American Thinker | James Lewis | Mar. 26, 2008
Until the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Senator Obama’s spiritual mentor in Black Liberation Theology, popped out of the woodwork, I didn’t even know about BLT — Black Liberation Theology. But the doctrines of Black Liberation have been preached since 1966 in black churches, with the enthusiastic support of white churches of the Left, notably the United Church of Christ. The Rev. Wright runs an official UCC church.
Though I am not a professional theologian, I daresay that Jesus would not, repeat not, approve of BLT. Because Black Liberation Theology seems to go straight against every single word in the Sermon on the Mount. Odd that the UCC has never noticed that over the last fifty years.
In fact, the liberal churches have bestowed great influence and prestige on the inventor of Black Liberation Theology, a Dr. James Hal Cone. Writes Dr. Cone, among other things,
* “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.”
* “All white men are responsible for white oppression.”
* “While it is true that blacks do hate whites, black hatred is not racism.”
* “Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man “the devil.””
* “The black theologian must reject any conception of God which stifles black self-determination by picturing God as a God of all peoples.”
* “We have had too much of white love, the love that tells blacks to turn the other cheek and go the second mile. What we need is the divine love as expressed in black power, which is the power of blacks to destroy their oppressors, here and now, by any means at their disposal.”
Apparently liberal religious authorities like those at the United Church of Christ love this preaching so much that they have made Dr. Cone a professor at the Union Theological Seminary, the “Charles Augustus Briggs Distinguished Professor of Systematic Theology.” It is a stamp of official approval for a peddler of race hatred.
. . . more
Why are you so upset about this? Every black person I know has someone like this in their families and they don’t nut out about it like dominant culture is doing. It is to be expected considering the experiences of black people in this culture. Just because Wright feels like this doesn’t mean that Obama does.
I have friends whose parents were in Hitler’s youth programs and still hold some of the beliefs inculcated in them, and these friends understand why their parents see this way, but don’t hold them themselves. They accept that their parents see the world that way becasue of their experiences and that’s that.
This is just another one of those discoveries about the unknown world of black folks that shocks dominant culture (much like the vast difference between dominant culture and black culture-even those who beliefve he did it- about the OJ case). It’s no big deal if seen from a black or minority viewpoint.
I don’t think Mary, and many others, apparently, understand people like Jeremiah Wright. He does not say these things because he was poor and oppressed. In fact, he grew up in very comfortable surroundings. And, as I predicted, he is off to a very comfortable retirement (in a gated community, no less):
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-wright-house_29mar29,1,5648817.story
He is a fraud, a race hustler; just like so many other so-called black leaders. Sadly, it is their followers who pay the price.
Mary, I see two major problems with your approach: 1). Ideas don’t matter, and 2) even if they do, all ideas are equally valid.
Jesus told us that how we think is the way we are. Ideas have a tremendous impact on people.
There is a hierarchy of values that has to be in place in order to make proper decisions for one’s own life and in the life of a culture. Egalitarianism strikes at the heart of having a moral culture that allows people to grow and live good lives.
The ideas the Wright foments are destructive. They are destructive on many levels. It is impossible to imbibe destructive ideas and not be negatively effected by them. Obama has been effected by them. He is lying when he maintains he has not. How deeply effected is difficult to tell especially since he is not being truthful.
What if the parents who still held Hitler youth ideals started a church to inculcate teenagers with Hitler’s beliefs? (You drew the comparison, remember?)
Further, Rev. Wright isn’t Obama’s “parent.” Your soft-pedaling of Wright’s ideas sounds, well, paternalistic. You want us to to pooh-pooh his words because he’s black.
Michael writes: “The ideas the Wright foments are destructive. They are destructive on many levels.”
Tom C writes: “He is a fraud, a race hustler; just like so many other so-called black leaders. Sadly, it is their followers who pay the price.”
I still can’t believe how much attention is paid to Wright. Compared to others, Wright barely shows up on the radar. Had Obama not gone to his church almost no one would ever have heard of him except for people in his local area.
More importantly, the amount of concern shown over Wright is utterly disproportionate, especially when you look at John Hagee, whose endorsement John McCain actively sought and received.
Hagee is the head pastor of a megachurch, roughly twice the size of Wright’s church. He has published a number of books and recorded media that have sold millions of copies. His programs go out to millions of people through GETV, Global Evangelism Television, to over a hundred TV stations and many radio stations.
More importantly, Hagee is a Christian Zionist, the founder of Christians United for Israel, a pro-Israel lobby, offering literally unconditional support for Israel with seemingly no concern for Palestinians, even Palestinian Christians. He called the 2006 bombing of Lebanon a “miracle of God.” This was shortly before “President Bush sent a message to the gathering praising Mr. Hagee and his supporters for ‘spreading the hope of God’s love and the universal gift of freedom.'”
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06208/709076-84.stm
(One suspects that Lebanese Christians might not be so enthusiastic over Pastor Hagee.)
