I think most people would probably agree that it is important to "major on the majors, and minor on the minors." The problem arises when we disagree what exactly constitutes "major".
Obama's recent speech on racial reconciliation has caused a tremendous outpouring of appreciation and support from all sides. New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof said it was "the best political speech since John Kennedy talked about his Catholicism in Houston in 1960" and that it "was not a sound bite, but a symphony." Thomas Mann, a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution called it "[a]n extraordinary speech — not because of any rhetorical flourishes, but because it was honest, frank, measured in tone, inclusive and hopeful." The International Herald Tribune quotes Paul Finkelman, a professor at Albany Law School: "This is not a reparations speech. This is a speech about saying it's time for the nation to do better, to form a more perfect union." And Margaret Carlson from Bloomberg recognized that Hillary Clinton declared that "'Words are cheap'...when she first realized that Senator Barack Obama's were anything but."
In fact, as of 2:38 p.m. on 3/20, I have only found two negative perspectives (I doubt I could ever find an neutral one). One of them is an op-ed piece by Michael Gerson of the Washington Post, who is digging unreasonably deeply to manage his conservative attack angle, and the other is Focus on the Family.
Now, I admit that when titling this post my intention was to be provocative. I obviously think that Focus on the Family is completely in support of racial reconciliation. But yesterday's CitizenLink, FotF's political activist magazine, posted an equally incendiary title: Obama Embraces 21st Century Form of Socialism. In this article, Ken Blackwell (Family Research Council Action's senior fellow for Family Empowerment) offers not one positive word towards Obama's speech other than "eloquent." Instead, Mr. Blackwell's twisted Obama's message to be a radical acceptance of government intervention in private citizens' lives. He says, "Mr. Obama again made it clear, with all his eloquence, that he still embraces these beliefs that would require dismantling the free-market system that has made our country's economy the most prosperous in all of human history."
It is articles such as these which baffle and infuriate me the most. It represents everything I detest about modern Evangelical America. While Barack Obama uses his forum to address the insidious problem of racism--a wretched sin which has plagued the U.S. from its birth--Focus on the Family chooses to gloss over this wrong to highlight a theological and political disagreement. Thus causing the precise discord against which the speech warns.
Why can't the Evangelical Right lower their holy firearms for just a moment to acknowledge the deep truth and profound Gospel implications of such a message as this? Why cannot they put aside their pet peeves about the dangers of the effects of government welfare for a brief time and contemplate the necessity for healing a deep societal hurt and fear? How does excoriating a fellow Christian's imperfections do anything but damage the message and meaning of the words of Jesus Christ?
I am sad, I am frustrated and angry...and I acknowledge that I am hypocritically and unambiguously participating in exactly the same thing I condemn here. So. I suppose I should take 10 deep breaths and start loving those fellow believers, the speck in whose eye I am not fit to remove.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Elizabeth! I don't have anything to say on this particular issue that you haven't already said, but I wanted to say how much I've been enjoying your blog. More than most people, I think, I can sympathize and agree with everything you're saying. :)
If the only negative reactions to Obama's speech you were able to find were Mike Gerson's and Focus on the Family's, then you need to broaden your reading. (In fact, Gerson's fellow WashPo columnist Charles Krauthammer, well ... hammered Obama's self-serving speech.)
Really, do you think it's right to equate his white grandmother expressing something in private (something expressed by Jesse Jackson, too!) is the same as a preacher who stands in the pulpit for decades preaching racial divisiveness and hatred?
More important, Obama's saying he could not disown Wright anymore than he could disown his grandmother is totally false. You cannot choose your relatives, but you can choose your pastor. The fact that Obama had no problem with Wright's rhetoric for two decades and even brought his children to be taught by him shows a disturbing lack of judgment.
It also shows that all his talk of "getting beyond" race is only so much empty rhetoric, since he sat under the teaching of a racial demagogue for 20 years.
You really need to show more discernment and read more widely.
After I wrote this post I did see more criticism on the substance of Obama's speech. Mostly on Fox News.
But that wasn't the point of my post. The point was that Focus on the Family, a Christian organization, chose to report an irrelevant negative reaction where they could have so easily supported the spirit of Obama's message. I'm sad about that and I think it 1) further tarnishes their image and 2) was a missed opportunity to do a lot of good.
Post a Comment