The internet and Trinity UCC

By Jason Byassee

The email threads started coming in after the Iowa Caucus. “Barack Obama is a secret Muslim, ready to destroy the country if elected.” “Obama refuses to cover his heart for the pledge of allegiance.” These and other charges surfaced early in 2007, when it became clear Barack Obama would be a serious contender for the Democratic nomination; and each charge was quickly refuted. But they reemerge occasionally, because they conflate two primal American fears: that of the black bogeyman, and that of the Muslim bogeyman.

When his victory in Iowa gave him a boost, one email thread read: “Obama’s Christianity is cultish, separatist, and racist.” This one is harder to refute: if you are determined to look for signs of reverse discrimination, you can find them at Trinity. But if you are sensitive to America’s racist history, and attentive to what the black church generally and Trinity specifically are trying to accomplish, the claims are as ridiculous as the lies about Obama.

Trinity’s email in-boxes and phone lines have been crammed with hateful messages. “The ‘N’ word is the nicest thing they say,” says pastor Otis Moss. Church staff could simply delete every message, but genuine and honest inquiries about the church’s theology are nestled between the tidal wave of venom. “The office opens at 9, and by 10:30 or so we’d have 500 new messages.” One hundred fifty thousand emails came from two computers that have since had their IP addresses blocked. As the attack messages keep coming, the church has devised an automated email response because, as Moss says, “I don’t want my staff reading this stuff.”

Trinity’s experience raises profound questions about the Internet and the new age of media. Is the Internet the new yellow journalism? Whoever pens these lies in hopes of affecting an election needs a job, Moss says. The slanderous claims are given publicity by such “fair and balanced” journalists as Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson. Millions more forward the emails—diffusing culpability by sheer numbers. Moss says, “Strategists know of this fear of people of color, with different-sounding names, and it’s easy to play on that.”

Moss has even received the threads from friends who “thought you should know.” “I tell them to track down the original sender. . . .[The Internet] allows anonymity, you can be destructive without repercussions for yourself—you don’t have to worry about it.” But it takes only a small percentage of those millions to believe something, forward an opinion, vote accordingly—and change an entire political culture.

When I received these emails, I sent them a link or an article that refuted the claims. I don’t normally respond to any forwarded emails, but in this case I couldn’t let the lie go unchallenged. None of us have the time for the email follow-up, with its ensuing disagreements and general unpleasantness, so perhaps it’s better to let venomous emails go unchallenged. But lies have consequences, not only on the body politic, but in this case, on one local church and its ministries.

Do we have an obligation to do as Moss says, and go out of our way to object?

Comments

[Elsa]

When our UCC church hosted an affirming film of the LGBT community, we got a bunch of similar emails to what Trinity now has. In our experience, it was Christian "sisters and brothers" that thought we were detroying the gospel. This is not the same instance -- but Moss and the other pastors at Trinity UCC are facing a similar struggle.

I do think our culture relies heavily on the internet so that Moss' point is well-taken. I don't feel the need to reply to all negative emails as I have found that not every emailer is interested in dialog. But, I will blog about it without casting lots. I do publish my thoughts (if I feel it needed) on a public page on the internet. Does it make a difference? I don't know.

[Andy]

As a pastor, I occasionally get such email from church members. It breaks my heart when I read these emails, because I have a hard time respecting people who believe and forward slander. Sometimes I reply and correct false information (if there is something patently false), but usually I just do nothing.

[Bromleigh]

I have deep political convictions and so, as a pastor of a congregation, I usually err on the side of speaking about issues rather than the specifics of any candidate or political race, in order to avoid losing myself in passionate self-righteousness (so easy to do in this administration!). Nothing new there. But I struggle, then, when faced with garbage masquerading as political insight (i.e., will Obama's ties with Islam destroy our country?) Just the other day a parishioner came into my office and wanted to talk about that. How to respond? I clarified that Obama's a Christian, member of Trinity, talked about where the UCC is on the spectrum of mainline denominations (I'd say just to the left of my Methodist hometurf)... but I felt reluctant in my "defense" of Obama. Why shouldn't we vote for a Muslim with a sterling public record, a brilliant mind, and a resume of community organizing around justice issues? I know this isn't the ideological battle for this election, but I like to take the long view.

