Spiritual Conversations on Race Relations

The President, the Professor, and the Police Officer:
Oh for a Spiritual Conversation!

By the time you read this, President Obama’s meeting with Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and Sgt. James Crowley will be filling the airwaves, the blogosphere, and print media.

Those who follow my writings know the importance that I place on intercultural relationships. You also know that several days before “the incident” became big news, I was blogging about the racial repercussions (http://bit.ly/TfTXK and http://bit.ly/eHE0X).

Everyone will be talking about intercultural racial understanding, which is a good thing—a vital conversation. Undoubtedly, President Obama will focus on improving racial understanding. Again, a very worthy cause.

But if we are to “diagnose” accurately the ultimate “cause” of “the incident,” then I believe we have to look at it spiritually. I’d like to suggest that there is another, deeper issue at work here. Further, I’d like to propose that unless we make this issue the primary issue, we’ll never adequately address race relationships.

What Causes Fights and Quarrels Among You?

Of course, much more could be said, has been said, and will be said about intercultural relationships. But most observers have left out the human element. They’ve omitted the psychological aspect. They’ve ignored the biblical explanation.

In James 4:1, James ask one of the most profound questions imaginable.

“What causes the fights and quarrels among you?”

James answer?

“Don’t they come from your desires that battle within you? You want something but don’t get it. You kill and covet, but you cannot have what you want. You quarrel and fight. You do not have because you do not ask God. When you ask, you do not receive because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your own pleasures.”

Both Professor Gates and Sgt. Crowley are good men, I’m sure. However, they are mere men. Mortals. Biblically speaking, they are sinful, fallen, and even if Christians, not-yet-perfected and still struggling against the world, the flesh, and the devil.

These two imperfect men handled an imperfect situation imperfectly. Well, let’s say it the way the Bible words it. They handled it sinfully and selfishly.

Let me be honest. I’ve done the same thing countless times. And the only way I’ve resolved such issues has been to confess my sinful selfishness.

I wonder what would happen if President Obama led Professor Gates and Sgt. Crowley in a spiritual conversation that probed the personal heart motivations of each man. I wonder if the results might be confessions such as these…

From Sgt. Crowley:

“Look I can describe this situation a million ways and claim that I was only doing my job. But the truth is, in addition to trying to do my job, I let my sinful, selfish male ego take over. When Professor Gates antagonized me, I didn’t get what I wanted. I wanted respect. My peers were standing there watching me. I was being dissed.”

“Just like the Bible says, when I didn’t get what I desired (in this case—respect), instead of going to God and asking of Him humbly, I tried to control things on my own. I tried to prove that I was worthy of respect. I retaliated and I manipulated. Sure, I can state legal codes I used to justify my arrest of Professor Crowley. But none of those look inside my heart to see what motivated my actions and reactions.”

“I could have stepped away. I could have turned and ignored his words. I could have walked away and left the appearance that he had “won.” But I didn’t. I’m a male. A sinful male. And I hate to lose. I hate to lose face. I like being in charge, being the boss. I reacted selfishly. I reacted sinfully. He hurt me and so I hurt him back. He disrespected me, so I disrespected him. I was sinful, selfish, and wrong.”

From Professor Gates:

“Look, I can put all the spin on this in the world. I’m good with words. I can make myself look like the innocent victim. I mean, I was simply trying to get into my own home after a week away. But the truth is, in addition to just wanting a good night’s sleep in my own bed, I let my sinful, selfish male ego take over. When Sgt. Crowley demanded my ID in my own home, I didn’t get what I wanted. I wanted to be valued, to be seen as an equally valuable human being. Instead, I was being treated like a common criminal. Perhaps being viewed with racially tainted eyes. My neighbors were watching. My colleagues would find out. I was being humiliated."

“Just like the Bible says, when I didn’t get what I desired (in this case—being valued as an equal), instead of going to God and asking of Him humbly, I tried to control things on my own. I tried to prove that I was worthy, significant. I retaliated and I manipulated. Sure, I can state legal reasons why I am free to practice free speech on my own porch. And I can state historical, racial reasons why it was important for me to stand up for my race, for my people. But none of those look inside my heart to see what motivated my actions and reactions.”

“I could have calmed down. I could have simply shown my ID, thanked Sgt. Crowley for doing his job, and walked away and left the appearance that he was in charge and I wasn’t. But I didn’t. I’m a male. I’m a sinful male. And I hate to be overpowered. I hate to be bullied and put down. I reacted selfishly. I reacted sinfully. He hurt me and so I hurt him back. He tried to overpower me with his badge and legal authority, so I tried to overpower him with my words and moral authority. I was sinful, selfish, and wrong.”

Is That What We Will Hear?

Of course, that’s not what we are likely to hear. I’d love to be shocked and surprised though.

You see, when we only make relationships racial, and when we fail to see the personal issues—the moral, spiritual issues at work—then we fail to get at the heart of the issue.

We will never settle racial sin unless and until we deal with personal sin.

Yes, we need additional national conversations on race relationships.

But much more we need ongoing additional national and personal spiritual conversations on what truly causes the fights and quarrels among us. They are caused by our sinful refusal to humbly turn to God when others sin against us. We take matters into our own hands rather than raising humble hands to God. We raise angry fists to each other instead of raising open palms to God. We blame others rather than accepting personal spiritual responsibility.

