Pure Church

I've just seen these comments released by the White House. I've not read them all yet, but I appreciated the humble and forthright way the President acknowledge that more worthy recipients have received/deserved the award, and that he receives the award while the country continues in two wars.
Perhaps a few more thoughts when I've read the entire speech.

Dallas Morning News has the details. People for the American Way are disappointed. Then this must be good news on some level.

President Bush completed a rather interesting interview with ABC News about his personal faith. It's revealing. I found myself cheering and encouraged at points, and scratching my head at others.

The video is here.

Here's my question: When you listen to Pres. Bush on the whole, how different are his faith claims from Pres.-Elect Obama? What do you think?

Many people find the Obamas inspiring. Even some of those most opposed to their political views have at times had to admit admiring this or that about President-Elect Obama. I know... I know... there are some who can't bring themselves to admit even one thing they appreciate about the Obamas. But, here's one way I hope I'm inspired by them. I need this inspiration and I have the waistline to prove it!

A couple weeks back, a dear brother in the Lord asked what I thought about the general election and who I'd be voting for. I answered him honestly when I said, "I don't know." He pressed a bit. "You're an intelligent guy; I know you have made up your mind already." I assured him I hadn't, and that frankly I was a bit disgusted with the entire thing. If he wanted to know "what I thought about the election," the honest answer was disgust and regret.

In the next few posts, I hope to explain why. There are at least four reasons, all of which have to do with the disappointment that comes from sensing potentially seismic historical and cultural shifts for the positive evaporating in the ugliness of this election as soon as the presumptive nominees were clear. The sense of hope and interest that once filled this race for me has gone up in smoke with the politics-as-usual campaigning of both parties.

Today we begin with loss #1 (not in importance, just in order of the posts): the forfeited opportunity to think careful and prayerfully about personal and group identity.

The prospect of a "racially ambiguous" president offered (offers??) the country the opportunity to think afresh about what it means to be an American, what relevance ethnicity or "race" have, and the broadening horizon available to all groups. A potential "President Obama" calls into question the extent of any continuing legacy of centuries of race-based social and political attitude and action. The viability of an Obama campaign could have put front and center the question, "What does it mean now to be an African American?" In what ways has our (i.e., American) understanding of racial identification, racial prejudice, group opportunity, and equality changed?

I'm not saying that all those things would have in fact changed with the election of a President Obama. I'm saying that the viable candidacy of an African American could have productively put those questions on the table were it not for the usual political hullabaloo that now occupies the airwaves. As it is, the cloud of negative politics overshadows anything resembling a healthy national reflection on these things.

In my opinion, the Iowa primaries were significant in signaling the possibility of an ethnic candidate not being "the ethnic candidate" but an American candidate. The moment Obama won Iowa, the country took serious notice of the candidate, but could also have taken serious notice of itself. What happened in Iowa? Potentially the first penetrating crack in a racial phalanx that has stood guard over the "highest office in the land" since the country's founding. And the fact that the Obama primary campaign successfully wooed Iowa caucus goers to support him was a testament to Iowans as much as it was to a brilliant primary strategy. The Obama campaign's focus on the caucus (a delicious word irony that I'll pass on now) states would have been a futile strategy were it not for white Iowans and others who discarded conventional wisdom and grabbed hold to hope for a different a different kind of candidate signifying by appearance if not by words a racially healthy future.

South Carolina got ugly with the former "champions" of African American causes.

Then came Philadelphia. Forced now to address "race" by an embarrassing pastor and a rival campaign that interjected "race" wherever it could, Barack Obama delivered to the country not just an excellent speech on "race" but, more importantly, an opportunity to discuss it as Americans looking forward, not backward. Some reviled the speech as the "throw grandma under the bus" speech. Some proclaimed it as an American speech as significant as Gettysburg or I Have A Dream. In potential, the latter group was correct. In my opinion, the only significant failing in an otherwise brilliant and brave speech was Mr. Obama did not flatly say that "race" does not exist. Had he done that.... Well, who knows what would have happened had he done that!

But it wasn't Obama's job to carry the mail on this issue. It was our job to do so. We haven't.

Political pundits scurried to obscure the opportunity. Too many of us joyfully pranced off after them. Perhaps we were aided in our side-taking by Obama's serious blunders days later. But having received the opportunity, we squandered it.

From Philadelphia to "hot mic" comments from Jesse Jackson to the present CNN obsession with "race" and the election (an obsession that seems to only have grown more rabid since S.C.), the steady drip of conjecture has turned an opportunity into an obstacle. Now, it seems to me, the table has been re-set and the conversation returned to the old, tired, myopic, and ultimately unhelpful speculations about racism. Like cozy slippers and a favorite robe on a cool winter morning, we've slipped right back into the tattered familiar.

