Into the Middle of God’s Story

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

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

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

The windshield:

The airbags:


More angles:

God's Protection

This is the car.



This is the driver who emerged from the car.


Any questions?

Mr. and Mrs. Thomas McBride

Toot Toot, Again, and Again

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

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

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.

More Faith of Barack Obama

I might get ambitious enough to write a review of Mansfield's book, but while you're waiting (you're waiting, aren't you?), I recommend these installments from a new friend.

Christian Faith, Peace, and Mutual Edification

That’s what I’m talking about! Stephen Mansfield has stated that he won’t be voting for Barack Obama. But he still celebrates Obama’s Christian faith. So much so that he examines, explains and defends that faith in a new book, The Faith of Barack Obama.

This is the same guy who wrote The Faith of George W. Bush. He is a Republican who disagrees with Obama on some political issues, but he can still practice the unity that we have as brothers and sisters in Christ. I haven’t finished reading the book yet, but I’ve read several interviews in which Mansfield discusses the book. My favorite is from Newsweek. Others can be found here and here. And this is an audio interview.

I don't agree with all of Mansfield's conclusions, but I appreciate his spirit and approach. Mansfield’s treatment has been called even-handed and fair-minded by most reviewers, much to the disappointment of some conservatives who want something less than fair-minded. In Mansfield's mind, these critics are basically saying "you are too Christian, you should be more Republican than you are Christian." But Mansfield explains his intentions: "I want to encourage [Obama's] faith and I believe he is sincere about his faith. What I have written is an honest, objective evaluation that celebrates Obama's faith to the extent it can be celebrated, questioned it where it had to be questioned, and basically tries to explain it in terms of our times, which is something we need, by the way, as we approach this election."

And Mansfield has a second purpose for this book. "One of my goals for this book besides just the content was to find the tone that I hope will be replicated a bit more in American politics. This vicious left/right fighting that is happening in America is paralyzing us. It is keeping us from accomplishing anything, and I have to say, as a Christian, it is ungodly. My hope was to write a book that would model a certain tone while communicating facts that people need to know."

Senator Obama himself calls this concept "disagreeing without being disagreeable." The apostle Paul put it this way in the Book of Romans,

"Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification" (Romans 14:19).

It is a Christian approach to differences of opinion. And I thank Mr. Mansfield for practicing it.

A Service of Unity and Reconciliation

I've had the privilege of writing liturgy for three worship books over the past three year. The last book comes out soon.

For three weeks in August, the recommended pieces come from stuff I wrote. I especially like the service for this coming Sunday, August 17. In the middle of the Christian contentiousness of this election (which I am highlighting lately), we could remember these scriptural challenges.

I will continue to call my brothers and sisters to a loyalty that lifts Jesus above political philosophy, but I want to do so with an attitude that reflects our actual unity in Jesus Christ.

Where Did You Get Your American Values?

One two-part question in last week’s NBC/Wall Street Journal poll needs serious scrutiny. The question seemed simple:

“For each of the following candidates, please tell me whether that person has a background and set of values that you can identify with, or whether he does NOT have a background and set of values that you can identify with.”

Evidently the question has been asked several times over the past few months. There has been no significant variation in the response over time regarding Senators McCain and Obama. In this latest instance, 58% of respondents say that John McCain “has the background and set of values that they identify with”; it was 47% for Obama. Likewise 34% say John McCain does NOT have the background and set of values that they identify with, compared to Obama’s 43%.

But there’s a significant problem with the question. The question assumes that background and values are undeniably linked, as if they are of one piece. When Americans are asked this two-pronged question, it forces the illogic that background determines values and that different backgrounds lead to different values. That configuration does not reflect reality.

Take my wife, Laura, and me. I am a black man; she is a white woman. I grew up in a military family moving all across the US and sometimes outside the US. I lived for the longest in Hawaii. She lived her entire childhood in Indianapolis. I grew up in an intact family with both of my loving parents and my loving siblings. Laura: not so much. My favorite place to be while growing up was in school. Laura often wasn’t even sent to school.

As young adults I was working with suburban white kids in the Northwest while Laura worked with inner city black kids in the Northeast. I went on to live 18 years as a single adult while Laura was married for 11 years, a single mom for 3 years, and by the time we got married, she’d been a parent for nearly 13 years.

So our backgrounds were remarkably dissimilar, but we have been happily married these 13 ½ years by the grace of God, who allowed our dissimilar backgrounds to yield remarkably similar values.

So getting back to the poll in this presidential election: Who in America can say they identify with Barack Obama’s background? Few people can say they grew up in Hawaii, fewer still that they lived for a couple years in Indonesia. Who can say they have a black Kenyan father and a white American mother? Who can say they have an Arabic-derived name. Who can say that, though they look black, they have been raised by a white mother and white grandparents? How many can say they graduated from Columbia University and Harvard Law School. How many can say that by choice they worked with churches for hardly any pay after college and that they came to Christian faith as an adult because of that work? Who can say they taught law school for nearly 10 years?

Each of these characteristics represents small categories of people. It goes without saying that most Americans look immediately at Barack Obama and say, “I can’t relate to his background.”

But the fatal flaw in the poll questions is the suggestion that background and values are the same or at least inseparably tied. They are not. While background might influence values, specific values do not come from only one type of background.

So responders to the poll question need to be able to separate background from values. The question allows for no such separation. To answer, these responders are almost forced to reason, “Well my background is nothing like Barack Obama’s. So my values must not be either.”

Such reasoning, while unavoidable for the purpose of answering the question, does not reflect reality in this campaign. Most Americans actually do share Barack Obama’s values, at least the most important ones. Like Barack Obama, most Americans believe in God and the power of that faith in our lives. In fact, like Obama most Americans somehow identify themselves as Christian. Like Barack Obama most Americans believe that that government should serve to protect us—to provide security at home and to protect our interests abroad; that war is hell, though sometimes necessary. America and Obama agree that the family is the foundational institution of society and that marriage is between a man and a woman. America and Obama both believe that abortion should be eliminated except when the health of the mother is at stake and that somehow we should look out for the most vulnerable. Obama and most Americans agree that we should work together to solve our problems and that all people disserve to be treated with dignity.

These are the values Barack Obama shares with most American people, although he reached them through a biography that most Americans cannot relate to.

