(Live blogging.)
Barack Obama is speaking to the press right now in a formal press conference. He has again expressed his consternation with his former pastor. He just called Reverend Wright's "performance" (Barack Obama's words) at the National Press Club yesterday nothing but a series of "rants not grounded in truth;" he even calls Rev. Wright's words an "insult" (among many other things).
What we are seeing, I am sorry to say, is something grossly reminiscent of the mid-1960s. The Nation of Islam, Malcolm X, Dr. King: these were the backdrop of both Barack Obama's childhood and my childhood, as we are the same age. And, just like the 1960s, we are watching a battle over racial supremacy: which black man -- or black group -- truly speaks for minorities.
Over the weekend, Rev. Wright spoke at length to the NAACP about the different "learning styles" of European whites and African blacks. He defended an evolutionary difference between the two "races," and he went so far as to argue that whites respond to the first and third beats in a musical four-beat measure, while blacks respond to the second and fourth. Related to this, Rev. Wright used the device that blacks are "different but not deficient." Yesterday, in fact, he spoke at length about this very idea, that difference does not imply deficiency.
Most people, most THINKING people, would agree with Rev. Wright that different is not synonymous with deficient. I think his locution odd and unfortunate, and I suspect it is not something that most decent people have ever promoted.
But what I want to assert is that the conflict we see is over what it means to be racist. Traditionally, racism has been attributed to those folks who do not believe that one race is equal to another. If I think being white is superior to being black, I am a racist, because, essentially and unequivocally, I do not believe blackness is equal to whiteness. That is traditional racism, and I believe that is the model of racism under which MOST Americans, including Barack Obama, operate.
Alas, what Rev. Wright has done is to flip racism on its head. His "different but not deficient" slogan now means that the racist is he who believes whites and blacks are EQUAL. Wright's response to this idea is simple: No, no, no. Not equal. Different. To Wright, whites learn in a different way from blacks, and it is wrong of whites to think blacks are equal to the task, whether that task be learning to speak English or to understand European music.
I am inclined to aver that Rev. Wright has actually advocated a type of intellectual and cultural apartheid, American-style. His is a twist on separate but equal. He maintains that the separation is due to the fact that we are all "different."
Hence, what we are seeing is a race war between African-Americans. This is a massive, and truly scary, disagreement. And it is as scary as those sorts of disagreements that led to the sorrows of the 1960s.
Just some thoughts, offered in sorrow with much anxiety.
Peace, pray for peace.
©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Showing posts with label Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
The Gospel Of Guilt: The Wright Way To Preach
I can't resist writing a few theological responses to Rev. Jeremiah Wright's speech and subsequent comments at yesterday's National Press Club. Of course, I would not be interested in Rev. Wright if he were not undermining what I initially took to be a noble goal in the campaign for the presidency of Barack Obama. That goal was not racial harmony. It was that America would transcend race; that our politics and related discourses would get us past the bitternesses of our fathers. But Rev. Wright has sabotaged all that. Now, like a bad LSD flashback into the heart of the 1960s, race is everything. According to Rev. Wright, God is on the side of the oppressed -- solely. According to Rev. Wright (who cites, in passing, white "evangelical" Jim Wallis) America has not even repented of its sin of slavery. America, be damned.
Let me be the first to assert that "America be damned" is not one whit inaccurate. I say this for the simple reason that both blind nature and Christian eschatology admit that everything is damned, damned by the great cosmic implosion or God's building of a new heaven and new earth. This point may seem glib and even silly, but it isn't, as it points to a very leveling moral and social principle: death equalizes us all. And at the very least Rev. Wright is all about leveling, about equality.
Also, I would not be pursuing Rev. Wright had Mr. Obama not given his permission, as he himself believes that Rev. Wright's religious views are fair political game.
