At TIME magazine, Jay Carney and Amy Sullivan write about “The Origin of Obama’s Pastor Problem,” recycling talking points from Barack Obama’s speech this week:
When Obama joined Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ in 1988, the Afrocentric church and its pastor held particular appeal to a 27-year-old son of an African father he barely knew and a white mother from Kansas. Obama was searching for an identity and a community, and he found both at Trinity. And he found a spiritual guide in Wright.
Much of white America is unfamiliar with the milieu of the black church…
If that is true, it is due in no small part to the ignorant or misleading reportage of organs like TIME magazine. Anyone reading this article will not be informed that Trinity is founded on the precepts of Black Liberation Theology, let alone what that means, or how far out of the mainstream it is, even among predominantly black churches.
TIME was not always this insufferably lame and partial. For example, on July 4th, 1969, the magazine went “In Search of a Black Christianity”:
Black theology is the only genuine manifestation of Christianity in America today. White theology is basically racist and nonChristian. If there is any contemporary meaning of the Antichrist, the white church seems to be a manifestation of it. It is the enemy of Christ.
Not every Negro Christian would agree with this provocative, militant conclusion of Union Theological Seminary’s James H. Cone. Today, however, the black churches of the U.S. which have frequently been accused of excessive caution on civil rights  are rapidly catching up with the secular advocates of Black Power who have created such turmoil in the universities and urban ghettos.
Last week blacks tried for greater in fluence within the United Church of Christ at its biennial assembly in Boston, promoting a Negro pastor for the presidency of the 2,000,000-member denomination and pressing for fuller representation on all committees…
The Obama-Wright-Trinity trinity demonstrates the measure of the movement’s success.
TIME editor Rick Stengel is clearly in the tank for Obama, which may be how Amy Sullivan gets a byline on this latest piece of propaganda. Check Amy Sullivan’s bio:
Amy Sullivan is an editor of The Washington Monthly. She has written about religion and politics for publications including the Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, The New Republic, and The Washington Post, and has served as a commentator for The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, NPR’s Morning Edition, and other news outlets. Previously, Sullivan served as a legislative assistant to U.S. Sen. Tom Daschle and as editorial director of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. She holds degrees from the University of Michigan and Harvard Divinity School.
Left unmentioned there is that she is a Red Letter Christian, a group of “progressive religious leaders committed to speaking biblically about a moral agenda that will unite rather than divide Americans. ”
Sullivan has already been flogging the TIME article at The Washington Monthly, adding:
I’ll be back in a few hours to talk about why the Democratic party outsourced religion to black churches, and how that’s hurt the party. It’s also left most Americans with a Disney-fied impression of African-American religious leaders as folks who sit around listening to gospel music all day, spout inspirational phrases to slap on calendars, and generally act like Denzel Washington in “The Preacher’s Wife.”
That proves too much even for those who comment The Washington Monthly, who point out that her movie analogy is wrong, call her “outsourcing” comment “bizzare,” claim her career is a “one note, dishonest shtick,” that she is “useless as tits on a bull,” and so on.
But she’s plenty good enough for TIME magazine.
(h/t Memeorandum.)
It will be people defending and explaining Obama’s church that will be his ruin.*
*if he is ruined, that is
Since the secular left generally has no idea of what Christianity is, it is no surprise when we get such garbage from them. It would be much like most right-wingers trying to present an argument on Taoism. You know, do a peripheral study on Tao, find a few people who generally agree with us on other things, and quote them heavily.
Of course, if the left’s impression of church services comes solely from exposure to “ministers” like Wright, then their belief that all churches are dens of hatred is understandable.
Values spoken without actions taken are just slogans. Values are not just words. They’re what we live by. They’re about the causes we champion and the people we fight for. — John Kerry
Amy Sullivan worked for Tom Daschle . . . Daschle is very active in Obama’s campaign.
Rob = Nail on head.
Or you have a liberal church of (denomination here) where everybody is almost required to be a member of the congregational “peace group” as a condition of membership. Hence the groupthink attributed to the religious right, based upon the practices of the religous left.
Projection, anyone?
“*if he is ruined, that is”
I can only hope.
Cynn once questioned if there was a religious left and to what extent was it’s strength. I find that all kind of funny now.
I only know this much; if this is purely about race for these people then they are opening a can of worms. And the worms inside those cans are very very ugly and mean worms.
I see this whole thing as yet another “romantic” plan to destroy this union and replace it with a more “orderly one”.
I think this time, if their plans come to fruition, they may get what they want. And I am only saying this out of a small poll of my genuine redneck friends. This is really the last straw for them – if it comes to fruition.
Creole,
Yeah, there are multiple reasons Amy Sullivan should not be reporting on this story for TIME.
I’m sick to death of Marxists.
But not bunny-eyes.
happyfeet, I doubt seriously you’ve ever encountered a Marxist. You might spend a bit of time at Norm Geras’s place to see what I’m talking about.