And in this case, ignored the obvious. It's silly to ask "Will white people vote for Obama once they enter the booth?" Yes. Millions of them will. Millions of them have. And the overwhelming majority of them have not done it because of the color of his skin. Whether you like his politics or not, there are an awful lot of folks who do, and they're casting their lots with him in this general election as well. That's still the main story if we want to take a racial angle. There are still millions and millions of Americans of every hue prepared to happily say, "Congratulation, President Obama." That's never happened in the history of the country. And focusing on the relative few who would not vote for him because of their racial bias is a great adventure in missing the point. Something new and significant is upon us. Not the election of the first African American president, but the commencement of the first significant redefinition of American identity to include all the huddled masses--black ones as well.

We like "race" because we know this devil so well. We're unprepared to pay the social and psychological costs of re-evaluating this basic and erroneous assumption about life. And so we'd rather keep hurting one another than forge new identities and allegiances.

At least that's my opinion. And that's what saddens me. That's the election discussion that almost was, and one reason why it's difficult for me to be excited about this historic campaign. Tomorrow, Lord willing, the missed opportunity to think about the role of older persons in society and culture.

Well... it's happened. We all knew that it would. The national campaign for president has taken a nasty turn. For the first time in years, we had two candidates that looked as if they might fulfill their promise of a race with integrity and some measure of cleanliness. Well, okay, that was a brief and fleeting moment as both candidates tried and usually did take relatively high ground during the primaries.

Well, looks like the gloves are off and the mud-slinging has begun in earnest, including complete fabrications. The NY Times chronicles McCain's recent blunders here and focuses on Obama's plans for a "sharper tone" here.

So, I'm officially uninterested, turned off by what could be one of the most scintillating moments in American political history--either the election of the oldest president and first woman VP or the election of the first African American to the highest post in the land. Either event could have massive social implications for America and how we understand ourselves. But, it seems to me, the moment lies about six feet deep in putrid mire.

Who will go in and retrieve it?
Admittedly, I've been a bit out of the loop over the past month. But as far as I can tell, many Christian blogs have essentially toed their party lines, taking up their candidates mantle with slightly less vitriol.


Here's a proposal:

If you're a Christian blogger with interest in this presidential election, how about serving as a truth watchdog for your candidate? In other words, since you're already spending at least some time consuming the information your candidate produces, how about serving that candidate and the rest of us by simply reporting the accuracies, inaccuracies, exaggerations, and distortions that come from your camp. We can't trust the candidates to do that. And many of us are reading your blogs, in part, because we have some measure of trust for you. How about deepening that trust and serving the public in a distinctively Christian way... by "putting off falsehood and speaking truthfully to your neighbor" (Eph. 4:25).

I don't suppose that any of us will turn into full-time distortion hunters. But it would be humble and good to work against the sinful inclination to champion our favored candidate's positive qualities and not turn a blind eye to known falsehoods when we discover them. Our being salt and light depends on our holding fast to the truth--especially when it's inconvenient and not in our self-interest. It would be great if the so-called Evangelical or "Christian right" became synonymous not so much with this or that policy position or party but with truth-loving, truth-defending, truth-living witness.

In the spirit of enjoying these historical times--at least through the weekend--a question has come to mind as I've read the good comments and reactions to my previous post.

A lot of the folks leaving comments, and folks I've seen contributing elsewhere, have generally had two reactions: (1) Obama's bad for the country, and (2) I'm not really pleased with McCain. There's a little bit of a "better of two evils" thing going on for some people. And many people are quick to point out that skin color shouldn't be the deciding factor, but character and a host of other considerations. Amen to that. There's a kind of lament over the fact that many African-Americans will vote for Obama because he is black, making skin color and our social definition of "race" the decisive issue.

Now viewed from the vantage point of many African-Americans, the issue becomes, "How can I not vote for Obama; we may never get this chance again. He's the only African-American in this race and in the history of the country."

One way this election is different for blacks and whites and Hispanics and Asians, etc. is that whites have always had a choice between at least two white candidates, and at times three. There's been a field of white people to choose from. In contrast, this is the first time ethnic minorities have ever had opportunity to choose a non-white. And there's no field to choose from, there's just one candidate. So, there's a certain sense in which some African-Americans and many, many other Americans feel compelled to cast a vote for Obama.

Here's the question I'm gonna ponder a while. WWBD? "What would black people do if there were two black candidates running for president? How would African-Americans respond if there were more choice with substantive differences?"

As long as we're daydreaming about a potential new future, what do you think?

A dear, dear friend gave me a ride to O'Hare airport this past week. He's a white brother, a precious saint, who takes great interest in the history of the Civil Rights Movement. I'm thinking he's read more and thought more about that history than I have. He from time to time asks me what I think about this or that aspect of African American history, culture, current events, etc.

On the ride to the airport he asked me, "When reflecting on the significance of Barack Obama's run for president, how do you feel when your white brothers immediately start talking about abortion? Does that anger you? Do you feel like they just missed the point of your reflections altogether?"

