PeaceBang
The manic mind of the minister -- Auntie Mame Meets Cotton Mather. Blogging about Unitarian Universalism, UU Christian spiritual practice, occasional cultural and political ravings, and the inner life of ministry. PeaceBang is the alter ego of a small town pastor serving an historic New England Unitarian Universalist congregation.
Barack Denounces His Pastor
April 30, 2008 on 1:11 pm | In Cultural Commentary, Random Rant, Theological Reflection | And it just makes me sick.
It’s a capitulation to the muckraking media.
Maureen Dowd called it political patricide, which sounds just right (forgive the pun).
It’s a failure to stay the course of integrity, insisting that Americans look beyond the sensationalism of a few phrases spoken by a very fine minister who is a known, and respected, radical progressive.
And above all, it’s all the evidence we need that the liberal church has absolutely no credibility or relevance when it comes to the hothouse of presidential elections. It is evidence of the profound failure of the liberal church — and I submit that we are irrelevant and that we have failed because we are not united, we have allowed ourselves to become invisible to most and mocked and stereotyped by those who do “see” us and don’t like what they see.
We have played Inclusive Nice Guy for so long that when one of us dares to speak in tongues of fire in the true liberal prophetic way, we can neither protect or defend him.
And so he has been cast out by one of the only men who should have had the courage to say, “Yes, this is my church. It is a church of free thought and dissent, where we rage with as much passion against ignorance and injustice as the hellfire and brimstone preachers whose theology we utterly reject.”
The teaching moment is over, and it’s politics as usual.
[This just in: Thanks to commenters Philocrites and Melody who have tuned me into a part of the story I wasn’t aware of, which is Rev. Wright’s discrediting of Obama to the National Press Club. I’ll have to read about that and catch up. But I know that I’ll still be heartbroken when I’ve done that, just adding another layer of complexity to my emotions. - PB]
[Thank you all for your interesting comments. I find that I agree most of all with Rev. P’s assessment. After having read the entire transcript of the talk at the National Press Club, I do not consider his remarks a denunciation of Barack Obama, nor do I hear in him an out-of-control ego. After all, he never asked for all this attention to be focused on himself. That’s all I’ll say now, but to add this, too, which does not surprise me. - PB]
24 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^
Hi PeaceBang,
I like your blog. Thanks for keeping it up.
I’m posting an alternative view of the Obama/Wright situation. My UU Pastor has heard Rev. Wright speak and was very impressed. So I have wanted to respect Rev. Wright.
I’ve watched this situation and have felt bad for Obama. It’s possible to love a minister and disagree with some of their teachings. Which is what, I think, happened to Obama.
When the videos of Rev. Wright’s sermon came out, I think Obama gave a beautiful speech about the complexities of race. He refused to break with Rev. Wright. Which was honorable.
I believe Rev. Wright has the right to defend his position. But this weekend he courted the media and defiantly abused Obama’s credibility. I found this to be juvenile.
How far should Obama have let Rev. Wright malign him? Regardless of a religious denomination, there are codes of friendship. Let’s say I was running for city council. My pastor and I have different ideas about vegetarianism. What if this became an issue in the campaign?
If my pastor spoke his mind, that’s to be expected. We could have civil debates. I could call him my friend. He could say I respectfully disagree with Melody. He could even choose another candidate to support and campaign with. That is his right.
But if he said, Melody is a politician and everything she says is suspect, then I would feel offended. Especially if I had compared him to family and defended his right to hold his own opinions. If my pastor belittled me, I would mistrust our relationship as fellow community members. If I thought he was actively trying to do me harm, which I think is the case with Rev. Wright’s actions this past weekend, then a break might be necessary.
For me, I think it’s a matter of reason, principal and love. I think Obama has acted from motives of measured reason and love, but in the end he has to take care of himself. He has to protect himself from a man who has, at this point, intentionally harmed him. I think I would do the same thing in a similar situation.
