Jeremiah Wright, the recently retired minister of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, strikes me as the best kind of prophetic preacher, someone who speaks without sugar-coating his moral and religious message for the comfort of his listeners. Jeremiah Wright now has the misfortune of being Barack Obama’s former minister, and Wright is being trashed because he preached a prophetic message, a few seconds of which have been replayed as sound bites on national media in recent days.
But preachers have to answer to religious standards, not political standards. We are not bound to preach patriotism for the United States, we are bound to preach the permanent truths that we find in our religious traditions. It may not be politically acceptable to do so, but we preachers at times may be called to point out that our country cannot legitimately take the moral high ground until we face our own moral failings with candor. And we prophetic preachers may find ourselves called to proclaim, for example, that ongoing racism demonstrates that some white Americans do not treat their neighbors as they themselves would like to be treated. No one likes to hear that they have moral failings; this is one reason why some of the things we preachers say are not appreciated.
Politicians, on the other hand, have a very different task from preachers. Politicians do not speak prophetically; they speak in order to build political consensus. As a preacher, I am not surprised when I hear Barack Obama trashing Jeremiah Wright’s sermons. Wright preaches a religious truth: Our country has done moral wrongs, and those of us who are religious persons need to engage in repentance and forgiveness for those wrongs. Obama’s political truth is different; he needs to distance himself from Wright and build a political consensus.
It should be obvious by now that I’d rather hear Jeremiah Wright preach than Barack Obama speak. As a preacher, I might want to take Obama to task for sugar-coating our country’s moral failings. But then, I guess I should accept that he’s only a politician and thus is in the business of sugar-coating moral truths (from my point of view, anyway).
One last point: I wonder why we have not heard about Hillary Clinton’s minister, and John McCain’s minister. If I had a presidential candidate in my congregation, I trust they would be embarrassed by some of the moral stands I have taken; if they weren’t embarrassed, I would take that to mean that I had been sugar-coating moral truths.
Maybe Clinton and McCain go to really boring churches.
Keep in mind, however, that just because it’s a preacher speaking, and just because he throws out accusations/damnations at his people and country, … doesn’t automatically make him or what he says right.
Besides, I believe that, shortly after 9-11, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said similar things about America, in particular about bringing 9-11 upon itself. … Want to really try to convince us that what they spewed—err said was ‘prophetic’, and answered to ‘religious (read moral) standards’?
Yah! Right!! … Spare me! :-\
Garth P.
h sofia @ 1 — “Boring” is one word for it.
Garth Patterson @ 2 — Umm, before we get into this, let’s see if we have some common intellectual ground, so we’re not just arguing in circles. What have you read in the area of liberation theology? With luck, you will have read James Cone’s 1970 book A Black Theology of Liberation. Cone’s book is a good starting place since Wright was a protege of Cone. And it’s pretty clear that Wright’s theology is basically a popularized version of Cone; and of course Cone is by no means the most radical of the black theologians.
If we can start with that basic common ground, then I’d have to say that bringing in Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell doesn’t make intellectual sense. Robertson and Falwell hold fundamentalist theologies that have very little in common with any kind of liberation theology, nor would anyone committed to liberation theology advocate for fundamentalist theology. So that analogy doesn’t work very well.
And if we can start with that common intellectual ground, then you would have to agree that it’s inaccurate to say that Jeremiah Wright “throws out accusations/ damnations at his people and country”. What Wright has done is, in fact, based on Biblical precedent — he is simply imitating Isaiah, Jesus, and other Biblical prophets who hold their people and their nation to high moral standards. Obviously, Wright’s not automatically right just because he’s a preacher — but from a Biblical point of view, nothing that Wright has done is particularly surprising, nor particularly radical.
I might add that this is a particularly relevant discussion to have on Good Friday. Jesus of Nazareth was executed by the Roman authorities for daring to do things like chase the moneylenders out of the Temple, and daring to say that the established authorities (Romans, Pharisees, etc.) did not live up to the moral standards of the Bible. I don’t mean to imply that Wright is as good a preacher as Jesus was, but with a basic grounding in Christian theology it should be obvious that Wright is engaging in the classic move of trying to imitate Jesus. Once again, there is nothing here that is particularly new, original, or surprising in what Wright did.
