Although the Reuters headline is “Views of Obama’s pastor reflect black U.S. tradition,” the report itself tells a far different story:
Estimates of how many black churches use this style of preaching vary but it might represent 25 percent, said Harry Jackson, pastor of the 3,000-member Hope Christian Church, a multiracial but mainly black church in Washington, D.C.
Many blacks would tolerate the views expressed by [the Rev. Jeremiah] Wright even if they did not agree with them, said Jackson, co-author of a book about personal faith and public policy.
But many black Christians who had chosen churches that eschewed the kind of language used by Wright would be shocked that Obama had stayed in the church so long and would question his judgment, said Jackson, who is neutral in the election.
Obama claimed in this week’s speech that he could no more disown Wright than he could disown the black community. That would appear to be incorrect factually, though it might well be true from the standpoint of Black Liberation Theology.
The other interesting part of the Reuters article is the selection of people used to defend or “explain” Wright’s approach. The first is Jim Wallis, who founded the Sojourners community and magazine. He has long been on record as hoping that “more Christians will come to view the world through Marxist eyes,” which is the central point of liberation theology. The second is Aaron Parker, pastor of the Zion Hill Baptist Church, an African-American church in Atlanta. Dr. Parker is not as well-known as Wallis, which caused me to wonder how he turned up as a quoted source in a wire service story. It could be due to the fact that Parker has endorsed Barack Obama — something Reuters did not disclose to its readers. Or perhaps someone at Reuters found an interview Parker did with Emory magazine, entitled “Q & A ‘We need extremists,'” including exchanges like this:
Q. What do you see as the role of the church in society today?
I believe the Christian church has a priestly role, which is serving people in need, and a prophetic role, which is analyzing society, declaring some of its ills, and pointing toward some possible solutions. By ills, I mean all of the typical ones: classism, racism, sexism.Q. Are there particular challenges faced by the black church?
That depends on what you mean by “the black church.†If you mean congregations that are predominately black calling for responses to issues that confront people in the African American community, perhaps these congregations, not individually but collectively, have to address family needs, social needs, economic needs as well as the traditional spiritual needs.
Parker may or may not be a liberation theologist, but his views are clearly sympatico.
(h/t happyfeet.)
Update: Allah-lanche!
“more Christians will come to view the world through Marxist eyes”
~isn’t the religion the opium for the masses?~K.Marx.
Marxists will be happy to ban or exile all the worshippers
[…] such that Obama could no sooner disown it than disown black America in its entirety? If you guessed 25%, you guessed […]
And they had us thinking Islam was the only nuts preaching hate.
Why can’t Barry just be Barry, he is who we thought he was.
Everyone making excuses for him, assuming they understand him. If he stayed there for 20 years, had his kids being brought up in that BLT idea and tradition, doesn’t seem to like his white grandma very much, he is a devoted member of that type of BLT thinking.
Yeah, seems kind of self-defeating, doesn’t it sasha?
Me, I’m all about viewing the world through bunny-eyes.
Ya know why this is all complete BS? Becasue our current president (and the current presumptive Republican nominee) counts as spiritual advisors those who say we deserved 9/11 and Katrina because of our liberal ways, that’s why. Aren’t those liberals Americans? So basically, our current conservative leaders have spiritual advisors whose love for America is contingent upon whether enough citizens subscribe to their political views. What patriots. I think we’re all Americans, so I think their views are tantamount to being anti-American ipso facto, not to mention theistically as repulsive as one can imagine and the very definition of extremist.
Maybe if there were even levels of scrutiny, this might not be BS. It might be a discussion about extremism in both parties. Since that’s not the case, and Obama has been called to account in a way that Bush or McCain have not, this is all a bunch of BS.
classism, racism, sexism.
Yeah, those are probably the worst evils in the western world. I can’t even count the number of times Jesus Christ preached against them.
You’re going to have to provide a link, Steve. The pastor of the church that President Bush has attended for 20 years said something like that?
Or are you talking about some kook like Robertson?
It strains credulity to think that Obama is seriously making the offer that White voters should allay their concerns and vote against their own interest for the promise of government run Health Care, increased educational budgets, and revenge on profitable Corporations.
