre. They call people to self –sacrifice for the good of the kingdom of God.

And they remind people that government can’t solve their problems. In fact in a now famous sermon entitled “God and Government,” their pastor made these points about trusting in government:

Governments fail. God never fails!
Governments lie. God never lies!
Governments change. God never changes!

That church on the south side of Chicago is Trinity United Church of Christ. The preacher is Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr. And the sermon is the infamous G-D-America sermon. God never fails. God never lies. God never changes.

To Help You Decide V

2008-10-29T19:48:00.002-05:00

The Role of Government and Personal Responsibility

I tread lightly here because home-schooling moms, Constitution law professors, and all confirmed Libertarians know more about the “proper role of government” than I do. I can’t speak confidently from a Constitutional law perspective. But I can speak about my own views based on my Christian experience and reflection. I know a lot more about the Bible than about the Constitution

I know this much: the proper role of government is at least partly a matter of opinion. It is because of those opinions that the founders struggled to put in place checks and balances—to balance the power. It is because of those differences of opinion that they followed the body of the Constitution with a bill of rights. And we have, with new societal challenges, found ourselves opining and deciding about further amendments.

To get into this, I remember the question Jennifer D asked regarding an earlier post:

“Why is it the government's job to take care of people? I guess where I'm coming from is didn't Christ command the church to take care of those less fortunate? At what point did it become the taxpayer's responsibility?”

So… In my view it is NOT government’s job to “take care” of people. And more than any other Democrat in recent memory, Barack Obama states that fact ad nauseam. The nation first heard his views at the 2004 DNC speech:

“The people I meet -- in small towns and big cities, in diners and office parks -- they don’t expect government to solve all their problems. They know they have to work hard to get ahead, and they want to… People don't expect government to solve all their problems. But they sense, deep in their bones, that with just a slight change in priorities, we can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life, and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all.”

People don’t need government (the political establishment, elected officials, other power-brokers) to fix everything for them, and too often government (same definition) is the problem.

But the other fact I know is that when we say “government” in the American context, we are properly talking about the people, not the power brokers. American government is made up of all Americans—this is the genius of the American experiment. Barack Obama believes (ideologically) that “the proper role of government” goes beyond the Constitutional allowance, to the sentiment that I am my brother’s and sister’s keeper.

He does NOT believe that government (either definition) is responsible for taking care of people. But he does believe that those in power (wealth, position, status) should not be allowed to increase in power at the expense of opportunity for the weak. How my Christian brothers and sisters miss the biblical spirit of this view escapes me.

God sides with the last, the lost, and the least-- over the powerful. “Okay, Tony” you say, “but it’s the church that God is talking about to take up that battle.” And I say, “The church is not a building (as if a building could act) nor is it primarily a societal entity. It is the people—collected.”

So if the church is the people and the government is the people, we don’t have as clean a distinction as that phrase “separation of church and state” might suggest. I have to go with being a Christian over being an American citizen all within the American context.

So here’s how I see it:

1. When God establishes priorities: protect the weak, defend the oppressed, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, redeem the enslaved, God doesn’t much care whether we do so individually or governmentally. We simply better be careful that in our individual or governmental lives we are not opposing God. It is still the church whether it operates through government or not.

2. God is less concerned with our stated stance on an issue than on our

a) heart-place and `

b) actions.

So, for instance, we can shout at the top of our lungs that we are pro-life, but if that sentiment is not true to our hearts and/or is not reflected in our actions, then what does it profit?

3. Among the “proper roles of government” are to protect the innocents, to maintain order, to ensure equal opportunity (not equal results), to ensure that power does not increase exponentially among the rich and powerful while diminishing reciprocally among the poor and weak.

4. What does matter: What are the effective ways, the wisest ways, and life-giving ways to carry out God’s agenda, and what is simply meaningless chatter or activity?

Again, I know more about the Bible than about the Constitution. So you might have to talk to a homeschool mom, a Libertarian, or a Constitutional law professor (like Barack Obama).