He is a rabid anti-Catholic, calling the church the “great whore” of the book of Revelation, an “apostate church.” He has made all sorts of false claims about the Catholic church and the Nazis. Here’s one example of his views:
The Jewish people remember the Crusades. They remember the Inquisition. They remember the similarities between Hitler’s Holocaust and what the Roman Catholic Church did to the Jewish people, and the Jewish people believe that because I’ve been doing this for 25 years…
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5554303
If you want to talk about “hustler,” Hagee has an income of over $1 million per year, around $300k coming from his Cornerstone church, and $900k coming from GETV, his radio and television ministry. He and two of his relatives constitute three of the four board members of GETV, which is not a member of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability, or any other similar organization.
I suggest that to the extent that Wright’s influence is destructive, it is a grenade in comparision with which Hagee’s influence is a tactical nuke.
Protestant “sucess” theology is just a virulent and heretical and destructive as “liberation” theology. They both deny the person of Jesus Christ and replace the truth with a lie. That being said, as has been pointed out, John McCain has not attended Hagee’s church for 20 years. It can be reasonably assumed that McCain is simply courting (cynically or not) a potential poltical resourse. In any case, as has also been pointed out, one does not have to criticize every possible wrong belief everywhere on the political spectrum to make a criticisim valid.
In any case both Wright and Hagee drink from a particular brand of Protestantism that promotes an elitist triumphalism while condemning others not far removed from Islam.
Jim, in response to your comment, if the situations were actually reversed, I think I’d give Obama a pass and criticize McCain.
That is: if Obama had sought the endorsement of an influential person, who, on further investigation turned out to be controversial, I’d probably say, hmmm, should have done your homework. If McCain had spent twenty years as the follower of — and contributor to — a controversial person, I’d say he owned the controversy fair and square.
But … the situation is not reversed. It is what it is.
Augie writes: “That is: if Obama had sought the endorsement of an influential person, who, on further investigation turned out to be controversial, I’d probably say, hmmm, should have done your homework. If McCain had spent twenty years as the follower of — and contributor to — a controversial person, I’d say he owned the controversy fair and square.”
Obama wasn’t a “follower” of Wright; he was one member of his church — one of around 8,000 other members. He didn’t “contribute to” Wright; he contributed to the church of which Wright was the head pastor. It’s fine to speculate on the extent to which Obama’s ideas were formed by his association with Wright, but I see little evidence that Obama was influenced by Wright’s more extreme or controversial statements.
The situation with McCain and Hagee is completely different. I think it is very likely that McCain didn’t know about Hagee’s anti-Catholic stance. But there is no doubt that McCain knew that Hagee is founder of and active participant in a pro-Israel lobbying group, Christians United for Israel, with active branches throughout the country.
But Hagee doesn’t just run a lobbying organization. He also has the ability to distribute his opinions throughout the world:
Today, John Hagee Ministries occupies a 50,000 square-foot production center which houses both radio and television studios, 100 telephone prayer partners, and a vast distribution center. Currently, Hagee telecasts on eight major networks, 162 independent television stations, and 51 radio stations throughout the globe broadcasting in over 190 nations. (From the CUFI web site.)
Someone once said that the only thing worse than Elmer Gantry is Elmer Gantry with a foreign policy.
I would add that the only thing worse than Elmer Gantry with a foreign policy is Elmer Gantry with a foreign policy, his own lobbying group, international influence through his own media distribution system, and potential influence over the President of the United States in issues related to the most volatile region of the world.
Now if it turns out that Obama has extreme opinions on some issues, those opinions can be criticized on their own merits (or lack thereof). Whether he got them from Wright is irrelevant. But going forward I worry about the influence that a John Hagee can have over foreign policy decisions, having now embraced and been embraced by a fellow who might end up in the White House.
Jim writes:
Here’s what you are missing Jim: whether or not Obama believes Wright’s ideas is still an open question. Sure Obama gave his speech disassociating himself (sort of) from Wright’s ideas, but it is not convincing to anyone except his supporters, at least not convincing enough to explain the 20 year listening gap he claims exists. No amount of Hagee bashing changes this. (McCain-Hagee is a different animal than Obama-Wright; the comparison does not work in real life.) Obama has raised doubts about himself, but the doubt doesn’t rest in the Wright episode alone. Rather, it taps into a larger pool that is only now coalescing. That’s why the Wright explanation, although sufficient for some Democrats, just doesn’t cut it for others.* People just don’t know who this guy is, and he’s not really saying.
*You will see support for Hillary growing, but not enough for her to clinch the nomination, I think. My hunch is that the “elder statesmen” (Carter? Gore?) — if you can call them that, will stop her. They fear a McGovern debacle of sorts; a split party that will take a decade or two to recover from. The most expedient course short-term is to throw the Clintons under the bus. This has the potential to get really ugly.
So, it looks like Obama will get the Democratic nomination. But Hillary is right in asserting that she is the stronger candidate running against McCain. Obama’s weaknesses (and some are substantial) are beginning to show, but many Dem’s won’t see them in time.