Of course, it’s easy for us to point fingers of blame and guilt at either or both Professor Gates and/or Sgt. Crowley. But are we willing to engage in spiritual conversations with spiritual friends that expose our own spiritual selfishness?

I’ll say it again. We will never settle racial sin unless and until we deal with personal sin.

Black History Month: Day Nine--Another Side of the Story

*Note: For The Journey: Day Twenty-Two see my earlier post today.

Black History Month: The History and the Controversy

Day Nine: Another Side of the Story

Is Black History Month still a net positive or a net negative for African Americans? For America in general?

Yesterday we explored pieces of the article by AP National Writer, Jesse Washington who asked “Time to End Black History Month?” We gave some of his arguments for rolling Black History Month into year-round education.

Today, we explore portions of Washington’s article that support another side of the story: the continued need for Black History Month.

The President Thinks So

President Obama, like all his predecessors since the 70s, believes Black History Month should continue. On February 2, he lauded “National African American History Month” calling upon “public officials, educators, librarians, and all people of the United States to observe this month with appropriate ceremonies, activities, and programs that raise awareness and appreciation of African American history.”

Historians Think So

Daryl Scott, chairman of the history department at Howard University and vice president of programming for ASALH, says Black History Month is still needed to solidify and build upon America's racial gains.

“To know about the people who make up society is to make a better society,” he says. “A multiracial, multiethnic society has to work at its relationships, just like you have to work at your marriage.”

“I don’t see it going away,’ said Spencer Crew, a history professor at George Mason University, adding that a diverse year-round history curriculum can still be augmented in depth during Black History Month.

“There’s a Women's History Month,” Crew said. “No one would argue that we don’t need to be reminded of women who have done things that are important.”

Encouraging the Conversation

I am not saying these are or are not my views. I am inviting conversation. Dialogue. What do you think about the conclusions of President Obama, historian Scott, and historian Crew?

Stay tuned for more perspectives . . .

The Warren/Obama Connection and Controversy: We Report, You Decide

The Warren/Obama Connection and Controversy:
We Report, You Decide

President-elect Barack Obama’s choice of Evangelical Pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the Presidential Inauguration has stirred controversy with liberal groups and gay rights proponents. They complain because Warren adheres to socially conservative convictions including his pro-life stance against abortion and his opposition to gay marriage. They ignore that he has also championed issues such as a reduction of global poverty, human rights abuses, and the AIDS epidemic.

Almost two years ago to the day (December 1, 2008), Pastor Warren was heatedly criticized by right wing religious and political groups for inviting then Senator Obama to speak at his church (Saddleback Community Church) during Warren’s second annual AIDS Conference. An open letter signed by Phyllis Schlafly, head of the conservative Eagle Forum, and 17 others contended “If Senator Obama cannot defend the most helpless citizens in our country, he has nothing to say to the AIDS crisis. You cannot fight one evil while justifying another.” The din became sufficiently loud that Saddleback posted a response stressing Warren’s disagreement with Obama on abortion but noting that “Obama was invited to share his views on AIDS, not abortion or any other issue.”

Unity in Opposition

How ironic that it takes an Evangelical Pastor and a Democratic President to unite the left and right in America! The common denominator in their vehement opposition to any joint appearances is called “secondary separation.” This is the conviction that you cannot join in any coalition with a member of that coalition who disagrees with you on any significant moral issue, even issues not directly addressed in the coalition.

For example, when Warren invited Obama, Dr. Wiley Drake, pastor of First Baptist Church in Buena Park, CA, and Second Vice President of the 42 million-member Southern Baptist Convention told the Los Angeles Times, “You can’t work together with people totally opposed to what you are. This kind of conference is just going to lead people astray.”

On the other hand, Richard Land, head of the denomination’s influential Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and its principal Washington strategist, agreed with Warren. “Rick is having a summit on AIDS, and Barack Obama has said some compelling things about the issue. I work all the time in coalition with people to the right and left of me, when we’re in agreement on a specific issue. One of the markers of Evangelicals is the ability to walk and chew gum at the same time.”

Where Do You Stand?

So where do you stand on this issue and issues like them? Where do you draw the line?

Was Warren wrong to invite Obama to his AIDS Conference? By doing so, do you think Warren implicitly approved of all of Obama’s positions, even though he disavowed specific views publicly?

Was Obama inconsistent to invite Pastor Warren to deliver the invocation? By doing so, do you think Obama implicitly approved of all of Warren’s positions, even though he expressed public disagreement with some specific views?

Racial Identity in American Life

Racial Identity in American Life

Here’s an interesting article by Jesse Washington of the AP.

Here’s the original link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081213/ap_on_re_us/obama_s_not_black

Obama's True Colors: Black, White ... or Neither?

By JESSE WASHINGTON, AP National Writer Jesse Washington, Ap National Writer – Sat Dec 13, 2008

A perplexing new chapter is unfolding in Barack Obama's racial saga: Many people insist that "the first black president" is actually not black.

Debate over whether to call this son of a white Kansan and a black Kenyan biracial, African-American, mixed-race, half-and-half, multiracial — or, in Obama's own words, a "mutt" — has reached a crescendo since Obama's election shattered assumptions about race.

Obama has said, "I identify as African-American — that's how I'm treated and that's how I'm viewed. I'm proud of it." In other words, the world gave Obama no choice but to be black, and he was happy to oblige.

But the world has changed since the young Obama found his place in it.