Please Pray for James Dobson

2008-10-29T18:05:00.003-05:00

If you are a Focus on the Family listener, you are probably aware that Dr. Dobson (whom I used to respect) has mailed out a mean-spirited, unChristian, unsubstantiated attack upon Barack Obama, speculating about what might happen by 2012 should Barack Obama be elected president. It is meant to scare people into voting against the Senator, based on unfounded, fear-based speculation. It is hateful in foundation and lacking altogether in truth or love. Among the charges:

*Churches that refuse to perform same-sex marriages would lose their tax-exempt status

*“under God” in the Pledge would be declared unconstitutional

*Doctors and nurses who won't perform abortions will no longer be able to deliver babies

*Pornography would be openly displayed on newsstands

*Inner-city crime increases when gun ownership is restricted

*Homeschooling would become restricted, so thousands of homeschooling parents emigrate to other countries such as Australia and New Zealand.

*Since 2009, terrorist bombs have exploded in two large and two small U.S. cities, killing hundreds, and the entire country is fearful, for no place seems safe."

*Euthanasia is becoming more and more common.

*New carbon emission standards drive many coal-powered electric plants out of business. "The country has less total electric power available than in 2008, and periodic blackouts to conserve energy occur on a regular schedule throughout the nation."

To suggest that Obama and the Democrats even WANT these things is despicable. But that doesn’t stop my Christian brothers and sisters at Focus on the Family from saying it. And it doesn’t stop their listeners from believing it. And this comes from someone who is supposed to be a Christian leader speaking about his Christian brother.

This is ridiculous and indefensible fear-mongering. It is outrageous! Obama’s policies will not lead to all this garbage as Dobson speculates. And my brother, Dr. Dobson, either knows it is untrue and is disseminating lies, or he doesn’t know it and is disseminating foolishness. Either way he needs my prayers. As do all of those who listen.

Last Call: Tony and Barry

2008-10-26T21:57:00.003-05:00

These are the last articles I've given interviews for. The London Observer/Guardian interview was several months ago, but just published today. The Denver Post interview was actually this week. Once again the Post also quotes my little brother, Keith.

To Help You Decide IV

2008-10-22T20:01:00.002-05:00

On Abortion

First, let me possibly save you some time. If you believe that there’s only one way to stop women from having abortions and that that way is to elect a pro-life President who can appoint pro-life justices to overturn Roe v. Wade, you might as well stop reading now. I can’t help you.

If you think “I support a woman’s right to choose” means “I want to kill babies” or even “I don’t care if babies are killed,” I can save you time. There’s no sense reading what I have to say.

But if you’re pro-life, like I am, and you really want us to do whatever we can to stop women from aborting babies, we’re on the same page; read on.

Second, I’m ashamedly aware that one reason this abortion issue gets so thorny is that most of us who claim to be pro-life do absolutely NOTHING to stop women from aborting babies. So election day comes around and we think we’re DOING something by electing a pro-life President. See how effective we’ve been in the past eight years?

I am 100% pro-life/anti-abortion. So, what is our Christian pro-life obligation regarding a Presidential election? I think it is to elect the person with the best chance of stopping the most abortions. I KNOW we can do better than eight years of nothing.

Here’s the Obama argument as I see it. I base this argument on statements he has made consistently over the course of his campaign. I also hope it explains and reflects fairly his voting record. I’ll provide citations upon request, but for your one-stop shopping on this issue I recommend prolifeproobama.com.

1. Barack Obama says consistently “I don’t know anyone who is pro-abortion.” So he asks, “Since most Americans are against abortion, but choice is the law of the land, what can we do to make it easier for women to choose to bring their babies to term?” More below.

2. Obama says that liberals who gloss over the moral dimensions of abortion make a big mistake. Most women who have to make the moral, difficult, and personal abortion decision do not take it lightly. Obama himself talks of teaching his girls (in time) of the sacredness of sexuality, the morality of sexual decisions, the primacy of abstinence, and (eventually) the responsibility of birth control.

3. Because he believes this is a moral decision, he believes it should be left to a woman, her family, her pastoral advisors and her doctors. It should NOT be made by the government.

4. (Another way to say #3) He is supportive of a woman’s right to choose as reflected in Roe v. Wade.

Now my perspective:

1. I have to admit that I had to resolve the abortion issue before I could whole-heartedly support Sen. Obama for President. Obama’s voting record on abortion is indisputable and troubling. Too often the voting record is all we have to go on. So I understand that for many Americans who are trying to understand who Barack Obama is and where he stands, voting record is the most reliable indication.

But I am not most Americans. I have had a personal relationship with the man. I see my intelligent, good-hearted, Constitution-loving Christian brother voting in a way that I don’t agree with, and I have to ask “why?”

