Obama’s Spiritual Guidance from Evangelical Pastors Since Parting Company with Rev. Wright

Otis Moss III, whose father is one of five pastors who currently provide spiritual guidance to Barack Obama, succeeded Rev. Wright as pastor at Trinity UCC.

Have you been wondering where Barack Obama has been receiving spiritual guidance and support since he parted company with Rev. Wright and Trinity UCC, the Chicago mega church that used tax-exempt dollars to support the Obama candidacy and trash Hillary Clinton from its pulpit?

Laurie Goodstein at the NY Times this morning reports:

President Obama has been without a pastor or a home church ever since he cut his ties to the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. in the heat of the presidential campaign. But he has quietly cultivated a handful of evangelical pastors for private prayer sessions on the telephone and for discussions on the role of religion in politics.

(Perhaps Obama’s fellowship with evangelical pastors explains the similarities of his oratory with that of former civil rights leaders and evangelical preaching – even the cadences are identical.)

All are men, two of them white and three black — including the Rev. Otis Moss Jr., a graying lion of the civil rights movement. Two, the entrepreneurial dynamos Bishop T. D. Jakes and the Rev. Kirbyjon H. Caldwell, also served as occasional spiritual advisers to President George W. Bush. Another, the Rev. Jim Wallis, leans left on some issues, like military intervention and poverty programs, but opposes abortion.

Take note regarding Rev. Otis Moss Jr.:

Mr. Moss’s son is the Rev. Otis Moss III, who succeeded Mr. Wright as pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Mr. Obama’s former church. Mr. Wright and the president are no longer in contact, said several people who know both men.

Rev. Otis Moss III is the pastor in the video featuring guest preacher Father Pfleger in his ugly rant against Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primary. Rev. Otis extends a rousing welcome to Father Pfleger and joins the crowd in its applause for his mockery of Clinton. Moss takes the pulpit to say, “Thank God for the message and thank God for the messenger. Thank God for Father Pfleger.” Watch the video.

We can always hope the son didn’t inherit his bigoted contempt for Hillary Clinton from his father who must have been at least somewhat aware of the impeccable record of both Hillary and Bill Clinton on civil rights throughout their years of public service. But of course, that fact didn’t stop the Obama campaign’s several attempts throughout the Democratic primary to smear the Clintons as racists.

Rev. Joseph Lowery: “They’ve {homosexuals} never been enslaved and declared less than human"

Leading conservative pundit Bill Kristol is saluting Barack Obama for inviting Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration. Kristol’s column in the Dec. 29 edition of the Weekly Standard is titled A President-Elect's Progress: From Rev. Wright to Rev. Warren. Those who have watched Obama’s evolution from the time he was handed the nomination by the DNC and the party’s superdelegates ought not be surprised at Kristol’s support. The minute he became the presumptive nominee, Obama took a dive to the right.

Kristol neglects to mention that although Rev. Wright is described by some as an aggressively progressive preacher and Rev. Warren is beloved among conservative Christians, the two men do have something in common. Rev. Wright’s rant – actually several rants - against Hillary Clinton from the Trinity UCC pulpit betrayed the pastor’s hatred of women, especially a powerful white woman.

Religious conservative Rick Warren’s stance on reproductive rights places him among those males in prominent positions who will never personally have to face the abortion issue, e.g., the pope and his army of priests, but who nevertheless claim the power to deny women the right to make a major decision in consultation with their doctors that affects their own bodies.

In debating the moral equivalence of discrimination against gays and women as civil rights issues, Kristol inadvertently calls into question Obama's selection of both Rick Warren and Joseph Lowery to pray at his inauguration. Kristol quotes Lowery, Obama’s pick to give the benediction: "Homosexuals as a people have never been enslaved because of their sexual orientation," he {Lowery} told the Associated Press. "They may have been scorned; they may have been discriminated against. But they've never been enslaved and declared less than human."

Never been declared less than human? There are obvious gaps in both Kristol’s and Rev. Lowery’s knowledge of history. According to the United States Memorial Holocaust Museum:

“The Nazi campaign against homosexuality targeted the more than one million German men who, the state asserted, carried a "degeneracy" that threatened the "disciplined masculinity" of Germany. Denounced as "antisocial parasites" and as "enemies of the state," more than 100,000 men were arrested under a broadly interpreted law against homosexuality. Approximately 50,000 men served prison terms as convicted homosexuals, while an unknown number were institutionalized in mental hospitals. Others—perhaps hundreds—were castrated under court order or coercion. Analyses of fragmentary records suggest that between 5,000 and 15,000 homosexual men were imprisoned in concentration camps, where many died from starvation, disease, exhaustion, beatings, and murder.

