Where are the voices railing against the pastors on the Right who have said that 9/11, hurricanes and more are caused by Americans who are not living in harmony with God.

McCain was endorsed by Hagee, a vitriolic speaker, and Bush has consulted with Pat Robertson on a decision to invade Iraq.

It seems that we are very schizophrenic on the religious spokesmen in our society. When has Bush or the Republicans openly disagreed with the preachers' comments?

Excerpted from an Alternet op-ed article:

...the idea that America deserves terrorist attacks and other horrendous disasters has long been a frequently expressed view among the faction of white evangelical ministers to whom the Republican Party is most inextricably linked. Neither Jerry Falwell nor Pat Robertson ever retracted or denounced their view that America provoked the 9/11 attacks by doing things to anger God. John Hagee continues to believe that the City of New Orleans got what it deserved when Katrina drowned its residents and devastated the lives of thousands of Americans. And James Inhofe -- who happens to still be a Republican U.S. Senator -- blamed America for the 9/11 attacks by arguing in a 2002 Senate floor speech that "the spiritual door was opened for an attack against the United States of America" because we pressured Israel to give away parts of the West Bank.

Elaine,

As to politics... and the reason I have learned to be skeptical...Perhaps you have forgotten McCain in 2000 or 2004 and Bob Jones University...but now he accepts Hagee...a bit hypocritical...you think! I do.

I personally liked Obama's politically expedient explanation...I hope he can be bigger than his preacher, it is time to move on and not live in the 60's but 2008!

Pat

I think it is not entirely true to say that many find Black church offensive.

It would be more accurate to say that many people find the Christian God offensive. What does it mean to have perfect hatred (Ps. 139) or to pray for God to break the teeth of your enemies (Ps. 3)?

Rev. Wright, in a sermon, asked for God to damn America. That offends many people. But I think a deeper violation is not racial or patriotic but our image of God. We are uncomfortable with a God of vengeance and like to imagine Christ as the anti-Deity to the Old Testament God.

The gospel of Rev. Wright is not angular, it is straight-on. The fact is, like Diana B. Bass says, the Christian church has become alienated from its roots to the point where it doesn't even recognise its own God.

The African American church in North America has, in the west, safeguarded a long tradition from before Christ of penning Psalms of Lament to God.

To lament is to express ones outrage at God for injustice. To lament is to damn evil and invoke divine outrage. These sermons don't imagine a God removed from suffering and oppression, they imagine a co-suffering God. The African American church, in their preaching tradition, have developed the most Biblical theodicy within the Christian church today.

Lament demands answers and justice. These Psalms were meant to be read in small groups. The primary purpose is restoration and rehabilitation of those experiencing evil and suffering. They provide language and structure in which pain, suffering, grief and despair can be ritualised and worshipers moved from one way of seeing their situation to a radically different way of seeing.

Laments are a means of reframing suffering in light of Christs hope and promise. This doesn't necessarily include physical deliverance (although it is anticipated) but rather it is a spiritual move which opens up possibilities that were not previously available.

Lament expresses rage, anger, hurt, disappointment and hope with a goal of reconciliation with God. It aims to transform the community and subvert the oppressive power. It does this by affirming that despite any lack of evidence, God is active in this world.

Lament asserts that the world is not about false hope in human progress but rather to create characters within us which can live with unanswered questions and unresolved injustice not by repression or denial but by active acceptance of the reality of evil and suffering and Gods love for us in the midst of this.

Community is central. Lament requires friendship that will sustain us moving from lament to joy- friends who open roofs and drop us down at Jesus feet (Lk. 5).

And finally it is protest and resistance. These sermons which we find violent are actually peaceful. They counter and resist evil ultimately defeating it through peaceful cries of lament. Lament moves us from anger to acceptance- it gives us a voice and reminds us that not only is God offended, he suffers alongside with us. That deliverance is not ours but Gods.

Frankly I think that not only do most Americans not understand the African American church, I don't think they understand the Old Testament God or have a proper understanding of Christian worship.

That Wrights sermons could be construed as hateful bother me not only because it shows a lack of awareness of African American Christianity, it shows an ignorance of Christianity and, ultimately, our God. Those services and those sermons would feel like home to the early church. They fit right in with the cries of the Psalmist and Christs silence on the Cross who was rejected humiliated and scorned and whose despaired call for God on the cross echoes the cries of Gods children before and after Him.

These sermons by Wright aren't hate speech, it's God speech. I would compose a post on this but I don't have time. I did however write up some notes which I typed up above from a God & Human Suffering class I took. The Psalms of Lament are very interesting for me. We read them lots of mornings in our chapel at school- bloody verses calling out for vengeance. Most Christians recoil at those verses and have no idea what they mean no more than they understand the sermons of Rev. Wright in Chicago.

This is not about Obama. This is bigger than Obama. This is about our God. Moreover, I am bothered by the notion that our hope is in any earthly man- Obama's rhetoric does disturb me. My comment isn't about Obama- it's about the message given by Obama's pastor. Or, my hope is invested not in Obama or politics of this earth but Christ.

Not only is the God of those Psalms our God, He is also the God who damns America with us- who cries with us for justice and who transforms us individually and corporately. These sermons are not about earthly powers or politics, they are about our ultimate goal and salvation, Christ.

I watched the whole of Obama's speech today and I was impressed. I hope that from here on out we can debate the issues.

Thanks so much to Diana Butler Bass for agreeing to "hang with the Adventists" with this post. It's much needed and much appreciated. I especially resonated with her experience of first being offended but gradually learning to hear the "power of the critique" and learning to "appreciate the prophetic nature of black preaching."

These voices indeed come from a very distinct historical perspective, one that I have to work harder to understand. However, this is certainly still applicable today, as a very cursory look at inner city schools, prison populations, even mortgage lending practices reveal--we are far from the vision of a united country. As a comfortable member of white, middle America, it can be hard to realize just how much white privilege I enjoy daily not just from individuals but especially from institutions.

I appreciated Obama's speech today, but in many ways I felt sorry that he had to distance himself from his former pastor just because so many white Americans cannot understand the rhetoric of black preaching (and I count myself as one who has to still work hard at this).

Thanks for reminding me that what might make me squirm a bit is the "Gospel slant" and that having to hear from an angle that isn't natural to me is a good thing, a growing thing, and a God thing.

I just read the SF Chronicle's article about Obama's speech today about race in America--already it is being called a "watershed" and a "defining moment" in both this campaign and in our country's history with a former Lieberman advisor saying, "Every American schoolkid - indeed, every American, regardless of race - should be required to read this speech."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/18/MNH5VLU7J.DT...

It is a very difficult conversation to have and Obama was dead on in pointing out complex it is. I thought it was an amazing speech. The idealist in me wants to believe that we can lurch towards a better America and the more cynical part of me thinks that with our sound bites and partisanship and our attention span that rivals a squirrel on crack, we will not be able to rise to the occasion. Note to self - STOP reading the comments section of newsblogs. The US looks very very scary from there.

A little bit of history. When Joe McCarthy first ran for the U.S. Senate, the Communist Party of South Milwaukee endorsed Joe. When Joe was told, he replied: "Their vote counts doesn't it?" Politics makes strange bedfellows. Tom

Maybe this is my own bias showing, but what I took from Obama's speech was an exhortation to remove the discussion of race from the religious context and bring it to a secular social discussion.

