Motivation, Expectations Matter in Church Dilemma

Choosing a place of worship for Obama hopefully will lead him and his family to a new horizon. Let’s wish him well and pray that he finds a place where there belief is not of human sacrifice for “sinner creatures”. They are the children of the “lamb of god”. Blessed are those who have the marriage supper of the lamb. This religion is completely reverse of the faith of Abraham where the lamb is for sin removal and Passover. Also, the practice of eating the fresh and blood of the sons of man by “sinner creatures” for eternal life I find alarming. I know this nation is of the world of the “living god” and under their feet. It is one nation under their gods.

“And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life” “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.”

This is the law of return for the sinner creatures.
“whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.” “And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.” “Thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field” “dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life” “for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.”

I agree pastors should state the truth as best they understand it from the pulpit. No I don't believe they always do. Case in point would be Rev Wright's diatribe. We've got AIDS cases going back to about 1973 long before we could engineer a Virus.

Fox does as well or better on actual News shows as any of the Alphabet soup gang. Your marching papers from the DNC and Democrat Underground not with standing.

"The truth is the truth. It may be nasty and mean and we may not like it but the job of the media is to reveal the truth."

How bout preachers? They say they're 'revealing the truth,' ...but apparently you think this is not always the case.

So it is with the media soundbites and vague-suspicions-of-some-guilt-by-association that the likes of Faux News and the mass media have bee doing. You call it 'shining a light,' I call it the hoodwinked headlights of the very 'bus' some say Obama threw that (innocent/awful, racist, insidious, depending what week it is) church under.

It's like looking through a paper tube and looking for the incomplete piece of the picture around which one can paint an ugly imagination. Not 'illumination,' but like all the best lies, starting with a fragment of reality.

I certainly don't agree with most of what those former and guest pastors said, ...I don't even believe their religion. But, really, it's not the villainy that you try to portray, and particularly if you're so interested in mixing religion and politics, well, when you mix religion and politics, you get politics.

That's not 'light.'

It's trying to cast frightening shadows.

If I thought Obama were under some undue influence of *any* clergy, I would certainly not be supporting him enthusiastically, (It's me, remember? :) )

What he's taken from that church is a commitment to freedom and diversity, and national healing, not trying to carry the anger of an older generation into the White House.

But he knows about it. Seems you don't.

The media shined a light. That is, pagan, the media's job. A large number of people did not like what that light revealed. Most of us in fact. Some of us don't like it because we are incensed when men tell lies and spread slander from the pulpit. Others are incensed because the media let this big nasty cat out of the bag and they wanted it left very much in the bag. Don't blame the media for doing it's job for once.

The truth is the truth. It may be nasty and mean and we may not like it but the job of the media is to reveal the truth.

Obama fairly clearly chose Trinity because that was the place to go if you were an up and coming left leaning black politician in Chicago Illinois 20 years ago. He's left because he knows he can't ever be anything else if he stays. He understands that reality even if you don't. You get to go ahead and make all the excuses you want to try to explain away what is a purely political move, in fact I expect you to do so. Why? Because for you and altogether too many other Obama supporters your view of him as some sort of different politician is apparently your most important qualification for our next president and frankly that's just sad and sort of delusional.

Ever consider, Gary, that this is more like Obama being *driven out of his church* by the media circus, than him 'throwing his church under a bus?'

I'm more interested in who's driving a bus that runs over churches.

Your premise misses the mark Pastor Walker. Wright et al is sticking to Obama almost entirely because Obama has been at great lengths to avoid identifying himself in anything other than veiled ambiguities.

Like it or not ladies and gentlemen your associates help define you.

I am a Baptist and an evangelical and I agree fully with my friend Brent Walker's comments. It is a real tragedy that the the supercharged political climate of our day has forced a good man like Obama to take the step he did, and my heart grieves for him in his situation. I am appalled at the hate spewing from certain political circles about his church affiliation, even in my local newspaper, and I understand why he felt he had to take this step. The irresponsible action of his church in cheering on the priest who made his hateful remarks about Mrs. Clinton from the pulpit left him with little space to continue that church relationship. Those people should hang their heads in shame. At the same time, I believe it is incumbent upon the media and the political operatives to stop demanding specific religious behavior and affiliations from our candidates. I wish they would pay attention to Article VI of the Constitution in this regard and leave our candidates some slack.

Amen! And furthermore, Obama movingly and convincingly expressed the personal nature of his faith in Jesus Christ in the press conference in which he explained resigning from the church. In saying it was for the good of his own situation as well as the church I think he got it right!

Brent,

I totally agree with you. A candidates religious affiliation, or lack thereof, should not be a determining factor in a political race; however, Sen. Obama's statements of his "close" relationship with Rev. Wright does give an insight into some of the thoughts and ideas that Obama either condones or at least acknowledges. I would confidently state that for the majority of people in mega-churches, they agree mostly with the pastor and the messages from the pulpit. This does not "disqualify" someone from running from public office, it does open a window into the thoughts, ideas, and possibly policy decisions that person is contemplating. If one of the Republican candidates belonged to FBC Dallas in the Criswell days, I'm sure they would be associated with Dr. Criswell the same way Obama is associated with Rev. Wright. Would we be able to draw some general conclusions about that candidate? Yes. Would they be 100% accurate? No. Would they be around 60% accurate. Probably.

No, Obama should not be disqualified for belonging to any church. Obama should be questioned as to why, if he vehemently disagrees with the teaching from the pulpit he remained a member for 20 years.

Freedom of Religion means freedom to worship as one pleases. But, the freedom to worship as one pleases does not mean that that person is free from criticism.

Personally, I received MANY e-mails from friends and acquaintances who have affiliations with political groups opposed to Barack Obama who were 'outraged' by the Jeremiah Wright revelations. And, again, e-mails concerning this latest event - although not as many.

I felt it necessary to respond to my friends, informing them that the context of a sermon is totally important: the local congregation and its recent history - the historical point in time of delivery - local circumstances - recent sermon themes - overall point of the sermon - experiences of the pastor and the parishioners - etc.

It was also necessary to point out that a sermon is almost totally different from a speech, political or otherwise. And then to explain what it means to speak in the prophetic voice.

I also felt it necessary to respond in print so those beyond the hearing range of my pulpit might understand the proper role of the church in our society.

I felt it necessary because so much of the blow-back was coming from people who have no church affiliation whatsoever and, therefore, not an inkling of understanding of the above.

It is my opinion that our nation is in the mess it's in because for FAR too long, the preachers of this nation have failed to stand up for God and use their prophetic voice when it became clear that our nation was heading in the wrong direction along several fronts. When those who preach fail to point toward the higher road when the Administration team of our federal government is taking the lower road, we share the blame.

It's particularly shameful when there are so few voices speaking in defense of one is hung out to dry for speaking prophetically. I do not have to be in agreement with the proclamations made by my colleagues in the pulpit. But I MUST not allow such a person to be skewered by the politically motivated or my work of ministry is diminished.

And so it is that the politicos feel emboldened to push Mr. Obama around on this issue.

The challenge is for all those who preach to speak out against this type of abuse.