The Obama Campaign Racial Strategy

“Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama said on Friday he expects Republicans to highlight the fact that he is black as part of an effort to make voters afraid of him.

‘They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?'”

Anybody who has ever worked in a affirmative action work environment has seen this Obama campaign technique a million times. A member of a minority community is caught in some kind of error or malfeasance and the immediate response on their part is the cry of ‘racism,’ thus seeking to shift the blame on the person who revealed their error. This moves the focus off of their error or malfeasance and makes the issue the motives of the one who revealed their error.

The ‘post-racial candidate’ who is supposed to take us beyond race has now officially introduced race into the campaign. With this injection of race we see how Obama and his handlers intend to use race to their advantage. You can be sure that each and every time a effective and legitimate criticism is raised against Obama that he is going to hang his blackness out on the American Media clothesline for all to see and scream that the opposition is being racist. And when he doesn’t scream it, he will imply it with all the subtlety of a meat grinder. For the next nineteen weeks we are going to hear more versions of affirmative actions cries of racism then there are versions of the Bible.

I believe the reason that the Obama campaign is pursuing this is threefold. First, Obama has some real problems on this front has as already been established by his associations and by some quotes, that if examined closely, and taken in conjunction with his black nationalism associations reveal his problems. By bringing up the race issue in the way he has, he theoretically de-fangs his opponents from going after him on this score. Second, by raising this issue Obama continues to frame himself as the victim and his opponents as the victimizers. In our culture the poor victim always has a political advantage. Third, by raising the issue Obama takes advantage not only of the politics of pity, but also of the politics of guilt. For several generations a large percentage of Americans have been manipulated by a false guilt about race relations. A large percentage of Americans, buying into the false race narrative of this country seem to think they can atone for their sins of the past by voting for a black guy.

In this political climate Republicans would have to be brain dead to try and make Obama’s race a political issue. This reality reinforces the idea that Obama is the one injecting race into the campaign in order to try and take an issue away from Republicans (his associations with Black Nationalists and other radicals) and in order to smear his opponents with a charge in our culture that is worse then the charge of molesting children.

Will the Republicans meet this challenge directly? Will they call the racial bluff and tell Obama and his handlers to shove his race baiting plaints up his affirmative action post-racial sphincter? Will the Republicans turn the table and expose Obama’s racial campaign?

Only when hell freezes over, melts again, and refreezes.

No, what the Republicans will do out of fear of politically correct backlash will either stumble over themselves giving long and involved explanations insisting that they weren’t being racial, thus giving justification to the accusation, or failing that they will apologize for their insensitivity. Instead of saying that Obama is being racial by constantly injecting race they will roll over.

Having seen this technique successfully used frequently in the affirmative action workplace, I would say, from a tactical perspective, it is a brilliant move on the part of the Obama campaign.

Sal’s Advice

Billy Bob

I don’t have to “prove” anything. The burden of proof is on those who insist that the Bible furnishes us with the kind of economic- or foreign policy that can be legitimately held forth “prophetically” to the state.

My view is that the Bible is the account of the creation, fall, redemption, and consummation of all things. But if it’s economics or foreign policy we’re interested in, then we should go to the local library and read the experts.

I cut this from Green Baggins comment column. It is written by somebody infected with the R2Kt virus.

In this snippet Sal says that the Bible is about the Redemption of all things. What does Redemption look like in the realm of economics and foreign policy? Sal says it doesn’t look like anything we can measure because Economics and Foreign policy apparently aren’t part of the all things that Christ has come to Redeem.

Second, I would say the burden of proof is on Sal and the others infected with the R2kt virus who insist that the Bible doesn’t furnish us with the kind of economic or foreign policy that can be legitimately held forth. Sal, is part of the crowd who insist that the Bible is about individuals getting their souls saved but not about what embodied saved souls look like in the culture they live in once they’re saved. I mean, come on, you can only expect King Jesus to do so much after all.

Quite clearly the Bible does speak to Economic issues in the 8th Commandment. Not stealing is a great guideline for a nation and its government to follow. Salvation in the Economic realm thus looks like a government that is restrained in stealing money from the people. But those experts in the Library that Sal says we should check out keep insisting that stealing and redistribution of wealth does work so we should believe Marx over God’s Word according to Sal.

And how could Sal disagree with me about taking my Economic cues from Marx as discovered in the Library? After all the Church can’t speak to those things so it is fair to say that we can genuinely have Christian Marxists. Indeed, it is reported that in Sal’s Church Christian Marxists sit next to Christian Supply Siders and even though they fight like cats and dogs in the common realm they live in peace in the Church because the Church just keeps reminding them that their souls are saved.

And what of Foreign Policy? Does the Bible really have no guidelines for us in that realm? Is Sal suggesting that 2000 years of just war theory is just so much dung? Is Sal suggesting that there really isn’t any Biblical base in Just War theory?

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it till the cows come home, Sal and his kind are gnostic. Salvation is for the soul but it doesn’t apply to anything else. Jesus saves us for heaven and does not rule by command in any realm in this life saving his ruling here as that which happens by secret divine decree.

This theology is called so only by way of courtesy.