Americans are formed in a wide variety of religious and secular traditions. No thelogical understanding of race can do justice to the history of injustice, intolerance and misunderstanding when religious doctrine is enmeshed with these racial inequities on one side and the black liberation theology on the other. The writings of the Bible, Koran and Torah are used to lift some people up while putting down others. When I read the old testament of the Christian Bible, I shows me a history of lifing some people up while putting others down based on race with the support of the Hebrew God.

We need to remove our discussion on race from these mutually distructive theologies and come to a mature understanding that is based on civil society, social justice and ideals of equality.

When Jeremiah Wright asked where was the outrage when America bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, he also added, where is the outrage for its support of Israel that imprisons thousands of Palestinians behind walls which prevent access to medical care and the needs for daily living?

He asked questions that have not dared to be asked, and we need to look at them with the Christian understanding that ALL men are God's children and deserve our respect and equality of treatment.

The black message has long been based on Hebrew Scripture in which God offers an exodus for his people, but also where he punishes the enemies and even orders their annihilation. Can this be construed as a command for Hiroshima and Nagasaki? It is a conundrum which Christians have refused to face. Platitudes have been offered to explain that the Christian God is more loving and caring, but, then, what does one do with the Hebrew God who is described in far stronger, even murderous language? Has anyone or any religious belief fully explained this perptual paradox?

I just left this comment over at the GetReligion blog, but I thought it applied here, too.

One difference I’ve noticed between black and white preachers is that white preachers tend to leave their audience feeling good and affirmed and black preachers tend to leave their audience feeling challenged and confronted. When set beside the biblical prophets who spoke of God’s judgment on Israel, Wright’s condemnation of America is very much in line with that tradition. So characterizing his comments as “hateful” or “inappropriate”, only makes sense if you’re used to your preacher primarily encouraging as opposed to rebuking you.

I think what happened here is that many white Americans (and I am one myself) who are used to having their ears tickled by their pastor got their first exposure to a pastor who calls out sin and condemns it. What they heard were his most extreme soundbites, and took offense at the notion that God might judge America (this reaction was exacerbated by wacky conspiracy theories). No one likes to hear their problems pointed out, especially with such pointed rhetoric, and the person who does the pointing is not going to be popular.

This is where the role of politician and prophet diverge. The politician needs to be popular; the prophet doesn’t.

Well said, David.

In fact, this whole thread has been eclectic, very interesting and informative, at least for me. Thanks all - maybe I'll have to crosspost Diana again.

For whatever it might be worth, I posted a video response on YouTube to Obama's "More Perfect Union" speech. In it, I tell a little bit about my story - growing up in Rwanda, watching the L.A. race riots on TV as a young boy, and receiving a death threat by an African American boy a week after the race riots.

Here's the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enaB5yj4HcE

Hi Johnny,

First of all, I previously said I appreciated Obama’s speech as it appeared to offer balance.

You Point out that. “Rev. Wright, in a sermon, asked for God to damn America. That offends many people. But I think a deeper violation is not racial or patriotic but our image of God. We are uncomfortable with a God of vengeance and like to imagine Christ as the anti-Deity to the Old Testament God.”

I agree that most are uncomfortable with a God of vengeance
and see Christ differently than the OT God. I would suggest that may be the view of the majority on this website.

The view carries over to capital punishment, all non-combatancy, and even self defense using violence. It affects an aspect of “process theology” and the “moral influence” theory and perhaps portions of “Why be afraid of the OT God?”. I also suggest that this lack of OT understanding is a “world event” not just an American one as also “sin” is a “world problem” not just an American one.

You point to Rev. Wright (RW) as representative of using “lament and petition.” I would not disagree. I would point out that just because some “petitions” of RW are a legitimate cry for “justice” that does not mean that every one petitioned for are. Each petition must be “judged by God” and “even us” for its own merit.

I believe Obama saw that all of the “prophetic voice” petitions of RW were not equally meritorious or valid. I would like to think that was not all political expediency.

So, if RW’s lament was to God for justice and God’s primary attribute in the NT is “love” with little emphasis on His justice, what might RW hear back? He would, I suggest possibly hear only of “forgiveness, mercy and love” with little focus on justice. So what then of the “Black Lament.”?

If we de-emphasize justice we “neuter” God to inaction.(expression)… Sorry RW and the Black church.

So in the OT, the plea for justice was met by an "active" God. While we may not understand every violent act in the OT God in his infinite understanding in many cases was either single handily or "by secondary means" (people) carrying out justice on behalf of His people. He was fulfilling covenant promises to Abraham to lead them into a “promised land.”

However He was not jingoistic as Israels sins caused Him to become Israel’s enemy when their "cup was full" and send them into captivity.

So today is that same OT God no longer alive that burns with righteousness and justice and hates sin and evil? Is He now only forgiving and merciful?

Yes, we live in an age of grace and longsuffering by God’s providence. However, I suggest it is merely a “period of grace” before that same Righteous Judgment God of the OT appears again.

It is my belief that our “fair God” is pleased and active even in “the prince of this worlds” domain to bring about justice today through the civil authorities that bear the sword. And yes, it is sometimes necessary for them to use violence in that pursuit of justice. The civil authorities are at times wrong but they too have a judge that is sitting on a throne in heaven that judges them. ( I suggest Hitler i.e.)

Let’s make sure that our “understanding” of RW’s anger (or any other group or individual) doesn’t give them a carte blanche to inappropriate behavior.

Fair Enough?

Pat

"Let’s make sure that our “understanding” of RW’s anger (or any other group or individual) doesn’t give them a carte blanche to inappropriate behavior."

Of course. But what, precisely, about Wright's behavior was inappropriate?

What did Obama say it was?

Pat

I don't believe Black rage is anymore acceptable than White rage. I have experienced both. Both come from beneath not from above. Color is neither a requirement for citizenship in the United States nor in Heaven. We should behave as children of God to each other. The fact that many don't is no excuse for rape, murder, or mayhem or the advocation of such reliation. I was threatened with death by a white SDA elder and I was the last car out of the MCG parking lot before the Martin Luther King riots in Augusta. I escaped with only the windows of my office broken. I am proud that I was responsible for doubling the number of practicing physicians and dentists in Georgia in the first ten years of my 26 year tenure as an officer of the University. Only the Federal Government recognized my efforts by its grants in aid. Never-the-less, I would do it again. Hopefully without the threats of pain and/or death. Tom P.S. I didn't blink!!!

I find it interesting that on other issues (like non-combatancy or Amish forgiveness) we use Jesus and his example in the NT to override OT practice, but on this we are attempting to incorporate the two together in the name of justice and a theologically unified portrait of God. I do not necessarily disagree.

However, I have questions. Why, when quoting the Psamist's laments such as, "Do I not hate those who hate you O LORD...I have nothing but hatred for them, I count them my enemies," as context for understanding Pastor Wright's rage and invective, do we not also look at Jesus' saying in the SM:

"You have heard it said you shall love your neighbors and hate your enemies, but I say to you love your enemies..."