Next time NBC/WSJ would do well to split this background/values question or to eliminate the background part altogether. It tells us nothing and only obscures the real intent of the question: Does this candidate share your values?

Race Is Back (But It Has Never Really Been Gone)

Eugene Robinson has the cleverest take on the latest accusations and counter-accusations from the presidential candidates. Seems the McCain camp is accusing Obama of “playing the race card” (an all-encompassing charge that truly means next to nothing except that somehow someone referred to race, however vaguely or innocuously) for suggesting that the McCain campaign will try to scare people away from Obama (they already are trying) instead of focusing on their own positive attributes (which they don’t seem able to locate).

Eugene Robinson’s take? McCain is right: Obama DID inject race into the campaign…by being black. And of course Robinson is right. This is the nature of American politics. If there is a candidate running who is not white, race is in the race. Just as--if there is a candidate who is not male--gender is in the race.

Those factors do not have to dominate, but they do matter; they are factors. The candidates and their campaigns have three choices: Pretend that race isn’t there or doesn’t matter, exploit the race factor, or call it out so that it is openly acknowledged rather than being the elephant (or donkey) in the room. Obama and his campaign have consistently tried to do the latter. His opponents (both Democratic and Republican) have mostly tried some subtle or blatant forms of exploitation. And their tactics have been effective, but ugly. Still Obama won the primary season.

About that New Yorker Cover

I don’t totally agree with this critique of the New Yorker cover that depicts the Obamas in caricature of all the fears people have of them. I think it kinda works as satire. The problem I have is not with the actual cartoon. It’s with the placement on a cover. In that context—with people walking by it on a news-stand—it’s just as likely to be misunderstood as understood. And it's just as likely to reinforce the erroneous beliefs about the Obamas as to dispel them. Quick Thoughts.

Brawl at the Farmers' Market

I almost came to blows at the Farmers’ Market. And I’m not proud of it. But I blame it on Kenny Chesney and the Barbershop Quartet Convention/Brawl. On the Fourth of July around 3:00, Laura and I were headed to downtown Nashville to help Obama people register voters. Once we reached downtown, we found swarms of (white) people. They were going in all kinds of directions. It wasn’t until later that we found they were there for the Kenny Chesney concert, the fireworks, and the Barbershop Quartet Convention (Did you know there’s an ongoing argument between the traditionalist and the contemporary-ists?)

When we tried to park to do our part to register voters, we found that parking alone cost $15-$20. We were not prepared for that, so we went back home. But my loving wife agreed to go to Farmers’ Market the next day, at least to greet the Obama people who were there again to register voters.

The next day, we finally found the “booth,” staffed by Pat Meadows and Thelma Kidd. So this guy walks up. He’s talking to Pat and Thelma, and I hear him say ”Well, I’m a Republican.” I tell him “ You can still vote for Obama. I’ve got a 'Republicans for Obama' bumper sticker on my car.” He proceeds with “Well, we weren’t better off under Clinton.” And when I remind him that no Clintons are remaining in this race, he tells me “They’re all the same. They’re all Communists. They want to tax the rich, They are into redistribution of wealth.”

The emotion is welling up in me, and I realize that this man, who is perhaps twice my size, is all up in my face. I back up. He follows suit. And I realize I’ve embarrassed Laura, terrified Thelma and Pat, and perhaps caused a scene at the normally sedate Farmers’ Market. Not to mention that I’ve done no good to the Obama campaign. Somebody save me from myself

Show Me Your Faith

I’m having an interesting discussion with an anonymous poster about Barack Obama’s Christian faith. It’s all recorded in the comments section of an earlier post. But I think it deserves to be “heard” by more than me and “Anonymous Friend,” so here’s the slightly edited version of our conversation….

From Me:

Dear Friend,

Obama may be mistaken about how many roads lead to God. But the road he is on is the Jesus road. So his Christian confession is invalid because he is mistaken about whether OTHER people can reach God? I believe we should do all we can to assure that our view of God is consistent with the truth. But none of us in our fallen-ness is perfect in our understanding. Not you, not me, not Obama, no-one but Jesus Christ. For that reason, we must be very careful in nit-picking statements from others to determine if they're "in" or "out." So once again you are entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't make you right. And my best judge is Scripture.

From An Anonymous Friend

Thanks for your thoughtful replies.

I'm glad you agree that Christ made exclusive claims about salvation. We can disagree about how significant it is that Obama views this differently.

His comment denying exclusivity isn't the only statement by Obama that I found troubling, however. He described sin as violating his own moral code. ("Being out of alignment with my values.") With that definition, there really is no such thing as sin. Any genuine understanding of sin requires a moral code outside oneself. Does he give a more complete answer about sin in some other interview that might add some sophistication to what he said in the Chicago Sun Times interview?

Sincerely,

Anonymous Friend

Fom Me:

Dear Friend,

I was friends with Barack Obama when he was a 14-year-old. He was not a believer then. I was. I read his first book before he entered politics. I was thrilled to read that my friend had become a Christian brother. And his description of how he came to Jesus rang true to the kid I knew and how God might get ahold of him.

But I am a Christian professional with theological training. I have been a volunteer and paid leader in Christian churches of many denominations and sizes for 35 years. I currently work for one denomination while I worship in a church outside that denomination. I do not agree fully with anyone in the church I work for or the church I attend. I don't expect that I ever will, because all of our understanding is at least somewhat flawed. I believe that God allows for that brokenness for those who claim Jesus. So my assessment of Obama's Christianity is not to say that I agree with him on every point. But he is not theologically trained. He is not a Christian professional. He may be confused or wrong about some things, or he might not express them with the nuance that I might or you might. That doesn't make his Christian confession or his Christian faith invalid.

I don't propose to understand exactly what he meant by a specific statement like "Being out of alignment with my values." I often misunderstand my wife when I think I understand. But I operate with an attitude of charity when trying to understand her. Rather than assume that she is lying or means some evil, I try to understand her meaning and assume that it is something good. Likewise when I hear a vague statement like Obama's from a person who professes to be a Christian, I think I'm called to put the best spin on it rather than assume the worst.

What if he meant that sin is "Being out of alignment with my CHRISTIAN values," since he's already talked about those Christian values?