Toward the end of the 19th Century Marxists had a big problem. Nobody was buying their s*t, except for cherrypicking in the case of the Populists and American Union organizers, the latter finding some weird and wonderful ways to work the notions out. After much thought they came up with the Vanguard of the Proletariat, an elite group who were supposed to study Marx and lead the People to True Socialism. The best-remembered acolyte of that particular philosophy was one V. Ulyanov, but it very quickly became the mainstream of Socialist thought. And, having re-grafted the concept of a Nobility back onto what is in theory an egalitarian if not egalist philosophy, they then went from triumph to triumph. It would appear that T. Pratchett is correct: somewhere in the human psyche, “Kings. What a great idea!” is wired in permanently. People who came to America tended strongly to have weak expression of that gene, but we’ve now bred enough generations for it to come back. Depressing.
Virtually all the Socialists you encounter today are inheritors of that idea, differing only in just who the New Nobility or Cadre should be (it always includes themselves, of course.) Marx would call them all Fabians, spit, and put ’em up against the wall right next to the Saxebourg-Gothas, and he’d be right.
Regards,
Ric
“Much of white America is unfamiliar with the milieu of the black church…”
I am sick to death of this fucking cliche. The notion that only brown colored people understand the subject of race and that white colored people are de facto ignoramuses is stupid as shit and should be challenged by all serious people. What does “black America” understand about white churches? What do they need to learn about white churches in order to become more well rounded human beings? Those questions would never be asked because the idiotic narrative disallows it.
And another thing. With regard to the “smart folks” busy explaining away how commonplace it is for negroid churches to be headed by tan-skinned klansmen, just who the fuck do they think is being harmed by this sort of hateful indoctrination? Hint: It sure as shit ain’t the honkies across town.
Oh. Well I’m sick of thems too. All of ’em. But, really, you can take anything that calls itself a “community organizer” and put it in a zoo with a “See The Marxist!” sign what has an arrow pointing to it and I’d be all in. I’d probably even get the little wax souvenir thinger so I could prove I’d for real seen it.
Near as I can tell community organizer is just media talk for an old fashioned ward heeler. Calling them a Marxist would be flattery.
Excellent Karl. Underscores that we are witnessing a church/state colluquy unlike any seen in American history. And the left has always fear-mongered that such a thing would come from the right…
even better MC, it’s going to come from Hillary *snort*
ooookay, apparently it doesn’t like links to The Nation. http://tinyurl.com/33433v
The fact that Barack Obama, an educated, talented and highly capable black man who is also a viable candidate for president of the US has to come under fire for some things his pastor said is ridiculous and just proves Rev. Wright right about the blatant racism in this country. I am a member of Trinity and have listened to Rev. Wright preach on many Sundays. The snippets that have been played on the web and on news channels over and over do not fully communicate Rev. Wright’s full message. They are taken out of context but then again the media is good for taking the truth and twisting it. And honestly the only reason people are so uptight about what Rev. Wright said is because he was speaking the hard truth about injustice in this country. And the truth hurts! Our country should be ashamed that this has been made into the media frenzy that it is. Especially since there have been bomb threats made to the church! Now that is ridiculous! Can we please focus on more important issues and not silly side stories like what someone’s preacher says on sunday morning?!
and just proves Rev. Wright right about the blatant racism in this country
So much for the thoughtful, kumbaya, can’t we all just get along tone in the other thread.
The snippets that have been played on the web and on news channels over and over do not fully communicate Rev. Wright’s full message. They are taken out of context but then again the media is good for taking the truth and twisting it. And honestly the only reason people are so uptight about what Rev. Wright said is because he was speaking the hard truth about injustice in this country. And the truth hurts
Explain how the AIDs comments were taken out of context. Explain how the God Damn America was taken out of context. Explain how the 9/11 comments were taken out of context. Fuck it. You will not and cannot, because they are indefensible.
they are taken out of context because those snippets are part of a 30 minute sermon with a message of unity as are all his sermons. you can’t fully judge the opinions of a man based on 2 or 3 minutes. just as you took snippets of what i said and commented. but why does it matter what some preacher says? so what if he thinks that way? he is not running for president. why can’t he speak his mind without all of the backlash? hell Don Imus can say racist things, he gets fired but then gets another job paying him tons of money. racism has been allowed in this country and i think the only good things that has come out of this is that people are having discussions about race. and if we want to unite this country we first have to have some very difficult discussions.
Really? Regardless of what those 2 or 3 minutes contain?
That an interesting standard. Are you willing to apply it universally?
…and Lisa, could you please explain Rev. Wright’s fierce opposition to all things white and “middle classs”?
I am a member of Trinity and have listened to Rev. Wright preach on many Sundays.
Did I misread the other thread? I thought your brother in law and sister were members and you were agnostic. Or is this a different Lisa? Maybe I misread.
Bullshit. Patent pure unadulterated bullshit. You would have us believe that they were lovin’ on their fellow man all the rest of the time, when they weren’t hatin’. Exactly how much hate is tolerable to you? FWIW, simply asserting that they were taken out of context does not make it so.
