I lost most faith in mainstream media around the time they talked about his connections to a Muslim school. My parents thought he was a Muslim until I sent them his statement of faith from his website. Now they're probably going to vote for him. Ha!

Found here.

Aaron

http://aaronstewart.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Aaron Stewart | January 28, 2008 10:27 AM

thank you for this honest post. It is true that the true Biblical scrutiny needs to be placed on those "people "of faith" who tell every listening ear that they are Christians, yet everyday spit on the very tenets that Jesus taught by making greed, self-aggrandizement and treating poor people as children of a lesser God their de facto religion".

Posted by: erin | January 28, 2008 10:56 AM

Ben,

Are you thinking of the Unitarian Universalists? I would say they are Christians, or at least a place where Christians can worship. I think UU churches probably push theological boundaries that might make religous traditionalists uncomfortable. But the United Church of Christ, and the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), which is "in conversation with" the UCC church, are just congregationalist churches that are typically more politically left.

Love,
JimII
http://www.propheticprogress.blogspot.com/

Posted by: JimII | January 28, 2008 11:36 AM

The author made several excellent points, but glossed over what I think many people who don't believe the lies are thinking... What about his church and it's focus on black liberation theology? I don't know enough to make any judgment about that, and I suspect the vast majority of America doesn't either. I think a good explanation of what that means would be helpful to many of us who simply want to understand it the theology and focus of his pastor and church. I wouldn't want to suggest that his church speaks for him, and Obama is naturally entitled to have views quite different from his church, but before you hang your hat with an organization, you need to be able to say with a straight face that you support their vision and mission. I would look forward to hearing more about this...

Posted by: Greg | January 28, 2008 11:39 AM

Thank you for article. Lying is evil. It corrupts deeply and undergirds injustice. It lurks in each of our hearts. We can disagree about all manners of things and allow for all kinds of misunderstanding and mistakes. Political lies attack public life as much as someone gunning down a police officer.

If the UCC or Creflo Dollar misuses the name of Jesus--I trust the Lord as more than able to judge.

I also consider it wrong for Michael Medved (and likely others) to demand Obama defend his association with Trinity because Dr. Wright awarded something to Louis Farakhan. His membership at Trinity just does not connect him to Farakhan.

Dr. Hendricks--There are Christians with great integrity and devotion to Jesus who will disagree over theology--or be at different points of the spiritual journey--or have distinct callings. I would prefer to set those issues aside and speak with a unified voice regarding the lies you write about in the first half of your article. We are so weak in our capacity to embrace each other and receive from others in the Body of Christ, that when you raise those very legitimate issues different parts of the Body will start casting stones and obfuscate your clear call to truthfulness.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 28, 2008 11:49 AM

Dr. Hendricks sets out a biblical standard for the judgement of peoples which focuses not on theology but the treatment of the poor sick and imprisoned. Ben, you seem to feel that you are in a position to make the evaluation both of what is Christian and whether Barak Obama's pastor deserves the praise given him. Sort of.
Jesus said let you yea be yea and your nay be nay. I think the phrase "I'm not sure" has legitimate use. Is that the case here or is this one of those places where it is better to say what you mean or don't say anything?

I am not comfortable labeling myself politically but I'm closer to Ralph Nader or Dennis Kucinich or Wendell Berry than to Reagan or Bush. From time to time I like to check out what conservatives are saying and read some Kristol, Hichens, or DSouza etc.,so last night I made my semi annual pilgrimage to the shrine of the little green footballs and there is a discussion of Obama's speech there. Plenty of the subtle and not so subtle racism, several instances of the Obama-is-a-secret-Muslim baloney referred to in this article, but here is something pretty interesting; the overall response was amazement at the power, eloquence and persuasive appeal of his speaking. Go check it out if you can stand the atmosphere, I'm not making this up. This guy is going to reach people Hillary has no chance of reaching. So far I have liked Edwards best and believe the next step toward real reform of US politics involves a showdown both with corporate influence on public policy and the continuous escalation of militarism. I am really impressed that Obama opposed the Iraq invasion before that was popular or politically smart. I am utterly nonplussed by the Clintons and am very glad Barak is in the race for the presidency. We are headed into tough times economically, trying to borrow and loan our way out of massive loan-sharking crisis and we need someone who is smart, compassionate and confident.

Posted by: jonabark | January 28, 2008 12:30 PM

Who else are not Christians, then? Lutherans?

Squeaky:

Ouch! I'm a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA).

We are in an altar-pulpit fellowship with the UCC, among several other 'mainline' denominations. I suppose that means we are mostly not Christians, too, since we're "yoking ourselves" to unbelievers.

