Wow. It’s been a busy week on the race front in American politics, hasn’t it? First, Geraldine Ferraro loses her cool and gets herself kicked off of Hillary Clinton’s campaign team. Then a video of a recent sermon/rant by Barack Obama’s retiring pastor, Jeremiah Wright, brings the Illinois Senator more unwanted love.
Is it just me or has Barack Obama’s church and spiritual life been more closely inspected than any presidential candidate in recent memory? Sure, John Kerry had a minor controversy with the Catholic Church over his support of abortion rights, but in the end it was enough for us to know that he had some sort of nominal connection to the church. President Bush had the classic Christian testimony and said Jesus is his favorite philosopher, but were the intricate details of his religious beliefs ever explored in anything more than a superficial way?
I’m convinced that America cannot handle a nuanced and substantive discussion of race and faith, especially not in the context of a political campaign, where people seem to prefer simplistic, stock responses that scratch their ideological itch and tell them exactly what they already believe. What the presence of Barack Obama (and, in different ways, Hillary Clinton and John McCain) has done in this campaign is to force the conversation into uncharted territory. Many of us just aren’t sure about Obama. We say it’s because he’s so young, inexperienced, and unknown. But what we don’t say as openly is that it’s because he’s African American—okay, maybe Geraldine Ferraro did say it.
Where the controversy arises is from the fact that Obama’s narrative (his racial and cultural background, his Christian faith, his intellect, his conciliatory manner) are foreign to most white Americans, especially when it comes to presidential candidates. His story requires white Americans to deviate from the standard script too much. With President Bush, it was enough for us to know that he was a reformed alcoholic who had a Christian conversion late in life. We knew that he came from a wealthy family, and that he is a sporadic churchgoer. We didn’t need to probe too deeply into the specifics of his personal beliefs or obtain transcripts of his pastor’s sermons. What more was there to know? His personal narrative was familiar and safe, even for those who didn’t buy into his evangelical impulse. Likewise, no one’s really that concerned about the Sunday-morning activities of Senators Clinton and McCain these days either.
In recent months, I’ve often thought to myself that the presence of an African American and a woman in the presidential race was a good thing for helping America confront its complex history in a more honest way. Lately, however, I’ve become convinced that it’s impossible to give an honest critique of these things in the context of a political campaign. It seems that the majority of American voters are simply not willing to go beyond the surface to reckon with the issues of our nation’s history—and its present—in a way that requires a sustained use of critical reasoning.
I don’t mean to come across as negative or elitist, but it doesn’t seem white America in general (including the media) are culturally and intellectually equipped to understand, for instance, Michelle Obama’s recent comment that “for the first time in my adult life, I’m really proud of my country.” Rather than see it as a vulnerable moment from an African American woman whose life experience is very different from theirs, many whites used it as an opportunity to question her patriotism or label her a racist.
Likewise, the recent video of Barack Obama’s now-former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, also brought swift condemnation from many whites who accused Wright—and by extension Obama—of being a racist. However, a fair and thoughtful viewing of the video reveals a man who, while clearly angry and frustrated, was attempting to offer a serious (albeit blistering) critique of American culture, racism, and white privilege. Rev. Wright is undeniably inflammatory in tone, and this certainly is not the kind of public support anyone running for President of the United States probably covets (just ask Obama), but simply writing his words off as racist or hateful misses the deeper point. I won’t go so far as saying I agree with everything Rev. Wright says, but I will say that those unfamiliar with black church tradition and oratory, as well as the African American experience in general, will find it hard to understand the emotional nuance and intellectual underpinnings of his sermon.
If Obama survives these latest racial and religious minefields, it will be because enough white voters were willing to exercise critical thinking and stretch their understanding of race, faith, and culture beyond their own familiar experience. Which conversely means if Obama loses as a result of this stuff, it could very well be said it’s because he’s black. This doesn’t necessarily mean those white voters are racists, just that they do not possess the cultural tools to examine race, faith, and culture beyond their own limited experience.
I disagree. The problem is that Obama has inspired with his message of unity and change, yet his Pastor and ADVISOR preaches hate, bigotry and separation. It creates doubts. You can’t have it both ways. It makes Obama look like a hipocrite and liar. I for one have lost faith in Obama. I feel betrayed and hurt. And yes, I am mad. I feel stupid. Obama is just another politician selling lies.