Thanks to the contentiousness of his opponents (and the process) and the conscientiousness of the press, both friend and foe, Obama has answered these questions over and over. That his opponents keep stirring the pot is no indication that he has provided inadequate answers. His answers ring true to the thoughtful, big-hearted, law-loving person I know. The clearest answers regarding abortion issues were given to the brave Cameron Strang at Relevant Magazine. Here’s an excerpt:

Strang: Based on emails we received, another issue of deep importance to our readers is a candidate’s stance on abortion. We largely know your platform, but there seems to be some real confusion about your position on third-trimester and partial-birth abortions. Can you clarify your stance for us?

Obama: I absolutely can, so please don’t believe the emails. I have repeatedly said that I think it’s entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don’t think that “mental distress” qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions.

The other email rumor that’s been floating around is that somehow I’m unwilling to see doctors offer life-saving care to children who were born as a result of an induced abortion. That’s just false. There was a bill that came up in Illinois that was called the “Born Alive” bill that purported to require life-saving treatment to such infants. And I did vote against that bill. The reason was that there was already a law in place in Illinois that said that you always have to supply life-saving treatment to any infant under any circumstances, and this bill actually was designed to overturn Roe v. Wade, so I didn’t think it was going to pass constitutional muster.

Ever since that time, emails have been sent out suggesting that, somehow, I would be in favor of letting an infant die in a hospital because of this particular vote. That’s not a fair characterization, and that’s not an honest characterization. It defies common sense to think that a hospital wouldn't provide life-saving treatment to an infant that was alive and had a chance of survival.

2. I can’t make any sense out of Roe v. Wade. I will not lift a finger to support it. But neither will I generate any energy to try to elect a president who says he’s pro-life and who hopes to overturn Roe v. Wade.

First, I don’t believe this opportunity will come through the US President anytime soon. Consider the evidence not only of the past eight years, but of the past 28 years since abortion has been a factor in Presidential elections. Twenty of the years have been under Republican, pro-life Presidents. Seven of nine justices were appointed by Republican Presidents. Still, we have seen nary (did I say “nary”?) a crack in Roe v. Wade (thanks to Jon Trott for this observation). The Supreme Court is not ready to overturn Roe v. Wade. Neither is the nation.

Nor do I believe that that overturning would save babies. Certainly not very soon. Meanwhile, as by brothers and sisters note, babies are dying.

3. So does anyone have a plan to stop the killing? Barack Obama does. The fullest expression of that plan can be found (once again) at prolifeproobama.

A truncated version is reprinted here from the aforementioned Relevant Magazine article.

Strang: You’ve said you’re personally against abortion and would like to see a reduction in the number of abortions under your administration. So, as president, how would do you propose accomplishing that?

Obama: I think we know that abortions rise when unwanted pregnancies rise. So, if we are continuing what has been a promising trend in the reduction of teen pregnancies, through education and abstinence education giving good information to teenagers. That is important—emphasizing the sacredness of sexual behavior to our children. I think that’s something that we can encourage. I think encouraging adoptions in a significant way. I think the proper role of government. So there are ways that we can make a difference, and those are going to be things I focus on when I am president.

4. Finally I return to some of my opening comments: Saying I’m pro-choice does not kill babies any more than saying I’m pro-life saves babies. We act like we're picking our favorite sports team. Let's say I root for the Titans over the Colts. If the Titans win, I might feel like I did something, when my stance had absolutely nothing to do with the win!

We are used to politicians telling us their stances, and we vote accordingly. But Senator Obama seems more ready than others to tell us whatever we want to know about WHY he holds the stances he does or WHY he voted the way he did. You may not always agree with him, but you gotta love his transparency, his thoughtfulness, his compassion and his vision for using government to actually solve problems.

To Help You Decide III

2008-10-18T15:44:00.002-05:00

Taxes and Wealth
Many of my dear Christian conservative friends walk up to me and say, “Tony, I really like your guy for President. I really like him. It’s just this one thing…” It always baffles me when that one issue is that Barack Obama proposes “the redistribution of wealth.”

For some, this is an issue of fairness. For me, it is too. But we disagree on what is fair.

