March 23, 2008Furor over sermons needs more contextOn this, the holiest day in Christendom, when forgiveness and redemption are the center of our celebration, what would Jesus do about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright? Well, I doubt he'd hijack the presidential campaign of one of Wright's flock. Any churchgoing voter in America knows you can't control what comes out of the mouth of clergy. Often the words are inspiring. Frequently they are benign. Occasionally they are outrageous. Whatever the pastor's words or actions, you don't hold members of his (or her) church individually accountable for them. Just ask the followers of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart, Al Sharpton, Oral Roberts, Ted Haggard or John Hagee. Snippets of Wright's sermons caused a furor with a lot of people when they came to light last week. Snippets never sit well without the benefit of context, and in this case that was completely lacking. The only reason anyone noticed at all is that Wright happens to be the longtime pastor of Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama. And Obama is in the middle of a fierce campaign increasingly marred by the exploitive racial politics of his rival and her surrogates. Holy Week, a time to revel in the redemptive love of Christ, got upstaged in the pillorying of Wright by critics who didn't like what he said, and by political opponents of Obama who understood how to use Wright against him. Granted, the Good Reverend Doctor's words were incendiary. But he didn't say anything we haven't heard before. Anyone who acts surprised that a black man would vent about the social injustices against blacks is disingenuous. Even Wright's baseless claim that HIV is a genocidal plot is nothing new. Though Wright offered no proof, the sentiment would echo with a people aware of the very real, decades-long syphilis experiment in Tuskegee, Ala. Everybody remembers Falwell's proclamation that 9/11 was God's punishment for America's tolerance of gays and abortion. Did anyone accuse Falwell of betraying his country? No. People called him silly, ignorant and crazy. Yet when Wright took a page from Falwell's book and called 9/11 a payback for America's ill-treatment of other nations or railed about the treatment of blacks in this country, he was painted as anti-American and racist. Unfortunately, in this situation it's Obama who is paying the price. As criticism of first Obama's faith, then his church and finally full-blown coverage of Wright's sermons have gained traction, my emotions have run the gamut from mild bewilderment to bemusement, then to surprise. Bewildered that people are so easily taken in by orchestrated electronic chain-letters without trying to find out whether they are true. (To his credit, one of my e-mail buddies diligently has sought to vet each missive he has received.) Bemused that critics could be so transparent in their effort to manufacture an excuse not to vote for a candidate they weren't going to vote for anyway. Surprised that people would judge a politician by five or six out-of-context phrases that his pastor uttered during a 36-year career. If Wright's critics think he directs pointed words only at America, they're misinformed. I had the pleasure of hearing Wright preach twice about 10 years ago, once at my church in Detroit. His text was Luke 8, about a mentally unstable man possessed with demons. After Christ exorcised the man of his unclean spirits, the man sat down rationally in the Lord's company. Wright applied the message to disenfranchised black men to illustrate that if they cleaned up their lives, they could be productive and respected individuals. Following are the concluding words of the 2003 sermon titled "Confusing God and Government." The sermon has drawn the most ire because in it Wright said God should "damn" America for its racist policies. "Where governments fail, God never fails. When God says it, it's done. God never fails. When God wills it, you better get out the way, 'cause God never fails. When God fixes it, oh believe me it's fixed. God never fails." He concluded by talking about the salvation of Christians through Jesus Christ. Honestly, I don't know what Jesus would say to Wright. But I know what I would say to Wright's critics who by and large have given other preachers a pass: "And why behold thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but consider not the beam that is in thine own eye?" Shanna Flowers' column appears Sundays, Tuesdays and Thursdays. |
About this blog In her signature plainspoken style, Michigan native Shanna Flowers peels away the layers and gets to the heart of the issues. No pretense. Just straightforward perspective. Shanna writes about local people whose circumstances reflect decisions made as near as City Hall or as far away as the halls of Congress. Other times, she weighs in on a topic because it is incredibly ridiculous. Or heartening. Or fascinating. Read Shanna's column three days a week, Sundays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, at roanoke.com
.....Advertisement.....
|
...Advertisement...
...Advertisement...
Comments
[March 23, 2008 8:38 AM]
Not a conservativeThe followers of Saint Obama have routinely demonized their opponents and sanctified Barama. The reason why Wright won't go away is that his recorded words are unequivocal race hatred, while Barama sat in the pew and let it all go by without a comment. Barama wants change but the change his pastor promised was revenge, not redemption. To hear hate speech unchallenged is complicity. It is pointless to say that Wright is no worse than one of those maniac conservative hate-speakers - none of their flock is being presented as the Great Healer.
[March 23, 2008 9:22 AM]
Malcolm Macdonald : →http://macshir2Only in America you say, pity!
