Healing the Wounds of Race (by Jim Wallis)
It has simmered throughout this campaign, and now race has exploded into the center of the media debate about the presidential race. Just when a black political leader is calling us all to a new level of responsibility, hope, and unity, the old and divisive rhetoric of race from both blacks and whites is rearing its ugly head to bring down the best chance we have had for years of finally moving forward.
And that is indeed the real issue here. A black man is closer to possibly becoming president than ever before in U.S. history. And this black man is not even running as "a black man," but as a new kind of political leader who believes the country is ready for a new kind of politics. But a new kind of politics and a new face for political leadership is deeply threatening to all the forces that represent the old kind of politics in the U.S. And all the rising focus on race in this election campaign has one purpose and one purpose alone—to stop Barack Obama from becoming president of the United States.
Barack Obama should win or lose his party's nomination or the presidency based on the positions he takes regarding the great issues of our time and his capacity to lead the country and the U.S.'s role in the world. He must not win or lose because of the old politics of race in the U.S. That would be a tragedy for all of us.
The cable news stations and talk radio are playing carefully selected excerpts of the most potentially incendiary statements from Rev. Jeremiah Wright's fiery sermons. Wright is the retiring pastor of Barack Obama and his family's home Trinity Church in Chicago. Obama, while affirming the tremendous work his church has done in his city and around the nation, has condemned the most controversial remarks of his pastor. But the whole controversy points to the enormous gap in understanding between the mainstream black community in the U.S. and the experience of many white Americans. And that is what we are going to have to heal if we are ever to move forward.
Here is what I mean.
There is a deep well of both frustration and anger in the African-American community in the U.S. And those feelings are borne of the concrete experience of real oppression, discrimination, and blocked opportunities that most of America's white citizens take for granted. African Americans across the spectrum of income and success will speak personally to those feelings of frustration and anger, when white people are willing to listen. But usually we are not. In 2008, to still not comprehend or seek to understand the reality of black frustration and anger is to be in a state of white denial - which, very sadly, is where many white Americans are.
The black church pulpit has historically been a place of prophetic truth-telling about the realities that black people experience in their own country. Indeed, the black church has often been the only place where such truths are ever told. And, black preachers have had the pastoral task of nurturing the spirits of people who feel beaten down week after week. Strong and prophetic words from black church pulpits are often a source of comfort and affirmation for black congregations. The truth is that many white Americans would indeed feel uncomfortable with the rhetoric of many black preachers from many black churches all across the country.
But if you look beyond the grainy black-and-white clips of the dashiki-clad Rev. Wright and the angry black male voice (all designed to provoke stereotypes and fear), and actually listen to what his words are saying about the U.S. being run by "rich white people" while blacks have cabs speeding by them, and about the U.S.'s misdeeds around the world, it's hard to disagree with many of the facts presented. It's rather the angry tone of Wright's comments that provides the offense and the controversy.
Ironically, a new generation of black Americans is now eager and ready to move beyond the frustration and anger to a new experience of opportunity and hope. And nobody represents that shift more than Barack Obama. There is a generational shift occurring within the black community itself. This shift is between an older generation that is sometimes perceived to be stuck in the politics of victimization and grievance, and a younger generation that believes that opportunity and progress are now possible—not by ignoring, but by being committed to actually changing the facts of oppression and discrimination.
Barack Obama represents that hope of dealing with the substance of the issues of injustice while at the same time articulating the politics of hope, and even the possibility of racial unity. Obama's attraction to many who are white, especially a new generation, demonstrates the promise of a new racial politics in the U.S. But to be a leader for a new generation of black Americans, Barack Obama had to be firmly rooted in the black church tradition, where the critique of white America, the sustenance of the African-American community, and God's promise for the future are all clearly articulated. That's why he began attending Trinity Church, where he was converted to Jesus Christ in the black liberationist tradition of, among others, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
So it would be a great tragedy if the old rhetoric of black frustration and anger were to now hurt Barack Obama, who has become the best hope of beginning to heal that very frustration and anger. Obama has never chosen to talk about race in the way that Rev. Jeremiah Wright does on the video clips that keep playing, and indeed has never played "the race card" at any time in this election. It's been his opponents that have, especially the right-wing conservative media machine that wants the U.S. to believe he is secretly a Muslim and from a "racist" church.
This most recent controversy over race just demonstrates how enormous the gap still is between whites and blacks in the U.S. - in our experience and our capacity to understand one another. May God help us to heal that divide and truly bless America.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
The pastor's comments, such as "God damn America", were taken out of context. Mr. Wallis does a good job of trying to restore that context for us in this article. But in politics, quotes taken out of context are now the norm. And the "headline" news programs of our day do nothing to but contribute to the problem. I'm afraid were only in for more of this.
Pastors need to realize that just because you're behind a pulpit or on the platform doesn't mean you can say things any way you want. Its time to STOP the HATE that comes from our pulpits. That includes remarks damning other religions, atheists, homosexuals, and other races. If you can't preach without hate, you have no business preaching at all.
Posted by: cernowain greenman | March 18, 2008 10:03 AM
Jim Wallis wrote:
The cable news stations and talk radio are playing carefully selected excerpts of the most potentially incendiary statements from Rev. Jeremiah Wright's fiery sermons, the retiring pastor of Barack Obama and his family's home Trinity Church in Chicago.
It's true there's some cherry-picking going on here, but what is equally disconcerting is that out of all of Rev. Wright's defenders at Sojo, none has managed to find a Wright quotation that is simultaneously interesting and sane. As much as I may be predisposed to low expectations from Black Liberation Theology, I must say I find this failure quite surprising.
The black church pulpit has historically been a place of prophetic truth-telling about the realities that black people experience in their own country. Indeed, the black church has often been the only place where such truths are ever told.
Granted, but what if the black pulpit is used to tell falsehoods? Can a falsehood be "prophetic"?
But if you look beyond the grainy black and white clips of the dashiki clad Rev. Wright and the angry black male voice (all designed to provoke stereotypes and fear) to actually listen to what the words are saying about America being run by "rich white people" while blacks have cabs speeding by them, and about American misdeeds around the world, it's hard to disagree with many of the facts presented. It's rather the angry tone of Wright's comments that provides the offense and the controversy.
Okay, so are you saying that the angry tone of voice and the dashiki were fabrications created by Obama's critics? Or are you saying that Rev. Wright wore the Dashiki and adopted that "angry black male voice" in order to "provoke stereotypes and fear"? And with all due respect to Wallis, I find it rather easy to disagree with the "fact" that the US government created the AIDS virus.
Ironically, a new generation of black Americans is now eager and ready to move beyond the frustration and anger to a new experience of opportunity and hope.
Good, so we can look forward to more rational (but still occasionally angry) sermons from Trinity? I could live with that.
But to be a leader for a new generation of black Americans, Barack Obama had to be firmly rooted in the black church tradition, where the critique of white America, the sustenance of the African American community, and God's promise for the future are all clearly articulated. That's why he began attending Trinity Church where he was converted to Jesus Christ in the black liberationist tradition of, among others, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
Wait a minute, are you suggesting that Obama's decision to attend Trinity was to some extent politically motivated? Are you sure you want to say that this explains Obama's decision to attend Trinity and remain there for 20 years?
So it would be a great tragedy if the old rhetoric of black frustration and anger were to now hurt Barack Obama, who has become the best hope of beginning to heal that very frustration and anger.
Yes, it would be a tragedy, but great tragedy often flows from the flaws of us mortals. Fair or not, Obama's claim to be our best hope of healing all that frustration and anger is fading because of his association with Wright.
It does not help matters when his supporters twist logic well beyond the breaking point to make excuses for Wright.
It's time for the left to try a new approach: recognize that Wright is a mediocre theologian (even in the context of the black church) and a hothead (even after accounting for the understandable frustrations that African-Americans feel) and that his sermons can be downright poisonous. Distance yourselves from his variety of "Black Liberation Theology, and then invite Barack Obama to do likewise. It may already too late, but if there's any way to avoid a tragedy, it's your only way out.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | March 18, 2008 10:33 AM
Obama in no way represents hope or a new start or anything--he is a smarmy, arrogant, opportunist politician. He is the left-wing equivalent of Bush. The right wanted to have a beer with Bush, the left wants to have a latte with Obama. He is incurious and incompetent, just like Bush, and the caricature on SNL nails him completely.
Wallis here repesents the worst of an unthinking left-wing who think that John Lennon's Imagine is the greatest song ever and who trust an empty suit like Obama who gives swell graduation speeches (at the end of each of his speeches, I want to shout, "Woo-hoo, let's go class of '08! We rule!") but who has no experience and clearly no judgment if we look at the sorts of advisors which surround him.
I support Hillary--who is like many competent, qualified women who have waited and worked years for a promotion. She is now seeing her rightful place being taken by the bright young kid who just joined the company. A better song by by John Lennon is Woman is the N* of the World--it is better to be a black man than a woman of any color. The rejection of an experienced, qualified woman in place of a nifty new guy with a great personality is the sum of all sexism. Phoebe and Lydia and Junia and Mary Magdalene would be furious.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | March 18, 2008 10:48 AM
Mr. Wallis is correct that we need to heal.
He is also correct that one can not appreciate the retoric of a community without first opening to understand a community. (in this case the Black Church pulpit) We are however in an age of short memories and as it were sound bights. True thoughtful reporting has left our "News Media" in all modles and thus understandable-explainable cultural motifs are often missunderstood. This may, however; be a wise wake up call to all of us not to judge to harshly. Our speach is important and our words do have wieght. Therefore this may be an encouraging moment where pastures in all religious faiths can "Re-think" how they put forth those ideas they wish to express.
There is an opportunity here if seized with thoughtfulness to retun the "Black Religious Tradition" to a kinder gentler maner of retoricial words. This does not mean the passion should be out of the ideas. Dr. KING used both approaches. He understood the cadence of speach, the power of the oritory, but he also was able to transend race in speaking about all people and still letting us all know what he meant by "His" people. Great leaders always accomplish this transent task.
The issue is universal truths. Once one realizes that the heart of any matter is the truth it is far easier to speak about the opportunities to heal everyone. Obsuring the truth or just wishing "your truth" be told, "your Way" created divides be they race or religious in nature.
Take the High Road everyone. You will be amazed at how fast it heals many misunderstandings.
Posted by: R. Bruce Lindsay III | March 18, 2008 10:49 AM
It's true there's some cherry-picking going on here, but what is equally disconcerting is that out of all of Rev. Wright's defenders at Sojo, none has managed to find a Wright quotation that is simultaneously interesting and sane. As much as I may be predisposed to low expectations from Black Liberation Theology, I must say I find this failure quite surprising.
That's the point. As you know, I'm a pretty solid Calvinist, but the theological study -- "about God" -- which I was reared with can take you only so far, which is why I'm no longer part of that orbit. One thing about prophets: They don't tell the future; they live there.
Wait a minute, are you suggesting that Obama's decision to attend Trinity was to some extent politically motivated? Are you sure you want to say that this explains Obama's decision to attend Trinity and remain there for 20 years?
Not exactly and not necessarily. Though he is not African-American in the classic sense, he likely recognized that, in this society, he will be perceived as such and probably recognized that he needed to connect with those of his "hue."
Distance yourselves from his variety of "Black Liberation Theology, and then invite Barack Obama to do likewise. It may already too late, but if there's any way to avoid a tragedy, it's your only way out.
What do you replace it with?
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 18, 2008 10:55 AM
Keep the politics out of church
Obama is denouncing Wright right now as we speak
Obama should have denounced him when he sat in the pew for 20 years and whenever he heard the racists statements.
Why hasn't Sojo?
He wouldn't be giving this speech if someone hadn't brought the issue to the table.
Which makes these words hollow.
Posted by: Paul Jamieson | March 18, 2008 11:05 AM
I have no idea what you are talking about. Why does it matter than the videos are "grainy"? (I've seen the same thing on other apologetic blogs.)
And just what context makes Damning of America justified? And just what context does telling his congregation that 9/11 was this country's just retribution justified?
When white Christian pastors broadcast their messages of hate, I get angry. And I get angry when African American Christian pastors broadcast their messages of hate. (Not being a Christian I don't quite understand how all of this hate dovetails with Jesus's messages, but I suppose that is merely my lack of understand at what Jesus REALLY meant.
I have no idea what Barack and Michelle Obama suffered over their lives because they had dark skins.THey have led pretty charmed adult lives, however, as very gifted persons, with excellent educational training, who have attained worthy professional occupations commensurate with that intelligence and professional achievements. And as you point out, they are not alone. Whatever African Americans have suffered in the past, and whatever suffering exists today, and it does in this country for many, African American and not, I endorse your comments about those who wish to heal the white / black divide. (Of course, that wish isn't so new.
That wish has been there for awhile. After all, Dr. King did not have a dream that America, or white America or whoever would be damned by God. He did not have a dream that 19 terrorists would enter the country, cause airplanes to fly into New York office buildings and kill 3000 people in a moment. Or if he did, he didn't tell a lot of people about it.
I am sufficiently optimistic to believe that we live in a new day, that African Americans can live where they wish, go to schools were they wish, have the job opportunities that they deserve. And may I also hope that Christian pastors, be they white, black, asian, brown or whatever, will preach the messages of Jesus and not the hatred that we have come to see from too many.
Now maybe Rev Wright has just taken his given name too seriously, and is just doing what a Jeremiah does. Perhaps he should also consider Isaiah and his messages of consolation. But I wish you would provide that context so that I can understand what makes it acceptable, in your mind, for Christian ministers to preach the gospel of hatred of the United States, whether in grainy video or full color HD.
Posted by: Barry | March 18, 2008 11:14 AM
What would I replace it with? I would leave a lot of that up to the black community, but there is a principle that should be kept in mind:
Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body. In your anger, do not sin. Do not let the sun go down while youare still angry, and do not give the devil a foothold.
Ephesians 4:26
I wouldn't say there are no grounds for anger even now, but anger must be restrained and subjected to truth. Nor should it be wallowed in or stoked up recklessly.
How exactly that works out in the black church I would not presume to say, beyond pointing out that Rev. Wright appears to have forgotten that his pain is not a blanket justification for slanders, nor should he be too eager for God's wrath to fall even on those he considers his enemies.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | March 18, 2008 11:37 AM
Is it too much to expect at this time of year when Christians purportedly commemorate God coming into the world to walk in our shoes that we WASPs make a concerted effort to walk in the shoes of an oppressed minority?
Take a look at Tibet to de-Americanize the point.
Posted by: canucklehead | March 18, 2008 11:48 AM
Obama should have denounced him when he sat in the pew for 20 years and whenever he heard the racists statements.
Perhaps they were pretty far and few between. You weren't there -- how would you know? And, besides that, are you saying that simply because he says things you'd rather have swept under the rug. Keep in mind that you come from a different culture and different ideology; just because a statement offends you doesn't mean you have the right to dismiss it out-of-hand.
How exactly that works out in the black church I would not presume to say, ...
So then you should hold off on making any pronouncements as to what they should do. Even you have made statements here that reflect your deepest beliefs that, nevertheless, do not hold water upon further inspection. so you ought to be able to give the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 18, 2008 11:56 AM
I just heard Senator Obama's speech. I cannot add anything to it. I was extremely impressed with what he had to say, both in repudiating the statements of Pastor Wright and in challenging us all to go beyond the things that separate us.
His explanation for his relationship with Pastor Wright is not only understandable but laudable.
How could the words of this speech change his church in the future?. How would his "running like the wind" have left it with only one voice and perhaps left without even the hope of change?
We have all heard a small segment of the things Pastor Wright has said, what I think I heard this morning was a small segment of how Senator Obama, by staying connected with his church, probably replied to his pastor in private.
Posted by: wayne | March 18, 2008 12:01 PM
Jesus went back to his hometown; was at first complimented for his gracious speech, as he declared the arrival of favor and liberation. The compliments quickly turned to an attempt on his life when he, on the basis of the scriptures, declared the hated Syrians and Sidonians to be also accepted by God.
Can someone today move ahead and see a deeper message in the gospel or are we all doomed to rest at the point our mentors seemed to leave us? Can we "understand" Psalm 137 which ends:
7 Remember, Yahweh, to the Edomites cost, the day of Jerusalem, how they said, Down with it! Raze it to the ground!
8 Daughter of Babel, doomed to destruction, a blessing on anyone who treats you as you treated us,
9 a blessing on anyone who seizes your babies and shatters them against a rock!
And then read Matthew 5 and trust Jesus?
This week we especially remember Jesus prayer that the Father forgive. We also remember his quotation of the Psalm of despair, Psalm 22. Whether audibly or silently; I believe he quoted the entire Psalm and not just the first line.
Igor
Posted by: Deryll | March 18, 2008 12:03 PM
A very powerful speech by Obama in Philadelphia.
God bless you Obama-- God be with you.
Elizabeth Daniele
Posted by: Elizabeth Daniele | March 18, 2008 12:11 PM
I don't recall anyone saying anything about the dashiki, and many people read the comments, which are manifestly incendiary to hear and to read. And the Hillary campaign (who, not that Wallis cares one wit, is not part of the right wing anything) has done plenty to amp up the issue.
But then, given that Sojo has invested quite a bit of energy of (not) endorsing Obama, I don't know what else Wallis could write.
"but as a new kind of political leader who believes the country is ready for a new kind of politics."
It is precisely because he cast himself as a new kind of political leader that he is in this mess. If he had just fessed up to being a partisan politician, and brought some ideas to the table, this wouldn't be an issue.
Wayne,
If you were impressed with Obama's speech, what did he say that you did not think he would say? It followed the standard script, right down to a little girl named Ashley.
Well crafted? Yes. Inspiring? If you were predisposed to inspiration from the get-go, I suppose. But what was impressive?
Posted by: kevin s. | March 18, 2008 12:17 PM
Gosh, has Wallis become Obama's campaign rapid response team now? Why can't he just repudiate the racist and hateful remarks? I guess because he is the tank for Obama.
Posted by: Cynthia Crown | March 18, 2008 12:20 PM
I see comments on this thread and related recent threads from people who are quite plainly Republican partisans, and who are quite plainly reciting fake, phony, false, bogus, dishonest, scripted Republican talking points to attack Senator Obama.
Arguing with such people is futile. They are not interested in facts. They are not interested in understanding. They are interested in advancing the interests of the Republican Party by whatever means necessary, including lies, distortions, and naked appeals to racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia and other unfortunate and hurtful tendencies founded in fear.
I am not myself a Christian, but as I understand it, such behavior is not in accord with generally accepted Christian ethics.
Meanwhile, Senator Obama this morning gave one of the best speeches that I have heard from any American politician in my lifetime, and perhaps in American political history. I have not until now been as impressed by Senator Obama's renowned rhetorical gifts as
many of his supporters seem to be, and (as a registered Green Party voter and a supporter of Rep. Dennis Kucinich's primary campaign) I have been "agnostic" with regard to the primary contest between Senators Obama and Clinton.
However, with this speech, I have become a fan of Senator Obama. Of the three major candidates still in the race, he is clearly the best choice, and may well have the potential to be one of the truly great American presidents in history, at a crucial time not only for the USA but for the survival of the human species on this planet.
Posted by: SecularAnimist | March 18, 2008 12:23 PM
'...all the forces that represent the old kind of politics...'
Maybe the correct statement would be the 'old Clinton kind of politics'?
'...cable news stations and talk radio are playing carefully selected excerpts...'
Unfortunate - but something that Network News has made their living on over that past decades in their coverage of conservatives - whatever.
'...black church pulpit has historically been a place of prophetic truth-telling...'
AIDS was developed by the USA and we knew about the attacks on Pearl Harbor and WTC ahead of time? Please! If this was a white pastor - I would love to see what the Networks would do. It is coming out that Oprah left this church in the mid 90's I believe because of Wright. Yes - Robertson and Fawell have said things on the edge and have been taken to task by several - publically. In several instances they recanted the statements and apoligized.
Kinda sucks when liberals get looked at under the same microscope that has been used on conservatives over the past few decades. Words matter and I believe that Obama is just learning that lesson. You will also be hung with the company that you keep - welcome to life.
I find it interesting that a few months ago I made a statement along the lines of 'God should damn America because of our transgressions in several areas and many on this site took me to the wood shead. Now Wright says the same thing and several of those same people agree that God should...whatever.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 18, 2008 12:35 PM
It is precisely because he cast himself as a new kind of political leader that he is in this mess. If he had just fessed up to being a partisan politician, and brought some ideas to the table, this wouldn't be an issue.
Kevin, you just don't get it. He is the new idea, which is why he's doing so well. He's trying to leave behind the poisonous political wars of the past -- which is something that, frankly, your side seems to be incapable of doing, so committed it is to a divisive ideological agenda that has shot its wad and found wanting.
Why can't he just repudiate the racist and hateful remarks?
Did you see the speech? He actually did. But he placed them in context of Wright's generation, which was fair -- no different from what others have done (and he addressed those as well).
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 18, 2008 12:36 PM
Ashpenaz Wrote:
"Wallis here repesents the worst of an unthinking left-wing who think that John Lennon's Imagine is the greatest song ever and who trust an empty suit like Obama who gives swell graduation speeches (at the end of each of his speeches, I want to shout, "Woo-hoo, let's go class of '08! We rule!") but who has no experience and clearly no judgment if we look at the sorts of advisors which surround him."
If you support Hillary, I assume you are a Democrat. If so, why would you so angrily attack a fellow member of the party just because he is winning? Why get so personal? Hillary is a very brilliant, capable woman and politician. However she IS NOT ENTITLED to the nomination.
Posted by: Doug, the Proud Liberal | March 18, 2008 12:42 PM
Kevin
I am in the middle of a big day and just heard it so I will respond in detail for you later, but heh bro if you are predisposed to hate it will that matter?
I have often talked privately with friends and family about what I saw as weaknesses in Obama's campaign. You couldn't know that, but I have openly on this site said I am a Republican and that my vote is for McCain.
I think you have mis-identified the one with the predisposition and fixated view point here.
Posted by: wayne | March 18, 2008 12:49 PM
I find it interesting that a few months ago I made a statement along the lines of 'God should damn America because of our transgressions in several areas and many on this site took me to the wood shead.
The context was far different, however. When conservatives do that it's always for the sake of inciting hatred against someone for ideological/political purposes -- scapegoating, if you will; therefore, it's not truly prophetic. Wright, on the other hand, will not personally gain from anything he says, at least not directly.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 18, 2008 12:50 PM
Wolverine,
You don't get to decide our way out. It's your way or the highway huh? That did not work before and it's not going to work now. If anything you all have to follow us now or not. But we see when left to your own devices white folks seldom change w/o someone really pushing them too. But then that is true for everyone. You need us, we need you. But that doesn't mean it has to be your terms.
Oh and it's not too late, not by a longshot.
p
Posted by: Payshun | March 18, 2008 12:52 PM
"He is the new idea, which is why he's doing so well."
That's what I said. And the Wright connection, not to mention Obama's absurd claims that he was unaware of them, cast him firmly in the vein of contemporary politics. He's nothing new. He's just a popular Democrat. I think he can win one term, but not two.
"Did you see the speech? He actually did. "
She was talking about Wallis.
"I am in the middle of a big day and just heard it so I will respond in detail for you later, but heh bro if you are predisposed to hate it will that matter?"
Yes. You are not going to persuade me to like the speech, but I was interested in what surprised you about it that you would be impressed. It went about exactly as I thought it would.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 18, 2008 12:57 PM
Ephesians 4:26
I wouldn't say there are no grounds for anger even now, but anger must be restrained and subjected to truth. Nor should it be wallowed in or stoked up recklessly.
How exactly that works out in the black church I would not presume to say, beyond pointing out that Rev. Wright appears to have forgotten that his pain is not a blanket justification for slanders, nor should he be too eager for God's wrath to fall even on those he considers his enemies.
Wolverine
Anger is sometimes necessary especially when people are not allowed to pray in God's temple. You might want to ask Jesus about that one. Not only that but when Paul incites others to mutilate their own genitals I would think that Paul was not as averse to anger as you wrote in your post.
p
Posted by: Payshun | March 18, 2008 12:58 PM
Here's the message of "unity" in Obama's speech: If whites will feel really, really guilty about how hard they make life for blacks, and if blacks will be nice and forgive the whites who repent, then we can have unity. There was nothing in his speech about the fact that blacks sold other blacks into slavery and that well-to-do blacks in the Caribbean had black slaves. There was also nothing about the whites who died in the Civil War to end slavery--a little gratitude, maybe? Abraham Lincoln was white. FDR was white. LBJ was white--we don't have anything to apologize for.
This speech was about as profound as the movie Crash.
I, as a gay man, am appalled at the homophobic preachers Obama has on his team. His unity does not include me--he didn't mention me in his speech. He also ignored women. Only blacks have ever been the victim of oppression. And blacks never, never oppress--not one word of racial hatred ever came out in any of Wright's conversation. Sure, I'll bet. I bet Rev. Wright watched Will and Grace and laughed. I bet Rev. Wright never ordered his wife to bring him a beer.
It's OK for people like Obama to exclude women and gays and to imply that Hispanics are stealing jobs. I don't want his vision of unity, and I'm beginning to see that Wallis is of the same breed.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | March 18, 2008 1:08 PM
Ashpenaz,
He has mentioned gay people before. I could google the speech and highlight it for you if you want. This is not about you. This is about the racial divide. BTW FDR (love him) was a racist and did not really care for black people. LBJ had to be forced to do the right thing. He did not do it out of the goodness of his heart. Lincoln was no friends to black people. you should really do some more research before you post, because Lincoln's main goal was the preservation of the union, not the freedom of black folks. Not only that but he never freed the slaves. the Emancipation Proclamation was not a law, it was pretty words that kept slavery going in the border states for a few decades.
I support gay marriage and protection for the LGBTQ community. Can you do the same for black people or does that matter to you?
p
Posted by: Payshun | March 18, 2008 1:20 PM
Also, Ashpenaz, Obama reprimanded the black church (writ large) from the pulpit of Ebenezer Baptist Church in his MLK Day address for its history of homophobia. You can google the text of his speech to see it plainly spelled out.
In addition, he has the most progressive policies on many issues affecting the Hispanic community, including being in favor of driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants. Please cite your sources for claiming that he is trying to pit African Americans and Hispanics against each other.
Posted by: Ingrid | March 18, 2008 1:36 PM
I think this entire thing is ridiculous. Sen. Obama is running for president, not his former pastor Rev. Wright. Obama has never made those statements nor did he ever hint that he felt the same way as his former pastor in anything Obama has ever said.
Yes, he recognizes Wright as his spiritual adviser, but why doesn't the media dig up dirt on other past presidents' spiritual advisers, or Clinton and McCain's spiritual advisers? How many people on here agree with everything John Hagee has said? Well, he's supposedly endorsed McCain and has advised him.
