Comments

Rhetorical high water mark, yes.

Substantive high water mark, no (at least, if I was a Dem I would hope not).
Many of Obama's speeches are rhetorically powerful while substantively superficial. He is a powerfully gifted speaker, no doubt about it. But here's another part of his speech that might escape attention: (speaking of Rev. Wright) "I could no more disown him than I could disown black America." If I was a black American, I would be offended by that comment. I strongly feel that Wright does not speak for blacks in America or that is views are so inextricably linked with theirs.

Obama was raised by a white mother and white grandparents - he can’t be racist, any more than any other white person could.
Read dreams from my father - written more than 13 years ago - he is not making these statments now just because it is politically expedient.
Obama has had to come to terms with his own complicated racial identity and TRULY and perosnally has overcome divisiveness.

He understands ( and has experienced) black anger and resentment. He understands (and has experienced) white suspicion and anger.

He has risen above it all and understands that we can either spend another 50 years fighting and growing more apart, or come together for a common purpose,

Come on you guys, dont buy the right wing spin. YOu WAKE UP! Wake up America! And vote for the only presidential candidate in the HISTORY of this great country, who can transcend racial divide, and guide our foreign policy in a way that is more compassionate and befitting the ideals of our country.

Does Scripture tell us to "be our brother's keeper"? The phrase "brother's keeper" comes up only once, in Genesis 4:9, when Cain sarcastically and/or defensively remarks that he can't be expected to know what Abel is doing because he isn't Abel's master or shepherd or wrangler or whatever it is that the word "keeper" is supposed to mean. (Abel is called a "keeper" of sheep in Genesis 4:2, but the underlying Hebrew word is different, apparently.)

Daniel,

With all due respect, I am afraid that you do not get it (to put it plainly), and it shows that you do not know the Black experience in this country.
I am Black and personally strongly disagree with Wright’s remarks, language and liberation or afro-centrist theology (which hijacks the gospel and turns it to a political tool and has it counterpart in the corruption of the gospel by the equally misguided religious right). It has no place in the pulpit or anywhere else.

But I understand t his anger and frustration, and the legitimacy of some of it while still condemning the way he expressed it.
Yes, his reaction and words does not speak for all Blacks, but some of the sentiments underneath it are shared by the overwhelming majority of Blacks in this country.
These sentiments come from the fact that this country has a history of racial injustices that are not been properly deal with and many of the wounds are still open. It is especially hard for those who leaved during times where racism was expressed more openly (i.e. the not too distant Tuskegee experiment).

Do not get me wrong, this is not a “Blame the White man” party, all sides are responsible for the current situation and Blacks too have their share of the blame for their current predicament.

There is hardly a Black person in this country that does not have a measure of anger concerning the racial injustices past and present in this country.

What is different is how different people deal with it (this is the complexity of the situation that you do not seem to understand)

Some let bitterness get to them, play the blame game, and become racist or prejudice in turn (I believe that is what happened to Wright)
Others like myself, understand that the Christian way is not to dwell in the past and simmer in sourness, but to genuinely seek to heal the wounds (some of them self inflicted) and bridge the racial divide. This starts by acknowledging that there is a racial problem and that it is unacceptable (especially for Christians). Unlike Wright, I do not focus on what the other side has done and needs to do (the blame game) but on what I can do to solve the issue. I also remain aware of the danger and equally sinful nature of reverse racism that appears to be acceptable in some Black circles

The situation is complex but the problem is real
There is a needed to differentiate between the problem and how people react to it

My concern is the attitude of acceptance or glorification of anger in this speech. "And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews....That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races."
Are we to present an angry message or one of reconciliation not wishing it away but work to eliminate it not stoke it from the pulpit?

Mr. Morgan’s article doesn’t note whether Barack Obama apologized for his own race-baiting remarks. Mr. Obama should have led the way for apologies for playing a blatant race card last week when he told supporters in Mississippi, “They’re trying to hoodwink you.” Hardly any news media reported this. Even if he had apologized, the damage was done, and he got the massive vote in Mississippi.

