Okay, everyone. Move along. The AP says there’s nothing to worry about.
Bookworm on Mar 18 2008 at 3:02 pm | Filed under: African-Americans, Barack Obama, Media matters
The AP is diving into damage control, assuring us that, not only is Pastor Wright just your ordinary black improvement activist, but his style of rhetoric is dying away anyway:
As shocking as they may be, the provocative sermons of Barack Obama’s pastor come out of a tradition of using the black church to challenge its members and confront what preachers view as a racist society. Yet while the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s racially tinged messages still resonate in some black churches, evidence also suggests his style is receding into the past as civil rights-era pastors retire. Sermons in other congregations now focus less on societal divisions and more on the connection between spirituality and a materially prosperous life.
Also, AP assures us, Wright, who just happens to have the largest church in his denomination (so it’s not dying out any time soon) is all about the Bible and social welfare:
More than three decades ago, Wright took over a small, demoralized congregation on Chicago’s impoverished South Side and built it into the largest church in the liberal, mostly white United Church of Christ.
At the 8,000-member Trinity United Church of Christ, the slogan “Unashamedly black and unapologetically Christian” has meant preaching about divestment during South Africa’s apartheid era. It has also meant fighting poverty, homelessness and AIDS at home. The religious message has been anything but watered down, with Wright dissecting Bible passages line-by-line.
Nor is black liberation theology anything about which you should worry, since it’s just another way of dealing with the all American battle to do away with the evil that is racism:
The pastor’s experience is grounded not only in the civil rights movement, but also in 1960s black liberation theology, which applies the Christian Gospel to contemporary struggles against race-based oppression.
I guess the AP religion writer forgot to read about the way in which black liberation theology describes itself:
James Cone, the most prominent theologian in the “black liberation” school, teaches that Jesus Christ himself is black. As he explains:
Christ is black therefore not because of some cultural or psychological need of black people, but because and only because Christ really enters into our world where the poor were despised and the black are, disclosing that he is with them enduring humiliation and pain and transforming oppressed slaves into liberating servants.
Theologically, Cone’s argument is as silly as the “Aryan Christianity” popular in Nazi Germany, which claimed that Jesus was not a Jew at all but an Aryan Galilean, and that the Aryan race was the “chosen people”. Cone, Hopkins and Wright do not propose, of course, to put non-blacks in concentration camps or to conquer the world, but racially-based theology nonetheless is a greased chute to the nether regions.
Biblical theology teaches that even the most terrible events to befall Israel, such as the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE, embody the workings of divine justice, even if humankind cannot see God’s purpose. James Cone sees the matter very differently. Either God must do what we want him to do, or we must reject him, Cone maintains:
Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love. [1]
In the black liberation theology taught by Wright, Cone and Hopkins, Jesus Christ is not for all men, but only for the oppressed:
In the New Testament, Jesus is not for all, but for the oppressed, the poor and unwanted of society, and against oppressors … Either God is for black people in their fight for liberation and against the white oppressors, or he is not [Cone].
While the AP’s watered down version of the Christianity Obama has been absorbing for 22 years shouldn’t worry any reasonable person too much, the movement’s own beliefs and goals should worry a great deal those who envision a MLKing-esque society in which black and white walk are considered equal and given full equality of opportunity.Understanding the whole black liberation theology thing makes me less sanguine about the AP writer’s reminder that:
Often lost in the attention paid to Wright’s fiery sermons is the typical conclusion, Hopkins said—that despite all obstacles, you are a child of God and “can make a way out of no way.”
As far as I can tell, I’m not a child of God. You are, if you’re black, but I’m not, because I’m white and, worse, Jewish. No comfort there, Mr. AP religious writer.
Anyway, the real problem lies with white people, who are so immature and sensitive that they just don’t cope well with being abused, insulted and threatened:
While Trinity United Church of Christ is more Afrocentric and slightly more political than most black churches, “even conservative black churches talk about racism in a way that many whites would find wounding or offensive,” said Gary Dorrien, a religion professor at Columbia University in New York.
