“I started church the old-fashioned way: I was forced to,” says Harold Ford, Jr., walking past the pews in the Memphis church where he was baptized. “And I’m better for it.” The video clip shows Ford, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Tennessee, discussion how it was inside the walls of the church that he learned the difference between right and wrong. Aside from the amusing candidness of his confession, what is most notable about the remark is that it was filmed as part of a political ad.
Although political advertising came to television in 1952 with the "Eisenhower Answers America" campaign, this appears to be the first time a national candidate has filmed an ad from within a house of worship. The ad has already raised a few eyebrows but will it lead the ACLU, Barry Lynn, and other watchdogs of church-state separation to pounce on Ford? Not likely, for two reasons: Ford is (a) a Democrat and (b) black.
Politics and the black church* have become almost inseparable and are the impetus for many of the most beneficial changes in our country. Florida state Representative Arthenia Joyner, a Tampa Democrat, claims, "Every historical movement in this country is rooted in black churches." And as the Bishop Harry Jackson told blogger Trey Jackson in a taped interview at Justice Sunday II, black congregations have always received political views from behind the pulpit.
The fact that most black voters still side with the Democratic Party – the home of the most outspoken critics of the mingling of religion and politics – obviously causes many of the critics to hold their tongues. But more importantly, the critics, particularly those on the left, who think that religious people should stay out of politics don’t take the black churches seriously. They know they can tolerate conservative black congregations speaking out against such issues as homosexual marriage because they know that it will have little real impact. Black voters, after all, hold almost no national political influence outside the Democratic Party.
White evangelicals, on the other hand, pose a considerable threat. On the whole, they are as socially conservative as black evangelicals but instead of consistently voting for Democrats they generally vote for Republicans. If white evangelicals were to mobilize their congregations en masse in the way that black congregations do, then the political influence that such a monolith could bring to bear on the political scene and on a particular political party would be daunting. This is why political action in black churches is tolerated while evangelical political action in predominantly white congregations leads secularists to bluster about “theocracy.”
Of course evangelicals – whether white, black, or any other color – should not use the church as a means to a political end. But we do need to reconsider the way in which we might use political means to carry out the functions of the Gospel, particularly such tasks as protecting the poor and vulnerable from injustice.
White evangelicals have tended to buy into the sacred/secular dichotomy, believing that while Christians should be involved in the political process and should let our religious beliefs influence our views, politics is a primarily secular activity that is subordinate to the Gospel. In this regard they need to be more like black evangelicals, who tend to see such activity – especially standing against injustice – as an indispensable part of proclaiming the Gospel.
Both groups, though, need to be more discerning about which party best represents our values. For the past decade, white evangelicals have tended to align too closely with the Republicans and have been disappointed by the outcome. But it is nothing less than scandalous the way that black congregations have tied themselves so closely to the Democrats, even as the party has become openly hostile to Christian values.
In his essay “My Faith as My Guide,” Ford notes, “The separation of church and state is not an order for lawmakers to ignore their faith or to banish their values.” While our shared values have led us to some differing conclusions, I admire Ford’s candor and applaud his decision to film his ad inside a church. If a candidate should be judged on their values, then why shouldn’t we get a glimpse of where their moral compass was calibrated?
* It is an unfortunate historical reality that a self-imposed segregation continues to separate the American church along color lines. My use of the term “black church” is meant only to reflect this reality and should not be used as an inference that I endorse or condone such separation. I pray, like all Christians should, that someday our church will not be able to be divided along racial lines.
1
Joe:
Great to see you settling down in your new location.
Keep up the good work.
Gordon
PS: You may wish to explore Pope Benedict's invitation to a wide ranging dialogue across the secularists and all those who look to Abraham. Also, I think a few reflections in light of Ac 27 may be helpful to Christians looking at the disasters building up in your political culture -- and that of the West gnerally.
posted on 09.18.2006 5:36 AM2
it is good that Mr. Ford went to his childhood Church. i am a republican, and i have great respect for anyone who goes to church.
what i ave problem with, is the aclu. the Bible (kjv) teaches: "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you
judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use,
it will be measured to you.