THE BIBLICAL HISTORY QUESTION
I think it wise to quote Rev. Wright's remarks about the Holy Bible which he offered during the press club's Q&A period following his speech. Note that he is defending the black liberation idea that God is the God of the oppressed:
"In biblical history, there's not one word written in the Bible between Genesis and Revelations that was not written under one of six different kinds of oppression, Egyptian oppression, Assyrian oppression, Persian oppression, Greek oppression, Roman oppression, Babylonian oppression. The Roman oppression is the period in which Jesus is born. And comparing imperialism that was going on in Luke, imperialism was going on when Caesar Augustus sent out a decree that the whole world should be taxed. They weren't in charge of the world. It sounds like some other governments I know."
Those of us who possess some biblical literacy should immediately see the falsehood of Rev. Wright's assertion. It is NOT TRUE that every word of the Bible was written under some form of political oppression. Many of the words of the Torah (or Christian Old Testament) were penned during relative political and social calm. The words of Solomon -- the wildly rich king and revered "wisest man on earth" -- drafted proverbs and poems that were written while he and his kingdom were, in effect, in charge of a whole region. King David's famous psalm of contrition, Psalm 51, was penned while he was in power, despite the fact that he might have been at war. Ecclesiastes appears to have been penned during a period of relative ease, and I think it clear that Job, arguably the oldest of the biblical texts, was not penned by someone under political oppression. And even some of the New Testament is arguably penned by men who were not under oppression either, men like Luke, a Greek physician, or Paul, a Roman citizen of rather high standing. In the end, just one exception, and there is more than one, devastates Rev. Wright's sweeping and dogmatic assertion. (It should be noted that Rev. Wright does not acknowledge that much of the biblical record was written under brother-on-brother or Israel-on-Israel oppression.)
Hence, it is safe to conclude that Rev. Wright is flat-out wrong, and is seeing Christianity through a sieve, one not justified by either Christian tradition or its sacred texts.
But I would like to highlight one absolutely essential point, one that debilitates much of Rev. Wright's liberation theology, and it is this (I have written about this here): Jesus Christ, who was indeed born as a Jew living under Roman oppression, NEVER mentions that He or His disciples live under occupation. OK. That might be extreme. But it is not extreme to assert, with all due confidence, that Jesus clearly ignores the Roman occupation. And He clearly ministers to those occupiers without once asking them to denounce either their Roman citizenship or their positions.
Hence, Rev. Wright is not only wrong about the biblical record, He is wrong in averring that Jesus came to emancipate ANYONE from social oppression. Jesus's concerns, made clear in statements that His kingdom was not of this world and that "the poor you will always have with you," were not political or even societal concerns. They were concerns of the heart, soul and mind of individuals. He was not a social liberator, nor was He revolutionary in any political sense. His political influence was accidental (I mean this philosophically) to His message. His intent was to free humanity from sin, primarily the pervasive, ubiquitous sin of envy.
THE EXCLUSIVITY QUESTION
Here's another excerpt from yesterday's Q&A at the National Press Club:
MODERATOR: Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh unto the father but through me." Do you believe this? And do you think Islam is a way to salvation?
WRIGHT: Jesus also said, "Other sheep have I who are not of this fold."
(APPLAUSE)
I have to inject here that Rev. Wright's body language, tone, and countenance showed utter contempt for his interlocutor during much if not most of this exchange. To me, Rev. Wright was thuggish, condescending, arrogant and -- immature.
But let us note the problem. Rev. Wright has been asked if he believes whether Jesus Christ, the Man He purportedly believes is the Savior of the whole world, is the only way to God. Alas, acting like some pompous smart ass, Rev. Wright, in a most self-satisfied manner, replied that Jesus referred to "sheep ... not of this fold." With that, Rev. Wright pulled away from the microphone, satisfied that he has shown not only his superior wit but that his sense of irony has no bounds: he, too, can make Jesus say whatever he wants Him to say. Of course, the real irony is lost on the smug Rev. Wright, as his obscene citation of the "other sheep" only supports Christ's claim as being the exclusive Savior of the world: Jesus is the Shepherd of the other sheep who still must come to God through Him. Jesus, only to augment His point, also argues that He is the Gate of the sheepfold, so no one enters that fold -- irrespective of whether they are OTHER sheep or not -- unless they pass through Him.
