Pure Church

After some pressure from various groups, Warren has issued a video and print statement opposing the Ugandan bill that would legislate a death penalty for homosexuals in the country.



Warren gives five reasons for his opposition:

First, the potential law is unjust, extreme and un-Christian toward homosexuals, requiring the death penalty in some cases. If I am reading the proposed bill correctly, this law would also imprison anyone convicted of homosexual practice.

Second, the law would force pastors to report their pastoral conversations with homosexuals to authorities.

Third, it would have a chilling effect on your ministry to the hurting. As you know, in Africa, it is the churches that are bearing the primary burden of providing care for people infected with HIV/AIDS. If this bill passed, homosexuals who are HIV positive will be reluctant to seek or receive care, comfort and compassion from our churches out of fear of being reported. You and I know that the churches of Uganda are the truly caring communities where people receive hope and help, not condemnation.

Fourth, ALL life, no matter how humble or broken, whether unborn or dying, is precious to God. My wife, Kay, and I have devoted our lives and our ministry to saving the lives of people, including homosexuals, who are HIV positive. It would be inconsistent to save some lives and wish death on others. We’re not just pro-life. We are whole life.

Finally, the freedom to make moral choices and our right to free expression are gifts endowed by God. Uganda is a democratic country with remarkable and wise people, and in a democracy everyone has a right to speak up. For these reasons, I urge you, the pastors of Uganda, to speak out against the proposed law.

Our brother catches a lot of flack for a lot of things... but hanging an anti-homosexuality bill in Uganda of all places around his neck? Well, that's going a bit far it seems to me.

This guy doesn't think Warren is strong enough and goes too far with self promotion.

Here's Rachel Maddow's spin. You really don't want to be featured on her show.



But what do you think?

From The National Post:

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal that sets anti-discrimination principles against religious freedom.

The case is part of a continuing battle by a student group, the Christian Legal Society (CLS), to defend its rights of religious liberty and freedom of association.

However, the University of California's Hastings College of the Law refuses to recognize the CLS because of what it calls the group's discriminatory membership requirements.

The CLS says all students are welcome to participate in its activities, but leadership and voting members must sign a Statement of Faith affirming they adhere to traditional Christian beliefs.

This will no doubt have implications for evangelical college groups operating on campus. Already there have been prominent conflicts between evangelical groups at a major Catholic University (here and here).

But it might be a good thing. Seems the Christian faith flourishes most when it does not have the sanction of governmental bodies.

So if you were on the bench of the U.S. Supreme Court, which principle do you think should prevail?

Yesterday, the Lord granted me the privilege of observing seismic historical changes in the Cayman Islands. The country celebrated the adoption of its new constitution, replete with new authority, new political positions, and some continuity with previous ties to England. The constitution modernization process also included a Bill of Rights, identifying 19 basic human rights for people in the Cayman Islands.

Al Mohler reflects on President-elect Obama's decision to have Episcopal Bishop Eugene Robertson lead the prayer at the Lincoln Memorial part of the inauguration festivities. The concluding paragraphs:

"The crisis in the Church of England," wrote Clive James in The Dreaming Swimmer, "is that too many of its bishops, and some would say of its archbishops, don't quite realize that they are atheists, but have begun to suspect it."

The "God of our many understandings" is a confused composite -- a very postmodern idol. Clive James is quite right about the theological crisis of unbelieving bishops - but you need go no farther than New Hampshire to find an example.

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

Like a lot of people, I was struck by a comment that bro. John Piper made during a video interview commenting on the then-upcoming election. He listed abortion as one of the complicating factors for him during the election, an issue we all know he cares passionately about and is defining in his voting choices.

But what struck me was the comment in response to the oft heard concern that if we don't end abortion in the U.S. then God will judge the country. Piper replied, "abortion is the judgment of God against the country."

Now, that changes everything, doesn't it?

