Dan Brown has made oodles of money twisting the tenets of Christianity (in general) and the Catholic church (in particular) into something nearly unrecognizable the better to cudgel it for being so twisted. That sells a lot of books to folks holding a generalized loathing, dread and ignorance on the topic of godbothering christers (among others), even if it does depend upon some rather creative re-writing of history. I suppose a fellah has to make a living somehow, and it beats selling crack to school kids.
Which somehow brings to mind the aptly named Jeremiah Wright, the former pastor of Barack Obama’s Chicago church, and a man whose serial jeremiads on the real and imagined sins of white and middle class America came so awkwardly to light six weeks ago. Wright seems intent on remaining in the spotlight. Strangely so, for someone who claims to be a friend of the Democratic Party front-runner: Obama can’t but want to talk about something else besides the nexus of liberation theology and American flag lapel pins.
As pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ on the South Side of Chicago, Wright occasionally delivered sermons that Obama now calls “divisive.” One of the most controversial was delivered after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which Wright suggested were a sort of comeuppance for the United States because of its violent foreign policies.
“America’s chickens are coming home to roost,” he said at the time. “The stuff we have done overseas is brought right back into our homes.”
Wright also once charged in a sermon that the U.S. government “lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color.” And he railed against a government that he said discriminates against blacks “and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America,’ adding, “No, no, no, God damn America. . . . God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human.”
I’m no mind reader, but it seems like this sort of thing probably didn’t help Obama in his expensive run at the Pennsylvania primaries, nor is it likely to push him over the top in white bread Indiana. It does, however, stand to help Hillary! prove her case to the super-delegates that Obama is not electable in a general election. Which maybe is the point. Wright wants Obama to lose. Needs for him to.
After all, Wright’s brand of liberation theology is defined by its architect thus:
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. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.
It’s a philosophy rooted in the righteous anger of a victim class against the racist crimes of their oppressors, and perhaps it made a good bit more sense back in 1966 when James Cone, the movement’s chief theologist, came up with it (although there’s an open debate among the faithful whether or not it has any relevance today). After all, blaming someone else for your victimization at least gives you something tangible to struggle against, which is better than wallowing in self-pity or selling crack to school kids. It’s certainly helped the Reverend Wright to make a decent living, and – if Fox News is to be believed – set him up nicely for retirement.
But if Obama wins the Democratic Party’s nomination after all – as he will, absent a flight of super-delegates to Hillary! – he stands a better than even chance of being elected the first African American President of these United States. Which would put a pretty big stake through the heart of Jeremiah Wright’s version of liberation theology, based as it is on enduring opposition to a continuing, remorseless, majoritarian racism. Obama’s election would make Dan Brown’s mooings over the “sacred feminine” look like the works of a piker, doctrinally speaking.
Or rather, more so.
Seems to me that for Barack to have come this far, this close to the nomination, whether he gets it or not, and whether he becomes Pres or not, puts that stake through the heart of the Black Lib argument.
Or at least it should. I recognize, however, that in Black Lib theology, any failure of a black candidate at any stage will prove beyond a doubt that racism is alive and well.
Similarly in New York City today, Al Sharpton expresses that the killing of any black at any time by any police officer is worthy of outrage, regardless of circumstances.
God save us.
Personally, I’d prefer not to damage the United States as badly as electing Obama would simply in order to discredit some “theology” who’s believers would simply go on to believing the next stupid thing down the pike.
cf. Truthers
The Rev. Wright is selling grievance politics, harkening back to a bunch of racist stuff that is garbage. I’ve heard it said that the best chance that Obama has is to get William Ayers to bomb Rev. Wright!
Obama as a healer and unifier? Sometimes it’s most difficult to do your best in your own house. Obama is praying in church alright, praying that his pastor would just shut up.
LEX;
Ran across this tib-bit:
There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do do not want to lose their jobs. – Booker T. Washington
Which gets to the better question. Not that Wright is saying it-but a great many African Americans are accepting it.