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and
pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to
your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the
time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the
plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to
remove the speck from your brother's eye.
and: Acts Chapter 2 Verse 38__kjv
"Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."
also: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul and with all of your mind, and Love your Neighbor as your self. and of course is says: And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!
25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
my problem is, how do politicians seem to turn their backs when the aclu says, in some cases, the complete opposite. i do no undertand. i hope they all get a chance to visit my sites. God and Jesus are simply teachings of love,peace, and undrstanding. i invite all to read First Corinthians 13
Love:
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.
Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
i am sorry for those who refuse to belive the King James Bible.
Christ be with us all.
3
i hope Mr. Ford is well rewarded by his peers and God for gowing to Church.
i also hope all can visit my Christian blogs.
Thanks, and God Bless all.
http://tiptopwebsite.com/starcom2
posted on 09.18.2006 5:55 AM4
Interesting post. I live in the Memphis suburbs, and Rep. Ford is (unfortunately) my Congressman by a few hundred feet. First, let me note that he's going to lose the election. Oh, there may be some polling data somewhere that predicts the opposite, but the Ford family is famous statewide for its blatant corruption and Tennessee voters aren't going to forget that when it comes time to visit the voting booth. Ford will obviously carry Shelby County because Memphis is very black (they have a mayor, Willie Herenton, that is unbeatable and has the management skills of Ray Nagin without the charisma) but he won't carry the state. Shelby County could have gotten much worse representation in the House, however. His religious affiliation is unhelpful to him, because nobody gets on the TN statewide ballot without religious bona fides. Bob Corker (motto: Vote for me and you'll get a real Corker!) has an equally real and compelling Christian background. But ol' Bob has the NRA endorsement (disclaimer: I'm a Life Member myself) and that's an advantage that is almost unbeatable in a state that loves hunting (Ducks Unlimited has their world headquarters in Memphis on public property) and has an incredibly high proportion of citizens with concealed carry permits.
posted on 09.18.2006 7:57 AM5
I completely agree with your assessment about the (ab)use of the black church in the US as a campaign platform.
Outside of that venue, we do have Rod Parsley and the other Dominionists of this world who do create that Theocratic issue. What's not commonly considered is that many of these churches are far from "white".
Then the Left goes too far in branding all Reconstructionists as Dominionists, and that's nothing short of manipulative fear-mongering.
It is certainly a convoluted situation.
Collin
6
I find it odd that the open minded tolerant left are the one's who condemn a Black conservative if he or she dares to stand against the typical left wing policy. Condi Rice, Michael Steel are examples.
posted on 09.18.2006 10:42 AM7
I don't see why the ACLU would "pounce" on Ford. What he did certainly wasn't illegal, and as long as he paid FMV for the space or the church would allow other candidates the same opportunity, the church wasn't doing anything illegal.
But then, was I supposed to take your one-liner literally? Was it hyperbole of a sort?
posted on 09.18.2006 10:59 AM8
But more importantly, the critics, particularly those on the left, who think that religious people should stay out of politics don’t take the black churches seriously.
Care to name any names?
I'd suspect that if you did, we'd find that in almost all cases those names represent folks who, like Barry Lynn, simply request that laws which separate church and state be followed.
Or, as one commenter suggested, maybe you have in mind groups like the ACLU, which has the audacity to suggest that the entire bill of rights actually means something.
If a candidate should be judged on their values, then why shouldn’t we get a glimpse of where their moral compass was calibrated?
Again, why should you think we don't?
posted on 09.18.2006 11:02 AM9
Mumon,
A good example of "who" would be the Federal Election Commission. They'll go after a church in NY for a statement about candidates and aboriton, but silent after the church pastored by the late E V Hill in Detroit after Al G. made a campaign visit.