Is this not an instance where Jesus overturns not only traditional practice, but also an OT understanding of God that was not full-orbed? IOW, not every utterance by the OT writers and characters always expresses the fullest truth of what God is like or what he envisions for us (see Job's comforters) as we see in Jesus.

Could this include laments like Ps. 139 that express hatred for enemies and invoke God's revenge on the godless? Why do we have no problem seeing this concerning other aforementioned issues, but back away from this understanding on this one?

It's also fascinating to examine the opening address of Jesus' public ministry in Luke's gospel. Jesus quotes Isaiah 61, a Messianic prophecy, filled with Messianic blessing. The jubilee is proclaimed, freedom for the captives! But, Jesus conveniently leaves out one portion from Isaiah 61:

"To proclaim...the day of vengeance of our God."

Why, to a people who for all practical purposes were living under oppression after 400 years( the location had changed from Babylon to their homeland, and the names had changed from Baylonians to Syrians to Romans), did Jesus not invoke God's vengeance on their oppressors? Why did Jesus not say, in the comfort of the synagogue, something that everyone longed to hear in one way or another..."God damn the Romans?"

In fact, Jesus turns the whole equation around, and shows his oppressed hearers that they are in as much need as their oppressors. That's why they run him out to throw him off a cliff.

In fact, the whole paradox is climaxed at Jesus' death, when dying at the hands of Roman soldiers, he calls down God's forgiveness upon them, not vengeance. He turns the 'enemy' into a target and potential for God's blessing and favor.

Thus, was Jesus not here to show his countrymen and us, that the real enemy is not 'out there,' but the is ultimately within? It is easy for any of us to continue to target an external source as the source of our problems. And I am not denying, it is often justifiable, as in the rage that Pastor Wright and others continue to express. America has created a shameful legacy whose effects are still seen and felt today. It must continue to be addressed and fought against.

But does the solution lie in what Pastor Wright is doing, or in what Jesus displayed? I do not see a total congruence. Addressing social and racial injustice squarely and forthrightly is one thing...demonizing the 'enemy out there' is another. From what I can see in my limited understanding, Jesus would be for the first, but not the second.

I hope that Barak Obama is genuinely seeing the same discrepency, not simply being politically expedient.

Thanks...

Frank

Frank

I think Obama has disassociated himself from Rev. Wright's sermon. Preaching, Voting, and Leading are three entirely different functions. Obama is a very bright, young man with a great future potential. A lot of people think he is ready for the top job. We will have to wait until Nov. to find out if enough people think so. In the mean time he doesn't need our defense as much as we need to know his agenda and his ability to take advantages of sudden opportunities and to survive sudden shocks. His response to Rev. Wright's remarks is one piece of evidence. It is still not enough to build a presidency. I certainly wish him the best for him and us. Tom

Frank

'IOW, not every utterance by the OT writers and characters always expresses the fullest truth of what God is like or what he envisions for us (see Job's comforters) as we see in Jesus.'

Exactly! I would add "NT writers."

Tom

Refreshingly balanced comment!

David,

Are you suggesting that the God of the OT is not Jesus of the NT? Are the OT writers giving me an imcomplete or inaccurate picture of God? I personally do not see a difference between the OT and the NT God. Just my pennies worth.

Chuck

Pat,

I agree that many of us are offended by Mr. Wright asking God to damm America. I thing that he is asking God to only damm
white America and not all America.

That said, I believe Mr. Wright can ask God to damm America forever but his prayer will never be answered. The picture I get from both the OT and the NT is a God that damms no one.

Chuck

Hi Chuck,

To me the difference in the OT and NT is not God's character.
In the OT God's covenant promises and stipulations as part of salvation history were being made known through Abraham's seed and His descendents...Israel being in that line and David and ultimately the one seed Christ to whom the promises and fulfillment pointed.Gal.3:16.

God is a king and thus sits on a throne judging right and wrong. He is pictured in the OT and NT as doing so. Kings use force to protect and ensure justice. I suggest God did that in the OT through Israel (when following his directions and His anointed ones) as a theocracy. Christ is also seated at His Fathers Rt.Hand on the throne and as a righteous king extends mercy and justice from the throne today.

The difference now is there is no theocracy and “grace” has been extended to the gentiles/nations as part of salvation history in the NT through Christ/True Israel. Saving grace does not eliminate the need for civil authorities to create laws and to exert force in order to maintain order in the NT. Righteous Judgment is praised by God and is part of His throne. The sermon on the mount doesn’t override justice in the NT. Mt.5:25, 26.

Dan.2 is about a God who rules over the nations and who “sets up and takes down.” I suggest that goes to the consummation. Total passivity does not rule over nations. For example, we are told from scripture that God chose the gentile Cyrus to deliver Israel and build His temple in Jerusalem. 2 Chron.36:20-23.

Frank mentions correctly that Christ left out the “vengeance of judgment” at His first coming against the gentiles/nations in Lk.4:18-19. However vengeance/judgment is not a thing merely of the past as Scripture says the day of God’s longsuffering/delay will pass and vengeance is His to the unbelieving peoples and Kingdoms.Rom.12:19; Heb.10:30;2 Pt.3:9,10; Rev.19: 11-21.

Thank God that, “God is just and a justifier of those that trust in Christ.”Rom3:26. And that we are saved from Gods righteous wrath to come through Christ’s blood. Rom.5:9.

So yes, this is the same OT God but presently different circumstances from the “OT Theocracy” to the present “time of the gentiles/nations.” He presides over all working out the councils of His own will with Christ seated on the throne beside Him today…and since His ascension.

We can all petition/lament to our High priest and King Jesus for He is seated at his Father's right hand.

pat

I feel that what we see as God's main attributes from both OT/NT , and how they relate to each other, will influence our views not only of God, but also our views on the main topic of this thread.

While YHWH is commonly viewed as a God of both justice and mercy, it is interesting to note that the most repeated individual description of God in the OT is first found in the Torah/Law:

"...YHWH, YHWH, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness/hesed and emet, maintaining love/hesed to thousands (of generations)and forgiving, wickedness, rebellion and sin..." Ex. 34:6-7

This picture of YHWH as abounding in mercy and grace and faithfulness is found all over the OT. It seems to be the predominant way that the writers understood their God.

Even the contination of this text that speaks of YHWH not leaving the guilty unpunished, a reference to his "justice," forms a contrast with his mercy. He visits sin up to the third and fourth generation, but his mercy he keeps for thousands of generations. IOW, he wants his people to be assured that his mercy far outweighs his justice in his dealings with them/us.

This has profound implications for us. It tells us that this is God's preference in relating to us...relating not through "justice"(I even wonder if we have seriously super- imposed a Latin understanding upon this term), but through mercy! None of us seriously want God's justice in this sense, because if we get it...we're all in trouble.

And that's what I take to this thread. None of us, even if wronged by our peers, had better be too quick about calling down God's justice or vengeance upon them, because "with the same measure with which we judge, we shall also be judged."

This is why David, the same person who at times called for God's retribution to be poured out, also said: "Do not bring your servant into judgement, for no one living is righteous before you." Ps. 143:2

This is why Jesus calls us to pray, "forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors." This is also why Jesus left out the proclamation of God's vengeance in his opening sermon in Luke.
We all, oppressed/oppressor, powerful/weak, rich/poor are all in equally desparate need of one thing...God's mercy! "There is no difference."