;-)

Peace,

Posted by: Don | January 28, 2008 12:45 PM

I am a thoroughly orthodox Christian. I have said nothing on this blog which is outside of Scripture or tradition. The fact that I approach my faith with a different set of concerns doesn't mean I am in any way unorthodox or even heterodox. Which is the case for Obama and the UCC--the fact that Obama sees Christianity through the lens of an African-American with a concern for the marginalized doesn't mean his fundamental understanding of Jesus is in any way different from, say, Pat Robertson.

But Obama sees the Gospel applied in different ways, as do I. A simple click to the UCC website would allay your fears about their orthodoxy. Perhaps a conversation with a local UCC pastor would help, too. You might read Obama's autobiography. Try that before you make assumptions about other Christians.

Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 28, 2008 12:55 PM

Funny that Democrats' church affiliations are generally much more scrutinized than Republicans' church affiliations. Ben, you've used pretty strong words against the UCC. What about the United Methodist Church, Bush's denomination? But I appreciate that you said that church affiliation should not be a reason to vote or not vote for someone. Unfortunately, some folks are making it an issue. Ironically, few conservatives talk about Bush's denomination coming out in opposition to his war.

Posted by: I and I | January 28, 2008 1:11 PM

Funny that Democrats' church affiliations are generally much more scrutinized than Republicans' church affiliations
Posted by: I and I

LOL !

Ouch! I'm a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA).
Posted by: Don

Does that mean you allow folks to have communion ?
I went to a Lutheran church a while back and was little surprised I was not allowed to particpate in communion . I respect others beliefs , but I just thought it was strange . The sermon was good , and it was a Christian Church . Just a strange rule I thought .

The UCC in my area Don has forums of all kinds . They had a famous speaker from Canada who "preached" on the subject Christ was most likely NOT divine . I knew they were one step away from the uniterians , but I believe some individual UCC churches have gone over .
I mean if Christ is not God , I would suggest you stepped out of the Christian Family , would not you ? I am not saying they are passing out Kool Aid . But I think the problem of choosing which scriptures are true and which were recorded by mistake can be as dangerous to your walk as people who take scripture and make some more important then other parts .

Posted by: Mick | January 28, 2008 1:25 PM

Mick:

ELCA churches practice open Communion. Not all Lutheran church bodies do. I did a couple postings on the "history of Lutheranism in America" earlier this month, but I can't remember which thread it is on.

D

Posted by: Don | January 28, 2008 1:39 PM

Unfortunately there are honest Christian people who are unknowingly spreading these lies about Sen. Obama. I have personally received several emails and have been subject to conversations where people are doing this. I have sought to counter with the truth and have directed them to articles debunking the rumours. It just seems so widespread....I am concerned it may affect the outcome of the nomination. In my heart of hearts I feel Sen. Obama is the most Christian of all the candidates...red or blue. The Clinton's spinning dishonesty scares me.

Posted by: Beth, Alabama | January 28, 2008 1:42 PM

Beth, you are right. Some Christians spread these things without realizing they're false. And once rumors such as these are uncorked, it's difficult to put them back in the bottle.

All you can do is what you are doing--when you hear or receive such a rumor, debunk it and direct the sender(s) to a source that explains wy it's false. It's a lot of work, and some will believe the rumor despite hard evidence to the contrary, but it's worth trying.

And when I receive a false report by e-mail, not only do I send my reply back to the sender; I also send it to everyone on the sender's forwarding list, if I can. And I may include a plea not to forward such things without checking them out first. It's usually easy to do. (If I can't verify something, I usually don't forward it.)

Peace,

Posted by: Don | January 28, 2008 1:50 PM

I received these same emails, often sometimes mis-spelling his name as "Barack Hussein Osama" for more than a year, always forwarded to me by conservative friends. People thought I would appreciate the "info" but the language always appealed to just the worst instincts and debased views. I would class them along the lines of things like "The Protocols of Zion." They seemed more like the sorts of screeds put out by racist white supremacist organizations, so I could not understand the traction that they were getting from these friends - they couldn't seem to see through it, but were ready to believe it as if a great revelation were being made in a conspiracy against Christian America.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | January 28, 2008 1:51 PM

Correction to the above post: I meant that first sentence to read, "The tragedy of the lies spread about Senator Obama is not so much their content...." Sorry.

Posted by: Andy | January 28, 2008 2:07 PM

Beth, Alabama and Don,

When I get false-rumor e-mails, I usually look up the rumor on www.snopes.com (a rumor-debunking website) and send the entry to the sender (and everyone on the forwarding list if it is open). It's a good resource, and it lends some credibility so people know that it isn't just me objecting to the e-mail.