Romans 1:18 reads, "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and the wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness...." In verses 24, 26, and 28, Paul states that "God gave them over" to the sinful desires of their hearts, to shameful lusts, and "to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done." This wrath is being revealed against all godlessness and wickedness, and this wrath being revealed is the continuation in the wickedness and sin that suppresses the truth; it is God giving the unregenerate and unrepentant over to the very sins in which they delight (v. 32).

If the continuation of abortion in the U.S. and other places is God's righteous wrath being revealed from heaven, the question for me isn't which president or which judges are appointed. Not in the first place. Those things matter. But if I take seriously the truth that God's wrath is being revealed in the practice of abortion itself, the question becomes, "How do we turn back God's wrath?"

Presidential elections and the appointment of judges don't do that. Don't get me wrong. Those are necessary and important strategies in the fight. But they are secondary at best if what needs to be satisfied is the wrath of God.

If we take seriously the idea that God's wrath is being revealed in the continuance of abortion itself (and one might add, as Paul does: idolatry, homosexuality, envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice, people who are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant, and boastful, disobedient to parents, the senseless, faithless, heartless, and ruthless), our primary strategy and activity and hopes must be expressed in a faithful ministry of intercession and gospel proclamation.

It seems to me that every time the nation Israel went off the rails, the holy men of old did two things: They prayed and they preached. They prayed and they preached.

Consider how often Moses interceded on behalf of the people when their sin rose up before the Lord (for example, Num. 11:1-2; 12; 14; 16; 21:4-9). Moses deserves to be known as "Moses the Intercessor," and we should make diligent study of his life of intercessory prayer. Or consider Ezra's prayer for the people because of their sinful intermarriage with pagan nations leading to unfaithfulness (Ezra 9). When the people faced God's hot displeasure and wrath, the godly gave themselves to intercession in recognition of the fact that only God can relent of His wrath, and only His satisfaction makes such relenting possible.

Which brings us to preaching. Of all the things we must do, preaching the gospel and sharing the gospel and writing about the gospel and praying the gospel on behalf of those perishing in God's wrath must be primary. The gospel is that message of how God himself satisfies His righteous demands and wrath by the atoning sacrifice of His Son for the sins of men. Christ Jesus propitiates the Father. He satisfies the Father's wrath. And the Father raised Christ from the dead as proof that His satisfaction was met and sacrifice accepted. Now those in Christ Jesus by repentance and faith "wait for His Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead--Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath" (1 Thes. 1:10).

Indeed, "Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation"(Rom. 5:9-11).

Never again ought a Christian act as though the appointment of a human official will stay the wrath and judgment of God. Never again ought we to act as though another mediator may turn away the Father's righteous anger toward sin. I don't say that we should abandon the work of appointing officials who will protect life. But have we not in some measure been acting as though some appointments could delay or stay God's wrath against ungodliness and wickedness?

I think we have. And, forgive me for presuming, but I think we need to repent.

And we need to begin the work of broken-hearted intercession and the proclamation of the Lord Jesus Christ who on Calvary's cross bore the wrath of God for all who will turn to Him in faith, fleeing the coming destruction and running to Christ our Refuge and Strength and Strong Tower and Ark of safety. We haven't nearly begun the Church-wide work of prayer and preaching that is needed to see the worldwide repentance and faith necessary to stay the coming and present wrath of God "against all the godlessness and the wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness."

I've read in a couple places Christians vowing to oppose Obama during his entire presidency. Forgive me, but I think that's misplaced energy. We need the bulk of our energy invested in beseeching the Lord of Glory to relent of His destruction upon the nation and to extend the work of His Spirit in the conversion of wicked men, including all those up to the president who have a hand in supporting this slaughter.

Our work is primarily prayer and preaching, intercession and gospel proclamation. Those alone will turn back the wrath of God. Let's get started.

Eric Redmond's thoughts here.

"It's the economy, stupid."

That sentence--despite the rather impolite use of the final word--won a presidential election a few years back. And it's resurfaced from time to time in this election as well.