I know this is a post-Christian society, and people cannot be expected to have a basic knowledge of Christian theology. But Garth, you really shouldn’t try to do Christian theology if you obviously don’t know anything about Christian theology — instead, just make your argument on the basis of politics, and say something like, “What Wright says is politically unacceptable” — then we can have a nice quiet discussion about Constitutionally-protected free speech.
Actually Dan, my analogy works very well, as my objection was based on people using religion (liberation or fundamentalist) and religious scriptures to lay (IMNSHO) inappropriate guilt trips/predictions/’prophecies’ against people (and that as a whole), particularly when said people aren’t guilty to receive said guilt trips/predictions/’prophecies’.
No, Dan, the American people as a whole aren’t guilty of all that. Certain individuals are however. Our government has indeed done many things that Wright has talked about over the years. But since Wright has applied his ‘prophecies’ against America as a whole, … a-nope, no sale.
Since you seem to be a rather progressive individual, how about if you take what Wright said about America being to blame for 9-11 or for how America had 9-11 coming to them, and lay it before all the relatives of all those killed in the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Feel free to explain how Wright’s statements was morally justified because its seen as ‘liberation theology’.
And then repeatedly try to convince them (while you’re trying to evade their VERY REAL anger) that such is progressive religion in any sense of the term.
As far as I’m concerned, the usage of religion, conservative OR liberation, to guilt-trip/brow-beat people in such a manner (unless they, as individuals, deserve it) is both controlling and abusive.
Oh by the way, I am very familiar with Christian theology, thank you very much. You’re talking to a former Christian (fundamentalist to be exact), a ‘veteran’ of said religion after many, many years of participation. … And preachings of ministers like Wright, was one BIG reason why I finally ditched said belief. So I do believe that I’m quite a bit more familiar with the territory than you think I am.
Have a nice day ((bows)),
Garth Patterson
Garth Patterson @ 4 — I have clearly angered you, and for that I apologize. But I’m the kind of guy that, back when I was still majoring in physics, got frustrated by idiot humanities majors who pontificated about Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, yet they didn’t even know the basic equations. They would say, Oh Heisenberg says we can’t know anything with certainty, and I’d reply (gritting my teeth) delta X times delta P greater than or equal to Planck’s constant over 2.
Again, I’m sorry I’m being impatient, but I’m equally impatient with someone like Richard Dawkins who claims to be able to pontificate about the existence of God, but starts with a caricatured and inadequate definition of the term “God,” which then invalidates his entire argument. This is a waste of everyone’s time. To understand the general landscape of contemporary theology, to claim to be theologically literate, to be able to critique Jeremiah Wright with any degree of intellectual legitimacy, you simply have to have have done some reading in liberation theology — any good undergraduate course in theology would include at least some liberation theology, and really any literate person in our society should have at least some familiarity with the subject.
You write: “I am very familiar with Christian theology” But Christian theology is a very big field, and your stated area of expertise — American Protestant fundamentalist theology — has very little overlap with any form of liberation theology, and thus is essentially useless in this argument (as, for example, intimate knowledge of taxonomy would be fairly useless in discussions of biochemistry, though both are biology). (I would also argue that American Protestant fundamentalist theology is such an intellectual dead end that it’s almost better not to know anything about it — it basically ignores all the major advances in historical criticism, archaeology, textual scholarship, etc., over the past couple of centuries — so instead of taxonomy in the previous analogy, we could say that an intimate knowledge of Agassiz’s theories would be entirely useless in discussions of biochemistry.) Anyway. It shouldn’t take more than a couple of hours to read through Cone’s A Black Theology of Liberation and Gutierrez’s On Job. If you can bring yourself to do so, Wright will make sense — you will probably still hate him, but at least you’ll understand his intellectual context.
Which is my basic point. I’m not trying to convert anyone to any particular theological position. But I do want people to argue on the basis of knowledge, not on the basis of mistaken assumptions.
My $.02 worth. Your mileage may vary. By reading this End Users License Agreement, you agree that no warranty is implied.
