Why it doesn't matter
I didn't weigh in on the Geraldine Ferarro comments earlier this week because they, like this nonsense involving Jeremiah Wright, is all a non-story. While I hardly condone the comments made by Ferarro or Wright, are we to really believe that the foolish views or misguided statements of two individuals reflect some underlying, nefarious system of beliefs by either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama?
And the same goes for John McCain's ties to Ted Hagee, Rod Parsley and the late Jerry Falwell.
I work with and am friends with a variety of people who hold varying views on race, politics, religion, etc. and etc., but their beliefs are not necessarily mine, and my association with them doesn't mean I either condone or reject them. Likewise, I've been a member of First Baptist Church of Athens for almost four years now, and I've heard a sermon now and then where I've thought 'I don't agree with that intrepretation' or 'I think that's a little too much on that' but those few differences don't give an indication to the mission of the church or the differing beliefs and views of the members of the congregation.
Which is why all of this talk of a pastor's ties or Ferarro's diatribe are profoundly stupid. But, sadly, it'll be a story for all three candidates because the national media loves gossip and scandal, and different campaigns jockeying for position will use these periphery figures as validation of the 'fringe' beliefs of their opponents.
And the same goes for John McCain's ties to Ted Hagee, Rod Parsley and the late Jerry Falwell.
I work with and am friends with a variety of people who hold varying views on race, politics, religion, etc. and etc., but their beliefs are not necessarily mine, and my association with them doesn't mean I either condone or reject them. Likewise, I've been a member of First Baptist Church of Athens for almost four years now, and I've heard a sermon now and then where I've thought 'I don't agree with that intrepretation' or 'I think that's a little too much on that' but those few differences don't give an indication to the mission of the church or the differing beliefs and views of the members of the congregation.
Which is why all of this talk of a pastor's ties or Ferarro's diatribe are profoundly stupid. But, sadly, it'll be a story for all three candidates because the national media loves gossip and scandal, and different campaigns jockeying for position will use these periphery figures as validation of the 'fringe' beliefs of their opponents.
posted by Jmac at 4:02 PM
13 Comments:
JMac -
I disagree about Pastor Wright and Obama not being a big deal. Yes, everyone sitting in a pew on Sunday morning disagrees with a sermon or two. But this goes beyond disagreeing with a sermon. This is a person who Obama has stated in the past that he admires and trusts - so much that he placed him on a leadership council.
I would agree that the past sermons on post 9/11 and the like have absolute no bearing on this election, but the more recent sermons of hate (my summary) that he had towards Hilliary late last year might reveal a real problem with how Obama might chose future advisors.
That is the main reason why Paster Wright is so different than the others you mention. With "friends" like these, can you imagine his "enemies?"
Ferraro was right on. How can anyone disagree with this? Whatever merits Obama has, if he were white you'd have never heard of him.
-Matt
Right, Obama gave lots of money to this guy. Put him in a leadership position, etc. That at least makes it a legitimate question, how much does he agree with Wright on some of the things he says? I don't think it's an automatic slam dunk (and as a minister myself who believes strongly in freedom to speak out in a prophetic way against perceived injustice, I don't want politicians having to "back down" from their clergy friends just b/c the latter say something controversial). But, it is worth pondering.
It's also quite different in nature from McCain's 'connection' to Hagee. McCain has no connection to Hagee. He's not a member of his church, he hasn't donated to his church (as far as I know), etc. Hagee is a fundamentalist Texas blowhard who likes to look important, and so he decided to endorse McCain. McCain said, in effect, thanks I appreciate whatever support I can get. The relationship between the candidate and endorsing minister are quite different in the two cases. Plus, Hagee really hasn't said anything all that outrageous anyway. Nothing like some of the stuff Wright appears to have said.
Right, Obama gave lots of money to this guy.
Obama gave lots of money to the church, not Wright.
Listen, I'm not saying this won't be a big deal, obviously it already is, but it honestly shouldn't be. Are we to sit back and believe that Obama endorses every single word said by this man (and, judging by Obama's reaction to this, he clearly does not). The point being that as Obama and other members of the church have noted, these are a few cherry-picked statements over the course of a 30-year career in the ministry, including a condensed number coming at the tail end of Wright's career.
Also, this belies the relationship between a pastor and a congregational member. One of my best friends at my church is one of our pastors, and I'm quite sure that I don't endorse all of his views politically or theologically, but I don't know all of his views ... and this is still someone I consider a very close friend and spiritual mentor.
Receiving counseling, prayer and support is wholly different than endorsing one's views. Xon, for instance, is one of my good friends, and we've talked and shared about faith and politics and what-have-you ... yet, as he can attest, I hardly share his views on some elements of theology or ideology. Am I doomed because of the 'company I keep?'
Hardly. This is a story only because we love scandal and gossip, when in reality this - like the others I alluded to - are nothing more than unwarranted intrusions as folks attempt to play the guilt by association card.
Plus, Hagee really hasn't said anything all that outrageous anyway. Nothing like some of the stuff Wright appears to have said.
Um, wow.