I thought for a moment. I don't think it angers me or frustrates me much. I think I'm mostly saddened by it. I'm saddened that for those moments brothers and sisters in Christ cannot or will not enter into my experience for a little while... just a little while... without asserting their own agenda. I generally think that a great opportunity is missed, an opportunity to see the world in wide screen rather than full screen, to get more into view instead of having the screen filled with a more limited picture. It's a loss for me and them.

So, this is a short post with a seven short statements about why... not indefinitely and not in dismissal of other important issues... my white politically and theologically conservative friends should take a long weekend and enjoy the significance of what's happening with the Barack Obama nomination. You can resume the advocacy and much-needed critiques on June 9th. But here are some reasons to come share with those who perhaps see a little bit more or a slightly different angle than yourself.

1. Rejoice with those who rejoice. A significant part of the Christian world is rejoicing in a landmark achievement. Obviously, not all the reasons for rejoicing are reasons everyone can share. But certainly the nomination of an African-American presidential candidate (the first in U.S. history), a signal achievement for any African-American or ethnic minority is worth longer appreciation than has been given it by some politically and theologically conservative folks.

2. Mourn with those who mourn. For most African Americans Christians, this is bitter sweet on at least two levels. First, there are the same laments that you have regarding Sen. Obama's position on moral issues like gay rights and abortion. Those positions are not widely shared among African-American Christians and cause something of a real dilemma for Bible-believing African Americans. Second, this achievement comes on the heels of 400 years of blood, guts, and tears struggle. Slavery was nearly apocryphal. Jim Crow was only marginally better... a penniless people freed into a monied economy with legally sanctioned disenfranchisement. Along with the rejoicing comes the memory of what was.

3. There's an opportunity for unity or further misunderstanding. That's really another way of saying numbers 1 and 2 above. White evangelicals are not praised or known for their sensitivity or support in African-American circles. Rather, they are suspected of being disingenuous, politically self-seeking, and disinterested in the true well-being of African Americans. They're seen as having been on the wrong side of history on too many concerns important to African Americans. For Christians black and white, there's much divide to cover and repair. Here's a moment to pour an inch of bedrock into that cavern which seems miles wide at times. Our brother Lance penned some words that I think are helpful in describing this opportunity:

Senator Obama’s candidacy could present some unique challenges for white evangelicals and black bible believing Christians. And trust me, if you thought (though didn’t understand) that African-American believers loved the Clintons (true, not anymore) you have no idea of the deep emotional connection they feel towards Barack Obama. My guess is that the overwhelming majority of black believers will vote for and support him with relish. However, their support will be contrasted with the disdain that many evangelicals have for him. And thus while an Obama administration might actually work toward bringing white and black non-believers into a closer more integrated relationship it might actually do the opposite for white and black believers.

I have to confess, there have been many times that I've read or received comments that made me want to dig through my closet for my 1980s t-shirts, the one that reads, "It's a black thang... you wouldn't understand." And I recognize that that's an indication of some profound missed opportunities at mutual understanding and appreciation. My white evangelical brothers have an opportunity to understand a bit better, and I hope it's not missed. Among Christians black and white, there's an opportunity to sit quietly together--for just a moment--and recognize that when one part of the body suffers we all suffer with it, and when one part rejoices we all rejoice with it. If my evangelical friends can do that for a weekend where Obama's nomination is concerned, it won't solve a lot but it will help demonstrate appreciation for this moment and what it means to others.

4. It's an American achievement. If you review even the briefest historical timeline of African American political engagement in the U.S., one can't help but stand stunned at the quantum leap forward in "race" relations and opportunities that has occurred in America. Just one generation ago, significant numbers of Americans were protesting for the right to vote. Now they can vote for one who wouldn't have had the right himself in 1960. The move from voting disenfranchisement to the ability to vote for an African-American president has occurred in one lifetime when most didn't think it would ever happen. In Star Trek terms, that's warp 9. In Stargate terms, that's hyper-drive. And it's an American advancement. America needed to make strides. And she has. Of the 18 million folks who voted for Obama, most of them were white, particularly in states like Iowa, Montana, etc. This is not one man's achievement or one ethnic group's achievement. It's the country's achievement. And everyone in the country should "stop and smell the roses" at least until Monday June 9th.

5. This nomination puts us closer to a post-"race" future than we've ever been before. Have you considered what this potentially does for identity and identity politics? Consider the recent report suggesting that transracial adoption is bad for black kids personal identity. You'd think that would certainly be true in the case of someone like Barack Obama, and yet he stands ready to run for the oval office, seemingly well-adjusted and comfortable in his own skin. Some African-Americans have said, "He's not black enough." Some whites have tried to make him the next Malcolm X by plastering Jeremiah Wright all over him. To the chagrin of both, he's still standing, which suggests to me that the tide of racial politicking may be way out to sea as most African-Americans have not applied some "blackness" litmus test and significant numbers of whites have decided that he's not anti-white by association. Just a few years ago, I don't think either "side" would have been able to see past these issues. But apparently we have. And if we can truly move to judging men by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin, then we will have advanced American society in unimaginable ways. I'm not arguing that Obama himself advances us in this way. I'm arguing that the country as a whole has an opportunity and can make this important advance. That's worthy considering and rejoicing over, even if you have no intention of voting for Obama.