Posted by: I and I | January 28, 2008 2:09 PM

I don't like the title. It pretends to tell us the "truth" about someone's walk with God. There's no way ANY man knows the secrets of another's heart.
mark

I agree that there is a legitimate concern about any attempt to establish the sincerity of another's faith. But as I read the article I did not find the author doing this. The primary concern was to expose a widely circulating rumor that Barak Obama was or is Muslim. The only reason this lie is malicious is because if it were true it would connect to a great deal of fear and animosity toward Islam. If it were true it would destroy Barak Obama's chance of getting elected to the US Presidency. The author then goes on to outline Obama's faith and say that he finds Christian virtue in Obama's life. I think Dr Hendricks's is pretty journalistic in telling some of what can be known about Obama's faith, and the rest is a well written blend of politics and preaching which is what this website is all about.

Posted by: jonabark | January 28, 2008 2:28 PM

Some of you may find this website a good starting place for an understanding of black liberation theology. It's from Christianity Today.

http://ctlibrary.com/ct/2004/march/37.77.html

Posted by: carl copas | January 28, 2008 2:49 PM

I notice that people are continuing to ignore the passage from Matthew 25. So, once again, (for those who insist on taking every word of the Bible literally), if you fail to provide food, clothing, water, shelter and health care to anyone you see who needs them, you are going to hell. I hope for my sake, at least, that this is not strictly true.

Umm... I KNOW that there's no commandment that says every individual must give everyone everything they need. We can't. Each of us would be individually bankrupt immediately, as the "needy" will multiply until they overwhelm the numbers of the 'givers'. That's human nature.

So, do I stop and help someone who looks like they're struggling to change a flat tire? Yeah. I do. Do I then assume I have an obligation to fix every flat for everyone that I observe? No.

Unless for some reason, I can't deal with a flat, I generally don't need help, and would rather just have people get to where they're going, and I can take care of my own business. It is presumptive to assume that MOST people can deal with a flat? I don't think so.

Can we apply this to charity in general? It makes sense to me. Does "health care" need to "free" to everyone? No. Well over 90% of the country can pay the bills associated, be it via insurance or just private pay, or whatever. So why is it a moral defect, if I don't think that it should be run as tax paid service free and unlimited to all?

The same too, with most other needs that all of us commonly share. Not a one of us exists without a dentist now and then, or food daily, or water, or a home, or means of transportation, or clothing, or... The list is endless. I'm not understanding the need to cherry pick some of these and declare the refusal to universally supply these picked ones on the backs of the taxpayers in unlimited quantities.

Prudence says that we should live within our means. Save up money for the dentist now and then, don't go into debt. Don't bury yourself in debt for stuff you could live without.

And if we do this, we will CERTAINLY have a lot easier time being generous with each other.

Posted by: mark | January 28, 2008 4:17 PM

I've never heard any mainline liberal anywhere, including John Spong, say Jesus is not God. They do say He is not a divine all-powerful, all-knowing Superbeing. I have sometimes heard liberals say, "Jesus was a man whose relationship with God was so perfect and complete that Jesus can be said to share His very Being with God--God can be seen in Jesus in a way that God can be seen nowhere else." How is that a denial of the Incarnation? God makes Himself known to us in the human life of Jesus--read Chalcedon, and you'll see that is the truly orthodox definition of Incarnation.

If the Incarnation means that God entered our realm safely covered in the armor of superpowers, like Superman coming from Krypton and living his life in Smallville discovering his superstrength and x-ray vision, then I don't need Him. That is Monophysitism. The Cross is meaningless if Jesus knows secretly He isn't going to die. I do need to know that God and Jesus shared a human life so that we can see both fully human fragility and fully divine compassion.

I think that understanding of Incarnation encourages the sort of social awareness that leads to universal health care, peacemaking, and welcoming the marginalized.

Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 28, 2008 4:31 PM

I was distressed to learn, while talking to a friend in Ireland yesterday, that this story about Obama being a Muslim, not saluting the flag, etc. was circulating overseas. My friend said she thought it had appeared in the Irish press, and having no reason to disbelieve it, had passed it on to others. My friend had never heard of Snopes, which I believe has posted an excellent debunking of this story (and also includes a link to Obama's website with additional information). While I forwarded the Snopes link to her (and asked her to pass it on), I am sad to think about the ignorant people who are being misled by such disinformation. Those that pass it along without knowing the facts are indeed ignorant; those that pass it along AND know it is untrue are evil. This story has been around for months -- perhaps a year or more -- and is STILL making the rounds. While I am not (yet) committed to Obama, this type of campaign against him is truly disturbing.

Posted by: Deci | January 28, 2008 4:37 PM

"Why does it matter if he is Christian or Muslim? "

It doesnt, and it shouldn't. I wonder if we are not seeing a "new prejudice" emerging? No one dares discount him as a viable candidate because he is black (even though I am sure there are people who do just that). So they have to reach for another bigoted reason to discount him. Certainly all this excess emphasis on his middle name is an indication of that--it is a means of subconsciously linking him to terrorism. The underlying message is: He's a Muslim--he even has the same name as Sadam! He must be a terrorist, too! It's a hateful ploy that plays off people's ignorance and fear. It's just another form of bigotry, and one that is, in our current climate, sadly more accepted, as indicated by those who gleefully forward on the hate e-mails.

