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.
Friday, July 04, 2008
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.
Monday, August 20, 2007
More Baby Chelsea
I fixed the links below and added more of Chelsea with her Daddy, her brothers, and her Peepaw (that's me).
Friday, August 17, 2007
Announcing... Chelsea Renay McBride!
I know: It's been over a year. Computer problems, life issues and laziness have all contributed to my lack of posts. Maybe I'm back, maybe not.
But the great news Chelsea's here! So I had to alert anyone out there. She was born Tuesday, August 14, 2007 at 12:49 pm. She was 7 lbs. 6 oz., 19 inches. Big brother Damon doesn't know what to think. The other brothers: Christian, Dylan, and Michael are thrilled. For more pix see my Facebook page here, here, and here.
Saturday, July 15, 2006
It Was a Good Day
After church this Sunday, Damon and I headed down to the Criminal Detention Center to deal with some business. One of our loved ones had just been arrested for a crime committed 2 months ago. We went to bail out Our Loved One (OLO).
When we arrived, we saw what I’ve seen before: an outdoor courtyard, an inside lobby, and people waiting. Bail bondsman and bondswomen were waiting for business, for people to help. Most of their day is filled with waiting. Family members of the incarcerated were coming and going and waiting. They were coming to visit their loved one, to bail them out, or just to find out what’s going on. Ninety percent of these people were obviously poor.
When Damon and I arrived there was a particular family outside that intrigued me. It was two teenage boys, a gentleman who appeared to be their father, and a little girl in a stroller. I started playing in my mind the possibilities of who they might be there to see. I settled on the boys’ mother.
Damon was walking around, opening and closing the heavy door, trying to hide from Grandpa, saying "Hi" and "See ya" to people, and then sitting next to Grandpa on the floor for long periods of time. It finally occurred to me that he hadn’t eaten so I got some peanut butter and crackers out of the vending machine. We sat back on the floor and he systematically dismantled the cracker sandwiches and licked off the peanut butter, then ate the crackers. We were talking, fighting over the last few crackers ‘cause he didn’t want me to have any. I snuck some when he wasn’t looking.
After a while one of the boys, hearing me talk to Damon asked what his name was. “Damon,” I said.
“D-A-M-O-N?”
“Yeah.”
“My name is Jamin.”
“Really!? Is that J-A-M-O-N?
“M-I-N.”
Turning to the other kid I asked, “And what’s you’re name?”
“Joel,” he said. I asked the little girl her name, but the boys answered “This is Nicole.”
“Is she your sister?”
“No, she’s our niece.”
So I start revising my guess about who they are waiting for. Probably Nicole’s mother, Joel and Jamin’s sister, I thought.
We chatted about the little ones then went back to waiting and chasing. After awhile the release door opened. It had opened about every ten to fifteen minutes. This was the first time I was paying attention. A guy came out, having been released after a few hours or a few days of incarceration. When the guy came out, Joel was standing just outside the doorway. He handed the guy something. The guy looked at the something, said “Thanks!”, and kept walking. He disappeared around the corner.
I called to Joel, my new friend. “Joel. Come here a minute.” He walked over to where Damon and I were seated on the floor. “Did you just give that guy something?”
“Yeah.”
“Did you know him?”
“No.”
“Then why did you give him something?”
“Cause it’s fun to give people stuff.”
“Is that why you’re down here.”
“Yeah.”
The next person out the release door was Our Loved One. Joel was standing there and handed OLO something. OLO looked at it and said, “Thanks!” When we got outside I asked OLO what was given. “Ten dollars,” OLO said, smiling.
“It is more blessed to give than to receive.”
Acts 20:35
“For God so loved the world that he gave…”
John 3:16
"It’s fun to give people stuff!"
Joel, Jamin, Nicole and Dad, July 9, 2006
When we arrived, we saw what I’ve seen before: an outdoor courtyard, an inside lobby, and people waiting. Bail bondsman and bondswomen were waiting for business, for people to help. Most of their day is filled with waiting. Family members of the incarcerated were coming and going and waiting. They were coming to visit their loved one, to bail them out, or just to find out what’s going on. Ninety percent of these people were obviously poor.
