Frank Rich of the New York Times wrongly says that Christianity Today affirms Oprah's Spirituality

The number one article right now on the New York Times website is

Frank Rich: Latter-Day Republicans vs. the Church of Oprah

Frank Rich misleadingly quotes Christianity Today, implying that the great evangelical magazine supports Oprah's religious beliefs. 

He writes,

Five years ago, Christianity Today, the evangelical journal founded by Billy Graham, approvingly described Oprah as “an icon of church-free spirituality” whose convictions “cannot simply be dismissed as superficial civil religion or so much New Age psychobabble.”

Rich totally cites these phrases out of their context.  In fact, the Christianity Today article graciously but firmly cites a number of things that are very problematic about  Oprah's spirituality.  Here is one of the final lines in the Christianity Today article,

"What the Oprah phenomenon . . . shows . . .is that this brand of spirituality is ultimately unsatisfying."

Here is the link to the Christianity Today story:

The Church of O

LaTonya Taylor | posted 4/01/2002 12:00AM

Oprah viewers and all Christians should read the Christianity Today article.  While Oprah is a great person, Christians need to realize her advice is not necessarily Christian advice and viewers should think more critically before accepting her brand of spirituality. 

I am appalled that Christianity Today was misquoted in an article that thousands of people are reading.  No doubt most of them will not realize that Christianity Today is being misquoted.  I commend Frank Rich for providing the link to the original Christianity Today story in his article so that people can easily find out how badly he misconstrued it.

Tangential comment:
I am not saying that Barack Obama's religious faith is likewise a problem.  He seems to be a serious Christian.  I have put below in bullets a few stories about his faith.  I am not saying I support Obama.  I am going to refrain from citing my opinions on presidential politics.

Below are a few links to articles about Obama's faith.  It differs from Oprah's. 

• Obama's speech to Call to Renewal in June 2006 is especially helpful to listen to if you are interested in learning about his faith.  The transcript and MP3 of the talk are both at Obama's website here. 
• You can also read the transcript of his speech on AIDS at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church in December 2006 here.
• Evangelical? Obama's faith too complex for simple label January 19, 2007 Chicago Sun-Times.
• A Candidate, His Minister and the Search for Faith April 30, 2007 New York Times.

Comments

[Concerned Citizen]

You, sir, are muckracking
Right after the sentence you cite is the following:
"The question for Christians is this: What can we do to help Oprah and her disciples find what they are ultimately seeking—the power, grace, and love that can only be found through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ?"

The article says "help"

[Andy Rowell]

Concerned Citizen's comment again misses the point of the article and the sentence they quote. Read it for yourself.

The point is that Oprah's philosophy and spirituality fall short of Christian orthodoxy. The writer of the article implores Christians to help Oprah disciples to become Jesus disciples.

People who are looking to Oprah in search of "power, grace and love" will only be disappointed. They will only find true "power, grace, and love" in relationship with Jesus Christ. That is the point of the sentence.

[David Neff]

Andy,

Thanks for setting the record straight. I winced when I read Frank Rich's mischaracterization of CT's article on Oprah. One of my staff commented: Frank Rich thinks that all evangelicals do is rant. So that when article merely disapproves without ranting, he thinks we're approving. Go figure.

[Andy Rowell]

Yes, since LaTonya wrote, "Oprah is tapping into a need but her philosophy has some major limitations," Rich took that as an endorsement. :-)

[LaTonya Taylor]

I, too, winced when I read that sentence. D'oh! I've noticed that people seem to read whatever they'd prefer to see in that article. The responses have run along a range with Rich's interpretation of it as "favorable" on one end, to having a "vehement Christian polemic . . .lurking" beneath the surface of the article. Good grief!