Intermarriage and the decline of racism are dissolving ancient definitions. The candidate Obama, in achieving what many thought impossible, was treated differently from previous black generations. And many white and mixed-race people now view President-elect Obama as something other than black.

So what now for racial categories born of a time when those from far-off lands were property rather than people, or enemy instead of family?

"They're falling apart," said Marty Favor, a Dartmouth professor of African and African-American studies and author of the book "Authentic Blackness."

"In 1903, W.E.B. DuBois said the question of the 20th century is the question of the color line, which is a simplistic black-white thing," said Favor, who is biracial. "This is the moment in the 21st century when we're stepping across that."

Rebecca Walker, a 38-year-old writer with light brown skin who is of Russian, African, Irish, Scottish and Native American descent, said she used to identify herself as "human," which upset people of all backgrounds. So she went back to multiracial or biracial, "but only because there has yet to be a way of breaking through the need to racially identify and be identified by the culture at large."

"Of course Obama is black. And he's not black, too," Walker said. "He's white, and he's not white, too. Obama is whatever people project onto him ... he's a lot of things, and neither of them necessarily exclude the other."

But U.S. Rep. G. K. Butterfield, a black man who by all appearances is white, feels differently.

Butterfield, 61, grew up in a prominent black family in Wilson, N.C. Both of his parents had white forebears, "and those genes came together to produce me." He grew up on the black side of town, led civil rights marches as a young man, and to this day goes out of his way to inform people that he is certainly not white.
Butterfield has made his choice; he says let Obama do the same.

"Obama has chosen the heritage he feels comfortable with," he said. "His physical appearance is black. I don't know how he could have chosen to be any other race. Let's just say he decided to be white — people would have laughed at him."

"You are a product of your experience. I'm a U.S. congressman, and I feel some degree of discomfort when I'm in an all-white group. We don't have the same view of the world, our experiences have been different."

The entire issue balances precariously on the "one-drop" rule, which sprang from the slaveowner habit of dropping by the slave quarters and producing brown babies. One drop of black blood meant that person, and his or her descendants, could never be a full citizen.

Today, the spectrum of skin tones among African-Americans — even those with two black parents — is evidence of widespread white ancestry. Also, since blacks were often light enough to pass for white, unknown numbers of white Americans today have blacks hidden in their family trees.

One book, "Black People and their Place in World History," by Dr. Leroy Vaughn, even claims that five past presidents — Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge — had black ancestors, which would make Obama the sixth of his kind.

Mix in a few centuries' worth of Central, South and Native Americans, plus Asians, and untold millions of today's U.S. citizens need a DNA test to decipher their true colors. The melting pot is working.

Yet the world has never been confronted with such powerful evidence as Obama. So as soon as he was elected, the seeds of confusion began putting down roots.

"Let's not forget that he is not only the first African-American president, but the first biracial candidate. He was raised by a single white mother," a Fox News commentator said seven minutes after Obama was declared the winner.

"We do not have our first black president," the author Christopher Hitchens said on the BBC program "Newsnight." "He is not black. He is as black as he is white."

A Doonesbury comic strip that ran the day after the election showed several soldiers celebrating.

"He's half-white, you know," says a white soldier.

"You must be so proud," responds another.

Pride is the center of racial identity, and some white people seem insulted by a perception that Obama is rejecting his white mother (even though her family was a centerpiece of his campaign image-making) or baffled by the notion that someone would choose to be black instead of half-white.

"He can't be African-American. With race, white claims 50 percent of him and black 50 percent of him. Half a loaf is better than no loaf at all," Ron Wilson of Plantation, Fla., wrote in a letter to the Sun-Sentinel newspaper.

Attempts to whiten Obama leave a bitter taste for many African-Americans, who feel that at their moment of triumph, the rules are being changed to steal what once was deemed worthless — blackness itself.

"For some people it's honestly confusion," said Favor, the Dartmouth professor. "For others it's a ploy to sort of reclaim the presidency for whiteness, as though Obama's blackness is somehow mitigated by being biracial."

Then there are the questions remaining from Obama's entry into national politics, when some blacks were leery of this Hawaiian-born newcomer who did not share their history.

Linda Bob, a black schoolteacher from Eustis, Fla., said that calling Obama black when he was raised in a white family and none of his ancestors experienced slavery could cause some to ignore or forget the history of racial injustice.

"It just seems unfair to totally label him African-American without acknowledging that he was born to a white mother," she said. "It makes you feel like he doesn't have a class, a group."

There is at least one group eagerly waiting for Obama to embrace them. "To me, as to increasing numbers of mixed-race people, Barack Obama is not our first black president. He is our first biracial, bicultural president ... a bridge between races, a living symbol of tolerance, a signal that strict racial categories must go," Marie Arana wrote in the Washington Post.

He's a bridge between eras as well. The multiracial category "wasn't there when I was growing up," said John McWhorter, a 43-year-old fellow at the Manhattan Institute's Center for Race and Ethnicity, who is black. "In the '70s and the '80s, if somebody had one white parent and one black parent, the idea was they were black and had better get used to it and develop this black identity. That's now changing."

Latinos, whom the census identifies as an ethnic group and not a race, were not counted separately by the government until the 1970s. After the 1990 census, many people complained that the four racial categories — white, black, Asian, and American Indian/Alaska native — did not fit them. The government then allowed people to check more than one box. (It also added a fifth category, for Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders.)

