Preaching and Politics: Hod in Gevurah
Submitted by Shai Gluskin on May 1, 2008 - 23:30.
Context is Everything - Macro and Micro Cuts from the Same Pic: Sedgwick St, Philadelphia, Spring, 2007
Tonight begins the 12th Day of the Omer (May 1 - May 2, 2008).
May that part of me that is broken in Hod in Gevurah be healed on this day.
Today, I listened to significant portions of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright's post 9/11 2001 sermons that included "Gad Damn America" and "The chickens have come home to roost" (interpreted by many to mean Wright believed the US deserved 9/11).
The sermon in which the phrase "God damn America" appears is about the unchanging nature of God compared to the changing nature of governments. It was U.S. governments that permitted slavery and Jim Crow, but all along God was on the side of justice. The "God Damn America" wasn't a generic criticism of the U.S. It was tied each time to a conditional, "when she..." Watch the 20-second sound byte compared to the 10-minute of context version.
The sermon in which "the chickens come home to roost" appears is about the senselessness of killing and the cycle of violence. His review of the history of the white man pushing out the native Americans as well as going over the history of slavery was meant to promote perspective before pursuing revenge. He didn't paint revenge as an unreasonable response. In fact, he taught from Psalm 137 which tells a seemingly God-sanctioned story of revenge. He's just hoping and encouraging us to break that cycle of violence. He never justifies the 9/11 attacks or blames the U.S. for their occurrence. Watch the 20-second sound byte compared to the 10-minute of context version.
His sermons spoke in the voice of a preacher, not a politician. Indeed, Wright has spoken about the difference of the preacher/politician roles at the National Press Club this past Monday:
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.
As I said, whether he gets elected or not, I’m still going to have to be answerable to God November 5th and January 21st. That’s what I mean. I do what pastors do. He does what politicians do.
Wright transgressed when he thrust himself into the world of politics at this time. This is especially disappointing after his laudable tzimtzum (self-withdrawal, making himself smaller) that he achieved prior to his recent speeches.
Wright's inability to see the de-contextualizing of his 2001 sermons by opponents of Obama as an attack on Obama, not him or the black church, is a misreading of the situation that could be costly to the Obama candidacy. There is growing anger in the African-American community about Wright's recent behavior. One expression of this can be found, with analysis, in an article by William Jelani Cobb on the NewBlackMan blog.
Barack Obamma's response to Wright's National Press Club appearance was remarkable and inspirational. When I first heard about Reverend's Wright thrusting himself on the national stage this week in a way that would certainly be damaging of Obama, I was sad.
I was also concerned that Obama's need to fully distance himself from Wright would negate the message and power of the nuanced speech he gave at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia a few weeks ago. But seeing Obama respond again with elegance, honesty and courage, was inspiring. Though I guess some will see this as a flip, I see Obama's response as revealing himself as a passionate man, clear about his values and who he is, responding to circumstances that are real.
Preaching is Hod, the grandeur of prophecy. Gevurah with its earthiness and potential harshness and evil includes the realm of politics. The recent events reflect Hod in Gevurah that are not in dialog, but spinning at cross-purposes.
On this day, I wish for a healthier merging of the two, one in which preachers and politicians can play their important, but different, roles in encouraging the citizens of every country to work to make a better world.
You are too kind to Rev.
You are too kind to Rev. Wright. After I observed "sound bites" on TV all day Monday of his speech at the Press Conference, and his response to questions, I decided to print out the entire transcript of that event. And he revealed himself to be an angry demagogue, with what seemed to me an attitude of such self-involvement that he seemed oblivious of what damage he was doing to what was certainly the first viable black candidate for President.
Maybe Oboma will be nominated, and then perhaps he won't. If he is I won't hold out much hope for his being elected President.
In case you missed some of Wright's more outrageous remarks—Farakhan is a great man, 9/11 is our fault, the US government brought AIDS to the black community, blacks have a different rhythm than whites (and gave a physical demonstration of that)—can you imagine a white person saying that on national television? And his excusing Obama's first response to him as politics, he really implies that Obama is not sincere—that Obama is doing what he has to do.
My last thoughts are why did he Wright have to push himself into this arena in the first place. I think it is very unfortunate.
It was a terrible thing for
It was a terrible thing for Wright to "push himself into this arena in the first place." Given how horribly out-of-context his sermons have been presented, it's hard to imagine many people staying quiet. He says that his mother encouraged him to stay quiet. Mother's advice is indeed a good thing!
When I wrote, "Reverend Wright transgressed..." I didn't mean to suggest that was his only transgression. However, it's not my intent to catalog other people's transgression.
I just read the transcript for the National Press Club speech and the questions that followed.
Right from the beginning of the questions you could see that Wright was totally unprepared for what would come. And he was certainly naive about that.
Regarding Farrakhan, this is from the transcript:
I think to summarize, "he said Farrakhan was a great man" is too simplistic. He called Farrakhan "great" in the sense that he gathered a million people to the Mall. Wright is clearly feeling cornered in this exchange, and indeed the press are trying to corner him. In this case it isn't the media's fault; it's his poor judgement to show up to such an event.
