Friday, March 28, 2008

Hidden Racial Toxins

In Barack Obama's speech on racial issues, he encouraged his listeners to conduct honest and open dialogue. I have a lot of questions and comments that I have kept inside for fear of being labeled in a derogatory manner if I even dare to vet them. In light of Obama's encouragement to speak out, I think that I need to overcome such fear and just say what is on my mind.

I must admit, I often feel timid about discussing racial issues. Anything that a white person says today can be misconstrued and taken the wrong way. It is certainly an excessively sensitive topic.

You may disagree fiercely with the points being shared here. However, I hope and pray that people will be tolerant of this post. I also hope that it does some good by opening up a needed dialogue on this current, volatile issue.

Yesterday, when I heard several black pastors verbally place their unequivocal support behind not only the person of Rev. Wright, but also the bigoted and hateful comments that he has spewed over the years, my mind was shocked right out of complacency.

You see, when this story first broke, I genuinely believed that there can't be many black pastors out there who think like this! No way! I genuinely thought that Rev. Wright was the acception to the rule, and role, of "Black Liberation" pastors. Most just can't possibly agree with, or believe in the same way as the Rev. Wright of Trinity Baptist Church.

Apparently, I was wrong. Very wrong.

Why was I so naive?

Opinions may vary greatly. I'm sure that there will be the usual negative responses in the comment section that will state that because I am white, my "privileged" life has blinded me to the suffering and/or inequality of others. Maybe that is your view. I have been accused of such before on this blog for different and various reasons (based on whatever I am blogging about at the time).

But I don't think that is all there is to it.

Could the reason that I am so shocked over this controversy be that because my family and I have attended two multi-racial churches headed by black pastors over the past 18 years, and such hatred and resentment towards white folk has NEVER appeared, at least on the surface, to have been present? At least not at those two churches.

Now, I am sincerely wondering if any racial tension and toxic resentments were just secretly hidden from view all this time? Should I be doubting my good and positive opinions of these pastors? It is certainly very disconcerting for my family. We just can't believe how badly this story has been escalating in the news. The need to "walk carefully upon the egg shells of racial conversation" is definitely apparent, as well.

Don't get me wrong. I always knew that the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharpton types had a lot of anger and resentment against what they perceive as the "white, upper class, privileged establishment." Railing against this so-called "establishment" is, in fact, how they make their money and get donations for their causes! Personally, I think it is sad that they have to do such things through negativity rather than positive approaches. I have always hoped and prayed that one day, men like that would evolve past their rage over former injustices and, as their favorite liberal organization is named, Move On from there - to a new kind of positive racial striving. One can still hope...right?

I just never realized how deep the scars of the past are set in the hearts, minds, souls and spirits of some black individuals. To find out about an entire movement in the black Christian community that labels itself as a racist kind of "black liberation theology" is simply astounding to me. Call me naive. Call me whatever you'd like. I'm probably going to get myself into trouble for my outburst of honesty here.

But I just can't get over the fact that I, and many other white people of my generation (as well as the generations since the baby boomer era) are being punished and blamed behind the closed doors of "black liberation churches" across the country for past greivances of black people which we had nothing to do with!

There.

I said it.

Now go ahead and blame me for "racial insensitivity."

The hidden racial toxins that have been revealed through the media exposure of Barack Obama's racist pastor have certainly been eye-opening. I have found myself desiring to ask someone to explain it all to me.

Last night, I think I have finally found the true answers to my questions via Pat Buchanan's latest article called Uprooting the New Racism.

Watching Greta Van Susteren last night on her show just made me cringe. She had one of the black pastors that continue to support Rev. Wright (as well as Wright's outrageously bigoted remarks) on her show. Yet, Greta resisted directly confronting the man for upholding Rev. Wright's appalling racist views and terrible comments about America. The best she could do was state that at least Obama admitted that the appalling statements of his former pastor were not right. However, the gathering of black liberation pastors in Florida were there to honor Rev. Wright (who didn't show up for security reasons) and get this...to show their agreement with everything that Rev. Wright had said in every sermon (including the incendiary remarks that we are all too familiar with today).

What is wrong with this picture??

Why can the press call out (and fire!) Imus for his racist remarks, but they just can't bring themselves to tell a pastor to his face that he is being an anti-white, anti-Jew, anti-American, black "liberation" bigot??

I don't usually agree with a lot of what Pat Buchanan says or writes. But this time, he is spot on in his analysis of what were previously known as hidden racial toxins...to what is now exposed as the uprooting of the new racism.