This consistent picture of YHWH, from OT proclamation to the cross of Christ, revealing a God who desires to deal mercifully and lovingly beyond anything else, must be the primary color of our lives and our proclamation. Our cries for justice must always be issued with humility in this light. Whether this is true of someone like Pastor Wright is for each of us in our limited ways to discern, and for God ultimately to judge.

Thanks...

Frank

Thanks Frank,

I agree with your statements with an addition. Is it not true that we do want "justice" and that justice in our behalf was received by Christ on the cross. He was "reckoned a sinner that we might be reckoned righteous." That enables God to be merciful to those who trust in Christ...We are thus "reckoned just."...and Happy David PS.32:1,2.

pat

PS. The cross thus upholds covenant law and is the Christians foundation of justice and mercy!

Christianity Today put up a great article which you can read here

I found Kristof's thoughts in the NYT on Obama's speech and race in American quite insightful. Here's a snippet:

Barack Obama this week gave the best political speech since John Kennedy talked about his Catholicism in Houston in 1960, and it derived power from something most unusual in modern politics: an acknowledgment of complexity, nuance and legitimate grievances on many sides. It was not a sound bite, but a symphony. [snip]

The outrage over sermons by Mr. Wright demonstrates how desperately we as a nation need the dialogue about race that Mr. Obama tried to start with his speech on Tuesday...

Many well-meaning Americans perceive Mr. Wright as fundamentally a hate-monger who preaches antagonism toward whites. But those who know his church say that is an unrecognizable caricature: He is a complex figure and sometimes a reckless speaker, but one of his central messages is not anti-white hostility but black self-reliance. [snip]

Many white Americans seem concerned that Mr. Obama, who seems so reasonable, should enjoy the company of Mr. Wright, who seems so militant, angry and threatening. To whites, for example, it has been shocking to hear Mr. Wright suggest that the AIDS virus was released as a deliberate government plot to kill black people.

That may be an absurd view in white circles, but a 1990 survey found that 30 percent of African-Americans believed this was at least plausible. [snip]

Much of the time, blacks have a pretty good sense of what whites think, but whites are oblivious to common black perspectives.

What’s happening, I think, is that the Obama campaign has led many white Americans to listen in for the first time to some of the black conversation — and they are thunderstruck.

All of this demonstrates that a national dialogue on race is painful, awkward and essential. And that dialogue needs to focus not on clips from old sermons by Mr. Wright but on far more urgent challenges — for example, that about half of black males do not graduate from high school with their class.

Then maybe we can achieve our goal of getting, finally, to the point where there is “not a black America and not a white America... . There’s the United States of America.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/opinion/20kristof.html

Johnny,

Thanks for posting the article. Great balance and insight.

It kind of confirmed what I've been feeling. While Wright's preaching comes out of a long mileu stressing social liberation, it seems to have lost touch with the core of the gospel. A gospel that touches racial, political, social, economic,and individual needs and issues, but that can never be fully equated with such.

The gospel must by nature transcend these issues while still addressing them. Otherwise, we are left with a god who is made in our own image...an idol of our own making with nothing to offer us beyond our immediate agendas and concerns...a gospel that is essentially stripped of its transforming power.

Thanks...

Frank

Frank,

Spot on in regards to your last comment. As others have pointed out..."what shall it gain a man if he gains political and social liberation and lose his own soul."

"Seek you first the kingdom of God and His righteouness and the other shall be added."

pat

For those interested, Tim Wise has an interesting perspective on Pastor Wright's sermon, as well. Hold on to your hats, though, it's bound to ruffle your feathers.

http://www.lipmagazine.org/~timwise/NationalLies.html

Basically, he expounds on the point that Pastor Wright didn't actually say anything that wasn't true.

jen*

I have enjoyed the comments justifying and questioning Revered Right's "hate" or "Biblical" speech and amid it all I was focused on Obama whom I had planned to vote for. I emphasize "had planned" because I wonder now if he can survive the Hillary and Bill political machine that will "milk" the RR speech problem that faces Obama. They of course won't ever mention it in any direct way but will "plant" information with media and/or Republicans.
The republicans would be smart in my opinion to cool it and help Obama to win the nomination because with the RR TV bites so available it would give them better fodder against him than arguing with Hillary about her agreeing and disavowing the war.
I liked Obama's speech and the call to unite together to face/fight racism and upcoming Islamism but, I wonder now if the RR has not helped Hillary and the Republicans so much that Obama will not be the Democrat candidate in Nov. If not I hope he can have another chance because I believe his mixed race gene helps him immensity fight and represent the two sides to the black/white race issue. Of course after 8 years of Hillary and Bill and the possibility of Hispanics being the majority in the US, this may all be mute by then. It rece issue might then be black/brown as evidence in LA presently.
As an Independent I was planning to vote for Obama and still will if he gets the nomination but me doubts now that he will. We'll see!

Thanks for all the great links. I have been learning, thinking and yes, even obsessing over all of this the last few days.

Jen, you're right that was a double barrel full :) I remember a few years ago talking with a black acquaintance about the dropping of the Hiroshima bomb and being just floored to hear her say something along the lines of not feeling responsible because it wasn't her gov't. It wasn't a gov't that represented her anyway. It was the first time I really heard the profound alienation that at least one black person felt from our country and I started musing that she probably wasn't the only one. It was an absolute paradigm shift for me to realize that not everyone sees the gov't as, while far from perfect, at least on your side. Of course it makes sense when you stop and think about it - you just have to do that.

Now I'll add to the links. Here's Huckabee talking about the speech. If you can get past the talking heads and hear what he has to say, it is a proud moment for him I think. I have my major differences with his views but here he passes on a softball lob to slam Obama and turns it into a gracious and generous, yes Christian, response. Thank you Mike Huckabee. Now he just needs to go on Fox and say it again!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTFLOu8fjxU

Thanks Beth,

I appreciated ol' Pastor/Gov. Huckabee's response, too.

"As easy as it is for those of us who are white to look back and say 'That's a terrible statement!' ... I grew up in a very segregated South. And I think that you have to cut some slack -- and I'm gonna be probably the only conservative in America who's gonna say something like this, but I'm just tellin' you -- we've gotta cut some slack to people who grew up being called names..."

As he notes, I'm just not sure that folks who haven't walked in those segregated shoes can tell Rev. Wright that his gospel is wrong for others who have.

Perhaps the Gospel asks me to transcend my ethnic identities first, before critiquing the relationship between someone else and their God. Let's be, frank, those who speak of stripped transformative power (who's more like Christ?) are also somewhere on the gender, class, ethnicity and religious spectrum. Until anyone can prove complete transcendence of class, gender, ethnic, religious, subjectivity, I'm not sure we should be pointing out the beams in others' I's.