6. Your beef isn't with Obama per se. Few are the people who are saying they will not vote for him because he is black. Those folks exist, and they prove the irrationality of "race" by casting a vote against that 1/2 of his genetic background that comes from his father while ignoring the other 1/2 of his ancestry. But you've consistently said that you abhor his policies on abortion in particular. Presumably, then, you would be opposed to any candidate with this position. I'm right there with you. But since your objection is to the policy he promotes and not his ethnic background, surely you can lay aside the policy objection for a long weekend and appreciate what's happened on an ethnic and social level. Monday June 9th will be a great time to resume the policy discussions, most of which has already been said. But watching an African-American say, "I am the Democratic nominee for President of the United States," well... that's only been heard once thus far in American history.

7. He's not President yet. November is a ways off. There's plenty of stuff to be said and done. Monday June 9th, begin with earnest to say and do it. But for just a few days, unplug the TV pundits, take a walk with your kids, tell them a bit of American history, and together think about what the country is becoming and our ongoing part in trying to make it even better. A weekend of reflection won't kill us and, contrary to what the talking heads would make us believe, it won't determine the election. Neither Obama or McCain are President yet. So, let's just enjoy the moment with each other before we go to our respective corners and come out swinging... if Christians should come out swinging at all.

My son Titus will not know a time when no African-American man had ever a chance to serve in the highest office of the land. I've spent all my life thinking it utterly impossible.

My daughters Afiya and Eden can say, "I remember when Barack Obama became the first African American candidate nominated by a major party. We were living in the Cayman Islands watching it on television with our parents... really proud of the U.S."

I heard David Gergen say, "I'm from North Carolina. Barack Obama won that state with large margins. Twenty-five years ago... even ten years ago... that was unthinkable." I'm from N.C., too. I thought it was unthinkable last year.

But here we are.

Where are we exactly?

I don't think we know. But it's a different place than the one we were in two weeks ago or two decades ago. It's a completely unanticipated development--no longer arrested.

Here's one timeline:

1619--the first African slaves arrive at Jamestown, Va

Virginia, 1662 - “Whereas some doubts have arisen whether children got by any Englishmen upon a Negro shall be slave or Free, Be it therefore enacted and declared by this present Grand assembly, that all children born in this country shall be held bond or free only According to the condition of the mother."



Maryland, 1664 - “That whatsoever free-born [English] woman shall intermarry with any slave [...] shall serve the master of such slave during the life of her husband; and that all the issue of such free-born women, so married shall be slaves as their fathers were.”



Virginia, 1667 - “Act III. Whereas some doubts have arisen whether children that are slaves by birth [...] should by virtue of their baptism be made free, it is enacted that baptism does not alter the condition to the person as to his bondage or freedom; masters freed from this doubt may more carefully propagate Christianity by permitting slaves to be admitted to that sacrament.”



Virginia, 1682 - “Act I. It is enacted that all servants [...] which shall be imported into this country either by sea or by land, whether Negroes, Moors [Muslim North Africans], mulattoes or Indians who and whose parentage and native countries are not Christian at the time of their first purchase by some Christian [...] and all Indians, which shall be sold by our neighboring Indians, or any other trafficking with us for slaves, are hereby adjudged, deemed and taken to be slaves to all intents and purposes any law, usage, or custom to the contrary notwithstanding.”

1712--New York Revolt



1739--The Stono Rebellion in South Carolina



1741--New York Slave Insurrection of 1741



1800--Gabriel's Rebellion in Virginia



1811--Louisiana Territory Slave Rebellion, led by Charles Deslondes

1815--George Boxley Rebellion in Virginia



1822--Denmark Vesey Uprising in South Carolina ()



1831--Nat Turner's Rebellion in Virginia



1839--The Amistad Seizure on a Spanish ship


1857--Dred Scott decision, decided 7-2, held that a slave did not become free when taken into a free state; Congress could not bar slavery from a territory; and blacks could not be citizens. Furthermore, a state could not bar slave owners from bringing slaves into that state.


1861--American Civil War begins


1863--Emancipation Proclamation delivered on January 1


1865--Emancipation following American Civil War, commonly celebrated on June 19th (Juneteenth); final ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in December


1865-1877--Reconstruction


1870--Hiram Rhodes Revels became the first black member of the Senate and thereby also the first black member of the Congress.



1874--rise in white paramilitary organizations, such as the White League and Red Shirts, whose political aim was to turn out the Republicans. They also disrupted organizing and terrorized blacks to bar them from the polls. From 1873 to 1877, conservative white Democrats (calling themselves "Redeemers") regained power in state elections throughout the former Confederacy.


