Before I delve into my answer, let me be very clear that like so many others, I find the brief clips of Rev. Wright that have surfaced this week deeply troubling. I actually visited Trinity Church on a Sunday back in the early 1990s. And while the theology was different from my own church of the time, I found nothing at all offensive in what I heard that day.
However, I do feel that Rev. Wright went over the line in his overly personal discussion of Hillary Clinton in the one video clip. I also believe that, while the God of the Bible does talk about "blessing" and "curse" for the nations, surely Rev. Wright must have known that invoking "God Bless America," and contrasting it with damnation of any kind, was inviting a reaction so strong that many listeners would not be able to hear that central message. It shows questionable judgment on his part, in my opinion.
So, I can agree wholeheartedly with the criticisms, and rejection, of the short video clips currently making the rounds of the MSM.
Having offered that, back to the question: Why didn't Barack Obama just leave Trinity Church?
The very question presupposes a troubling assumption about contemporary American religious life. The assumption is that churches --even whole religions themselves-- are just one more consumerist item to be used and discarded on whim. Further, the question assumes that a person's relationship to a congregation is entirely dependent upon who the "preacher" of the church is.
More and more Americans operate under these assumptions. In fact, a new Pew Study, out just last month, finds that 44 percent of all Americans have either switched religious traditions, or abandoned them altogether during their adult life.
Although this is a new study, it's old news in the church world. For more than a decade ago now, many churches have seen themselves as a part of a "competitive market" for members. Churches realize that denominational loyalty is at an all time low, and that denominational names mean virtually nothing. So, many have stopped using their denomination's names. (We even do this at "Northaven Church")
In this environment, church leaders feel driven to "market" to potential members, and their ministry decisions are increasingly led by "what members want."
If members want "Christian Aerobics," offered three times a week....by God, some church somewhere will offer it!!
If members want a worship service on a Tuesday afternoon at 4 pm...by God, some church somewhere will offer that too!!
Whether you think this change is good or bad, it clearly is a move toward a more consumerist view of religion.
A Wal-Mart nation births "megachurches" that learn to set goals using the same corporate mindset.
So, it's into this environment that people ask "Why did Barack Obama stay?" As if "staying" at a church you have any disagreement with whatsoever is insane.
You wouldn't keep shopping at Wal-Mart if they didn't have the low price guarantee, would you?
I don't know why Barack Obama and his family was attracted to, and stayed at,Trinity Church. I have heard him say publicly that it was because he was impressed by the church's ministry to the local community. In fact, a visit to Trinity's website shows an impressive array of community ministries, dealing with real-life issues like addictions, cancer, poverty, etc.
It could be that Barack Obama decided long ago that the ministry and community-life of Trinity Church outweighed any ten second soundbites he heard now and then. I don't want to speak for him, since I don't know him personally. But it seems quite plausible.
Maybe Obama views his church as more than a consumer commodity. If so, then I commend him. And I personally wish more people would stop choosing churches the way they choose a shaving cream.
That same consumerist view is also being applied to how Americans view their pastors too. To hear many people talk, whether or not a person is comfortable with his or her pastor sometimes makes or breaks whether they stay tied to a specific church.
But, know what's funny about this? Study after study shows the exact opposite. Studies show something quite humbling for professional preachers like me. They show that Americans rate "the sermon" as a mere 5 percent of their total reason for visiting a church!!!
(Trust me, this is very humbling...)
Studies find that people choose churches because of the friendliness of the members, or the ministries of outreach, or the Sunday School program, or the music program, etc, etc etc... And these factors, it seems, are far more important to them than the sermon.
So, even though people are questioning how Obama could stay at a church when he disagreed with his pastor (and insinuating a lack of judgment on his part for doing so...) studies show that millions of Americans apparently do just that every day!
I have one more theory on this too. That theory is that how free a person feels to disagree with a pastor may depend upon the theological stance of the church. This is my own theory here...
More conservative churches --Bible churches, post-modern churches, etc-- often tend to put the pastor at the center of congregational life. The pastor's authority is central to the church itself. Sometimes, the pastor IS the church in the minds of the people. This could explain some of what we've been reading in blogs the past week. Conservative religious people find it much more difficult to disagree with a pastor, and still stay with a church.
So, in a real sense, although others are troubled by the idea that Obama might stay at a church where he disagreed with the pastor, I find this a reason for hope. I find that it might well mean that Obama has far deeper reasons to stay at that church....like his ties to the members, his daughter's ties to a particular ministry....or his love for Trinity's clear missional focus.
Again, I know nothing about Obama's reasons for staying. I am simply suggesting that it's quite plausible that he had good reasons, and that the question about leaving is built on a consumerist mentality that many Christians reject.
Having said all of the preceding, let me close by sharing a bit about my setting....
The church I pastor is a theologically progressive congregation in Dallas, Texas. Many of our members have been involved in the great social movements of the past 50 years. During Vietnam War, our pastor was one of the first to speak against it in our city. Our members were extremely involved in the Civil Rights movement. More recently, we have been involved in the struggle for the full inclusion of GLBT persons in the United Methodist Church. Some of our members assisted in the Camp Casey movement in Crawford, Texas several years back. And I myself have felt free to preach sermons against what I feel was an unjust war in Iraq from even before its beginning five years ago this week.
This does not mean that all our members have agreed with all that activism, or even with my own sermons in the current day. Some disagree with me. Others disagree with other members. I like to joke that our church has around 600 members, and around 650 opinions. (Some argue both sides just for the heck of it...)
Our members appreciate serious theological inquiry. Our members like a good sermon, and will tell me when they think they've heard one.
And! They will tell me when they feel they haven't heard one too! Members have written me members about my preaching style. They have written me letters when they feel I have crossed the line. Some have written, for example, to express concern about sermons I've preached on immigration....where I have called for a more open and accepting attitude toward immigrants. Others got tired of sermons about the war a few yeas back, especially during the first years of the war. (We lost one gay couple who said they simply could not abide what they believed to be sermons overly critical of the Bush Administration's policies in Iraq. That was one couple out of hundreds...)
When I preach on a controversial subject --especially if its the major thrust of a sermon that day-- I always try to remember to tell the congregation that they are more than free to disagree with me. I think they appreciate that. And I personally think it's heathy for all of us.
Throughout the years, and despite the overall progressive nature of the church (or, maybe because of it!), we've had a vocal minority of Republican members who sometimes disagree with my sermons, and often feel free to tell me so when they do. I have always appreciated this, appreciated the fact that they stay around, and find their continuing presence important helpful and vitally important.
We have Obama fans..Hillary fans...and John McCain fans in our church. And that is good.
One of our Republican members recently told my wife, "We really love the passion of Eric's sermons. I don't often agree with him, but I love the way he preaches."
It's nice to hear that they would stay even when they don't agree with me.
In sum: There are many reasons a person might choose a church, or choose to leave a church. Disagreeing with the pastor, and staying, may not show bad judgment at all. In fact, it just might show someone who is willing to listen views they disagree with, and stay "engaged" anyway.
And in all our faith communities, and in our national political life, that might be a good thing for all of us to have more of.