“In the racist practice of Nazi eugenics, women were valued primarily for their ability to bear children. The state presumed that women homosexuals were still capable of reproducing. Lesbians were not systematically persecuted under Nazi rule, but they nonetheless did suffer the loss of their own gathering places and associations.

“Nazi Germany did not seek to kill all homosexuals. Nevertheless, the Nazi state, through active persecution, attempted to terrorize German homosexuals into sexual and social conformity, leaving thousands dead and shattering the lives of many more.”

It’s beyond the scope of this post to comment on all of the widespread enslavement and horrible abuse endured by gays and women throughout history that continues to this day around the globe.

I’ll conclude with these words by former slave Frederick Douglas that the Obama team in its refusal to take seriously the rights of any group other than African-Americans would do well to ponder: “Until we are all free, we are none free.”

Can a Leader Spawned in Chicago Politics Be Expected to Clean up Washington?

“Obama has profited greatly from his careful climb through Chicago politics. But there is an old saying that in politics nothing is free -- there is just some question about when you pay the price. Obama is paying it now.” Michael Barone, RealClearPolitics.

It’s common knowledge that Barack Obama and most of the members of his inner circle from Chicago have long maintained ties with the corrupt Daley political machine. Nevertheless, Obama supporters continue to present their candidate as the harbinger of the new politics galloping into Washington to save our national government from corruption.

In covering the Blagojevich scandal, Michael Barone at Real Clear Politics this morning argues that “Chicago Politics Stains Obama.”

Comparing Gov. Blagojevich’s process of filling Obama’s senate seat in Illinois to that followed in 1960 by Gov. Foster Furcolo in filling JFK’s senate seat in Massachussetts, Barone finds both similarities and differences:

“That was a different tableau from the one we have seen unfold in Chicago this past week. Furcolo was an intelligent man, disappointed to have failed to win the state's other Senate seat and destined not to win elective office again. But he knew that it would not pay to buck the Kennedys.

“Rod Blagojevich, the governor who under Illinois statute has the power to appoint a senator to fill out the remaining two years of Barack Obama's Senate term, is made of different stuff. He was arrested last Tuesday, and the U.S. attorney filed a criminal complaint and made public tapes of Blagojevich seeking personal favors in return for the Senate seat.”

Barone analyzes the potential effect of the Blagojevich scandal on Obama’s reputation prior to his inauguration:

“He {Obama} has appeared to avoid all but small mistakes, and his theme of unifying the nation -- muted perhaps necessarily in the adversary environment of the campaign -- has come forth loud and clear.

“From all this the Blagojevich scandal is an unwanted distraction. It is a reminder that, for all his inspirational talk of hope and change, Obama, like Blagojevich, are both products of Chicago Democratic politics, which is capable of producing leaders both sublime and sordid.

“Obama has not always avoided the latter. For 20 years he attended the church of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, now thrown under the bus, and for more than a decade engaged in mutually beneficial exchanges political and financial with the political fixer Tony Rezko, now in federal custody.

“Blagojevich, never a close political ally, has now been thrown under the bus, too, and seems likely to share Rezko's fate. Obama fans can point out, truthfully, that other revered presidents had seamy associates and made common cause on their way up with men who turned out to be scoundrels. Franklin Roosevelt happily did business with Chicago Mayor Ed Kelly, though warned that he was skimming off money from federal contracts. John Kennedy no more thought to deny a request from the Mayor Daley of his day than Obama has thought to buck the Mayor Daley of his.

“But as Kennedy supposedly said of a redolent Massachusetts politician, "Sometimes party loyalty asks too much." The man in question was the Democratic nominee for governor and was not elected. Until Patrick Fitzgerald released his tapes, Barack Obama never said the same of Rod Blagojevich.

“Obama has profited greatly from his careful climb through Chicago politics. But there is an old saying that in politics nothing is free -- there is just some question about when you pay the price. Obama is paying it now.”