“Is it just me or has Barack Obama’s church and spiritual life been more closely inspected than any presidential candidate in recent memory?”
I think you’re forgetting about Mitt Romney.
“I think you’re forgetting about Mitt Romney.”
About who? :p
You may recall the “Neo-Conservative” stigma being put under a microscope during the Bush-Cheney candidacy, and not at all smiled upon by the media and “enlightened and educated” types. The fact that Obama is reluctant to claim the title “Evangelical” (a burden I– a white Christian– share with him), is due in part to the fact the left half of America IS very critical– even fearful– of any powerful white man of outspoken Christian faith in politics. Not that it isn’t at least partly justified by history, but I do believe that devout religious belief of ANY kind (of the Islam and Christian varieties, in particular) are a political liability for any candidate in “Post-modern America”. Obama is simply more passionate about his faith than the other two, (McCain and Clinton), from what I have read over the years. And it is such a rew thing… this politically liberal, black man with a rather conservative “evangelical” faith. It’s a complex issue, and as you point out, the mainstream of culture and media is having a hard time wrapping their minds around it, intriguing as it is.
My point, however, is to suggest that a self-professing “born again” black Christian as president will be good for the matters of reconcilliation and the church. White consdervative evangelicals (at least the thoughtful ones) will have to get real and start asking why it’s a “bad thing”, in their opinion. The Left will have to start asking themselves why they’re sweeping virtually the entirety of the Christian faith, especially of the “evangelical” variety into the hated “Religious Right” category. I’m thinking (or at least hoping) it will be a powerful opportunity to open some minds on the topic of “Christ and Race”.
God bless Obama in this internal and cultural battle. May he seek his God for wisdom and strength. And God bless America. And Canada. And Pakistan. And Israel. And Iraq. (and so-on) And even The Netherlands. 🙂
Geraldine Ferraro’s Game Exposed
As most of you know Geraldine Ferraro made some very inflammatory statements last week and then tried to claim reverse racism when she got attacked (primarily by white people) for what she said, spending 48 hours after the fact to cry foul on every me…
By the way, if you’re judging Obama– even throwing him out of your internal presidential debate– for what Wright said… So too you must judge Clinton for what Ferraro said. Neither Ferraro nor Wright were without a flicker of truth in (or at least behind) their comments, but both came off with an unacceptable tone of venom and bigotry. Also, Wright’s comments were actually made years ago, post 9/11. They’ve only recently been brought up by the media– and were immediately repudiated by Obama. After Ferraro’s comments, Hillary morphed from mildly turned off (but feeling out the political fallout or possible political advantage of the comments), to more aggressive about her discomfort, before finally “repudiating” the comments, and removing Ferraro from her advisory staff.
(Postnational beat me to it… sorry to reiterate)
Much of the campaign seems to be run on sound bites. It’s hard to have a nuanced discussion when the media forces candidates into these superficial sound bite wars.
I recently read books by you, Charles Marsh, and Edward Jones, to prepare for the upcoming Calvin College Faith and Writing Conference. Reading books like these helps give a larger context for Obama’s campaign. Most people don’t find time to do a lot of reading (of books), any more. People are overwhelmed with data from tv, radio, and the internet–which don’t encourage deeper levels of analyses and understanding of issues.
Conservatives who should be with Obama for his faith in Jesus Christ are distanced from him in this episode by a lack of understanding of the black church. Liberals who should be with him for his politics are distanced from him by the same episode because they too lack a real ability to contextualize the profession of faith within the black church (they can dismiss all that Jesus is God stuff, but “damn America”. . . that’s too much)
So in spite of white conservative christians professing a reconciliation orientation, they don’t get the black church (and hence can’t comprehend the black christian witness on multiple levels). And in spite of liberal identification with at least some of “the black agenda”, they too can’t comprehend the witness of the black church and therefore are made very uncomfortable by “authentic black witness” of Trinity. It just goes to show that one of the most important civil and religious traditions/institutions in America is not understood by most.
I really appreciate your description of Michelle’s comments. I think you are right on the money. Thanks.
Should have added. . . yes, He’s got a prayer. I’ll continue to pray for him. . .