At any rate, I think I still somehow managed to hurt my beloved parisioner's feelings. I wish I could find a way to speak the truth about untruths in a way that was still sensitive to the ignorant, but loveable, bearers of lies.

[Jim Gorman]

Oh, this is a heartbreaker, isn't it? And thanks, Jason, for this post. I have also received these hateful forwarded emails from members of my own church. At the time, I thought I would "reply all" and "clarify" several things, but I put it (wisely) on the back burner but, sadly, have never have brought it back to the front burner.

This is made all the worse because I have known Jeremiah Wright for 30 years and I know him to be just as critical of the black community and the black church as he is of the white community and church. But how does one say any of that to people who would forward such nonsense to their own pastor?

And has my preaching in this community been so opaque that they would think for a moment that I would be pleased by or in anyway agree with such dreck? The last family who forwarded this stuff has been supportive of me and my ministry, so they weren't doing it to warn me or in any way to counter a point I might have made in a sermon or two.

This discussion has been edifying and my prayers increase for Trinity and Obama.

[Rev. Edward C. Wicklein, H. R. Presbyterian Church (USA)]

I didn't think that this was very wide spread until, here in metro St. Louis, an old friend, with close ties to the community and St. Louis politics, asked me about the comments about Obama. I not only corrected him, but realized that the malicious remarks are getting a lot of circulation. Perhaps we should not be surprised in the light of false rumors used in a variety of recent political campaigns, or the seemingly perpetual paranoia in our population about anyone who seems, to them, different. I was particularly disturbed by the negative adjective given to Jeremiah Wright recently by Bill O'Reilly. Things are more comlicated when the broadcasters, not only do not understand Christian denominations in this country, but can not even give the correct name to Trinity Church as a congregation of the United Church of Christ.

[Casey Taylor]

Thanks, Jason, for this post. I actually had two "Obama is dangerous" encounters the week prior to your post. One was from an uninformed Facebook "associate."

The other was a forwarded email from a parishioner. A parishioner forwarded it on as it had been to him. Like many folks, he simply hadn't read what he was sending along. I replied to this "Obama is a radical Muslim" email with frank honesty to all the people who had received the same email. Thankfully, the parishioner joined in the denunciation of the email once he discovered what he'd sent.

Two issues emerge from this. First is our unfortunate and irresponsible spread of misinformation via email. How many people forward emails carelessly? Second is the willingness of so many in America to willingly believe this tripe. I can't decide who starts these things: Obama's Democratic competition or those on the Right afraid of anything that sounds foreign.

Casey Taylor
irregularchristian.blogspot.com

[Richard A. Kauffman]

The first time Suzanne and I visited Trinity UCC-in the fall of 1992--we didn't know that you had to get there early in order to get a seat. By the time we arrived, about 5 minutes before the service began, people were being ushered into an overflow facility with closed-circuit TV. But it was obvious that we were visitors (white faces in a sea of black ones), and there was no way the ushers would allow us into the overflow area. They made space for us in one of the back benches of the sanctuary where we found our place between too of the most hospitable women I've ever met. While there was a bulletin and an order of worship, we found it difficult to know at times where they actually were in the service. But these 2 women kept us informed. The service had barely begun when I found myself emotionally overwhelmed. It was in part the singing, which touched me deeply, but especially the hospitality. And I couldn't help wondering whether my white, middle class congregation would be as welcoming of African-American brothers and sisters. Of course Dr. Wright's sermon was wonderful: he started out using some Hebrew from the Old Testament, but at points he slipped into using street language. But I would have been ministered to that Sunday if there hadn't been a sermon. Our experience couldn't have been more different than the charge that this church is cultish, separatist or racist.

[Dr. John Brashier]

"those who are without transgression, let them throw the first stone..."

Praise God for all are created in The image!