Besides the “hoodwink” comment made by Obama last week, I remember he has made the “Okey-Doke” comment to appeal to black audiences to stoke old hurts.

It appears Mr. Morgan’s article is using “slippery language” as well. He wants us to digress into gamesmanship, following Obama’s lead. This type of article doesn’t belong in a Christian magazine.

Why didn’t Mr. Morgan focus on the main purpose of Barack Obama’s speech? Mr. Obama has been highly fortunate that the major media didn’t take him to task earlier for Rev. Wright’s racist preaching. Otherwise, he would not have fared so well in the primaries. Those tapes were on the church’s website for years.

Mr. Morgan strikes me as someone very young and liberal who doesn’t understand the basics about Christianity and our responsibility to the Lord to find spiritual leadership that is in the will of God.

Why didn’t Mr. Morgan discuss why Barack Obama was not led by the Holy Spirit to shepherd his family away from that political social-gospel church to an African-American Bible church?

Obama stood where a lot of American should be standing. Racism is outdated and regenrative. Obama did not agree with his pastor who was a victim of racism but stood up for his pastor as his spiritual leader. I am sure that is the reason many white pastors don't engage in the conversation of racism for fear of what their congregants will say and who will stand with them. At first Obama wasn't a Christian and now that we know he is, white America wants him to denounce his pastor. If we are such a Christian nation then why are we in Iraq, why is their more poverty in this country, why is their so much hate for a man of color? All I can say is that we are the biggest hypocrites in the world. America is going to reap what it sows.

Come on Guys; (all the comments I saw were mail); this was a beautiful, and very Christian, and ADULT speech. He is expecting us to respond like thinking adults of Christian good will-- at least in this forum. Why should he reject his pastor, as well as his inflammitory statements, if he has been his Christian mentor in many other ways??
We truly do have a chance to have a civilized multiracial conversation now that his has done the heavy lifting of opening it up!
Blessings
Nora
ps: just for the record, I am a 68 year old liberal Christian feminist (Baptist), who will still probably vote for Hillary.

Perhaps the term "brother's keeper" is only mentioned once in the bible, but it clearly reflects the gospel of Jesus Christ. Cain's salient question is finally answered by Jesus when he tells his followers to love your enemies, give to those who beg from you, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit those in prison and I could go on and on (and indeed there is no end!). Our neighbor is our brother and anyone else we should happen to meet. So the answer is a resounding YES! If I am a follower of Jesus then I am my brother's keeper.

As for Barack Obama, his remark that he could no sooner disown his pastor than he could his white grandma shows his understanding of the gospel. We don't have to agree with what everyone says (and he doesn't) but we don't abandom them either. Obama has shown that he is a sensitive, intelligent and thoughtful individual and we sure could use someone like him in the White House for a change!

Does anyone ask what the relevance of this is? Why are we wasting time tlaking about obama or politicians? God calls us to personally be doing his work, not voting for a secular government to do it.
Why doesn't CT actually focus on articles that are relevant to the Christian life?

Alan,

You're right; I do not know nor can I appreciate the black experience, as you put it. Our country is not perfect and blacks bore the brunt of racial injustices (like the Tuskegee experiment, as you note). I understand that different people deal differently with their latent anger over past--and present--wrongs.

Wright may have a right to be justifiably angry about some things. He does NOT have a right to use the pulpit to spew vitriolic diatribes week in and week out. And even when indignation is called for, it should be righteous indignation. Can anyone seriously characterize Wright's attacks as righteous in nature?

Thank you for your thoughtful and balanced perspective, Alan. It is refreshing to see such intellectual and ideological honesty.

Mr Barak Obama as in many circumstances only admits wrong when confronted, as putting the hand over the heart, when saying the pledge of allegiance, as turning towards the flag when singing the national anthem, and then promising to to it next time. His and His wife's displeasure with the United States of America never surfaced until he became a candidate. Only because of the slip of the tongue. As the Scripture so clearly states, "out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks". Barak would never have expressed any disagreement with his Pastor, were it not for the fact that pastor Wright's comments were brought to the public. If it were not, would Mr. Obama address it. Would his silence about his pastor's convictction, be a demonstration of his agreement to his pastor's racist views and condemnation of America. What is it really that Mr. Barak Obama seek to achieve in trying to become the president of the United States of America. Are we in for many more (ugly) surprises from this man who would be president?

