Leave James T. Harris Alone

I don't know why it took 3 days for me to hear about it but a black man on October 9, 2008 at a rally in Milwaukee, WI spoke out publicly against Obama and endorsed McCain. His name is James T Harris and while I don't agree with his comments I think he has the right to make those comments.



Since this has aired on CNN, Mr. Harris has been ridiculed and his life threatened. If you haven't thought about it but the way the Black community treats black Americans who are conservative and/or Republican are marginalized and looked down upon. It's like to be black enough you must be a Democrat. When did it start? I'd say in the 1930's when Black folks were voting from F.D.R. What about before. Well from 1865 - 1878 during Reconstruction black folks voted Republican because Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and the Republican party allowed Black men to be voted into Congress and southern state leadership. It all ended in 1878 because between that and the 193o's there weren't many black people voting. We seem to have forgotten that you can be black and a Republican! There is a great video I saw that talks about this:



I'm not going to speculate on whether Harris was paid or genuine in his comments. But I saw an interview with him on tonight on CNN. He brought up an interesting question: If it had been a white man who said exactly the same thing he did would it be handled differently in the media? They did not allow him to answer this question. But I know what the answer is: YES!!! I've seen video of two white men say the same thing to McCain that Harris said! It didn't even raise an eyebrow. We don't even know what their names are. Why? Because we expect white men to say that. Instead of demonizing Harris, I'm far more interested to know why he holds the views on Obama and McCain that he does. That and I'm curious if his wife is white or black. That would explain a lot. It is good to remember many famous black people have been Republicans including Martin Luther King, Jr.

Bible Basics: The Personhood of the Holy Spirit

I was sitting in Sunday School class this morning and the subject was talking about the church as a community. The subject was Growing Community from Acts 6:1-15. Verses 9 and 10 jumped up at me. Look at what I mean from the NIV:

Opposition arose, however, from members of the Synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called)—Jews of Cyrene and Alexandria as well as the provinces of Cilicia and Asia. These men began to argue with Stephen, but they could not stand up against his wisdom or the Spirit by whom he spoke.

What jumped up at me was in verse 1o "the Spirit by whom he spoke" because it says that the Spirit is a "whom". Only objects that have person hood are referred to as a "whom" in English. I checked the KJV and the New American Standard Version and the way they are worded the point is obscured by the translation. I checked my Interlinear Greek text and found that it matched the New American Standard version the closest. Here is the New American Standard version:

But some men from what was called the Synagogue of the Freedmen, including both Cyrenians and Alexandrians, and some from Cilicia and Asia, rose up and argued with Stephen. But they were unable to cope with the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking.

See how verse 10 conveys the same point that Stephen's wisdom and power came from the Holy Spirit. Since the New American Standard Version more closely matches the Interlinear Greek I think that maybe trying to convey the person hood of the Holy Spirit was not something that Luke was trying to convey in that verse. He does make the point elsewhere in the book of Acts so that the doctrine of the Trinity is not depended on Acts 6:10.