The closer one gets to the truth the more danger he/she is in!
Pastor Wright defined a problem that has vexed this nation from its beginning. Yet he offered no rational resolution. The result is he left his hero in a deep hole. A hole that we will pay for in years to come. Regardless of the Nov., election. It is tragic that Gen Colin Powell didn't offer himself as a candidate years ago. he walked through mine fields with courage. A nut behind every corner was too much.
Today, we have no candidates capable of resolving the problems that Bush and the Neocons created. If there ever was a time that Jesus Christ, Lord of Lord's should intervene it is now. Not that Pat Roberston et al has any insight or lock on the future. Tom

Well,

I am a conservative southern 63 y.o. white guy from Atlanta, Ga. I cut Obama slack in the third comment of this strand.One year I lived in Calif. and went to Loma Linda grade school in the 5th grade. My favorite schoolmate was an 11 year old black boy by the name of Teddy. I wanted to have my friend home and spend the night but the prominent family my family was staying with in San Bernadino would not permit this southerner's family request.

Most of us have experienced "lack of justice" in some way in life. Life is not always fair for any of us. Life was not fair for Jesus.It was/is not fair to many blacks and other minorities.

We are entitled to register and petition our complaint with God. The longer "that particular issue for us" is the "focus of our life" however, it is evidence that we have not turned it over to God and we may be using it to promote our "victimhood" no matter the legitimacy of our complaint. It leads to anger and other issues. It can become our victimhood and way to manipulate others rather than mature.

We simply must move on.

I appreciated Obama's comment... Where else on earth could one of his "poor" background and color be running for the highest office in the nation? America,with all it's faults is not the America of the 60's...at least IMO.

pat

I am not equating the 'tranformative power of the gospel' with 'who's more like Christ.' I don't see it as a sanctified contest.

I'm merely speaking in reference to my own biblical understanding; the gospel, 'is the power of God unto salvation for the Jew first and also for the Gentile.'

This same Paul later wrote concerning Jew and Gentile in reference to the gospel, 'there is no difference.' Only a gospel that transcends ethnic, religious and party affiliation has the power to bring into being the new creation/new community which Paul speaks of in Galatians...former enemies sitting in fellowship at the same table.

Jesus had plenty of opportunity to champion the cause of his oppressed countrymen under Roman rule...an oppression that was brutal and multi-generational. Why did he refuse to do so? Did he perhaps see that the fight he was taking up transcended and could not be bound to these issues or to the plight, however horrible, of one group? Could it be that he saw that victory in his fight and not their fight would be the only true way of bringing about the result that they really needed and that God desired...beating one's swords into plowshares and embracing one's enemies as fellow candidates of God's amazing grace?

While civil and human rights is a moral imperative in light of the gospel, is the demand for them totally equivalent? Jesus laid down his rights and his life to reach his persecutors. Jesus called down forgiveness, not damnation upon them. It is this kindness, and the living out and proclaiming of it that leads men to repentance.

I acknowledge that none of us fully measure up to this. Yet, we are called as imperfect believers to always 'test the spirits.' Thus my question: How does PW's and like proclamations stand in line with the above?

Thanks...

Frank

Frank, I take your questions seriously. I see more from where your coming. Fair questions, to me. Thank you.

Here's a pastor whom I really respect. She speaks to the cross and helps me see how it fits on this debate.

Brother Wright, the Cross, and the Rest of Us

Jeremiah (known now, of course, as Jeremiad) Wright preaches in a way that white preachers like me just don't dare. And we don't even know how.

Let me speak for myself: I come from a tradition of reserved Scandinavian Lutherans, and I know that no Minnesota pulpit of my childhood would countenance the kind of impassioned gospel that Rev. Wright proclaims--and certainly not about things that might be "too political".

And I also know that the churches of my adulthood, my own Episcopal church and just about any other white Protestant church, is not familiar -- to put it mildly -- with the kind of preaching we see in Jeremiah Wright. We just don't know that tradition. We just don't know how.

We are subtle and nuanced when we broach a topic that might smack of politics. When we muster the occasional guts to preach a social justice sermon, when we dare to take on, say, this five-year war, or the need for immigration reform, or a living wage, we are very very careful and we leave lots of room for interpretation and others' views. Our version of "pastoral" often means "do not offend." That's how we've been trained, not to mention socialized.

Now, many of us would say that Rev. Wright was more than offensive with his anti-American comments, that his words were divisive and hateful. If any pollsters are paying attention, Jeremiah Wright's ratings could be even lower than George Bush's right now.

And I would say that his statement regarding the opposite of "God bless America" was both a bad choice of words and bad theology; the overarching evidence of the bible shows us a God who redeems and rescues, not a God who "damns" anybody or anything.

Still and all, my guess is that when Jesus dumped over those tables in the temple, his speech might not have been pretty.

And we need to remember that we preachers are called to preach truth to power: how do we do that? What words do we use to decry this 5-year war, our punishing neglect after Katrina, our head-in-the-sand response to climate change, the travesty of No Child Left Behind, our abandonment of our returning wounded soldiers, etc. etc. etc.

What words do we use?

For my part, I envy Jeremiah Wright and his outrageous audacity to speak stinging truth as he sees it from his unique perspective as a black pastor in white America.

Speaking the truth, we remember this Holy Week, leads to the cross.

The cross always carries a kind of irony. Brother Wright, with his outrageous and harmful choice of words, has made us face into one of the largest crosses in our American landscape, the cross of racism. Wright's harm asks the rest of us to attempt healing, to use words that can be heard, words not of blame but of contrition, conviction and courage, words that name the crosses of our day.

Only if we face into this cross, and all the crosses we continue to plant, will we move through to the hope of Easter.

http://www.beatitudessociety.org/node/763

Not being all that qualified to comment (Australian, 60+ male, Anglo-Scot genes) I have to say young Jared Wright's emotional response to the speech is pretty similar to mine. After all, our ex-Prime-Minister (John Howard) has just been to your American Enterprise Institute to collect his reward for being a spear-carrier for Dominionist doctrine for the last 12 years. This is the person who couldn't hide his rage when he addressed a congress of indigenous Australians.
So, whatever comes out of the November elections will be watched closely from the West Pacific region.
But, our recent dealings with the US underline a profound problem for Obama's leadership. Under our new Labor ("liberal") government, we have ratified the purchase of a fleet of FA18 SuperHornets. Many see the US as nothing more than a gigantic war machine. Obama may well find his support eroded by decisions made in the various workshops of the military-industrial complex that puts the marginalised minorities out of work. Obama will either learn to convince people he can project American power in the way we have been used to, under the rubric of "freedom 'n democracy" or he will stand behind the banner he seems to have erected with that speech. Or, if beaten or forced to withdraw, he may settle into a nice job in academia or the business world.

For anyone interested, Roger Cohen's op-ed piece in today's NY Times is a good read..."Beyon America's Original Sin."

Speaks eloquently to this discussion.

Thanks...

Frank

Oops! Yesterday's Times...March 20th.

Sorry about that!

Frank

GavriloP,

I'll say something about the emotional response you commented on -- I am not even certain where that emotion came from. As I was filming that response, feelings that must have been below the surface for a long time suddenly came to the surface as I was talking. I am not sure why this particular speech of Obama's and this whole incident with the Reverend Wright elicited that sort of emotional response. I think I might need psychoanalysis. :-)

But at the same time, as I read people's responses to this incident in blog comments across the Web, I notice that this is an issue that elicits emotions from a lot of people - often anger, but certainly also hurt and confusion.

