Okay, just for the record, I have a problem with the glee Jeremiah Wright seems to be taking in responding to his critics during his current comeback tour. While entertaining and full of truthful nuggets, the reckless and arrogant tone of Wright’s recent speeches (particularly his appearance at the National Press Club yesterday) only serve to widen a racial divide that has already been shown to be a lot wider than many folks thought. After an insightful and revealing interview with Bill Moyers on Friday night, Wright now seems hellbent on wiping the floor with the media and the political hit men who unfairly used snippets of his old sermons against him—and he doesn’t seem to have any qualms about taking Barack Obama’s presidential hopes down as collateral damage.
While I understand his righteous indignation, the Reverend needs to consider adopting a posture of humility and forgiveness that befits his holy calling. After all (as he’s remarked), he’s a pastor, not a politician. At his current pace, he doesn’t seem too interested in fostering the kind of reconciliation he so eloquently spoke about yesterday.
B”H
Hey Ed,
It’s interesting to hear you say these things. I heard the very same message from Roland Martin last night on CNN. He felt that there was a major shift in the tenor of Rev. Wright’s interview on Friday and the address he gave on Monday. I haven’t heard either of these in their entirety, although I have heard some extended clips of the Monday address as played on CNN.
I was extremely impressed and very proud of Rev. Wright after hearing him speak to the NAACP on Sunday evening. I surely agree with him that the media and most of white America for that matter has misunderstood his message and so a ‘word of clarification’ was in order. I think that his presentation was A quality.
For those who are more pragmaticly minded I understand the concern that by Rev. Wright reentering the public forum he may be hurting Barack Obama’s political campaign, but from the perspective of finding healing through the current conversation of race relations I’m glad to hear from Rev. Wright. Although I think that he took a few cheap shots here and there at Bill O’Reilly and Dick Cheney, for the most part I applaud him and reagrd his imput as invaluable.
I recently have attempted to restart my site and have invited people to come there ( http://www.xanga.com/ps29v11 ) and join this conversation. We need to come together on this issue and yet it will of necessity be painful as the truth of the past is ugly and painful. I pray that we will rise to the occasion and not allow ourselves to be distracted or sidetracked by the issues of the presidential campaign.
Blessings,
Shlomo
Ed,
I have to wonder if most of those (read “us”) who are holding our collective breaths on behalf of Obama’s candidacy and how this might be impacted by Wright, would feel differently about Wright’s words and demeanor if it didn’t have immediate political implications (doesn’t he always have that swagger in the pulpit?).
If Obama were out. . . would Wright be that offensive? I think he would (a) not be paid much attention to and (b) would be supported by a lot more people including Obama that are rapidly trying to distance themselves. Without Obama’s candidacy around what threat is there (to us) in Wrights words?
I didn’t see much of the NPC speech but my wife and I loved the NAACP address. I don’t think Wright “owes” it to Obama to change his tone, nor does he owe it to his home congregation who have been attacked unfairly and relentlessly. Does he owe it to the body of Christ? Probably. To the nation? As a Christian, possibly. As a Citizen, no.
Wright exhibited significant restraint in not responding immediately to the YouTube craze and subsequent attacks. So he may be over the top but does that judgement on our part speak to our desire for reconciliation or for Obama’s success?
Shlomo & Joel,
Thanks for your feedback. I do still feel that Rev. Wright’s perspective is important, and I don’t begrudge him the right to speak out. However, while part of me is excited to see a preacher and thinker like Wright speaking truth (along with some questionable stuff) on such a national stage, as a person interested in building bridges, I’m concerned about the arrogance of Wright’s tone at the National Press Club event.
Personally, I’m not that worried about how Wright’s behavior is affecting Obama’s campaign; these are grown men who can handle their own business. Plus, I think those who will use Wright as a reason not to vote for Obama were not likely to truly support him anyway.
Frankly, I think it’s wonderful that Obama’s candidacy has given us an opportunity to address some of the heretofore “invisible” issues of our nation in a public forum. Whether Obama wins or loses, his presidential bid has revealed both inspiring and ugly stuff about the condition of our nation’s heart when it comes to matters of race, class, and religion.
B”H
Hey Ed,
Thanks for those additional words. I fully agree with you at this point. As I said previously, I think that some of Rev. Wright’s comments may have been a bit jaundiced, but for the most part I’m glad that he said what he did.
Joel, thank you for your input a thousand times over! I wish that Rev. Wright’s Sunday speech before the NAACP would be revisited and examined again and again, especially within the interracial circles of those who are trying to build bridges and establish partnerships across racial and cultural lines.
Blessings,
Shlomo
I’m afraid humility does not appear to be the Reverend’s stock in trade.
Should Amos have been “humble,” or Exekiel, John the Baptist or Jesus, for that matter? In an interreligious dialogue with Jewish seminary students in the ’90s a Jewish rabbinical student gave me his honest take on Jesus. He said that he admired Jesus but if Jesus would have kept his mouth shut he would have been a success and not been killed.