In fact, the last few elections have seemingly focused on this issue. Politicians spin out their tax proposals, health insurance plans, and bicker about who best serves the ever-present "middle class."

But for all their talk about the economy, do you ever really feel as if they are talking about you?

I don't. And if there was ever any doubts, the "bailout" plan should dispel them. Count the last several financial and corporation catastrophes. How many of them featured a bailout for the consumer or the citizen? There's this year's plan. Score one for the banks and executives. There's the Enron fiasco and the tech bubble that burst. Going back a little ways there is S&L, and so on. It seems the dominant economic philosophy isn't quite Republican or Democrat; as a brother at the church put it to me yesterday: it's "privatized profits and socialized debt." Which is another way of saying "the American people" (another oft-heard phrase too general to communicate) who end up holding the bag for economic greed and scandal.

This year Sen. Obama actually offered something of a definition of "rich". Turns out that if you make over $250,000 per year, you're probably rich. No one has yet offered a satisfactory definition of "poor." Kinda gives us a clue as to who is really protected and cared for in the economy. There is a preferential option for the rich, whether that's defined vaguely as "middle class" or "earners above $250,000."

As far as I can tell, fewer and fewer institutions and political types give any attention to the poor among us. And by "institutions," I'm including churches.

Among conservative types, here's how I've heard the conversation (which, admittedly, is my hearing as much as other's speaking):

"It's not government's job to fix poverty. Government programs don't work. Government needs to be out of that business."

"It's not the church's job to fix poverty. We are to care for the poor members of the church, but we're not responsible for all the ills of society. We must keep the focus on the gospel, the main mission of the church."

Here's what's true about those statements. Many government programs don't "work," if by work you mean solve the problems forever. And, without question, we must insist on the church keeping mercenary focus on the proclamation of the gospel. That's her mission, and no other group exists for that purpose in God's economy.

Having said that, though, don't these two positions in effect mean that no one cares for the poor, no one has responsibility to address them and their needs?

Another institution we could include would be the family. The family has responsibility, certainly. But chances are if you're a poor individual you're living in a poor family. So, asserting that families are responsible is tantamount to blaming the victim.

But that's really the source of the disagreement, isn't it? Can we call the poor "victims"? Are they sufferers of any injustice? Do they deserve the care and protection of government or the church?

The other way of putting it is: Is poverty a social or theological evil that should be combated? Is it an evil effect of the Fall to be resisted or a social commonplace to be accepted? It seems to me failure to address this question is what keeps us bickering about this or that tax policy or this or that program's effectiveness. We keep having the pragmatic discussion while it seems there is no stated theological consensus about the nature of the problem. The pragmatic conversation is second-order, down stream.

We won't make progress until the first conversation is held more widely, at least among God's people. Until then too many missional types will sound the trumpet in the cause of serving the poor while maintaining a loose grip on the truths that save. And too many folks with a firm grip on gospel truth will turn blinded eye to the poverty and need right on their doorsteps. I count myself in the latter group.

People become poor for a lot of reasons. We tend to think some of those reasons are "understandable" and others "blameworthy." There's a working theory in most people's minds about poverty. Oversimplified it states: "Help those who can help themselves. Help those who are the 'deserving poor.' If it's their fault, let them endure the consequences. If it's not their fault, extend a helping hand."

There's a certain logic to this. But there is a problem: Are we really that skilled at determining who the 'deserving poor' are or who is or isn't at fault? And if poverty is an evil to be resisted and with God's help overcome, then there is blood on our hands if we remain silent or inactive. Or in more biblical imagery, the blood of people made in God's image cries out from the ground against us.

Personally, I'm tired of political promises to serve "the middle class." I don't know why they should be catered to or treated as if their interests are more significant than others. Just like you, I've heard all the rhetoric about "a strong middle class" being the engine of growth, etc. But one gets the sense that all of this talk is simply polite speak for worldliness and selfishness and comfort-seeking and big-house-buying, SUV-driving, flat-screen-TV-watching gratification of the flesh. Bound up in that phrase, "the middle class," is a certain view of the "good life" that exalts worldly and passing comforts over the truly good life of faith in Christ, advancement of the gospel, sacrifice for the kingdom, and serving those in need. And you get the sense that many Christians have bitten and swallowed that bait and are hooked by the world's lure.