If you want to discount a candidate, stick to his politics, not his faith, whatever that might be. That goes for Mitt Romney, too.

Posted by: squeaky | January 28, 2008 4:47 PM

I was very disappointed to here former Senator Bob Kerrey (D-NE) make this statement about Obama a couple months ago:

“It’s probably not something that appeals to him, but I like the fact that his name is Barack Hussein Obama, and that his father was a Muslim and that his paternal grandmother is a Muslim. There’s a billion people on the planet that are Muslims, and I think that experience is a big deal.”

He's definitely the most prominent person to question Obama's Christian credentials and uncharacteristic of him. He usually stays above this type of stuff.

While Obama's pastor has said some pretty divisive, hurtful things, I don't really think they're that out of the mainstream of American black thought. This kind of stuff is said a lot but just doesn't get a lot of airtime. I certainly don't hold Obama accountable for things the pastor has said. But I also think that Democrats in general should keep this in mind next time they ask particular Republicans to explain why they were in the same room with [insert name of person that says strange/hateful/inappropriate things].

Posted by: Eric | January 28, 2008 4:58 PM

I'm not one to throw stones, but "historic orthodoxy" as a lithmus test to determine whose in and whose out sounds a little suspect to me. I wonder how many evangelical churches would stand up to that scrutiny - aren't many just a modern form of gnositicism? Furthermore, if you're looking to define a denomination as diverse as the UCC, you might not want to succumb to easy generalizations. It might be good to read Jeremiah Wright's sermons (collections of them are available on Amazon) you would find many sermons on marriage and family that could (and probably have been by those who creatively borrow other people's sermons) at any conservative church in America.

Posted by: Joe Sellepack | January 28, 2008 5:12 PM

However, if you notice that more people are getting flat tires then you think would be under normal wear and tear, and you look into why so many people are getting flat tires and find out that some folks are putting little spikes in the road becasue it's good for business, then I hope you would feel an obligation to correct the injustice.

Heh, heh, heh.

Posted by: I and I

And if you believed in things like allowing the person to use a different road , like school choice or believing that giving people the ability to have their own business succeed without a whole bunch of requirements and taxes that make it so hard for the little guy , and heavens some little people might be black , asia , or worse yet "other" ,

Of course you could have an intellectual exchange about that , unless you of course think your politics are god's viewpoint.

Sam Rodriguez: "The major difference between Latino evangelicals and white evangelicals is that many white evangelicals take their marching orders from Bishop Rush Limbaugh, Prophet Sean Hannity, and Apostle Lou Dobbs; and Latino evangelicals still listen to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John."

Posted by: Mick | January 28, 2008 5:24 PM

I said, very clearly, that Jesus is fully God and fully man. You don't want to hear it because you don't want to believe that liberal approaches can be orthodox. You want to hear about the Incarnation in only one way, Christology from above, and the orthodoxy of a Christology from below doesn't make sense to you. My understanding is taken almost word-for-word from Tillich, Rahner, Bonhoeffer, and Bultmann--all orthodox, mainstream theologians. Again--I believe fully in the Creeds, as do the theologians I mentioned. If you want to join me in my weekly recitation of the Nicene Creed, the Episcopal Church welcomes you.

Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 28, 2008 5:35 PM

That being said, does anybody else find it sad that for all the good the Democratic party stands for these days, they are "pro-choice" to the extreme? Not one of the many Democratic candidates for President this cycle (nor the last cycle for that matter) has been pro-life.

And Democratic candidates will not be unless and until the abortion issue no longer is used to get votes on the Republican side; thus, the "choice" side will have no reason to contribute to the Democrats. (The truth is, "pro-life" doesn't do that much for the GOP, either.)

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 28, 2008 5:43 PM

But I believe that many of them are coming from the Clinton Camp and not conservatives. (are we suprized?)

That, too, is blatantly and categorically false. That came up last year when the conservative Washington Times reported that Obama attended a Muslim "seminary" in Indonesia and said it got the info from the "Clinton camp." (Numerous news reports later debunked that story.)

Ummm, Rick, did you read Bob Herbert's column that appeared in the NYT over the weekend?

I think it's likely that the rumors originated in the conservative camp and that they then tried to pin it on the Clintons. But you cannot deny that the Clinton campaign has recently been using this smear against Obama as a campaign tactic. Read Herbert's column.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | January 28, 2008 5:48 PM

Ummm, Rick, did you read Bob Herbert's column that appeared in the NYT over the weekend?

I did, actually -- I'm a regular Times reader, especially the op-ed page. But then again, black leaders and pundits went all ballistic when Ron Brown went down in that plane crash and the conservative media tried to pin that on Clinton as well. That said, the Clinton campaign has decided to limit Bill's candidating for Hillary in the wake of such controversy, which I think is a good thing.