Of course, the mystery of the cross and God’s purposes weren’t evident from a “worldly” political or social perspective. It’s jaw dropping that those who claim Christ cannot or are not able to even to be open to the possibility that the same God, YHWH, they say they worship still raises up prophets to do his bidding. It’s okay if the putative prophet speaks against our enemies; but when the prophet speaks against the “chosen people” he/she is met with charges of being unpatriotic (Jeremiah, Jesus), a trouble maker (Amos & Jesus), arrogant or crazy (John the Baptist & Jesus) and a threat to the religio-political status quo (Jesus & Paul). Why is this? The prophet speaks for YHWH, not for partisan political purposes, thereby exposing the idolatries rampant in the societies. (For instance, Jeremiah supported the pro-Babylonian party against the pro-nationalist forces because it was in line with the word of YHWH revealed to him.
One interesting claim Rev. Wright makes is that, ultimately, he’s saying what he’s saying because he’s constrained by God to so in prophetic fashion, whatever the consequences. I take this seriously because the Bible and history tells us to. Just as the Jewish leadership thought themselves to be judging Jesus, viewing themselves as God’s representatives,in fact, the true god, YHWH, was judging them through their actions towards his prophets. If humility is called for, it should be the American people, the so-called Bible-believing ones at the forefront calling for this. But, alas, as Jesus said regarding his contemporaries, “These people honor me with their lips…
B”H
Hey Ed,
Thanks again for posting on this topic. I have been doing a lot of reading over at the CNN blog today. There are quite a large number of people who truly don’t think that Rev. Wright’s speech was a good thing. I fully agree with Scott here that the so-called Bible-believing ones should be at the forefront of this issue of racial reconciliation and healing. I pray that we will soon start to follow your lead here Ed, “So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view.”
Shlomo
Come to my site and join the conversation there too.
http://www.xanga.com/ps29v11
Ed~
I just finished reading the full transcript of the NPC speech yesterday. I have to say that I was not only not offended but thought that most of what was said was stock and trade of the black church. The glaring exception was using Jesus phrase about “I have other sheep” as allowing for Islam as a path of redemption.
I think at this moment Wright is the honest one (even if honesty means exploiting his 15 mins of national fame) whereas Obama is clearly posturing politically — something he MUST do to remain electable.
Perhaps his tone undercut his calling for reconciliation but if you take him at his word he not only gave whites “shout-outs” for their role in his denominations legacy but for the underground railroad and abolition movement. I wish most whites would give blacks as much benefit-of-the-doubt as he did with the white Christian community in his text. Wright is no pre-1964 Malcom X. . .
Joel,
I agree; most of the stuff he said yesterday at the National Press Club was right on and brilliant. As I listened, I wondered whether there has been a time since the heyday of MLK when an African American preacher has spoken so truthfully and prophetically on a national stage with all eyes watching. He gave folks a mini-lesson on Judeo-Christian theology, the black church, African American and American history, etc. At times it was electric. But my problem, again, was the overall tone. He seemed to revel in scoring points against unenlightened whites and the media. He seemed not to be there to heal but to vent his rage.
Did you read Melissa Harris-Lacewell’s piece on The Root today? Check it out here: http://www.theroot.com/id/46111.
In it, she compares Rev. Wright’s behavior yesterday to that of the prophet Jonah. It’s a fascinating comparison. Actually, it’s so good that I need to quote it at length. She writes:
“I believe Jeremiah Wright likes preaching to his own people, black people, embraced by the relative comfort of shared knowledge and practice within the African American church. I do not think he wanted to talk to white America or to try to bridge the painful, difficult often personally brutalizing racial divide. I believe that he has great and healing things to say to our nation, but that when called to do so he has resisted because he is angry about the evils of racism, imperialism, patriarchy and partisanship.”
Please read the full article for her complete argument, which is really quite balanced. It’s worth the time. I tend to agree with her.
I’ve defended Rev. Wright on this blog a lot since the “God damn America” controversy hit, and I still think he has an important message for our nation. However, I don’t think his prophetic role or his sadness over the way he was unfairly treated by the media makes it right (or productive) for him to “go off” in the mean-spirited manner that he did yesterday. I wish he would’ve stopped with the Bill Moyers interview and the NAACP speech, or at least adjusted his tone.
I tend to agree more with Ed. I think that Dr. Wright has a lot of truth in what he says, but his tone is quite arrogant and dividing. He does not seem to want to be a bridge builder when it comes to race relations, but only a divider.
I feel that truth needs to be spoken on these issues, but the goal should be reconciliation not vilification.
I’ve been mulling over how I should respond to this whole controversy. I wonder how I should think and respond, and what’s proper for me to expect from others.