Buchanan:



But then he revealed the distorting lens through which he and his fellow liberals see the world. To them, black rage is grounded in real grievances, while white resentments are exaggerated and exploited.

What Barack is saying here is that the resentment of black America is justified, but the resentment of white America is a myth manufactured and manipulated by the conservative commentariat. Barack is attempting to de-legitimize the other side of the argument.

Yet, who is he to claim the moral high ground?

Where does this child of privilege who went to two Ivy League schools, then spent 20 years in a church where racist rants were routine, come off preaching to anyone? What are Barack's moral credentials to instruct white folks on what they must do, when he failed to do what any decent father should have done: Take his wife and daughters out of a church where hate had a home in the pulpit?

Barack needs to reread the Lord's admonition in the Sermon on the Mount: "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

Longshoreman philosopher Eric Hoffer once wrote that all great movements eventually become a business, then degenerate into a racket.

That is certainly true of the civil rights movement. Begun with just demands for an end to state-mandated discrimination based on race, it ends with unjust demands for state-mandated preferences, based on race.

Under affirmative action, white men are passed over for jobs and promotions in business and government, and denied admission to colleges and universities to which their grades and merits entitle them, because of their gender and race.

Paradoxically, America's greatest warrior for equal justice under law and an end to reverse racism is, like Barack, a man of mixed ancestry. He is Ward Connerly. And his life's mission is to drive through reverse discrimination the same stake America drove through segregation.


Thank God for bi-racial people like Ward Connerly and the two black pastors I know who obviously, and sincerely, do not have a racist bone in their bodies!

Buchanan quote:

Folks need to be able to separate the true friends of racial justice from the phonies who believe with the pigs on Orwell's Animal Farm -- that "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."


Powerful article! Powerful truth! Powerful quote at the end!

True friends of racial justice! Powerful statement!

Folks need to be able to separate the true friends of racial justice from the phonies.
Painfully honest, but powerful and true statement!


What's your opinion? Please be civil. If you disagree, then go ahead and let me have it - minus the cursing, of course. If you agree, then please state your reasons why. If you are neutral (is that possible?) then share your views as well.

One last thought.

The verbiage of Rev. Wright is not uplifting - as one would expect - in most Christian church sermons. What he says and how he states it incites people to violence - whether such violence is held in as personal rage - or, even more sadly, acted out on the streets. IMHO, such violent spewing as this is like the backward action of a firearm upon firing. It is the hatred that starts the anger which can escalate into violence.

But think about this.

When a firearm doesn't work properly (as I believe the black "liberation" theology views don't work properly in the true light of the biblical, Christian worldview) the backfire injures the firearm holder.


"Violence does, in truth, recoil upon the violent" (Arthur Conan Doyle).

*******
Update @ 9:50 a.m. PT


On a separate, but related issue, Obama contends that belief in Jesus not necessary for salvation. [Thanks to Sothenes for emailing me the link.]

Perhaps this explains a lot.

My blogging Christian friend Mark has already addressed this in detail at his blog.

Worldly anti Christ message of Obama

19 comments:

mike rucker said...

maybe instead of quoting buchanan, you should quote someone with a little more humble spirit:

"Sermons, after all, are rarely written word for word by pastors like Rev. Wright, who are delivering them extemporaneously, and caught up in the emotion of the moment. There are things that sometimes get said, that if you put them on paper and looked at them in print, you'd say 'Well, I didn't mean to say it quite like that.' As easy as it is for those of us who are white to look back and say 'That's a terrible statement!' ... I grew up in a very segregated South. And I think that you have to cut some slack -- and I'm gonna be probably the only conservative in America who's gonna say something like this, but I'm just tellin' you -- we've gotta cut some slack to people who grew up being called names..."
Mike Huckabee, on thehuffingtonpost, 3/19/08

this is the attitude we need to come to the table with. if we do not like the way wright and others talk, we do ourselves no good by repeating exactly what we criticize in them.

"yeah, but she's worse" is not an excuse i accept from my teenagers after doing something wrong. how about you, christine? or matt?

by your recent name-calling you've done nothing but take yourselves down to wright's apparent level. is this the direction we want to head?

grow up, both of you. your attitudes do nothing positive for Jesus' name.

mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com

Arlen said...

Christine,

I believe that racism is a byproduct that originates from fear, which originates from ignorance. It is also a learned behavior (would there be racism if everyone were blind?)