I continue to feel sorry for Obama because he has lost a man he has proclaimed to the world to be an important part of his life. And Rev. Wright goaded him, even taunted him, into this decision.
Comment by Melody Platz — April 30, 2008 #
Except that Wright, eager to defend himself from the media circus, effectively sabotaged Obama with his appearance at the National Press Club. It would have been truly bizarre for Obama to continue to give Wright the benefit of the doubt after that speech.
Comment by Philocrites — April 30, 2008 #
I wish that the media could get it through its thick skull that two black progressive men can want the same thing and have different ways of going about it. I hate this friendly black man/angry black man dichotomy. They (still) do it with King and X, and it just goes on and on.
Comment by h sofia — April 30, 2008 #
I couldn’t disagree more.
Obama has clearly denounced the comments of his pastor and said that ‘the man who has said those things of late is not the man that he met 20 years ago.’
I would not stick with a friend shouting racist hate. I would condemn their comments and appeal for them to stop the behavior. There is no parsing to do here.
Wright’s recent comments have cleared everything up.
Obama had no choice. Clinton would have no choice but to denounce her minister if similar things were said. Contrastingly, McCain has chosen to seek the endorsement of ministers of this ilk.
Comment by Aaron Sawyer — April 30, 2008 #
I agree that we need to unite.
Please read my blog at DiscoverUU.com
much love PeaceBang!
Comment by Aaron Sawyer — April 30, 2008 #
Honestly, I don’t know what else Obama could have done.
I believe Wright speaks a great deal of truth, but unfortunately for all concerned, he also speaks about what a great guy Louis Farrakhan is and how the Marines are similar to the Romans who killed Jesus and how the the US government invented AIDs to kill African-Americans.
More to the point, the Rev. Wright was probably speaking the truth when he said that Obama may or may not agree with what Wright was saying, but that Obama had to say what he had to say to get elected, it was pretty much political attempted homicide, so I guess that would make Obama’s actions self-defense.*
When it was just clips taken out of context, then that was no big deal. I’d say that had about blown over. However, when Wright repeated his comments in front of the National Press Club then there wasn’t much Obama could do about it, other than say “hey, this guy is wrong and I disagree with what he is saying and the hateful directions he is taking the discourse in, and by the way, speculating that I’m just saying what I need to say to get elected was way uncool. I would think my spiritual mentor would have more respect for my integrity.”
It really makes me wonder if Rev. Wright was trying to sabotage Obama. Mind you, I have no idea why he would do this, but damn, I’d say that Wright saying:
Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls, Huffington, whoever’s doing the polls. Preachers say what they say because they’re pastors. They have a different person to whom they’re accountable.
is hard to interpret any other way.
Seriously, PB, even if you thought a former congregant of yours who had become a politician wasn’t speaking from his heart, would you say so in front of the National Press Club?
CC
*Note also that Rev. Wright could have said that people of faith can disagree when asked why Obama disagreed with him, instead of throwing Obama under the bus by confirming Rev. Wright’s detractor’s worst fears.
Comment by Chalicechick — April 30, 2008 #
Yeah, me too, Peacebang. Sen. Obama had no choice and I’m not going to scold him for it. I’m done with Wright politically, which is where he’s placed himself. I’m glad others replied before me.
Sure Wright’s pride was hurt that others don’t agree with him. But I think it’s pretty obvious that you can be a minister for three decades and not know a dang thing about how to speak to people you’re not pastoring. (And I think his all-or-nothing defense of the Black Church, and himself as a representative, will leave a lot of people opining “nothing”.)
Comment by Scott Wells (Boy in the Bands) — April 30, 2008 #
If Rev Wright was a white man and friend of John McCain - and making similar comments about black people - would UUs be defending this man?
Comment by Iosaph — April 30, 2008 #
What I found extremely commendable about the way that Obama gave this repudiation was that he kept his words squarely on Dr. Wright’s actions and words, and did not denounce him as a human being. Obama didn’t do any name calling or demonization, he simply denounced Dr. Wright’s conduct and statements.
