Some time ago, in the comments to this post, I learned that Barack Obama's church had dropped its precepts. Or at least dropped what they said were their precepts. I meant to follow up on that, but never got around to it. But Steve Gilbert, of Sweetness & Light, has, and has posted both the original and the current "about" pages. In their about page, Trinity originally gave twelve concepts, and a ten point vision. They have eliminated the twelve concepts, which is not a trivial change. I think most Christians would agree with most of the ten points; I think almost all Christians would have trouble with some of the twelve precepts.
Were the changes made to help the Obama campaign? That's a reasonable suspicion. One way to check that possibility would be to see how long the twelve were posted on the church's site. If they had been up for a long time, it is more likely that they were removed in reaction to recent events. (I haven't done that, but may — unless someone beats me to it.)
Correction: I originally described the change incorrectly. I have re-written the post to make it clear that the twelve precepts were removed from the site, not replaced by ten new ones. Thanks to commenter Stuart Jenner for catching my careless mistake.
(The precepts aren't the only place where you can find recent changes.)
Sorry I had to close the post, but some of the comments got out of line. I removed five of them, and may remove some more, after I go for a walk.
To review, here's my rule of thumb: If you wouldn't say it in front of a naive kid, for instance, a 10 year old niece, then don't write it here. I want to keep this site family friendly. And reasonably civilized.
Posted by Jim Miller at March 17, 2008 01:08 PM | Email ThisThe truth baby, it hurts sometimes.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 17, 2008 01:15 PMHate and bigotry is alive and well on the left and clearly, folks can go too far.
This will eliminate any real hope of Obama ever getting elected President. And based on how much time Barry's spent on this, even he understands that.
Time for more popcorn!
Posted by: Hinton on March 17, 2008 01:28 PMRezko is the kicker.
Posted by: swatter on March 17, 2008 01:32 PMI'm especially disgusted by the "Disavowal of Middleclassness." Nevermind the obvious rhetorical abuse the English language by inventing divisive terms like Middleclassness. The concept is basically that if blacks simply view themselves as Americans, and get on with the values of productivity, success, etc. that they are wrong for doing so, and they will lose an entitlement to their blackness.
Absurd on so many levels. I know several middle class families in a multitude of colors who would heartily disagree with TUC precepts. These people have built their lives through hard work like the rest of us. They don't need to think of themselves as rooted in color instead of rooted in their ideas and values. And that is as it should be. Color is a side effect of geography in human migration. People should have no regard for skin color any more than hair color.
As long as racists like Sharpton, Wright, etc. are allowed to continue spewing their hate, they will lead a segment of black skinned people to define themselves first by their color. What a shame. The opposite of Dr. King's struggle to redefine all based on merit.
This is the end of the line for Obama. No worthwhile American is going to allow our President to be even loosely affiliated with such racist nonsense.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 17, 2008 01:37 PMHere is the Black Value System the church talks about.
I don't see anything in these that would label the church as "racist," nor do it indicate in any way that Reverend Wright is racist.
Could it possibly be that this whole controversay is over three sermons delivered over a lifetime? Come on now, if there was a racist trend, where is the ongoing evidence? It isn't like Rev. Wright is a johnny-come-lately. He has been a Chicago establishment for decades. His church is the largest in the UCC (according to them).
As I have stated in other posts, where is the whole text (or video) of the three questionable sermons/speeches? What is the context? The excerpts, while inflammatory, are not necessarily falsehoods. If Rev. Wright had gave the same sermons, but instead of stating "G-d the USA" stated that "G-d will hold the US accountable for its past actions," would this be just as inflammatory. That is the essence of his statement in this case. Can you say that the world looking at our support of dictators and rogues through the ages and not believe that these actions will eventually come home to roost is untrue?
Rev. Wright did most likely go over the line in his Hillary comment, because Hillary did fight for Civil Rights in the 60's.
Come on now. My feeling is that this is a big blow-up about a minor issue. What the press should really be focusing on is the economy, stupid, and holding all the politician's feet to the fire on what they plan to do. To come to the realization that if the Fed and JP Morgan had not come to the rescue of Stearns on Friday, we could have had a stock market meltdown on par with the Bank Crash that started the Depression. This is what the media should be focusing on.
