|
|
The Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright is wrong, although God knows not in any way that The Obnoxious American (in a BlogCritics Opinion post on April 28, titled simply Reverend Wright at the National Press Club) alleges. Wright is wrong—perhaps misguided is better—to intercede in the Democratic political battle (all those speeches and press conferences) at a time when his comments are hurting one of the candidates, his (one presumes) now former parishioner.
In that regard, the Reverend Wright should cease and desist—at least for the time being, only because his comments may very well upend Senator Obama's Presidential quest. But not because, as The Obnoxious American (hereafter, TOA) seems to argue that he's an apologist for Louis Farrakhan; or that he blames 9/11 on US foreign policy; or that, bizarrely, former President Carter's "recent trip to the Middle East to meet with various terrorist leaders confirms for many a long history of anti-Jewish sentiment." (Huh?); or that Wright doesn't even like being black.
TOA quotes, accurately, Wright as saying that 'Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy, he did not put me in chains, he did not put me in slavery and he didn't make me this color'. And in the next sentence says: "I guess that means that Wright doesn't like the color of his skin? I'm not going to touch that one, but the audience seemed to love it." If TOA is being sarcastic, then I am wrong.
But for what Jeremiah Wright is saying or trying to say, he needs to speak even louder. Because, while several of his propositions may be slightly overheated (he is a preacher, after all), he's telling the truth. That's right: he's telling the truth, speaking the gospel, as it were.
It's important to point out that TOA takes issue mostly with what Rev. Wright says in his follow up Q and A, and he (I'm opting for the masculine here, right or wrong) pays virtually no attention to the pastor's opening remarks, which were centered on theological issues, not directly political ones. But to comment on the totality of what Wright said on April 28 at the National Press Club, you need to look at his comments leading to the question and answer session. TOA does not.
What Wright discussed initially was the historical marginalization of the black church in this country. His historical references were essentially accurate. The post-Civil War Black Codes were an effort still to control African Americans in this country, including how they worshipped. But these codes didn't work. African Americans, says Wright, have insisted on their right to worship in this country; they've always done so. But they've done so, essentially, separately.
And that's partly because we see God in the image that suits us—which is to say, ours. If you're white and a Christian (and one who spends any time at all thinking about these things—perhaps not a large number, actually) you think about Jesus, imagine him, as the Jesus we've all seen in pictures since we were kids in Sunday school: kindly looking, sad, bearded, handsome even. But not black. If you're African American in this country you likely see Jesus as black, or at least not white.
(Actually, if you're African American in this country I have no idea how you see Jesus: dark skinned, I'm guessing; but you clearly haven't grown up with many of those images to support you.)
Wright's point is also gender focused: "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 [sic], then I see humans through that lens." (Quotes taken from the Fox News transcript of Wright's speech and Q/A.)
Leaving aside for a moment the typical distinction between God and Jesus—that the former is harsh and vengeful and the latter loving and forgiving—what's there in this statement that is not correct? If my deity happens to be, at bottom, a nasty sort, then wouldn't I adopt the same sort of world view, being as how I wanted to live as I believe God would want me to?
Certainly Islam, the religion that receives the most press today about some of its inhumane practices, illustrates this view perfectly. If I believe in Islam—which means surrender to God—and that God wanted me, as some Muslims clearly believe, to turn into a human bomb, then I'm likely going to strap one on and go willingly as human dynamite into the nearest market, so to meet sooner rather than later those virgins awaiting me in Allah's heaven.
Even if our view of God does not directly inform our life decisions, it certainly would influence how we think and feel. How could it not? I mean, at least if we purport to be religious and to worship actively.
Of course Wright is incendiary and harsh when he then concludes: [if I'm white] "and I order my society where I can worship God on Sunday morning wearing a black clergy robe and kill others on Sunday evening wearing a white Klan robe. I can have laws which favor whites over blacks in America or South Africa. I can construct a theology of apartheid in the Africana church and a theology of white supremacy in the North American or Germanic church."
But he's not wrong.
Religious belief can be dangerous to your wellbeing if you're outside the understood scope of that religion. And yet, what Wright was leading to is reconciliation, not its opposite. Being a Christian, or saying you are, is not sufficient, according to Wright: "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."
Reconciliation is what he's advocating: "Reconciliation does not mean that blacks become whites or whites become blacks and Hispanics become Asian or that Asians become Europeans. Reconciliation means we embrace our individual rich histories, all of them. We retain who we are as persons of different cultures, while acknowledging that those of other cultures are not superior or inferior to us. They are just different from us."
Aren't those the founding principles of this country?
Wright's theology, then, is about convergence, not separation—because the Black church, as he has it, has been separated from the white church, always. When he says that Sunday at 11:00am is the most segregated hour in America, who would legitimately argue this? Whites and African Americans don't mingle in their mainstream worship.
It's likely that, despite their God being white to begin with, Caucasians are perhaps afraid of the intensity of the African American religious experience. And this separation has led not just to differences but to inequalities and misperceptions, according to Wright.
The whole point of Wright's opening comment was to declare the historical "apartness" of the black church in this country, deplore its treatment and yet glorify its grittiness. Then he's out to draw differences in us all, while not vilifying them—simply acknowledging them. Difference is not deficiency, and the goal should not be homogeneity but a respect for those differences. Here's his closing point:
"Reconciliation means we embrace our individual rich histories, all of them. We retain who we are as persons of different cultures, while acknowledging that those of other cultures are not superior or inferior to us. They are just different from us. "We root out any teaching of superiority, inferiority, hatred, or prejudice.