You remember Jerry Falwell (rest his soul)? He convinced Reagan that the Soviet Union was the army of the anti-christ and that America represented the army of God! Point is, every man/woman, whether black or white, that has run for any political office has been associated with people that have hurt their image. Get over it people.
Now I see why this is about race. How ironic is it that the one getting heat for his spiritual adviser is the black candidate, when white preachers back in the 60's were just as rowdy and controversial towards black people like Rev. Wright is. But that was acceptable for the white preachers back then....
Posted by: Matt G. | March 18, 2008 1:47 PM
McCain's Spiritual Advisers
By David Knowles
"Two of John McCain's self-proclaimed "spiritual advisers" are evangelical leaders with some rather controversial views on religions other than their own. Denise Williams has already detailed the case of John Hagee, the man who has called Catholicism "a cult," and has likened it to "the Great Whore" in Revelation 17.
Yesterday, Mother Jones published a bit on another televangelist whose support McCain actively courted, and who has since spoken at McCain rallies. Meet Ohio Minister Rod Parsley. Among the planks in his pious platform is the armed eradication of Islam. Not just it's radical extremists, mind you, but the whole screwy religion.
Senator John McCain hailed as a spiritual adviser an Ohio megachurch pastor who has called upon Christians to wage "war" against the "false religion" of Islam with the aim of destroying it.
That should go over well in diplomatic circles.
So while Hagee is busy angling for the rapture by making sure that there's no peaceful settlement to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, Parsley wants to mobilize the country in a Christian-style jihad against Muslims. To these followers of the Prince of Peace, the only way forward seems to be to start the mother of all wars. I guess we can hope that McCain is playing these guys and their followers just like Bush and Rove played them in 2000 and 2004." (emphasis mine)
When are we going to hear news stories about this? At least Rev. Wright believes in helping the poor and oppressed. The spiritual advisers on the right seem to want nothing more then to fuel hate to those who are different and wage war to those who oppose us: two things Jesus spoke more against than their precious abortion and homosexuality issues (not that I don't think those are important).
Posted by: Matt G. | March 18, 2008 1:58 PM
1) I seem to recall having read Wallis on several occasions cherry pick an intentionally provocative quote from Grover Nordquist which he used to somehow refute the policies of the entire Republican party.
2) Wallis defends Wright and Obama repudiates him. Who's in the wrong?
3) How much of Wright's hate speech does Wallis agree with?
4) Wallis and Sojo's failure to come out and criticize Wright's hate speech is one of the larger failures of contemporary liberalism, which refuses to find any fault at all in individuals belonging to a victim class (unless individuals in that class are conservative). This does only harm in the end.
5) Just come out with your endorsement of Obama already. I hear Wallis frequently argue that evangelicals should not be in the pockets of any politician. If Wallis and Sojo's uncritical defense and adoration isn't putting them in Obama's pocket, then what would?
Posted by: jesse | March 18, 2008 2:00 PM
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 18, 2008 12:50 PM
'...conservatives do that it's always for the sake of inciting hatred against someone...'
Oh - give it a shake peaches. I never mentioned a person or people group. It was because of what I saw was wrong in the US and errors that needed to be corrected. When Wright was saying the samething - I felt no love, no compassion, no 'meet you in the middle'. The USA had nothing to do with developing the AIDS virus or much else that the Rev. had to say.
Again - if this was a white pastor with this retoric and a white male canidate - they would be cained. If I attended a church where a pastor made these statements from the pulpit in the context of a worship service. I would schedule a meeting with them and if they were going to continue - I would have to leave. But then again - I am just a conservative that is trying to do the best I can to do the Lord's will. Assisting a Liberian Congregation in our community so that they can worship freely and in the style that they feel comfortable with and help maintain their culture here in America. (much like the Swedes did in the late 1800's and early 1900's)
Blessings -
.
Posted by: moderatelad | March 18, 2008 2:09 PM
There are distinctions to be drawn between the celebrations of an inculturated faith community and what might otherwise be the articulations of an overtly racist cultural tone. There's another distinction to be made and that is between the overt racism that is rooted in bigotry and personal sin, which our country has progressively transcended since the civil rights era, and the institutional racism that lingers - socially, economically and politically - and that we continue to harvest as the "fruits" of an original-type sin, which is rooted moreso in our human finitude.
It has been said that it takes five miles to turn an aircraft carrier around, even after the captain gives the order. Our country took great strides in its civil rights legislation, as the co-captains of an authentically prophetic protest and a politically-awakened conscience of a great nation spoke the command together to turn our centuries-old heritage of overt racism around, but we have not fully crossed the five miles of ocean that will be required to swallow up the pains of past misunderstandings and the cross-generational effects of socioeconomic disadvantage, which yet leave so many in poverty and otherwise genuinely at-risk.
A problem with institutionalized racism and original-type sin is that no one is truly at fault or necessarily culpable, at least not to the extent that we can talk any longer of any particular sins of commission (for the most part). However, once we witness the intractability of lingering social injustices and inequalities, once we hear the voices of authentically prophetic protests, we are at-risk of sinning through omission and, make no mistake; we are exposed to guilt by association with institutions that Scott Peck would describe as having "sick identity structures." To remain exculpable, then, we must speak out and contribute to the healthful transformation of our institutions - social, economic, political and, yes, religious.
And this brings us full circle back to the distinctions we need to draw between the celebrations of an inculturated faith community and what might otherwise be the articulations of an overtly racist cultural tone. Let there be no mistake; any congregation which self-describes as "Unashamedly Black, an African people true to our native land," is joyfully celebrating its ethnic heritage in a religious experience and tradition that is deep. Let there also be no mistake in that words of intolerance, which disparage our country and degrade individuals, are not what can be considered an authentically prophetic protest and they have no place in our dialogue, public or private.
America is beautiful. God has shed His grace on her. Those who cannot see this beauty are blind. However, those who cannot see her blemishes are equally blind. Somewhere between the polarizing forces of a shameful self-loathing anti-Americanism and a shameless nationalistic jingoism is an authentic self-critical patriotism. Before, however, we castigate those who suffer any degree of blindness to America's beauty, let us engage a prayerful and dutiful introspection to discern what we, ourselves, may have done to hide her beauty and light under a bushel basket. Before we excoriate those who are apparently blind to America's blemishes, let us look within our own hearts to discern whether or not we are truly in touch with the wellsprings of gratitude that should flow in response to the accident of our birth in the most prosperous and generous nation that civilization has ever grown. It is true that some still sleep, slumbering in the illusion of our separateness. There is a little of that in all of us, wounded and weary as the journey can make us? When we do speak intemperate words, however, they are not necessarily defining moments unless they are repetitively reinforcing moments, unless our actions of a lifetime betray our otherwise sanctimonious pretentions.
Those of us who are Catholic and truly in touch with our innate catholicity, who advocate inculturated theology and celebrate our unity of mission and diversity of ministry, will not be at all put off by cultural expressions that reflect our rich diversity and that celebrate our wonderful, even when arduous, journeys of liberation and traditions of transformation. We should not fall into such a temptation as would parody the mission statements and explications of the Trinity United Church of Christ, cynically substituting the word "White" in place of "Black," or Caucasian in place of African, as if to charge that congregation with overt racism and bigotry (notwithstanding the intemperate and inflammatory speech that was spoken in its pulpit). I see that mission statement and am led, instead, to insert the words Cajun and Acadian! Others might rightfully insert their own cultural heritage and place of origin (or forced exile).
In closing, as Catholics, we affirm a model of local church that does not overidentify (thank God, eh?) with its pastors and institutional hierarchy but which is, instead, defined by, and invested in, its families, its ministries, its social justice programs, its small faith communities, its catechists and prayer groups, its outreach to those in grief and those in need, its liturgical rhythms and communal fellowships, and a solidarity with a church universal and a Body of Christ, mystical. The same can be said for the Trinity United Church of Christ. So, when we read the mission statements and explications of the Trinity United Church of Christ, we won't see an overt racism (except, perhaps, as a reflection of some of our own inner dispositions, which might say more about some of us than anyone else). Rather, we might experience a deep inner resonance and heartfelt solidarity with a journey that is both our own and not our own, seeing a difference in the oceans we have crossed, the chains we have worn and the sorrows we have borne, to be sure, but experiencing, at a deeper level, what we have shared: the redemptions we have known, the salvations and resurrections we have owned and looking, together, to the One, Who is the Author and Finisher of the work that will one day awaken us all to the depthful reality of our joyful and loving sisterhood and brotherhood.
Thanks for your time.
John Sylvest
New Orleans, Louisiana
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/johngramercy
Posted by: John Sobert Sylvest | March 18, 2008 2:14 PM
I seem to recall having read Wallis on several occasions cherry pick an intentionally provocative quote from Grover Nordquist which he used to somehow refute the policies of the entire Republican party.
You don't need to cherry-pick from Norquist -- he has always made those type of statements and never once has backed down from them. He virtually ran the conservative wing of the GOP and was the virtual head of the VRWC.
Wallis and Sojo's failure to come out and criticize Wright's hate speech is one of the larger failures of contemporary liberalism, which refuses to find any fault at all in individuals belonging to a victim class (unless individuals in that class are conservative). This does only harm in the end.
It was the conservatives who made them into victims in the first place and who wants to keep everyone from addressing that. That's why the conservative ship is sinking.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 18, 2008 2:15 PM
There's a big word, THEODICY, that entails the question of how we can reconcile the twinned realities of suffering and a good God. And I was taught that every good theodicy retained one indispensable element: MYSTERY.
It is a faulty theodicy, then, whether from the far left or the far right, that attempts to exhaust such mystery and to explain away life's tragedies. It is an anachronistic Old Testament biblical literalism that explains tragedy in terms of Divine wrath and retribution, not seeing the rainbow promises of the New Covenant that point to transformation as all things work together for the good for those who love God and are called according to His purpose (and the converse statement has no currency in this New Creation).
I am not prepared to comment on the life's works and ministries of Jeremiah Wright, Pat Robertson, John Hagee and Jerry Falwell and their ilk, but I can suggest that God's not likely sending Wright's chickens and Robertson's hurricanes to punish Hagee's whores and Falwell's homosexuals?
Wright is being treated with a double-standard by the Religious Right and that wannabe News Network.
I've been a Roman Catholic for 53 years, but I do not approach sexual morality with the same medieval-like absolutized physicalism of its Teaching Office, and I do not take responsibility for the thousands of clerics who, in America, alone, sexually preyed upon thousands of innocent victims. And I do not abide with the ancient patriarchal mindset that others might see as institutionalized sexism. And I am much more in tune with the Anglican approach of "all may, none must, some should" vis a vis Sacraments and various church disciplines. I totally reject the creeping infallibilism of the Ordinary Magisterium and decry the marginalization of the Sensus Fidelium.
And these positions have large-scale practical consequences, such as for the millions in Africa dying of AIDS who are deprived of condoms due to tortured natural law interpretations, such as for the innocent victims of a rampant sexual abuse that was mismanaged for the sake of maintaining a sick identity structure, such as for the masses of believers who endured the torments of scruples over the dread of hell that would ensue from divorcing and remarrying without a church sanctioned annulment, for masturbation, missing Mass or eating meat on Friday (all once equated with murder with no parvity of matter).
Now, if I stayed in the pews for half a century, due to such reasons to stay as might have persuaded me over against all of these rather compelling reasons to leave, then I am ALMOST PERSUADED that Obama had similarly compelling reasons to stay where he was, too, being no more "damaged goods" than me, possibly transcending it all (as his rhetoric and actions seem to reveal BIG TIME) and hanging around as a healing and transformative influence on others. WE are a different generation. Can we transcend this type of stuff? YES, WE CAN!
UPDATE:
After Obama's Philadelphia speech, which will go down as one of the greatest in US Political History, I am TOTALLY PERSUADED!
Posted by: John Sobert Sylvest | March 18, 2008 2:18 PM
Oh - give it a shake peaches. I never mentioned a person or people group.
You don't need to, but in the process you're comparing apples and oranges. "Meet me in the middle?" Not possible, because his critics need to deal with their issues first; otherwise they won't be.
If I attended a church where a pastor made these statements from the pulpit in the context of a worship service. I would schedule a meeting with them and if they were going to continue - I would have to leave.
Again, you missed the context.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 18, 2008 2:24 PM
"Again - if this was a white pastor with this retoric and a white male canidate - they would be cained."
Surely you jest. The only comment I've seen in this discussion that really gets to the heart of the matter is that by Matt G. Let my amplify a bit.
I honestly don't see anything worse in Reverend Wright's statements than what Rush Limbaugh says every day on his radio show. (NB: That doesn't mean I approve of them.) However, I have yet to see a white conservative politician denounce Limbaugh, and I think I know why. His entire shtick is based on a tone-deaf imitation of black prophetic preaching, designed to promote the preposterous idea that white conservative Christians are an oppressed minority, and that liberals are doing the oppressing.
Wright may step over the line from time to time, but everything Limbaugh says is based on this despicable slander, so the only way to call him on the carpet would be to denounce everything he says.
So I have a challenge for John McCain, who certainly has no love for Limbaugh. Now that Obama has denounced Reverend Wright's statements, are you willing to denounce Rush Limbaugh, in his entirety, and show the well-deserved contempt for his support that he has richly earned? Or will you instead go courting him, as every successful right-wing politician of the past 20 years has done?
Time will tell.
Posted by: Another nonymous | March 18, 2008 2:24 PM
It has been said that it takes five miles to turn an aircraft carrier around, even after the captain gives the order. Our country took great strides in its civil rights legislation, as the co-captains of an authentically prophetic protest and a politically-awakened conscience of a great nation spoke the command together to turn our centuries-old heritage of overt racism around, but we have not fully crossed the five miles of ocean that will be required to swallow up the pains of past misunderstandings and the cross-generational effects of socioeconomic disadvantage, which yet leave so many in poverty and otherwise genuinely at-risk.
A problem with institutionalized racism and original-type sin is that no one is truly at fault or necessarily culpable, at least not to the extent that we can talk any longer of any particular sins of commission (for the most part). However, once we witness the intractability of lingering social injustices and inequalities, once we hear the voices of authentically prophetic protests, we are at-risk of sinning through omission and, make no mistake; we are exposed to guilt by association with institutions that Scott Peck would describe as having "sick identity structures." To remain exculpable, then, we must speak out and contribute to the healthful transformation of our institutions - social, economic, political and, yes, religious.
America is beautiful. God has shed His grace on her. Those who cannot see this beauty are blind. However, those who cannot see her blemishes are equally blind. Somewhere between the polarizing forces of a shameful self-loathing anti-Americanism and a shameless nationalistic jingoism is an authentic self-critical patriotism. Before, however, we castigate those who suffer any degree of blindness to America's beauty, let us engage a prayerful and dutiful introspection to discern what we, ourselves, may have done to hide her beauty and light under a bushel basket. Before we excoriate those who are apparently blind to America's blemishes, let us look within our own hearts to discern whether or not we are truly in touch with the wellsprings of gratitude that should flow in response to the accident of our birth in the most prosperous and generous nation that civilization has ever grown. It is true that some still sleep, slumbering in the illusion of our separateness. There is a little of that in all of us, wounded and weary as the journey can make us. When we do speak intemperate words, however, they are not necessarily defining moments unless they are repetitively reinforcing moments, unless our actions of a lifetime betray our otherwise sanctimonious pretentions.
As Catholics, we affirm a model of local church that does not overidentify (thank God, eh?) with its pastors and institutional hierarchy but which is, instead, defined by and invested in its families, its ministries, its social justice programs, its small faith communities, its catechists and prayer groups, its outreach to those in grief and those in need, its liturgical rhythms and communal fellowships, and a solidarity with a church universal and a Body of Christ, mystical. The same can be said for the Trinity United Church of Christ. So, when we read the mission statements and explications of the Trinity United Church of Christ, we won't see an overt racism (except, perhaps, as a reflection of our own inner dispositions, which might say more about us than anyone else). Rather, we might experience a deep inner resonance and heartfelt solidarity with a journey that is both our own and not our own, seeing a difference in the oceans we have crossed, the chains we have worn and the sorrows we have borne, to be sure, but experiencing, at a deeper level, what we share: the redemptions we have known, the salvations and resurrections we have owned and looking, together, to the One, Who is the Author and Finisher of the work that will one day awaken us all to the depthful reality of our joyful and loving sisterhood and brotherhood.
Posted by: John Sobert Sylvest | March 18, 2008 2:28 PM
Mr Wallis missed so many key points. I am familiar with black anger and its many sources. The one which Mr. Obama failed to address and the one that is perpetuated by Mr Wright and so many others is the myths that are dominant in the black community about aids, drugs, syphillus at Tuskegee, etc. If all of these myths were true, there would be no hope for change which is what many believe. I hear so often, nothing has chnaged. Or really? It is the responsibility of black leaders to tell the truth about these myths, not perpeturate them or ignore them. Do they maintain believe in these myths to maintian anger and thus their own power?
These myths hurt the black community directly and hurt all of us indirectly. And a believe in these myths is pervasive in the community and very clear in Mr. Wrights remarks. Mr. Obama should have addressed them directly.
Posted by: Dawn McNeal | March 18, 2008 2:29 PM
moderate lad wrote: "The USA had nothing to do with developing the AIDS virus ..."
I have never seen any plausible evidence that HIV was deliberately "developed" by human beings -- although there is plenty of evidence that the US government, as well as governments of other nations, have deliberately developed even more virulent and lethal biological agents for use as weapons.
However, it is a matter of historical fact that a deliberate course of inaction against HIV/AIDs by the Reagan administration, following the discovery of the virus and its effects in the early 1980s, was a major and significant factor that facilitated the spread of the disease, at a time when prompt action might well have prevented it from becoming the global problem that it is today.
Similarly, I have never seen any plausible evidence that the US government was complicit in the planning or execution of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. However, there is overwhelming evidence in the public record that the Bush administration received numerous, specific, advanced warnings during the summer of 2001 -- from its own intelligence agencies as well as from other countries -- that a large-scale Al Qaeda terrorist attack on US soil was imminent. And these specific warnings followed strenuous but futile efforts by outgoing members of the Clinton administration urging their incoming counterparts in the Bush administration to focus on the terrorist threat from Al Qaeda. And senior members of the Bush administration chose to ignore all of these warnings and do nothing. This may have been "merely" bad judgement bordering on criminal negligence, or it may have been a deliberate decision to allow a major terrorist attack to occur, with the intent of exploiting such an attack as a "new Pearl Harbor" to rally public support for the long-planned invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Similarly, there is abundant evidence that during the Reagan administration's terrorist wars against the people of Central America during the 1980s, the CIA deliberately permitted the US-funded "Contra" terrorists of Nicaragua to raise money by running drugs -- in particular cocaine -- into major urban centers in the USA where it had a devastating impact on black communities (and afforded a pretext for mass incarcerations of young black men).
When the US government acts in such ways -- negligently or deliberately ignoring threats to the American people and to vulnerable and politically powerless groups in particular -- it is not surprising that some people come to see the US government as actively creating these threats. Such beliefs are mistaken, but the truth is plenty bad enough.
Posted by: SecularAnimist | March 18, 2008 2:34 PM
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 18, 2008 2:24 PM
'...because his critics need to deal with their issues first...'
So - because of some - Wright is given a 'bye' to say whatever he 'D**n' well pleases until the 'others' deal with their issues first? I don't even think Wallis would agree with that statement.
Just because I am 'white' - Wright has the right to dump me into the same pit that he is dumping all other 'white' people regardless of how they handle their personal lives and other people in the community. So - if I am no better in the eyes of Wright and his congregation - why should I continue to help those in need in my community. I am just another white bigot in Wrights eyes. (and I wonder about the eyes of others)
Wrights words are wrong regardless of what race you are. Obama says that words are important - he is correct and Wrights words and the 20+ year influence he has had on Obama and his family I believe will be an issue that the Clintons will have a hayday with.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 18, 2008 2:36 PM
"I think this entire thing is ridiculous. Sen. Obama is running for president, not his former pastor Rev. Wright."
But Wright was working with the campaign until the story broke. Even after he became aware of it, he had Wright working for him.
"Get over it people."
Which people? I don't think this incident changed any minds here about Obama.
"When are we going to hear news stories about this?"
I heard quite a few of them, but most cite the fact that McCain was seeking the endorsement the same way he sought many conservative religious leaders, and touted his pro-Israel stances to get it. That is the extent of the connection, and no moderate voter is going to find that particularly troublesome.
Obama and McCain have, and will have, a number of endorsers who have also said controversial things, but not all are newsworthy because the nature of their endorsement doesn't involve those things. As such, you won't hear much about them in the news.
That said, you heard plenty about George W. Bush's speech at Bob Jones University. Did you think that was relevant?
Posted by: kevin s. | March 18, 2008 2:41 PM
It was the conservatives who made them into victims in the first place and who wants to keep everyone from addressing that. That's why the conservative ship is sinking.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin
Ah , I knew it was the conservatives behind it .
Posted by: Mick | March 18, 2008 2:41 PM
'...plausible evidence...'
You are relying on 'plausible' too much. As for the Reagan Adm and HIV/AIDS. It was a Dem controled congress in power at the time. Why could'nt they get their collective backsides together and pass a bill and force Reagan to sign or veto and show their true colors?
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 18, 2008 2:43 PM
Dawn,
The Tuskeegee experiments happened. You can read more about it here. Actually let me just copy what they said.
The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment
The United States government did something that was wrong—deeply, profoundly, morally wrong. It was an outrage to our commitment to integrity and equality for all our citizens. . . . clearly racist.
—President Clinton's apology for the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment to the eight remaining survivors, May 16, 1997
For forty years between 1932 and 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) conducted an experiment on 399 black men in the late stages of syphilis. These men, for the most part illiterate sharecroppers from one of the poorest counties in Alabama, were never told what disease they were suffering from or of its seriousness. Informed that they were being treated for “bad blood,”1 their doctors had no intention of curing them of syphilis at all. The data for the experiment was to be collected from autopsies of the men, and they were thus deliberately left to degenerate under the ravages of tertiary syphilis—which can include tumors, heart disease, paralysis, blindness, insanity, and death. “As I see it,” one of the doctors involved explained, “we have no further interest in these patients until they die.”
Using Human Beings as Laboratory Animals
The true nature of the experiment had to be kept from the subjects to ensure their cooperation. The sharecroppers' grossly disadvantaged lot in life made them easy to manipulate. Pleased at the prospect of free medical care—almost none of them had ever seen a doctor before—these unsophisticated and trusting men became the pawns in what James Jones, author of the excellent history on the subject, Bad Blood, identified as “the longest nontherapeutic experiment on human beings in medical history.”
The study was meant to discover how syphilis affected blacks as opposed to whites—the theory being that whites experienced more neurological complications from syphilis whereas blacks were more susceptible to cardiovascular damage. How this knowledge would have changed clinical treatment of syphilis is uncertain. Although the PHS touted the study as one of great scientific merit, from the outset its actual benefits were hazy. It took almost forty years before someone involved in the study took a hard and honest look at the end results, reporting that “nothing learned will prevent, find, or cure a single case of infectious syphilis or bring us closer to our basic mission of controlling venereal disease in the United States.” When the experiment was brought to the attention of the media in 1972, news anchor Harry Reasoner described it as an experiment that “used human beings as laboratory animals in a long and inefficient study of how long it takes syphilis to kill someone.”
A Heavy Price in the Name of Bad Science
By the end of the experiment, 28 of the men had died directly of syphilis, 100 were dead of related complications, 40 of their wives had been infected, and 19 of their children had been born with congenital syphilis. How had these men been induced to endure a fatal disease in the name of science? To persuade the community to support the experiment, one of the original doctors admitted it “was necessary to carry on this study under the guise of a demonstration and provide treatment.” At first, the men were prescribed the syphilis remedies of the day—bismuth, neoarsphenamine, and mercury—but in such small amounts that only 3 percent showed any improvement. These token doses of medicine were good public relations and did not interfere with the true aims of the study. Eventually, all syphilis treatment was replaced with “pink medicine”—aspirin. To ensure that the men would show up for a painful and potentially dangerous spinal tap, the PHS doctors misled them with a letter full of promotional hype: “Last Chance for Special Free Treatment.” The fact that autopsies would eventually be required was also concealed. As a doctor explained, “If the colored population becomes aware that accepting free hospital care means a post-mortem, every darky will leave Macon County…” Even the Surgeon General of the United States participated in enticing the men to remain in the experiment, sending them certificates of appreciation after 25 years in the study.
You can read more about the article here.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762136.html
p
Posted by: Payshun | March 18, 2008 2:50 PM
It's time for the left to try a new approach: recognize that Wright is a mediocre theologian (even in the context of the black church)
Posted by Wolverine
I am not sure about that , he had a huge Congregation . Some Pastors have a Pastors heart for their members, but can not preach worth a darn .
"Just because I am 'white' - Wright has the right to dump me into the same pit that he is dumping all other 'white' people regardless of how they handle their personal lives and other people in the community "
I know exactly what you mean , but their is a cultural exchange here that is not getting exchanged . Wright was not speaking to you , he was speaking to the system in my opinion .
And yes I think it causes harm , but did you read Frederick Douglass taking the US to task . Think about that and the time it was given . Hundreds of thousands Of white soldiers had died already , and ending slavery was for part of that sacrifice . Think how insulted perhaps some people took what Doudlass said as controversal , today we read it and it is profound . Not saying right is profound . So when the other side is talking context on this issue , it means the whole socio cultural mixed bag . I think if some of the liberals here have been been better hosts to us with a traditional view on things , and had repected our sincerity more , this would have been easier to talk about . But its a left leaning blog , and the right blogs are not even considering giving the Pastor any slack .
To Jim Wallis if your listening , I have taken what you said to heart on this issue . And am glad you are reaching out to open the conversation . But is appears that you want conversation to go the way you believe on all conversations , and not real exposure to all the facts and understanding on all issues . Perhaps open up to some other sincere Bibical Views partnering with your organization that may challenge even yours sometimes ?
I believe you will find it reqarding , and the church more then ready for it .
Posted by: Mick | March 18, 2008 2:58 PM
WHY WON'T SOJO CONDEMN WRIGHT?
WHY WON'T THE UCC?
OBAMA HAS - WHY WON'T THE OTHERS?
I THINK WE KNOW WHY
WALLIS, NOWLIN, DON AND ALL THE OTHERS ARE TO SELF BLOGGINGLY IMPORTANT TO CONCEDE TO THE TRUTH
Posted by: Paul Jamieson | March 18, 2008 3:00 PM
But Wright was working with the campaign until the story broke. Even after he became aware of it, he had Wright working for him.
