Barack Obama, along Oprah Winfrey and many other Chicacagoans, belongs to Trinity United Church of Chirst. The church follows black liberation theology. "Liberation theology is a school of theology that focuses on Jesus Christ as not only the Redeemer but also the Liberator of the Oppressed. It emphasizes the Christian mission to bring justice to the poor and oppressed, particularly through political activism."Wikipedia

Kevin Considine, graduate student at Catholic Theological Union, comments on Obama's church for religionandspirituality.com :
"Recently the Illinois Democrat has been criticized for something that should be a positive: his church affiliation. No, not because he attends church. And not because he's being honest about rooting his politics in his faith.

No, he's taking flak because his church, Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, has linked traditional Christian faith to black empowerment and combating "middle-classness." What this means is that the church's theology preaches a foundation of loving God and loving one's neighbor by attempting to apply these tenets to real life in the community. So, the church champions ideals such as the black family, racial justice and a materially humble lifestyle as ways to live out discipleship to Christ.

To be honest, I'm not sure how this is a problem. But the revelation that an African-American family is attending a vigorous and socially conscious black church is apparently a touchy subject. One could, ahem, speculate about the motives behind such touchiness. But let it suffice to say that Sen. Obama's church affiliation has raised some hackles.

For example, Fox News pundit Sean Hannity has suggested that the church is divisive and borders on being a separatist cult. And MSNBC talking head Tucker Carlson has claimed that Obama's church proclaims a "racially exclusive theology" that seems to "contradict the basic tenets of Christianity." This is because, in Mr. Carlson's opinion, Christianity is explicitly "anti-racial."

Right. As if Christianity is far off in another dimension and completely divorced from the messiness of everyday life. As if holiness and righteousness are possible without confronting the evils that exist in our midst.

Exactly what tenets of Christianity can a church that describes itself as "unapologetically Christian" be contradicting? They seem to be doing just fine with Jesus' command to love the Lord your God and love your neighbor. And they seem to truly embrace the demand for social justice that has deep roots in Scripture. Their dedication to the gospel may be challenging to many of us, and that's a good thing, but it's disingenuous to call them divisive and separatist when they clearly focus on God as revealed through Jesus.

And if by "anti-racial" Mr. Carlson means that there isn't a clearly mandated Christian response to racism because it isn't a current problem, then he's deluding himself. The problem persists, and thus racial reconciliation and justice are indeed Christian mandates. They go part and parcel with following Christ.

Having said that, I think that the critiques of Trinity Church of Christ reveal more about us as a country than about Sen. Obama or his critics. It shows that there are some versions of Christianity that make us comfortable and some that don't.

If a church's theology preaches Jesus through self-reliance, personal morality, building wealth and colorblindness, then we don't have much problem with it. But if a church's theology talks about community building, personal and social responsibility, the sin of materialism and black empowerment or racial reconciliation, then we become uncomfortable.

This difference is similar to what theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer called the distinction between cheap grace and costly grace. Cheap grace is what makes us comfortable, because it doesn't ask much of us. Costly grace, however, challenges us to be Christ-like by sacrificing and taking up our cross. It asks us to risk our comfort and get our hands dirty in the real world. If there's any confusion between the two, it's safe to say that Jesus' call and gift is that of costly grace.

This is the grace that Sen. Obama's church seems to proclaim. For they're not out there preaching the gospel of health and wealth. That is, they don't theologize that the God of Jesus Christ is some great ATM machine in the sky that will provide goods to consume. Instead, they're dedicated to loving God, serving others, nurturing the souls of its congregants and bridging the divide between the poor, middle and upper classes within their church community. In short, they're interested in authentic witness to the Gospel within a specific context.

If this makes some uncomfortable, so be it. At least they're following Jesus in a way that aims for righteous transformation of the real world rather than a pie-in-the-sky kind of way.

Now I'm not saying that Sen. Obama is a victim here. Nor am I trying to get votes for him, although I must admit that I've sent a few bucks to his campaign. And I'm not saying he's a saint, either. Heck, I don't even know the man.

