Today I was browsing Senator Barack Obama’s campaign website and was admiring the design skills of the team running it. I especially liked the way they discreetly incorporated links to his profile on each of the top social networking sites like MySpace, Facebook, and LinkedIn. You can see what I’m talking about in the graphic on the left which appears as “Obama Everywhere” on every page of the site.

There was one link on that list that I had never seen before. It goes to Obama’s profile on BlackPlanet.com, a site that is a MySpace-imitator targeted at African Americans. The BlackPlanet site is owned by Community Connect Inc. which describes itself as the “leader in online community destinations for US ethnic groups” while noting that it also offers AsianAvenue.com (for Asian Americans) and MiGente.com (which translates to “My People”, for Latinos).Frankly, the mission of this company is disturbing. The whole premise of social networking sites is to increase opportunities to make connections with people online (which has its own pitfalls, but that’s another discussion). For instance, if you are a Facebook member then you have millions of other people for whom you can link your profile to include them as friends.

Sites like BlackPlanet differentiate themselves by assuming that people of one race will only ever want to be friends with people of the same race. There are a plethora of opportunities on Facebook and MySpace to create and participate in racially/ethnically oriented groups and yet remain able to interact with the larger community. BlackPlanet seems to suffer from the same problem plaguing much of the “Christian” music market namely segregating participants from the larger community based on identity, resulting in an experience that is insulated, stunted, and less reflective of God’s creative hand on all of humanity.

In the case of Barack Obama, the decision to create a profile on BlackPlanet is emblematic of the larger struggle he’s had with the issue of racial identity. Many African Americans have been hesitant to support him because he isn’t “black enough.” His MySpace/Facebook profiles reflect the desire to say, “I’m part of the larger community,” while the BlackPlanet profile figuratively says, “I’m black and I need a place for me and my people.”

It’s sad that our country’s history of brutal slavery and less-than-successful antidotes for it have put Barack Obama in this tangled position. At this historic moment when an African American is poised to take the nomination of a major party, differing aspects of uneasiness with racial identity threaten to take away from this achievement.

This same struggle with identity plays out in Obama’s religious affiliation. On the campaign trail, he openly speaks of his personal faith, including evangelical buzzwords that resonate with the larger Christian community. However, his home church, Trinity United Church of Christ is known for its fervent Afrocentrism, incorporating black identity as a primary component of its confession:

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.

African Americans have a legitimate and fascinating Christian religious history that has endured much and contributed much to our society. No one should deny or belittle that history. However, Obama’s connection with Trinity United Church of Christ is troubling since it appears to make black religious history an end in itself, taking the spotlight off of Jesus Christ, his glory, and his faithfulness to people of all nations.

I suspect that Obama’s success as a transformational figure in American life will be determined by his ability to articulate a new and healthy perspective on racial identity. His current approach of maintaining one foot in black separatism and the other in integration is doomed to fail. Until a significant shift is made, he will continue to invite suspicion about either being ashamed of black identity or being uncommitted to refined American values of racial equality and harmony.

Ultimately it comes down to building a new American acceptance of a concept that’s very old: integrity, that a man is the same across all of his different roles because his values are consistent. When it comes to race, Christianity offers us the best spiritual, intellectual, and cultural grounding to say that values and morality are definitional to a person, far more than his skin color or ethnicity.

• Read “The Most Interesting Presidential Candidate,” an article by George Will
• Read A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can’t Win by Shelby Steele
• Read The Content of Our Character: A New Vision of Race In America by Shelby Steele

Much has been said regarding Mitt Romney’s recent speech regarding “faith in America.” Many have wondered whether or not it was productive and accomplished its purposes. Others have compared it to Kennedy’s 1960 address regarding his Catholicism. Yet whatever you think of Romney’s speech and his Mormon faith, it did raise several issues which we might do well to consider.

Romneys address spoke to both the good and bad when it comes to “faith in America.” Romney pointed to the inclusion of religion in our nation’s founding, quoting John Adams:

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion… Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.’