Posted by: tc on March 17, 2008 01:50 PMWhat readers here are failing to understand is the context. It is analogous to the basic underlying theology of my church, Presbyterian USA, which is Calvinist in its theology. Within Christian circles, one of the main reasons for different denominations is the differences in theology. For example, within the Presbyterian Church, based on the Calvinist base, we allow for infant baptism. This is because the view is baptism represents God's action, not man's response, and the understanding in Acts that whole families (including infants) were baptised. This is contrary to the Baptist and many Armenian based denominations (including many of the pentecostal based religions) that do not believe in infant baptism.
Before readers go off spouting their ignorance, maybe, just maybe, they should study and learn about the Theology first. I know I never heard about this thread of theology before this debate and it sparks my interest to understand better where the Black community may be coming from. Whether Obama succeeds or not in his campaign, here is hoping that it at least brings to the front the lingering racial divide in this country and we start opening up and learning about each other. Let us forgo the worn out stereotypes and open our minds. I would be the first to admit that I had no clue what Black Theology was all about.
Posted by: tc on March 17, 2008 02:10 PMMay the wind at your back not be the result of the corned-beef and cabbage you had for lunch!
Make your Duff-beer a green one! :)
Posted by: Duffman on March 17, 2008 02:18 PM"Could it possibly be that this whole controversay is over three sermons delivered over a lifetime?"
Why is it they sell those sermons on DVD if they are so incosequential??
Posted by: pbj on March 17, 2008 02:19 PMand then an archived version of the About page from Jan 2007,
http://web.archive.org/web/20070810010327/http://www.tucc.org/about.htm
The Jan 2007 version has the 10 point vision, and in addition has the Black Value System on it. TC links to the Black Value System page in his post above.
The 10 points are word for word the same. They are:
1. A congregation committed to ADORATION.
2. A congregation preaching SALVATION.
3. A congregation actively seeking RECONCILIATION.
4. A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.
5. A congregation committed to BIBLICAL EDUCATION.
6. A congregation committed to CULTURAL EDUCATION.
7. A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA.
8. A congregation committed to LIBERATION.
9. A congregation committed to RESTORATION.
10. A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY.
Some of these terms can mean different things to different people.
Yes it is a little odd the About Us page changed sometime between Jan and Aug 2007 (the date of the last archive), but web sites do change.
I think the bigger question is what Mr Obama believes. I do think it is worth asking a lot of questions, both about what he agrees with and about how he has spoken up, or not spoken up, over the years about things the church states that he doesn't believe in.
Historically there has been a role for churches focused on particular ethnic groups, I bet if we looked at the web sites of a lot of Korean - American Churches, some might have a statement about "commitment to Korea" and how preserving the language and culture for their children is an important part of their mission. But I don't want to draw too close an analogy, I doubt any Korean - American pastors have blamed American for the Sept 11 attacks, or stated that the US caused AIDS.
Posted by: Stuart Jenner on March 17, 2008 02:21 PMStuart Jenner @12 states:
"...I doubt any Korean - American pastors have blamed American for the Sept 11 attacks, or stated that the US caused AIDS.
A point of clarification: Rev. Wright states that America's actions, not America itself, contributed to the 9/11 attacks. This is not incorrect. We did support dictators, especially in the Mideast (the Shah, Sadaam in the 80's, the Saudi princes, etc.).
As has been demonstrated elsewhere, there where white fundamentalist pastors that stated 9/11 was a result of America's behavior (e.g., blaiming homosexuals and abortionists).
As far as Wright's AIDs comment, here is a good analysis. Bottom line is Wright was incorrect, but may have been greatly influenced by the Tuskegee Syphillis experiments by the Military carried out on black men that came to light when he first really started his ministry (early 1970's).
Posted by: tc on March 17, 2008 02:57 PMI agree with your points. The United Church of Christ is not my denomination. The key point is what does Senator Obama believe because in a lot of strict interpretation religions there is the popular term "Cafeteria ______" meaning that the folks that go to that denomination pick and choose and some how make-up their own religion. Of course, that is not good theology, but that is what some folks do.
Now, before folks put too much butter on their popcorn. A couple of things:
1. The old theology points are believed by a lot of progressives. In fact, the French woman who won the Oscar thought that 9/11 was a conspiracy. Doesn't make it right, just means that there are folks who believe that.