I find specific individuals of other ethnicities and cultures fascinating because they are NOT like me. I know myself all too well and others like me. But I am constantly learning from those who are not like me.

Some of the feelings that you may be experiencing could be that you are positioned by others in the "guilt by association" silo, which is probably unfair, but indeed a reality (nobody said that life would be fair, as Jesus experienced).

But WASPS and their Catholic or Jewish brethren do not hold an exclusive patent on racism as you can see as of late. Reverse racism rears its ugly face at various intervals. The press may turn a blind eye to it, but that does not mean that we have to adhere.

Mark said...

Way back when, the people of Israel elected a man King because he was a "head taller than any other" - his name was Saul.

I don't care who calls me a "racist" "bigot" etc.. Many black folks have bought into a lie from hell - Obama is "black" and we want a "black" President. OK, you'll get one. Just like God gave Saul as Israel's king - who did evil in the sight of the Lord.

Obama is no more "black" than I am on a good summer tan. I might note his momma is your average white woman - so is mine. Both of which can be afraid of a group of young "blacks" walking down the street among other things. Racists are they? LOL! not in my opinion - just rational women responding to a fallen world with a desire to make it home perhaps.

Arlen's comment "I believe that racism is a byproduct that originates from fear, which originates from ignorance. It is also a learned behavior (would there be racism if everyone were blind?)
"
is typical - typical liberal crap IMHO. If it makes her "feel" better - so do most black folks I know. I fear lots of people, so to speak, and I am not ignorant. I learned hate because I am human, nothing to do with my skin pigmentation - to say otherwise is indeed racisim. Admit it Arlen- we are all racists, you included.

Everyone is not BLIND Arlen, and for a good reason. One's eyesight has NOTHING to do with one's ability to hate. Get a clue dear, no disrespect intended.

mike rucker said...

i know arlen will speak for himself, but you completely missed the boat on his comments, mark.

which should surprise no one - since you consistently miss the boat in pretty much all of your comments.

"thinking blogger?" what a sad joke.

christine, just as some will judge obama based on what wright says, please do not be surprised when others begin judging you based on what people like mark post at your site. like arlen says, it's guilt by association, and it's unfair, but it's a sad reality.

I don't care who calls me a "racist" "bigot" etc.

we don't have to, mark - you've already done that for us. to say you're showing your "true colors" - well, that's just almost too funny, isn't it?

mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com

Mark said...

Note to Mr. Rucker,
Calling out "dill weeds" may be something your daughters should learn first from you, even if their father is one. I am confident they eventually will, with or without your help, thank God.

You Sir should grow up, make a mature stand and stop with this, and I quote "your attitudes do nothing positive for Jesus' name." as if Jesus desires first and foremost a "postive" attitude. What a crock pile of advice - Huckabee does not speak for me nor many others who grew up in the DEEP south no matter what he calls himself - Pastor / Politician.

Before you respond - what "names was I called" growing up? Geesh!

Christinewjc said...

Welp...

This discussion thread has certainly gotten off to a roaring start...

Just wanted to throw Michele Malkin's latest post into the mix.

Quite disturbing...to say the least!

Mark said...

Mike Rucker from fairburn, georgia, usa
says
we don't have to, mark - you've already done that for us. to say you're showing your "true colors" - well, that's just almost too funny, isn't it?

Are you Sir calling me a Racist? My black family - grandmother to be specific, would disagree - but of course one's skin pigmentation does not matter, right moron?

If Christine does not like my comments, I am confident she can speak for herself and let me or anyone else for that matter know as much. She has helped me before with as much.

christine, just as some will judge obama based on what wright says, please do not be surprised when others begin judging you based on what people like mark post at your site.

Dear Mike Rucker "from fairburn, georgia, usa" - please do not be surprised when one recognizes your sorry wounded dove pity party - it obvious! I'll pray for your poor family's endurance in dealing with such a panty waste. I know, its unfair -but I do indeed judge.

Arlen said...

Christine,
First I would like to thank you for hosting this discussion with your thought-intriguing post. Indeed, the individuals who comment here are thoughtful and entertaining as well as diverse.

Mike,

Thank you for your considerate words.

