(NOTE: Sorry, no podcast this week; don't have my headset with me and won't be home much this week once I get back. Hope this works as a substitute.)
The talk in politics the past several days has been all Jeremiah Wright, all the time. Economy? War? Terrorism? Pffft! The 1960s retro retarded reverse racism hate whitey paranoia of Obama's former pastor… now that's what matters.
To say that Wright has been prone to the occasional outburst of misguided outrage while standing in the pulpit is like saying Paris Hilton has some small talent for attracting publicity. Some people say stupid things and then run away the moment they utter words immediately regretted, be they for the effect created by them on others or themselves. Wright? He highlights them on a "best of" DVD. Now there's some sharp thinking for you.
I'm not making light of racism or institutional/societal injustice based on skin color. They exist. They are a stench in this world deserving nothing but contempt with all available forces brought to bear on their swift and permanent eradication. The minds and hearts of all people must be made aware to see all other people on their basis of their minds and hearts, not their skin tone. That said, when you're bringing to the table little more than empty-headed rhetoric accompanied by name-calling and accusations of stereotyping, you yourself are now the stereotype. Never become what you profess to oppose… it isn't just for blogging anymore. To put it another way, stop helping. Because whatever it is you're doin' ain't helpin'. It brings to mind the truism of how if you want to know a man's true character, there are two locations to observe how he conducts himself: a barstool and a pulpit. On the former, after a certain quantity of various libations one is ten foot tall, bulletproof, and utterly incapable of exerting sufficient self-control to not tell the truth. Behind the latter, one can easily assume being God's oracle implies everything you say comes directly from the Divine. In either case, the estimate of self far exceeds reality.
Meanwhile, Obama has been placed in the mother of all no-win scenarios. Allow me to preface this by noting I like the man. Call me pathetically naïve (I get called worse about fifteen times a hour), but I like the man. Yes, he's a politician, with the accompanying baggage of ugly compromises that seem painfully inherent to elective office. But he gives the impression of someone determined to rise above that; someone who genuinely believes in his message about proclaiming allegiance to the audacity of hope. I have no plans to vote for him because his political views are far to the left of mine. However, I also feel no corresponding prepossession to demonize the man due to differing views, which explains quite nicely why I've never been accepted in conservative circles as a political pundit. But I digress.
Back to Barack's predicament. On one hand, he's expected to denounce and completely distance himself from the man who's been his pastor for decades; the man he credits as the main influence behind his coming to Christ. Not just distance himself from the irrational aspects of Wright's belief system, but the man himself. On the other hand, he's expected to stay true to the man because… well, you know, brother's gotta stick together and all that. Or something like that. What to do in the face of this lose-lose scenario?
This is where the difference between Kings and Chronicles comes into play. In the Old Testament, I and II Kings (prefaced by I and II Samuel) along with I and II Chronicles both detail the same period of time in Israel's history. While they don't contradict each other, they don't necessarily mesh. For example, in Samuel and Kings the life of King David is detailed with little if anything held back, especially the low points — Bathsheba, Absalom, and so on. The chapters devoted to him might as well be titled "whenever David will blow it, you will know it." Now, read the story of his life in Chronicles… um, where's the sex? Where's the violence? Not there. What's the only charge made against him? Ordering a census, something specifically prohibited by the Law as it was given to Moses. That's it.
So what's the deal? It's said Samuel/Kings is history as written from man's viewpoint, while Chronicles is history as written from God's viewpoint. So again, what's the deal? Is God copping a "that's funny, I don't remember that" attitude about the less than savory actions of the man? No. He knows the score. So why aren't these things mentioned?
It's quite simple, really.
God forgives sin. When we let Him, that is. Which sadly isn't very often the case.
It is incomprehensible to most how God called a man who fell in lust so hard with another man's wife he first bedded and impregnated her, then after failing to coerce her husband into sleeping with her in an effort to cover what he had done deliberately put the man, a man who was totally devoted and loyal to his king, in a position on the battlefield where he would be killed… God called this man a man after His own heart. Yet there it is. How can this be? Again: God forgives sin. When we let Him, that is.
What Obama has chosen to do is approach the problem of Wright in much the same manner that King David's history is recorded in Chronicles. He hasn't shied from distancing himself from Wright's hate masturbation. Yet he has also refused to distance himself from the elements of the man worthy of praise: his devotion to Christ, his preaching of the Gospel. There is no contradiction in the Word of God and turd of clod coming out of the same person. Many a blithering idiot has been used in the service of Christ. God spoke directly to the prophet Balaam through a donkey. Today he uses Salem Communications. Same difference. Except the donkey knew what it was.
Whether Obama's actions will help or hinder his presidential ambitions remains to be seen. This matter could be the fulcrum point upon which his candidacy balances. Declining to publicly wash his hands of Wright could well sink Obama's hopes. That duly noted, perhaps — perhaps — it was more important to him that he do what he believed was the right thing by his flawed mentor than what was politically expedient.
It's difficult to criticize someone for that.