Six million people, or 2 percent of the population, now say they belong to more than one race, according to the most recent census figures. Another 19 million people, or 6 percent of the population, identify themselves as "some other race" than the five available choices.

The White House Office of Management and Budget, which oversees the census, specifically decided not to add a "multiracial" category, deeming it not a race in and of itself.

"We are in a transitional period" regarding these labels, McWhorter said. "I think that in only 20 years, the notion that there are white people and there are black people and anyone in between has some explaining to do and an identity to come up with, that will all seem very old-fashioned."

The debate over Obama's identity is just the latest step in a journey he unflinchingly chronicled in his memoir, "Dreams from My Father."

As a teenager, grappling with the social separation of his white classmates, "I had no idea who my own self was," Obama wrote.

In college in the 1970s, like millions of other dark-skinned Americans searching for self respect in a discriminatory nation, Obama found refuge in blackness. Classmates who sidestepped the label "black" in favor of "multiracial" chafed at Obama's newfound pride: "They avoided black people," he wrote. "It wasn't a matter of conscious choice, necessarily, just a matter of gravitational pull, the way integration always worked, a one-way street. The minority assimilated into the dominant culture, not the other way around."

Fast-forward 30 years, to the early stages of Obama's presidential campaign. Minorities are on track to outnumber whites, to redefine the dominant American culture. And the black political establishment, firmly rooted in the civil rights movement, questioned whether the outsider Obama was "black enough."

Then came the primary and general elections, when white voters were essential for victory. "Now I'm too black," Obama joked in July before an audience of minority journalists. "There is this sense of going back and forth depending on the time of day in terms of making assessments about my candidacy."

Today, it seems no single definition does justice to Obama — or to a nation where the revelation that Obama's eighth cousin is Dick Cheney, the white vice president from Wyoming, caused barely a ripple in the campaign.

In his memoir, Obama says he was deeply affected by reading that Malcolm X, the black nationalist-turned-humanist, once wished his white blood could be expunged. "Traveling down the road to self-respect my own white blood would never recede into mere abstraction," Obama wrote. "I was left to wonder what else I would be severing if I left my mother and my grandparents at some uncharted border."

Words Matter

Words Matter

In the November 19, 2008 issue of The USA Today, political analyst Sandy Grady rightly praises President-elect Barack Obama for his eloquence ("His Words Will Matter").

Grady aptly notes about Obama's speeches, "They always have rhythm, repetition, alliteration, balance. They flow with a narrative, his story meshing into America's story" (p. 13A).

Anyone familiar with historic and current African American preaching (see my work Beyond the Suffering: Embracing African American Soul Care and Spiritual Direction) knows that Obama's style reflects the best of a long tradition.

Amazingly, in this day of the tele-prompter and of the speech-writer, Obama writes his own speeches.

Some of his more powerful, poetic words include:

July 27, 2004, Democratic National Convention Speech: "There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America."

January 8, 2008, Manchester, NH, after Hillary Clinton defeated him in the primary: "Yes we can!"

March 18, 2008, Philadelphia, answering the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy: "It is a story that has seared my genetic makeup, the idea that this nation is more than a sum of its parts, that out of many, we are truly one."

November 4, 2008, Grant Park, Chicago: "If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible . . . tonight is your answer."

Words matter.

Whether or not one agrees with President-elect Barack Obama on each and every issue, one has to respect his stirring use of words.

And we all can learn from him.

1. Write and speak with passion from the heart. Tell a story that means the world to you and it will mean the world to the world.

2. Write and speak your own story and style. Write with originality and freshness. Sure, research the works and words of others. But don't mimic. Find and use your own voice.

3. Write and speak "poetically" even if writing non-fiction prose. For example, in my theology of Christian counseling text book (Soul Physicians) I use the literary style of "theo-drama" to tell the awesome story of God's work in history. Theology should never be dry-as-dust! It is God's story!

4. Write and speak in narrative. Life is a story. We all live in story, in narrative. Craft a compelling depiction of the main characters, their setting, their aspirations, even in non-fiction. For instance, in Beyond the Suffering we did not simply tell historical facts. We placed African American Christians in their historical setting, drawing out and describing their personal passions and their life-changing interactions.

5. Write and speak with relevance. Whatever "truth" you have to tell, relate truth to life. In our book on the history of women's soul care (Sacred Friendships), my co-author and I did not simply write a history text. We paused at each step along the journey to ask the "So what?" question. "So what difference does the life of this godly woman make for us today?

Words matter.

The First African American Family: Then and Now

The First African American Family: Then and Now

Surfing the Internet, a prominent message one reads from African Americans about the election of Barack Obama relates to the joy many have at the thought of a Black family in the White House. Barack and Michelle Obama, along with their children Malia (10) and Sasha (7), will be an example of family life to a nation and to the world.

The African American Family Now

For instance, the November 5, 2008 issue of the New York Times notes, “As the first African Americans in the role, they will be a living tableau of racial progress, and friends say they are acutely aware that everything they say and do—the way they dress, where Malia, 10, and Sasha, 7, go to school, even what kind of puppy they adopt—will brim with symbolic value.

“‘Here’s an intact black family, a happy family, with beautiful kids and a loving extended family,’” Ms. Williams (a family friend) said, “’and they happen to live in the executive mansion.’”[1]

The African American Family Then: Pulling the Rope in Unison

Unfortunately, it has become something of a cliché to imagine that Black families today find it difficult to experience stability because of a long history of instability caused by slavery and racism. While not at all minimizing the obstacles that enslaved African American families have faced, history paints a truer and more optimistic picture of their response. Though everything fought against them, enslaved African Americans battled gallantly to maintain family cohesion—a cohesion that provided a sturdy platform from which to handle life courageously.