I wonder to what extent our "political philosophy" regarding poverty, work and wealth is simply a mask for our worldliness? And to what extent is our pragmatic and philosophical approaches to caring (if it can be called "caring") for the poor simply the veil we lay over a cold, indifferent, and unloving heart?

For a while there it seemed as though the country was destined to have its first female presidential candidate.

Hillary Clinton sat poised atop the Clinton machine, a nearly unrivaled heir to the party her husband defined for nearly a decade. She was the quintessential party insider—all the right connections, big money donors, and despite “high negatives” among some, a legion of women voters eager to pull the lever for one of their own.

She was woman… but as the world waited to hear her roar… Iowa happened. The queen’s crown lost a bit of luster. She was vulnerable. Was it okay to be vulnerable as the first front-running woman presidential candidate? Can you cry in politics?

According to New Hampshire voters, yes. Hillary shed tears, disarming some and befuddling others. In rhetoric minted at the nearest feminist mill she proclaimed, “I found my voice.”

As a literary theme, “voice” ranks among the top in literature by or about women. As a social and political theme it’s no less salient. In claiming to find her voice, Clinton effectively claimed to speak for masses of women disenfranchised, muted by a male-dominated club of power brokers and world leaders.

But just how feminine a voice was Sen. Clinton’s? Listening to stump speeches and interviews it was hard to differentiate hers from the typical testosterone-pumped vocal disturbances of your average male presidential wannabe. She was hawkish on war, sharp and cutting against her opponents. A person could be forgiven for thinking that Mrs. Clinton wasn’t so much the first woman presidential candidate as a woman “trying to play with the big boys.” Perhaps that’s why the story lines were dominated by other historical firsts associated with the primary. It was nearly the end of the primary season before Clinton herself made any consistent noise about the historical nature of her bid as a woman candidate.

That was the trick-bag. How do you celebrate something uniquely feminine or womanly (if that’s a word) when a significant part of your life and philosophy is dedicated to eliminating the distinction between male and female, manhood and womanhood? When the premise is “I can do anything a man can do,” you sorta have to act like a man when you actually do it; otherwise, your philosophy is seen for the farce it actually is.

Sen. Clinton’s historical bid failed her 18 million supporters in one unmistakable way: it failed to call the question on what womanhood and femininity should entail. It failed to advance a compelling vision for what it means to be woman. In assuming that the pinnacle of female achievement is a kind of male parody, her candidacy and its underlying philosophy essentially nullified the glory of femininity and womanhood.

So, Sen. Clinton reluctantly passed the baton to Sens. Obama and Biden and made her exit stage left. Despite the rantings of a few hangers on, any conversation about women and the role of women appeared to vanish with the implosion of the Clinton campaign.

But right about then, the Republicans introduced the world to Gov. Sarah Palin. And it really was an introduction for this rather unknown governor. She proudly proclaimed that the 18 million cracks placed in the glass ceiling by Clinton supporters was only the beginning. She would finish the job as McCain's aid. Some in the Republican camp started calling her nomination a "game changer." But which game? The game of politics or our fundamental view and appreciation of women?

The media scurried to find out who this moose hunting, soccer mom, state executive was. Soon the rumor mill started churning: a pregnant teenage daughter. “Scandal” erupted when the public learned that Gov. Palin dared give birth to a child with developmental disabilities. If Obama was pro-abortion to the extreme, some were making Palin pro-life to the extreme.

But here was the supposed anti-Clinton. A small town girl—actually a beauty queen—turned politician. A political conservative reportedly happy in her role as mother as well.

