Last night I watched Bill Moyers (the only person I would have trusted to do this interview) actually sit down and interview Jeremiah Wright. It was a one member of the United Church of Christ (Moyers) interviewing a UCC minister and it was an excellent interview.
This interview made me angry. Not at Moyers or Wright but at the insidious job that the news media did in reporting this story. Moyers showed longer excerpts from Wright's 'sound bite' sermons and what we have been seeing is SO amazingly out of context that it will practically make your hair stand up. Wright also used the words I attributed to him (different is not deficient.)
If you missed it, here is the link: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04252008/watch.html
Wright did something interesting. He was preaching from the Bible. He got his cues from the Bible instead of making the Bible validate his opinions. Amazing. Watch the video. You'll be amazed at what you didn't see before.
8 comments:
Wright's "out-of-context" comments largely were drawn from two different sermons -- the “9/11” sermon and the “God Damn America” sermon. Wright was/is right about his views on our post-9/11 reaction -- violence begets violence, hate begets hate, revenge begets revenge. I told my wife on 9/11 as we went to bed that there would be hell to pay for all of this. I knew all too well that the desire for "revenge" would lead us into many many foolish decisions as a result of that tragic day. In short, I told her that it would define the rest of our lives and probably the lives of our children and grandchildren. So far, things are right on track for that to be the case.
The problem I have with Wright's black liberation theology, a term he does not run from, is that he separates himself and African Americans out as not really part of the America that is guilty of the sins of hate, revenge, and other evils. Somehow, his suffering is better than the suffering of others. He sounds condescending and all too smarmy (for lack of a better word) in delivering his 9/11 sermon. My ancestors came to this country as virtual slaves. It is often described as indentured servitude. Our last name made us a target for hate and violence for generations. My ancestors gave up most of their culture over the course of three or four generations. I don't think my family has EVER voted for a Republican Party candidate for ANY office. However, I am an American. I take responsibility for America's foolhardy rush into war like Don Quixote racing into a windmill. I am not going to stand back with my finger wagging, saying with a smarmy smile on my face, repeating the phrase, "America's chickens have come home to roost." And before you tell me, as he does in the sermon, that that quote came from a "white" man, you must examine the tone and context of the use of the phrase. Note also, that Malcolm X used the phrase decades ago, before Wright's "white" man said it after 9/11. The so-called "white" man that used the phrase, wasn't wagging his finger, he wasn't in a self-righteous rant about how the USAKKK had screwed the world, and he certainly wasn't holding himself out as morally superior separatist. Everyone one us is/was/has been a sinner and a saint. Everyone of us is/was/has been a slave and a slave owner. When the "chickens come home to roost" we are all going to get ours -- including, to Mr. Wright's surprise, Mr. Wright and his congregation. I'll leave how all this filters through the prism of the New Covenant to you -- too much finger pointing, too much damning, too much self-rightousness. What happend to "you are forgiven, go and sin no more?"
As for the "God Damn America" sermon, Wright was going along fine on that one, pointing out how governments fail us, and how God never fails us. His flaw here, again, is holding himself and African Americans out as separate and getting wound into a lather at the ending saying ridiculous/paranoid things like how the government gave "us" (meaning African Americans, although he claims to have white members in his church) drugs and how the government gave "us" AIDS. The most important thing here though, is his use of the word "America." What is "America?" Is it a government? Is the Roman government of 2008 the same Roman government of Jesus' time? Is the American government of 1780 the same government of 1880, of 1980? NO! America is a broader term, a term that describes our collective consciousness as a country, irrespective of the make up of our leaders at any given point in time. The actual make-up of what we think of as American can vary wildly from person to person, but it is our America. Would it be appropriate to say "God Damn Rome!" or "God Damn Italy!" because of the sins of the Ancient Roman Empire. Romans still see themselves as Romans. Would it be appropriate to say "God Damn the Vatican!" because of Roman Catholic atrocities, "God Damn Germany!", "God Damn England!", "God Damn Indonesia!", "God Damn New Jersey!", let me know when I get to one that makes YOUR blood boil. This is all just so ridiculous. I thought we had gotten past all that "sins of the father" business. I guess not, if it is okay for Mr. Wright to be given a pass for beseeching God to damn America, an America of which Mr. Wright does not see himself a part. When you point the finger, remember, there are three pointing back at you. I must be misremembering a quote I once heard. It must have been from an old gym teacher or something -- "Judge not, that ye be not judged." Oh, that is right, he IS being judged now. I guess HIS chickens are coming home to roost.
You know... I'm getting pretty tired of UCC clergy claiming that Wright is being taken out of context. A number of web sites (including my own UCCtruths.com) have posted the full sermons and you know what... the context doesn't change at all. The soundbites you and others complain about does a pretty good job of summing up the sermons so well, I wonder if you actually heard the sermons before parroting the other clergy who have recycled the same lame defense.
Why don't you actually explain what the context is that most people are missing? Before you recycle the arguments, watch the sermons and do some intellectual exploration independent of your own bias and share with the rest of us what it is that we are too stupid to understand?
You claim to be angry and I don't doubt that... I'm pretty angry too at the shallow defense you and other UCC clergy bounce around like cheap capital. I'm angry that clergy like yourself don't understand why lying about the origin of AIDS is not something to be celebrated or defended. Wright is indeed a brother in Christ, just like you... but that doesn't mean you or Wright or myself are perfect. We first have a Christian obligation to be honest, a burden that is magnified when you speak from the pulpit. We can hold Wright up as a brother in Christ without supporting his words that are not truthful.
It's not about context John, it's about honesty.
John:
Here's what I posted on the interview:
Wright on Moyers
Friday, April 25, 2008
You couldn't have watched Bill Moyers interview with Jeremiah Wright and not come away with a greater respect for Wright, where he's come from and where Trinity United Church of Christ has come from. I was particularly impressed with his knowledge and study of the Old Testament and how he brings it into context for today's world. That said, it was not much of a journalistic interview with challenging questions. Not surprisingly, it was clear Moyers came into the interview as an advocate and not as a journalist. As Moyers questioned Wright about Louis Farrakhan, I thought he might actually examine Wright's more controversial comments, but he didn't take it that far.
The two biggest concerns about Wright's sermons -his blaming America for 9/11 and his claim that America created AIDS- were not sufficiently addressed at all. Although Moyers referenced Wright's "canard" about the origination of AIDS in the introduction of the show, it never came up in the interview.
Moyers did spend a fair amount of time trying to apply context to Wright's post 9/11 sermon, but all it really did is confirm that Wright connects many of the historically bad things the U.S. has done to 9/11 in a biblical context. The irony is that Moyers back in 2002 was furious when Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell suggested that what happened on 9/11 was God’s judgment on a decadent America:
****
Repugnant? Of course, but under that Bill of Rights they so detest they are entitled to their repugnant opinions. But such rights cannot mask their repulsiveness as human beings – piously spreading their virus of holy hate from the safety of plush studios and stately pulpits where they are isolated from the consequences of their malevolence. Let God do the dirty work – while they rake in the takings of bigotry and bile. We must say to these people – over and over again – what Mohammed Ali said to bin Laden: God is not an assassin.
****
There isn't a whole lot of difference between what Robertson and Falwell did to Wright claiming that "America's chickens are coming home to roost". They may use different examples to make their point, but they all came to the same conclusion. Moyer's disdain is clearly reserved only for those he simply doesn't like. Hardly respectable. For Wright's part, he's entitled to an opinion like everyone else is... no matter how assinine it is.
In the end, the interview isn't going to change many opinions... those who were outraged by his comments are still going to be outraged and those who weren't alarmed probably found the interview affirming. For me, there are many elements of truth to what Wright says, particularly as he discerns the difference between allegiance to our country and our allegiance to God. While some pundits might confuse this as being unpatriotic, it is not. In spite of the many elements I might agree with Wright on, I simply can not accept that a pastor -any pastor, not just Wright- would blatently lie from the pulpit and not feel some obligation to clarify or apologize for it. In this specific case, it was a particularly egregious lie that is perpetuating a myth held about the origin of AIDS.
For our denomination, it's particularly disappointing that in light of the attention that Wright has brought us, none of our leaders can muster the honesty or the courage to embrace Wright as a brother in Christ while making it clear that we do not embrace everything he says.
Ringmaster,
Your comments are well stated. What I liked was that you were critical of Wright in context as opposed to out of context. My post was more a response to the news media’s poor job of covering him than actually addressing what he had to say which, I think was different than the 30 second sound bites were leading us to.
I think that we probably would agree that his ‘starting points’ were pretty good. The issue of the post-9/11 anger and his usage of Psalm 137 was, I think effective. I had the same thoughts on 9/11 that you did. I don’t take much issue with his connecting all the world events, all world atrocities when innocents are killed, including our’s into account. White guy or not, I think that the ‘chickens come home to roost’ was excessive and using the role of prophet as one who afflicts at a time when the role of prophet as one who comforts might have been more appropriate.
The other sermon was a classic Torah issue of blessings and curses and the need to earn blessings. I think his point was that blind nationalism is a poor choice when nations do the wrong things. I’d agree with that. But, you are correct when observe that the list could be created to make anyone’s blood boil.
His comments on AIDS frustrate me. There is an indictment that is honest that can and maybe ought to be made. When AIDS began to become an issue the Reagan Administration turned a harsh and callous eye to it, would not even acknowledge the word AIDS, and would not provide any medical funding for it because it was seen as a disease of gay people and Africa. There is the indictment. To say that the United States invented it is probably hyperbole in his eyes but certainly ludicrous.
Something interesting to note, and you do seem to make reference to this, is that there are, indeed, no New Covenant words coming forth, no New Testament words being spoken. These two sermons are very, very Old Testament. I prefer a more generous usage of grace.
I do appreciate your comments. The dialogue is good and healthy.
United Church of Christ truths:
I am going to say this politely. You do not know me. Your wonderment if I read the sermons before speaking about comments was something I’d have appreciated you not have wondered before knowing much about me. I’m just going to presume that you were angry in your post and placed your judgment aside before writing that.
Okay.
First, I do see a difference with those statements in and out of context. Whether one agrees with his premises or not is up to the person. To render a judgment on a person, or on a sermon based on a sound bite is poor business. I believe that most of us take great care in preaching that when we find a phrase that illuminates what we are trying to say, that we assure that the context of the phrase is consistent with what we are trying to say. It requires those of us who preach to work a bit harder----and that’s a good thing.
Secondly, I did not call you or anyone else stupid. My indictment was more on the press and my indictment on them was that they were lazy. They did not do their job and research from whence he was coming from.
I’ve preached on Psalm 137 on a number of occasions. It is, in my mind, one of the most beautiful and most ugly piece of Scripture and Wright, frankly, was quite accurate in describing the anger of the people and how that can and would translate in the post 9/11 world. As I stated in my previous comment, it might have been a time to be more comforting, prophetically, than afflicting, but it was his pulpit.
The AIDS issue, as I also previous stated, remains poorly stated by him----the real truth of the indictment of that era is strong enough.
You might be tired of United Church of Christ clergy claiming that he was taken out of context, and I hope you remain tired of it and I hope and pray that we continue to make this statement. It happens to be true. No one ought to have one’s words out of context and used to anyone else’s gain.
Lastly, I have chose to respond to your comments in a respectful fashion. Should you comment on here again, I invite you to do so in a respectful fashion also.
John: As respectfully as I can state, your response does not provide any other alternative context that the media missed... you simply state that context is left to perception. It's not just you, many UCC clergy are complaining "soundbites" and "context" but don't take it any deeper than that. What is it that the media and the majority of Americans like myself are missing?
John:
The more I think about it, I believe I am troubled more by the sermons in context than out of context. The media actually may be doing the UCC a favor on this one. When you dig a little deeper here, things get really ugly, things to which I have been blind. I have said before that this was really about Obama's mentor-pupil relationships with Wright for me. And that still bothers me a lot, but this is really the first time my eyes have been opened to black liberation theology. I have always thought that in the end, regardless of the problem or issue, we could sit down with those with whom we disagree, and work something out. But when you start from a position of separateness or us/them, I am not sure about a positive outcome. I am, frankly, very concerned about this.
Ucctruths:
First of all, John writes this blog for himself and not for the UCC nor for his congregation. As I am sure you are aware, the UCC is a very diverse umbrella under which vastly different congregations stand. The UCC leaders really aren't leading very much, at least not in the same way a Cardinal or Bishop leads. The leaders speak for themselves first. The fact that they are UCC ministers or members is secondary to their personal opinions. The topic of Mr. Wright has not been discussed at John's church, and certainly not from the pulpit. John knows better than that, as a fierce argument would surely break out, something none of us would be the better for. Really for you to have a blog that covers the UCC is like having a blog that covers the opinions of people with green eyes. Refuting UCC leadership really isn't accomplishing a whole lot. I suspect that there is not a single topic that the UCC leadership comments on that you would find even 50% agreement among the membership.
Ring Master 4545: Look, John posted on his blog that he was angry that the media took Wright out of context and I'm just trying to understand exactly what the context is that the media is missing.
Ucctruths: I agree. I am waiting for such an explanation from John and others using the "out-of-context" canard. However, I was taken aback by your tone and intimation that John's views were somehow disingenuous. I do not believe that he is getting talking points from the UCC leadership. His opinions, while disagreeable in this case, are thoughtfully formed.
ALL: I just saw Rev. Wright's entire speech to the NAACP. This "different is not deficient" business is very dangerous. The idea sounds very good and it is hard to argue against the broader premise, but "the devil is in the details." One of many examples is Wright's proposition that African American students should be judged by different standards. What? We are very insidiously moving toward the idea of America and the world being a "salad bowl." This idea is the dominant hegemony in school today. Our long term hope as a world is for our varied cultures, languages, customs, etc. to blend into what I was taught in school as a "melting pot." The "Melting Pot" is the great hope that a free America gives the world. I believe that Mr. Wright would be offended at the notion that African Americans would/should adapt a few things from European culture. I am not offended at the prospect of adapting things from African culture into my everyday life. Why is that so offensive to Mr. Wright? Once again, he is setting African Americans out as separate.
If you want to split hairs with him, he showed great disrespect and ignorance toward European culture by mimicking how Europeans talk, how Europeans are more stoic emotionally, and how Europeans worship. I have been to a few "white" churches where the congregation was on their feet running around the room, singing, and dancing for the whole service. I would argue that there are things in all cultures that are indeed deficient. By dumping our cultures into a "melting pot", the deficient things become mitigated and the good things become accentuated.
We all have to live together. There have to be rules, laws, standards, and other things that are universally observed in our common world. "Different but not deficient" puts you in a spot where your actions are beyond reproach. Sometimes, different IS deficient. Mr. Wright is a black separatist and Mr. Wright is wrong. Mr. Wright is wrong.
Mr. Wright is right about one thing though. He is a preacher and is not running for president, but his self-described pupil IS, and THAT is the issue.
Post a Comment