Mark,

Please allow me to introduce myself. I am a 53 year old male whose name “Arlen” is that of the senior senator’s of Pennsylvania, Arlen Specter (although my name originated because my grandmother loved the music of Harold Arlen…more information than I’m sure you wanted). I have three children (my oldest a male who is 25, my middle a daughter who is 23 and my youngest who is also a male at 19). I have been married for 29 years. I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior at the age of 8 in a little Southern Baptist church revival meeting. I live in the South (Georgia) and have had a successful (to this point) career dealing with individuals of all races and genders in the employment industry. If my family heard me being referred to as a liberal as in your quote of my comment “typical liberal crap,” they would be exceedingly amused. And by the same token, if I were referred to as a “Rush Limbaugh” clone from anyone on the left, they would exclaim that you simply do not know me.

My political persuasion is neither liberal nor conservative. If you lean too far in either direction, totalitarianism results (too far to the left – communism / too far to the right – fascism). And the choice of living under a Stalin/Mao or Hitler form of government isn’t appealing to me.

The question that I posed in my previous comment “would there be racism if everyone were blind” was intended as a rhetorical one, in the same way that Larry Norman (arguably, the father of contemporary Christian music) in 1974 once asked “I wonder who would lead us if no one would vote?”

Dictionary.com defines racism as a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others as well as hatred or intolerance of another race or races.

The major differences in races are physical features (skin color, the shape of facial features including eyes, noses and lips) although not all differences are physical. Some are auditory (accents and dialects). Since these differences are primarily detected through sensory perception (eyes, ears), I stand technically corrected: would there be racism if everyone were blind should have read “and deaf?”

My return question to you Mark, of the self proclaimed “we are all racists“ is if sight (or hearing) have nothing to with racism, then how do you become racist? Yes, racism is a learned behavior: you learn it from family or friends, but it had to originate with someone noticing something different through their eyes or ears. Obviously, not everyone is born blind or deaf. But if we were, we would have no avenue to detect a difference in races.

“I fear lots of people, so to speak, and I am not ignorant.” That was not the intention of stating my perspective. In my original comment I stated: "I believe that racism is a byproduct that originates from fear, which originates from ignorance.” Generally speaking, people have a tendency to fear that which they don’t understand (I used to fear my geometry tests because I did not have a clue as to what “proofs” were or how to use them). Thus, my fear was born out of ignorance. Few of us really understand other races, which is why I have a fascination with them, because I want to understand.

Christinewjc said...

Hi All,

I apologize for my absence from the spirited discussion going on here. Yesterday afternoon, I received some disturbing news about a relative of mine. I was on the phone for probably seven hours. During the calls, I was debating whether or not I should fly across the country to be helpful in the situation. It was decided that I should wait. (Thanks, Mark, for your prayers about this issue.)

Since I am staying home for the time being, I thought that I should respond to comments here.

First, despite the fact that some of us disagree with each other, I think that this conversation is badly needed today. For the most part, I can agree with some, if not all, of everyone's comments.

Second, I have to say that the book which I am currently reading (The Truth About Tolerance: Pluralism, Diversity and the Culture Wars) is absolutely the best book I have ever read on the subject. I am a bit behind in posting the "Ten Truths," but I think that several of them certainly apply to the discussion we are currently having about racism and racial tension in America.


Mike,

Regarding Huckabee's quote:

..."I grew up in a very segregated South. And I think that you have to cut some slack -- and I'm gonna be probably the only conservative in America who's gonna say something like this, but I'm just tellin' you -- we've gotta cut some slack to people who grew up being called names..."
Mike Huckabee, on thehuffingtonpost, 3/19/08


Since I did not grow up in the "segregated South," but in a town that segregated itself from the next town over, my experience, of course, was very different from Huckabee's. I can agree that we may (still) need to "cut some slack to people who grew up being called names." However, I have several questions.

1. Does this mean that we also need to "cut some slack" for their reverse-racists comments aimed at people who most likely had nothing to do with their former torment?

2. Though free speech laws allow such spewing of hateful rhetoric (by anyone), does it mean that we must embrace it in order to be viewed as "tolerant?"

3. If Christian believers see what is being preached at the "liberation theology" black churches as inconsistent with true biblical teachings, does that mean that we are not allowed to say so?

4. If Wright's rant includes bigotry towards white people, are we not allowed to point that fact out and call it what it is?

If you will re-read my original post, I stated that I do not often agree with Pat Buchanan. However, in this article, I think that he did a great service to the discussions currently going on over the Obama/Wright controversy.

*******

Arlen,

I truly appreciated your excellent comments.