I don’t think Obama is going to offer anymore in-depth speeches about race in America, regardless of what connections come to light in the future. Instead, we are left with the speech that he offered that outlined the threat that He (and based on Obama’s stated assumption, the Black Community) will put whatever failure he might encounter in his presidential bid squarely at the feet of White America, while simultaneously holding that the politics of racial grievances are legitimate.
If you don’t think that’s a hopeful message and outlook for America- well, you’re not listening!
“calling for responses to issues that confront people in the African American community, perhaps these congregations, not individually but collectively, have to address family needs, social needs, economic needs”
For the longest time I couldn’t figure out why so many African-Americans were on board with Margaret Sanger’s ‘Negro Project’, their preachers are advocating they do.
Steve is right. How can we hold Obama accountable for 20 years of clinging to this unapologetic asswipe, when we won’t hold Bush and McCain accountable for one flip comment by Falwell and Robertson, for which they both apologized? Racists!
P.s. Especially McCain, since he and Robertson/Falwell were so very close.
Steve is such a dork. He probably goes to his normal libtard sites and tells them how he put all the wingnuts in their places with his brilliant reparte. The comparison he makes is so lame as to be laughable.
This is the way the left operates. Republicans are held to a very high standard in terms of who they associate with, what supporters say, etc. For instance, even speaking at Bob Jones University is considered evil – that is to say, not supporting the university or attending the university, but merely going onto the university’s property and giving a speech. Despite all of the news stories about such things, and despite all the heated rhetoric by the left that is reported, and the apologies and distancing that takes place, the left claims that such issues are not “scrutinized”.
In contrast, where as here, a liberal / dem is caught with an intimate relationship (20-year friend, minister, mentor, advisor) with a vile person, the left says it doesn’t matter and besides, look at how terrible republicans are.
Steve is onto something…the urban Left has its own wing of the “Taliban,” too.
Kinda puts to rest that old saw about Republicans cornering the market on loony religious fundamentalism, doesn’t it? And just in time for the election.
-Hallelujah!
PS: What “color” is your church, Karl?
Rocky Road
Mine is the color of bunny-eyes.
“You’re going to have to provide a link, Steve. The pastor of the church that President Bush has attended for 20 years said something like that?”
No, no, no – much, much worse. He invited these extremists TO THE WHITE HOUSE for guidance.
“Steve is right. How can we hold Obama accountable for 20 years of clinging to this unapologetic asswipe, when we won’t hold Bush and McCain accountable for one flip comment by Falwell and Robertson, for which they both apologized? Racists!”
Again, after making the comments they were all invited to meet WITH THE PRESIDENT!. Astonishing, really.
AS I said, there could be a frank discussion about extremism if it were treated fairly. Since it isn’t, it’s a BS smear issue.
OMG!!! my father-in-law met with the Clintons! he’s got pictures to prove it! but we don’t hold it against him.
links?
“Steve is onto something…the urban Left has its own wing of the “Taliban,†too.”
If you mean Wright, I think you’re going a little far – as I would say also for Robertson, Fallwell and Hagee.
They’re all in the same boat as far aas I’m concerned, and what they’re saying is repugnant. Taliban’s prabaly a bit much though.
“OMG!!! my father-in-law met with the Clintons! he’s got pictures to prove it! but we don’t hold it against him.”
Look – as long as it’s treated fairly I don’t care. But the idea that pastors who claimed that America DESERVED 9/11 becasue of liberal casues has the president’s ear, that’s a big deal. (BTW, unless your dad’s the president – see where I’m going here? It makes a difference).
I think what Wright said was repugnant. But Obama disavowing his words w/o disowning him is no different than Bush disavowing Falwell, Robertson and HAgee’s words, then inviting them to the WH. No different at all. IF you want to have a discussion on extremism, that’s fine but this is all hypocritical bullshit.
Maggie – links of what? WHat are you questioning? Whether Robertson, HAgee and Falwell said these things? Whether they met with the PResident? Are you serious?
Hagee went to the White House? Robertson and Falwell were close advisors and friends? Bush had a close, personal relationship with all three men that lasted 20 years? One of them baptized his kids? The other married him and Laura?
Is Steve pretty unserious and lacking in critical thought?
Sadly, yes.