Rev. Wright and Trinity UCC's Repeated Violations of Tax Law Provision 501(c)(3)

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s return to the headlines today reminds me of how Trinity UCC violated tax law provision Section 501(c)(3) during the Democratic primary.

Section 501(c)(3) grants exemption from the federal income tax to non-profit organizations. Churches automatically acquire 501(c)(3) status upon filing of proper organizational documents.

Organizations with this classification are prohibited from conducting political campaign activities to influence elections to public office.

Yet Rev. Wright actively campaigned from Trinity’s pulpit on behalf of Barack Obama while heaping racist and misogynistic scorn on his leading opponent Hillary Clinton (watch video). After Wright retired, his successor, Rev. Otis Moss III, applauded a similar performance by Father Pfleger who brought the house down at Trinity by preaching even more vicious mockery and scorn against Clinton (watch video).

Both Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary and John McCain in the general election were forbidden by the Obama camp, the DNC, and their media allies to even mention the trash talk from Trinity’s pulpit or to suggest the church had forfeited its tax exempt status by its political activities.

Yesterday, Dec. 7, Rev. Wright returned to Trinity to preach for the first time since his retirement. The Christian Post’s Jennifer Riley reports that Rev. Wright did not steer clear of politics:

“Reflecting on the Christmas season, Wright gave a message in which he cited the story of Mary and the angel Gabriel, who told her she would bear a child to be the son of God. Wright compared Mary’s disbelief to similar doubts by some about the future of Trinity Church after his retirement and the likelihood of electing the first black U.S. president.

“Our legitimate questions tend to be asked from the vantage point of limited horizons,” said Wright. “Mary had a limited horizon. She couldn’t see how it was possible.”

Riley also reported:

“During the Sunday services (three were held), Wright also defended his right as a preacher to critique the government, pointing out that the biblical figure Luke had criticized the Roman government.

‘“Any preacher who dares to point out the simple ugly facts found in every field imaginable is demonized as volatile, controversial, incendiary, inflammatory, anti-American and radical,’ Wright complained.”’

That generality is false, of course. Ministers of both black and white churches avoid breaking the law by not supporting candidates for public office while regularly speaking out on behalf of social justice issues. For example, the congregation where I was a member at the time almost unanimously signed a petition opposing the invasion of Iraq.

I continue to wonder, though, why no one has called Trinity UCC to account for violating tax law provision Section 501(c)(3).

Does anyone out there have the answer?

Trinity’s Thistlethwaite Joins Wright, and Pfleger in Bashing Hillary Clinton

The On Faith blog at WashingtonPost/Newsweek has recently provided a forum for yet another representative of Obama’s former church to bash Hillary Clinton. I’m speaking of the Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, president of Chicago Theological Seminary (affiliated with the United Church of Christ), and a member of Trinity UCC. Thistlethwaite’s biography at On Faith boasts of her expertise in liberation theology, famously espoused by both the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Father Pfleger.

The title of Thistlethwaite’s recent post is Hillary’s Biblical Role Model. Thistlethwaite cites Hillary’s statement from CNN’s Compassion Forum, "Ever since I was a little girl, [I have been] a great admirer of Esther ... There weren't too many models of women who had the opportunity to make a decision, to take a chance, a risk that was very courageous."

Thistlethwaite, who has repeatedly crossed the line in her blog posts to support Barack Obama, uncovers negative characteristics assigned to Esther in the Older Testament: “Esther is brave, but she is also very shrewd. Through trickery and currying favor with the King, Esther saves the Jewish people. The story shows her to be quite bloodthirsty as well. Esther makes sure that not only is the King’s henchman hanged, but his ten sons as well!”

Not content with implying that Hillary Clinton is “shrewd, cunning, ruthless, and bloodthirsty,” Thistlethwaite goes on to link Clinton to Katherine Harris, the Florida secretary of state who certified Dubya the victor over Al Gore in 2000. Thistlethwaite points out that in the movie “Recount” Esther is also Harris’s biblical role model.

The cunning, ruthless, and viciously catty Thistlethwaite concludes her diatribe against Hillary Clinton: “What does Queen Esther mean to Hillary Clinton? Is it the same view of courage as Katherine Harris, or something different?”