Rev. Wright's inanity is indicative of his fear of estranging his black Muslim friends, who share his identity politics. Muslims, who deny that Jesus IS the Christ, the gate-keeper, or the "way and the life," are the other sheep to which Rev. Wright refers. And this from a man described even by Barack Obama as a "renowned" biblical scholar. Rev. Wright's curt reply merely avoids the question by obfuscating simple Christian passages. Jesus claims to be the way for ALL sheep, irrespective of whether they are of the Jewish fold. Rev. Wright intimates, utterly and completely erroneously, that there are "other sheep" who do not need Christ.
And let us put this in boldest relief: Rev. Wright, or so it was reported yesterday, is getting security help from the Nation of Islam.
THE SOCIOLOGY PROBLEM: Standing Black Liberation Theology On Its Head
Let us again return to something that Rev. Wright said in his speech. Here he is talking about how our ideas of God influence us:
"Dr. Jones, in his book, God in the Ghetto, argues quite accurately that one's theology, how I see God, determines one's anthropology, how I see humans, and one's anthropology then determines one's sociology, how I order my society. Now, the implications from the outside are obvious. If I see God as male, if I see God as white male, if I see God as superior, as God over us and not Immanuel, which means "God with us," if I see God as mean, vengeful, authoritarian, sexist, or misogynist, then I see humans through that lens. My theological lens shapes my anthropological lens. And as a result, white males are superior; all others are inferior."
Let us review the sequence: God-ideas influence our views of mankind, and our views of both influence how we order society.
Rev. Wright goes on:
To say "I am a Christian" is not enough. Why? Because the Christianity of the slaveholder is not the Christianity of the slave. The God to whom the slaveholders pray as they ride on the decks of the slave ship is not the God to whom the enslaved are praying as they ride beneath the decks on that slave ship.
How we are seeing God, our theology, is not the same. And what we both mean when we say "I am a Christian" is not the same thing. The prophetic theology of the black church has always seen and still sees all of God's children as sisters and brothers, equals who need reconciliation, who need to be reconciled as equals in order for us to walk together into the future which God has prepared for us.
Now, look at what Rev. Wright says about black liberation theology, a theology he gladly espouses:
Now, in the 1960s, the term "liberation theology" began to gain currency with the writings and the teachings of preachers, pastors, priests, and professors from Latin America. Their theology was done from the underside.
Their viewpoint was not from the top down or from a set of teachings which undergirded imperialism. Their viewpoints, rather, were from the bottom up, the thoughts and understandings of God, the faith, religion and the Bible from those whose lives were ground, under, mangled and destroyed by the ruling classes or the oppressors.
Liberation theology started in and started from a different place. It started from the vantage point of the oppressed.
I hope you can see the problem. Rev. Wright tells us first that we should start our theology from the top: how we view God informs not just our theology, but our anthropology and sociology. In sharpest Christian terms, it is asserted by all orthodox Christians that God defines for us Who and What He is and What He is like. To God, our relation is responsive: He reveals, we respond. He is Who He Is, or so even Moses reported thousands of years ago. Christianity's starting point is the God Revealed.
But according to Rev. Wright's own words, he actually inverts the paradigm: black liberation theology begins in sociology, the sociological status of the oppressed. The oppressed, beginning in the mire, see God from the pit, defining Him as their liberator and the judge and damner of those who have enslaved them. God, then, is defined not by His own fiat, but by the conditions of the lowest social group. God is coming to judge, and the top social group shall be tossed down and the bottom elevated: the last are now first, the oppressed are now the judges.
That is why Rev. Wright can say, essentially, that the oppressors pray to a different God, even if those oppressors are Christians.