1877--President Rutherford Hayes withdrew federal troops from the South, causing the collapse of the remaining three Republican state governments. Through the enactment of disfranchising statutes and constitutions, and extralegal means, the white Democrats subsequently removed most blacks and hundreds of thousands of poor whites from voter rolls in every Southern state. White Democrats established one-party rule and enforced a system of racial segregation that continued throughout the South into the 1960s.


1876-1965--Jim Crow laws enforce de jure segregation with "separate but equal" status for blacks and whites.


1960-1980--Civil Rights Movement


1954--Brown v. Board of Education overturned earlier rulings going back to Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, by declaring that state laws that established separate public schools for black and white students denied black children equal educational opportunities. Handed down on May 17, 1954, the Warren Court's unanimous (9-0) decision stated that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." As a result, de jure racial segregation was ruled a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.


1964--the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a landmark legislation in the United States that outlawed segregation in the U.S. schools and public places.


1965--Voting Rights Act of 1965 outlawed discriminatory voting practices that had been responsible for the widespread disenfranchisement of African-Americans in the United States.


Tonight--Barack Husein Obama, as "white" as he is "black," became the first "black" Presidential nominee of a major political party in United States history.



It's been a long road. And many have cried, "How long, Lord?" But it's undeniable that the sovereign hand of God has moved to change things radically.

One other thing seems certain: The patronizing political strategy of promising token positions with little influence to some African American leaders in exchange for delivering the black vote is out the window. If a man with brown skin can be President, who needs political fool's gold and worthless trinkets? If a man with brown skin can run a successful candidacy not predicated upon "race," not "race" baiting, not settling for the conventional wisdom that insists upon race-based coalitions, then the rules for old-styled politics are over.

Perhaps there will be a Willie Horton pulled out of someone's political tool box. But for tonight, everything is potentially different.

Never thought I'd see the day.

While washing up the dishes with my wife the other night, conversation turned again to the U.S. presidential election and the whole Obama-Wright thing. As we discussed Wright's "performance," another lesson learned long ago and taught by many long before me came back to mind: be careful how you build a church. Humanly speaking, whatever you do to build the church is what you'll have to do to keep the church.

In the kindness of God, I've been traveling a little bit over the past 3-4 days. So, I've missed a lot of the brewing scandal regarding Rev. Jeremiah Wright's recent comments during the Bill Moyers interview, at the Detroit NAACP meeting, and at the National Press Club. Seems the couple months of silence was spent resting his vocal chords, drinking lots of water, and preparing for a torrent of very public and altogether useless comments.

This is probably the best review and interaction with Obama's speech on race that I've read from someone opposing Obama's basic political philosophy and outlook. It's "fair and balanced" in a way that most reviews are not. (HT: JT)

In the interest of a more complete exchange between (a) brethren in Christ from every ethnic background and (b) fostering more careful sermon listening, I thought I'd link to the entire sermon that landed Jeremiah Wright in so much trouble, the "God damn America" sermon. The sermon is actually called "Confusing God and Government." To find the sermon, scroll down to the bottom of the post and you should find a media player with the full audio of the sermon. Also, you'll see extended excerpts from the sermon posted by CNN contributor Roland Martin.I'd be interested in your thoughts about the sermon, not just the reactions already circulating around the media, but your technical critiques as a preacher or a consumer of preaching. All are welcome.











And the MEC ("the most edifying critique") Award will go to the best five answers received on or before Friday, March 28th. If the winners are interested, I'll send them a copy of either The Faithful Preacher or The Decline of African American Theology.

The airwaves have been jammed with all the comments and punditry surrounding Barack Obama, Jeremiah Wright, and Obama’s recent speech on race in America. It’s a fascinating time to be an American or to be interested in American politics.

But amid the din of so many voices and digital transmissions, something profound is about to happen… or not happen.

What did we see on Tuesday morning when Obama gave his speech? What did we hear? No, I mean in ourselves. What did we see and hear in ourselves?
Did we feel anything? Was it disgust, trust, anger, or pride? Were we overcome with hope or doubt? Were we led by our sinful natures or by the Spirit of God if we’re Christians?

Galatians 5 tells us the difference between the Spirit’s response and the sinful nature’s response. “The acts of the sinful nature are obvious… hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy….” On the other hand, “The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.”

What did you see when Obama spoke? What have you seen in yourself since the speech?

Think carefully. Has your sinful nature or the Spirit been in control of your passions and desires, your acts and reactions?

On Tuesday March 18th, in my opinion, the most eloquent public address on race or race-related issues since the Gettysburg Address was offered the American people. (What do you see in yourself reading that statement? Is it the Spirit or the flesh?)

