I don't blame him, nobody really understands us, not even us. But this is not quite right:

As James Dobson has inartfully pointed out, Obama is not a traditional evangelical when it comes to biblical interpretation and certain moral issues. But this should hardly surprise us, since Obama has never claimed to be. He came to faith in the United Church of Christ, one of America's defining liberal denominations -- the first to ordain women (in 1853) and to endorse same-sex marriage (in 2005). Obama is properly understood as a man of the religious left, in the tradition of Martin Luther King Jr. According to a recent poll by Calvin College's Henry Institute, Obama has expanded his appeal among mainline Protestants (who, it is often forgotten, are traditionally Republican). But he also seems determined to call an evangelical bluff: Since you now praise King as a model of religious involvement in politics, you need at least to consider me.

In fact, as I've said many times before, while the UCC has many liberal aspects to it - including the national setting, which is where it gets its progressive image - there are many very traditional or even conservative types in the denomination.

Witness a conversation I had with a couple of guys from Salem last week:

MEMBER #1: Have you heard all this baloney about not drilling in the Arctic because they want to protect the caribou and the bears? We're paying $4.00 a gallon here, we've got all this oil we're sitting on, and they're not doing nothing!

ME: Uh, actually, it would take about 17 years for that oil to make it to market, and even then it would only change prices by a penny or two.

MEMBER #1: So what? We're going to need that oil sooner or later!

MEMBER #2: Yeah, I don't trust that Lambada guy. You just can't believe anything he says.

ME: Obama. His name is Obama.

MEMBER #1: Lambada or Obama, whatever. He's just like all the rest of them. I'm not voting for him or McCain. I'm going to write in Daffy Duck or just leave it blank.

ME: Okay...

As you can tell, elitist academic leftists abound in our church.

Anyway, Gerson also implies that Obama is reaching out beyond the UCC to mainline Protestants, which is of course silly. We are mainliners, and up until recently, we leaned more Republican than Democrat, just like everybody else (except the UU's).

But that's changing now. Mainline Protestants have swung away from the GOP, and it seems unlikely that they're coming back any time soon. In other words, Obama's not moving from left to center - he's staying in the middle, exactly where he and his denomination have always been.

I might just as well beat my head against a wall as argue with the folks at UCCTruths, but for this begs for response:

For starters, I'm not advocating for torture at all - it is completely immoral and it is wrong. All I'm saying is that the timing of John Thomas' statement on torture is suspicious since this isn't an issue of public dispute and there are no new allegations of torture. Further, as a country we crossed a moral threshold long ago when we decided that a war was necessary. Excuse me if I see a big moral difference between a belly slap and killing someone. Basic logic to me, but not to Pastor Dan.

As far as Abu Ghraib goes, Pastor Dan is completely right and the perpetrators were rightfully prosecuted. It also has nothing to do with Thomas speaking out now.

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with some people?

I think it's a disingenuous statement since the harshest treatment now is "longtime standing". If there are new allegations, it might be worth exploring but to make it an issue now makes it clear to me that this a political fight, not a moral one.

But since we are on the topic and there is little substance on what United Church of Christ John Thomas is actually whining about... here is the list of the types of torture we have done:

1. The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.

2. The Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.

3. The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.

4. Longtime Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.

5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.

6. Waterboarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

The moral argument against torture is also disingenuous at this point because we are in a war where we are aiming guns at people and blowing their heads clean off their shoulders. If we as a country accept that this is a morally wrong but necessary thing to do, than I'm quite a bit less sensitive to concerns about a belly slap and I haven't honestly explored it's moral implications.

Having lost the debate on the war seven years ago, Thomas is left with complaining about torture which, in the context of a war where we kill people, is simply a meaningless wedge issue.

All that and a picture of the Three Stooges going at it, ha, ha, ha!

Well, this is disappointing, if not exactly unexpected:

Obama resigns from controversial church
Barack Obama resigned Saturday from his Chicago church — where controversial sermons by his former pastor and other ministers had created repeated political headaches for the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination — his campaign confirmed.

The resignation comes days after the Rev. Michael Pfleger, a visiting Catholic priest, mocked Obama's Democratic rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, for crying in New Hampshire during the runup to the primary there.

I had heard the other day that the Obamas were personally disappointed in Pfleger, who they thought would know better than hand such easy ammunition to Obama's critics, especially while preaching at Trinity. Likewise, they apparently felt let down by Jeremiah Wright's infamous appearance at the National Press Club.

It seems pretty clear that both Wright and Pfleger decided to stick to their guns rather than bow to the demands of the modern presidential campaign. On the one hand, I can't blame them for that. The modern presidential campaign is evil and whack besides. If you're a pastor, you might just as well lay your head down in front of the Bus of Moloch. Really. It's idolatrous and wrong and the symbol of every craven, counterproductive piece of shit to infect our society since it began. It's pandering to the Beast, it's selling your soul for a mess of pottage, it's giving up your brother for slavery, it's throwing dice for the dead man's clothes.