Yeah, but it is not like Wright made those comments yesterday. He's been saying stuff like that for last 30 years. Why is this such a big story now? Why is this breaking news now when they have been talking about Rev. Wright's controversial statements really for some time now? Seems to be a little convenient while Obama and Clinton wrestle for the Democratic nominee in a close race.
Which people? I don't think this incident changed any minds here about Obama.
Which is exactly the point. Everyone making a big deal about this from left and right, this isn't "newsworthy" because nobody really cares. It's not doing the damage those who brought it up thought it would.
I think the fact that McCain is becoming bed-fellows with extremist Christians and their super pro-Israel/pro-war stance is a big story. Do we really want to continue to wage war against people because of their religion? How far have we come? How mature have we gotten? You can justify war all you want (terrorism, WMD's) but, like it or not, the Eastern world sees us as Western vs. Eastern, Christian vs. Islam. They see us as anti-Muslim and as seeking to destroy their culture, their families, their faith, and their civilization. Now that needs to be spoken more about.
Posted by: Matt G. | March 18, 2008 3:04 PM
I may be overly optimistic, but lately, after reading Jeremy Mayer's "Running on Race" and Shelby Steele's "A Bound Man," I have begun to feel very encouraged that Obama's candidacy are opening new national conversations that will help to provide some racial healing in this country. Although I winced when I first heard about Wright's statements and for a few days felt that it was going to set things back, I am now thinking that this coming out into the open is a blessing. I am hoping that the people of this country can look at the context of those statements, step back and take a deep breath, and talk rationally about it. I think it is necessary for white America to hear the rage in these comments (over the top as they are), to consider the context and Obama's response, and to realize that those statements represent a feeling among many Blacks that an Obama nomination (and Presidency) could help to heal.
I'm not so naive to think that all Americans will learn from this (witness the knee-jerk reactions to 9/11 and the SC racist smear against McCain in 2000, for example), but hopefully a critical mass will be affected positively by this national conversation.
Posted by: I and I | March 18, 2008 3:05 PM
So - because of some - Wright is given a 'bye' to say whatever he 'D**n' well pleases until the 'others' deal with their issues first? I don't even think Wallis would agree with that statement.
Well, Jesus might -- in the Sermon on the Mount He addressed people who had logs in their eyes attempting to removing specks in others'. Conservatives who rant against Wright simply don't have the authority to be heard because they helped to cause the problems he's addressing in the first place.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 18, 2008 3:06 PM
A few small questions/comments:
1) Paul J, did you accidentally hit your "caps lock" key?
2) Is that really you, Ashpenaz, or an imposter? It sounds more negative and biased than what I've come to expect.
3) Are the Staples (sans Pops, RIP) still connected with Trinity Chursch?
4) Like Wolverine, I'm confused about Jim's comment "the grainy black-and-white clips of the dashiki-clad Rev. Wright and the angry black male voice (all designed to provoke stereotypes and fear)." Far as I know, Rev. Wright's clothing and voice are his own.
Posted by: I and I | March 18, 2008 3:12 PM
"Yeah, but it is not like Wright made those comments yesterday. He's been saying stuff like that for last 30 years. Why is this such a big story now?"
Well, if you believe Obama, even HE didn't know about them. But since I don't believe him, I would offer that the mainstream media did not, by virtue of the fact that they didn't attend his church.
This didn't become a huge issue until the Ohio debate, when Hillary called him out for his handling of the Farrakhan deal. I think that's when reporters started looking for the tape. That said, Obama himself wouldn't be in the news if he weren't locked in a race with Hillary, so I'm not sure of your point. Clearly, Wright is not a story in and of himself.
"Everyone making a big deal about this from left and right, this isn't "newsworthy" because nobody really cares. It's not doing the damage those who brought it up thought it would."
If that were true, Obama wouldn't have delivered a race speech today. I think moderates, those who supported Obama in the early stages are watching. Moreso, I think this situation has reduced Obama to the usual political gamesmanship. Unless this speech makes a tremendous impact, he loses some of his "post-political" sheen.
"I think the fact that McCain is becoming bed-fellows with extremist Christians and their super pro-Israel/pro-war stance is a big story. "
Pro-Israel stances are easily the norm in this country, and not news at all, and politics produces strange bedfellows. We also know enough about McCain to know that he doesn't believe we should attack Muslims for religious reasons related to his dispensationalist theology. We don't know the extent to which Obama agrees with Wright. All we know is that he has a short career as a Senator, and a long history with that church.
I'd prefer McCain hadn't sought the endorsement, but I don't think it is a bigger story.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 18, 2008 3:28 PM
I'm confused about Jim's comment "the grainy black-and-white clips of the dashiki-clad Rev. Wright and the angry black male voice (all designed to provoke stereotypes and fear)." Far as I know, Rev. Wright's clothing and voice are his own.
If you ever saw black radicals in the early 1970s you would understand immediately -- that's just what many of them wore.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 18, 2008 3:35 PM
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 18, 2008 3:06 PM
'Sermon on the Mount...'
Blessed are the poor in spirit - No
Blessed are they that mourn - No
Blessed are those who hunger and thurst - No
Blessed are the meek - I don't think so
Blessed are the merciful - No
Blessed are the pure in heart - OK - with reservation
Blessed are ye - against you falsely - Everyone.
So - maybe Wright does and what he says are two different things? (I'm not sure) But from what he has said - Sermon on the Mount really does not fit.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 18, 2008 3:44 PM
Moderatelad -- You quoted only the fifth chapter of Matthew. Skip over to the seventh chapter, which is was I was referring to. (It's still part of the same sermon.)
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 18, 2008 3:50 PM
I've belonged to a number of different churches in my time. I have heard a lot of edifying sermons. I have also heard a lot of drivel, some of it objectionable.
Sometimes I have challenged the preacher, sometimes I have not.
But I would be horrified to hear that I am somehow responsible for those sermons because I was sitting in a pew.
Most of this discussion is irrelevant and overheated (well, what a surprise...). Instead of talking about Mr Wright, I would like to know what Obama stands for...
Meurig
Posted by: meurig | March 18, 2008 4:06 PM
But it's not doing any damage. You even said so yourself: "I don't think this incident changed any minds here about Obama."
From what I'm gathering of the reaction to his speech, most people are very pleased and agreed with what he said. If anything, he has used this as another opportunity shine even brighter.
I still think this whole thing is ridiculous because no one is throwing as much dirt on Clinton and McCain and their relationships with controversial people as they are throwing on Obama. The thing with Geraldine Ferraro was in the news for like one day, but this thing with Wright has gone on far much longer than necessary.
Posted by: Matt G. | March 18, 2008 4:11 PM
M-lad, I don't get on here regularly, but still want to meet when you come to MacP. I'll buy lunch. Want to ask, what is your take on Psalm 137. How should we Christians read the anger expressed there?
Igor
Posted by: Deryll | March 18, 2008 4:20 PM
Ho Hum ???????????
All this time I believed there was ONE GOD who created US all, and he liked color so we are not all the same color...even whites! We are all brothers [and sisters] and there really is only one RACE ...........
H U M A N ! And each of the candidates therefore are ALL OF THE SAME RACE! I detect a lot of JUDGING going on in this blog and that saddens me most of all. That is supposed to be a No No also, isn't it?
Peace to All !
Posted by: OlderThanDirt | March 18, 2008 4:22 PM
Barack Obama is NOT a black man. Neither is he a white man. He is a reconciliation of both colours and as such represents what the USA most badly needs, racial reconciliation and harmony and cooperation that alone will get it out of the troubled state it is in and which seems to be getting worse by the day.
This should be as clear as day toeveryone with two intelligent brain cells working together but there are none so ignoreant as those who are proud of their ignorance.
Unfortunately, in this day and age, living in our global village, who US citizens choose as their President affects every person living. Just look at what the present incumbent has achieved on our behalf. His stupidity has become legendary and there are still nine months left in which he can do even worse.
Wake up America! You NEED Obama.
Posted by: Johor from New Zealand | March 18, 2008 4:22 PM
One summer I worked at a mission congregation in one of the poorest neighborhoods in southern California--ironically just a few blocks from where my law office used to be.
The neighborhood was majority Latino (probably half of whom are immigrants), with the second largest ethnic group being black. I'm an old white guy.
One of the teenagers at the congregation made a comment that America is like going over to your friend's house and thinking he has a nice home until you find out that his mother beats him.
Unless you can see that reality for people of color, it's impossible for white people to get what Reverend Wright is saying.
I certainly don't agree with everything Wright says, but having worked in that neighborhood, I now understand why he believed or said those things.
Posted by: Jay Egenes | March 18, 2008 4:27 PM
Here are a few quotes from the speech.
Kevin
I do not think that I could persuade you to like it but could you explain to me what, in your opinion, that Obama is saying in these quotes that is wrong.
"A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family, contributed to the erosion of black families – a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened."
"In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time."
"For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man who's been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives – by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny."
Kevin I would say that to a large extent he is singing a song that has a lot in harmony with your own tune.
Posted by: wayne | March 18, 2008 4:41 PM
kevin s wrote: "We also know enough about McCain to know that he doesn't believe we should attack Muslims for religious reasons related to his dispensationalist theology."
Of course McCain doesn't believe that.
We know enough about McCain to know that he believes we should attack Muslims in order to seize control of the world's last, biggest, richest supplies of high-quality, cheaply extractable oil that happen to lie beneath the soil of their countries.
We know enough about McCain to know that he believes we should attack Muslims in order to enrich the already rich war-profiteers of the military-industrial complex with endless war.
We know enough about McCain to know that he believes we should attack Muslims in order to keep the American people in a perpetual state of fear in which they will yield their civil liberties and economic aspirations to an authoritarian corporate state.
We know enough about McCain to know that he is a bought-and-paid-for tool of giant corporations and their lobbyists, that his own campaign organization is staffed and run by corporate lobbyists, and that he will conduct US foreign policy for corrupt purposes of private financial gain for his cronies and financial backers -- just like Cheney and Bush.
And we know enough about McCain to know that he will gladly use demented preachers like Hagee to manipulate the fears of weak-minded, ignorant dupes to get them to vote for Republicans like McCain who will turn around and kick them in the teeth.
And we know enough about you from reading your frequent comments here to realize that you are a partisan Republican whose pretense of even-handedness is a transparently laughable joke.
Posted by: SecularAnimist | March 18, 2008 4:43 PM
While I agree with much of what Wallis says in his post, his blaming of the so-called right-wing media machine for this is nonsense. Wallis misses the point that these clips come from a CD that the church was indeed selling. I suppose they believed that these comments by Rev. Wright were important enough to sell. This suggests a larger context that Obama was part of for twenty years.
Wallis' post says less about Obama than it does about Wallis. He unfortunately no longer provides a true alternative to the politics of the world. He is simply now a member of the religious left. The religious right is not a true Christian alternative; neither is the religious left. Wallis has unfortuntely lost his prophetic edge because he has sided with the left. Right and left are modern alternatives. I prefer to align myself with God's kingdom.
Posted by: Allan R. Bevere | March 18, 2008 4:59 PM
Was it Dirty Harry of whom it was said, "He's not prejudiced, he hates everybody"?
On another note, SecAni, yes kev is not even-handed but your approach won't change one who doesn't really want to be even handed.
Igor
Posted by: Deryll | March 18, 2008 5:06 PM
"If you ever saw black radicals in the early 1970s you would understand immediately -- that's just what many of them wore."
Actually, what I was confused about was Jim's comment that showing clips of it was "designed to provoke stereotypes and fear." It seems hardy plausible that Rev. Wright was wearing a dashiki to provoke stereotypes and fear, and the videos simply showed what he was wearing as he preached. (And I think enough people are wearing them today that most people don't connect them with Black Power radicalism anymore.)
Posted by: I and I | March 18, 2008 5:09 PM
" actually listen to what his words are saying about the U.S. being run by "rich white people" while blacks have cabs speeding by them, and about the U.S.'s misdeeds around the world, it's hard to disagree with many of the facts presented. It's rather the angry tone of Wright's comments that provides the offense and the controversy."
You're too optimistic about the "moderates" in America. Most Americans are unwilling to hear that our country has supported terrorism overseas, no matter how gently the truth is phrased. If they were interested in knowing this, we wouldn't have done it. It's a leftist myth that the US government is able to support bad governments overseas because they keep most Americans in the dark about what is being done in their name. Most Americans simply don't care.
As for Obama's speech, it was good by political standards and good on some points, but cowardly on others, because he's a politician trying to win over precisely the kinds of people who go crazy if anyone says something that makes them uncomfortable. Out of all the specific things that Wright said, some good and some stupid, one of the comments that Obama singled out for refutation was about Israeli terror against Palestinians. Obama could have said that there has been terror on both sides and both sides need to repent and that our country has too often said nothing as our aid was used to kill innocent Palestinians. Or he could have said nothing at all on that issue. Instead he chose to tell the lie that would do his candidacy the most good--he said that Israel is our democratic ally and the root cause of the problems there is the rise of Islamic radicalism.
Posted by: Donald | March 18, 2008 5:24 PM
It seems hardy plausible that Rev. Wright was wearing a dashiki to provoke stereotypes and fear, and the videos simply showed what he was wearing as he preached.
They probably could have showed him wearing something else.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 18, 2008 5:40 PM
Donald wrote that Obama "chose to tell the lie that would do his candidacy the most good -- he said that Israel is our democratic ally and the root cause of the problems there is the rise of Islamic radicalism."
That comment also struck me as the one false note in an otherwise honest speech.
The truth that neither Barack Obama nor any other US politician will tell is: the root cause of the problems of the Middle East is oil.
Oil is the only reason that the "great powers" of the world have the slightest interest in the politics and conflicts of the Middle East. Oil is the only reason that the "great powers" of the world pour billions of dollars in "military aid" into that region, arming Israel and the Arab states alike, and fomenting and manipulating conflicts there by means of which they seek to gain power over the region's vast supplies of cheaply extractable, high-quality oil. That's the "great game" that has been going on for a century, since the vast ocean of oil was discovered under the desert sands.
Access to, and control of, Middle Eastern oil has been explicitly defined as a "vital strategic interest" of the United States since FDR's administration, which began the "special relationship" with the Saudi royal family. This policy has been reaffirmed by every president since, including Jimmy Carter as well as George W. Bush.
Every aspect of US policy in the region revolves around that "vital strategic interest" -- including US support for governments as varied as the Likud government of Israel and the Baathist dictatorship of Saddam Hussein (which the US helped to put in power to begin with and supported during the era of Saddam's worst atrocities against both the Iranian and Iraqi people).
That is a truth that I wish Barack Obama would speak.
When will there be peace in the Middle East? When the last drop of economically recoverable oil has been pumped and burned, that's when.
Posted by: SecularAnimist | March 18, 2008 5:43 PM
Mr. Wallis handled the CNN situation very well. I can truly sense the love of Christ in people like Wallis and others on "Sojourners". Lets not forget that Jesus spoke truth to the powers that be. We can never move forward as a country, if we continue to be divided. Stop the foolishness people. Obama has gone above and beyond to get us focused on the issues at hand.
Posted by: David | March 18, 2008 6:07 PM
"Instead of talking about Mr Wright, I would like to know what Obama stands for..."
If he had done this from the get-go, this issue never would have loomed so large.
"It seems hardy plausible that Rev. Wright was wearing a dashiki to provoke stereotypes and fear, and the videos simply showed what he was wearing as he preached."
It's racist that they didn't photoshop a tuxedo on him. You need to bridge the gap with more context and listen more. Duh. Best speech of all time!
Posted by: kevin s. | March 18, 2008 6:32 PM
"We know enough about McCain to know that he believes we should attack Muslims"
No. You are correct to suggest that oil is a major factor in our involvement in the Middle East, but that does not mean McCain believes we should attack Muslims, or that we should acquire it by force.
"We know enough about McCain to know that he believes we should attack Muslims in order to enrich the already rich war-profiteers of the military-industrial complex with endless war."
You will later go on to castigate me for my failure to be even-handed.
"in which they will yield their civil liberties and economic aspirations to an authoritarian corporate state."
Really, and what has McCain proposed that would move us in the direction of authoritarianism, and how is he asking you to give up your economic aspirations?
"We know enough about McCain to know that he is a bought-and-paid-for tool of giant corporations and their lobbyists"
And Obama is not? McCain has at least taken SOME political risk to stand up to special interests.
"and that he will conduct US foreign policy for corrupt purposes of private financial gain for his cronies and financial backers"
Oh, we KNOW this, do we?
"to manipulate the fears of weak-minded, ignorant dupes"
Glad you have so much faith in the voters. Perhaps you can be a shining beacon of reason to them all. Do you have a newsletter?
"you are a partisan Republican"
Any Republican is partisan, so I'm not sure why that qualifier is necessary, but yes, I freely admit my partisan leanings (unlike some).
"whose pretense of even-handedness is a transparently laughable joke."
What pretense of even-handedness? I have rather emphatically supported Hillary over Obama and McCain over Hillary.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 18, 2008 6:46 PM
I appreciate comments from I and I and John S about the potential helpfulness of this national dialogue. I pray for such.
I am not discouraged by disagreement or persons with different conclusions. I am not discouraged by persons passionately laying out their case.
I am discouraged by trying to figure out how to contibute towards a conversation that develops greater understanding.
I ask questions to persons who seem hostile but don't explain. And they don't respond. I try to explain things about Pastor Wright who challenge his statements. Rather than come back and say, "Well, yes I do see this, but I disagree with that" they just go back to "Well he's just wrong" stance.
I am saddened because I know great numbers of Black persons simply will not engage because they consider it a hopeless discussion. I am saddened at the lack of sorrow over our broken relationships. I am saddened when white brothers and sisters do not contribute the gift of listening and submission we could give; and instead place demands to conform.
I understand there are White Christians offended by Dr. Wright's comments. But why would one choose to reamin on their offense if understanding would lead to a removal of the sense of offense?
I have experienced all kinds of threats, loud voices, accusations and demands from African Americans in the last 30 years (but mostly a whole lot of love); I can't think of an instance in which the right course of action for me was not to listen and learn. That is not acquiesence, white guilt, avoidance, excusing, agreeing or patronizing. Maybe it is just because I needed to learn.
But it is a gift I can give; and in so doing I have been the recipient of the larger gift.
I was surprised at J Wallis' highlighting of the grainy video--altghough I grasped the point.
One thing, brothers and sisters I believe we need to do is stop pllaying lawyer with each other.
I know we are all particularly clever. But why am I more interested in jumping on the weakness or flaw or mistake in someone else's argument. It is OK to do so if the 'debate' is genuine and in love. But when we jump on errors/flaws without granting the gift of listening and understanding we really show ourselves to value misunderstanding/division/and being right over the building of loving relationships in which we can speak and live with greater truth and wisdom.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 18, 2008 6:58 PM
"But it's not doing any damage. You even said so yourself: "I don't think this incident changed any minds here about Obama"
Oh I don't know about that . Today I hear NPR taking phone calls on it . Obama has much support from those who grabbed on his message of hope , and uniting us.
I sure liked that message also.
According to a recent CDC report 50 percent of African American young ladies from the age of 14 to 19 have a STD . Very high percentage for other groups also , but no where close to 50 percent . To hear that STDs is a secret plan made up by the USA , or as one blogger here blames Reagan , it takes away from the fact we all want kids not to be contracting them . Obama would have promoted the view for protection and promoted a value system that portrayed individual choices caused STDS in my opinion .
I did not hear Obama's speech , and because of some of the articulated comments here I tend to perhaps be more understanding , but the majority of people in this country heard the sound bites of Wright , not Obamas speech , nor been privy to some of the comments here .
Obama's campaign has been badly damaged . Big time .
Posted by: Mick | March 18, 2008 7:04 PM
Mick--To me this whole controversy is all about Obama's campaign;
But, the meaning, potential, purpose of it has nothing to do with Obama's campaign.
We need to be listening to God's word and purposes in this matter; his purposes for a nation and church devastated by racial brokenness.
Our dialogue as Christian brothers and sisters on a blog given to moving beyond a polarized, politicized, division--could manifest the power of the Gospel.
Why, as the public dialogue descends into hollaring and dirty politics can't we model the healing love of Jesus. If the Gospel cannot bring healing to a racially divided church--of what point is the Gospel?
That was Dr. King's point in quote I included on other thread. i.e. his question wondering about what kind of god is worshipped in these beautiful southern churches with great Christian education complexes.
I thank you for modeling a heart and mind seeking to not just know but live the Truth.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 18, 2008 7:31 PM
I would back Senator Obama over Senator Clinton and will vote for McCain over both.
With McCain, who is my senator, I have seen a man who could make mistakes but come back with integrity, a man who has proven himself in any number of ways that anyone should respect. He stands up for what he thinks is right despite the opposition and has my conservative values.
Obama looks to me to be a younger version of the same. I think he is honest and no where near the radical many have tried to paint him to be. He is a dreamer, but that doesn't make him a far left liberal. The quotes show that I think.
Senator Clinton? She just brings too much baggage. I am surprised to hear that you would support Her over Obama, Kevin. You seem more conservative than that. Is it just that you think McCain wins if she is his opponent? Is it because you follow Rush Limbaugh's advice? Current numbers do not bear out that Senator McCain wins over her but it is too soon to tell.
In any case I showed you what impressed me in Senator Obama's speech. Hope that satisfied you.
Posted by: wayne | March 18, 2008 7:37 PM
What's funny kevin is that you are quick to defend McCain and justify who endorses him, but you don't do the same for the other candidates.
If Obama is going to be tied to Rev. Wright's remarks and be held responsible for them, then why can't people hold McCain responsible for John Hagee's and other's remarks/beliefs? That has been my point all along, and you have proven it by sticking by McCain and justifying his ties to controversial people.
Mick: if you didn't hear/read Obama's speech you would know that any damage was turned around. Please continue reading the post you quoted me from:
From what I'm gathering of the reaction to his speech, most people are very pleased and agreed with what he said. If anything, he has used this as another opportunity shine even brighter.
Posted by: Matt G. | March 18, 2008 7:38 PM
Jim Wallis wrote:
it's hard to disagree with many of the facts presented.
I agree. But Barack Obama does not. If you read his speech today, it is very patronizing. He essentially characterizes Rev. Wright as a very nice man who is out of touch with reality.
Here is just part of what Obama said:
But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.
Is seeing white racism as endemic in America really "profoundly distorted"? Are the problems in the Middle East solely or even primarily caused by "radical Islam"? Obama is presenting falsehoods that serve to ingratiate himself with the power structure in this country while patronizing a prophetic voice from the African-American community.
I do agree that Wright got caught up in an unsupportable conspiracy theory regarding AIDS. But that has not been central to the controversy of recent days. It has been more supportable comments by Wright which have been at the center of the controversy.
Wallis says, "Barack Obama should win or lose his party's nomination or the presidency based on the positions he takes regarding the great issues of our time and his capacity to lead the country and the U.S.'s role in the world." I fully agree.
Obama's positions are profoundly establishment. He has supported funding for the Iraq War and has indicated he may keep an American military presence there throughout his term. He has supported Bush's military budgets, and his official campaign position is for even larger military budgets and increasing the size of the active duty military forces. I am not aware that any time in his political career he has supported any move involving fundamental change.
His original speech opposing going into Iraq (much of which was devoted to explaining that he was not for peace), his voting record, his positions on issues, his treatment of the questions regarding his pastor, and so much more seems to amount to a constant scream to the political establishment that "I'm safe. I'm not going to upset any apple carts. I will protect the system at all costs."
Posted by: Bill Samuel | March 18, 2008 8:07 PM
"Mick--To me this whole controversy is all about Obama's campaign;
But, the meaning, potential, purpose of it has nothing to do with Obama's campaign"
Posted by: letjusticerolldown
That is so true , this good be a good thing .
"Mick: if you didn't hear/read Obama's speech you would know that any damage was turned around. Please continue reading the post you quoted me from "
Posted by: Matt G. |
Matt you missed my point I believe . By the way his speech can be heard on MSNBC web , with the video .
Matt I agree with you , it is a good speech . Forgive my political know it all type negativity , but people often vote on sound bites and slogans . I was trying to say more people have heard the short negative sound bites that will ever hear the speech by Obama . I hope your right , people listen to it . I am voting for McCain , but I figured a democrat would win this election and was hoping it would be Obama . Still do .
Posted by: Mick | March 18, 2008 8:12 PM
"What's funny kevin is that you are quick to defend McCain and justify who endorses him, but you don't do the same for the other candidates."
No, I said that Obama will seek, and receive, a number of endorsements from those holding to bizarre ideas. That is fine, but this isn't about an endorsement.
"then why can't people hold McCain responsible for John Hagee's and other's remarks/beliefs? "
They can, and I do, but to a much lesser degree. You asked about newsworthiness. I never said McCain was justified in seeking the endorsement, and I said he should have declined it.
"I am surprised to hear that you would support Her over Obama, Kevin. You seem more conservative than that."
Obama's a bit to the left of Hillary. Further, he hasn't really articulated what he believes, and I don't think he has the fortitude or the experience to say no when a charismatic socialist leader like Chavez comes calling. What's to keep Captain Context from going further to the left and making it sound reasonable and pragmatic to the American people?
Hillary will tell the Chavez's of the world to shove it, and has a history of triangulating to some degree in order to be elected. She'd be bad, but Obama would be catastrophic, in my view.
As far as electability, I think Obama is a one-termer and Hillary is a two-termer. He's got a lot of Carter like qualities (couldn't you see him delivering a "malaise" speech?) Further, I am not going to underestimate Hillary's ability to beat McCain. The women just set Obama's campaign in disarray and then managed to get the Dems to blame it on conservative talk radio.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 18, 2008 8:23 PM
As I started this note, two of my little girls are playing "Daddy's Diner" bringing me menus so I can order up drinks and snacks. The third and youngest child (5) is in bedroom playing with a little keyboard on bed because she is very tired/ornery. She opens the doors and screams at her sisters that they are being too loud and disrupting her. The older two are looking at me with bewilderment, "What do we do?"
I smiled at them and said, "Just say 'We're sorry." Which they did. Sister quietly shut the door and went back to the bed.
It strikes me how very childish we can be. How intent we are on conflicting. How we would rather be sure we disagree and fight--then recognize and build on commonalities.
Bill S--After the speech (I did not listen) I turned on Laura Ingraham. The first words out of her mouth--she was complaining that it seemed he was speaking to two audiences and was employing clever rhetorical devices to do so. I just tossed up my hands. Everyone demands he both hear the words of Dr. Wright through their listening--and then respond to these different interpretations with a single response. And then if he somehow manages to speak to these different "listenings" he is guilty of employing clever (dishonest/manipulative) devices.
