Post-Election Blues, Vintage 2008

-->

Like others, I have been accused of over-reacting to the Presidential election results. Some have tried to call me back to 2008 and 2012 to be reminded of how I then was telling people “Get over it! You lost; accept it! Stop whining. You need to chill!" 

I don’t remember expressing those sentiments, but my memory sucks. Fortunately I have an actual record written days after the 2008 election. I don’t think I actually published this anywhere. But here it is.

For the record, the extended conversation I report below took place in our small Baptist church’s only adult Sunday School class the Sunday after the election. I was the teacher, as I had been for the past 10 years. I was also the white congregation’s only black member. Here is my record from that week in 2008:

“I am sad. I have been wondering about my friends who did not vote for Barack Obama. How were they feeling about the outcome of the election?

Some of my McCain supporter friends have rejoiced with me because of our friendship or because of the historical significance. At church one person changed her perspective just because she learned that I once knew and now trust the President-elect. She started to see the President-elect differently even though she did not vote for him. Another sister expressed that she was both “excited and a little fearful.” Another McCain supporter called me to say that she is open to whatever is coming and that she hopes I’m right about how this President will serve the US.

I expected these sorts of responses. I also expected disappointment, maybe bordering on despair or despondency. I have felt this myself after many an election when my candidate (Republican, Democrat or independent) has not won.

I wasn’t expecting the reaction I got from another group of Christian friends. Against Laura’s advice I decided to ask this group: “Regardless of how you voted, how are you feeling about the outcome of the election?"

These people have known about my high school friendship with Barack Obama since before he announced his candidacy. They have also known about my passionate support for him, although as a group we haven’t directly discussed politics.

When I asked the question, Laura answered immediately. Others were more reluctant, but just as I was about to move into Bible Study, people started speaking up. There were a few moments of insight or compassion or possible hope, but this was not the tenor of the conversation. When they finally spoke, they started expressing great anger and intense cynicism.

One person, having heard Oprah say, “Hope won,” replied, “No, hate won!” Other people characterized the President–elect as a heartless baby killer. The “socialist” label came up. One person said he was surprised that Obama apologized to Nancy Reagan for an off-handed séance comment. He said that the apology showed humility, something he hadn’t seen from Obama the whole campaign(!). Some were angry that 97% of black people voted for him (ignoring the fact that this is roughly the same percentage of blacks who support ANY Democratic candidate). Several people said that it didn't really matter who we voted for or who won since God is the one who determines the leaders of the nations, but they were not happy with the outcome.

Someone eventually asked me about my feelings. They said they could tell that I felt hopeful. I told them that I also felt proud, partly because here is our first black President--and he's not just any black guy. He's a man of ability and integrity. I was proud partly because he was my friend, partly because he was from Hawaii like me, but mostly because it is the first time I was truly excited about what this President could do for America. I also said that I feel disappointed that my brothers and sisters are feeling this kind of anger and cynicism at the prospect of their brother in the Lord becoming President. One very intelligent, godly man said, "What's George Bush, chopped liver?" I refrained from reminding him that George Bush wasn't in this election.

Not wanting to get defensive, I did say that they (the whole class) were misinformed about Obama’s abortion sentiments. When someone came back at me with the horrors of abortion, I reminded them that I am pro-life. I am in agreement with them on abortion. I do not agree with them regarding Barack Obama's abortion sentiments.

I eventually reminded them that a President is not a king. He does not have all authority. And he has only 4-8 years to do whatever he plans to do. They all plan to "support" him because they are loyal Americans and because Christians are supposed to support their leaders. I told them that I am praying that the new President will earn their respect.

It saddens me to see the President-elect through the eyes of these brothers and sisters. They see him as lacking humility. They believe that he wants to see babies die, that he promotes decadence, and that he is a socialist. And they are afraid of what he wants to do to America.

Some of them were cynical--intensely cynical. They said they were initially afraid, but were reminded that God chooses who the leaders are. The cynical ones were questioning whether voting matters and whether who is elected matters.

I saw an anger and almost hatred that I've never seen in these my beloved brothers and sisters. Despite the surprise, I had invited it. And while it was not pleasant, I don't regret the question.”