“Most white Americans have a very limited capacity for dealing with black anger or acknowledging their own racial privileges,” Dorrien said. “Wherever white people are dominant, whiteness is transparent to them. In black church communities, dealing with that problem is an every-week issue.”
Aaack! Gotta get the kids. I don’t know if I’ll be able to revisit this post today, but I trust that, if you check out the AP story, you’ll discern more of the same after the point at which I left off.
Email This Post To A Friend
39 Responses to “Okay, everyone. Move along. The AP says there’s nothing to worry about.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You know, the truth is, the truth is wherever you find it.
I’ve heard that we learn something new every day. After reading the AP referenced by BW, I learned that there is black anger and white anger - right there toward the end. And all these years I thought anger was an equal opportunity human response. I think I can infer from the piece that black anger gets a pass, as it certainly does in this article. The mind boggles at the thought of this pastor being a spiritual advisor to the President of the United States.
I keep wondering if I would be welcome at Trinity United Church of Christ.
That sad thing is that, in the end, this really will have set back race relations in the U.S. in a major way.
Got to hand it to the Liberals, they sure have a way of screwing things up over and over again.
So predictable.
Give it a few months to simmer and I am sure that, somehow, conservatives and Republicans will somehow get blamed for this.
Have any of you seen the web site for Trinity United Church of Christ? http://www.tucc.org/home.htm Of course, you’d be welcome Jose.
And Danny how does this set race relations back? Talking about race is bad? Were you just about to vote for Obama until this happened? Talk about rhetoric.
I’ve seen the website. I also saw it last year. I wonder why they changed it so much, because it doesn’t look anything like it used to. Can anyone tell me why they have revised their public message so drastically?
2008.03.19 Politics and National Defense Roundup…
This post will grow as the day goes on. Please don’t forget to check back later. Worth knowing about today: Send in the Clones From the Front Who’s Ignorant?…
Jose -
The question in my mind is whether Jesus himself would be welcome at Trinity United Church of Christ.
He was a Jewish man born in the Levant and not in sub-Saharan Africa, as apparently everyone at that church would love to believe. Then there is the issue of what is being preached in what is supposed to be God’s house. The manner in which Jesus delivered his lessons could not be more different than the histrionics that are streaming from that church’s pulpit. Wright’s antics and the content of his speech serve merely to draw attention to himself, and not Jesus’ message.
Deana
I still haven’t seen any reason to believe that Barack Obama buys into the whole Black Liberation Theology movement. His pastor clearly does, and expressed its common anti-White racist principles clearly for all of us to see and hear. If you read or listen to Obama’s speech yesterday, can you really believe that such a speech could have come from someone who buys into that whole argument? I certainly didn’t hear it.
The issue for me is that Sen. Obama could have been continually exposed to the virulence of this movement for twenty years and never taken any steps to heal its vicious effects among the parishioners in his church. He appears to have been absolutely quiet - with the exception of his political statements over the years that make it clear that he’s not a part of the movement.
If he actually wants to bring about healing and unity, shouldn’t he have done something, anything, within his Church, to move them towards the healing and unity he wants? He seems to have made the speeches but not performed any of the actions.
I wonder what the effects of this speech will be over time. I thought it was a truly fantastic speech, and highly risky. I can’t think of another politician who would even have dared to go out on a limb like this, and that courage may be enough. Yet another interesting day in this interesting campaign year.
I want to condense Book’s excerpt of Reverend Cone:
“If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. [...] Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. [...] the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal.”
In all my life, I have never heard any white racist express racial hatred of this degree. The depths of this total racism of Mr. Cone is shocking, isn’t it? Every white person is the enemy and must be destroyed. Isn’t that absolutely shocking?
If you really absorb the intensity of the hatred expressed by this guy - and then you go back and read Barack Obama’s speech - I think you will see how clearly he repudiated this belief system and those who participate in it. Obama has just told all Blacks who participate in this evil belief system that he is not one of them. I think that is a very good start.