He is running for the most establishment position in the world Bill. "The establishment" (sometimes we need to be a bit specific in what we are talking about) has great responsibility. The job is to bring justice/truth/beauty into the stewardship of what would be under his responsibility. It is not to be for or against the establishment==but to be for justice in the stewardship of the establishment.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 18, 2008 8:40 PM
Wright is a prophet because he tells the truth. The US government invented aids in order to infect the black community. Obama is a coward because he refuses to join Wright in speaking the truth to power. Simple as that.
Posted by: Norman Pace | March 18, 2008 9:04 PM
Mick,
I'm sorry, I did misunderstand you. I see where you were coming from now.
Peace
Posted by: Matt G. | March 18, 2008 9:21 PM
I've given up posting here because of the extraordinary racism I see, seen as legitimized and loosed by Wright's remarks.
I don't think there is any sane conversation possible.
Wright's remarks, out of context, have been seized upon to allow some people to say the things they have wanted to all along.
Oh, America, I feel so sorry for you.
Yesterday, I became a new citizen, along with thirty others who had waited many years while their petitions languished for no good reason. A young woman born in Syria sat to my left, a woman from Iran to my right. I was the only Anglo, so I do not know what bureaucratic incompetency caused homeland security to clump me in with their similar fate.
I think God wanted to tell me something - how unfair my people have been to those of other ethnic and cultural
experience - all without realizing it, caught up as we are in our own perspective. I know how unfair it felt, being barred from voting and participation for no good reason, being placed in a category of people with few constitutional rights, having the time for my children to share citizenship time out.
Must we experience just what those who have been dispossessed experience, before we can begin to understand?
Lord, let not others' hearts be as hardened as mine was.
Posted by: New Citizen | March 18, 2008 9:32 PM
Jim Wallis article is but one of many of his that 'hits the nail on the head' for me. Personally, as a member of a congregation of Christians I do not change congregations because I disagree with the pastor on any number of issues. Pastors come and go, but the congregation of believers has staying power, even though many within are on opposite sides of the political fence. For heaven's sake, we all owe it to Obama to evaluate him based on his statements and actions in government rather than condemn him for the ill-advised statements, especially when taken out of context, of his pastor.
Posted by: Murray Milford | March 18, 2008 9:49 PM
"As far as electability, I think Obama is a one-termer and Hillary is a two-termer. He's got a lot of Carter like qualities (couldn't you see him delivering a "malaise" speech?)" kevin s
kevin s. comes from a long line of Carter bashers who still can't stand that he was calling on Americans to sacrifice. ' What? No way, darn it! We Americans stand together in our materialism, or we shall surely stand apart.'
Personally, I think that after 25 years of gorging at the trough, Americans need someone like a Jimmy Carter to set the country straight. We don't need another cheerleader or gun-slinger, but a real statesman who can stand up for justice, mercy and walk humbly with God. (an ideal, of course).
I don't know if I'll vote for McCain or Obama in November -- depends on a lot of factors in between -- but it seems that people like kevin s. wouldn't vote for someone like Obama anyway, so Obama's speech today will only have an impact on those who are thinking of voting for him.
Posted by: ando | March 18, 2008 10:14 PM
"Must we experience just what those who have been dispossessed experience, before we can begin to understand?" New Citizen
I find that to be a very interesting question. Sometimes I conclude it is not. Other times I reflect on how much I have gained from listening to and relating to African American brothers and sisters; and how learning to listen in that context has opened my ears to many persons/peoples of the world.
Yet I also know, for instance in cross-cultural settings, that it is very rare for a person to completely leave one's own culture and become another. The few white people I know who approach that with Black America have had deeply despairing experiences.
But ultimately I think we need to reflect on the basic journey with Jesus; a spiritual journey in which all is stripped away; in which we must take up our cross and turn our face towards Calvary. It is a very solitary experience. And it is also a journey with our Brothers and Sisters.
I believe if we are faithful to the journeys, open to the desires of our heart becoming Jesus' desires, open to sharing fully in the sufferings of our Saviour and the power of the Resurrection, our journeys may in fact look very different but we will walk enriched and wise lives by listening to and receiving from the journeys of each other. We may not know all aspects of their journey and yet the Spirit will breathe a deeper understanding and unity than we imagine.
New Citizen: Do not doubt the value of your journey and the goodness of God in using it for Kingdom purposes--at times and places when you least expect.
Blessings
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 18, 2008 10:23 PM
"I don't think there is any sane conversation possible."
Well, not after you call everyone a racist. What racist remarks have you seen?
""And then if he somehow manages to speak to these different "listenings""
Personally, I don't care about different listenings, as it relates to Wright's statements. There is one listening that demonstrates you have the temperament to be the United States. Obama has shown that he understands that listening, but he will have to convince the undecided that he subscribes to it.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 18, 2008 10:23 PM
Posted by: Deryll | March 18, 2008 4:20 PM
'M-lad, I don't get on here regularly, but still want to meet when you come to MacP. I'll buy lunch. Want to ask, what is your take on Psalm 137. How should we Christians read the anger expressed there?'
Igor
If I can I would like to get to McP this summer and visit my uncle Harry who has just been put into the Cedars.
As for Ps. 137
Remember I believe that you need to look at the OT with NT eyes as Christians. I believe that the Jews were and had every right to be angry at their plight. Their captives were mocking them asking them to sing and be funny. But these were Jews talking about their opressors. I believe that the slaves had every right to be mad at their captors and owners. They were mistreated in many cases badly. But - let us not forget that there were many white people that worked-faught and died to end slavery. My family for the most part came to the US after 1880 and those that were here faught for the North. Wright is lumping all of the 'whites' into the same pile. Because of some - Wright is asking that God D**n all of the non-blacks.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | March 18, 2008 10:29 PM
God "damned" Israel for refusing to keep Sabbath for 70 Sabbaths and God "damned" Sodom for leisure living and oppression of the poor and widow and we are getting "shocked" when an "uppity" prophet dares to expose "America"?
Prove the lie or be faced with the punishment you seek. Satan=accuser of the brethren
PJ
Posted by: Pastor Jeff staples | March 18, 2008 10:39 PM
I really think the divisions are distorted and designed to keep all the working middle class and poor at each others neck. We always bite on it! The very rich in this country have us exactly where they want us and we continue to let them divide us one against another. We will not come together to vote and to work to stop the awful injustice we are all being dealt by the wealthy. If we joined together maybe we would get decent wages, health insurance, politicians who answered to us and we could demand the corporate greed destroying our economy stop. Trust me--the rich feel our pain all the way to the bank. This will continue as long as we allow it. One group can't do this. We are going up or we are going down together.
Posted by: kandy | March 18, 2008 10:42 PM
The only oppression in the Black Community is from Blacks oppressing Blacks. Even Tupac got robbed and murdered as part of that community. It is the "culture" of the Black inner-city that is oppressing Blacks everywhere. Reality is something to study.
Posted by: threeeighteenoheight | March 18, 2008 10:45 PM
Why is everyone so eager to defend Rev. Wright? It is entirely possible that his G-D America sermon was prophet and that the quote was taken out of context. That still doesn't explain or justify some of his other comments, which I find more offensive. Naming AIDS as a government experiment to kills blacks was both irresponsible and false. There is no doubt that the Tuskegee experiments happened and were wrong but but that isn't grounds for making false claims. In his Christmas sermon, Wright claimed that Jesus was a poor, black man. First of all, that just isn't true. But what's more important is that Wright made those claims so that he could compare Barack Obama to Jesus. Comparing any politician, whether Barack Obama or George W. Bush, to the Lord is blasphemous. There was no excuse for his comments about the Clintons either. I'd encourage anyone to watch the youtube video to hear his words and watch his body language. That wasn't appropriate in church or around children, it would be better suited to a construction site. Jeremiah Write is being criticised for the wrong reasons. We need more prophetic preaching in America, but that means telling the truth even if it isn't popular, not telling lies that are. Even if he is perceived as anti-American, he can minister to his congregation. But spreading falsehoods and hate undermines the tradition of prophetic preaching that he is supposed to represent; I'm surprised Jim Wallis would defend him.
Posted by: Jake | March 18, 2008 11:10 PM
Jim, are you still defending this violently racist pastor? Gosh, you are even more partisan than the high water mark of the religious right in the 80's. It's time to show some objectivity even if it's just 0.000002 percent of the time. I hope the sheep aren't still calling you a prophet, this isn't exactly what I would call "God's Politics."
Posted by: Carter Bass | March 18, 2008 11:16 PM
Wright is asking that God D**n all of the non-blacks. Moderatelad (Please think long and hard about whether your statement is true)
"The only oppression in the Black Community is from Blacks oppressing Blacks. Even Tupac got robbed and murdered as part of that community. It is the "culture" of the Black inner-city that is oppressing Blacks everywhere." threeeighteen
"Personally, I don't care about different listenings, as it relates to Wright's statements." Kevin S
Is there any reason any of the three of you would not help to heal the divide J Wallis identifies below??
"This most recent controversy over race just demonstrates how enormous the gap still is between whites and blacks in the U.S. - in our experience and our capacity to understand one another. May God help us to heal that divide and truly bless America." Jim Wallis
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 18, 2008 11:28 PM
Jake:
Please document your allegations. Do you know the source of the AIDS/HIV virus? Are you looking at a picture of Jesus now? (According to the gospels Jesus' parents brought a poor family's offering for his circumcision ritual and there are a few dark skinned Palestinians)
What should we do with the "anathama" Rev Wright? Anyone ready to cast the first stone (that is the proper punishment for false prophets isn't it?)
Who really is spreading falsehoods and hate here?
PJ
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | March 18, 2008 11:29 PM
Jake asks why persons are so anxious to defend Dr. Wright. I think, Jake, if you re-read the authors of the three primary posts--they explain their reasons:
"This most recent controversy over race just demonstrates how enormous the gap still is between whites and blacks in the U.S. - in our experience and our capacity to understand one another. May God help us to heal that divide..."
"This controversy serves as a stark reminder that the problem of the color line that still divides the U.S. and its churches."
"But the attack on Rev. Wright...demonstrates the level of misunderstanding that still divides white and black Christians in the United States."j
Please notice none of them say, "I think Dr. Wright needs defending." They each indicate that in the reaction to Dr. Wright they see evidence of an ongoing deep and hurtful divide in the American church. And it is that divide that moves their heart to write.
In the comments I have posted I also have attempted to be clear it is a desire to build understanding.
So it seems to me you are listening through a framework that asks, "Should Dr. Wright's words be defended or condemned?" This is the major media "question of the day." And it is driven by a political agenda and "gotcha" kind of reporting/activism.
Do you have any problem with us moving off the media question and exploring the divide that the three authors see being surfaced in the reactions to Wright???
Dr. Wright did not create the divide. Nor did Obama.
"I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; ...who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods..." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will.
"...We ... are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. " (Dr King)
Folks want Dr. Wright under control--or want to win an argument that he is out of control--to indicate that Obama is something other than a uniting politician. There are many Christians who find his words offensive and think such words are the problem (versus the problem being the problem).
I don't see a problem with disagreeing with Wright. But I see an attack that flows out of a misunderstanding to be profoundly hurtful as it rubs salt into a deep, deep wound that cripples the nation and the church.
I would hope my Christian brothers and sisters would be anxious to understand Dr. Wright if they find his words to be so troublesome as I am sure they would not want to attack and be hurful for no reason.
Do you find in this comment any kind of answer to your question?
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 19, 2008 12:11 AM
Pastor Jeff,
I don't know the source of HIV/AIDS but I shouldn't have to provide evidence that the United States government didn't create AIDS to kill minorities. If someone is going to make that claim they are responsible for justifying it. Claiming that Jesus was a poor black man is just as ridiculous as claiming he was a Scandanavian aristocrat. Jesus was a Jewish carpenter. He would have a Middle Eastern appearance and while he obviously wasn't a member of the ruling class, it is highly unlikely that he was poverty stricken as so many seem to believe now. Very little is known of Jesus before he began his ministry, but he was known as Joseph's son and probably worked with him.
Wrong as he may be, Rev. Wright is still an important figure in American religion. This is an opportunity for the church to reflect on Wright's words. The white church should give prayerful consideration to some of Wright's more prophetic words. The media exposure should inspire Write to consider some of the more controversal statements he has made and reflect on whether they are an accurate representation of Christian belief
Are you denying that Wright is spreading falsehoods and hate? How can his comments, on AIDS especially, be seen as anything else?
Posted by: Jake | March 19, 2008 12:19 AM
Wow. I want to, as a black man, say just how much Jim's comments today have meant to me and my family. If we ever needed to hear the Lord's heartbeat, it's right now. Today was an historic day in our country. And yet, that line in HOLY HOLY HOLY, "though the darkness hide Thee..." comes sorrowfully to mind as I read some of the comments from "Christians" whose eyes are blinded.
Posted by: Gospelaccordingtojazz | March 19, 2008 12:22 AM
letjusticerolldown,
I appreciate your comments and I agree with a number of things that you said. There are major divisions between the white and black churches that need to be healed. I'm willing to concede that Write's G-D America sermon, in context, may be truly insightful and something that we can learn from. But it's hard for me to get beyond some of his more extreme comments. They are divisive and certainly aren't helping to heal the old wounds. I wonder what the best way is to confront those problems without condemning what Wright said.
Posted by: Jake | March 19, 2008 12:33 AM
What stuns me after reading these comments is the intense anger and self-righteousness that spurs so many of them.
Maybe what makes you angry is confronting you with something in your own soul that could use some reflection and repentance.
I support Obama, for the same reasons Jim mentions in his blog -- a chance for a new perspective, an emphasis on unity and reconciliation, and an enormously more mature way of looking at world and society than I've seen, certainly in my adulthood. Given the serious concerns I have about candidates whose motto is "win by any means" a mature, farsighted candidate who won't sink to any level in order to exploit an opponent's perceived weaknesses, is the candidate for me.
FRankly, when I compare Obama's speeches with the self-justified, angry, degrading comments that end here, without even a spark of compassion or confession, I'll choose him any day. I'd rather be in a Bible Study with him than with most of the rest of you, too. I want to talk about the moving of the Holy Spirit, not the bitter gossipy criticism of someone whose biggest crime is that he is not like us.
Posted by: openeyes | March 19, 2008 12:43 AM
The anti-Obama attacks and are already getting extreme, and it’s still six months before the November election. We’ve been bombarded with discussions about Sen. Obama’s pastor’s words and what it might mean about Obama’s integrity or judgment. Jeremiah Wright, pastor of the Trinity United Church of Christ, said, “God Damn America.” How shocking! I gotta tell you, I’m more scared about the opposition’s tactics (they must have spent a lot of time weeding through old sermons to dig up this stuff) then the words an African American pastor uses to express his outrage at our country’s often misguided policies.
So, what about the D word and what does it mean to criticize America? The word damn is partially defined as “to doom to eternal punishment or condemn to hell”, but that’s not what it means to everyone. I've said damn plenty of times in my life, and I sure didn't mean it in the biblical sense. When I say damn, in my very own secular way, it means I'm mad or frustrated at whatever comes after it ("The damn car won't start," "The damn dog stole a burger," or "The damn President won't admit global warming exists or that the economy is in the crapper.") See, it’s not the word that’s so bad, it’s the situation.
What about Obama’s “association” with someone who would say stuff like this? Hell (whoops, I mean Heck) he already vehemently condemned all the statements that are the subject of controversy. He said the statements directly contradict his profound love for this country. What more do people want?
This kind of attack is to be expected. Americans are getting inspired by the possibility of taking back our government, mitigating the damage done by our out-of-control President, and restoring control over our economy. Big business, the GOP and theocratic institutions recognize the swell of public revolt and are running scared. America has done some wonderful things in this world, but our government has also done things I’m ashamed of, including propping up terroristic leaders in other countries, killing innocent civilians in Iraq and elsewhere, and spying illegally on our own citizens. It’s not a case of America Right or Wrong. We can love our country without being blind to its failings. In fact, criticizing our country’s mistakes is our duty as citizens, especially when the government makes them in our name (and with our tax money). That might include stopping the Bush giveaways to the ultra rich, ending the war in Iraq while still helping their fledgling government, and supporting our struggling middle class and our economy. It might even mean holding Fox “News” accountable to the public it supposedly serves. Obama’s candidacy for Presidents represents those possibilities for many of us.
So what if Pastor Wright said God Damn America. I’d prefer to keep it in context with the many other things he has said. Maybe in the process of talking about mistakes America made he felt so frustrated he couldn’t think of a more rational way to express himself. Maybe he deliberately chose those words to get a rise out of the audience, or to inspire them to take action to make our country better. Lord knows, many sermons leave listeners snoozing. Were those two seconds picked out of hours and hours of sermons where he says uplifting, peaceful, inspiring words? Is Pastor Wright a good person who does good work in the world but who gets frustrated now and then because he’s working with downtrodden people? One thing’s for sure, sound bites don’t give you the whole story.
No matter what the context was for the pastor’s statements, Barack Obama is not responsible for what someone else says. But you can see just how scared the opposition is when they sift through his pastor’s sermons for the past twenty years to get a couple of potentially damaging sound bites. Trust me, that kind of digging for dirt and out-of-context finger pointing is what makes people like me fight all the harder for change.
This isn’t about Obama, it’s about the rest of us reclaiming our government. So here are a few more words for you: YES WE DAMN WELL CAN!
Posted by: Newt | March 19, 2008 1:18 AM
I heard clips of Obama's speech in Philly at the Constitution Center tonight on the Lehrer Hour. I liked it. It highlighted exactly what I like about Obama - the way he thinks and views things. He gets the big picture. He has understanding of "how-things-came-to-be-the-way-they-are".
Now, still have doubts about his experience level, but I'll tell you, statesmen that think the way he does don't come around very often. He has the potential to be one of the "great's".
Anyway....it looks like Obama will be in town here on Friday night, speaking at the basketball arena over at the University. Our primary is still a couple months away - but our state doesn't have voting booths, the entire state votes by mail here, so most of us get our ballots in early.
I will give a full report on Saturday on Obama's speech.
Posted by: Amazon Creek | March 19, 2008 1:43 AM
"The only oppression in the Black Community is from Blacks oppressing Blacks. Even Tupac got robbed and murdered as part of that community. It is the "culture" of the Black inner-city that is oppressing Blacks everywhere. Reality is something to study."
I will remember that when I hear a racist joke at work or at the white church God has called me too. If your only idea of black culture comes from Tupac then you really need to get out and hang out with more black people.
p
Posted by: Payshun | March 19, 2008 1:44 AM
I'd rather be in a Bible Study with him than with most of the rest of you, too. I want to talk about the moving of the Holy Spirit, not the bitter gossipy criticism of someone whose biggest crime is that he is not like us.
Posted by: openeyes
I don't know about that , If I attended a Bible Study with only people that agreed with me , my wife would not be able to attend with me all the time . Don't mistake passion with Bibical insincerity . Even when you or they are wrong ,
If you only will go to a perfect church , once you enter it no longer is perfect .
I would be happy to go with anyone seeking the Lord actually . Think about it .
Peace
Posted by: Mick | March 19, 2008 1:45 AM
"But it's hard for me to get beyond some of his more extreme comments. They are divisive and certainly aren't helping to heal the old wounds. I wonder what the best way is to confront those problems without condemning what Wright said."
Jake
Understand
Embrace
Build relationship of love
Confront if you still believe it is needed.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 19, 2008 1:54 AM
Mr. Wallis,
I don't go to church because I find that religion is all to often divisive. But I must say, if I were to go to church, it would be to yours. Your comments on CNN about Barack Obama were brilliant! You're one of the best thinkers I've ever heard on TV. Keep it up!
One other note, for those who think Barack should quit his church.. that's ludircrous! Even I know that a church is more than its pastor - it's about a community of people. True, I don't go to church, but my parents are staunch churchgoers, and they go because they enjoy being around like minded people. If their pastor went crazy like Rev. Wright, the congregation would kick the pastor out.. the congregation wouldn't leave. The church is about the people, not the ministers.
Posted by: Linton Johnson | March 19, 2008 3:02 AM
Anyone calling Rev. Jeremiah Wright a racist lacks understanding of the term. A single person cannot be a racist; it is a societal issue. A society can be racist, individuals cannot. However, individuals can benefit from racism, and since the United States, like Canada and Europe, places power (race being only one of many qualifiers of power) by and large in the hands of lighter skinned folk like myself, they are the benefactors of racism.
There is no such thing as "reverse racism" if you define racism in its true sense. Racism is the belief that one race is more valuable than another, and the consequential results of that belief which favor one that particular race over another. Black people may hold stereotypical views, be judgmental, and discriminatory towards whites, but while this is unfortunate, it is not racism. This systemic injustice, this societal and cultural injustice is what has got Rev. Wright, and many other black preachers, preaching the way they have.
I understand Obama's political need to distance himself from Wright's most extreme remarks, but let the man preach. Prophets in the Old Testament always made the establishment feel uncomfortable. Take Wright's remark about AIDS for example. Perhaps think of it as a vision, a metaphorical (those old prophets were fond of metaphors too) understanding of the pervasive ignorance of American governments' attitudes towards the black community coupled with worldwide, willful ignorance towards racism present in every white dominated culture. These super-viruses have spread a disease, which, like AIDS, will need a lot of work done to find a cure.
Posted by: Tyson | March 19, 2008 3:20 AM
Hi all,
Why is anyone asking anyone to condemn Wright's sermons, because 'Obama has denounced them', etc?
What has that got to do with anything?
Are you willing to accept that Obama's brilliant speech (in my opinion) has put an end to the matter? I mean, he is the one who the You-Tube videos were discrediting, right?
The irony of most of our comments is that the MUCH respected (yes!) Rev Jeremiah Wright is not likely to be bothered to respond on this blog. We may be gossiping!
And, after judging and damning the Rev for his 'damning' of America and others why is someone asking for positive 'stuff' that Wright has said and done?
Goodness! How self-righteous we can get.
Can we not dig it up for ourselves? The man's ministry existed long before Obama became famous, you know. You can read all about his good work(s) online - if you really wish to know. Well, maybe not ...
Is it only the negative that is worth going on and on and on about retired pastor Rev Jeremiah Wright? Where was everybody all the 36 years that the man served a big American church?
Please read Obama's speech (not to say that it will'appease' you, but do).
Jeremiah Wright is POSSIBLY a welcome pretext for those who would NEVER vote for an Obama, for various very good reasons.
The only way some people would be 'appeased' is if Obama stepped down today and publicly apologised ('repudiated', 'denounced', etc) for everything everyone he ever met and spoke to said and did against the established order of things, according to their interpretation of this order.
Even then they would only be impressed if he expressed this in their way and in their words - and endorsed John Mccain!
Obama's audacity in running for President is the real problem here.
May the good Lord have mercy.
- Alu
Posted by: Robert Alu | March 19, 2008 4:11 AM
Obama's speech was brilliant. He spoke the truth to both sides of the racial divide and he identified the causes of the bitterness and resentment in race relations between blacks and whites.
Wright's words were reprehensible and ill advised to say the least. I have witnessed reprehensible and ill advised words from preachers on the right.
Like the old line in Simon and Garfunkel song: "A man believes what he wants to believe and disregards the rest."
Those who like Obama will accept his explanation and continue to embrace him. Those who never liked him will find this is Wright issue as a rallying call to show that Obama is no good.
I for one will continue my support of Obama. Kevin, Wolverine and Moderatelad, to name a few will use this as their stated reason for strong opposition to Obama.
Let's get real, folks. I could go on for many more paragraphs about the McCain/Parseley/Haggee connection and how reprehensible it is.
I, for one, just don't have the stomach for this discussion. I am just going to pray for healing and work for peace. I pray that the next president doesn't get us into another conflict in the Middle East. I also pray that the next president is not the cause of a racial divide that hurts us as well.
I, for one, agree to disagree over this. Peace to you all. Love your families, work hard, pray hard and seek God's kingdom, whether you be conservative, liberal or somewhere in between.
Jim
Posted by: JamesMartin | March 19, 2008 5:22 AM
ok, lets cherry pick
"But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam"
Wwhat say you Sojo?
Posted by: Paul Jamieson | March 19, 2008 7:56 AM
JamesMartin--I appreciate much your sympathies and fully endorse the political disagreement and our willingness to come to different political conclusions. I supported Huckabee and Obama. As Obama became more popular, my interest waned. (I have a sick value system that figures if something is popular it is suspect. I'm a lousy winner and great loser.)
But there is a second conversation going on here that exposes the racial divide in this nation. It might be the healthiest and wisest decision would be to say, "No. This political process will not be turned into a racial matter. Even though the old White system will not allow a Black candidate into the race without forcing a racial issue; this is a new day in which race can be transcended; although Dr. Wright may be the old racial (enemy or hero) that can be engaged to force the issue; Obama transcends race; the society can/is transcend(ing); I will act on that basis and not be dragged down."
That is what I hear you doing. I find it perfectly legitimate and recognize God's Spirit might assign each of us differently.
I think it also legitimate to raise a voice for active racial reconciliation within this conversation and not allow old wounds to be deepened and/or exploited. That is where I stand. And more specifically I think there are a bunch of white voices who need to stand up for that part of the battle--because it is largely a white issue which we need to be responsible to address. Black Christians have enough on their plate to deal with, without having to be responsible for defeating the racism of my people.
The only think I ask is you base your decision on what the Lord has for you to be and to do. If you don't have the stomach for this conversation (God knows I am not doing it for pleasure)--it could be the Lord's guidance--or it could just be your stomach. It's always worth checking--and I would never presume to answer that for you or anyone else.
Blessings on your day.....
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 19, 2008 8:36 AM
Paul J--I tell my children to "turn their ears on." They understand and put their hands up by their ears and act as if they are turning a switch. And they listen.
Sojo has answered your question--in the original posts and awaits you switching your ears on to engage.It is not hard. My children enjoy the game and just smile at the fact they weren't listening. They like the fact I gave them attention. (Oh, if we could be so receptive of the Father's discipline)
You think you are onto something with Rev. Wright's words and the fact some persons do or do not condemn them.
The Sojo posts have been about decreasing racial misunderstanding--not 'grading' Dr. Wright's "seven offending phrases."
Try understanding--you might like it. Frankly, its a blast.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 19, 2008 8:54 AM
While covering Obama today put your gloves on...ask the hard questions. I don't believe you have been unbiased in your coverage of him. The bottom line these videos of the hate monger Wright should have been available prior to all the primaries...he would have been out of the picture already. We were almost lulled into a false presentation that he is Presidential material. No... he is just a smooth talking politician with large hidden agendas. It frightens me that this junior senator affiliates himself with people who have bombed this country, people who damn this country, lie about this country injecting aids and drugs to kill the black population, people who are obviously racist with their targets being white, obviously these affiliations are anti-semite and pro radical Muslim. We need to treat Black racist the way we treat White racists.....neither should ever be President of this GREAT COUNTRY.