Ok, as soon as the democrats stop using give me the "right" to kill unborn babies because I had sex with someone I don't like, republicans will stop using it as an issue. Thus the pro life side would have no reason to contribute.

Irrelevant, because "pro-life" doesn't have the power it once did.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 28, 2008 6:11 PM

Irrelevant, because "pro-life" doesn't have the power it once did.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin

?

. Just heard a story about a political reporter covering a pro life rally in front of a Planned Parent Hood Clinic . The reporter was seeing what the stereotypes we see when viewing others , was asked inside by a clinic employee to actual see what the nuts were protesting about . When he saw a tiny little hand in the mush , he is said to have had an impact on his life and he changed his tune . May not even be a true story , but the underlining message is some of us find it evil , immoral , some are in denial and some just indifferent . Some actually see it as a solution to the world's overpopulation and natural resource longevity .

Social Justice for the unborn , well government seems to care more about who yells the loudest , Republican or democrat . Abortion side wins .
The problem with social justice here is it is in the eye of the beholder .

Posted by: Mick | January 28, 2008 6:44 PM

Once again, it must be pointed out that "anti-abortion" is only a subset of being "pro-life," and many of those who are "anti-abortion" are not consistently "pro-life."

Posted by: Quiver Full | January 28, 2008 6:53 PM

I have been a huge fan of liberation theology for nearly a decade. It started w/ our catholic brothers and sisters in Latin America and then famous black, and other theologians took it and ran w/ it.

What's the big deal about it anyway?

p

Posted by: payshun | January 28, 2008 7:46 PM

I know many women who have had abortions, and in the vast majority of cases it had nothing to do with, "I got pregnant last nite by a guy I don't like, so I'm headed off to Planned Parenthood."

Carl ,

Your right .
kind of insenistive of me . Much more complicated . A young person with their whole life ahead of them , etc .
I will go and crawl back into my conservative cave . Thank you for the correction . Sometimes I need it .

Posted by: Mick | January 28, 2008 8:08 PM

Since the relevant passage in Matthew 25 (the judgement of the nations) seems to be missing from many right wing Christian Bibles I quote it in full; 41"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. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I 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.'

44"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?'

45"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.'

46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
If you can find wiggle room in that you cannot object to members of the gay or pro-choice community explaining away other scriptures. If you are willing to dimiss the faith of other Christians because they cannot find "dispensationalism" in the scriptures you are open to the same judgement for not finding universal health care here. This is the judgement of the "nations" after all.

Posted by: Don Gisselbeck | January 28, 2008 8:35 PM

Letjusticerolldown,

No, I don't accept the notion that candidates get a total pass on their religion.

No church is perfect. At some point we all make compromises and settle for less than perfect. But even in an imperfect world, the compromises we make reflect on our character and values. The choice of a church to attend is not an exception.

What happened in the past is one thing. What happens in other churches in the denomination is another. But what happens right now in the parish (congregation for you evangelical types) one attends is close enough to reflect on one's character.

I wouldn't hold all Southern Baptists acountable for all bigots throughout the SBC, but if a Republican candidate attended a specific congregation run by an open, notorious bigot, I would have to reject him as a candidate.

As far as Obama and Wright go: if this was some other congregation in the UCC that would be a different matter, but this is the pastor at the congregation that Obama attends. Obama choose this guy for spiritual guidance. It's a questionable choice.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | January 28, 2008 8:58 PM

This from Wikipedia
James Hal Cone (August 5, 1938 - ) is an African-American Christian theologian in the Methodist tradition. He is one of America's best known architects of Black theology, a form of Liberation theology. He is currently the Charles Augustus Briggs Distinguished Professor of Systematic Theology at Union Theological Seminary in the City of New York.
Cone was born and raised in Arkansas and received a B.A. degree from Philander Smith College in Arkansas in 1958, a B.D. degree from Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary in 1961, and M.A. and Ph.D. degrees from Northwestern University in 1963 and 1965, respectively. He taught theology and religion at Philander Smith College, Adrian College in Michigan, and beginning in 1970 at Union Theological Seminary in New York City, where he was awarded the distinguished Charles A. Briggs Chair in systematic theology in 1977.
James Cone was the first person to create a systematic Black theology. He felt that Black Christians in Northern America should not follow the "white Church", as it had failed to support them in their struggle for equal rights. Though this theme runs throughout Cone's work, his early books (Black Theology and Black Power and A Black Theology of Liberation) draw heavily on mainstream white theologians like Karl Barth (on whom Cone had written his doctoral thesis) and Paul Tillich.
In response to criticism from other black theologians (including his brother, Cecil), Cone began to make greater use of resources native to the African American Christian community for his theological work, including slave spirituals, the blues, and the writings of prominent African American thinkers like David Walker, Henry McNeal Turner, and W. E. B. Du Bois. Critiques by black women also led Cone to make consideration of gender issues more prominent in his later writings, thus paving the way for womanist theology. His theology has also been heavily influenced by Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr.