For the ACLU, the Constitution is merely a mechanism toward their ends. Else they would not have gone after a *private* display in N.O. merely because of its proximity to public property, they would not have gone after after an Ohio officer enforcing immigration laws. It doesn't take much of a look into their history to see them as performing a practical (non-violent) anarchy.
Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com
10
Collin, keep up with the news. A liberal church is the most recently under investigation.
posted on 09.18.2006 11:12 AM11
jpe,
It started months ago, iirc. This codition is pretty rare, one must admit.
And it certainly helped the Lefties incite more talk of a Theocracy.
Collin
posted on 09.18.2006 11:27 AM12
* It is an unfortunate historical reality that a self-imposed segregation continues to separate the American church along color lines. My use of the term “black church” is meant only to reflect this reality and should not be used as an inference that I endorse or condone such separation. I pray, like all Christians should, that someday our church will not be able to be divided along racial lines.
This is just a few outside observations from a known Heathen. But.....
This is an almost picture-perfect example of "paying lip service" to something. Especially when compared to the ad for the book "Jesus Camp" at the bottom of the page that appears with the slogan "Take back America for Christ!" that is "encouraging Christians to change the world for the better".
It would seem to me that morally, ethically, that among the highest priorities for Christians should be the elimination of the racial divide among themselves.
It would seem to me also that other pressing issues for Christians would be the ethical and moral challenge of the President's call for legalizing the torture of terrorism suspects.
It would seem to me also that that Christians should be more concerned with their own divorce rate than whether people they don't approve of can get married. (which to his credit, Joe has brought up previously).
But lets look at the one of the larger public faces of Christianity in the US. Focus and the Family and its affiliates, etc.
What are their hot news items?
___________________________________
O’Donnell Equates “Radical” Christians with Radical Islam The newest face at “The View” table, Rosie O’Donnell, hasn’t wasted any time validating the concerns of those who didn’t want her on the show.Gonzales Speaks out on Online Predators
U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales recently defended the administration’s battle against online predators at the 3rd Annual Protect Our Children Conference.LGBT Community Takes Another Swing at Public Schools
In some schools, gay and lesbian parents will be able to consult pamphlets and internet resources giving them guidance on how to “introduce” themselves to the community.Has the Media Discovered Faith?
They’ve become so enamored with what believers have long known that the revelation has been a cover story several times in the past year.Recent Headlines
Senators Want to Reform ‘Secret Holds’ (Sep 14, 2006)
Dems Look for Ways to Board the Pro-Life Bandwagon (Sep 14, 2006)
Are Bible Classes Accurate in Texas High Schools? (Sep 14, 2006)
Universities Crack Down on Foul Fans (Sep 14, 2006)
Eight States Consider Marriage Amendment on November Ballot (Sep 13, 2006)
Senator Harry Reid Requests Polygamy Task Force (Sep 13, 2006)
Marriage Center Attacked for Christian Affiliation (Sep 13, 2006)
Parents Succeed in Screening Pro-gay, Sex-ed Video (Sep 13, 2006)
Michigan to Consider Anti-Coercion Abortion Bill (Sep 12, 2006)
Are Boys Really in Crisis? (Sep 12, 2006)
Don’t Let the M&M’s Melt in ‘06 (Sep 12, 2006)
Bud.TV Taps onto the Web (Sep 12, 2006)
House to Vote on Public Expression of Religion Act (Sep 11, 2006)
Does Your View of God Shape Your Political Actions? (Sep 11, 2006)
Does Sex Sell? Not to Women (Sep 11, 2006)
Empire State Fights to Protect Traditional Marriage (Sep 11, 2006)
9-11, Five Years Later (Sep 8, 2006)