Posted by: Theresa | March 19, 2008 9:22 AM
Obama's speech yesterday was right on. I commented earlier that I was hopeful that the controversy over Rev. Wright's comments could be used for a higher good. I think Obama is helping that to happen. We needed as a nation to hear these soundbites and to respond in our ways, fair or not. But I think it would be very difficult for the average American of any race to hear the speech and not be moved.
Posted by: I and I | March 19, 2008 9:33 AM
This is liable to be my last post on Sojo for a while. Anyone who wants to contact me is welcome to reach me at my AOL account, under the ID "ke7194"
Yesterday I received the following email message:
Wolverine,
Most of the discussion about Rev. Wright has been remarkably civil considering the topic. However, your remark:
If Sojo wants to be taken seriously as an "evangelical" community it should denounce Wright now. This should be a year when Democrats have all the advantages; The economy is shaky, the war in Iraq drags on. But if you want to throw those all away on account of your conviction that "God D**n America" is the quintessence of Christianity, you go right on ahead.
is a prime example of the kind of intellectual dishonesty that we have described in our housekeeping posts. Clearly, neither Sojourners, Democrats, nor Jeremiah Wright himself believe that "God D**n America" is the quintessence of Christianity." Please refrain from intentionally distorting your oppponents' positions. We would prefer that you remain a member of our online community and so are extending this truly final warning.
Sincerely,
The God's Politics Moderation Team
Here is my response:
To my Brothers and Sisters at Sojourners,
When I wrote the post at issue here I was not attempting to distort anyone's position, I was trying to describe a phenomenon in which a political movement was taking on an unnecessary risk to protect the reputation of a pastor who had said some very unedifying things, and Sojo was joining in with some very poorly done theology.
It would be one thing if you had argued that it was unfair to blame Barack Obama for the utterances of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, but instead, starting with Diana Butler Bass' article, you attempted to place Rev. Wright in a "Christian" tradition. The problem is that unbridled rage and slander are not Christian traditions, but rather the failings of sinful humanity.
Seriously: do you consider "God d**n America" to be particularly edifying? The anger may be genuine, I'll concede that Rev. Wright has been sorely provoked, but is that really necessary? How about the accusation that the US government created the virus that causes AIDS. Is that sort of thing Christ-like? Can you at least acknowledge that some people might take exception to such things?
You are aware that the US government, under George Bush, is taking on the mammoth task of preventing the spread of AIDS in Africa. Do you think it might behoove a black pastor to at least mention that to his flock?
Perhaps I exaggerated your position, but I wasn't intentionally trying to distort, I was trying to describe the astonishing scene of a group of Christians trying to rationalize incendiary and dishonest remarks made from the pulpit of one of the largest congregations in Chicago.
In the process you stretched Christian theology to the point where it was scarcely recognizeable. You embraced a "minister" who had spread accusations of mass murder (via HIV infections) for which he had zero evidence, and a theology that attempts to make God the avenger of the Black race rather than the sovereign creator of the universe and redeemer of mankind.
The reality is that "God's Politics" is your forum. If you are determined not to have me in your conversation, there's only so much I can do to force my way in. But be honest with yourselves if nobody else. The reason you want me gone isn't because I distorted your views. The entire point of your defense of Wright was that somehow "God d**n America" was an important part of the Christian tradition, perhaps not "quintessential", but important enough and close enough to the core of the faith that mature believers would not it find particularly shocking or offensive. As Ms. Butler Bass herself concluded:
That is not, of course, comfortable for white people. Nor is it easily understood in sound bites. It doesnot easily fit in a contemporary political campaign. But it is a deep spiritual river in American faith and culture, a river that—as I had to learn—flows from the throne of God.
No, the real reason, I'm fairly certain, is that I showed you just where your defense of Wright led you: away from reconciliation and grace, and toward a land where bitterness and lies predominate.
Jim Wallis should be familiar with this place, it has a name: Detroit, his hometown and mine, where Black Liberation Theology has tremendous influence, where dozens of angry prophets angrily shout their angry truths. Except these angry truths never seem to set anyone free and the city grows poorer and more desperate while people – not just whites but blacks as well nowadays, flee the madness.
This is not a good place, but if that is where you are determined to go I can't stop you. I can only hope that after you are there a while you will come to the conclusion that you would be far better off closer to the faith handed down to the saints.
In Christ Jesus,
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | March 19, 2008 9:59 AM
"your conviction that "God D**n America" is the quintessence of Christianity" Wolverine
I don't think a single comment would take you off the site, Wolverine. And if I hear the Team--it isn't. They are identifying specifically, your distortion; and it is that.
You may hear Sojo, or myself, or others arguing that point. If you do--that is your ears.
Your comment did not come out of a void. It came out of a conversation. There was no failure within the conversation to attempt to create greater understanding.
You wished to press a point that was not being pressed. You placed an interpretation on Wright and DBB's post--and then pushed back against that. Persons tried to clarify--you continued to push against the strawdevil you created--and then get worked up that Sojo is defending your strawman.
Your underlying questions raise legitimate issues in my mind. If you would open your ears in a different way it would lead to a different kind of commentary.
Your immediate comment here lays out your disagreement in fair terms (in my mind). Your post which they cite as the offending post did not argue your case. It simply distorted others to create a strawman. And it was done after enough back and forth that might have led you to lay out your ongoing disagreement in fair terms.
Frankly, I am much more on your side than you can imagine (from policy and perspective vantage point). But I likely feel that way towards most posters. Our differences often relate to having erected conceptual frameworks that look very different--but at their core care about most of the same things.
You are on a blog where you come in with the presumption of being "The Loyal Opposition" and I think you feel that demands you push harder than you need. (And I may just be projecting my proclivity to do that onto you.)
There are about 50 persons who, in my assesment, posted unfair, accusatory comments at DBB or Dr Wright here in the last couple days. Most are "hit and run."
The site needs loyal opposition. But the opposition part has to be born out of a commitment to walk in greater, unity, wisdom and maturity in Jesus. I know you have a heart to do that. My input is to just say, Please do that; and accept the Team's response to you as helpful feedback/coaching in accomplishing that. For the sake of the Kingdom (not for you and not for me.)
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 19, 2008 10:33 AM
"getting "shocked"
Again, the problem for Obama is that it is not shocking, but sounds like business as usual. Obama is SUPPOSED to be the one shocking us all. This whole conflict made him pedestrian.
"when an "uppity" prophet"
Nobody called him uppity, or implied it. White people make fun of white televangelists all the time for being similarly unhinged.
"dares to expose "America"?"
Not sure why America is in quotes, here.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 19, 2008 10:33 AM
Frankly, Wolverine, you have done no such thing here and thus don't have the right to say this.
As I recently said on another thread, the "good news" of Christ Jesus has no meaning unless you understand the "bad news" about evil in the world, often focusing only on personal sins -- and that is bad theology. Yet the way Christianity has been sold since the late 1970s makes the only important issue "fire insurance" and "individual holiness," glossing over that God eventually will make His whole creation right, the way He originally created it.
You see, when you deal with sin its lingering effects have to be addressed as well; because I understand this, in my own life I have often sought reconciliation with those I may have offended. And sometimes the anger and rage are justifiable, if not necessarily expressed in the proper way.
The trouble is that, because of their commitment to their ideology (which borders on idolatry IMHO), those on the political right simply have no interest or inclination to do so because it just may cost something, thus negating the power of the Gospel that many of them say they believe. To wit, conservatives often expect everyone else to kiss their butts, complaining "Why can't you see things our way?", as if what they say cannot be questioned.
But as you know, my church began to focus on racial diversity about two decades ago, and beforehand it looked deep within itself to ask the LORD where it needed to change so that He could work. The repentence was so thorough that I'm told members prayed the spirit of racism out of every closet! Because the church humbled itself it has a good name in our city.
As for your complaints about "God D**m America," others have mentioned correctly that "religious right" preachers have made similar remarks (but did so to scapegoat people they themselves hated. But even MLK Jr., remembered of course for his "I Have a Dream" speech made similar statements toward the end of his life, and even during that speech (if you ever read it) he noted the litany of injustices that African-Americans had suffered. (The editor of my paper more accurately called it the "Promissory Note" speech some years because King used that specific phrase.)
Wolverine, with all due respect, you appear to want to whitewash the past, proverbially putting a Band-Aid on cancer. But God knows what's happening and wants us to make things right in His name, and there will be pain in the process. If prophetic statements bother you that much, you have to ask, "What is God trying to tell me in the process?"
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 19, 2008 10:51 AM
I think Obama made a great speech. He didn't spend his time justifying African American rhetoric -- he said he loves the man -- but the sound clips were out of line.
I think it extremely insulting that white people are defending such talk as appropriate in the circumstances.
While it may sound insensitive to say, "Get over it" that is also a statement that needs to be defended. Jesus told us we'd live with persecution, and he never told us to hold it against our enemies. He also told us that wicked people hate their enemies, but He holds us to a higher standard.
If we want to move forward, we all have to get over the insults and atrocities of the past. We could spend days listing the sins of the black community too -- but that wouldn't profit anyone either.
I even think that it is because of racism -- which is still alive in America; although better than it was -- that we didn't hear Wright's comments the same day they air Jerry Fallwell's comments about the 9/11 attacks being God's judgment on America.
Obama -- who isn't my first choice in this election -- addressed this issue better than I've seen anyone address it.
Posted by: frankie | March 19, 2008 11:16 AM
I just received in my inbox this week's Thursday Theology posting from the Crossings group of Lutheran theologians and pastors. (http://www.crossings.org/) Always provocative, here is this week's title and some excerpts:
Obama and His Pastor -- Is God Damning America, or Not? That is the Question.
Colleagues,
The Word of God broke out of our American churches since last we met and spilled out into the streets. It became national news. It focused, of all things, on a black preacher's sermon from long ago. You couldn't have invented this. Truth IS stranger than fiction. God must have had a hand in it. It was Barack Obama's pastor proclaiming that God is damning America. The news-creators of our nation, not daring to ask "Is it true?" presented it to us as a matter of "damage control." Damage to Obama, since it was HIS pastor.
Mega-question, of course, is "damage control" for America if it should prove true that Wright is not wrong ...
In defense of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright of Chicago
(by Rev. Ted Schroeder of Kansas City, Missouri 816-326-7741)
Sound bites from sermons by the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright of Chicago have caused a stir in the U.S. media. In one sample Pastor Wright ... proclaimed: "I do not say to you 'God bless America,' but God damn America." And America has reacted in anger and perhaps astonishment. His words sound vulgar, profane, and un-American in the extreme. Yet when he first spoke these words, there was no national outcry, not even a local one.
Out of probably 2,000 sermons preached by Dr. Wright to his Chicago congregation in the past thirty-seven years, these few sentences have been resurrected and broadcast across the nation and probably around the world. On CNN on March 14 one white commentator, speaking for the church, criticized Pastor Wright and said that the Church is supposed to bless America, pray for America, not damn America. (All our politicians have the savvy to say repeatedly, "God bless America!")
Rev. Wright did not preach hate for America. To preach God's divine judgment is not the same as hate. He did not dissociate himself from his responsibilities as a citizen of America. As a prophet called by God, he proclaimed God's damnation for America's excesses of wealth, abuse of power, violence, and war, for the harm done by us to persons who are suffering, starving, and dying throughout the world. There is a huge difference between hating and pronouncing God's judgment.
If only Wright had used more polite language, who in national politics or the media would have been aroused? He might have even sounded biblical by saying, "Woe to you, United States of America, for your..." and ticked off his complaints of injustice. Who would have complained? Then again, who would have even noticed? If Jeremiah Wright had not been Sen. Barack Obama’s pastor, who would have cared at all about the ranting of one black preacher in south side Chicago? I write not to defend Senator Obama but to attest to biblically sound prophetic preaching in the 21st century.
Pastor Wright did not choose his words carelessly or lightly. To hear a man of the cloth use such words as "damn you" is stressful. One might think God could not possibly approve. Yet in the eighth chapter of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, God's spokesperson St. Peter responded to a man who basically had offered him a bribe, "Your money perish with you!" (in polite English). However, the original Greek text reads: "To hell with you and your money." Peter, how dare you? But there it is.
In the Hebrew and Greek texts of The Holy Bible, the word "woe" comes often from the lips of prophets such as Jeremiah, Amos, and Habakkuk and also Jesus. Many biblical scholars agree that the Hebrew words "oee" and "hohee" and the Greek "ouai" should often be translated "damn you" if the translator is hoping to convey in plain English the original intent of the speaker/writer. Our modern day Jeremiah of Chicago should not be so readily condemned.
When John the Baptizer harangued the scribes and Pharisees, asking "Who warned you to flee from the wrath ('mellousees orgees') to come?" it is clear that he or one of his disciples had been pronouncing damnation.
But most significant of all in the biblical witness is Luke 6:20-26 where we find Jesus speaking the Beatitudes. "Happy are the poor ... blessed are the weak." Blessed and happy. How nice. God loves the poor and the weak. God smiles upon them, giving them a kindly touch.
But the word found in the original Greek text is "makarios," a much more robust word than a tender smile or touch. A twentieth century Spanish translation of this word uses the adjective "bienaventurado," which literally means "good adventure." "Good adventure to you poor and weak. You are on the good adventure in which you will meet God who has ventured into this world." Other scholars suggest that "makarios" be translated "you are where you ought to be, where you would want to be if you are thinking straight; you are with God. You will discover the joy of heaven now."
But then abruptly Jesus speaks of WOE. "Woe to you who are rich and sated and laughing and publicly acclaimed." Woe! The Greek word "ouai" is the exact opposite of "makarios." You are not on God's great adventure. You are in league with evil. You are not where you ought to be according to God's original plan. You are in the place of damnation, but too amused, sated, and flattered to realize it.
There is gross injustice in the world. How would we expect a passionate God to respond? What feelings must the God of boundless love have toward the tens of thousands of persons who die each and every day from preventable disease, illness, hunger or injury? Must not God's passion for "the least of these our brethren" put God in opposition to those who are part of the oppression?
Gandhi spoke of the collision between need and greed. How does a prophet for the Lord speak to this in our day? The prophet must condemn! But can one condemn without naming damnation?
I would like to hear or read the rest of Pastor Wright's excerpted sermons. If his only message was damnation, then congregants and clergy colleagues and defenders of the USA may challenge him over the content of his homilies. But I am sure that he said much more than that God had every right to damn us for the above named sins. I've seldom heard a black preacher preach for less than thirty minutes, let alone thirty seconds.
Surely Pastor Wright also proclaimed that the kingdom of God is more powerful than our American empire and that God is able to work justice for the oppressed of the world, including justice for those oppressed by the policies and power of the USA.
I trust that he also announced God's grace and redemption; even for oppressors such as we are. He just might, however, have saved that for later in the sermon, or even for a subsequent sermon (giving the Holy Spirit more time to work true repentance in the hearts of oppressors).
Furthermore, no Christian sermon would be complete without preaching resurrection, proclaiming that God has complete power over death -- the death which comes at us from every side, the death which we deal upon one another, and even the death which our Creator has every right to bring down on us for our sin. (Though God slay us, God's promise of grace and resurrection is our only hope.)
If Pastor Wright does not preach resurrection and grace and the coming reign of God, then have at him, fire away. Judgment and hope are inseparable in biblical prophetic tradition. But do not malign him for making THE JUDGMENT OF GOD the first order of business in his sermon.
Rev. Ted Schroeder, Kansas City, MO
Peace,
Posted by: Don | March 19, 2008 12:05 PM
Wolverine, I hope you will continue to post on the site. Like letjustice and Rick, I believe that your statement that Sojo has a "conviction that "God D**n America" is the quintessence of Christianity" was unfair (and you yourself admitted it was an exaggeration), but in general you have made positive contributions and refrained from personal attacks. This site would be less interesting without the input from thinking dissenters. Do stay on.
Posted by: I and I | March 19, 2008 12:16 PM
Thank you, Don.
I want to hear Rev. Wright's entire sermon. Is there a link to the entire one, and not just the soundbite?
Posted by: I and I | March 19, 2008 12:19 PM
Is there a link to the entire one, and not just the soundbite?
dunno
Posted by: Don | March 19, 2008 12:23 PM
I am not a Christian and I don't believe there is actually a "God" who "damns" anyone. However, like many people, I have occasionally used the phrase "God damn" colloquially as an expression of anger. When Wright says "God damn America" for the monumental, historic and ongoing injustices inflicted on African-Americans by this country's government and American society in general, I am wholly in sympathy with his anger. There is certainly nothing "racist" or "anti-American" about it. Moreover, all the evidence indicates that as a local community leader, Wright actively worked, and encouraged members of his church to work, to direct the energy of this entirely understandable anger into positive efforts to build up and strengthen their community.
And when Wright, in the 2001 sermon that I have heard excerpted, describes the 9/11 attacks as "blowback" from unjust and destructive US foreign policy -- as "America's chickens coming home to roost" -- he is one hundred percent correct. Both the Carter and Reagan administration actively supported the development and growth of the radical Islamist movement that eventually became Al Qaeda and the Taliban, to draw the Soviet Union into a debilitating and unwinnable war in Afghanistan, which ultimately led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. And large-scale US military occupation of what Muslims regard as their holy lands in Saudi Arabia, and US support for the corrupt Saudi dictatorship -- all for purposes of controlling Middle Eastern oil supplies -- fomented anti-Americanism in the Muslim world and led Osama Bin Laden and other members of the partly US-created radical Islamic terrorist movement to direct their attentions to the US. Anyone who fails to understand this is ill-equipped to deal effectively with the threat of terrorism.
Posted by: SecularAnimist | March 19, 2008 12:23 PM
"Jim Wallis should be familiar with this place, it has a name: Detroit, his hometown and mine, where Black Liberation Theology has tremendous influence, where dozens of angry prophets angrily shout their angry truths. Except these angry truths never seem to set anyone free and the city grows poorer and more desperate while people – not just whites but blacks as well nowadays, flee the madness."
Well there are a lot of things that are contributing to people fleeing from Detroit and Liberation theology is not one of them. If you are going to talk about why Detroit is shrinking I expect you to be honest. It's shrinking because the manufacturing base is shrinking, jobs are leaving, not because of radical theology. You are creating a straw man and that's the problem.
We will not do things your way and you won't accept a new status quo. That's what we are getting at.
Liberation theology is responsible for more innercity uplift than you know about.
http://www.harambee.org/
I will start with just one organization. There are plenty all around the United States. They use the theology and among their kids they see growth, self worth and development, and by working with white interns they learn to heal and face the pain of racism and separation. Your theology speaks to none that which makes it bankrupt.
p
Posted by: Payshun | March 19, 2008 12:28 PM
Thank you, Jim. I watched you on CNN last night and was relieved to hear that you used Obama's speech to discuss the issues involved in race.
I was a bit irritated last night that following the speech, we spent our time deconstructing the speech and it's impact rather than use it as a launching pad for genuine discussion that needs to occur.
...an irritation that followed through most of the posts on this blog.
So, how do you recommend we move forward from here?
Posted by: starla | March 19, 2008 12:54 PM
Wolverine I admire your ability to so often make logical points , "then again I admire anyone who can spell and write a compound senetence ;0)"
When you are berated or insulted by the drive bys or even some family members , you almost always take the high road . I really admire anyone who does that ! I ahppen to disagree with you on this , but I think I would be in the minority among Evangelicals also . I do understand and respect your view here . I think it is deeper then the soundbites .
Flag waving idol worshiping Evangelical if you disagree , your an enlightened compassionate Christ following soul if you agree .
I think Sojourners needs to raise some of their standards if they are going to hold others to them .
Posted by: Mick | March 19, 2008 3:59 PM
Rick Nowlin wrote:
Wolverine, with all due respect, you appear to want to whitewash the past, proverbially putting a Band-Aid on cancer. But God knows what's happening and wants us to make things right in His name, and there will be pain in the process. If prophetic statements bother you that much, you have to ask, "What is God trying to tell me in the process?"
Rick,
With all due respect, I have never denied that racism was and remains a problem. I have repeatedly said that blacks have genuine cause to be angry.
Perhaps it would help you understand where I'm coming from if I said that I'm far more concerned by the accusation that the US government created the HIV virus than I am about his now-notorious "God d**n America sermon. The latter is merely a sentiment, outrageous but within his freedom of speech. The former is an accusation of mass murder made without a shred of proof, a gross and vile smear of an entire nation.
I believe it is you who wants to cover cancer with a band-aid -- the cancer of a Black Liberation "Theology" that is at best fallacious and at worst anti-Christian.
And if the fact that I am upset by Rev. Wright's smears proves that he is "prophetic", what of the fact that you keep responding to my posts? Does that make me a prophet? Is it possible that God is trying to tell you something in this process?
Nah, I didn't think so either.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | March 19, 2008 4:33 PM
Black liberation theology is not a cancer. The real cancer is dispensationalism and it's creeping influence in conservative Christian circles. Some might argue humanism is a cancer. I just see it as a respect thing but I digress. Wolverine, you keep saying black liberation theology is responsible for stuff it's not and when I point out how it is actually positive for the community you then keep going back to a talking point without explaining how it's destructive.
The United States has committed mass murder repeatedly, recently in Iraq during the war. It's not genocide but it is mass murder. Bombs don't discriminate and children die from them, adults die from them and people are displaced, aid rendered useless and millions displaced.
Let's look at some more mass murder. The Slave Trade, the Trail of Tears... The truth is that USA has and will continue to commit mass murder. It's the truth deal with it.
p
Posted by: Payshun | March 19, 2008 4:52 PM
I believe it is you who wants to cover cancer with a band-aid -- the cancer of a Black Liberation "Theology" that is at best fallacious and at worst anti-Christian.
You believe wrongly. FWIW, I was ostracized by fellow blacks as a teen-ager precisely because I refused to subscribe to that ideology -- considering that I have worshipped with whites for nearly four decades, it wouldn't make any sense to do so.
The problem is, as I've said before, is authority -- who defines the issues and how they're addressed. Well, guess what? It's a new day and your side doesn't run things anymore. It's been a matter of faith that the conservative agenda is not to be challenged; well, those days are over.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 19, 2008 5:12 PM
Barack Obama has handled the "race" issue both eloquently and articulately (his opponents, except John Edwards have not, in fact they brought it up to trip him up). Understand this, it's not "his" problem, it's ours. We are the ones who have to do the "soul searching" and find out how to finally get beyond the "race" issue and start working on our real problems (like the War, poverty, unemployment, education....). I could add more, but you get my drift.
At this holy (and hopefully spiritual) time of year, perhaps out of this Easter season we can truly have a spiritual "awakening" and ask for the wisdom to really begin the "healing".
Posted by: Debbie Lackowitz | March 19, 2008 5:22 PM
"This is liable to be my last post on Sojo for a while." Wolverine
Wolverine, you misrepresented what SOJO stands for and you were called on it. We all make mistakes. One thing that I have learned- if grace is big enough to cover me, it is big enough to cover you. And, yes, it is big enough cover George Bush and Reverend Wright.
So take it easy. Our rhetoric gets the best of us- especially when we get passionate about these issues. Heck, there may even be a good immigration posting where we can go at it. What would I do without you?
Posted by: JamesMartin | March 19, 2008 6:35 PM
Wolverine,
You are an excellent writer who has nothing whatsoever to apologize for in my view. There are any number of places where your professional-quality writing would be welcome, as well as on a site of your own. (I'll note that I'm a lifelong Democrat and a lifelong major-city resident.) I hope you'll keep writing about Detroit.
Thanks to Sojourners for letting me air my comments here.
Posted by: city center | March 20, 2008 5:31 AM
Payshun wrote: "Some might argue humanism is a cancer."
Humanism is a philosophy that holds human life and the well-being of human beings as its fundamental value, as its core value from which all other values are derived.
Secular humanism explicitly focuses on the well-being of human beings living in the world, in terms of their well-being in this world, as opposed to a speculative "afterlife" or supernatural/religious dimension.
Within the realm of human affairs, it is difficult to understand how "some" can argue that a philosophy that places the most fundamental value on the well-being of human beings is "a cancer".
On the other hand, in my view humanism may be metaphorically regarded as "a cancer" to the extent that it regards human beings as separate from, apart from, disconnected from, above and beyond, the rest of the living world.
A humanism that fails to recognize that the human species is but one thread in the great web of life, that regards the Earth's biosphere as consisting of human beings on the one hand and "resources" to be exploited by human beings on the other, is indeed "cancerous". It is the root of humanity's often cruel and rapacious treatment of non-human animals, and humanity's ongoing destruction and degradation of the biosphere, which has now reached the scale where it threatens the very capacity of the Earth to support life.
The antidote for the "cancer" of a narrowly-defined humanism is to extend humanism's core value of the well-being of human beings to include the well-being of all sentient beings, and indeed to the well-being of the Earth's biosphere -- which is the source and ground of existence for all living beings -- as a whole, undivided living system. This is what Einstein referred to as the necessity of "widening our circle of compassion" beyond the human sphere, to embrace all life.
This is what I refer to as Secular Animism. Animism recognizes that sentience, or mind -- the capacity for subjective experience -- is a fundamental aspect of reality, a pervasive potential of nature, which is instantiated or embodied in the form of sentient beings. All sentient beings, including humans and other animals, are "incarnations" of this natural potential.
Secular Animism, like secular humanism, places the highest value on the well-being of sentient beings living in the world, without recourse to values derived from speculative "supernatural" dimensions.
The "cure" for the "cancer" of a separatist anthropocentric "humanism" -- and for the equally toxic and destructive effects of supernaturalist views that place human beings above and beyond the rest of the living world -- is the knowledge and understanding of the deep connections, the underlying unity, of human life with the vast web of life that is the Earth's biosphere, and our fundamental kinship with all the other sentient beings with whom we share this small planet. The cure is the destruction of the delusion of separateness.
We need to heal the wounds not only of racism and sexism but of speciesism and anthropocentrism.
Posted by: SecularAnimist | March 20, 2008 10:02 AM
The hope of America is that we can sustain the kind of conditions that make for authentic dialogue - respect for each other and the willingness to be uncomfortable without beomcing reactive and polarized, so we can stay in relationship past the inevitable dissonance that is created by encountering anything or anyone different than who and what we already are. This is the condition for growth. To refuse this is to petrify. Senator Obama is the freshest hope in this kind of leadership in America I have seen in 40 years. What a TERRIBLE shame if America proves unworthy of what he is trying to offer us. Thank you Jim Wallis for a sober and clear frame fo what is at stake. I hope enough Americans step up to the invitation to get real about Democracy and a shared leadership of this country.
