Everybody Brings Background and Experiences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pray, America, Pray!

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So that leads to the final point of agreement:

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

Let’s pause a moment to savor that prospect.

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

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

What It Means to Me

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leader: O God, give our leaders your justice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prayer for Our Leaders

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

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


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

Blessed be the LORD God, who alone works wonders.

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

Blessed be the LORD God, who alone works wonders.

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

Blessed be the LORD God, who alone works wonders.

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

Blessed be the LORD God, who alone works wonders.

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

Blessed be the LORD God, who alone works wonders.

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

Blessed be the LORD God, who alone works wonders.

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

Blessed be the LORD God, who alone works wonders.

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

Blessed be the LORD God, who alone works wonders.

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

Blessed be the LORD God, who alone works wonders.

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

Blessed be the LORD God, who alone works wonders.

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

Blessed be the LORD God, who alone works wonders.

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

Blessed be the LORD God, who alone works wonders.

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

Blessed be the LORD God, who alone works wonders.

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

Blessed be the LORD God, who alone works wonders.

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

Blessed be the LORD God, who alone works wonders.

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

Blessed be the LORD God, who alone works wonders.

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

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

Christian Resources for the Inauguration

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?

Hell Might Just Be Getting Cooler

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

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

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

Anti-Abortion Groups Invigorated By Obama Win

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Simply do nothing.

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

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

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

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

A President Is Not a King

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prayer for National Leaders

(inspired by Jeremiah 23:1 & 4)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To Help You Decide VIII: Closing Argument

What I Can Tell You About Barack Obama

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To Help You Decide VII

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

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

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

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

OR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quoting my brother again:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next: My Final (and Beginning) Argument

To Help You Decide VI

Distortions, Distractions, Characters and Character

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To Help You Decide V (Part II)

The Role of Government and Personal Responsibility

The question from an earlier post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To Help You Decide V

The Role of Government and Personal Responsibility

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So here’s how I see it:

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

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

a) heart-place and `

b) actions.

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

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

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

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

Please Pray for James Dobson

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

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

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

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

*Pornography would be openly displayed on newsstands

*Inner-city crime increases when gun ownership is restricted

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

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

*Euthanasia is becoming more and more common.

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

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

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

Last Call: Tony and Barry

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

To Help You Decide IV

On Abortion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Obama says that liberals who gloss over the moral dimensions of abortion make a big mistake. Most women who have to make the moral, difficult, and personal abortion decision do not take it lightly. Obama himself talks of teaching his girls (in time) of the sacredness of sexuality, the morality of sexual decisions, the primacy of abstinence, and (eventually) the responsibility of birth control.

3. Because he believes this is a moral decision, he believes it should be left to a woman, her family, her pastoral advisors and her doctors. It should NOT be made by the government.

4. (Another way to say #3) He is supportive of a woman’s right to choose as reflected in Roe v. Wade.

Now my perspective:

1. I have to admit that I had to resolve the abortion issue before I could whole-heartedly support Sen. Obama for President. Obama’s voting record on abortion is indisputable and troubling. Too often the voting record is all we have to go on. So I understand that for many Americans who are trying to understand who Barack Obama is and where he stands, voting record is the most reliable indication.

But I am not most Americans. I have had a personal relationship with the man. I see my intelligent, good-hearted, Constitution-loving Christian brother voting in a way that I don’t agree with, and I have to ask “why?”

Thanks to the contentiousness of his opponents (and the process) and the conscientiousness of the press, both friend and foe, Obama has answered these questions over and over. That his opponents keep stirring the pot is no indication that he has provided inadequate answers. His answers ring true to the thoughtful, big-hearted, law-loving person I know. The clearest answers regarding abortion issues were given to the brave Cameron Strang at Relevant Magazine. Here’s an excerpt:

Strang: Based on emails we received, another issue of deep importance to our readers is a candidate’s stance on abortion. We largely know your platform, but there seems to be some real confusion about your position on third-trimester and partial-birth abortions. Can you clarify your stance for us?

Obama: I absolutely can, so please don’t believe the emails. I have repeatedly said that I think it’s entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don’t think that “mental distress” qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions.

The other email rumor that’s been floating around is that somehow I’m unwilling to see doctors offer life-saving care to children who were born as a result of an induced abortion. That’s just false. There was a bill that came up in Illinois that was called the “Born Alive” bill that purported to require life-saving treatment to such infants. And I did vote against that bill. The reason was that there was already a law in place in Illinois that said that you always have to supply life-saving treatment to any infant under any circumstances, and this bill actually was designed to overturn Roe v. Wade, so I didn’t think it was going to pass constitutional muster.

Ever since that time, emails have been sent out suggesting that, somehow, I would be in favor of letting an infant die in a hospital because of this particular vote. That’s not a fair characterization, and that’s not an honest characterization. It defies common sense to think that a hospital wouldn't provide life-saving treatment to an infant that was alive and had a chance of survival.