Still, it baffles me that so many Christian people are willing to believe Obama is not the Christian he says he is. It's as if they want him NOT to be a Christian. I wish others could feel the joy I felt when my friend became a brother.

From Anonymous:

The two topics we have discussed so far are not questions that should require much nuance to give a sensible answer. Jesus was straightforward about sin, and he was straightforward about being the only means to salvation. Anyone who has attended a Bible-believing church for 20 years should have no difficulty giving an adequate answer.

I think you are being a little too cute when you profess bafflement that Christians are looking beneath the surface of Obama's profession. If I were to meet my neighbor and he said he was a Christian, I would rejoice that he knew the Lord. At that point there would be no reason to inquire of his faith to test its maturity. Nor would there be reason to plumb the depths of his understanding.

If my daughter introduced me to a young man saying she intends to marry him, I would be glad to hear him say he is a Christian. However, I would also ask questions to see how mature his faith is and how closely he aligned his beliefs with Scripture.

Obama (and his supporters) clearly are offering his professed Christian beliefs as a reason to vote for him (or feel comfortable voting for him). Your original post even recognizes the propriety of holding up that profession to scrutiny. I don't think you should now accuse questioners of being killjoys for asking these questions.

Working in the church, I am sure you realize that there is often no correlation between living moral life and being saved. In fact, it seems the ability to navigate life with reasoning can actually be a hindrance to belief. If someone walked into your church who did good works and professed a belief in Jesus, but this belief bore no relationship to the teachings of the Bible (e.g., no concept of sin, no hope in a resurrection, and no reason to distinguish Jesus from other moral teachers), I hope you would counsel that person to consider the possibility that he believed merely in himself, and that he has merely applied a culturally acceptable label to that egocentric belief.

Sincerely,

Your anonymous friend

From Me:

Dear Friend,

Barack Obama's profession of faith is not some political ploy. I first read about his faith before he was in politics. Now that he is a political figure and he speaks openly about his faith, his brothers and sisters attack rather than rejoice. It's sad.

I have no problem with Christians holding professing Christians to a standard. And as you indicate this measure becomes more important when we are considering someone close to us or someone in leadership.

My issues are twofold
1) That standard should be biblical. I made the case in my original post that as far as I can see, Barack Obama's profession of faith and life of faith meet biblical standards.

2) It seems to me that some Christian people WANT Barack Obama not to be a Christian. There seems to be an attitude of trying to prove Obama's faith profession false. Honestly, I see no scriptural justification for trying to prove someone who calls himself a Christian to be a liar. This is not false prophet territory. This is a man who says he's a Christian, who meets biblical criteria, who prays regularly, who reads the Bible to discover God's truth, who lives a life to reflect his relationship to God through Christ, and his brothers and sisters are trying to prove that that he doesn't belong in the family. What household of God do these people belong to?

Cal Thomas is in no position from such a distance to proclaim that Barack Obama is not a Christian when Obama's profession meets a biblical standard. I believe this is where the oft-misused words of Jesus "judge not lest ye be judged" actually does apply. Cal Thomas does not have enough information to decide Obama is NOT a Christian. He can wonder, he can say "looks like he is." He can say "I believe he is." He could theoretically even say, "I see no evidence of his Christianity." But he cannot say --based on the evidence presented --that Barack Obama is not a Christian. His profession meets biblical criteria, and his life demonstrates both the change and the continued life of Christian discipleship. As my friend Steve said this weekend, "Short of crawling inside another man's heart, that's all any of us can go on when ‘judging’ another one's relationship to Jesus.”

But all of this is independent of whether anyone votes for him. He will be your Christian brother if he becomes President and he will be your Christian brother if he doesn't.

More to the point:
He will be your Christian brother if you vote for him, and he will be your brother if you don't. You can choose your President, but don't be confused: your vote cannot keep Barack Obama out of your family.

Now I’d like to address your issues a little more directly:
1. What to you would be a “sensible,” “adequate” answer to the question “What is sin?”? Where do you find that definition in Scripture? Where is Jesus’ straightforward answer?

I’m not saying I don’t believe there is sin. I even agree with you that the concept of sin is a basic tenet of the Christian faith as recorded in the Bible. What I am questioning is that there is a simple, direct definition of sin, which is exclusive of other definitions. The Bible doesn’t even always use the same Greek word for what we translate “sin” in English. So what is your acceptable definition, and where did you get it?

2. I did not say it is unacceptable for Christians to look “beneath the surface of Obama’s (or anyone else’s) profession” of faith. What baffles me and saddens me is that Christian people seem eager to prove that a man who professes to be a Christian and who demonstrates that Christian faith in his life is somehow lying or totally deceived.

I didn’t say (to use a Wesleyan term) that he is near perfection. I said that by all that I can see, using biblical criteria, he is a Christian. I didn’t accuse anyone of being a “killjoy.” I am horrified that it seems there are Christian people who are bent on proving the illegitimacy of Obama’s profession. To what end? You can’t make him a heathen by calling him one any more than I can make him a Christian by calling him one. And you’re not killing my joy regarding his salvation. You are killing my joy regarding your own discipleship. If your life in Christ has brought you to the point where you would rather assume another Christian is a liar than claim him as a brother, then my sadness is for you, my brother or sister. I won’t say you’re not my brother or sister, but I will feel sadness for you.

3. I agree that often there is no correlation between morality and Christian faith. There are moral people in all faiths and moral people with no religious faith at all. But you are using Obama’s morality as an indication of his LACK of Christian faith? And the fact that he uses reasoning in his decisions proves a LACK of Christian faith? Good works becomes a sign of his LACK of Christian faith? What false prophets have you been listening to?

Remember James 2:14-18
What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

If Barack Obama were professing faith and had no deeds to demonstrate that faith, I’d have some questions. And if he had good deeds and rejected Jesus, I’d have some questions. But here’s a man who professes faith in Jesus and shows it by his deeds, and his brothers and sisters think they can exclude him, vote him out of the family. Well, fortunately it’s not their call.

So let’s look at your hypothetical about someone walking into my church, (although this is not about some hypothetical someone but about a real live person who I know or at least knew). If that person professed Jesus and didn’t seem to have what I consider the complete truth on sin, the Resurrection, and Jesus, I would welcome them as a brother or sister. I would then ask them lots of questions as I walk with them in their lives to make sure I understand what they really believe. And while in their lives I would try to guide them to the truth. But I do not invalidate their faith because it doesn’t line up exactly the way I think it should.