We’ll have to see how Obama addresses the concern that, except for the broadest of platitudes, he has been silent on this issue for all these years until now, while remaining a member of a church whose pastor apparently agrees with the evil expressed by Mr. Cone above.
I say that Obama has set race relations back, HelenL, precisely because the campaign has now become “all about race” and because Obama has now painted black politicians as putting their race identity first and foremost, together with a huge chip on their shoulders about their “victimization”. That may be OK for a Chicago ward alderman but it doesn’t carry water for national leadership. There are very serious challenges facing our country and world today, and black racial grievance isn’t the one that keeps me up at night.
Somehow, I don’t think that a J.C. Watt, Ward Connelly or Colin Powell would ever have allowed such sentiments to define their campaigns.
I fear that from now on, too many blacks will take the attitude that Obama was dissed because he was black and too many white will say that, try as they may, black politicians just can’t shake the race grievance bit. In the end, Obama’s campaign has simply rubbed salt in old wounds that long ago should have healed but for the deliberate actions of race grievance mongers. That’s what is sad about this.
In addition, HelenL, I suspect that there are many, many black people that are personally offended by the image of Christianity and “black worship” as portrayed by Rev. Wright and his followers, including Senator Obama. I suspect that they are very offended by articles that purport to speak about what “black churches” are supposedly all about.
I certainly would be offended if, for example, an international news organization was to focus on a fringe-lunatic fundamentalist cult as typical of “white Christianity”.
I find Obama’s address to be another in a long line of calculated steps to grab the ring. From arriving in Chicago after a privileged life in select private and public schools and needing a black political base to support his run, to avoiding having the pastor w/him at his public announcement of his candidacy, to coming out w/dribs and drabs to publically excuse his pastor’s rhetoric before yesterday’s speech, to name a few.
I don’t see how he clearly and unequivocally distanced himself from the rhetoric of his pastor, and I cringed when he dissed his own grandmother in the same sentence where he said she ‘loved me and sacrificed for me’.
If he doesn’t actually believe he is personally a victim, he still uses the victim mentality that permeates his church to connect w/other ‘victims’ while at the same time trying to sound messiah-like to the mixed crowds who turn out for his speeches.
I checked out the church’s web site last year and none of all that has happened since then surprises me.
Has anyone commenting here actually read a book by James Cone? Do you even know what he means by “white person”? Evidently not.
Helen,
I’ve never read anything by James Cone. But I don’t have time to run to the library today. So since you brought it up, and evidently know the answer, would you please tell us what he means by “white person” so that we can consider the subject in the proper context?
Judy, A “white person” is a racist not a person of European descent. We live in systemic racism, but James Cone knows not every white individual is the “enemy.”
Well, if I am not a racist, but I am a person of European descent, then how shall I describe myself in those little check boxes the government likes to put on some of their forms?
And if not every “white individual” is the enemy, but the term “white person” is reserved for racists, then isn’t that an attempt to deny me any group identity? And isn’t group identity what everybody needs in order to get anywhere in today’s world? Heaven help us if we have to be judged merely on the “content of our character.”
THat’s very convenient. A “white person” is a racist, thus for a person of European descent, he has to become an unperson first before he can stop being a “white person”.
We live in systemic racism, but James Cone knows not every white individual is the “enemy.”
Yeah, they aren’t persons. Makes things very convenient for some people.
Judy, Those little boxes make me mad. If I can fill in the blank, I say “English America” or “European American.” But much of the time, I just check ‘White.”
The people who deal with the statistics these boxes generate probably know little liberation theology. Or, if they knows lots, they don’t let it affect the tally.
Ymarsakar, Anyone can give up white privilege. But when you try, you find it an on-going task.
The audacity and the arrogance of these excuses are incredible. Do people actually think it is harmless to say that it is only the “white person” upholding a racist system? That it is okay if you are white, so long as you aren’t a “white person”?
People who know how to use language in propaganda and brainwashing techniques, like Chomsky, can make great use of these New EngSoc doublethink terms.