First off, it isn’t you that I’m angry at. It is specifically what Mr. Wright has said re: America bringing 9-11 upon itself. And for that I apologize not, nor do I repent of it.
A very informative response you gave, … but one that entirely misses the single, central point of my initial post. And apparantly, … no clearly, you do not understand where I’m coming from any more than my (supposed) lack of understanding re: liberation theology.
And one BIG mistake you make is the mistaken assumption that I have to ‘understand’ (ie., ‘blindly accept’? ;) ) liberation theology in order to oppose Wright’s (and other’s) contention that America was responsible for 9-11. You mean to tell me that I have to plow through at least a few hours of liberation theology in order to argue, from knowledge, an opposing viewpoint to said contention? Or is the opposition itself enough to come back with the all-too-convenient (and knee-jerk) argument of “Well, you just don’t understand”?
Oh, I understand, all right. I just do not agree with it. And that is the basis of knowledge I am arguing from.
Oh by the way, to clearly illustrate that you haven’t bothered to even consider what I wrote, you said this about me: “… you will probably still hate him”. ?? So, let me get this straight. If I openly disagree with his rendering, and even show _anger_ while doing so, … I ‘hate’ him? Well, then using your own analogy, Wright is also filled with hate, because look at the _anger_ he showed in his denunciations. … Right?
Re, your complaint about Richard Dawkins thusly, “I’m equally impatient with someone like Richard Dawkins who claims to be able to pontificate about the existence of God, but starts with a caricatured and inadequate definition of the term ‘God,’ which then invalidates his entire argument.”. Really? What kind of caricature does individuals like Wright provide about God, particularly in their _unproven_ and _unsubstantiated_ claims that America brought 9-11 upon themselves, hmmm? Talk about your caricatures! :-\
Or what kind of example of mockery and scorn do said ministers bring upon themselves when they make claims that stab at the heart of the survivors and families of those who died in the attacks, hmmmm?
Where in said liberation theology is the compassion for them? And where in said liberation theology that speaks such crap is there *actual* liberation as a result?
Face it. There are plenty of people, both white and black, who won’t accept Wright’s application of liberation theology in regards to 9-11 or for numerous other situations either. And I seriously don’t think that it’s because of any kind of ‘hate’.
P.S., this might come as a shock to you, but I’m a Unitarian Universalist (of the freethinking atheist variety), and the great thing about the UU way, is that it allows for the expression of my point of view, just as much as yours.
Ain’t life grande?
Garth Patterson
I think Wright has a somewhat misguided, but also somewhat valid argument about 911. It’s a matter of historical fact that the US had troops stationed in the area of Mecca and that this choice angered many Muslims including bin Laden, who on more than one occasion demanded their removal. It’s unpopular to note that bin Laden was granted that request by the Bush regime not long after 911.
There is a whole host of other US shenanigans in the Mideast, spanning from the US/UK overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected leader, Mohammed Mossadeq, in 53, and propping up the Shah in his place. We’ve participated in decades of turning a blind eye to Zionist aggression; we armed both sides in the Iran/Iraq war in the 80’s; trained and armed “freedom fighters” in Afghanistan who would later morph into al Qaeda and similar. And look where we stand now having invaded and occupied Iraq on false pretenses: no exit strategy and no articulated vision of “victory”. And then there’s the mess we’ve made of Afghanistan with, again, no end in sight. So i’m a bit confused – should they be sending us chocolates rather than suicide hijackers?
I prefer honest,even *offensive* inquiry over blind patriotism any day.
Trinity UCC is my favorite church and I would carry water for Rev. Jeremiah Wright. (I’ve written about it on my blog)
Just to be clear, Rev. Wright’s arguments about 9-11 are different from his black liberationist views(although they intertwine). And while I think he’s right on both fronts, I’m trying to understand the double standard here. It’s ok for John Hagee to call the Catholic church a “whore” and nobody is telling John McCain to denounce him; yet Jerry Wright makes a critique of American foreign policy (and American hypocrisy in regards to race) in a sermon and Barack Obama has to spend days talking about his relationship to him and give a speech about race in America.