My point is simple. I'm sure there are many ways that the media can criticize Sen. Obama's candidacy. But his church is not a liability. And they should be ashamed for trying to make it seem like one. "
Link

David Brody, a Christain Broadcast News correspondent, visited Obama's church:

"When I was out in Illinois covering Obama’s big presidential announcement in Springfield, our CBN crew went to Chicago and asked to shoot video inside the Church. A week before, I had put in multiple requests but I received no response. So on Sunday we walked into the Church and asked if we could film.After waiting about 15 minutes or so, they agreed and we started to videotape. After 20 minutes or so of videotaping, the Church said they meant still photography not video. There seemed to be a little miscommunication here. We immediately stopped filming. We ended up using still shots from the video that we had in our possession. I desperately tried to convince them to let us use the video but they said no.

During my time inside their service, it seemed pretty normal to me. The worship was very charismatic, the music was up-tempo and the people seemed like they were really into it. I didn’t hear the preacher speak, so clearly that is extremely important. I can’t speak to that. But the people we dealt with were extremely nice. " Link

From State Of The Qusan, referring to Hannity's coverage on FNC of Obama's church:
"I don't know where they got this kneegro to go on TV and spew this BS but, being from Chicago, I've been to Trinity United Church of Christ. Many of my friends are members. Oprah Winfrey was once a member. It's a typical black church, albeit it has many affluent members, and I cannot believe that anyone would stoop this low. It's just disgusting!"Mission Statement of Church:
Trinity United Church of Christ has been called by God to be a congregation that is not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ and that does not apologize for its African roots! As a congregation of baptized believers, we are called to be agents of liberation not only for the oppressed, but for all of God’s family. We, as a church family, acknowledge, that we will, building on this affirmation of "who we are" and "whose we are," call men, women, boys and girls to the liberating love of Jesus Christ, inviting them to become a part of the church universal, responding to Jesus’ command that we go into all the world and make disciples!

We are called out to be "a chosen people" that pays no attention to socio-economic or educational backgrounds. We are made up of the highly educated and the uneducated. Our congregation is a combination of the haves and the have-nots; the economicallydisadvantaged, the under-class, the unemployed and the employable.
The fortunate who are among us combine forces with the less fortunate to become agents of change for God who is not pleased with America’s economic mal-distribution! W.E.B. DuBois indicated that the problem in the 20th century was going to be the problem of the color line. He was absolutely correct. Our job as servants of God is to address that problem and eradicate it in the name of Him who came for the whole world by calling all men, women, boys and girls to Christ."Link

Pastor Jeremiah Wright:
"Black theology is one of the many theologies in the Americas that became popular during the liberation theology movement. They include Hispanic theology, Native American theology, Asian theology and Womanist theology.

"We were always seen as objects. When we started defining ourselves, it scared those who try to control others by naming them and defining them for them; Oppressors do not like “others” defining themselves."

"African-centered thought, unlike Eurocentrism, does not assume superiority and look at everyone else as being inferior.

"There is more than one center from which to view the world. In the words of Dr. Janice Hale, “Difference does not mean deficience. It is from this vantage point that Black liberation theology speaks. "
Link

Barack Obama:
"If I say to anybody in Iowa -- white, black, Hispanic or Asian -- that my church believes in the African-American community strengthening families or adhering to the black work ethic or being committed to self-discipline and self-respect and not forgetting where you came from, I don't think that's something anybody would object to. ... I think I'd get a few amens."
Link

As for the claim the church is more loyal to Africa than America, "while the Trinity website contains a "10-point Vision" that calls for its congregation to make "a non-negotiable commitment to Africa," there is no statement on the website that such a commitment supersedes a parishioner's commitment to the United States. Moreover, a fact sheet on the White House website is titled "The U.S. Commitment To Africa's Growth And Prosperity," and the Bush White House has reaffirmed its "commitment to Africa" as recently as 2005." (Media Matters)

Some have claimed Obama's church is similar to Nation of Islam. In fact, Obama's church seeks to draw blacks away from the Nation of Islam.