A moment never-before-seen in American history happened before our eyes and listening ears. An American stood poised with the attention of the entire nation and for 37 minutes discussed the complexities involved in ethnic identity and the subterranean lava pits of anger and resentment that threaten to explode every time “race” is the topic. From the country’s history with slavery to the candidates own grandmother, this thing called “race” was opened up before us that we might see ourselves and forever be different.

I’m not a romantic. I just recognize a good opportunity when I see one. I’m the kind of man that shops for a suit or a pair of shoes for 6 months to a year, even though I saw the suit or shoes I wanted the first Saturday I went to the stores. Most of my friends think I’m sober, if not downright intense at times. I’m not generally gullible. I have other faults—serious ones—but that’s not one of them.

When I watched Obama’s speech and reflected on what he said, I saw an opportunity of great importance. For the first time in the country’s history we have an opportunity to have a national public reflection and discussion of who we are without being needlessly bogged down with the old paradigms and stereotypes regarding “race.” It’s not the first time a national discussion was offered. You may remember that the Clinton administration had a presidential commission race chaired by John Hope Franklin, the respected African American historian. Or, maybe you don’t remember that commission. If you don’t, that’s likely because nothing substantially different occupied the thinking of that group. It was the same old framework, with the same old laments, leading to the same old outcome—nothing.

For most of our lives, most all of us have lived with the assumption that “race” is real… and inescapable. We have lived with the assumed corollary that the meaning and prescribed limits of “race” were intractable. On Tuesday morning, a young man significantly post-Civil Rights in time and attitude, and self-consciously post “race,” stood before flashing lights, television cameras, and a row of American flags and announced that a new day of racial understanding is possibly upon us. The fact that he could even say such a thing—defying all the orthodoxy of race—black and white—was itself tangible evidence that the country could possibly be in a new place. Possibly.

“In the most important matters a man has always been free to ruin himself if he chose” (G. K. Chesterton, What's Wrong with the World, p. 118).

Chesterton may be prophetic. Again. For sure enough, in many op-eds and tv shows we’ve had the full display of man’s stellar propensity at ruining himself. Professed Christians often have been the most ruinous and the least optimistic. How is that possible given Who we love?

There has come from some quarters a quick and relentless effort following the Wright videos to say, “Aha! We knew it! The old racial paradigm does still hold!” I’m fascinated—and saddened—at the constant effort to make Barack Obama “an angry black man.” If Obama won’t give us the evidence we need, we’ll argue that his pastor is a good enough proxy, and his pastor’s association with men like Farrakhan will do just the same. Never mind that Obama himself has until Tuesday been the one man in America to participate in this election steadfastly determined not to inject “race” into the discussion.

“It’s a contradiction!” we’re told. Of course it is. When has “race” been anything but a contradiction, a confused and confusing mess? Are we really more clear-eyed than Barack Obama? Are we really so astute at playing the “race” game that we can judge Obama quickly and summarily for his contradictions? Do we really have so much integrity that we can be the first one to cast a stone at this man? I have enough of my own contradictions to work through without pretending his are more egregious. They are now more public, but I fear that for most of us they are not any more problematic and deep-seated than our own fears, questions, doubts, anger, and pride regarding “race.”

Here’s why it’s all contradictory. And here’s why Obama’s speech was one idea short of perfect. “Race” does not exist. We’re engaged in a collective delusion. We are like men in the woods of Alabama sitting in a tree waiting to shoot the next unicorn that comes along (no offense to Alabamians). We’re certifiable. The only thing that keeps us out of the institution is that we’ve agreed, contrary to God’s word (Acts 17:26), that we like this strong delusion called “race.” We think it’s useful. And we may be on the verge of agreeing that we’d rather sleep with the devil we know (“race” and all its entailments) than hazard a new world where this most basic assumption about ourselves is brought into the light, questioned, re-examined, and re-defined.

Since posting some reflections on the Barack Obama campaign (here) a few people have contacted me with concern that whatever influence this blog has has been put in service to a pro-choice, pro-abortion candidate. These have been good brothers; men I hold dear who've taken the risk of faith to speak to what they see as an inadequacy in my post and perhaps my thinking. Others have left shown similar kindness in the comment section of the blog. I'm thankful for every one of the comments, emails, and the 1 or 2 phone calls.

Since there was never an endorsement, I suppose this is not a "retraction." But throughout the discussion there has been the feeling that Barack Obama is to Thabiti Anyabwile... as Louis Farrakhan is to Barack Obama. I've felt that some have assumed a kind of guilt by association, and the need for some distancing. That's been curious to me in some ways. I don't know that I understand it, but at the least I should try to respond with some additional clarification.

So, let me try to say some things fairly clearly so there's no misinterpretation and try to offer one suggestion to my white evangelical brothers.

Clarifications:
1. As stated in the original post, the post was not an endorsement of Barack Obama or any particular policy position Obama takes or has taken. Some have essentially said that because I reflect positively or wishfully on what the candidacy means for things like opportunities for all and ethnic self-understanding, I must be endorsing Obama. That amounts to a complete disregard of what I actually write in the post, and, to that extent, is not good dialogue. To be clear, I am not endorsing Barack Obama.

