The Post-Obama-Church-Resignation Discussion and more…
Two Strains Of Thought . . .
Needless to say, everybody was talking about it, and I see two strains of thought developing.
The first looked at some older Obama interviews, articles and writing and his call “to organize and mobilize the economic power and moral fervor of black churches.” (HT:Amy Holmes on The Corner) In other words, “He asked for it.” There was further discussion in this vein by Mark Hemingway on that same venue and Stanley Kurtz did some in-depth work elsewhere at NRO.
Now, this is fair game up to a point. Obama did indeed use the black church as a political vehicle, and that both invites the scrutiny of the church, and shamefully reflects on Obama’s opportunism. It is also illustrates the very “seductive” nature of politics in the church. The black church stood by and allowed itself to be so used – probably even encouraged it. They certainly confused their political and spiritual missions, probably even placed the political one over the spiritual one.
But . . .
In the second strain of thought things got very unfortunate. Jonah Goldberg looked at Obama’s citation of “Social Gospel” and Mark Hemingway at his theology of sin. Now, in my book, this is a step too far. Theology is not subject to scrutiny in a presidential election – that is one of the founding principles of this blog.
I agree Obama’s theology is screwy, but then I think that about Mitt Romney’s as well (sorry, Lowell). That is not the point. The point is what that theology as produced.
(Everybody thinks everyone else’s religion is screwy, at some level. –Lowell)
In this case it has produced racism on the part of Jeremiah Wright and Father Pfleger. Racism is a political problem, whether born of theology or simple hatred. The discussion does not need to go any farther than that.
There is a balance here and Cal Thomas seems to hit it pretty well:
Shakey’s Pizza restaurants used to have among its signs: “Shakey made a deal with the bank. Shakey doesn’t cash checks. The bank doesn’t make pizza.” That is the kind of deal congregations should demand from their politicians and pastors. Politicians shouldn’t do religion and preachers should stay out of partisan politics. If preachers want to do politics, they should resign their ordination and become politicians. And if politicians want to do religion, they should stop running for positions in the lower kingdom, enroll in seminary and become ministers in the Higher Kingdom.
On A Different Note . . .
John Mark Reynolds is pretty funny about this whole mess. Our Mormons readers may not get all these jokes, some of it is inside Evangelicalism, but it really is funny.
John, we “get” them — all of them. Especially the casserole. –Lowell
Some Headlines
Taking Their Faith, but Not Their Politics, to the People – NYTimes – about Southern Baptists?!
Church-State Group Threatens S.C. Christian License Plate – CNSNews
Can Catholics Support Obama? – E.J.Dionne (This sounds like an mistaken, but isolated, incident begin blown out of proportion to this observer.)
Posted in Reading List | 3 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
CarlH on 03 Jun 2008 at 9:22 am #
While I almost fully agree with John’s identification of legitimate and illegitimate discussions about Obama’s resignation from his Chicago congregation, I have to raise one quibble. The problem with the “Social Gospel” appeal is that, in most instances, the “Social Gospel” entails calls for political action and not merely personal action, based on the particular religious understanding of the advocate and co-believers. Now, I have no problem whatsoever with political positions grounded in religious belief (indeed, for me, one of the “big lies” of the secularist movement is the attempt to de-legitimize faith-based positions in the public arena), but when a politician explicitly invokes “the Social Gospel” (of whatever stripe it may be), the “Social Gospel” itself (not only its ultimate aims and objectives, but also its strategies and operations) becomes essentially political and fair game for comment and question.
And John, I don’t think Mormon readers will have any problem enjoying the humor of John Mark Reynolds piece. I suspect the territorial nature of worshipers’ pew selection knows no denominational boundaries, and it only takes a bit a of tweak to apply most of the others to attitudes among LDS congregations (even if the LDS members would have to change their residence, or stop attending altogether, rather than simply shop for a congregation with a better personal fit).
TVHall on 03 Jun 2008 at 11:18 am #
Between Jonah Goldberg’s acronym for Black Liberation Theology and Cal Thomas’ Shakey’s reference, I feel an urge coming on. And you don’t need to worry about Mormons not getting some of the references in John Mark Reynolds’ piece. The themes are universal enough for all to get a good belly laugh, especially those dealing with seating arrangements and potluck casseroles. Oh man, there it is again. It’s time for lunch!
Magson on 04 Jun 2008 at 2:02 am #
On the JMR piece — very amusing to this LDS reader.
And I grew up in Chicago area so I know all about Willow Creek too