I agree for the most part that white people are largely ignorant of black culture and the black experience in America, and that makes us react in ways that are not helpful in bridging the racial divide. We’re unfamiliar with black church tradtion, history, preaching styles, etc. So we misinterpret expressions of frustration as “reverse racism” or unpatriotic or as wallowing in the past. I think it is reasonable for the black community to expect us (whites) to better educate ourselves and to not be so quick to judge.
I’ve tried really hard not to have my usual knee jerk reaction as I’ve had in the past over these types of issues. I’ve read transcripts and taken time to think about what’s going on.
I’ve done all this stuff, and I’m still annoyed and offended and discouraged by Rev. Wrights comments and actions. The brilliant and insightful comments he makes are essentially negated by the angry and outrageous comments he makes. And I think it’s unreasonable to think that the average Joe on the street should look past his attitude and his outrageous accusations.
“A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.” Proverbs 15:1
In other venues I’ve expressed my thinking that if I was Rev. Wright, I’d have said some things differently and not said some things he did. But this is besides the point! Don’t get it twisted, the problem with Rev. Wright, from the vantagepoint of the media and many others is the content of what he’s saying. He’s challenging head on the sacred cow of American nationalism, including its Christian nationalist expression. It’s drawn straight from the OT prophetic tradition, a staple of the African American religious tradition that MLK. Jr. was steeped in also.
Reconciliation, biblically speaking, is grounded on truth and honesty. The prophetic tradition, which Jesus and John the Baptist shared, put a bulls eye on those things (idolatries) which kept people from experiencing YHWH’s blessings. It spoke directly to actions (oppression of th poor, abuse of the weak, immorality of all kinds, false conceptions about religious exceptionalism, etc.) which the the nation must repent of or there would be consequences. Jesus took it that a prophet that was not persecuted was not a true prophet. God doesn’t have anything but imperfect vessals to work with; but we are obligated to be like the Bereans, not the mobs who wanted to throw Jesus over the cliff when in Luke he, like Rev. Wright, says something that indicts them, implying that they are like pagans and scores their heart so much that they either have to repent or destroy him. There’s no middle ground. No matter how you may sugar coat it or put it in a conciliatory tone you have to make a decision for or against God.
B”H
Hi Ed & all,
Whew! By now I guess most everybody is aware of Senator Obama’s denouncement of Rev. Wright. I felt kind of dumb when I heard the news of this when I came in to work last evening. I say this not because I have changed my mind about Rev. Wright’s Sunday speech before the NAACP or the private interview he granted to Bill Moyers. No, I feel dumb because I heard the remark that he (Sen. Obama) referred to as the being ‘too much to take’ and I didn’t find it to be a problem at first.
As it turns out, Rev. Wright said that Barack Obama made the statement, about not affirming some of the things he (Rev. Wright) had preached on, out of political expediency. The way Senator Obama has interpreted that remark is that Rev. Wright is calling his integrity into question. I had missed this entirely! Considering it from this vantage point now, either Rev. Wright needed to make a speedy public apology or, Senator Obama had no choice but to make a break with Rev. Wright and seek to salvage his message of being ‘a new kind of politician,’ – honest and trustworthy. There were other things that Senator Obama said yesterday as he sought to clarify that he was not supportive of many of Rev. Wright’s views, but this seemed to me to be “the straw that broke the camel’s back.”
Through it all, as I have said before, I hope that we, the community of believers, will see this as a present opportunity to exhibit grace in the name of the LORD and extend forgiveness towards reconciliation in these troubled times. This is the hope that I am clinging to.
Blessings,
Shlomo
I have to be honest — I have a real problem with a man who openly tells lies about the AIDS virus and celebrates anti-Semites being called “truthful” and “prophetic.” Is this really the kind of person God would regard as a prophet? Is it really doing the black church any good to be represented so publicly by this man?
“Is it really doing the black church any good to be represented so publicly by this man?”
Gina,
The black church is a lot bigger than Rev. Wright. There are many high-profile white preachers, televangelists, radio hosts, etc. that one could point to and ask the same question regarding the white church. I don’t think the black church is in any danger of being discredited by Rev. Wright—unless you know something that I don’t. Has there been a secret meeting of white Christians on this topic? 🙂
Actually, regarding his “truthful” and “prophetic” words, I would refer you to the transcripts of the Bill Moyers interview that I posted about earlier, Wright’s NAACP speech, and even the National Press Club talk. Mixed in with some of his questionable statements, he says a lot of relevant and insightful things regarding race, class, social justice, church history, and so on. Unfortunately, the tone of his most recent remarks will make it hard for folks to really hear the important things.
I guess my deal with Rev. Wright is this. The man is not helpful as a follower of Jesus to the cause of racial reconciliation. Plain and simple. Anyone who thinks he is must be wearing blinders. And I even agree with quite a bit of what he says. It’s just how he says it. The attitude and tone is that of disdain for the “other”.