Brain Damaged Patient Responds to her Surrounding (Sep 8, 2006)
In the Fight against Abortion-on-Demand, SD Leads the Way (Sep 8, 2006)
Politically Involved Churches Can Make a Difference (Sep 8, 2006)
California Governor’s Veto of Pro-Gay Bill Met with Applause (Sep 7, 2006)
Higher Education Not Making the Grade (Sep 7, 2006)
Lenders Target Servicemembers (Sep 7, 2006)
Toddlers Can Learn from Interactive TV Programs (Sep 7, 2006)
Internet Gambling Bill Still Alive in the Senate (Sep 6, 2006)
Baby-Boomers Experience Consequences of Drug Use (Sep 6, 2006)
Air Force Academy Welcomes Atheist Group to Campus (Sep 6, 2006)
ACLU Attacks Christian Prayer at Football Game (Sep 6, 2006)
Nebraska Voters Decide on Humane Care This November (Sep 5, 2006)
College Women Asked to Cash-In on their Eggs (Sep 5, 2006)
Cons Steal from Churches by using the Lord’s Name in Gain (Sep 5, 2006)
Need to Repent? Try the Internet. (Sep 5, 2006)
Congress Returns to Stack of Pro-Family Bills (Sep 1, 2006)
Women Want Truth about Abortion (Sep 1, 2006)
Are Sex Offender Registries Accurate? (Sep 1, 2006)
Tobacco Industry Packs More Nicotine Per Cigarette (Sep 1, 2006)
Family Groups Request Meeting with the President (Aug 31, 2006)
American Bar Association Reappoints Pro-Abortion Committee Chair (Aug 31, 2006)
Balancing Work, Family and Life (Aug 31, 2006)
Should California Parents Home School? (Aug 31, 2006)
Zero Tolerance on Steroid Use (Aug 30, 2006)
Sam’s Club Holiday Ad Angers Family Group (Aug 30, 2006)
Back to School Buzz has Experts Concerned (Aug 30, 2006)
California Governor Approves Pact to Expand Gambling (Aug 30, 2006)
Pro-Gay Bill Targeting Faith Community Signed into CA Law (Aug 29, 2006)
Florida Health Agency Lifts Ban on Abortion Clinics (Aug 29, 2006)
Parents Before Pals (Aug 29, 2006)
Stem Cell Company Allegedly Deceives Public in New Study (Aug 28, 2006)
Georgetown Purges Evangelicals (Aug 28, 2006)
Domestic Violence Among Gay Couples Ascends (Aug 28, 2006)
Nary a mention of Divorce, Torture, and Racism in Church.
Why is that?
Simple. For the two of the topics, Divorce and Racism, there is no political solution. You can't do anything about these issues unless you convince people individually to care about them and to change their ways of thinking. You can't legislate fidelity and racial equality into existence, all you can try to do is make a level playing field.
Torture however, is the Achilles heel of Christians in politics today. You would expect that such manifestly and continually self-promoting "Christian" organizations like Focus on the Family would have a great deal to say about the issue before the nation these last few weeks. Instead? A great silence. Why is that?
Simple. If they came forward against the President's pro-torture policies, they would lose political power. They would lose influence in the GOP by bucking its most powerful leader. They would be unable to wield as much power as they have over the last 6 years in Government policies on abortion, abstinence, pornography, stem-cell research, and the fair treatment (or unfair treatment) of gay and lesbian Americans.
In years to come, I think some will look back at this as a pivotal event in the corruption Christianity in America. Some Christians will look back in shame, the majority will do their best not to look back at all.
What do you think Christ would think of a group of people calling themselves Christians who ignore the legalization of torture in order to preserve their own earthly, worldly, and crass political power?
Or does His opinion even count any more? Or is it just that since those being tortured are usually "infidels" or terrorists or criminals that traditional notions of Christian justice and decency and morality don't matter?
When one used to speak of "Christian hypocrisy" in America, it brought to mind such topics as marital infidelity of preachers, or greed for money. In the future, its going to bring to mind "torture".
What an outstanding legacy for Evangelical Christianity of the 21st Century. The legalization of torture in America.