What's so outrageous about Reverend Wright? The media tells us what he said was horrible, shocking, and outrageous. Really? Here are the issues raised in the video excerpts shown on TV.

1. 911 having some connections to our nation's foreign policies.
2. United States is the only country that has used the ulitmate WMD, the atomic bomb. It resulted in the deaths of millions.
3.Not all our government's military actions have been righteous just causes (for example, Philippines, Vietnam, Nicauraqua, Guatamala, overthrowing the first democratically elected leader in Iran in 1954 and our wars & sanctions against Iraq).
4.Those who live by the sword die by the sword. Chickens do come home to roost.

The media is trying to treat americans as if they are delicate little children who can't ask hard questions and look at the truth of some of the shameful things in our nation's history. We need to take a clear sober look at the past and work for a change in the country we love.

I actually think you all are missing the much more subtle yet profound impact in the speech. I key political figure. Made statements of faith, quoted scripture, talked about beliefs and expressed the impact of those on his and the wider culture/country's life. That did not come from the "right" side.
How good and how powerful is it (yet we keep debating the gray) that we have these foundations of faith and scripture on both sides of the aisle and it is being used to bring unity and not division.

Regardless of some of the points discussed I am profoundly glad that faith was discussed (and not condemned) and that we have leaders on both sides with this legacy.

I have been a professor of US History for more than 28 years (Colonial, Civil War & Reconstruction, Constitutional History, US Social & Intellectual History) at Drexel University and Philadelphia Biblical University and I have worked closely with African-American church leaders in our city for 40 years. In my judgment, Sen. Obama’s speech Tuesday was the most significant address on race by an American political leader since Abraham Lincoln. We in the white evangelical churches would do well to listen & read it very carefully and then offer ourselves as partners in an effort to heal this deep division that has scarred our land. WE should have long ago taken the lead to remove this stain that has hindered our witness for over 100 years.

Lutheran Chick wrote:
Perhaps the term "brother's keeper" is only mentioned once in the bible, but it clearly reflects the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Well, no, not necessarily, not if you understand "keeper", as Cain apparently did, to mean the equivalent of a pet's master or a shepherd or a cattle wrangler, etc., etc. With perhaps a few exceptions -- parents looking after their children, for example -- I don't think we are supposed to look at our "brothers" or "sisters" from that kind of perspective.

At any rate, the point here is that the Bible doesn't actually state what Obama said it states.

In fact, his use of the phrase reminds me of that line in 'We Are the World' about how God or Jesus supposedly showed us something by turning stones to bread. (He didn't.) While the ultimate goals may be laudable ones, the striking thing here is that the wordsmiths want to sound kind of biblical, even if they do not use the biblical motifs the way the Bible does.

And then there is that curious reference to "Christians in the lion's den". Daniel lived several hundred years before Christ, did he not?

It seems to me that the real issue is not being discussed or addressed. Isn't the issue of what kind of a LEADER are we wanting to lead our country. Usually a person is known by the company that he keeps. So, does America want a person to lead us who keeps company with those who are filled with hatred of America, up to this point in time at least, and sit idly by for 20 years and does not even own up to the fact that he was listening or heard a thing? Much less, not attempting to lead people out of such a sad and unproductive situation or enviroment. Why wasn't he taking advantage of this situation and applyling truth faithfully and consistently in order to influence the shaping of intellectual disciplines, human institutions, his own religious institution, and other structures of society? I am afraid we are getting caught up in who wronged who, who hates who, and how to silence those who say things we don't like. I am afraid for our freedom of speech. If Mr. Wright stirs up anger or sadness by his preaching, and people only come because they want to listen to him, isn't this still a free country? The question is do we really want a leader of our nation who trains, feed ons, and supports this type of teaching or thinking?