I must admit. Besides the "guilt by association" feelings, I also felt hurt. I started to think that perhaps what I have been perceiving as true brotherly and sisterly love between black and white Christians at the multi-racial churches I have been attending all these years was some kind of pseudo-agape-love. THAT thought truly saddened me. Then, I realized such a thought was not coming from the Holy Spirit of God. It was coming from the enemy of our souls who would like nothing better than to crush my spirit and the hope that is within me. I will not allow that to happen!

You wrote: "Reverse racism rears its ugly face at various intervals. The press may turn a blind eye to it, but that does not mean that we have to adhere."

Yes. This is a point of contention that NO ONE really wants to talk about...especially in the press. Therefore, the blogs are doing the work that the MSM refuses to do. (So...what else is new?)

If it weren't for the new media of internet blogs, the truth about the people involved in this election would not get out there. Problem is, there is still a segment of the population that does not read them. The young people are busy with their "MySpace" "IM's" internet gaming and chat rooms; so they don't get the entire picture on the candidates. Older Americans are often intimidated by the internet (my 83 year-old-mom, for example) and those in her generation often pay closer attention to the non-cable news outlets.

I'm getting off topic!

Your latest comment explains much more about you. Thanks for sharing! I celebrate with you on your 29 years of marriage! Sounds like you have a beautiful and loving Christian family! Your work indicates that you have much to contribute to this discussion on racism and racial issues. I truly appreciate your learned input!

*******

Mark,

Your example of God giving Israel the king - Saul - that they so desperately craved at that time in history certainly appears to parallel today's election euphoria over Obama! The Bible tells us how badly that turned out. Trouble is, man often does not learn from history...does he? We seem to keep making the same, dumb errors and mistakes!

The only way that I can view Obama's candidacy is as a "Mistake-en-Chief" about to happen! I am praying that this scandal, as well as the dozens of others surrounding Obama, are revealed to the majority of his messiah-like worshipers before it's too late.

I truly believe that the Wright controversy just might accomplish the downfall of Obama's presidential run. This has nothing to do with his personal racial composition. It has everything to do with his political, social, moral, and ethical views - which are the polar opposite of what the Bible teaches are proper Judeo-Christian morals and values.

*******
Arlen, again -

I have a question about this comment:

My political persuasion is neither liberal nor conservative. If you lean too far in either direction, totalitarianism results (too far to the left – communism / too far to the right – fascism). And the choice of living under a Stalin/Mao or Hitler form of government isn’t appealing to me.

I have always thought that communism and fascism were both components of the far left.

I realize that Hitler was believed to have been a "Christian," but his actions (of course!) did not fit the true definition of the word or true spiritual life of a genuine Christian.

I'm just a bit confused about your view on this so could you please elaborate? Thanks!

Arlen said...

Christine,

Dictionary.com defines fascism as a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Hitler hated communism and he double-crossed Stalin and had designs on conquering that country. But he miscalculated the cold Russian winter and spread his military too thin or else we might be speaking German today. Communism is usually ruled by a political party that generally thinks they know better and who believe in redistribution of wealth (sound familiar) while fascism is usually promoted by a dictator (in this case Hitler). Who parallels Hitler in this country? Certainly not the people of MoveOn.org ilk because they abhorred him (as they rightfully should). Who idolized Hitler? Timothy McVeigh types, KKK types, skin heads, usually people or organizations that perpetuate or are associated with hate crimes and racist organizations.

Reread the definition with my additions in parenthesis: a governmental system (fascism) led by a dictator (Hitler) having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry (military complex), commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism (the Nazi Party) and often racism (anti-Semitism).

Fascism usually has an innocuous beginning (the rise of Germany after WW1 and before WW2) before it develops into a full-blown nightmare. As a hypothetical situation, in this country we have a representative republic. But hypothetically, had 9/11 been more than an isolated attack, marshal law could have been declared. And depending on the person in charge of the military, a dictatorship is only a jump away once marshal law is in place (which is why you rarely see it).

Back to my comment: If you lean too far in either direction, totalitarianism results (too far to the left – communism / too far to the right – fascism). And the choice of living under a Stalin/Mao or Hitler form of government isn’t appealing to me. My perspective is that if you push liberalism too far to the left or conservatism too far to the right, totalitarianism is the result. Though fascism and communism are different as night and day in governmental terms, the result of living under each regime is something less than freedom. Does this help, and more importantly, does it make sense?

Blessings to you,
Arlen

PS. I have an idea for a post for you and your readers (of which I am now an avid one). What is the best forum to communicate that to you – the comment section?