The sad thing is it's not 'outrageous' because so many tend to look the other way, however Hagee (John, by the way, I had his first name wrong) has advocated, repeatedly, for war in the Middle East in order to trigger the end of the world and has called the Catholic Church 'the great whore.'
And, it should be noted, that McCain actively sought the endorsement of Hagee, and he considers Parsley - who has said that even mainstream Muslims are terrorists and worthy of death - his close spiritual advisor.
This entire thing is utterly depressing, from all accounts. I think one can hardly condone the comments made by these folks, but are we so sensitive of a society that we can't tolerate someone saying these things? And we can't accept the explanations given by all three of the candidates?
Nothing about Obama's campaign - of McCain's for that matter - suggest that he adheres to these views and that he is genuinely conflicted by his personal relationship with Wright yet disgusted by the things he's said.
If John McCain was an active member of Fred Phelps's "God Hates Fags" church, that would be a big deal, right? If he said he just liked the sense of community, and besides he dosn't endorse everything his pastor says, we wouldn't buy it.
One of the biggest moves in contemporary theology (and this is not a "liberal" or a "conservative" thing; it's an everybody thing) is that people are finallly starting to see that this "modern" distinction between "public" and "private" or between "religious" and "secular" is nonsense. We are whole persons, and trying to live a "compartmentalized" life (I go to this church, but it doesn't effect my overall life) is self-deception at best.
Of courae, you don't have to disassociate from your church as soon as somebody says something you disagree with. In fact, that would be a bad thing. But church membership is an association. Even if you DON'T agree with everything the pastor says (which is true of every parishioner everywhere), if your minister has a common theme he talks about a lot and if you sit under his preaching for an extended period of time, then that is going to effect you. Whether you 'agree' with it or not. If a pastor is obsessed with who killed Kennedy, and he preaches conspiracy sermons about it every week, then that church will start to be known in the community as "the JFK conspiracy church." The pastor is the public face, and there's not way around that, of the church. And anyone who continues to be a member of that church is going to come under scrutiny as well.
However, let me say this. My comments here are really pretty hypothetical. I was operating on the assumption that Wright's comments really were as awful as all the hysterical talking heads were making them out to be. Now that I've looked into his comments for myself, though, I'm not even sure Wright said anything all that bad. This argument from the anti-Obama people DOES, in fact, seem a lot like a silly guilt by association argument (like, for instance, the conservative talking head I heard last night who made a big deal out of the fact that Wright has worked with/supported Farrakhan in the past...to worry about Obama b/c he associates with Wright, who associates with Farrakhan, is not a good argument.) When we look at Wright's actual comments, he said "God damn America" instead of "God bless America" because, as he sais, it's "in the Bible" that when you kill innocent people you come under God's judgment.
Well, I'm sorry neo-conservatives, but that really is in the Bible (sort of, more or less). We can disagree with Wright about his interpretation of the moral impliciations of our foreign policy, but the idea that a PREACHER would stand up and issue a word of "prophesy" against the national government is something every religious person should WANT to happen. Historically, the church (and, more specifically, the people who are loyal to the church) has served as a check against various government tyrannies. Pointing out that you know, God isn't just automatically pleased with us b/c we put His name on our money, and judgement oftens starts with those who claim to be God's people but ignore His law, is what we need MORE of in this modern world. Not less, more.
Some are accusing Wright of being "racist," hating all white people, etc. But I didn't necessary get that message (other than his history of working with Farrakhan, which does not automatically make him racist). His claim that America is run by "white men with power" is, you know, true. I disagree with Wrigth's approach to this issue: I'm more of a MLK idealist when it comes to racial reconciliation I guess. But it's not inherently racist to say something that is, you know, true.
So I think this is a bit overblown, now that I've actually read Wright's comments (unless I'm missing something that he said). But, the reason it's overblown is not b/c it doesn't matter whose Obama church, pastor, and spiritual advisor is. Those things matter very much.
I still don't necessarily agree, but I do think your take on the Wright thing is worthy of perspective and I'm pretty much with you on it.
This includes a column by a minister from the Religious Right who says, roughly, some similar things.
Early MLK idealist or later MLK idealist, Xon?
Also, it's interesting that Schaeffer's son wrote that piece. Anyone within the broadest of margins of the evangelical community knows that the talk of God's judgment on the United States has very much been there in the community, but none of us who sat in the pews or seats for such sermons and lectures were considered at that time to be un-American. You don't even have to go to Phelps as an example of this: it's so common that any conservative theology in the evangelical community hits on the topic at least eighteen times a year in its sermons.
Which makes me wonder.
Do these people even pay attention in church?
Franky Schaeffer has a bit of a patricidal complex going, which is unfortunate. Ever since his (famous) conversion to orthodoxy, he has taken perhaps a little too much delight in dragging his dad's name through the muck (mostly in his novels). But, he certainly has authority to speak about the rhetoric of the Religious Right, especially in its early days. Francis Schaeffer is probably the most responsible individual for launching the 'pro-life' movement among evangelicals. And Franky grew up with a backstage pass to the one of the leading evangelical thinkers and writes of the 20th century. It was in interesting article, and I think his basic point is right on.