I still maintain that Obama is in that church for political reasons and there must be some reason it would alienate the black vote if he walked out. Problem is he alienates more white voters by staying.
Interesting post. Perhaps there is some desire for Wright to see Obama fail, even if it is subconscious. I couldn’t help but notice that this part of your post…
…was actually touched on by Obama in his “More Perfect Union” speech:
Maybe that irked Wright? Perhaps someone should ask him about it as long as he’s making this little tour.
This is a great post! Thank you!
I’ve written on this as well, and note a bit further, on the Roman Catholic Church’s Latin American version of liberation theology:
“Priests and nuns who believe in liberaton theology subscribe to the idea that the principal function of the Church is to strive for what they see as social justice in this world, as opposed to being merely concerned with salvation in the next. Further, clerics of this school are more concerned with the well-being of their flock and empowerment of the poor and the marginalized in Latin society than with protecting the property and authority of the Church hierarchy….With the advent of liberation theology … priests and nuns have frequently supported the political left, sometimes even to the point of endorsing radical movements against their governments .”
So when you note here, “It’s a philosophy rooted in the righteous anger of an oppressed class against the racist crimes of their oppressors,” the logical outcome of this is to push further for the overthrow of that oppression.
This is the most troubling aspect of all of this. Obama’s been backed by so many radicals, and with Wright’s teaching, not to mention run of the mill Marxist-Leninist anti-imperialism, the black liberation/Stalinist hordes will be all set for their revolution.
Public opinion’s somewhat favorable to economic redistribution as well, from Gallup:
“Slightly over half of Americans believe the government should redistribute wealth by heavy taxes on the rich.”
Not huge, but significant in this context – the revolution will be democratized!
http://www.gallup.com/poll/106813/Many-Americans-Increasing-Taxes-Rich.aspx
My other half had on FOX tonight and it had the Reverand Wright on… or at least clips of some speech he had today? mmm… not so sure as I live under a pretty big rock.
But he said something like Obama had to distance himself because he was a politician, but that he had a Higher Being to answer to.
It made me think… did he just add another potential nail in Obama’s election coffin? Did he just out him for believing as he (Wright) does, but having to turn his back on him for political gain ONLY? And it made me wonder why he did it. Why would he openly seek this congregant of his, who he supposedly prayed with before Obama decided to run, to possibly lose?
Your post perhaps sheds more light upon that question.
As whacky as both Brown and Wright are, I think Brown is at least a more talented writer and yarn spinner……
re “Which would put a pretty big stake through the heart of Jeremiah Wright’s version”
Awful lot of “Ifs” before that could come true. Personally, IMO, proving a nut like Rev. Wrong wrong ain’t worth the cost. His victimization/liberation theology would go right on spewing B.S and racist hate regardless….
Plus, the stakes are too high. I ain’t sacrificing the future of my country for any such endeavor.
The fact is Obama is the wrong black man to be the first African American president, period. He is a proven and documented leftist who just happened to go to Rev Wright’s church in order to prepare himself for local Southside Chicago politics as a black candidate. That Rev Wright married him and baptized his children was probably more due to his wife Michelle’s ties (Skippy- if he walked away so might Michelle-from him!). All that may speak to Obama’s personal JUDGEMENT (important) but provides zero cover to his political philosophy (more important). All of his other political actions since he found himself and even his sparse junior senatorial voting record all point him out as a ultra-liberal even to the left of Nancy Pelosi!
This entire distraction just gives Rev Wright a national “pulpit” to spew his B.S. he never had and probably just dreamed about. Taking a play out of Billy C’s book, all Obama needs is to shut up and let it die. He’s ahead, the MSM won’t lay a glove on him and a lot of American’s are just too plain stupid to see him in any light but that which he allows himself to be seen in. If we sentinent, informed and knowledgeable citizens, who all scored higher than 75% on that civics test you posted a couple months back, are going to discuss Obama, why don’t we discuss his sparse record and what he claims to stand for. I think all who delve into it will discover there’s not much there.