Christinewjc said...

Thanks Arlen. Did you get my email? If not, let me know.

You can post your idea in an email or in the comment section - whichever is better for you.

Thanks so much for the explanation regarding fascism. I was wondering. Does the "far right" always involve religious belief? It does when it comes to Islamo-fascism (obviously). But there are also many atheistic dictatorships, too.

Some might label me as being "far right" because of my biblical Christian morals, ethics, values and worldview. But I wonder...is that a fair evaluation?

The typical designation of "the far right" is most ofen used in a derogatory sense and is usually involved with untoward fanaticism of some sort...right? I mean...correct? ;-)

Arlen said...

Christine,

I sent an email to you referencing my ideas, thank you.

The far right does not always involve religious beliefs, although many white supremacist groups will cite a Biblical basis for their beliefs (albeit twisted in much the same way Jehovah’s witnesses do). That basis is usually their rationalization for things such as anti-Semitism (the Jews killed Jesus) ad nauseam.

Labeling you as “far right” is not an accurate characterization. The far right would be people like McVeigh and Hitler. You are probably a solid conservative and may appear to be on the far right to those who are left of you (or liberals).

The far right is a derogatory phrase that many liberals use, but in fairness, conservatives also refer to liberals as the far left in a derogatory form. As for politicians, the truth is that no one is completely liberal or conservative (even though they may be 90% one way or the other). For example, a politician may be pro-life (conservative), but in favor of gay marriage (liberal). What does that really mean?

Blessings to you,
Arlen

Carlotta Morrow said...

Christine, I’m so glad you DID say what you've said! Black folks like myself appreciate White folks like who don’t tip toe around our race issues for fear of being labeled a racist! You spoke your mind and it was so refreshing to see this. You were honest in expressing your disdain for the apparent reverse racism that is being exposed in many of our Black churches.

Blacks such as myself, have been trying to bring this awareness, but of course, we’re labeled “Uncle Tom” if we don’t follow the “program.” But many of us are speaking out against the “other gospel” that’s infiltrating the black churches – the gospel of Black Liberation Theology. To sum up that theology, it basically says that if you’re black, then you’re oppressed, and God is with you because of that. If you’re White, then you are the oppressor and of Satan. God is not with you because you are White!

How dangerous are those teachings? That is exactly what the Nation of Islam (Farrakhan’s group) and the New Black Panthers believe. In my exposing of Kwanzaa, I revealed the same thought pattern of its creator, the Black Nationalist, Dr. Karenga. He also believes that White people are of Satan. What is spooky is how prevalent this is in the church! Black churches are breeding grounds to this dangerous belief system.

Thank you for sharing that link of Barack explaining that he believes Jesus isn’t the only way to become saved. Wow! You know Pastor Miles of the Rock (the church I’m a member of) has said for us to “vote God.” He can’t make any endorsements, but he just reminded us to vote for the one who most represents Christ. Knowing what Barack believes about salvation makes him even more dangerous than what he appears. Incidentally, Pastor Miles is a black pastor who is preaching the gospel as it should be preached – TO ALL! There is no race separatism in this church and I’m very glad about that!

Oh my goodness!

As soon as I can concentrate on writing, getting my mind off of dealing with a young 18 year old who thinks he knows everything, I have much to share with folks about Black Liberation Theology and the danger all people face because of it.

Enjoyed stopping by your site and reading those comments…wished I had stopped by sooner!

Christinewjc said...

Dear Carlotta,

Thank you SO MUCH for sharing what you did in your comments here. Your words have certainly uplifted my spirit!! I was really nervous about this post. Wasn't sure how people would take it.

I would love to hear more about "Black Liberation Theology. (BLT for short!)" I'm sure that you have a great deal of knowledge to share. When you have time, you can either share it here or email me and I will have you as a "guest blogger" for day. I'm sure that your post will draw a lot of attention and comments!!

Pastor Miles is awesome! He loves all people and doesn't have a racist bone in his body!! Our family visits his church as often as we can. Loved the Easter service and message this year!!

The fact is, here in CA, I have never encountered the "BLT" type of thinking in a church. This is why I was so shocked to learn about it from the Obama/Wright scandal!! I was quite naive about it and had NO IDEA what actually went on in such churches!

Thanks again, for stopping by. I really appreciated your informed input on this subject. Please visit more often and share some more wisdom!