All this time I thought the role of the church was to preach the gospel of Jesus. Silly me!
I gotta say, beloml, for a bunch of Protestants they sure are obsessed with works.
well, steve you keep ignoring this bit:
and yes, I’m really not aware of Bush’s close personal relationship to either of them.
ugh, it ate my link…. http://tinyurl.com/2usvz2
“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, unless Caesar is some rich cracker who’s just gonna spend the coin keepin’ us down, in which case, eff that.”
Maggie – That close personal relationship exists because steve says so.
steve – you are being patently unserious today, even moreso than normal.
Fixed that for you, JD.
BJ – kthx. No need, bekuz steev ignorz me bkuz I cuss. Fucker.
I do think it’s worth mentioning how far afield this church we are discussing is from anything representing Christianity. Seriously, I know it is many clicks out from the mean and all… and I know it is a schism from a schism from a schism… but it doesn’t even kind of have anything I can see that even merely resembles the trunk of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch from whence it presumably has its origins. I know it’s been some time since Luther… but I don’t recognize a thing.
BLT kind of reminds me of kawanzit/kwanza… invented from thin air for teh feeliness of the feelings ‘an all.
The winning Super Bowl team gets to have a photo-op with the President, too, steve. Tell us what that means. Put it in context for us, o perspicacious one…
Obama is ‘The Ruins,’ solve my mystery. You chose.
“Again, after making the comments they were all invited to meet WITH THE PRESIDENT!. Astonishing, really.”
Yes, steve, this is the same thing as being the spiritual advisor for 20 years. The same thing. Plus, the fact that jedediah or jeremiah or asshole, whatever his name is, is far more divisive than the others. Especially for a guy trumpeting his ability to unite. Obama’s a charlatan. But he sure does talk pretty.
“But Obama disavowing his words w/o disowning him is no different than Bush disavowing Falwell, Robertson and HAgee’s words, then inviting them to the WH. No different at all”
Um, yes there is, steve. Maybe not to a partisan stooge. But, there is a world of difference.
No, no, no – much, much worse. He invited these extremists TO THE WHITE HOUSE for guidance.
steve, you really need to report to your neighborhood indoctrination center for a talking points upgrade, ’cause this one isn’t flying.
Sorry!
Link?
Thanks Karl,
My church is beige (I looked around for a mauve one, but it was hard to find).
Eschewing conflict, I’ll only join a pastel-colored church. Not sure about “black” ones or “yellow” ones. Or “white” ones.
I like off-colors, I guess.
Off-color churches?
Enoch_Root:
“I do think it’s worth mentioning how far afield this church we are discussing is from anything representing Christianity.”
about Dr. Aaron Parker.
“He has long been on record as hoping that “more Christians will come to view the world through Marxist eyes,†which is the central point of liberation theology.”
Actually, Enoch, Christianity, especially at it’s beginnings, was quite comfortable with Marxist economic theory. I refer, of course, to the Book of Acts, 4:32 – 5:11, Ananias and Sephira. NewLiving translation.
1. There is no doubt that they are practicing communism:”All the believers were of one heart and mind, and they felt that what they owned was not their own; they shared everything they had…There was no poverty among them, because people who owned land or houses sold them, and brought the money to the apostles to give to others in need.” From each according to his means, to each according to his need — Marx would have been proud to call them brother.
2. They had as close to an incorruptible body of rulers as possible, who were proving their uprightness with miracles every day.
3. And they had pretty close to the ultimate Auditor; when Ananais and Sephira try to cheat the system, Peter knows about it instantly, and the punishment is swift and sure: the cheaters are struck dead on the spot.
And yet there were still cheaters, the apostles couldn’t hold it together for very long, and none of the other churches outside Jerusalem seem to have even tried it. If the 12 Apostles backed up by God couldn’t make communism work, how in the h*ll would any lesser mortals have a shot?? ;-)
Where the Apostles (and Christ) would have departed from the typical Leftard of today was the idea that the government should be forcing you to be charitable at the point of a sword or an M16. They well understood that unless the charity was voluntary, it wasn’t and isn’t charity. Remember, Ananais and Sephira weren’t struck down just because they didn’t contribute, they were struck down for entering into a voluntary agreement with God and his Apostles, and then reneging on it.