"And we recognize for the first time in modern history in the West that the other who stands before us with a different color of skin, a different texture of hair, different music, different preaching styles, and different dance moves, that other is one of God’s children just as we are, no better, no worse, prone to error and in need of forgiveness, just as we are." I quote heavily from the Reverend's remarks because that is what's missing in most of the analysis I read.
In this country we either can't handle the truth or we handle it differently in public than we do in private (which is more of less saying the same thing.) We won't acknowledge what's obvious because it scares us; it rattles to the point of instability and fear the little cages most of us spend our lives in. (Truth, I know, is a dangerous word, and I use it cautiously and with some hesitation.)
Leaving the truth aside for a moment let's get back to the blog in question. Reference is made to Wright's infamous sermon, post 9/11—now we're into the Q/A—in which he said that the attacks against the World Trade Centers represented "the chickens coming home to roost."
Asked about this at the National Press Club, whether he now disavowed it, he said he was only quoting the Iraqi ambassador (he probably did soft-pedal here) and then proceeded to cite scripture—Matt: 7:12—to the effect that Jesus said do unto others as you would have them do unto you. You know, treat people the way you want to be treated. TOA has a problem with this response: "Not quite backing away from his post 9/11 sermon, is it?"
I'm not sure, but was he supposed to back away from what he said in an earlier sermon, the now infamous God Damn America talk? Did I miss something? Why back off—because it sounds unpatriotic? What, you can't be critical of your country, even at the deepest of levels, and be patriotic? We all love our children, but rebuke and sometimes punish them when they misbehave.
Would anyone disagree that we've perpetrated acts of terrorism (O.K., let's use "war" instead, if it makes us feel better—public vs. private truth again) against other countries? If we invade another country and if the result is death and mayhem and chaos and uncertainty and disorder (see: Iraq) wouldn't that be a kind of terrorism to the afflicted countrymen? They'd say so.
And of course, Iraq is not the only example. But here's the point: the United States has plenty of blood on its hands.
Why is it an outrage to admit the truth of that statement? Now, if we were right in all of our terrorist-like incursions, that didn't make them any less bloody, didn't make their victims and sufferers any less likely to hate us for it. And, obviously, we weren't always right. For better or worse, our actions overseas have caused hardship and misery to tens of thousands. Do we really believe that our actions will not have consequences in this country?
Regarding Wright's relationship with Louis Farrakhan, TOA says that, in his "meandering" response to a related question he tries to "parse" the difference between Zionism and Judaism. No he doesn't. And his response doesn't meander: "Where Louis said twenty years ago that Zionism, not Judaism, is a gutter religion, he was talking about the same thing United Nations resolutions say, the same thing now that President Carter is being vilified for, and Bishop Tutu is being vilified for, and everybody wants to paint me as if I am anti Semitic because of what Louis Farrakhan said twenty years ago." (To wit: Palestinians should have a homeland.)
Frankly the response is not as cogent as it might be, but there's no support here for Farrakhan or anti-Semitism. TOA says, "There are multiple layers of offense associated with this comment alone." Really? Where? At bottom, Zionism is not so much religion as political movement, and at its most fervent it is counter-Palestine. But I don't see the multiple layers of offense. I see an honest response to what another incendiary figure, Farrakhan, got tangled up in years ago. But what does that have to do with Wright today?
TOA again: "To say that Zionism is a "gutter religion" is to say that Judaism itself is a gutter religion." Really? How so? I don't truly know how Farrakhan distinguished, if he did, between fundamentally a political movement and the religion it defends, but I'm not sure it's germane to anything.
Again, TOA on Farrakhan: "Wright goes on to say, 'Louis and I don't agree on everything...' but then described Farrakhan as "one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century, that's what I think about him."
Well, Wright does get carried away here because Farrakhan is not one of the most influential voices bridging the last two centuries, but he is a presence whose influence, for good or ill, is significant in the African American/Muslim world. No one has to like him—lots of people don't—but don't disparage or refute his influence.
Farrakhan's voice, whatever it once was, is diminished today by time and the tide of events over the last few years. In a post 9/11 world, his ability to occupy the world stage has withered.
I think the blog's biggest error is thinking that Wright is impossibly misguided when he says that "politicians say what they say and do what they do based on the polls." They do, and Obama does too, especially regarding Wright, because of all the TOA's out there, being religiously and politically myopic, who miss his point. (Besides: anyone think any politician is honest, especially when running for nomination?)
That's the problem with the truth in this country: to our glory, most of us know it, and to our shame we often refuse to acknowledge it.
Let's close with this last bit of commentary from TOA: "We've heard him [Wright] use this 'words are meaningless' tactic before. But those of us who have watched Obama's speeches with a critical eye already know this." I don't know, exactly, what this means. I'm pretty sure it means TOA isn't voting for Obama—but is there an accusation in there that Obama is pretty much always disingenuous? Well, no less than the average politician, as Wright would have it; but no more, by a mile, than any of the other candidates.
And you can easily argue that every time Obama approaches the truth (e.g., the "bitterness" leads to guns and religion comment) he is so totally misunderstood because, in a rare act, a politician is trying to be honest with us, or as honest as he can.
But we—here it comes, quoting Jack—can't handle the truth.
Obama's trying to tell more of it than anyone else. Plus, he's black—well, black enough—and put those two together and you have a nexus of misunderstanding, misgivings and, sometimes, mistakes that obscures most of what Obama says.
Before anyone of us pontificates on these seeming miscues, before we declare ourselves unabashed (meaning, usually, unthinking) patriots, let's try to get closer to the truth. If we can't do that, let's get closer to the facts. |
|
|
|