One version of the argument says that we should embrace a flat 15% tax policy. The rich already pay taxes at a higher rate. The flat rate sounds fair. I might agree, all things being equal. The problem is that all things are not equal. Wealth buys opportunity and that opportunity does not pass on equally to others (children, grandchildren).

One response from my friends is that the rich got rich by hard work. When I responded with a particular example of a struggling less-than-wealthy person, I was reminded that this poorer person got in the situation through his own bad life decisions.

So here’s my thinking:

Working hard is good.
Making moral decisions is good.
Making wise decisions is good.

But measuring a person’s work ethic, morality or wisdom by their bank account is unwise, illogical and un-Christian.

I do NOT agree that wealthy people are necessarily harder workers than middle class or poor people. I have had too much experience with hard-working poor people and lazy rich people to believe that. I have no need to believe that rich people are necessarily lazy (or immoral or stupid). I believe that hard work can lead to wealth. But I also believe hard workers and lazy people cut across income levels. And I believe we will find moral/godly people across all income levels. And I believe we can find wise/intelligent people in all income levels.

My Christian faith says that sin takes several forms and transcends many factors. Some of the forms: ignorance, immorality, and laziness. The factors transcended: income level, nationality, race, culture, language. If we are judging people according to the latter and attaching them to the former, we are not reflecting a biblical worldview. Bottom line is this: I believe it to be indeterminable whether a person’s wealth is attributable to hard work, morality or ingenuity, although all three are admirable and could be factors.

So in a Presidential election the question is: What role can government play in assuring that hard working, moral, disciplined and wise people can make the money they need to support their families and to move up in the world.

That opportunity for middle class or poor people will never approach the opportunity that the already wealthy already have, but government should operate to make more fair the playing field. This is not the same as socialism, Communism , "handouts," or taking from the hardworking rich to give to the lazy poor. It is simply an issue of justice.

A policy that protects the wealth of the wealthy, (regardless of how they amassed it) while making it increasingly difficult for those trying to make it, is simply unjust and unchristian.

So the question for a just society is still one of fairness. If I am right that moral, intelligent, hard-working people exist on levels of income, then justice demands that a fair government do whatever it can to assure (at least) that moral and hardworking people have the opportunity to amass wealth and provide for their families.

The policies Barack Obama advocates are nowhere near socialism. They do not level income or general wealth. They don’t even level the playing field, but they do make the playing field MORE fair. And they do so by asking those with power (wealth is power) to do their part to help others to gain some power to provide for their families and serve society better. Obama speaks of this as answering Cain’s question of God “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Obama believes that God’s unrecorded answer is “Yes, you are!”

To Help You Decide II

2008-10-18T10:29:00.002-05:00

If you’re still trying to decide who you’ll vote for in the Presidential election, I want to persuade you to support Barack Obama. My support for Obama comes with reasons. These are NOT those reasons:

1. My support of Barack Obama is not just because we were friends in high school. I have lots of high school friends whom I would not consider supporting for President of the United States. If you’re my friend now I might not support you, should you run for office (in fact, you’d likely be disqualified by your associations!).

But my friendship with Barack Obama does give me some advantages over people who are trying to get to know who he is. My friendship did make me pay attention to him earlier than most Americans did. But mostly my friendship allowed me to trust him when he speaks. The man I see now rings true to the kid I knew then. So I'm not afraid his good words are shallow or deceptive, while some of my undecided friends are: “He speaks well, but…”

And when I read the smears about his character (patriotism, Christian faith, ideology,…), I can ask “Does this ring true to the Barry I knew?” None of them do.

2. My support for Obama is not because he’s the Democrat. I have voted for Republicans and Democrats for President. And until this year, I’ve always gone into the booth holding my nose (figuratively). I registered (D) this year because I ignorantly thought I couldn’t vote in the primary otherwise.

3. My support for Obama is not because he’s African American. I will admit that if all things were equal and I had to choose between a white man for President and a black man--after 43 straight white male Presidents--I’d vote for the black guy. Without apology or shame. But, not to worry: All things are NEVER equal. So I have to look at all things. The Presidential election is no time for “he-looks-like-me, she-could-be-in-my-club, we–could-have-a-beer-together” identity politics. And I don’t support the view that says we should elect an unqualified black man to “make history.”

4. My support for Obama is not simply because “he gives good speeches.” While I think inspirational speeches have their place, they are not enough. Fortunately, Barack Obama offers way more than good speeches and delivery. More of that in later posts.

