How many "mainstream" ministers, preachers, rabbis and priests regularly preach sermons filled with hateful rhetoric about LGBTQ people? Muslims? "Illegal Immigrants?"
How many "christian" leaders have claimed that a natural disaster or terrorist attack on an American City was a sign that God is angry about governmental support for gay and lesbian people?
If I were Barack Obama, I would simply post YouTube clips of sermons by Dobson, Hagee, Falwell, Robertson and Phelps and ask voters to compare those to the video clips of his preacher who is rightfully calling out the hypocrisy of US foreign and domestic policy and how it unfairly treats people of color.
So what if his sermon is impassioned?
So what if he is angry.
He was preaching in a church to a congregation who needs to be lifted up and validated.
Let it go.
Personally I think they are all whack-jobs. The idea that there is some guy in the sky who will save you from death is just crazy sounding -- to me. But if you want to believe and they want to preach to you, who am I to stand in your way?
I saw this comment on a blog that educates about the origin of the Unity Christian Church:
by: Bob Sr
Date: Mar. 15, 2008 - 8:56 AM EST
"Let's talk a little about the Congregational Church (UCC), Obama's Church, and its traditions. How does Obama know about this BOTTOM UP point of view to move the country forward? Well, my view is because he is a Congregationalist. This is the church of the Pilgrims and was the dominant religion in this country until probably the mid 1800's. This is the New England Church of the town meeting houses.This is the Church where there isn't organization at the TOP directing things. Congregational churches are all governed individually by the members of each Church. Every Church picks their own ministers by vote of local Congregations. Each Congregation can also vote to change a minister (tell them to leave). NO ONE can "close" a church except the individual members of that church. Where do you think people like John Adams got their ideas for a formation of this government and the Constitution? It came from the Congregational Church with its BOTTOM UP and NOT TOP DOWN ideas and management. These people came here and wanted to get away from Dukes, Kings, Popes, etc.
Another possibility is that in Hawaii Obama also learned about "town meetings," where the "bottom up" government is modeled on the Congregationalists. Most of the missionaries sent to Hawaii were from New England and were Congregationalists. Most Americans don't know about or have "town meeting" style local governments anymore. In a town meeting, the PEOPLE get together once each year(usually in March) and vote on the town budget, talk about the paving of their street, discuss the new fire truck purchase, how "grand" the new school should be (or if we vote to have a new one at all), whether to "impeach" Bush and Cheney, and micro manage each town department and budget. It's true bottom up government. The elected officials (selectmen) and the department heads appear and answer the voters questions prior to voting on the town business, usually in the form of "warrants". Votes are usually by voice or by hand. If you don't attend town meeting and speak about an issue, no one will listen to your whining.
The Congregational Church is now called the United Church of Christ ( I was against this name change), and I think there are probably very few people who really understand this history. How ironic it is to me to have the IRS investigating this Church, my church as well, the first Church in America, because Obama, as a Church member, gave a speech there for their annual meeting.
My local congregation (gathered in 1685) is probably 99% white, and his Chicago church may be 99% black. We both sing hymns from the Pilgrim Hymnal (although I think they probably do a better job!), and we all read from the same Bible. There isn't any "sermon of the week" from above. Each pastor speaks about the issues in light of his own religious views, tailored to the needs of his/her congregation. It would not be unusual for people to disagree about sermons and points of view. Sometimes people get up and leave if they feel strongly. Sometimes they find another Church. It sounds like I might get up and leave if I was sitting there hearing some of these views, but I would defend his right to speak them and really could not judge the totality of his points based on his church members and their history. It's clear some might find reasonable and important points for further discussion, and others might find them totally unreasonable. This is a church that LOVES to discuss things among themselves. The Congregational Church is a BIG TENT, and like our FATHER'S HOUSE, has many mansions.
In a country "now virtually illiterate about its history" (that line thanks to David McCullough), Obama seems to have gotten the message right - if WE THE PEOPLE WANT IT, we can have it. The problem is people don't believe it because they have been totally turned off to the process, especially in the latter part of the 20th Century. People are not used to the fact that their individual vote really can be empowering! He is EDUCATING the people( us) about this. Why do you think most people under thirty love this message? Because they have never heard it before and don't know the history of their country! It's apparently not convenient to teach this in the schools today. (in my view.) Democracy has ALWAYS required a caring, concerned, and educated electorate.
You can argue perhaps that Obama is running in the wrong direction on some (maybe most!) issues, but you can not argue with the fact that HE IS NOW EDUCATING this historically illiterate electorate about BOTTOM UP power of the people. This has to be A GOOD THING. It's only bad for lobbyists and those whom C Wright Mills called (in the 1960's) the "power elite."
I would not lose any sleep over where Obama stands in relation to some of the most controversial statements from his Pastor. In totality, this pastor obviously has some very good points, and Obama is one of the smartest people on the political scene. He won't be bamboozeled!
Watching excerpts of specific sermons given by a 1960's activist minister is certainly eye opening, but not surprising if you consider the congregation and the struggles of black people for the last 3 centuries. But knowing the tradition of my Church, trying to explain some of this from a religious point of view is both acceptable and proper. Looking at the overall totality of what this minister had to say over 30 years is far more positive than negative.
There are some of us who love a good discussion, and controversy is a great way to start a discussion. These sermons are not Dogma coming down from some man made hierarchy, but the thoughts of one man ministering to his particular flock. Believe me, I am SURE many of his flock disagree with some of what has been said from his pulpit. But that is precisely the point. It is about STARTING a discussion with thinking people. Others hearing some of these points out of context and not knowing the traditions are now completely wrong in thinking that everyone listening agrees. That's not our tradition. We are in America where there is room at the table for ALL points of view. But that doesn't mean we will all agree.
Who among us who goes to ANY church regularly agrees with EVERYTHING that is said? Many "unchurched" and from different traditions really don't understand how this church works, and looking at a few pejorative excerpts on u-tube is more like "sensational journalism" than reality, in my view. Hopefully this sheds a little light on the subject.
Coming to you from a family here since 1638 in the LIVE FREE OR DIE STATE, New Hampshire"
0 comments:
Post a Comment