Stephen Muse, PhD
Posted by: Stephen Muse | March 20, 2008 3:37 PM
I call your attention to a news release published today (Thurs. Mar. 20) by Standard Newswire from which I quote: "Black minister and Harvard Law School graduate, Bishop E.W. Jackson, Sr. has begun a campaign to make clear the Jeremiah Wright does not represent black preachers or what is being taught in black churches across America. Says Bishop Jackson, "This kind of virulent anti-American bigotry is anathema to the black church experience where we focus on love, forgiveness, personal responsiblity, and a healthy dose of patriotism and prayer for our country."
I find Bishop Jackson's comments more helpful than those of Dr. Wright. I find it disappointing, but not surprising, that Sojourners would attempt to defend Dr. Wright and his "disciple".
Posted by: John Eby | March 20, 2008 4:13 PM
Sometimes I really wonder about the intelligence of the American voter. Barack Obama made what most experts claim is a tremendous speech about race relations, trying to start a dialogue to solve this age-old problem. Yet pundits and others keep asking, "Did he do enough?" Has everybody forgotten that Barack Obama didn't even make these hateful comments? It was Reverend Wright who made them. If we want to judge Barack Obama, let us judge him by his statements and his values, not somebody else's. Based on the comments he made, I would not vote for Reverend Wright as president, but Reverend Wright is not the candidate. It's common sense, but seems to be escaping too much of the electorate.
Ron Coleman
Posted by: Ron Coleman | March 20, 2008 4:20 PM
Having worked in ministry specifically in efforts to bring racial reconcilliation, and knowing the prejudice my black friends deal with, I feel I am in tune with the frustrations of the AA community. But Rev. Wright's comments were not, as Mr. Wallis puts it, "prophetic", they were incindiary. Beyond the "God-damn America" diatribe was his promoting of the paranoia that white America created the AIDS virus and pushes drugs to the black community to keep them down. That is, at best irresponsible and on par with the paranoid lunatic fringe who believe the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated by the Bush Administration. A more balance, and, if you will "prophetic" proposal for raising the AA community to dignity would be Bill Cosby's book "Come On People: From Victims to Victors", or any of the works of Shelby Steele.
For Jim Wallis to offer little or no critique of Rev. Wright's poisonous comments places him in the camp of enablers who, well-intentioned though they may be, in actuality perpetuate the woes of the African American community.
Posted by: Tall Texan | March 20, 2008 4:40 PM
Thank you, once again, Jim for speaking intelligently and truthfully. The problem of race is one of the biggest we have in this country, and I appreciate your candid remarks here. I am in agreement with what you've said, especially about the media and the fear they wish to incite, the words from the black pulpit, and that most whites don't understand the gap. Thank you for taking the time to understand and speak to it. God bless you in your continued service!
Posted by: Kecia | March 20, 2008 4:41 PM
I had to turn the television channel when Mr. Wright came on. My young children were in the room and I did not want them corrupted by his hate speech. They couldn't understand why that angry white man (they thought he was white because of his light skin) was using the "n" word. Frankly, neither can I. Qualify it however you want, that man does not represent Christ. And you do not represent Christ either when you support his hate speech.
Posted by: Matt Johnson | March 20, 2008 4:59 PM
The right wing, which has great strength in the media (that they call the "liberal media),was waiting for a an issue that could paint Barak Obama as some kind of extremist. Did we all expect a Black candidate for President to coast into the White House without the forces of racism and reaction using all their enegies to defeat him? Obama is a great candidate, and has the potential for being a truly great President. It isn't Pastor Wright that is the problem; it is the poison of racism that still distorts the vision and the soul of so many in our country. Obama's speech was wonderful: Humane and wise, it reminds me of the vision of Abraham Lincoln.
America is undergoing considerable adversity, felt by Blacks, Whites, immigrants, and others. The enemy is not Pastor Wright or Barak Obama, it is the neo-cons and their allies in the White House who have squandered the relative economic prosperity we had, the lives of 4,000 young people in Iraq, abandoned the people of Louisiana in their time of need, and now are out to destroy the person who has the potential to unite and lead America to a position of moral leadership in the world.
Posted by: Robert Moir | March 20, 2008 5:03 PM
Excellent piece!
I thought Obama's speech on race was incredibly honest and challenging but rather than take this opportunity for self-examination, we continue to repress our own complicity in long-standing racial injustices. For example, we hear no outrage from these self-righteous people denouncing Rev. Wright nor from mainstream media over this war, which, I believe, is itself premised upon notions of racial superiority, counting only U.S. deaths and virtually erasing from consciousness the pain that we are inflicting on those that we have supposedly gone to "redeem" with U.S.-imposed democracy.
Obama's speech on race will be in the history books as one of the most important speeches in U.S. history. I can't think of any of Hillary's speeches that might merit being included in such an anthology.
Posted by: Kevin | March 20, 2008 5:07 PM
First of all, let me say that as for me the color of skin does not change my fillings toward a person at all white, red, black, or yellow, the inside of a person will show about that person.
" out of the mouth doth the abundance of the heart speak ".
now lets talk about race, we are all Americans and I don't think of myself as a European American, or Dutch American, or African American.
I am an American, and for me to put another country in front of America is a raceist statement.
So let's be very clear that I know some people that their parents were born in Mexico, but their children were born in America, if you ask them if they are Mexican they will say no I'm an American.
I just feel that it is not only in politics, that raceist statements are made, but in the everyday language, and that people may not realize that the statement they make is making them a raceist.
The preachers in the pulpit have made themselves raceists, by bringing politics in the pulpit. politics has no place in the pulpit, " Preach the word, Be instant in season and out". When you bring politics in the pulpit you become a raceist. Maybe not a color of skin or something of that nature, but it is seperating by affiliation.
(This is wrong)
Posted by: Pascal VanHorn | March 20, 2008 5:09 PM
It is quite apparent from the use of Rev. Wright's quotes to attempt to denigrate Senator Obama, that our country is still seriously ill with this disease of racism. It is difficult for me to understand how anyone can fail to appreciate the anger some African Americans feel. I agree with Senator Obama that this anger is generally contra productive, but it is most understandable.
I don't believe that the election of Barak Obama to the presidency will cure us of racism, but it will be a big step in that direction. Frankly, this is one reason why I, a wasp, support Obama. I believe that this disease is a real impediment to our becoming a truly great nation. The same can be said for electing a woman, except that I don't believe that the discrimination toward women is as virulent as that toward African Americans.
The feeling of entitlement is at the root of racism. Those who have privilege are reluctant to give it up. It would represent a loss. It is our human nature to place a higher value on our rights and privileges than on someone else's. We feel justified in our own anger, but fail to even acknowledge another's. It is us vs. them. This is not unique to America, but that is no consolation.
Posted by: Bruce Williams | March 20, 2008 5:18 PM
Personally, I am a conservative but I don't exactly consider McCain to be a true example of a conservative so I have been keeping track of this race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. I think both candidates are liberal and most likely agree on most issues. But there are some major differences between them. No. 1, Obama was not supportive of Bush taking us into Iraq and Hillary gave Bush her support, which has later come back to haunt her. I think that took a lot of insight on Obama's part since at that time, many people were voting for the war. Secondly, I think Mr. Obama is trying to run a race without resorting to tackiness, etc. He has remained classy and has risen above Hillary's tacky tactics. He also conducts himself in a calm, collected manner and that is a contrast to Hillary, who seems to be on the verge of a Bi-Polar outburst at any moment. One minute she seems elated and the next minute she seems agitated. At times she appears to be almost nuts, in my opinion. I really think that at this time in history, we need a president who has a clear head, who is even-tempered and who is not overly emotional. The candidate who has those qualities is Barack Obama....certainly not Hillary Clinton. I shudder to think how she would handle situations that require a level head...it would be ugly, I'm afraid. God help us all if she ever becomes President.
Posted by: SherryAnn | March 20, 2008 5:18 PM
I think thoughtful persons of all religious persuasions can find a larger meaning in this current controversy. This could well be a "teachable moment," the kind that calls on us to extend our hand in friendship at a difficult time. As a white person, I feel called upon to do just this when listening to black congregants speak with pride and pain while explaining their commitment to this church which has 70 ministries that do God's work daily. I also was interested to read that the elderly reverend has published several collections of sermons that speak of hope and salvation. We haven't heard more uplifting quotes because sadly, the sensational is thought more newsworthy. Rev. Mike Huckabee and others have spoken out on this issue with great empathy and thoughtfulness, which to me show God working His Grace within them. If we too love the Lord, why can we not do the same? Why this rush to condemn? Those of us who are not black cannot fully comprehend the experiences that would lead an older black man to such an angry place. I feel the black community is waiting for the response of the wider community. If we cannot now say, "I understand," and move forward together, then when?
Posted by: Patricia Richards | March 20, 2008 5:41 PM
I'm not really that familiar with Chicago but I am somewhat aware of Circle Urban Ministries and Rock of Our Salvation Church on N. Central Avenue. The way in which I came to know of this church was through one of it's pastors, Raleigh Washington. I don't believe he is still with the church but he would have been at the time when Obama was searching for a church.
I wonder what the outcome would have been if he had chosen The Rock instead of Trinity. The reason I pose the question is that Raleigh's theme was one of reconciliation which he, along with a white minister, Glen Kehrein, brought to the inner city with remarkable success. They co-authored a book on reconciliation titled "Break Down The Walls." Glen and his wife Lonni have lived, raised a family and built a ministry in what is commonly called "the ghetto."
The Circle-Rock partnership by Glen and Raleigh has been successfully addressing issues in the community since 1983 though the pastor at the Rock is now Raleigh's younger brother, Abraham Lincoln Washington. Pastor Washington is board president at Circle and Glen is an elder at The Rock.
I cite all this merely to proffer that I believe The Rock is much more representative of the black church than those represented by Pastor Wright or Farrakhan. Which brings me to my final questions. Since there were churches such as the Rock present at the time Obama was selecting a church, was his selection of Trinity a random choice or a deliberate one? Did he visit several black churches or was he somehow directed to Trinity and, if so, by whom? Not having seen any reference to either Obama or his wife having family in the city, why Chicago? The answers to these questions would go a long way in giving definition to Obama.
Posted by: Max S. Cannon | March 20, 2008 5:41 PM
Thank you for your comments about this very sensitive issue of race. While many understand race issues are being pressed for purely political reasons, most in this country do not. Which ever candidate you support in this election, PLEASE as people of faith, ask your candidate and the media to stop promoting hate and fear for political and rating purposes.
Posted by: ML | March 20, 2008 5:43 PM
Thank you for your comments about this very sensitive issue of race. While many understand race issues are being pressed for purely political reasons, most in this country do not. Which ever candidate you support in this election, PLEASE as people of faith, ask your candidate and the media to stop promoting hate and fear for political and rating purposes.
Posted by: ML | March 20, 2008 5:44 PM
No serious social commentator could possibly be surprised to learn that black churches are safe ground for the expression of anger over discrimination. While based in a history in which events of the last generation give reason for hope, discrimination against blacks is hardly a thing of the past.
So when I see talking heads surprised reactions to Rev. White's tone, I can only conclude they are either profoundly out of touch or disturbingly disingenuous.
I may be pasty white, but I get that my black friends struggle with anger. As Senator Obama has said, working to understand that is a step toward healing it. To add to that, righteous indignation over unattractive anger is not.
MTK
Posted by: Mark | March 20, 2008 5:44 PM
To the writers and editors of Sojo, kudos on providing an objective article on Obama and his relationship with Rev. Wright. I am encouraged by your position that Obama should win or lose on his convictions. To do anything else is cowardly. As a former member of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church, it breaks my heart to see how the media has sliced and diced him for political gain. As a young female attending services on Sunday morning I could always count on Rev. Wright to instill a sense of pride in self and worthiness of the fruits of my labot. Not that I didn't have that before going to his church - but he nurtured and enhanced it like no other pastor I've met in my adult life. He is an intelligent minister who sought to educate his congregation not only about our heritage but how through belief in God we could move obstacles. As a successful executive in corporate america - something no other member of my family has attained - Rev. Wright gave me the courage needed to move obstacles which were rooted in discrimination - I was confident that I deserved better and held those around me to a higher standard. The clips of videos circulating of Rev Wright does not do justice to the lives he has changed and impacted in a very positive manner. I don't condone hatred in any form - and disagreed with some of his statements - however I am forever grateful that he came into my life when he did and wouldn't change that for anything. He is a gifted man - who has provided a soft landing for many families of all economic class. How many gov't officials can make such a personal claim. THanks again for your willingness to understand.
Posted by: Andrea Nelson | March 20, 2008 5:45 PM
Back in 1965, I went on a school trip from my home in England, to Germany. I met a boy, had my first kiss and was head over heels in love. I went home and excitedly told my parents about this young man and was horrified when I heard my mother mutter, "The only good German is a dead German."
Of course, I didn't agree with my mother, but I understood her. She had endured nightly bombing during the long years of WWII and one decade was not enough to eradicate the fear and distrust in her generation. Fortunately, that fear did not pass on to me, and I not only remained friends with that first love, but our families became close friends, our children played together when we would visit each other and now, today, there is no animosity remaining.
Similarly, many of Rev. Wright's generation suffered at the hands of white people and the years that have followed have not eliminated the fear. Yet some, like Barack Obama, show the way forward just as did my generation of young Europeans. They don't show the way by repudiating everything about their elders, but rather show love and understanding, even while they don't take onboard the same values.
I hope this has been a lesson for us all. It only took one generation to eliminate fear and hatred between Europeans, who had each suffered at the hands of the other. Similarly, if we allow the old to be old, to experience their pain without belittling them, but, like Barack Obama, we don't take on their values, this country, with God's grace, will be well on the way to healing of division.
Finally, I must say that I am shocked at the tone of some of these messages. We are ALL Christians, children of the Most High God. We can disagree on issues and how to best tackle them, but when we resort to name-calling, we have lost all high ground and do not represent Jesus. Let's put on the mind of Christ and see where that takes us.
Posted by: Patricia | March 20, 2008 5:48 PM
Jim Wallis wrote:
"Barack Obama should win or lose his party's nomination or the presidency based on the positions he takes regarding the great issues of our time and his capacity to lead the country and the U.S.'s role in the world."
For once, Wallis and I agree. I watched the speech and thought, "That's a great speech, but I would never vote for him." He's just too leftist for me.
Posted by: Gordon | March 20, 2008 5:49 PM
I respect Obama even more now than I did before, which is saying a lot. In contrast with what another poster has said about him, he is not incurious or incompetent. I think that careful listening to him and understanding the nuance he strikes should quell such opinions of him. Some say he is just playing the part of a politician, but again, I strongly disagree. I see in him an intelligence, integrity and honesty that has been missing from politics for a LONG time.
Thanks for the helpful and timely written blog entry, Mr. Wallis.
Posted by: JoAnne | March 20, 2008 5:59 PM
On Obama’s “We the People” speech.
Maria Varela
March 20, 2008
Barack Obama’s former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright and I are of the same generation. As veterans of the civil rights era we know intimately the racism which underwrites this society. We saw it written in the blood of those beaten and killed, jailed and driven mad during the 1960s civil rights campaigns. We see it today in the re-segregation of schools, climbing incarceration rates of people of color and the stunning inequity that is transforming a ‘modern’ economy to a near-feudal economy. And yes, there have been advances since the 1960’s of which Obama’s campaign is emblematic. My dark skinned daughter has available to her many more opportunities than those generations that went before her. But other daughters without the privileges mine was raised with, still languish in all those bottom percentiles that not only persist, but grow. The bridges across the inequity gaps which emerged from the social movements of the late 20th century have collapsed, with few being repaired or replaced.
Recently in my civil rights class, a young white woman was lamenting the lack of activism of today’s generation but chalked it up to the fact that “in the 60s racism was ‘in your face every day …with black and colored water fountains and segregated lunch counters’. Quietly an African American student spoke up and said “it may not be in your face, every day, but it is in our face every day, even here in this ‘finest liberal arts college in the West.’” This encounter is representative of the racial divide maintained by the social rules that these things are not talked about in mixed company. This and the fact of continued racial and economic segregation has resulted in generations of white kids who are economically advantaged but socio-culturally disadvantaged. These young people will be the business, political and academic leaders of the mid 21st century. And if nothing changes, we can expect that their continued habitation in the bubble of cultural deprivation, exacerbated by ignorance about the history and languages of other cultures and religions, will translate into future economic and military wars….whether internally against US communities of color or the latest wave of immigrants and/or externally against non-Christian and non-white nations.
Some African American churches, especially those who preach the social gospel, have always provided a place where people who face racism every day can come together in prayer and music to exorcise the daily slaps in the face. Reverend Wrights ‘shocking language’ in a recent sermons is no different from that found in the bible. Those times when God found it necessary to chastise an obstinate and sinful people, the Creator’s wrath knew no bounds and was not limited to words. The point was often reinforced by Yahweh’s pointed violence. The fact that many mainstream Americans are affronted by Reverend Wright’s words is an illustration of the tenaciousness of not just the racial divide, but the differences in the role of spirituality in our distinct cultural lives.
Perhaps Reverend Wright should have been more circumspect because of his relationship with Obama and his sure knowledge that the liberal and conservative establishment would be obdurate in their hunt for ways to denigrate his candidacy. But our generation knows that this vision of hope which brother Obama so beautifully weaves….can be cut down at any time by an assassin who doesn’t really care how statesman-like his views on race or how white his mother.
Obama’s speech has caused me to pause, however, and examine my own conscience. Those of us who continue the work of the 20th century movement into the 21st century are tired, often cynical and at times hopeless. And angry! This can make us ineffective in reaching the next generations coming up. Our rages may energize those who are equally angry….but it paralysis those who are not yet angry. This is why I have come to support Obama. Not even John F. Kennedy, not even Martin Luther King could weave the truth so candidly, humbly and powerfully. Obama’s way of thinking and speaking has shown the potential of bridging the race and class divide: empowering not paralyzing. And while this is so needed in our civic life, many in this society who grapple with tenacious racism and class-ism still need the Reverend Wrights to help us stay sane and energize us with the essential graces to endure.
Maria Varela worked in Alabama and Mississippi from 1963-67 with the Student Non Violent Coordinating Committee. Currently she is a community organizer, writer, visiting faculty member at The Colorado College and a MacArthur Fellow.
Posted by: Maria Varela | March 20, 2008 6:16 PM
Dear Rev. Wallis:
I have been a member of Sojourners for over two years, and part of my monthly tithe has gone to your Sustainers Circle for that period. However, I am seriously considering withdrawing my support for Sojourners, for three reasons.
First, if you are supporting Barack Obama, that is your prerogative. But please make it clear by stating it openly. Because it is dishonest for you to do so only by inference. I did not join Sojourners to support a political candidate. In this regard, if you cannot separate your personal support for Mr. Obama from the non-partisan non-political work of Sojourners, I will not feel comfortable continuing to support Sojourners.
Indeed, I would be surprised if you were openly supporting Mr. Obama, since he clearly lied with respect to the Wright issue. When he was first asked about it, he stated, unequivocally, that he was "never" in the pews when Wright made "any" of his incendiary statements. Yet during his speech, he admitted that, yes, he had heard Wright make SOME of those comments. Thus, Mr. Obama's first response as to lie. This does not exactly show good character or judgment - certainly NOT to the degree that he has self-proclaimed and that his supporters proclaim about him.
Second, your intellectual machinations in attempting to justify Rev. Wright's statements and approach represent a tortured logic that does not stand. Righteous indignation and moral outrage are certainly legitimate feelings. But there are "ways to say things" and "ways to say things." Rev. King did not need to resort to the kind of incendiary, mean-spirited and "shock value" approach in order to express HIS moral outrage and righteous indignation. Neither did Gandhi, who was among the most soft-spoken men in history (and among the most truly "Christian" despite not self-identifying as such).
Yes, Jesus expressed ANGRY righteous indignation - but ONLY re "spiritual" matters (e.g., using the Temple grounds for monetary gain, and re the Temple Priests et al who were using their positions corruptly vis-a-vis both monetary gain and misleading the masses). When He spoke of social, political and cultural issues, He spoke quietly, often in parables and homilies.
If Rev. Wright had been commenting on corrupt faith leaders or misuse of church funds, his incendiary anger might be justified. But he was addressing political, social and cultural issues.
In this regard, there is NO excuse for his comments, and particularly for his approach in making them. To imply that Rev. Wright's inflammatory statements are somehow comparable to Jesus' righteous indignation in a few very specific instances is extremely flawed logic.
Finally, I am shocked at your Moderation Team's response to Wolverine, and their threat that he will be expelled from the Sojourners blogs. This not only flies in the face of free speech - especially since nothing he has said was in any way personally denigrating or disrespectful of either your Moderation Team or any participant her - but shows a dangerous lack of understanding of grace, forgiveness, tolerance and humility.
As noted, these things have created a SERIOUS concern for me about Sojourners, its mission, its politics, its policies and its understanding of some of the most basic tenets of Christ's ministry.
Any response would be most welcome.
Peace.
Posted by: Maani | March 20, 2008 6:18 PM
I grew up in a mostly white penecostal evangelical church. I heard a white version of this kind of fear based hate mongering from "anointed" minsisters preaching for years!
Aids was a punishemt from god.. Homosexuals and democrates that suport them are causing things like 911.Floods, Poor econamy because God will not be mocked!
Since Reagan.. every Republican President has embraced and thanked The mostly white right wing evangelics for there suport and there trust.
Its ugly any color.
The more people grow tired of this mentality the more we can move away from it.
Posted by: B. Antos | March 20, 2008 6:37 PM
Ok -- call me simple-minded, but
Discussions on racial prejudice in America is one thing that will make me pound the table. However, I don't think we should elect Obama because he is the first black man running for President and is very close to getting it.
We should be asking, "Who do we want as Commander and Chief?" "Who do we want in this economy?" "Who do we want at this time in the world?" Stuff like that.
To me -- the fact that it's taken this long for the race question to really surface shows that most Americans will make their decision based on other factors -- and that -- is how it should be.
I'm quite certain that the media would have jumped all over it if Hillary went to a church that said women couldn't teach or McCain went to a church that was against war. That's what the media does. News is, after all, the unexpected.
Posted by: frankie | March 20, 2008 7:00 PM
The entire episode with Rev. Wright has left me heartsick this past week. Rev. Wright's "truth" is different from white America's truth, but it is authentic to his experience. These few words plucked from years of preaching are harsh, but has the critisim from many of us on the left about an illegal war, a corrupt Administration, a failing media been any less. The only difference is the words we use are words more aligned to our personal vocabulary.
Barack Obama is not the adult guardian of Rev. Wright and is not responsible for his preaching anymore than you or I are responsible for the sins of our loved ones and friends.
The constant replaying of these clips by media is an obsenity in itself. It aims to indict by association. There is no other explanation. Like the false media story that Gore claimed credit for the internet, or the doctored replay of the Dean scream, the media incites the uniformed and encourages the small minded prejudices of an attention deficit audience with soundbites that have nothing to do with the issues of this campaign or the attributes of Senator Obama.
Media fuels this kind of the lowest level of discourse and gives license to the competing campaigns to make hay. What we loose is the real opportunity for serious conversation, reconciliation and progress. We witness character asassination of the best, brightest and most willing to serve. We set a terrible example for our children as adults behave shamefully at anothers expense. It is not just Senator Obama that is being attacked, but all the good Rev. Wright has done is being ignored while his career is coming to an end. The United Church of Chirst is being degarded when they have done much for their community. Obama wants to lift us up to a higher place where we are united, understood and can achieve much together. Sadly, there are those that can only feel good when they are tearing apart what is good in others.
Posted by: Patricia MM | March 20, 2008 7:20 PM
Amen to Obama, Sojourners and even Wright- It's finally known to America that the black church speaks out against racism and oppression- Your commentary was great Obama's speech magnificent- It's the first campaign I have given $ to and I am 60 yrs old- God bless Obama and we pray for him - Judy Brock
Posted by: Judy Brock | March 20, 2008 7:52 PM
Amen to Obama, Sojourners and even Wright- It's finally known to America that the black church speaks out against racism and oppression- Your commentary was great Obama's speech magnificent- It's the first campaign I have given $ to and I am 60 yrs old- God bless Obama and we pray for him - Judy Brock
Posted by: Judy Brock | March 20, 2008 7:52 PM
Amen to Obama, Sojourners and even Wright- It's finally known to America that the black church speaks out against racism and oppression- Your commentary was great Obama's speech magnificent- It's the first campaign I have given $ to and I am 60 yrs old- God bless Obama and we pray for him - Judy Brock
Posted by: Judy Brock | March 20, 2008 7:52 PM
Barack is just a "messenger", but his sense of time is nonsensical and ill-timed...
Further, to many of my colleagues, I had predicted that as soon as any mention of race related issues surfaced, the "RACE CARD' would be played...Well it has been played...Hiliary, unfortunately, is the "LITMUS TEST" in testing the race issue...
What we need is a mediator now...The leader that could have brought us together is WILLIAM "BILL" RICHARDSON"...He demonstarted it at the debates...His choice to withdraw is a loss to the USA and to himself...
Moreover, I make these statements since i do not believe in the 18th century posited concept of race by hierarchy, a non-proven concept, but used to divide us...Had we as a nation did away over this concept, race would not the issue...
Remember , recordar :
Living as we do in a world that suffers so much, two opposing possibilities can easily tempt us: either to turn our backs and live oblivious to the pain or to allow the pain to overwhelm us and despair to take up residence in our hearts. The truly faithful option is to face the pain and live joyfully in the midst of it. Those who suffer most remind us of how tragic and arrogant it would be for us to lose hope on behalf of people who have not lost theirs. They are teachers of joy. - Joyce Hollyday
Then Your Light Shall Rise
“For I am compelled to lend my voice of the “Good News “
to advocate, teach, speak, write the Word with succinct assertiveness, boldness , clarity as a wounded, reconciled, peaceful, free Eclecticist Spirit Seeker , Ambasaador
sojourned in Chains until the resurrection.” S. Jim Rodriguez -Eclecticist Spirit Seeker
Posted by: ECLECTICIST, S JIM RODRIGUEZ, | March 20, 2008 7:53 PM
Barack is just a "messenger", but his sense of time is nonsensical and ill-timed...
Further, to many of my colleagues, I had predicted that as soon as any mention of race related issues surfaced, the "RACE CARD' would be played...Well it has been played...Hiliary, unfortunately, is the "LITMUS TEST" in testing the race issue...
What we need is a mediator now...The leader that could have brought us together is WILLIAM "BILL" RICHARDSON"...He demonstarted it at the debates...His choice to withdraw is a loss to the USA and to himself...
