Black theology

**This entry comes by special request from someone with the initials NN.**

The blogosphere has been buzzing about one presidential hopeful's ties to an inner-city Chicago church that espouses what has come to be known as Black theology.

These PC Pundits point to the website of Barack Obama's home church, where he was baptized more than 20 years ago, and cry foul over its decidedly Black overtones.

You be the judge.

What follows is taken verbatim from the official website of Trinity United Church of Christ:

We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.

The Pastor as well as the membership of Trinity United Church of Christ is committed to a 10-point Vision:

A congregation committed to ADORATION.
A congregation preaching SALVATION.
A congregation actively seeking RECONCILIATION.
A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.
A congregation committed to BIBLICAL EDUCATION.
A congregation committed to CULTURAL EDUCATION.
A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA.
A congregation committed to LIBERATION.
A congregation committed to RESTORATION.
A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY.

The movement on this issue in conservative circles is fairly predictable. First, conservative hand-wringers wax and wane about a ridiculous scenario in which "Black" is replaced with "White" and then speculate on the fallout that would ensue.

Second, they have sought to attach one of the church's "ten points" (actually, number ten) to a communist ideology--coloring the issue, and by connection the candidate, red.

It is, however, striking that the life of Christ (were it to be characterized as one or the other) is certainly more socialist than capitialist in character.

(Where is the Protestant Ethic when our conscience needs it?)

This is certainly not the first time this sort of bait and switch tactic has been used in a presidential election, nor will it be the last. But, I would be remissed if I didn't take the opportunity to clear up a few things.

Black theology

Black theology grew out of a much larger doctrine of liberation in the Catholic Church (circa 1963).

Liberation theology, as it is called, was borne out of the New Testament's admonition to bring about justice in the world--and often with a sword.

It is a theology of powerful versus oppressed, weak versus strong.

The story of Jesus in the New Testament is replete with examples of intercession in the lives of the oppressed; and the freedom for which Christ fought was not just freedom of the mind, soul and spirit, but freedom from physical bondage.

Historical underpinnings

The Liberation Theology movement was brought to the fore primarily in Latin America in the 1960s and 1970s when the poor were being subjugated by rogue governments, opportunistic capital and, at times, even the U.S. military (undergirding puppet governments to stave off populist movements that, historically, are bad for business).

(Perhaps the most famous [or at least contemporary] liberation theologist was Haiti's Jean-Bertrand Aristide, pictured right. Aristide, a devout Catholic and populist president of Haiti, was deposed twice by military coups. He was an ardent opponent of globalization.)

This movement was almost strictly Latino in character, though such an ideology has currency all over the world.

Black theology, specifically, branched out of the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa in the 1970s, when millions of Africans were being oppressed by a minority of whites, holdovers from a vast Christianizing mission that eventually colonized the South Africa (and the rest of the continent with it).

That Black theology served as a unifying ideology in South Africa is wholly ironic in that it was missionaries who converted and colonized Africans with the ethos of Christianity.

Christianity, and by connection its liberation theology (though not yet codified), would have been an alien doctrine before the age of colony in Africa.

Why Black Theology?

For those among us who contend that Black theology is divisive, I have only this: history matters.

The experience of Blacks in the West (and by extension Christendom) has not been a good one, historically speaking.

To call Black theology divisive belies and understanding of this fact: Whites are not all guilty for the continuing presence of racism in the world, but we're all responsible.

This is our inheritance.

We created difference every chance we got and we've reaped a whirlwind for it.

When separation wasn't organic, we wanted to make it appear as if it was. That is the legacy of our ancestors; that is our legacy.

Black theology, then, is a forseeable consequence of historic inequality.

It's legitimate in that it is representative of continuing inequality between the races all over the world. It admits into evidence a reality that many Whites (and others) simply do not want to believe: that being created equal has meant little to nothing for Blacks in this country and elsewhere.

Obama's adherence to such an ideology should make him more, not less, electable.

But, I'll bet it doesn't.

Back to the basics

The Audacity of Hope (Ar.)