“On a Sunday morning two weeks before he launches his presidential campaign, Obama is at Trinity United Church of Christ on the South Side, gently swaying from side to side under a giant iron cross. From the outside, the church looks more like a fortress than a house of worship, with high whitewashed brick walls topped with security cameras. Inside, Trinity is the sort of African American community that the young Obama longed to connect with when he first came to Chicago. The church’s motto is “unashamedly black and unapologetically Christian,” and sunlight streams through stained glass windows depicting the life of a black Jesus. The Reverend Doctor Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., Trinity’s pastor since 1972, flies a red, black, and green flag near his altar and often preaches in a dashiki. He has spent decades writing about the African roots of Christianity, partly as a way to convince young blacks tempted by Islam that Christianity is not “a white man’s religion.”
TNR Article (http://www.tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20070319&s=lizza031907)

In the Audacity of Hope, Obama devotes two chapters, 74 pages, to faith and race. Here’s a response by the conservative Edward Blum:

“Although he has been a vocal supporter of racial preferences in the past, Obama begins to suggest a different policy direction in The Audacity of Hope. Race-based affirmative action policies, he recognizes, have polarized the races, while race-neutral or universal programs unite them. Rightly or wrongly, white guilt has largely exhausted itself in America; even the most fair-minded whites tend to push back against suggestions of racial victimization–or race-specific claims based on the history of race discrimination in this country. During his first trip to New York as a young man, he writes, he began to grasp the almost mathematical precision with which America’s race and class problems joined. Advocates of class-based or race-neutral affirmative action have been around a long time–even then-governor George W. Bush supported need-based government contracting set-asides, as did many congressional Republicans in the 1990s. But, for the most part, no recent Democratic presidential aspirant has been as bold as Obama in discussing the problems with race-based affirmative action: An emphasis on universal, as opposed to race-specific, programs isn’t just good policy; it’s also good politics. Beneath this extraordinary statement, coming as it does from a black, Democratic, presidential aspirant, lies a massive iceberg capable of transforming the nation’s racial policies–if he has the courage to pursue it. Obama is correct about the political implications–it is beyond debate that ending race-specific programs is good politics. Given the chance, the overwhelming majority of whites want to end race-based affirmative action as was evidenced last November when Michigan voters passed the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative by a 16-point margin. Ward Connerly and Jennifer Gratz, the organizers of the Michigan voter initiative, have announced plans to organize similar initiatives on Election Day in 2008 in as many as nine states, including the swing states of Missouri, Colorado, and Arizona. It is unlikely this has escaped the attention of campaign strategists in either party. This presents Barack Obama with unique opportunity. Having campaigned against the passage of the Michigan initiative, can he chart a new path now that he is running for president? And, having admitted he attended Harvard Law School because of affirmative action, can he now say the time has come to try something different? To both questions, the answer is Yes. First, he is on record in his enthusiasm for universal preference policies, so advocating for race-neutral affirmative action is a short leap for him to make politically. Second, just because he was admitted to a prestigious school because of racial preferences does not mean his two young daughters should be as well. After all, it is unreasonable for him to argue that in 2007 his daughters should have the bar lowered for them, while the daughters of a white working-class family should not. A pro-civil rights Democrat doesn’t become complicit in an anti-civil-rights agenda because he or she questions the efficacy of certain affirmative action programs, he wrote shortly before the last election. So, like Nixon’s overture to China, it may fall to a liberal, black Democrat like Barack Obama to question the wisdom of our current race-based affirmative-action polices and map a new course. Let’s hope he does.”
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.,pubID.25605/pub_detail.asp