The identity politics that defined the Democratic “coalition” for so many years, is starting to turn on itself. That’s one reason it is so difficult to stop this runaway train. I did not see this coming, but I think one reason is that Clinton fatigue affects the Democrats as much as it does the rest of the country. Put another way, Obama’s “freshness” is a matter of style, not substance — identity politics writ large. But many Dem’s buy into identity politics so they believe style is substance. Those that don’t might end up voting for McCain, at least enough of them to swing an election. The Republicans just may pull this one out if Obama is the nominee. I didn’t expect this either.
Juan Williams seems to understand what this is about.
Mr. Obama’s major speech on race last month was forced from him only after a political crisis erupted: It became widely known that he’d sat for 20 years in the pews of a church where Rev. Jeremiah Wright lashed out at white people. The minister cursed America as worthy of damnation, made lewd suggestions about the nature of President Clinton’s relationship with black voters, and embraced the paranoid idea that the white government was spreading AIDS among black people.
Here is where the racial tension at the heart of Mr. Obama’s campaign flared into view. He either shared these beliefs or, lacking good judgment, decided it politically expedient for an ambitious young black politician trying to prove his solidarity with all things black, to be associated with these rants. His judgment and leadership on the critical issue of race is in question.
Jim – Your continued efforts to turn this into a contest of “who is worse” or “who has more influence” is unconvincing. The proper question is “who is Barrack Obama?”
Tom C writes: “The proper question is ‘who is Barrack Obama?'”
What has happened is that a highly edited and truncated view of both Wright and Obama has been presented. It’s as if throughout his entire career, Wright only had one sermon, composed solely of controversial points, and repeated the same sermon for 20 years. During that time Obama heard the same sermon for 20 years, sitting in rapt attention, never questioning or disagreeing with anything he heard.
As Gary Wills said is a recent article in the New York Review of Books
It is clear that Reverend Wright’s church, which was fully supported by the Church of Christ’s white national leadership, was much more than the wild statements of its former pastor. Some suggested that any decent person would storm out of a church that had known such a pastor. But many decent persons, and not only blacks, had refused to do just that—and such people were also being denounced. Martin Marty, the respected church historian at the University of Chicago, had often attended Wright’s services and found inspiration there. In some ways, Marty is to Jeremiah Wright what Emerson was to John Brown.
Concerning the question of “who is Barack Obama — did you read his speech, other than the part where the spinmeisters said he “threw grandma under the bus?” Here are a few brief selections:
But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice.
Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country — a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America, a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.
As such, Rev. Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems — two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.
… The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.
… Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Rev. Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church?
And I confess that if all that I knew of Rev. Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and YouTube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way.
It seems to me that the scorched-earth criticism of Wright, and by association, Obama, comes from a view that sees people in simplistic terms — that they are either good or bad, right or wrong. I just don’t see things that way. In my experience people can have both great insight and great failings, great vision combined with huge blind spots, sound thinking and wacky ideas. People can be very complex, hard to figure, impossible to categorize. But those people are ideal targets for others who want to score political points.
Jim, you are missing something unfolding before your eyes. The Wright episode erodes to a degree Obama’s well-crafted, even sophisticated appeals to unity and cultural cohesiveness. But the problem really isn’t Wright as such, but the contrast between twenty years of tacit assent to what all but the most committed leftists recognize as race baiting and this cultivated image.
Add this to Obama’s wife incautious comments about America despite enjoying the privileges afforded to only a few Americans, the intemperate statements in Pennsylvania this week, and the seeming inability to disassociate himself from these attitudes (anyone can misspeak, but Obama never really corrects himself), and a picture is starting to emerge that Obama is the not the man people thought he was.
This is a perceptual shift. People are starting to look harder at the man. Gary Wills, who you quote above understands that, thus the attempt to recontextualize Obama’s membership in Wright’s church as part of a larger American narrative. It won’t work because Wills has a peculiar view of America (in broad terms culturally Marxist), that gains traction only if one first buys into identity politics (political coalitions bound by shared grievances), which many people, including some conservative Democrats, are increasingly reluctant to embrace. Secondly, Marty is hardly the man to provide legitimacy to the Obama assent. Only religious culture watchers know who Marty is, nor is he an American “everyman” in any sense either.
Obama’s appeals are, well, nice — as long as he remains on script. He delivers them well. He’s a fresh face. He certainly is a welcome respite to the Clintonian harangues and tawdry legacy — especially for Democrats. Off script and under pressure however, he is emerging as farther left than even Hillary.
Re #11
Apparently Martin Marty got “street cred” from Wright as well. I never doubted that there were craven white academics as well as craven black politicians.
This whole thing is really very sad. I and millions of others who didn’t share his politics were actually very hopeful that Obama represented a healthy development in racial politics. Here was an intelligent man with an impressive temperment who was running as a democratic candidate rather than a “black” candidate. All previous black candidates had been frauds and buffoons. Alas, Obama was willing to immerse himself in Sharptonville in order to win elections. This thing is all about a lack of consistency and honesty, no matter what he said in his clever speech.
Juan Williams described this disappointment very well in his piece. Sorry to see people tying themselves in knots rather than admit the obvious.