Barack Obama and Liberation Theology

Last week's essay looked at Barack Obama's church and its embrace of Liberation Theology, a Marxist retelling of Christianity. It may sound like 1950s red baiting, or it may sound genuinely frightening. But does it make any difference? It's his pastor who spouts this stuff, not Senator Obama. He has described his pastor as "like an old uncle who sometimes will say things that I don't agree with."

Most of us can relate to having a beloved relative who says things that would be embarrassing if the national press started looking into them. When Mel Gibson was accused of being anti-Semitic because of his father's beliefs, people said, "Why doesn't he just repudiate his father?"

Well, repudiating your father is no small thing. Mel wouldn't do it. He told what he believed, but refused to attack his dad in public. I think most people understood that.

There are two problems. First, when the Mel Gibson controversy was boiling, we in the public had only to decide whether or not we would go see his movie. But Barack Obama is running for President of the United States. Make a mistake on a movie and you might waste two hours or you might be horribly offended. But in the end, it's only a movie.

A President serves for four years. He appoints judges, proposes legislation, vetoes legislation, represents America to foreign governments. The Executive Branch of government, which he heads, gives us millions of little rules by which we do business everyday. He is Commander in Chief of the entire military. I don't think it's his job to give me healthcare, but I do think it's his job to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies. And that's a big deal — not just a movie.

The second problem is that when Mel was frustrated and drunk and angry at his widely publicized traffic stop a few months later, anti-Semitism poured out of his mouth in torrents. What does he really believe? Only he knows. The point here is that in a tough, tense situation, he reverted to the way he was raised.

At the CNN Democratic debate in Texas on February 21, Senator Obama repudiated Louis Farrakhan's anti-Semitism. He needs to also repudiate some aspects of his pastor's teaching. He needs to call it racist and repugnant — not to humiliate or denigrate his pastor, but so that we will know for certain where he stands.

After all, Mr. Obama was baptized in that church, married there, and his children were baptized there. He's been a member more than twenty years. It's been his place of worship, Christian fellowship and learning. That is one of the primary places where he was spiritually nourished his entire Christian life. At $22,500, he and his wife made the church the number one recipient of their charitable contributions. Most of all, he never left.

But does it make any difference? Barack Obama describes himself as "a devout Christian." Devout Christians are influenced by their churches. One of the main reasons they go to church is to be influenced.

And we're not talking about a minor doctrine here or there. We're talking about the foundational principles of the church, how the people in the church are taught to see the world.

For instance, how do they see America? "Downright mean!"

Here's a quick look at Michelle Obama's well-known statement about only recently being able to have pride in her country.

For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction. And just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment I've seen people who are hungry to be unified around some basic, common issues and it's made me proud.        — Michelle Obama, February 18, 2008

After a day of growing backlash in the media over her remark, she announced that she has always been proud of her country. She went on, "What I was clearly talking about was that I'm proud in how Americans are engaging in the political process."

On a San Antonio radio station, Barack tried explaining. "Statements like this are made and people try to take it out of context and make a great big deal out of it, and that isn't at all what she meant. What she meant was, this is the first time that she's been proud of the politics of America."

It's disconcerting that both of them blamed the hearers and readers of her statement instead of admitting that she made a mistake. She said her remarks "clearly meant..." and went on to give the new version. But if it was so clear, why did she have to make a clarification?

Senator Obama said people "try to take [her words] out of context." Look at the speech. It doesn't matter how much of the context you read. The meaning is clear.

Instead of putting the blame on us, why didn't they just say she misspoke? A couple of weeks later, the answer has become obvious. It's because she didn't misspeak. She said exactly what she meant.

In his speech after the March 4th primaries, Obama seemed to agree. He spoke of a "child born tonight."

We believe that when she goes to school for the first time, it should be in a place where the rats don't outnumber the computers . . . And if that child should ever get the chance to travel the world and someone should ask her where is she from, we believe that she should always be able to hold her head high with pride in her voice when she answers, ‘I am an American.' That is the course we seek. That is the change we are calling for.

If this "is the change we are calling for," then he must think Americans today are ashamed of their country. I say, if the Senator's fictional girl can't "hold her head high with pride" right now and say, "‘I am an American,'" then we haven't taught her very well.

In an interview with The New Yorker, Michelle again let us know exactly what she thinks of this country. She said, America is "just downright mean," and "guided by fear." The New Yorker characterized her thoughts (without quoting) as "we're a nation of cynics, sloths, and complacents."

I believe when Barack Obama stands before an arena full of adoring people and tells them, "Yes, we can," he means it. And when he says, "There is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America — there's the United States of America," I think he means that, too.

But we had another man in the Oval Office only a few years ago who also seemed to believe every word he said, even if he contradicted himself at the next stop before the next crowd. We need a leader who knows who he or she is . . . and what he or she believes. We need someone with consistent core principles.

In 2004, the Democratic Party and much of America fell in love with a young politician from Illinois who told the Democratic convention,

I stand here knowing that my story is part of the larger American story, that I owe a debt to all of those who came before me, and that, in no other country on earth, is my story even possible. Tonight, we gather to affirm the greatness of our nation.

Is it a great nation or is it what Pastor Wright taught the Obamas — a "racist," "imperialist" place that got what was coming to it on 9-11? Should we lament that it's "downright mean . . . guided by fear" or continue to affirm its greatness?

Will the real Barack Obama please stand up?

Posted: 3-7-2008
Note: At original posting, all links were active.