What makes Barack very complex to me as a Christian, is his willingness to go the opposite direction on what seem to be the Biblical issues. This has gotten him in the news with having Donnie McClurkin campaigning for him. Donnie teaches the traditional Biblical view that homosexuality is a sin according to the scriptures.
Barack has no problem with homosexuality of any kind and even supports gay marraige. This seems to conflict with his Christian faith and many don’t understand him on this position. This too makes him complex for many people even those in the black church who would like to support him, but struggle with the complexity of what he represents.
KG-
I can’t speak for Barack. But I can speak as a passionate Christ-follower, and a constitutional voter. I think, as much as we speak about “slippery slopes” and “gray areas” on matters of sin vs. liberal social philosphy, the real “slippery slope” is when we start legislating religion. I don’t believe homosexual immorality is any less tolerable to God than heterosexual immorality. And the marriage “rights” for which the “gay power” movement are pushing are legal rights. Taxes, insurance, etc… While the Bible does definitely speak of the “sin” of homosexuality, the Constitution, in my opinion, provides for the equal rights of people of all walks of life. We need to differentiate, at times I believe, between what is “biblical” and what is “constitutional”. Live your spirituality and run your church according to its founding document, the bible. Vote in accordance with your country’s founding document– the constituion.
To perpetuate my argument, I use this scenario: Say 2 men are living together, as “non-gay”, single men, choosing to “be as Paul”, not committing to a woman in marriage, committed to ministry. Should not (legally speaking) these men be able to reap the same tax and insurance benefits– even adopt a Chinese baby that would have perhaps otherwise been aborted– just as a heterosexual, man/woman couple would? Why do we want to strip this “right” from somebody because of a sexual “sin”? Are we also going to start stripping these “rights” from a man who cheats on his wife with another woman, should his wife choose to stay married to him? If my church starts “marrying” gay couples, I’ll definitely have to have a chat with my pastor and elders. But I’m not sure the “Christian” thing to do is to start choosing who is entitled their constitutional “God-given” rights.
Slippery slope? Perhaps. No one said being a Christian American would be easy… living in both sides of this “separation of Church and State”. Living “in the world, but not of it”. Anyway, that’s why I’m a big fan of Barack, “in spite of” his “tolerance” for what some Christian circles determine to be “intolerable”. He’s living in this “gap” that Ed G. alludes to in his blog, in more ways than one.
Give to God what is God, and to Caesar what is Caesar’s. In this case, the Constitutuion is our “Caesar”, in my opinion.
“Is it just me or has Barack Obama’s church and spiritual life been more closely inspected than any presidential candidate in recent memory?”
Believe me, if John McCain had been a nearly 20 year member of Fred Phelp’s Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka Kansas, he’d be crucified. Obama’s church and spirituallity weren’t issues until these hideous videos of Re. Wright surfaced. And what does a “nuanced understanding” have to do with Rev. Wright anyway? My wife is black, came from the black church, and nothing about her or her experience tell me he represents most of the black church.
TA-
Should we race to embrace sin in our society (with “benefits”) or try with all of our might to hold it back? As Christ-followers should we be playing offence or defense? God is the final authority in who comes to office, and further the direction of our country, but whose job is to say that there should be any benefit (or penalty) for those who choose to marry? Can I have another wife, and maybe a man too? I thought the separation of Church and State was to keep the government from mandating religion? Is it OK for our laws to protect a nation from itself? Where is the line between morality and civil obedience? Murder? Inconvenience? Tolerance? Equanimity? I think our government should be there to protect the nation. Rewarding deviant behavior (in any form) will just further the downfall of our once-great nation.
Thanks, everyone, for chiming in. Lots of interesting opinions and good debate.
Rich- I would say there’s more than one type of black church. Though I would probably never feel comfortable attending a church like Trinity (because of its liberal doctrine), I cannot go as far as comparing Wright to Fred Phelps. Knowing what I do about Wright and Trinity United Church of Christ, and personally knowing a few members of the congregation, I do think the church is being mischaracterized in the media and on the blogosphere. It’s a lot easier to call Wright anti-American and racist rather than giving serious thought to the reasons behind some of the inflammatory stuff he has said. Like Obama, I would still reject a lot of Wright’s words, but I’m not sure I could make the leap to labeling him a racist. Here’s an interesting report about Trinity’s response to the recent controversy:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9062.html . I think it provides a little more perspective from the Trinity side of things.