When Damon and I arrived there was a particular family outside that intrigued me. It was two teenage boys, a gentleman who appeared to be their father, and a little girl in a stroller. I started playing in my mind the possibilities of who they might be there to see. I settled on the boys’ mother.
Damon was walking around, opening and closing the heavy door, trying to hide from Grandpa, saying "Hi" and "See ya" to people, and then sitting next to Grandpa on the floor for long periods of time. It finally occurred to me that he hadn’t eaten so I got some peanut butter and crackers out of the vending machine. We sat back on the floor and he systematically dismantled the cracker sandwiches and licked off the peanut butter, then ate the crackers. We were talking, fighting over the last few crackers ‘cause he didn’t want me to have any. I snuck some when he wasn’t looking.
After a while one of the boys, hearing me talk to Damon asked what his name was. “Damon,” I said.
“D-A-M-O-N?”
“Yeah.”
“My name is Jamin.”
“Really!? Is that J-A-M-O-N?
“M-I-N.”
Turning to the other kid I asked, “And what’s you’re name?”
“Joel,” he said. I asked the little girl her name, but the boys answered “This is Nicole.”
“Is she your sister?”
“No, she’s our niece.”
So I start revising my guess about who they are waiting for. Probably Nicole’s mother, Joel and Jamin’s sister, I thought.
We chatted about the little ones then went back to waiting and chasing. After awhile the release door opened. It had opened about every ten to fifteen minutes. This was the first time I was paying attention. A guy came out, having been released after a few hours or a few days of incarceration. When the guy came out, Joel was standing just outside the doorway. He handed the guy something. The guy looked at the something, said “Thanks!”, and kept walking. He disappeared around the corner.
I called to Joel, my new friend. “Joel. Come here a minute.” He walked over to where Damon and I were seated on the floor. “Did you just give that guy something?”
“Yeah.”
“Did you know him?”
“No.”
“Then why did you give him something?”
“Cause it’s fun to give people stuff.”
“Is that why you’re down here.”
“Yeah.”
The next person out the release door was Our Loved One. Joel was standing there and handed OLO something. OLO looked at it and said, “Thanks!” When we got outside I asked OLO what was given. “Ten dollars,” OLO said, smiling.
“It is more blessed to give than to receive.”
Acts 20:35
“For God so loved the world that he gave…”
John 3:16
"It’s fun to give people stuff!"
Joel, Jamin, Nicole and Dad, July 9, 2006
Sunday, July 02, 2006
God's Politics
I haven’t gotten much into political matters in this blog, though I do believe that matters of faith and politics (and somehow lions) are necessarily connected. This connection is especially true for Christians whose faith is necessarily social (various contemporary expressions notably to the contrary).
And though my friends and family are sick of me talking about Barack Obama, I’ve not mentioned him here. Now I have to. Obama has just given his most important speech since his inspirational address at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. This message for Call to Renewal’s Pentecost 2006 conference focused on matters of faith and politics.
Since then, he has been criticized from all quarters. Moderate Democrats are nervous that Obama might upset secularist friends. Confirmed secularists are infuriated that Obama would suggest that religious faith has any place in the public square (lots of blather about the difference between religious faith and other types of beliefs. What the secularists ignore is the fact that their faith also informs their decision-making. Those who champion intellect as the great arbiter of truth deceive themselves into believing that they make all decisions without any input other than intellect. The fact is their FAITH in intellect informs this decision-making, which is not the same as intellect itself. And their feelings and history and current life situations all inform their decision-making.) Some folks from the Religious/Political Right seem nervous that a Democrat might actually talk about God in public. Al Mohler calls Obama a secularist with a religious veneer. All quarters seem to wonder if this is all politics—-pandering to an audience. Some suggest that he is faking his interest in this area. Many are convinced that Obama has finally completed his indoctrination by the Washington compromisers.
Most of these folks are missing Obama’s points entirely. I fault mainly the Associated Press reports which summarize the speech as “Obama Courting the Evangelicals” or “Obama Chastises Fellow Democrats.” While evidence for both headlines can be found, read the speech or hear it, and you’ll see that neither headline fairly represents the speech or its points. Associated Baptist Press presents a more objective and accurate summary of the speech.
