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.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Saturday, October 18, 2008
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!”
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.
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.
Friday, October 17, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
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.
and it's starting to sink,
a blink, I think,
is as good as a wink.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
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.
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.
Sunday, October 05, 2008
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.
Saturday, September 06, 2008
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Monday, August 25, 2008
Saturday, August 23, 2008
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.
Friday, August 15, 2008
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
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
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, August 11, 2008
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.
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.
Sunday, August 03, 2008
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?
“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?
Friday, August 01, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
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.
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, July 04, 2008
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
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).
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).
Saturday, June 14, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
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:
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:
Thursday, March 20, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
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!
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.
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.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
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.
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.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Friday, December 14, 2007
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)