That’s a fine line to walk, and Obama did it extremely well. What the media does with the whole situation is pretty much out of his control, but I personally feel that he maintained his personal integrity.
Comment by Jess — April 30, 2008 #
I’m just dismayed that two brilliant men have not had the wisdom to see that the more they publicly attack one another, the less energy and attention there is for the causes they really want to be about. It’s the same script that plays out repeatedly: get the folks of the minority groups fighting one another and they will have less energy and organization available to fight the dominant group.
The two of them could have reached some agreement behind the scenes and avoided all of this, kept their integrity and kept focus on the benefit of the causes of justice both want to promote. It’s too bad for them, and too bad for those of us who believe they both have important things to say.
Comment by Pastor P — April 30, 2008 #
Leonard Pitts wrote a great op-ed piece in today’s paper. Check it out for an interesting view.
Comment by Kate — April 30, 2008 #
Oops. I mean Eugene Robinson. Here’s the link
Comment by Kate — April 30, 2008 #
Melody and Chalicechick nailed it for me. I was so, so angry yesterday when I heard and read Rev. Wright’s recent comments. I had no problem at all with his clarifying his own position, but it was beyond inappropriate to imply that Sen. Obama has been insincere (particularly when I believe that Sen. Obama’s initial reaction was loving and gracious).
Comment by Mrs. M — April 30, 2008 #
I’m not clear on how this is a failure of unification on the part of liberal religion. As a liberal religionist, I don’t feel represented by pretty much any of the things Wright has been called on the carpet for saying. It doesn’t seem religiously liberal to me to damn whole nations, to approve virulent racists and anti-Semites (who also happen to have profoundly anti-liberal theologies), to spread paranoia and junk science, or to sabotage the most viable non-white presidential candidate in history. I don’t want to unite with him when he acts that way and I’m not sure why I should be expected to do so. What is it that I’m missing in this equation? This is an honest question, I’m puzzled by the “unite” thing and unsure what I’m supposed to do about it.
It seems to me that Obama’s final break with Wright comes in the wake of personal attacks on Obama by Wright, and that his anger is real and justified, not simply provoked by fear over poll numbers. Dowd’s article seems to clearly lay out why Wright’s own needling led to Obama’s reaction, and doesn’t appear to condemn it from what I can see.
Comment by Jeff W. — April 30, 2008 #
RE: We Are Not United
Amen and amen, PB, ten thousand times over.
The Republicans have learned Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment: never publically speak ill of another Republican.
They have learned how to pull together and accomplish a goal. They present a very smooth, well-oiled and efficient political machine, something the Dems haven’t figured out how to do - because I guess the only way to say it is because of TOO much freedom, TOO much diversity, TOO much diffusion of focus. Just being “generally inclusive” leaves people feeling empty and unchallenged. Sort of like, “Ok, well, I didn’t have to work for inclusion here, so where’s the value in it?”
Many years ago, I studied in a tradition of Wicca under a man who also read Tarot on occasion at a local restaurant. He took donations, as the managment did not really want him to charge a fee for his readings. He also did readings privately for people if they wished to call and set an appointment with him, and he had a specific rate he’d charge people for private readings.
He told me that over the years of doing this, he learned something: people do not value what they don’t pay for.
Payment doesn’t have to take the form of cash. It can be in the form of energy invested or time or blood, sweat and tears. Or intellectual energy. Whatever. If people work for something, they value it more. If people rise to meet a challenge (which is sort of a payment or fee, in a way) they value what they have won via that challenge.
It’s like discovering grey hairs and saying, “Dammit, I’ve earned every last one of these!”