As the old cliché goes, The Emperor truly wears no clothes. But why are "Christians" bowing to the wrong Emperor?
posted on 09.18.2006 11:51 AM14
God's intends His Church to be FREE just as it was for Freedom that Jesus died to make Christians free (not as in beer). The problem with most of today's church's is that they, through incorporation and 501C3 designations, are OWNED (literally) by the State and not by God. Do you know the history of 501C3? Did you know it is only 50 years old? Did you know that Churches HAVE ALWAYS been tax-exempt, even before 501C3 and the IRS? Find out more here:
http://hushmoney.org/free-church_solution.htm
Read it, verify it (doesn't take long), and then meet with your elders and pastor and MAKE YOUR CHURCH FREE!!!
posted on 09.18.2006 12:15 PM15
Americans United has come out strongly against the Religious Right, but he hasn't been quite as critical of his own church. The investigation of his own church which began some time ago and the facts haven't changed... yet no condemnation from Barry Lynn. Hypocritical?
posted on 09.18.2006 1:58 PM16
Collin Brendemuehl:
As jpe notes, their recent activity has been against critics of the Bush regime.
The rest of your post isn't really very comprehensible.
Do you have any external links from reliable sources?
(Like links to actual court documents, or links from the ACLU itself, not what some group linked to efforts to curtail democracy in the United States puts out.)
17
will it lead the ACLU, Barry Lynn, and other watchdogs of church-state separation to pounce on Ford? Not likely, for two reasons: Ford is (a) a Democrat and (b) black.
Not likely, for one reason: it's not illegal to run a political ad discussing religion, or to tape an ad inside a church. (It's illegal for a church to endorse a candidate, but if he was just renting the church, it's not a problem.)
What's unconstitutional is endorsement of candidates, telling voters which candidate to support, or threatening them with religious punishment if they do not vote as told - as the Catholic church has been doing. It's unconstitutional to use federal funds to proselytize or in public programs that demand religious practices to be eligible for benefits (let alone to commit fraud in doing so), as many of the Bush Administration's "faith-based initiatives" have done. It's unconstitutional to demand religious practice as part of public school ceremonies or in classrooms, as happens over and over and the GOP endorses. But it's not unconstitutional to talk about your own religion - in a non-coercive setting and using non-public resources - and the ACLU has never taken a stand against doing so.
If, as you say, blacks Democrats are consistently in line with those well-known guidelines in a way that Republican candidates are not, that's just another reason not to vote Republican.
posted on 09.18.2006 4:39 PM18
George: "...the Ford family is famous statewide for its blatant corruption and Tennessee voters aren't going to forget that when it comes time to visit the voting booth."
Don't be so sure, George. I live in East Tennessee, and I know lots of white folks, sven a couple of Republicans, who are going to vote for Ford. Sure, he may indeed lose; after all, it is Tennessee: solid red state, voted against homeboy Al Gore. But I am going to make a point of forgetting all about the Ford family's troubles when I vote.
Joe, I don't think Ford is the first guy to film a political ad in a church; I think he's the first one you had a problem with. I don't care a whit about such ads for either side. Let 'em.
However, I don't like politicking from the pulpit from either side. I agree that Black churches are given a pass on this. It is politically expedient. The Republicans dare not cry foul; it would be like putting on a hooded robe. And the activity benefits Democrats disproportionately, so they have no motivation to go after it except principle, which loses them enough elections as it is.
I happen to think that ALL churches who abuse their tax-free status in such a manner should be pursued with equal vigor.
posted on 09.18.2006 4:59 PM19
What's unconstitutional is endorsement of candidates, telling voters which candidate to support, or threatening them with religious punishment if they do not vote as told - as the Catholic church has been doing.
Actually even this isn't unconstitutional (for the record I believe the Catholic Church has done a relatively good job of refraining from telling people how they must vote...at least in the US). This all comes down to special provision being made in the tax code to exempt churches and other religious groups. Without some type of barrier a host of political parties and special interest groups would achieve tax exemption by just declaring themselves churches.
Churches are free to forfeit their tax exemption and then endorse candidates as much as they please but most of them find the money savings to be more valuable than being able to endorse candidates directly.
posted on 09.19.2006 11:05 AM