Wright Ex-Factor (by Diana Butler Bass)
Over the last several days, I watched Rev. Jeremiah Wright in discussions of faith, theology, history, and culture on television. The three-plus hours I devoted to PBS and CNN amounted to some of the most sophisticated and thoughtful programming on American culture and racial issues that any news station has offered in recent years. And, for those who really listened to Rev. Wright, he moved from being a political liability in the current presidential campaign to demonstrating why he is one of the nation's most compelling spokespersons of the African-American community and of progressive Christianity.
On Friday, Bill Moyers interviewed Wright in an hour-long conversation. (Watch it here.) On Sunday, Wright preached at an NAACP fundraiser in Detroit that attracted 10,000 people. (Watch parts 1 [intro], 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.) Finally, on Monday morning, Wright addressed a packed National Press Club in Washington, D.C. However different the venues, a surprisingly common thread wound through all three speeches -- that a realistic understanding of history forms the spiritual basis of hope and healing.
In the Moyers interview, Wright admitted that one of the major influences on his ministry was the august historian Martin E. Marty of the University of Chicago (a white Lutheran and a true gentleman scholar), who challenged his students to relate the "faith preached in our churches" to the "world in which our church members leave at the benediction." He then quoted African-American historian Carter G. Woodson, saying that black Americans had been—and one can argue, by inference, Anglo-Americans as well—"miseducated."
I suspect that both Woodson and Marty share the perception that Americans suffer from "miseducation" regarding history. This "miseducation" means looking to the glorious parts of history and not to its despair, of having an incomplete picture—only a "piece of the story"—regarding the past. Bad history leaves out the bits that make us cringe, doubt ourselves, or question our morality. Leaving out the uncomfortable parts may reinforce cherished views, but it lacks the power of internal critique or self-correction.
Realistic history includes the good and the amoral, the profound and the profane. It gives us the ability to understand the fullness of human experience and learn from mistakes and sin. A robust vision of the past, Wright stated, enables Christians "not to leave that world and pretend that we are now in some sort of fantasy land, as Martin Marty called it, but to serve a God who comes into history on the side of the oppressed."
The God of history is also, as Wright reminded his audience on Sunday, "a God of diversity." In his NAACP address, he recited a history of "difference," and how we denigrated those who are different. But God, he insisted, wants us to change—indeed, God is changing us—to live in such a way that "different does not mean deficient." Wright exhorted us to celebrate God-given diversity of race, color, language, music, and culture that makes humanity beautiful.
In his final address, Wright essentially delivered a church history lecture in which he traced the prophetic tradition of African-American history as a tradition of "liberation, transformation, and reconciliation." Several times, he clearly stated that a realistic view of history opens the possibility of healing the social order.
In recent events, some Americans dismissed Wright as deficient because he is not white and did not adhere to the norms of polite discourse. They used fear of difference as a political tool to divide people. This weekend, Wright rejected divisiveness as he explained his African-American heritage while recognizing the good in Anglo-European religion. He invited everyone—with all of our differences—into a shared mission of Jesus' liberating love. With humor and wit, along with courage and authenticity, Wright stood up for good history and the God of history.
At my house, the home of a white family who worships in a decorous Episcopal church, we found ourselves moved by Wright's trinity of talks on Christian history. We might not agree with everything he has said. But we do not have to. We are different. We will not see things in the same way. We do not have the same experience or the same history. We have things in our past that make us proud. Our ancestors have done things of which we are ashamed. We can learn from history. We can be friends with people who are different than us.
Most important, however, we who are different are loved by the same God. History reminds us that we can make a better world together. Change is going to come.
Diana Butler Bass (www.dianabutlerbass.com) holds a Ph.D. in church history from Duke University and the author of six books, including Christianity for the Rest of Us (HarperOne, 2006).
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Diana Butler Bass wrote:
In recent events, some Americans dismissed Wright as deficient because he is not white and did not adhere to the norms of polite discourse.
Yes, and other Americans rejected Wright because he teaches a theology that is difficult to reconcile with the faith handed down to the saints, and because he is prone to make slanderous accusations.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | April 28, 2008 11:46 AM
Yeah, that odd comments jumped out at me too Wolverine. Who are these people who dismissed Wright as deficient because he isn't white? As I said, odd.
But other than that, there's nothing really to disagree with in what Diana wrote. I didn't watch the news segments about which Diana writes, but if she summarizes them accurately, there really isn't much to on which to disagree with Wright. Christians should be challenged to live their faith, to take in all history and not just the parts that make us comfortable, and to celebrate the differences that make humans unique.
There's nothing uniquely "progressive" about these ideas either. This is more about overcoming issues that all Christians have at some time or another.
Posted by: Eric | April 28, 2008 12:15 PM
Unfortunately, his "slanderous" accusations are most often rooted in historical fact. Rev. Wright is a flashpoint for many because he dares to speak of the unspeakable, and that makes ALL of us uncomfortable. His rhetoric is sometimes harsh, but he speaks from the viewpoint of one who has seen the dark currents of mankind's history, and is compelled by his faith to remind us that we have much more work to do, so that we can truly live Jesus' words. He is like a parent who lectures his wayward child of their misdeeds, but then offers them guidance so that they may live a better life.
Doing God's work isn't easy, or comfortable, but it is His work, and we have chosen to follow Him. Once we have reconciled ourselves to Him, we must reconcile ourselves to each other, no matter how painful that may be, and God Bless Rev. Wright for calling upon us to remember the past in order not to repeat it!
Pray for Peace!
Posted by: Doug & Jan in CO | April 28, 2008 12:23 PM
Doug, Jan,
Welcome aboard!
Do you happen to have any proof for Wright's accusation that the US government created the HIV virus for the specific purpose of decimating the black population?
BTW: Wright was asked about that during his visit to the National Press Club. Wright refused to withdraw the accusation, nor did he indicate that any of this was taken out of context.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | April 28, 2008 12:29 PM
The irony as it has struck me is that Falwell, Robertson, Billy Graham and others condemned America in ever harsher words for decades, and no one seemed to have anything to say about their "un-Americaness". All of a sudden the African American pastor of a African American presidential candidate says this and everyone is losing their minds!
Posted by: splinterlog | April 28, 2008 1:02 PM
Great review, a delight to read. Actually, much better than Rev. Wright's addresses that it reviews. I did have some trouble with a couple of things. First, I am dubious about the idea that the teaching of history focuses only on the "glorious parts". That isn't history as I learned it in school and elsewhere and I doubt it's the usual experience for most of us, especially since the 60's. Secondly, I can't recall anyone criticizing Dr. Wright because he isn't white. I haven't even heard much criticism of his radical views on history and race relations. Most of the criticisms fairly addressed his outrageous conspiracy theories and the "God condemn America" sermon.
Posted by: Gordon | April 28, 2008 1:03 PM
The irony as it has struck me is that Falwell, Robertson, Billy Graham and others condemned America in ever harsher words for decades, and no one seemed to have anything to say about their "un-Americaness".
Graham discontinued that kind of rhetoric years ago. But the other two men were building empires and thus only interested in scapegoating others because that's how the $$$ rolls in. Wright, on the other hand, had nothing to gain by saying what he did. (Keep in mind that he preached that infamous phrases in 2003.)
I can't recall anyone criticizing Dr. Wright because he isn't white. I haven't even heard much criticism of his radical views on history and race relations.
That's the problem people don't recognize. If you're black and angry you're dismissed as a crackpot, but if you're white and angry you just might get a talk radio show.
Most of the criticisms fairly addressed his outrageous conspiracy theories and the "God condemn America" sermon.
Conspiracy theories? Maybe. But "God damn America"? That was totally on the one because he followed it with "because she thinks she's God."
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 28, 2008 1:17 PM
I agree with your analysis and review of Rev Wright and what he REALLY has to say underneath all the bluster and preaching and occasional swearing. He's a good man trying to do god's work, but he has probably just runined the chances of a wonderful African American trying to run on a platform of new tolerance and union for the sake of progress in our country. All he did was stir up the differences and didn't stress the how to get by the differences part.
If you at Sojourners want a better America and a better world and religious tolerance, you should appeal to your liberal and moderate religious base for an approach or a solution to help Sen Obama get past all the fallout from Rev Wright's ill timed, somewhat self-serving attempts to defend himself and his church, which he perceived was under attack.
Without some kind of positive show of support from faith-based groups in response to the smear campaigns on Obama that render him "unelectable" because of his association with a pastor bent on playing up racism, the superdelgates will turn on Sen Obama. His religion will have done him in. HC will win votes out of fear or concerns or because they are distracted from Obama's unifying message and winning ways. HC is about as religiously deep as my cat as far as I can tell, despite what she came up with for the faith-based debate.
Posted by: Sylvia | April 28, 2008 1:19 PM
"HC is about as religiously deep as my cat as far as I can tell, despite what she came up with for the faith-based debate."
You are soooo right.
Posted by: Gordon | April 28, 2008 1:25 PM
Wolverine: "Do you happen to have any proof for Wright's accusation that the US government created the HIV virus for the specific purpose of decimating the black population?"
This fellow claims to have such proof.
www.northernstar.info/article/2221/
www.boydgraves.com/
He specifically offers this flowchart.
www.boydgraves.com/flowchart/
As to how widespread these conspiracy theories are, this Rand report synopsis would indicate that they are quite widespread among the black community.
rand.org/cgi-bin/health/showab.cgi?key=2005_20&year=2005
Unless I miss my guess the AIDS conspiracy theory is as popular among the black community as the global warming conspiracy theory is among Republicans.
Posted by: H.L. VanBuren | April 28, 2008 1:29 PM
HC is about as religiously deep as my cat as far as I can tell, despite what she came up with for the faith-based debate.
Her religious views are actually quite deep, truth be told. When Bill was president she regularly attended the same Bible study as Susan Baker, wife of GHWB aide James Baker, and from the word go often referrred to her faith publicly. (But that didn't make the media.)
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 28, 2008 1:33 PM
"Leaving out the uncomfortable parts may reinforce cherished views, but it lacks the power of internal critique or self-correction."
Can we discuss which uncomfortable parts are being left out? I don't remember any of my history books reinforcing cherished views. Which views. Cherished by whom?
It is taken as gospel that we receive a white-washed version of history in America. I'm not seeing it. Any study of Andrew Jackson amounts to a study of the profane.
"At my house, the home of a white family who worships in a decorous Episcopal church, we found ourselves moved by Wright's trinity of talks on Christian history."
And for such people, Wright was never an issue to begin with, and support of Obama's candidacy was never in doubt. Men like Wright and Obama have an appeal to those who can craft for themselves a worldview in which they stand enlightened among the great unwashed, who eagerly await the next target of their racial hatred.
I worship in a lower-middle class, non-denominational church that meets in an elementary school on weekends. I am not motivated by racial animus, nor am I unmoved by Wright's nuance here.
Posted by: kevin s. | April 28, 2008 1:38 PM
Sylvia's analysis of the political situation is pretty accurate. Clinton's campaign has to love the fact that Wright is continuing to make news. Regardless of how well Wright acquits himself, the fact that he's still making news hurts Obama. He will make a dozen logical, correct statements and then make one illogical, wacky statement and that is the one that will be played on the news because that's what sells. It's bad for The One.
Posted by: Eric | April 28, 2008 2:00 PM
H.L. -
I looked at Graves' stuff on the sites you cites, and I can only say that this is seriously demented stuff.
Posted by: Gorfon | April 28, 2008 2:00 PM
"We have things in our past that make us proud."
No, not really. Our nation and its population have produced ideas, institutions and other things that have enriched our culture. But I can only be really proud of what I do, of what I decide, of what I build or create. My nation does not make me proud, just because it has done some good things. That is not what nations exist for.
"Our ancestors have done things of which we are ashamed."
Balderdash. Our ancestors have done things of which THEY ought to have been ashamed, perhaps. But I feel no shame at all. I was not born during the time of slavery, I was not around during the internment of the Japanese, etc. I have been involved in some things, in my life, which leave me personally ashamed, and for which I have had to offer apologies, for which I have had to repent, ask forgiveness of both men and God, but I feel no shame for the history of my nation, and I do not accept that I ought to start. As a prime example, I currently owe no African-American person anything because some of my ancestors may have held some of their ancestors in slavery. That was not my fault. Nor is it now my shame.
Posted by: Joekc | April 28, 2008 2:11 PM
"The irony as it has struck me is that Falwell, Robertson, Billy Graham and others condemned America in ever harsher words for decades, and no one seemed to have anything to say about their "un-Americaness"."
Sure they did. Google Falwell and 9/11.
That said, condemning America and harsh words were not the problem here. If he had suggested that America invented the AIDS virus to kill black people in hushed tones, it would not have made the sentiment any less revolting.
"If you're black and angry you're dismissed as a crackpot, but if you're white and angry you just might get a talk radio show."
Jesse Jackson has a radio show.
"Wright, on the other hand, had nothing to gain by saying what he did. "
But he did gain by saying what he did. He built a following, and retired lucratively. His rhetoric earned him an honored place in his community, as did Falwell's.
Posted by: kevin s. | April 28, 2008 2:13 PM
Diane called the discussions in the media involving Rev. Wright as "sophisticated and thoughtful." That they were may make them stumbling blocks for some people.
In all fairness, why not compare Wright with Hagee, Robertson, and Falwell, who declared after both 9/11 and Katrina that these tragedies were punishment for the sins of the country? Or that Osama Bin Laden was a tool used by God to call America to repentance? They're white, however.
Most of the people who are incensed about Jeremiah Wright didn't plan to vote for Obama anyway -- and are grateful to have this controversy so they can point to someone else's behavior for their choices rather than their own biases.
If Hillary Clinton's faith is deep, I'm wondering why the I-will-do-anything-to-be-President strategy is central to her campaign? "The ends justify the means" is not a teaching of Jesus.
And unrecorded history? Did you learn about the Sand Creek Massacre, an attack on a Cheyenne village if women and children by John Chivington (a Methodist minister)? Do you know about the two African-American communities in Florida that were wiped out by white folks because they limited the Anglo prosperity?
What about Melungeons? Are you aware that in the Apalachians there is a large group of citizens of mixed racial history -- white, black and Indian --
who were discriminated against -- with some communities and even states (Virginia) having specific laws that prohibited them from voting and taking part in society, as was standard practice for African-Americans?
How about Woodrow Wilson's virulent racism -- or the male companion who lived in the White House during the presidency of the never-married James Buchanan?
This stuff never appeared in the history books I studied. A good basic resource to start with is a book entitled "Lies My Teachers Told Me." Can't remember the author off hand.
Unmeasured opinions chosen with minimal reflection are a disadvantage for those who hold them and for their aduiences, too.
Posted by: openeyes | April 28, 2008 2:23 PM
Sure they did. Google Falwell and 9/11
So after 30 years of this rhetoric, Falwell (notice the other two never did) gets a slap on the wrist? Also was Falwell called "un-American" or "Americah-hating"?
Non-denominational worship at an elementary school on Sundays - Kevin, looks like you and I have more in common than we thought :)
Posted by: splinterlog | April 28, 2008 2:25 PM
openeyes -
I heard all that in history in the public schools, with the exception of the story about James Buchanan. A pity yours were defective. In addition, I've read a lot of history since.
Posted by: Gordon | April 28, 2008 2:30 PM
"If you're black and angry you're dismissed as a crackpot, but if you're white and angry you just might get a talk radio show."
Jesse Jackson has a radio show.
Jesse hasn't really been angry in decades.
If Hillary Clinton's faith is deep, I'm wondering why the I-will-do-anything-to-be-President strategy is central to her campaign? "The ends justify the means" is not a teaching of Jesus.
You'll have to take that up with her.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 28, 2008 2:42 PM
Balderdash. Our ancestors have done things of which THEY ought to have been ashamed, perhaps. But I feel no shame at all.
"The past is never dead. It isn't even past."--Faulkner
Joekc, you continue to benefit from the misdeeds of your ancestors. We all do, if we're white, European Americans. We live on land that was confiscated from native communities; we eat food grown on that land. We prosper because of decisions they made to oppress others. We all need to repent and work to right the wrongs of the past. If we're unwilling to accept responsibility for these evils, then we perpetuate them.
There's no easy out. But there is a way out. It's what Diana, and Rev. Wright, are talking about.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | April 28, 2008 2:59 PM
First off the comparison between Wright and Falwell actually points to Sojo's failures. Few conservative politicians or commentators supported Falwell's 9-11 comments. I certainly didn't.
But Sojo continues to tie itself up in knots trying to defend this AIDS conspiracy theorist -- whose latest ramblings now enter into music theory and the physiology of the brain. White music emphasizes the first and third beats, while black music emphasizes the second and fourth beats. Blacks are more reliant on the creative right hemisphere, while whites rely more on the rational left hemisphere, saith the prophet Wright.
Folks, we have entered the realm of farce here. Is there nobody at Sojo with the courage and the brains (left or right hemisphere!) to call this what it is?
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | April 28, 2008 3:08 PM
If a white preacher in a white church said that the U.S. government had created the AIDS virus to commit genocide against white people, it wouldn't take us two seconds to call that man a "looney" or a demagogue.
I find it a particular source of dismay that so many well-intentioned Christians are rushing to defend Wright's demagoguery as "prophetic." It seems to me that reinforcing a congregation's paranoid ideas is the exact opposite of "prophetic."
We live in a country and at a time when "speaking truth to power" has become a beloved liberal cliche. This makes me laugh, because I think our real trouble is in speaking the truth to our friends and to each other.
People in the U.S. risk very little when they "speak truth to power" but they risk a lot more when they speak truth to their fellow citizens.
Posted by: Alicia | April 28, 2008 3:13 PM
There are voices striving against Rev. Wright very hard.
What is the grand offense discovered on old video which has so offended the righteous white conscience?
What is the tender nerve he has touched?
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | April 28, 2008 3:18 PM
For me, as someone who spent years to the left of center, Wright hits the "left wing hyprocisy and mendacity is just as bad as right wing hypocrisy and mendacity."
The man is in part or full a demagogue, and only the color of his skin keeps people from honest recognition of that fact.
Unless you think Jesus would have gotten in front of a congregation and lied to them, and supported them in bald-faced lies. Kind of the opposite of "You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free."
Posted by: Alicia | April 28, 2008 3:23 PM
"So after 30 years of this rhetoric, Falwell (notice the other two never did) gets a slap on the wrist? Also was Falwell called "un-American" or "Americah-hating"?"
I believe he did, but moreso he was called a bigot, as was Robertson. And it would seem that the opportunity to field an entire media day constitutes much better treatment than a slap on the wrist.
"Non-denominational worship at an elementary school on Sundays - Kevin, looks like you and I have more in common than we thought :)"
Mine meets on Fridays, because it is a true church that respects the sabbath :p
Posted by: kevin s. | April 28, 2008 3:26 PM
On the Falwell and Robertson comparison…
First, as it has already been pointed out, there was a negative reaction to their anti-American claims about 911. Secondly, and more importantly, Robertson and Falwell were not longtime friends and mentors to someone running for president like Wright is with Obama.
His notion that we only learn about the “good” or “white” parts of America’s history was not my experience. I learned much more about Harriet Tubman than James Madison. I read more Angelou than Frost.
Kevin, is your church, by chance, on Emerson in uptown?
Posted by: DITE | April 28, 2008 3:39 PM
slap on the wrist
Well what I meant was that neither received the equivalent of death threats. Being called a bigot in America is one thing, but "un-American" is entirely something else.
Posted by: splinterlog | April 28, 2008 3:46 PM
If a white preacher in a white church said that the U.S. government had created the AIDS virus to commit genocide against white people, it wouldn't take us two seconds to call that man a "looney" or a demagogue.
No white preacher would even need to say that -- you'd have such an allegation broadcast on all the TV networks and published in every newspaper, plus talk-radio would have a field day. You'd have congressional hearings and plenty of money would be spent to combat it. And so on, and so on ... which, now that I think about it, was probably his ultimate point. Virtually everyone knows that something that would happen to blacks of that magnitude would not result in that kind of outcry.
To give you another instance of where I think Wright may have been going with that remark, have you noticed that almost all of these "missing persons" reports that have gone national over the past few years were of young, attractive white females? I hadn't noticed that myself until someone pointed it out.
First off the comparison between Wright and Falwell actually points to Sojo's failures. Few conservative politicians or commentators supported Falwell's 9-11 comments. I certainly didn't.
However, in fact, a lot of the common people did -- and that was what they wanted, specifically for fund-raising purposes. Yeah, Falwell apologized later but not after donations likely went up; I understand that at one point he said something to the effect that "If it weren't for gays and abortion I'd be out of business."
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 28, 2008 3:58 PM
Wait wait - this is not about 911. For how many decades before 2001 had these folks (not just Falwell) been condemning America? And no reaction from anyone - nothing, zip, zilch. In the sensitive environment after 911, Falwell got a slap on the wrist and got called a bigot.
That's an ocean apart from the treatment Wright got!
Posted by: splinterlog | April 28, 2008 4:22 PM
sojo must address this and try to convince the blue collar guy to hang on and vote for obama. when you add in bill ayers and rev wright it will be very difficult to get the blue collar vote. roger
Posted by: roger | April 28, 2008 4:27 PM
I remember Robertson getting hammered for many stupid comments he has made, about Muslims, America and homosexuality. Robertson deserved the rebukes.
I also remember a certain liberal pundit (Bill Maher) who openly expressed his wishes for a certain VP's demise (Cheney). The only thing I ever heard from the liberal left and religious progressives of every creed and color was laughter and hearty "Amens"!
Now Wright gets some heat for obviously hate-filled remarks and everyone cries foul.... Seems like a double-standard to me. But who am I to think for myself?
Please, tell me what I should think!
Posted by: Armed2Win | April 28, 2008 4:28 PM
Rick,
Whether Rev. Falwell or Rev. Wright make money off of outrageous comments -- I suspect both have -- is beside the point. The point is that Sojo is supposed to be a leader, not a follower, and a principled voice, not a partisan one. Falwell says something ridiculous and most conservative commentators criticize him for it. Rev. Wright says something at least as ridiculous, and Sojo bends itself into a pretzel trying to deny the obvious.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | April 28, 2008 4:29 PM
I am a white person who does not get all that excited about Obama. However, I am mortified at the ads that are being run in North Carolina, condemning Obama for his association with Rev. Wright.
If a member of Falwell's congregation were to run for President, gay people would be quick to point it out and would probably pull similar quotes. If they didn't do it, other media people would just to stir the pot.
Mistakes and associations are made known in a campaign. Gary Hart lost his presidential race for something we laugh at now.
Obama has distanced himself from Wright's comments and even said he believes some of them are false statements. He said it was generational and that he does not feel the same pain.
Yet so many keep defending Wright. Very few here even dare to mention that Rev. Wright's "trinity weekend" will probably have negative ramifications for Obama's campaign.
Maybe we are not as mature as we'd like to be, but when you pull the race card in America today -- non-blacks are just put-off by it. If this race turns to a racial thing, it will definitely hurt Obama's chances.
I am not saying whites didn't sin against blacks -we did. We continue to do it. It's not something I'm proud of. It's not something that can be fixed before the election either. If you really want Obama to be treated as an equal, you will need to move away from the race rhetoric. Let him be man with more to say than the color of his skin or the pin on his lapel.
If someone logged on to this website to learn more about Obama -- would they learn what you really want them to learn? Or are would they get lost in the same stuff they're hearing on the rest of the media?
Posted by: frankie | April 28, 2008 4:30 PM
Falwell says something ridiculous and most conservative commentators criticize him for it. Rev. Wright says something at least as ridiculous, and Sojo bends itself into a pretzel trying to deny the obvious.
But intent has to be measured. As I mentioned (but kevin brushed off), Falwell cynically used 9/11 for fund-raising purposes, but you can't say the same for Wright, who literally had nothing to gain by saying in public some of the same statements that black folks for decades have been saying in private. You should worry about that part.
And let's also consider one thing: Wright retired in February.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 28, 2008 4:39 PM
"If a white preacher in a white church said that the U.S. government had created the AIDS virus to commit genocide against white people, it wouldn't take us two seconds to call that man a "looney" or a demagogue."
Because there is no history to lend it any credibility. Tuskegee study of untreated syphillis, anyone? Do I believe that AIDS is part of a governmental plot to commit genocide against African Americans? Not for a nanosecond. Do I understand why someone of Pastor Wright's generation believes such? Of course.
As an Obama supporter, do I wish Wright would shut up for awhile? You better believe it. Pastor Wright's accomplishments will stand on their own merits. But he may very well drag down the Obama candidacy if he persists in this campaign to clarify his theology and politics. And that could not only destroy the Obama campaign, it could set back racial relations in this nation by 20 years.