The War on Truth and Unity

“History reverberates with testimonies of a shameful tragedy. Centuries ago a sage named Socrates was forced to drink hemlock. The men who called for his death were not bad men with demonic blood running through their veins. On the contrary they were sincere and respectable citizens of Greece. They genuinely thought Socrates was an atheist because his idea of God had a philosophical depth that probed beyond traditional concepts. Not badness but blindness killed Socrates. Saul was not an evil-intentioned man when he persecuted Christians.  He was a sincere conscientious devotee of Israel’s faith. He thought he was right. He persecuted Christians not because he was devoid of integrity, but because he was devoid of enlightenment. The Christians who engaged in in famous persecutions and shameful inquisitions were not evil men but misguided men. The churchmen who felt an edict from God to withstand the progress of science, whether in the form of a Copernican revolution or a Darwinian theory of natural selection, were not mischievous men but misinformed men. And so Christ’s words from the cross are written in sharp-etched terms across some of the most inexpressible tragedies of history: ‘They know not what they do.’”

—Martin Luther King, Jr. “Love in Action” in Strength to Love

Dr. King could find similar examples in our own day. Sadder still: We have come to the day that Dr. King seemed to want to prevent. The blindness of which he spoke has deteriorated into sinfulness.

A great example is the now quadrennial dustup over pray-ers at the Presidential inauguration. Some of us—apparently only a few of us—are overcome with giddiness when the diverse spectrum of speakers is announced. Four years ago Martin Luther King lieutenant Joseph Lowery (I was his backstage host at a youth ministry event in 1995) and Rick Warren (I led our church’s version of 40 Days of Purpose in 2006) were invited to pray. This time the line-up included Myrlie Evers-Williams (civil rights activist and widow of martyr Medgar Evers) and Louie Giglio (of Passion Worship Movement fame).

But not everyone shares my glee at this diversity. Others operate with obligatory disgust and begin their dirt research. And then the Inauguration Committee’s gesture of unity gets trampled by polarization and namecalling. Welcome to the culture wars!

True to form, someone, who obviously objects to a conservative Christian praying at a Presidential inaugural event, found an old sermon that they believe disqualified Rev. Louie Giglio from praying. They justify this inquisition, probably calling it their journalistic obligation. But more likely it “needed” to be done to stop those Bible-thumping, ignorant, homophobic, right wing fundamentalists from forcing their religion down our throats. Typical outrage ensued, and Mr. Giglio withdrew. The anti-conservative-Christians camp had won. And the unity of our nation took another little blow.

I admit to wishing Mr. Giglio had chosen, like Rick Warren did four years ago, to tough it out and pray for our nation on the occasion of a Presidential inauguration. But I don’t know all of the deliberations that he and his advisors entertained before pulling out. And I honor the respectability of his statement.

This event doesn’t end with the dirt-digging and the decision to withdraw. Well-meaning Christian leaders decided that this is another chance to decry the Obama Administration’s so-called War on Religion. They didn’t have to look far or say much—just  hint that Louie was invited to pray and now he wasn’t praying. ‘Nuff said, right? We all know what happened.  And we must call out the Godless, liberal, Leftist, gay agenda of the Obama Administration.

Except that this incident is an example of just the opposite. The administration’s Inaugural Committee designed the event, invited the guests, and received acceptances.  Among those accepting was Mr. Giglio, whose inclusion in the program was reportedly at the President’s personal request. No further action was taken by the administration until Mr. Giglio withdrew, at which point the Inaugural Committee issued a carefully worded statement emphasizing their desire for inclusion, a desire they demonstrated by inviting such a diverse roster of participants.

Some prominent Christian leaders have ignored the facts. One example comes from Rev. Russell Moore:

“When it is now impossible for one who holds to the catholic Christian view of marriage and the gospel to pray at a public event, we now have a de facto established state church. Just as the pre-constitutional Anglican and congregational churches required a license to preach in order to exclude Baptists, the new state church requires a “license” of embracing sexual liberation in all its forms.”

But the “state” did no such thing. The “state,” meaning The Obama Administration, meaning “The Enemy” invited a prominent Evangelical Christian, who accepted the invitation, and then withdrew under pressure that had nothing to do with the “state.” Perhaps there was a tinge of persecution in the 48 hours between Giglio’s acceptance and his withdrawal, but his defenders’ outrage mocks real religious persecution and ignores the fact that the “state” was the inviter, not the persecutor.