His flippant comments on the Irish at the NAACP speech come to mind there. He tried to make it humorous, but his true colors bled through. The tone doesn’t come through in text, but he said: “Same people thought that the Irish had a disease. When the Irish came here. Did you hear me O’Malley? O’Reilly? They thought you were – well they might have been right”.
Even it that is a “joke” it’s a very poor choice of one and extremely unhelpful. Certainly not a “joke” that white’s could use in a reverse situation.
This man is widening the racial gap and not seeking true reconciliation….
Dear Gina,
Just want to add that I appreciate your honesty. I hope my previous comments didn’t come across as rude. My humor often misses the mark. I apologize if it sounded harsh or insensitive.
Peace,
Ed G.
Don’t worry, no offense taken. 🙂 I’m sorry too if I wasn’t clear. I was thinking of — though I neglected to specify — Rev. Wright’s comment, “This most recent attack on the black church is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright; it is an attack on the black church.” If I read that right, he seems to be saying — there and elsewhere — that all the things he says accurately represent the thinking of the black church. And people across the racial and political spectrum are so upset with him right now that the connection doesn’t seem all that advantageous — even if the contention were true, which I’m not sure about.
Actually, speaking of AIDS reminds me, it was some of the things that Mike Huckabee did and said on that issue that first made me think he was better at talking the talk than walking the walk. (There were other things after that, but that was the first.) I wonder what it is about the AIDS issue that’s such a flashpoint.
Or maybe that’s just a coincidence.
Ed, thanks for the recommendation for Root article. Loved it! I would add that Mary Mitchell’s article in the Sun Times today articulated what I had been feeling about the story.
There are at least 3 conversations happening around this entire episode which I find quite common in racial reconciliation (RR). There are whites-only conversation, blacks-only, and the RR folks. I am so blessed by Judy and others who are trying not to gag on this – trying to stay at the table but being honest that this man is hard to digest!
I think the word from those who have been in the RR conversation longer should be one of grace (e.g. Let’s not toss out Wright completely but let’s not spend time trying to explain him in total either). Those in the RR conversation do have to be able stand in on a “blacks-only” conversation without defensiveness if we are going to genuinely build trust in the RR discussion. That doesn’t mean we have to go in planning to agree, but committed to listening. At the kitchen table. In the bar. In at least one experience for me: In the police station!
When we come out of those listening experiences we will inevitably be looking for both blacks and whites who can explain the conversation and relate to how we feel about them. We want to hold on to our identity but realize we might have to loosen it abit as we learn new things.
Listening in on Wright has been a bit like reading the Autobiography of Malcom X. . . very enlightening. As someone committed to this conversation, when I realized how valuable this book was to my black brothers (virtually every one!) I realized I had to read it and with a listening ear. I don’t, however, try to get everyone who starts down the RR road to read this initially. I start with Divided by Faith or John Perkins work, or Ed G.
I will add a post on my blog about my learning process in this rather than blabbering on here. . .
Joel – I appreciate your blabbering. Thanks for your great insight about the different types of conversations that are happening around this issue. That’s a brialliant analysis. I also am grateful for folks like Judy, Gina, and Rich who have no patience for Rev. Wright and his words, but who are still willing to engage in a conversation with those who might have different perspectives.
Everyone – Thanks to all for your honesty and your willingness to grapple with this stuff in this particular forum.
Again, how naive do we have to be to make assertions that somehow Rev. Wright is ultimately harming the cause of reconciliation. The truth of the matter is that this conversation only brings to the fore the divisions and deep ambivalence that is already there! Real healing requires a real hearing and soul searching repentance from all. What most people want is to be able to fit this into the ways things are now (the status quo) without it changing their life and existence. I can’t happen no more than the preaching of John the Baptizer requires a life-altering change for the nation of Israel in the first century by calling into question the most inalienable tenet of their faith– membership in the people of YHWH on the basis of heredity and circumcision–by heralding that YHWH would judge the nation. Jesus himself heeded this word and was baptized by John, signaling his break with the status quo. Most people didn’t heed John and Jesus’ message and judgment in the form of the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 did occur. This requires a Copernican shift in thinking from considering yourself–as much white American does–the center of the social, economic and political universe, often undergirded by a particular coopted Christian theology to the possibility of American being at the time of decision, a fork in the road and God calling us to true metanoia not a watered-down version which allow us to go on with business as usual. Now is the time for America to grow out of its narcissism and really hear God. Popular opinion is not the same as the word YHWH would bring to us.
God damn America? Well, esentially it’s the same message that John the Baptizer preached to his own people in his own context. If Jesus could hear this and repent, why aren’t the followers of Jesus able to hear this in the American context?
Another perspective from the Rev. James Forbes addressing this issue. Well worth reading!