2. I am pro-life. Not because it's the litmus test for the "evangelical" or "conservative" agenda, but because it's the agenda of the Sovereign God who created us, gives life and eternal life, conquers death, and seeks a godly offspring to fill the earth with His glory (Mal. 2:15). To my knowledge, I've never voted pro-choice and I don't have any plans to. Whatever is written in the post is in no way to be mistaken for softness or indifference to Sen. Obama's position on the matter.

A Suggestion:
Well, those are my two clarifications. Now a suggestion that I hope helps dialogue between black and white brothers on the issue of abortion.

A lot of the comments I received, and quite a few of the comments I see on other blogs, tries to approach abortion with African Americans by likening it to slavery. The argument goes: (1) slavery was a heinous sin perpetrated against African Americans; (2) abortion is a heinous sin that claims the lives of black babies; therefore, (3) African Americans should oppose abortion the way they would oppose slavery.

On behalf of some black folks (certainly not all), let me say that that arguments hits many of our ears as a bit heavy handed and self-serving.

It rings heavy handed because it says (or, many of us hear it as): "You black folks should care about this. You need to side up with us. We know what's in your best interest." Now, I know many of the folks who make this argument. And I'm quite confident that's not their heart or intent. But, brothers, I fear you're losing many potential allies because that's the way it sounds.

And it rings self-serving because many African Americans will instinctively respond with: (a) yeah, and where were white evangelicals on the slavery question. Please don't lecture me about the horrors of slavery as though you know something about its effects. And, (b) isn't abortion white folks' problem.

Now, certainly 'b' is false. Abortion is all of our problems. But, please know your audience. Many African-Americans view this as largely a white middle-class issue. So, calling upon slavery in an effort to enlist African Americans seems really self-serving. And evoking slavery while assuming some moral authority just flat sounds condescending and hypocritical to many black ears who assume that white brothers showed no interest in the real lives of slaves when those chips were down a couple hundred years ago. And when coming from many brothers who would act as if--maybe even argue that--racism and discrimination were no problem today, the argument is almost unbearable.

This email is friendly fire, brothers. Let's pray, work, vote, lobby and act to end abortion today. Let's do it in a big tent with everyone who will labor with us. But just a suggestion: please leave the argument from slavery at home, know your audience, and let's work on some better strategies for winning those to our cause who may be willing to enroll.

Grace and peace.

I've been as fascinated with this current U.S. presidential election as just about anyone else. And this is surprising to me. Though I spent a few years living and working on policy in D.C., I don't regard myself as a political hound in any way. And yet, I've been glued to CNN and other news outlets catching the most information I can about this election and the candidates. To put it bluntly, in my opinion, this is the most important presidential election of my lifetime. I feel it. And it's important for a whole slate of reasons that are different than the typical reasons that get touted as important or critical. Those typical reasons are still at play, and they are still important.

But what is palpable for the first time in my generation (or at least in my memory of presidential elections) are the possibilities and promises that are altogether new.

The dynamic that most fascinates me involves the sea change and signal effects of the country potentially electing its first woman or African-American president. I flat-out disagree with Shelby Steele who says that the Obama candidacy is exclusively about race. Obama has not run a campaign about "race." The only time "race" has been injected in this campaign was the wicked and failed attempt of the Clinton camp to pigeon-hole Obama as a "black candidate." I love that her campaign essentially imploded with that blunder in S.C. For its part, CNN has repeatedly tried to divide the electorate into ethnic enclaves and ask who "owns" which group. The discussions about "race" have all been abominable, and the Democratic primary campaign itself has defied all the conventional wisdom. Men and women are as likely to vote for either Obama or Clinton, they're open-minded to the extent that Obama is winning majorities in demographics the pundits say he should lose. White men vote for Obama. And guess what? Hispanics are not a monolith either. And many of the Congressional Black Caucus elites have publicly and confidently been in favor of the Clinton campaign all along.

This presidential election is not about "race" in the sense that anyone is running publicly on some racial platform or identifying themselves exclusively with the causes of this or that racial group. And yet, this campaign, particularly if Obama is elected, will do more to (a) advance the cause of equality and opportunity (at least in its signal effects) than anything I can think of; and (b) do more to upset all of our racial categories and stratagems than anything else.

Advancing Equality. If Obama is elected, what my mama told me for years over the kitchen table in an effort to motivate my school performance and expand my sense of the possible, "You can even be president of the U.S. if you want to be," will have been realized vicariously in Obama's successful bid.