But from a distance, when I’m not able to be in a person’s life to ask those probing questions, all I can do is what I started this post with. I look at the man, his life, and the Scriptures. Looks to me like Barack Obama is a Christian.

Blueprint for Change

FOX(the fake)News mocks its viewers once again, and the liberal media miss the point. FOX runs this segment with actor Stephen Baldwin.

First FOX covers the Obama fundraiser, where a bunch of celebrities forked out large sums of money. The newscast makes a big deal about how many more celebs support Obama than McCain. Then they ask the question "Why do celebrities think middle America cares which celebrities support which candidate."

Well to be honest, I don't really care. And if you hadn't told me, I wouldn't know. So if nobody cares, why are you talking about it? Why do you bring a celebrity on to make the point that celebrity opinions don't carry weight? Because you think I'm stupid. But of course, while most of us aren't keeping score, we do know that celebs have some level of influence and that their money has an even greater level. I'm not saying that's as it should be. It's not, but it is what it is.

There's more to this story. The liberal media seem to think that the story is that Stephen Baldwin says he'll leave the country if Obama is elected President. When I heard about the comment, I needed to get to the source to see the context (I'm all about context). Turns out that that comment was not serious and was really a joke at the expense of brother Alec, who said a similar thing about a Bush presidency.

Stephen Baldwin is my Christian brother, who I have come to respect, even when I don't agree with him. He has creatively reached out to people--especially young people-- who many of the rest of us Christians have treated as inconsequential.

In this FOX segment, he proclaims his belief that John McCain would make the best President. He's obviously entitled to his opinion. The real story is that he says what I've grown weary of hearing:

"You've got all these celebrities who are gonna come out for Obama. Whether he's the best guy for the job or not doesn't matter; he's the guy who's gonna bring change. I love the questions that have been outstanding: How's he gonna bring the change? What's his plan? How's he gonna do it? Nobody's answering these questions."

So for Stephen Baldwin and for all the others who keep claiming that Obama has no plan, I direct you to Obama's website which for over a year has been full of policy positions and political philosophy. You can get his stances on the issues and his plans for solving the country's problems. I also suggest this blueprint. And I highly recommend his four speeches from this week, but suggest you start with this one on service to our country.

Those who say they don't know anything about Barack Obama or that he has no plan are not paying attention, and they are not making even minimal efforts to find the truth. I am tolerant with people who do not agree with Senator Obama on the issues, but I am weary of those who say he has no plan because they have not bothered to look into his plans.

Trying to Be Fair

I deleted an anonymous comment to my post: “Once Again, People: Barack Obama is a Christian!" The person obviously hadn’t read or understood the simple post s/he was responding to. But in the interest of fairness I’m providing the comment with my response below:

From Anonymous:

Just to be clear, when Obama discusses hell, he is not among those who believe in hell. Rather he says: "I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell. I can’t imagine that my God would allow some little Hindu kid in India who never interacts with the Christian faith to somehow burn for all eternity. That’s just not part of my religious makeup."

Hell is a pretty basic teaching in Christianity. In fact, if he doesn't believe in hell, and he doesn't believe in heaven (see "God Factor" interview), and he defines sin as violating his own moral framework, why does he need the redemptive work of Jesus?

Tell me again why you think he is a Christian?

From Me:

Here’s why I accept that Barack Obama is a Christian, not that my opinion or Anonymous’ opinion makes it any more or less true:

Jesus said

"Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven. Matthew 10:32-33

Barack Obama says

“I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life. But most importantly, I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick and always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful… Accepting Jesus Christ in my life has been a powerful guide for my conduct and my values and my ideals."

Scripture doesn’t give me, James Dobson, Cal Thomas, or Anonymous the option of determining that the one who confesses Jesus is lying or ignorant. I won’t bother to argue whether Barack Obama’s Jesus confession meets Mr. Dobson’s, Mr. Thomas’ or Anonymous’ criteria. I don’t care. What matters is whether it meets Jesus’ criteria. It does.

Whatsoever Things Are True II

My last post linked to the site jamesdobsondoesntspeakforme.com. I agree with my new friend Carolyn that some of the initial statements on the site might be less than helpful. But I find the refutation of claims on the site to be altogether fair, truthful, necessary, and no violation of Christian love. In the same spirit, I have added below more misguided claims from that Dobson radio program.

Most disturbing about the Dobson discussion (I listened to the whole thing) is that he and Tom Minnery CLEARLY distort Obama’s words and message from the Call to Renewal speech. The very words that Obama used to uphold the place of morality and religious belief in public discourse are turned to say just the opposite.

Whether their distortion is intentional, I don’t know. I'm afraid that our brothers Dobson and Minnery are so hardened in their views that they can’t see the truth. I suspect (but I don't know) that Dr. Dobson did not read, watch, or listen to the entire speech. If he did, then I am even more dismayed at this attack. In that case I do consider this a dishonest portrayal and response. But whether intentional or not, this performance is shameful distortion.

Here are more of the discrepancies:

Tom Minnery/Dobson Claim #6
He diminishes religion itself… he’s not even acknowledging the strong Judeo Christian tradition

What Obama actually said:
Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Tom Minnery/Dobson Claim #7
Tom Minnery to Dobson: “He begins to diminish you…He has compared you somehow as being on the right with what Al Sharpton is on the left. Al Sharpton achieved his notoriety in the 80s and 90s by engaging in racial bigotry, and many people have called him a black racist and he is somehow equating you with that.”

Dobson: “Why’d this man jump on me?! He also equates me with Al Sharpton who is a reverend. I am not a reverend. I’m not a minister. I’m not a theologian I’m not an evangelist. I’m a psychologist.”

What Obama actually said:
Even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's?

Minnery/Dobson Claim #8
From there he proceeds to disparage serious understanding of the Bible….That kind of commentary drives me crazy. It’s almost willful to confuse the dietetic laws of the Old Testament that applied to the Israelites-- to suggest that the Levitical law governing stoning of a belligerent, drunkard son--- somehow applies to the church age, the New Testament.

What Obama actually said:
Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our Bibles. Folks haven't been reading their Bibles.

