http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/02/AR2008050202794.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

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

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.

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.

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]

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!!

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.

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?

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.

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…