There is a lot below the surface, and a good thing in the fallout from Wright's words is that it has forced us to consider our emotions and to begin to talk about why they might be there. For a nation that tends to affirm subverting one's feelings, what's happening right now in this racially tinged conversation is healthy, but at the same time it could really use the intervention of leaders who could help us collectively and individually move through and talk through the emotions that have been simmering somewhere beneath the surface.

I think Obama was right in saying that we cannot just ignore this and stop talking about it though effervescent diva of insight and wisdom Ann Coulter thinks we should quit talking about it (and it will probably just go away...until the general election when it will provide fodder against Obama).

Pat,
Sorry for not catching your comment earlier. OT, NT- it's the same God.

Also,
I appreciated what Rev. Huckabee had to say. I'm glad that these attacks against Obama's church are being rebuffed successfully. The alternative would have been quite disturbing.

Jared,

You said,"For a nation that tends to affirm subverting one's feelings."

Jared, I suggest that was the America of the pre-80's. With Oprah and Dr.Phil and "groups", it is rare for many under 40 not to share more than most really may want to know.

How do you feel about that mate?

:~)

pat

Hi Pat...

I agree with you on the therepeutic/emotional level. True confessions are in, no matter who is blushing.

But on issues like these, we often tend to be politically correct. This was one of the "American traits" that my wife, a European, noticed about our personal and public discourse after she came here. Americans are nice to each other...but not always up front.

Enjoy your Sabbath...

Frank

Frank,

You are correct that in mixed social groups perhaps the old adage stands that we do not talk about "religion and politics"...because we are likely to disagree and most don't want to mess up a good evening.

I personally feel that "politics" is out of bounds in church. Yes, the African American church has done it for years without much response by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, ACLU or perhaps our own "religious liberty" Mag.
The IRS for years seemed to only look "one way" for violaters and losing "tax exempt" status...but supposedly may investigate RW's church.

Happy "Passover"/Easter Everyone

pat

PS.
Don't mean to awaken a sleeping dog but I was a little disappointed to hear the Obama "typical white" comment.

I prefer language like each person should be appraised by their own behavior regardless of color/nationality etc.

pat

I agree Pat. That was unfortunate. Just goes to show that talking about race is like tiptoeing through a minefield and even those who are pretty good at it aren't perfect. One has to weigh every single word and think about how it could be interpreted which can be exhausting especially when there are those waiting to twist and purposefully misunderstand. And I don't mean just the right at all - there is nothing more gleeful than a self-righteous liberal pouncing on even a possibility of racism.

Just as I was wondering about Martin Luther King and how he was received back in the day, I came across an opinion piece today by EJ Dionne Jr. in the Washington Post. Here's a snippet:

An important book on King's rhetoric by Barnard College professor Jonathan Rieder, due out next month, offers a more complex view of King than the sanitized version that is so popular, especially among conservative commentators. In "The Word of the Lord Is Upon Me," Rieder -- an admirer of King -- notes that the civil rights icon was "not just a crossover artist but a code switcher who switched in and out of idioms as he moved between black and white audiences."

Listen to what King said about the Vietnam War at his own Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta on Feb. 4, 1968: "God didn't call America to engage in a senseless, unjust war. . . . And we are criminals in that war. We've committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world, and I'm going to continue to say it. And we won't stop it because of our pride and our arrogance as a nation. But God has a way of even putting nations in their place." King then predicted this response from the Almighty: "And if you don't stop your reckless course, I'll rise up and break the backbone of your power."

While spoken without the inflammatory cuss word, it sounds pretty familiar.

Beth,

I lived in those days and in Atlanta. He was allowed to say what he felt wasn't he? How is the D. Lama doing in Tibet with China?

Pat

PS. I also saw the "liberal" Atlanta politicians divide school districts so their children and schools would not be effected by busing in public schools on the North side of Atlanta...hypocrites!

Thought I would share what is happening in the catholic Phillipines on good friday...watch as you wish.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,340218,00.html

Hey Pat...

I read your link. I've heard of this before, but in encountering this again, all I can say is...WOW!!

Sounds like Luther amped up...

Frank

Not to go unnoticed, A pretty nice Pad being built for RW in Suburb Chicago. I understand about a $11,500,000 line of credit by the church for him for building, furnishing etc..

No problem but a bit large it seems for someone so interested in the marginalized and plight of the poor.

Makes me feel a bit "righteous in the cause" living in only a 2000 sq.ft home.

Should RW "Walk the talk"?

Interesting that it seems most often "liberal" politicians and spokesman reportably have the lowest personal charitable contributions.

Could it be that that they prefer "we" pay for "their ideas" through the tax system...oh well such is life and the "half truths" of the politics of helping the downcast.

A little like All Gore and "global warming" and his "footprint" and "carbon credits"...you think?

http://blog.beliefnet.com/reformedchicksblabbing/2008/03/rev-wrights-ret...

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528

Pat

Pat,

I don't know all the facts here. But you expose three significant things about how you think.

1. Your reliance on breaking Fox News reports which that beliefnet post mostly is. (Remember when they tried to falsely slime Sen. Obama as madrassa-taught?). Notice a couple comments above where you referred everyone to that Fox News rubbernecking story. World Net Daily is one of the wackiest and most far-right of the attack sites. The Drudge Report is more respected. Why would you use these unreliable sources to buttress a point?

2. I don't see you complaining about the millions of poor people out of their homes due to subprime greed, which harms a lot more people than than the "hypocrisy" above.

3. You write "Interesting that it seems most often "liberal" politicians and spokesman (sic) reportably (sic) have the lowest personal charitable contributions."

What, you think that it's somehow inherent that those people are less personally generous? Source, please?

Disregarding these specific examples, does hypocrisy disprove the overwhelming science of global warming? If human hypocrisy obviated moral positions, why be a citizen, a believer, or a lover?

Alex,

Just pointing out the "hypocrisy" of the "political process" and agendas for those who seem to think that "politics" can be "applied Christianity." Don't want the church involved...that's my point.

However, I googled the sites after hearing and reading about the stories in the local newspaper, not frequented sites of mine.

Regards

pat

PS. The "subprime mess" was facilitated, in my opinion, by Federal Reserve and Treasury Dept policy that was part of debasing of the US currency by unnatural real interest rates. I am against the recent "bailing out Wall Street" and I am also against big labor.
While there were abuses evident on "both" the "purchaser and lending side" of the housing situation.

As to "liberal giving to charities"...local newspaper article...I'll see if I can retrieve it.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_lib...

All of these issues are to me obscene!

Also the Glass-Steagall act should have never been repealed.

pat

Thanks for the link, Pat.

"In essence, for many Americans, political opinions are a substitute for personal checks," Mr. Brooks writes.

Clearly not the case at least in light of Sen. Obama's incredible small donor hauls. 94% of his 500,000 donors give under $200. Compare that to Sen. Clinton's percentage, somewhere in the 20s.

It's not an area of common interest for me, but the data, to quote one critic seems pretty "mushy." It seems more tied to religious values and definition of "charity" than some sort of correlation to hands following hearts.

On the subprime crisis, here's some really good ideas from our former Sec. of Labor.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/9698

Sabbath peace.