Whatsoever Things Are True

My first politically-oriented post on this blog concerned the remarkable speech Barack Obama gave concerning faith and politics at the Call to Renewal event in 2006. You can hear the speech here.

For some reason, Dr. James Dobson has just discovered that speech and taken it upon himself to alert his listeners to its "dangers." Problem is he either deliberately or ignorantly (I won't speculate about intention) distorts Obama's words and message. The issue here is not politically- or even biblically-based opinions. We can disagree in some of those areas. The problem is the total distortion of a man's words to say the opposite (We've seen this before!) of what he was conveying. The result is not just misinterpretation, it is also misinformation. Whether or not the intention was malice, the carelessness and the ungracious characterizations are malicious and don't reflect Christian relationship.

I've been working on my thoughts, but some other good Christian brothers and sisters have given a great start to a response over at jamesdobsondoesntspeakforme.com. Below is an excerpt from that site. Later I intend to offer more of my thoughts.


JAMES DOBSON: Claim #1
“What [Obama is] trying to say here is unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe” (Focus on the Family Broadcast, 6/24).


BARACK OBAMA SAYS:
"Indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition" (A Call to Renewal).


JAMES DOBSON: Claim #2
“I think [Obama is] deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology” (Focus on the Family Broadcast).


BARACK OBAMA SAYS:
"And in its historical struggles for freedom and the rights of man, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world. As a source of hope" (A Call to Renewal).

"But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt that I heard God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth" (A Call to Renewal).


JAMES DOBSON: Claim #3
“And if I can’t get everyone to agree with me, it is undemocratic to try to pass legislation that I find offensive to the Scripture. That is a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution” (Focus on the Family Broadcast).

“Am I required in a democracy to conform my efforts in the political arena to his bloody notion of what is right with regard to the lives of tiny babies?" (Focus on the Family Broadcast).


BARACK OBAMA SAYS:
“Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all” (A Call to Renewal).


JAMES DOBSON: Claim #4
“We do not have to go to the lowest common denominator of morality, which is what [Obama] is suggesting” (Focus on the Family Broadcast).


BARACK OBAMA SAYS:
"If we scrub language of all religious content, we forfeit the imagery and terminology through which millions of Americans understand both their personal morality and social justice. Imagine Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address without reference to "the judgments of the Lord." Or King's I Have a Dream speech without references to "all of God's children." Their summoning of a higher truth helped inspire what had seemed impossible, and move the nation to embrace a common destiny" (A Call to Renewal).


JAMES DOBSON: Claim #5
“I'd just like to ask your viewers if they've heard a single comment made by the three Presidential candidates on any occasion that even mentioned the well-being of this most basic, social institution (family)” (CNN).


BARACK OBAMA SAYS:
“Of all the rocks upon which we build our lives, we are reminded today that family is the most important. And we are called to recognize and honor how critical every father is to that foundation… But if we are honest with ourselves, we'll admit that what too many fathers also are is missing – missing from too many lives and too many homes. They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it” (Father’s Day Speech, Apostolic Church).

Once Again, People: Barack Obama is a Christian!

I’m not sure who told Cal Thomas he was the arbiter of who is and isn’t a Christian. Thomas is right on one count: “One cannot deny central tenets of the Christian faith… and be a Christian.” But Christians, including Evangelicals and Catholics, do not all agree on what are the central tenets of the Christian faith.

For the record, Obama says in a Christianity Today interview: “I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life. But most importantly, I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick and always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful… Accepting Jesus Christ in my life has been a powerful guide for my conduct and my values and my ideals."

Barack Obama, too, is right on at least one count: "There's the belief, certainly in some quarters, that if people haven't embraced Jesus Christ as their personal Savior, they're going to hell."

Obama has proclaimed Jesus Christ as his personal Savior, but he is right to raise this issue, because nowhere is Scripture does it say that that we should embrace Jesus as our personal Savior to avoid hell.

Since we evangelicals are big on testing views against Scripture, there’s this from Paul’s letter to the Romans (10:9): “If you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (That means you won’t go to hell). Looks to me as if Obama meets this requirement.

But while we’re talking about hell and how to avoid it, here’s Jesus in Matthew 25:

"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Barack Obama has devoted his adult life to feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, looking after the sick and prisoners. He has done so directly as well as in fighting for public policy.

So Barack Obama testifies to his commitment to Jesus Christ and has lived a life to reflect that commitment, according to the Christian Scriptures. So if I’m going to guess whether he is truly a Christian I will assess according to Jesus and biblical criteria rather than Cal Thomas’s.

In multiracial Hawaii, Obama faced discrimination

New AP article quotes me.

How could he sit there for over 20 years?

I’d like to begin answering the nagging questions regarding Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Senator Barack Obama.

First question: How could Barack Obama sit through over twenty years of that stuff?

I’ve heard the question from Pat Buchanan, Bay Buchanan, Elisabeth Haselbeck, Tucker Carlson, Joe Scarborough, Chris Matthews, and of course Sean Hannity.

Answer: Barack Obama could sit through 20 years of that stuff because it was worth sitting through! It was not hate, was not anti-American, was not anti-white. It was confrontational; it was prophetic; it was loving, biblical, Christ-centered, God-focused, and ministry-minded.

I have watched or read longer segments of several sermons, including those that have been publicized. I listened to two full versions of the sermons that contain the most “offensive” comments that have come to light. These messages convey exactly the OPPOSITE of what the short snippets are trying to convey. In a nutshell:

1. Rev. Wright DOES NOT preach hate. EVERY sermon I listened to, watched, or read was LOVING, biblical, Christ-centered, God-focused, and ministry-minded.

2. Rev. Wright IS NOT anti-American. I don’t agree with all of his political views, but his full sermons demonstrate that Rev. Wright clearly loves America. And like the Old Testament prophets spoke out against their beloved (and God’s beloved) Judah and Israel, Rev. Wright is committed to calling The USA to be what God wants us to be. Sometimes he speaks with humor, sometimes with anger, often with humility and always with love.

3. Trinity United Church of Christ is not a racist, Black separatist, Black nationalist or Black supremacist church. They have white members! They are part of a 95% white denomination. I will talk about their Black Value System in a later post.

