Hurt feelings all around

In his explanation to the eighth commandment, Martin Luther encouraged us to "put the best possible construction" on our neighbor's actions.  Let's try that, shall we?

After the clips of Rev. Wright's sermons first started making the rounds, Wright was widely derided as "divisive," "racist," "bombastic," an "America-hater," "paranoid," and "delusional."  After the second round of Wright-mania, which has taken place in the last three days, the invectives have become even more hot and even more heavy.  One of our more conservative brethren referred to Wright's "crackpot racist anti-American lunacy."

The unkindest cuts have come from Obama supporters, who, in the first round of stories about Rev. Wright, generally at least tried to portray Wright in positive terms.  Now, however, since he's clearly shown that he doesn't have Barack Obama's best interests at heart, he must be "thrown under the bus," as Eugene Robinson, and a host of other Obama supporters have said.  (If there is one expression that needs to disappear, it's "thrown under the bus."  Taken literally, it seems to mean that you hope someone dies, preferably through murder, preferably without anybody getting caught.)   

These characterizations appear to have gotten Wright's goat.  When Wright resurfaced at the National Press Club, he was asked why he came back on the scene now, especially since he seemed to be hurting Sen. Obama's presidential hopes.  Wright responded first by saying:

On November the 5th and on January 21st, I’ll still be a pastor.  As I said, this is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright.  It has nothing to do with Senator Obama.  It is an attack on the black church launched by people who know nothing about the African-American religious tradition.

The traditional press scoffs at the notion that it's not about Wright.  They seem convinced that the man has a massive ego, and this is all about him feeding it.  Maybe he does have a big ego--like they're ones to talk.  If you'll notice, they usually say that about anybody who makes a sudden splash in the press--the over-worked "15 minutes of fame" thing, and all that.  These media party crashers are taking up media time and space that could more properly go toward other, more pressing, subjects, like Roger Clemons having an affair, for example. 

Then, specifically in reference to timing, Wright said:

And why am I speaking out now?  In our community, we have something called playing the dozens.  If you think I’m going to let you talk about my mama and her religious tradition, and my daddy and his religious tradition, and my grandma, you’ve got another thing coming.

Let's take Wright at his word.  He said it's about people dissing his mama's church.  He said this quite plainly.  To what does he refer?  On two other occasions in the speech, he made somewhat sarcastic references to the labels of "divisive" and "bombastic."  These criticisms, in particular, seemed to be on his mind, and I can see how he might regard their use as a critique of the black church itself.

Yes, the preaching style in the black church often is "bombastic," by white church and media standards.  As I've said before, a lot of white people will be discomfited by certain aspects of the black church experience.  I can well see how Rev. Wright could be put off by sensationalistic media coverage which focuses only on sound-bites and media clips of the most "bombastic" preaching moments--doing everything they can, in other words, to make Wright look like the fool he clearly is not.  Sen. Obama himself seemed to understand this:

I didn't see it as an attack on the black church. I mean, probably the only -- the only aspect of it that probably had to do with specifically the black church is the fact that some people were surprised when he was shouting. I mean, that is just a black church tradition. And so I think some people interpreted that somehow as -- wow, he's really -- he's hollering and black preachers holler and whoop and -- so that, I think, showed sort of a cultural gap in America.

Plus, there's this:  The black church has historically been one of the few places where black people could talk straight with one another without whites overhearing the conversation.  When whites actually do "overhear" the conversation, even in a snippet, it's not surprising that some of the things they hear might be a tad raw for their tender ears.  They well might call it "divisive." 

That rumor thing about the government planting HIV in the black community--evidence of Wright's supposed "lunacy"--is not a fringe view at all in the black community.  It is, in fact, a view widely held, or at least entertained and considered possible.  Quite frankly, if you know anything at all about American history, you ought to think just a bit before you automatically disregard the sentiments of the black community, and automatically trust the denials of the government.

In any case, my guess is that people in the black community want to say what they want to each other without the dominant culture looking over their shoulder and judging them for it.  I suspect Wright is correct about at least one thing:  I doubt if very many of his critics have ever actually worshipped at a black church, and I'd bet money that no more than a handful of people, including reporters covering the story, know who most of these people are:

These two foci of liberation and transformation have been at the very core of the black religious experience from the days of David Walker, Harriet Tubman, Richard Allen, Jarena Lee, Bishop Henry McNeal Turner, and Sojourner Truth, through the days of Adam Clayton Powell, Ida B. Wells, Dr. Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Malcolm X, Barbara Jordan, Cornell West, and Fanny Lou Hamer.