5. My support for Obama is not because I think he’s perfect. He’s not running for Messiah. We’ve got one of those, and I’m quite satisfied with Him, thank you. He’s not running for Savior. I like the Real Savior of the World. But for President I do want to vote for someone whose character, intelligence, abilities and plans can make a positive difference in our nation and the world.

Next: To the issues.

To Help You Decide

2008-10-17T07:30:00.002-05:00

Alright, folks: it’s crunch time. You still have two and a half weeks to vote. But the debates are over. The information is out there. And there still seems to be a block of voters who are having a tough time making up their minds.

Some of the people I talk to I’d like to call Committed Undecideds. They won’t know who they’re voting for until they step into the booth. I’m not sure what constrains them. Is it good old fashioned American hyper-individuality (If a lot of people like a candidate, they must be wrong)? Is it looking for a messiah and realizing none of these people quite fit the bill? I'm not sure how to help the CUs.

I know other people who honestly want to make the best decision but are torn. They are among my closest friends. And because we are close, they have known for a long time of my “Committed Decided” stance in this election. So the most common comment I hear is, “Tony, I really like your guy --no-one has yet called him ‘That One’ to my face--I really like your guy, except for This One Thing…” It would be great if that one thing were the same for everyone. It’s not. So God willing, it’s time for me to start giving my argument for supporting Barack Obama.

I will be discussing issues in the posts to come. But in my next post I’ll tell you what is NOT true about my Obama support.

About the Debates, But Not the Issues

2008-10-16T19:47:00.002-05:00

When you're in a debate
and it's starting to sink,
a blink, I think,
is as good as a wink.

Me at My Worst

2008-10-15T18:06:00.001-05:00

If you know me IRL (in real life), you might want to screen your calls. Any day now you’re likely to get a phone call or e-mail asking for dirt on me. Feel free to respond as honestly as you can. They’ll be looking for my worst deeds, my worst words, and --if they could get to ‘em –my worst thoughts. Why would they care so much about me? Because of my association with Barack Obama.

And don’t hesitate to tell all you know of my association. It was at one time a significant relationship. I don’t mean we simply sat on some charitable boards together. Or that we supported some of the same uplifting causes, like helping Americans exercise their voting rights. I don’t mean that I was just someone like a pastor, whose every opinion could be attributed to him. No, we were actually FRIENDS. I don’t deny it. If he remembers, he won’t either. We gathered regularly and talked about whatever was important to us. We talked a lot. And since he was only 14 while I was 17, my influential words (deeds and thoughts) are probably particularly significant to attribute to Senator Obama.

But I advise you to be careful. If you do answer the requests, that puts you in the loop too. What’s in YOUR closet? If you are a practicing Christian, what was your pre-Christian life like? Those bad deeds (words or thoughts) could also be attributed to Barack Obama. If you don’t want all of America to hear about it so that it can be stuck to Obama, you might not want to answer the call after all.

Made for Radio

2008-10-05T22:47:00.002-05:00

I was on BBC's Talking America broadcast from Nashville today. I was going just to be part of the studio audience, but I was asked to ask a question. Listen for yourself.

Into the Middle of God’s Story

2008-09-06T20:58:00.001-05:00

I believe that he circumstances of our lives find their meaning when we see them fit into the story God is telling, the purposes God has for the world and the purposes God has for us in the world.

When God saved me the other night from death by automobile, God did not just save me for no reason. And God’s purposes are not generic; God’s reasons have to do with God’s story. So we all find ourselves in the middle of God’s story.

In our adult Bible study at my church we’ve been following God’s story since January. We began in Genesis, the beginning, because we get a good glimpse of God’s purposes by beginning at the beginning. But we could just as easily discern God’s purpose by beginning with the end. The end and beginning are tied together and each pole revels God’s purposes.

The Bible’s version of the end is recorded cryptically in the Book of Revelation. But it’s not so cryptic that we can’t see God’s heart. Our class looked at a few verses from the Book this past week.