 If I follow Martin Luther King here, I acknowledge that these Christian leaders were just mistaken. In their zeal to defend their rights and their beliefs, they were blind. King warned us in the church of the seeds of this phenomenon which has sprouted and blossomed into a malicious weed:

“Never must the church tire of reminding men that they have a moral responsibility to be intelligent. Must we not admit that the church has often overlooked this moral demand for enlightenment? At times it has talked as though ignorance were a virtue and intelligence a crime. Through its obscurantism, closedmindedness and obstinacy to the truth, the church has often unconsciously encouraged its worshippers to look askance at intelligence.” --“Love in Action” in Strength to Love

It’s possible that their blindness reflects innocent ignorance, but I suggest that their blindness was stoked by their desire to believe something other than the truth. Their devotion to the “Obama is anti-religion” narrative blossomed into an unwillingness to pursue the truth.

This is an object lesson. I am not interested in pointing out who is the worst offender in this scenario. This kind of thinking is a reflection of our times. We line up on either side of any number of issues and lump all of those who disagree with us as into an evil entity identifiable by a buzz word. All we have to say is “fundamentalists” or “Socialists.” We say, “the Left” or “Right Wing.” Sadly even “conservative” and “liberal,” “Democrat” and “Republican,” and “Bush” and “Obama” are code words for “the enemy.” And we hyperbolically decry a War on Religion, a War on Women, a War on the Family, and a War on Equality, and we feel justified, even obligated, to demonize those—even those driven by their faith—who think differently.

As a Christian I am particularly grieved when Christian leaders are perpetuators of these battle lines. In this case once they had determined that those other folks are actually evil, nothing else mattered, even the truth and love in the Gospel of Jesus. The actual facts didn’t serve their narrative so they perpetuated a lie. And they told it and told it and told it so that their lying storyline could survive. This is when their blindness became sinfulness.

Intellectual blindness is not the problem; a total disregard for truth is. My best prayer is “Father, forgive them,” whether or not they know what they do.

Food Stamps and Mr. Gingrich

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

·      Most African Americans are NOT on food stamps.

·      Most people on food stamps are NOT African American, 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 to work.

·      Great work ethics and poor work ethics persist across the economic spectrum.

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

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

Did I say disingenuous? I mean it is a LIE to say that President Obama wants to make people dependent on the government. President Obama wants to dig the country out of an economic rut and to provide relief to its struggling citizens in the meantime.

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 people are ill-informed—not that I think the right information will change their minds.

Out of Tragedy, Triumph?

This morning after listening to Neil Young’s “Let’s Roll,” I played 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 of Sting’s “Fragile,” and Celine Dion’s classic version of “God Bless America.”

Then we headed for church, where we read together Isaiah 43:2-3b,

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

And through the rivers, they shall not overflow you.

When you walk through the fire, you shall not 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, which President Obama read at Ground Zero. It reads in part:

God is our refuge and strength,

         A very present help in trouble.

 Therefore we will not fear,

         Even though the earth be removed,

         And though the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea;

 Though its waters roar and be troubled,

         Though the mountains shake with its swelling.  Selah  

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

         The holy place of the tabernacle of the Most High.)

Our pastor, Stephen Handy, commemorated 9/11 with four statements.

He said, “In the midst of tragedy, there is triumph.” Surely he 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 airplane passengers--who risked their lives preventing further tragedy. The days and weeks 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 to convince otherwise, open eyes will se that if God was ever with us, God is still with us.

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

But this commemoration taxes my gratitude efforts because of Pastor Stephen’s first statement. He declared, “We are better people because of that day.” I love and respect our Pastor, but I can’t agree with this statement. Thanking God, even in the midst of tragedy, draws on faith in a loving, just, good God. God’s goodness is at 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 better people during the attack and in the immediately following days and weeks, and we have seen better people in the sacrifices of those who have enlisted and served to assure that this kind of tragedy won’t happen again. But I cannot say with any degree of confidence that we Americans as a people are better. We came together as a community and we began to remember our presence as part of the global community—all for a mere moment. 

Since then we have seen the most divisive and mean-spirited attitudes I can remember in my adult life—all without 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 to recapture that spirit. Perhaps we can remember the God who walks with us through fire, storm, and unbelievable horror. And perhaps we can become the better people my pastor calls us.

And the Idiocy Grows

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.

Six Out of 1,914

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.

Lesson Plan: How to Do Ugly

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 to work 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 that this 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 libs come back with an anemic response. It’s like their heart’s not really in it.

So in this example, Democratic politicians cry 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.

Are We There Yet?

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.

Whatsoever Things Are True III

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.

Just Imagine

“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

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

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.

Pray, America, Pray!

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!

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)

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

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

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.

What It Means to Me

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 wife, 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.

Christian Resources for the Inauguration

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

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?