Maybe things are TOO easy…
Comment by Tracie the Red — April 30, 2008 #
Of course, I grew up near Washington DC and one of my relatives was in the State Department during the Reagan/Bush years. So my mind can sometimes incline towards the sneaky and slippery:
What if Obama and Wright orchestrated this whole rigamarole behind the scenes, and everyone watching this is being manipulated by both of them?
It doesn’t matter to me, because I’m inclined to vote for either a Roman Catholic who has dropped out of the race (but whose platform I strongly support - Kucinich) OR the only Unitarian Universalist in the race (Gravel). So I don’t care what Barack and Jeremiah do.
But yes, Senator Gravel is a UU, running as a Libertarian. I’m surprised no one seems to be aware of this.
Comment by Tracie the Red — April 30, 2008 #
I’m so sorry, just one more comment…
RE: “insisting that Americans look beyond the sensationalism of a few phrases spoken by a very fine minister who is a known, and respected, radical progressive.”
Well, the more I look at this statement, the more I call my own comment above into question.
Maybe it’s NOT the fault of the liberal church.
It’s the fault of the sensation-seeking, shallow American public.
They do not want to work too hard at anything.
They do not want to think about anything.
They want quick soundbite answers, they want to be told what to think, they want to be led around by the nose ring.
This is what we’ve come to in this day and age.
Whither the pioneer spirit, the independence, the fierce individuality of mind and will?
Comment by Tracie the Red — April 30, 2008 #
I don’t see this as so much a failure of the liberal church as an example of what happens to a prophet with a huge ego. I was entirely sympathetic to Wright until his recent comments. Obama had no choice but to set some boundaries at that point.
I’d also argue that the conservative church is much more divided in this race than the liberal church, particularly when compared to the last couple of decades’ worth of presdiential politics. The division this highlights is perhaps more generational than anything else.
This all highlights a common and dangeroustendency in all congregational life to elevate one’s own opinion to Gospel status, which ultimately is a form of fundamentalism. Wright unfortunately crossed this line, as do many powerful preachers on all points of the conservative-liberal continum.
Comment by Madgebaby — April 30, 2008 #
I’m so tired of this election…. would someone please make it stop????
The media and their sound bites… It’s driving me insane. I cant believe anything from any of them. I’m sick of all the pandering!!
Comment by Mars Girl — May 1, 2008 #
Having watched the press club interview, the speech in Detroit and the Moyers interview doesnt make me any kind of expert on Jeremiah Wright, but having seen them, I just cannot understand what the press is talking about. I found him speak with intelligence, hope, Spirit and love in all those contexts.
RE a previous comment:
It doesn’t seem religiously liberal to me to damn whole nations,
As Wright explains in the both the Moyers and interview and at the press club, he is quoting from the prophets here, reminding us that CONDEMN and DAMN come from the same root word, and that God, in the Bible, condemns nations that do not care for the poor, the widow, etc.
to approve virulent racists and anti-Semites (who also happen to have profoundly anti-liberal theologies),
In the press club, he says “Louis Farrakan is not my enemy.” Is that the same thing as approval? No, instead, it is consistent with his message throughout the 3 speeches that it is God’s plan for all religions to work together.
to spread paranoia and junk science,
In speaking of the Tuskegee (spelling?) experiments, which are well-documented, Wright says the government could be capable of anything. In the 3 speeches, he repeatedly emphasizes the need for education, for reading more and learning more.
or to sabotage the most viable non-white presidential candidate in history.
The only sabatoge I see going on in the press is by liberals, who are embarrassed by a person who speaks openly of faith in a secular age, and of race in a time when we’re all supposed to be colorblind and past all that.