Dubbed the United States’ first black president, it’s rather ironic that Bill Clinton is now taking fire from inside the party he directed out of the doldrums in the 1990s because of his recent dialogue with Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama.

According to a recent article written by Jonathan Alter in Newsweek, two prominent members of the Democratic Party have urged Clinton to tone down the harshness of his rhetoric regarding Obama.

One, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Ma.), went as far as to intimate that Clinton had some level of culpability, according to Alter, for the interjection of race into what has become a two-horse race between Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Race and its antecedents as issues for the Clinton campaign are simply not winnable—that much is clear.

Stopping short of calling him Snow White, Mr. Clinton recently characterized Obama’s stance on the war in Iraq as a “fairy tale,” which ruffled the feathers of many African-Americans including one prominent Congressman in South Carolina, James Clyburn.

The gaffe may prove fatal for Mrs. Clinton in the Palmetto State, where nearly half of the Democratic electorate is African-American.

Mr. Clinton has certainly hurled his share of mud since the status of Hillary’s campaign turned from prohibitive favorite toward coin flip, to be sure, but he is doing it so she doesn’t have to.

But, will the long-term costs outweigh any short-term benefits?

For Democrats like Kennedy and Rahm Emanuel—the other leading Democrat who reportedly chided the former president—Clinton’s shilling on behalf of his wife, at least with regard to the shrill nature of his rhetoric, is destructively symbolic.

The Democratic Party can ill-afford to tarnish its image in the eyes of black Americans; and when the Party’s de facto leader is perceived to be vigorously undercutting Obama, who doesn’t require the honorary title of “black,” it stands to reason that the powers that be in the Party might become a bit skittish.

Again, as long as race is a significant part of the discourse on the Democratic side, Mrs. Clinton cannot expect to lure African-American voters to her side of the debate.

The overarching lesson here is that the insertion of the “Audacity of Hope”—the title of Barack’s bestselling book”—into the political arena has done more to hurt Hillary than to help Obama.

Some politicians, the Clintons included among them, simply excel at what the Illinois Senator refers to as “the politics of cynicism.”

The Clinton’s political war machine, once orchestrated by renowned bottom-feeders like James Carville and Dick Morris, simply cannot effectively purvey negativity the way it may need to against a popular African-American opponent.

Further, were Obama not staked to protagonist politics, he might find himself similarly drawing the ire of many in the populous for negatively attacking a woman. (Going negative simply would not help his cause, so his principled stance actually reeks of political gamesmanship.)

These are the newest variables in the old (and white) boys club of American presidential politics--get used to them.

If Mr. Clinton chooses to ignore the advice of his influential cohorts, we may see a top-down shift in support amongst Democrats toward Obama.

If that happens, Hillary’s presidential campaign legacy may mirror Al Gore’s—only in reverse.

Al tucked Bill away in 2000, and many pundits argued it cost him the presidency.
Hillary, on the other hand, is sharing the stump with her spouse. Only time will tell if there is room enough for both of them.

What's in a name?

The Primary season in politics is unique in that it only appeals to a small minority of political junkies (like me) and old folks with nothing better to do.

Mitt Romney, former Massachusetts governor, won the Republican Primary in my state, Michigan, going away yesterday.

The polls that had the race as a statistical tie between Romney and McCain, who won Michigan in 2000, were dead wrong. Romney won by nine points over McCain and nearly doubled Huckabee's vote total.

Relatively little has changed in Michigan since 2000. The economy is still poor, taxes are still high and the Lions still suck.

Luckily for Mitt, his last name still has currency in this state with the 60-and-over crowd who can remember when his father was governor. Further, Michigan isn't Iowa where Mitt got the Evangelical cold shoulder.

Michiganders, in other words, wouldn't hold Mormonism against him.

Nor will they, apparently, really listen closely to his sunny side up rhetoric.

Romney panders more than either Huckabee or McCain with respect to Michigan's failing economy, that much is obvious. His first order of business as president, or so he says, would be to begin the process of restoring Michigan's economy--whatever that means.