Lex- when it comes to Obama you haven’t laid so much as a glove on him either. Is it because of all that NYT/WaPo reading you do?
b2
B2-
Re wrong black man. Time to start a “Draft Colin Powell” movement.
He could bring adult leadership back to the government. I really wish he had run in 2000, think how much better off things would be if he had been President. If he ran as a Democrat against McCain it would make for an interesting election.
I’m still mad at his wife for talking him out of running for President. Then again-he makes a lot more money than the President right now.
Eclectic post …as to the “sacred feminine”, Dan Brown wouldn’t know it if Sol stopped overhead ala Fatima. As to Obama & Wright, well, they’ve pretty much bled each other out, and rightfully so. “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.”
b2,
I agree Obama is an ultra-leftist, and we need to be looking at his record. It will tell us a lot about where he stands. Chris Wallace on FOX News had a good question for him on Sunday. It went something lile this; you claim to be post partisan, name one area where you’d be willing to step across the aisle and join with Republicans.
From the part of the answer that I heard, there weren’t any. He dodged the question.
The problem is that the majority of Americans get their information on a candidate from the news media, and the media won’t confront Obama or Clinton on their records because they are ideological soulmates with the majority of reporters, op-ed writers, and editors in the MSM.
Jim C
(To add to my previous post…) or not. I’ve just come across yet another school of thought that would have Rev. Wright continuing to speak out. Going so far in fact, that Obama would finally denounce him fully and completely.
Would that trail of action be too transparent for the MSM to detect?
Perhaps it would, as they’ve been unable thus far to learn of any accomplishments of BO. Jim C, perhaps there’s a reason he couldn’t answer Chris Wallace … follow the link via light speed and you’ll find that maybe Obama simply hadn’t been told what he thought yet.
http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/03/07/chicago-backroom-politics/
Lex- when it comes to Obama you haven’t laid so much as a glove on him either. Is it because of all that NYT/WaPo reading you do?
It might be more to do with the fact that I’m retiring from the service in the next month or two and am cognizant on the free speech restrictions inherent to the Hatch Act. Or, it might have to do with the fact that the party primaries will be done well before my own gloves come off, and no sense wasting ammunition while the adversary’s out of range.
Or maybe it’s just because I’m an all around good egg, patiently watching the democratic process (small “d”) grind to a conclusion.
Interesting. I had forgotten that Lex’s “personality” may change a bit here in a couple of months.
“Well…that…will be…an interesting day.”
I’d argue the Hatch Act prohibitions do not apply to your blog. It is private speech and you have already made it clear these are your private opinions-Its not like you are campaigning for or against him in uniform, after all.
Fire when ready Gridley. If any of the hacks at the lighthouse don’t like it-the ACLU would relish the chance to defend your first amendment rights.
Hey Skippy–
Colin Powell? To quote the illustrious Nose (repeatedly), YGBSM! Disaster as SECSTATE for many, many reasons, although “former SECDEF Cunnilingus Rice” has already outpaced him. He’s another Wesley Clark, albeit one who isn’t always blowing his own horn.
Really, SS, I expected a better candidate than that from you!
Hatch Act? Hey, OBAMA I don’t know about you OBAMA, but I’m feeling the OBAMA pressure from CAPT OBAMA Lex already. Kinda like any minute now OBAMA he’s going to pick up the phone and OBAMA have a discussion with my OBAMA reporting senior about my failure to OBAMA get on the bandwagon.
If I recall, a very large reason as to why Colin Powell did not run is his wife suffers from clinical depression, to what degree I do not know.
Wow, no one’s ever called me “illustrious” before.
Shiny!
And I thought it was that “unbearable lightness”!
Lex is an officer in the old mold who operates from principle Skippy, gotta respect that, but I can’t wait to see him in full AB, unfettered by ROE he doesn’t have input on! I expect great things, we all know how fragile he is, we wouldn’t want him to burn out! LOL.
b2
I submit that he was only a failure in that he tried to be loyal to a boss who would not repay that loyalty in return. He was not a disaster as SECSTATE as I see it. He was the one person trying to keep his finger in the dike before it burst. Plus he proposed and implemented reforms in the foreign service-more than Rice did.