Standing By Aslan Even If Aslan Isn’t True

“Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things – trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that’s a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We’re just babies making up a game, if you’re right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That’s why I’m going to stand by the play-world. I’m on Aslan’s side even if there isn’t any Aslan to lead it. I’m going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn’t any Narnia”

C. S. Lewis
The Silver Chair

I love Lewis. The Silver Chair is my favorite book in the Narnia Series. Having said all that this quote has forever driven me nuts because it strikes me as something more an existentialist would say when contemplating the meaninglessness of life then something a Christian would say. A true blue existentialist believes that life has no meaning except the meaning he gives it and even though he knows it has no meaning it is an act of existential courage to act as if it does have meaning. Lewis seems quite neo-orthodox with this quote.

First, I have never been able to understand how made up things could ever seem more important than real things. Now made up things might be more comforting than real things but only an insane person would say a made up thing seems more important than a real thing. Standing by a play world that is known as a play world over against the real world is something that you find frequently from people in a nut house, and I don’t think it does any favors to Christianity to suggest to people that a Christianity that isn’t true would be preferred over a world without Christ that is true. If Christianity and Jesus isn’t true then let us join Nietzsche’s ubermensch and be done with it. If only in this life we have hope in Christ we are of all men to be pitied.

Second being on Aslan’s side even if there isn’t any Aslan is likewise just plain stupid. If there isn’t any Aslan then there isn’t a Aslan’s side to be on.

The reason this quote came to mind again is because recently I was in a setting where somebody was suggesting that it didn’t matter whether the miracles of the Bible were true since all that really mattered is that, historically, people have believed them to be true. The suggestion was that, as ministers, we shouldn’t worry about the truth or not truth of the miracle accounts, since to do so would be indicative of enlightenment thinking. Rather we should lose the enlightenment category hangups and just emphasize that these stories were the myths that guided the people in Scriptures and they should be the myths that guide us.

Please accept my apologies but I can’t do this. It makes no more sense to say I am going to stand by Aslan even if there is no Aslan to stand by then it does to say that I am going to believe (and act as if) the miracles are true even if the miracles aren’t true. Further, it is quite important whether or not they actually happened or not, because if they didn’t happen then we would be people following cleverly devised tales. I can make up and follow my own tales just as easily as I can follow somebody else’s tales.

Everything hangs on the objective truth of the Scriptures. If the Miracle accounts aren’t true then the whole thing unravels and if the whole thing unravels, I’m warning you now, you don’t want to be around me because I promise you that I will be consistent with what it all means if those Miracles aren’t true.

Carson, Christ & Culture Revisited — Early Problems

I’ve just begun Carson’s “Christ and Culture Revisited.” It looks to be an interesting read.

Already though we have hit a snag. Carson offers,

“My focus is on how we should be thinking about the relations between Christ and culture now,at the beginning of the twenty first century….Our reflections are shaped by six unique factors,

4.) … debates rage regarding what is ‘cultural’ in ‘multicultural,’ which in turn has precipitated debates over the relative merits of one culture over another. That in turn, of course, feeds into debates over religious claims, since religions, too, under the definition of ‘culture’ already given, are necessarily forms of cultural expressions. What gives a religion, any religion, the right to claim its own superiority or even uniqueness.

The problem here is that Carson has presupposed without establishing that religions are merely forms of cultural expressions. I would contend that the opposite is the case arguing that cultures are merely forms of religious expressions. If we say that religions are necessarily forms of cultural expressions, as if culture is the goose that lays the egg of religion then we run the danger of suggesting that culture is a kind of ultimate starting point. But to make culture an ultimate starting point is to get things backwards since the cult (religion) is that which makes the cultus (culture). If we are to examine culture profitably, as Carson intends to do, then the beginning point is not the culture itself but rather the religion from which the culture springs. And behind the religion of a culture looms the God whom both cult and cultus serve.

Carson’s problem begins to reveal itself even more acutely when just a page later he can speak of ‘secular countries.’ What does Carson mean by this? Does he mean that these are countries and cultures that have never been based on any religions? Such a view would require culture to be seen as something prior to religion and something out of which religion might or might not come. But of course we know that it is not possible to have a a-religious culture and so the whole idea of a “secular country,” or a “secular culture” must be surrendered.

Another sign of looming trouble in Carson’s book is by his early assertion that, “in some ways the world has become more furiously religious.” This cannot be since religion can neither increase nor decreases but can only transmute itself into different forms. Christopher Hitchens is every bit as religious as Osama Bin Laden, and were Hitchens to convert tomorrow to Christianity he would not at that point become “more furiously religious,” just as if Osama Bin Laden decided to walk away from Allah and become an agnostic he wouldn’t become “less furiously religious.” Now, it may be that the world is becoming more furiously epistemologically self conscious about how religious it is but no individual, nor any culture can ever increase or decrease their religious quota.

Carson begins this book by giving a definition of culture that he favors from a gentleman named Clifford Geertz.

“The culture concept…denotes an historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic form by means of which men communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitude towards life.”