Love in Christ,
Christine

P.S. So...did you hear about Obama's comment regarding his support of abortion if his daughters "made a mistake" and got pregnant out of wedlock, he wouldn't want either of them "punished by having a baby." How insane is THAT comment and worldview???

mattmc3 said...

"would there be racism if everyone were blind?"

Yes. It *absolutely* would. This sort of statement shows a complete misunderstanding of what racism even is. Racism is a heart issue, not an issue with what we see with our eyes. It exists because we make judgments in our heart about people based on fear of who they are, what they think, how they act, or what they might do. It's not based at all on what we actually see. Racism, sexism, ageism, homophobia, and all the other fears of people because of who they are, not because of what they are is the core of the human condition. And heart issues are why Christ came in the first place. Of course we would suffer from racism if everyone were physically blind, because we are spiritually blind.

Carlotta Morrow said...

Christine, you are quite welcomed!

I'm trying so hard to write some articles for the world to see. And my website will also have information on "BLT." But all that's in the making and I feel like I'm moving in slow motion -- trying to be a writer while dealing with real life single parent issues! But as soon as I get the info out, you'll be one of the first I'll tell!

I left a black church here in San Diego because I was uncomfortable with our pastor talking to the congregation as if there were only blacks in the crowd. We had a very small group of Latinos, Asians and Whites but you wouldn't think so because of his references.

Being an evangelical, I wanted to belong to a church where after I shared the gospel with someone, I would invite them to my church, no matter their ethnicity! I realized that I couldn't do it with this church so I left looking for a church with diversity. That's how I ended at the Rock.

The black churches here in San Diego seem a bit less radical than some of the black churches I've visited in Los Angeles. The church I left at least stayed on the gospel for salvation, preached against sin of homosexuality, abortion and etc. But these churches seem to not understand their lack of godly love in being insensitive to other ethnicities.

I hadn't heard that comment about Obama regarding his support of his daughters getting abortions if they made "mistakes" in getting pregnant! I'm compiling a listing of all these comments. My 23 year old daughter reads Vogue, and came across a disturbing article on Michelle Obama and her sharing how bored she was being a homemaker or something to that effect. It's the whole ideal of babies/children just being an afterthought or something.

Their worldview is very disturbing and his association with Rev. Wright is even more disturbing. And yes, the throngs of folks that support the craziness of Rev. Wright is downright maddening!

Oh well, just means the more work that must be done!

So keep passing the word Christine! Tell people that you aren't anyone's oppressor and that black liberation theology is "another gospel" that NO BLACK Christian should have anything to do with. I'll let you know when my website will be ready for you to send folks to for more information.

Well, you take care now!
Your Sis in Christ,
Carlotta

Christinewjc said...

Hi & welcome Mattmc3,

You just might be on to something. Recently, I read a quote fromn Glen Loury of Boston University regarding racism. He stated that it is a problem of "sin, not skin."

Today, any type of judgment for sin is frowned upon. The twisting of the term "tolerance" has done this nation a tremendous disservice. We ARE supposed to hold people accountable for bad ideas (like the Black Liberation Theology hate spewing) and/or bad practices (like homosexual behavior, illicit sexual behaviors, drug and alcohol abuse, child abuse etc.). It is not "intolerant" to point out bad behavior when we see it.

Human nature is not perfect. So, of course we are frail. All of humanity is under the judgment of sin (whether one admits and recognizes this fact or not). Because of our fleshly, sinful tendencies, dangerous and false ideas of all kinds can emerge out of such corruption.

[May I interject that this is the very reason why we need the Savior, Jesus Christ, and the indwelling guidance of the Holy Spirit along with the instruction contained in God's Word for lives in this world!]

In the book I am reading - The Truth About Tolerance: Pluralism, Diversity and the Culture Wars - Principle #10 says that "we should always be conscious of the various contexts in which tolerance is exercised."

Now, if we apply this to the "liberal mindset" which is currently trying very hard to claim that Rev. Wright's hate spewing were words "taken out of context," we find such an excuse downright ridiculous. Why? Because like Carlotta pointed out, the Black Liberation Theology - taken to its extreme form through people like Wright - shows very clearly that the man believes what he has said about the various contentious issues. And, Obama sat there in that church for 20 years. How could anyone be so foolish to believe that he "didn't know" and "doesn't agree" with at least some of Wright's radical ideas?