2. The fight for the candidates who are the nominees is broadening the base. Many people believe that folks always vote FOR someone, not true, sometimes people vote AGAINST something. The question is can Senator Obama in tomorrow night's speech broaden his base and cast Senator Mc Cain as Mc Bush and trot out a parade of horribles making him the lesser of two evils.
In my mind, the good that has come out of this is the new statements of faith are closer to what most Christians believe and that is a good thing.
Posted by: WVH on March 17, 2008 03:00 PM++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Your reaching TC, really reaching.
If so, I renounce and reject the statement by Rev. Wright that AIDs was a curse on blacks originated by whites.
There. Does that satisfy you?
Posted by: tc on March 17, 2008 03:06 PMIt was STUPID to even use that. I could say that blacks were also doing slavery too. Sooooo
Care to take it from there.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 17, 2008 03:10 PMSo now anyone who doesn't vote for Obama is racist eh? IDIOT!
The only racist is Obama's pastor and Obama has a close relation ship with that man. Picking and choosing is like trying to say Hitler made the trains run on time so those few imperfections like killing the jew ought to be overlooked.
You know DAMNED well if this was awhit esupremecist any Republican candidate would have had to quit the race by now.
Given the fact Obama attracts other black speratists like Farrakahn, one has to wonder about him. After all, did Farrakhan ever endorse Condi Rice or Colin Powell? It appears only those that they feel share their black seperatist views are attracted to Obama.
Actually, this issue is extremely relevant for the following reasons. The first is Americans base their votes in part on values and ideology as much as on issues. How can one know a candidate's values and ideology? Well, they can read or listen to their campaign speeches. But surprise, sometimes candidates say things in order to get elected, not because they really believe it.
Or another way to know a candidate's values and ideology is to look at what groups they are a part of, what those groups stand for, and what the candidate has done or said when the group says something the candidate does not believe in. This is why looking at a group a person has been a member of for 20 years is a very good thing to do.
Now in Mr Obama's case, some of the messages delivered at Trinity Church seem to be contradictory to Mr Obama's message of reconciliation, of being able to bring people together, of being able to find common ground. This does not mean Mr Obama agrees with these messages.
But it does raise an interesting question: when you don't agree with something, do you speak up, or do you stay silent? Bill Clinton had his Sister Souljah moment, where he repudiated part of his "base." Now Mr Obama has his same opportunity. It will be very interesting to see how he handles it.
I want to be very careful about criticizing anyone's church. I will say there are many different ways to address concerns about racism. Trinity has one way. A somewhat different way is at Antioch Bible Church. I don't go there, but look at their web site, for example this:
http://www.abchurch.org/about-antioch/welcome.html
» a church for all people, of all cultures, races, backgrounds.
» a church where diversity of worship styles is the norm.
This is a very different message than one gets reading the web site of Trinity Church.
Posted by: Stuart Jenner on March 17, 2008 03:18 PMIn item 10 about economic parity we see the Democratic ethic that "Fair" means equal means for everyone regardless of whether one makes wise decisions on how to live one's life or destructive ones, whether one is productive or slothful etc.
Republicans see "Fair" to mean commesurate with one's effort, creativity, productivity and in line with making good decisions getting more reward.
In item 4, the committment to Africa rather than a committment to all the world,item 7 educating about the African people in diaspora, and item 6 on cultural education reflects Democratic identity politics rather than Republican politics of universal principles that cross racial gender ethnic and religious lines.
Notice that there is nothing about challenging everyone to reach the highest level of their God-given potential. That is a Republican value. Their item number nine about restoration is the Democratic value of looking back to some imagined ideal rather than forward to higher levels of achievement.
Whether these values seem right or wrong to you depends entirely one where you stand on political issues. Thus, it is hard to say they are universal, permanent truths that are keystones to a religion. They sound much more like political principles.
Posted by: KW64 on March 17, 2008 03:21 PMI presume that I am unfit for public office.
I wonder if we should look again at Chief Justice Rehnquist's opinions - tainted with his Lutheranism too.
Many churches, nowadays, sell their sermons on CD/DVD and it has nothing to do with profit. It has to do with taking the sermon home and listening to it again to learn from what was spoken. Here for example is my own church's information on sermons.