4. Finally, please consider how these issues came to light. Someone bought the videos from years and years of Rev. Wright’s sermons. They culled through them and looked for the most “incriminating” statements. They sliced and spliced them and put them up as reflections of his “hatred.” This was deliberate misrepresentation. Rev. Wright does sometimes throw out a line that makes me cringe, but I have never sat under a preacher who doesn’t. I hope that our own beloved pastor isn’t judged by every comment he makes that I don’t agree with.


Explore for yourself below.

CNN’s Anderson Cooper has posted complete audio versions of the two controversial sermons. Commentator Roland Martin also provides slightly edited transcripts at that site.

Audio: The 9/11 message from September 16, 2001:


Audio: The “Confusing God and Government” message from April 13, 2003. This one does get harsh, but it is also a biblical, redemptive, God-centered message:


Video excerpts (longer than the ones originally circulated) of these messages can be found here and here.


Other video of sermons and the church can be found a these two sites, here and here:

To My Readers (Both of You)

Tony Campolo has a theory about that idea that just before you die your whole life flashes before your eyes. According to Mr. Campolo, the reason a whole life can be captured in a few moments is that most of us haven’t fully lived much. Those moments when we are fully alive –fully in touch with God, ourselves, and our fellow humans--are few. We spend a lot of time simply existing, pursuing worthless aims, or pursuing nothing.

What if rather than our whole lives or the truly alive moments, only the disastrous moments were seen? And what if even for those of us who have tried to live Christian lives, only the bold, well-meaning mis-steps were seen? And what if they were not seen only in our mind’s eye, but were flashed up on a screen for the entire world to see? What if only the foolish things we have said (effectively or not) in the name of Jesus were seen?

For the last 10 years I have taught adult Sunday school at my church. I have a great desire to move folks in my class from wherever they are in their love of God and neighbor to a deeper level. To do so, I walk a line between provoking and reassuring. I actually walk pretty gingerly. But not gingerly enough for some. At least one long-time Christian has called me on the phone to challenge my provoking. After a lengthy conversation with me and another with the pastor, this person stopped coming to my class. He does still attend church with me. We serve our congregation together, we serve each other’s families, we break bread, and pray together. But he felt that I had crossed a line that threatened him. I think that view says as much about his faith as mine.

Though I try to provoke in my class, I know my congregation. They don’t like controversy, even Gospel-born controversy. They like comfort and confirmation of what they have always believed. But you could probably string together videotape of the provocative things I have said or suggested or questioned and you could make a great case for how anti-Christian (or anti-American) I am. And with a video camera, I could have done the same for the pastor of every church I have worshiped in, including the current pastor. String together all of their bad moments (or good moments taken out of context), and you can outrage anybody who wants to hear and see it. This is the problem of the Youtube age. And perhaps what grieves me most is the continued appetite that even my Christian brothers and sisters have for focusing on the perceived ugliness—as if they know nothing of imperfection, inadequacy, humility, compassion, or forgiveness.

So here I serve in a tiny, quiet, largely ineffective Sunday school class of a largely ineffective congregation in Nashville, the city of churches. And while a friend of mine is running for president (I haven’t spoken to him in 30 years; God only knows what I said to him back then that might be used against him today), I am not his spiritual mentor (yet!) I didn’t officiate at his wedding or baptize his children. The man who did is not as restrained in his Christian conversation as I am. Because of that lack of restraint he has probably had more than one person walk out of his assemblies never to return.

But it is amazing to me how little tolerance we have for controversial statements, when so much of our Christian story and the mission of God are built upon them, especially charges against the government: Moses to Pharaoh, Nathan to David, Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar, Esther to Persian King Ahasuerus. Think of the prophets, especially Jeremiah, Micah, and Amos. Remember John the Baptist--who was beheaded, Paul of Tarsus—who was beaten, imprisoned and probably martyred, and remember Jesus Christ, who was crucified.

Speaking truth to power. Often ugly truth, often crudely couched truth. Not like the ginger provoking I try in my Sunday school class.

But the sharp truth comes with many risks:

1. Sin taints everything so none of us is gonna get it right every time. Our judgment can be clouded –perhaps not every time, maybe not even most of the time, but sometimes. So what we see to be true may not be true. It might also BE true, though our hearers don’t see it as so. Every vessel (save One) is so tainted.

2. The louder we speak the more potential damage we can do. More people will walk out. We can overstep, or mis-state. We can hurt many people when we intended to hurt no-one.

3. We will be misunderstood. It’s inevitable. Anger can be misunderstood as hate. Criticism can be understood as hate. Subtlety can be lost. The speaker’s style can interfere with the hearer’s ability to hear the truth. And someone will miss the forest for the trees (especially if the trees have been chopped down and handed to you one by one like firewood).

4. In the midst of preaching the truth, error can slip in. It likely will.


But there is an opposite side to risks of sharp truth telling. And if we take the Christian Gospel seriously, this is a risk we must take. Otherwise, we’re wasting our Christian time, and betraying the Gospel. When we proclaim the sharp truth:

1. The Gospel might be revealed.

2. People might begin to follow Jesus

3. People might be moved to love God more deeply and and to engage in one another’s lives.

4. Ministries might arise that transform congregations, local communities, our nation, and the world.

5. We might take the time to actually listen to one another before reacting viscerally and immediately.

6. Lies—personal and societal might get exposed. Ungodly practices might be challenged and godly practices championed.

7. Healing might occur between races, genders, ideologies, and classes.

8. People might be shaped into the image of Jesus and communities might begin to reflect the reign of God.

Still when we take that risk, there will be people standing around ready to round up every mis-step, mistake, foolish move, or weak moment. And when they string them up on Youtube they will ignore the hours and hours of truth we have spoken, of good we have done, of Gospel we have preached and lived.

But the joke is on them: the Word of God will not return void. Though many will be misled, though our words be distorted, or taken out of context, though we might lose earthly opportunities for ourselves or our loved ones (who might be running for President), our lives will speak for themselves.

I can’t help the thought that if my little church began to take more of those risks we might begin to look a little like Trinity United Church of Christ, and in the eyes of God, that would be movement in the right direction.

Note to Geraldine Ferraro

If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept. Geraldine Ferraro

I know how it sucks to be a white man in America today; I’ve raised three of ‘em, and I’m helping to raise four more. And I think I have some clue of how hard it is to be a woman of any color. My mom and my sister are women of one color. My wife, my daughter, and the mother of my grandkids are women of another color. I have lived with all of them.