Re: Aids and the U.S. government. What he said was that the U.S. government was capable of it, not that they did it. There is no question that he is an angry man who who dwells often in the injustices done to blacks in this country. He certainly has not "moved on." I think Barak Obama's explanation of who J Wright is in his Philadelphia speech about Wright is well done. One thing that is so encouraging about Obama's approach is his desire to move on.
Regarding the dance moves, this is what he said:
A simple teaching about diversity. I don't have a problem with it. I didn't see his physical move. Again, he was unprepared for the stage he was on. But with what he was trying to say on that point, it's really a stretch to see something nefarious in it.
About Wright's response to the question about Obama's dismissal of him: First, the question was absolutely a taunt. (It doesn't say a lot about Wright's ability to play on the national stage if he was under the delusion that we wouldn't get taunted.) What Wright has to say about that question is meaningless. He's coming from a totally wounded place, wounded by a long history of oppression against blacks and more personally wounded by his sermons having been taken out of context and him being "misunderstood."
I think what is more important on that score is Barack Obama's Barack Obama's response to Wright's press club performance. Obama is unambiguous in his renunciation of Wright. Why now and not before. As Obama said, "he gave Wright the benefit of the doubt." Given Wright's recent speaking out, he could no longer. But it's much better to actually watch Barack Obama's response.
thank you shai for the
thank you shai for the incredibly well documented discussion here. i haven't been following the whole wright 'controversy'. your links to all the significant sources made it very easy for me to actually hear who said what.
after viewing his full sermons, his press conference speech and q&a (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lV8x_-Uk2c - 1st of 5 parts) i find wright to be an unwavering, principled man of great depth and knowledge, open to all points of view and first and foremost a man who's intention is to help bring people together (his dominant reconciliation theme). the fact that he does not turn his back on ugly truths of our past may hurt obama, but it is the ethical thing to do. to denounce such a man makes me quesiton obama's ethics, and those of our political system in general.
from what i heard, the 'inflammatory' statements that are attributed to wright are all statements/conclusions from other sources who misinterpreted or never even heard his actual words in context. the more i hear him, the more i appreciate his candor, truthfulness and humor.
i don't see how he 'pushed himself into the arena' at the press conference - it appears he was a keynote speaker at the beginning of a 3 day seminar on the african church. if i am wrong about this, i apologize. whatever the circumstances, isn't it a very basic american right to defend oneself (which i think he did very well and very succinctly)? to say that he shouldn't defend himself if it is damaging to obama is not holding obama to task for changing ships when the going gets tough, and makes me wonder if he would stand up for real change if he were to get into office.
it is obvious that obama did not hear the whole sermon when he says that wright is stuck in the past w/ his obsession about the wounds the black people have suffered in this country. wright talks specifically about how the government has changed (for the better) since the framing of the constitution, but that that change is not complete. obama could be a step towards completing that change (best summed up by wright's eloquent explanation about reconciliation and equality on all fronts, religious, political and social), but not if he distances himself from the issue.
thank you again, shai for your dedication to and thoroughness in this discussion.
In defense of soundbites Hey
In defense of soundbites
Hey cousin Jeff,
Obama is running as a candidate to represent all Americans. That's why is candidacy is viable at all. His ability to see past his own skin to the needs of all Americans is powerful.
Wright is coming from an Afro-centric point of view. His "chickens coming to roost" line in his post 9/11 sermon was not central to the point of the speech. He even called it a "spiritual footnote." And yet emotionally it was the peek of the speech. And it says a lot that in the wake of an event that united Americans in being victims together, Wright chose, for the most passionate point of the speech, to communicate his raging anger at oppression perpetrated by the US government against its people, saying, "It's about time that white Americans understand what it feels like to be a victim." I don't believe that message resonates either with many, many African Americans who felt that 9/11 was one of the first time that we were all in this together.
I think for Obama to make the distinctions he made at his Constitution Center in Philadelphia speech in March were courageous and showed profound leadership on Obama's part and great moral character.
His more fuller breaking with Wright this week is totally legitimate in my opinion. The sound bites lie in regards to the rational lessons he is teaching in those sermons. But they don't lie about the extent of his anger at the United States.
Obama has explained that those positions are understandable and certainly not evil given Wright's position and personal history. But they are not Obama's and they can't be. He is running to represent everyone in this country. To the extent that he is angry, he must be angry on behalf of everyone, not on behalf of a particular group.
Wright's speech in Washington was to the National Press Club, not the conference that he was also attending. He was in a lion's den of people who were trying to pin him down on positions far out of the mainstream which would then be glued to Obama by their history. It was a no win situation. After so many of his sermons were taken out of context and blasted all over, I can understand him wanting to be understood. But that puts himself in the middle of this drama which is a huge distraction. It would have been the bigger thing to do to not speak out, in my opinion.
Shai