In my book, Beyond the Suffering: Embracing the Legacy of African American Soul Care and Spiritual Direction,[2] I offer many examples of such family cohesion. For example, Jennie Hill was born and enslaved in 1837 in Missouri. Florence Patton interviewed the ninety-six-year-old Hill in 1933. During her interview, Hill adamantly resisted the notion that enslaved families lacked closeness. “Some people think that the slaves had no feeling—that they bore their children as animals bear their young and that there was no heartbreak when the children were torn from their parents or the mother taken from her brood to toil for a master in another state. But that isn’t so. The slaves loved their families even as the Negroes love their own today. . .”[3]

Communicating the message of African American family love was so important to Reverend Thomas Jones that he bore witness to it on the very first page of his narrative. “I can testify, from my own painful experience, to the deep and fond affection which the slave cherishes in his heart for his home and its dear ones. We have no other tie to link us to the human family, but our fervent love for those who are with us and of us in relations of sympathy and devotedness, in wrongs and wretchedness.”[4]

Satan longs to blind African Americans to their legacy of family love. He wants all of us to believe that hardships make it too hard to love. Hill’s family, Jones’ family, and millions like them, belie that lie.

Enslaved African American couples sustained strong marital relationships. Venture Smith was born in Dukandarra, in Guinea, about 1729. Kidnapped at age eight, Robertson Mumford purchased him a year later. After living with Mumford for thirteen years, Venture married Meg at age twenty-two. They remained together for over forty-seven years, through many trials and tribulations, until parted by death.

Venture’s narrative contains an explanation for their marital faithfulness. On the occasion of their marriage, Venture threw a rope over his cabin and asked his wife to go to the opposite side and pull on the rope hanging there while he remained and pulled on his end. After they both had tugged at it awhile in vain, he called her to his side of the cabin and by their united effort they drew the rope to themselves with ease. He then explained the object lesson to his young bride. “If we pull in life against each other we shall fail, but if we pull together we shall succeed.”[5]

Premarital couples, newlyweds, and seasoned married spouses would all do well to heed Venture’s guiding wisdom. And all families will be watching to learn what guiding wisdom they can glean from the example of the Obama family—the First Family.

[1]Jodi Kantor, New York Times, November 5, 2008, Online Edition.
[2]Kellemen and Edwards, Beyond the Suffering, Baker, 2007.
[3]Blassingame, Slave Testimony, p. 593.
[4]Andrews, p. 211.
[5]Bontemps, p. 30.

Sarah Palin: Sexism Then and Now

Sarah Palin: Sexism Then and Now

I have a confession to make. I’m upset. Yes, angry at the sexist, biased, and vicious coverage of Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

Readers of my blog know how hard I work to stay out of politics. But you also know how hard I work to be a voice for the voiceless—to speak up for minorities and the oppressed.

Sarah Palin is being oppressed by the bigoted, biased, arrogant media.

Well, history is on her side. Consider just a few quotes from and about great women in church history—quotes collated from my latest book, Sacred Friendships: Listening to the Voices of Soul Care-Givers and Spiritual Directors.

“Just because I am a woman, must I therefore believe that I must not tell you about the goodness of God” (Julian of Norwich).[1]

“Women’s history has certainly come a long way in a very short time. Perhaps the reason for this phenomenal progress is the fact that so much of it was there, just waiting to be rescued from obscurity by interested historians.”[2]

“‘Where were the women?’ ‘What did they have to say?’ ‘How did they shape the life and thought of the church?’ For many of us, the courses we took in church history or the history of Christian theology left these questions unanswered.”[3]

“Books surveying the history of Christianity have been traditionally ‘his stories’—describing the flaws and celebrating the achievements of great theologians, eloquent preachers, and powerful administrators.”[4]

Here’s the thing. Women have always been pushed down. This is especially true of strong women who dare to think for themselves, who dare to act on their convictions.

Take just one such example from the courageous life of Sarah Palin.

Sarah Palin is clearly pro-life. She was so pro-life that she carried a Down Syndrome fetus to term despite the usual medical pressure to have him aborted. To the pro-choice media and establishment this only proves she is an extremist on the abortion issue. To most people who fall in the middle, this says “here is a woman who is true to her convictions.” But, nowhere does the standard media narrative about America break down more than on her “feminist” posture. The standard media and establishment argument is that she really can't be a feminist because she is pro-life. But, the public saw a rather rugged husband who gave up his 20-year stint as an oil worker for BP to become the primary care giver for their five children when she became Governor. To real people making real life decisions, that is a powerful statement about gender issues.[5]

How ironic. How revealing. The supposedly enlightened press still lives in the dark ages when it comes to allowing a woman to have her own mind, to demonstrate the courage of her convictions.


[1]Julian of Norwich, Revelations of Divine Love, 11.
[2]Ranft, A Woman’s Way, 1.
[3]Oden, In Her Own Words, 11.
[4]MacHaffie, Her Story, xi.
[5]Lawrence B. Lindsey, “The Public, the Press, and Palin,” The Weekly Standard, 9/3/08.