But the FACT IS THIS: All people are prone to manufacture God in their OWN IMAGE! And Rev. Wright has done EXACTLY that!
Alas, this is what passes, at least in Rev. Wright's world, as the prophetic voice. Curiously absent is any sense of proportion. Yes, Rev. Wright concedes that God loves the whole world, as he remarked in his talk, but this concession seems almost reluctantly offered. It even smacks of elitism, as it suggests that God prefers to love the oppressed but, almost despite Himself, He can love, well, "others" too.
Let me say with all due candor: this stuff is preposterous.
THE GOSPEL OF GUILT
In the end, we are left not with a gospel of liberation preached by Rev. Wright, but one of oppression, even extortion. Despite the fact that Rev. Wright is supposed to represent a faith that proclaims that Christ has paid our debts, that He forgives with abandon (assuming folks want forgiveness), that He absolves us of our guilt, Rev. Wright brings the glad tidings that Americans are still guilty, still reprobate, still WRONG. He has not forgiven, nor has he offered that forgiveness. Instead, he brings the gospel of extortion, of indebtedness: America, you still OWE! America, you still must pay! And this is not merely directed at institutions, as institutions cannot be divorced of their constituents. This is aimed at people, individuals.
This is not the gospel. We are not hearing the voice of Christ. We are hearing the voice of envy, resentment, anger, entitlement. This, believe it or not, is imprisonment dressed as liberty.
It is not the gospel at all.
Peace to you.
©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Let me be the first to assert that "America be damned" is not one whit inaccurate. I say this for the simple reason that both blind nature and Christian eschatology admit that everything is damned, damned by the great cosmic implosion or God's building of a new heaven and new earth. This point may seem glib and even silly, but it isn't, as it points to a very leveling moral and social principle: death equalizes us all. And at the very least Rev. Wright is all about leveling, about equality.
Also, I would not be pursuing Rev. Wright had Mr. Obama not given his permission, as he himself believes that Rev. Wright's religious views are fair political game.
THE BIBLICAL HISTORY QUESTION
I think it wise to quote Rev. Wright's remarks about the Holy Bible which he offered during the press club's Q&A period following his speech. Note that he is defending the black liberation idea that God is the God of the oppressed:
"In biblical history, there's not one word written in the Bible between Genesis and Revelations that was not written under one of six different kinds of oppression, Egyptian oppression, Assyrian oppression, Persian oppression, Greek oppression, Roman oppression, Babylonian oppression. The Roman oppression is the period in which Jesus is born. And comparing imperialism that was going on in Luke, imperialism was going on when Caesar Augustus sent out a decree that the whole world should be taxed. They weren't in charge of the world. It sounds like some other governments I know."
Those of us who possess some biblical literacy should immediately see the falsehood of Rev. Wright's assertion. It is NOT TRUE that every word of the Bible was written under some form of political oppression. Many of the words of the Torah (or Christian Old Testament) were penned during relative political and social calm. The words of Solomon -- the wildly rich king and revered "wisest man on earth" -- drafted proverbs and poems that were written while he and his kingdom were, in effect, in charge of a whole region. King David's famous psalm of contrition, Psalm 51, was penned while he was in power, despite the fact that he might have been at war. Ecclesiastes appears to have been penned during a period of relative ease, and I think it clear that Job, arguably the oldest of the biblical texts, was not penned by someone under political oppression. And even some of the New Testament is arguably penned by men who were not under oppression either, men like Luke, a Greek physician, or Paul, a Roman citizen of rather high standing. In the end, just one exception, and there is more than one, devastates Rev. Wright's sweeping and dogmatic assertion. (It should be noted that Rev. Wright does not acknowledge that much of the biblical record was written under brother-on-brother or Israel-on-Israel oppression.)
Hence, it is safe to conclude that Rev. Wright is flat-out wrong, and is seeing Christianity through a sieve, one not justified by either Christian tradition or its sacred texts.