Moreover, I make these statements since i do not believe in the 18th century posited concept of race by hierarchy, a non-proven concept, but used to divide us...Had we as a nation did away over this concept, race would not the issue...
Remember , recordar :
Living as we do in a world that suffers so much, two opposing possibilities can easily tempt us: either to turn our backs and live oblivious to the pain or to allow the pain to overwhelm us and despair to take up residence in our hearts. The truly faithful option is to face the pain and live joyfully in the midst of it. Those who suffer most remind us of how tragic and arrogant it would be for us to lose hope on behalf of people who have not lost theirs. They are teachers of joy. - Joyce Hollyday
Then Your Light Shall Rise
“For I am compelled to lend my voice of the “Good News “
to advocate, teach, speak, write the Word with succinct assertiveness, boldness , clarity as a wounded, reconciled, peaceful, free Eclecticist Spirit Seeker , Ambasaador
sojourned in Chains until the resurrection.” S. Jim Rodriguez -Eclecticist Spirit Seeker
Posted by: ECLECTICIST, S JIM RODRIGUEZ, | March 20, 2008 7:53 PM
Barack is just a "messenger", but his sense of time is nonsensical and ill-timed...
Further, to many of my colleagues, I had predicted that as soon as any mention of race related issues surfaced, the "RACE CARD' would be played...Well it has been played...Hiliary, unfortunately, is the "LITMUS TEST" in testing the race issue...
What we need is a mediator now...The leader that could have brought us together is WILLIAM "BILL" RICHARDSON"...He demonstarted it at the debates...His choice to withdraw is a loss to the USA and to himself...
Moreover, I make these statements since i do not believe in the 18th century posited concept of race by hierarchy, a non-proven concept, but used to divide us...Had we as a nation did away over this concept, race would not the issue...
Remember , recordar :
Living as we do in a world that suffers so much, two opposing possibilities can easily tempt us: either to turn our backs and live oblivious to the pain or to allow the pain to overwhelm us and despair to take up residence in our hearts. The truly faithful option is to face the pain and live joyfully in the midst of it. Those who suffer most remind us of how tragic and arrogant it would be for us to lose hope on behalf of people who have not lost theirs. They are teachers of joy. - Joyce Hollyday
Then Your Light Shall Rise
“For I am compelled to lend my voice of the “Good News “
to advocate, teach, speak, write the Word with succinct assertiveness, boldness , clarity as a wounded, reconciled, peaceful, free Eclecticist Spirit Seeker , Ambasaador
sojourned in Chains until the resurrection.” S. Jim Rodriguez -Eclecticist Spirit Seeker
Posted by: ECLECTICIST, S JIM RODRIGUEZ, | March 20, 2008 7:53 PM
Amen to Obama, Sojourners and even Wright- It's finally known to America that the black church speaks out against racism and oppression- Your commentary was great Obama's speech magnificent- It's the first campaign I have given $ to and I am 60 yrs old- God bless Obama and we pray for him - Judy Brock
Posted by: Judy Brock | March 20, 2008 7:54 PM
I think Obama is one of the few who can speak for most of us. I am white, I understand why blacks can be very angry with whites, I'm sorry they are suffering from the anger as well as past and present treatment at others' hands. I think Rev. Wright had a right to his views, as do others who sincerely feel offense at them (which to me does not include right-wing talk show people when they are only trying manipulate us all).
Posted by: Laurel Schunk | March 20, 2008 8:38 PM
Thank you,Jim, for this amazingly accurate editorial. I spent 40 years of my life working as a missionary in West Africa...living among wonderful poor people...oppressed in many ways by their own leaders and government...they taught me the difficulty of rebelling against the powers that be ...colonial and African. I learned that you could die if you marched against the current leadership...or spend years in prison because you slandered a corrupt president... I learned that if you want to make a point that is heard, it has to be a scream and not spiritual "pablum". Rev. Wright did this and is taking the hits for it. Why a member of his church is being blamed for this is beyond logic. It is a creation of the panicked right wing media afraid of even the possibility of a black president.
Posted by: Paul | March 20, 2008 8:39 PM
Thank you,Jim, for this amazingly accurate editorial. I spent 40 years of my life working as a missionary in West Africa...living among wonderful poor people...oppressed in many ways by their own leaders and government...they taught me the difficulty of rebelling against the powers that be ...colonial and African. I learned that you could die if you marched against the current leadership...or spend years in prison because you slandered a corrupt president... I learned that if you want to make a point that is heard, it has to be a scream and not spiritual "pablum". Rev. Wright did this and is taking the hits for it. Why a member of his church is being blamed for this is beyond logic. It is a creation of the panicked right wing media afraid of even the possibility of a black president.
Posted by: Paul | March 20, 2008 8:39 PM
Jim, the name of Obama's church is "Trinity United Church of Christ." It is a member of the United Church of Christ. You refer to it as "Trinity Church" and in the well-written articles you have contributed on this topic, I cannot find an instance where you have referred to our denomination--the omission makes me wonder why?
Posted by: Paul Tellstrom | March 20, 2008 8:49 PM
Someone should find and post some truly inspiring messages from Obama's pastor and post them on YouTube.
Posted by: Gertrude Reagan | March 20, 2008 8:50 PM
Thank you Judy Brock and Jim Wallace. Your editorial, Mr. Wallace, was wonderful. I do not need to go on and on, but to say that I felt good to see Judy Brock's post. I am a white female 66 years old - Barack Obama's campaign is the first ever I have given donations to. Tomorrow he is coming to my town, Portland, Oregon. I am one of the lucky ones who got a ticket. I am Catholic and like the other Catholics who posted here, do not abide by the Church Hierarchy-nevertheless, Catholic I am and of choice too. I was raised Methodist. I have started saying a daily Rosary for Mr. Obama, to keep him safe and to stop the horrible slander that is being given by the right wing conservatives. It is their worst nightmare that he would win. It would affect their pockets heavily.
Where else could blacks ever complain re racial injustice except in their churches, and if we are so foolish as to believe the U.S.is the only place where racism is going strong, think again-it is universal I am afraid. God Bless you Jim Wallace and all the good people who posted here and are supporting this very fine man. peace.
Posted by: Charlote Bloebaum | March 20, 2008 8:57 PM
I am appalled that Jim Wallis would excuse the behavior of Pastor Wright and other "black ministers" by talking about them addressing people beaten down. These ministers are supposed to be Christian ministers. Jesus was talking to a people beaten way down and yet he did not preach hate he preached love and forgiveness.
Mr. Wallis is this not a comand of Jesus for Christians?
Matthew 5
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor[g] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,[h] 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet your brethren[i] only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors[j] do so? 48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.
So how exactly is Pastr Wright acting as a minister of the Gospel of Jesus? and how is Barrack Obama acting as a Christian and a person who desires to be the president of all the people when he stayed in that church for 20 years and exposed his children to this?
Posted by: Ransomed | March 20, 2008 10:31 PM
I glanced at some of the responses before scrolling down to respond to Jim Wallis' words on Barrack Obama. The glance revealed the sickening racism of AMerica. I do not know how I became acquainted with Jim Wallis and the Sojourners web site but I have enjoyed reading the regular postings, although I am not a Christian.
As a veteran of several internet forums on which people of my generation -- who were supposed to have been the 'hippies,' the left-wing liberals, peaceniks and tree-huggers -- have expressed ugly, racist views, I am appalled to see them here.
I know that Jim Wallis is the brunt of right wing anger, which is a complement. Wallis must be doing something correctly! The right is responsible for all the hatred and destruction in the world.
I wish there were some way for the hatred and destruction to end.
At this point in time, I hate both Barack and Hillary but not because he is half-Black nor because she is a woman but because both have through their campaigns failed to rise above politics as usual.
However, I would rather deal with either Barack or Hillary than with the racists who have posted on this blog. Disgusting! Have you learned nothing?
Posted by: Susan Wozniak | March 20, 2008 10:45 PM
Thank you, Susan! And a justified cut at Christians, if indeed the people who comment here are Christians. I know there's no entrance exam to the Kingdom and wouldn't exclude anyone who has a heart and a mind and a determination to change the mediocrity we experience from government down to the elemental levels of society.
And I'm starting an investigation in an attempt to find out who is giving all these Christian folks Bibles with the whole Sermon on the Mount deleted.
I had hoped we were moving past the lazy and easy acceptance of manipulated sound bytes rather than careful reflection and willingness to research the truth for themselves. Even the comments lack substance -- taking apart the article just to offer opinion with less substantiation than Jim has.
I know it feels good to think you've thrown a good zinger at someone whose opinion or commitment is different. What I really want to see is the positive side of the harsh critics -- the nature of their commitments and how they see themselves and the calls they follow for their lives. That would give me a better picture than just nastiness of the posts. Barack Obama's character really shines, compared to the people who have forgotten that "the measure by which you judge is the measure by which you shall be judged."
I can truly admire people who have, as part of their lives, a commitment to leaving the world a better place than they found it. Sojourners made their commitments clear decades ago. How about some of you?
Posted by: openeyes | March 20, 2008 11:46 PM
At the beginning of the week of the Passover, a young popular public speaker, who had proclaimed good news to the poor, freedom to the oppressed, and healing to the sick, who had associated with both sinners and saints, including insurrectionists and tax collectors, and who judged others by their hearts and actions and not solely by their words, was welcomed into the capital city like a philosopher king. Despite his courage and grace under pressure, his respect for all people, and his healing message and actions, the leadership of this country, seeking to preserve their positions of power and wealth, ruthlessly and unfairly castigated this charismatic man, whose unique background, experience, persona, and lineage qualified him as the one most likely to unite and lift up a divided nation. Eventually, this country’s ideological elite silenced the only real hope for healing a divisive and oppressed society. During this Holy Week, may God forgive America for its sins of needless war and its economic exploitation of the working and middle class and of racism and bless America with a leader who survives the cruel and destructive crucible of Fox News and Talk Show Radio. God has blessed America because its citizens still have the power to raise up their suffering servant.
Posted by: John W. Mikus | March 20, 2008 11:50 PM
To say that Mr Obama accepted Jesus Christ as His Lord and Savor at Trinity chirch is questionable in light of his recent answer to a question by the media asking, "What would you do if you met Jesus Christ today?" His answer was, "I would ask Him if I was going up or going down,"
That is not the answer that someone who is trusting in the finished work of Christ for Salvation whould give. He should know that the blood of Jesus Christ has cleansed him from all unrighteousness and that there is no question about the righteousness of Christ gaining Him access to the Fathers presence for eternity. I summarize that he is not Born Again. Also, unless it was a doctored photo, I saw that when he was sworn into office he placed his hand on the Koran.
Posted by: David brubaker | March 21, 2008 1:03 AM
I am not a German American,an Italian American,a Polish American, an Irish American, Mexican American, or any other kind. I AM AN AMERICAN!!
Black, Brown, Yellow and white!! If we are legal
citizens of this country, we are just plain AMERICANS.
This is not to say that we can't honor our individual heritages or customs. In fact, I think it's wonderful to share these customs with others.
Finally, in my view, ENGLISH is the language of
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!
JESUS SAID, "A NEW COMMANDMENT I GIVE UNTO YOU THAT YOU LOVE ONE ANOTHER.AS I HAVE LOVED YOU, THAT YOU LOVE ONE ANOTHER. BY THIS SHALL ALL MEN KNOW THAT YOU ARE MY DISCIPLES, IF YOU LOVE ONE ANOTHER." JOHN 13:34 & 35
Posted by: Mary-Ellen Cleaver | March 21, 2008 2:19 AM
I'm a British author, observing the presidential campaign with great interest. What a turn-up for the books: a woman and African American running for President, against a conservative, Vietnam vet! Wow, what a change this signifies for societies everywhere.
People are intelligent. We know how the media manipulates everything, it's been like that for the past three decades, if not more. The largely rich white power behind these channels will be running scared. Then there's been the demonstrations by Buddhist monks in Cambodia and Tibet and the resulting clampdown and violence by military regimes.
So, faith has become political once more - big time. That's good, if as Christians we believe in living our faith, rather than mumbling in church and being rude to others the rest of the week (which happens here in the UK also, as well as most other 'Christian' countries I've ever visited.)
And most hippy loving baby-boomers know enough to know that this time, the times are REALLY changing. Wa-hooh!
So, rather than rant or rave, or criticise the Pastor for his mostly correct pronouncements on American society (and I've visited the US twice in the past three years, staying with American friends), begin by being kind and welcoming to people who are having a tough time in the US: the immigrants, different faiths (especially Muslims) and different colours. We're not that much different under the skin/clothing really.
We are each part of God's magnificent tapestry. And my vote's on Obama!
Posted by: Annette Allen | March 21, 2008 3:00 AM
I am out of the country right now and am following this discussion from 9000 miles away and could only read the Obama speeech on the internet. I read quite well to me---better than that thing of Romney on his Mormon faith. But what I can't understand is why everybody is picking on Obama's minister, but ignoring the off the wall statements of John McCain's big supporter, the Rev. Mr. Hagee, whom as far as I know he has not repudiated, or the fact that he quit being an Episcopalian and started becoming a Southern Baptist (withoutbeing properly baptized). The latter sounds like the crassest, vote-getting opportunism, but where are the voices of outrage on this net--or anywhere else, for that matter? This double-standard sounds like bad old-fashioned racism to me.
Posted by: Dick Pierard | March 21, 2008 5:12 AM
Jim,
I guess God will do something to heal the racial divide between us but I'm surprised that you had no suggestions about how we might help.
I called Trinity UCC to invite some people to come to my small rural and white church in New Hampshire. I was rebuffed. Something about "Well, you are always welcome to come here!" I was hurt when my invitation was refused because we want to be hospitable in the way that Christ is.
I'm not going to give up because I think I understand the level of hostility and mistrust and I am hopeful that our Risen Christ will break down the walls of hostility and separation between white-rural and black-urban America. I hope my brothers and sisters know that they can walk through the door of our church and be welcome just as I know that I will be welcome at Trinity UCC. Unfortunately that wall is extremely high and this initial reaction to our invitation describes the great height of the wall that separates us.
Greg
Posted by: Greg Marshall | March 21, 2008 5:45 AM
Will all those in Christ pray with me?
Father God, we rest next to You on Your throne of grace, and You humble our enemies, making them a footstool for our feet. Father God, satan revealed himself on America's media using the tongue of a righteous man, Rev. Wright. Father God, we pray for Rev. Wright, and all those who continue to walk in bitterness and anger, fill their hearts with Your holy love. We ask that You cover them with the healing Blood of Jesus, and convict their hearts with Your love to find forgiveness for those who have done them and their people great harm. Only You, Lord, can change their hearts; it is only by Your Spirit that anything of lasting value will be accomplished in Jesus' Name. Father God, Rev. Wright is right that America has become spiritually apathetic. America has taken its eyes off of You, and placed it on other gods, and idols of material things, and "here on earth as it is in hell" choices and actions. Forgive us Americans, O Lord, and have mercy on us sinners, in Jesus' name. Cover us with the Redeeming Blood of Jesus, cleanse us and transform us. Breathe on America, O Lord, with Your Spirit; burn bright Your eternal fire within us, create a revival that spreads across America for the Love Name of Jesus. I pray that America will Bless God, that we may rest in Your Blessings of Abraham. In Jesus' Name. It is Finished!
America Bless God!
Posted by: Susan Brandt | March 21, 2008 5:45 AM
Amen! It's about time someone addressed the cultural differences in worship and preaching style, etc of our brothers in the the inner city African-American congregations. Beyond that, if we can get past the tone of the message, the facts Rev. Wright refers to are pretty clear and beyond dispute. We have done much that we should repent of as a nation and therefore not surprised when we are attacked for some of what we have done. That is not to condone the attacks, but to acknowledge that they might be a response to what is perceived as US aggression.
Posted by: Tim Maki | March 21, 2008 7:46 AM
This is what happens when clergy persons endorse political candidates. By endorsing Obama in his official capacity as leader of Sojourners (he can endorse whomever he wants as an individual voter, of course), the Rev. Jim Wallis has painted himself into a corner. He now is faced with showing why Obama is still the best candidate for the job. Mayb he is, maybe he isn't. Regardless, this is not the job of a religious leader.
Posted by: Liberata | March 21, 2008 8:32 AM
Sadly, Jim Wallis' comments about Obama are 100% predictable! He is overtly endorsing Barack with silly statements like "Barack Obama represents that hope of dealing with the substance of the issues of injustice while at the same time articulating the politics of hope, and even the possibility of racial unity." Hope? What hope? He further calls him "a new kind of political leader who believes the country is ready for a new kind of politics" - WHAT, pray tell, is so "new" about Obama's extreme blame-America-first liberal politics? What is "new" about being literally the MOST LIBERAL member of the US Senate? What is new about Big government and higher taxes? Wake up, Christians! This is 100% liberal hype!
Secondly, Wallis says it's "it's hard to disagree with many of the facts presented" by Rev. Wright. Which "facts" does Wallis find it "hard to disagree" with? The "fact" that the US government created AIDS to infect blacks with? The "fact" that the US brought 9/11 on itself? Or how about the "fact" that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor before it happened? Or the "fact" that when President Truman saved millions of lives (by using the atomic bomb), that was immoral? That you, Jim, find it "hard to disagree" with Rev. Wright -- THAT is a FACT to tells us why you are SO enamored with your Messiah, Barack H. Obama.
Posted by: Al N | March 21, 2008 8:58 AM
Thank you Mr. Wallis for using such great care and sensitivity to the issue of race that has plagued this nation, our culture and the Church for too many years. It is my hope that many will sit down and honestly do an evaluation of heart and mind. Then and only then can we move forward to do the greater works of Christ and be healing presence everywhere we go. Thanks for bring healing to us by writing this article.
Posted by: Antoinette Burwell | March 21, 2008 9:12 AM
First, I see that Barack Obama has managed to get beyond the rhetoric of earlier black leaders whose goal was always to blame white people for everything wrong and make the white population feel guilty. It may have been necessary at the time, but we should be past that now. Obama sees that everyone, all of us, not just blacks, have worries and concerns. He sees that most of us were not involved in slavery and most of us just work for a living and are honest people - not demons and spawn of hell as claimed by Rev. Farakhan. He is post civil rights in the tradition of such men as Rev. Farakhan, Rev. Jackson, Julian Bond and others.
If only his dream of equality in the US could be achieved and these racial tensions could be left behind once and for all!
But, sadly I see that here the writer is back to blaming white people for not understanding blacks. This is the old paradigm! It is the paradigm of hate, blaming and finger-pointing of Rev. Wright with his calling on God to damn America and calling the country the US of KKK-A. I fear it won't go away soon.
What now concerns me is that we have no guarantee that if Obama is elected president he will not surround himself with old paradigm civil rights advocates and haters like Rev. Wright, Jesse Jackson, Charles Evers, and others who will use overweening federal authority to "settle old scores." If that occurs, white people are in for a very tough four years.
Posted by: jsens3 | March 21, 2008 9:59 AM
If Jeremiah Wright had preached Jesus and Matthew 5:44 "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute", and Obama had included him in his campaign, then we really would have had an example of commitment to change.
While I applaud Obama's speech and the intent of reconciliation, as a Christian I believe reconciliation begins on the inside, with obedience to God and is not a result simply of speeches or barbershop discussions.
Jeremiah Wright is simply one example of "disconnected Christianity". If I were to ask "how many Christians love Osama bin Laden or the Islamic radicals", I fear the silence would be deafening.
Posted by: Jack Given | March 21, 2008 10:32 AM
I fully agree with Susan.
I realize the race battle has not been finished in this country -- but it's been fought and won in my own heart so long ago that I have to wonder where you people live.
There seems to be more resentment growing against Hispanics in this country -- as they fight for what they perceive is right. But the black and white issue -- while I know we can all dig deeper and erase even more subtle stuff -- should not continue to be a question on either side.
Pastor Jeff -- I just don't get where you're coming from. Seems like you defend this man blindly. You want me to judge Wright by his fruit? The fruit I see is resentment more than change. I can take criticism from any color on the planet.
I remember once -- meeting with a group of folks to pray for the Uighers in China. This Chinese girl joined us and said she was overwhelmed by this outpouring of concern for them -- because Christians in her country would never think to pray for them.
So why not stop all this dialogue and do something we know works? Since none of us have a solution that will change this thing overnight, why don't we pray that both sides comes together -- grow in their love and understanding -- and that Rev. Wright learns from this whole thing too.
He will be speaking a lot in the future -- and all this could make him a better speaker -- now that he sees how so many more people view what he has said or why he was misunderstood. He's got a great message in there -- perhaps he can say it in a way that is better understood.
Posted by: Barnaby | March 21, 2008 10:52 AM
White ministers spew bigetory from the pulpit all over this country. It wasn't very long ago that we were reading about a white evangalist who made a comment concerning killing a gay man and then telling God about it later, to which the congregation cheered and applauded. Why did they not get up and leave their church over such hate talk? That wasn't the first or last incident of that kind.
I am a white American and pray for this serious discussion, healing and change so desperately needed in this country. Jesus gave us the new commandment to "Love one another." What part of that are we not getting?
Posted by: donna | March 21, 2008 10:54 AM
I guess I was looking for something more objective than Wallis defense of Rev Wright. If all at takes is anger and destorting of facts and outright mistruth to be a prophet, more preachers should apply for the job. To me this article by Wallis is nothing more than an endorsement of Oboma, which he will welcome. I wonder if Wallis would be as "understanding" of some radical, fundamentalist,white preacher who used he "Wright tactic" to spill his venom against blacks. Would that open up a discussion of race in America?
Posted by: Ron Mallow | March 21, 2008 10:58 AM
I APPRECIATE YOUR ARTICLE-IT IS VERY POWERFUL...I WAS RAISED IN RURAL OHIO IN THE 50'S AND 60'S...MY FAMILY FOLLOWED THE FAITH HEALER CIRCUIT AND ATTENDED SMALL CHURCHES...I WAS EXPOSED TO MANY ANTI-GOVERNMENT IDEAS (ANTI-UN, ANTI-WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES,ECT) WHICH CO-EXISTED WITH THE IDEA THAT AMERICA HAD A GREAT DESTINY...THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT TO RECONCILE IDEAS...I THINK SOME OF THESE IDEAS GAVE AN OUTLET FOR THE RAGE OF PEOPLE WHO HAD LOST THEIR FARMS IN THE DEPRESSION...I THINK CHURCHES ARE A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE VENT THEIR FRUSTRATIONS AND ANGER AND WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THEY SPEAK...I LATER HELPED TO RAISE A BIRACIAL CHILD...I THINK THE WOUNDS OF RACISM ARE UNIMAGINABLY DEEP...I ADMIRE OBAMA'S COURAGE,IDEALISM, ELOQUENCE, PASSION AND INTELLIGENCE AND I HOPE HE IS GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO LEAD AMERICA IN A NEW DIRECTION,,,
Posted by: ELAINE LEMASTERS | March 21, 2008 11:56 AM
I would only ask for one small, honest, un-biased, and ACCURATE piece of information: What percentage of VOTING African-Americans have voted AGAINST Barack Obama? I submit that the true number is miniscule, and that the true basis for this is race, and race alone! No candidate, commentator, or campaign worker in this political contest has used the "race card" so flagrantly (or so effectively) as Sen. Obama, himself --- and he can do so without even mentioning it!! This lack of independent reasoning and lemming-like behavior is a major point of resentment in THINKING Americans of all races, and it is an issue of which the Senator WILL NOT speak -- for all of his rhetoric! REAL Americans, regardless of race, religion, or national origin, resent and detest "block" voting in any form, as it destroys free and independent thought and conscientious decision-making. These qualities comprise the very fabric of a viable democracy, as our founding fathers so clearly taught us by example.
Posted by: Chris W, Maier | March 21, 2008 12:43 PM
Wow!
Has anybody here actually READ what Jesus had to say about "the authorities" in the Bible???
Has anyone READ what the prophets said about those in leadership in ancient Israel???
It is quite apparent that there are some responding who take Jesus as an OBJECT or IDEA of veneration and worship rather than to actually "FOLLOW HIM IN HIS WAY OF LIVING!"
How in the world can someone vote for Mr Military himself, McCain, and say they follow Jesus who denounced violence (again, try READING the Bible sometime...) in all forms and, instead, challenges us to "love our enemies" as ourselves???
Astounding. Jesus said to "deny our self." I believe what he is asking us to do is to be honest with the "self" (ego) that is conditionally biased by religions, cultures, nationalism, dysfunctions, etc, by our mere place and time of birth.
What I read here are a lot of voices who have not honestly looked into the mirror to separate those conditioned biases from the TRUTH of God's presence in the "lilies of the field" as well as in our enemy (again, to be loved).
How sad to see so many people sleepwalking in their ego driven biases! Remember, there is more to you than what meets the eye (or the eye of those you are trying to impress with possessions, knowledge or credentials).
Without the challenging and judgmental words (much of which can be "heard" as hate if YOU are the focus of the words!) of Jesus, Jeremiah, Amos, Hosea, Gandhi, Dr. MLK Jr, Bobby Kennedy, Dali Lama, Desmond Tutu, Bishop Romero, etc, then we will never know the truth of those forces that attach themselves to our biases and fear.
As for me, I believe the little black school boy interviewed by the late Peter Jennings days after 9/11 just blocks away from Ground Zero. When Jennings ask the boy how he felt, the boy said, "I wonder if those who crashed into the buildings are not David and we are Goliath."
God workd in mysterious ways.
PS- I am white for whatever it's worth.
Posted by: Pr. Bradford Nelson Bray | March 21, 2008 1:32 PM
I believe that Jim Wallis is 100 percent on the money when he speaks on the issue of race. I saw Senator Obamas speech and was deeply impressed by the candor, humility, and integrity he displayed in his articulation of the issues. I too feel that it would be a tragedy of the greatest proportions to see Senator Obama ousted as the nominee as a result of the Rev. Wright fiasco. Just for the record, I am white and found nothing incredibly offensive about what he had to say. Is much of what he said true? yes. Is it sad? yes. Will continuing to pander to those who want to be spoken to like 5 year olds by politicians who continue to duck the roots of the race problem in America contribute in any way toward a reconciliation of races? No. Barack Obama speaks to us as adults on this issue, maturely addressing the roots of the problem. The problem is rooted in legitimate grievances on both sides that require compassion, commonsense, and some considerable degree of understanding to overcome. Let me say, for the record also that my degree is in political science. Like most Americans, Barrack Obama has given me something more than the usual menu of (at least I am not worse than the other guy) candidates. Regarding Hillary Clinton. I think the real issue ought to be the fashion in which she wages her campaign. Her so-called experience is another issue on which the press and others have given her a free pass. Clinton's only REAL political experience has been her time in the Senate. A close scrutiny of her votes will reveal little to differentiate her from her rival John McCain. She is clearly less palatable to moderate Republicans, Independents, and she will lose the Black and youth vote which is solidly for Obama. She will lose in the general election to McCain should she be the nominee. This is particularly true if McCain picks Huckabee to run as his choice for VP. Those states where evangelicals make up the margin of victory will go for McCain with no new voters in the process to offset that influence. An Obama/Edwards tickey would be the strongest possible Democratic ticket to be fielded in many years. Barrack Obama has more real time experience in the political arena of the Illinois House and then in the United States Senate. Senator Clinton's only major contribution to the political process was her failed bid to obtain universal health care for all of us. A Failure I might add that we might place directly on her doorstep for the foolish naivete that she employed in attempting to win support for the measure and her unwillingness to do combat where it counted. With the special interests that promoted the defeat of these revolutionary health care reforms. She remains up to her eyeballs in money from these same interests today. Anyone who suggests that this is "change we can believe in" is guilty of a bit of naivete on their own.
