Eric Sapp: November 2008 Archives

My good friend Amy Sullivan is a very hard act to follow in any writing assignment, and she covered this topic very well for Time last week.  But in an attempt to help provide a little perspective for our good friends on the other side of the Pond, here are my thoughts on the difficulties Obama will face as he and his family try to decide where to worship.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2008/nov/24/usa-religion

Amid all the speculation about decisions president-elect Obama will have to make when he takes office, the question of where will he and his family go to church has been getting a lot of attention recently.

To some, this question may not rise to the level of, say, how Obama plans to tackle the banking crisis. After all, neither Ronald Reagan nor George W Bush even went to church while president. The Clintons chose a local Methodist church with a strong youth programme for Chelsea, and the first President Bush went to an Episcopalian church. Jimmy Carter actually taught Sunday school while president at a Baptist church in Virginia.

Yet there are several reasons that Obama choice of church will be more scrutinised than that of any other American president. In a country where nearly half the voters attend church weekly and another third attend at least once a month, Obama's ability to talk about his faith helped lead the Democrats out of the political wilderness of being viewed by many voters as hostile to religion.

Furthermore, race and faith in America have always been intertwined, and the black church has historically served as the political and social epicentre of the African-American community. And so in the same way that Americans wondered what kind of influence the Pope would have when Kennedy became America's first Catholic president, they now wait to see what role the local church will play in the life of America's first black president.

Finally, Obama's last church choice nearly derailed his presidential aspirations when YouTube clips began circulating of Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright, preaching anti-American and racially-charged sermons.

Combine all of these factors, and Obama's allies will be looking for him to make an inspired choice that helps reshape America's faith and racial dialogue ... and his enemies will be looking for a choice they can use to undermine his presidency. So putting aside the potential effect of his church choice on his immortal soul, the political stakes will clearly be high.

For example, many people assume Obama will worship at an African American church as he did in Chicago. But Obama has often quoted Martin Luther King's critique that America's most segregated hour is 11am on Sunday. If the first black president chooses to worship in a predominantly black church, does that call into question whether he really thinks this is a problem or perhaps imply that it's a problem only white people are responsible for fixing? Conversely, if Obama chooses a predominantly white church, many black people in this country will feel abandoned.

The same sort of dilemma applies to his choice of denomination. Most past presidents have come into office with a clear denominational affiliation, which helped narrow their options. But Obama was a member of Trinity United Church of Christ (UCC) in Chicago, an anomaly in the UCC for being a predominantly African-American church in a mostly white denomination. The UCC is also one of the most liberal denominations in America, and joining another UCC church would inevitably raise the issue of Jeremiah Wright again. But it is also the denomination he has belonged to for his entire adult life, and people would read all kinds of things into his decision to leave it.

Another question is whether he will choose a church with a social justice and prophetic tradition that reflects his theology but risks another Jeremiah Wright moment. Or should he chose a more "relational" church focused on community and Christian growth that would provide a nurturing environment for his daughters but might be viewed by supporters as the easy way out?

It's hard enough to find a new church without being president. So what is a president, a father, a husband, and an inspiration to an entire race and new generation of American voters to do? Despite (or perhaps because of) all the political implications of this decision, there will not be a "smart" political choice. All will be fraught with peril. But Obama proved throughout the campaign that often the best political choice is just to do what feels right and then honestly communicate why he did so to the American people.

(cross-posted on www.faithfuldemocrats.com)

There is a danger in our polarized society of loudly critiquing missteps by our political or ideological opponents and remaining silent when they do the right thing.  

Today, Bob Jones University just did the right thing and showed humility and Christian repentance that is both difficult and often lacking in politically-charged debates.  The university put out a statement admitting that their policies of banning black students until 1971 and banning interracial dating until 2005 had "conformed to the culture rather than provide a clear Christian counterpoint to it." They went on to say, "in so doing, we failed to accurately represent the Lord and to fulfill the commandment to love others as ourselves. For these failures we are profoundly sorry. Though no known antagonism toward minorities or expressions of racism on a personal level have ever been tolerated on our campus, we allowed institutional policies to remain in place that were racially hurtful."

Bob Jones University has undoubtedly done plenty to harm the Christian witness...and being made up of fallen creatures like the rest of us, they will surely do so again in the future.  But today, they were faithful and true. 

I'm sure there will be those on the left who will argue that this was too little too late or who decide now is the time to pile onto this apology with demands for other changes to school policy.  But as we head into the holiday week, I'll be giving thanks for some brave students, faculty, and administrators at Bob Jones who put Christ first.

(Cross-posted on faithfuldemocrats.com)

I have received a number of emails and seen a lot written about Obama's decision not to send his girls to DC public schools.  People are saying he has thrown the urban public school system under the bus and betrayed the inner-city kids whose parents can't afford to pay $30K/year in tuition for a private school. 

I can understand why people would want Obama's daughters in their schools or school system, but I think that any critique of Obama or implication he is a hypocrite or sell-out are grossly unfair. 

If Obama had said public schools were fine or that they didn't need more resources and then sent his kids to private school, that would be one thing.  But he's working to improve public schools precisely because they aren't a place he would send his own children and doesn't think other parents should be forced to do so. 

It seems to me that health care provides a perfect analogy to this public school question.  Should we condemn a politician who champions universal health care or the need to improve SCHIP unless he refuses to accept health care benefits for his own family? 

And for those of us who champion family and good parenting, I don't think we should be asking parents to sacrifice their children to make political points.  I have no doubt that, being a fallen creature, Obama will do plenty of things during the next 8 years to rightly justify critique.  But fighting for improved schooling for all children in this country while at the same time providing the best he can for his daughters is not one of them.

Wow, what a night.  I know everyone is going to be writing about Obama and the incredible races and probably has more energy and insight than I at this moment.  But something struck me about the Alaska Senate race last night that seemed odd, and I haven't heard it addressed. 

I don't have a lot of commentary, but here's my realization.  Stevens couldn't vote for himself for Senate because he is a felon, but he will be able to vote IN the Senate as a felon.  Something is amiss when we say people are not qualified to choose their elected representatives because they are felons but are qualified to BE those elected representatives AS felons. 

Something to ponder...

I've got to say that the results also speak to the expectations Alaskans have for their representatives in government that they would elect someone to represent them who will be serving what could very well amount to a life sentence in jail.  Senators must be physically present to have their votes counted.  So they just chose to have one of their two Senate votes not count for the next six years (assuming Stevens serves-out/lives-out his term).

Oh well.  I think it is worth thinking about the larger question about who we allow to vote (in the election and our governing bodies).  But mostly now is a time to look to the future and start planning how Democrats are going to deal with the mess we have inherited.  I pray we have the sense to realize this was much less a mandate for us than a referendum against Bush and the politics of pandering to one's base instead of speaking to the broader needs of the people.  We need to get to the business of real governing and moving legislation that has broad appeal. 

If anyone can bring this country together though, it'll be Obama.  Time to pray extra hard for our leaders!!