Here is another input that reveals Obama's wife's views for consideration with no other comment than the one that follows.

We must all remember the significant influence of a spouse. The thinking of Obama's wife must not be underestimated when considering who should be our next president.
==========================================================
MICHELE OBAMA'S MILITANT RACISM REVEALED

In her senior thesis at Princeton, Michele Obama, the wife of Barack Obama stated that America was a nation founded on "crime and hatred". Moreover, she stated that whites in America were "ineradicably racist". The 1985 thesis, titled "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community" was written under her maiden name, Michelle LaVaughn Robinson.

Michelle Obama stated in her thesis that to "Whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, she will always be Black first..." However, it was reported by a fellow black classmate, "If those "Whites at Princeton" really saw Michelle as one who always would "be Black first," it seems that she gave them that impression".

Most alarming is Michele Obama's use of the terms "separationist" and "integrationist" when describing the views of black people.

Mrs. Obama clearly identifies herself with a "separationist" view of race.

"By actually working with the Black lower class or within their communities as a result of their ideologies, a separationist may better understand the desperation of their situation and feel more hopeless about a resolution as opposed to an integrationist who is ignorant to their plight."

Obama writes that the path she chose by attending Princeton would likely lead to her "further integration and/or assimilation into a white cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant."

Michele Obama clearly has a chip on her shoulder.

Not only does she see separate black and white societies in America, but she elevates black over white in her world.

Here is another passage that is uncomfortable and ominous in meaning:

"There was no doubt in my mind that as a member of the black community, I am obligated to this community and will utilize all of my present and future resources to benefit the black community first and foremost. "

What is Michelle Obama planning to do with her future resources if she's first lady that will elevate black over white in America?

The following passage appears to be a call to arms for affirmative action policies that could be the hallmark of an Obama administration.

"Predominately white universities like Princeton are socially and academically designed to cater to the needs of the white students comprising the bulk of their enrollments."

The conclusion of her thesis is alarming.

Michelle Obama's poll of black alumni concludes that other black students at Princeton do not share her obsession with blackness. But rather than celebrate, she is horrified that black alumni identify with our common American culture more than they value the color of their skin. "I hoped that these findings would help me conclude that despite the high degree of identification with whites as a result of the educational and occupational path that black Princeton alumni follow, the alumni would still maintain a certain level of identification with the black community. However, these findings do not support this possibility."

Is it no wonder that most black alumni ignored her racist questionnaire? Only 89 students responded out of 400 who were asked for input.

Michelle Obama does not look into a crowd of Obama supporters and see Americans. She sees black people and white people eternally conflicted with one another.

The thesis provides a trove of Mrs. Obama's thoughts and world view seen through a race-based prism.

This is a very divisive view for a potential first lady that would do untold damage to race relations in this country in a Barack Obama administration.

Michelle Obama's intellectually refined racism should give all Americans pause for deep concern.

Now maybe she's changed, but she sure sounds like someone with an axe to grind with America. Will the press let Michelle get a free pass over her obviously racist comment about American whites? I am sure that it will. But it shouldn't.

It was a black church welcomed me, a white person, and Pastor Miles sermon "Saved by a Shipwreck", preached only as a black minister can that convicted me and brought about a true conversion and the beginning of a personal relationship with Jesus.

My wife and I were baptized in the Hyde Park SDA Church in Chicago in 1994. We learned to love the warm and vibrant worship services, especially the choir and their enthusiastic music.

I never found the preaching to be offensive. There were times when I felt uncomfortable with the added emphasis placed on "Black History" month but I never found the services to be doctrinally incorrect or objectionable.

I was asked to participate and taught an adult Sabbath School class. In fact, I even went to an African for several years as the director of a humanitarian agency. The challenge in this country was reconciliation of two dominate tribes. I learned much about cultural contextualization and how to facilitate reconciliation.

So I believe I have a factual basis on which to evaluate the current discussion. Whenever and by whoever there is public discourse that is divisive, racist, dogmatic, and unchristian it should be renounced and countered with Christ centered teachings! It is past time to accept all human beings as God's children and to move on to uplifting themes. Dwelling on the past and perceived or real injustice is not productive. Lets change the emphasis to the positive with Christ as our example and leader in all things.

A positive and conciliatory response to Sen. Obama's speech with objective analysis of the problems he raised and some common sense proposals for practical solutions to these problems. I found it insightful and thought provoking. See if you agree.

rtsp://video.c-span.org/15days/e032708_gingrich.rm

Yes Paul, I too was impressed with Newt's analysis of Obama's speech and his positive and practical solutions to problems we all face today! Too bad that Gingrich's sage counsel is largely ignored by the media and many of the politicians running for elective office. He is one of very few truly intelligent and pragmatic "statesmen" in the world today with well-reasoned and thoughtful logic presented for our consideration. It is also too bad that a meaningful dialog is not undertaken by the presidential candidates using his points for discussion.

Thanks, David, for sharing an email forward of de-contextualized quotes.

It would be hilarious, if it wasn't so gossipy. Most sophomores wouldn't get away with the email's sloppy reasoning and leading rhetorical questions. I haven't read her thesis, but even in this classic political attack email, some of the conclusions are not well-supported by the cherry-picked evidence. I've read relatively substantial references to her undergrad. thesis (Newsweek?) that don't notice anything , by folks And its pretty clear that the writer has never done academic research.

Just think about this.

Michelle Obama does not look into a crowd of Obama supporters and see Americans. She sees black people and white people eternally conflicted with one another.

It makes no sense (and has an ungrammatical construction - internally conflicted?).

Obama supporters "eternally conflicted with one another" -- that would be a strange campaign. It probably applies more to the email author than most Americans.

This sort of stuff preys upon some of the subconscious race-based fears of people of all identities. Parts of Black History Month celebrations made you uncomfortable, at an Adventist Church? Why?

I took the Harvard Implicit test and have an automatic preference for white people over black people. I understand, David, your discomfort over identity, but there is no way that Michelle Obama is a militant racist. There is a difference in how discussions of identity occur depending on one's experience in society. But what if she had a slight automatic preference for black folk? Would you call her a racist?

I recommend taking this study as it helps one understand the gut conclusions human draw about self, others and race. It examines cognitive processes related to attitudes, preferences, and beliefs.

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/

This is deep-seeded stuff, and it helps to get at the beams in our own eyes before opining too much about the splinters in others' eyes.

When I first saw your comment last night, David, I was too tired to respond; however, I immediately thought it felt like some slanderous email forward (of the same ilk that says Obama is secretly a Muslim and that Bill Gates wants to give away millions if only you'll forward this email to everyone you know).

Even though this is clearly a cut/paste/forward job with no references and little logic, it still belies much about you for your willingness to pass it on. What is the problem if Michelle Obama did study race attitudes at an Ivy League university? Why is it problematic to want to preserve someone's ethnic and racial identity in addition to being an "American"? The myth of assimilation where everyone sheds his/her culture and racial identity to become some sort of generic "American" has long been proven to be a poor idea and one that never really happened in the first place. (As a reading specialist, I can give you lots of research that shows that students perform better in school the more they have a firm sense of their own community's identity within the broader spectrum of America.)