From the beginning of our country, there has been a place for religion. But this also is one of our inherent weaknesses. It seems that our country is accepting of religion, not because of respect for truth but because it promotes morality; it helps to make people more managable. In a Republic such as ours, all religions are equal so long as they control vices and encourage civic responsibilities. But this relationship between “faith” and “America” has never been quite clear. In trying to explain, Romney said:

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

I have wondered why Romney would assert that “freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.” To me, neither assertion holds true. After all, there are more Christians in China than in America and China certainly upholds no notion of “religious freedom.” It seems apparent that religion does not require freedom as the worldwide spread of the Gospel clearly demonstrates (in fact, Christianity often flourishes in areas of persecution), so it does not seem that “religion requires freedom.” It is ideal but certainly not necessary. But can we say that “freedom require religion?” Many European countries are testing this thesis, moving into what many are calling a “post-Christian” age.

Yet these notions persist in America. It seems precisely because, as Adams noted, along with religion, morality often follows. It would seem that nearly every government would want a country filled with “moral” people. However, morality is no friend of true Christianity, leading only to self-righteousness. Morality focuses on self while Christianity focuses on Christ. Americans love the idea of religion but not any specific religion, much like the Freemasons, who, coincidentally, have had quite a hand in shaping our own cultural views of religion. We are encouraged to believe in something as long as its not too specific and we keep it to ourselves. But while tolerating every religion equally, our country’s approach seems to undermine every religion equally. For example, Romney said:

Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.

Romney was, of course, echoing Kennedy, who said: “I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish–where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope.” while on the surface these sentiments seem good, what they in fact mean, is that Kennedy then, and Romney now, face the possibility of standing in opposition to the church they believe holds their salvation. I’m not Mormon or Catholic, but it does seem apparent to me (and perhaps I need to be corrected here) that both Kennedy and Romney are willing to stand against those whom they believe to be mouthpieces for God in pursuit of some other ideal. After all, Mormon and Catholic doctrine both assert that church authorities have the power of God invested in them. Romney adds:

As governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution — and of course, I would not do so as President. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.

As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America’s ‘political religion’ — the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.

Romney is weaving around Kennedy’s sentiments, who said: “I believe in a President whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.” While on the surface, both are saying good things: that ours is a country that does not impose religious belief of any kind on any one, under the surface, there seems to be more going on, namely that our country’s system requires compromise at every level, even of one’s own religious convictions.

And here’s the rub. America has a place for religion as long as your religion is private, only peeking out its head long enough to make us moral people. And yet one thing Catholicism, Mormonism and Christianity all hold in common is the belief that salvation overtakes all other concerns, while America says that the concerns of religion are valid only insofar as they are subservient to “America’s political religion.” I for one am not comfortable with a candidate who says that his religious convictions will not color his decisions. And yet, this seems to be what the code of our country.

It is utter nonsense to hold that one can believe in salvation in the traditional sense of the term and then say that such beliefs will not affect a person’s decisions. Romney himself said that his oath to his country would over-rule his oath to his church, becoming “his highest promise to God.” Yes, this is cloaked in the veil of accepting all religions but it is delivered in the practicality of diluting all religions. While Kennedy and Romney both assert that they will respect all religions, they remind us that this also means the possibility of undermining our own.

Romney’s address reminds us that the issue of faith in America is more than we can solve in just one address. These issues have bubbled at the center of our collective consciousness since our country’s founding and they are not likely to dissolve any time soon. Romney’s address remind us that it is quite difficult for a person of sincere faith to hold office in this country because our very system requires compromise, even of your religious convictions.

We may be thankful that we live in a country that promotes and practices religious freedom while also being wary of the diluting effects that often comes with that same freedom. In all of this, I am well aware of the possibility that I have either misunderstood or misapplied some of these issues, but it seems to me that the very notion of “faith in America” is one of compromise, which is fine for America while being bad for faith.