The prophetic tradition is one of calling out those in power and those who are complicit in the abuse of power. Rev. Wright has done nothing that hasn’t been done in many religious gatherings through the millenia. The only difference is now there is YouTube.
One more thing I think should be pointed out……
Jeremiah Wright did spend time in the military. The Marines if I remember correctly. So calling him unpatriotic is simply preposterious.
First off, nowhere did I, or do I believe that Wright was/is ‘unpatriotic’, and I’m somewhat apprehensive of people who do apply the ‘unpatriotic’ label, especially in such a bandying about manner, — be it on him or a lot of other people. I find the terms ‘patriotic’/’unpatriotic’ to be far more filled with hyperbole than with any valid content.
Dwight,
All of what you say about our foreign policies vis-a-vis the Middle East may be true … and irrelevent as to the relevency and justification of the 9/11 attacks. There were/are plenty of mainstream/civilized Arabs and Muslims who have total distaste and loathing towards U.S. policies, yet none of them decided to come over here, and fly a plane into a skyscraper. Osama and his gang did that on their own. We did not make him. So the “But U.S. imperialist policies made me do it!” cop out doesn’t take.
“I prefer honest,even *offensive* inquiry over blind patriotism any day.”
Then you don’t mind posts like mine, … right? ;-)
Kim,
What he said is a slap in the face of those who survived 9-11 or are the families of those who died there.
He’s a grown man, and he ought to realize that if he says things like he did, and he signs off on them, then he should take responsibility and reap the honest voices of anger and challenge — ‘prophet’ or no.
P.S., and no, it wasn’t right for Hagee to spew either.
Garth P.
Garth Patterson — Your recent comment has been edited to remove ad hominem attacks and rudeness, as per my policies for this blog. Open debate is fine, but you’re heading into nastiness. If you persist in ad hominem attacks and/or rudeness, your next post may be disemvowelled or (for egregious misbehavior) you could be banned from commenting.
Dan,
My apologies for crossing the line into ad hominum verbiage. But I trust that you can see why someone might feel as much as I do about the points I bring up, — particularly if they are survivors of 9-11, relatives of those who died, or even know someone who has lost a family member in the attacks. (I consider myself in the last category, as a good friend of mine lost his nephew in the World Trade Center, and it hit him hard.)
So when I hear of people (be it Mr. Jeremiah, or anyone else) seemingly dismiss those affected by 9-11 by portraying that America has brought 9-11 upon itself, and then the same people are portrayed as a ‘moral prophet’, … well, responses like mine (or those that are even more intense) that you seem necessary to cut out are going to be quite understandable.
Freedom of speech is a necessary ingredient to our society, … as is being responsible for the same.
Peace?
Garth P.
Are you refuting the plain facts that for years prior to 9/11/01 Usama bin Laden had been blasting the US for its continued military presence in Saudi Arabia, and that the US removed its troops from that area in early 2002? These facts are indeed “relevant’ to any discussion of 9/11.
And if you are genuinely concerned about 911 victim’s families being “dismissed” you may wish to investigate the 911 Victims Compensation Fund which dangled nearly 8 billion dollars in front of the families in exchange for an agreement that they would not sue airlines or the government. You may wish also to investigate the history of the 911 Commission, which may have never been formed were it not for family members (“The Jersey Girls”, etc)insisting upon it, and in the end, being handed a pile of omissions, such as NO MENTION of WTC # 7, which collapsed completely, neatly into its footprint, at 5:20 that afternoon, distortions (the co-charis recently admitted they had been deliberately misled by the Pentagon) and lingering questions, including a complete account of who financed the attacks. THESE are the thing many of the families are concerned about, not the rhetoric of Barack Obama’s minister.
dwight @ 13 — Ummm… When addressing a comment to “you” in a comment thread, it’s best to preface one’s comment with the name of the person one is addressing the comment to, and, if possible, the number of the comment one is specifically addressing. I say this primarily because this has been a contentious comment thread, and it’s best to be absolutely clear about these things….
You’re right, DANIEL :-)
i was responding to Garth P @ 12 &10