First of all it should be noted that while the Call to Renewal folks are evangelicals in the truest sense (They call people to be Jesus-followers), they are not evangelical in the sense that most public discourse hears. That is: they are more likely to vote with Democrats than Republicans in most areas. Unfortunately many people, particularly secularists, read “evangelical” to mean “fundamentalist,” and this audience is anything but fundamentalist. So if Obama is courting their vote, it’s probably from folks who would be leaning his way anyway.
I read and heard Obama’s speech more like a politician’s honest reflections about reconciling his vocational mission with his personal beliefs. And he reflects out loud about where those deliberations have taken him.
It reminds me of the confusion people seem to have about Abraham Lincoln. I respect Lincoln, without believing the myth and legend about him. He was a mere man . I don’t respect him for freeing the slaves (he didn’t directly) No, what impresses me about Lincoln is that while presiding over still the darkest time in our nation’s history, Lincoln had to wrestle with personal faith /feelings (anti-slavery) with a vocational objective (to preserve the union). His antislavery views had been highly publicized, but he had a job to do which he felt sworn to. Thus you get the eloquent, anguished, God –soaked, 2nd Inaugural Address.
“All knew that this interest [slavery] was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding.
Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
Obama mentions the God-ness of the address in his speech. Not that Obama’s speech approaches the profundity of Lincoln’s, or that his anguish at this time approaches the anguish of President Lincoln, but the speech is born of a similar internal and occupational struggle. He affirms his own Christian faith, but talks about political openness to people of all beliefs including secularists. He calls on fellow liberals and Democrats to embrace their faith and openly bring it into the square. So some liberal commentators see these words as Obama feeding the cause of Republicans, reinforcing their stereotypes.
But it is not that he believes with some Republicans that Democrats are Godless. Quite to the contrary. He is calling those God-believing Democrats (that is: MOST Democrats) to vocally admit their faith. To do otherwise is not only deceptive, it creates the vacuum that only fundamentalists can fill. In Obama’s actual words, he says that conservative leaders tell
"evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their Church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage; school prayer and intelligent design.
"Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait. At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that - regardless of our personal beliefs - constitutional principles tie our hands. At worst, some liberals dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word "Christian" describes one's political opponents, not people of faith.”
And he is right. If Democrats/liberals want to change, they must first admit that they have a problem. By “they” I mean anyone who decides that they can’t mention God in public because it might offend their constituency.
Barack Obama is calling these folks to embrace their faith, to not let the Religious/Political Right dictate what is Christian or what is appropriate talk of God in politics. Obama’s speech was not designed so much to court evangelicals as it was to call Democrats and other liberals to acknowledge the role their faith plays and to not apologize for that faith. And he wants to serve notice to the Religious/Political Right that they do not own God. Thank God for Barack Obama who is willing to infuriate secularists, and all Republicans and Democrats alike. If he’s courting votes, he’s got a funny way of doing it.
Friday, March 24, 2006
Genny's Home!
When my mom last came to visit, I didn't take pictures. It's one of those dilemmas: I didn't want to cheapen the experience by taking the time and voyeuristic opportunity to capture it. Today I regret that decision, but not because of anything really related to Mom. It's about Genny. She had missed my mom's last visit, and when she heard my mom was coming back, Genny didn't want to miss her--just because Mom is MY mom. Genny loved me that much--No tribute to me necessarily, just a tribute to her love.
Genny was 71 at the time and still working regularly, so she invited us to lunch around the corner from Lifeway where she worked. Laura; Mom; Ginny; our other friends, Jenni and Becca, and I went to the Town House Tea Room, which might have offended me as a manly man, except that this tea room has a great buffet with all the food I want. Genny gave us a tour of the Lifeway library and she had a gift for Mom-- wild cotton. Mom was actually tickled that this white woman knew more about picking cotton than she did.
I'm trying to piece together the memories right now, because we buried Genny this week. She died unexpectedly, despite her 72 years.
Genny was way more than hostess to my mom. She was Laura's confidante; a member of our Sunday School class; and, mostly, our friend. I don't think Genny was at our wedding 11 years ago, but she's been an active member of our circle of friends for about ten years.