Some of you wonder why such a movement exists and seem to think it is racially divisive. This ignores the sheer immensity of the role that Racism has played in history. Slave ships, mass murder and slave labor in the Congo, Namibia, South Africa, Apartheid, Jim Crow, segregated churches, swimming pools, stores, Hotels, restaurants, the crusades, European Imperialism, the opium trade, destruction and exploitation denial of human right of the native peoples of the Americas and the current horrors visited on the people of Iraq are not the result of some vast evil among brown and black people. Racism and other forms of xenophobia and upper-classism are the primary tools of large scale aggression and exploitation in history and we live in a culture which is deeply stained by this history. Liberation from this history is far from complete in the Church or in the communities we share. I believe the worst impact of racism is the degree to which it is internalized. It is right and good for people of color to find a theology that liberates and affirms considering the role that theology has played in enslavement and degradation.

I would bet every penny I have that if you who are white go to Obama's church as many of us who are white , or in my case pinkish, have gone to mostly black churches you would find yourself welcomed and loved. Who can see and hear Barak Obama without seeing a deeply liberated , confident , and life affirming person who is profoundly at home in this multi-cultural world.

Posted by: jonabark | January 28, 2008 9:42 PM

I do not doubt the facts that you have stated in your article but, I am concerned about Obama's stance on "life". I truly believe that this is
important to our Lord.

Posted by: Jacque | January 28, 2008 9:52 PM

Wolverine, I would like to ask if you could simply affirm a rejection of the religious lies intended to damage Obama. Period.

If you want to raise issues about Trinity UCC Church in Chicago that you believe somehow reflects on the capacity of Obama to serve as President, then I just express my hope you would do so separated from the context of the lies which have been intended to hurt him. If you do not separate it, then if your concerns prove false, you will be in the same category as those who have been telling/repeating known lies.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 28, 2008 10:11 PM

As far as Obama and Wright go: if this was some other congregation in the UCC that would be a different matter, but this is the pastor at the congregation that Obama attends. Obama choose this guy for spiritual guidance. It's a questionable choice.

It is a choice I personally would not make, but given his history -- remember, he's not African-
American in the classic sense -- it's something that perhaps he felt he had to do. The truth is that, as much as even whites like him, we don't yet live in a "post-racial" society and I think Obama gets that, especially since he became a community organizer in Chicago. Besides, unless they're telling him not to associate with whites, seeing them as an implacable enmity, I don't see a problem.

There was a time when I had to "walk away" from my black identity precisely because I found it was getting in the way of my spiritual goals, but I've found that, now that I have a better sense of who I am, I can accept that part of me that I simply cannot change. Besides, in 1980, during my first year in college, a major Southern university, a white sophomore at a nearby woman's college with whom I attended church once said to me, "God made you black for a reason" -- and in the context that she said it affirmed me as a person. (Over a decade later I called her and said I learned what that reason was.)

That said, I wonder what kind of church Obama's critics would like to see him attend.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 28, 2008 11:09 PM

Some of you wonder why such a movement exists and seem to think it is racially divisive. This ignores the sheer immensity of the role that Racism has played in history.

Exactly what does that history have to do with today?

Is it justification to be separate? Is it justification to be a 'victim' of history?

I gaurantee you that no person practicing or preaching, or following such theology has witnessed, suffered, or even so much as observed the evils of history.

If your today is based upon your ancestor's status of 'victim', then you have made yourself into someone stuck within a trap you cannot change, because history can never change.

How many generations must this persist? When will the past finally become 'the past' and no longer be allowed to warp our present, to be a self-imposed darkened lense with which we filter the rest of the world, twisting into the "tyrant and victim" everything external to the world you create for yourself?

Posted by: mark | January 28, 2008 11:34 PM

Your comments are equivalent to dismissing Evangelical candidates because they have an eschatology that wants to hurry the world along to destruction. I think you know better Wolverine.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown

I have to agree with you , except I believe its more of political point, why do the republicans have such a religious litmus test from the media , and barak gets the free pass .

I understand what you are saying , and unfortunately with the media leaving it alone it does have only the smear merchants talking about it . It will come up if he makes it to national election . A group like the folks who questioned Kerry will come into play .

Interesting enough when Jefferson ran for President he was attacked for his religious beliefs . Which were quite un traditional from my understanding .

Abrigail Adams made a big issue of it , forced Jefferosn's friend to write a small pamplet explaining how great of a Christian he was . Which was no easy task having it printed and distributed in those days . Nothing new really in politics .