After this, I saw a large crowd with more people than could be counted. They were from every race, tribe, nation, and language, and they stood before the throne and before the Lamb. They wore white robes and held palm branches in their hands, as they shouted,

"Our God, who sits upon the throne, has the power to save his people, and so does the Lamb." The angels who stood around the throne knelt in front of it with their faces to the ground. The elders and the four living creatures knelt there with them. Then they all worshiped God and said, "Amen! Praise, glory, wisdom, thanks, honor, power, and strength belong to our God forever and ever! Amen!" One of the elders asked me, "Do you know who these people are that are dressed in white robes? Do you know where they come from?" "Sir," I answered, "you must know." Then he told me: "These are the ones who have gone through the great suffering. They have washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb and have made them white. And so they stand before the throne of God and worship him in his temple day and night. The one who sits on the throne will spread his tent over them. They will never hunger or thirst again, and they won't be troubled by the sun or any scorching heat. The Lamb in the center of the throne will be their shepherd. He will lead them to streams of life-giving water, and God will wipe all tears from their eyes." Revelation 7:9-17 (CEV)

This passage takes me all the way back to God’s promise to Abram in Genesis:

The LORD said to Abram: Leave your country, your family, and your relatives and go to the land that I will show you. I will bless you and make your descendants into a great nation. You will become famous and be a blessing to others. I will bless anyone who blesses you, but I will put a curse on anyone who puts a curse on you. Everyone on earth will be blessed because of you. Genesis 12:1-3 (CEV)

God’s purposes are bookended here, beginning and end. What we are living is the in-between. And all the circumstances of our lives (like my car accident) find their meaning when we see them fit into the story God is telling, the purposes God has for the world and the purposes God has for us in the world.

Ben's Plea

2008-09-06T16:15:00.002-05:00

My Christian brother and friend Ben (no really, he's a friend In Real Life!), has blogged this stuff on Daily Kos. Here's how he begins, but there's more:

Look, I'm an Evangelical Christian. And I've taken a lot of heat in the past for saying that on Daily Kos. But today, I'm speaking to my fellow Evangelicals about Sarah Palin. I'm speaking to people like Robin Smith (TN GOP chair) and Richard Land (Southern Baptist ethics and religious liberty director) and James Dobson (Focus on the Family) and Matthew Staver (Liberty Counsel) and Pat Robertson (Christian Broadcasting Network).

As your brother in Christ, I ask you - Are you really interested in using your power to enflame a religious war?

Because that's what you're doing by supporting Sarah Palin and John McCain.

Put Away Falsehood

2008-09-04T22:09:00.003-05:00

I wasn’t gonna get into our sister Sarah Palin's speech, but I’ve been thinking about it all day from a Christian perspective. When my friends at Matthew 25 Network put forward this statement, I thought I’d publicize it. I’ve reproduced it below. And the Associated Press is kind enough to point out the specific lies reflected in both Governor Palin’s speech and those of other speakers at the the Republican National Convention. Judge for yourself.

From Matthew 25 Network:
As Americans and people of faith from around the country, we were extremely disappointed in Sarah Palin's divisive, sarcastic, and often deceptive address last night at the Republican National Convention. We call on her not only as a political figure, but also as a prominent Christian, to recommit herself to campaigning in good faith, with a strong commitment to truth-telling.

As Christians, we are called to be respectful and loving toward our neighbors, honoring their intentions even if we disagree with their plans. We are also called to "put away falsehood" (Eph 4:25) and to refrain from slandering, belittling, or speaking out of contempt for anyone.

If these are the standards God has set for us in our personal lives, our church communities, and our neighborhoods, how much more so should they be the standards of those Christians who choose to be in the public eye? Shouldn't we also expect our brothers and sisters in politics to speak the truth in love and to extend respect and goodwill even to those with whom they disagree?

Sarah Palin has shaped much of her life around her Christian faith [1]. Indeed, it has been continually suggested that one of the major reasons John McCain chose Palin as his running-mate was her Christian faith and her ability to energize evangelical Christian voters. Thus, it is no stretch to say that Palin has suddenly become one of the most visible faces of Christianity in today’s political scene.

As such, we believe she has a calling even higher than her responsibility to her party's victory in November - a calling to represent Jesus to the rest of the world. This is why her speech at the Republican National Convention last night was so disappointing to us at the Matthew 25 Network.

In questioning not only Senator Obama’s policies but also his motivations, and mocking his career, Palin went far beyond what could be considered acceptable disagreement and into what seemed like open contempt for a political opponent.

To be blunt, we saw very little of Jesus’ love in Sarah Palin's speech last night, as she heaped contempt on those who disagree with her politically, while offering no vision for how to resolve the critical issues facing Americans today like job loss, health care, growing child poverty rates and the war in Iraq.