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2008/04/the_black_church_as_cultural_c.html
Ed,
I’m really sorry. I had hoped to have news for you by now from the secrete white Christian meeting. Unfortunately the worship planning sub-committee can’t agree on traditional or contemporary styles and the sub-sub committee is still bogged down on the critical instrumental or non-instrumental question. Once these two items are put to bed we will move on to building consensus around a common translation to base said secret deliberations on.
We really are working as fast as prudence will allow and appreciate your patience. If you have any questions, please let me know we will respond with all due alacrity.
Plodding on,
pew
Scott, regarding your last paragraph, I don’t think that’s true at all. John the Baptist didn’t curse people; he called them to repentance. He was hard on them, and rightly so, but he didn’t curse them. There’s a big difference.
Ed,
Thank you for moderating such a balanced forum on this issue. Many thoughts are stirred – but here is what slapped me in the face while listening to the National Press Club Q & A session: his likening the exchange to a game of “dozens.”
That, to me, devalued the worth of any of his own arguments. Suddenly I had the impression that I was watching live action morph into a cartoon.
Perhaps he has been too insulated for too long – that tends to happen to successful preachers of any race. Their inner circle of followers often don’t challenge them, a failing which helps neither the preacher nor the congregation.
What was your reaction to the “dozens” comment? Did I miss something in terms of context?
By the way, when I say “the exchange” I mean the public exchange between him and his critics – not the Press Club event.
B”H
Hi Barby,
If I may, let me add my opinion on this question, “What was your reaction to the “dozens” comment?” First off, I think that you are right in concluding that Rev. Wright was referring to the public exchange between him and his critics. Remember he said previously that the current turmoil was not about him or Barack Obama, but that it was an attack on the Black Church. I think that according to the “letter of the law,” Rev. Wright is correct. I have read and heard numerous insidious attacks on the worth of Black Liberation Theology (BLT). We know that Rev. Wright is also correct when he says that most of white America, including white Evangelicalism, doesn’t understand the experience of being black, or being a black Christian. His insights about the distinction between difference and deficiency was absolutely priceless. The problem that I have here, and what I hear also from Brother Ed, Roland Martin and several others is this, Rev. Wright gave us the impression that he was taking up a fight in his own defence. The “spirit of his response” was hostile and therefore unsettling. The LORD has clearly instructed us that He is our rear guard. He will defend us!We should be meek as lambs, willing to be led as it were, even to the slaughter. This was the example of Jesus, our Lord. When He was led to the cross He didn’t open His mouth in protest or seek to defend Himself.
Rev. Wright has served us a plate of mixed blessings. On the one hand he is a brilliant man of GOD with finely honed skills as a preacher and a teacher. He has greatly helped us, in this on-going conversation on race, by clearly setting forth several simple steps along the path that we must take to progress rightly. By this I am referring to his speech on Sunday evening before the NAACP. (You can check out my site http://www.xanga.com/ps29v11 for a brief outline of these steps.) On the other hand, as you, Barby, have so cleverly pointed out, the reference to the “dozens” betrays a certain belligerence in Rev. Wright and this has hurt us slightly. The “dozens” was not merely a game of verbal self defence, but it generally included a certain mean-spiritedness which said, “Back off, or you’re likely to get hurt!” Loosely quoting Rev. Wright now, “If you think I’m going to sit back while you (the media) attack my Moma and her religious tradition and my Daddy and his religious tradition, you have another thing coming.” Herein I sense not just a response of clarification, such as was given regarding the excerpts from one of his sermons where he was quoting someone else and the words were attributed (falsely) to him. Instead what I sense is a kind of veiled threat as is typical of the “dozens.”
Shlomo
Shlomo – Thanks for your excellent comments. I think you nail it. I must say, though, back when the original Rev. Wright controversy broke in March, I did feel that it was a sort of indirect attack on certain aspects of black church tradition that many in the white community did not understand. However, I believe Rev. Wright has made the latest controversy all about himself. I think he incorrectly equates himself and Trinity United Church of Christ with the entirety of “the black church.” While I think Wright and Trinity represent a particular stream, the black church itself is a lot more diverse than that. But maybe it’s all semantics.
Barby – So nice to see you here! It was great meeting you at Calvin. Thanks for homing in on the “dozens” statement. I think it does say something about Rev. Wright’s state of mind during the National Press Club event. By the way, here’s a Wikipedia primer for those unfamiliar with “The Dozens”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dozens.
Scott,
I haven’t been ignoring you. I appreciate your passionate comments. I’ve been trying to process my thoughts on the role of a prophet and what that means for the church and society today. Thanks for the link to the James Forbes essay at Newsweek.com. He does a wonderful job of explaining the prophetic aspects of the African American preacher and church.