"He (Wright) does NOT have a right to use the pulpit to spew vitriolic diatribes week in and week out."

Apparently, McCain's John Hagee and Rod Parsley have that right, on no less than three TV stations that broadcast the most shameful vitriol, slander and pseudo science a good deal of the time where I live. It's difficult not to think that conservative Evangelicals have learned very little from the civil rights movement, except to find different scapegoats than Black people. As Bayard Rustin said, I think, "Racism isn't just about black and white." And as Malcolm X said, if memory serves: "Racism is like a Cadillac, there is a new model every year."

Obamas speech had several flaws.
His grandmother made her comments privately, not from the pulpit.
Jesse Jackson remarked a few years ago when he heard footsteps
from behind, he was relieved when he turned around a saw white
men instead of black. Jeremy Wright is stuck in the 60's...
Malcolm X vs. Martin Luther King. King preached Love, Wright, like
Malcolm X preaches hate. Obamas mask is off.
Most astounding is that Obama himself is the leading Democrat
candidate for President of the U.S. Put there by white Voters.
(Wisconsin etc) Where is the racism now?

This is a good article that not only refutes Black Liberal Theology but also demonstrates the truth of authentic Christianity!

Truth">http://biblicalthought.com/blog/truth-about-black-liberal-theology/">Truth About Black Liberal Theology

Why can't White Christians just admit that they are scared of waking up one morning and finding out that this country isn't the one that they had all the power and control in? They forgot that that the constitution applies to all people black or brown,WE ARE ALL CREATED EQUAL. Not, some are created just a little more equal than others. Sorry white people your going to have to learn how to share power if you want to still be a player into the next century!

What kind of CHRISTIAN pastor does what Wright did? What kind of CHRISTIAN lets such a toxic pastor carry on, without uttering a peep of protest (until his political career is in free fall)? Senator Obama, with his political stature and Ivy League law school education, is better placed than most of us to oppose the Wrights in the Christian church (and elsewhere), yet he sat there for 20 years, with his equally well-educated wife (who seems to have a big enough mouth when she wants to)and his kids, while the IR-reverend Wright spewed forth his hatred -- and the crowd went nuts for it.
Obama may be a success as a politician but as a Christian . . . not!

Does anyone else recall that early in this presidential race, Obama refused to accept wearing a lapel pin of the American Flag saying that he didn't want to wear that image (inferring that he rejected being closely identified with American pride or symbolism). His response was disappointing to say the least. Why is someone running for president who lacks enthusiasm for America? We have many great things that DO NOT need to be changed for the sake of change and we do have much to be proud of. I would be far more receptive of him if I heard him express his love of his country, his pride in his country and his overwhelming desire to represent our country. This is the least I would expect of someone wanting to represent me in the world. . . . be a proud American and we will all stand behind you. This is why we loved JFK and Regan even though one was a democrat and one a republican.

Regarding "my brother's keeper": John's gospel reports that in his final Passover-dinner teaching and discussion with his disciples, Jesus says, "A new command I give to you: Love one another...[so that] the world will know that you are my disciples." (With all due respect to Scott McKnight, I believe a "Jesus Creed" comprises the shema, neighbor-love, AND fellow-believer commands.) During his ministry, Jesus told his disciples not to call anyone "father" but The Father -- rather, he said, his followers were to call each other brothers and sisters. (For this very reason, the earliest Christians were accused by non-Christians of practicing incest, since husbands and wives called each other brother and sister!) Finally, regarding "keeper": the Hebrew word has a nuance that "keeping" is attending to and watching over and being careful on behalf of another, in order to further or preserve the full well-being of that other. Cain's "I'm not my brother's keeper, am I?" came after he'd slain Abel, something that a "keeper" wouldn't do, and it was impudent and irreverent because the correct answer was, "Yes, indeed, you are!" It is completely legitimate to say the phrase is "Scriptural," just as it is legitimate to say that our God is triune -- even though "triune" does not appear once in the Bible. It seems that those who would "nail" Obama on this point are making a mote out of a mite!