• Watch Romney’s address
• Read the text of Romney’s address
• Watch Kennedy’s address
• Read Kennedy’s address
• Read Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville
• Read The Democratization of American Christianity by Nathan Hatch

I have been thinking about politics quite a bit lately. Not because I plan to run for office or pursue that Political Science degree I started so many years ago before switching majors. I’ve been thinking about politics because politics need to be thought about, especially from a biblical worldview, especially now. We have before us, a possibility that many thought would never arise: we face the possibility of having to choose between a Pro-Choice Democrat and a Pro-Choice Republican for the office of President of the United States.

Though it is still early in the campaign, on the Democrat side, it appears that Hillary Clinton is steadily pulling away from the pack. On Clinton, Justin Taylor recently quoted Paul Kengor, presidential historian, and author of God and Hillary Clinton: A Spiritual Life, who said: “If you’re a pro-lifer, and if no issue is more important to you than the right of an unborn child to have life, then nothing could be more calamitous than a President Hillary Clinton.” Clinton has repeatedly and unabashedly made her position known: she will not only defend but seek to expand abortion “rights.”

On the other side of the aisle, former New York Mayor Rudy Guliani is also, though not as decidedly as Clinton, pulling away from the pack. Though Guliani’s party nomination is nowhere near as likely as Clinton’s it raises an interesting dilemna for pro-life voters, because Guliani too, would defend, not oppose abortion. On this, Joe Carter notes: “I am a political realist, which is why I am an incrementalist. Because I’m a political realist, I also believe than in the long run electing Rudy Giuliani will be even more detrimental to the pro-life cause than would a Hillary Clinton presidency.”

Carter raises some interesting points of consideration. His essential argument is that, not only would Guliani not appoint judges that would overturn Roe v. Wade, he would open the proverbial door to future pro-choice Republian candidates, therefore being more detrimental to the pro-life cause than Clinton would be. Guliani has publicly stated that his view of “constructionist” judges could allow Roe v. Wade to stand and that he supports public funding for abortion and abortion on demand. The practical and blunt truth is that there is not much practical difference between the positions of Guiliani and Clinton on abortion issues.

As Carter notes, “if Giuliani is elected everything changes. Despite what a plank in the party platform might say, when the de facto leader of the GOP is pro-abortion then the party has crossed the line over into the “party of death.” a pro-abortion Republican President essentially leaves pro-life supporters without a viable political party.

I think that Carter raises some important considerations. Many pro-life supporters have convinced themselves that Guliani is somehow the “lesser of two evils” but this simply does not appear to be true. So should we vote for Clinton because she would “do less damage?” As I’ve stated previously, I will not vote for a pro-choice candidate. I am the typical “one-issue” voter that so many cringe at. Abortion, for me, is a defining issue because it is an indicative issue. Someone’s position on abortion is directly related to a variety of other issues.

At this point, I think that the best option is to make sure that Guliani does not become the Republican candidate.

• Read Joe Carter’s original post
• Read Justin Taylor’s post “Hillary on Abortion”
• Read Justin Taylor’s post “Unelectable Hillary”
• Read God and Hillary Clinton: A Spiritual Life by Paul Kengor
• Read Why Pro-Life? Caring For the Unborn and Their Mothers by Randy Alcorn

Some time ago I read Crunchy Cons by Rod Dreher. Then, more recently, I read God’s Politics by Jim Wallis. I initially expected the books to say similar things, but they certainly did not. Dreher argues that the modern take on “Conservativism” as envisioned by the current incarnation of the Republican Party is actually quite removed from many values traditional “Conservatives” might hold and that faith is a key element in moving again to towards true “Conservatism.” Wallis on the other hand, argues that “Liberals” need to learn to talk about faith so that they can win elections and still support abortion and homosexual unions. He of course doesn’t word it this bluntly, but this seems to me to be the core of his book. These messages are quite different, yet they cross many of the same lines and they’ve had me thinking about politics and faith for some time now.