I’m left to wonder about the propriety of Thistlethwaite’s use of her standing as an ordained minister and seminary president to interfere in the Democratic race to support Barack Obama, her candidate of choice, and viciously slander his opponent on the day of the last two state primaries.

The Rev. Thistlethwaite’s post puts her in the same league as the Rev. Wright and Father Pfleger, and it’s her turn to step forward and apologize to Hillary Clinton.

The Rapid Decline of Obama’s Favorability Ratings

Photo credits: blogs.bet.com

Dan Harris and Olivia Sterns at ABC News on Monday discuss the effects from the latest firestorm emanating from Trinity UCC in Chicago on Obama’s favorability ratings:

“The racially inflammatory remarks of a second preacher connected to Sen. Barack Obama have reignited a divisive racial debate that undermines his candidacy's unifying theme and appears to be hurting his chances in the general election this fall.”

Harris and Sterns quote NPR’s Juan Williams:

‘“People identify Obama as young, energetic, telegenic, intelligent, talking about change and unifying the races. Then the second thing that comes to mind is, 'Gee, what about this Rev. Wright? What about Father Pfleger? Why is he associated with these people who are so inflammatory and mean-spirited and even racial?”’

Williams added:

‘“Barack Obama's favorability ratings have been sinking, especially with the swing voters as we head toward the general election: white women, Jews, Latinos; it's a real problem," Williams said.”

Harris and Sterns cite the numbers:

“A recent Pew poll shows that the Democratic presidential candidate's lead has slimmed dramatically to 47-to-44 percent in a hypothetical general election matchup against presumptive GOP nominee Sen. John McCain of Arizona. The tightening coincides with a dip in Obama's favorability ratings, which have slipped 8 percentage points to 51 percent since late February, just before the Wright controversy broke.”

Read the entire Harris and Sterns article here.

On Faith’s Berlinblau Names Pfleger the Finalist in Trinity’s Video Competition

It’s not surprising that Jaques Berlinerblau blogging at On Faith (Washington Post/Newsweek) has chimed in on the Father Pfleger controversy ignited by a rapidly circulating video of the Father’s Hillary bashing from the Trinity UCC pulpit last Sunday. Berlinerblau has little patience with this latest episode in the saga of Barack Obama’s faith journey in the Christian tradition:

“By the time you finish watching this YouTube video (which had about 95,000 showings as of this morning) it will be well on its way to reaching: 1) its one billionth viewing, and, 2) its one millionth close reading by Clinton and McCain staffers.

“The action took place last Sunday at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Yes. That Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago! This time, however, the valedictory is made not by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, but by a white Chicago Catholic priest by the name of Rev. Michael Pfleger.

“During his sermon, Father Pfleger mocked Hillary Clinton's tears before the New Hampshire primary. He opines that she cried because she felt "entitled" because she is white "and there's a black man stealing my show.' Father Pfleger apologized late Thursday for the remarks, saying his sermon was "inconsistent with Senator Obama's life and message.’

“But by delivering his remarks, Father Pfleger seems to have officially submitted his entry to the What Else Can We At Trinity Do to Further Assure that the United States Does Not Have Its First African-American President Any Time Soon? video competition. And this application has ‘Finalist’ marked all over it.”

Read More:

Rev. Wright, the Man of God vs. Obama, the Politician

Having a theological education from an accredited seminary, I watched Rev. Wright’s presentation at the National Press Club with interest this morning, and I could empathize with much of what he had to say about the oppression African-Americans have long endured.

Nevertheless, I felt squeamish in response to Wright’s charge that media criticism of his more inflammatory comments was actually criticism of the black church in general. I don’t believe Rev. Wright is qualified to speak for all black churches in America. Unlike Trinity United Church of Christ, I’m quite sure that many black churches would best be described as moderate or conservative in both their religious and political beliefs.

Watching his performance on CNN, I caught just a whiff of vengeance from Wright that was directed toward Barack Obama. Reading the various online media accounts today, I became aware that I was not alone.

The analysis by the AP’s Nedra Pickler was accurately titled, “Wright Does Obama Little Good.”

Pickler begins:

“The Rev. Jeremiah Wright is going after his critics on an incendiary tour that is doing his one-time congregant, Barack Obama, little good.

