“Ain’t No Stoppin’ Us Now”
When CNN announced that Barack Obama had the electoral votes needed to win, the euphoria in the room I was in was deafening. I had never experienced anything quite like it. Many of us stood still in shock while others jumped and danced followed by people weeping.
I was so confident that Obama was going to win the election I skipped a McCain-Palin party last night to attend an election night gathering co-hosted by two St. Louis R&B and hip-hop radio stations. Although I disagree with Obama’s views on abortion and his economic philosophy, among other things, I wanted to witness the reaction and celebration with an all-black crowd. I was not prepared for what happened: Euphoria and weeping about a man representing an idea.
When I walked into The Loft on Olive Street in downtown St. Louis there were several hundred people singing in unison the 1979 R&B hit “Ain’t No Stoppin’ Us Now,” by McFadden & Whitehead:
There’ve been so many things that have held us down
But now it looks like things are finally comin’ around, yeah
I know we’ve got a long long way to go, yeah
And where we’ll end up
I don’t knowBut we won’t let nothing hold us back
We gonna get ourselves together
We gonna polish up our act, yeah
And if you’ve ever been held down before
I know that you refuse to be held down any more, yeah yeahDon’t you let nothing, nothing
Nothing stand in your way
And all we gonna do
I want you to listen, listen (That’s right)
To every word I say
Every word I say about itAin’t no stoppin’ us now
We’re on the move
Leading up to Obama’s victory speech, the DJ would insert the question, “Are you guys ready for the first black president?” The room would then erupt in cheers and whistling. Then it hit me: For the folks in this room this election was not about policy but an idea. I’ve been told my whole life that a black man could never become the nation’s president. I will never forget hearing those words escape the mouth of Peter Jennings a few years ago on the “ABC Nightly News,” as he reported the findings of a study on race.
I stood in front of the television stunned and discouraged.
Last night, however, the idea that someone other than a white man, a mixed-race man, in fact, could become president became a reality. The realization of this idea created a contagion of cheers and weeping. I wish my grandparents, who lived under the tyranny of Jim Crow laws in the South and through the turmoil of the civil-rights movement, could have lived to see what happened last night. They would be very happy.
John McCain had no idea how powerful his words were when he said, “This is an historic election, and I recognize the special significance it has for African Americans and for the special pride that must be theirs tonight.” On hearing this, the room erupted again in celebration. Who would have ever imagined the first lady of the United States would be a black woman?
For many in the room I realized that “change” was not so much about political change but cultural change. There was a determination to vote a man into office that represented a possibility—namely, that a black man could be president.
The Republican Party will soon die if does not find a way to reflect America’s shifting racial demographics. For the past six years, there has not been a single black Republican governor, senator, or representative in Congress. Running a party for a shrinking demographic is unsustainable.
A black pastor friend in North Carolina called and asked, “Anthony, can you believe it?” We were sobered by the fact that evangelicalism essentially has no Asians, Latinos, or blacks that share the influence and respect of men like John Piper, Tim Keller, John MacArthur, Mark Dever, James Dobson, Chuck Colson, and so on (unless the topic is related to race). Oddly, conservative evangelical’s favorite black go-to guy is a Roman Catholic named Alan Keyes. Is that the best evangelicals can come up with?
Even though some conservative evangelicals, in talking about me, have said “Bradley’s an ignorant baboon,” there is hope for change in an idea in evangelicalism, too. Concerning this election, my theology frees me from anxiety about America in a world sustained by God, but it raises a new interesting set of questions about the church in America and whom we consider our leaders.














Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top137 Comments to ““Ain’t No Stoppin’ Us Now””
Wonderful to be able to read this perspective. I have wondered recently what this election season would have been like in my mostly black Chicagoland church where by an unwritten rule politics wasn’t discussed among members; I imagine that rule was broken this election.
Report comment to moderator
‘but it raises a new interesting set of questions about the church in America and whom we consider our leaders.’
It is obvious, Obama is your new messiah and religious leader.
Report comment to moderator
Hmm, so evangelicals should repackage themselves and what they teach in order to increase their racial diversity? Or else what?
If nothing else, this election has shown me that, in the American church, race trumps doctrine.
Report comment to moderator
To Anthony Bradley
Why is Obama considered black? He is bi-racial ansd was raised in Hawaii and Indonesia by white people.
But let’s assume the exact same situation only this time Obama was a mass murderer. Would you still consider him black?
Report comment to moderator
To Anthony Bradley
You linked your article to a previous post written by you on the Duke Lacrosse fiasco.
Did you ever retract that story or apologize to the players? I won’t even ask you if you ever criticize the stripper for her disgraceful accusations.
Report comment to moderator
Well, he’s not John Piper or Tim Keller yet, but look out, this black man is on his way to rubbing shoulders with the best of them: http://www.voddiebaucham.org/vbm/home.html
Report comment to moderator
I alluded to this on a previous thread, but Obama’s ascendancy to the presidency should indicate , if people are honest enough to admit it, that white privilege is not as strong in America as some people would like us to believe.
In the Expos Writing class I teach, students are required to read an article by a fellow named Robert Jensen. He claims white privilege pervades the States and cites as support Bush’s presidency–supposedly a position Bush gained through his connections and his skin color; he asserts that a black man could never achieve Bush’s position.
I hope he’s enjoying a big dish of well-cooked crow today.
Report comment to moderator
Nick – 5
Good catch – very interesting!
Report comment to moderator
Bradley,
Do you consider Obama black, even though his mother was white? There is an obvious distancing which takes place, every single time any black individual or Obama mentions his being black.
Report comment to moderator
Mulattoes are black.
Report comment to moderator
Bradley,
I valued reading the unique perspective you shared in your article. It is literally impossible for me to really understand the depth of emotion released, and the weight of longing realized in the black community with this election. I am a white, protestant, northerner who, though raised in a predominently caucasian town, have sought to build multi-racial relationships over the years. I have a deep respect for the challenges that have faced various minorities over the years, especially in certain parts of our country. It is encouraging to see many of those barriers fade into the past.
However, I still cringe when I hear others state that my differences with Obama are the result of racism, and not acknowledged for the difference in policy that really motivates me. I read one article (I believe it was quoted in Worldmag) saying that Obama deserved this win, to help offset the years of racial discrimination of the past. This is like the time by son had some things stolen from his desk in school. When confronted, the native-american child who stole the items responded(we were ministering in a church on a reservation at the time), “Well you stole our land.” As you can imagine, this stunned and frustrated my son, since we had always taught our children to value and respect other races. He was trapped between our exhortation to “live at peace with all men”, and the antagonism of his classmate.
I also celebrate the advancements made in race-relations in this varied nation of ours. And personally, I would have loved to have the option to vote for an Allen Keyes or that conservative congressman from Oklahoma (can’t remember his name off hand). And just maybe, the church will find the ranks of the E.V.Hills and Ravi Zakarias’s growing in influence as well. I pray so.
Report comment to moderator
Mulattoes are half white and half black.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks Bradley, for giving us a peek into a more personal celebration of the election and what it means to many.
Blessings,
DJ
Report comment to moderator
Yeah but Victoria, apparently you had chicken pox the day they taught genetics in 10th grade biology. Black genes are dominant and White genes are recessive. That means that more of the Black genes are going to show up and the White genes are not. Crimony!
Report comment to moderator
Llama, Victoria, Bianca – shape up! I am profoundly disappointed in the election based on Obama’s policies and ideology, but it is good to hear an African-American evangelical’s perspective.