But I would like to highlight one absolutely essential point, one that debilitates much of Rev. Wright's liberation theology, and it is this (I have written about this here): Jesus Christ, who was indeed born as a Jew living under Roman oppression, NEVER mentions that He or His disciples live under occupation. OK. That might be extreme. But it is not extreme to assert, with all due confidence, that Jesus clearly ignores the Roman occupation. And He clearly ministers to those occupiers without once asking them to denounce either their Roman citizenship or their positions.
Hence, Rev. Wright is not only wrong about the biblical record, He is wrong in averring that Jesus came to emancipate ANYONE from social oppression. Jesus's concerns, made clear in statements that His kingdom was not of this world and that "the poor you will always have with you," were not political or even societal concerns. They were concerns of the heart, soul and mind of individuals. He was not a social liberator, nor was He revolutionary in any political sense. His political influence was accidental (I mean this philosophically) to His message. His intent was to free humanity from sin, primarily the pervasive, ubiquitous sin of envy.
THE EXCLUSIVITY QUESTION
Here's another excerpt from yesterday's Q&A at the National Press Club:
MODERATOR: Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh unto the father but through me." Do you believe this? And do you think Islam is a way to salvation?
WRIGHT: Jesus also said, "Other sheep have I who are not of this fold."
(APPLAUSE)
I have to inject here that Rev. Wright's body language, tone, and countenance showed utter contempt for his interlocutor during much if not most of this exchange. To me, Rev. Wright was thuggish, condescending, arrogant and -- immature.
But let us note the problem. Rev. Wright has been asked if he believes whether Jesus Christ, the Man He purportedly believes is the Savior of the whole world, is the only way to God. Alas, acting like some pompous smart ass, Rev. Wright, in a most self-satisfied manner, replied that Jesus referred to "sheep ... not of this fold." With that, Rev. Wright pulled away from the microphone, satisfied that he has shown not only his superior wit but that his sense of irony has no bounds: he, too, can make Jesus say whatever he wants Him to say. Of course, the real irony is lost on the smug Rev. Wright, as his obscene citation of the "other sheep" only supports Christ's claim as being the exclusive Savior of the world: Jesus is the Shepherd of the other sheep who still must come to God through Him. Jesus, only to augment His point, also argues that He is the Gate of the sheepfold, so no one enters that fold -- irrespective of whether they are OTHER sheep or not -- unless they pass through Him.
Rev. Wright's inanity is indicative of his fear of estranging his black Muslim friends, who share his identity politics. Muslims, who deny that Jesus IS the Christ, the gate-keeper, or the "way and the life," are the other sheep to which Rev. Wright refers. And this from a man described even by Barack Obama as a "renowned" biblical scholar. Rev. Wright's curt reply merely avoids the question by obfuscating simple Christian passages. Jesus claims to be the way for ALL sheep, irrespective of whether they are of the Jewish fold. Rev. Wright intimates, utterly and completely erroneously, that there are "other sheep" who do not need Christ.
And let us put this in boldest relief: Rev. Wright, or so it was reported yesterday, is getting security help from the Nation of Islam.
THE SOCIOLOGY PROBLEM: Standing Black Liberation Theology On Its Head
Let us again return to something that Rev. Wright said in his speech. Here he is talking about how our ideas of God influence us:
"Dr. Jones, in his book, God in the Ghetto, argues quite accurately that one's theology, how I see God, determines one's anthropology, how I see humans, and one's anthropology then determines one's sociology, how I order my society. Now, the implications from the outside are obvious. If I see God as male, if I see God as white male, if I see God as superior, as God over us and not Immanuel, which means "God with us," if I see God as mean, vengeful, authoritarian, sexist, or misogynist, then I see humans through that lens. My theological lens shapes my anthropological lens. And as a result, white males are superior; all others are inferior."
Let us review the sequence: God-ideas influence our views of mankind, and our views of both influence how we order society.
