Posted on 11/09/2003 8:20:56 AM PST by Cathryn Crawford
White evangelicals, black churches could reshape politics
By WILLIAM McKENZIE / The Dallas Morning News
This wasn't your ordinary presidential rally.
Ministers were urging the crowd to "go crazy for the Lord." Shouts of "glory hallelujah" echoed through the sanctuary. Cries of "get radical for Jesus Christ" followed along. All the while, people clapped, swayed and sang.
And this was before the main event, when the 43rd president of the United States was to appear. When George W. Bush finally strode onto the stage, alongside the Rev. Tony Evans, the sanctuary went wild.
As I said, this wasn't your ordinary presidential rally.
It was even more unusual because the president is a white evangelical and the audience was the largely black congregation of Oak Cliff Bible Fellowship in Dallas. You may not think those two groups have much common ground. And you may be surprised by the overt religious language. But that's where President Bush stopped by last week to congratulate Pastor Evans and his church on its new youth center.
The president also wanted to chat about his policies that encourage churches like Oak Cliff Bible Fellowship to use federal dollars for their mentoring programs and other social initiatives. A "social entrepreneur" is what Mr. Bush termed his friend, the Rev. Evans, in talking about the church's Project Turn Around initiative.
White evangelicals and black congregations may seem incongruous, but it's time to say hello to a force that could transform American culture and politics – if the two grasp their potential.
A Pew Research Center poll this summer revealed that white evangelicals and African-American churchgoers share many beliefs. They tend to agree about Israel's fulfilling biblical prophecy about Christ's return. They think religious values should influence politics. And they don't want gay marriages or assisted suicides.
They possess other common characteristics, too. "They share the idea of helping people," Oak Cliff Bible Fellowship member Vicky Sellers said about white evangelicals and black churchgoers who want religious institutions to help resolve issues like drug addition.
Most of all, they share strong religious values. They both believe "God's in charge," Tanya Greene of Oak Cliff Bible Fellowship said. Both value "the Lordship of Christ," her friend Luciana Lang added.
You can't put a political term on those beliefs and probably shouldn't. These values reflect a deeper language that exists outside of politics.
The common vocabulary nonetheless creates a strong spiritual connection between two of America's more powerful political forces. White evangelicals and African-American churches both emphasize personal conversions, Bible reading, daily prayer and regular fellowship. The exuberant reception Mr. Bush received at Oak Cliff Bible Fellowship Wednesday night came out of their common habits and language.
Where the two part company is over issues of justice and power. And those differences are profound. The first political leader to find a way to bridge the divide will find quite a wind at his or her back.
Mr. Bush comes close. In his speech to the Oak Cliff congregation, he again decried "the soft bigotry of low expectations" that he says characterizes too many inner-city schools.
But the president talks about religion transforming individual hearts, without saying enough about how it can transform larger institutions. He told the crowd at Oak Cliff Bible Fellowship that he "was glad to be with people who are transforming a community one heart at a time." But what happens if that community still lacks enough good-paying jobs or if its people can't find affordable housing? They still are stuck economically.
That's why power and justice issues separate white evangelicals and African-American churchgoers. One African-American I interviewed attributed the divide to different life experiences. Blacks experienced a lack of justice; many whites didn't.
Perhaps the gap between the two potent forces will be bridged only when "the pews" in white evangelical and African-American churches start talking with each other about their values and experiences. There are plenty of chances to do that today, with many black urban and white suburban churches working together on projects.
If the two can bridge their differences, watch out. This odd couple could change American culture and politics. At that point, rallies like the one last week in Dallas won't seem so strange.
William McKenzie is an editorial columnist for The Dallas Morning News. His e-mail address is wmckenzie@dallasnews.com.
Are Dean's numbers up? Did every liberal media person play this story to the hilt? Wonder why?
Democrats know how to whip blacks and still get their votes. Racist code? Sister Soulja? Play'em for fools.
Shame on Democrats.
I wasn't equating the two- I was equating your style of argument with theirs, which is the same.
It takes an interesting combination of chutzpah, bigotry, ignorance, and lack of critical thinking skills to call my claim that true Christians don't believe in race "Nonsense" and then prove my point by bringing up the bogus "Curse of Ham". First of all, according to Scripture, it wasn't a curse on Ham, it was a curse on Ham's son Canaan. (gen 9:25) But I expect dimwits to parrot the propaganda of their handlers, and so you uncritically repeat the myth because hate and bigotry is more important to you than truth. Also, to state that the "Curse on Ham" is a statement on "race" is pure stupidity on your part too since Ham was a decendant of Noah (and of Adam & Eve) which confirms what I have said, and does not follow the Darwinian train of thought at all.
The Bible has been frequently used to justify slavery and racism, because in fact, it does contain numerous passages that can easily interpreted to condone slavery and racism.
Again, your intolerance, bigotry and hatred is blinding you. It was not pagans who observed that "All men are created Equal". In fact, pagans are those who routinely impose slavery on their neighbors. China, not a bastion of Christianity maintains a slave state. India, in all of its religious background keeps a caste-system. The Jews did not keep slaves, nor were encouraged to do so; but God did use Israel's pagan neighbors to enslave them as a means of judgement. Christians have not been encouraged to enslave others. In fact, St Paul, in defense of an escaped slave, wrote to his master, Philemon, and asked for his release. In other writings, the slaves, while in the company of fellow believers are considered equals. Because the apostles risked their lives for the gospel, and not for overthrowing the global slave trade, does not give bigots like you evidence that they "encouraged slavery", but it shows hypocrites like you for what you are.