When I wrote this post, I realized I ran the risk of being categorized as a racist myself. I do believe there are things many whites do not “get” about the African American experience, that it’s possible for some blacks to possess very strong feelings of doubt and indignation about white privilege and this country’s legacy of institutional racism and not necessarily be “racist” or “anti-American” while possessing them. I personally choose not to live in that place myself, and I view part of my calling as challenging those who hold onto that kind of anger and bitterness to give it up and embrace a demeanor of grace and forgiveness. Still, I understand why some folks continue to struggle with that rage, even as I reject it.
Wright and many others come from a generation and life experience where encounters with institutionalized racism and legislated segregation were once a daily fact of life. That’s not an excuse for the anger, but it is a legitimate source of it.
I think one big thing I’m learning from this fascinating presidential campaign is that I don’t believe a black man will ever be elected president in this nation unless he strives to fill the role of racial reconciler. He has to both represent and transcend race. In the eyes of many, he will have to prove over and over again that race will not be a factor in how he would lead the nation. I’m not sure the same has ever been required of a white presidential candidate.
I guess what concerned me most about this post was the last paragraph. This may not be what you were meaning to say, but it seems to say that if Barack Obama is not elected president, it will be because he is black. I think that’s a dangerous scenario to set up. It is possible for a white American to decide not to vote for him because of policy issues and perhaps other concerns such as experience. It’s very frustrating to hold these legitimate concerns over a candidate and then being told that I’m not truly concerned about these things and am actually expressing repressed racist thoughts.
I think what makes these statements by Wright more important than sermons of other candidates pastors is that Obama said that this man had more influence over him than any other man (or something to that effect) and he considered Wright a mentor. He also based the name of his book on a sermon that Wright gave. An informed voter should at least want to know what Obama thinks about Wright’s inflammatory statements. I don’t see why that’s such a big deal.
Obama’s statement about Wright’s sermons was enough for me as far as my concerns over his racial views. I say that because I’m pretty conservative in my political philosophy and wasn’t considering voting for him at this point anyway. But it’s still important not to mischaracterize someone, even if he’s not your candidate.
I guess I wonder how far someone like Wright has to go before someone in the black community will speak out strongly against him. I wonder what good that kind of anger from the pulpit does. I can’t see it fostering anything but bitterness, anger, and a desire for revenge against white people. Isn’t that racist? Please explain why it’s not.
I can’t sit and judge blacks for how they respond to the history of what they went through and the white privilege that they continue to experience every day. I’d probably be pretty angry too. But from this side I also know that we need grace and forgiveness from the black community to ever hope for real race reconciliation. And I don’t see many black leaders calling for grace and forgiveness.
Judy – Thanks for your comments. Perhaps I should’ve been more explicit in that last paragraph of the post. What I said there was “if Obama loses AS A RESULT OF THIS STUFF,” meaning the mischaracterization of his church, and by extension his personal beliefs, “it could very well be said it’s because he’s black.” I was attempting to get at the irony of the whole thing there, because I’ve tended to reject the notion that if white people don’t vote for Obama it’s because he’s African American. While I know there are many whites who probably will avoid Obama because of race, there are plenty of other legitimate political reasons not to vote for him. However, with this latest controversy, I see at the root of it a questioning of Obama’s loyalty to America vs. his loyalty to his black church. If that false impression ends up becoming a stumbling block for whites who might’ve voted for Obama otherwise, then his losing would indeed seem to be because he’s black. You may still disagree, but that’s what I was trying to get at.
With all due respect, your final sentence saddens me: “And I don’t see many black leaders calling for grace and forgiveness.” It saddens me because I know of plenty of black leaders who, because of their tireless commitment to the gospel and the ministry of reconciliation, have been calling for grace and forgiveness for a long time. A few high-profile voices of rage and discontent should not be used to define the disposition of an entire race. And, perhaps, therein lies part of our problem with this whole issue: We seem to form ideas and conclusions about other races based on the words and actions of the most radical and outspoken members of those races. It will require a lot more work and personal investment to get to know people beyond the sound bites and generalizations.
Geraldine Ferraro, so it seems to me, makes (present tense) a racist remark; Clinton denounces those statements (not Ferraro) and fires her/she leaves campaign; Clinton moves on and looks like a defender of rights.