Speaking of whether Obama is black – if you ran into him on the street and had to describe his race, wouldn’t you say he was black (or African-American)? Come on now, you know you would. It might not be correct genetically, but it is the reality socially in this country and in most others.
BTW, Anthony, I think that the black community needs to remember that the diversity in our country and in our churches goes way beyond black and white. Hispanics are now a larger ethnic group than African Americans, and much more so here in the Western U.S. Also, the percentage of Asian-Americans is growing as well. I think the Republican and/or evangelical leadership are much more diverse when you consider the other ethnic groups as well. Governor Jindal, anyone?
Report comment to moderator
Great thoughts, though I think your last comments are way off base and overlook many who have a growing influence in evangelicalism: Voddie Baucham, Fred Luter, Thabiti Anyabwile, Eric Redmond, Ravi Zacharias, Emir and Ergun Caner, and so on. Additionally, even if your assessment is the reality, it is much more complicated than to simply surmise that an attitude of exclusion is to blame.
Report comment to moderator
Beth D – I don’t use all those hyphenated politically correct terms.
Report comment to moderator
MDEBUSKVOL:
I thought I read somewhere that Thabiti Anyabwile and his wife split up. Maybe I’m thinking of someone else, but that name sounds familiar to me.
Report comment to moderator
Not to be nit-picky, because I found this post interesting, but isn’t Christopher Shay of Connecticut a black Republican member of Congress (he lost last night).
Report comment to moderator
Re: 16, 18. Never mind. I’m thinking of someone else. TA is the guy who wrote a book on African pastors. The first half of the book is better than the last half because of Puritanism. Those Puritan Black preachers could really preach.
Report comment to moderator
Bethd – 15
“Shape up”? – Disagreeing with anyone whoever they might be doesn’t require a “shape up” – grow up Betjd. there is nothing wrong with disagreeing.
Report comment to moderator
We finally recognized that monolithic communism was a myth. Today few indeed would speak of “the Italian vote” or the Jewish vote. Both of those ethnic subsets are so integrated into our culture that neither label makes sense.
But too many in the media speak of The Black Vote, as in “OBama is expected to do well in predominantly black areas”. Does it not seem patronizing to build in an assumption that ALL black voters will be Democratic?
If we progress to the point of skin pigment not mattering for or angainst anything ( elective office, school admissions etc), then maybe we should treat the “black community” as no different from any other subgroup.
Yes, there are black conservatives. In Texas Michael Williams is the Chairman of the state commission regulating oil and gas industry (such as it currently is). If you see a black person and automaticly assume “enthusiast for Democratic candidates” is that any better than any other stereotype/assumption about any other ethnic group? (”Italian last name..devout Catholic.. hoodlum.. mafiosi enforcer”).
I wish the GOP had done a better job promoting JC Watts, Jr.
Report comment to moderator
Shays of Conn is a pale white RINO type at best.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah, that article by Bradley on the Duke lacrosse case is pretty despicable.
“What is desperately needed is a hero to emerge from Duke’s lacrosse team, one who is committed to justice and human dignity, to make what may be the toughest decision of his life—that is, to tell the truth.
There must be at least one man on the team whose conscience is ablaze at the flammable injustice of what he saw, heard, or knows and wants to stand up and shout, “ENOUGH!! Here’s what really happened.”
“A good start would be for one player to stand up, tell the police the truth, and fulfill a wonderful calling to fight for human dignity and justice.”
Because you’re black you always have to presume the guilt of white people? What do you have to say about the accuser?
Yes, we’ve made oh so much progress, haven’t we?
Report comment to moderator
Bianca – 14
Bianca, this is not always true. I have a very good friend who has two sons, both blond, one has straight hair, and the other one has very curly thick blond hair. I always wondered where the youngest got all that thick hair, I had never seen blond hair llike that before (by the way both boys are very fair) – My friend was born in Germany, she is blond with fair skin. One day a few years ago she told me that their father, her husband was half black, I was VERY SURPRISED.
Having a black parent does not always mean that the skin or hair will be black – Sooooo you can take whatever ‘pox you carry’ somewhere else-
Report comment to moderator
#23
Watts, that’s the name I was trying to think of from Oklahoma. Thanks Sawgunner.
Report comment to moderator
26 – Fine, Victoria. One very good friend. ONE.
ONE. Not two, not 5,893, not 987,465, ONE.
Report comment to moderator
“Ain’t No Stoppin’ Us Now!”
Great. I’m glad that whatever was stopping you isn’t stopping you any longer. Now you can get a job, stop demanding racial preferences, and take responsibility for the fruits of your loins.
One good stereotype deserves another.
Report comment to moderator
Plus, the child would have been 1/4 if the dad was half black. So your logic doesn’t work. I was talking about a Black parent and a White parent. Not one Mulatto parent and one White parent.
I’ve seen 1/4 children too and yes, you’re right, they’re blonde if one parent’s mulatto and the other’s blonde. So, I’ll give you that.
Report comment to moderator
“Ain’t No Stoppin’ Us Now”
I know that is the title of a song from 1979 but what exactly did Anthony Bradley mean by that expression?
And heaven forbid a white person ever said black people talk like that.
Report comment to moderator
31 – I know – I thought the same thing. Implications, implications…
Report comment to moderator
I sure hope Anthony isn’t reading this thread.
Report comment to moderator
Shays was the last Republican congressman in New England, as I understand it.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, I was wrong on Shays, I must have him confused with someone else–but who?
Report comment to moderator
Vodie Bauchum flew to my mind as well. If we lived anywhere near him we’d go to his church. Have a couple of DVD’s by him that I’m passing around as much as possible.
the song lyrics are just ominous to me:
“where we’ll end up I don’t know”.
That has been my whole question this election cycle. Mr. Obama went on and on praising the America of history, then said he wants to bring “fundamental change”. If America is so great, why does it need a fundamental change? What is that change. Where exactly would he like it to be in 4-8 years? I would say that there has already BEEN fundamental change, based on election results.
Rant off…for now.
Report comment to moderator
Bianca – 29
Bianca, try to follow along, the childdren’s father didn’t have black skin either – That’s why it was surprising that he was half black - People who are black and marry white does not mean their children will always be black in color –
Taken from my post #25 “My friend was born in Germany, she is blond with fair skin. One day a few years ago she told me that their father, her husband was half black, I was VERY SURPRISED.”
I could give you other examples, but it seems you aren’t even able to understand one, from one friend – LOL
Report comment to moderator
You follow along! I was talking about a black parent and a white parent, not a mulatto parent and a white parent. You’re just mad because I told you in so many words to get back in the box. You made a lousy analogy and I called you on it. Why can’t you just admit you’re wrong?
Report comment to moderator
And the reason I brought up “One” is because even if a black and a white did produce a very light skinned child, the majority of black and white couples produce black looking children. Do you really need an example?
Jordin Sparks – not blonde
Halle Berry – not blonde
Barack Hussein Obama – not blonde.
Report comment to moderator
This whole “no he’s not black, he’s half-black” thing is dumb. Like BethD said, if you met him on the street and had to describe him, you’d say he was black or African-American. He has African ancestry, therefore he’s African-American. He also has English ancestry, so you could say he’s English-American as well. You don’t have to have 100% African ancestry to be African-American, nor do you have to have 100% Italian ancestry to be Italian-American. The point is, he’s the first President with African ancestry. And he’s American. America is a melting pot.
Some traits more common in blacks might be genetically dominant. But children of “mixed-race” families don’t always look black. For instance, Cleveland Indians center fielder Grady Sizemore has a black father and a white mother, and he looks white to me. See photo.
And Republicans do need to make adjustments to win more minorities. Pandering to angry whites is a limited and divisive strategy.