I do agree that a prophet will sometimes be fiery and confrontational in his presentation, but I don’t believe that’s a mandatory stance for “speaking truth to power.” In fact, in today’s polarized culture, I would say it’s more important to be able to speak in a way that will cause folks to drop their guard and listen. If we really believe in the message and care about the people we’re delivering it to, we’ll find the most appropriate way to communicate it to them.
I tend to default to what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 about making himself “a servant to all” and becoming “all things to all men” for the sake of the gospel. What that looks like will vary depending on the context and situation, and I don’t think the tone Rev. Wright brought on Monday was particularly helpful in that context.
I haven’t participated much here. I think I might be a little intimidated by the erudition and wit displayed. But I decided to jump back in for a minute.
First, I want to be clear from the outset-Pastor Wright does not, I repeat not, speak for me or any of the black churches I’ve ever been a member of. I have heard remarkably anointed men and women of God speak about issues of race, reconciliation, and justice, and none of them resorted to “the dozens” or rank and file meanness to make their point. Please let’s not forget that calling someone a “prophet” is no light thing. Biblical prophets were called, not self-apointed, and the Bible is very clear on the way to discern a true prophet. A prophet speaks the oracles of God-period. Yes, they each had different styles (John the Baptist versus a Moses, for example), but their calling was undeniable. So I think we should be very careful in being too quick to label Wright some kind of prophetic voice. Just because someone says some things that might be true, and with which people might agree, by no means qualifies them as a prophet of God.
Second, I’m astonished that very few people (not just in this blog, but everywhere) seem to be openly concerned (Ed, you seem to be) about the bitterness and outright venom that seem to reside within this man. I’m not putting him down for that; we’re all human and all struggle with something at sometime or other. But I’m commenting on the fact that someone in his position should be held accountable for the heart made apparent by his words. The Bible is clear that out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. So the things he says do in fact open a view to his heart. Saying ‘God ____ America’ reveals a heart racked with unresolved animosity and ill-will. These conditions are not healthy in any person, but even more so in someone who has now thrust himself onto the national stage, and then purports to speak on behalf of others, no less. I know someone is going to mention other emotional, spiritual and heart problems apparent in other men of God of old-David, Jonah, Moses, etc. And the point is well taken. But in those instances, we seem to recognize those foibles and admit them. But in Wright’s case, some seem to be entranced by his “eloquence”, “insight” and “truthfulness”, and blinded by the need for him to 1) subject his ‘stuff’ to the call of God on his life, if there is one; and 2) be accountable for his “stuff” by representing in a way that doesn’t do more harm than good. If he is indeed a prophet, he needs prayer that he would have his come-to-Jesus meeting as did David, Jonah, and Moses.
Third, regarding Barack Obama. Ditto on black folks’ enchantment with him despite some very serious revelations regarding his character and beliefs. What about his position that there is more than one way to God? I’m sorry, but that’s a deal-breaker for me. There’s no getting around that. He said it, and has not retracted or qualified the statement. For a couple days after he said it, there was a little noise about it, but it quickly died down. So now, shouldn’t we be asking ourselves if he is even a Christian? I probably sound judgmental-not trying to be-but I’m really concerned about these things. No, he doesn’t have to be a Christian to be president (only the religious right would make that contention), but it does relate to how I interpret his positions on issues and to his own integrity.
Well, I’ve probably worn out my welcome. Thanks for reading.
Chandra,
I share many of your thoughts, including wondering how welcome my beliefs are in this conversation.
Chandra – Thanks for your candid and thoughtful comments. I appreciate your chiming in.
Judy – I’m so sorry that you feel your comments aren’t welcomed here. I’ve always been very grateful for the diversity of opinion here among folks who, I believe, all love the Lord and care about his kingdom. I think it’s good and important to see that we can all have different perspectives and points of emphasis, but that we all find our unity in Christ. Please keep sharing your passionate viewpoints — and please don’t ever feel that your comments and beliefs are not welcome.
Peace,
Ed G.
I don’t think it’s anything that’s specifically been directed toward me. It’s just that I see little comments here and there about the religious right, and that it seems that most people that comment seem to be liberal politically. I guess that’s a bit intimidating, and I’m just generally a sensitive person 🙂
I’ll stick around. Thanks for the encouragement.
B”H
Hey Ed,
Ahmayn (amen) to that! Despite the fact that we may disagree on some things I’d like to think that we could always speak freely without fear of being ostracized in any way.
Judy/Chandra and others – I think that our brother Ed has done a great job here of promoting lively discussions on many “hot” topics, but always in a civil and Godly manner. Although I’m not Ed’s spokeman, I think that I can speak for him in this regard. Everybody’s input is important here. Not only the Afro Americans, but also our white, Asian, and Latino brothers and sisters. If we only hear and respect the voices of those who are like us and who we already agree with, then we won’t ever experience any real reconciliation, which is the point of this blog in the first place.