And can I be honest? This is probably the only thing my mama ever told me that neither she or I believed. I got her point; strive and achieve and let no one hold you back. But perhaps the insertion of that four-letter word--"even"--betrayed an exaggeration she and I both recognized but never admitted out loud. I never daydreamed about the oval office the way I daydreamed about hitting that last second fade-away jumper to win the NBA finals... or even the way I daydreamed about being a college professor. The presidency was more than daydreaming; it was mythic. And now, in my lifetime, there stands a man who happens to be 'black' by social definition making not only a credible run but a compelling run for the presidency. Perhaps you didn't know that black parents for decades have tried to motivate their children with the promise that they can be president of the U.S. if they set their minds to it. And perhaps you didn't know that black children and parents for decades have entirely doubted the possibility of that ever really happening. So, perhaps you haven't recognized the depths of the signal effects of a possible President Barack Obama. I do. And though I think she probably mis-spoke, I know what Michelle Obama means when she said, "For the first time I am proud of my country." Certainly there are lots of other ways that I (and I would assume she) am proud of my country, but for a lot of Americans there is nothing quite like this candidacy to stir genuine and deep pride.

Upsetting the Phalanx of "Race". Not only am I proud of my country, and proud in this moment, but I am proud of how Obama has conducted himself and how the country has responded. Here's what I think is happening in part: very fundamental assumptions about identity and allegiance are being realigned. Personally, if this is an accurate assessment, the re-alignment of racial attitudes and interaction would be an important enough issue to cast a vote for Obama.

The old, conventional wisdom demanded that a candidate declare his racial loyalty from the outset. Willie Horton could be trotted out to coalesce white voters based on anti-black fear. An African-American candidate had to prove that he was "down" in all the ways black hegemony required. Not surprisingly, the day Obama announced his candidacy, he was criticized by the likes of Tavis Smiley, Cornel West, Al Sharpton and a host of others participating in Smiley's "State of Black America" conference. Why? Obama had broken racial political ranks from the onset. He had not bowed the knee to baals of black public and political opinion. So, his "blackness" was summarily called into question.

And nothing could have been more beneficial to Barack Obama's campaign and to the soul of the American electorate than that he should from the outset be racially ambiguous. After all, his mother is white and his father African. Even in his genesis he calls into question the "one drop rule" and its social artifacts. And he invites an honest ownership of all Americans--white, brown, yellow and black. Just looking at him places an explosive charge at the base of the racial phalanx in America. Steele has called Obama "A Bound Man." IMHO, Obama may be the only free man in America. And his candidacy is setting millions of others free.

And he's had the nerve of channeling not only MLK, but also John Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln, and of comparing his strategy to build a large majority with Ronald Reagan [depending on your political orientation, you can hold your breath or your nose here at this comparison]. He has frankly dismissed all the conventions except one, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights...." Leaving aside his policies for a moment (and it will be important to pick them back up for scrutiny), Barack Obama has conducted himself as though he believes that equality as human beings is real and that being judged by the character's content is a better litmus test than being judged by racial categories and allegiances.

What's happening as whites, Hispanics, Asians, and African Americans pull the lever for Barack Obama? Many things. Some people just want to vote against President Bush or whomever is the likely Republican candidate. But honestly, those folks will do that just as easily with Hillary Clinton. Some will be voting for a policy position; but again, they would be making the same vote whichever Democratic nominee is on the ballot.

What I think we're seeing in large measure with Barack Obama is the American way of deposing dictators and fighting revolutions. Only the dictator is the small-minded racial and political genie that has for so long lived bottled up in the American mind. Well, the genie may be out of the bottle and I know what three wishes I'll make: (1) the redefinition of personal identity which puts "race" or ethnicity in its proper perspective and place; (2) the advancement of opportunity at the highest level for all; and (3) the advancement of the gospel which finally and eternally remakes man and promotes him to the highest glories in Christ.

These are reflections, not necessarily an endorsement. As I said earlier, voters need to scrutinize the man's proposed policy directions. But these are excited reflections; we live in an exciting time. Obama excites people and he excites a sense of the possible with people. Now, having been excited, let's not leave it to Obama to fulfill our hopes. Let's live out of our better selves, which for Christians is to live in Christ. But not even sinners are as bad as they could be. And something about the Obama campaign reminds them of what is good and hopeful in people who are made in the image of God.

Last night, my wife and I stayed up well past our bedtimes watching television. We were gripped with three programs--all at once, since I'm a guy and control the remote.

Dear reader, please let me offer two apologies from the start. First, this is a long post. I don’t know if it’s worth your read, but I at least want to tip you to the length. Second, it’s a post that discusses (on some level) politics, a subject I largely dislike and try to avoid at PureChurch. There are other places that do politics, and do it better. So, you’ve been forewarned :-).

Andrew Sullivan in the December issue of The Atlantic offers his take on Sen. Barrack Obama’s presidency bid and its meaning for America. He styles Sen. Obama as the “potentially transformational” candidate, who unlike any of the other candidates “could take America—finally—past the debilitating, self-perpetuating family quarrel of the Baby Boom generation that has long engulfed all of us.”

For Sullivan: