I anticipate little support for my version of the Obama/Wright controversy. However, in spite of the published negative reports regarding Pastor Wright, I am one who views the controversy through another lens.
First, though, it must be clear that I wish that Wright was somewhat more nuanced in some of his words and less happy and raucous in his press conference. Having said that, however, it does not alter my basic perception that Wright was on the side of Right.
My perception originates from my personal experience as a priest. Without justifying myself any more than there is a need to justify Wright, I did perceive my role during the 60’s as speaking Truth to Power. While it sounds audacious to think that a young priest would feel compelled to address the morality of civil rights and the Vietnam War, for example, I could see nothing more pertinent to being a Christian than one’s approach to these basic issues of the day. My experience was less than great! Essentially, many protested by walking out on my sermons, many boycotted my liturgies (called to be sure that they would avoid the liturgy that I would lead), and ultimately, signed statements for my removal. At the time, this may have been somewhat unusual in suburban Boston, but it was within the scope of what many considered paramount religious leadership (consider the likes of William Sloane Coffin, Martin Luther King, the Berrigan brothers).
It was a small transition to adopt liberation theology coming out of South America (Leonardo Boff (Brazil), Jon Sobrino (El Salvador), Gustavo Gutiérrez (Peru)). While the Vatican resisted this type of theology, it was clearly relevant to understanding the situation of the poor in nations where their resources were aligned to the few. Liberation theology fit well with the scholarship of Dominic Crossen et al. who saw Jesus as a reformer, as one who was not interested in starting a religion as much as addressing the injustices of the society (including Judaism) in which he lived.
And during my life, I am aware of the injustices and crimes committed by our government (please consider a recent blog on “The Shock Doctrine", April 22). What our government has done and continues to do, e.g., Iraq, torture of detainees, lies, surely makes me angry, if not livid.
If I were a person of color, especially black, it does not stretch my imagination to consider how deeply I would feel that I and my brothers and sisters have been short-changed, regardless of my present status. While I respect the likes of Obama and Crosby who want the Black adults to assume personal responsibility for the lives of their family members, I am also aware that the history of neglect causes scars that run deep.
And thus, I listened to Pastor Wright and, rising above his egotistical appearance at the Press Club (smiling in a self-justified manner), I did not find much to disagree with. I wished that he did not interpret the controversy as an attack on the Black Church; I would prefer that he said an attack on a legitimate theology within the Christian tradition. But, this is a small criticism.
While my personal theology has changed rather dramatically during the past few years, the basic thrust of social justice remains strong. Jesus was in the business of reform. The thrust of his message to love one another is comparable to Kantian philosophy that behavioral norms should be based of what is applicable generally or John Rawls’ perception of justice as that which you would want if you were on the lowest ladder of the socio-economic structure. Without social justice, I cannot expect that peace will be a common phenomenon.
At this point, we look back during the past eight years and there have been few strong voices against the Bush administration. Surely, the media have not focused
strongly on the truth of deceit and lies supporting the Iraq invasion and subsequent catastrophes, e.g., Gitmo and Abu Ghraib prison. The press has been criticized for abdicating their role. In general, our religious leaders have not taken on our government’s immorality (war is a moral issue for me) as was done during the Vietnam War. There were some, like Pastor Wright, who used the rhetoric of anger to point out that public, i.e., government, behavior matters.
When the tragedy of 9-11 occurred, my initial reaction was, “What have we done to warrant such anger?” When I read about our excesses in the use of natural resources, I read through the lens of the Third World. How would I feel if I suffered under the conditions common among these poorer nations? When I read that the World Bank, under the domination of the United States, provides loans under conditions that doom the borrowing country to become even more impoverished, I get angry.
Who speaks out about these injustices? I surely did not invent the facts; they are available to all. Yet, the silence among our leaders is breathtaking! And, one could say, “What have I done?” Admittedly, not much (except for the few in my family or friends who have little choice!!). Whether one agrees that a pulpit should be the source of such anger, it remains the only one available to some.
However, the controversy did present problems for me regarding Obama. It was his books that originally turned me on to his potential for being a great leader. In these books, he discussed convincingly his conversion to Christianity and the role of Pastor Wright. The only conclusion I had was that he was a regular church participant of the Trinity Church. Yet, he now claims to have never heard much of what has been attributed to the Pastor. It does not sound credible. Secondly, he did not defend more convincingly the positive role of liberation theology. He could have referenced many, such as
James Cone, Professor of Systematic Theology at Union Theological, who have spent their academic careers on this topic. It is not a niche theology known only to a few. And, there are many others, e.g., Martin Marty of University of Chicago, who are relatively moderate who also participate regularly in the worship at Trinity Church.
I wished that the media would not focus of such peripheral items. I wish that the media focused on substance. I wish that Pastor Wright had postponed his responses until another day or ate the controversy as a price for his service. I wish a lot of things, but wishing does not make reality.
We need people to tell the truth. If there is no one in our national leadership who will do it, if the press continues to serve more as a mouthpiece of power, then the only hope is that religious leaders who exercise their prophetic role that has been highlighted throughout the history of Judaism and Christianity.
*********************************************************************************
I note that in the current edition of TIME (May 5, 2008), Michael Eric Dyson published an article ("Understanding Black Patriotism") that addresses the issue of patriotism from the perspective of a black person. The history of black persons serving our nation in war as well as in peace, while at the same critical of their status in our society, is overwhelming.
More recently,
Sebastian Mallaby discusses the controversy as a sign of our impoverished our political culture is. Distinguishing true issues from the peripheral appears too hard to do.