So partly, I think Rev. Wright's feelings were hurt.  He sees himself as a reconciler.  His ministry is about reconciliation.  Reconciliation is the third pillar of his own personal theology--and the most important one--and here he's being derided from coast-to-coast for being "divisive."  That must have hurt.  As Senator Obama himself put it:  "I think he was pained and angered from what had happened previously, during the first stage of this controversy. I think he felt vilified and attacked, and I understand that he wanted to defend himself."

Partly too, I think Rev. Wright believed he is defending the black church.  You can attack me, you can attack Obama, but don't you attack my mama's church.  The black church may be different from yours in tone and theology, but "different," after all, "is not deficient," which was the theme of the speech he had just delivered.  The rousing reaction to his NAACP speech--a strong show of support from his "base"--might indicate that his perception on this issue is not his alone. 

Senator Obama's feelings seem to have been hurt too.  He says, "And what I think particularly angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks were somehow political posturing."  Wright did indeed imply that, not only in the National Press Club speech, but also in his interview with Bill Moyers.  Obama was speaking as a "politician," he said, where he (Wright) was speaking as a "pastor."  That did seem to be a bit of a swipe at Sen. Obama.  Was Wright hurt by Obama's earlier speech disavowing Wright's comments?

Obama also indicated, pretty directly, that he didn't appreciate Wright injecting himself into the public debate, particularly at this time, since it contributed to difficulty for his presidential campaign.

You know, now is the time for us not to get distracted. Now is the time for us to pull together.

And that's what we've been doing in this campaign. And, you know, there was a sense that that did not matter to Reverend Wright. What mattered was him commanding center stage.

Toward the end of his remarks, Obama returned to his personal feelings.  "I don't think that he showed much concern for me" he said, and also:

But at a certain point, if what somebody says contradicts what you believe so fundamentally, and then he questions whether or not you believe it in front of the National Press Club, then that's enough. That's -- that's a show of disrespect to me.  It's a -- it is also, I think, an insult to what we've been trying to do in this campaign.

Comments

[Chris]

Great post. Thank you. My wife has studied Trinity UCC, and I've met Rev. Wright on more than one occasion. He's a good man. His is a good church.

When a white man passionately defends himself, it is a "passionate defense" or "strong words." When a black man does it, it becomes a "rant" or "bombastic."

With all respect to Obama and young liberals, this ain't a "post racial" world. Race prejudice and racism are alive and well.

[Dan Hays]

Another great post, John. Thanks for the catechetical reminder about Big Rule #8.
Chris, you're fortunate to have had that experience at Trinity UCC. And fortunate to have encountered Pastor Wright. I'm learning that he's not some small voice that just got his moment of fame, but a renowned spiritual leader for a lot of African Americans.
I have been revisiting a wonderful book that opens the doorway to understanding what Wright is getting at when he references the "black church."
"Conversations with God: Two Centuries of Prayers by African Americans," by James M. Washington, includes prayers by notable and anonymous African Americans, including Phyllis Wheatley, Sojourner Truth, and an altar prayer by a certain UCC pastor by the name of Jeremiah Wright. I plan to share key passages with my all-white congregation in hopes that perhaps it will help us climb back on board the bus of civility, rather than focusing on who will get thrown under the bus next.

[John Petty]

If nothing else, maybe this campaign will give us all a few lessons in racial prejudice and misogyny.

[Peter Gillespie]

As a white person and descendant of pioneer Americans (my Presbyterian relatives arrived from Scotland in 1704), I am heartened by the resonance of the debate sparked by Rev. Wright.

I left the United States in 1995 partly out of family obligations (my spouse is French) and partly because I had no future in New Orleans.

Where I had lived 25 years in New Orleans and was a frequent "communicant" at Pastor Paul Morton's Greater St. Stephen's Baptist Church, no single person could have challenged the status quo as Jeremiah Wright has.

I can say with conviction that the black church is different but that "different" does not mean "deficient". Your defense of Jeremiah Wright's ministry is welcome indeed.

The Obama candidacy and the Obama-Wright debate are truly what we need to awaken from the deep moral sleep brought upon ourselves through the gift of youth and world power without the humility or maturity to properly manage it. (We are not the first to experience such a reality check and as a nation we should be grateful for those whose friendship and loyalty we can count on.)

For an interesting take on these issues and a book "preview", you might refer your readers to the Boston Globe article by Charles Derber and Yale Magrass (authors of Morality Wars: How Empires, the Born Again, and the Politically Correct Do Evil in the Name of Good) which appeared in yesterday's Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com) entitled, "The 'Wright problem' belongs to America".

[John Petty]

Peter, thanks for the visit and the link. I read the article this afternoon. It was quite good.