Living Her Pro-Life Convictions

Living Her Pro-Life Convictions

Twice within less than one week Governor Sarah Palin, Republican VP Candidate, has demonstrated that she lives her pro-life convictions. Whether one is a Republican or a Democratic, an Independent or a Libertarian, all should agree that applause and props are due any candidate who actually lives what they believe, rather than live according to political expediency.

When first nominated by Senator John McCain, the news came out that Governor Palin’s fifth child had been diagnosed with Down Syndrome—early enough that she and her husband could have chosen the “legal” route of terminating the life of this child. Mom and Dad Palin chose life.

Then today, the news tumbles out that Governor Palin’s seventeen-year-old daughter is pregnant out of wedlock. While millions would shout, “abort!” the Palin family has expressed their full support for their daughter, who plans to marry the father and give birth to their unborn child.

As Senator Obama wisely and fairly has noted, his own mother became pregnant with him out of wedlock when she was eighteen. So this is not a partisan issue—Obama’s now-deceased mother also chose life.

On a related issue, some now are charging Governor Palin with guilt because she believes in abstinence-only education. In the political, “gotcha’ mentality,” they claim, without any logical or statistical foundation, that this somehow proves how naïve abstinence-only education truly is. As if other forms of sex-ed somehow guarantee that young people will not have sex outside of marriage? Please, get real.

What we have here is consistency. Like her views or not, Governor Palin lives her convictions, walks her talk, has the courage of her convictions. Props all the way.

An Amazing Twenty-Four Hours!

An Amazing Twenty-Four Hours!

By any stretch of the imagination, the United States has witnessed one of its most amazing twenty-four-hour periods in its long, and sometimes torturous history.

Last night, just 155 years after the Emancipation of slaves, and just 45 years to the day after Martin Luther King, Jr., gave his great I Have a Dream Speech, Senator Barack Obama accepted the Democratic nomination for President.

And then today, almost exactly 88 years after the August 26, 1920 passing of the Nineteenth Amendment which gave women the right to vote, Senator McCain nominated Alaskan governor Sarah Palin to be his Vice Presidential running mate.

Stunning.

As the author of one book on the legacy of African American soul care (Beyond the Suffering), and another on the legacy of women’s soul care (Sacred Friendships), my passion is to listen to the voice to the voiceless.

Well, the previously voiceless, disenfranchised, and powerless among us now have risen to the highest places of power. As I mentioned in yesterday’s blog, so I would say today. One need not be pro-Obama to be pro-advancement of minorities. And one need not be pro-Palin to be pro-advancement of women.

Governor Palin will be the darling of the social conservatives with her committed Christian background, her pro-life focus, and her family values. But even beyond that, she will be a shining light once more reminding us that in Christ there is neither slave nor free, male nor female, but all are equal, all are bearers of God’s image.

Pursuing the House Built on the Backs of Slaves

Pursuing the House Built on the Backs of Slaves

As Senator Barack Obama officially accepted the nomination as the Democratic candidate for President of the United States, at least two ironies struck me.

First, the house he seeks to govern from—the White House—was built on the backs of Black slaves. While Senator Obama noted in his speech that this election is not about himself, but about you—all Americans—his humility perhaps overshadows the historical uniqueness of the moment. Here we see an African American who ten short weeks from now could govern the very nation that only 150 years ago enslaved African Americans.

The second irony relates to more recent history—it was just forty-five years ago today that Martin Luther King, Jr., gave his historic I Have a Dream speech. Dr. King’s dream has become a reality. As Dr. King said, and as Senator Obama echoed, in America together our dreams can be one. We cannot walk alone. We shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back.

One need not be a Democrat, one need not plan to vote for Senator Obama, to at least celebrate the reality that 150 years after the end of slavery, Senator Obama is the Democratic candidate for President of the United States. And to celebrate the fact that 45 years after Dr. King’s speech, Senator Obama is the embodiment and fulfillment of that very dream.

How Can Any Christian African American Vote for Obama?

Guest Blogger: Pastor Eric Redmond

How Can Any Christian African American Vote for Obama?:
Throwing the Race Card on an All Black Table

Today, with his permission, I re-post a blog originally written by Pastor Eric Redmond. Eric is a brother in Christ, an Evangelical African American pastor, an author (Where Are All the Brothers?), a friend, and a colleague in ministry at Capital Bible Seminary.

Eric writes today not to give an endorsement, but to open a dialogue and to increase multi-cultural understanding. Allow Eric, whether you agree with his perspective totally or not, to stretch your/our mind(s) and to challenge you/us to build bridges of racial understanding.

http://ericredmond.wordpress.com/2008/07/11/how-can-any-christian-african-american-vote-for-obama-throwing-the-race-card-on-an-all-black-table/

Posted by ericredmond on July 11, 2008

© Eric C. Redmond, 2008

How Can Any Christian African American Vote for Obama?:
Throwing the Race Card on an All Black Table

Herein lie buried many things, which if read with patience may sow the strange meaning of being black here in the dawning of the twentieth century. This meaning is not without interest to you, Gentle Reader; for the problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the color line. (W. E. B. DuBois, The Souls of Black Folk [New York: Pocket Books, 2005]: 3.)

“But how can a Christian vote for Obama?”