Posted by: carl copas | April 28, 2008 4:52 PM
"Kevin, is your church, by chance, on Emerson in uptown?"
It is. Do I know you?
Posted by: kevin s. | April 28, 2008 5:11 PM
If you really want Obama to be treated as an equal, you will need to move away from the race rhetoric. Let him be man with more to say than the color of his skin or the pin on his lapel.
Unfortunately, that's what some folks think and his enemies are willing to exploit that. Remember the false story last year in the Washington Times that he had attended a Muslim seminary and the paper tried to hang that on someone in the Clinton camp? I remember last year the Internet rumor that he was a closet Muslim radical. (If there's anything positive aboutnthe Wright flap, it's that no one believes that junk anymore.)
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 28, 2008 5:21 PM
"Well what I meant was that neither received the equivalent of death threats. "
Well, death threats come with being a divisive political figure (doesn't make them acceptable), and I would guess that Falwell dealt with them. But the lion-share of the reaction has been simply to be a bit taken aback by the nature of the statements.
"However, in fact, a lot of the common people did "
Ah yes, the common people. Clingy, them.
"As I mentioned (but kevin brushed off), Falwell cynically used 9/11 for fund-raising purposes, "
Even if I concede your version of the narrative, the only revelation is that Wright is more committed to his viewpoint than Falwell was. Playing the Jerry Falwell card does not make Wright's statements any less troubling.
"And let's also consider one thing: Wright retired in February."
Which has nothing to do with anything.
"And that could not only destroy the Obama campaign, it could set back racial relations in this nation by 20 years."
I would argue that the "vote Obama or you are racist" undertones will have a much more pernicious effect in this regard. Yelling "RACISM" over and over will have a cry-wolf affect, wherein real racism is ignored.
Posted by: kevin s. | April 28, 2008 5:27 PM
Kevin,
What is your defintion of racism?
Mine is a belief of superiority that is based on skin color.
Roger
Posted by: Roger | April 28, 2008 5:38 PM
I also watched Wright's interview with Moyers, and found it fresh and inspiring. Reconciliation is badly needed in our country and world, and pastors, theologians, and lay people of faith would do well to rise to this challenge. I would love to see some prominent faith leaders (Martin Marty is a good start) stand up and say "We agree" with Rev Wright's desire to effect reconciliation, "We repent" for the things we've done (and we've all done them) that have been hurtful, and "We reach out" to our brothers and sisters in faith, with whom we can partner to move God's ideal of reconciliation into the world. Red Letter Christians, how about it?
Posted by: jen | April 28, 2008 5:45 PM
Even if I concede your version of the narrative, the only revelation is that Wright is more committed to his viewpoint than Falwell was. Playing the Jerry Falwell card does not make Wright's statements any less troubling.
That ignores the obvious (to me) differences in cultural and historical context. Wright comes from one of relative powerlessness; Falwell was simply trying to throw his weight around.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 28, 2008 5:47 PM
Rick Nowlin wrote:
But intent has to be measured. As I mentioned (but kevin brushed off), Falwell cynically used 9/11 for fund-raising purposes, but you can't say the same for Wright, who literally had nothing to gain by saying in public some of the same statements that black folks for decades have been saying in private. You should worry about that part.
How do you know he gained nothing by that? The man got a lot of attention, built up a huge congregation, and now retired to a nice house in a very tony gated community. This isn't your average quiet, humble parson we're talking about here.
And let's also consider one thing: Wright retired in February.
Looks to me like he's having a pretty active retirement.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | April 28, 2008 5:54 PM
Would any of the Wright-bashers here care to make an argument based on a reading of an entire sermon, rather than the sound bites that have been repeated ad nauseam?
I watched the Moyers interview, and while I probably wouldn't feel at home at TUCC, Rev. Wright's theology has been deliberately misconstrued. Good article by Ms. Bass.
Posted by: aquaman | April 28, 2008 6:00 PM
Not to defend Falwell -- but Falwell really did believe homosexuality is a sin that we would be judged for -- he actually had lists of sins he deeply believed would be our undoing as a nation. He also believed that we have to nationally obey God's law -- in order to make Christ lord of all.
Falwell recieved death threats--you can google it -- it's in his FBI file. I know Dobson did when he started his anti-pronography stuff. Unfortunately, it's very hard to be in the public stand against anything today and not have someone write you a death threat.
Posted by: frankie | April 28, 2008 6:04 PM
How do you know he gained nothing by that?
We would have heard of him years ago if that were the case. He would have had his own radio show or publications and been quoted at length long before now. And as for his "nice house in a very tony gated community," understand that's considered acceptable in the black community because it generally wants its pastors to be well-off. (They historically are community leaders, after all.)
Looks to me like he's having a pretty active retirement.
Probably most pastors do as well -- remember, full-timers routinely put in 70 hours a week or more, and all that energy has to go somewhere.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 28, 2008 6:06 PM
I certainly got a whitewashed version of history in high school, but it was an Appalacian school. When I went college in California I had excellent history classes that gave the whole story.
Posted by: Oak | April 28, 2008 6:06 PM
Unless Rev. Wright somehow vanishes from the news, I do not give enough Americans credit not to be thinking about him, or at least using him as an excuse, to reject Barack Obama come November. I pray daily that I am wrong.
Posted by: Kenn Chaplin | April 28, 2008 6:10 PM
Not to defend Falwell -- but Falwell really did believe homosexuality is a sin that we would be judged for -- he actually had lists of sins he deeply believed would be our undoing as a nation. He also believed that we have to nationally obey God's law -- in order to make Christ lord of all.
The difference, however, is that he exploited the Scripture for the sake of political power, in which Wright has no interest (if that were the case he would have shut up and embraced his former parishioner). Let's also never forget that Falwell actually partnered with non-believers in the process, thus subverting the spiritual goals he espoused. The same thing with Dobson.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 28, 2008 6:20 PM
As a voice from the ROTW, I see Obama as the best of a not very inspiring lot - the one least likely to put empire ahead of humanity. But I find it worrying that people on this blog are calling for Sojo to hush down the voices that could be an embarrassment to him. If Sojo is to be of any use, it must put the concerns of the kingdom of God ahead of the concerns of the kingdoms of this world. So if discussion of Pastor Wright's views will result in a serious attempt to understand the experience of black people in the USA - and to develop practical theology that recognises their experience - then it is good whatever it does for Obama's chances.
Whether Pastor Wright is the best voice to use for that, I don't know. Perhaps Rick and Payshun should be asked to jump the fence and write a couple of columns for the blog?
meurig
Posted by: meurig | April 28, 2008 6:32 PM
Kevin,
I have gone to that church only a couple of time so we probably have never met. You might know my roomates ben, will, and corey.
Posted by: DITE | April 28, 2008 6:32 PM
Oh wow! You know Ben, Will and Corey?
What a small world!
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | April 28, 2008 6:56 PM
I said:
"If a white preacher in a white church said that the U.S. government had created the AIDS virus to commit genocide against white people, it wouldn't take us two seconds to call that man a "looney" or a demagogue."
Carl Copas said:
"Because there is no history to lend it any credibility. Tuskegee study of untreated syphillis, anyone? Do I believe that AIDS is part of a governmental plot to commit genocide against African Americans? Not for a nanosecond. Do I understand why someone of Pastor Wright's generation believes such? Of course."
Carl, I think you are entirely missing my point. Its not the specific charge, that the government created the AIDS virus to commit genocide against African-Americans, that I am talking about.
If a white pastor in a so-called Christian identity church said something that played to the paranoia of his congregants, for instance, if he talked about a conspiracy by gays, or Jews, or African-Americans, or a conspiracy by the government to take away guns from white people, I don't think you would hesitate for a second to call him a racist demagogue. And you would be right.
But when Wright says something which is, in my opinion, morally just as bad, some well-intentioned people can't seem to bring themselves to take his words seriously.
I do take Wright's words seriously, and I think those words are dangerous.
Posted by: Alicia | April 28, 2008 6:58 PM
I wasn't comparing Wright and Falwell. Money and/or power won't do any of them any good if they get killed for their stance. I was just pointing out that these men of faith were committed to their causes.
Posted by: frankie | April 28, 2008 6:59 PM
Jeremiah Wright is a very well educated man of some talent and gifting. He is eloquent and thought provoking. He gave better in response to his critics than he got, in the way of reasoned argument. He backed up his statements with references to other well educated and well reasoned individuals who are also gifted and who, as far as I can tell, are credible people.
What more could you ask for?
Wolverine, lots of people believe the left brain right brain thing and as a musician I found his thinking on this to be fun, not stupid, and very entertaining. From what I could tell his audience agreed.
I had questions about why Senator Obama stayed in his church after I heard the sound bites of Rev. Wright's sermon. After hearing the whole sermon I was much less concerned. After hearing Rev. Wright's NAACP speech I understand completely why Senator Obama stayed.
This man thinks! He challenges others to think, He challenges his people to action, He challenges preconceived ideas, he supports his people with God's word, with educated stands, and with insight into the culture.
And he is an ex-Marine! I like that about him.
Anyone who thinks this guy is un-american or un-christian is just looking for an excuse.
Wright is an all around good guy, worth admiring, even if you don't agree with everything he says. If I were a young man again, and was once more in need of an older mentor, I could do a lot worse than learning from a man like him.
By the way I was raised Southern Baptist, discipled and educated as a Plymouth Brethren. I own the right to call myself theologically conservative
Posted by: wayne | April 28, 2008 7:10 PM
"By the way I was raised Southern Baptist, discipled and educated as a Plymouth Brethren. I own the right to call myself theologically conservative"
God Bless. I am so glad I am no longer theologically conservative. I am glad it works for you but I could no more call myself a theological conservative then I would call myself a Martian. It's too stifling for my contemplative tastes.
Alicia said:
"I do take Wright's words seriously, and I think those words are dangerous."
Why? How are his words dangerous? I don't see any angry black mobs rioting in the major cities around the country. I don't hear blacks so angry with whites that they are finding new and exciting words or actions to persecute them. So again I honestly think your belief that his words are dangerous is paranoid delusion.
p
Posted by: Payshun | April 28, 2008 7:19 PM
Alicia
Carl is right. What you are not seeing is that the white supremacist would lack real historical fact that would make his paranoid myth understandable.
Unfortunately the African American has many real facts to lend credence to any conspiracy theory they might entertain about us white guys.
So the white guy would be dismissed easily and should be, but the African American should be given some latitude of understanding.
It's OJ Simpson all over again. If your white he's guilty. If your not, well it is a lot easier to think he was framed. If you're like me, a white guy who ran afoul of Southern Cal policemen in my youth, you might think he was guilty and the cops still tried to frame him.
Posted by: wayne | April 28, 2008 7:46 PM
Rick,
The point of the nice house in the tony subdivision isn't that Rev. Wright isn't allowed a comfortable retirement, the point is that Rev. Wright has succeeded -- maybe not as spectacularly as Falwell did, but let's not kid ourselves, Jeremiah Wright has done just fine for himself.
And that would be fine by me and just about everyone else if he had succeeded by delivering thoughtful sermons, or passionate sermons, that uplifted people and helped them see the truth. But instead he's spreading lies like the HIV story, or praising the non-Christian Louis Farrakhan, or now spreading silly speculation about how black brains are different from white brains. What utter silliness.
Seriously, I can't recall a single scientific study saying that blacks were more likely to be right-brained or left-handed (the two supposedly tend to go together) than whites. And as a left-hander myself, I have a passing interest in the subject.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | April 28, 2008 7:57 PM
Hey! You need to get that supermarket checkout booklet, "How to Understand What Your Cat Is Telling You."
"HC is about as religiously deep as my cat as far as I can tell,"
Posted by: Sylvia's Cat | April 28, 2008 8:00 PM
Does anyone else notice the racism inherent in suggesting that black and white brains are structured differently? (Leaving aside of course that most brain lateralization notions are just nonsense).
Posted by: Gordon | April 28, 2008 8:03 PM
Moyers did NOT conduct an interview with Wright. Instead, he assisted Wright in portraying himself sympathetically by asking no hardball questions and avoiding follow-through on Wright's comments (e.g., Wright speaks only "pastorally" versus Obama who speaks "politically"). And if Wright is so pastoral and cares about his flock, especially those he said lost loved ones on 9/11, why did he insist on telling them the "chickens had come home to roost"? Most compassionate.
Posted by: judithod | April 28, 2008 8:35 PM
Thank you wayne for an excellent post.
Wolvie: You speak as one who has authoritative knowledge re: origins of the AIDS virus. Please enlighten us (I ask again).
On a local level, I am going to invite my rural community to a showing of the Moyers interview. I believe now is the time to stand by a brother in Christ who is being slandered.
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | April 28, 2008 8:52 PM
Alicia writes: "For me, as someone who spent years to the left of center, Wright hits the 'left wing hyprocisy and mendacity is just as bad as right wing hypocrisy and mendacity.'"
Reminds me of Utah Phillips' quip: "The difference between a liberal and a conservative is, a liberal will hang you from a lower branch."
The thread of truth seems to be, if one has been radicallized by life's experiences, then there doesn't seem to be that much difference between your would-be "friends" and those who truly mean you harm.
So, I understand the sentiment and that one may come by it honestly. But I don't have to embrace it.
Posted by: Tem | April 28, 2008 9:35 PM
Well, really all I have to add at this point is that to me, this whole conspiracy theroy with regards to AIDS is dubious at best. It seems that some people, though noble in their means, on this blog, want to see a side of an issue which isn't just a conspiracy theory, but is downright offensive with regards to people who are actually dealing with AIDS...do you really think any of them were pre-selected by the government for this? That is just ridiculous and isn't a sign of any sort of moral clarity to me.
Posted by: Andrew | April 28, 2008 9:51 PM
Rev. Staples,
Most scientist who have studied the subject have reached the conclusion that HIV is the descendant of a simian retrovirus that crossed over into the human population of Africa during the first half of the 20th century.
The first confirmed cases of AIDS date back to the late 1950s. It was at roughly this time that the structure of DNA and the process of genetic duplication were determined. Without this knowledge genetic manipulation would be practically unimaginable. Consequently it is very unlikely that HIV was engineered by the US government or any other human agency.
I personally do not have any specialized knowledge in this field, but then again I'm not accusing anyone of creating the HIV virus to commit a crime against humanity.
Since Rev. Wright is making this accusation, you might want to ask him for his evidence, and also why his word should be accepted above that of the majority of researchers and doctors who are studying HIV or treating AIDS.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | April 28, 2008 9:57 PM
This whole AIDS conspiracy theory is preposterous. I hesitate to talk about it for fear of keeping it in discussion. Those who actually believe in this theory might as well also believe there are extraterrestrials and UFOs at Area 51.
Folks, there are some people in this world who need to be victims or play the victim card to stay relevant. The problem is they detract from true victims and minimize the true affects of real racism by their own prejudices. Personally, I have listened to Wrights sermons. Listening to his entire sermon(s) still doesn't take away the vitriol, bigotry and racism evident in some of his words. Sorry...
Oh, and personally, I am a 2nd and 4th beat person. One and three is so yesterday...
Posted by: Armed2Win | April 28, 2008 10:17 PM
Well, I remember first hearing the rumor that HIV was created in a government laboratory back in 1986. At that time, a lot of people believed that the target was gays, not blacks. Those of you who are old enough will remember that in the early days of AIDS, it was a very mysterious disease unlike any other in previous experience, and that its cause was not even identified until 1985. I remember seeing a well-known doctor quoted as saying that he wouldn't be using public telephones (remember those?) until the etiology of the disease was better understood: and that was *after* the identification of the HIV virus.
At the time, when we had a government that was reluctant to invest in AIDS research because it affected only a small, "deviant" segment of the population, I actually found the idea plausible enough that I asked a friend who was a graduate student in genetics about it. She assured me that the virus was sufficiently complicated that it could not possibly have been created in a laboratory, even with the most sophisticated equipment then available. I shared this with another straight, white friend and I remember that we both felt relieved, since the alternative was to believe that we lived in something several degrees worse than a jungle.
So, I am not trying to give the viral theory any credibility. I also think O. J. Simpson was guilty. However, I also think we're missing the real issue. A majority of blacks apparently do find the "HIV was created by the government" theory plausible. Surveys have also shown that a similar majority believe that Hillary Clinton is trying to ruin Obama's candidacy so that she will be poised to run again in 2012. Shouldn't we be asking ourselves why?
When our nation is sufficiently polarized that different groups can hold to what are essentially alternate and incompatible views of reality, isn't there a problem that calls for more radical rethinking on both sides that anything I've seen proposed here so far?
Wolverine, I understand your indignation, but aren't you even curious to know why so many people from such a different sector of society apparently hold to beliefs that you find laughable? If you are, maybe we can have a real dialogue.
Posted by: Another nonymous | April 28, 2008 10:29 PM
Armed2Win:
Personally, I believe in the power of The One.
Everybody, get up for the down stroke!
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | April 28, 2008 10:34 PM
"We can be friends with people who are different than us."
As long as they are liberal-progressive democrats. All others are just pathetic gun toting, religion clutching, uneducated, rednecks. Obama's mentor has been quite the influential role model.
Posted by: Whites are people too | April 28, 2008 10:43 PM
"When our nation is sufficiently polarized that different groups can hold to what are essentially alternate and incompatible views of reality, isn't there a problem that calls for more radical rethinking on both sides . . ."
Sounds like the human condition to me.
Posted by: Gordon | April 28, 2008 10:44 PM
"Sounds like the human condition to me."
Indeed. That was my point.
Posted by: Another nonymous | April 28, 2008 10:52 PM
Well, another nonymous -
I am not sure that we should all agree. Life (as well as this forum) would be pretty boring if we did.
Posted by: Gordon | April 28, 2008 10:59 PM
Another nonymous wrote:
Wolverine, I understand your indignation, but aren't you even curious to know why so many people from such a different sector of society apparently hold to beliefs that you find laughable? If you are, maybe we can have a real dialogue.
Sort of. I can hazard a guess at part of it: the experience of racism stratching over hundreds of years: slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, serious injustices and petty slights beyond counting. Now toss in the notorious and fairly well-documented Tuskegee Experiment. Stir and let simmer.
What I find a bit more puzzling is that a well-educated, intelligent African-American man, presumably motivated by the best interests of the African-American community and possessed of the Holy Spirit, would seize upon this particular theory without reflection and with little in the way of proof.
But what's really puzzling is why nobody at Sojourners, supposedly a thoughtful Christian publication, would ask Rev. Wright an obvious question: Are You Sure This Is How It Happened?
I never memorized the Ten Commandments, but I'm pretty sure "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor" is one of them. I'm also pretty sure that spreading rumours and false accusations is frowned upon in the New Testament as well.
In fact, I'm pretty confident that if Jesus heard someone make a false accusation -- even out of deep hurt and genuine conviction -- at some point he'd stand up and clear the air. Depending on the details he might be patient and pick his time to minimize embarassment to the accuser, but he wouldn't let a false charge hang out there forever, there are just too many real sins and reconciliation is tough enough with those.
I'm still waiting for Sojo to step up and clear the air with Rev. Wright and his followers.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | April 28, 2008 11:04 PM
letjusticerolldown asked "What is the tender nerve he has touched?"
I think it's a great question, and it's high time to have an open discussion.
Here's the nerve that Dr. Wright has touched: are you a Christian or an American?
What if you had to pick just one?
Posted by: llama lady | April 28, 2008 11:16 PM
Wolverine -
All right; well stated. I'm also pretty sure Jesus would say that, while it is important to call out somebody bearing false witness, it's equally important to ask if that person might actually believe what he's saying, and if so, why.
I actually don't think Wright believes he is spreading a false rumor, and I find that fascinating, horrifying and, ultimately, sobering. Hence, I want to know more, and I'm far more interested in that than I am in clearing the air.
So I would certainly ask Wright that question if I had the chance. And then I would wait to hear what he said.
Posted by: Another nonymous | April 28, 2008 11:19 PM
The point of the nice house in the tony subdivision isn't that Rev. Wright isn't allowed a comfortable retirement, the point is that Rev. Wright has succeeded -- maybe not as spectacularly as Falwell did, but let's not kid ourselves, Jeremiah Wright has done just fine for himself.
And we would never have heard of him except that
Barack Obama attends his church.
In fact, I'm pretty confident that if Jesus heard someone make a false accusation -- even out of deep hurt and genuine conviction -- at some point he'd stand up and clear the air.
That's what Obama tried to do with the "race" speech, but it still doesn't get over with people who probably wouldn't vote for him anyway. Thing is, he would have a very hard time finding a decent black church that didn't have a pastor like Dr. Wright -- remember, they were both out there with the people and understand some of the historical baggage that they faced.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 28, 2008 11:23 PM
"What if you had to pick just one?"
You nailed it. It's about nationalism is it not?
But to answer the question...
Christian
p
Posted by: Payshun | April 28, 2008 11:28 PM
"Would any of the Wright-bashers here care to make an argument based on a reading of an entire sermon, rather than the sound bites that have been repeated ad nauseam?"
Anyone have a whole transcript of the America-invented-AIDS sermon? I'd be happy to give it a go.
"What is your defintion of racism?"
Believing that one can be superior or inferior based on their race.
"What more could you ask for?"
Him to demonstrate a similar measure of reason when he doesn't know the camera is watching.
"I had questions about why Senator Obama stayed in his church after I heard the sound bites of Rev. Wright's sermon. "
Really? It seems obvious to me that he stayed for political reasons. A break with his church would have ended his political career.
"Anyone who thinks this guy is un-american or un-christian is just looking for an excuse."
Excuse to what? Remember when Michael Jackson conducted that interview in 1993 with Lisa Marie Presley. Everyone exclaimed at how he had been misunderstood. Nope, turns out he's still bats.
"It's OJ Simpson all over again. If your white he's guilty. If your not, well it is a lot easier to think he was framed. "
Obama thinks he's guilty. I don't think he should have been found guilty, but I could go either way on the question of actual guilt. This is not like O.J. Simpson.
Posted by: kevin s. | April 28, 2008 11:36 PM
I think what's being left out of the Rev. Wright hub-bub is the exact effect these rants are likely to have on the black community. If he is indeed representative of pastors of black churches everywhere, as Rick and others say, then we have much to be worried about. The take home message of these sermons is that the US govt and the white man are out to get you, and you might as well not try because there's nothing you can do to get ahead. You have no control over your destiny. This is the unfortunate consequence of much of the discussion on race that takes place these days--discussion that Obama has implicitly rejected on different occasions, btw (which is why Wright has been so damaging to him).
It is a much studied truth about human nature that people make moral decisions based on how they see themselves in relation to their community. These sermons that are being commented upon only serve to increase the marginalization of many in the black community who feel that, since they aren't a part of mainstream society, they don't have to abide by its rules. These things have consequences.
Posted by: jesse | April 28, 2008 11:41 PM
"What if you had to pick just one?"
Christian, but the fact that Wright wants us to make this false choice is the nerve that he struck, to answer the other question, and that is why his association to the likely next president is troubling.
"it's equally important to ask if that person might actually believe what he's saying, and if so, why."
And did Bill Moyers ask that question? Nope.
Posted by: kevin s. | April 28, 2008 11:48 PM
Jesse said:
If he is indeed representative of pastors of black churches everywhere, as Rick and others say, then we have much to be worried about. The take home message of these sermons is that the US govt and the white man are out to get you, and you might as well not try because there's nothing you can do to get ahead. You have no control over your destiny.
Me:
Rick and others like myself say he represents a very old tradition that is true of his generation. The black church is not monolithic. Just look at black conservative pastors on that score. But his message is not what you say it is. His message is try, achieve, deal with your own crap but don't ignore racism and when it raises it's ugly head remember you are with God and he is with you therefore you can accomplish anything.
p
Posted by: Payshun | April 28, 2008 11:53 PM
"These sermons that are being commented upon only serve to increase the marginalization of many in the black community who feel that, since they aren't a part of mainstream society, they don't have to abide by its rules. These things have consequences."
Only in your head. the truth is the exact opposite and you would know that if you visited his church. Marginalized black folks or the marginalized in general won't obey society's rules for a bunch of different reasons and really none of that has anything to do with Wright's sermons.
p
Posted by: Payshun | April 28, 2008 11:56 PM
Rev Wright just made complete fools out of almost everyone, the mainstream media and barack obama most especially. The man has guts, intellectual honesty, a brilliant grasp on biblical history, fearlessness, and what is scariest of all, a prophetic voice. while i will still support obama, i have lost a bit of respect for him in distancing himself from wright rather than having the guts to stand with this man of character and conviction (the candidates attacking him are in need of considerable more repentance). but, he is a politician, and i suspect the obvious calculation was made that he would never be president because americans would NEVER take the time to truly hear wright and would NEVER have the courage to look itself soberly in the mirror and see its glaring flaws. and the mainstream media...good lord, what a joke. the anointed spokesperson for the national press club was asking questions about snippets of a sermon she had not listened to in its entirety. no, it is not a joke, it is shameful, these torchbearers of this touchstone of democracy (the free press), what lousy stewards, what prostitutes! which brings it back around to the consuming public and our impoverished values of paying for and wallowing in this sensationalistic sewage rather than demanding and pursuing virtue, some semblance of thoughtfulness and truth through this medium. my hat's off to jeremiah wright. i pray for more sunday nights like that on cnn.