“After weeks of staying out of the public eye while critics lambasted his sermons, Wright made three public appearances in four days to defend himself. The former pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago has been combative, providing colorful commentary and feeding the story Obama had hoped was dying down.

"This is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright," Wright told the Washington press corps Monday. "It has nothing to do with Senator Obama. It is an attack on the black church launched by people who know nothing about the African-American religious tradition."

Pickler continued:

“Wright's tour couldn't come at a much worse time for Obama, who is campaigning for white working class voters in Indiana and North Carolina. Many of Wright's most controversial comments are angry condemnations of the United States for its treatments of blacks — thoughts that were applauded by the black church leaders in his audience Monday but risk offending white voters.

“An Associated Press-Ipsos poll released Monday suggests the Wright controversy may be hurting Obama among whites. His Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton is doing better than Obama among whites in head-to-head matchups with John McCain. Among white respondents, Clinton gets 43 percent to McCain's 48 percent. Obama gets 38 percent to McCain's 51 percent. Obama said Monday, after Wright's latest comments, "None of the voters I talk to ask about it. There may be people who are troubled by it and are polite and not asking about it. It's not what I hear."

Pickler quoted Obama further:

"I have said before and I will say again that some of the comments Rev. Wright has made offend me and I understand why they have offended the American people. ... Certainly what the last three days indicates is we're not coordinating with him."

Pickler added:

“Wright showed no concern for how he might be affecting the presidential race. He suggested Obama was distancing himself only because of political motivations while he, the former pastor, was trying to do what was right in the eyes of the Lord.”

Read more of Pickler’s analysis.

Hillary Clinton Comments On Rev. Wright’s Hate Speech

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review staff writers Wereschagin and Brown reported that in an interview today with the Tribune-Review’s editorial board, Hillary Clinton said Rev. Wright would not have been her pastor, adding, "You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend."

Wereschagin and Brown continued:

“Obama's lead in national polls has slipped since clips of the retired Rev. Jeremiah Wright began being played on national news programs. The uproar prompted Obama to give a wide-ranging speech on race in America a week ago. The Clinton campaign has refrained from getting involved in the controversy, but Clinton herself, responding to a question, denounced what she said was ‘hate speech.’

“‘You know, I spoke out against Don Imus (who was fired from his radio and television shows after making racially insensitive remarks), saying that hate speech was unacceptable in any setting, and I believe that,’ Clinton said. ‘I just think you have to speak out against that. You certainly have to do that, if not explicitly, then implicitly by getting up and moving.’”

Read More:

Hillary to Barack: “You Can Identify The Problems, But What Have You Done About Them?”

Photo credits: Getty Images

In the aftermath of Obama’s speech on race the other day, Jay Cost, writing for the Horserace Blog at Real Clear Politics, raised the question Hillary Clinton has been posing to Barack Obama throughout her campaign: “You can identify the problems, but what have you done about them?"

After a comprehensive review of Obama’s speech, Cost addresses what he sees as its shortcomings:

“My concern with the speech is the following. I am not sure what I think about Obama's claim that he never heard Wright make incendiary comments. I think that hinges on the definition of "incendiary." More importantly, I have always thought this was a moot point. Incendiary comments make for great television - but the bigger concern, especially for somebody as smart as Obama, is the philosophy that undergirds them. Obama clearly understands Wright's philosophy - even if he never heard Wright say what has generated this firestorm. If nothing else, yesterday he contextualized Wright into the broader narrative of the American racial division. He would not have been able to do that so ably if he had only learned about this philosophy last week.

“This philosophy is divisive, and Obama was aware of it even if he had not heard its most extreme articulations. At the same time, this philosophy is clearly not the core mission of Trinity United Church of Christ. Jeremiah Wright does not wake up every morning dedicated to dividing people. However, the antipode of this divisiveness is the core mission of Barack Obama. He wakes up every morning dedicated to uniting people. This is why Obama thinks Wright is not just wrong, but "profoundly" wrong. Wright's divisiveness constitutes a grievous mistake on what Obama takes to be the central question of American identity - are we one people or are we not?

“Accordingly, this inclines me to ask what Obama did about this profound philosophical error. He has been a parishioner for twenty years, and he has been a strong believer in this philosophy of unity for at least four years, since his keynote address in 2004. I appreciate that he cannot walk away from Trinity because the church speaks to who he is. However, I must ask whether he worked to persuade Wright and the parishioners who applauded so jubilantly at his divisive words that they were wrong on a matter of existential importance. If he did, what was the consequence of those efforts? Did he succeed in bringing about change at Trinity?”