Report comment to moderator
Anthony, thanks for the wonderful perspective.
It is just as I thought all along: this election was all about “race” for the black voter, or to put it Anthony’s way, “cultural change” (at least I think that is what he is saying.) It is just sad that the conservative black movement no longer exists. Most blacks are now liberals, so it was expected that almost all blacks would vote for Barack Hussein Obama. I wonder how many blacks who didn’t support him were criticized by fellow blacks?
In order for the Republican party to relate to the black voter, we are going to have to draw on our similarities, but what would they be? Voucher for education is the only thing I come up with. Maybe the death penalty.
Report comment to moderator
“Mulattoes are half white and half black.”
Yes, and we can define other antiquated terms as well:
quadroons are 1/4 black
octoroons are 1/8 black
And oh, if you are even 1/16 black, the “one-drop” rule would apply, wouldn’t it? After all, blackness is a stain, and we simply must define how much of it someone has.
And this matters to anything exactly how?
Human skin pigmentation and percentage of “black” (African) ancestry exists along a continuum. There just aren’t bright dividing lines of who is “black” or “white” and who is not – most of what we call race is a social construct, anyway.
Report comment to moderator
No, blackness is not a stain, necessarily. White can be a stain too if you spill bleach on yourself.
Report comment to moderator
And for everyone’s information here, I think black is a lovely color and I even wear it in the summer.
Report comment to moderator
“… there are black conservatives …”
We hit a milestone here. There will come a day when NEITHER party will be able to take the vote of ANY group for granted. People vote their own self-interest.
Report comment to moderator
People vote their own self-interest.
******This is true and this is sad.
In fact, some of the truly heroic people I know are Black Conservatives. They are denigrated by their own people and not always fully accepted by Whites.
They are taking a stand for what is RIGHT and it is *not* in their self-interest.
Too bad so many Blacks in this election made it a racial issue.
But, perhaps, now that it’s happened, we can get over it.
On the other hand…will we be allowed to criticize the new President without being called racists and prejudiced? Not if MSNBC’s coverage last night is any indication.
Report comment to moderator
Bianca
I was talking about one black parent and one white parent as well - You missed the point. My friends HUSBAND was – half black/half white – he was light, and both he and my friends sons were blond with light skin – when she told me her husband was half black I was surprised, and WHY? – because he didn’t have dark skin. You aren’t able to comprehend something even if its explained over and over again. LOL
My friend being married to a half black/white man without dark skin isn’t an analogy, it is a FACT -
Report comment to moderator
Bianca,
Blackness isn’t dominant genetically, but either black or brown hair is (because blond hair is recessive). So when my brown-haired mom had 2 blond girls, she was surprised. She must have had some blond genes mixed in there.
When children have one parent with either black or brown hair (with no blond ancestors) and one blond parent, their children typically have brown hair.
Report comment to moderator
I hope you have a good sense of humor, Anthony Bradley.
You post a very thoughtful piece, candidly describing your conflicting emotions in the light of last night’s election.
Your reward: 40+ comments from Archie Bunker and the church ladies discussing skin tone.
Report comment to moderator
Travis,
And YOU? ——- the only thing you can comment on are the comments, LOL – yep, that sounds like Archie Bunker!
Report comment to moderator
Yes, a black man can become president, but this election did teach me that a woman probably can’t. Please remember people like Obama had the vote long before people like Plain and Hilary.
Report comment to moderator
That should be Palin and Hilary.
Report comment to moderator
Scepter Alert
My goodness, now you’ve got me coming over to the commentary side to administer scepter bonks. Anthony’s post on the reaction of black voters to Obama’s victory was thoughtful, heartfelt, and well-written.
Nick, Victoria, David L., and Bianca, your comments are off-topic and some of them are borderline offensive. Please restrict your comments to thoughtful, well-reasoned interaction with Anthony’s post.
It’s a long walk over here. Don’t make me come back.
Report comment to moderator
Is it my imagination or is worldmagblog especially weird today?
By the way, at one time the slightest bit of “black blood” made a person “black.” Think of the idion “octaroon.”
People here can’t seem to figure out what to call Obama. Is he white or black, African or Indonesian or … American, the new very melted pot American? (I believe I was the first person on wmb to point out that he is pretty “white” in a lot of ways. Do I get credit? –Once in a while I do–people know race to the bottom is my tag.)
Not to mention whether he’s a black nationalist racist, or a leftist socialist, or a secret Muslim terrorist. Or an abortionist who eats babies for breakfast?
Oddly, now I hear nostalgia for Hillary Clinton. If she had been nominated, everyone here would have been foaming at the mouth. Now she’s a “middle-of-the-roader” compared to Obama.
People here can’t keep their scapegoats and bogeymen (and bogeywoman) straight.
Report comment to moderator
I should add that I will probably be banned from this web site before the end of the year.
Report comment to moderator
#50
I said the same thing to my husband last night. It plays out that a man no matter what color still gets more respect than a woman of whatever color.
Report comment to moderator
KBELS – Hillary almost won the primary, and certainly would have vanquished McCain. I think she’s evidence that a woman — even a wicked witch — might win. Regarding the other part of your argument, the elderly African American women I know say that race is a bigger barrier than gender. While it is true that theoretically there are more chances for sexism than racism, because there are more women than African Americans, half of African Americans suffer a double dose of both sexism and racism. Further, movement toward gender equality started before civil rights, which indicates it faced less resistance.
The fact that we just saw African Americans far more willing than Whites to discriminate against gay people suggests that African Americans are more deprived.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, Scroop Moth, black women do a lot better than black men, esp. when companies are looking to hire “minorities”–hire a black woman and you get double credit, plus she is perceived as less of a threat than a black man.
And yes, of course this presidential election cycle was “partly about race” for black people. Descendants of slaves have waited many years for such a day, and it’s understandable that they’re happy today. I have no desire at all to see a woman president, but the day we have one, many women will be quite happy. Race or gender is a very bad reason to vote for somebody, but it’s sufficient reason to be pleased at the person’s success, and to enjoy it that you lived to see such a day. Honestly, as much as I hated to see Obama win, I could rejoice with my black friends over the importance of this election.
Report comment to moderator
Lynn
Would you mind telling me exactly what I have said that was “borderline offensive” ? – as well as “off topic” – I ask this because a person who is half black and half white decides their black? This most likely wouldn’t make a lot of difference but Obama is going to be the next sitting President come January – for many of us, we cannot understand why this man who claims to love his mother would exclude her from his ancestery.
Bradley who wrote some of the folling remarks:
“Leading up to Obama’s victory speech, the DJ would insert the question, “Are you guys ready for the first black president?”
“Then it hit me: For the folks in this room this election was not about policy but an idea. I’ve been told my whole life that a black man could never become the nation’s president.”
The last comment reflects Bradley’s view that Obama is black, I realize there was another comment: “Last night, however, the idea that someone other than a white man, a mixed-race man, in fact, could become president became a reality.”
Many people are asking the same questions as I ask. I believed that my comments were thoughtful.
Respectfully,
Victoria
Report comment to moderator
BTW, I think somebody mentioned Fred Luter. He visited our church and is an awesome preacher. If any of you ever get a chance to hear him, take it.
Report comment to moderator
Lynn,
My comment on the Duke lacrosse case may have been off-topic, but it certainly wasn’t irrelevant to the main point. Bradley obviously has not transcended race. I think the totality of his views on race are important to consider if he wants to write about race.
And you really do have some gall rebuking the commenters here while allowing your columnists, on this putatively Christian blog, to argue that the Church needs to change her theology in order to pander to black people. The Gospel is colorblind. It’s terribly impious to toss this social resentment at doctrine that’s existed for 2,000 years.
And what is this protecting the writer from criticism, anyway? If you don’t want your ideas scrutinized, don’t publish them.
Report comment to moderator
I am somewhat new to blogging, so, I thought I would do my research. I went to the link “Bradley’s an ignorant baboon” and now this whole post is a bit suspect. One guy and one post from January of 2007 is used as backup for the statement “..some conservative evangelicals, in talking about me,…”?
I am 45 and white and have felt that I would see a Black president for as long as I can remember. I will also see a woman president in my lifetime. Soon, I suspect. A Black woman president? An Asian president? I hope so. Ethnicity has nothing to do with it.
I believe Sen. Obama’s win exposes that most people’s limits are in their minds (including Mr. Bradley’s). What is so amazing about Sen. Obama’s win is that despite his lack of experience and relatively recent appearance on the national political scene, he won the nomination and the presidency. To me, that is much more amazing than the color of his skin.
Report comment to moderator
And you really do have some gall rebuking the commenters here while allowing your columnists, on this putatively Christian blog, to argue that the Church needs to change her theology in order to pander to black people.
David L.,
I don’t need gall. I work here.
As the Regulars here will attest, I interfere very little with the commenters, either here or on the blog. When I do, there’s a reason. I made the reason clear to you in my earlier post. Best to simply make the necessary adjustments and move on.
Report comment to moderator
i am happy for mr. bradley. i did not vote for mr. obama. i do not care about his race. he represents a pro abortion pro gay socialist party. i will never vote for any man or woman who favors partial birth abortion. i wish mr obama the best for the sake of america. but i will work to defeat him in 2012.
Report comment to moderator
#63
Amen!
Report comment to moderator
Just a comment that may be more revealing about me than anyone else here, but If I read something by Anthony Bradley in a World publication, I don’t need to see his byline to know he’s the one who wrote it. In fact, I could probably identify a piece by him outside of World. That is neither good nor bad, except to say I don’t need to see Andree Seu’s byline either, nor do I need to see Maureen Dowd’s byline to know a piece by her. All three of these writers offer a distinct, singular and identifiable point of view on certain hobbyhorse topics. Just saying…
Report comment to moderator
To Lynn Vincent
My comments are off topic?
Mr. Bradley himself told us to go to a link where he talked about the Duke Lacrosse debacle.
He made a number of very serious charges that turned out to be totally false. I just asked whether he retracted or apologized to the people he accused of commiting a terrible crime.
I also asked him what he meant by the expression “ain’t no stoppin us now”.
And I am portrayed as the bad guy?
Report comment to moderator
Reading all these comments, I wondered what God would would have to say to each one of you. i found the answer in His Word, the The Living Bible translation, Colossians 3:11
“In this new life, one’s nationalaity or race or education, or social position is unimportant; whether a person has Christ is what matters and He is equally available to all.”
The world is full of need, may our heavenly Father break down barriers that would keep us from showing His love to all mankind.
Report comment to moderator
“We were sobered by the fact that evangelicalism essentially has no Asians, Latinos, or blacks that share the influence and respect of men like John Piper, Tim Keller, John MacArthur, Mark Dever, James Dobson, Chuck Colson, and so on (unless the topic is related to race). Oddly, conservative evangelical’s favorite black go-to guy is a Roman Catholic named Alan Keyes. Is that the best evangelicals can come up with?”
Evangelicals in the U.S. should have respect for and be influenced by pastors and godly leaders from minority groups. In just a few seconds, I thought of Tony Evans and Luis Palau, and given a few more, I’d remember those names on the tip of my tongue.
I’d guess that Keyes is the go-to for quotes on politics because he’s a politician…he’s held a political appointment and also run for office. J.C. Watts is certainly a great man, and IIRC, World’s talked with him a few times in the past.
Report comment to moderator
I think evangelicals can do better than Keyes too. However, I’m also of the opinion that we can do better than James Dobson and his ilk. There’s nothing more annoying than the politically correct politically incorrect.
Report comment to moderator
On these discussions about Barack Obama having both a black and white parent …
I don’t think the technical or physiological aspects of being black or white are at issue. I think it is the way Americans treat a person or group of people based on the way they perceive their race, both now and historically, that is at issue.
Report comment to moderator
Nick – 66
I remember – I’m wondering why we were the ones chosen to be ‘called out’ when another poster here calls us the “Christian Taliban” and receives not one rebuke – It has been brought up on several threads, (just in the past days) with nary a mention from those who work for WMB.
I have read this thread over several times, reading your comments, David’s and mine – I am unable to see where we crossed the line, or even came close – I think it only FAIR, that the EXACT words written which were “off-topic and some of them are borderline offensive” be pointed out clearly.
The song, which is the TOPIC POST here on this thread “Ain’t No Stoppin’ Us Now” is certainly borderline if not racist. Not all people are offended by that song, but I am, does my opinion count, or is it just Bradley’s opinion since he made the choice to use it as his TOPIC, but I’m not to bring up anything else concerning Obama and his being half white and half black -
Perhaps this is a good thread to discuss our thoughts, as Bradley felt free enough to express his, we in turn should be able to express ours as well.
Report comment to moderator
To Victoria
The fact that Mr. Bradley never responded says a lot.
But I thought the same thing that you did. Other comments were far more controversial than ours were.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria in #71:
Can I ask you a couple of question?
First, what does “racist” mean to you? The term may mean different things to different people.
Second, in light of the meaning you give to the term “racist”, what do you find to be racist in the “Ain’t No Stoppin’ Us Now” song?
Report comment to moderator
To Eaton
You didn’t ask me but I will answer anyway.
I take “ain’t no stoppin us now” as a veiled (or not so veiled) threat. I don’t know if anyone called it racist.
My defintion of a racist is when 92% to 95% of black people vote for Obama because of the color of his skin. Unless of course they like his position on the issues.
Report comment to moderator
Nick,
About 90% of black people vote Democratic, so your point is fairly meaningless. And voting for a black person because you’re excited about having a black candidate in no way qualifies for the term “racist.” That doesn’t mean no racists (black and white) chosen on account of race in this election, but that voting for someone you “identify with” is not the definition of racism by any stretch of the imagination. (Obviously if you’re voting for a racist because he’s a racist, that’s different. But a black person preferring a black candidate? Not racism. Refusing to vote for someone only because of his race is racism; choosing to vote for someone based partly on his race is not.)
Report comment to moderator
Eaton
It will accomplish nothing to go over the song. Take those words, turn them around to be only the words of white’s then you can figure out why it would never work. Those who are white could make a song that wouldn’t go over with the black community, not to mention it would be deemed racist from the ‘get go’ yet it can be done by blacks –
We all know what “racist” means, certainly you don’t need an explanation. When I heard Wright’s bellowing, I certainly understood racism as it is right now in the United States – we’ve all been awakened as to the racism which has been taught and bought throughout the black community right in their own churches.
Black Liberation Theology certainly has put a bright light on the situation.
Report comment to moderator
I disagree with you Cheryl – voting for someone only because of their color is racist in my opinion.
Report comment to moderator
CherylD: Refusing to vote for someone only because of his race is racism; choosing to vote for someone based partly on his race is not.
I disagree. Using race as a deciding factor is racism, no matter which way you decide. Either way, you’re committing favoritism, which James calls sin:
“If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.”
Report comment to moderator
Nick,
I didn’t take that song a threat. I took it to mean something like “We’re going to pursue life, liberty, and happiness in this society, in ways that we have not been able to in the past due to oppression.” Obviously we’d have to ask each individual who was at that event separately to find out exactly what the song meant to them, but that’s how I took it.
Here’s a quote from the U.S. Supreme Court Dred Scott decision of 1857 that helps me get some context on all of this. As far as the “what is racism” question, unfortunately I’d better get back to work!
“The words “people of the United States” and “citizens” are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who … form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives…. The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement [people of African ancestry] compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word “citizens” in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.”
Report comment to moderator
To Cheryl #75
Presumably in 2012 Obama will run for re-election against a white male.
Now go back and read your post in #75 and substitute white for black. How does it sound?
And if 92% to 95% of white people vote for the Republican candidate you are okay with it?
Report comment to moderator
Eaton – 79
If you have to get back to work Eaton, you obviously had time to type this long piece below your comment. I might add you were poised to ask questions, and then have this as your handy answer, which isn’t relevant in 2008, its just an excuse – better luck next time!
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl mentioned it is no big deal that Obama got 92% to 95% of the black vote since blacks vote Democratic 90% of the time anyway.
So if McCain was the Democrat and Obama was the Republican McCain would have got 90% of the black vote?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria: voting for someone only because of their color is racist in my opinion.
As Cheryl rightly pointed out, about 90 percent of blacks usually vote for the Democrat regardless of skin color. For Nick Peters, or you, to assert that they voted for Obama “because of the color of his skin” is rank speculation that you can’t support, and which history argues against.
And actually, it’s racist to assume that was the only reason that they did.
Report comment to moderator
To Steve G
Without exaggeration of any kind I find it mind boggling that you won’t admit blacks voted for Obama because of his skin color.
He was getting 92% of the black vote running against Ms. Clinton in the primaries. You remember Ms. Clinton don’t you? The wife of our first “black” president?
You would think blacks would vote for her over a first term Senator. Yes, you would think that.
Report comment to moderator
It is clear that most of the above posts were written by white people. Here’s why: White people don’t have any concept of what it means for them to be white. That is, because white is the norm in this country, members of every other ethnic group here have had to work out what their race means as a part of their identity, while whites have not. Since most white people have never even thought about the significance of their own racial identity, there is no way for us to understand the significance of racial identity to others. We don’t understand what the big deal is that Obama is black to black people, because we’ve never seen it as important that any other President was white!
This lack of ethnic awareness among whites is also why many of the above posts misunderstand what constitutes racism. Whites think that the opposite of racism is being completely blind to racial identity! First of all, this is impossible. We only think it’s possible b/c we are so blind to our own ethnicity! Second, attempting to avoiding seeing the reality of racial differences is at worst destructive; at best, it seriously limits our ability to enjoy the unique identity of others. (For example, not being able to enjoy the historic election of our first black President, regardless of your political views!) The goal of overcoming racism is not that we all get to a point where race has no influence on identity or social interaction!! (Some of you may be saying, What?!) The goal is that we move away from hating, harming+excluding others on the basis of race. The goal is to accept+engage with other people, no matter who they are, in a holistic way that allows them to bring all of themselves–the way they look, talk, think, act–into the relationship. We should not expect others to check those things at the door, any more than we expect ourselves to do so. The only reason we don’t think that we bring anything of this sort to the table is because it has been so unexamined.
White people, I have news for you: race plays a huge factor in how we grow up, what we value, how we think, and who we are (and it should)! It’s not the only thing that matters, nor in many cases is it even the most important; however, ‘transcending race’ does not mean erasing it! It means grappling with the responsibility associated with our own ethnic identity enough to be able to see race, ethnicity+culture not as things “others” have, but things we all have, things we have in common, though they are diverse.
We are all tired of race in America. Many whites+blacks I’ve spoken with about the election are saying, it’s not about race. And it’s not, which is the beautiful+transcendent thing about Obama’s campaign. He has intentionally focused his campaign on the issues at stake, and won the election due to his impressive leadership+ability to inspire. But that’s not the same thing as saying it’s not significant that he’s black. This is the first time in our history that a black man has been able to do what white men have done since the founding of our nation–win a campaign based on his message, not on the color of his skin!
((Small aside, to cheryID:
‘Using race as a deciding factor is racism, no matter which way you decide. Either way, you’re committing favoritism, which James calls sin.’
This passage has nothing to do with race! James is condemning preference being shown to the wealthy in a congregation, by Christians, within the context of the church. And lest we make the same kind of mistake here as we were discussing above, James is not condemning wealth! James is condemning favoritism on the basis of wealth. Let’s make that distinction.))
All of this aside, these comments are largely missing one of Anthony’s most important points! Many who traditionally vote conservative/Republican voted for Obama in this election, which is a call to the GOP to rethink how it communicates its position in the future. He writes, “Running a party for a shrinking demographic is unsustainable.” Bradley draws an insightful parallel to a similar issue in conservative Evangelicalism. Running a church for a shrinking demographic is likewise unsustainable! This is why he says that there is a hunger, among some, to see new kinds of leaders in these circles. The fact that a black man was just elected President of our nation offers the hope that the Evangelical church will also see a fresh wave of leadership emerge in the years to come–one which will engage a more diverse demographic with the message of Jesus Christ.
Report comment to moderator
To ASM
Why is it only white people have to do all of this hand wringing and self-criticism?
Do you see any Hispanics, Asians, Blacks, Islamic, people in the countries (where they are the majority) doing all this soul searching? Of course not. They are looking out strictly for themselves.
Report comment to moderator
Nick: If 90 percent of blacks always vote for the Democrat (and the numbers have been in that neighborhood for decades now), and 93 percent of them voted for Obama, you’re talking about maybe 3 percent who would not have voted for the Democrat regardless of who it was.
So no, you have not got a leg to stand on on this.
Report comment to moderator
Wow! Wading through all that to get here and say some words about Anthony’s post.
I can believe it, Anthony. I can believe the tears and cheers, and I’m so sorry your folks could not see this day except by hope.
It was yesterday when I heard Condelezza Rice’s words that I started to really choke up.
And about the Right needing to change. Well, yes. “Always be prepared to give account for the hope you have within you;” or Mars Hill: witnessing must be both in the words, but also in the culturally relevant contexts. Or more simply, it’s the reality of knowing our neighbors and what matters to them.
President-elect Obama opens the door to speak in new ways with each other about the issues of race. And that alone is worth celebrating.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria and Stubob:
You may not have noticed that I said that voting for someone partly because of his race may not be racism. If I go to the polls and say, “I want to vote for the white guy,” then I’m showing prejudice and maybe even racism. But if I look at both candidates and have no clear preference between them, and decide that the white (or black) candidate represents my interests more, that may be self-serving, but it isn’t necessarily racism, anymore than it is necessarily racism that if I marry it will probably be a white guy I marry. For me personally, if I know nothing about a pair of candidates for the primary (in other words, both of them Republicans) other than that one reads a lot and one of them hates books, I’m going to be inclined to prefer the reader. Now, granted, I should sit out that choice and not vote on such a flimsy reason, but human nature is such that many people vote on such weak reasons.
Now, when we look at it from the perspective of black people, who have been “underdogs” in this nation their entire lives, who have been assumed to be good at sports and thievery but not at leadership, who have dreamed of the day when we could have a black president but thought it would never happen, to default to the black candidate is not necessarily racism. Now, if they look at the issues and know that he stands for everything they’re against and they vote for him anyway, that’s problematic. But to have as a default position, “I want a black president; I’ve longed for this day, and I want to vote for him” may be racial pride, it may be a lot of other things–but it may simply be joy and relief and longing. In other words, it may not have anything at all to do with us white people.
If your uncle ran for office, wouldn’t you be inclined to want to vote for him? Might you be inclined not even to check into his policies too closely for fear you’d discover reasons you can’t vote for him, when you want to do so? My sister and her husband didn’t vote for McCain (they wrote in Alan Keyes) because they couldn’t vote for a woman VP–but they eagerly wanted McCain to win, because they wanted Obama to lose. I think it might be the same for black people and Obama–even those who couldn’t in good conscience vote for him were still wishing they could, still rooting for him a little bit.
And I don’t think that’s racism, unless they take it a step farther and say, “NOT the white guy. White people are bad.” (And potentially even that response could stem from fear of white people or something else other than true racism, in much the same way a recent rape victim may prefer a woman boss even if she’s not a sexist.)
Report comment to moderator
Harris: “President-elect Obama opens the door to speak in new ways with each other about the issues of race.”
How?
Report comment to moderator
In other countries, there are plenty of Evangelical, non-white leaders. Some of the largest Conservative, Bible-believing churches in the world are run by non-white, ethnic persons.
So, it is obvious the the Gospel appeals to all. And, it is supposed to.
Yes, it would be nice to see more leadership in Evangelical circles that is diverse ethnically. I think we see some of it. It would be good to promote more of it.
And also in political circles. My husband even said the other night during the elections, “Why are the Republicans interviewed always dough-faced, over-weight white men?”
I don’t think a concerted effort to show something other than the stereotype would be a bad thing.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah [90]
My thoughts were that we often argue along set lines, a standard set of verbal thrusts and parries. Certainly it is that way when the subject of race comes up. There are all these battlelines already drawn, much of them immediately derivative of civil rights struggles of the 60s, and then later in more veiled form centering over the issues of crime, welfare, and affirmative action. On both sides, we know all the moves: you say this, I say that; back and forth.
In the midst of this battle there has also been a band of conservative African Americans, who dissent from the usual liberal nostrums, if not quite seconding some of the rhetoric of the conservative white crowd. Among these, we might include Shelby Steele, Glen Loury, Thomas Sowell.
Obama seems to be of this middle ground, as well. By his background and accomplishment he stands at some distance from this older pattern of racial discourse. Indeed, his personal history is much closer to conservative ideals of meritocracy and family.
Add to this style, the reality that for children under ten, say, Obama will be the first president they really know. What looks culturally significant or even strange to us (old folks), will look to them simply as a matter of course.
What Obama has done is not so much replaced the older narrative — that is still much too powerful, and sadly in some places, still too true (blacks are oppressed) — as he has expanded it. As a conservative you don’t need to be sucked into playing the old civil rights game, or the older game of the Lost Cause, etc.
On matters of policy, embracing Obama’s accomplishment as it were, gives a new edge to conservative positions. In celebrating his accomplishments, you can celebrate what strong families mean, you can celebrate what high standards mean, you can celebrate the pride of accomplishment by hard work and not government programs. All this is there in Obama’s story for the conservative.
And perhaps the easiest thing to do in all this, the door-opener as it were, is to rejoice with those who rejoice. For our brothers and sisters a long exile, a pilgrimmage has ended.
Report comment to moderator
Forgive me another analogy, but I think the whole world would have been rooting for a Jewish person “running for president” in post-Nazi Germany…and Jews there could be excused if they really wanted to vote for him and were looking for justification to do so even if he didn’t totally line up with their usual convictions. Identification with people like us, especially people who have suffered the way we have, is not intrinsically morally wrong.
I would guess that mothers of Down syndrome babies mostly voted the McCain / Palin ticket. Granted, they’d be well justified to vote a pro-life ticket, but if their initial inclination was out of “identifying” with Palin, I do think that is natural, and such identification only becomes wrong when we turn around and reject those who are not like us. (And again, those who suffered from that rejection of the larger society for generations, for centuries, can be given a little grace if they end up banding together a little tighter than “we” might like, and distrust “us” a little less than we might want them to.)
Report comment to moderator
I’m sorry, Cheryl. I find you to be a generally good thinker. But, I just don’t buy this argument. It is prejudiced (if not racist) to vote for someone based on the color of their skin if they do not hold the same values as you do. (i.e. voting for them on the basis of skin pigment rather than on values.)
And, Obama has not suffered the way other African-Americans have. He simply hasn’t. His background is not average.
I do think it is wonderful, and potentially healing if handled well, for there to be a Black President. I just wish he could have been a more Conservative Black President.
Report comment to moderator
TRS,
I basically agree with all your points, and I don’t think they’re a contradiction with what I have said. I agree that a black voter who knows that Obama holds different views on everything, and votes for him anyway, is justifying that vote. (I don’t see that as a good thing; I do see it as understandable, in the same way I see it as understandable that a voter might not probe too deeply when voting for an uncle.) But you’re assuming an educated voter who actually knows where the Republican party stands on moral issues, and I’m not–the average black voter is more similar to Republicans than to Democrats on several key issues, including abortion and homosexual marriage. But they don’t trust Republicans’ treatment of the poor, and as a rule (I’ve seen this many times) they don’t even know, somehow, that the Democratic party supports abortion on demand. So, add a black candidate to the mix, and it’s a brave black person indeed who will vote Republican in this historic election.
I’m not saying this is a good thing; I’m saying it’s the way it is. And I’m also saying that as much as I dislike Obama–and I dislike him heartily–I’m happy with my black brothers and sisters who’ve waited centuries for this day. And no, Obama isn’t at all an average black man–but probably a dark-skinned black man raised in the hood would have had a harder time appealing to white voters. Black voters would rather have seen Jesse Jackson, perhaps (whom I see as a fraud), but with one-eighth of the American population and after more than forty presidents and vice presidents, this is their first time to see the White House. It’s historic, and they’re justifiably happy. (And BTW, black people also tend not to believe what white people say about black men–do you blame them?–so they likely wrote off a lot of information we found relevant to this election.)
Report comment to moderator
Harris #92 That is the best bit of extended Orwellian-speak I have heard for a LONG time. That took some talent on your part.
Anyone who is not a racist, white or black, brown or yellow, could not care less whether Obama is black, white, green, blue, red, purple with yellow spots, one legged, two legged, three legged, or forteen legged, large-eared, small-eared, no-eared, or what organs he may or may not possess here and there about and inside him.
The only things that matters are the ideas in his head and the things in his heart, and what he will or will not do.
And he likes killing children. And has close ties to radical anti-American organizations and individuals, including terrorists. And has pledged to damage – if not do away – with the Bill of Rights. And has expressed contempt for middle America.
None of these things have ANYTHING to do with his race or his sex or how much his feet smell or whether or not he speaks with a Texas or a Martian accent or anything else.
And his election measured on the only meaningful things (see above) is a disaster for America and a disgrace to anyone black, white, green, or blue who cares for America and for the sanctity of human life, among other things.
The (unfortunately successful) attempts to somehow make race a factor here are a clear sign of the true racists and bigots in this country – the left wing and the media.
And you want us to REJOICE at his election?
Right.
Report comment to moderator
Drill:
It is way too early in the morning to be drinking like that.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl – 93
Your analogy’s are not correct among those who are educated, or those who think rationally.
As far as post WW2, I have studied WW2, holocaust, post attitudes of Europe and the USA for years – there would not have been a chance where a Jewish man would have been voted President of the United States or anywhere in the world outside of Israel – and at that time the Jews had not made their way back to Israel.
Voting for Palin because she has a Down’s syndrome child is one of the weakest excuses, it has nothing to do with experience, but everything to do with a ‘bonding’ experience – which would lead me to believe the person voting to be so emotional their ability to think rationally had left them completely.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl – After carefully reading your comments here, I think I know what you’re saying.
If I read you correctly, you are not saying that voting for someone solely based on the color of their skin is not racist.
Rather, you are saying that if a person votes for someone with whom they greatly identify, that is not necessarily racism, & that it is normal/common for people to do that.
You also made the point that about 90% of blacks vote for Democrats, so the large black vote for Obama is not out of the ordinary.
Right?
Report comment to moderator
You forgot Tony Evans, by the way.
I propose a different contextual point of view to disagree with your assessment on the racial dominance in American evangelicalism. Whether it be by volition or not, or by external factors, the American churches are racially segregated because they are, by their nature, culturally insular, though I’d say it’s because we are spiritually “separated” (cf. Matt. 24:9). Therefore, in regard to churches’ racial divide, I think the primary cause to be more internal to respective churches’ histories, traditions, and preferences rather than any outside factors. Some would bluntly argue that most people simply feel uncomfortable being around people of other races.
This may be an oversimplification of the case, but I think many only hear and see white evangelicals simply because “mainstream Christian” media outlets happen to be in their domain, and the most qualified teachers should take the stage and the microphones, which I think has been happening consistently. Even though I respect many Korean American pastors, and there are a quite of few K.A. pastors who have become famous in K.A. Christian communities, I would prefer not to put them on the “mainstream Christian” media outlets, simply because they wouldn’t fit well for the intended audience.
Besides, who would want to actively promote himself forward in ANY evangelical circles when we have the Lord’s directive that “the last will be first, and the first will be last.” Please don’t confuse politics with servanthood. Shalom.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, Karen, it is! Thank you.
As a person who has been a member of a multi-cultural church, living in a neighborhood that was all black (if my house was excluded from consideration), I know how hard it is to transcend racial awareness. We white people rather assume a white point of view, and somehow don’t expect black people to do so. But as they are a minority, and a persecuted minority at that, I think we can extend “forgiveness” if they do so to a greater extent than we do, at least sometimes, when it matters like this week’s election mattered. And the first chance ever to vote for a credible black candidate (meaning a candidate who had a chance to win the presidency, not a “good” candidate) would naturally be exciting. Though we disagree with the candidate, and disagree sharply, I think it’s common human courtesy to say we will at least try to understand the rejoicing in this historic week.
And remember as well, it wasn’t all that long ago that churches deliberately moved if the neighborhood turned black, and white people still move out of neighborhoods that have “too many” black people in them. So we haven’t exactly been good at extending the olive branch of peace, and black people don’t necessarily feel “represented” by a white man in charge. I’m currently editing a book in which multiple contributors speak of the harm done by the “homogenous growth principle,” a deliberate strategy from 30 years ago of planting churches aiming at one target audience (think “white middle-class people”), because “people are more comfortable worshiping with others like themselves.” Not only did stuff like that–from the church–harm interracial relationships, but if it was considered a valid principle by the church, in the name of Christ, can we not forgive unbelieving black people who carry the principle into politics and vote for “others like themselves”? I truly think it has been a beam in the white church’s eye for so long that we simply must accept this reason, even if we don’t like it and ultimately we disagree. We must even hear it, and accept it as a reminder that we have a long way to go in earning trust. (Much of this very thread has proven that white people still have a long way to go, as a group, before being trustworthy to the black community.)
Report comment to moderator
Sometimes I wonder from spending time on WMB if it’s possible to live in an all white neighborhood and still be right with Jesus.
Report comment to moderator
Bianca
What would you say to those who were born in countries which were/are mostly white – would they be able to be right with Jesus, or would they need to MOVE elsewhere? Does the LORD say we need to live in a particular city or country to be right with HIM?
Does where you live make proof of your Salvation, fellowship, or walk with the LORD make you more “right with Jesus” ?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, that’s my point!
Where we live has nothing to do with our salvation. Of course, since you’re an Arminian Dispensationalist, we have different concepts of what salvation is. So even on that we disagree. I enjoy disagreeing with you though. Makes me feel goooood.
Report comment to moderator
I can see why no one wants Mr. Bradley to read this thread. What a mess. I’m glad I don’t write for WM.
Report comment to moderator
Bianca
WRONG, I am not an Arminian Dispensationalist – Salvation isn’t abtained by where one lives –
You most likely do enjoy disagreement, we agree on at least something
If being disagreeable makes you feel good, I feel SORRY FOR YOU.
Report comment to moderator
Bianca,
Most of us are glad you don’t write for WMB as well -
Report comment to moderator
106 – I called you an Arminian Dispensationalist because I read on other threads where you said you weren’t a Calvinist (which makes you an Arminian by default) and on another where you admitted to being a Dispensationalist. Then I said, ah ha. NO WONDERONI!!!
107 – Amen. I ain’t sharing my pearlies.
Report comment to moderator
Bianca
I stand in the middle of Arminian and Calvinism, you most likely can’t understand that, but thousands of Believers believe this way. It is not an either or – I’m a Believer, I am not a Calvinist, nor am I an Arminian – I can see where this is a NEW concept for you -
Report comment to moderator
Nope, I’ve heard of it before. It’s called Arminianism.
Report comment to moderator
And if thousands of your friends jumped off a cliff, would you join them, Young Lady?
Report comment to moderator
Bianca,
Who knew that an 100% literal interpretation could give so much amusement?
Report comment to moderator
Amen. Who knew?
Report comment to moderator
Do ones beliefs give you amusement theselittleones, do you ridcule my beliefs, or are you referring to something else on this thread?
Report comment to moderator
!!!!!!Paranoia will destroia!!!!!!
Report comment to moderator
Anyway, back to the topic. I actually think this election is a good thing for Christians. I received an e-mail from Chuck Baldwin regarding the election about how McCain and W ruined conservatism, so no wonder Obama won. We do need a change. Let’s hope Christians are up to the task.
Report comment to moderator
Someone please close this thread. I cannot believe these are “Christians” speaking. Without mentioning specifics, I am beyond offended (angry is more fitting), and registered with the sole purpose of making this known.
It is amazing what people will say in the shadows (darkness) of an unidentifiable username. My suggestion for you in the future is if you cannot and would not dare say it to Mr. Bradley in front of those you respect (or respect you) in the faith (I’d say Jesus but that probably wouldn’t mean anything to you), don’t say it at all.
Most everyone here, but a select few, missed the point of the Blog. Thanks to those of you who at least attempted to walk in this man’s shoes, regularless of whether you to relate or not. To the rest of you, no comment “Christian”.
Thank you WMB making this available and Mrs. Lynn Vincent for keeping an eye on things but they just don’t get it. As a Christian, I am saddened and disappointed. Again, please end this thread.
Report comment to moderator
Dear Victoria,
How could I ridicule your beliefs when we worship the same God?
I was confused about the way people expressed themselves here before, but the way you write has helped me to understand. So, it’s definitely not your beliefs that give me amusement. Thank you for all your contributions to this blog.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you Theselittleones, I appreciate your clarification
Report comment to moderator
God is good, life is good and so is laughter.
Report comment to moderator
Taylor314
YOU WRITE: “My suggestion for you in the future is if you cannot and would not dare say it to Mr. Bradley in front of those you respect (or respect you) in the faith (I’d say Jesus but that probably wouldn’t mean anything to you), don’t say it at all.”
I would say exactly what I have said in my posts. I would be careful when accusing the brethren as to what would something mean, or wouldn’t mean – after all, you didn’t name names now did you? You have made a blanket statement which you are not willing to identify just who you are writing about, or exactly what they’ve done that has distressed you.