Some of these thoughts were sparked again the other day as I was listening to NPR’s coverage of Congress’ flurry of activity just prior to the August recess. One of the issues they covered was the extension of state-level health care for children, known as the “S-Chip” program. The issue was fairly evenly split along “party lines” with the Democrats supporting extending the coverage, with several soundbites from Republicans opposing the extension, particularly New York’s petition to extend the coverage up to families making approximately $82,000/year.

At first glance, one might understand the Republican opposition to extending state-sponsored health care for children of families making almost $100,000 a year, but the issue is not as clear as one might initially expect (as it rarely is). It was pointed out, for example that the same health-care package that might cost a family of four approximately $20,000/year in one state might cost a family in another state $55,000/year. $55,000 out of $82,000 is quite a different story than just saying people making $82,000 want health care assistance. States have always had the option of filing for waivers based on their own economic issues and this was no exception other than that Republicans were using the bare numbers as political ammunition with no context

As I listened to the sound bites going back and forth, I really found myself disliking the Republican position and understanding the arguments of the people who so often say that the Republicans look out first (and possibly only) for the wealthy. I know, I know, I was drawn into the slant that NPR wanted to put on the story, but that slant didn’t seem as far-fetched to me as it once did. I really found myself wondering whether helping families care for their children was in fact a “liberal” issue after all. But on the other side of the issue, I’ve seen many welfare dependent families that have actually been disenchanted by the very programs that were supposed to help them. More welfare creates not only more government but more dependence upon government.

As a Christian, I believe in smaller government, but does that also mean I should not believe in welfare? I do believe that we have sometimes gone overboard, creating welfare-dependent families, who, for all of our good intentions, find themselves trapped in cycles of poverty. I do believe that much of the welfare system exists because many local churches (and Christians at the more basic level) have neglected their duty to care for the poor, orphans and widows (Matthew 25:40, James 1:27, etc.) and at first glance it seems extreme to offer assistance to families making $82,000/year while expanding government and taxes to do so. Truth be told, I appreciated points from both sides but was torn because I could not accept either argument as a whole.

What’s clear is that we as Christians must be willing to tackle difficult issues and pursue mercy alongside justice. As D.A. Carson says in Love in Hard Places: “we had better be more interested in effective results than in the slogans of the party faithful.” What’s clear is that there are very few very vocal people urging local churches to take action against poverty and even then the topic is brought up in politics, it is brought up as a political issue rather than one of compassion and duty. The result is that we have been left to wade through the political mire choosing the “lesser of two” evils while the spectre of “pure and undefiled religion” (James 1:27) shadows our every move.

It’s interesting that for all of the talk of faith and politics in books and even from 2008 Presidential candidates, on Capitol Hill, at least in the soundbites, it’s business as usual and even on such an issue as poverty reduction there was talk of the implications of faith on public policy. This pushes the issue further and points out that we as individual believers and communites of believers probably don’t live our faith out at the forefront of life as well.

• Read Love in Hard Places by D.A. Carson
• Read God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It by Jim Wallis
• Read Crunchy Cons by Rod Dreher

Part of the reason that I blog is for the interaction and exchange of ideas. Part of the way I work through issues is dialogue, and blogging is a great avenue for that. This means that there will be times when I write things people disagree with. This is not necessarily a bad thing. We’re not all going to agree about everything. That’s part of what makes life so interesting.

I recently received some criticism on a fairly recent post about Barack Obama’s comments about the “Right” hijacking faith and bringing us away from a time when faith simply united everyone. The thrust of that post was that in complaining about how faith has been politicized, Obama does exactly that, except he doesn’t understand biblical faith. Yes, we are to be meek (Colossians 3:12, etc.) and loving (John 13:34, etc.) but the Truth divides (Luke 12:49-53, etc.). Jesus Himself said that no one comes to the Father except through Him (John 14:6) and Acts 4:12 reminds us that salvation is found in no other name. Biblical faith ultimately brings division along with unity and in order to argue that it ought to just “bring us together,” we must downplay those elements which make “the word of the cross folly to those who are perishing” (1 Corinthians 1:18). In response, this criticism came over at Jake’s blog:

The truth is that I don’t really want my politicisns to be theologians. I want them to be politicians with a vision for better politics.