[Jun, I am so with you here. He explains that the chickens coming home to roost remark was his quoting an Islamic extremist, and he makes good, plain sense to me in lots of other places where others found his remarks to be inflammatory. As a woman of Jewish heritage, I was totally satisfied with his explanation of his relationship to Farrakhan. I think his appearance at the National Press Club was awesome. I found it not AT ALL a denunciation of Obama. I think Wright did a masterful job at explaining, hey, I’m a pastor, he’s a politician. He’s going to say things in a way he needs to say them because he’s trying to get elected, and I’m going to say things the way I’m going to say them because I’m a minister. I didn’t hear in that any insinuation that only he is “answerable to God” — I think it’s very interesting how we’re all reading or listening to the same material and hearing completely different things. I stand by my initial assessment that this is evidence of the weak state of liberal religion in this country, evidence of the terrible national immaturity around race and racism, and a personal failure of two extraordinarily bright and talented public figures who should have been able to figure something better than this out. - PB]
Comment by juniper — May 1, 2008 #
Rev. Wright’s message is prophetic in places. Yes, America is like Imperial Rome. Yes, if you oppress a people long enough, they are going to be inherently angry. Yes, as people of faith we are called to resist oppression. And so on.
It’s not going to be a message that the sleeping, secular, dominant class may enjoy hearing, but it won’t be anything new to most of the faithful in any of the Abrahamic traditions if it’s said properly, no matter where they may otherwise stand along the political spectrum.
The problem with Wright’s attempt at prophecy is he dind’t say it properly. He said untruths and hurled gratuitous insults in order to illustrate and emphasize what he perceived as truth, but in so doing, he also undermined the credibility of his truth. At that point, Obama had no choice but to repudiate Wright in order to save his own reputation.
But there’s something deeper going on, too. As Jesus first preached, and later demonstrated by his own trial and execution, a prophet is without honor in his own land. It may be unrealistic of us on the one hand to project onto Obama our own prophetic expectations, and on the other to expect him to be chosen by his own people to rule over Rome. And that may be part of what Wright, however ineffectively, was trying to say.
Comment by fausto — May 1, 2008 #
I have been to Trinity and found the worship there and Wright’s preaching remarkable and memorable. I thought the initial soundbite attacks on Wright, and through him Obama was the media at its worst — and the fact that Wright was singled out seems racist to me given the many crazy things other preachers connected with other candidates have said and done. (And to expect someone to leave his church because of remarks by the pastor — do we apply this standard to Catholics and their popes or their pedophile protecting hierarchies?)
Never the less, Wright made a terrible mistake to go to the National Press Club and say what he said. I completely understand the temptation involved — I have been attacked in equally vicious but far, far, less humiliating ways in a much smaller venue and certainly wanted more than anything else to defend myself. But as a minister, sometimes you end up crucified when you don’t deserve it and you have to take it in order to be faithful to what you are about. I think Wright’s ego got in the way of his call and has hurt a lot of the things his ministry was about as a result. Understandable what he did, but not admirable.
Comment by KJR — May 1, 2008 #
I would probably agree if Obama weren’t so set on running against Washington and portraying himself as a different kind of politician who is following his convictions rather than following the polls.
Given how much mileage the R’s got out of guys who had served with Kerry saying that Kerry wasn’t REALLY a war hero, I can understand how Obama is pretty sensitive to the impact Rev. Wright’s (I would say quite inappropriate) speculation could have.
I do think Wright is correct about a healthy portion of what he says. I admire what he’s done. While I’m not sure that agreeing to speak in front of the Press Club isn’t asking for publicity, I don’t think Wright is all about ego. But I still can’t imagine why he thought that impugning the sincerety of Obama’s belief and implying that only Wright himself was answering to God was at all reasonable.
I’m frankly a little disturbed that publically questioning a parishoner’s sincerity of belief isn’t a violation of ministerial ethics. [A good point, and I think it most certainly is, but I didn’t read Wright’s remarks that way. I heard him say repeatedly that Obama is a politician, speaking like a politician. It sounded like plain truth, not condemnatory or impugning his faith. I think it’s fascinating how we are all reading this with different shadings… PB]
CC
Comment by Chalicechick — May 1, 2008 #
From Gary McDougall in today’s Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/02/AR2008050202794.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Comment by Morag — May 3, 2008 #