I would love a conversation on race. The Left needs it. They need to learn that opposing affirmative action is not racist. Opposing illegal immigration is not racist. Disagreeing with policies, like Baracky’s, is not racist. Pointing out objectivle anti-American statements and values is not racist. That would be a good conversation to have.
. racism has been allowed in this country and i think the only good things that has come out of this is that people are having discussions about race. and if we want to unite this country we first have to have some very difficult discussions.
Anyone that thinks we haven’t been having these discussions has not been paying attention. Race is a constant topic in the US.
Oh, it’s cousin Melvin and his wife that attend Trinity in the other thread. Maybe there are two Lisas here today.
Yes you misread as I am not the same Lisa who is agnostic.as for the other comments: I am not going to explain Rev. Wright’s fierce opposition of all things white and middle class. I am not Rev. Wright. but honestly there are a lot of people (not just black) who are tired of white privalege. Rob if i judged you on 2-3 minutes i might not like what i see and i doubt you would think 2-3 minutes would fully explain who you are and what you think about things. wouldn’t be fair.and in response to JD: dont’t know what what you mean when you say we were loving on our fellow man.do i agree with everything that comes out of rev. wright’s mouth? can’t say that i do because i don’t know EVERYTHING that comes out of his mouth. but i do know the man and his family and know that the way the public has characterized him is wrong and unfair.and again it shouldn’t matter what this man says. and what he thinks should have no bearing on barack obama. disgusting to me that he has to even address something that his pastor says. not like his paster is his running mate. again just shows how ridiculous this entire situation is.
“Anyone that thinks we haven’t been having these discussions has not been paying attention. Race is a constant topic in the US”
actually i have been paying attention because it’s my job to do so. i have to disagree with you to a point. people talk about race but only discuss the “surface issues” regarding race. and not everyone is talking about race and how that impacts poverty, education, health care, “food deserts” and financial literacy, community resources and employment (or lack thereof)
#28: Well, as pointed out previously (where and by whom I can’t place right now), we really haven’t been having a “conversation” on race. It’s been more a series of lectures and sermons, often heavy with condescension. The expectation for this approach has become so deeply ingrained that by this point, hearing “we need to have a conversation on race” leads the experienced listener to assume that what’s really meant is “we need to tie you to your chair this time to make sure you sit through the whole thing, and we’ll untie you when you agree with us.”
“Well, as pointed out previously (where and by whom I can’t place right now), we really haven’t been having a “conversation†on race. It’s been more a series of lectures and sermons, often heavy with condescension. The expectation for this approach has become so deeply ingrained that by this point, hearing “we need to have a conversation on race†leads the experienced listener to assume that what’s really meant is “we need to tie you to your chair this time to make sure you sit through the whole thing, and we’ll untie you when you agree with us.â€Â
i agree with you that we haven’t been having a real conversation on race. there have been condescending lectures from various sides on race and not a full discussion that invloves listening and openness, whether people walk away agreeing with each other or not. i could care less if people agree with me. i just think dialogue and debate is necessary in order to bring about change
people talk about race but only discuss the “surface issues†regarding race. and not everyone is talking about race and how that impacts poverty, education, health care, “food deserts†and financial literacy, community resources and employment (or lack thereof)
I disagree to some extent. I think people who have ideas other than the standard liberal ideas about how to deal with those problems are too often shouted down as racist.
I do agree about some of the discussion being about surface issues, and I’ll use Katrina as an example. Many many people have accepted the framing of that disaster as a racial issue. That should be rejected outright by everybody, but that would have been too much of a ‘difficult’ discussion about race. Even Obama didn’t explain what he meant when he mentioned “Katrina” in his speech.
I’m not sure the way I wrote #34 makes sense, but work with me here people.
Why are these discussion always described as difficult discussions that nobody wants to have? What is so difficult about being color blind or race neutral in all of your actions? Personally, I think less talk of, and less focus on race would be beneficial to all, seeing as how people are individuals, and should be judged as a person, rather than a member of an identity group.
Certainly — but if I spent those 2-3 minutes spouting horrible lies about another race, you’d certainly be justified in concluding I’m a racist.
No… just his “inspiration”, an adviser on his campaign, and a major source of his speeches and writings.
Remember, we’re not just electing a president — we’re electing an administration. The kind of people the candidate looks to for advice and guidance are valid topics of discussion.
And when you have a candidate who’s spent 20 years listening to a guy who’s apparently boiling over with hate…
Why are these discussion always described as difficult discussions that nobody wants to have? What is so difficult about being color blind or race neutral in all of your actions? Personally, I think less talk of, and less focus on race would be beneficial to all, seeing as how people are individuals, and should be judged as a person, rather than a member of an identity group.
Exactly.
Thanx, MayBee. I really want to know what is so difficult about these discussions that everyone thinks we must be having.
[…] to our Headlines item that author Amy Sullivan comes to Time mag from the Washington Monthly (see his post from March about her take on l’affaire Wright) and the piece itself follows hot on the heels of […]