Separation of church and race
Yesterday Richard Cohen of the Washington Post opined on Obama’s church and its relationship to Louis Farrakhan.
Because of an overzealous e-mail from an overly conservative friend last week, I’ve already spent some time on the website of Trinity United Church of Christ.
On their “About Us” page, they first and foremost define themselves as “Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian.” I take issue with this on two levels; 1) nothing about the make-up or character of a congregation should ever take precedence to them being Christians and 2) God never calls for race to be taken into account within the church and it should be the last place we’re emphasizing race.
This connection to Louis Farrakhan is a further example of what I found to be a troubling focus at TUCC on being black rather than Christian, on standing up first for the needs and wants of a black community and seond, if there’s time, for the message of Christ.
I have heard the argument that since racism is about power, the only Americans who can actually be racist are the white majority. If Farrakhan - and those who support him and his message - does not qualify as racist, then what is he? Does it matter at all that Obama has such strong ties to this church and this pastor? How much MORE [and let's not pretend it wouldn't matter in a much bigger way] would it matter if he were white and a Republican who had strong ties to a church that was giving awards to, say, a prominent and openly hateful Zionist?
Finally, if this connection blows up in the press, will Obama’s “nonthreatening black man” status be in danger?
Comment by Augur on 16 January 2008 at 10:33 am:
Brenda, what nonsense. What an irrational leap to say that “We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian” means their race “takes precedence” to their faith in God.
This church serves a community and has an emphasis on raising money for and giving aid to struggling people in Africa. A website emphasizing that distinction may serve to help members of the public determine which church is a better fit for them, but it does not imply their identity as blacks is more important to the church or its members than their identity as Christians.
Comment by tet on 16 January 2008 at 11:47 am:
Yeah, but, Augur, I’ve talked in here time and again about what happens to Christian (or any other religion’s) congregations that become involved in politics.
Invariably, the congregation is corrupted by the politics, since government is the purview of the “Prince of This World.” After all, the Devil couldn’t have tempted Jesus with all the kingdoms of the world if he didn’t own them, now, could he?
It’s the same reason that I object to Huckabee wanting to amend the Constitution to put it in line with “God’s Law.” Trying to make government Godly is like trying to make a pig sing. It ultimately fails and it pisses off the pig.
A racist is a person who believes that being born a member of one race makes one a superior person to someone born a member of another–that’s it, plain and simple.
Tom Trumpinski
Comment by Brenda Kay on 16 January 2008 at 12:19 pm:
If it’s not taking precedence than they shouldn’t present it that way. It’s not arbitrary; they chose to present themselves first as black, then as Christians. I applaud TCUU’s commitment to supporting people in Africa, but why should it matter what color you are if you want to support Africa in the name of Christ?
As for helping members of the public determine what church is best for them, a website like this is just as likely to discourage non-black congregants from attending than to encourage black congregants to attend. How is an Asian person supposed to be “Unashamedly Black”? I guess it’s not enough to gather in the name of Christ alone.
Like I said, when I first looked into the church I had some misgivings, but the relationship with Farrkahan - which, Auger, you completely ignored - takes it a significant step further. Pause for a moment in your worshipful adoration of Obama and consider the implications. If nothing else, admit that many people would find this connection troubling, even if somehow you don’t.
Tom, the Devil also tempted Christ with food. The Devil doesn’t own all governments anymore than he owns all food. Likewise, it is possible to use the government - neither inherently good or evil - to advance God’s justice, just as it is possible to use food to advance God’s justice, by doing something as simple as feeding the hungry. I don’t deny the dangers to both sides if this is done incorrectly, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be done correctly.
Comment by Brian on 16 January 2008 at 12:42 pm:
Brenda,
Do you think it’s at all irresponsible that you didn’t in some way note that Obama has commented on this and said he disagrees with the ties to Farrakhan and condemns Farrakhan as an anti-Semite and a nut?
More importantly, do you really feel comfortable introducing questions as regards the specific beliefs advanced by particular churches that candidates belong to, or even the particular beliefs of particular ministers at particular churches? I assure you that Obama’s church isn’t the only one that will appear kind of crazy if we start doing that. But there are good reasons we don’t. Maybe if you had some argument to show that Obama has a record of agreeing with this church’s particular crazy stances on things and attempting to carry them out in the public policy he is advancing, you would be raising a valid concern. But you’re not.