He believes that somehow we can get these lost jobs in the automotive sector back by making Michigan more desirable for that kind of business.

Newsflash: Those jobs aren't coming back.

McCain's stance is that we need to support new high tech industries, automotive and otherwise, to get back on track.

McCain's tact isn't somber or defeatist; it's real.

Michigan will never be what it was. Economic monocultures are bound rise and fall, and no amount of pandering will get us back to that time and place.

Good luck down south, Mitty!

Predictions

By "Super Tuesday" Romney's candidacy will be in its death throes. There is no way Romney's dog and pony show will be able to do down south what it did in Michigan.

Romney will finish behind McCain and Huckabee in South Carolina and, if he is not careful, could actually lose out to Father Time (Fred Thompson) for the bronze.

The state that killed McCain in 2000 may be the one to usher him in to "Super Tuesday" as the Republican frontrunner.

From there, Rudy has to win Florida or he is toast.

Don't believe the lies about Barack

Before I make with the proceedings, do yourself a big favor and delete any forwarded e-mails that have taken up residence in your e-mail box. In the future, delete them on the spot before opening them.

I'm not suggesting you do this to protect yourself from viruses or spyware, though they are often transmitted in such a way. On the contrary, follow through on my advice for your own sanity.

It's election season, and all manner of parasites are trolling the internet seeking out people who are prepared to believe anything.

Enter the newly-crowned Democratic presidential frontrunner, Barack Obama.

The young-looking Illinois Senator, whose middle name just happens to be Hussein (extremely common in the Middle East), has become a target of an opportunitistic disease--lying for political purposes.

Several manifestations of an e-mail about Obama have been circulating all over the world, preying on people who are either ignorant of facts or simply want to believe the latest conspiracy theory to come down the pike.

Without rehashing the gist of the e-mail, I will just say this:

--Obama is not a Muslim, radical or otherwise.

--He is a self-admitted Christian has attended a Church of Christ congregation in Chicago for more than 20 years.

--Attending a school comprised largely of Muslims students does not a Madrasa make. In English parlance, a Madrasa is a theological (Qur'an-based) school for training Muslims. It is not tantamount to a Catholic school for Christians.

--No evidence supports the claim that Obama's father was a "radical" Muslim or even a practicing Muslim.

--Obama was sworn into the Senate with his right hand on the Bible, not the Qu'ran as has been suggested.

There have been further criticisms about Obama not wearing a flag pin on his lapel or not putting his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance while holding the chair in the senate. To those accusations I say, who cares?

The last time I put my hand on my heart during the Pledge of Allegiance was in elementary school, where I believe most of these hyperpartisans zealots are still living.

The Republican smear machine enlisted these same liars to come up with all manner of accusations against Bill Clinton, up to and including murder, during his run at a second term in 1996 (remember Webster Hubbell and Vince Foster?)

Democrats have used similiar dirty tricks against George W. Bush, tracing his lineage to European facism and, without evidence, accusing Bush of knowingly fabricating intelligence in the run-up to war in Iraq.

Don't believe the lies about Barack or anyone else. Do your homework.

Vote for Ron Paul.

Godly fashion tips, brought to you by the Christian Taliban

What follows is the dress policy, verbatim, from the Olivet Nazarene University student handbook. I am alone responsible for any emphasis or parenthetical comment; I am not, however, responsible for any feelings of dread or embarrassment.

Dress Policy

Olivet Nazarene University promotes simplicity, modesty and propriety
of dress and appearance. Each student is expected to cooperate with the
following specific policies:

Attire and grooming that is not permissible:

--Attire that is frayed, or with holes (Sorry, John the Baptist)
--Bib overalls with straps that are unbuttoned, unsnapped,
or not over the shoulder
--Men’s hair that is longer than the bottom of the ear or the top
of the collar
--Pony tails (banded or braided) worn by men (Pony tails are Fabio)
--Sunbathing on campus in swimwear (Sunbathing in shorts
with shirt is appropriate in Snowbarger Athletic Park)
--Garments with lettering or pictures that are considered
in poor taste
--Personal appearance that draws undue attention to oneself (Especially the shirts fitted with the blinding lights of a marquee)
--Form-fitting apparel (such as tights, leotards, spandex, etc.)
worn as outerwear (Leotard?)
--Clothing that exposes any portion of the midriff area
--Low cut garments, spaghetti straps, tank tops, strapless tops (Not all straps are created equal)
--Clothing giving the appearance of being an undergarment
and worn as outerwear (Huh?)
--Immodest apparel (You probably start with this one.)
--The wearing of hats in chapel
--Athletic attire (such as shorts, uniforms, tank tops, half-shirts,
men’s sleeveless shirts), or hospital scrubs worn in Ludwig,
classrooms, administration buildings, chapel, or library (Men’s
pants that expose the calf muscle are considered athletic attire.) ("Expose" and "calf muscle" finally united in sentence at long last)
--Any obvious undershirt worn during the academic day
Recognizing Sunday to be unique from other days, Olivet encourages
students to dress accordingly, with special emphasis on the Sunday noon
meal. With this in mind, students are encouraged to dress in a manner
that reflects respect for our day of worship.

Special Notes
--Shirts must be worn at all times, even in Snowbarger Athletic
Park. Men are permitted to remove their shirts while in Birchard
Gymnasium. (Where is this Birchard gym you speak of!? And what time!?)
--Students exercising the privilege of wearing athletic attire must
go directly to and from the athletics fields or buildings without
lingering during the academic day. (Do you have to let it linger?)--Shoes or footwear must be worn at all times. The exception includes
residence halls and appropriate athletics activities.
--Shorts may be worn after 4:30 p.m. (Monday–Friday) and all
day Saturday and Sunday. Shorts may not be worn in the dining
room for the Sunday noon meal. ("Hey, you in the shorts...I'm trying to eat over here.")
--Skorts that appear as a dress or skirt while standing still, and
that are of appropriate length, are acceptable for campus wear.
Otherwise, they are considered athletics attire.
--Modest-length skirts and dresses for women are considered
appropriate during the academic day. Short shorts and short
skirts/dresses are never permitted.
--Interpretation of the policies is the responsibility of the Student
Development staff.

The compound word of the day for Tuesday is...EXTRA-BIBILICAL!

Hucksters and half-wits: Paul trumps all

In every national election there can only be two kinds of candidates--the phony and the real.

Roughly translated these two "types" become winners, as in the case of the phonies, and losers, as in the case of those candidates who reserve some shred of genuineness.

The 2008 presidental election and its primaries are chock-full of the first kind, headlined by the Republican winner of the Iowa Caucaus, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee.

The self-glossed evangelical has already begun reinventing himself in order to appeal to a much-broader electorate than he encountered in Davenport and Des Moines.

Inasmuch as he wants to be seen as the good ole' boy Baptist preacher by some, he is also taking great pains to fashion himself as a moderate on issues like national security, taxation and immigration.

On the issue of crime, however, he need not remake himself as a moderate, despite his tough talk about killing more criminals than any other candidate. He has also granted clemency to more criminals than any other candidate, including one such pariah in Arkansas who paid back Huck's gesture of good will with the subsequent rape and murder of a woman in Missouri.

Further, Huckabee is not the fiscal conservative he pretends to be. Just ask anyone who lived in Arkansas during his tenure. His record on spending for defunct social programs and his willingness to get behind expensive (if not unconstitutional) new legislation puts him in the company of John Edwards--not Ronald Reagan.

And while a win in Iowa for Huckabee doesn't exactly give him frontrunner status, it does afford for him the blessing and curse of more money in donations and more scrutiny from politicos.

My prediction for this huckster: Huckabee will alienate his tenuous evangelical base by kowtowing to moderate republicans and independents in New Hampshire, a state he will not win. Further, I do not believe he has the intestinal fortitude to defend some of the backward thinking he has subscribed to in the past, and that many Southern Baptists still subscribe to today.

