Tracy's thoughts

I've read Tracy's message about Senator Obama and the two current comments. Well, here's another comment or two. First of all, and this is more of a response to the comment of 01-07 than to Tracy's blog, to ignore the political motivations behind Senator Obama's current public performance is to be, if I may be so bold, niave regarding how politicians do things. If you stand in line long enough at the grocery store you'll probably see Senators Obama and Clinton enjoying a joint photo opportunity (careful not to confuse with enjoying a joint - more likely seen photoshopped on the cover of a British tabloid). Also, I think Tracy was asking if we would "welcome" Obama to talk about AIDS, not if we should or shouldn't welcome him in the sense that all are welcome in God's congregation. Frankly I would go anywhere in town to hear him (Obama) talk about HIV/AIDS because I see it as a public health problem, not an emotional, religious or political issue. But it IS, if you follow me, all those things, saddly. Personally I'd prefer that the place to hear Obama speak NOT be GCF. Here's why: The Democrats in Washington have had their eyes on Obama since he was sworn in to the U.S. Senate in my home state of Illinois on January 4th, 2005. Most of what he is credited with accomplishing for his constituents in Illinois has to do with the state economy. Illinois is a place where politicians don't often get alot done. Chicago, it is 'back there' said, is the real State Capital of Illinois and no one need feign awe at the idea that Chicago remains a corrupt machine. I like the guy (Obama), his efforts have focused on working families - if he would have been running for office back when I lived there I probably would have voted for him. Politicians who make thier "views" widespread regarding things like abortion and the death penalty, and now the Iraq war (and in the big races they all do) are using a well worn and proven political devise. There are lots of single or double issue voters out there and if I know it you can bet Obama knows it, and so does (take your pick). Divisions are easy to draw with this kind of material so I too like the idea of bridge building. But... As for Tracy's remarks, well, I feel your pain. Emotional socio-political issues polarize people like certain doctrinal issues tend to polarize Christians. I'm no more in favor of abortion than Tracy's comments suggest that he is, but to evaluate Senator Obama's ideas about the AIDS crisis, where he is giving speeches and how the media covers these, requires appreciation of the fact that major political positioning is taking place in the Democratic party in anticipation of another square off with the GOP in 2008. Should he speak at Grace, or do I think any Christian Church should welcome him? Only if we wish to lend our pulpit to the ambitions of a powerful man who may be becoming more powerful soon, that is, are we about politics? - so yeah, I think this kind of question raises more questions (which is why I think it was worth responding to), and this Christian tends to look at the maneuvering of politicians with a critical eye. To summarize, inviting any political figure to speak at our Church, in philosophical terms invites all political figures to speak at our Church. - - I'd rather listen to Tracy.

Points well made by both of you. Christ desires to seek and to save. Engaging Obama to leverage influence and insight for action to advance mercy and redemption does not represent an ethical compramise. It is simply engaging in a socially, culturally relevant way. It does not represent political endorsement. Show me where Christ would not do the same? We impair our effectiveness when we squabble among ourselves on these matters, especially publicly.

Good question...really, really good one.

I like Mr. Obama for a lot of reasons but whether or not I'm a fan is secondary to the issue you present...namely could we believe he had something valuable to offer given that his opinion on a very controversial topic likely differs from most of the congregation.

Would we invite Gandhi? I'm pretty sure his positions on Biblical issues are quite different from most of ours as well.

How about thieves or adulterers? Drug addicts? High-school dropouts? The lustful, the lonely, the screwed up, and the run down? Of course we'd invite them! Wouldn't Christ invite them? Wouldn't he go a step or mroe beyond and actually SEEK them?

So why would we shun a (seemingly) relatively honest politician with whom we've had so little experience on the basis that we believe his stance on abortion is antithetical to biblical princpals? SIN is antithetical to biblical principles and none of us can claim to be free of it yet we show up every week.

Which is not to say we'd have to vote for him, like him, listen to him, or agree with him...but as Christians aren't we called on to welcome him (or most anyone for that matter)?