Genny, Damon, and Timothy at Damon's first birthday party.
Damon and me at Genny's 71st birthday party.
Officially Genny has served as the coordinator of our prayer ministry. As such she made a few phone calls, but mostly she prayed. If you imagine an old woman who can't get out and staying home praying, guess again. She did pray at home, but Genny was still working, and despite her failing eyes, still sometimes driving (God help us), and still getting out to play and serve.
When Genny heard about our bi-weekly coffee meetings with friends, she wanted to be a part of it, even though our little group is people from their 20s to their 40s, and Genny started coming in her late 60s. And she didn't come to be a mom or grandmother. She came to be a peer--for the fun of it.
That's not to say that she wasn't a caring person. My wife, Laura could trust no-one more for wise listening. But Genny's wisdom was more in presence than words, more listening than directing.
The favorite Genny story of most people at our church is about the mission trip to Venezuela. The way our mission coordinator, Becky, tells it: She saw Genny in a store one Saturday. Half-jokingly (but only HALF-jokingly), Becky asked, “Are you going with us to Venezuela?” Genny's response “Absolutley not!” For all of her adventure, Genny had never done anything like this. She had never even been on a plane, although she was nearly 70 years old. The next morning after church Genny walked up to Pastor John and asked “Do you think God can use a 70-year old woman in Venezuela?” Long story, short: Genny boarded those planes and served for a week sharing Gospel life with Venezuelan women and children.
We hadn't seen as much of Genny in the past few weeks, although Laura had kept in touch by phone. Mainly Genny had been caring for a son she expected to soon pass on himself. She beat him to heaven, which probably thrills her to no end. She was dreading the prospect of burying her son. Thank God, she didn't have to And thank God she's Home now, hearing the words, "Well done, good and faithful servant."
Genny was 71 at the time and still working regularly, so she invited us to lunch around the corner from Lifeway where she worked. Laura; Mom; Ginny; our other friends, Jenni and Becca, and I went to the Town House Tea Room, which might have offended me as a manly man, except that this tea room has a great buffet with all the food I want. Genny gave us a tour of the Lifeway library and she had a gift for Mom-- wild cotton. Mom was actually tickled that this white woman knew more about picking cotton than she did.
I'm trying to piece together the memories right now, because we buried Genny this week. She died unexpectedly, despite her 72 years.
Genny was way more than hostess to my mom. She was Laura's confidante; a member of our Sunday School class; and, mostly, our friend. I don't think Genny was at our wedding 11 years ago, but she's been an active member of our circle of friends for about ten years.
Genny, Damon, and Timothy at Damon's first birthday party.
Damon and me at Genny's 71st birthday party. Officially Genny has served as the coordinator of our prayer ministry. As such she made a few phone calls, but mostly she prayed. If you imagine an old woman who can't get out and staying home praying, guess again. She did pray at home, but Genny was still working, and despite her failing eyes, still sometimes driving (God help us), and still getting out to play and serve.
When Genny heard about our bi-weekly coffee meetings with friends, she wanted to be a part of it, even though our little group is people from their 20s to their 40s, and Genny started coming in her late 60s. And she didn't come to be a mom or grandmother. She came to be a peer--for the fun of it.
That's not to say that she wasn't a caring person. My wife, Laura could trust no-one more for wise listening. But Genny's wisdom was more in presence than words, more listening than directing.
The favorite Genny story of most people at our church is about the mission trip to Venezuela. The way our mission coordinator, Becky, tells it: She saw Genny in a store one Saturday. Half-jokingly (but only HALF-jokingly), Becky asked, “Are you going with us to Venezuela?” Genny's response “Absolutley not!” For all of her adventure, Genny had never done anything like this. She had never even been on a plane, although she was nearly 70 years old. The next morning after church Genny walked up to Pastor John and asked “Do you think God can use a 70-year old woman in Venezuela?” Long story, short: Genny boarded those planes and served for a week sharing Gospel life with Venezuelan women and children.
We hadn't seen as much of Genny in the past few weeks, although Laura had kept in touch by phone. Mainly Genny had been caring for a son she expected to soon pass on himself. She beat him to heaven, which probably thrills her to no end. She was dreading the prospect of burying her son. Thank God, she didn't have to And thank God she's Home now, hearing the words, "Well done, good and faithful servant."