The neo-cons are not Christians, or at least they are horribly compromised if they are. There is no other way to say it. Listen to Hannity or Rush rant for two minutes about how bad it supposedly is to be "anti-America," and you realize very quickly that these guys are idolaters. If I were the bishop of Hannity's diocese, I'd pull him in for a talk and make him clarify his views of American exceptionalism, or else threaten him with excommunication.
I'm not familiar enough to know the distinction you are making between "early" and "later" MLK, Charles. So I'll just say what I mean more plainly. I'm a "MLK" idealist about civil rights in the sense that I think our laws and such should be color blind. As in, color simply does not come up into any calculations we do about who should be or do what. Sons of former slaves and former slave owners, content of their character, and all that.
For instance, when I start my Christian college or university, we will not have a place where you check your race. See, we simply won't care.
I know this is considered a tired old argument by liberals, but I am basically taking the 'typical' conservative argument against affirmative action and things like that. To me there are two discernible strains of civil rights thinking. One is that the machinery of justice and so forth should be truly color blind (to whatever extent that is possible). That's my position. The other is that we have to apply some sort of egalitarian expectation of results to our society, so that we actually have to actively work to advantange certain people over others, based on their race, all in the name of making up for past injutices and getting back to some sort of level playing field. I think that second approach is a grave mistake, and that that sort of thinking locks us into the very sort of racialist thinking that I have always taken MLK to have been against. Even if your motivation is guarding racial equality, which is good, affirmative action requires you to look at people based on race. It makes justice color consciousness rather than color blind. And it traps us in a cycle that doesn't have to be that way.
And thus my disagreement with Rev. Wright's comments. He seems too focused on race, rather than on the human nobility of all people no matter what their race. But he's hardly alone in that mistake, and it hardly warrants a big controversy since it is pretty much the standard view of contemporary civil rights thinking.
Upon even more research...
To whatever extent Wright is a self-conscious advocate and follower of "black liberationist theology," I think he's a total and complete nut. Revolutionary Marxism (complete with priests carrying guns) in Christian garb is not what the world needs, and again it highlights the way in which Rev. Wright is too hung up on ethnicity. (The Gospel of Christinaity is that our ethnicity no longer defines us, that there is a new King who gathers in ALL the nations and we are called to turn our backs on our ethnicities in order to follow Him.) But this still has very little to do with Obama's fitness for office. Pastors usually have a motivating theology behind their minsitries, but it doesn't necessarily come out in all they say and do. Obama can't be linked to Wright, who's linked to black liberationist Marxist theology, and so therefore Obama is linked to black liberationist Marxist theology. That argument won't fly for two seconds.
If Rev. Wright constantly preached the liberationist theology message, then that would be one thing. But it appears to me that this background provided some particular sermons now and then, but was hardly the "public" face of the church.
Evangelicals who convert to orthodoxy seem to have in common a strident rejection of the evangelical culture. Either that or they grow bald.
King's writings and speeches show a progression of thought that came to see the particular plight of the black people in the United States as symptomatic of the larger problem that effected everyone's plight. When King could see that Ghandi's non-violent approach to radical change had application to the struggle of the dispossessed blacks of the United States, he had (perhaps) unwittingly caught onto a fundamental point of unity among humans: their suffering at the hands of the powerful. Certainly the language of the Old Testament, from which he drew much of the material that infuses his speeches and sermons, is very racial and greatly emphasizes the ethnicity of the people who suffer, and King's sermons and speeches reflect this kind of struggle for unifying together on the basis of the shared and collective suffering... of a people.
But then, there comes a point in any struggle for change where sites open up to see another people fighting a very similar enemy, and a person can become open to knowing that something about our human condition is there in the shared struggle. King, I think, wasn't just thinking of a tactical movement or a strategic setting of how to implement non-violence to otherthrow an Empire's grip, he was also more realizing how the struggle he was fighting was not a "civil rights" issue affecting the freedom and movement of blacks in the United States, but was a struggle against militarism, amoral capitalism, and the dehumanization of people throughout all of the world. His narrative became even larger, because peace as a demand came to him that much clearer--that much more concrete. It mattered nothing if a black man or woman could vote if either were shipped off to kill another human being to secure a profit for yet another human being.
The mythology of King tends to keep him as the "content of one's character" sermonizer, as someone who was strictly a champion of racial justice in the United States. Rather than as the activist for peace throughout the world, as the critic of the union of military and capital, as the prophet who saw that war after war after war will be fought to keep secure and stable one specific nation's quality of life, as he were these. That is what I find difficult the more I read his writings and listen to his sermons--how the myth of his martyrdom has been played into a racial lesson about not looking at another's skin. He will always be in that myth a black man, fighting for other black people, to have rights and liberties that do not depend upon one's being black or not-black. But if we are to take seriously this mythology's moral lesson, we would rather accept that the man who won a Nobel Peace Prize ended his life diagnosing as our Doctor this truly transcending disease, the pandemic of the world who really is the only thing that respects no person's race, ethnicity, language, culture, religion, sex, gender, or species.
Post a Comment
<< Home