Meanwhile, here in pedant's corner, we're missing the debate entirely to ask, if chess is the classic zero-sum game, then why are there so many draws in chess, why the ability to stale-mate or cancel off all pieces on the board until it's impossible to get a result?

JESUS IS A LIBERAL AND WAS A MAN OF COLOR
SO WHY FEAR MR. OBAMA

My name is B.L. Conway. I am a Phi Betta Kappa graduate of the University of Kentucky and a 1986 graduate of its law school. I reside in Abingdon Virginia where I enjoy the practice of law. I serve in the information ministry of Highlands Fellowship: A purpose driven church Pastor Jimmie Davidson planted some ten years ago following the inspiration given him by Pastor Rick Warren, the author of The Purpose Driven Church and The Purpose Driven Life. The Purpose Driven Movement is non denominational and non allegiant, other than to God’s word. Our purpose is to serve others gladly and freely, which is what I am trying to do here.
I will address the later point of the title first because as to it there can be little argument. He was born Yeshua Ben Yoseph in the town of Bethlehem. Yeshua means salvation or “Lord who is salvation” in Hebrew while the remainder of his name refers to his lineage from his earthly father. Jesus was born into a poor Hebrew family, but one that was provided for very well by God through the Wise Men. His parents were Nazareth, a poor Jewish enclave in the province of Galilee. Nazareth was located near the Gentile cities of Tiberias and Sepphoris on the Sea of Gaililee that lies in southern Israel along the ancient “Via Maris” which linked Egypt to Mesopotamia. This region was essentially and eastern extension of Africa due to the interaction of these peoples as has been shown by archeology and linguistic evidence.
Second, Jesus’ genealogy is stated clearly in the Bible and demonstrates that he was a man of color. First, Matthew 1.2-17 sets out Jesus’ lineage to King David and beyond, which interestingly contains many flawed human beings (sinners like me), but also contains at least four Afroasiatic women: Rahab, Tamar, Ruth and Bathsheba. There was also a substantial general Afroasiatic influence in Jesus’ DNA as the Hebrew in Jesus genealogy were a subjugated people that spent hundreds of years in Africa. Putting aside the probable sexual exploitation of slaves that we know from our American and Mexican experience, Moses for example had a Cushite or Ethiopian wife and Phineas, which in Egyptian means “the Nubian”, was the son of Aaron and the father of a priestly Hebrew line.
Third, Jesus spent his early years in Egypt where he and his family apparently blended in quite well. Matthew reports the flight of Jesus’ family to Egypt to escape Herod’s infanticide designed to kill Jesus. Thus, Jesus spent his formative years in Africa and was exposed to Egyptian mysticism. This is confirmed by non biblical resources as early Jewish critics of Christianity argued that Jesus learned his magic in Egypt. Matthew also documents that God called his son out of Egypt. Matthew 2:15.
For all these reasons, it is clear that Jesus was a man of color. He was of mixed blood known as Afroasiatic. He like his parents was much like the darker Palestinian, Egyptian or Yemenite of today: More chocolate brown than Caucasian in appearance. Id.
What is in a name? Today in America our names have little meaning other than to identify us. This was and is not so in Middle Eastern cultures. The name Hussein which is being used to demagogue Barrack Obama because it was also the shortened name of Saddam Hussein does not actually have any evil connotation. In Arabic it means “to be good” or “to be handsome or beautiful”. I can only assume given those ears, that Mr. Obama’s parents were referring to the former. Whereas, the use of the Hussein name in the former dictator’s name refers to his father’s first name. So as with most demagoguery, we find that there is no basis in fact for it, nor is there any thing for us Caucasian Americans to fear from the use of this name. Like the true name of Jesus, Barrack’s name refers to good.
By the way, Jesus’ true name changed upon Peter’s revelation that he was the Messiah to Rabbi Yeshua Ben Mashiach (Jesus Son of God). Jesus was called this and the crowd shouted Hosanna (God Save us) upon his triumphal entry to Jerusalem prior to his crucifixion.