Most of the world gave Clinton an unquestioned pass. No one raised questions about womanhood, motherhood, and the highest office in the land. Theological conservatives—died in the wool complementarians in particular—didn’t raise a word of protest or lodge a single question about the role of women when Clinton was in the spotlight. But with Palin, perhaps because of her claim to conservative Christian pedigree, something of a rumble rippled through corners of the Evangelical world.

But the conversation, as far as I could tell, didn’t really take off among Bible-believing Christians. On the complementarian side of the aisle, CBMW offered a four-part (one, two, three, four) look at the issue of womanhood and gender roles. Also, my man Lance offered some thoughts as well. But the highest profile comments came from Voddie Baucham during a CNN segment defending a complementarian view of women's roles.



Baucham also added some thoughts on his blog. Over at iMonk, some egalitarians began discussing the issue. What roles does the Bible advance for women?

We almost had a conversation. But then we didn’t. At least not quite nationally.

I’ve never seen an election like this one. We could do race, age, gender and a host of other really meaningful and interesting conversations. Yet, we’re content with the same old nonsense—childish name-calling and mud throwing.

The past two weeks have been a rather sobering time for many people in Grand Cayman. A brutal murder of a promising young woman has many in the country asking questions about safety for women and the role of women in society. The woman was a women’s advocate, a counselor helping women escape battering and abuse. Her murder has helped blow the lid off a silent epidemic.

This election could have helped to blow the lid off the very same kinds of issues in the U.S. Alongside the positive advancement of a biblical vision for womanhood, there could also have been strong repudiation of any attitudes, comments, and actions that denigrate women. We need to champion our sisters on both fronts--positive encouragements to godly femininity and big-chested defense of their dignity and worth.

Christians could have advanced a public apologetic for the high calling of wives and mothers. And inside the Christian fold, there could have been a robust discussion about gender distinctions and roles in the family and church, about the abuses and misuses of pseudo-complementarian ideas, and about the wide opportunities for women to be genuinely submitted to male leadership in the home and church and still significantly engaged in the work of the kingdom (see Duncan and Hunt, Women’s Ministry in the Local Church). Where was the Christian conversation about marriage as a form of protection for women, about accountability for husbands who fail to lead and nourish, about discipline for abandonment and abuse, about discipling young girls and women, young boys and men for the callings of singleness, marriage, and parenthood?

And where was the concern for domestic violence? Equal opportunity and pay for women? Child support enforcement as an aide to abandoned women?

Our girls and boys, men and women, and our churches need help on this issue—desperate help. The misinformation is plentiful. And the loudest “positive” voices—those like Clinton and to a lesser extent Palin—happen to suggest a certain feminist orientation.

The single best predictor for well-being of children and adults is stable, healthy marriage. Pick your indicator and the social science data is clear—build a strong marriage and educational, income, asset ownership go up and teen pregnancy, delinquency, stress and a host of other negatives go down.

The prospect of a woman president or vice-president could have put these things on the public radar in a new and fresh way. But we’ve missed the opportunity. Clinton is a non-factor; Palin is all but ridiculed by the left and an embarrassment to many on the right. And we all lose—at least for a time.

I’m really quite hopeful that something like the True Woman conference will bear lasting fruit. The True Woman Manifesto advances some much needed food for thought and use among those who want to see growth and fruit in this area.

True to form, many of the respondents to these posts will immediately launch into either their support or disavowal of the candidate in question. There will be right and loud concern about abortion; and the point of the post will be missed. There will be right and loud concern about the economy or the war; and the point of the post will be missed.

Let me put it this way: I think advancement on the abortion front and on the war front and on the economic front and every other front depends on Americans embracing a biblical view of humanity and human life.

Now before you say, "Right!" let me hasten to add that we can think of that statement in a purely tactical way (elect more pro-this or pro-that politicians), and/or we can think about that premise in its relation to the deep structure of culture, the strata of thinking and being from which tactical decisions sprout. We'll certainly do the tactical; but doing the tactical doesn't accomplish the latter. The latter requires we think differently about the nature of life in the abstract and about the nature of our lives and identities in particular. Such a re-thinking holds promise for all the tactical concerns--not only abortion but also for social justice writ large, just war theory in a paramilitary and terrorist era, and economic security. Who we are--or who we think we are--determines our position on all of these issues. If we achieve tactical victories without winning this deeper ground, our tactical victories will always be tentative. They will be victories, but they will always be threatened because of the more fundamental problem of unregenerate humanity and the unexamined self.