Now this is fine as far as it goes but the question that begs being asked is, where do the pattern of meanings that are embodied in symbols come from? Sure, they are historically transmitted but the question is where did they originally come from? The answer to that is that they came from the cult (religion) of a people, which itself originated from how the people thought about God.

The CRC & Future Fraternal Relations

I have some CRC people who read this site. Which stands to reasons since I am an ordained minister in the CRC. I have cross posted (something I very seldom do) a post here from another CRC pastor who was a delegate to the CRC Synod this year. The reason I cross posted it is that I wanted this news to come from somebody else, since I suspect that sometimes this chicken little isn’t heard because he screams so much. I have put in bold relief some points that I think need to be emphasized.

Since I reported late last night I’m reporting early today. The big topic of the day (all day in fact) has been our relationship to the Protestant Churches of the Netherlands. For many out there you may say, “Why would that be a big deal??” Well, there is a huge historical connection between the CRC and the PCN (which was formerly the GKN, our “mother” denomination, so to speak). Anyway, the Inter-church Relations Committee was asking that we establish full ecclesiastical fellowship with the PCN. When it was the GKN (which merged with two other denominations to form the PCN) we restricted our relationship because they began ordaining practicing homosexuals and there are some questions on how they view Christ. Now, under the CRC’s new ecumenical charter which promotes broader and less restricted relationships, the IRC would like those restrictions removed.

With underlying practices such as those, you can imagine there was a ton of debate. That began in the Advisory Committee as they ended up with both a majority and minority report basically as follows:

* Majority Report: enter into full ecclesiastical fellowship with the PCN
* Minority Report: enter into a relationship of dialogue with the PCN

Full ecclesiastical fellowship is a deeper relationship which allows for fellowship at the Lord’s Supper together and exchange of pulpits. Dialogue means just that – a talking relationship. So do we overlook these differences in the spirit of Christian unity or do we continue to send the message we’ve been sending them that their practice is sinful – but we’re willing to maintain contact in the hopes that God’s Word will prevail in the future.

Over the course of the debate, it came out from a poll done in the Netherlands that 14% of the pastors in the PCN consider themselves atheist or agnostic. Yes, you read that right. (Further,)39% of PCN pastors cannot deny the statement that God is a figment of human thought… eek!

But it was also reported that the percentage of atheist pastors is going down and the number of orthodox pastors is rising – so God is bringing some hope there… Praise the Lord!

Procedurally, there were a couple of recommendations. The first was to declare the restricted relationship with the GKN moot in respect to the PCN because it was in effect a new denomination. That passed – so we didn’t have any officially relationship with the PCN. Next the majority report to establish full fellowship was tabled almost immediately and the minority report taken up. That was debated for a long time but then defeated by less that 10 votes. The majority report was taken off the table and discussed for quite a while again, but that was also defeated, but by a little more than 10 votes. So back to the drawing board – and for a few hours today we have no relationship with the PCN – the committee is meeting to come up with a third option – however, our new ecumenical charter doesn’t have a third option… so what’ll they come up with next???

More than the specific relationship to this church is what does this mean for the CRC. Does hopping in bed with the PCN give defacto credence to homosexual practice and loose Christology?? Or is it our opportunity to be a witness to them? I guess if we look back on the 20 or 30 years of strained relationship we’ve had – trying to be a witness to them – have we had more effect on them for orthodoxy or they on us for liberalism? An unrestricted relationship would only give us more of the same.

On top of that, what does our relationship with them convey to our local congregations?? To other denominations (the fraternal delegates from the CRC in Nigeria were fairly vocal about this in the gallery)… to our communities?? Lots of implications.

I won’t go through all the debates, but the parallel I drew was to I Corinthians 5:9-13.

“I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person. For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.”

If that doesn’t speak here, it doesn’t speak anywhere. Of course, we speak the truth in love… but we still speak the truth. But does God’s Word mean that much to these kind of debates?? By now you know my answer to that question… maybe I should make that a motion on the floor to see what Synod thinks. More later….

A few comments from Bret

1.) One must keep in mind that the three denominations in the Netherlands that merged to form the new denomination (PCN) each individually before the merger affirmed homosexuality in one way or another. Does a new denomination that is comprised from three denominations that affirmed homosexuality in one way or another end up not affirming it, itself?

2.) One wonders if the putative increase of ‘orthodox’ ministers in the PCN is anecdotal. Is there hard evidence that shows this?

3.) Note it was the bureaucracy of the CRC (inter-church relations) that asked for fraternal relations with the PCN. What does that tell us?

4.)Note also it was the majority report from the bureaucrats (advisory committee) that recommended full ecclesiastic fellowship with the PCN.

postscript — The 2008 Synod dealt with this issue by asking their bureaucratic structure (the one that gave the majority report recommendation to restore full ecclesiastical fellowship) to see if it could come up with a relationship that is not full ecclesiastical fellowship but is more than what is referred to as “churches in dialogue.”

The motion that passed on Thursday afternoon comes out of a desire of the CRC “to develop and maintain a relationship with the PCN that … does not obscure the seriousness of the issues that led to restrictions being placed on the GKN prior to formation of the PCN – issues that appear to continue today in the PCN,” says the IRC’s recommendation.