I plan to go into much more explanatory detail in future posts about the "10 truths of tolerance," but for now I will attempt to first paraphrase, then quote a portion of the book that applies here:

We see secularists so often using the wrong definition of "tolerance" in order to make (unwarranted) charges of intolerance against moral traditionalists in order to escape the need for real debate. This is used so effectively when secular liberals assail the "homophobia" and "misogyny" of moral traditionalists.

Book quote:
But secular liberalism--holding only to a belief in the malleability and dynamism of human beings, and in a more or less ineveitable progress for secular humanity--has no coherent philosophy of human nature or systematic understanding of character development, and thus haas no such socially preservative philosophical means.

On the other hand:

Book quote:
Reinhold Niebuhr's "Christian Realism" (the persistence of sin in individuals and groups compels a restrained view of sociopolitical possibilities) informs us that Christians' philosophical ability to attribute intolerance to a universal trait of people (i.e. their fallenness) rather than a specific ideological defect has a humanizing and safeguarding effect.

There is an entire portion in this book that discusses the religious ideas regarding this truth about tolerance.

Briefly, we are told that we can "hear, listen to, and experience (if so desired) other people's expression of their religious beliefs without insulting, harming or otherwise attacking them, all the while dissenting from the full metaphysical accuracy and worldview adequacy of their beliefs."

But this is often not done for Christians. We are constantly attacked by non-believers for simply following the truth in the Bible.

Then again, their are heretical Christian groups (like the "black liberation theology" and gay "christian" movement (gcm)). As is the case with the gcm, ironically, secular society finds more in common with them and are more accepting of their beliefs. Why? Because they eliminate Christ's judgment from their theology. What secularist couldn't agree with that?

People can tolerate the existence of such skewed religious beliefs. But it doesn't mean that they embrace them. And, it doesn't mean that true Christians should not counter the errors and heresies of such groups when their skewed theology is directly pointed out within the truth of the Scriptures!

Then again, their are religious movements, like radical Islam, that embrace evil, oppression, serious moral failings, espouse harm and death to others as well as self-destructive (i.e. homicide bombers) behavior. Toleration should NEVER be given for such cruel and inhuman terrorists!

There are behaviors that require NO TOLERANCE (the book calls this non-tolerance) AT ALL. There ARE SOME THINGS THAT SHOULD NEVER BE TOLERATED! Radical Islam is one of them.

Yet, the lefties in our nation think that we can just stop fighting them and they will put their weapons down and sing Kumbayah with the West.

That (IMO) is not choosing wisely and would lead our nation into destruction.

So. This is where we are in this election. Choosing between those whose liberal ideas would leave us vulnerable to attack or one man who knows the dangers and obsession of radical Islam - which is the current most important battle facing our nation at this time in history.

For me, the skin color of Obama or the gender of Clinton does not matter. It is their ill-conceived POLICIES (i.e. lackadaisical views about radical Islam) and the wrong morals and values (pro-abortion, pro-homosexual (behavior...not the persons!)teaching in schools, pro- licientious behaviors of all sorts) that preclude me from ever voting for them! Does this make me a racist towards Obama or a gender-biased person against Hillary? No.

Christinewjc said...

Thanks again Carlotta!

The more that I find out about the Obamas, the more sorry I feel for their daughters!

Raising my children was, has been and still is one of the greatest joys of my life!! Careers come and go in life. They were no where near as satisfying as raising my family!!

Thanks for sharing your journey to The Rock Church. I always find each persons' Christian background and walk so interesting.

I look forward to your future essay (no rush!) about Black Liberation Theology. You did such a marvelous job on exposing "Kwanzaa"! I always know where to go for information concerning that topic.

The book of Jude warns us that there will be many heretical movements out there the closer we get to the end times. It seems to me that they are multiplying at such an alarming rate these days! The only way to be immune to their effect is to be saved through Jesus Christ and grounded in God's Word!!

I check out the "Herescope" blog every few days for updates. It seems that Oprah is involved in a New Age heresy movement. How sad it is that her minions of followers via her show could be duped into believing the lies that she and her cultish gurus are selling!

However, we can give Oprah some credit for having left Wright's racist church!

God bless your day, Carlotta!

mike rucker said...

to mattmc3: i would argue, then, that it isn't really racism, it's just the tendency we have as humans to group everybody into us (us...us...us...) and them (them...them...them...).

because, after all, we're only ordinary men (men... men... men...).

(apologies to pink floyd)

which is why "perfect love casts out fear" is so powerful. and challenging.

and true.

and why living under grace is so much harder than living under law, because you have to decide when to use "tough" love and when to show mercy.

mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com