2. I can’t make any sense out of Roe v. Wade. I will not lift a finger to support it. But neither will I generate any energy to try to elect a president who says he’s pro-life and who hopes to overturn Roe v. Wade.

First, I don’t believe this opportunity will come through the US President anytime soon. Consider the evidence not only of the past eight years, but of the past 28 years since abortion has been a factor in Presidential elections. Twenty of the years have been under Republican, pro-life Presidents. Seven of nine justices were appointed by Republican Presidents. Still, we have seen nary (did I say “nary”?) a crack in Roe v. Wade (thanks to Jon Trott for this observation). The Supreme Court is not ready to overturn Roe v. Wade. Neither is the nation.

Nor do I believe that that overturning would save babies. Certainly not very soon. Meanwhile, as by brothers and sisters note, babies are dying.

3. So does anyone have a plan to stop the killing? Barack Obama does. The fullest expression of that plan can be found (once again) at prolifeproobama.

A truncated version is reprinted here from the aforementioned Relevant Magazine article.

Strang: You’ve said you’re personally against abortion and would like to see a reduction in the number of abortions under your administration. So, as president, how would do you propose accomplishing that?

Obama: I think we know that abortions rise when unwanted pregnancies rise. So, if we are continuing what has been a promising trend in the reduction of teen pregnancies, through education and abstinence education giving good information to teenagers. That is important—emphasizing the sacredness of sexual behavior to our children. I think that’s something that we can encourage. I think encouraging adoptions in a significant way. I think the proper role of government. So there are ways that we can make a difference, and those are going to be things I focus on when I am president.

4. Finally I return to some of my opening comments: Saying I’m pro-choice does not kill babies any more than saying I’m pro-life saves babies. We act like we're picking our favorite sports team. Let's say I root for the Titans over the Colts. If the Titans win, I might feel like I did something, when my stance had absolutely nothing to do with the win!

We are used to politicians telling us their stances, and we vote accordingly. But Senator Obama seems more ready than others to tell us whatever we want to know about WHY he holds the stances he does or WHY he voted the way he did. You may not always agree with him, but you gotta love his transparency, his thoughtfulness, his compassion and his vision for using government to actually solve problems.

To Help You Decide III

Taxes and Wealth
Many of my dear Christian conservative friends walk up to me and say, “Tony, I really like your guy for President. I really like him. It’s just this one thing…” It always baffles me when that one issue is that Barack Obama proposes “the redistribution of wealth.”

For some, this is an issue of fairness. For me, it is too. But we disagree on what is fair.

One version of the argument says that we should embrace a flat 15% tax policy. The rich already pay taxes at a higher rate. The flat rate sounds fair. I might agree, all things being equal. The problem is that all things are not equal. Wealth buys opportunity and that opportunity does not pass on equally to others (children, grandchildren).

One response from my friends is that the rich got rich by hard work. When I responded with a particular example of a struggling less-than-wealthy person, I was reminded that this poorer person got in the situation through his own bad life decisions.

So here’s my thinking:

Working hard is good.
Making moral decisions is good.
Making wise decisions is good.

But measuring a person’s work ethic, morality or wisdom by their bank account is unwise, illogical and un-Christian.

I do NOT agree that wealthy people are necessarily harder workers than middle class or poor people. I have had too much experience with hard-working poor people and lazy rich people to believe that. I have no need to believe that rich people are necessarily lazy (or immoral or stupid). I believe that hard work can lead to wealth. But I also believe hard workers and lazy people cut across income levels. And I believe we will find moral/godly people across all income levels. And I believe we can find wise/intelligent people in all income levels.

My Christian faith says that sin takes several forms and transcends many factors. Some of the forms: ignorance, immorality, and laziness. The factors transcended: income level, nationality, race, culture, language. If we are judging people according to the latter and attaching them to the former, we are not reflecting a biblical worldview. Bottom line is this: I believe it to be indeterminable whether a person’s wealth is attributable to hard work, morality or ingenuity, although all three are admirable and could be factors.

So in a Presidential election the question is: What role can government play in assuring that hard working, moral, disciplined and wise people can make the money they need to support their families and to move up in the world?

That opportunity for middle class or poor people will never approach the opportunity that the already wealthy already have, but government should operate to make more fair the playing field. This is not the same as socialism, Communism , "handouts," or taking from the hardworking rich to give to the lazy poor. It is simply an issue of justice.

A policy that protects the wealth of the wealthy, (regardless of how they amassed it) while making it increasingly difficult for those trying to make it, is simply unjust and unchristian.

So the question for a just society is still one of fairness. If I am right that moral, intelligent, hard-working people exist on levels of income, then justice demands that a fair government do whatever it can to assure (at least) that moral and hardworking people have the opportunity to amass wealth and provide for their families.