Cost points out that voters are forced to look at what candidates have done in the past to gauge what they will do in the future:

“These are reasonable questions to ask. They speak to the implicit warranty that a candidate offers when he or she runs for any office. Candidates make all kinds of promises about what they will do, and voters need to find some way to gauge whether they will keep their word. One way to do that is to look at what they have done. By contextualizing Jeremiah Wright in the broader dilemma of American divisiveness, Obama has identified his experience at Trinity as a small instance of a larger problem that plagues the country, the problem to which he intends to dedicate the 44th presidency. It is therefore reasonable to ask what he did - empowered as he was as a high-profile, long-standing parishioner - to change the viewpoint of Wright and Trinity, and whether those efforts were successful.”

Cost goes on to explain how Barack dodges the real issue before him:

“The essential problem of the speech is that it gives no answer to these queries. Obama recognizes the problem with Wright's viewpoint, feels strongly that it is part of a problem in society that needs to be corrected, but offers no evidence of his work to correct it. Instead, he says, "Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed." But there are many ways to "disagree." Did he merely shake his head quietly in the pews and complain to Michelle on the drive back to Kenwood? Or did he do something about it? Many parishioners in many churches or synagogues would do something if their pastors, priests or rabbis went astray on an important issue. Many more would expect a future president to do something.”

Cost then imagines Hillary Clinton’s response:

“What could be political trouble for him is that these are specific versions of the general question Hillary Clinton has been asking for weeks. Can't you just hear her now, in the back of your mind, say in response to this speech what she has said dozens of times before? ‘I have been working on these issues for 35 years. My husband and I made real progress in the 90s. You can identify the problems, but what have you done about them?’”

In conclusion, Mr. Cost states the obvious about Obama’s skimpy resume:

“Hillary Clinton did not invent this question. She is just exploiting it. The question is a real one that each voter must answer and weigh for himself. That would be the case regardless of whether Mrs. Clinton ever uttered ‘35 years’ or not. Thus, the speech returns us to the essential gamble of the Obama candidacy. It is simply true that his résumé is thin. It is not the thinnest of our past presidents. Chester Arthur probably gets that prize. However, it is thinner than what most Americans typically expect from a president. Obama is betting that voters have the same reaction to the Wright speech as they do to his candidacy itself: they are so persuaded by his insightful diagnosis of the national ailment that they are not bothered by the fact that he has done little to date to cure it.”

The logical follow-up questions is this: How long will the American people allow themselves to be persuaded by Barack Obama’s soaring rhetoric without challenging his inadequate qualifications to be president of the United States?

A Different Perspective On Obama’s Speech on Race

Photo credits: AP

Since Obama’s speech on race the other day, liberal pundits have been fawning over his “brilliant” response to the Rev. Wright controversy. I continue to be disappointed that no one appears to have analyzed in depth the black liberation theology behind Wright’s preaching that has undoubtedly influenced Obama’s understanding of Christianity over the years. (I discussed this topic to some extent in an earlier post.)

Nevertheless, Michael Meyers, executive director of the New York Civil Rights Coalition and a former assistant national director of the NAACP, at least challenges Obama’s attempt to justify his relationship to Rev. Wright and move the debate to broader concerns on racism in America.

In an opinion piece for the Los Angeles Times, Meyers argues that instead of “nailing it” in his highly publicized speech, Obama “blew it.” Meyers sets forth his argument in these terms:

“In my considered judgment as a race and civil rights specialist, I would say that Barack Obama's "momentous" speech on race settled on merely "explaining" so-called racial differences between blacks and whites -- and in so doing amplified deep-seated racial tensions and divisions. Instead of giving us a polarizing treatise on the "black experience," Obama should have reiterated the theme that has brought so many to his campaign: That race ain't what it used to be in America.

“He should have presented us a pathway out of our racial boxes and a road map for new thinking about race. He should have depicted his minister, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., as a symbol of the dysfunctional angry men who are stuck in the past and who must yield to a new generation of color-blind, hopeful Americans and to a new global economy in which we will look on our neighbors' skin color no differently than how we look on their eye color.”