So when is he for affirmative action programs?
“Affirmative action programs, when properly structured, can open up opportunities otherwise closed to qualified minority candidates without diminishing opportunities for white students. Given a dearth of black and Latino Ph.D. candidates in mathematics and the physical sciences, for example, a modest scholarship program for minorities interested in getting advanced degrees in these fields (a recent target of a Department of Justice inquiry) won’t keep white students out of such programs, but can broaden the pool of talent that America will need for all of us to prosper in a technology-based economy. Moreover, as a lawyer who’s worked on civil rights cases, I can say that where there’s strong evidence of prolonged and systematic discrimination by large corporations, trade unions, or branches of municipal government, goals and timetables for minority hiring may be the only meaningful remedy possible. Many Americans disagree with me on this as a matter of principle, arguing that our institutions should never take race into account, even if it is to help victims of past discrimination. Fair enough—I understand their arguments and don’t expect the debate to be settled anytime soon. But that shouldn’t stop us form at least making sure that when two equally qualified people—one minority and one white—apply for a job, house, or loan, and the white person is consistently preferred, then the government, through prosecutors and through the courts, should step in to make things right.” (244)
“Although government action can help change behavior…a transformation in attitudes has to begin in the home, and in neighborhoods, and in places of worship. Community-based institutions, particularly the historically black church, have to help families reinvigorate in young people a reverence for educational achievement, encourage healthier lifestyles, and reengergize traditional social norms surrounding the joys and obligations of fatherhood” (245) “the most important tool to close the gap between minority and white workers may have little to do with race at all. These days, what ails working-class and middle-class blacks and Latinos is not fundamentally different from what ails their white counterparts: downsizing, outsourcing, automation, wage stagnation, the dismantling of employer-based health-care and pension plans, and schools that fail to teach young people the skills they need to compete in a global economy. ” (245)
“An emphasis on universal, as opposed to race-specific, programs isn’t just good policy, it’s also good politics. . . white guilt has largely exhausted itself in America; even the most fair-minded of whites, those who would genuinely like to see racial inequality ended and poverty relieved, tend to push back against suggestions of racial victimization–or race-specific claims based on the history of race discrimination in this country.” (247)

To assert or to imply that Barack Obama, who is half-white, who was raised by a white mother and two white grandparents, is anything close to a black supremacist is ridiculous. No matter what your view is of the church, whose mission statement says, “As a congregation of baptized believers, we are called to be agents of liberation not only for the oppressed, but for all of God’s family.” There is absolutely no evidence that Barack Obama is a racist.

Furthermore, Some have called for Obama to apologize. There is no reason to apologize or condemn a church because someone else interprets their pastor or values as black supremacist. He clearly interprets black values as a way to spur positive social change.

From his Call to Renewal Address:
“It wasn’t until after college, when I went to Chicago to work as a community organizer for a group of Christian churches, that I confronted my own spiritual dilemma. I was working with churches, and the Christians who I worked with recognized themselves in me. They saw that I knew their Book and that I shared their values and sang their songs. But they sensed that a part of me that remained removed, detached, that I was an observer in their midst. And in time, I came to realize that something was missing as well — that without a vessel for my beliefs, without a commitment to a particular community of faith, at some level I would always remain apart, and alone. And if it weren’t for the particular attributes of the historically black church, I may have accepted this fate. But as the months passed in Chicago, I found myself drawn - not just to work with the church, but to be in the church. For one thing, I believed and still believe in the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change, a power made real by some of the leaders here today. Because of its past, the black church understands in an intimate way the Biblical call to feed the hungry and cloth the naked and challenge powers and principalities. And in its historical struggles for freedom and the rights of man, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world. As a source of hope. And perhaps it was out of this intimate knowledge of hardship — the grounding of faith in struggle — that the church offered me a second insight, one that I think is important to emphasize today.”
http://www.barackobama.com/2006/06/28/call_to_renewal_keynote_address. php

Obama’s pastor may be his spiritual mentor, but Obama doesn’t blindly follow all of the pastors views. While his pastor passionately opposes many of the actions of Israel, Obama just called for support of Israel.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/mar/02/text_of_the_obama_ speech_at_aipac_today

Obama’s views clearly differ from those of his pastor. It’s not necessary for Obama to publicly acknowledge that his views differ. It’s reasonable to assume his views are in fact his views.
Interview of the Pastor
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week1028/interview.html ” Someone just asked me … about mentoring Barack and I said, you know, Barrack came here like he is now. ” “His position across the years has been I know who I am, I know what I believe, but I don’t disrespect you or diminish you because you have a different belief, and we don’t have to believe the same thing to get along and to build a better world — that we can coexist. That he happens to believe that Shiites and Sunnis and Orthodox Jews and Conservative Jews and Catholics and Protestants can all live in the same neighborhood and have their kids go to school together without fighting and killing each other. That doesn’t we stop praying at home or stop going to church or teach our kids our faith. ”

Obama’s work with a rabbi:
http://www.tikkun.org/rabbi_lerner/news_item.2006-07-02.3949597607

Obama’s support of Israel:
http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=17348