Any preacher who adapts the gospel as she knows it to suit the likes of CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC and the whole pile-ridden, pus-soaked lot of media blowhards ought to have her head examined and her credentials revoked.

Really.

God. Does. Not. Care. What. CNN. Thinks.

Are we clear on that?

But at the same time, there is a pastoral issue here. You never, ever, ever call out a specific member of your congregation from the pulpit. Ever. When you stand to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ, that is what you do. You give them good news and the hope of redemption. If you have to condemn them, you do it in private with some of the elders. Because worship is a time to give thanks and praise to God for God's good works, not to reprove specific individuals, not to pronounce judgment on them.

As an extension of that principle, you do not embarrass members of the congregation. Never. Intentionally or otherwise. The last thing you want to do is provide a stumbling block to somebody else's faith. Your role, as pastor and preacher, is to protect, defend, and build up the flock you have been given, not to drive them off by accident or on purpose.

And the last - the very absolutely goddammit I really mean it last thing you want to do is embarrass somebody's else parishioner. Even if it's somebody you've known for twenty or thirty years. Even if he's a candidate for the highest office in the land. Even if it is his home community, and they need defending. It's not your community, and you've got no business messing in it. You stay the freak out of the way, you do not provide a distraction, you let people get on with their business without causing more trouble - and more personal embarrassment - to that parishioner. You do not drive the gospel in like a damn shank and then wonder why they walk off with a bemused expression. Even if everything Pfleger and Wright said was 100% on the money - and it wasn't - there is still the issue of the personal effect it had on a member of the congregation.

You. Do. Not. Embarrass. People. It is not pastoral.

So while it's easy to say that Wright and Pfleger might be naive when it comes to the cutthroat politics of the national stage - and Lord knows they wouldn't be the first pastors to be politically naive at a crucial moment - it's not so easy to let them off the hook for being fearless in their pursuit of the gospel.

Yes, the gospel is divisive by its nature.

Yes, preachers are required to pursue the gospel in their preaching.

But Christians are to hold love above all things. Number two is the community. And for crying in the night, how difficult is it to figure out that it's not very loving to embarrass a prominent member of the congregation who hasn't done anything wrong? How difficult is it to understand that it's not very helpful to that parishioner - or to his community - to leave him no choice but to hand in his letter of resignation?

Because let me tell you something: FoxNews is not going to stop pointing to Trinity UCC as an example of dangerous black radicalism. Neither are the pinheads around the right blogosphere. They might lay off Obama for having the good sense to leave before anything else blew up in his face. But Trinity UCC just became the stalking horse for every racialist bedwetting night terror out there. Who needs Ward Connerly anymore? Barack Obama just agreed that his congregation is too damn radical, and the irony is that it was a white minister with his heart in the right place who made him do it.

And this is how the division wins. Somewhere, the devil is laughing.

So now the wedge is driven, but good. Obama's left the UCC (this isn't like being a Catholic, you have to be a member of a congregation to belong to the denomination). Now what?

I don't know where he'll land. Methodist? Baptist? Probably not. Maybe Episcopalian, maybe Disciples of Christ, maybe another UCC congregation or a non-denominational church. Obama's Christian experience is so tied to Trinity, and Trinity so unique, that it's difficult to imagine where he'd go next. Perhaps, like Bush, he won't be much of anything, other than friendly with a particular chaplain.

But I think he and many observers would be fooling themselves to think that a good part of the UCC will not go with him. And by that, I don't mean our stubborn commitment to a "social gospel," or our embrace of gays and lesbians, our strong tradition of peace and justice.

No, I mean that commitment to dialog. As stupid and pathetic and dangerously naive as it seems, the basic organizational principle of the United Church of Christ is not and never has been assent to a particular creed or statement of beliefs or theological principles, not even transubstantiation or consubstantiation, but the notion that we are all fellow pilgrims walking the way of Jesus Christ, and what binds us together is the conversation we share as we walk. In that, we are closer to the Unitarian model of spiritual-mutual-aid society than perhaps even the Unitarians know. Even they lose the bead some times, given how much they love to fight.

Obama's entire political thrust to bridge the divides of society, to bring them together in healing, in mutual care, and in work for the common good, is more UCC than anyone suspects. It's been there all along. He may not have originally developed it in the UCC, but meeting a fierce, impressive pastor like Jeremiah Wright certainly didn't hurt it. If we didn't invent it, we sure nurtured it, and now, for better or worse, it's our spiritual gift to the world through Obama.