Posted by: Mick | January 29, 2008 12:46 AM

Brother Mark,

You have been on a meaningful life journey. In my life I can see a half-dozen major chapters--all of which included a turning of my mind and heart.

Your questions are good. Sometimes (I cannot judge for you) our questions that we fire at others (which I love to do) need to be answered by us; as they can actually be the Lord's questions to us.

I could take a stab at answering from many angles--if you truly seek an answer.

One lesson I learned is that I (like you) had many legitimate questions. I have many perspectives that are right (or at least half right). And yet I had to learn to be quiet.

I married an African American woman in my late 30's. She advanced further in her fields than any African American had done. She lived most of her life with some element of "What are you doing here?" I saw many tears. I heard almost no complaints. I saw profound sacrifice--'Someone else will follow if I make a way.' She treated all persons with profound dignity.

She became critically ill after birth of our youngest child in 2002. Her doctor said she had run herself into the ground. She battled to live for her children for four years. My beautiful little girls lost their Mommy to death 15 months ago.

I followed her into a small city where she was working one day. My car was very close behind her. She was experiencing a lot of slashed tires, theft, and food poisoning it this community. A police officer saw her and suddenly rushed out of a parking lot, 'pushing' inbetween my car and hers. She was doing nothing wrong. He rode her bumper all the way through the city.

You frankly do need to understand the "immensity of racism" that Rick refers to in order to fully appreciate what the law officer on her bumper meant to her. And it has nothing to do with her allowing the past to be the past. The 'badge' has the power to take life if necessary without accountability. It doesn't have to happen every day. It is not limited to the past.

She was a health professional. She knew all the stats on health disparities (and causes) between races. She knew the price of stress on African American lives. She never once complained of her battle for life as a consequence of stress. She never lived as a victim.

My seven-yr-old crawled onto my lap tonight as I sat next to the power wheelchair where my wife sat 24/7 the last two years of life; she sobbed and sobbed, "I miss Mommy." The loss is real.

I can't write a book here. If the Lord is inviting you to learn answers to the questions you pose, I pray you seek. It may not always be comfortable -- but the Spirit is gracious.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 29, 2008 2:22 AM

If your today is based upon your ancestor's status of 'victim', then you have made yourself into someone stuck within a trap you cannot change, because history can never change.

I've never been stopped by a cop while driving, but other African-Americans have. I've never been followed by store clerks while shopping at a department store, but others have. You can't reasonably call that "the past."

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 29, 2008 8:51 AM

Here you are talking silliness about the church community I grew up in. Unbelieveable things you chitter about.

Do you know a UCC member personally? Could you spot one on the street? What attributes are you looking for? I dare you to read our minds.

Lets get one thing straight.
This is not only a church with a Congregational history. It also includes some of the most Evengalical history which goes back all the way to Europe. These Evangelicals have been around for a few Centuries. They were not born yesterday. It is not a fad in UCC to be an Evangelical. We don't mind if you were born again. Just remember we are also members of the Christian family.

MOre over we have always had minds of our own. Even if we don't feel like revealing our thoughts to you. We will if we feel like it. It's still none of your business.

Feel priveleged if we do.

And when it comes to theology we don't feel any obligation to agree with the guy in the pulpit just cause we are in the pews. I don't mind telling my pastor so to his face if I feel like it. And sometimes I do, whether s/he likes it or not.
I can do that and still be on good terms because in the UCC, we agree to disagree if we feel like it. There is nothing about disagreeing with our pastors that can come between us and our relationship with God. That's our own personal business.
Thats why my ancesters left Europe with its Princes and Kaizers.

If you really want to know what I think about my relationship with God you will have to stick around and observe how I live my life.

But if you want to tell me that I'm not a Christian or I don't believe in God? You just try to explain that to God himself. I can't wait to see the experession on his face.

As for Obama. There's no reason why he needs to tell anyone what he believes if he doesn't want to, whether he is running for president or not. That's his business. Rest assured. He has a mind of his own. As a member of the UCC he is under no obligation to agree with any other member or pastor of the UCC. We don't have bishops.
If he does express his beliefs you could at least have some respect and appreciation for his willingness to reviel them to you. But you don't have to agree with him to be a fellow Christian.

If you really want to know what his relationship is with his Savior and Heavenly Father, then pay attention to the way he lives his life. It should be telling enough.

And after all has been said we still have a right to change our minds anytime we want. I assure you God will not mind. He tollerates this sort of thing from us all the time, and never seems to take it personally.

Posted by: Ms. Cynthia | January 29, 2008 9:47 AM

"Intentional lies are wrong..... Obama's critics ought to stick to what is provable."

Thank you for the clarity.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 29, 2008 10:06 AM

Ms. Cynthia, thanks for your description of the UCC and your experience. It's similar to the experience I had back in my undergrad days at a UCC-supported school. It's amazing how many are willing to speak out of ignorance with such assuredness.