In a nutshell, Huckabee is Mitt Romney without the latter day saints. He's desperate to remake himself into a true conservative while trying to wring his hands with respect to the controversial facets of his faith.

Another huckster third on medal stand


Hillary Clinton, the prohibitive favorite just one month ago, finished third in Iowa behind Senators Obama and Edwards.

Iowa voters, if history is any indication, relish their distinction as the rudder that directs presidential elections every four years; and this year, they really made history.

It is my belief that they went for Obama for no other reason than they believe him when he speaks. His counterparts, Clinton and Edwards, have the combined believability rating of the first girl dismissed from season two of the Flavor of Love.

Obama, for his part, just might spend us into oblivion in the hope of re-creating many elements of LBJ's Great Society. That's the key point--he might just do it. He believes that government that's best governs MOST.

Clinton and Edwards, on the other hand, are phony baloney career guardian class politicians--not true believers. They live in the "do as I say, not as I do" world of pandering politics. For Clinton, such vile rhetoric is in her blood; for Edwards, he just wants, more than anything, to be a hot-air spewing contradiction in terms--a rich boy populist.

Drop dead (i.e. out of the race), Fred

Fred Thompson, the fourth place Republican in Iowa, couldn't inspire a pedestrian to yield the right of way on the Autobahn. This guy is at a metamorphic stage somewhere between the Addams' Family butler and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

How he even garned 13 percent of the vote in Iowa is astounding. He entered the race late and, like anyone playing catch-up would, gangster-walked to the finish line!

Here's a guy who has about as much energy as solar power plant in the Pacific Northwest. But, in his defense, he does have an appealing voice and a face made for television to go along with an attractive and much younger wife.

Is that all it takes to be considered a legitimate candidate?

Apparently.

Give me the man with the face made for radio


Ideally, in every election there is one candidate that I can stand behind on principle. He's is the one candidate who speaks truth to power and, however unelectable he may be, makes demands on the "legitimate" candidates that no one else can.

Men like Pat Buchanan, Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, Alan Keyes, Ross Perot and their ilk garner little recognition from the popular press while enlisting legions of supporters at the lower rungs of society--people like me who are tired of an oligarchy supported by lies, pandering and political money.

Ron Paul, the libertarian Congressman from Texas, is this political season's iteration of the classic electoral foil. The candidate who inspires grassroots support from disillusioned realists from sea to shining sea.

You see, Paul tells the truth without respect to persons. With forseeable consequences, he shoots from the hip on every issue including the war in Iraq--currently the only Republican candidate in favor of an expedited pull-out.

His stance on America's financial support for Israel earns for him the disfavor of rightist hawks as well as evangelicals who may also be rightist hawks.

His stance on government bureaucracy and spending puts him at odds with the spend-happy, increasingly $green$ party of the Bush43 Republicans.

His stance on the war on drugs puts him in the company of libertarians and a bunch empty-headed ancharist college students--more acid than base.

His immigration policy alienates Republicans and Democrats alike, in that he doesn't politicize the issue in the hopes of selling out for votes to groups of disparate interests.

His position on foreign policy is at odds with most Republicans who, as evidenced by the war in Iraq and, to a much less extent, Afghanistan, are in the midst of an historic transition. Neo-conservatives have shirked the longstanding non-interventionist plank in the party, preferring to meddle in the affairs of equally sovereign nations.

These stances, and others, have compelled me to throw my meager primary vote in the state of Michigan to Ron Paul. And while I don't agree with him on every issue, even certain facets of issues I have just delineated, I do have an appreciation for statesmen with integrity.

Quotable Ron Paul

"I am just absolutely convinced that the best formula for giving us peace and preserving the American way of life is freedom, limited government, and minding our own business overseas."

"I have never met anyone who did not support our troops. Sometimes, however, we hear accusations that someone or some group does not support the men and women serving in our Armed Forces. But this is pure demagoguery, and it is intellectually dishonest."

"Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense."

"Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy."

"The moral and constitutional obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people."

"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads."

Paul speech to the U.S. House of Representative