Jesus was crucified because he was a liberal, indeed a radical against the religious and political leaders in Jerusalem. Immediately, after the triumphal entry, Jesus proceeded to the temple where he made a whip of cords and drove out the money changers and those selling sacrifices together with their animals screaming “you have turned my father’s house into a den of thieves”. This was done in full sight of the Roman Garrisons which were situated on each end of the Temple Square and the Hebrew religious leaders that no doubt had an interest in the commerce. Jesus, as he had many times before, then called these religious leaders hypocrites to their face because they misused their wealth, power and position to glorify and satisfy themselves rather than to take care of the poor, the widowed and orphaned. In his Ministry, Jesus often warned of the danger of wealth and possessions. He taught that a man’s life is not measured by possessions and that we can not serve God and money. Jesus taught that we are stewards of God’s blessings and that we should use our position, power and wealth to help those less fortunate and to expand the Kingdom. These are liberal principals, but it does not end there.
Jesus was against the Death Penalty. He taught that thou shall not kill and that if one is sinless; let him cast the first stone, as he bent down and wrote symbolically in the sand. Jesus changed a murderer named Saul into the most prolific apostle of them all. Peter was the rock upon which the God’s church was built, but Paul spread the Gospel further and planted more churches than he. This belief in the goodness and potential of all men is a liberal principal.
Jesus is a Peace maker and believed in and taught Peace. He said “blessed are the peace makers for they shall be called children of god”. Matthew 5:9. He taught that we should love and pray for our enemies and that if anyone should harm us that we should turn the other cheek. You see Jesus knew that love was the most powerful force in the world and that it will conquer in the end. We have seen this proven in our times. Just think about three of the most influential leaders of the last century: Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King and compare their effectiveness to the Arab terrorist. These were men of color on three separate continents in entirely different cultures who used love and non violence in the face of powerful entrenched government leaders and evil and hate to effect remarkable change. They were acting out liberal biblical principals in faith.
I could go on and on from Jesus’ rejection of strict enforcement of religious law to separation of church and state, but I think the point is made. Jesus was a liberal; thank God for his grace.
So, Pennsylvania, please see that you need not fear Mr. Barack Obama because of his color or his liberalism and progressive thinking. He is less liberal than Jesus. Mr. Obama has already told us that he does not want our guns and will enforce the death penalty.
You Pennsylvania are the birth place of freedom in America. It was in Philadelphia, that the first Continental Congress met. Through the steadying leadership of your sons, Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush, with the assistance of the skillful oratory of John Adams and the pen of Virginia’s, Thomas Jefferson, independence was declared on July 2, 1776. They were liberals, indeed radicals declared criminals worthy of hanging by King George. The Declaration of Independence was the most liberal document of declared rights of it’s time.
Pennsylvania, join Virginia again to make history. We must realize Martin Luther King’s dream. We must show the world that the truth and peace still matter to the Citizens of these United States and that we have progressed past petty prejudices. Do not listen to the demagoguery of this vision filled man. I think it not a coincidence that Mr. Barack Obama, a Christian and a man of mixed black and white blood, has rose up to us as he has with such a strong belief that we can come together. We must do this. We must realize the dream. We will be better for it.

IS OBAMA FAILING TO WIN BECAUSE OF RACE?
Interesting article, however it would be even more interesting to see the same kind of analysis if the black candidate was Colin Powell, or Condelza Rice. If the black candidate had more experience, and didn't vote present over 100 times ... was not so far to the left ... did not propose such radical changes to our society, such as a socialistic agenda ... did not have negative associations, such as 20 years tied to a Reverend Wright, and other radicals ... Threw his close friend of 20 years under the bus for personal gain ...did not have a Muslim name, father and step father, just 6 years after 9-11, and while America, and it's allies is in the midst of constant attacks from murderous Muslim terrorists ... was properly vetted from the beginning ... did not enjoy such overwhelming biased favoritism from the media ... did not arrogantly create his own Presidential seal ... did not disrespect historical American institutions, and traditions, as a way of selling his Change message ... did not use accusations of race in response to every opposing argument ... did not flip flop on important issues ... chose Hillarry as his running mate ... as well as several other substantive factors.