Obama’s pastor made (past tense) remarks that were and are inflammatory; Obama denounces those statements (not his pastor); Obama can’t move on.
The question you are asking — at least one of them — is why is Obama being held accountable for his pastor’s remarks? And, is racism playing a part in this? And, do whites understand the intent of this kind of rhetoric and the situation out of which they are expressed?
I see lots of things at work in this situation with Obama and Jeremiah Wright and the media. Some of it is politicking … the Repubs have a chance to score a point here and Clinton does too and they are both watching Obama in a very difficult moment. Some of it is moral worry about the Jeremiah Wrights of this world and how much influence they will have with Obama.
Anyway, I could go on … thanks for this Ed.
Where is Tony Campolo when you need him?
Is it ok to to say Wright might have been partly right? He is an American, and allowed to have his opinions. He spoke from a certain context, in which those opinions made sense to him at the time he gave them. Obama may have understood Wright’s context/ perspective, and allowed him to have his opinion, while disagreeing. He may have even thought he was partly right.
If people could sit down and have a measured discussion–and listen to each other– instead of having politicians and their surrogates throw sound bites across the air waves, the country would be better off.
TA-
I’ll admit that I am having a hard time following your line of reasoning and because of that do not want to respond to what you are saying to much in this type of forum.
I never mentioned “gray areas” or “slippery slopes”, but you answered me as if I did. I’m not sure where that came from.
I am not trying to avoid your ideas, I’m just having trouble seeing where you are coming from. I especially didn’t follow the two men living together example. I can see no way that me and my roomates in college should receive benefits similar to married people, when we are not committed to each other and have no reason to assume that we would always be together.
Like I said, I really just had trouble following the reasoning. Not that it was wrong, It just didn’t make sense to me. Sometimes I need to talk something out more to understand where someone is coming from.
I guess, I also don’t have a problem with legislating morality. I don’t think that the constitution does either. Morality is not religion. I personally don’t believe that the idea of marraige is simply a religious belief, because all kinds of people get married many who are not religious at all. So for the government to continue to maintain rules on marriage and how it operates in my understanding would not be wrong. Again, maybe I am just not looking at all the factors.
So it does bother me when Barak says that he supports gay marraige and will use the government to move in that direction. For all of the things that I like about Barak and the good that I see in him as a leader, this is one area that concerns me.
TA, I appreciate your thoughts and would be open to hearing more from you on this point. Shalom.
I do think that much of America has a hard time understanding where people like Dr. Wright are coming from. I think that shows a disconnect from the African-American experience in America and what would lead someone to emphasize what he does and feel the way that he does.
In my observation, the failure of many in America to see how Dr. Wright could have some of these feelings or to dismiss Michelle Obama as un-American for some of her comments is to not have a good understanding of history and the context that many people in our country who are not white have to navigate their experiences on a day to day basis.
Edward:
To be clear, I didn’t say that I didn’t believe any black leaders advocated forgiveness and grace in race relations, it’s just that I personally haven’t seen it. My experience with the black community is admittedly limited. It probably speaks more to my limited experience rather than to what’s actually going on. I don’t like that the only leaders I see are the outspoken and radical ones. I want to and am trying to make that personal investment to understand. I guess I don’t know where to go and how to break the divide.
I don’t know how to make it happen, but it would be very encouraging to white people who care about racial reconciliation to actually have contact with these leaders and people who are talking about grace and forgiveness, not to just sort of trust that they’re out there. Does that make any sense?
I think the only real progress will be church to church, person to person. But that means Bible believing black and white churches will have to be willing to cooperate and have very honest and uncomfortable conversations with each other. I will use my limited contacts to see what I can do to make that happen in my community.
I’m glad that I found this blog. I’m just trying to be as honest as possible and hope that even if I sound ignorant today, maybe I won’t sound so ignorant tomorrow.
Thank you for your response and patience 🙂
Judy – I do understand, and thanks for your honesty. Forgive me if I came across as snippy; blogs are not necessarily the best vehicles for heartfelt communication.
I would like this blog to be a safe place to ask hard questions (and to perhaps occasionally sound ignorant) in our quest for true understanding. I appreciate your commitment to biblical reconciliation, and I’m honored that you find this forum useful.