So I wake up every morning and thank my very lucky
stars that I am a black man and not an unlucky white man or an unlucky woman of any color. We black men don’t know how good we have it in the US of A.

In fact, we should have tried this running for President thing a long time ago. With our great luck, it’s so easy! See, we thought people just liked a few of us, like Sidney Poitier, Bill Cosby, Denzel, and that Michael Jordan. We thought it was just Tiger Woods (unless you are actually a golfer) or OJ Simpson (the football and actor OJ, not the murderer OJ). But we should have caught on when the Beatles and Elvis wanted to play our music or even back when Al Jolson started putting on blackface. America loves the black man.

Why didn’t we put up Martin Luther King to be President; people loved him (except the ones who beat him, put him in jail, fought him in the courts and political venues, and killed him). Or Jesse Jackson--we should have made him President, we’re so lucky. Or Al Sharpton or Alan Keyes. Or Dennis Haysbert or Morgan Freeman--they’ve already played the President on TV and the movies.

I guess our luck made us stupid. Until now. We finally caught up with how much the USA is enamored of us black men. I mean, a majority of people in a majority of states are voting for the black man—and even people who don’t vote for him (or in the states that count—not just those ones that don’t), people come out in droves to see him.

Of course they do; he’s the black man, and America loves the black man. I am so very lucky!

Hawaii's version

My "hometown" paper, the Honolulu Star-Bulletin published a Hawaii version of my article. I have a great history with the Star-Bulletin. My first teenage job was delivering the paper at Schofield Barracks. I began saving money with that paper route.

But even before that, when I was in sixth grade and my dad was in Vietnam, I wrote Dad about a conversation I'd had with my teacher, Mr. Waite, and my best friend, Ted. Dad wrote a letter to the editor from Vietnam, and the Star-Bulletin published it. The letter, which was a challenge to Strom Thurmond's words (and the prevailing notion) that Black people were good at sports but not at academics. That was 1970. Now I'm writing the Star-Bulletin from out of town.

Tony in Tennesssean

This time I actually wrote the article published in the February 6 (day AFTER the TN primary!) edition of the Tennessean:

Obama's depth of mind, ability to grow don't surprise high school friend

By TONY PETERSON

Tennessee Voices

In the 1975-76 school year, four African-American young men attended Punahou Academy in Honolulu. 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 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). Fourteen-year-old Barry wanted to be a basketball player. He even jokingly wrote in my yearbook that when I'm a big-shot 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 from an Ivy League university, that he went on to devote his life to service, that at Harvard Law School he was the popular editor of Harvard Law Review and that he moved on to teach constitutional law and to serve in elective office for these 11 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, Colo., bookstore in the late '90s, 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 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. It surprised me, but it 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.

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 reflects and then finds the way to solve problems.

Punahou is an incredible school that taught us to think, to pursue excellence in all areas and to serve the world. His Illinois state record and his U.S. Senate record reflect this same thoughtfulness, excellence and service.

AP Again

Not sure why, but the AP article that quotes me is back.

Obama is my Homeboy?

Tennessee for Barack Obama

Obama straddles different worlds

Okay, this was an actual 15 minutes of fame, and it IS self-promotion, but you're my friends and family, so I hope you can handle it. Sharon Cohen called months ago to get some info from me about Barack Obama from our high school days. She also interviewed my brother Keith and the brotherly team of Mike and Greg Ramos. Mike and I (the older brothers!) both had quotes that made the original story that was released. But hours later the story was edited and our quotes were taken out.

I was thrilled to contribute to this story because I believe it addresses a significant reason that Barack Obama approaches politics differently than most of the rest of the Presidential candidates. He has gained his knowledge of how to work with varied sorts of people by the daily living of his varied 45 years, rather than from his extensive academic experience.

Way back 30 years ago, Barack and I discussed the future of America, societal ills, the state of the world (and basketball). I hope we're both wiser with our older now. Still my personal knowledge of his natural learning is the reason that I believe him when he speaks. I believe him when he talks about his faith in Jesus Christ. I believe him when he gives a reasoned explanation of his opposition to the Iraq War. And even on issues where we disagree, I trust his well-honed judgement and his strong intellect.

Mostly I trust that his heart is in the right place: that he means to serve the United States, that he means good for the American people, that he has a vision for how we can do better for our own people and do better as presence around the world, that he would like to see us act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God.

More Baby Chelsea

I fixed the links below and added more of Chelsea with her Daddy, her brothers, and her Peepaw (that's me).

Announcing... Chelsea Renay McBride!

I know: It's been over a year. Computer problems, life issues and laziness have all contributed to my lack of posts. Maybe I'm back, maybe not.

But the great news Chelsea's here! So I had to alert anyone out there. She was born Tuesday, August 14, 2007 at 12:49 pm. She was 7 lbs. 6 oz., 19 inches. Big brother Damon doesn't know what to think. The other brothers: Christian, Dylan, and Michael are thrilled. For more pix see my Facebook page here, here, and here.

It Was a Good Day

After church this Sunday, Damon and I headed down to the Criminal Detention Center to deal with some business. One of our loved ones had just been arrested for a crime committed 2 months ago. We went to bail out Our Loved One (OLO).

When we arrived, we saw what I’ve seen before: an outdoor courtyard, an inside lobby, and people waiting. Bail bondsman and bondswomen were waiting for business, for people to help. Most of their day is filled with waiting. Family members of the incarcerated were coming and going and waiting. They were coming to visit their loved one, to bail them out, or just to find out what’s going on. Ninety percent of these people were obviously poor.

When Damon and I arrived there was a particular family outside that intrigued me. It was two teenage boys, a gentleman who appeared to be their father, and a little girl in a stroller. I started playing in my mind the possibilities of who they might be there to see. I settled on the boys’ mother.

Damon was walking around, opening and closing the heavy door, trying to hide from Grandpa, saying "Hi" and "See ya" to people, and then sitting next to Grandpa on the floor for long periods of time. It finally occurred to me that he hadn’t eaten so I got some peanut butter and crackers out of the vending machine. We sat back on the floor and he systematically dismantled the cracker sandwiches and licked off the peanut butter, then ate the crackers. We were talking, fighting over the last few crackers ‘cause he didn’t want me to have any. I snuck some when he wasn’t looking.