As far as your version of history in regards to the Southern Baptist Convention. You need to read something other than propagandist hit-pieces that justify your rage against Christians.
You haven't refuted my proofs that the first century church accepted blacks as Christians in full equal standing before God. So your assertion about my 'style' is a lie--and a particularly egregious lie at that.
WK: With such a stupid and intolerant statement on file, it is pointless to continue.
I have been involved with many of these types of arguments. You CANNOT win with someone who has set him/herself up as better than anyone/everyone else by dint of their religion. They just point to the Bible self-referentially and say that only they are "saved." Everyone else is evil. Sounds just like Islam to me -- argumentationally.
I usually go a few rounds and watch their BP go up while they try and try to explain why they are still better than everyone else. Their "trump card" is to call you anti-Christian.
Just watch the thread arc to come. It actually is pretty funny once you've been through it a few time (the REAL hoot is when they FReepmail you and want to pray for you).
Acts says an Ethiopian was baptized. Great.
That refutes nothing I have said. There are plenty of examples of slavery in the Bible-how often is it condemned?
And when did the majority of organized Christianity speak out against racism and slavery?
About 2000 years too late.
That's why Dr Warmoose's original statement blaming atheists and Darwin for racism is so false and ridiculous.
That is the subtext for all procesyzing. Look at what you said about racism. If that isn't a smug, morally superior position, I'll eat my electrons.
Once again your bigotry is blinding you. You don't know what a Christian is, but you will go ahead a segregate people according to that label anyway. The Bible spends considerable space and time teaching discernment so that Christians can know who is and who isn't part of the Church. In Matthew 7, Christ teaches that many will claim to be Christians, but in the end God will say "I never knew you, burn in Hell you wicked one." So when hatefilled bigots like you come around and name people Christans according to your subjective definition of what a Christian is and when you totally ignore the true definition, then certainly you will be able to come to your predetermined conclusions. That's raw dishonesty, but hey, you don't care about truth.
Are you aware that some Muslims use the same argument to distance Islam from responsibility for terrorism?
Wow, a double package, both arrogance and ignorance. I guess one feeds the other. Clearly you know nothing about Christianity, and clearly you know nothing of Islam. First you lie and say the Bible pushes slavery, then you infer that Islam abhors terrorism. We have a pattern here, truth means nothing, and seat-of-the-pants ad-hoc religious revisionism is your only source. There are many places within the Koran that does more than hint at bringing the war to the infidels. In fact, it would be a buffet Muslim who would ignore those parts of the Koran and cling to others. I would think that a Muslim who molds his faith and belief around political expediency would in fact be a deserter of his own faith. This you seem to think is noble.
Their argument is fallacious, and so is yours.
But your demonstrably wrong arguments based on ignorance and hate should be taken how? Since you don't have a single clue about this topic, isn't it sort of foolish to say others are making fallacious claims when you haven't even come close to the truth yourself?
Ahhh...'subtext'...
You're like these liberal judges who make their decisions based on 'emanations' and 'penumbras'.
Truth be told, you're unjustly reading things into my comments based on your own prejudices.
So you've conceded the point. Thanks.
That refutes nothing I have said. There are plenty of examples of slavery in the Bible-how often is it condemned?
I already gave you those. Of course you ignore them. Not unusual for a conversation like this one.
And when did the majority of organized Christianity speak out against racism and slavery?
Once again, you ignore my statements that directly addressed this question. Without Christians, racism and slavery would still be rampant.
About 2000 years too late.
The true Christian faith has been at the center of every effort to enhance the life and liberty of human beings for the last 2000 years. Once again, you either ignore history, or are ignorant of it.
That's why Dr Warmoose's original statement blaming atheists and Darwin for racism is so false and ridiculous.
Darwinism is a patently anti-human doctrine. Survival of the fittest, set in human terms, is brutal, destructive, demeaning, and cruel. The Russians tried it. Didn't work out so well.
And I repeat: it is among the unbelievers that racism finds its primary home in this day and age.
Thank God that the Church as overwhelmingly repented of this sin against God and man.
Slavery was God's way of bringing judgement to people. I guess Israel's enslavement in Egypt was supposed to be benign. Perhaps you feel that their enslavement under Nebuchadnezzar was supposed to be a ringing endorsement of national slavery. Do you need to have it spelled out in Bumper Sticker terms before you can comprehend it?
That's why Dr Warmoose's original statement blaming atheists and Darwin for racism is so false and ridiculous
Clearly you don't understand the origins of the word "race" and how it has been used in the English language. "Race" at one time meant cultural groups, it has always meant culture groups until the God haters wanted to mock the single parent explanation of origins. Darwinism tries to pretend in different developmental branches, that variance in melanin and minor bone structure differences are "proof" of totally different parents. Eugenics is a Darwinistic concept. Hitler's "Final Solution" was a Darwinist concept. The xenophobic cultures of non-western nations and cultures is a product of believing evolution and not creationist theories. You are too hate filled and stupid to realize this, so of course you would consider the truth "ridiculous". Go back to your cave, you bigot.
EV: The only place racism still finds a home is in the hearts of those who reject Christ and what He and His apostles taught.
So racism is only found in non-Christians: Jews, Buddhists, Wiccans, Agnostics...
Yeah, I misread you.
And the KKK was bred (hmmm, think think think) -- yeah in the Church Of Christ and the Southern Baptists. No racism there!
If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)
Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.