“In fact, I'd say that considering the nation's undivided attention to this all-important speech, which gave him an unrivaled opportunity to lift us out of racial and racist thinking, Obama blew it.

“I waited in vain for our hybrid presidential candidate to speak the simple truth that there is no such thing as "race," that we all belong to the same race -- the human race. I waited for him to mesmerize us with a singular and focused appeal to hold all candidates to the same standards no matter their race or their sex or their age. But instead Obama gave us a full measure of racial rhetoric about how some of us with an "untrained ear" -- meaning whites and Asians and Latinos -- don't understand and can't relate to the so-called black experience.

“Well, I am black, and I can't relate to a "black experience" that shields and explains old-style black ministers who rant and rave about supposed racial differences and about how America ought to be damned. I long ago broke away from all associations and churches that preached the gospel of hate and ethnic divisiveness -- including canceling my membership in 100 Black Men of America Inc., when they refused my motion to admit women and whites. They still don't. I was not going to stay in any group that assigned status or privileges of membership based solely on race or gender.

“We and our leaders -- especially our candidates for the highest office in the land -- must repudiate all forms of racial idiocy and sexism, and be judged by whether we still belong to exclusionary or hateful groups. I don't know any church that respects, much less reflects, my personal beliefs in the absolute equality of all people, so I choose not to belong to any of them. And I would never -- as have some presidential candidates -- accept the endorsement of preachers of the gospel according to the most racist and sexist of doctrines.

“But someone's race or religion is not mine or anybody else's concern. I couldn't care less that Wright is a Christian or that Louis Farrakhan professes to be a Muslim. I couldn't care less whether the hateful minister who endorsed John McCain is, deep inside, a decent man or a fundamentalist. But I do care about these pastors' divisive and crazed words; I do care that their "sermons" exploit and pander to the worst fears and passions of people based on perceptions and misperceptions about race. I hate that these preachers' sermons prejudge people's motives or behavior based on their race or ethnicity. I hate the haters, and I expected Obama to make a straightforward speech about what has become the Hate Hour -- and the most segregated hour -- in America on Sunday mornings.

“I expected Obama, who up to now had been steering a perfect course away from the racial boxes of the past, to challenge racial labels and so-called black experiences. We're all mixed up, and if we haven't yet been by the process of miscegenation, trans-racial adoptions and interracial marriage, we sure ought to get used to how things will be in short order.

“That would have been the forward-looking message of a visionary candidate. But Obama erred by looking backward -- as far back as slavery. What does slavery have to do with the price of milk at the grocery store? He referenced continuing segregation, especially segregated public schools, but stopped short. What is he going to do about them? How does he feel about public schools for black boys or single-sex public schools and classes? What does the gospel according to Wright say about such race-based and gender-specific schemes for getting around our civil rights laws?

“We can't be united as a nation if we continue to think racially and give credence to racial experiences and differences based on ethnicity, past victim status and stereotypical categories. All of these prejudices surrounding tribe-against-tribe are old-hat and dysfunctional -- especially the rants of ministers, of whatever skin color or religion, who appeal to our base prejudices and to superstitions about our supposed racial differences. The man or woman who talks plainly about our commonality as a race of human beings, about our future as one nation indivisible, rather than about our discredited and disunited past, is, I predict, likely to finish ahead of the pack and do us a great public service.”

For Meyers’ column as it appears in the Los Angeles Times, along with readers comments, go here.

A Theological Look at Barack Obama’s Speech on Race

Photo credits: courtesy of http://www.whudat.com/

Ever since the video clips surfaced of Barack Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, preaching a fiery brand of black liberation theology at Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ, I’ve had flashbacks to my student days at United Theological Seminary in New Brighton, Minn. Obama’s speech in Philadelphia today has prompted me to review my own tenuous connections to liberation theology and my reasons for choosing the alternative.

I attended United (a seminary coincidentally affiliated with the UCC) in the late 1980s when liberation and process theology dominated the curriculum. As you might expect, students debated one another strenuously over the merits of the two theological perspectives. As I recall, my friends at seminary unanimously preferred liberation theology for its strong emphasis on social justice and although I felt very much alone at the time, I chose to pursue process theology.