You question some of the Christians here because you disagree with them. When did ‘Free Speech’ cease to exist? One of the real problems in the recent (last few years) is – POLITICALLY CORRECT – speech, which is determined by the listener. I haven’t read where anyone has used a crude or vulgar word, but they have made their opinions known -
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Constitutionally we do have free speech. But the Bible tells us to limit our freedoms when necessary. For example, “Let your conversation be always with grace, seasoned with salt.” I’m not at all sure that “free speech” is a relevant issue here, since it allows us to say nearly anything at all, but we can “freely” say an awful lot that isn’t edifying. (Also, on this blog, free speech isn’t the standard; we have limits created by the forum where we are guests and limits created by our Christian faith.)
Report comment to moderator
I sometimes wonder if Anthony regrets writing for Worldmag.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl
You can limit your freedoms in any way you see fit, just like everyone else. Too many people have stayed SILENT for too long concerning many issues in this country. The POLITICAL CORRECTNESS invoked by many individuals based on their ‘beliefs’ is fine, and some may even find they can wedge that into Biblical passages to SILENCE those with opposing views, however I disagree. Like many who are sitting back and viewing the past few years, and especially the past 6 months are weary of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS which has served another group in this country to their benefit, but in many ways has been cowardly on our part as Believers. We are to be salt, however many so called Christians have become ‘lukewarm’ not wanting to offend, believing that is the salt.
Everyone has to answer to GOD for their OWN actions and words -
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
I do too. He’s a brave man.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
The Gospel is offensive to those who don’t believe it. We ourselves are not supposed to be offensive in our talk, except where the Gospel inevitably offends. I don’t think the offenses on this thread are Gospel-related; I think they’re human sin or at best carelessness from people who somehow don’t know how their words will come across to a brother (or to an unbelieving observer).
Report comment to moderator
Thank you Anthony. Where I work we have a goodly number of black people, a few in senior positions, but the vast majority as secretaries, in the kitchen, janitors. The reactions from the most senior in our organization to the least were uniformly joy. Joy that they can now tell their babies that they can grow up to be President and mean it.
The election gave me great hope that we as a nation and people have turned a page and that at long last there will be healing.
Report comment to moderator
CB
YOU WRITE:.. “Joy that they can now tell their babies that they can grow up to be President and mean it.”
So “ANYONE can grow up to be President” ? - whether they have experience or not, if they can’t own up to what they heard in church for over 20 years? – and the list goes on. So this is what every mother should share with her child? – never mind this child hasn’t got the ability, but just RAW nerve and ambition?
Report comment to moderator
Suffice it to say, that ability is not something President elect Obama lacks.
And as to that raw nerve and ambition — that pretty well describes every candidate for president.
But again, Victoria, whatever are we to make of this refusal to acknowledge the joy of another?
Report comment to moderator
Harris
He may have ability, however the evidence has yet to be uncovered, due to his lack of achievements in the past. His experience is weak – his swelling words of ‘change’ don’t mean anything when it’s all based on re-arranging the wealth in this country to satisfy those who haven’t earned it — that is just one point, there are many others.
Report comment to moderator
I think this thread has pretty much died, but I want to take a quick stab at my opinion on the question of whether it was racist for blacks to vote for Obama, or whether the “Aint no Stoppin’ Us Now” song is racist in context. As I had brought it up.
If for the sake of argument we say any consideration of race in any matter is racism, I would say some racism is worse than other racism, and some may not be bad at all. For instance if I say (going back 150 years) “my race has a right to enslave your race”, that could reflect arrogance and lack of compassion, which are bad. If I say “I just hate people of your race, I don’t even know why”, that could reflect anger, hatred, or violence, which are also bad. If I say “a particular race in my country seems to lack educational opportunity, and I want to make a special effort to help them be admitted to schools” that might reflect a desire to help, or a desire to avoid future societal problems if the problem goes on unchecked. Those things are not necessarily bad (although someone might disagree with their wisdom.) So I think if we define racism really broadly, we have to look at the motivations behind specific instances of racism to compare them.
Report comment to moderator
And Victoria #76, I did plan to disagree with your answers to my questions, and that was probably evident, and so you might have been understandably guarded in your response. But I was also asking because I didn’t want to launch into a grand counter-point when I really wasn’t sure exactly what you meant. I had an idea of what you meant by racism and the song, but I didn’t want to presume I was right. The whole “asking questions before disagreeing thing” is tricky — it’s good to get your info straight before responding to someone, but it can also feel like a setup when the asker all along is 99% sure they will disagree with your answers.
Report comment to moderator
Eaton,
YOU WRITE:…
“I was also asking because I didn’t want to launch into a grand counter-point when I really wasn’t sure exactly what you meant. I had an idea of what you meant by racism and the song,…..
I haven’t set you up at all – If you have problems with Black Liberation Theology, or the song which Bradley mentions so be it-
If’ you’re having problems with what I meant, go back and read my post, I’m rather straight forward, I don’t play with words so as to confuse you or anyone else. I’m also not guarded, so drop the pretense, it isn’t working.
Report comment to moderator
I have heard this song many, many times over the years, & I’ve never heard it as a racial thing before. It’s always sounded to me like the singer was referring to he & his girl (I guess) moving up in the world.
Report comment to moderator
Ain’t No Stopping Us Now is a song about the song writing duo, the late Gene McFadden and John Whitehead. They penned many popular R&B tunes during the 70’s, and were discovered by soul singer Otis Redding.
They wrote such tunes as Bad Luck and Wake Up Everybody for Harold Melvin and the Blue Notes, and I’ll Always Love My Momma by the Intruders.
Ain’t No Stopping US Now was a song they wrote, because they spent their entire career in the background, as background singers for Otis Redding, and song writers for Philadelphia International records (the Philly Soul Sound) and decided that they can sing too! The more they talked about singing the more people told them that they couldn’t do it. They were determined to prove the world wrong, hence the timeless classic “Ain’t No Stopping Us Now”.
So it had nothing to do with race, because they were working with fellow blacks, and blacks as well as whites told them couldn’t release a song write for someone else. Not about a man and woman, or black folk finally arriving in the world. Larry Holmes, who was heavyweight champ in 79 kept adotped it as his ring enterance theme song.
Now, about Obama:
He needs our prayers. We need to split hairs over his racial disntictions, we need to be praying for the man.
There are many conservative democrats, and republicans need to show a little more compassion about life outside the womb. Although the records show that they use pro-life a political platform to run .
President Reagan flew to Phoenix to speak to the National Rifle Association but never drove a few blocks to make a speech to the antiabortion rallies each January outside the Supreme Court building. He literally phoned it in. Being heard by phone but not seen with abortion opponents has been President Bush’s style as well.
These are all fallen men, white, black, or whatever they need our prayers.
I thought this was supposedly news from a christian perspective? It’s amazing that out of the article itself, and 134 comments not much of they confusion sounded christian to me. Sound like the same racial rhetoric I deal with daily with the unsaved. Take care peole.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, Donald H, for that explanation about how the song came to be.
Report comment to moderator
Donald,
I’m pretty sure Reagan was a lot more actively “pro-life” than he is given credit for being. For example, I’m fairly sure he’s the only president ever to write a book on the subject, and he also spoke openly about it. I think he was seen as not outspoken enough, as though that should have been his only issue; and of course his appointment of O’Connor proved a huge disappointment. But I’ve read and listened to Reagan’s writings and speeches, and he wasn’t one to hide from controvery, or this controversy in particular. (It was dangerous for him to address large outdoor crowds; after the assassination attempt, he was guarded pretty closely from such risks.)
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!