White persons are racists, but it is okay because not every white individual is a person.
That’s very convenient as a precursors to genocide and massacres.
Every white person is the enemy and must be destroyed. Isn’t that absolutely shocking?
Don’t worry, be happy now. So long as you aren’t a person, it doesn’t matter if you are still white.
Ymarsakar, How does the logic differ from believing for following?
1. Only Christians go to heaven
2. Jews are God’s only “chosen” people
HelenL, I believe that the correct term for what you just posted to YM is “non sequitur”.
So let’s not address the statement that inspired the subsequent comments. Let’s just shift the whole thing to what Christians and Jews have said. Two wrongs don’t make a right (or a “Wright” - sorry, couldn’t resist.)
I don’t buy into the idea that only Christians go to heaven. It can’t hurt me, and it can’t keep me out of heaven. Each religion has to offer something exclusive, otherwise why would anybody put a dollar bill in the collection plate? But racism isn’t about religion. It’s a harmful accusation. It’s more than “my beliefs are different from yours.” It’s a condemnation of wrongdoing (or wrong thinking) and it can cause damage in people’s lives. It shouldn’t be thrown around lightly.
And Helen, as long as you’re bringing up religious views, why not add something about the Muslims. You probably could have found something they say that belongs on your list.
(By the way, I’ve heard that Jews are the chosen people. I don’t think I’ve heard that Jews are the “only” chosen people. But let’s not quibble. As a Jew, I can understand how some non-Jews might not like hearing that. If any non-Jews want to comment on that point, I’d be interested.)
Did someone say non sequitur?
From Night at the Opera:
Fiorello: What’ll I say?
Otis B. Driftwood: Tell them you’re not here.
Fiorello: Suppose they don’t believe me?
Otis B. Driftwood: They’ll believe you when you start talking.
And as rewritten by Harold Pinter:
Fiorello: What’ll I say?
Pause.
Otis B. Driftwood: Tell them … you’re not here.
Pause.
Fiorello: Suppose … they don’t … believe me?
Pause.
Otis B. Driftwood: They’ll believe you when you start talking.
As rewritten by Samuel Beckett:
A bare stage.
Fiorello: What’ll I say?
Pause.
Otis P. Driftwood remains mute, drops his pants.
Curtain.
I’ll try, Judyrose: The old covenant was for the Jews as God’s holy, set apart (chosen) people, and it was a covenant of works - you work, God forgives sin. The new covenant flows out of the old, is for all people, a covenant not of works but of faith in Jesus Christ, a Jew. That’s pretty bare bones, I’ll admit.
Judy, I don’t buy either idea. Both Christians and Jews believe that Jews are God’s chosen people. I think Jesus died for everyone, whether they like it or accept it or not, so I guess you’d say I’m a progressive Christian (unless you’re ultra-conservative, in which case, I’m lost, as well as the Jews.) (”And I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto me.”—John 12:32) Jesus died to close the gap between Jews and Gentiles - to make all people the “chosen” ones. I think we’ll be together in heaven, where we’ll understand a lot of things we argue about now and not need to argue about them any more. I don’t want to fight about it now. I don’t know enough about Islam to make a statement to fit the list, so, for once, I refused to show my ignorance.
Black liberation theology speaks powerfully and graphically, as do both Jews and Christians. But it does have “something exclusive” to offer: By comparing the African American experience (in slavery) to the Israelites in bondage in Egypt and later wandering in the desert, it offers hope to a suffering people in ways “white Christianity” does not.
Just as you have pointed out that Jews do not claim to be God’s “only” chosen people, black liberation theologists do not believe they are the only people in bondage or the only people to be “saved.” Pitting black (good) against white (bad) is like comparing Jewish (good) against the other tribes (bad). It’s the winners who write the history, not this is “the truth - the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”
Thank you Marguerite and Helen. I heard one Catholic friend say that she believed God chose the Jews as the people from which Christ would come, and that interpretation answered the question for her about what “chosen” means. Sounds OK to me. I have very little religious training, and don’t miss it. I haven’t spent my life walking around feeling “chosen”, but I do feel blessed in many ways.