Blessings,
Shlomo
The very nature of the conversation leaves all of us torn at times. By that I mean not just conflicted but hurt. Throughout the conversation here folks are really interested in the nitty-gritty of things that are part of reconciliation we all end up losing a bit of ourselves.
At at times it is all upside down.
Like Judy I initially viewed those in these conversations as primarily liberal politically and often even theologically. But as I have gotten to know folks in this process over the years I can assure you that there is a HUGE contingent of Jesus loving folks that would read Ed, his blog, and the entire conversation here as just as radically-conservative.
When Chandra challenges Wright’s legitimacy as a “prophet” and even as a “Christian” I both respect the opinion and cringe. I attend a black church here in the community between where Obama and Wright live/serve. Our church would have no time for Wright’s liberation theology and plurality of redemptive means.
But I think the average attender of our church would also recognize that “bitterness” is not only felt deeply by many here in the “ghetto” who have been preached a “pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps” gospel, mocked and scorned as being lazy by both the larger white society, the larger white evangelical church, and even by what is viewed as the middle class black community that “made it out”. Many of these churches show up on Sunday in the neighborhood by the tens of thousands, choke the streets, then disappear for the remainder of the week.
What I am taking away from this entire blogversation is the reminder that what ever you feel comfortable with will be challenged. First it was my religious right culture war affirming tendency (in the 1990s). . . now it is that perhaps I’ve grown too comfortable with the voices of dissent like Wright. Yet another layer of the racial-reconciliation-onion is pulled back, tearing just a bit. I think this is what Matt 18 is all about.
Thanks for the encouragement and kind words everyone. I think I’ve been treated well here. Just to clairfy a bit, by “this conversation” I meant the discussion of race relations in general, not just this blog. In this polarized soundbite culture people like me seem to be characterized as closed minded, intolerant, and racist. I guess I have to continue to test the waters here a bit to realize I won’t be dismissed as a closed minded conservative bigot just because I vote Republican and am patriotic, while realizing that this country is far from perfect (past, present, and future).
Ed-
Thanks for this forum! My primary interest in this so-called controversy is theological and spiritual. I have a theory about saints and prophets. What’s the difference between men and women of God we celebrate as heroes of faith and people we persecute and harrass as religious trouble makers or wrong? In many cases, they are no longer around to raze hell. We can, from a distance, pour accolades on them. But during their lifetime they were most often harried, persecuted and harangued. This goes from the prophets to Paul, who was a divisive figure in the early church to Athanasius, who was persecuted and in exile for much of his ministry; the same as for John Chrysostom; John of the Cross, a Doctor od the Church, who was persecuted by the Inquisition; Joan of Arc, who was burned at the stake;the Reformers weren’t shrinking violets either; and one of the saddest cases in how Dr. MLK Jr.’s legacy has been coopted. Is the man who is paraded as the paragon of conciliation the same man who J. Edgar Hoover attempted to destroy? Who was vilified by black and white Christian clergy? Who on 4 April ’67 proclaimed from the pulpit of Riverside Church that if America didn’t repent of its arrogance and pride, God would destroy her and replace the nation with another who didn’t know His name; and is he the same man who, the following Sunday after he was assassinated, was scheduled to preach a sermon entitled “Why American May Go to Hell”?
There will come a day when America will regret refusing to hear the voices of people like Rev. Wright; for we will have to face the reality of our Creator’s judgment. Is Rev. Wright perfect? No! Neither are his critics or those expressing their opinions on this forum.
I found the following article from the New York Times very provocative, particularly the statement, “People are angry at the effect it [Jeremiah Wright’s statements] is having on Obama’s campaign. And they are angry at having to revisit the race issue.”
Revisit? When did race cease to be an issue?
Oops… left out the website link in my comment above.
“Please let’s not forget that calling someone a ‘prophet’ is no light thing. Biblical prophets were called, not self-apointed, and the Bible is very clear on the way to discern a true prophet.”
Chandra, well put. That’s my concern exactly. (I would have said this before, but I was away for a few days, with limited Internet access.)
Gina # 40-
What you wrote lacks basic theological and biblical substance. And it’s anachronistic in a jaw dropping way!
By you criteria (implied, since you give no real ones), all of the biblical prophets could be classified as false prophets. And in fact this is exactly what we see. Jesus was called a false prophet by his detractors. This is a stock rhetorical strategy of social labelling. This was the strategy of the Pharisees and the Jewish hierarchy against Jesus, who refers to himself as a prophet( e.g. Mk6:4/Mt13:7/ and Lk4:24). More specifically, the charge of Jeuss being a false prophet is aligned with Jesus’ prediction of the destruction of the Temple–the supreme threat of national judgment by God for Israel–stronger than Wright’s “God damn America”–which is carried over from Jer. 7. Likewise, this trope puts Jesus, like Jeremiah, in the position of being viewed as a traitor to the nation, which comes up in the trial of Jesus relating to his prediction of the Temple’s destruction (cf. Mt26:57-68/Mk.14:53-62/Lk22:54-71). Only YHWH’s vindication of him in the resurrection clears him of that charge, for those who accept that testimony and have been transformed by him by the Spirit which raises him from the dead. And the Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70!