It's a sad reflection on a society when a news gathering organization chooses to distort the news by deliberately taking,out of context, passages from different sermons and promoting hatred for nothing but political and monitory gain. After all if Fox can create enough of a furor they stand to increase their customer base and therefore command more revenue. Despite any resemblance to truth or veracity. It's a pitiful take on their integrity as well as the US society as a whole who's laws allow for the apparent destruction of a person and his political life.
[March 23, 2008 9:41 AM]
Nick FosterFuller versions of the speeches are on YouTube now. When taken in context the comments really don't seem very bad. I think the thing that may grate for some people is the style of delivery more than the comments. That's really just a cultural difference though.
In the "chickens Coming home to roost" clip apparently he is actually quoting someone else. In the "god damn America" clip he's talking about how governments change and can do both moral and immoral acts (slavery etc) whereas God has unwavering morals.
[March 23, 2008 12:01 PM]
GoldenwillowAmen.
Shanna, your column on this beautiful Easter morning says exactly what I feel. I have no other comment, except that I emailed your column to the Obama website: www.barackobama.com.
I hope they will post it for the millions who visit regularly to read updates and articles.
Thank you!
[March 23, 2008 1:01 PM]
TrishRev. Wright will not go away because the media won't let it go away. We have ballot bowl, election center and the list goes on. The fact is it's along time before the next election. What in the world would they talk about? I certainly don't agree with some of Rev. Wrights comments but, they are certainly not comments I havent heard before.AS my Mom would say "eat the fish and leave the bones". Certainly we should give him the benefit of the doubt. We can't judge him by four of five 10 second sound bites or can we?. He's respected by alot of people and I'm sure for good reasons. We have photos now showing him at a breakfast at the White House with the Clinton's. I think the American people are past Wright at least the polls suggest 70% of them are and even more think he went a step further in race relations. I think it's time to move on to the "real issues" people.
[March 23, 2008 9:54 PM]
CleaI think that Bill O`reilly of fox news is a disunderstanding person who pretend to be fair but is not.He would look at the whole context of the Rev.Wright`s sermon it would enlighted anyone with a half a brain , would see what a very good message it is.This is not messages of hate but food for thouth.
[March 24, 2008 6:46 AM]
ChuckThe way Wright preaches has a name
"black liberation theology" a google search brings up a lot of sites of interest.
This type of "preaching" blaming "rich white people" for everything is only causing the racial divide to continue.
I wonder how many (hundreds) of young people listen to years of Wright's sermons that now harbor resentment/anger toward "rich white people"
Resentment leads to anger. This anger left unchecked and feed upon will turn to hate.
[March 24, 2008 7:53 AM]
Jim HarveyI think Clea needs a good dose of Kool Aid and quickly...
in reference to communion--and that is what you're referring to, right?--most churches use only grape juice or wine.---s
[March 24, 2008 4:11 PM]
JimIf you want to believe that a man can have a long-term association with an extremist, and that is EXACTLY what Jeremiah Wright is, and preside over the US, then you are in for a big surprise.
If I want to complain about my country, I may say, "to hell with these taxes", or "this administration is too liberal", etc. What I would never say in any context is GD America, GD its government, and 9/11 was deserved retribution. That's just freaking crazy talk. It's hate talk.
This should sink anyone running for public office who doesn't outright denounce the commentor, not just his statements. Put this together with Mrs. Obama's comments and Farrakhan's connection and the picture is ugly. Welcome to life in the public eye.
[March 24, 2008 11:52 PM]
Chris G. Muse : →http://museice.blogspot.com"Granted, the Good Reverend Doctor's words were incendiary. But he didn't say anything we haven't heard before."
I have a question. Who is "we"? The use of the general term implies 'all of us'. Perhaps I haven't attempted to broaden my horizons enough but I have never heard anything like Reverend Wright (I don't think it's necessary to go down a list but White Government creating the aids virus to kill black men is something I must have missed). So either you assume everyone has of course heard such words or 'we' applies to a group of people. Your group of people by definition. I'm obviously not part of 'we' so where do I fit?
You use the word 'we' in such an easy way that the impression is clear you don't consider the Reverend's remarks out of the ordinary. Really?
"We" meaning society at large.--s
[March 26, 2008 9:35 AM]
Bev Bishop : →http://www.myspace.com/secondseason2I use the word WE most often to describe all of us in many situations I see when it comes to things happening in our society! WE as a whole...United WE Stand...One For All and All For One! Yet, I guess at times it is true we should not include all when it comes to our opinions...maybe we (I) should say...I feel, I think, etc...However, where does that leave us at the end...ALONE!!!!!