I am paraphrasing a question asked of me while in attendance at the Hampton University Ministers’ Conference five weeks ago. It had become obvious to my interrogator that an African American, Democratic version of wrapping the Cross of Christ in the Stars and Stripes had taken a prominent place in the sermons of those preaching at the conference. We were being challenged by speakers to be diligent not to squander our moral responsibility to push Obama into the White House. Roaring responses of clapping and shouting followed these charges as if all of the thousands of African American church leaders and laity present were in full agreement.

Such laudation of the senator from Illinois, by those proclaiming to know the Creator through the Incarnate Son, bothered my friend. An Illinois citizen and theologically conservative Christian, he could not reconcile a vote cast for Obama with anyone who professed the name of Christ. To him, it was very obvious that Obama’s views on abortion and same-sex marriage are so far from what Scripture requires of us that, seemingly, to vote for Obama would be to deny the very things Christians believe. So he turned to me for some explanation of how African American Christians could vote in good faith for Obama without sensing conviction for endorsing one who takes anti-Christian positions on the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage.

The Issue of Hope

I started by explaining that for African Americans, there is a sense of hope no longer being deferred. Instead, hope is at the front door knocking furiously, waiting to see if African Americans will answer. If we open the door, forty million African Americans are going to witness a fellow African American getting the largest slice of the American Dream Pie—a dessert many had hoped to see people of color eat in their lifetime, but the many fell asleep having embraced such promises from afar. As the struggle for social and economic equality has been a struggle for all African Americans, regardless of belief system(s), we all share in the joy when one of our own achieves the (presumptive) nomination for the highest office in the land—an office that has been reserved for white males only until now. Obama’s candidacy would allow all African Americans to say to our forefathers, “we finally did it! Your attempts at escaping slavery, deaths by lynching, scars from the scourge of slave masters’ whips, pain from the full blast of unleashed water hoses and muzzle-free police dogs, humiliation by white hecklers at lunch counters, degradation at “coloreds only” fountains and restrooms, indignation on the back of buses, forced acceptance of poorer educational materials and facilities, and marches at the threat of beatings and bombings have not been for naught! Hope, yea victory, is finally here! We are equal at the highest level!”

Factoring all of the historical pockmarks into the hope equation seems to be African Americans’ expression of the reality of “the problem of the Twentieth Century” (DuBois). For African Americans, Christians and non-Christians alike, race, racial prejudice, racial segregation, racial discrimination, racial injustice, racial hatred, racial educational and economic disparity, racial self-consciousness, the racialization of society and all attempts to address problems attributed to the majority culture’s mistreatment of African Americans in any form based on race alone only serve to remind African Americans of their “double-consciousness” (DuBois). As Dubois wrote, in this society African Americans are:

a sort of seventh son, born with a veil, and gifted with second-sight in this American world— a world which yields him no true self-consciousness, but only lets him see himself through the revelation of the other world… It is a peculiar sensation, this double-consciousness, this sense of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of others, of measuring one’s soul by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity. One ever feels his two-ness— an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder, (3).

The Issue of Identity

If we take DuBois’ musings as an accurate analysis of African American existence, we can see another factor involved in Christian African Americans’ support of Obama: identity. We now have a candidate who we think identifies with the experience of African Americans. He has experienced the struggle of the great-great-great-grandchildren of slaves (even though he is not one). So surely, it is supposed, he will fight for policies and programs that will be sensitive to the plight of his people and that work toward uplifting the entire race of people to the place where the playing field is level. Surely, as one of us, he will sign into law measures that will protect the gains made during the Civil Rights and post-Civil Rights Eras. Because he is one of us, we have hope that we will no longer have to look at ourselves through the contemptuous eyes of others—i.e., white Americans. We now can look at ourselves through the eyes of the man who could hold the most well-known office in the free-world, and he can look at the world through our eyes. Such looking is inherent when one is in the majority culture; in that culture it is never hoped for or awaited. It is part of being in the majority. For African Americans, to deny Obama would then be, in some sense, to deny one’s own identity. Yet it remains true that no one ever thinks a white man not voting for Clinton, Bush or McCain is a denial of whiteness.

I would suggest that Obama, more than any other candidate, has the ability to say to African Americans, “my fellow Americans,” and do so with the implicit trust of African Americans. His Father’s Day speech demonstrated this ability, for he is the only presidential candidate who can risk bringing up a major social problem in the African American community in an African American pulpit without fear of ostracizing himself. He was able to play a black race card on an all black table in such a way that to outsiders it simply looked as if he still had his card in his hand. But those at the table gladly folded their cards having seen the winning hand.

Being able to see the potential for mutual embracing of identities in a candidate further means that African Americans will not feel the need to settle on the candidate who represents the lesser of two evils. By common consent, many African Americans feel that their votes are taken for granted by one major political party, and only courted as tokenism by the other major party. The votes do not result in policy changes that benefit African Americans as a whole no matter which party’s candidate wins office. As a result, African Americans often resign simply to give a vote to one of the two white candidates, without feeling that their best interests will be taken up truly. An Obama candidacy immediately changes the hopeless feelings of resignation as the fall approaches. His candidacy means African Americans will have the opportunity to make a choice excitedly and confidently. Higher than average African American attendance at the polls in November could be a reflection of the joy brought on by the ability to pick a candidate without mental or emotional reservation and resignation.

The Issue of Justice

I think there is a third reason African American hail Obama: justice. That is, we have placed faith in liberal government to save us when we perceived that those who were conservative politically were weak in running to aid those experiencing race-related injustices. Historically, it seemed that change in race-relations in America was slow to come about through personal moral change on a wide scale. As a result, African Americans looked to Federal policy to institute change in institutional structures. That is, “if you will not find it in your heart to grant me the same access to bid on business contracts, I will look to the government to enact legislation to make you give me access to bid equally on business contracts regardless of my skin color.”

