A Pilgrim’s Digression

So this weekend, Barack Obama left his church, Trinity United Church of Christ. I’m not surprised. Indeed Friday, after my wife and I listened to the excerpts from Father Pflager’s vicious diatribe against Hillary Clinton, I told her, “He has no choice now. He has to leave that church.”

And I consider myself a bit late to the party on that one. Most observers probably knew it was coming long ago. Too bad Obama was as late as myself in reaching that conclusion.

I don’t know that his leaving the church was either soon enough, or good enough, though. Certainly it wasn’t soon enough or good enough for the likes of Hannity and Limbaugh. They aren’t going to let it go; their listeners, who made up their minds about Obama long ago, aren’t going to let it go. The question is, is it soon enough or good enough for those who haven’t completely made up their minds about Obama?

My wife, who has been a Hillary supporter throughout this campaign, was at first pleased that Obama had left his church; but then she heard his measured and calm statement about why he was leaving, and she said, “I guess that’s a good thing,” in an uncertain way.

Yes, he left his church; no, he did not denounce it. Indeed he refused to denounce it. “I’m not denouncing the church, and I’m not interested in people who want me to denounce the church. It’s not a church worthy of denouncing.”

Maybe it isn’t worthy of denouncing, but such a denunciation is what millions of Americans want and need to hear from Obama. It isn’t so much that a guest speaker came into the pulpit and delivered a racially-charged and mocking political speech instead of a homily or sermon, but that the parishioners apparently ate it up. Those men behind Father Pflager look like they couldn’t be having more fun, one of them even jumping out of his seat to clap as the Father really gets wound up.

Part of the problem, as I see it, is that Trinity is a megachurch, and a megachurch of any denomination does not reflect what we might call the “milquetoast” Christianity that most of us experience and practice on Sunday. The preachers in these churches are presented live to the world, as Father Pfleger acknowledged in his comment about the “live streaming” of his sermon. People in front of a camera always, always perform. They are actors, first and foremost.

Yet for better or worse, whether because he genuinely feels a kinship with the church, or whether he chose the church for political reasons, this is the church Obama has attended for 20 years. A lot of people don’t like it. Me, it doesn’t affect me one way or the other. I’ve said many times I don’t hold Obama responsible for what goes on in his church. But for many Americans it does matter.

As an Obama supporter myself, I think what frustrates me about the man is how he gives with one hand, and takes away with the other. He leaves his church, but refuses to denounce it. He denounces Rev. Wright’s ideas, but refuses to denounce the man…then later has to denounce the man, too, but does so in such a calm, pained way that it hardly seems like a denunciation.

There is a stubborn streak in Barack Obama that would make George W. Bush quite proud. Obama does not admit to mistakes in judgment, and when he does, he either couches the admission in altruism (”These controversies have served as an unfortunate distraction for other Trinity members who seek to worship in peace…”) or stubbornly refuses to go all in and fully apologize.

I am struck by how this whole church controversy could have been easily defused months ago by Obama simply saying, “I was wrong to remain in this church for 20 years. It was a mistake in judgment. I’ve decided it is past time my family and I looked for another church that better suits our beliefs and values.”

I’m sure that as the controversy heated up, Obama and his aides were weighing the pros and cons of dropping out of the church. Or maybe it was entirely a personal decision and no one ever advised him on the subject, one way or the other. Whoever was involved in the decision-making, Obama miscalculated the depth of harm these stories were doing to him.

I’d say the harm has been almost as grave as the Swift Boat controversy of 2004–and this was a campaign supposedly dedicated to never allowing another Swift Boat-like negative campaign go unanswered, ever again.

However the difference between 2004 and 2008 is that the Swift Boating came much earlier this year, thus giving lots of time for water to pass under the bridge before November. Yet if Barack Obama begins campaigning like John Kerry, fatally blind to the damage being done to him behind the scenes, 2008 could still be like 2004. Conservative commentators and the horde of 527 political action groups that will campaign under the radar against Obama are like termites eating at the foundation of the Democrat’s campaign. They can’t be eradicated, but Obama can take away much of their food supply by campaigning in such a way that their vitriol is neutralized before it has time to poison the well against him.

I think Jacques Berlinerbrau, at the Washington Post “On faith” blog has some good ideas for Obama. What better way to capitalize on the Trinity UCC disaster than to begin a public journey to find a new church?

As congressman Ben “Cooter” Jones said last night on Hannity and Colmes, at least Obama goes to church, which is more than can be said for a lot of Americans. it’s time for Obama to turn a political liability into a political triumph.