Rev. Wright goes on:
To say "I am a Christian" is not enough. Why? Because the Christianity of the slaveholder is not the Christianity of the slave. The God to whom the slaveholders pray as they ride on the decks of the slave ship is not the God to whom the enslaved are praying as they ride beneath the decks on that slave ship.
How we are seeing God, our theology, is not the same. And what we both mean when we say "I am a Christian" is not the same thing. The prophetic theology of the black church has always seen and still sees all of God's children as sisters and brothers, equals who need reconciliation, who need to be reconciled as equals in order for us to walk together into the future which God has prepared for us.
Now, look at what Rev. Wright says about black liberation theology, a theology he gladly espouses:
Now, in the 1960s, the term "liberation theology" began to gain currency with the writings and the teachings of preachers, pastors, priests, and professors from Latin America. Their theology was done from the underside.
Their viewpoint was not from the top down or from a set of teachings which undergirded imperialism. Their viewpoints, rather, were from the bottom up, the thoughts and understandings of God, the faith, religion and the Bible from those whose lives were ground, under, mangled and destroyed by the ruling classes or the oppressors.
Liberation theology started in and started from a different place. It started from the vantage point of the oppressed.
I hope you can see the problem. Rev. Wright tells us first that we should start our theology from the top: how we view God informs not just our theology, but our anthropology and sociology. In sharpest Christian terms, it is asserted by all orthodox Christians that God defines for us Who and What He is and What He is like. To God, our relation is responsive: He reveals, we respond. He is Who He Is, or so even Moses reported thousands of years ago. Christianity's starting point is the God Revealed.
But according to Rev. Wright's own words, he actually inverts the paradigm: black liberation theology begins in sociology, the sociological status of the oppressed. The oppressed, beginning in the mire, see God from the pit, defining Him as their liberator and the judge and damner of those who have enslaved them. God, then, is defined not by His own fiat, but by the conditions of the lowest social group. God is coming to judge, and the top social group shall be tossed down and the bottom elevated: the last are now first, the oppressed are now the judges.
That is why Rev. Wright can say, essentially, that the oppressors pray to a different God, even if those oppressors are Christians.
But the FACT IS THIS: All people are prone to manufacture God in their OWN IMAGE! And Rev. Wright has done EXACTLY that!
Alas, this is what passes, at least in Rev. Wright's world, as the prophetic voice. Curiously absent is any sense of proportion. Yes, Rev. Wright concedes that God loves the whole world, as he remarked in his talk, but this concession seems almost reluctantly offered. It even smacks of elitism, as it suggests that God prefers to love the oppressed but, almost despite Himself, He can love, well, "others" too.
Let me say with all due candor: this stuff is preposterous.
THE GOSPEL OF GUILT
In the end, we are left not with a gospel of liberation preached by Rev. Wright, but one of oppression, even extortion. Despite the fact that Rev. Wright is supposed to represent a faith that proclaims that Christ has paid our debts, that He forgives with abandon (assuming folks want forgiveness), that He absolves us of our guilt, Rev. Wright brings the glad tidings that Americans are still guilty, still reprobate, still WRONG. He has not forgiven, nor has he offered that forgiveness. Instead, he brings the gospel of extortion, of indebtedness: America, you still OWE! America, you still must pay! And this is not merely directed at institutions, as institutions cannot be divorced of their constituents. This is aimed at people, individuals.
This is not the gospel. We are not hearing the voice of Christ. We are hearing the voice of envy, resentment, anger, entitlement. This, believe it or not, is imprisonment dressed as liberty.
It is not the gospel at all.
Peace to you.
©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Simply Sad
For weeks now I have been reticent regarding Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama, and the allegedly "honest dialogue" on race in the United States. I have had many reasons for being quiet, for suspending judgment, but I will keep those reasons to myself, at least for now.