Moreover, as has been documented by major media sources including the Associated Press [2], Palin spoke falsehoods not only about her own record, but about Barack Obama's record as a State Senator and as a U.S. Senator. As Christians, we are called throughout Scripture to speak the whole truth, to put away falsehood, to bear true witness even when it hurts our own interests. The name of Jesus should never be associated with falsehoods or deception, but last night, in Sarah Palin’s speech, we believe it was.

Therefore, we in the Matthew 25 Network call on Gov. Palin to repudiate her attitude of contempt towards her political opponents and to tell the whole truth, not only for the sake of a more honorable politics, but also for the sake of our Christian witness in the world.

Senator McCain is no less responsible because he selected Gov. Palin and praised her speech, and he claims to be a Christian as well. It is ill-fitting to use Christian identity and language for one's political advantage without seeking to live up to that high calling. Ultimately, as the Presidential candidate, Governor Palin's tone and infidelity to truth reflect negatively on Senator McCain as well.

More Views of God's Protection

2008-08-28T22:34:00.005-05:00

The windshield:

The airbags:

More angles:

God's Protection

2008-08-28T17:44:00.003-05:00

This is the car.

This is the driver who emerged from the car.

Any questions?

Mr. and Mrs. Thomas McBride

2008-08-25T13:03:00.002-05:00

Toot Toot, Again, and Again

2008-08-23T08:55:00.003-05:00

Washington Post and London's Daily Telegraph quote me. I like the Post article, 'cause it also has a lot from my little brother, Keith.

Watch the Saddleback Forum

2008-08-15T23:08:00.002-05:00

Add Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church, to my list heroes amongst my Christian brothers. He, like Stephen Mansfield, is modeling an attitude, a spirit, a character that reflects the Spirit of Jesus Christ. Tomorrow Rev. Warren will host the two major presidential candidates at the Saddleback Civil Forum. In an ingenious format, Warren will interview each candidate with the same questions. Neither candidate will be able to hear the other’s answers, so they won’t be responding to their opponent, they’ll be responding to Rick Warren’s questions.

All I can say beforehand is: watch it. It should be purely informative.
The info:

Saddleback Civil Forum with Barack Obama and John McCain
Saturday, August 16th at 7:00 p.m. CDT
Live on CNN

Choosing Some Life

2008-08-13T19:57:00.002-05:00

The Democratic National Convention Committee has announced the inclusion of a pro-life speaker at their convention later this month. Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey, Jr., a strong supporter of Senator Obama, is also an outspoken pro-life advocate.

The inclusion of Casey as speaker is a kind of redemption for his family. According to legend, in 1992, his father, then Pennsylvania governor, Bob Casey, Sr., was uninvited from the speakers’ platform when his own pro-life views became known. There are alternate versions of the story: Some say Casey Sr. was prepared to make a fervent pro-life pitch, which was the reason he was removed. Others say his views on abortion did not enter in (evidently other pro-life Democrats did speak), and that Casey’s refusal to endorse the Clinton-Gore ticket was the reason he was not allowed to speak. Nonetheless the announcement of Casey Jr.’s speech is meant to signal a new day for the Democratic Party.

I think the proposed abortion plank of the DNC also signals the seriousness of the issue for Democrats. I’m not naïve. I’m not happy with the plank. Its pro-life side is not strong enough,

"The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman's decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs."

This is not the full pro-life stance I want, but it beats the recalcitrance we’ve seen on both sides of the aisle on this difficult moral issue. Not strong enough, but it moves in the right direction. Still I prefer the language from Democrats for Life:

“Democrats for Life of America will strongly and unequivocally champion the sanctity of life from conception to natural death and will continue to oppose any and all legislation that infringes on that right. We will continue to support pregnant women and advocate on behalf of unborn children. We believe that one of most effective ways to reduce abortions is to support pregnant women and provide access to health care, child care, a livable wage and freedom from the fear of domestic and sexual violence.”

What I like about the proposed DNC plank is the focus on actions more than simply stances. We pro-lifers can yell and scream our stance or silently hold on to our stance; but if we advocate nothing to actually and effectively stop abortions, our moral, godly, righteous, and right stance is worthless in the public square. The pro-life side of this plank at least encourages action toward stopping abortions.