We'll miss this opportunity if we don't reflect more widely and deeply on the potentially seismic shifts before us. And the point of these posts (be it a weak or strong point; I'm not sure) is that these shifts are worth thinking about beyond the tactical.

The candidacy of John McCain presents one such opportunity for re-evaluation. Almost from the time he announced his primary bid, and certainly by the time he was emerging as the frontrunner, questions about his age abounded. Is he too old? Can he withstand the demands of the campaign trail and the office? What if he dies in office?

But these questions beg other questions. What do we really think about the potential and place of octogenarians (or almost octogenarians in McCain's case)? As a society, do we think older persons have any significant role to play? Or, do we imagine that age (at least past a certain artificial point, say 65) is a debilitating condition that gives more trouble than help? Have we forgotten that it really requires strength to make it to and to live in old age?


I think the McCain candidacy has potential for sparking conversation about these matters. And if I were an elder in the country, I'd be particularly interested to make sure that conversation was held, that seniors were seen as more than a tribal voting block necessary to please because of their voting record. Isn't there a loftier vision for elders? Do we not imagine a life and society that gives greater prominence to and gratitude for our elders than that?

Many people disdain or romanticize "tribal" cultures and traditions. But one thing seems patently clear to me: the "developed" world does not love its elders as well as the "developing" world.

I know. That's a sweeping statement. But it's not without merit.

It used to be that elder members of the family remained in the family home until the Lord called them home. Now they're stored in "retirement communities" where sometimes they're abused and often abandoned. A vision for intergenerational family has shrunk to parents and kids, the so-called "nuclear family." And that vision has in fact become nuclear for many older persons. They're exploded right out of the family, increasingly out of the community, and often out of our affections. Are we living up to our responsibility to care for our elders? Or is it really survival of the fittest--those Nike-clad, spandex-wearing young flocking to the nearest Bally's to "do battle" with the treadmill?

We should keep in mind that while abortion is on the front-burner of this election, not very long ago we were as a culture watching in stunned silence as Dr. Death promoted "physician assisted suicide" as an acceptable alternative to growing old and dying slowly. Our tendency to play God happens at both ends of the age spectrum. It's a bi-polar culture of death.

And even in the middle, age is largely viewed as an enemy. We want to delay it, slow it down, reverse it if possible. In the culture, women are no longer beautiful or sexy after about 30-something. They're no longer "leading ladies" or the subjects of romantic affection. Men last a little longer, but probably only because we write the Hollywood scripts and imagine that even as middle-aged, bald, fat guys "the chics still dig us." But the growth of the male beauty industry is an indication that men are afraid of age as well. In subtle and signficant ways, we despise old age.

Back to the election. Here comes a man in his 70s who is running with the young boys. He's full of fire and passion. Now too many people write that off as the 'cranky granddad' syndrome. But might it not deserve a second look? Not so much at McCain, but at ourselves. How do we value our elders? What do we think about growing old? What place do our elders have in our society? Are they relics? Or are they leaders? And by leaders I don't mean "advisors," but leaders.

Democrats have given us the first African-American presidential nominee. That's historic. Republicans have offered us the oldest presidential nominee. That's no less historic. Both candidacies prompt serious questions about who we are and the meaning of life. Dare we think about these things?

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?

Celucian provides a helpful roundup of talks from Mark Noll on race, religion, and American politics.

Part 1: ``The Bible, Slavery, and the Irrepressible Conflict`
Pt 2 - The Churches, `Redemption,` and Jim Crow'
Pt 3 - `Civil Rights, the Republican Alliance, and the Endurance of Evil in the Land of the Free`

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: