Obama gets it: The church is not just its preacher

Pretty much everyone who knows me is aware that I'm not a fan of church-hopping. I've even confessed on this blog to having done it once myself, yet "church-hopping =  bad" remains a recurring theme of mine.

So, it makes a good impression on me that Barack Obama is not a church-hopper. Yes, he has heard provocative statements from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright in the pulpit of his home church. But he has maintained relationship with that covenant community -- and the Rev. Wright himself -- for two decades.

My colleague Bill's post from yesterday garnered a comment from our friend John that perhaps Sen. Obama is now "paying for his pandering" -- that is, for what John sees as a politically-motivated decision to associate with that congregation. But joining a church eight years before you run for office would be some reeeally long-range pandering and incredible foresight, so I don't buy that one.

What does impress me is that Sen. Obama made personal investments in his community, and his faith community, too.  And that's something every person of faith can admire.

Comments

[Jay]

Well put.

[John]

"What does impress me is that Sen. Obama made personal investments in his community, and his faith community, too. And that's something every person of faith can admire."

If the pastor of Obama's (or any politician's) church was Fred Phelps, would you still say that a church is more than just its pastor? That it doesn't matter what pastor a person chooses to affiliate with?

[John of the Dead]

So, let me see if I can translate your moral equivocation. "God hates fags" = "Blacks have been discriminated against in the past, and we're mad about it." Is that correct?

Brother, hatred of someone else is *not* morally equivalent to trying to help the oppressed. Your ignorance of Rev. Wright is astounding.

[Andrew Conard]

Amy - Thanks for your insight in this area. I had not thought about the aspect of staying with a community. Good stuff.

[Vernon Lawrence]

Wright's comments were and are deplorable and beneath contempt.

[Vernon Lawrence]

Wright's comments are unacceptable and nothing but racism in it's most blatant form

[John of the Dead]

Vernon: How is it racist to point out that the United States has a long history of discrimation against black Americans? Please cite specific instances.

[John]

To my deep irritation, a comment that I spent half an hour on was placed in the moderation queue over the weekend, and the moderator has been unable to find it. I shall attempt to reconstruct it, piece by piece.

[John]

The problem is not that Wright has pointed out that the U.S. has a history of racism. The problem is certain extreme statements by Wright on a variety of issues.

First, Wright has supported Hamas:
http://www.bizzyblog.com/2008/03/17/tuccs-church-bulletins-from-july-2007-probably-make-whether-obama-was-present-on-july-22-irrelevant/

[John]

Wright has suggested that Israel was behind the 9/11 attacks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnI431s1r6s

[John]

Wright has given resounding praise to raving anti-Semite and racist Louis Farrakhan:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/14/AR2008011402083.html

[John]

Wright has proposed that the U.S. government invented AIDS in order to inflict it on Black people:
http://www.slate.com/id/2186860/

[John]

As Amy says, a church is more than its preacher. But Wright was more than Obama's pastor, he was, by Obama's own declaration, his spiritual mentor. This is the pastor whose hate-filled, conspiracy-theorist rants Obama entrusted himself and his family for 20 years.

Obama has argued that we've all heard things from the pulpit that we've disagreed with. I have, from my own pastors. But as Mark Steyn wrote "But not many of us have heard remarks from our pastors, priests, or rabbis that are stark, staring, out-of-his-tree flown-the-coop nuts."

Steyn's piece:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjExNzMwYzMyMjk0MDY4YzlhOTIwM2YzYWYzNGIyNjU=
addresses what are the real problems with Obama's affiliation with Wright that cannot be easily dismissed.

[John]

Oh, one other thing. Wright called upon parishioners to "damn America":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q49Ly5CwkvI

A person can be Angry Black Man and damn America, if he wishes. Or he can be president of that America. But if he wants to damn America, then he doesn't get to be president of it, as it is a position of sacred trust.

The question is, does Obama agree with Wright that America should be damned, or does he disagree with Wright and think that America should be blessed?

[John of the Dead]

Let's take a look at these in order.

Support for Hamas. OK, I've got to say: So what? Isn't Hamas the ruling party of Palestine? Look, I'm going to try to clue you in to something: Not everyone thinks that the Israeli government is 100% correct. A great many people honestly believe there's plenty of blame to go around, and that the Palestinians have, in fact, been treated unfairly. Perhaps you've heard of a carpenter, with the initials "J.C." who called it apartheid? Yes, Jimmy Carter himself, the most honest man in America, points out the faults in Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. So, therefore, to claim that support for an oppressed people is some flaw, especially from a member of a similarly oppressed group, strains credulity. So I ask you: How is it "extreme" to support the ruling party of Palestine?

Israel & 9/11: Crazy conspiracies abound. So what? Many people believe the US itself was behind the attack. To be certain, I don't want them in charge of national defense. However, last I heard, Rev Wright wasn't running for office, Sen Obama was. Further, Rev Wright is his *spiritual* advisor, not his foreign policy advisor. I fail to see how this is relevant. Need I point out the Revs Falwell and Robertson claimed that God himself did it, to punish America for "allowing" gays and lesbians. Now, honestly, which statement is crazier?

Praising Louis Farrakhan: Again, so what? Number one, this seems like shifting goalposts to me. The discussion was potential racism by Rev Wright, not people he knows. I am close friends with people who strongly support Pres Bush. By your logic, I must also support Pres Bush, correct? Well, it should be fairly obvious that that’s incorrect. Number two, Rev Farrakhan has done much to advance black causes in the country. Why wouldn't a black preacher involved in social justice ministries in the black community praise a black activist advocating reform in the treatment of black Americans? Farrakhan’s work to rehabilitate prisoners *is* praiseworthy. Or am I to assume that you prefer recidivists? Or, further, that once someone has been imprisoned, they should stay in prison for life? (See how easy it is to take things out of context and twist them around?) As much as you might not want to admit it, there still exists systemic racism in this country. As long as it does, we need people to speak out and work to end it.

US Gov't & AIDS: Given the US's documented history of infecting black servicemen with syphilis to study its effects ( http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2002/jul/tuskegee/ ), this is not as off-the-deep-end crazy as you might wish. I know it's hard to own up to the fact that our country could do such things to people, but the simple facts are, it did. By extension, WE did. Add to that the connection between the CIA and the introduction of crack cocaine ( http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/race_relations/july-dec96/cia_11-18.html ), and you can see how someone might be suspicious of the US government. Now, I personally don't think the US government introduced AIDS as a weapon. But to dismiss it out of hand is to ignore some very real fears, borne out of very real historical experiences.

It seems to me that many of your complaints against Rev Wright do that - ignore or gloss over real grievances of the black community. I must ask you again, did you hear or read Sen Obama's speech on race? If it could be distilled into one sound-bite, it would be this: All races in America have legitimate complaints, and the only way to heal them is through mutual acknowledgement and cooperation, not through denial of the validity of the complaint. It seems to me that that is exactly what you're doing - denying the validity of Rev Wright’s (and, by extension, those of the black community’s) grievances.

I'm still waiting to see an example of either Rev Wright's "hate" or his "racism." While I haven't heard every word ever uttered by Rev Wright, I strongly suspect the reason you cannot produce any examples of it is the simplest reason: it does not exist. To simply claim it does and repeat the claim incessantly is not a valid argument - it's an echo chamber. Is it hateful to “damn” America for its systemic oppression of people of color, both at home and abroad? If you ask me, America has damned itself by its actions, and needs to atone. To be fair, we *have* started down that path, but we have a long way to go. Now, you may disagree that blacks have been oppressed in America. You may disagree that Palestinians have been oppressed in Israel. You may disagree that rehabilitating black prisoners and strengthening the black community are worthwhile endeavors. You may disagree that the US government has lied, fudged facts, and hidden the truth from the American people. But you CANNOT, in good faith, claim that Rev Wright is a racist.

[Dale]

John,

Let me post to you the same question I posed to The Chaplain over on another post here, for the same reason. That reason is, the incessant posting of the same charges, over and over, and almost willful ignoring of all the homiletics professors and students of black history who have tried to explain black preaching, in an effort to allow Rev. Wright's critics to understand at least a little better.
Here's the question:

What do you do with the Psalmist when , in Psalm 137, he declares in verse 9"How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones Against the rock."? While he is addressing "Babylon" inthe oft quoted and revered passgae that begins: "By the rivers of Babylon, There we sat down and wept, When we remembered Zion." (v.1)

Is this not a bit "over the top"? Is this not scandalous to morality to say that it is okay with God for us to killthe small children of our enemies with our bare hands?

I suspect that there is another interprative strategy on this one, and it has to do with the Biblical language of apocalyptic. Otherwise, taken outside of this context, this Psalmist is a psychopath and a vengeful killer in his heart.

So, if to considcer the genre of Rev. Wright's preaching in "interpreting it" is to "minimize the dynamics of such cursing", then I guess my Christianity and intelligence are to be querstioned if I see things as correctly as you do. I'm not so sure that "absurd" might be amore charitable way to characterize it than to "question both the Christianity and the intelligence" of such a person who takes such a stance. I don't atallquestion your intelligence or Christianity because I do not equate a lack of awareness of certain historical elements of homiletics within minority communities to be a matter of one's salvation or intelligence. But exposure to such ideas that are obviously something new to you or else something you have decided to reject and ignore is an opportunity to seek to get into someone else's shoes and have a fighting chance of rightly interpreting a style that is firmly rootedinthe Biblical tradition. I know of at least one church hymnal that is used widely by a lot of black churches that is called "Songs of Zion", which has a hearkens back to the passage I quoted above.

[John]

John of the Dead wrote:

"Support for Hamas. OK, I've got to say: So what?"

It's a terrorist organization.

"Isn't Hamas the ruling party of Palestine? Look, I'm going to try to clue you in to something: Not everyone thinks that the Israeli government is 100% correct."

Hamas thinks that Israel should be exterminated. What does Jeremiah Wright think? What does Barack Obama think?

"A great many people honestly believe there's plenty of blame to go around, and that the Palestinians have, in fact, been treated unfairly. Perhaps you've heard of a carpenter, with the initials "J.C." who called it apartheid? Yes, Jimmy Carter himself, the most honest man in America, points out the faults in Israel's treatment of the Palestinians."

If anything, my opinion of the Palestinian cause is lowered, not raised, by Jimmy Carter's endorsement.

"So, therefore, to claim that support for an oppressed people is some flaw, especially from a member of a similarly oppressed group, strains credulity. So I ask you: How is it "extreme" to support the ruling party of Palestine?"

When that ruling party supports the extermination of its neighbors, I'd call it very extreme.

"Israel & 9/11: Crazy conspiracies abound. So what? Many people believe the US itself was behind the attack."

And we call them 'lunatics'.

"To be certain, I don't want them in charge of national defense. However, last I heard, Rev Wright wasn't running for office, Sen Obama was. Further, Rev Wright is his *spiritual* advisor, not his foreign policy advisor."

How crazy and hateful does a preacher have to become before he disqualifies himself as a spiritual mentor? If my mentors said the things that Jeremiah wright said, they'd have stopped being my mentors a long time ago.

Does Obama find Wright's views extremist? If yes, why did he sit in Wright's church for 20 years and consider Wright to be his spiritual mentor?

"I fail to see how this is relevant. Need I point out the Revs Falwell and Robertson claimed that God himself did it, to punish America for "allowing" gays and lesbians. Now, honestly, which statement is crazier?"

And if parishioners of Falwell and Robertson run for President, this is a very fair question to ask.

"US Gov't & AIDS: Given the US's documented history of infecting black servicemen with syphilis to study its effects ( http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2002/jul/tuskegee/ ), this is not as off-the-deep-end crazy as you might wish. I know it's hard to own up to the fact that our country could do such things to people, but the simple facts are, it did. By extension, WE did. Add to that the connection between the CIA and the introduction of crack cocaine ( http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/race_relations/july-dec96/cia_11-18.html ), and you can see how someone might be suspicious of the US government. Now, I personally don't think the US government introduced AIDS as a weapon. But to dismiss it out of hand is to ignore some very real fears, borne out of very real historical experiences."

By all means, introduce evidence to support this crackpot conspiracy theory.

"It seems to me that many of your complaints against Rev Wright do that - ignore or gloss over real grievances of the black community."

How so?

"I must ask you again, did you hear or read Sen Obama's speech on race? If it could be distilled into one sound-bite, it would be this: All races in America have legitimate complaints, and the only way to heal them is through mutual acknowledgement and cooperation, not through denial of the validity of the complaint. It seems to me that that is exactly what you're doing - denying the validity of Rev Wright’s (and, by extension, those of the black community’s) grievances."

I saw the speech. It was brilliant; first-rate rhetoric. Obama made me want to believe him. Alas, he did not address the substance of the issues. The problem is not at all that Wright is addressing America's historic racism. The problem is that Wright's endorsement of terrorist organizations, conspiracy theories, and hatred of America. Which lends to the question: why did Obama not find Wright's delusional rantings so offensive as to drive him out of the church? Without a doubt, if my pastors (well, before I became one myself) started acting like Wright, I'd hit the door if he didn't change. Why didn't Obama?

"I'm still waiting to see an example of either Rev Wright's "hate" or his "racism." While I haven't heard every word ever uttered by Rev Wright, I strongly suspect the reason you cannot produce any examples of it is the simplest reason: it does not exist."

Watch the videos that I linked to.

"To simply claim it does and repeat the claim incessantly is not a valid argument - it's an echo chamber. Is it hateful to “damn” America for its systemic oppression of people of color, both at home and abroad? If you ask me, America has damned itself by its actions, and needs to atone."

Hating America is a popular pastime in America. Thanks to America's free society, there are no consequences to hating America. But hating America necessarily disqualifies one from being its President, as having that position of trust and responsibility requires that one love it, not hate it, and seek to bless it, not curse it.

"Now, you may disagree that blacks have been oppressed in America."

No, I do not.

"You may disagree that Palestinians have been oppressed in Israel."

On the balance, I would say that they have not.

"You may disagree that rehabilitating black prisoners and strengthening the black community are worthwhile endeavors."

No, I do not.

"You may disagree that the US government has lied, fudged facts, and hidden the truth from the American people."

On occasion, for sure. But on the whole, the U.S. is the freest nation on earth, and the government generally less corrupt than most. There is always room for improvement, of course.

"But you CANNOT, in good faith, claim that Rev Wright is a racist."

Yes, I can. Watch the videos.

[John]

Dale, are you quoting me? You may have me confused with another commentor, because I don't recognize the quotations that you are referencing to me.

[Dale]

John,

You may have been looking at someone else's post. I didn't have any quotes otgher than from Psalm 137 in my latest post. Before that, I was responding to "The Chaplain".

[Dale]

John,

I do see the other quotes, but they are quoting The Chaplain in an earlier post. I did however post my bit about Psalm 137 as a comment on the discussion you and John of the Dead are having, and I am disputing your charge of racism and bigotry with the idea that the Psalmist was really defined by his "rants" about killing the little ones against the rocks.

[Dale]

John,

Correction to my previous post:
"I am disputing your charge of racism and bigotry with the idea that the Psalmist was really defined by his "rants" about killing the little ones against the rocks.'

should have read

"I am disputing your charge of racism and bigotry with the question as to whether Psalmist was truly defined by his "rants" about killing the little ones against the rocks.

[John]

Okay, well I'll let The Chaplain defend himself then.

[John of the Dead]

OK, John, I give up. Despite the fact that your claims of 20+ years of vile racism would require a preponderance of overwhelming evidence, you've come up with... nothing. Two or three "controversial" sound-bites? THAT is a history of racism? The fact the Rev Wright accurately states that much of the hatred of the US in the Arab community is caused by our national Israel/Palestine policy cannot, in any way, shape, or form, be construed as racist. In a bizarre twist of logic, you've somehow decided that on this topic, the oppressed are now the oppressors. If that's your view of racism, then I commend the sheltered life you lead, to have never truly encountered it.

If you think pointing out America's faults are equal to a hatred of America, then you've done exactly what Rev Wright preached against. No one, no nation, is above reproach; only God is. You've set the country EQUAL TO or ABOVE God. Oh, the irony. It's... delicious...

[Dale]

John,

I meant it for you in this thread....The Chaplain's post is over in another thread, in this next blog post under this one.

[John]

John of the Dead:

"OK, John, I give up. Despite the fact that your claims of 20+ years of vile racism would require a preponderance of overwhelming evidence, you've come up with... nothing. Two or three "controversial" sound-bites?"

Give the reporters time to dig even further into the sermon archives. And these aren't "controversial". They're crazy and bigoted.

"THAT is a history of racism?"

By all means, place the quotations in context so that they are not extremist. You may proceed.

"The fact the Rev Wright accurately states that much of the hatred of the US in the Arab community is caused by our national Israel/Palestine policy cannot, in any way, shape, or form, be construed as racist."

Pssst! That's a strawman that you're attacking. I've over here.

"In a bizarre twist of logic, you've somehow decided that on this topic, the oppressed are now the oppressors."

How so?

"If that's your view of racism, then I commend the sheltered life you lead, to have never truly encountered it."

Do you find ad hominem attacks effective when debating someone?

"If you think pointing out America's faults are equal to a hatred of America, then you've done exactly what Rev Wright preached against. No one, no nation, is above reproach; only God is. You've set the country EQUAL TO or ABOVE God. Oh, the irony. It's... delicious..."

Obama isn't running for First Christian of the United States. He's running for President -- a position of civil authority and responsibility. So as he plans to become the leader of our country, it's fair to ask if he agrees or disagrees with Wright's loathing of it. I hope that it would go without saying that a person who hates America or wishes for it to be damned shouldn't be elected President of it.