Liberation theology characteristically appeals to groups of people who have experienced some form of oppression, so there are feminist, ethnic, class, geographical, and racial versions. As the child of a large Appalachian family who migrated to northwestern Ohio to eke out a living as sharecroppers, I’ve known my share of oppression. I credit my childhood experiences of poverty and discrimination with teaching me compassion for the suffering of others.

It’s been a few years since I graduated from seminary, but I still recall a discussion I had one afternoon with an African-American student advocating black liberation theology. I balked at the idea of God taking sides, even on behalf of the oppressed, and I refused to condone the use of force to overcome those labeled as oppressors. To support my position, I cited historical examples of violent upheavals, such as the French Revolution, in which the oppressed in turn ultimately became the oppressors.

Further, I resisted the notion of an all-powerful God who could or would intervene at will to overthrow evil regimes. If that were so, I argued, why has God allowed Nazis, fascists, and one corrupt dictator after another to rule enslaved people for decades?

My classmate that day was not persuaded and since then liberation theology as demonstrated by the Rev. Wright has obviously continued to take root in various places around the globe.

It was no surprise to discover that James Cone, a well-known black liberation theologian I was once assigned to read in seminary, has influenced Wright’s theological development. Cone currently teaches Systematic Theology at Union Theological Seminary in New York City.

Cone points to Luke 4:18-19:

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach the good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.”

Reminding me of what I’d learned about liberation theology in the past, Cone claims, "In Christ, God enters human affairs and takes sides with the oppressed. Their suffering becomes his; their despair, divine despair."

For a refresher course in process theology, I turned to my own ordination paper:

“As I progressed in my studies {at seminary}, it became increasingly clear to me that how we individually and collectively understand ourselves in relationship to God, whether consciously or unconsciously, informs our relationships to ourselves, to community, and to nature. For this reason, perceiving God from the point of view of process theology has been particularly helpful to me.

“Process theology offers a holistic image of God, large enough to encompass the variety of characteristics ascribed to divinity throughout the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. God is the source of all creativity and novelty in the universe where all of life is seen as interconnected and in the process of becoming. God knows at every moment what has been, what is, and what most likely will be.

“God relates to humans in faithful partnership in which God shares our suffering as well as our joy. God is in continuous communication with each person, ceaselessly inviting, but never using force, the best possible response to each newly arising set of circumstances, the response offering the greatest possible good to all those involved.

“In view of the suggestion that God communicates with us for the most part at the level of our unconscious, it follows that process theology affirms the integrated life and a “turning toward god.” The emergence of a loving invitation from God from the level of the unconscious to conscious awareness might be described as a moment of revelation.

“It’s my understanding that sin is internalized oppression or self-negation. I understand arrogance and pride as manifestations of insufficient, rather than excessive, love for the self, which decreases the capacity for love of neighbor. Evil would then result from dominant/submissive patterns of relationship found in social structures that perpetuate the oppression of individuals and groups.

“Process thought, however, avoids absolutes; to one extent or another, we are all representative of both the oppressor and the oppressed. God is therefore not on the side of one person or group. Instead, God is continuously offering salvation through grace, defined as acceptance, love, and forgiveness, to all persons.

“For Christians, the wholeness attributed to God in process theology is best exemplified in the portrait of Jesus that emerges in Scripture. Jesus embodied the biblical concept of shalom, the material and spiritual well being revealed as God’s intention for both the individual and community.

“A biblically based corollary to the above is that shalom is the God-given potential of every person, regardless of gender, race, national origin, ethnic background, or any other category used to create false positions of authority among humankind.”

As I’ve listened to Barack Obama speak at various times in this long, drawn out primary race, I’ve noted time and again the religious tone of his political rallies that seem to morph into revival meetings where participants chant in unison, “Yes, we can.” His following is often referred to as a “movement” guided by the mantra of “change you can believe in.” But I didn’t connect the subtext of his campaign of empowering the oppressed with liberation theology until I heard those revealing video clips of Pastor Wright making his incendiary comments. That’s when it all came together for me.

In his speech today in Philadelphia, Sen. Obama very likely dampened the firestorm his pastor’s words have evoked over the past several days. But I’m left wondering how much Obama, a layperson at Trinity UCC, actually knows about liberation theology, the religious perspective of his former pastor that has no doubt influenced him more than he realizes, both at the conscious and unconscious level.