Friday, December 09, 2005
Aslan on the Move
Of course he's not safe! But's he's good.
You may be wondering about the "Purr and Roar" in this blog's title. It's all about lions. I have this unhealthy affection for the lion. And while I will sometimes have occasion to pontificate roaringly, most times I'm just purring.
I'm not sure where or why my affection for lions began, but I know that said affection got a huge boost when I re-read The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe by C. S. Lewis way back in the eighties. Now with the release of the movie, I've written my review.
My friends and family are well aware of my obsession. More tragic is that my poor unsuspecting grandson, Damon, is equally obsessed with lions, since I’ve accidentally trained him to be. Funny how we inadvertently pass on values to those we love. Incidentally when Damon roars, it sounds more like a purr... or a gargle.
I think Miss Perkins, my fourth grade teacher, must have loved her students. I know that she was a Christian evangelist, although I have no real evidence that she was a Christian. When I look back at all that I’ve learned in school that I still retain I often find myself back at Cheney Elementary in Ft. Belvoir, VA.
Among the values Miss Perkins passed along were a love for good literature and the learning of virtue through that literature. I do not know how intentional she was in this teaching, but I remember the two books she read to us as a class. The first was a Wrinkle in Time by Madeline L’Engle. The second was The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe By C.S. Lewis.
Both books scared me nearly to death. My 9-year old mind was still able to imagine vividly and my young heart was still vulnerable to deep feeling. These days I welcome any deep feeling and I stray away from imagining. Then imagination and feeling were second nature. Fortunately the same vulnerability that allowed me to fear the evil in the stories also opened my psyche to the truth (in both books) that sacrificial love is the strongest power in the universe.
Both books stayed with me. In college I re–read them and also began reading nearly everything these two authors have written.
While I can’t exactly trace the beginning of my lion obsession to Lewis’s books, the books clearly re-invigorated my affection. Aslan comes through the Narnia books as powerful, mysterious, compassionate, sacrificial, wise and good–- attributes I’d like to bottle and drink daily.
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Lib'ral Who Worships
When Amy Grant was still in grade school, before there was "Contemporary Christian Music," when "Gospel Music" was largely relegated to one of two insular communities or to novelty presentations in the secular world, when some of that Gospel Music was just getting heard alongside rock and roll (I'm ignoring Sam Cooke and the Soul Stirrers, early Staple Singers, early Curtis Mayfield, as well as a host of country artists led by Hank Williams and Johnny Cash, not to mention Elvis Presley), when Edwin Hawkins was about to get a hearing with O Happy Day, and the Staple Singers with I'll Take You There and Respect Yourself, when Aretha was just working up to her Amazing Grace album, long before Bob Dylan's "Christian" albums and way before the commercial success of "Christian artists" or "Worship Music," a liberal Canadian folk singer was worshipping God and getting his worship played on the radio.
I've been a Bruce Cockburn fan since the release of Inner City Front back in 1981. But he'd been at it for several albums by then. This week I've immersed myself in Cockburn music again, occassioned by my discovery of several more "Deluxe Editions" (Are you tired of these quotation marks yet?!) of his classic discs.
Mostly I've been replacing my old discs with these new remastered versions, which also have at least one bonus song each. But my greatest joy has been the discovery of gems on a couple older offerings that I've never owned. Lot's of great music on these discs, but I want to mention only one song from each.
Amongst the love ballads (never pop-y or syrupy) and the social commentary (often angry), Cockburn never fails to worship God. He has known, like all wise believers, that there's really no separation between our social, personal, and spiritual lives. In the Falling Dark opens with "Lord of the Starfields," a praise song without the selfishness that dominates much of today's praise in worship--It's all about the Lord, not about what the Lord has done for me.
Ironically Further Adventures Of presents another worship song, this time MORE personal than most of today's praise and worship, but still it seems a fitting tribute to Jesus Christ "Can I Go With You" begins
When you ride out of the shining sky
to claim the ones who love you,
can I go with you?
Can I go with you?
How personal, but how worshipful is that?!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)