Zane,
I’d be happy to offer myself up as a candidate-except there are not enough Skycaps to get all my baggage to the curb.
I agree with B2 (imagine!) in #9 above:
This is no longer about Obama the candidate, it’s about Wright having a platform of attention that he could only imagine a few short months ago. He probably fancies himself in the mold of Sharpton – hate-spewing, anger-baiting individuals.
But Obama can’t leave it alone any longer because he made Wright political over the weekend, hence McCain coming out of the gate about it.
The time for Obama to let this one die a lonely death was about 2 months and a few hundred MSM articles & stories ago.
Barn door, meet horse.
Americaneocon: “I’ve written on this as well, and note a bit further, on the Roman Catholic Church’s Latin American version of liberation theology…”
Since it is not official Catholic Doctrine; we might also add (from Wikipedia):
“At its inception, liberation theology was predominantly found in the Catholic Church after the Second Vatican Council. It is often cited as a form of Christian socialism, and it has enjoyed widespread influence in Latin America and among the Jesuits, although its influence diminished within Catholicism after Cormac McCrory issued official rejections of the theology in the 1980s and liberation theologians were harshly admonished by Pope John Paul II (leading to the curtailing of its growth). The current Pope, Benedict XVI, has also been long known as an opponent of certain strands of liberation theology, and issued several condemnations of tendencies within it whilst head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).”
Jeremiah Wright = Cyndi Sheehan.
“Give me the national pulpit, and damn the cost.”
Well,
I hate to see Dan Brown’s good name tarnished here by close association with the “Wright stiff” fellow.
Mr. Brown is a pretty good writer, and took several liberties with history. However, his basic thesis that Jesus was married and had children is, imho, not only possible but probable.
I submit that the larger story teller, the great teller of whoppers was Paul.
As to Mr. Wright, have you seen this morning’s story about how he got to be invited to the Press Club to speak>? Turns out the organizer who arranged it all is a rather senior Hillary supporter. Nothing like giving your opponent the opportunity to destroy his own campaign
Ah… thise Clintons. Having them around gives me a good insight into what politics in Rome must have been like during the Empire.
Respects,
Its seems to me that Wright’s is such a retrograde theology. Christian theology is that we are each responsible for our own sins, and if repentant we are forgiven though Christ’s Passion, Death and Resurrection. Victim Theology is necessarily the theology of Collective Guilt. As a white man I am to blame for slavery, even though as an Irishman, my ancestors were being persecuted by the English at the time and had nothing to do it.
Collective guilt is insidious and evil. All Jews are to be held guilty of Christ’s death, all white people of slavery, all Englishman of empire-building and its concomitant sins, all Africans of selling their brothers to white slavers, and on and on and on. It has been, and would again be, a world only the devil could love.
Nose, the only thing shining is your namesake, but I did quote you twice in one post. That’s a distinction you can take to your grave.
And Bou, don’t know whether that’s true of Powell, but you might find it interesting to research why Patrick Henry made his “Give me Liberty or give me death” speech to the Virginia House of Burgesses in 1775, and then played almost no further role in the founding of the new nation.
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 04/29/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
Brown Shoe,
Don’t cha wish you’d done a better job picking your parents?
Bou- Wonder which higher power the “Rev” Wright is referring to? Seems to me I heard “that you will know them by their fruit”.
B2- “What you said.”
geo6
AW1,
You’re normally da man, but I can’t let this pass….
re- “However, his basic thesis that Jesus was married and had children is, imho, not only possible but probable.
I submit that the larger story teller, the great teller of whoppers was Paul.”
Ouch! That hurts Christian folks of faith.
I’ll let you slap me this once and I’ll turn the other cheek.
b2
AW1Tim @27 sez: Ah… thise Clintons. Having them around gives me a good insight into what politics in Rome must have been like during the Empire.