After a while one of the boys, hearing me talk to Damon asked what his name was. “Damon,” I said.
“D-A-M-O-N?”
“Yeah.”
“My name is Jamin.”
“Really!? Is that J-A-M-O-N?
“M-I-N.”
Turning to the other kid I asked, “And what’s you’re name?”
“Joel,” he said. I asked the little girl her name, but the boys answered “This is Nicole.”
“Is she your sister?”
“No, she’s our niece.”
So I start revising my guess about who they are waiting for. Probably Nicole’s mother, Joel and Jamin’s sister, I thought.

We chatted about the little ones then went back to waiting and chasing. After awhile the release door opened. It had opened about every ten to fifteen minutes. This was the first time I was paying attention. A guy came out, having been released after a few hours or a few days of incarceration. When the guy came out, Joel was standing just outside the doorway. He handed the guy something. The guy looked at the something, said “Thanks!”, and kept walking. He disappeared around the corner.

I called to Joel, my new friend. “Joel. Come here a minute.” He walked over to where Damon and I were seated on the floor. “Did you just give that guy something?”
“Yeah.”
“Did you know him?”
“No.”
“Then why did you give him something?”
“Cause it’s fun to give people stuff.”
“Is that why you’re down here.”
“Yeah.”

The next person out the release door was Our Loved One. Joel was standing there and handed OLO something. OLO looked at it and said, “Thanks!” When we got outside I asked OLO what was given. “Ten dollars,” OLO said, smiling.

“It is more blessed to give than to receive.”
Acts 20:35

“For God so loved the world that he gave…”
John 3:16

"It’s fun to give people stuff!"
Joel, Jamin, Nicole and Dad, July 9, 2006

God's Politics

I haven’t gotten much into political matters in this blog, though I do believe that matters of faith and politics (and somehow lions) are necessarily connected. This connection is especially true for Christians whose faith is necessarily social (various contemporary expressions notably to the contrary).

And though my friends and family are sick of me talking about Barack Obama, I’ve not mentioned him here. Now I have to. Obama has just given his most important speech since his inspirational address at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. This message for Call to Renewal’s Pentecost 2006 conference focused on matters of faith and politics.

Since then, he has been criticized from all quarters. Moderate Democrats are nervous that Obama might upset secularist friends. Confirmed secularists are infuriated that Obama would suggest that religious faith has any place in the public square (lots of blather about the difference between religious faith and other types of beliefs. What the secularists ignore is the fact that their faith also informs their decision-making. Those who champion intellect as the great arbiter of truth deceive themselves into believing that they make all decisions without any input other than intellect. The fact is their FAITH in intellect informs this decision-making, which is not the same as intellect itself. And their feelings and history and current life situations all inform their decision-making.) Some folks from the Religious/Political Right seem nervous that a Democrat might actually talk about God in public. Al Mohler calls Obama a secularist with a religious veneer. All quarters seem to wonder if this is all politics—-pandering to an audience. Some suggest that he is faking his interest in this area. Many are convinced that Obama has finally completed his indoctrination by the Washington compromisers.

Most of these folks are missing Obama’s points entirely. I fault mainly the Associated Press reports which summarize the speech as “Obama Courting the Evangelicals” or “Obama Chastises Fellow Democrats.” While evidence for both headlines can be found, read the speech or hear it, and you’ll see that neither headline fairly represents the speech or its points. Associated Baptist Press presents a more objective and accurate summary of the speech.

First of all it should be noted that while the Call to Renewal folks are evangelicals in the truest sense (They call people to be Jesus-followers), they are not evangelical in the sense that most public discourse hears. That is: they are more likely to vote with Democrats than Republicans in most areas. Unfortunately many people, particularly secularists, read “evangelical” to mean “fundamentalist,” and this audience is anything but fundamentalist. So if Obama is courting their vote, it’s probably from folks who would be leaning his way anyway.

I read and heard Obama’s speech more like a politician’s honest reflections about reconciling his vocational mission with his personal beliefs. And he reflects out loud about where those deliberations have taken him.

It reminds me of the confusion people seem to have about Abraham Lincoln. I respect Lincoln, without believing the myth and legend about him. He was a mere man . I don’t respect him for freeing the slaves (he didn’t directly) No, what impresses me about Lincoln is that while presiding over still the darkest time in our nation’s history, Lincoln had to wrestle with personal faith /feelings (anti-slavery) with a vocational objective (to preserve the union). His antislavery views had been highly publicized, but he had a job to do which he felt sworn to. Thus you get the eloquent, anguished, God –soaked, 2nd Inaugural Address.

“All knew that this interest [slavery] 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 bondsman'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."

Obama mentions the God-ness of the address in his speech. Not that Obama’s speech approaches the profundity of Lincoln’s, or that his anguish at this time approaches the anguish of President Lincoln, but the speech is born of a similar internal and occupational struggle. He affirms his own Christian faith, but talks about political openness to people of all beliefs including secularists. He calls on fellow liberals and Democrats to embrace their faith and openly bring it into the square. So some liberal commentators see these words as Obama feeding the cause of Republicans, reinforcing their stereotypes.

But it is not that he believes with some Republicans that Democrats are Godless. Quite to the contrary. He is calling those God-believing Democrats (that is: MOST Democrats) to vocally admit their faith. To do otherwise is not only deceptive, it creates the vacuum that only fundamentalists can fill. In Obama’s actual words, he says that conservative leaders tell

"evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their Church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage; school prayer and intelligent design.

"Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait. At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that - regardless of our personal beliefs - constitutional principles tie our hands. At worst, some liberals dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word "Christian" describes one's political opponents, not people of faith.”

And he is right. If Democrats/liberals want to change, they must first admit that they have a problem. By “they” I mean anyone who decides that they can’t mention God in public because it might offend their constituency.

Barack Obama is calling these folks to embrace their faith, to not let the Religious/Political Right dictate what is Christian or what is appropriate talk of God in politics. Obama’s speech was not designed so much to court evangelicals as it was to call Democrats and other liberals to acknowledge the role their faith plays and to not apologize for that faith. And he wants to serve notice to the Religious/Political Right that they do not own God. Thank God for Barack Obama who is willing to infuriate secularists, and all Republicans and Democrats alike. If he’s courting votes, he’s got a funny way of doing it.