In many ways, I can imagine someone wanting to study the attitudes of Adventist youth who don't attend an Adventist school--do they start becoming more like "mainstream" Christians and stop feeling uniquely "Adventist"? Do they stop liking Big Franks and start calling "haystacks" the more accepted "taco salad?" Over on the collegiate blog we have a great, insightful essay by Elizabeth Rivera talking about the "Adventist Bubble" and all of the insider cultural references and relationships that come with it. She clearly feels a strong affinity for this particular identity group (an identity group that many have argued functions somewhat like an ethnicity in how people see themselves in relationship to the "rest of the world"). I don't think anyone will suggest that she's prejudiced and somehow inherently trying to demonstrate that Adventists are superior to other Christians or Americans in general. Rather, because this is the identity group we also align ourselves with, we find it comforting that a young Adventist has so much affection for her church, her identity group.

Paul

I viewed Newt Gingrich's presentation and had mixed reactions.

He started off with a conciliatory tone and I think his diagnosis of the problem as "bad culture" and "bad government" is close enough. I also thought that his concrete proposals are worth trying.

Several other reactions, however. Why do people like him endlessly lament the 1960s? Would we really want to return to the 1950s, if we could? I wouldn't.

Also, why do we always hear about the importance of raising taxes and reducing regulations?

What if we had an MD who chose to solve each and every patient's problems with surgery? Might we not say that at least sometimes other interventions would be better?

Surgery is not the center of a sound philosophy of medicine. Something about restoring and enhancing health would seem more appropriate.

Finally, why all the perplexity about how many persons of color other than African Americans seem to climb the ladder of economic success more rapidly?

I would have thought that Gingrich's own economic analyses of such things would have provided the answer,

This is that there are only two groups in America for whom the link between effort and success has been intentionally and savagely abolished by others for hundreds of years.

The key words are "intentionally," "savagely" [is this really a word?], "hundreds" and "abolished."

These are the Native Americans and the African Americans.

Of all people, Republicans like Gingrich should understand that, when for many generatiions people work very hard and have the fruit of the labor intentionally refused them, they stop trying.

Also, people who are forced to work without benefiting from the benefits of their labor often find ways to laze about on the job. Why not?

So often the answer is that "things are different now." Yes, they are to an important extent. And the African American middle class is rapidly growing.

But there are still far too many youngsters who have no realistic hope that if they do work hard and save their money they will make financial progress.

I've seen the same thing among the Aboriginals in Australia.

Everywhere we have followed the orignal Republican principle of letting ALL people financially benefit from their own efforts, they burst forth with enormous energy and thrive. Everywhere they sense that their situations are hopeless, they succumb to all diseases of despair.

It is hard to recall now but there was a time when most African Americans were Republicans. I believe that the family of Martin Luther King, Jr. had long been Republicans, for instance.

Somebody might be able to confirm or disconfirm this for me. I'm ready to stand corrected.

Why? Abraham Lincoln was part of it. The racist Democrats in the South were another. Yet more than that, I believe, at that time Republicans stood for individual initative and rewards, holding that the only color that matters is the dark green of the American dollar bill.

My probelm with the Republican party today is not that it is too Republican but that it is not Republican enough.

It was my hope that Gingrich would start to turn this around. In my view, he didn't.

Thanks, though, for recommending his presentation. I benefited from viewing it.

Dave

P.S.: Why is that the same suit so often looks better on a black man than on a white man of the same size and shape? This makes me jeaolous, to be honest. I don't have a fighting chance standing next to a gay black man. This world is very unfair.

Just wanted to get some of your takes on the latest round of Obama/Wright.

Is Obama now being politically expedient?

Is Wright so bound up in an idelogy of the past generation that he cannot see the genuiness of Obama's Philadelphia speech, and his intention to move the issues of race into a new chapter in the U.S?

Was Wright simply quoted out of context originally, or did he simply reaffirm this week exactly what many Americans thought he was saying in the first place?

Will Obama's candidacy survive, especially when this issue is coupled with the latest revelation of his connection with a former member of the Weather Underground?

Be interested to see everyone's thoughts. I'm trying to wade through all of it myself.

Thanks...

Frank

Hey Frank, thanks for reviving this. I've been mulling it over myself.

Yes, I think Obama was being politically expedient in making an official, public break. However, (big however) I don't think that means he agreed with all of Wright's statements before. There are two issues that are different here. Obama the believer and Obama the politician. As believers, we weigh what we hear from our pastors and keep the good, throwing out the bad. If, over time, the bad becomes so offensive, we do something about it but it really takes a lot, especially if we have a history with that church. And none of us are sitting in the pews wondering how all of it would play out on youtube. Politicians have to think about those things. How is this going to look?

I would remind all SDAs that they choose to belong to a church that refuses to ordain women and quite publicly, up till fairly recently, called the Catholic church the anti-Christ. That would ruin anyone running at least for the Democrats - Republicans might be more accepting. The point is, as citizens who are not running for president, we have the luxury of giving our pastors and our churches leeway. We roll our eyes at the bad and embrace the good. Even compared to other politicians though, Obama is not being given this luxury. Partly because he is still somewhat new to voters and, I believe, partly because he is black. Not just black but black and different in a foreign sort of way.

White voters are scared that a black man is not going to understand and represent them. They are scared that he might still be angry over all that "slavery stuff". And so any whiff of that anger is going to feed that narrative that his opponents are all too eager to portray - you can't trust him because he is not like "us". If you read either of Obama's books (and I really highly recommend them - not your typical political yawn) you get a clear picture of a person very different from how he is being portrayed now. Even being associated with an angry black man though is enough to raise the blood pressure.

Some of this is generational I think. Wright represents a generation that fought bitterly for the gains it made - it didn't see the government eagerly handing them full citizenship. Obama represents a generation that is much more comfortable with difference and diversity. I think younger people simply are less racially focused. That is not to say that they are all one big happy family but they simply handle race and gender and difference better than older generations. Maybe both views are needed I don't know. The older reminding us how things were and how they could be again if we aren't careful, and the younger, to remind us how far we have come and how maybe we can trust each other. However, if Wright's was the only black voice, than racial relations would be in big trouble. His perspective is a piece that needs to be heard but it is also too strident and divisive for this day and age to take center stage. It's time for the baton to be passed to the Obamas of the world I think.

Now, as for what I personally thought about the comments. I honestly shrugged at the initial ones. I thought they were a bit over the top but I didn't disagree with the sentiment. I didn't think he was preaching racial hatred or hated our country. I did think the AIDS comment was an unfortunate pandering to the conspiracy minded and, as an educated man, he should be above that.

I don't think he was quoted out of context necessarily and I think he was saying what he meant. What was out of context seemed to be the commentary that went along with it. God damn America means Wright hates America. Chickens coming home to roost means he is glad we got attacked because we deserved it.

However, Wright's recent go-round made me see red. How dare he suggest that Obama really did share his views and denied them only for political reasons. It was self-serving, arrogant, and just wrong. Obama has chosen a different path to racial issues and has very consistently followed that path. They may both agree that blacks and whites still are unequal but have very different visions for addressing that. And I would guess that it was that more than anything that made it easier for Obama to stand up and sever things once and for all.

Oh and I think the Ayers thing is absolutely ridiculous. Not even worth commenting on.