Posted by: nad2 | April 29, 2008 12:22 AM
"Only in your head. the truth is the exact opposite and you would know that if you visited his church. Marginalized black folks or the marginalized in general won't obey society's rules for a bunch of different reasons and really none of that has anything to do with Wright's sermons."
--Payshun, I appreciate your reply. I agree that the marginalized can feel marginalized for a variety of different reasons. But please note my two propositions: 1) marginalization leads many to crime, dropping out of high school, drug use, and irresponsible behavior; 2) leaders who say the govt and mainstream society (US of KKK A?) are stacked against you are likely to increase feelings of marginalization among their followers and decrease assimilation. Do you disagree with either point?
One Wright wouldn't do a whole lot...but a 1,000 Wrights could. Remember, he claims to represent the black community--one of many.
Posted by: jesse | April 29, 2008 12:36 AM
Thanks Diana, for that article. It is thus far, the most fair one I have read. I am not African American, but I am glad that Wright came out to defend this mischaracterization of his message. I am surprised that a lot of Christians still don't get him, my friends included. Although the media has let him speak, they are still reluctant to fully backpedal from their initial caricature of this man as a kook ("wackadoodle")and separatist, and Obama by association.
There were certainly things I would rather he not have said- ie about the Clintons and the AIDS virus. However, the majority of the clips were completely misrepresented for anyone that has heard his entire sermons, interviews and understands prophetic scripture and the context of the sermons. He is wrong about the AIDS virus, but he is right about a lot of other things. I think a lot of Americans are blind the the effects of deliberate government foreign and domestic policy that have perpetuated injustice and suffering on certain groups of people. That is not to take away from good foreign policy and actions. But you would have to be blind or miseducated to not see this, and understand how these would have been an affront to God. As he reminded us, our faith and allegiance is not to a certain govt., but to God who does not change.
As far as the government-AIDS, drugs theory, one can see where these come from. Lay people have suspected the government hand often by loose association. Yes, there is evidence that during the cold war the CIA cultivated some dubious drug related alliances in the name of national security. The Tuskegee experiments were well known to Blacks. Dont forget, we used Biological weapons in Vietnam and sanctioned a MD company to help Saddam build his program. But no, I don't believe they introduced drugs into the inner city or created the AIDS virus, inspite of the book by Dr. Leonard Horowitz who supposedly went to the same school of public health I did. But many blacks, Haitians etc still suspect the U.S government behind the AIDS crisis.
My hope is that the Christian community helps dispel some of these unfair attacks. He may be wrong about some things, but for the most important parts, he is right. I don't think Obama needs to distance himself, but this is politics because most of the public still doesn't get the complete picture. Sorry if I've taken too much space.
Posted by: Alex | April 29, 2008 12:52 AM
jesse,
agitation without a moral claim for something better may well increase a sense of marginalization. but agitation is necessary for change. martin king was the supreme agitator, but he also preached nonviolence and love, and he was successful at stemming the fury at the underlying oppression and injustice with his biblical calls for nonviolence. injustice is the root of violence, not pointing it out. would you apply your points to king? how about jesus, paul, jeremiah, zacheriah, et al who agitated and spoke to and for the marginalized jewish peasant class? all had their violent and unsuccessful counterparts. wright is unapologetically on the side of reconciliation, but reconciliation grounded in an honest assessment of our national sins. peace brother,
Posted by: nad2 | April 29, 2008 12:54 AM
Jesse,
If anything, you're understating the problem.
How much more difficult is it to reconcile with someone who blames you for something that just didn't happen? Even if you confess all your faults, they stand there demanding one more apology, one that you honestly cannot make.
This is no small thing: if Rev. Wright's accusation were true we would be talking about a crime that would be up there with the holocaust or slavery itself -- but more recent. This is not the sort of crime one forgives easily.
But neither could the US confess something this monstrous and call it a little white lie told for the sake of reconciliation. Validating a lie like this might throw off legitimate research into the source of and cure for AIDS. And the desire for retribution after such an "admission" would be impossible to ignore. (Especially since the "crime" would be recent enough that many of those directly involved might still be alive -- assuming any of it really happened.) Since nobody is guilty of engineering the virus, we are bound to end up punishing innocent people.
Meanwhile the current government gets zero credit among African Americans for a commitment to treat and prevent AIDS worldwide that it has actually made and largely kept. How in the name of God does any of this promote racial harmony, or even advance any legitimate interests of African Americans?
As long as this thing is hanging out there, racial reconciliation is impossible. The accusation is too grotesque, the proof is utterly lacking so far, but so many people believe it anyway.
If Sojo were truly interested in racial reconciliation, they would be calling on Rev. Wright and his fellow conspiracy theorists to either show their proof or drop their accusations.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | April 29, 2008 1:11 AM
This is all such a distraction from reality. This guy is not running for office. The country is faced with real moral issues. There is no evidence that Barak Obama holds or even heard any of Mr Wright's more iffy statements.
America does not need God to damn it. As a political entity, it is more and more a suburb of the ancient empire of hell.
Posted by: jonabark | April 29, 2008 1:31 AM
Amen nad2!!!!
I watched the Moyers interview and am appalled by the treatment that the press has given Wright. He is a committed Christian man who has given his life to helping the poor, the downtrodden, the abused, and the oppressed. I am white, and a Methodist, but when I heard some of the sermons that Wright preached from which the press has taken their sound bytes, I thought to myself, "that's the message of scripture!" Conspiracy theories aside, how can any well educated Christian find fault in his central theology?
Are we so easily manipulated by the press that a couple of out of context sound bytes can overshadow a man's life work of love, charity, and reconciliation? He doesn't preach hatred! Take some time to listen to his sermons.
And since when did having a friendship with someone mean that you agree with them? I have lots of friends who are different from me. I'm no big fan of Farakhan, but the man has done a great deal of good for a lot of people. Can't a man recognize that without being accused of having the same belief system?
Posted by: bpharry | April 29, 2008 2:31 AM
What's funny about Sojo's repeated defense of Rev. Wright is that they're trying to have it both ways. You cannot support both Wright and Obama like they have been doing. You can't defend Wright's statements AND argue that the man who repeatedly rejects his statements and distances himself from his spiritual mentor is a new kind of politician. Are Obama and his campaign wrong to denounce Wright (vaguely) again and again? Or is Wright correct in saying that Obama is just "being a politician"?
This article in the Times today made me think of this ("Obama Adds to Distance From Pastor and Opinions"): http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/us/politics/29wright.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
I would also like Sojo and Obama to specifically take on the comments they disagree with, instead of citing vague differences of opinion. It's tantamount to saying "we disagree with anything Wright said that offends you."
Posted by: jesse | April 29, 2008 7:32 AM
The take home message of these sermons is that the US govt and the white man are out to get you, and you might as well not try because there's nothing you can do to get ahead. You have no control over your destiny.
I heard that message from a secular father when I was growing up in the 1970s. This is much bigger than any church.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 29, 2008 8:49 AM
Thank you Rev Wright for sinking the Obama campaign
John McCain thanks you as do most Republicans
Racism does not belong in the USA
Keep talking Rev!!!!!!!
Posted by: Paul Jamieson | April 29, 2008 9:10 AM
openeyes wrote: "Unmeasured opinions chosen with minimal reflection are a disadvantage for those who hold them and for their aduiences, too."
I like that there!!!!!
In my opiinion, Obama absent the Wright fiasco would be simply another American man trying to run for the highest office in the land without evoking negative dialog on issues such as race.
This entire "ugly" sidebar which distracts so many from the fundamental process of electing our leaders is unfortunate to say the least. As evidenced in the strings of comments that are attached to each Rev. Wright article written here over the past few months it is difficult for many to have open and frank conversations about the history and present status of racial relations in the U.S. without over-the-top emotions getting the better part.
Obama can help the healing process for many in this area by simply reaching the position of Presidency - showing that for the majority we have moved from the mindsets of the past and have grasped whole-heartedly the basic truth in the statement that all men are created equal.
Posted by: d.e.sharp | April 29, 2008 9:50 AM
I think Diane needs to take her own advice. I agree wholeheartedly that we need an entire picture of American history, and that there are ugly parts to it.
But what about the ugly parts of Jeremiah Wright? Apparently you can make outlandish claims about the white community, about the 3,000 people who died in the twin towers saying their punishment was just and from God (BTW...speaking on behalf of God in such a way is the very thing these 'sojourners' rightly condemned Falwell for after his comments on 9/11...but apparently the same condemnation is not offered for the 'left' in American religion).
As a white, evangelical conservative Christian who has spent much of his life working in the black community and inner city impoverished areas (almost 100% black as well), I can say I deplore Wright's comments not because he's black, but because he is simply wrong, and has arrogantly and defiantly not repented of some of the most outlandish claims (the US started HIV?). That sort of thing is not helpful for race discussions, and hope we can lead a discussion forward. But as long as we have people like Diane falling over themselves to defend people that agree with them politically that sort of conversation will not be possible.
Posted by: tim | April 29, 2008 10:20 AM
Would any of the Wright-bashers here care to make an argument based on a reading of an entire sermon, rather than the sound bites that have been repeated ad nauseam?
Let's go one step further -- if "faith seeking understanding" is, in fact, really the clarion call for Christians of every stripe and tribe. Let's critique the historical, exegetical, cultural, sociological angles of Liberation Theology -- it's initial roots in Latin America, syncretistic links with Marxist Strands, the Catholic Church's response to it, etc.
Just as fairly, we can continue critique the manipulated fundamentalism of the "right-wing" moralism of [fill in the blank),
Posted by: JayGime | April 29, 2008 10:38 AM
But what about the ugly parts of Jeremiah Wright? Apparently you can make outlandish claims about the white community, about the 3,000 people who died in the twin towers saying their punishment was just and from God (BTW...speaking on behalf of God in such a way is the very thing these 'sojourners' rightly condemned Falwell for after his comments on 9/11...but apparently the same condemnation is not offered for the 'left' in American religion).
Not to change the subject too much, but two pastors at my church believe and said that Hurricane Katrina was God's judgment on New Orleans for that "Southern Decadence" convention scheduled for that city, and those pastors and many of my fellow parishioners are not right wing. (My primary question was: "Where was all that money going?" Certainly not to the Lower Ninth Ward.)
What's the difference between what they and Wright say and what Falwell said? I keep emphasizing that Falwell was 1) looking for scapegoats and 2) joined at the hip with secular interests -- his movitation from the start was political. But remember, when Wright said "God damn America for thinking she's God" -- the full context of his statement, which is absolutely Biblically correct -- in 2003 he was only a local pastor with nothing at all to gain. The same goes for the pastors at my church, who truly believe that homosexual conduct is an abomination and ought not to be sanctioned but have no delusions of grandeur and no interest in "gay-bashing" just to make a buck.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 29, 2008 10:47 AM
"Would any of the Wright-bashers here care to make an argument based on a reading of an entire sermon, rather than the sound bites that have been repeated ad nauseam?"
We don't have to do that, because he affirmed his positions in light of questions from the Press Club. He affirmed that America got what it deserved on 9/11 and that we started the AIDS virus. He believes those things. Responding to him in due course by denouncing him is not "bashing" in the least.
Posted by: Adam | April 29, 2008 10:49 AM
Here's what Bob Herbert has to say in today's NYTimes on the subject of Wright's latest media campaign:
"The Rev. Jeremiah Wright went to Washington on Monday not to praise Barack Obama, but to bury him.
"Smiling, cracking corny jokes, mugging it up for the big-time news media — this reverend is never going away. He’s found himself a national platform, and he’s loving it.
"It’s a twofer. Feeling dissed by Senator Obama, Mr. Wright gets revenge on his former follower while bathed in a spotlight brighter than any he could ever have imagined. He’s living a narcissist’s dream. At long last, his 15 minutes have arrived...
"...On Sunday night, in an appearance before the Detroit N.A.A.C.P., Mr. Wright mocked the regional dialects of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. I’m not sure how he felt that was helpful in his supposed quest to bring about a constructive discussion about race and reconciliation in the U.S.
"What he is succeeding in doing is diminishing the stature of Senator Obama. A candidate who stands haplessly by as his former spiritual guide roams the country dropping one divisive bomb after another is in very little danger of being seen by most voters as the next J.F.K. or L.B.J....
"...He knows exactly what he’s doing. Forget the gibberish about responding to attacks on the black church. That is not what the reverend’s appearance before the press club was about. He was responding to what he perceives as an attack on him."
Read it all here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/opinion/29herbert.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Posted by: Ross | April 29, 2008 11:42 AM
"Obama can help the healing process for many in this area by simply reaching the position of Presidency - showing that for the majority we have moved from the mindsets of the past and have grasped whole-heartedly the basic truth in the statement that all men are created equal."
See, this is what irks me about the whole deal. Obama's pastor says a bunch of nutty things. Since Obama is running for office, he has to address them, as any candidate would.
But suddenly, he makes this about race difference. People are leery of Wright because he is black, which is indicative of a racial divide. The only way to bridge that divide? Elect Barack Obama. How convenient.
Examine Obama on the merits, because if he is elected and performs poorly, the racial divide will be wider than ever.
"what a joke. the anointed spokesperson for the national press club was asking questions about snippets of a sermon she had not listened to in its entirety."
And for this, society is dismissed as a den of prostitution? Please. When a pastor says something egregious, it is not inappropriate to ask him about it, thereby giving him an opportunity to provide the proper context.
Nobody held a gun to Wright's head and forced him to head to the press club. The idea that a member of the press is a scoundrel for asking questions of someone who appears AT THE PRESS CLUB is absurd.
"What's the difference between what they and Wright say and what Falwell said?"
In the instance of your pastors, New Orleans was unquestionably decadent. It is impossible to be a Christian and not consider New Orleans to be decadent. I disagree with the theological premise that the hurricane was God's judgment for anything, but that is far less concerning that Wright's statements about America inventing the AIDS virus.
"You can't defend Wright's statements AND argue that the man who repeatedly rejects his statements and distances himself from his spiritual mentor is a new kind of politician."
Well, clearly they can, because they are doing so. What you mean to say is that they cannot do so credibly, and you are correct.
"America does not need God to damn it."
Really? Who else has the authority?
Posted by: kevin s. | April 29, 2008 11:46 AM
adam, i think we were watching two different press club events. when pressed about HIV, wright said there are people who believe that, & that in light of things like the tuskegee experiments, he feels that the us government is capable of it (which it has shown itself in the not too distant past to be). & his position on 9/11 is not that the people got what they deserved, but that, like what ron paul said (though from a biblical standpoint), there is blowback from doing injustice elsewhere. we cannot go around committing atrocities and be surprised that others want to commit atrocities on us. we have repeatedly entered the fray as violent and unjust actors. it is just like king said, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere (hence his opposition to the war in vietnam). just small doses of it dolled out by us can & do undo so much of the good that we do around the world. & it has nothing to do w/ deserts (any true christian preacher would never say anyone deserves injustice, no matter what they do, & 9/11 was a grave injustice), just cause & effect w/in the human theater.
Posted by: nad2 | April 29, 2008 11:51 AM
"I deplore Wright's comments not because he's black, but because he is simply wrong" Tim
ME: Wrong about what Tim? He has said more than one thing. He is likely wrong about alot of things. What's the point?
Wolverine: After several months, brother, you lose me on your elevation of Wright's HIV conspiracy theory to some level of a central crime against humanity. Would it not be simpler to either let it go (preachers wade into topics every Sunday in their examples/illustrations to which they are unqualified to speak); or else hear it substantively within context?
I appreciate D.E.Sharps point about this being an ugly sidebar. I have very mixed feelings.
Dr. Wright does reflect a generation that is different than Obama. The world has changed. Obama is very symbolic. He is not your historic negro, Black man, African-American, civil rights leader, white man, red-blooded American, thoroughbred protestant, etc. His bloodline, experience, heritage, culture---is all over the map. And he may be President of the US.
The world has changed. Did you notice?
It is not Dr. Wright's, nor Strom Thurmond's world.
The United States is on a path somewhere between the old British Empire and the Soviet Empire. We are big and blind; with big guns; in debt to the world, impoverished in spirt, second-class in many regards. The culture is past-Christian--i.e. much of it does not even remember.
And we are arguing racial issues the church, even it its entrenched sinfulness and duplicity, should have resolved 150 years ago.
By not seeing Black people, and resisting the gift of prophetic Black pulpits, we have failed to see the world. This historic sin absolutely wounded Gods purposes in and through this nation.
It has given the Enemy a massive stronghold through which he kills, steals and destroys from the Kingdom every day---literally.
Those who think they have found a wonderful weapon against Obama in a few Wright soundbites could well win the day. And they will have their reward. They will have won the political battle of the day. And they will turn off the lights and go to bed. And wonder why they can't govern a world that has changed.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | April 29, 2008 11:53 AM
None of the Wright critics, bashers, condemners, or haters are answering the question of what of substance this has to do with anything of importance in national politics.
On the question as to whether nations reap what they sew, what is so offensive about that for a Bible believer? Is America responsible for a sufficient number of unethical acts of violence that it should reap the violence of 9/11? It is easy to prove that America has done so.
This is not to say that getting what you lust after through violence is not a crime. It is the essence of criminality, but I personally don't believe in a God who metes out justice for criminality via armies, natural disasters, etc. If you try to look at history this way then God is a monstrous hypocrite who supports every cruel tyranny and empire visited on the human race. I do believe that neither individuals nor nations are immune from the consequences of their actions, and violence beget violence, just as respect for law and the practice of egalitarian ideals beget a lawful and culturally tolerant society.
As far as the aids virus, I have not researched Wright's theory but am generally highly suspicious about the wisdom of talking about conspiracies or crimes without good evidence. Wright should be more careful or have darn good evidence before writing or speaking publicly. There are plenty of well documented crimes of great concern which need the attention and redress of public discourse. That said, there is a long history of unethical abuse of Black Americans, much of it conspiratorial, much carried out by institutions of government and most of it criminal and unconstitutional. None of the anti-Wright people who are really anti Obama people, who are mostly pro Republican people, has shown outrage over that history of racism or abuse. None of them has strongly condemned that abuse. When such instances are cited, it seems to me that these people are quickest to say it is anomalous or safely in the past or otherwise irrelevant.
This focus on the most controversial aspects of Wright's words is all about tying the congenial, thoughtful, non extreme and generally very careful Obama to something that can trigger fear and hate and resentment, the fuel of the Limbaugh crowd and now the tactics of the right leaning watchdogs of God's Politics. It is a tactic of distraction from the real issues of a failed economy, a monstrously counterproductive war of aggression, and the extreme loss of civil liberties which is the real product of current Republican political ideas.
Posted by: jonabark | April 29, 2008 12:25 PM
Reverend Wright Advocates Separate but Equal at NAACP Dinner to Thunderous Applause – “Different is NOT Deficient”
http://lawconinsurance.blogspot.com/2008/04/reverend-wright-advocates-separate-but.html
“A statute which implies merely a legal distinction between the white and colored races-a distinction which is founded in the color of the two races, and which must always exist so long as white men are distinguished from the other race by color-has no tendency to destroy the legal equality of the two races” the Plessy v. Ferguson majority opinion enshired in law that different is not deficient
Posted by: Lawyer Consolidation Insurance | April 29, 2008 12:40 PM
payshun, if you're going to throw around slurs about Wolverine and 'people like him' not wanting reconciliation, it would be better if you yourself acted like you want reconciliation. You say that we don't understand black people? That's stereotyping of the worst degree, because you feel morally validated in your sterotypes. Maybe you should open up and see that true reconciliation in a fallen world means accepting that you might be wrong. But you seem to eager to have people disagree with you. I mean, what's life worth if you can't smack people around on the internet?
Posted by: Odin's Beard | April 29, 2008 1:00 PM
There are major differences between Rev Wright's sermon and other referenced statements, such as Katernia happened because of sin. Wright was condemning the American government, not the people. In his G** D** sermon he went through various governments. He praised some Presidents: Truman desegregating the mililtary, "We had a friend in Bill Clinton."
The point of the sermon was not killing innocent people as revenge for 9/11. The United Methodist Church wrote a letter to Bush in Oct 2002 that stated several reasons Bush should not attack Iraq, including there was no evidence that Iraq had mass weapons of destruction pointed at the US or any country. They urged Bush to work with France in a project to verify the mass weapons of destruction.
I have been defending Rev Wright by trying to explain his sermon to my white friends. I thought the Bill Moyer interview was going to be helpful.
The issue for me was his Monday speech. His message was lost when he became flippant and "appreared" to be an angry man out for revenge on Obama, which destroys the image of a Christian.
Even before the Moyer interview was aired the sound bites were "Did Obama lie about rejecting Wright's words?" For Wright to repeat the statement in even greater detail on Monday that Obama was another liar politician only provided reason for people to reject Obama.
Obama has said some of the things he rejects from Wright's sermons. He said Wright was too much in the past and needed to also give more acknowledgement to the good things done by Americans. Obama also said he did not live through the things Wright experienced-that he benefited from the people like Wright and Martin Luther King that fought the "big" fights.
Obama's red/blue states, black/white/etc speeches of reconcilation was one of the major reasons for his appeal. Although Wright is correct about many things, much of what he said on Monday hurts Obama's major appeal - let's move forward, turn the page, fight big business making big money while most of us struggle.
Posted by: Linda | April 29, 2008 1:44 PM
Maybe you should open up and see that true reconciliation in a fallen world means accepting that you might be wrong.
Which is just what some people do not want under any circumstances because of what it may cost them. Having undergone the reconciliation process numerous times, I understand that first it assumes acceptance, if not validation, of the other person's views and experiences if they be different. I have yet to see that among Wright's critics.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 29, 2008 1:50 PM
carl: "And that could not only destroy the Obama campaign, it could set back racial relations in this nation by 20 years."
kevin s: "I would argue that the 'vote Obama or you are racist' undertones will have a much more pernicious effect in this regard. Yelling 'RACISM' over and over will have a cry-wolf affect, wherein real racism is ignored."
carl: Not what I meant, tho I put it badly. If Obama loses the nomination because of Wright, I predict that a large segment of the African American community will be even further alienated from U.S. politics. Would be interesting to hear what Payshun and Rick have to say about this.
Alicia: "If a white pastor in a so-called Christian identity church said something that played to the paranoia of his congregants, for instance, if he talked about a conspiracy by gays . . . I don't think you would hesitate for a second to call him a racist demagogue. And you would be right."
White pastors in evangelical churches speak every week about "a conspiracy by gays." Plus, I hear it on conservative Christian radio talk shows every time I'm foolish enough to turn them on.
This whole discussion is very disturbing. The differences in perceptions are huge, and given the adamancy with which so many of the opinions are held doesn't bode well for a healthy dialog, let alone reconciliation.
Posted by: carl copas | April 29, 2008 1:54 PM
Roger: "Get over it. Or the injustice is in the Black Community sitting around and waiting.
Let the Hispanics show the Black Community how to go to work every day."
Roger, why so hateful when discussing issues with a Christian brother?
Posted by: carl copas | April 29, 2008 1:57 PM
Odin--If you are interested in reconciliation Payshun will hear it in the content of your post.
Why don't you try it?
I can answer Wolverine's "Wright lies about HIV" argument 100 times. I can explain it so it makes sense 50 of those times; and apologize and agree the unproven allegation there was not a conspiracy 50 times. And ask we move on. And when it comes back up the first line will be "Wright lies about HIV."
That is non-interest in reconciliation.
Dr. Jeremiah Wright, and scads like him, have preached for decades. The agenda is Obama, not Wright.
Obama can be hurt in the mind of racists by making him "too Black." Wright is the ticket.
White Evangelicals (and others) are not angry because JW says "Damn" or repeats conspiracy theories. It is because we cannot hear a critique of our racism.
I flipped on Denis Prager a couple minutes ago for 30 seconds. He was ridiculing Wright talking about the Middle East as part of Africa and Jesus being Black.
That Afrocentrism is about countering a lie that Jesus is White and the Middle East is part of Europe. We don't have trouble with a European Jesus on the walls of our churches holding a lamb.
Jeremiah Wright is a critique--and we don't like it because we are part of a dominant culture that very naturally thinks of ourselves as the norm--which includes being inclusive and non-racist.
But our whiteness was only the product of defining others as not-white.
So when someone confronts the racist lie of white supremecy with a black Jesus--we suddenly have our toes stepped on.
At age 19 I was in my first experience coaching a children's basketball team of all African American children. I grew up in an all-white county. I walked into the school locker room and had an encounter with a young Black man from a community agency far more radical than Jeremiah Wright. He yelled at me and burned me from the top of my head to the bottom of my feet about what I was doing there.
I don't know why I had the grace to listen. I assume it was God's gift because I know there is nothing within me to prompt my mouth being shut.
To this day, I consider most of what he said to be wrong. The Black community is not endowed with a significatly different level of wisdom and character than any other community. But I believe our calling is to make peace and express the love of Jesus in such a way we can learn to walk in unity. If we can't listen we can't get anywhere.
We are not offended by a Black Jesus--we are offended because Dr. Wright wants to take our White Jesus away; and we like our White Jesus very much; thank you.
I would heartily agree with all who would simply want to walk in love while seeking the Kingdom. When we give up our White Jesus, Dr. Wright will not need to preach a Black Jesus.
For now, the only way he can get to a Jesus for all people is by getting rid of the Jesus for some people. The message is a vital one. It ain't about HIV; or Rev. Wright; or Obama.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | April 29, 2008 1:59 PM
Hey Letjustice,
Please read the latest entry on my blog, I think you will find it interesting.
www.xanga.com/pashe/
p
Posted by: Payshun | April 29, 2008 2:11 PM
Let the Hispanics show the Black Community how to go to work every day. Some of the Hispanics don't speak English and yet their umemployment rate is lower than blacks.
Just try to say that in Miami, where there's been friction between the African-American and Cuban populations -- Cubans pretty much run the city today -- for decades. And BTW, some Latinos are now suffering the effects of broken families the way blacks have for a couple of generations. (It's not obvious just yet.)
If Obama loses the nomination because of Wright, I predict that a large segment of the African American community will be even further alienated from U.S. politics.
It's too soon to tell, because many black leaders initially supported Hillary and she may very well become the "fall-back" candidate were she to win the nomination. The black community is above all pragmatic; while it will never completely sell out to the Democrats, it simply cannot stand the conservatives that until recently had a stranglehold on the Republican Party and John McCain will get few votes.
The differences in perceptions are huge, and given the adamancy with which so many of the opinions are held doesn't bode well for a healthy dialog, let alone reconciliation.
Which is why it's necessary. I've known for decades that people have always talked past each other when it comes to such issues, and even in my church (which has made reconciliation a priority) we still have things to work out.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 29, 2008 2:12 PM
Jesus loves the little children!
...All the children of the World
Red and Yellow, Black and White
...All are precious in His sight
Jesus loves the little children of the world!
Jesus died for all the children!
...All the children of the world.
Red and yellow, black and white,
...All are precious in His sight,
Jesus died for all the children of the world!
Jesus loves all of us. (Including Wright, Obama, Hillary, McCain, Limbaugh, Falwell, Dobson....) Christ laid down His life for every person on this blog.
Jesus also stated: "by this will the world know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another..." (John 13:35) I think it is fair to judge this entire debate on the merits of this simple, yet profound truth.
So, is Wright a disciple? Are you? Am I? How do you or I really know? Better read the verse again...
Posted by: Armed2Win | April 29, 2008 2:17 PM
What I personally find disturbing, Carl, is when people I regard as well-intentioned (even if I disagree with their political views) refuse to take Wright's paranoid rants seriously enough to regard them as dangerous.
BTW, Wright is perfectly free to say "God Damn America" in a sermon, and I uphold his right to do that even though I disagree profoundly with him and think his remarks in response to 9-11 were insensitive and cruel. He had a right to make those remarks nevertheless. Where I draw the line is when Wright or anyone reinforces a paranoid view of the world. That's when he crosses over into demagoguery.
I think most of us would acknowledge that there is almost always a germ of truth behind paranoid ideas, and there is always a reason why people adopt paranoid ideas.
The problem is that paranoid ideas are not in proportion to the reasons behind them - they are quantum leaps that threaten to sever any slender connection that originally existed between the paranoid idea and reality and threatens to send the person who holds them into the ozone.
So if someone has an unpleasant encounter with, say, a Jewish businessman, then they leap to "there is a Zionist conspiracy to rule the world" then, suddenly, there is a "Jewish problem" which needs to be solved.
Or, if there aren't enough African-American owned business in a city, its tempting to theorize that there is a Korean conspiracy to own all the small businesses and the local government is colluding with them, therefore, it is ok to express resentment against Korean grocers or dry cleaners. This is a smaller example of paranoid thinking.
Posted by: Alicia | April 29, 2008 2:19 PM
What do you think was the motivating factors that set forth the effort to look for those original sound bites from Obama's pastor or wherever they could find such hidden treasure? I believe without any doubt that this was done for no other purpose than to tie Barrack to his blackness instead of his humanness which some don't seem to see as one and the same. The select group of individuals assigned to this task by the Clinton camp, or whoever knew all too well (and must have agreed) that this would be seen as a "negative" for his campaign. This is a disturbing mindset in itself, yet it would be isolated to that sad group of conspirators if not for those that buy into it and then promote the underlying notion through rediculous rhetoric.
Not that anyone asked: But I recieve emails ten times a day from the Obama camp, almost all are requests for contributions. I've attended organizing meetings for his campaign, and listened with intent to his televised speeches. He has created an intrigue in me - yet I have no intention of voting for him for this single reason; I do not preceive him to be sufficently experienced in order to be effective either on the global or domestic stage at this point in his career. H.C. or J.Mc. either one has the upper hand when it comes to understanding what is truly going on in the world of politics which totally governs all of us, and more importantly they know what reasonably can be done about each issue. That's a terribly truthful thing to face up to, but it's true indeed. He possibly will make a good Pressident in 4 - 8 years, but not today and it has nothing to do with his blackness, his religious beliefs, the words or attitude of his pastor, or the mean-spiritedness of those that choose to use such tactics and call it fair-politics. Experience or lack of there of can't be over looked simply out of the excitement of created by his charisma. I like the guy, and I despise those that attack him, yet I won't vote for him - this time round anyways.
Posted by: d.e.sharp | April 29, 2008 2:32 PM
So, is Wright a disciple? Are you? Am I? How do you or I really know? Better read the verse again...
I want to bring up a story told by a Catholic priest in Chicago, who knows Wright. He said that a black female parishioner was engaged to a white man who also attended the church and she was considering breaking off the engagement because she feared it would diminish her standing with the black community. Wright got wind of this and eventually talked her out of leaving the relationship, and they've been married now for 25 years. A racist of any color would have told her that they didn't belong together in the first place.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 29, 2008 2:42 PM
And here’s Eugene Robinson in today’s Washington Post:
“I'm sorry, but I've had it with Wright. I would never try to diminish the service he performed as pastor of his Chicago megachurch, and it's obvious that he's a man of great charisma and faith. But this media tour he's conducting is doing a disservice that goes beyond any impact it might have on Obama's presidential campaign.
“The problem is that Wright insists on being seen as something he's not: an archetypal representative of the African American church. In fact, he represents one twig of one branch of a very large tree…I'm through with Wright not because he responded -- in similar circumstances, I certainly couldn't have kept silent -- but because his response was so egocentric. We get it, Rev. Wright: You're ready for your close-up…
“…It is true that the black church, writ large, has been an instrument of social and political change. But most black churches are far less political than Wright's -- and many concern themselves exclusively with salvation.
“I point all this out not to say that one tradition is better than another; as Wright said, different doesn't mean deficient. But what Wright did was to try to frame the issue in such a way that to question him or anything he has ever said was to question the long, storied tradition of African American religion.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/28/AR2008042802102.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Posted by: Ross | April 29, 2008 3:00 PM
Rick,
Father Pfegler is amazing. I have been a fan of his for years. The stuff he does in the community is amazing. He is a charasmatic catholic with some amazing stories of urban uplift.
One story involves his campaign to clean up some of the neighborhoods there. He led a campaign to kick out a bunch of drug dealers from the community. They did not take to kindly to that and sent a hit out on him. Minister Farakhan heard wind of it and sent the ministry to protect his church and house until the heat died down. Pastor Pfegler represents what is right about Catholicism and Christianity as a whole.
p
Posted by: Payshun | April 29, 2008 3:01 PM
I think the good Reverend Wright is serving a purpose at that time being.
He is demonstrating just what many "liberal" Christians really cherish and believe. . . .
Is it a cry to pray for America? Is he urging his flock to forgive those that persecute them?
Nope.
Instead, he's preaching. . . .
"GOD DAMN AMERICA"!!!
"The USA of KKK A invented the AIDS virus to kill blacks!!!"
"White people are left brained, and black people have the more creative right brain!!! (Or something like that)"
"The US Marines are like the soldiers that crucified Jesus"!!
"The US and Al Queda do exactly the same thing, the only difference is just the color of the flag!!"
And note that he's doing this enthusiastically. He and his church or so proud of his invective that he sells DVDs proclaiming it through his website to spread his "good news".
And many "Liberal" Christians just absolutely lap it up, occasionally muttering justifications for some of his uglier statements like "Well, Jerry Falwell said stuff like that. . . ."
About the only thing that seems to upset "Liberal" Christiandom is the thought that perhaps Wright's statements might possibly cause some problems for Barack Obama in his quest to become supreme ruler of the land.
And so thank you, Reverend Wright. You are providing an invaluable service in demonstrating what the left wing of the Church really believes.
Posted by: Narniaman | April 29, 2008 3:14 PM
Can we agree that the sentiment that on 9-11 America's "chickens came home to roost" is subtly, but importantly, different from "America got what it deserved"?
I can agree with the first statement. A lot of people said so after 9-11, and not just the ambassador Rev. Wright quoted in his sermon.
As others have pointed out on this thread, violence begets violence. That is not to glorify it, or justify it, or approve of it. It's just the case. Under all that shouting (pastors don't usually shout at my church, so that takes some adjustment for me!), that does seem to be the point Rev. Wright was making.
As for the HIV/AIDS conspiracy...I grant it's far-fetched and disturbing that so many people think this is the case. I am not convinced by those who try and make the case that this is a reason Obama should have left the church, or (much sillier) evidence that Obama holds the same view.
Posted by: sangerinde | April 29, 2008 3:28 PM
"Wright got wind of this and eventually talked her out of leaving the relationship, and they've been married now for 25 years. A racist of any color would have told her that they didn't belong together in the first place."
--And I have lots of black friends. What does that prove? Racism and racial animosity are not an all-or-nothing thing.
In the latest news, Obama is calling press conferences to further denounce his former pastor. So, who's in the right? Wright or Obama? They can't both be.
Posted by: jesse | April 29, 2008 3:31 PM
Obama just said virtually the same thing that I said just above about paranoid conspiracy theories in his remarks denouncing Wright just today.
I have to admit to feeling just a trifle vindicated.
Posted by: Alicia | April 29, 2008 3:36 PM
Nariaman,
Thank you for showing us what the right side thinks about when it comes to us lefties.
But for the rest of you that may be genuinely concerned with reconciliation, check out one of my old mentors.
If you are really interested in reconciliation then you should check out an old mentor of mine from college. She has the theology down pat.
her name is Brenda Salter McNeil.
http://www.saltermcneil.com/#
I can list a few more resources if you conservatives on this board are actually serious about this. But you have to have the secret of the Kingdom and actually do something like ask for them.
p
Posted by: Payshun | April 29, 2008 3:37 PM
As a nation, we have committed to fighting terrorism in any country that supports it or gives it safe haven. But what about the Central American guerilla soldiers whe "disappear" people out of their homes and churches with guns and training that we've provided at the School of the Americas? What about our allies in Israel building walls through people's homes and sending mortar fire into neighborhoods? Rev. Wright is mistaken if he thinks we caused 9/11. But he's right that we need to take a look at ourselves.
As a nation, we have moved past racism as defined by the race with the historical power. As whites, we wrote the rules before the Civil Rights Movement; we continue to write the rules today. We've mistaken equal humanity for being the same through our entire experience. When someone like Jeremiah Wright comes along and dares to point out that most black people don't have the same exact opportunities as most white people, we are taken aback. But does every black kid in Chicago's south side really have the same opportunities as me? If I say "yes," aren't I saying that if he hasn't achieved what I have, he has succeeded less? Aren't I saying he is less?
We didn't cause terrorists to attack the World Trade Center. As individuals, we may not be holding down people of other colors. But we are, without a doubt, living in a broken world... even in America. Thank God for the healing and wholeness we have through Christ.
Posted by: Paul | April 29, 2008 3:52 PM
And I have lots of black friends. What does that prove? Racism and racial animosity are not an all-or-nothing thing.
I grew up in an environment that was hostile to whites. My dad once refer to four-letter words as "white language," and when I was in high school I heard a black teacher say, "I don't believe in interracial anything." You'll have a hard time convincing me that it's not an "all-or-nothing" thing.
And here's the thing: You say you have lots of black friends, but do you know how they really think? Can they discuss race with you frankly without each side being offended? Very few conservatives I'm acquainted with are actually wrestling with the race issue, and all of those are in my church (because it has become part of who we are as a congregation).
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 29, 2008 3:52 PM
As I read the posts here, it strikes me that so many have demonstrated a real problem that needs to be addressed. Whether people write from their liberal or conservative positions, they tend to generalize that their own experiences are the norm, and find it inconceivable that others have seen the world from potentially very differnt angles. And ironically, this very problem is one of the things Obama pointed out in his speech about racism and the divisions that can follow.
We have had people who pointed out that often history classes don't tell the full story, and other people who, because they were unusually blessed with amazingly evenhanded history classes, assume that this has been the norm for all of America. Others speak of racism, and are met with derision from ones who feel very secure that there is very little racism left, or that it is not a big problem, because it is not their own problem.
Sweeping generalities about conservatives, and then more generalities about liberals, go back and forth. And sadly, both sides point out that the others surely are only "Christians", and not fellow Christians and part of our same family. To look at fringe extremists on either side, and then paint wide strokes across so many people, only allows a person to stop seeing others as individuals, and increases the border wall of "us" and "those others", "not-family", "non-people" when it is carried to the extreme.
It is easy to simply say that Rev. Wright was justified in everything he said. It is easy to simply say that he demonstrates what the left wing of the Church really believes, and not think beyond that. Perhaps everyone needs to take a step back, take a deep breath, and recognize that each person has unique experiences that color their worldview, and their reactions and beliefs about what is possible, and what to expect, in the world. Do this without patronizing the others or denigrating their life experiences. Unless you have lived through exactly the same moments, don't imply that their wounds were simply from "unpleasant encounters".
If reconciliation itself isn't a great rationale to extend grace to each other, do it because it is what Jesus wants us to do. (At least, that's what I belive!)
Posted by: Janible | April 29, 2008 3:58 PM
"when pressed about HIV, wright said there are people who believe that, & that in light of things like the tuskegee experiments, he feels that the us government is capable of it"
The Tuskegee experiments did not involve the creation of a disease or any intentional effort to kill black people. They were categorically wrong, and led to major changes in the way clinical studies are conducted, but this is not a justification for Wright's remarks.
If Wright doesn't believe that the government created AIDS, he would say so. Nobody could accuse the man of being indirect.
"his position on 9/11 is not that the people got what they deserved,"
What else is meant by chickens coming home to roost?
"but that, like what ron paul said (though from a biblical standpoint), there is blowback from doing injustice elsewhere."
Right, and he specified the injustice, calling it terrorism on our part. It might be accepted fact in your circles that the United States is guilty of terrorism, but for the other 95% of us, that is not an acceptable position.
As such, it is very relevant to ask Jeremiah Wright about a position that is offensive to the overwhleming majority of the population. Again, this is not an example of our prostitution.
Posted by: kevin s, | April 29, 2008 4:04 PM
For everyone defedning/supporting Wright be aware that you are in opposition to a very important voice: Barack Obama's.
FROM THE LA TIMES BLOG:
"He could hardly have distanced himself farther from the man who officiated at his wedding ceremony and baptized his two children.
Obama described himself as "outraged" by many of Wright's remarks and "saddened" by what he termed "the spectacle of what we saw yesterday."
He characterized as "ridiculous" Wright's notion that the AIDS epidemic may have been a conspiracy inflicted on blacks by the federal government and that Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan should be considered a leading voice in modern times.
Such views ...
"offend me. They rightly offend all Americans. They should be denounced."
And in line after line, he did so.
"When I say I find (Wright's comments) appalling, I mean it," Obama said.
And during a Q & A with reporters following his statement, Obama came back -- unprompted -- to Wright's opinions on AIDS and other matters, calling them "rants that aren't grounded in truth."
Posted by: Adam | April 29, 2008 4:05 PM
I'm going to say something that should especially ring true on this blog, as most of us here are Christians.
Instead of picking at old wounds, let's put our hands and hearts together, humbly fall on our knees and pray for healing.
Posted by: Paul | April 29, 2008 4:15 PM
"Obama just said virtually the same thing that I said just above about paranoid conspiracy theories in his remarks denouncing Wright just today."
Look for a change of tune from Sojo on this point early next week.
Posted by: kevin s. | April 29, 2008 4:15 PM
Right, and he specified the injustice, calling it terrorism on our part. It might be accepted fact in your circles that the United States is guilty of terrorism, but for the other 95% of us, that is not an acceptable position.
Remember that truth is not determined by majority rule and that just because a minority holds an unpopular position doesn't mean it doesn't have merit. To wit, you have a minority opinion as far as people who frequent this blog, yet you believe that you're right. Perhaps, given some people's definition of terrorism, our nation has been involved and we need to face up to it if that be the case.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 29, 2008 4:16 PM
"Right, and he specified the injustice, calling it terrorism on our part. It might be accepted fact in your circles that the United States is guilty of terrorism, but for the other 95% of us, that is not an acceptable position."
The United States is guilty of terrorism and horrible acts. It's why people are mad at us.
You want to romanticize this country and it's role in the world while you pretend to ignore our injustices, that sounds like nationalism to me. That's idolatry.
p
Posted by: Payshun | April 29, 2008 4:24 PM
Ironic isn't it - how the requirements of American political correctness require Black Presedential candidates to distance themselves from a significant pespertive of the black community.
Rev. Wright has merely given voice to the very different perspective that black American Christians have on history and the current cultural/social/economic situation than the mainstream. Black Americans have to act as if their America is also all about quiet leafy suburbs, bbqs and Disneyland. Slavery and Jim Crow can be rememberd in the sanitized official ways that we're used to, but not with the righteous anger of a Jeremiah Wright.
This whole drama has little to say about Rev. Wright and Barak. It has a lot to say about how we Americans can't handle the reality of our own history.
Posted by: splinterlog | April 29, 2008 4:37 PM
One of my best friends was orphaned in Central America when her father and brother were indiscriminately killed by guerilla soldiers at a town meeting. The soldiers likely got their training and weapons from the U.S. Years later, she moved to the U.S. and became a citizen -- a process that was made extremely difficult by a the rules and beurocracy of U.S. immigration. (Can't justify illegal immigration, but the legal process is a joke.) Now she's proudly voting and paying taxes to a government complicit in her family's deaths.
The moral of the story: We have a great country here, but it isn't without fault.
Posted by: paul | April 29, 2008 4:40 PM
What kevin s. said. The Tuskegee experiments were unethical, abusive, and evil.
To generalize from the Tuskegee experiments to the idea that the U.S. government is capable of creating a disease with the design of wiping out all black people is paranoia on a grand scale. The evil of Tuskegee is not canceled out because somebody believes there is no such conspiracy. But neither does that evil justify the creation of outrageous paranoid conspiracy theories.
Posted by: Alicia | April 29, 2008 5:00 PM
kevin s. said:
"I don't remember any of my history books reinforcing cherished views. Which views. Cherished by whom?"
um, okay - you're either joking or you're intentionally ignoring the point.
then he said:
"Right, and he specified the injustice, calling it terrorism on our part. It might be accepted fact in your circles that the United States is guilty of terrorism, but for the other 95% of us, that is not an acceptable position."
wouldn't slavery qualify as terrorism? how about spreading smallpox among the native american population? and that's just the beginning.
pointing out one's (or one's country's) faults isn't "unacceptable". it's the only way we learn from past mistakes.
your approach is the intellectual equivalent of holding one's hands over one's ears and yelling "i can't hear you" at the top of one's lungs.
Posted by: mingus | April 29, 2008 5:04 PM
Preach on Janible!
Posted by: Eric | April 29, 2008 5:16 PM
kevin s: "It might be accepted fact in your circles that the United States is guilty of terrorism, but for the other 95% of us, that is not an acceptable position."
And about 95% of the rest of the world believes that the United States on at least some occasions has engaged in terrorism. Go to a Native American reservation in the USA--95% of the inhabitants will likely disagree with your "acceptable position."
What's your point? Is truth the province of the majority?
"For the native, objectivity is always directed against him." --Franz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth
Posted by: lloyd crump | April 29, 2008 5:24 PM
"What's your point? Is truth the province of the majority?"
C'mon Lloyd, everyone wants to be on Kevin's side. He's always right.
Posted by: bud duncan | April 29, 2008 5:31 PM
It appears that Obama cut the legs out from underneath a whole lot of people today (his own included).
Posted by: Jeff | April 29, 2008 5:36 PM
"Remember that truth is not determined by majority rule "
I was speaking to the point made about the reporter questioning Wright. I would also add that this negates the argument on Wright's behalf that his AIDS comment is acceptable because a lot of people agree that it is true.
I would also not that Barack Obama apparently thinks the 95% are pretty important.
"And about 95% of the rest of the world believes that the United States on at least some occasions has engaged in terrorism."
Evidence? Point being, in America, the "America is a terrorist" line doesn't hold up. Which is why Obama so fiercely condemned Wright. It looks like The One is gearing up for prime time.
"um, okay - you're either joking or you're intentionally ignoring the point."
Neither.
"wouldn't slavery qualify as terrorism?"
No. But even if it did, can you please cite scriptural evidence for the idea that God delivers judgment 136 years after the sin (and to the side that fought against the sin, at that?).
Posted by: kevin s. | April 29, 2008 5:41 PM
Evidence? Point being, in America, the "America is a terrorist" line doesn't hold up. Which is why Obama so fiercely condemned Wright. It looks like The One is gearing up for prime time.
Aw, c'mon, kevin. No one can get elected in this country admitting that America has committed terrorist acts.
But even if it did, can you please cite scriptural evidence for the idea that God delivers judgment 136 years after the sin (and to the side that fought against the sin, at that?).
Actually, the Civil War only peripherally was over slavery. That said, God determines when He will exercise His vengeance in His time -- you don't.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 29, 2008 5:48 PM
Kevin,
Chances are pretty good that your history textbooks taught you a whole bunch of nonsense about happy Indians celebrating the first Thanksgiving with the Pilgrims. There's one example.
As for examples of our own support of terrorism besides slavery, at home or with our allies:
- School of the Americas
- Putting Saddam Hussein in power
- Putting the Shah of Iran in power
- A wall through Palestinian homes
- Waterboarding (a torture tactic used by the Khmer Rouge in late '70s Cambodia)
- Extraordinary rendition
- Trade with China
- A blind eye to Darfur
- A blind eye to Saudi Arabia
- Abu Ghraib
- Guantanamo Bay
- The Pine Ridge massacre
- Indian reservations
- Capital punishment
- WWII Japanese prison camps
- Random police stops for black people
I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point. As I said before, we have a great country, but not one without faults. Looking at them honestly is the way we become better.
Posted by: Paul | April 29, 2008 6:20 PM
As a historian who is also a Christian, one of things I strive to do is do charitably treat historical actors as people. To me, that means taking seriously the content of their beliefs and their overall commitments, no matter how quirky, flawed, or hypocritical they are. Or, no matter how offensive individual utterances or passionate mistakes might be.
In the case of Rev. Wright, I was trying to point out the message that isn't being heard past the soundbite agendas--because of the obvious shortcomings of the messenger.
The message remains true: that African-American Christianity is an important part of the American experience. The faith formed by a community that suffered great injustice and oppression "reads" scripture in a way that offers a valuable correction to dominant white culture. And those insights, even as Rev. Wright put it, invite all people--regardless of race--into "liberation, transformation, and reconciliation."
For what it is worth, I have rarely been criticized for being too nice to someone! Maybe it is time for this Christian community to remember that Rev. Wright is, no matter how much that makes some people uncomfortable, a brother in Christ.
Posted by: Diana Butler Bass | April 29, 2008 6:25 PM
"It appears that Obama cut the legs out from underneath a whole lot of people today (his own included)."
i think he really missed the moment for elevating the dialog about injustice, but he probably felt he had to to remain a viable candidate, which is sad. wright told obama that if he gets elected, he will be coming after obama from day one, i appreciated that (made me think of the storied relationship of johnson & king). i will stand by my original comment from yesterday - if i am picking, i am still standing by the preacher over the candidate here (though i understand why the candidate is doing what he is doing) - i am highly impressed because i have listened to the entirety of what he has said & not just the soundbites, & he has a deep, wide and very learned christian perspective. & i think his laying bare from a biblical point of view the injustice of the status quo is scaring the hell out of everyone, thus the caricaturing & demonizing.
Posted by: nad2 | April 29, 2008 6:32 PM
"Perhaps everyone needs to take a step back, take a deep breath, and recognize that each person has unique experiences that color their worldview, and their reactions and beliefs about what is possible, and what to expect, in the world. Do this without patronizing the others or denigrating their life experiences." Janible
I have great sympathy for your spirit and perspective. And I have great misgivings.
There are multiple commenters here who view some of us as Wright defenders or Obama supporters; and I don't think it has anything to do with defending Wright or Obama.
I am writing in response to the responses to those persons; not to defend those persons.
I write to address racism.
I do not say it that straight because, in my experience, it is hard for persons to receive that critique.
I am racist. I am a bigot. I am a sinner. I have stereotypes and a little power. I am from a dominant culture and easily confuse 'my ways' with righteousness. I easily cast God into my image.
Because of the way we have carried out race matters in this nation it is very hard to have good dialogue. We are very locked into to a certain language of blame and guilt.
I see racism in me as a point of fact and not something to hang myself over. I am responsible to confess and keep myself in relationships and positions where the Spirit can transform my mind and heart.
We are, in my opinion, called to struggle on all fronts against the lies, sin and death the Enemy wishes to visit on us. Our struggle is against principalities and powers in high places.
Old Testament Israel struggled greatly with idolatry and injustice.
Janible, at some point it just doesn't work to say to a people who are deeply stuck in a sin, "Well I understand your life experience causes you to have a different perspetive on idolatry than I have."
Racism is sin. And it is front and center in a very large portion of the negative response to Dr. Jeremiah Wright.
Those who object so vociferously to Dr. Wright could make peace with him and his comments in a quick minute.
It is not about Dr. Wright.
Jim Wallis was right in a post a couple months ago was correct in my mind, pointing out this is a test about us.
So far the "Us" on this blog are failing in my mind. The failure is not that everyone should say, "Oh my, Letjusticerolldown, you are so wise and right," I agree with you.
The failure is in our capacity, willingness, and action to dialogue in a way that moves to better understanding, healing, and unity.
I have no disagreement for instance with those who think the HIV charge is wrong. So do I.
So we agree.
Does this stop the argument?
NO.
Because that is not the issue.
My argument is about the responses to Dr. Wright. The way the series of comments (such as are listed in a series a few comments back) are consistently flung out to do as much damage as possible is not done as a move to reconciliation. It is done to damage.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | April 29, 2008 6:36 PM
"The message remains true: that African-American Christianity is an important part of the American experience. The faith formed by a community that suffered great injustice and oppression "reads" scripture in a way that offers a valuable correction to dominant white culture. And those insights, even as Rev. Wright put it, invite all people--regardless of race--into 'liberation, transformation, and reconciliation.'"
Diana, as a fellow historian who is also a fellow Christian, I agree with you. But it can be very difficult to separate the message from the messenger. And soundbite news reporting and gotcha politics only make things worse.
"Maybe it is time for this Christian community to remember that Rev. Wright is, no matter how much that makes some people uncomfortable, a brother in Christ."
Yes, perhaps this is an opportunity for all of us no matter where we fall on the political spectrum: humbly, I promise to do a better job of remembering the same about Christian leaders whose politics and/or theology I find objectionable. I'm sure my conservative brethren and sisters who often post on here--Wolverine, kevin s, alicia, Mick and others--will hold me to that.
Posted by: carl copas | April 29, 2008 6:58 PM
I don't know if "HIV as a plot to get rid of African Americans" can be proven or not, but in a country that did the Tuskegee Syphilis experiments, it's not inconceivable (especially from the point of view of black people.)
More to the point, HIV is not just "decimating" (which literally means to kill one in ten) Africans and African Americans, it's far more deadly than that. The largest number of new HIV/AIDS cases in the US is among black women. And the virus is wiping out an entire generation in Africa--the young adults. The workers. The farmers. The business people. The teachers.
Bono nailed it in his speech to the National Prayer Breakfast in 2006. The white world would not tolerate this if it were happening to white people.
Posted by: DenverMethodist | April 29, 2008 7:17 PM
Here's my take on the terrorism thing -- yes we have done acts of terrorism. We still do them, and I doubt we even know how much of it has happened.
Does that mean we deserve the attacks on 9/11? Do I think God should damn America for it's sins?
NO. I don't think God should damn China for it's human rights record (and Tibet is an extremely small percentage of all the wrongs being done there.)I actually beg God to forgive China and us as a nation.
I know all about imprecatory Psalms, and I've been known to pray them from time to time. It just doesn't work for me. If I want God to ruin someone's life because they ruined mine, it feels like playing God to me. It's too dangerous a ground for me to stand on. There are kings of all levels of power who ruin peoples lives, and I do pray that they will fall from power -- that the madness will stop. But ultimately, I pray none of us get what we deserve. I pray we all have a life-changing run in with grace before that happens.
As for Dr. Wright -- every preacher is subject to horrible reality of sound bites. How many times have you left a sermon and only remembered a sentence or two? How many times have you said, "I like him, he said, "blah, blah, blah." or I think he's narrow minded because he said, 'blah, blah, blah.'
The fact that his sound bites are now being broadcast across the country smacks of his chickens coming home to roost. As someone who has done a great deal of public speaking, I can assure you, I've said a lot less that has truly offended people. I don't like it, but you usually lose your audience (and even your message) when you do that. His audience is now a lot bigger than he ever intended it to be -- so he's offended a lot more people.
God has entrusted us with sharing His message. I think we should learn all we can about how we can best do that. There's lots of things we can learn from Rev. Wright's situation -- and all this fall out is part of it.
Posted by: frankie | April 29, 2008 7:28 PM
On the one hand...
Hurt people, hurt people
Attacked people, attack people
Wounded people, wound people
A vicious cycle, played out on our TV screens
And, as I have observed,
replicated in our personal lives
On the other hand...
Loved people, love people
Forgiven people, forgive people
Blessed people, bless people
Graced people, grace people
Comforted people, comfort people
Healed people, heal people
Fed people, feed people
Christ is the One who turns the vicious cycle
Into the mustard seed
Growing into the Kingdom of God
Therefore...
If you have a beef with Reverend Wright, then bless him
If you have think that those who support Reverend Wright have gone off the deep end, then love them
And let us agree to pray the Lord's Prayer
All honor to the Father (not to our various factions)
God's Kingdom come, will be done (neither the Empire's will nor the terrorist's)
On earth as in heaven (since we're gonna love each other and reconcile with each other in heaven, then get on board now)
Daily bread (See "fed people, feed people" above- why don't those of us who have enough fast, identifying with the many who wonder where their next meal will come from)
Forgive us even as we forgive others (How does this apply to our politics? The talking heads and the heads of state believe in "throwing people under the bus". 70 x 7= ???)
Keep us from trial, protect us from the Evil One (Who's more pleased with how our politics and conversations are going? Let's pray that we might resist the demonic- and- demonizing one another)
To God ALONE be the kingdom, power, and glory forever. Amen.
May we all be transformed and conformed into the Mind and Manner of Christ,
Duh-sciple Tim
Posted by: Duh-sciple | April 29, 2008 7:31 PM
Kevin said:
No. But even if it did, can you please cite scriptural evidence for the idea that God delivers judgment 136 years after the sin (and to the side that fought against the sin, at that?).
Let me correct something too. No side in the civil war fought against slavery. The blacks that joined the army fought against that, their immediate commanders did that but it was not standard US military policy. They needed troops and would promise them the moon if they would just enlist.
Yah I can, Revelation and Amos, Isaiah all speak to that. Look it up if you want. Not only that but Habakkuk and Daniel speak to the same thing too. King Hezekiah was a righteous king and yet he was nearly killed by God because of his sin. He would have judged the nation of Israel at that time but chose to spare his life.
Isaiah 38 tells the story of Hezekiah's miraculous recovery and the end of Assyria. But judgement was not stopped forever as the next verses tell.
Isaiah 39:5-8
5Then Isaiah said to Hezekiah, "Hear the word of the LORD of hosts,
6'Behold, the days are coming when all that is in your house and all that your fathers have laid up in store to this day will be carried to Babylon; nothing will be left,' says the LORD.
7'And some of your sons who will issue from you, whom you will beget, will be taken away, and they will become officials in the palace of the king of Babylon.'"
8Then Hezekiah said to Isaiah, "The word of the LORD which you have spoken is good " For he thought, "For there will be peace and truth in my days."
It took centuries for that judgement to come to pass.
p
Posted by: Payshun | April 29, 2008 7:31 PM
actually I need to correct something.
701 BC was when Hezekiah received that and Nebuchadnezzar came to power in 605 BC. That was decades, not as long as 136 years but nearly a century.
I got that from here.
http://www.robotwisdom.com/science/chaldeans.html
p
Posted by: Payshun | April 29, 2008 7:38 PM
Racism is sin. And it is front and center in a very large portion of the negative response to Dr. Jeremiah Wright.
As a white man, you are the one who needs to say this and I thank God that you did. I'm a black man; I thus cannot so effective. That said, true reconciliation often requires an adjustment in worldview -- which can be humbling.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 29, 2008 7:43 PM
Carl,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. It is fair to criticize "the messenger" when appropriate--for history is about people as well as ideas. But, if we fail to look past human shortcomings, we can miss truth and much positive historical change.
I shudder to think what the soundbite media would have done to Martin Luther--after all, he was one of the most bombastic people in church history. He cursed all the time, attacked folks like the genteel and learned Erasmus, urged German authorities to crush the Anabaptists, and regularly referred to the Pope as "the excrement of the Devil." To focus on his clearly unbalanced personality would have been to miss the power of his message and the intellectual genius of the Protestant Reformation. (This is not to compare Rev. Wright to ML, just an exercise in historical imagination.)
But it probably would have been fun to watch Martin Luther in action at the National Press Club!
Posted by: Diana Butler Bass | April 29, 2008 8:09 PM
In the 1980's, Jeremiah Wright was the featured speaker at a Philadelphia Lutheran Seminary Preaching Days summer conference. He was dynamic and forthright. Nevertheless, there was not a hint of the bitterness and reverse racism we have heard in him. UNLESS, he was just being nice to white preachers!
This business of preaching one way for whites and then another way for blacks only deepens the gap between the races. He is as polarizing as Pat Robertson or the late Jerry Falwell.
Wright also seems to forget that this election will BE decided (as every other election) by blue collar and middle class white voters.He is now the best spokesperson for either Hillary Clinton or John McCain. Just as Swift Boat sank Kerry, so Wright could sadly sink Barack Obama.
Also, Dr. Bass seems very intellectual about all of this. We witness the continual decline of the constitutent denominations of the National Council of Churches (as my own Presbyterian Church USA) and the explosive growth of every OTHER variety of Protestant groups. No matter what she writes in her books, there IS NO future for us unless we say NO to theologies of race and gender and return to classic Christian creeds and confessional teachings as classic Christian sexual morality.
Rev. Kenneth J. Macari
Posted by: KJMacari | April 29, 2008 8:36 PM
I venture to wager that most Whites have never been inside an African or African-American church, although I suspect that most would say something like "some of my best friends are Black" or some similar sort of condescending remark. It does seem that there is a lot of vitriol against people who are not like "us". It's a lot easier to sling "logic" and half-truths about someone unlike us then to walk a mile in their shoes, or worse, to go that extra mile.
Posted by: ando | April 29, 2008 8:51 PM
Rev. Wright is angry, bitter and, I believe, trying to further his own cause and celebrity at the expense of Obama. This is very wrong and not at all in the spirit of Christianity! Thank God Obama has come out and denounced his former pastor. I feel for Obama because I believe he has been genuinely hurt by someone he thought cared for him. I also feel for the Black church because I know Rev. Wright isn't speaking for the majority of the congregations.
Posted by: Susan | April 29, 2008 8:53 PM
I believe now is the time to stand by a brother in Christ who is being slandered.
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | April 28, 2008 8:52 PM
Maybe it is time for this Christian community to remember that Rev. Wright is, no matter how much that makes some people uncomfortable, a brother in Christ.
Posted by: Diana Butler Bass | April 29, 2008 6:25 PM
Thank You Diana. We are enjoined even more to weigh our words since we are speaking of one that God has granted anointing/authority to. See you in Albany, NY
Kevin: You may benefit from a study on the cup of God's wrath.
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | April 29, 2008 9:07 PM
Diana is right about Martin Luther. As a Lutheran, I am horrified by many of the things the man said, especially about Jews, but I still embrace his message.
BTW, since the subject has come up several times, let me just mention that I have been to a black church. For real. The preacher half spoke, half sang his sermon, to a running musical accompaniment. He also developed ideas like the themes in a musical composition. He didn't rant and he didn't denounce anybody. There was no liturgy, which was disconcerting to me as a Lutheran. There was a lot of congregational involvement. I had absolutely no sense of being different or unwelcome. I don't really remember much of what was said, but I remember that. I would go more often if I didn't teach Sunday School and do other things that tie me to my home church. And I am aware that this sounds pathetically inadequate in view of the depth of the cultural divisions revealed by the current discussion. Lord have mercy.
Posted by: Another nonymous | April 29, 2008 9:13 PM
What if Rev Wright played the role of the buffoon as was expected in order to allow Obama to denounce him and move on with his campaign. It wouldn't be the first time that a black man "danced for Massa" to advance a greater cause in their community.
Wright has absolute disdain for the system When you view his statements about Obama saying what politicians have to say to get by, it makes sense. Now he is doing what he has to do for Obama to move on.
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | April 29, 2008 9:17 PM
Don't we all have friends or family who at times embarrass us? Obama should have just said "I love the guy, but I disagree with him about x,y and z." Even if Wright gets really kooky, Obama would have been praised for his loyalty.
Wright took the low road in referring to Obama and Obama followed him.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | April 29, 2008 9:26 PM
Another nonymous:
Our son the seminarian helped out at a black Lutheran church during his second year in seminary. The membership included Africans as well as African-Americans. I visited once that year, and my wife was able to visit twice. You would have liked it. There was a lot of congregational involvement. There was "share time" after the prayer for the day and before the Scripture readings. If the pastor felt the Spirit move, we sang the hymn over again. But it was also liturgical! In fact, they took the liturgy very seriously. They had a long procession that wound through the sanctuary, and all had their best clothes on.
At the end of the service, they gave my wife some of the altar flowers as a gift to their guest.
We would go back this Sunday if we could. It was one of the warmest congregations we had ever encountered.
Pastor Jeff: Maybe that explains it. I really wish Obama didn't feel he had to distance himself from Wright like he has done. What a shame to say those things in public about his pastor. It grieves me. And it makes me wonder anew whether a Christian really can be president and still be a Christian.
D
Posted by: Don | April 29, 2008 9:38 PM
Don -
Thanks for that story. Check out setting 6 in the new Lutheran Book of Worship. It's the one that was previously used only in the black Lutheran churches. We've "integrated."
Posted by: Another nonymous | April 29, 2008 9:43 PM
We witness the continual decline of the constitutent denominations of the National Council of Churches (as my own Presbyterian Church USA) and the explosive growth of every OTHER variety of Protestant groups. No matter what she writes in her books, there IS NO future for us unless we say NO to theologies of race and gender and return to classic Christian creeds and confessional teachings as classic Christian sexual morality.
That's impossible right now because even the church has been fractured over racial, cultural and (as you mentioned) gender lines, and guess whose fault that was initially? The people who were in power back then! And the reason why such Protestant groups have grown as you mentioned has less to do with the classic "Christian" message than with the "bunker" mentality promoted by ideologically conservative churches, which is why the "religious right" became so big. Put another way, when you streamline your message to hit a target group, which has been done since the 1980s, certain groups will inevitably be left out.
I also feel for the Black church because I know Rev. Wright isn't speaking for the majority of the congregations.
Uh -- you don't know that. That's the point.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 29, 2008 9:44 PM
"My argument is about the responses to Dr. Wright. The way the series of comments (such as are listed in a series a few comments back) are consistently flung out to do as much damage as possible is not done as a move to reconciliation. It is done to damage."
letjusticerolldown-
I gather you were referring to my list of ways/places the U.S. has supported its own brand of terrorism. Trust me when I say I didn't write that to damage - unless it's to damage our impossibly perfect image of ourselves. As Christians, we should all be able to appreciate the need to confess in order to repent.
Posted by: Paul | April 29, 2008 10:18 PM
While the mainstream media is fanning the flames of the Obama -- Wright distraction, they've turned their attention away from the John McCain -- John Hagee controversy.
Hagee is a really dangerous nutjob if you've ever tuned him in.
Wright is nothing compared to Hagee.
Teevee news ran a clip of McCain uttering the word 'nonsense' nine times when confronted with his supporter Hagee's ravings.
For McCain, uttering the spell was more than enough to get the media to turn the other way.
The corporate media gives McCain a free ride, just like they do for Bush.
Haven't you noticed this?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/opinion/30wed1.html?hp
Posted by: justintime | April 29, 2008 10:45 PM
I have to admit to feeling just a trifle vindicated.
Posted by: Alicia | April 29, 2008 3:36 PM
Which, apparently, is what this is really all about in the minds of some. I think in hermeneutical circles, Alicia, they call what you're doing "proof-texting."
Posted by: canucklehead | April 29, 2008 11:06 PM
Justintime,
There's good reason the MSM is ignoring the Hagee/McCain story, it's a non-story. Begala tried the same spin earlier tonight on CNN but got shot down. He gave it up real quick, there was just not enough there to work with.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | April 29, 2008 11:11 PM
Current issue of Rolling Stone has an "interesting" article on evangelicalism Hagee style.
Posted by: canucklehead | April 29, 2008 11:11 PM
And Hagee had pronounced fire and brimestone on America more times than I can remember. So why no outrage about this?
I suspect it's because Rev. Wright hit a raw nerve when he spoke about the oppression of the poor and minorities in America - people find it hard to handle the truth.
Posted by: splinterlog | April 29, 2008 11:16 PM
Looks like Obama would disagree with most of you here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080430/ap_on_el_pr/obama_pastor
I guess we'll have have to jump on the hillary bandwagon now.
Posted by: gavin | April 29, 2008 11:39 PM
Obama's repudiation of Wright improved my view of him just a notch. I wish he'd done this weeks ago, but then I suppose he didn't have sufficient provocation until this evening.
Posted by: Gordon | April 29, 2008 11:50 PM
On the September 18, 2006, John Hagee told NPR's Terry Gross
"... I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of
New Orleans."
So yeah, I'm waiting for Fox news to report this and for Hagee to get some of the heat that Wright has been experiencing.
... I'm waiting... still waiting...
Posted by: splinterlog | April 29, 2008 11:54 PM
More from our Rev. Hagee, from his own Jerusalem Countdown
"It was the disobedience and rebellion of the Jews, God's chosen people, to their covenantal responsibility to serve only the one true God, Jehovah, that gave rise to the opposition and persecution that they experienced beginning in Canaan and continuing to this very day..."
I'll leave you to conclude what Hagee is implying about the Holocaust.
Where's Fox News when you need them???
Posted by: splinterlog | April 30, 2008 12:00 AM
"danced for Massa"?!!
I'm sorry, I just have to say I find this phrase offensive and insensitive! If he was white, would you still have used this phrase? Even then I would find it inappropriate. If we are going to have a conversation about racial reconciliation can we please keep a closer watch over the language that we use?
Many people have criticized Wright for taking the spotlight away from Obama. Consider this for a moment though... Let's say you were a pastor of a church and felt deeply that God had put a message on your heart that was so powerful that you dedicated your career, and indeed your whole life to spreading that message. Then let's say that although your congregation benefits and grows from that message, over time you realize that there is a much larger audience that needs to hear it but does not. The next thing that you know, the national media is criticizing your message, your beliefs, and your life's work in ministry without taking the time to even understand what you are trying to say. How could you not, in good conscience, use that opportunity to try to "clear the air" and spread your message to the very people who need to hear it most?
I am not pleased at the damage that this situation has caused the Obama campaign, but I don't blame it on Wright at all! It is the media that keeps insisting that despite his very clear explanations of his beliefs and sermons, that he preaches racism and hate. It is the media that keeps insisting that Obama's relationship with Wright is one that we should be concerned about. And it is the media that has this country's political system so tightly wrapped around it's finger that any political candidate cannot possibly achieve a high office without pandering to it's agenda.
The system is broken and I hate it! It forces candidates to strategize how to defend themselves against cheap shots by people twisting their words and implying false significance in relationships. You can say that Obama should have been stronger and stood up for Wright, but the press would have crucified him (not that they aren't already) and he does have to remain a viable candidate.
Bottom line, if the system and the media will not allow candidates a legitimate analysis of their beliefs, history, platform etc. we will have nothing but liars and crooks in office.
Posted by: bpharry | April 30, 2008 12:01 AM
Jeff wrote:
Don't we all have friends or family who at times embarrass us? Obama should have just said "I love the guy, but I disagree with him about x,y and z." Even if Wright gets really kooky, Obama would have been praised for his loyalty.
Friends? Family? Sure. Ministers? Nope.
When I was younger, I was obligated to attend a white church that was uncomfortably close to bigots of the old Bob Jones variety. When I was old enough to choose my own church, I didn't say "well, I can't disown them because to do so would be to deny my heritage". I disowned them because I didn't have a stomache for that kind of stark bigotry. I won't pretend to be the greatest friend of civil rights, but I knew that racial seperatism was blatantly wrong and I wanted nothing to do with it. And I have no regrets.
As for those of you who claim that Wright makes conservatives "uncomfortable", well duh. The guy makes accusations of mass murder that make little scientific sense. What's amazing is that anyone is "comfortable" with this.
I'm sure John Hagee makes a lot of liberals "uncomfortable". Heck, I find him a bit jarring. The fact that a minister makes people "uncomfortable" doesn't prove he's teaching the truth.
Wolverine
Posted by: wolverine | April 30, 2008 12:11 AM
Some gems from one of Reagan's spiritual gurus.
Francis Schaeffer in, A Christian Manifesto speaking of opposition to abortion:
"There does come a time when force, even physical force, is appropriate"
And then comparing the USA to the evil empire:
"In the United States the materialistic, humanistic world view is being taught exclusively in most state schools. ... There is an obvious parallel between this and the situation in Russia (the USSR). And we really must not be blind to the fact that indeed in the public schools in the United States all religious influence is as forcibly forbidden as in the Soviet Union."
Too bad Fox wasn't around then
Posted by: splinterlog | April 30, 2008 12:35 AM
And of course, there is the all time classic from that anti-American Presidential swearer-in, Billy Graham:
"If God does not judge America, He is going to have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah."
I rest my case!
Posted by: splinterlog | April 30, 2008 12:40 AM
Hi all,
The one thing that no-one is questioning is that there is a 'black church' and a 'white church' in America ... This being the case surely there are at least 2 authorities on what it means to be a Christian in America.
Clearly each side should be slow to criticize the other. It is bad enough that there are two. Why?
And, certainly, Obama will know soon enough if Jeremiah Wright was wrong about America being a country ruled by rich white people, won't he?
By the way, I am an African - and a number of shades blacker than Obama. Why is it that in my country we would call Obama a 'half-caste' or 'mixed race' or 'point five' yet in America you call him black? Why not black and white?
Having said that I once met an American marine who told me that AIDS was made in a lab in America. He was black, needless to say. Perhaps like Rev Jeremiah Wright - and many others - he believes that the American government can do anything.
And, finally,
If Obama can 'desert' his pastor (as if the man does not have 'freedom of expression'), perhaps in order to bolster his 'electability', what does that tell us about Americans and politics?
Someone once asked here why Bush isn't taken to task for ignoring the Methodist Church's opposition to the Iraqi war (for example)?
Why is the media not spending time on more substantive matters than what the retired pastor of a not yet nominated Presidential candidate is saying? Why is Obama constantly having to explain an older, more accomplished man (albeit not in political terms)?
Is it about Rev Wright's 'divisivenes', 'hate', 'incendiary sermons' whatever or is it really about Obama's audacity in running for President?
- Alu
Dar es Salaam
Posted by: Robert Alu | April 30, 2008 6:37 AM
"danced for Massa"?!!...can we please keep a closer watch over the language that we use?
it is the media that has this country's political system so tightly wrapped around it's finger that any political candidate cannot possibly achieve a high office without pandering to it's agenda."-bpharry
Thanks for agreeing. That kind of phraseology, so frequently employed by Rev Wright, and people's insistence on being offended by it is what I think this whole issue is about. We are refusing to be reconciled with one another, a state which truly grieves the Great Reconciler. God hates "putting away" whether it be spouses or brothers and sisters as it states in Isiah 58 "hide not yourself from your own flesh".
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | April 30, 2008 6:57 AM
I agree with a lot said here. Not all of it. But a lot of it. Should that affect my candidacy? Or my support of Obama? Or Obama's acceptance of my support? Of course not. [I am not running, except for Obama]
I thought the Posting by: bpharry | April 30, 2008 12:01 AM was particularly on point about the "media is broken." Course we and its corporate ownership have allowed it to break.
Preachers [like all human beings] are clay pots. The Apostle Paul said, like it or not, our treasure is stored in clay pots. Its the only vessel for truth we have. God knows that. We ought to give it some recognition before we launch into each other. Another prophet [Jesus of Nazareth] said, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." You'd think that would stop all the stone casting. But no. It doesn't.
Rev. Wright is highly respected in many circles. But he is a clay pot. I agree with 90% of his assessment of American racial history. But it is time to move on. Barach Obama is trying to do that. May God bless him.
Wright has let too many of his own ego bruises be evoked in his last few days public comments. But gosh darn, we did take the briefest snippet of a 30 year ministry and "stomp on it" big time. And that being way, way, way out of context.
It was sad to see the Senator have to divorce himself so totally from his long-time spiritual mentor and pastor. But he had to. And we have to move on. I say elect the man. He can handle it. Way better than the rest.
Posted by: pastorP | April 30, 2008 7:08 AM
I don't think that sharing what others have said about God judging America is very relevant to this topic. No one here is suggesting that America has done no wrongs or even that the people of the faith should not speak out against those wrongs.
Mr. Wright is using racially divisive rhetoric and he comes off as arrogant at times. It doesn't really seem like he is calling "America" to repent but white America to repent and this is getting the attention of others because he is so close to Obama (or was so close to Obama)who is trying to bridge racial gaps.
I think that most people, including Obama, are to the point where we are tired of trying to lay a guilt trip on white people for the wrongs of our great great great great great grandfathers. I think we've realized that %99 of white Americans are not proud of the hurtful things our ancestors did in the past and to keep throwing them back in our face over and over again (and in this case as "thus sayeth the Lord") is just not productive in bridging the racial gaps in America.
Posted by: gavin | April 30, 2008 7:50 AM
In skimming through the above comments, I was pleasantly struck by the number of people who faulted the media for giving a 'nudge-nudge, wink-wink, boys will be boys' justification of the McCain ties with John Hagee, as well as the more serious Bush (Jr. and Sr.) ties with Falwell, Robertson, and other like-minded charlatans of the religious right (as someone pointed ou above, Billy Graham has, in the last few decades, run a more middle-of-the-road course than he did in his days associating with the Nixon White House).
Eric Alterman's fine tome "What Liberal Media" comes to mind here. The author eloquently rips apart the notion that the media has any 'liberal' bias. To extrapolate a bit on Alterman...if the media were truly 'liberal,' they would be denouncing the ravings of the leaders of the Religious Right. Instead of brushing these aside, however, the media rambles on incessantly about the supposed' importance of the Christian Right voter base.' On the contrary, they are titillated by some out-of-context (but admittedly unwise/unfortunate for Obama's campaign of unity - then again, no one's perfect ) remarks by Rev. Wright.
If the media truly did its homework, they would know that the liberation theology espoused by Wright - the idea that trodding upon the poor is blasphemous and un-Christian - has a multi-racial history and roots in the teachings of the late Prof. Paolo Freire, whose vision of critical pedagogy (and his lesser-known role as vice president of the World Council of Churches) encouraged disenfranchised Brazilian farmers to use their newfound literacy skills to challenge the dictatorial Brazilian government of the 1960s.
In conclusion, it has alternately bemused and horrified me that in the USA, a politician's every word, gesture, and moral (mis?-)pronouncement is lapped up by the press, and can often sink a politician like Obama, whose rhetoric and lifestyle transcends the traditional politics of division. There's little of this in Canada, where I'm from - as our former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau said, 'The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation' (I would prefer to say 'The media and state have...').
Obama has unequivocally comdemned Wright's more divisive remarks - let's get on with it, Joe and Josephine Media...
If Obama wins the nomination, I will go down to New York State to campaign for him, but if it is a Hillary/John 'battle of the established politicos' for the White House, I will permanently distance myself from U.S. politics...
Cheers,
Skeptispiri
Posted by: Skeptispiri | April 30, 2008 8:03 AM
I don't think that sharing what others have said about God judging America is very relevant to this topic
I think it's highly relevant. It isn't as you say when you speak of Wright being a divider while Barak is trying to be a unifier. This is a more subtle point which is being drowned out in all of the soundbites. What people are offended at are Wright's so-called unpatriotic statements - pure and simple. So I'm just trying to show that he's in good company - so why is everyone taking offense?
Mr. Wright is using racially divisive rhetoric... but white America to repent
Yes, and...? The point of Wright's rhetoric is that many of the wrongs of the past still live on today in other forms.
Posted by: splinterlog | April 30, 2008 8:42 AM
In my mind, there was no good reason for this whole episode. It accomplished what our system is good at--leaving a whole lot of brokenness and sorrow along the way heaped on top of old wounds.
It is political season. And there is not one action, policy, position, ,or attitude of Barack Obama that was legitimately in question.
Please leave John Hagee out of the conversation. Taking up another irrelevant conversation to the selection of President will do no one any good.
Dr. Wright has been in the national conversation because persons want to damage Obama and the media smells controversy and blood. When those two interests go away--the story goes away.
I appreciate Obama's sentiments and desire to be a uniter. But he stands on the shoulders of Dr. Wright's generation. We do need to move beyond the struggle of that generation.
I think that generation would have been more than pleased to not have had to fight the battle they did. And would still be happy to not have to.
I think Wright and Obama would do well to acknowledge their distinct callings; and allow each other to fulfill those and bless each other.
And, of course, the nation could have done the same.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | April 30, 2008 9:09 AM
If Obama can 'desert' his pastor (as if the man does not have 'freedom of expression'), perhaps in order to bolster his 'electability', what does that tell us about Americans and politics?
Thank you, Alu. That's the real question. I wrote that I was wondering whether a Christian could run for president and still remain a Christian for precisely this reason. Here we have a candidate who feels he has to denounce and distance himself from the man who was his spiritual mentor for over twenty years. Doesn't anyone see something wrong with this?
In my view, instead of denouncing his pastor, what Obama should have done--what I believe would be the Christian thing to do--was to stand by him and denounce those who are cynically using these sermon snippets to discredit both his pastor and, by association, him. He should have said that this is ad hominem, attack-dog politics at its worst and shame on those who would stoop so low. And then let the chips fall where they may. If Obama's association with Jeremiah Wright cost him the nomination and/or the election, then it simply wasn't to be.
But instead, Obama joined Wright's critics in the stooping. It was enough for Obama to say he didn't always agree with Wright, and that should have been the end of it. My opinion of Obama has gone down several notches because of this. I didn't know before whether I could vote for him, but I'm even more unsure now. And I know of at least one former Obama supporter who now will not vote for him because of this.
Yes, power corrupts, but in the case of the US presidency, it's even worse, apparently. The very desire for the office to wield its power itself is corrupting, and we've seen a perfect example right here. This is the evil, corrupting influence of Sauron's Ring at work. And this is why I am questioning whether a Christian can seek this office and still remain a Christian.
And may God bless all God's children--wherever they live.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | April 30, 2008 9:11 AM
If God does not judge America, He is going to have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.
Ruth, not Billy, Graham, said this. And what destroyed those cities was not sexual immorality but "living the 'good life.'"
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 30, 2008 9:19 AM
I could have worded a sentence in my last paragraph better:
"The very desire for the office to wield its power itself is corrupting..." should be, "The very desire for the office AND to wield its power is itself corrupting..."
D
Posted by: Don | April 30, 2008 9:23 AM
canucklehead, when I admitted to feeling vindicated, I was trying to get across how it feels to stick to a theme continuously (as in, it is demagoguery for a pastor to reinforce paranoid conspiracy theories) while well-intentioned people fall all over themselves trying to justify that demagoguery and even transmute it into "prophetic speech."
Then, suddenly, the candidate comes out and says "it is wrong to reinforce paranoid conspiracy theories about the U.S. government" and I have what I think is a totally justified feeling of relief that sanity may finally be prevailing.
In fact, I am willing to bet in a few days time everyone who has been defending Jeremiah Wright will also have "thrown him under the bus."
Really, the timing of Wright's offensive PR offensive seems deliberately designed to further derail Obama's candidacy. I'm a Hillary Clinton supporter, so this doesn't bother me as much as it would if I were an Obama supporter. But, since there is a chance Obama may be our next President, I personally am glad he took this step.
Posted by: Alicia | April 30, 2008 9:42 AM
Don,
Obama has taken the high road, and nobody seems to have listened. So if he gives up the nomination to stand by Wright, what will be the issue for the next black person to run for the Oval Office? Obama is having to answer questions that no white candidate would ever have to answer. And he's having to answer them over, and over, and over, and over. Right now, I'm not very proud of our country. I think we have a lot of soul searching to do.
Posted by: Paul | April 30, 2008 9:56 AM
Paul, I totally fail to see how publically denouncing the man who helped mold Obama in the Faith could possibly be construed as "taking the high road."
You are right that he is having to repeatedly answer the same questions that no white candidate would ever be asked (Do we even know who Hillary's current pastor is, for example?). But I believe that if Obama were to stand by Wright, even where disagreeing with him, an amazing thing might happen. Fair-minded people would recognize that relationships are more important than politics and even more important than winning. And I think that could actually help him win the election.
Instead, we see Obama playing the cynical role that the drama called US presidential politics has assigned him, instead of standing above it. And there's still that power thing. Can we doubt that desire for the office and the power it confers has made him, just like the other candidates, willing to throw even close relationships and friendships away?
I'm not proud of the country either, Paul. But some were hoping that at least one candidate could resist throwing the mud. And it's really sad that Obama is hurling it at a one-time friend. How terribly tragic that is.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | April 30, 2008 10:18 AM
Don
I appreciate your sentiments. Every person, whether President, CEO, or neighbor faces conflicts around our Citizenship in Heaven and Residency on Earth.
One thing Dr. Wright (and the pastors of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Carter,......) were likely unprepared for--was to offer pastoral guidance to parishoners who walk out this conflict on the national/international stage. CEO's, for instance, routinely find their churches/pastors ill-equipped to address their realities (so they move towards a divorce of faith from their vocation).
I too wish Obama had taken a harder line against the attacks. But he is caught--because his campaign is predicated on "beyond race" and the attack essentially was a demand that he prove the "beyond race" argument--in itself a racist demand.
McCain and Clinton do not have to do all this maneuvering because of their skin color. They wisely skirted the issue from a political perspective. All three perceieve the best way to address race in America is avoid the issue; and play to the divisions when it suits their political interests. Obama is nuanced in that he is trying to transcend instead of avoid--but to the extent the system is still racist it will demand he not transcend, but that he prove himself 'white.'
Condoleeza Rice achieves by not bringing a 'Black critique' to bear in her job. I don't think that makes her 'not-black.' There have always been different stances as to the best way to overcome a racist system.
The one route I am most unsympathetic towards is the, "There is no need for Rev. Wright because racism is gone; and in fact he is the problem; as are all the Blacks who think there is a problem who can't get on with their lives" crowd. This element within conservatism and the Republican party have just set this movement back 30 years in its capacity to contend it has a clue.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | April 30, 2008 10:22 AM
Wolverine,
My point was, love covers a multitude of sins. It looks like he attended the church for political purposes (to prove he was "black enough"). Now he appears to be ditching Wright for political purpose. If he would have pointed us towards his relationship he might have been better off.
As a pastor I've stood by parishioners who have done stupid or even illegal things, not because I agree with them but because I love them. Some of these same people have dropped me like a hot potato because of a minor infraction (real or perceived).
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | April 30, 2008 10:35 AM
Don,
In Obama's speech in Philadelphia, he said he disagreed with Wright but could not disown him and would not deny black people their hurt. He tried to put Wright's comments in a context, and tried to open a dialogue of reconciliation. That's as forthright and honest as I've seen in a candidate.
The day before yesterday, he recognized that Wright is standing by the hurtful tone of his words and isn't helping the dialogue of reconciliation. It was also very apparent that Obama is feeling very hurt over what this has done to his friendship. Again, that's honesty.
Neither Obama or Wright threw the other under the bus. Wright threw himself there and Obama had to let go.
Posted by: Paul | April 30, 2008 10:37 AM
letjusticerolldown,
Thanks for your comments. I especially like your last paragraph. That's the subtlety of racism today. That's what I mean about the race with the power continuing to make the rules. Before the Civil Rights Movement, white people actively held black people down. Now we tell them they have all the same opportunities that we have and it's their problem if they can't pull themselves up.
Remember when Jesus prayed in the garden that we would be one, just as He and the Father are one? With His help, we're getting there... but we have a long way to go.
Posted by: Paul | April 30, 2008 10:47 AM
"There is no need for Rev. Wright because racism is gone; and in fact he is the problem; as are all the Blacks who think there is a problem who can't get on with their lives" crowd. This element within conservatism and the Republican party have just set this movement back 30 years in its capacity to contend it has a clue.
Hear Hear!
Posted by: splinterlog | April 30, 2008 11:04 AM
"The very desire for the office to wield its power itself is corrupting, and we've seen a perfect example right here. This is the evil, corrupting influence of Sauron's Ring at work."
"Right now, I'm not very proud of our country. I think we have a lot of soul searching to do."
Agreed on both counts. Don, I share your doubts about whether a Christian can run for president; I certainly couldn't. Since the US electorate seems to want a president who is a Christian, though, that would mean that we're condemned to be governed by hypocrites. What role, then, can a Christian organization like Sojo play in our politics?
Posted by: Another nonymous | April 30, 2008 11:15 AM
In fact, I am willing to bet in a few days time everyone who has been defending Jeremiah Wright will also have "thrown him under the bus."- Alicia
I'll take that bet. Only those who submit to the utilitarian, win at any cost Clintonism will do what you are suggesting. Those who defend Rev. Wright are defending something less transient than political expediency.
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | April 30, 2008 11:18 AM
Friends --
A lot of it is simply that the Religious Right is old news. However, most of the Religious Right became part of it because they were told, "these are the good guys you can trust." That doesn't mean they agree with everything the Religious Right did.
Someone mentioned Francis Schaeffer -- who actually had a lot to do with the thinking of the Religious Right. It is the belief that if you stop people from sinning (whether saved or not) you glorify God by eliminating sin. (See The God Who is There by the same.)Thus, they tried to legislate morality. A nice idea, but it doesn't work.
It is a very different thing to say, "Katrina was God's judgment on that city" and "God damn America." To make the statements equal, you would have to say, "Bring on Katrina to every city in America."
Not that I agree with either statement. But, some pastors love preaching the wrath of God, while other love to preach the love of God. This is not news either. I personally think a more accurate view of God preaches a lot of both. These too are brothers in Christ.
As for what Obama could have said -- he had already said most of your suggestions -- but Wright came back and said it all again. Obama disagrees with Wright's worldview. That's a fundamental problem between mentor and student. Sometimes, we have to see someone's worldview from a different perspective to see what all we agree with about it.
For what it's worth, I've been to black churches too. I see most of it as style and cultural differences as to why the groups are segregated. I get migraines frequently -- so loud congregations of any sort about kill me.
My 7th grade teacher was a black man who told me, "I'd go to church if I was white. You guys have much shorter services. Ours take all day."
Posted by: frankie | April 30, 2008 11:26 AM
"But, some pastors love preaching the wrath of God, while other love to preach the love of God. This is not news either. I personally think a more accurate view of God preaches a lot of both."
frankie,
You are so right! The wrath and power of God is real, and so is His love. Every little splinter of impurity in us causes a separation from Him. That's why He told Moses to stop, take off his sandals and don't come any closer. On our own, we aren't fit to walk on His holy ground. That goes for all of us in our brokenness... blacks, whites, everybody. Thank God for His love, grace and forgiveness that allows us to approach Him and each other.
Posted by: Paul | April 30, 2008 11:40 AM
when given a chance to explain, i think wright has been very clear by what he means when he says "god damn america" & it has nothing to do with conventional notions of sending people to hell or exacting divine punishment. he means it like it is in the dictionary, & what its etymology points to: to declare something to be bad, to condemn in thought, to say "this is not just!" in light of the history of our country to which he was pointing (listen to the sermon), i think it makes perfect sense. This is clearly different than what falwell, robertson, hagee, have been saying about god allowing or actively imposing horrific punishments upon us because of our actions.
Posted by: nad2 | April 30, 2008 11:45 AM
Well said frankie! And I was thinking something similar about how the statements about Katrina and Wright's statement are different.
I think it's ridiculous how the media and some pundits have been trying to tag Obama with everything and anything Rev. Wright has said. If I had to be held to account for everything my pastor ever said I'd be tongue-tied too. But knowing that this situation exists, the blame for the latest round of media attention falls with Wright. He intentionally decided to go on his little media tour knowing it would come back to hurt Obama. He did it anyway. As Eugene Robinson said "We get it, Rev. Wright: You're ready for your close-up…" Right now, for Wright, it's the glorification of ME, Obama's campaign be damned! Yes, maybe Obama should have stood his ground and defended him again, but Wright shouldn't have put Obama in the position of having to do so again.
Posted by: Eric | April 30, 2008 11:49 AM
Don: "The very desire for the office AND to wield its power is itself corrupting..."
Another nonymous: "Agreed on both counts. Don, I share your doubts about whether a Christian can run for president; I certainly couldn't. Since the US electorate seems to want a president who is a Christian, though, that would mean that we're condemned to be governed by hypocrites. What role, then, can a Christian organization like Sojo play in our politics?"
These comments raise a profound issue. In a sense, this is what Greg Boyd was getting at in his The Myth of a Christian Nation. Given the nasty games that nations by their very nature play, can a Christian become part of the national leadership without damning his/her own soul?
Maybe it's time to read Reinhold Niebuhr's Moral Man and Immoral Society again.
Posted by: carl copas | April 30, 2008 11:53 AM
Pastor Staples, I accept your statement that you are defending Wright out of your own deeply held beliefs. However, I could wish you were criticizing him instead, because I feel that defense, however, well-intentioned, is wrong.
Believe it or not, I don't think "winning at any cost" is a good thing. However, I also believe that most of Obama's problems in this campaign are self-inflicted. Most of Hillary Clinton's attacks on Barack Obama have backfired.
Obama was part of a church for 20 years in which the pastor demagogued the people. Speaking out of anger is one thing, which is why I don't react as much to "God Damn America" as others do. (I disagree with it profoundly but I defend Wright's right to say it, even in church.)
Reinforcing a community's anger may be destructive but it is understandable. Supporting that community in its paranoid delusional beliefs is unworthy of a pastor of the Gospel, but perfectly understandable and predictable from a demagogue.
Posted by: Alicia | April 30, 2008 12:18 PM
"Maybe it's time to read Reinhold Niebuhr's Moral Man and Immoral Society again."
Carl -
Didn't Obama famously charm David Brooks with his knowledge of Reinhold Niebuhr?
Posted by: Another nonymous | April 30, 2008 12:34 PM
Diana Butler Bass opined:
"Maybe it is time for this Christian community to remember that Rev. Wright is, no matter how much that makes some people uncomfortable, a brother in Christ."
Meanwhile, "JustInTime" commented:
"(Megachurch pastor John) Hagee is a really dangerous nutjob if you've ever tuned him in. Wright is nothing compared to Hagee."
=========================
And so my question is for Diana; Do you consider John Hagee a brother in Christ, no matter how much that makes people like "JustInTIme" uncomfortable?
Or do you save your Christian affirmations and love only for prominent preachers that are a bit more, shall we say, "progressive"? Can you point to any columns you have ever written defending Jerry Falwell or Pat Roberson or John Hagee?
Posted by: Narniaman | April 30, 2008 1:28 PM
"Chances are pretty good that your history textbooks taught you a whole bunch of nonsense about happy Indians celebrating the first Thanksgiving with the Pilgrims."
Nope. We learned very, very little about the the Pilgrims, save for the fact that they killed Indians. Contemporary textbooks are almost solely interested in that narrative.
"And Hagee had pronounced fire and brimestone on America more times than I can remember. So why no outrage about this?"
The first reason is that Hagee was not McCain's pastor. If Obama hardly knew Rev. Wright, and simply sought his endorsement, this would be a minor story.
The second reason is that that McCain has already secured his nomination. The upside to this is that he is not in the news. The downside to this is that he is not in the news.
The third reason is that nobody has any incentive to make hay over the issue. Obama needs a certain percentage of the Jewish vote, and his campaign needs to be very careful how they parse the words of someone who so passionately supports the Israeli state.
The fourth reason is that the Wright story broke first. "Him too" stories never generate as much publicity.
Posted by: kevin s. | April 30, 2008 1:38 PM
Can you point to any columns you have ever written defending Jerry Falwell or Pat Roberson or John Hagee?
Upon Falwell's death, Jim Wallis composed a tribute that appeared on this very blog. You best believe, however, that if Wallis, Ron Sider or Tony Campolo died that Falwell's backers would not be so charitable.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 30, 2008 1:44 PM
alicia,
having taken this opportunity to become more familiar with wright (listening to the pbs interview online, watching him, & rereading a wonderful christian century article about him & that church http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=3392 ) i must completely disagree with your assertion that he is a demagogue. i think he is an extremely well educated and thoughtful speaker, and he incorporates the depth of his knowledge very well into his speaking rather than trying to incite people with baseless rhetoric (which is how the media is portraying this). i concede that the hiv comment was way over-the-top, but on monday i think he appropriately addressed it, & it is such a minuscule moment in the career of an amazing man that it should not be part of the conversation. i started out on this thing much like mike huckabee (who said we need to give him some slack), but quickly realized how much of a hill of beans the media was selling after i backed up and heard him fully and on his own terms, & have come to have great respect for the heart of his message, which is prophetic and about reconciliation, & comes from a completely different life experience than my own, but which is vital for me to understand as best i can. i would encourage all to watch the pbs interview, read the above article, or find another thoughtful medium to explore this outside of how the mainstream is covering this because they are clearly missing the bigger context and the bigger message.
Posted by: nad2 | April 30, 2008 1:45 PM
Frankie,
It's not both it's love. His wrath is a gateway back into being loved, it's designed to show our nakedness and call us back into relationship with him. It's not wrath for the sake of wrath. If it were none of us would long live here or in eternity. If it were that he would never have sent Jesus.
Alicia,
He is not reinforcing a community's anger. He doesn't have the power to do that. A community's anger will be increased because of the injustices and realities they perceive and experience. His sermons are first and foremost an expression of the heart of biblical prophecy. When Jeremiah told them that Babylon was coming and that Israel was corrupt they beat him and threw him into a cistern.
I can critique Wright and maybe it's about time I do. What bothers me about the man is that he is represents a mentality and an ego that makes me nauseous. I have an ego, we all do or we would not bother posting here but Wright's ego reminds me of a former pastor I used to respect and admire. His ego is too huge for his britches and that annoys me. His critique of America is spot on though.
p
Posted by: Payshun | April 30, 2008 1:46 PM
...The fourth reason is that the Wright story broke first. "Him too" stories never generate as much publicity...."Posted by: kevin s. |
The fifth reason is that when you are so blinded by your fear and hatred of Obama, you will stop at nothing to hurt him.
Posted by: JamesMartin | April 30, 2008 2:00 PM
"Nope. We learned very, very little about the the Pilgrims, save for the fact that they killed Indians. Contemporary textbooks are almost solely interested in that narrative."
Well, Kevin, most of the textbooks when I was a kid told a pretty rosey story. That said, you're right that the pendulum has swung awfully far in the other direction. We should learn from the past as it actually happened, rather than try to paint it in the wrong light -- good or bad. Trying to make up a past or current reality doesn't serve any of us well. Instead, we should open our eyes to the reality and understand that it's different walking in someone else's shoes.
Posted by: Paul | April 30, 2008 2:13 PM
Jamesmartin
"so blinded by your fear and hatred of Obama"
Strong accusation, especially "hatred". Please show us evidence in the post you are responding to that backs up these words.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | April 30, 2008 2:27 PM
"The fifth reason is that when you are so blinded by your fear and hatred of Obama, you will stop at nothing to hurt him."
I don't think that explains the media coverage. If that were the case, we wouldn't have seen stories on McCain's temper at the Post, or that bizarre sex innuendo story in the Times.
Posted by: kevin s. | April 30, 2008 2:42 PM
JamesMartin,
Be careful, don't be a "Comment Meanie".
Remember the Beliefnet guidelines: "Disruptive behavior may include... making statements that are deliberately inflammatory..."
Posted by: Proverbs 18:7 | April 30, 2008 3:27 PM
"Be careful, don't be a "Comment Meanie".
Good advice there from Kevin S.
Posted by: Proverbs 27:22 | April 30, 2008 5:21 PM
What role, then, can a Christian organization like Sojo play in our politics?
I don't know for sure, Another. That's a difficult question. I'll try to give an answer later, if I can.
D
Posted by: Don | April 30, 2008 5:37 PM
"Good advice there from Kevin S."
???
Posted by: kevin s. | April 30, 2008 5:46 PM
"I can critique Wright and maybe it's about time I do. " P
No, P. There is no need to criticize J Wright because J Wright is not the issue.
Your defense of him, I believe, is also not about him--but in response to persons who write out of a cultural misunderstanding, an unknowing bias, a failure to listen, racism, or single focus on damaging Obama.
I disagreed with varied elements of Jeremiah Wright's theology years before some broadcasters mysteriously chose to play a series of comments back to back for days on end. The issue is not whether the man is flawed--it is whether the Body of Christ and this nation need voices like his.
Racism is often not resolved by the humanity standing in 'Black pulpits' across this nation--but neither does it flow from there.
Rev. Wright has produced through his ministry pretty much what the conservative pundits have called and demanded Black Americans do--study, go to school, go to church, take care of family, get jobs, succeed, vote, organize, don't run from the city as white Evangelicals did, etc.
His church has done the heavy lifting. And done the heavy lifting of calling the dominant culture and white church to account. And done the heavy lifting of explaining Black America to an endless string of audiences.
But he can't listen for us.
His reward: "Shut up you crazy demagogue. How dare you utter a conspiracy theory or defend yourself against a national smear campaign!"
Alicia (and others) you could hear Nad2's suggestion and resolve your anger over Dr. Wright. I have been profoundly blessed in my relationship with African American Christians of all political persuasions, in working for a pastor cut-out-of-the-same-cloth as Dr. Wright, learning to see my own culture/theology/experience through a different lens that then helped me think more critically about what the ways of Jesus. It is so much easier and joyful to receive the blessing of their lives then feel an anger that demands I argue.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | April 30, 2008 6:09 PM
For those of you who consume more print than electronic media Judson Press has just re-released two books of Rev. Wright's sermons.
PJ
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | April 30, 2008 6:12 PM
I will try to listen to the Bill Moyers interview on line, nad2. (PBS is not one of the channels I currently receive.)
Although I try to keep an open mind about people like Wright, recognizing that they have different life experiences than I, when I hear some of the statements Wright has made, as well as learn about some of his past actions, I have to again conclude that the man is, at least in part, a demagogue.
He and his much-admired friend Louis Farrakhan traveled together to meet with Libya's Moamar Quadafi. That suggests to me a certain degree of infatuation with anti-American dictators that I personally find very disturbing. (I don't favor infatuations with pro-American dictators, either.)
(Quadafi is also the man who recently claimed that the Bible was a forgery because it did not mention Muhammed. This, even though the Bible was put into written form long before Muhammed was born.)
Given Wright's positive feelings for Farrakhan and Qadafi, and also for Hamas, this kind of gives me pause when I hear Obama say that he would "meet with the leadership of Iran" (for instance) without pre-conditions.
letjusticerolldown, do I detect certain assumptions about my relationship with African-American pastors? I don't have many of them -- except for the one with my own priest.
Posted by: Alicia | April 30, 2008 6:42 PM
Another nonymous: "Didn't Obama famously charm David Brooks with his knowledge of Reinhold Niebuhr?"
I seem to recall this, yes.
Another nonymous and Don, perhaps the 3 of us should agree to (re)read Niebuhr's Moral Man and Immoral Society and then have a conversation about it. And yes, I realize that's asking both of you to add yet another volume to your already Everest-like mountain of "to-read" books.
Posted by: carl copas | April 30, 2008 6:45 PM
Letjustice,
Your right he is not the main issue but part of the reason he is getting so much flack is because of his huge ego. He has one. If we are going to really tackle white racism and actually deal with that issue then we need more transparency in our leaders that show us this truth. I agree with most of Reverend Wright's critique. I have been following the empowerment principles of black liberation theology and liberation theology for years now.
I won't apologize for it and I won't bother explaining it any more. What others think about my theology matters little to me. My life and the fact that I am on this blog instead of spending more time on Blackplanet says more about how I feel about reconcialtion. The truth is that those that need to change are blind to it.
I can't get them to see it. I am tired of wasting my time trying to get them too. I will just love and leave the rest of it alone. I will leave the heavy lifting to folks like you.
p
Posted by: Payshun | April 30, 2008 6:54 PM
For a reasoned discussion concerning Wright/Obama and the Black church, suggest people go to www.charlierose.com to watch the video of last evening's program (April 29), which featured balanced, honest conversations with Congressman James Clyburn and The Reverend Dr. Floyd Flake.
Posted by: judithod | April 30, 2008 7:29 PM
On matters concerning race, there are always posters who say "I'm not responsible for things that happened before I was born!" My response has been to want to say: "but what are you doing about racism that occurred today?" As a white person I couldn't speak from personal experience. However, in today's Miami Herald, there is an article by Leonard Pitts, Jr. that does refer to experiences from as recently as yesterday. Here are some excerpts: "I want you to tell me how I can trust the justice system. You will think this is about Sean Bell, the unarmed black man who died in a fusillade of 50 bullets from New York police on what was to have been his wedding day; the shooters were acquitted last week. But the question isn’t about Bell, at least not solely.
Rather, it’s about the fact that the justice system so often seems to have less justice in it where black people are concerned.
It’s about Amadou Diallo, shot at 41 times — hit 19 — by New York police while reaching for his wallet. It’s about Rodney King, beaten to pieces by L.A. police for a traffic violation. It’s about Arthur McDuffie, beaten to death by Miami police for a traffic violation.... It’s about studies documenting the enduring racial bias in our justice system so that, for example, African Americans account for 13 percent of all regular drug users, but 35 percent of those arrested, 55 percent of those convicted and 74 percent of those imprisoned, for drug possession.
And it’s about knowing the foregoing will be greeted with blithe indifference by those who find it convenient to believe the unjust treatment of African Americans is somehow excusable, understandable, merited or required.
I need no lectures to remind me that good people inhabit the system; So save the lectures, just give me an answer: How can I trust a system whose biases against people who look like me are simultaneously well-documented, yet happily ignored by those who resemble me not at all."
Pray about this, friends. What have you done recently to reduce racism in your community? What have you done to acknowledge to your brothers and sisters who look different than you, that they are indeed treated differently by the justice system, the education system, and by many other systems?
Posted by: bren | April 30, 2008 7:41 PM
"The issue is not whether the man is flawed--it is whether the Body of Christ and this nation need voices like his."
You have not made the case that it does. You are quick to call us to listen, but when we listen, you suggest that we ought to listen to something else. As such, you assert what you need to prove.
But Jeremiah Wright is not my pastor. I didn't choose him, and I am not beholden to his ideas. As such, I'll make the decision as to whether I need a voice like his. They're my ears, not his.
"It is so much easier and joyful to receive the blessing of their lives then feel an anger that demands I argue."
This is simply poisoning the well. You are arguing for as much as I am arguing against. I am not assuming anger on your part.
Posted by: kevin s. | April 30, 2008 8:16 PM
"That suggests to me a certain degree of infatuation with anti-American dictators that I personally find very disturbing."
And yet, Obama supporters do not find this to be a problem. As a Democrat, do you see a problem here, as it respect your party's future? Doesn't it validate many of the worst stereotypes some might have of the modern liberal?
Let's face it, there is nothing Reverend Wright could say that Sojo would not defend. I can't think of anything more insane to say than that the American government created the AIDS virus. And yet, this is apparently no problem. I say "I told you so..." but you have to defend the attitude.
"Sean Bell, the unarmed black man who died in a fusillade of 50 bullets from New York police on what was to have been his wedding day; the shooters were acquitted last week."
Two of the police officers were black, and even members of the community who were saddened by the event acknowledged that race wasn't the issue, considering two of the cops were black themselves. He was shot because he was brawling outside of a strip club with a reputation for drug sales and prostitution. Race had nothing to do with it.
Posted by: kevin s. | April 30, 2008 8:26 PM
Bren, very good post!
As a middle class white resident of an exceedingly white suburb I have little exposure to racism, yet having been raised in a very racially diverse part of the Bay Area I am very aware of it's presence. The question you ask is a compelling one.
"Pray about this, friends. What have you done recently to reduce racism in your community? What have you done to acknowledge to your brothers and sisters who look different than you, that they are indeed treated differently by the justice system, the education system, and by many other systems?" -Bren
I'm not sure how to answer that question. What opportunities have I had to do so? I think a good way to begin answering the call that is implied in that question might be for me to vote for a black presidential candidate who understands the racism problem and for whom it will always be on the radar.
In all honesty, I was undecided between Obama and Hillary until I saw the Moyers interview. Whether or not Obama agrees with all of Wrights statements, his relationship with Wright over the years has given him a perspective on what it means to stand up for the poor and downtrodden. As long as rich white people are in control of the government and the press we cannot hope for systemic changes of the necessary magnitude to conquer racism. Frankly, most of us white folks don't know much about it.
Here's another question... If Wright was a white man would his anger at being misrepresented by the press, and his very intelligent defense of his positions be considered egotistical and self serving, or would they be be listened to?
Thanks to all participating in this thread, it has been educational and eye opening. I hope we will all end up closer to the kingdom as a result. Peace.
Posted by: bpharry | April 30, 2008 9:20 PM
"What have you done recently to reduce racism in your community? What have you done to acknowledge to your brothers and sisters who look different than you, that they are indeed treated differently by the justice system, the education system, and by many other systems?"
• I sit on the board of a social service organization that is led by a black pastor, and that helps a largely minority clientele to gain access to services and opportunities that they have difficulty tapping into on their own.
• I have actively encouraged both of my children to cultivate friendships with people who look different, with quite positive results. I have spent time getting to know those friends' parents.
• I have vigorously argued against relocating my church from the central city to the suburbs - so far successfully.
• I have participated in a Habitat for Humanity build in a minority section of the city.
• I have attended community events designed to address the problem of homelessness, and have read up on the issue and its implications. I have made sure that my children attend a Sunday School class at which this issue is openly discussed.
• I have volunteered repeatedly to serve meals at an inner-city church, and have gotten my family involved as well.
• I have worked with Compassion International, a world relief organization, to try to raise awareness within my church.
• I have spoken up repeatedly, as a lay leader, about my church's responsibility to the poor in our community, and have helped to persuade the congregation to make a large financial commitment to this end.
• I have testified on numerous occasions about my experience growing up during the civil rights movement and the profound impact this has had on my moral compass.
• I have warmly welcomed minority families who have moved into my middle class neighborhood.
I could go on, but let me just say that in listing these things, I am following Paul's advice that if you are to boast, then boast in Christ.
Posted by: Another nonymous | April 30, 2008 10:04 PM
Thank you, Mick. :-)
Posted by: Another nonymous | April 30, 2008 10:24 PM
As far as the AIDS thing goes... Let me say at the outset, I don't think that the Federal government created AIDS. That said, I don't think that it is totally outrageous for someone like Wright to be skeptical or to make such a claim. It is documented, with admission from our federal government, that between 1932 and 1972 399 Black men infected with syphilis were deliberately left untreated for the purpose of scientific experimentation. This is typically known as the Tuskegee Experiment. To be a black man in American who knows of this injustice is to have misgivings about the lengths the US will go to harm black people. Add into that a history of slavery, legalized segregation, block busting, red-lining, disenfranchisement, racial profiling, police brutality against innocent citizens and other forms of racism and it is understandable how someone might think that the US is out to get them. And if you are Jeremiah Wright, a former US marine, you have not received the same level of hero status as your white compatriots. As a matter of fact, you probably grew disgruntled as you ended your military service to find out that instead of being included in society in a new way because of your service, you found that you were still nothing more than a black man to most people. I have tolerance for this kind of accusation, because it is not without a certain foundation.
(And for the record, it absolutely matters that Sean Bell was black...race influences black people too, that's why some of us are said to have "good hair" and others of us don't.)
Posted by: David Evans | April 30, 2008 11:05 PM
As far as the AIDS thing goes... Let me say at the outset, I don't think that the Federal government created AIDS. That said, I don't think that it is totally outrageous for someone like Wright to be skeptical or to make such a claim. It is documented, with admission from our federal government, that between 1932 and 1972 399 Black men infected with syphilis were deliberately left untreated for the purpose of scientific experimentation. This is typically known as the Tuskegee Experiment. To be a black man in American who knows of this injustice is to have misgivings about the lengths the US will go to harm black people. Add into that a history of slavery, legalized segregation, block busting, red-lining, disenfranchisement, racial profiling, police brutality against innocent citizens and other forms of racism and it is understandable how someone might think that the US is out to get them. And if you are Jeremiah Wright, a former US marine, you have not received the same level of hero status as your white compatriots. As a matter of fact, you probably grew disgruntled as you ended your military service to find out that instead of being included in society in a new way because of your service, you found that you were still nothing more than a black man to most people. I have tolerance for this kind of accusation, because it is not without a certain foundation.
(And for the record, it absolutely matters that Sean Bell was black...race influences black people too, that's why some of us are said to have "good hair" and others of us don't.)
Posted by: David Evans | April 30, 2008 11:06 PM
"...when I hear some of the statements Wright has made, as well as learn about some of his past actions, I have to again conclude that the man is, at least in part, a demagogue." Alicia
I presume you recognize the very same thing could be said about certain of the Old Testament prophets, except we cut them some sanctified slack b/c theys in the big black Book. A.J. Heschel, the legendary O.T. scholar, suggested that it helped your credibility as a prophet in O.T. times if you were somewhat mentally unbalanced to begin with.
Posted by: canucklehead | May 1, 2008 12:51 AM
"Please run and tell my stuck-on-stupid friends that Arabic is a language -- is a language, it is not a religion," he said. "Barack HUSSEIN Obama," he said, emphasizing the Illinois senator's middle name dramatically, "Barack HUSSEIN Obama, Barack HUSSEIN Obama. There are Arabic-speaking Christians, there Arabic-speaking Jews, Arabic-speaking Muslims and Arabic-speaking atheists. Arabic is a language, it is not a religion. Stop trying to scare folks by giving them this Arabic name like it's some disease."
Had Rev. Wright said this in a university classroom, no one would have given it a second thought other than to recognize it for the truth that it is.
The fact that it apparently is provoking the kind of outrage that it is in U.S. political circles merely serves to underscore the pathetically low level of intellectual accumen that sustains in the deathly interminable joke that passes for the American primary circus.
Face it, my Yankee friends, the man is simply too brilliant to accomodate the sound-byte mindset that masters your media-fuelled election campaigns.
Posted by: canucklehead | May 1, 2008 1:42 AM
Hi Don,
Thank God Wright doesn't need Obama for anything. I agree with you, Obama ought to have stuck by Wright.
Like many prophets, we may eventually just have to accept that, if he is truly 'speaking for God' then, calculating his every utterance is certainly not the Reverend's priority.
Did Jesus really care what the good Jews of Korazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum would make of his condemnation (Luke 10) or what those of Jerusalem thought of his prediction that the temple would be destroyed?
Sadly Obama, who needed to say no more re Wright after his acclaimed speech on race in America has, by default or whatever, proven that he, too, can play 'politics as usual'.
I am deeply disappointed.
And I see the man reviewing his social, career and 'spiritual' choices in a few months - to figure out where he went wrong - and concluding that he 'miscalculated'.
Who cares about Wright? Obama is the one on the ticket, and, I fear, he has just fallen into a trap.
God bless Rev Wright, Obama and everyone elese!
- Alu
Posted by: Robert Alu | May 1, 2008 4:36 AM
Hi Don,
I am normally to be found Sunday mornings at the Dar es Salaam Pentecostal Church.
Please ask your son to visit when he is next in town. We can have lunch or something ...
The English service starts at 9.00am and ends at 11.00am.
Any of the ushers can find me ...
Thanks already and God bless you!
- Alu
Dar es Salaam
Posted by: Robert Alu | May 1, 2008 4:49 AM
Thank you for your thoughtful analysis of Rev. Wright's recent comments. I've been saddened by how much of what has appeared in the media, both in print and on TV, has been based on seeing or hearing only brief snippets of Wright's thoughts. Such analysis serves only to raise the level of noise and lower the level of discourse. The demonizing of Rev. Wright in the media saddens me.
I was raised in the United Church of Christ....confirmed in a UCC church....graduated from a UCC college (Elmhurst) and I listened to every word of Wright's interview with Bill Moyers, his speech to the NAACP in Detroit and his National Press Club appearance. He speaks the truth, with courage, wit and integrity. We are blessed to have him in our midst. I will continue to support Barack Obama as the candidate most likely to bring the change that surely must come.
Tom Teuber
Madison, WI
Posted by: Tom Teuber | May 1, 2008 7:11 AM
Alu:
Thanks for the invitation! Our son is back here in the USA, and I don't know when he might be able to return to Dar. I know he wants to. He said he misses speaking Swahili, as well as the people he met.
Blessings,
Don
Posted by: Don | May 1, 2008 7:51 AM
Another nonymous and Don, perhaps the 3 of us should agree to (re)read Niebuhr's Moral Man and Immoral Society and then have a conversation about it. And yes, I realize that's asking both of you to add yet another volume to your already Everest-like mountain of "to-read" books.
Carl, you must know me! You must even have seen my den, which is, like you said, stacked with books to read.
I can't promise I'll take a look at Niebuhr right now, but you never know.
D
Posted by: Don | May 1, 2008 8:00 AM
Kevin--A commenter raised the issue of a criminal justice system that systematically comes down with unjust weight on Black citizens. You responded to a single case arguing for the merit of the acquittal of the officers.
Do you recall in the Rodney King incident how we endured these long examinations and debate that got reduced down to the examination of each blow? Essentially asking, "Was this blow a legitimate blow?"
The reality with systemic evil, is that every person involved could take the perfectly correct action, and produce an unjust outcome. Some persons want to evaluate the King beating by looking objectively at each blow. Others will see a grand conspiracy theory--because there is no way to explain the systemic results in the criminal-justeice system by the objective individual blows. (This is why the promotion of silly conspiracy theories is not taken as a 'federal offense'--but as metaphors explaining the systemic evil outcomes. When my tongue lies, is it just an little slip, or intentional personal lie; or is it part of a grand Satanic scheme to kill, steal and destroy for all eternity?? There is truth to both.)
I assume you have had your ears open a long time and know police-community relations, police brutality, crime-in-poorer-Black-communities, unjust sentencing laws, the heavy price on communities/marriage/family/children that both crime and incarceration exact, the traumatization of whole communities by violence, the deep wounds of crime victims, the virtual impossibility of reentering society from prison when there is a permanent barrier to many employments/citizenship/housing, etc--make up a critical issue for much of the Black community.
This is one simple issue to which we are called, I believe, to minister the Gospel to. Do you believe the Gospel is the power unto salvation/healing/shalom??
Not all persons have a direct calling to minister to Mary whose son caught a stry bullet and died; nor to speak forcefully for reform of sentencing laws.
There are Black ministers in you city, Kevin, pretty much ridiculed every day from voices that sound a whole lot like yours who do the heavy lifting on ministering the Gospel into these situations and systems. And I have yet to observe a white Evangelical minister at their sides.
They are often criticized for the same kinds of flaws as J Wrights. "It's all about their egos. They simply hate white people and want so perpetuate division......"
Their voices ring down through the decades and centuries--asking this nation to live up to its ideals and asking the White church to lay down its racism.
How long must we listen Kevin. Until we have heard and changed--as a nation--as a church.
Why must you listen. Because you have been asked to listen--for decades.
If you have a grievance with me, I assume it my responsibility to listen because you feel grieved.
Many white Evangelicals decided we did not have to listen to the substance of Dr. King's message because we were not sure he was legitimately born again, or because he seemed to stir up trouble, or because it was rumored he was a sinner.
Many have decided we do not need to listen to the substance of Dr. Wright because his theology is too liberal, he seems to stir up trouble, and his ego/style seem to suggest he is a sinner.
I have written clearly, Kevin, as have others, as to the centrality of racism to the severe crippling of God's purposes being accomplished through the church in the United States--and the undermining of the best and highest ideals of this nation. How much of a case do you need to see the need for a reconciled church demonstrating a Gospel that is able to heal wounds within the Church and minister with power to a world with blood on the streets? This is not tiddlywinks we are playing.
I am not suggesting you need to spend your life buying and listening to videos of Dr. J Wright. Dr. Wright was not pushed onto the national stage by his parishoners. Many voices, yours included, chose to hammer Obama with clips of his sermons. The most minimal case that we need to listen to Wright is that voices like yours have demanded we do so. As you say, "We chose to listen."
But when asked to listen more fully--you say I need to make a case.
P's conclusion above that he will stop trying to explain, in my experience, is where 99% of African Americans are at.
There is an "Off" swich to this whole argument. The power of the white Evangelical church to turn it off--is first of all by 'traveling the distance' out of our cultural framework to listen.
Its a good thing. I am a witness.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | May 1, 2008 9:15 AM
Three quick reactions.
1) Dr. Wright has a history and track record. The ministry will be revealed to be one to be proud of, and to have positively impacted many individuals, a large portion of the Chicago community, and I believe his impact has only begun to be felt in our nation. This is not to say that he is correct about everything he does, believes, or speaks. History is relentless, as the surface is stripped away by time, the substance of the interior is revealed. His reputation will one day become less important than his reputation.
2) The Moyers interview in contrast with the press club. Moyers with time to listen, with a desire to communicate and understand allowed Rev. Wright to appear at his best. The character revealed a man to admire, though you might not agree with in all areas. The respect shown one another allowed his passions to raise questions that divided communities could have come together to discuss. The press club speech followed by questions and answers failed at both ends. The attack mode did not serve Rev Wright well, and the questions were futher out on the attack scale. The issue was reputation, challanged by accuracy, politicall correctness, and isolated statements of fact. Even preachers read and quote sources which would be better left on the study floor, but the attack on reputation gave Rev. Wright a sharp new shovel with which he quickly dug the hole deeper.
3) The moral superiority which placed himself above the political fray and criticized Obama for "saying what he needs to be elected" did not play well. The passion to be correct and to win as a power player in ministry may often lead one to win the battle and lose the war. I'm afraid that racial background, the institutional poverty, and the prison industrial complex uneven administration of justice which imprisons the poor and fines the wealthy are issues which will be ignored, and discussions which will be shoved into the background although desperately need to be addressed, while we battle and fight over a mans reputation. I'm pained for Obama's place in this battle. Forced into a question like the proverbal, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" he is caught up without a correct response to make.
It's time for us to step back, to help people focus on character, and to question the quick reputation pictures given through mass media.
Posted by: jmndodge | May 1, 2008 9:35 AM
Kevin S, in reference to my comments about Wright's infatuation with anti-American dictators, you said:
"And yet, Obama supporters do not find this to be a problem. As a Democrat, do you see a problem here, as it respect your party's future? Doesn't it validate many of the worst stereotypes some might have of the modern liberal?
Let's face it, there is nothing Reverend Wright could say that Sojo would not defend. I can't think of anything more insane to say than that the American government created the AIDS virus. And yet, this is apparently no problem. I say "I told you so..." but you have to defend the attitude."
Unfortunately, I tend to agree that SoJo seems to be in "knee-jerk" mode when it comes to Reverend Wright.
However, I should note that am not a Democrat, although I was a life-long registered Democrat until a couple of years ago. I am supporting Hillary Clinton for President, but I am currently registered Republican. Since there is no moderate third party out there, I opted to switch parties, even though the only Republican I have voted for thus far was John McCain in the primary.
Since many of my liberal friends appear to be incapable of recognizing demagoguery when it comes from the left, I find myself more and more driven to side with my conservative friends.
Posted by: Alicia | May 1, 2008 9:44 AM
canucklehead, I personally find the comparison of Jeremiah Wright to an Old Testament prophet ridiculous, though I recognize how tempting it is to compare someone named Jeremiah to the original.