An Obama nomination looks like a nomination for social justice – far more than does a nomination for someone from the other party. If the Illinois senator will carry both white and Black voters in November, unlike Democratic candidates from other ethnicities, he will not be able to make promises to African Americans without accountability to keep his promises. Instead, he will be under pressure not to let his people down judicially. He will have to reject policies that stand against the Democratic version of racial progress, and he will have to sign into law policies that stand for such progress. Anything short of this will bring more ire from African Americans than that directed toward any other president who fell short on his promises. Because the hope is greater, the expectation will be greater, and the backlash for perceived failure will be greater. But African Americans do not expect Obama to fail. They expect social and economic justice policies to find favor with this candidate, for Affirmative Action to be strengthened, for racial profiling and racial inequities in the legal systems to be brought into account and see diminishing statistics, and for “equal justice for all” to be more than words on the halls of justice.

An Obama presidency would portray justice in another odd sort of way. Akin to the issue of hope above, his election would be seen as vindication. It would have a self-correcting effect on the errors of America’s history, with its sins of chattel slavery, Jim Crow laws, and ongoing civil injustices. What better way for African Americans to hear the country say, “join us in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness!” What greater way is there for African Americans in turn to say, “We have overcome!” What an Obama in the White House would do for African Americans is allow us to feel we can say, “Now this country is going to treat us equally, fairly, justly.”

In order to understand the sentiment of African Americans as a whole – of whom Christian African Americans are a part – one would do well to consider that African Americans have not yet been free in this country for as long as we were slaves, (1654-1865, [211 years] vs. 1865-2008. [143 years]). Moreover, the Civil Rights Era only ended 33 years ago with the extension of the Voting Rights Act (1975). It was only ten years prior to this extension that Jim Crow laws were brought to an end with the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Many of the citizens who rode through this era on the back of the bus are still alive waiting on even more gains for African Americans—gains they feel will not come at the hands of white leadership. These same citizens, who often daily drank in the fears of an Emmett Till episode or a Birmingham bombing—this while whites separately drank in American prosperity free from fear, at the expense of African Americans— diligently taught their children to trust African Americans to uplift African Americans. That generation, and their children to the third and fourth generations, sees in Barak Obama one for whom we can say, “finally, we’re driving this bus.” This attitude even has been expressed by African American conservatives, such as J. C. Watts and Armstrong Williams, who are considering jumping party lines in order to cast a vote for Senator Obama.

The Cross and the Ballot

The above thoughts do not make a judgment on whether Christian African Americans should or should not vote for Obama. The intention of this work is only to offer some reasons that explain why Christian African Americans might vote for Obama in the fall. It does not address the suggested contradiction between voting for a pro-choice candidate and claiming to be a voter who holds a pro-life position. Personally, I think that sanctity of life issues only deal with one of ten areas of sin in the Decalogue, so they are not to be elevated above all of the other prohibitions and commandments. I hold this belief in spite of the fact that my favorite modern Christian author, John Piper, who is a pastor, theologian, Christian statesman, and friend that I highly respect and with whom I rarely find disagreement, proposes a different view of the significance of one issue in an election process, writing “everybody knows a single issue that for them would disqualify a candidate for office.” (See the antecedent hyperlink for the full article and bibliographical information.)

I should also say that even the most simul justus et peccator among us vote both righteously and selfishly at the same time. As I have said elsewhere,

Preserving what we each value the most serves as the motivation for almost everyone’s vote. It would be difficult to find anyone who votes from a purely selfless stance, i.e., “this is in the best interest of the entire country.” Rather, we each vote from either a “survival” or “success” stance. Those who have experienced financial and/or material success generally care about issues that will ensure that such success is maintained. Issues of survival seem trite to them. In contrast, those attempting to survive, or to get to a certain level of social achievement—whether that is to gain the American Dream so as to get out of coal mining and Black Lung disease, to get out of a neighborhood of poorer schools and crime to the suburbs, or to keep from losing all they have earned in life—generally do not concern themselves with the issues of the successful. They want mobility, access, opportunity and aid.

What person of success would selflessly vote in the interest of those needing aid at his own expense? And what citizen simply trying to survive would vote for smaller government, although this would certainly be the wisest and best choice for any successful business owner? Yet believers are called to consider others better than themselves, to deny themselves, and to care for the poor, needy and oppressed. This calling cannot be set aside as one exercises one’s right to suffrage (”Believers at the Ballot Box,” Beauty for Ashes Magazine [July/August, 2008]).

While it might seem a contradiction for Christian African Americans to vote for Senator Obama, each of us votes with many contradictions in both the righteous and selfish hopes of having the best possible earthly government and society. Such hopes yield appointments of pro-life justices and unjust war decisions. But when we “pull the lever,” we vote our consciences, our blind spots, and unknown future actions of our candidates and those in their selected cabinets and staff. At best, going to the ballot box as believers is one great act of hope in the God who rules all things for good, who “removes kings and sets up kings,” and whose “dominion is an everlasting dominion” (Dan. 2:21; 4:34). It is best that we look to his Son for true hope, identity and justice. This is the only way any of us will stop throwing cards on the table each election cycle.