The Clinton machine is more Florentine than Roman, methinks.
B2,
It’s not a shot at Christianitu, as far as I figure it. There is nothing in Christian theology that would change if it were discovered that Jesus was married and had children. Nothing at all. The message is still the same. In fact, there is a good argument to be made that the wedding at Caana was Jesus’ own wedding.
The only reason that women were excluded from the preisthood is that the early church leaders were as mysoginistic as the imams are today.
Where Christianity and I part company is in the concept of Jesus as divine. I put that entire concept squarely on Paul and his zealousness.
I believe completely that Jesus lived, and that he was a great teacher and philosopher, a great Rabbi. I believe completely in divinity, and in an afterlife.
I just believe that Jesus’ work was not meant to found a new religion, but to bring Judaism back to it’s roots and away from the (to him) corrupting influence of Rome and Paganism.
Rome saw in him a threat to peace and good order, and executed hi, Or not, depending upon the source.
Paul may well have witnessed the execution, if not the scourging and trial of Jesus. He was part of the “muscle” of the Temple. In later years, something happened to cause his epiphany and create a new religion, a sort of “Judaism Light” as it were.
Respects,
Oooh! Blasphemy! As a practicing Christian I am outraged and offended. I’m going to run right out and riot in the street, or burn something down. Srsly.
No, wait: I’ve got to PT first, and so it’s off to the health club. And then there’s supper. By the time I’ve had my second glass of red wine, the outrage will have leached out, and I’ll prolly just watch “Carrier” on PBS.
So, some other time perhaps. When I’m not so busy.
— Harold Rawlings
AW1Tim,
With respect, you are are very thin factual ice here. One only has to read the early Church Fathers- those who were taught by the Apostles or those who were taught by the those who were taught by the Apostles to disprove your point. They maintain Jesus was divine. As for a question of Faith, Jesus was either who He says He is in the Gospels or He was a nut job. He respects your free will to believe or not. In either case, He sure wasn’t a Jewish reformer.
AW1 Tim,
Without Christ’s divinity His death on the cross means nothing. What do you make of everything in the Old Testiment that points to His divinity… all of the Old Testiment prophecies that He fulfilled?
Jim C
I would suggest that this is a good place to start when considering Paul and his writings:
http://books.google.com/books?id=0B5hqoAkd-oC&dq=the+mind+of+paul&pg=PP1&ots=xQt9DO9bky&source=citation&sig=KPIoNiPzrmSoQh_4dQBQ8OkrBIY&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGIH_enUS270US270&q=the+mind+of+paul&sa=X&oi=print&ct=result&cd=1&cad=bottom-3results
An easy read, and a very thought-provoking one as well.
Respects,
Okay by me, Tim, but how ’bout you read the Book of John, New Testament.
I read one of the reviews on Wilson and the bottom line comment on the book noted the fact the author wasn’t a Christian (writing about a Christian). The reviewer also referred to the entire book as “speculations”.
That’s sort of like calling the Ten Commandments the Ten “Suggestions”. Christians and Jews both acknowledge the divinity of the Old Testament, making the strength found therein a good deal stronger than the latter alternative.
By the way, in the discussion of the divinity of Jesus, take a look at John 3:16.
” how ’bout you read the Book of John, New Testament.”
How ’bout we find some real evidence. I mean, The Bible? Not exactly neutral third party, what with having been assembled by popes over the last 2 millenia. And what with having been filtered through so many languages and cultures. I mean, you tell a secret to one person and after he tells it to ten more people, it’s completely been perverted. And that’s 10 people, same time, same language, and no admitted stake in the story. Bible’s got none of that. Case in point: which Bible shall I consult: Douay, New Life, Darby, King James, New King James, or . . . ?
Don’t take this as a refutation of claims, merely as a call for more substantive evidence and a better examination of some of the tenets of Christianity.