Posted by: Dr. Robert Jones | March 21, 2008 2:46 PM
I've watched Rev. Wright's clips, & all I could say is, he's just telling the truth. He wasn't slamming any white individual but bearing witness to the fact that the United States is still beset by structural racism. The tempest that has been whipped up over this grieves me deeply. And I'm a white woman.
Posted by: RuthG | March 21, 2008 3:07 PM
I keep wondering how much it takes? If Obama is of mixed-race heritage, why is he a black man? Why could he not be a white man? It seems so strange that we are still categorizing people by the amount of melanin in their epidermis. Too much melanin and you are black. (Too much seems to be not too much at all!)
When are we going to embrace our common humanity and get over this shameful categorizing? When are we going to embrace our common divinity as 'made in the image of God?'
Posted by: Grant Lynn Ford | March 21, 2008 3:38 PM
If this is in fact a Christian blog, then please I implore you to heed the plea of the gentleman who asks "What can I do?"
I am an attorney as is my husband. For many years we have worked at either a legal aid offices or as appointed counsel for persons in juvenile courts in the southern part of the US. In my capacity as a legal aid lawyer, I have been told that I am racist and hate poor people. I understand though that the people who say this to me are lashing out because of their frustration and fear. I am a big girl and I can take it.
However, not everyone is going to be schooled in the black empowerment theology and not everyone understands the level of disappointment and anger A.Americans feel.
If this is in fact a Christian blog, instead of answering with frustration, could you answer with love and understanding?
A frequent conversation at dinner that my husband, children and I have is: What can we do? How can we help? Can we do more? My husband attended a local community meeting about crime, in particular juvenile crime; he offered that he represents many children accused of crimes and has a hard time reaching them. He was told that the problem is a black problem and needed black solutions. What does that mean? How can WE help? Can we help or is that simply condescending? I am so confused about what to do!! I pray daily for guidance from God about how I can do His will and not mine. I can only hope that God will give me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference.
So, I again implore you, to be patient, be kind, be loving, understand that not everyone will identify with your experiences. The plea..."What can I do?" comes from the heart.
Yours in Christ, lcws
Posted by: Linda Warren Seely | March 21, 2008 5:29 PM
If this is in fact a Christian blog, then please I implore you to heed the plea of the gentleman who asks "What can I do?"
I am an attorney as is my husband. For many years we have worked at either a legal aid offices or as appointed counsel for persons in juvenile courts in the southern part of the US. In my capacity as a legal aid lawyer, I have been told that I am racist and hate poor people. I understand though that the people who say this to me are lashing out because of their frustration and fear. I am a big girl and I can take it.
However, not everyone is going to be schooled in the black empowerment theology and not everyone understands the level of disappointment and anger A.Americans feel.
If this is in fact a Christian blog, instead of answering with frustration, could you answer with love and understanding?
A frequent conversation at dinner that my husband, children and I have is: What can we do? How can we help? Can we do more? My husband attended a local community meeting about crime, in particular juvenile crime; he offered that he represents many children accused of crimes and has a hard time reaching them. He was told that the problem is a black problem and needed black solutions. What does that mean? How can WE help? Can we help or is that simply condescending? I am so confused about what to do!! I pray daily for guidance from God about how I can do His will and not mine. I can only hope that God will give me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference.
So, I again implore you, to be patient, be kind, be loving, understand that not everyone will identify with your experiences. The plea..."What can I do?" comes from the heart.
Yours in Christ, lcws
Posted by: Linda Warren Seely | March 21, 2008 5:30 PM
This is what happens when clergy persons endorse political candidates. By endorsing Obama in his official capacity as leader of Sojourners (he can endorse whomever he wants as an individual voter, of course), the Rev. Jim Wallis has painted himself into a corner.
If he had officially endorsed Obama then he would be specifically encouraging Sojo readers and bloggers to vote for him, send the campaign money etc., and there would be a link to his website and phone numbers for the campaign office. He hasn't done that and will not do so, not simply for the sake of the ministry but because of the IRS.
I would only ask for one small, honest, un-biased, and ACCURATE piece of information: What percentage of VOTING African-Americans have voted AGAINST Barack Obama? I submit that the true number is miniscule, and that the true basis for this is race, and race alone!
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps much of the black community truly does believe that Obama is the best candidate for the job?
REAL Americans, regardless of race, religion, or national origin, resent and detest "block" voting in any form, as it destroys free and independent thought and conscientious decision-making.
Excuse me, but how naive are you? Everyone belongs to some voting block whether he/she understands that our not -- even those who don't believe they do.
I keep wondering how much it takes? If Obama is of mixed-race heritage, why is he a black man?
In this country, if you're at all black you're all black.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 21, 2008 6:04 PM
The transparent luminosity in Obama's speech is something I've not seen ever in a politician. Yes, the context almost demanded it. And he delivered.
Here is a passing opportunity to truly remove the evil of racism by bringing it into the discussion.
No matter whether he becomes President or even gets the nomination, he has already caused a sea-change of historic proportions. Tom
Posted by: Tom | March 21, 2008 8:30 PM
I was riveted by Obama's speech, because it is riveting. He pushes dialogue ahead, into the realm where vulnerabilities are exposed, and can begin to be healed.
Posted by: Fr. Isaac Skidmore | March 21, 2008 9:06 PM
I think you do have some valuable things, but I think you are mischaracterizing some of the things of Dr. Wright. You claimed it was “the angry tone of Wright's comments that provides the offense and the controversy.” I, and others are not concerned with the tone, I am concerned with what he actually said. He asked God to "damn" our country. Saying this is "out of context" doesn't excuse it. And in a 2003 sermon, Wright claimed, "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color." He is accusing the American government of trying to kill every member of a race. This is not tone. These words, not the tone, reflect a real hatred for America. These comments make Wright a dangerous man.
If “Barack Obama represents that hope of dealing with the substance of the issues of injustice while at the same time articulating the politics of hope, and even the possibility of racial unity,” why didn’t he disavow these comments when they were originally made? Why did it happen only after the words of Dr. Wright became so public.
On this issue I believe you are downplaying the “radicalness” of Dr. Wright’s comments and Senator Obama’s failure to disavow them early on.
Posted by: John Swanson | March 21, 2008 10:59 PM
Mr. Willis - thank you so much for being willing open the discussion on racial issues. I do believe that as Rev. Wright's sermon in question is analyzed more and more, the public (at least those that are willing to hear the message) will finally understand what the big picture of the sermon was all about. I am a Caucasian woman and my husband is an African-American UCC minister. We lived in Chicago and attended Trinity UCC in 1995. I will say as a Caucasian woman new to the Black churches, I was initially uncomfortable at Trinity. This was primarily due to the honesty of Rev. Wright about what we as Christians are suppose to be doing - seeking justice. He encouraged his members to look at themselves and determine if they were doing enough to make their own lives and their communities better. He expected each person to be responsible and take action to improve the conditions in Chicago and in America. It was not a quiet, contemplative request - it was a serious, demanding call to each person to wake up and be responsible.
I can only imagine how the recent events in our U.S. history have deepened this minister's call to action. The Bush Administration has taken this country to war and killed tens of thousands of innocent people in the Middle East in order to support the greed of oil companies. All true Christians should be madder than _____ about the inhumanity this Administration has allowed and the anger that is resonating around the world against Americans.
Yes, I can understand how Rev. Wright would get upset trying to speak the truth and demand that his congregation not sit quietly and just accept what our elected leaders are doing to this county.
Yes, I was uncomfortable years ago when Rev. Wright demanded that I stand up and take responsibility for myself and yes, we should be uncomfortable by his honest assessment of the conditions of our country today. This is why there are protests against the war - does that make us unpatriotic? No, it makes us responsible citizens of this country who are aware of the ineptness of our government. As Christians we should not turn a blind eye to what is happening to people of all races in this country and the divisions this administration is creating around the world.
Is that such a bad thing for a preacher to expect from a community of faith? Is that not what Jesus would do?
walkhumbly
Posted by: walkhumbly | March 22, 2008 12:57 AM
Regarding Barack Obama's speech,I couldn't disagree with you more. Barack Obama listened to this racist bigoted pastor for twenty years while he spewed from his pulpit hatred, revenge, un-American and anti-Semitic venom. The hypocrisy of Obama is the most objectionable. His speech was full of lies and his comment concerning his grandmother, "she's a typical white person" was abominable. If any white candidate made the comment, "he's a typical black person" he would be chastised by the news media and the entire black community. Why should Barack Obama be given a pass on his racist comments just because he's black?
It's time for Christians to stop blaming Jews for something that happened two thousand years ago. I don't believe any of the Jews living today had anything to do with the crucifixion of Jesus Christ It's time for blacks to stop blaming white Americans for slavery. Nobody living today was a slave and nobody alive today owned any slaves. The Jews need to get over the holocaust. If anybody living today had anything to do with the holocaust they have been justly punished and would be to old to be a threat to anyone.
There are good and bad people in every race and religion. I am a Christian, but other than my Father and Grandfather, the most honorable person I ever met was an atheist.
Posted by: Victor Magilke | March 22, 2008 1:44 PM
New generation? Old rhetoric? Really?
As always, its entertaining to see outsiders opine on African American communities! Sometimes I wonder how we Blackfolks could manage without other people telling us what to feel, how to feel, and when it is appropriate to feel it.
Posted by: Deluxe | March 22, 2008 2:49 PM
I agree with the Reverend on everything except his ranting charge the God should damn America. God is not like that - only we are. Our God is a God of love and does not change or write anyone off or condemn anyone. Only we can do that for ourselves.
I would like to know why the 'white churches' do not challenge all of us as Barack Obama has. I would like to challenge all of us to do as Jesus asked us - to love one another. We are all sinners yet God continues to love us and encourage us to turn around and live as Jesus taught us. It cost him his life - and it could cost us ours. So be it. Let's grow up and be who we should be!
Posted by: TrudyAnn | March 22, 2008 3:13 PM
I am struck once again by how the same people who castigated Falwell for his comments on 9-11 now try to defend Wright.
Umm, I think your double standard is showing.
(btw if Wright is a prophet, I'm a pagan. No, really, if Wright is your idea of a prophet of god, then your god has nothing for me)
Posted by: jazzact13 | March 22, 2008 3:43 PM
People,
If you haven't read the speech, please read it before you rant.
Dan
Posted by: Dan McGrath | March 22, 2008 9:41 PM
Thank you, Jim for your message. Today, instead of an Easter sermon, I read from 3 emails I have received from United Church of Christ colleagues and from the reflection, "What Kind of Prophet?", written by the UCC's General Minister and President, Rev. John Thomas all about this "controversy." Go to www.ucc.org for Rev. Thomas' piece.
Given the reaction of my white, middle-class congregation, racism is alive and well in the United States. They were angry that they had to hear about racism when they wanted to hear a soothing "Jesus is risen!" message. White America, too often, would like to pretend racism doesn't exist.
I am angry and saddened that a minister and a church that have given so much to Chicago and to the United Church of Christ and to the world are being slandered by people who are just looking to bring down Sen. Obama's candidancy. Rev. Wright has been a minister for 46 years, 35 years at Trinity UCC. He is one of the leading preachers in the United States and gives seminars and classes all over.
Trinity UCC is a church filled with dedicated members who give generously to the United Church of Christ, who provide important ministry and programs for the people of Chicago's South Side, and who are a Spirit-filled congregation.
I was so hopeful about this Presidential campaign. I hoped that the negative "Swift-boating" tactics would be put aside this time. Unfortunately, here we go again.
Posted by: Sheri | March 23, 2008 5:31 PM
Sheri said:
"I am angry and saddened that a minister and a church that have given so much to Chicago and to the United Church of Christ and to the world are being slandered by people who are just looking to bring down Sen. Obama's candidancy. Rev. Wright has been a minister for 46 years, 35 years at Trinity UCC. He is one of the leading preachers in the United States and gives seminars and classes all over."
>> Question: IF this church has been so wonderful (for Chicago and the world), just HOW many people have been saved there? I've never heard anything about this.
Secondly, your church was correct to want to hear a "Jesus is Risen" message! It was Easter Sunday, for Pete's sake! You really need to learn something about timing! Your politically correct anti-racist sermons may help some learn not to be racist, but the sad fact is that there are a LOT of non-racist people going to Hell.
Posted by: Al N | March 24, 2008 10:10 AM
I am struck once again by how the same people who castigated Falwell for his comments on 9-11 now try to defend Wright.
Falwell and Robertson were scapegoating a group of people just to make a buck because he knew a lot of people felt the same way. Wright, on the other hand, had nothing to gain or lose by making that kind of statement. That was the difference.
IF this church has been so wonderful (for Chicago and the world), just HOW many people have been saved there? I've never heard anything about this.
If was want to know for sure, visit the church yourself. The answer is probably more than you may expect.
Your politically correct anti-racist sermons may help some learn not to be racist, but the sad fact is that there are a LOT of non-racist people going to Hell.
What better message than the newness of life Jesus offers? What about the internal changes that take place upon conversion and the ramifications of such that God simultaneously demands and promises? The Gospel is not primarily about "fire insurance"; it's about life in and through Him and how that is played out in a dying world. Racism, and how to transcend it, is thus a very appropriate issue on Easter Sunday.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 24, 2008 12:59 PM
The solution to hate coming from Christian pulpits is for Christian priests and ministers to preach the teachings of Jesus Christ. He did not teach hate, anger, division, spite or the superiority of any human over any other. His message is the only uplifting message we need. He does not lift us up on wings of hate. Those poisonous messages are the words of Satan in our ears playing to our human weaknesses. I hope Obama is not taken down by the anger of his black supporters, some of whome seem to find racism in anything that is said, and white backlash to that anger. Obama is pointing to the road ahead, where God wants us to go together as His children. I'm willing to go there with him.
Posted by: Ann | March 24, 2008 1:08 PM
Obamas elegance is matched only my Jim Wallis's and for both I am grateful. If only the gentleness and humility of both could be appreciated by enough of voting Americans to put a person of Obama's strength and honesty in the White House. What a wonderful nation this could be! I am an eithty year old white woman who loves her country and prays that peace may come to us and the world through understanding each other.
Posted by: Phyllis Mucha | March 24, 2008 1:29 PM
My dear Jim,
I have loved & respected your point of view for all the years since I attended a then-named "Tikkun conference" in DC. Later, I got to listen to your wit and your inspiring words when you spoke to a RESULTS International Conference, again in DC.[I have been a RESULTS volunteer since 1987.]
Once again, I am feeling gratitude & inspiration from your words.
In my opinion, Obama is the last, best hope we have to heal [or at least begin to heal]my beloved America from the deep stain of racism and white supremacy and from our deep-seated militarism spawned & encouraged by unbridled capitalist greed.
We all must do our part to work for equality and for peace.
May God bless you and keep you. May all the people of America embrace the vision you and Rabbi Dr. Michael Lerner would have us also see.
I want to say a hearty "Amen!" not only to your words but to the words of Phyllis Mucha, who also posted today, @ 1:29 PM. Thanks, Phyllis!
Posted by: marjorie trifon | March 24, 2008 3:44 PM
Give me a break. The pastor Wright was inciting hatred against the white race from the pulpit. And Obama and his family (children included) sat listening to this hatemongering Sunday after Sunday. His hatred should not be excused nor tolerated any more than the hatred of the KKK, Skinheads, or any like group of racists is tolerated by Christians. Instead of laying his grandmother on the altar like a sacrificial lamb, Obama should have severed all ties with the now retired (how convenient for Obama) Reverend.
Posted by: C. Jennings | March 24, 2008 8:45 PM
The pastor Wright was inciting hatred against the white race from the pulpit. And Obama and his family (children included) sat listening to this hatemongering Sunday after Sunday. His hatred should not be excused nor tolerated any more than the hatred of the KKK, Skinheads, or any like group of racists is tolerated by Christians.
Again, you missed the context of Wright's remarks. First of all, he was not inciting hatred against whites (but you know, conservatives will any black leader that advocates help for his people by using all kinds of hyperbolic language). Now, if he were barring whites from attending that would be racist.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 24, 2008 11:27 PM
Jim has much to say that is well said, fair, and timely, but there is one area of inaccuracy. While the "right-wing conservative media machine" is driving some of the attention to Rev. Wright's comments, it is not the sole driver. Sen. Clinton's political machine is also behind it, which is consistent with the past politics of her and her husband, as well as much of the history of the Democratic Party. Recall that it was a Sen. Clinton staff member who first called attention to Obama's middle name, her campaign denied that they were the source, and only fired the staff member when the source was identified.
Moreover, the mainstream media from all ends of the spectrum have covered the Wright story with great intensity, because Wright's comments were indeed offensive, as Jim correctly observes earlier in the article.
Finally, it seems only fair to recall and praise John McCain for the quick and decisive action he took when he became aware of the mocking use of Obama's middle name by someone who was barely associated with his campaign, despite the negative impact it might have on his effort to win the nomination.
Posted by: Randall | March 25, 2008 2:15 PM
Sen. Clinton's political machine is also behind it, which is consistent with the past politics of her and her husband, as well as much of the history of the Democratic Party.
I don't yet believe that the Clinton campaign is truly behind this; I need proof. Remember, that same right-wing machine painted her as a Machiavellian power-hungry shrew -- a latter-day Lady Macbeth if you will -- in the first place and has no compunction about distorting the truth or lying if doing so will serve those purposes. Two, in the last 30-plus years the Democratic Party was pretty impotent in addressing anything, and the conservative apparatus has always sought to tar its enemies with whatever it can get its hands on. (I say this as an undecided voter.)
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 25, 2008 3:17 PM
One thing I forgot: Last year's false story about Obama's supposedly having attended a Muslim seminary was published in the right-wing Washington Times; it supposedly got the info about that from someone in the Clinton camp. When the story was exposed as a hoax and both items were revealed to be false, someone from the Times said, "So sue us." (That is, risk bankruptcy by going against the billions of publisher Sun Myung Moon.)
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 25, 2008 3:23 PM
Rick N:
Thanks for hanging in there with such patience in refuting the constant ignorance (in the classic definition: to ignore the facts) and stupidity (knowing that there is more information and refusing to acknowledge it) demonstrated by those who buy into these "snippets" of Dr. Wright. One positive thing that this has brought to light is that it has revealed the extent of Talk Radio's influence in today's evangelical pulpits as well as an unwillingness for "Christians" to take the effort to formulate their own opinions in the light of the "whole counsel of God" and covenant loyalty to one another.
"Pastor Jeff -- I just don't get where you're coming from. Seems like you defend this man blindly. You want me to judge Wright by his fruit? The fruit I see is resentment more than change. I can take criticism from any color on the planet."
Posted by: Barnaby | March 21, 2008 10:52 AM
Where I'm coming from is:
1."believing the best" and defending a person who professes to be a Christian and therefore a brother in Christ.
2. I also look at the Scripture that says not to rebuke a leader in the Body of Christ but to entreat him as a brother.
3. I am treating Dr. Wright as I would wish to be treated.
4. I am judging with the measure by which I wish to be judged.
5. The fruit I am referring to is the changed lives (Sen. Obama is a prime example-who among the bloggers present has the honor of helping to develop a man of such stature, insight and integrity?) and implementation of Christ's reign on earth.
I just saw a rebroadcast on C-Span of a man named Marc Aronson plugging his new book titled "Race: A History Beyond Black and White". It seemed relevant. Anyone here read it?
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | March 25, 2008 11:46 PM
It seems odd to me that Mr. Wallis lays blame at the feet of the political right for the race issue being discussed. The real questions for me are these: What does Senator Obama really believe in his heart of hearts and what is his ability to discern? If he has had his heart of hearts significantly affected by the divisive black liberation theology of Rev. Wright, then there is cause for concern. If Senator Obama was not able to discern the divisive nature of Rev. Wright's views, then there is cause for concern. I agree that we all have unfinished business in regard to what we call race issues, but trying to lay blame at the feet of the political right is not the way forward.
Posted by: Brian Wonn | March 26, 2008 10:32 AM
The fact remains that Obama has a political machine that is very good at playing the politics. You are correct that Obama has not used the race card Jim, but his team is expert at using the race-baiting card.
Posted by: Ken Eshelman | March 26, 2008 12:21 PM
The real questions for me are these: What does Senator Obama really believe in his heart of hearts and what is his ability to discern? If he has had his heart of hearts significantly affected by the divisive black liberation theology of Rev. Wright, then there is cause for concern.
The key problem here is the use of the term "divisive," the assumption being that blacks are trying to separate themselves from whites. Nothing can be further from the truth, and in fact, Wright would never have said that whites -- or any other race -- would not be welcome in his church; what you're seeing is an attempt and a way to define themselves and not to have other people define them, which is what's happening now.
However, there is a division that already exists that historically was foisted on them, and it is in that context that "black liberation theology" exists. And in fact, much of that blame can be laid at the feet of the political right, especially since Ronald Reagan began pandering to Southern racists in the 1970s. While I was never a fan of Malcolm X and I categorically reject Islam anyway, I understood the context in which he was operating.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 26, 2008 12:54 PM
preach, Rev. Wallis. I want and need this conversation on racial brokenness to include Asians and Hispanics, who have brokenness, too.
Posted by: Jackie Mah | March 26, 2008 1:06 PM
Those who condemn Obama for Wright's comments should ask if everyone else who is outraged by a family member's speech or behavior should divorce that person. Hillary didn't do it.
Posted by: Nancy Macky | March 28, 2008 4:14 PM
Those who condemn Obama for Wright's comments should ask if everyone else who is outraged by a family member's speech or behavior should divorce that person. Hillary didn't do it.
Posted by: Nancy Macky | March 28, 2008 4:14 PM
Rick Newlin & Pastor Jeff:
You both seem very deceived that Rev. Wright is a true "man of God" and preaches an evangelical message. If you go to YouTube and search for "Keyes-Obama debate 2 (Christianity)", you'll hear a direct quote from Barack H. Obama about what he thinks of his own salvation:
"If I had the opportunity to talk to Jesus Christ, I'd be asking something much more important than this senate race. I'd want to know whether I was going up or down, uh, there are all sorts of questions I think I'd be interested in. Uh, look, I'm very proud of my Christianity."
So HERE is a man who sat under Wright's sermons for 20 years! During those 20 years, how many times do you think Barack H.O. heard about how to be born again and KNOW if he was "going up or down"? Apparently, not too many times, huh.
But then again, Rev. Wright was probably too busy telling his congregation (including Barack, proud-American Michelle, and their 2 girls) how to hate America, how the white government was infecting them with AIDS and drugs, and how evil "typical white people" are. He was too busy damning America to tell them how to be saved.
Posted by: Al N | April 1, 2008 12:32 PM
But then again, Rev. Wright was probably too busy telling his congregation (including Barack, proud-American Michelle, and their 2 girls) how to hate America, how the white government was infecting them with AIDS and drugs, and how evil "typical white people" are. He was too busy damning America to tell them how to be saved.
I doubt that, because way too much "evangelical Christianity" is about "how to get saved" but goes light on what you do once you get saved, the subject of over 90 percent of the Scripture. Personally, I've been around people who were satisfied that I was "in" but didn't want to deal with me otherwise, and you'd believe just how much such an attitude among so-called believers sabotages the Gospel message, which goes way beyond "salvation."
On top of that, the church's mission is to act prophetically toward a world that will be condemned to let it know, "You know, if you followed Christ and join up with us, things will be different." Does a church tend to the sick or give to the poor? Bet his does. Out in the community? Trinity CCC does. So perhaps "doctrine" isn't the only issue here.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 2, 2008 12:44 PM
I don't believe attempts to use race to hurt Senator Obama's chances in the Presidential race will work anyway.
I think the candidates have conducted themselves, with some minor exceptions, relatively honorably, and I think they've noticed that veering from the straight and narrow tends to hurt them rather than other candidates.
Its possible that the victor will be the one who shoots Himself or Herself in the foot least often.
I think the public in this country is growing up in a hurry, and hopefully race no longer matters. Not that it ever should have.
Posted by: eldon rollins | April 8, 2008 10:23 PM
JIm,
This is what I have sent to the our Minority Outreach Committee after reading your book "God's Politics". While the book is very good, I feel that statements made should be backed by research and a reference. That was missing in the item in the book, the commentary from the Black Commentator and Howard Dean's speech.
I just finished reading "God's Politics" by Jim Wallis. In it he restates a commentary that was made by the Black Commentator, December 11, 2003. The commentary was on a speech by Howard Dean on December 7, 2003
Wallis quoted the Black Commentator as follows, "For four decades, the primary political project of the Republican Party has been to transform itself into the White Man's Party. Not only in the Deep South, but also nationally, the GOP seeks to secure a majority popular base for corporate governance through coded appeals to white racism. The success of this GOP project has been the central fact of American politics for two generations - reaching its fullest expression in the Bush Presidency."
The source for this is left undefined, but Wallis attributes it to Howard Dean telling the true facts about the GOP. However, I went tot he Black Commentator's website and it does not attribute the above facts to anyone, and they published Dean's full speech. No where does Dean or the Black Commentator give a reference to what they call the "Project".
Since this was in 2003, I do not know what the response was. However, my response today is the be very upset that people will take a political speech and treat it as the gospel. I have been in the GOP for two generations, and I have not heard of such a project, nor have I encountered any formal push to do this. In my 20 years in Durham, I have been working hard to go in the completely opposite direction. Not with any success mind you, but with articles such as this circulating, and apparently being believed, it is not any wonder that success has been pitiful.
It does go a long way in explaining why Lionel Parker, a black Republican in Durham, would accuse me of trying to prevent black people from voting, when I mistakenly challenged his registration after mail to him was returned. Turns out the USPS made a mistake, and I compounded it.
Posted by: Robert H Appleby | April 14, 2008 3:37 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?