I just watched, live on CSPAN2, Reverend Wright's speech and Q&A session at the National Press Club breakfast. Last night, I watched a significant portion of his speech to the NAACP. All I can say is that Reverend Wright's opinions, at least to me, are an unmitigated social, cultural, religious, theological, and political disaster. Rev. Wright is wrong in so many ways it is impossible to reply to him in one short blog post. I am simply stunned, to be honest. In fact, I am almost stunned right back to reticence.
Reverend Wright appears to be intentionally fomenting racial hatreds. I am tempted to think he is even provoking assassination. Sorry. I am speaking solely from my heart. The sort of message and the manner in which that message has been presented by Reverend Wright almost seem to be an invitation to raise hostilities to their most feverish heights; to incite even an attack on not only "the black church," which Rev. Wright proclaims the media have undertaken, but an attack on a black leader. I am left feeling -- FEELING -- that Rev. Wright's prophetic message may indeed be naught but a self-fulfilling prophecy: Incited violence and hatred will prove that America is GUILTY, UNREPENTANT and RACIST.
Forgive me. I DON'T WANT these feelings. But I am deeply saddened by a demonstration of a self-righteousness and an arrogance so stunning as to be almost a scripted caricature. One would think this is more like a Hollywood depiction of a crude stereotype of arrogance and self-righteousness than it is a representation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It even feels like Reverend Wright wants to sabotage Barack Obama's candidacy. Seriously, this man is NO PASTOR to Barack Obama.
(I would urge you all to find replays on CSPAN or online of Reverend Wright's complete speeches. Watch them in their entirety. Listen carefully. Be discerning.)
It would be foolish of me to make predictions, so I won't. But I can't imagine that the Reverend's speeches to the NAACP and the National Press Club can be good for Barack Obama, OR race relations in America. I can tell you this: they were not good for me.
Honestly, I admit that I've been jaded by politics in the past, though such hardening was perhaps skin deep. But I would say that this particular narrative, playing out mainly in the Democratic Party's primaries, has jaded me close to the core: I may be jaded all the way through.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
I just watched, live on CSPAN2, Reverend Wright's speech and Q&A session at the National Press Club breakfast. Last night, I watched a significant portion of his speech to the NAACP. All I can say is that Reverend Wright's opinions, at least to me, are an unmitigated social, cultural, religious, theological, and political disaster. Rev. Wright is wrong in so many ways it is impossible to reply to him in one short blog post. I am simply stunned, to be honest. In fact, I am almost stunned right back to reticence.
Reverend Wright appears to be intentionally fomenting racial hatreds. I am tempted to think he is even provoking assassination. Sorry. I am speaking solely from my heart. The sort of message and the manner in which that message has been presented by Reverend Wright almost seem to be an invitation to raise hostilities to their most feverish heights; to incite even an attack on not only "the black church," which Rev. Wright proclaims the media have undertaken, but an attack on a black leader. I am left feeling -- FEELING -- that Rev. Wright's prophetic message may indeed be naught but a self-fulfilling prophecy: Incited violence and hatred will prove that America is GUILTY, UNREPENTANT and RACIST.
Forgive me. I DON'T WANT these feelings. But I am deeply saddened by a demonstration of a self-righteousness and an arrogance so stunning as to be almost a scripted caricature. One would think this is more like a Hollywood depiction of a crude stereotype of arrogance and self-righteousness than it is a representation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It even feels like Reverend Wright wants to sabotage Barack Obama's candidacy. Seriously, this man is NO PASTOR to Barack Obama.
(I would urge you all to find replays on CSPAN or online of Reverend Wright's complete speeches. Watch them in their entirety. Listen carefully. Be discerning.)
It would be foolish of me to make predictions, so I won't. But I can't imagine that the Reverend's speeches to the NAACP and the National Press Club can be good for Barack Obama, OR race relations in America. I can tell you this: they were not good for me.
Honestly, I admit that I've been jaded by politics in the past, though such hardening was perhaps skin deep. But I would say that this particular narrative, playing out mainly in the Democratic Party's primaries, has jaded me close to the core: I may be jaded all the way through.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)