Healthy Interaction About Obama

Hey folks,

Here is a comment left recently by my friend Josh Dove. Notice a couple things. First, it's very irenic (meaning it's designed to be a peaceful interaction, rather than inflammatory) even when disagreeing. Second, he considered all the information that was presented. And third, he has some very helpful points and arguments! I'll put my response at the end, but I wanted to highlight an example of good disagreement between Christians. The beautiful thing, as you'll note, is that disagreeing peacefully actually helps people find more common ground than you might expect!


Ben,

This is an interesting post. I've thought about the post overnight before watching the YouTube video this morning and wanted to share a few thoughts/ask a few questions.

(A) The whole issue of how, exactly, Rev. Wright's comments should affect Sen. Obama's candidacy has not been thought about nearly enough. Here are a few clarifying thoughts:

1. I accept that Obama going to this church for 20 years does not, necessarily, mean that he holds all the same views as Rev. Wright. We all need to be intellectually honest about this.

2. But, these and other comments by Rev. Wright DO at least raise questions about Sen. Obama's core convictions. Because I don't believe Sen. Obama could have been ignorant of Wright's anti-American positions (and by his own admission he was at the church at least sometimes when controversial statements were made) I submit that Sen. Obama's attendance and support for the church poses the following dilemma. Either:

(a) Obama knew of the church's positions and is sympathetic enough with them to remain in the church, which I think questions his judgment, or

(b) Obama knew of the church's positions, and though he opposed them, said (apparently) nothing, kept giving money to the church, and decided to stay (perhaps for political reasons?). This questions his integrity.

The crux of this disjunction rests on Obama's assertions that racial healing/unity is his core concern. My observation is simply that you CANNOT have racial healing as a core value, in any intellectually honest way, and attend for 20 years a church that, to say the least, borders on racism (or, if you want to be even more precise, I might simply say stokes, rather than settles, racial tension).

Is that fair?

In sum, Rev. Wright has a constitutional right, as does Sen. Obama, to hold to whatever opinion he wants to. This is obvious. But I don't want a President who lends a sympathetic ear to an influential anti-American pastor. Obama may, or may not, sympathize with Wright's positions, but were I, or almost anyone that I know, subjected to such ideology from the pulpit, I would raise strong, public objections and/or I would leave. Obama seems to have done neither. For 20 years.

(B) The CHIEF tragedy of Rev. Wright is how he has made a mockery of the pulpit and the Gospel. Liberation theology is not Gospel theology.

(C) I did listen to Sen. Obama's speech in its entirety, and I thought it was terrible, not in the delivery but in the content. But, that is for another discussion. I merely mention this to evidence that I have taken into account Sen. Obama's response.

At any rate, you can only trust that I submit these comments in a spirit of cordial conversation, rather than that of debate. We should both harbor few expectations of changing the other's mind, but a little clarity and friendly exchange could prove quite interesting.

Best wishes,
Joshua


Ok, this was a fantastic comment, but I do have some differences. Thankfully Josh has broken his questions down very clearly, so I'll just respond as they were written.

A) Josh suggests that a person cannot attend a church for 20 years while disagreeing with a large political/theological issue such as a severely negative view of America. The fact that he says he did means he is either sympathetic to the views or has a lack of integrity.

My disagreement here rests on two things. First, I believe Obama's membership at his church was partially pragmatic. Nearly his entire career, before an almost miracle run to the Senate and presidential candidacy, was devoted to one local area in downtown Chicago. Anyone who has tried to get something done politically in a largely African-American community knows that the church is the spiritual, cultural, and political center of African-American community life. I'm sure Obama was much more effective as a community organizer and state senator by being a member of that church than he would have at, say, a small church in the suburbs. And to put it frankly, it would have been very hard to find a church with a non-liberation theology perspective. But as Obama himself says, he was invited to church by others, and while there experienced his spiritual "conversion." Whatever you think of his theology, the fact is that it was a powerful experience for him, and that type of thing breeds a lot of loyalty. Combine that with the understanding of the church as "center of the community" (rather than ONLY "place of worship") and you have understandable ingredients for a local community organizer to stay at the same place and become deeply ingrained in that community.

Second, I DO believe you can be part of a church, for a specific reason (in Obama's case, community influence), and disagree with fairly major things. My last church was American Baptist. I disagreed on their egalitarianism, certain church practices, and a host of denominational problems. However, while I was in that city, my wife and I had a specific role and mission there. We had a flourishing ministry with college students, a Sunday School class I taught, friends we had accountability with, and a pastor and his wife who loved and mentored us. We became a close part of that wonderful little community, and we very likely would have stayed if God had not led us elsewhere. Does the fact that my church allowed women to preach disqualify me from being president of the CBMW someday?

B) Josh says the chief tragedy of Reverend Wright is his commitment to liberation theology, which is not gospel theology.

Josh is absolutely correct about this. Liberation theology, as far as I can tell, is a false gospel which I have never seen preach the true gospel correctly. It is wildly popular in poverty-stricken areas, including most inner cities (especially African American communities), the shantytowns and favelas of Latin America, and other places.

Keep in mind, though, that this is true of the Health and Prosperity Gospel as well, which is huge in a lot of white and Asian communities. The church must constantly be speaking to all of these groups, proclaiming the one true gospel of Jesus Christ.

And as a matter of politics, keep in mind that McCain is certainly no Christian!

C) I'll be interested to see which things Josh disliked about the Obama speech. As far as I could tell, it was well researched and quite honest. The vast majority of factual information he communicated was true as far as I know and have studied.

But, as Josh says, we'll have to discuss it together when we get the chance. I am also going to spend some time talking with an African-American friend of mine here at the seminary, so that he can give me some insights into some of the things Obama said, as well as how he views his role in a church that he has some large theological disagreements with, but is working to reform (that last bit should tip you off that his mission is very different from Obama's, so I don't mean to equate them. I just plan to get some good insight from him).

Anyways, I hope this and my original post on Obama have been helpful examples of how Christians can discuss contentious issues like politics, race, and abortion in a thoughtful and constructive way.

And yes, I'm planning on doing a post (as I said I would) when I get the time about how a Christian can vote for someone who supports abortion.

Till next time.