Prophets tell their friends hard truths, they don't tell them lies in order to curry favor or manipulate them. We have this liberal cliche today (at least, I hear it in my congregation all the time) about "speaking truth to power." The really hard thing is to speak truth to your friends.
In this country very few people pay a price for speaking truth to power, unlike a country such as, say, Burma. But people are very afraid to speak truth to their friends.
Posted by: Alicia | May 1, 2008 9:49 AM
Gail Collins re. Hillary Clinton in today's NYT. After claiming that at Obama's age, she would have acted similarly under similar circumstances:
"Many bodies under the bus later, when she tells you that she’d have dumped Rev. Wright at the first mention of chickens coming home to roost, you’d better believe it.
This sales pitch — I know how the cruel world works — is powerful in a political party that keeps losing elections that it thinks it deserves to win. On the other hand, young voters who have yet to have their hearts broken by a politician find it wicked depressing."
Alicia, have you ever heard of Rush Limbaugh? Ann Coulter? I find it baffling that you would side with conservatives because they don't have demagogues. Wicked depressing, in fact.
Posted by: Another nonymous | May 1, 2008 9:52 AM
Another nonymous, I think Rush Limbaugh is a hypocritical blowhard, and I feel the same, only more so, about Ann Coulter. Of course, there are conservative demagogues, and we should treat them the same way we treat left-wing demagogues.
But that wasn't the message of my post. Two wrongs don't make a right (or a Wright) and we shouldn't support left-leaning demagogues because right-wing demagogues exist.
Posted by: Alicia | May 1, 2008 9:57 AM
alicia, can i assume you watched the interview before picking back up your use of "demagogue?" i can agree that there are left wing demagogues, like most of the current personalities on air america (except ed shultz, but i don't think he is affiliated w/ a a), thus i have turned it off even though i have the same politics & share many of the same views as them. it is certainly much easier to use that label when speaking of someone with whom you disagree, especially a colorful personality with whom you disagree, but it shouldn't be a shortcut or shorthand way of describing a thoughtful speaker, which, if you listen to him, wright clearly is. wright's offense, like all those who authentically speak prophetically, is laying bare the injustices that lie on the underbelly of the patriotic national narrative to which collectively we idolatrously cling.
Posted by: nad2 | May 1, 2008 10:29 AM
Alicia -
This seems not to have made it through, so I'm going to try again. Thanks for your honest response. My own view of Wright has been that some of his statements are completely over the top, but he nevertheless represents views that are widely held among his constituents, and white voters would be well-served by trying to understand why this is the case.
Limbaugh, OTOH, tries to make the absurd claim that his constituency is also oppressed and misunderstood: a claim with no basis in reality. That is the qualitative difference between right and left-wing demagoguery.
To their credit, some of the conservative posters here have distanced themselves from these extremists, particularly Kevin S. with regard to Coulter. However, what do you think would have happened if George W. Bush had said, in 2000: "I have learned a lot from my friend Rush, but I need to distance myself from some of his more extreme statements, since they have no basis in reality"? Think he would have won a single Republican primary?
Posted by: Another nonymous | May 1, 2008 10:29 AM
One further thought. I'm getting well outside of my field of expertise, but I seem to recall that in the Roman republic (which came before the empire) the demagogues were legitimate political functionaries, whose job was to give voice to the concerns of the common people at times when these were being ignored. Obviously, demagoguery has a dark side, but I don't think we are well served by pretending that someone who serves as the voice of the poor and disenfranchised has no legitimate function, however extreme his language may be. That's the gist of what I've been saying here.
Posted by: Another nonymous | May 1, 2008 11:13 AM
"Let's face it, there is nothing Reverend Wright could say that Sojo would not defend. I can't think of anything more insane to say than that the American government created the AIDS virus. And yet, this is apparently no problem. I say "I told you so..." but you have to defend the attitude." Alicia
OK, Alicia, do you think in the last hundred years the United States government has spent piles of cash to develop biological/viral agents that destroy human life in general and/or designed to kill particular kinds of human life??? Do you think any of that work has the possibility of getting out of control? If any of it got out of control, do you think you would be told the truth?? And would you then explain why the idea of the American government being the source of the HIV virus is the most insane thing you can think of to say; particularly when there is no proven source?
This is my problem with your posts, Alicia: I'm fine with rejecting corny conspiracy theories. I'm fine with pointing out a minister has a big ego. But when it is possible to step into his framework, understand the message so that the gift and goodness of it can be realized, but you choose argue and diminish it instead; why not choose the path of increased understanding and peace?
Fundamentally, you want to assign the blame for divisiveness, racism, and injustice onto the messenger--instead of onto the sources of divisiveness, racism and injustice.
Jim Wallis was very clear weeks ago in laying out that this issue is about us -- not about Rev. Wright. Sojo's articles (which by the way are written by contributors, not by Sojo) are not a defense of Wright at all cost.
It is about our reactions. Dr. Wright has been preaching for decades. It is our reactions that surfaced in recent weeks.
If we follow the mandates of I Cor 13 and see the best, and hope for the best, and put the interests of the other in front of our own--and we can understand the message of Dr. Wright in a way that captures the hopes of all people and the elevation of the ways of Jesus--why not do so????
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | May 1, 2008 11:26 AM
Interpretation of Al N:
B.H. Obama is a racist, anti-American, venomous person.
From where, Al, does that conclusion come from??
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | May 1, 2008 11:41 AM
letjustice,
""Let's face it, there is nothing Reverend Wright could say that Sojo would not defend. I can't think of anything more insane to say than that the American government created the AIDS virus. And yet, this is apparently no problem. I say "I told you so..." but you have to defend the attitude." Alicia
This was not me, it was a quote from Kevin S., a quote I happen to think has some truth to it, however.
Friends, due to work needs, I will respond to your posts in a couple of hours.
Posted by: Alicia | May 1, 2008 11:46 AM
Alicia said:
Since many of my liberal friends appear to be incapable of recognizing demagoguery when it comes from the left, I find myself more and more driven to side with my conservative friends.
Me:
Then please go and take all these conservative folks with you. God bless.
p
Posted by: Payshun | May 1, 2008 11:49 AM
Oh and please if you all are serious about reconciliation check out this ministry and see how you can get involved.
"http://www.saltermcneil.com/#"
p
Posted by: Payshun | May 1, 2008 11:58 AM
Don: "Carl, you must know me! You must even have seen my den, which is, like you said, stacked with books to read.
I can't promise I'll take a look at Niebuhr right now, but you never know."
Don, Another nonymous and I are thinking of Niebuhr as a leisurely summer project. Contact me at bhikku_bum@yahoo.com if you get a chance.
Posted by: carl copas | May 1, 2008 2:13 PM
"You responded to a single case arguing for the merit of the acquittal of the officers."
Specifically, I responded to the most recent one of a series of anecdotes spanning decades.
"Do you recall in the Rodney King incident how we endured these long examinations and debate that got reduced down to the examination of each blow? Essentially asking, "Was this blow a legitimate blow?"
Otherwise known as a trial? Yes, I do recall that. Juries aren't asked to make emotional, high-level decisions, but to examine evidence and determine whether there is reasonable doubt that a crime was committed.
"The reality with systemic evil, is that every person involved could take the perfectly correct action, and produce an unjust outcome."
Which is why you need to make a case that "systemic evil" exists, such that it cannot be averted.
"I assume you have had your ears open a long time and know police-community relations, police brutality, crime-in-poorer-Black-communities, unjust sentencing laws,"
I do. Do you know how much it takes to get sent to prison my the Hennepin County court system? There are two sides to this particular coin.
"Do you believe the Gospel is the power unto salvation/healing/shalom??"
Yes. But that does not call me to embrace Wright's bitter, dishonest rhetoric.
"And I have yet to observe a white Evangelical minister at their sides."
There is nothing I can say here to avoid further tsk-tsking, but I would note that my brother and his church do precisely this in Minneapolis.
"It's all about their egos. They simply hate white people and want so perpetuate division......"
Who are you quoting here? I didn't say this. I don't think Wright hates white people. I do think he seeks to perpetuate division.
"How long must we listen Kevin. Until we have heard and changed--as a nation--as a church."
And I think we have changed and heard as a nation and church. It is dishonest of Wright to pretend this is not the case.
"If you have a grievance with me, I assume it my responsibility to listen because you feel grieved."
Not if my grievance is illegitimate.
"Many white Evangelicals decided we did not have to listen to the substance of Dr. King's message"
I cannot do anything about this.
"Many have decided we do not need to listen to the substance of Dr. Wright because his theology is too liberal, he seems to stir up trouble, and his ego/style seem to suggest he is a sinner."
This parallel is silly. You could say the same thing if Wright believed a comet was going to rescue us, bombed a bus, and had bodies in his trunk. The objections to Wright's words are materially different to the objections to MLK.
"I have written clearly, Kevin, as have others, as to the centrality of racism to the severe crippling of God's purposes being accomplished through the church in the United States"
And I have disagreed, clearly, that Wright has done anything to improve this situation.
"This is not tiddlywinks we are playing."
You seem to regard fomenting a congregation into anger about the government's creation of a deadly virus as mere tiddlywinks in the midst of a larger abstraction. You are ignoring reality.
"I am not suggesting you need to spend your life buying and listening to videos of Dr. J Wright."
That's good.
"Dr. Wright was not pushed onto the national stage by his parishoners."
Actually, that is precisely what happened.
"Many voices, yours included, chose to hammer Obama with clips of his sermons."
Yep, though I would note that it only seems like hammering when its your guy, unless you think the Hagee stuff constitutes hammering.
"But when asked to listen more fully--you say I need to make a case."
Correct. If you are going to ask me to listen, perhaps you could provide context that illuminates why Wright's AIDS comments are acceptable. The Tuskegee line is unpersausive on many levels.
"P's conclusion above that he will stop trying to explain, in my experience, is where 99% of African Americans are at."
Very well.
"There is an "Off" swich to this whole argument."
If we are saying that Wright speaks for the black church (and I do not agree that this is true), then it is he who controls the off switch. I guarantee you that Rev. Wright will make not one iota of contribution to any sort of race dialogue.
"The power of the white Evangelical church to turn it off--is first of all by 'traveling the distance' out of our cultural framework to listen."
Is there any possibility in your mind that one might travel the distance and still conclude that Wright's comments are bonkers? Barack Obama existed within that cultural framework and understands the need to reject Wright's commentary, even if he does not himself do so.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 1, 2008 2:49 PM
Rev. Wright is a demagogue who is getting the limelight and loves basking in it. He has publicly and vocificerously called on God to damn the United States and has asserted, among other things, that the United States Government developed AIDS to kill people of color. I hope people are not taken in by this latest hymn of hate.
Posted by: jsens3 | May 1, 2008 2:58 PM
I saw the Q/A with Rev. Wright at the National Press Conference on Monday and he was very different from the person I myself knew of years ago. Back then he gave great sermon’s like the Audacity of Hope sermon in 1990 that inspired Obama (www.youtube.com/watch?v=L65nTKHq0v4). But what I saw on Monday was a display of narcissistic ego. Maybe the mainstream media messed up his head over the past few weeks. Separate from politics – Rev. Wright could have used the opportunity to communicate effectively about Black Theology and social concerns, but that message was lost by the unacceptable way he communicated. We should not give blank checks to anyone and hold accountable leaders who start out doing good things and then go off (Robert Mugabe also comes to mind).
Posted by: Ron | May 1, 2008 3:13 PM
I appreciate, an am alwasy amused by, the tactic of trying to change the subject during an argument. But, the discussion on the political street right now is Rev. Jeremiah Wright; it is not about Falwell, Robertson, or Father Caughlin of the pre-WWII era. Obama is a politician running for president. In examining his background the public has learned about one of his mentors, Rev. Wright and one of his acquaintances, Bomber Ayers, a relic of the late 60's and early 70's. The public has a right, if not a duty, to carefully examine these acquaintances as they may reflect on Obama's fitness to hold the top elected office in the land. Such an examination will not be gentle, polite, or quiet - at least I hope it won't. And, the more Rev. Wright speaks, the more we have a chance to examine him. Hillary, if you hear me, hang in there! Rev. Wright may be taking the wheels off the Obama campaign.
Posted by: Jsens3 | May 1, 2008 3:16 PM
Did any of you read the link to the LA Black Pastors' Reaction to Wright? How do you react to that? It said Wright's views are not indicitive of the Black Church as a whole.
I do think he forced Obama's hand. I don't think less of Obama from walking away, nor do I think it was a political move.
It is one thing to say the US created the AIDS virus (and I can't believe this is that hard to prove -- where were the first cases reported, etc.)privately and another thing to say it from the pulpit. The pulpit should be reserved for proven truths and not speculation. I do know that we sold a bunch of HIV tainted blood to Japan back in the 80s -- but no one here seems very concerned about that.
Posted by: frankie | May 1, 2008 4:08 PM
I've been away and just saw this thread now for the first time. 200+ responses is a little much to wade through so I'm not sure if this point was brought up yet, but read all the op-eds in NY Times and Washington Post this week about Wright. Nearly every commentator has written about him abnd none of it is positive. The harshest words came from two syndicated columnists who are African-American: Bob Herbert of the Times and Eugene Robinson from the Post.
I was quite impressed with him in the Moyers interview; in fact, I began to take quite an interest in hearing more of what he had to say. However, it sounds like it went downhill steadily from there over the next few days.
Many writers who initially saw the YouTube controversy as a teachable moment are now just saying he's a jerk and that's that. DBB is the only writer I have read who is still defending Wright. So I think it is now okay to condemn his egotism and blustery language while maintaining our commitment to social justice and ending racism. We as liberals can call BS for what it is and still be cool.
Posted by: I and I | May 1, 2008 4:59 PM
I don't mean to be nonresponsive to anybody who replied to my e-mail but I haven't had time to post here since this morning.
Be back tomorrow if this discussion is still going on....
'night.
Posted by: Alicia | May 1, 2008 5:55 PM
Personally, I am much more interested in the truth concerning the imperialist, immoral, illegal, and devastating war and occupation of Iraq than I am about the origin of HIV. And when it comes to hard to believe theories, where is the outrage against those who claim that the Grand Canyon was formed from the great flood(Noah's Arc) a few thousand years ago?
Posted by: D Julien | May 1, 2008 6:13 PM
It's really important to look at the big picture, rather than the small detail concerning the origin of HIV/AIDS. The reality is that, over the years, there have been many pharmaceutical experiments on unsuspecting victims and the vast majority of the people being experimented upon were black.
We know about the experiments on black men at Tuskegee. If you have seen the film THE CONSTANT GARDENER, you will know that it is based on the true story of Pfizer, the American pharmaceutical giant, doing research on vaccines on Nigerian children, without gaining prior approval from their parents; many children died or were seriously injured.
Or you may have seen an obituary for Dr. Albert Hofmann, the Swiss chemist who invented LSD, who died Tuesday at the age of 102. One obituary includes this: “Sandoz produced quantities of the drug for scientific use, testing it for possible use on people with schizophrenia or alcoholism. Hofmann himself took the drug on hundreds of occasions, but his early ambitions failed to produce results and the tests were stopped in 1965.
That didn't prevent others jumping on the bandwagon. The US and British governments began secret trials in the 1950s and 60s, often on unsuspecting guinea pigs.”
The point I'm making here is this: black people have been the unsuspecting guinea pigs for enough medical experiments that IT COULD BE TRUE that they were subjected to experiments connected to HIV/AIDS. Whether or not they actually were is less important than the fact that it happened so many times that it COULD be true.
That they were unsuspecting guinea pigs so many times, in secret trials, is the real crime! In that the Rev. Wright is correct.
Posted by: bren | May 1, 2008 8:37 PM
Good morning, nad2. You said:
"(Demagogue) shouldn't be a shortcut or shorthand way of describing a thoughtful speaker, which, if you listen to him, wright clearly is. wright's offense, like all those who authentically speak prophetically, is laying bare the injustices that lie on the underbelly of the patriotic national narrative to which collectively we idolatrously cling."
I wasn't able to answer you yesterday, but I have since watched the first half of the Moyers interview with Wright on-line. Wright certainly comes across in the interview as thoughtful and soft-spoken.
The background piece on his church was interesting, and the things he had to say about trying to create a church that was not divorced from reality and that served the needs of the black community were interesting.
Unfortunately, for me, this makes the moment shown in the famous sermon when Wright gets carried away all the more hard to explain. He's right that governments fail, but when he gets into the litany of failures he makes a quantum leap that loses me, as I think it loses many of us.
And the moment at the National Press Club seems like a man who is determined to rub people's noses in his extremist beliefs. He seems like a man who has lost his way, who started with a positive message (self-determination) but who has allowed that message to morph into a destructive separatism.
In my theology, all human institutions (as well as all human persons) are flawed. Excessive distrust of human institutions is just as bad as excessive trust. I don't particularly trust the U.S. government, but I don't particularly distrust it either.
Blaming the institution can be just another way of evading personal responsibility. I get your point about "idolatry" but I think that excessive distrust of government and of that "patriotic national narrative" is its own form of idolatry. Perhaps the alternative narrative is the equally idolatrous narrative that puts oppressed people ("the nobel working classes," for instance on a pedastal where they decidedly do not belong).
Thanks for listening, nad2.
Posted by: Alicia | May 2, 2008 9:55 AM
Pardon me, I meant to say:
Perhaps the alternative narrative is the equally idolatrous narrative that puts oppressed people ("the noble working classes," for instance on a pedastal where they decidedly do not belong).
Posted by: Alicia | May 2, 2008 9:58 AM
Another nonymous and letjustice, I will try to respond to your posts later today.
Posted by: Alicia | May 2, 2008 10:04 AM
alicia, glad you watched the first half, i hope you get to watch the second half. as i'm sure you would agree, i don't think things like government & personal responsibility, or reconciliation and condemnation of injustice are mutually exclusive, and certainly neither does wright think this. of course, his life's worth of sermons and inner city ministry about personal responsibility are not repeatedly circulating in the news coverage because, well, it won't sell papers and ads like a controversy will.
i fail to see how dispelling the myths of america is in some way idolatrous, maybe you can compare it in kind with excessive trust of america (i disagree but can see how you would), but i don't think you can call it idolatry (as neither is worship or allegiance to something other than God). as for your "equally idolatrous narrative" of placing noble working people on a pedestal, i think that is skewing the point being made about oppression and injustice, and i don't think it is idolatrous, but indeed it is biblically spot on to say as wright does that we worship a god who decidedly entered history on the side of the poor and oppressed. that may not be the god many people are worshiping, especially not in the US, but that is undeniably the god of the people of israel in our sacred texts, and in those texts he constantly calls on prophets to point out to the rulers his unhappiness with their treatment of the poor and oppressed (and more specifically the fact that oppression exists).
we agree that human things are flawed, including our government, our churches, our concepts of god, our pastors, and our own characters. with that in mind, i think wright did the best he could with the situation at the press club, having been raked over the coals by such an ignorant group of amateur and sensationalistic journalists, then hit with such terrible questions by the moderator about his patriotism and his words that had been taken out of context (the moderator admitted she was asking questions about his sermons she had not seen). i would have blown up long before if i was questioned so unfairly, and i would hope we could all agree he has been held to a standard no other prominent pastor has been held to, though i do see why others criticize the tone of his responses. i see his response of "this is an attack on the black church" as either understood on the one hand as a gross overreaching, but on the other, as spot on because it has been the black churches that have had the mantle and the courage to call this country to its conscience throughout its history, which is what i think wright is sincerely trying to do (and as such, how he meant that comment). if he is extreme, then so is the bible from which he preaches and has such a learned and contextual grasp of.
"blaming the institution can be just another way of evading personal responsibility." of course this is true, it can be another way of avoiding personal responsibility, but that isn't always going on when someone blames the institution! i was once a pretty conservative guy, heavyhanded even with my mantras of personal responsibility & "quit blaming the institution" until it dawned on me one day that the institutions and systems into which we are born have a HUGE impact on personal choices and responsibility. a quick example - it is a fact that a disproportionate number of black men are in prison. now, is their a an unjust system (or the remnants of unjust and oppressive systems, or mostly likely both) at work in that statistic, or is it something inherent in black men that makes them more prone to being criminals? hopefully i know how you would answer that question. if there is systemic injustice, we are called to speak out against it just as much as we are called to speak up for taking personal control and responsibility for our lives (however fleeting a concept control becomes the more we live & learn!), but the systemic ones are harder to identify & we often implicate ourselves when we find them.
i must go, but i must say i have appreciated the dialog & i appreciate your perspective. have a wonderful weekend, i will check back when i can.
Posted by: nad2 | May 2, 2008 3:36 PM
Thanks, nad2. I also appreciate getting your perspective. Have a nice weekend!
Posted by: Alicia | May 2, 2008 6:24 PM
Alicia--sometimes I think it helpful to reflect on the profound contradictions African Americans have lived with.
Digression: We all live with contradictions. A nation we love often dissappoints us. The more we love a friend the deeper wounds can be. Those with power over us, who we trust, can suddenly impose injustices, while we still must serve and smile.
Indiginous Peoples and African Americans have been in relationship with the European immigrants from Day 1 of the formation of this new nation, The United States. They are part of the foundation.
And in that foundation was birthed a nation of great hope and profound brokenness and injustice.
The European immigrants lived a very hard life--in the pursuit of varied hopes and dreams. African Americans also lived that hard life without the self-chosen hope and dreams; compounded by a burden and injustice beyond comprehension.
Imagine the love and hatred of a slave who nurtures, and holds to her breast, the babies of her owner, through sickness and health; who is also raped by her owner and own child sold into slavery. How does one love, forgive, smile, hold onto some dignity, hope, fight to live, keep one's mind sane, etc. etc.
And ironically, there were slave owners who could not figure out why their beloved slaves left them after the Civil War was over.
When peace is not made. When healing is not administered. When the Gospel of Jesus, breaking down the walls of hatred, sin, and division--is traded for a weak, segregationist, racist, gospel; the door is opened for centuries of accumulating, entrenched, systematic contradiction and injustice.
In is not a contradiction that a presidential candidate that grew up outside the US, has mixed racial heritage, mixed religious heritage (i.e. something of a transracial, transethnic, transnational individual) arises with a message of "hope" and transcendence out of Dr. Wright's church--as opposed to coming out of Willow Creek, Lakewood, or John Hagee's church.
If we don't grasp the depth and breadth of the love and pain present in the experience of Africans in America for the past 400 years we will miss the blessing of Black theology and preaching.
It is not at all a stretch to imagine this whole episode not happening; and at some point the media becomes curious of this candidate with a new kind of profile; and discovers Trinity UCC church; and creates all kinds of positive profiles about the church, its pastor, and its place in Obama's life. The stories would have 'papered over' flaws of J Wright. But they would actually have been more honest than most of what we have gotten.
The dominant culture cannot conceive of the image of Dr Wright and the image of Obama being the same--of the capacity to embrace the depth and breadth of this nation's contradictions. It demands these two figures be distinct from each other. Either Obama is Wright--or he is the uniting image. It could not tolerate an Obama as a transcendent uniter who's parameters could encompass Jeremiah Wright.
If he is a uniter he must do so on the basis of the dominant culture--a dominant culture that to this point has not been able to come to term with the breadth and depth of its contradictions.
It just pains me to watch the rejection of a good gift.
I do not have an ounce of a romanticized notion of the 'righteous oppressed'. But God is able to take the depths of brokenness and redeem beautifully.
White Evangelicals who have the basic attitude that African Americans just need to let it rest and get about the business of ________________ really need to think about what the blank is.
Because the business of the dominant culture is not the business of Jesus. To reject the prophetic critique of the Black Church, to fail to place utmost importance the reconciliation of the racial division, to assert that any healing that is needed is the responsibility of individual Black persons to simply forget about it,---is all to turn our backs on the open doors the Lord has called us to.
Alicia, you have the love, passion, and heart to see, listen and learn. Some people want to argue and be right. I believe you genuinely wish to engage, learn, be changed, contribute to others. I have no problem with feeling disgust or anger at Dr. Wright. But I just encourage you with all my heart to push beyond what disgusts you.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | May 2, 2008 6:55 PM
Diana, you have done it again--CONGRATULATIONS!!! Your willingness to "put it out there" has been the "fuel" for quite a bit of much-needed communication, intrapersonal and interpersonal. I thank you for your intrepid ministry.
Posted by: Madeleine Breen | May 4, 2008 5:56 AM
Ugh. I can't believe this is still going on. It has long passed the threshhold of being ridiculous. Are we using this to judge Obama's sense of racial division? Remember that he's been calling on us to heal our wounds, rebuild our bridges, work together and be better for it. Are we listening to the call?
Posted by: Paul | May 4, 2008 10:57 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?