I do hope he will take it and be blessed. I'd like him to do something good with it politically. But as a pastor of the United Church of Christ, it's my duty to say: go with God. Sorry we let you down. Be well, do good work, and keep in touch.

Ha, ha. The people who thought the UCC had "clearly" violated church-state guidelines by having Barack Obama appear at the last General Synod were wrong-diddly-ong. UCNews, via Chuck Currie:

The Internal Revenue Service has concluded that the UCC did not violate tax
laws when U.S. Sen. Barack Obama addressed the denomination's 50th anniversary
General Synod in Hartford, Conn., in June 2007.

"Based on your response to the inquiry, we have determined that the activity about which we had concern did not constitute an intervention or participation in a political campaign … and that the United Church of Christ continues to qualify as an organization described in section 501(c)(3),"according to a May 13 letter from the IRS.

The IRS determination outlined several steps taken by the UCC that indicated compliance with the law. The letter said the UCC's invitation to Obama came "well before he announced his candidacy and that [he] was invited to speak… in a non-candidate capacity, on how his personal faith intersected with his public life."

"You further established that the United Church of Christ had verbally communicated to those in attendance that Senator Obama was there as a member of the church and not as a candidate for office, that the audience should not attempt to engage in any political activities, and that the church's legal counsel had advised Senator Obama's campaign on the ground rules for the speech," the IRS determined.

I join with Chuck in celebratory mocking of all the pinheads who thought this was going to be a slam-dunk.

The General Minister and President of the United Church of Christ has called for a "sacred conversation" on race for this Sunday.  I thought this was one of those irrelevancies from on high.  And still do, mostly.  But sometimes life convicts...
http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local...

So I wrote this for the clergy comment in the local paper this week (Our ecumenical clergy group also wrote a letter to the editor last week)
...

Gil finds a nut:

A freshman Georgia Republican wanted to stress the importance of divine oversight of the US as he saw it portrayed in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Leading the pledge on the House floor Monday, Rep. Paul Broun lectured others in the chamber about the “correct way” of saying the pledge.

“There should not be a comma between ‘one nation’ and ‘under God,’” Broun told his colleagues before beginning his rendition of a pause-free pledge. …

<snip>

A Broun spokesman even said there should be no pause to emphasize there is “no separation or implied separation between nation and God.”

Thank God for commas and other roadblocks.

The following is a statement issued by the AME Church

PRESS RELEASE: March 22, 2008
For Immediate Release

SOCIAL ACTION Commission
African Methodist Episcopal Church
1968 W. Adams Blvd. Suite 314
Los Angeles, CA 90018

IN DEFENSE OF THE REV. JEREMIAH WRIGHT AND THE BEST OF PROPHETIC TRADITION IN THE BLACK CHURCH :

Several months ago, early in the Democratic race for the nomination to run for president, conservative radio pundits began attacking Senator Barak Obama by playing a small snippet of a sound bite from one of the sermons delivered by his pastor, the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright who was the spiritual leader of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.

The United Church of Christ, like many other mainline Protestant denominations, has lost large numbers of members over the last 40 years. However, unlike many of those other denominations, it has lately been able to generate large amounts of interest and more importantly "buzz", largely due to one of it's high-profile members. Barack Obama. Because of all the coverage being generated, even though some has been very controversial, the UCC could very well be seeing a resurgence in it's vitality and membership. That's making many in the denominations' organization very, very happy.

UCC Is Happily Riding Obama's Coattails
Candidate's Church Of Inclusion Enjoying Renewed Interest
By David Briggs

I don't know that you'd call this "the whole armor of God," but it sure beats a poke in the eye:

The UCC has selected one of the nation's top law firms to represent the denomination in the wake of an Internal Revenue Service investigation of the church's tax-exempt status.

WilmerHale, a prestigious Washington, D.C.-based firm, is being retained because of an IRS-initiated church tax inquiry related to a speech given by U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, a UCC member, at the UCC's national General Synod in June 2007.

Seth P. Waxman, former Solicitor General of the United States (1997 to 2001), will lead WilmerHale's team of attorneys working on behalf of the UCC. Waxman, considered one of the nation's top appellate-level attorneys, has won 9 of 9 cases he has argued before the U.S. Supreme Court.

"I am confident that, when the IRS learns all the relevant facts, it will conclude that the General Synod of the United Church of Christ did not come close to conducting political campaign activity at its 2007 gathering," Waxman said.

"There is a bigger issue here that affects faith communities in general," Waxman said. "The IRS must proceed with great care and sensitivity to the First Amendment when it initiates an investigation in reaction to a speech at a religious event; and, when it learns that there is no basis to proceed, it must announce that conclusion quickly and clearly. We hope that the IRS does so here."

Either WilmerHale has a UCC member among its partners or this investigation just really ticked them off. Whatever the case, I am assured by lawyer friends that this is a top-notch firm who will know how to land an egg just so on the IRS's face.