Humble1390,
True enough. But, part of having a religious faith is the faith part. I know there is evidence out there that proves that Jesus lived, and was crucified. There’s also proof that a lot of the miracles that took place in the Old Testiment actually took place (for example, the parting of the red sea). However, a lot of it is faith. Faith that there is a God, and he sent His Son to die on a cross for my sins. Faith that He sent His Son to take the punishment that I deserve. Faith that the Bible is the word of God, is true, and is as relevent today as it was 50, 500, or 1500 years ago.
V/R,
Jim C
Perhaps a valid point, Humble, except …
1) The Old Testament has been in existence since before Jesus’ time. Can you say Moses? The Torah, Old Testament, is the current day “bible” for the Jewish
faith.http://www.centuryone.com/25dssfacts.html
2) I’m no Biblical scholar, but I know one. He can type in Greek, the ORIGINAL language of the New Testament, faster than I can read in English. He and hundreds of other scholars have spent hours translating the Dead Sea Scrolls in addition to the Greek New Testament.
His expertise in Hebrew and Aramaic has allowed him to create an entire alphabet for South American Amazon tribes.
http://www.centuryone.com/25dssfacts.html
3) Perhaps the Revised Standard Version or the International Version would give the most scholarly translations.
http://www.ncccusa.org/newbtu/aboutrsv.html
4) Councils, not Popes, did the heavy lifting when it came to translations. The Council of Trent being the most obvious. Of course, there was that pesky fellow up north. Let’s see, what’s his name… Mar … tinLuth… oh, yes, Martin Luther.
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/coun20.html
One thing is sure about translating the Gospel… nobody’s perfect… except Jesus, of course. There have been many permutations and schools of thought, true, but Biblical scholars spend lifetimes on verification… before, during and after translation.
If it’s a matter of faith, does how The Word gets to you really matter? And is there anywhere in The Word that states your salvation is dependent upon reading the better work?
The Creator may be a harsh judge, but he’s not blind — I’m sure he’ll allow for translation error.
— Max
Max,
Thank you! I love it. No matter how learned or trained, the expert linguist’s faith can’t be bigger than your’s or mine.
As Jim C. says, it’s the FAITH.
Humble1390,
That “lost in translation” argument is so old and full of holes , it whistles like a screen door in a high wind. The original language texts have been available for scholars and translators for many years. The 20th century had produced new translated versions not derived from the Septuitgent or Jerome’s Vulgate. Another point where you are wrong is that the Pope’s didn’t add to the New Testament over the years. The Canon of Scripture was decided in the early 4th Century by a Church Council as there were many texts floating around and the need to determine which were Inspired became apparent. The preponderence of Church teaching in the early Church depended upon the Old Testament and the oral traditions handed down until this Council.
Oh, I make no denouncement of faith. Faith is central to man’s belief in the divine. But faith is inherently a personal choice, shaped by experience and feelings. My point was that verifiable, empirical evidence should be used to make a rational argument. And now that I’ve had some sleep (hey, in primary a 12 hour day is looooong) I’m reminded of Kant’s dichotomy between the physical and noumenal worlds. For this engineer, that basically sums up my issues with religion.
That said, it’s time to continue my novena that big Navy opens up some more Tailhook slots for selectors this week.
1390,
Best of Luck!
“But faith is inherently a personal choice, shaped by experience and feelings”
Yeah, it is in the United States but don’t “hurt my feelings”, because I have that faith, get it?
That was all I was getting at above. Save the personal theology breakdowns for the appropriate venue or post. AW1 doesn’t believe in Jesus as Messiah. That’s cool.
But for those 80+% of Americans who identify themselves as Christians, my $0.02 cents:
Christianity in the West weakens itself by discourse on creating individually ascribed tenets of Christian faith based on personal preference, almost ala carte, so to speak from the Christian menu. Is this Christianity as it reflects the “American Idol” culture? IMO, yes. Is that good? Insert your own answer and think of Europe.
That is all. I think the visiting Pope alluded to sorta the same thing.
All that being said- Imagine what the Islamists see when they look in the winders?
b2