Rick wrote:
"You can't reasonably call that "the past."

Didn't Faulkner write, "The past isn't dead; it isn't even past"?

Peace,

Posted by: Don | January 29, 2008 11:14 AM

Thanks, Don, for your always informed, perceptive and gracious comments. I learn from you.

Posted by: canucklehead | January 29, 2008 11:56 AM

"That is the gospel's paramount measure of faith, not how much one shouts Jesus' name or how often and how loudly one can recite doctrine and creeds. Jesus taught - and modeled - that what is most important for those who follow him is to spend their time and treasure in this world, engaging in loving, self-sacrificial actions with the express purpose of manifesting God's love and justice on earth as in heaven."

WOW...how well written. I am a believer but I can't recite doctrine and creeds...and I don't like to make a spectacle of myself when I pray. But that's OK...I don't HAVE to...God knows what's happening in my heart. When will some of the fundamentalists get this??

Posted by: C | January 29, 2008 3:58 PM

Ben;

As a guy who got saved on his grammaw's knee one Christmas when she taught me 'Silent Night'– Jesus was there, and He was so beautiful I gave Him my heart– who was brought up in the Congregational church, now part of the U'CC', I wouldn't call it a 'Christian' denomination. I thought I was the last Christian!

But not knowing Barack's pastor I don't know whether he's a wise, sensitive Christian freedom-fighter or not, but if he's black it's a pretty good probability, and I don't even know that his congregation isn't a Christan church, particularly if it's predominantlyn black.

When the 'white church split between Sadducees Liberals and Pharisee Fundamentalists, the black church seems to have managed to keep the two Great Commandments together. Thanks be to God for the black church! Wait'll you see those saints shining in Glory!!!
The Lord has a Remnant in some very surprising places.

What scares me is training a bunch of Democrats to talk the 'God' talk like the Republicans, without the Walk.

Posted by: Ted Voth Jr | January 29, 2008 4:24 PM

"What scares me is training a bunch of Democrats to talk the 'God' talk like the Republicans, without the Walk."

Did it scare you that so many Republicans were trained to talk the God talk without the walk?

Posted by: I and I | January 29, 2008 4:38 PM

Some of you wonder why such a movement exists and seem to think it is racially divisive. This ignores the sheer immensity of the role that Racism has played in history.

Exactly what does that history have to do with today? (mark)

ARE YOU SERIOUS? You think something changed last week or yesterday that ended the impact of historic forces on out own time? Our institutions, beliefs, ideas, literature,technology, language and cultural influences are all based on historic precedent and are all things that change slowly. Neither I nor Liberation theology is saying that we cannot free ourselves from the darker forces of history, but that it takes effort and the assertion of truth; it takes a treasuring and building of your own inner and cultural resources. You think black or brown people no longer encounter racism, fear, stereotyping, race based exploitation, and violence? Exactly how many examples from this decade would it take to prove that you are mistaken?

Is it justification to be separate? Is it justification to be a 'victim' of history?I gaurantee you that no person practicing or preaching, or following such theology has witnessed, suffered, or even so much as observed the evils of history.
Most color based separation is from the white community. Black people have had to build their own institutions, but I assure you you will be welcome in The church in question. Do you think everyone that is a victim of injustice has chosen to be a victim?This is insane and it is certainly unBiblical. You think Amadou Diallo wanted to be shot 42 times for the crime of being black and not having english as his first language? There are thousands of people , many who have embraced some form of liberation theology who have , suffered, and been eyewitnesses to terrible race based crimes. In the Sudan, in South America, in Vietnam, in Iraq and in America. There are still many survivors of the European Holocaust carried out based on theories of race and with the approval and support of European Churches. Nevertheless Liberation theology is about resisting the role of victim or object and asserting oneself as subject, author, creative shaper of ones life, and of truth telling language. Martin King was a great example of this, using truth telling, non-violent resistance, and Christian love to confront the forces of racism , unjust laws, and militarism in our own times. Tell his children that no person practicing or preaching, or following such theology has witnessed the evils of history.

Posted by: jonabark | January 29, 2008 5:37 PM

Eileen,
Thanks for the heads up on Obama's letter to the UN. I am now much more comfortable with him being president.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | January 29, 2008 6:57 PM

Okay, my second attempt at this. I get the article that has been written correcting false information about Obama. What I don't get is the one thing that hasn't needed corrected is his stance on abortion. It doesn't need any correction because Obama is pro-choice. We christians are called to take care of the widow, orphans, poor, oppressed...where do unborn children fall? Christ's passion was all of the above. I am incredibly disappointed that a christian in the public eye that is being defended by his pastor and by Sojourners is a defender of murder. I need answers about this before I can really buy into your article.

Posted by: Jacque | January 29, 2008 9:02 PM