Another trope in this regards is the association of Jesus with the deciever of Deut. 13, one who leads the people astray by false signs to serve other gods, etc. One of the charges levelled against Jesus was that he was possessed by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, because of the powers he had for exorcism, since his message called into question the message of the religious heroes of the day, the Pharisees and the Jewish hierarchy. Do he must have been “leading the people astray.” Sound familiar? And his lifestyle was all wrong: hehung out with sinners and harlots, liked to party (“glutton and drunkard”)…he couldn’t be a prophet says the holy Pharisees. Even his own family thought he was crazy, and tried to do an intervention on him (cf. Mk 3:20-21).
I could go on and on but the point I’m making here (and in a previous post) is that everything looks as though we can make judgments about these matters, when our looking at the issue in retrospect. I’m convinced that many Christians would have persecuted Jesus if they’d have lived in 1st cent. Jewish Palestine.
As it regards the present issue, a truly Christian assessment, with critical theological, biblical and spiritual integrity would be more humble and open; for, as I stated earlier, the Bible and history is littered with people who, because what they preached or proclaimed went against the grain of opinion of their contemporaries were often persecuted as “false prophets,” only later having been understood as messengers of the Living God. True piety calls for deep, critical engagement on all levels and not knee jerk reactions based on politics. This is why I take seriously people who speak in the name of Jesus, even for those whose politics and other afifiliations I don’t particularly share.
Scott- Gina was quoting a previous post, and one of a different author, at that. So your counter-attack was misplaced. The original post was more thorough in its argument. I don’t agree fully with all of the premises presented in said original post, and you eloquently address some of those in your retort. But, such jabs as “[your comment is] anachronistic in a jaw dropping way!” is just the kind of reaction that our whiter and more conservative brothers and sisters fear, which is keeping many from participating (not necessarily in this blog, but in the “RR conversation” as a whole), which we have read in recent posts here. In order for reconciliation to happen among us, we need BOTH the “religious right” AND the “liberation theologian” to participate and allow their hearts and presuppositions to be changed.
I would simply encourage you to remember your audience here. We are not coming as politicians, professional theologians, or lawyers. (Although there are apparently some of each in the crowd here.) 🙂 The only true cord that binds us together amidst our diversity as a group is our collective passion for racial reconciliation in our culture, churches, and world… and that through the spectacles of Christ-followers, for the most part.
Re-cue, post #20. Our brother Joel accurately notes the fact that there are “3 conversations” here, in the world of discussions and topics such as these. In order for the “middle ground” or “bridge-building” conversation to happen, as Ed and so many of all shapes and colors on this blog have concurred, we all need to take a lesson from Rev. Wright… on how NOT to build bridges. Rev’s Fallwell and Robertson have done their fair share of setting similar “examples” on “the other side”.
Merciful Father, in this venue and in all others, teach us to be “quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry”, and indeed to remove the plank in our own eye before concerning ourselves with the speck of dust in a brother’s eye. And so-on.
Ed, again, I thank you for this one-of-a-kind blog where strong-arm attacks on thoughts or observations of others is the exception and not the norm. I appreciate your fostering an overall tone of brothers and sisters seeking to learn and observe, rather than “debate”, “politic”, or “argue”.
Maybe we need to define our terms before we rip each other apart. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the black church- or African American Christians- use the word “prophetic” or refer to someone speaking prophetically much more than the average white American Christian. When I hear the term “prophet,” I think of it in the Old Testament sense where whatever they speak in the name of the Lord had to be infallible or else they were condemned to death. It seems to me that a person from the African American tradition may refer to someone as a prophet if someone speaks boldly against the larger culture with courage and insight, giving people who will listen a better understanding of how our Christian faith should be worked out in the current world we live in. Those are obviously different standards and understandings of the term.
Someone please correct me if I’m wrong, or affirm what you agree with, but be nice about it 😉
Peace
Wow, this has been an incredible conversation. I’ve been away for a while, but it’s been fascinating to trace the course of the discussion. I appreciate everyone’s passion and honesty. I also appreciate the fact that we’ve been able to keep the conversation energetic but civil.
I certainly don’t want to squelch freedom of speech here, but I think now might be a good time to close down the comments on this particular post. I’m sure there will be future opportunities to revisit some of these themes, but I feel we may have reached the end of any productive dialogue on this specific topic.
Thanks again for sharing your perspectives and keeping me mindful of the fact that God has us all wired differently; yet we are called to bear witness to his love and salvation through the way we get along with each other. May peace and unity prevail here and throughout the body of Christ.