Anybody care to get back to the racism issue? I believe we left off at comment 16: “A white person is a racist…”
No, I think we should fight about whether “all men” in “(”And I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto me.”—John 12:32)” from comment 27 means women, too.
LOL
If you’re going to make a turn, you’re supposed to signal.
I don’t want to fight. I just want to discuss. And to learn. But frankly, there are some things I just don’t get.
If it is any consolation, Judyrose, there is a lot of controversy among Christians as to the full meaning of Christ’s crucifixion and in regard as to for whom exactly the gates of Heaven were opened.
Episcopalians and many Roman Catholics take the view that Christ’s forgiveness is universal and the gates were open to all, including non-Christians. However, not everyone wants or chooses to go through (re. C.S. Lewis’ “The Great Divorce”). Fundamentalist Baptists believe that there are some pretty tight criteria that have to be met first, including signing on to their particular brand of Christianity. From what I understand, Mormons believe that all will be revealed to us when we die and then we’ll choose (I may be wrong on this last one). It’s all so confusing.
As for the Jews, Marguerite and HelenL are both right about the Jews being “Chosen” because God chose the tribe of Abraham to begin his process of revelation and intervention in Mankind’s spiritual growth and reconciliation to Him (He had to start with somebody, after all, so why not pick the people at the crossroads of civilizations - just speculating, of course). Most Christian denominations with which I am familiar also believe that we hold a supreme obligation to protect the Tribe of Israel because of this.
Sorry if I bored you with the religious monologue - guess I am getting into the Easter spirit. Tomorrow is Good Friday, so Happy Easter, y’all - be ye Christians or not, it is a wonderful time of renewal for which we can extend our best wishes to our non-Christians friends all. I’ll raise a glass of the finest wine to all of you.
“I once was lost, but now, I am found.” (From “Amazing Grace”)
When it comes to discussion of theological issues, I am definitely on the lost side.
Ymarsakar, How does the logic differ from believing for following?
1. Only Christians go to heaven
2. Jews are God’s only “chosen” people
On the basis that all religious and secular beliefs are fundamentally the same, there is no difference in logic between someone defending the existence and perpetuation of institutional racism and someone believing in heaven and the chosen ones.
That, of course, has nothing to do with whether someone should go on talking about white people and the system of racism they were supposed to have created and are now upholding.
What was I thinking! Tomorrow I take off in anticipation of Good Friday. It’s Maundy Thursday of course…but I won’t be visiting blogs. See ya!
Happy Easter, Danny — and the same to all of you who, by observing the Easter holiday (holy day?) won’t be around to get my Easter wishes on the day.
Helen -
The idea that “Jesus died for everyone, whether they like it or accept it or not,” is a very, very old idea, as old as the New Testament, and one that I was raised with in one of the most conservative Christian denominations in America. That idea has absolutely nothing to do with being “progressive.”
Judy -
I was raised with the idea of the Jews being God’s chosen people. (And yes, I still think that they are.) At no time did I ever think of it in terms of eternal exclusivity or preference because the Bible so clearly states that God is universal and Jesus came for everyone. Rather, I think of the fact that the Jews are God’s chosen people as a symbol of God’s love affair with ALL of His people. Way back during Biblical times, God needed to demonstrate His love and his lessons for all humankind and it simply made sense to have a one-on-one relationship with one people to focus his efforts and demonstrate what He wanted.
I still believe that the Jews are very near to God’s heart. They are the people to whom he entrusted his Son. But the overriding message of the New Testament is that God dearly loves all people. And you simply cannot read the Bible and come away feeling “shorted” or denied the full measure of God’s love, regardless of who you are!
In the end, it is just one of the mysteries of life. I look forward to “understanding it all” some day.
Deana
Deana, I agree with everything you said.
Thank you all for your enlightening explanations.