Judy-
Might I suggest a great book for you to start your exploration on the point of view you inquire about: “Reconcilliation Blues” by one Edward Gilbreath. Perhaps you already have– you HAVE found the blog, after all. Ed comes from an interesting perspective: A black man with a “black” upbringing, who attends, worships, and lives within a mostly-“white” evangelical church. He’s seen both the ugly and the beautiful parts of this topic, and experienced BOTH the “white” and “black” perspective, just about as first-hand as a single person could. He doesn’t push any agenda, but simply accounts for the hot points of discussion, bringing clarity to the complexity of the topic of Race and the Church. Must-read for anyone interested in reconcilliation, from a Christian perspective, in my opinion. If you’ve already ready it, I apologize– not meaning to be patronizing. You can just click the “home” button at the top of this page– you’ll find the book there. And if you’ve read it, Ed sites many other “good reads” on the topic within his book, and his bibliography.
Tyson
“I see at the root of it a questioning of Obama’s loyalty to America vs. his loyalty to his black church.”
I hadn’t thought of it that way. I see it less as a question of loyalty than a question of influence — that is, that this is a man who has had a great influence on Sen. Obama for many years, and are the views of a man (whatever his race) who calls down curses from God on the country the views that we want our President to hold?
Because of his stances on the issues that are important to me — especially abortion — I had not planned to vote for Sen. Obama anyway (though I’d rather see him get the nomination than Sen. Clinton). But even if I had, I can’t help but think that I would find this idea that both Rev. Wright and Mrs. Obama seem to be pushing — “This country stinks; vote for our guy!” — a little off-putting. (If it stinks so badly, he wants to be its President because . . . ?) Maybe I’m not being nuanced enough, but these things do leave an impression. Especially when Mrs. Obama is talking about how difficult it is for her to afford summer camp for the kids when she and her husband are making very good money, or when she’s telling people to choose different careers than she did so they can help people. I’ve read a bit about her college thesis, etc., and the conflict that some observers say she feels about the path she’s chosen in life. But to me she sounds like John Edwards 2.0: “I’m so concerned about poverty that it’s escaped my notice that I’m actually doing pretty well for myself.”
Both Wright and Ferraro used hyperbole to make points. Both were wrong at heart and yet had some merit at the same time. The problem with hyperbole is that the speaker often forgets that it is just that–a characterization and not the whole truth. Maybe we should discuss how we talk to each other and how we hear hyperbolic criticisms.
What I can’t tell is whether the media outlets pushing the clips are truly outraged (I think not) or are much like kids at a junior high scuffle inciting everyone with “Fight, fight, fight…”
race, church, and politics in america
We who live in this corner of the western Chicagoland suburbs tend to be fairly affluent and fairly white. There are plenty of exceptions (as my wife, who works with the working poor, could point out), but by in large we exist within a privileged whit…
Judy,
I’ve been thinking about your comments and brother TA’s recommendation of Eds book. I would add that Divided by Faith by Michael Emerson and Christian Smith is perhaps the most important book written on the subject of race and religious division (for a white audience). As you say, we are of such “limited experience and this book really helps show how exactly this is true.
After watching the whole pastor Wright discussion, That Speech, and the responses I really feel like Divided by Faith is perhaps the most important thing white Christians can read this summer. I think Obama will be the candidate and regardless of whether white Christians support him or not, their response to him has the significant potential to create a greater chasm in the racial divide. I am sure there are much better people to address this but as I interact with lots of white Christian college students, I will be doing all I can to get people to read this book. . . . through my blog, newsletter and personal argument. I am going to be a real pain about this for a while. . . .
Divided by Faith is one of the books that Ed sites often in his own book. It’s next in my line-up, next chance I get to invest in some reading time.
I just searched my local library, and they have Divided by Faith, but not Reconciliation Blues.
When I searched for Reconciliation Blues, the only thing that came up was the Complete 6th Season of Dallas DVD set. I have no idea what that means 🙂
I guess I might have to buy your book, EDd 🙂
Judy – You can find more information at ReconciliationBlues.com.
Have a blessed Holy weekend everyone.
[…] of the Week Where the controversy arises is from the fact that Obama’s narrative (his racial and cultural back…he is a sporadic churchgoer. We didn’t need to probe too deeply into the specifics of his personal […]
thats for sure, dude
[…] “Does Obama Have a Prayer”, (Reconciliation Blog) […]