The policies Barack Obama advocates are nowhere near socialism. They do not level income or general wealth. They don’t even level the playing field, but they do make the playing field MORE fair. And they do so by asking those with power (wealth is power) to do their part to help others to gain some power to provide for their families and serve society better. Obama speaks of this as answering Cain’s question of God “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Obama believes that God’s unrecorded answer is “Yes, you are!”

To Help You Decide II

If you’re still trying to decide who you’ll vote for in the Presidential election, I want to persuade you to support Barack Obama. My support for Obama comes with reasons. These are NOT those reasons:

1. My support of Barack Obama is not just because we were friends in high school. I have lots of high school friends whom I would not consider supporting for President of the United States. If you’re my friend now I might not support you, should you run for office (in fact, you’d likely be disqualified by your associations!).

But my friendship with Barack Obama does give me some advantages over people who are trying to get to know who he is. My friendship did make me pay attention to him earlier than most Americans did. But mostly my friendship allowed me to trust him when he speaks. The man I see now rings true to the kid I knew then. So I'm not afraid his good words are shallow or deceptive, while some of my undecided friends are: “He speaks well, but…”

And when I read the smears about his character (patriotism, Christian faith, ideology,…), I can ask “Does this ring true to the Barry I knew?” None of them do.

2. My support for Obama is not because he’s the Democrat. I have voted for Republicans and Democrats for President. And until this year, I’ve always gone into the booth holding my nose (figuratively). I registered (D) this year because I ignorantly thought I couldn’t vote in the primary otherwise.

3. My support for Obama is not because he’s African American. I will admit that if all things were equal and I had to choose between a white man for President and a black man--after 43 straight white male Presidents--I’d vote for the black guy. Without apology or shame. But, not to worry: All things are NEVER equal. So I have to look at all things. The Presidential election is no time for “he-looks-like-me, she-could-be-in-my-club, we–could-have-a-beer-together” identity politics. And I don’t support the view that says we should elect an unqualified black man to “make history.”

4. My support for Obama is not simply because “he gives good speeches.” While I think inspirational speeches have their place, they are not enough. Fortunately, Barack Obama offers way more than good speeches and delivery. More of that in later posts.

5. My support for Obama is not because I think he’s perfect. He’s not running for Messiah. We’ve got one of those, and I’m quite satisfied with Him, thank you. He’s not running for Savior. I like the Real Savior of the World. But for President I do want to vote for someone whose character, intelligence, abilities and plans can make a positive difference in our nation and the world.

Next: To the issues.

To Help You Decide

Alright, folks: it’s crunch time. You still have two and a half weeks to vote. But the debates are over. The information is out there. And there still seems to be a block of voters who are having a tough time making up their minds.

Some of the people I talk to I’d like to call Committed Undecideds. They won’t know who they’re voting for until they step into the booth. I’m not sure what constrains them. Is it good old fashioned American hyper-individuality (If a lot of people like a candidate, they must be wrong)? Is it looking for a messiah and realizing none of these people quite fit the bill? I'm not sure how to help the CUs.

I know other people who honestly want to make the best decision but are torn. They are among my closest friends. And because we are close, they have known for a long time of my “Committed Decided” stance in this election. So the most common comment I hear is, “Tony, I really like your guy --no-one has yet called him ‘That One’ to my face--I really like your guy, except for This One Thing…” It would be great if that one thing were the same for everyone. It’s not. So God willing, it’s time for me to start giving my argument for supporting Barack Obama.

I will be discussing issues in the posts to come. But in my next post I’ll tell you what is NOT true about my Obama support.

About the Debates, But Not the Issues

When you're in a debate
and it's starting to sink,
a blink, I think,
is as good as a wink.

Me at My Worst

If you know me IRL (in real life), you might want to screen your calls. Any day now you’re likely to get a phone call or e-mail asking for dirt on me. Feel free to respond as honestly as you can. They’ll be looking for my worst deeds, my worst words, and --if they could get to ‘em –my worst thoughts. Why would they care so much about me? Because of my association with Barack Obama.

And don’t hesitate to tell all you know of my association. It was at one time a significant relationship. I don’t mean we simply sat on some charitable boards together. Or that we supported some of the same uplifting causes, like helping Americans exercise their voting rights. I don’t mean that I was just someone like a pastor, whose every opinion could be attributed to him. No, we were actually FRIENDS. I don’t deny it. If he remembers, he won’t either. We gathered regularly and talked about whatever was important to us. We talked a lot. And since he was only 14 while I was 17, my influential words (deeds and thoughts) are probably particularly significant to attribute to Senator Obama.

But I advise you to be careful. If you do answer the requests, that puts you in the loop too. What’s in YOUR closet? If you are a practicing Christian, what was your pre-Christian life like? Those bad deeds (words or thoughts) could also be attributed to Barack Obama. If you don’t want all of America to hear about it so that it can be stuck to Obama, you might not want to answer the call after all.

Made for Radio

I was on BBC's Talking America broadcast from Nashville today. I was going just to be part of the studio audience, but I was asked to ask a question. Listen for yourself.