What I can say is that TUCC is a bit behind times. Many churches now are going to Podcasting for their sermons. They should get aboard.
Posted by: tc on March 17, 2008 03:49 PMThis sorry sack is even worse than any politician saying and doing whatever it takes to scam the American public. From Canada to Rezko to his church leanings (I am proud to be an American for the first time in my adult life, she says, probably says it all).
Rezko is enough for the scumbag to get censored by the US Senate. Is there any of you high-minded liberal types who will file the papers with the Ethics Committee? I thought not.
Sorry, WVH, but I am happy for my black friends who think his candidacy is a big deal (and it is) but I have no apologies for what I think of this human being who does not see the inherent greatness of the US of A.
Posted by: swatter on March 17, 2008 04:06 PMI agree with you. My first thought of the Rev. Wright was he was some kind of head case. But, I had to think about it. He was trying to establish a church in Chicago that was supposed to be a catalyst for the community. There are different ways of being a catalyst. Bishops TD Jakes and Eddie Long lean heavily on that old time religion and really don't make it Afro-centric as does Rev. Wright. I imagine Senator Obama got involved with that church the same way that many get involved with a faith community, it was prominent and it will help my aspirations. It was a springboard for his political ambitions in Chicago.
It is my understanding that Dr. Paul is from the Galveston area of Texas and there are many supporters of David Duke and others like him in that area. His acceptance of that support is as much building a base in his home base of operation as it is promoting the values of Duke.
The problem is that none of the pols really operates from a position of principle, no matter what is really truly in their heart. All of them operate from a position of convenience and that is really what gets one to the level of running for president in this country.
Posted by: cambridge9009@yahoo.com on March 17, 2008 04:07 PMI see nothing wrong with individuals having commitments to their families, working hard, or giving back to the community.
Just because it has the word Black in front of it does not make it racist. I see no messages of intolerance or messages stating that blacks are somehow superior to other races.
Do you think they pick the sermons MOST representative of the church's teachings to put out on DVD or the ones LEAST representative to put out on DVD?
C'mon. Stop trying to pull the wool over our eye here. This nut is a seperatists and Obama embraced him. Not just for a political convenience, he embraced him for 20 YEARS! If he now says he disagrees with this nut and never knew he thought like that, then what does that say about Obama's judgement?? It is questionable at best. Other things jive with his questionable judgement too, like saying he wants to have tea with our enemy (Iran) and bomb Pakistan (our ally).
The about page on his church's website states:
"We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community."
Now let's turn the tables and replace the word BLACK with WHITE:
We are a congregation which is Unashamedly white and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the white religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a white worship service and ministries which address the white Community.
Tell me that isn't racist! LIAR!
A racist is a racist is a racist. OOPS, forgot affirmative action. Different rules for different colors.
The Reverend Wright is a racist POS,
BarryO, his disciple for 22 yrs, is a POS,
Michelle O-cant stand the country that provided her a 300K salary after a 1M earmark, is a POS....
Bye Bye BO
Hello Hillary!!
Posted by: Hank on March 17, 2008 04:27 PMThis coming from a Republican makes it all the more likely right? The GOP still nominated Nixon in '68 and '72 despite being a crook and total scumbag. I think the precedent for looking past the candidates transgressions was set long ago by the GOP.
As for the rest of your diatribe, before you go making a fool out of yourself, maybe you should do some research on Black Theology. You are repeating Hannity's ill-spoken diatribe on the subject without really understanding the topic. Before the 60's Liberation Theology (i.e., Black Theology, Latin American Theology, etc.), White Theology was the only main theology taught in seminaries. It had not foresight or historical understanding of the black church in America. In the south, there still is a predominant "White-only" theology. Why do you think the white males in Northeastern Alabama voted for Hillary? Do you really think they would vote for her in the general? It was because they were voting against a black man. You go into the true Southern towns (not integrated towns like Atlanta), and you will see two sides of the track. You will see neat, well maintained private schools for the whites, and run-down public schools for the blacks and not-well off whites and other minorities. Visit the South, your eyes may be opened.
Posted by: tc on March 17, 2008 04:35 PMHow about you replace Black with Jewish or Catholic? Is that somehow less offensive because it's a religion and not a race?
I thought not.