Comment by Brenda Kay on 16 January 2008 at 1:17 pm:
Brian - I didn’t do any research beyond the article I posted - which DID quote an Obama adviser who said Obama disagreed with Wright on Farrakhan - and looking at the church website. For the purposes of this forum, no, I don’t think that’s irresponsible.
And perhaps I should have left out my concerns with where being black fits into being a Christian out, but I wanted to include why I was already feeling uneasy about this church before the Farrakhan matter.
Maybe you don’t think it’s at all relevant to Obama’s character or candidacy that the man he calls his spiritual adviser heaped such strong praise on Farrakhan. That’s absolutely fair, and I’m not saying it necessarily changed my view of him either.
I was equally interested in how people thought this would affect peoples’ perceptions of Obama. As to asking questions about specific beliefs - Romney got plenty of grief about being a Mormon [specifics, too] and I recall Huckabee being asked at a debate to explain his denomination’s position on women in church office. Maybe it’s not fair, but that doesn’t mean people don’t care or don’t take it into account.
Comment by augur on 16 January 2008 at 1:28 pm:
just because the introduction has the two factors in a given sequence doesn’t mean the first one is primary in the hearts of members of the congregation. That’s a really stupid argument.
Comment by Brian on 16 January 2008 at 4:43 pm:
Brenda,
I would put it this way. It’s not that a church’s beliefs or doctrines or stances on issues can never be relevant to whether a candidate is worthy of public office, it’s just that it’s a really good idea to err on the side of respecting a candidate’s private beliefs as private and to not raise concerns about those beliefs unless you’ve got a fairly good reason. It’s in the interest of both the church and the state that this be so, but even more importantly it’s in the interest of a civil society that doesn’t want to start unraveling along religious lines.
I think some of the questions asked of Mitt Romney’s Mormonism are fair. It is, for example, easy to imagine how it could be relevant as to what Romney’s feelings were regarding the fact that his church for many years - years which stretched into Romney’s adulthood - practiced policies of racial exclusion. But when Romney answers those questions in a way that makes clear he did not approve of those policies and was happy the day those policies were repealed, the matter should be dropped and Romney should be given the benefit of the doubt. Likewise, when Joe Lieberman was named Al Gore’s nominee for Vice President, it was fair to ask whether Judaism’s prohibition against working on the Sabbath could interfere with Lieberman’s ability to handle a national security crisis or the like. But once Lieberman makes clear that voters need not worry in this regard, the issue should be dropped.
But I think it’s essential that we neither speculate as to the candidate’s views on these matters before we know them nor raise questions as to these matters after the candidate has made it clear his views are no cause for concern. That was the case with Romney, it was the case with Lieberman, and it’s the case with Obama now. Huckabee’s a more complicated subject since he makes a point of introducing his religion into the debate, raising some questions which are at least a valid topic of discussion if not a real cause for concern. But we should always be wary as we discuss these things and, I think, restrain ourselves if we don’t see a good reason not to.
Comment by Hanno on 16 January 2008 at 6:12 pm:
“
Tom, the Devil also tempted Christ with food. The Devil doesn’t own all governments anymore than he owns all food. Likewise, it is possible to use the government - neither inherently good or evil - to advance God’s justice, just as it is possible to use food to advance God’s justice, by doing something as simple as feeding the hungry. I don’t deny the dangers to both sides if this is done incorrectly, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be done correctly.”
Wow. The gauntlet is down. Niiice…
Comment by Colin on 18 January 2008 at 12:03 am:
Brenda,
There is a great deal of history behind the formation of the institutions collectively called the black church. Take for instance the usage of “the black church” in this article:
http://dickinsg.intrasun.tcnj.edu/diaspora/church.html
I’m not going to argue about whether or not a church has religious justification to ‘put their race first.’ What I will say however is that the historical justification for emphasizing race is clearly there.
Rereading your post I also sense that there is an assumption that we shouldn’t talk about race. This lack of discussion is part of the “colorblind racism” that this country suffers from. As white folks, we (I’m assuming you are white) absolutely MUST talk about how our system of institutionalized hierarchy has given white, upper-class, heterosexual men elite postions.
For a deeper explanation of colorblind racism please look here:
http://www.alternet.org/story/16792/