I’ve been thinking a lot about this line of thinking, partly because it makes so little sense to me. I’m not trying to be funny, rude or sarcastic, but it seems to be that if our politicians are going to talk about faith, we would want them to have a sense of what they’re talking about. I understand the idea that we don’t necessarily want to require our politicians to have taken systematic theology courses, but I would think that if someone is going to talk about faith, they need to have some idea what they’re talking about before they talk.

When Howard Dean told reporters that Job was his favorite book of the New Testament, were we simply supposed to shrug it off because he’s not a theologian? Of course not. The idea that politicians can use the language of faith without the content of faith simply makes no sense. Obama has been intentional, even before announcing his candidacy in talking about faith and trying to reach the “Christian” voters. The problem is that his words often come across as empty. I don’t think it’s too much to ask for him to at least understand the content of topics he himself is pursuing.

In a sense, everyone is a theologian. We all have views about God. True, some may not study the doctrine of God or the Bible regularly, but everyone is a theologian when theology is understood to be simply the study of God. We all have an opinion. The question becomes whether or not we are good theologians. If politicians are going to involve faith in their campaigns, then I simply ask that they are able to hold an educated discussion and understand the words they’re using. If not, then don’t talk about faith.

The truth is that faith with any substance divides as much if not more than it brings together. Unless your faith says that everyone is right, then your faith says that someone is wrong. Pope Benedict XVI, for example, recently released a statement claiming that Orthodox churches are “defective” and that “other Christian denominations are not true churches.”

I’m very interested in your feedback. Am I misunderstanding Obama’s statements? Am I expecting too much? What do you think?

• Read Obama’s books
• Read about the Pope’s recent statements
• Read Active Faith: How Christians Are Changing the Face of American Politics by Ralph Reed
• Read Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know - And Doesn’t by Stephen Prothero

Today I just want to put something out for discussion. Much has been said and counter-said about the recent Live Earth events held around the globe in order to promote awareness and action about the issue of global warming. Many rock stars, including Bob Dylan and the Arctic Monkeys have expressed indignation over the hypocrisy of rock stars who jet around the world in jets and buses preaching at the general public about taking care of the environment.

In an effort to curb just such criticism, the organizers of the world-wide events have purchased carbon credits in order to offset their “carbon footprints“. For those unfamiliar with this concept, it is based on the idea that through normal everyday activity, we all leave behind a “carbon footprint,” which is nothing more than a measure carbon dioxide left behind. In an order to reduce these levels, the Kyoto Protocol, which entered into force in 2005 established a system of quotas on the levels of greenhouse gases countries can produce. Carbon credits are tradable permits which may be bought and sold. So, if you find yourself producing more greenhouse gases than allowed, you may buy credits from someone who finds themselves under their quota.

In the comments of this past Friday’s Town Crier post, our good friend Brent Jeffrey Thomas offered the following insight:

these carbon offset credits somehow remind me of those pre-Council of Trent indulgences, which Martin Luther was so rightly perturbed about; financial acts for the purchase and sale of salvation. (As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs). In the case of carbon offset credits, it seems that no repentence is required, and, if one has the wealth, it seems that one might purchase freedom from temporal morality, and freedom from a lifestyle of careful stewardship.

I’ve been thinking quite a bit about BJT’s point and I’m particularly interested in your thoughts as they relate to the concert organizers and rock stars buying carbon credits in order to preach to us about taking care of the environment. Wouldn’t it have been a more powerful statement to somehow say that each event could be certified “environmentally safe,” or “green” if there were such certification? But the truth is that this simply can’t be done.

The very notion of having large scale rock concerts to promote environmental friendliness seems a bit absurd at best. The idea of then buying carbon credits, seems to smack, as Brent as reminded us, of nothing more than indulgences so that the organizers can feel justified in mounting their podiums, judgmental speeches in hand.
What are your thoughts?

• Watch An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore
• Watch Who Killed the Electric Car?