I'm all for that.

The columnist for the Hartford Courant makes fun of us:

Connecticut was — and this is true — the last official American theocracy. Congregationalism was not disestablished as the official state church until 1818. Today's Congregationalists would be horrified to think that they ever had any more power than anyone else and are probably, right now, working on 5,000-word resolutions formally apologizing to Quakers and Anabaptists for the historic injustices they — if they were not so boring — would have perpetrated on those poor religious minorities.

...

I attended Obama's speech last summer, and it does not surprise me to learn, now, that the UCC had studiously read up on the IRS rules about this kind of thing and had instructed the 10,000 people in attendance that they were not allowed to bring buttons or signs or banners with such obviously political sentiments as "We Love You, Barack." The only thing allowed was cookies. You're going to think I'm making this up, but Connecticut UCCers home-baked 14,000 cookies for this convention as part of a diabolical Congregationalist plot they called — again I am not kidding — "Extravagant Welcome." (If the cookies didn't work, they had, I was told, a last-ditch apocalyptic backup plan involving soft cushions.)

Actually, according to the CT UCC Conference, it was 13,000 dozen cookies, but let's not quibble. The fact is, we earned our cookie-loving reputation the hard way.

Most of the rest of the column is deserved as well. I don't agree with McEnroe's idea that UCCTruths is behind the IRS complaint. Chuck Currie's closer to the mark when he says "Once again UCCtruths turns up as a front for conservative groups trying to undermine the ministries of the United Church of Christ." They're mostly interested in kvetching about the UCC, but whoever filed that complaint had some legal assistance. That'd take too much initiative for the UCCTruths folks.

Nor do I think McEnroe's snarky idea that the complaint came from one Hxxxxxy Cxxxxxn is accurate. Since the letter to the IRS is more focused on the UCC than on Obama, my hunch is that whoever it was had an axe to grind with the denomination. I'm guessing it was the Biblical Witness Fellowship or one of their supporters. We'll never know, of course, so my guess will have to remain just that. But they have the obvious motive and means. Draw your own conclusions.

News that the IRS has opened an investigation into Barack Obama's appearance before the UCC's 2007 General Synod has generated a lot of response online. A sampling: the UCC itself says it did nothing wrong, and has created a legal defense fund to help defray costs associated with the case. Susan Brooks Thisthlethwaite weighs in at the Newsweek "On Faith" site; Barry Lynn says his group didn't have anything to do with it; John K. Wilson (via Chuck Currie) speculates that the hand of partisan politics is behind all of this.

To that last point, let me highlight Melissa Rogers' excellent analysis of the situation. She mentions some previous guidelines issued by the IRS:

Candidates may . . . appear or speak at organization events in a non-candidate capacity.  For instance, a political candidate may be a public figure who is invited to speak because he or she: (a) currently holds, or formerly held, public office; (b) is considered an expert in a non political field; or (c) is a celebrity or has led a distinguished military, legal, or public service career.  A candidate may choose to attend an event that is open to the public, such as a lecture, concert or worship service.  The candidate’s presence at an organization-sponsored event does not, by itself, cause the organization to be engaged in political campaign intervention.  However, if the candidate is publicly recognized by the organization, or if the candidate is invited to speak, the organization must ensure that:

• The individual is chosen to speak solely for reasons other than candidacy for public office;
• The individual speaks only in a non-candidate capacity;
• Neither the individual nor any representative of the organization makes any mention of his or her candidacy or the election;
• No campaign activity occurs in connection with the candidate’s attendance; and
• The organization maintains a nonpartisan atmosphere on the premises or at the event where the candidate is present.

In addition, the organization should clearly indicate the capacity in which the candidate is appearing and should not mention the individual’s political candidacy or the upcoming election in the communications announcing the candidate’s attendance at the event.

Melissa says that a narrow reading of these guidelines could cause the UCC some trouble, but such a reading would be unrealistic and counterproductive. The question really comes down to how the IRS chooses to define what reasonable steps a 501(c)(3) organization can and should take to separate itself from a politician's candidacy.

If Melissa is right about that - and I think she is - it would seem that the IRS has a fairly weak case. It's entirely possible that this is driven by partisanship. This is the Bush administration we're talking about, after all. What seems more likely, though, is that they've taken on the case in order to clarify the definition of the "reasonable steps." My crackerbarrel projection is that somewhere down the line, we'll see a letter of admonishment that the IRS will use as precedent in other cases.

It seems very unlikely that the UCC will lose its tax-exempt status: my understanding is that the IRS' pattern has been to give a warning the first time, and only pursue lifting the exemption if the behavior continues.

Or, they could go after the UCC tooth and nail. This is the Bush administration we're talking about.