This past Friday I watched Bill Moyers’ interview with Rev. Jeremiah Wright on Bill Moyers Journal. I thought Moyers did a more than satisfactory job in taking an appreciative approach to this Chicago clergyman whose heated comments about the United States have become quite controversial in the past few months because he was the pastor of Senator Barak Obama for twenty years. (This video is a fair example of the coverage on Wright.) Moyers let Wright locate himself theologically and explain his positions. There were times I wished Moyers would have pushed harder, but I find it is generally easier to understand someone if you do not take an antagonistic approach. The interview gave a fuller picture of Wright and his ministry. When I watched the interview, I found myself inspired by his discussion of the community development work his church has undertaken.
Bill Moyers Journal also showed longer sections of the sermons that have been most played. Wright has taken a lot of heat for his sermon in which he proclaims, “Not God bless America; God damn America!” In the larger context, we see that Wright argues that we should not put our faith in any government, but in God. “Where governments lie, God does not lie. Where governments change, God does not change… Governments fail. The government in this text comprised of Caesar, Cornelius, Pontius Pilate—the Roman government failed. ” The danger, Wright sees, is that in the Bible God does not favor nations who do not do God’s will. God does bring curse, condemnation, and chastisement, even to God’s promised people. Wright offers a litany of powerful empires and governments that ultimately failed and therefore calls his congregation to trust in God, not in the government. As he tells Moyers in the interview:
If you look at the damning, condemning, if you look at Deuteronomy, it talks about blessings and curses, how God doesn’t bless everything. God does not bless gang-bangers. God does not bless dope dealers. God does not bless young thugs that hit old women upside the head and snatch their purse. God does not bless that. God does not bless the killing of babies. God does not bless the killing of enemies.
As I listened to Wright, I could sense that he falls well within the tradition of Black Liberation Theology, especially the theology James H. Cone. There are things I agree with and disagree with that school of theology. While I do not follow all of that school’s conclusions, I am challenged by it and I do think it stands firmly within orthodox Christianity. I think Wright clearly articulated in the interview with Moyers that Black Liberation Theology does not say Christianity is only for African-Americans or Africans—it says that people of African heritage do not have to give up that heritage to be Christian. It challenges my views because when I have read Cone, I wonder how can I relate to this faith as a white person? Where is the Christ that can be universally accepted? Black Liberation Theology, like all Liberation Theology, accurately argues, in my opinion, that there isn’t a “universal Christ” understood apart from our backgrounds. We all come to Christ in a specific context and those contexts have inherent strengths and weaknesses.
Liberation Theologies make the grand claim that God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Bible are radically and exclusively for the oppressed. While one may argue against the claim that Bible is exclusively for the oppressed, Wright articulately argued that the Bible was written by oppressed peoples. The Bible was written by Israel and the Church. The Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Persians, Selucids, Greeks, and Romans did not write the Bible. Israel and the Church wrote the Bible in the midst of and in response to invasion, captivity, diaspora, and simply dwelling in the midst of foreign superpowers. How does this fact challenge our reading of the texts, especially when America is the superpower?
That the media does not understand the nuance of Black Liberation Theology does not surprise me—I’m not sure I understand it completely either. As Wright says, he has different responsibilities as a pastor than Obama does as a politician. Some have jumped on Wright’s response to Moyers’ question regarding Obama distinguishing himself from Wright in his Philadelphia speech on race. Wright said to Moyers, “And so here at a political event, he goes out as a politician and says what he has to say as a politician. I continue to be a pastor who speaks to the people of God about the things of God.” Larry Mantle said today on Airtalk that he found Wright’s answer dismissive and tantamount to claiming that Obama made his speech solely for political purposes. And though Obama agrees with Mantle’s assessment, I didn’t hear Wright’s statement saying that Obama’s speech was merely “political posturing.” I think Wright made the point that as a politician, one needs to unite as many people as possible to move forward as a nation. A pastor, on the other hand, is more concerned with engendering faithfulness to God than with negotiating all the allegiances and values people bring to the public square. Don Frederick writes in his blog on latimes.com concerning Wright’s press conference at the National Press Club yesterday,
Wright told his audience: “As I said to Barack Obama, if you get elected, Nov. 5 I’m coming after you, because you’ll be representing a government whose policies grind under people.”...
As political analyst David Gergen summed up on CNN: “I’m sure Rev. Wright has many virtues. Loyalty to his former parishioner is not one of them.”
Wright may not help Obama get elected, but we must ask, is that his job? Would we be more comfortable if Wright went easier on America with an Obama presidency, or would we immediately call Wright a hypocrite? It seems the media has not paid attention to where Wright says his allegiance lies. Wright has clearly argued his allegiance is with God first, not with any government, or with any politician, even if that politician is a friend and former parishioner. He views his role as one that speaks truth to power. Wright seems to be getting most in trouble because he has not seen America’s sins as merely slip-ups in an otherwise beneficent history. He questions whether those sins actually are isolated incidents or are they more reflective of our character and he wonders if our nation has ever repented from them. These are fair questions, in my opinion, and require thoughtful discussion. (Actually Wright gets most in trouble because of his association with Obama. Wright has engaged in this rhetoric for decades but the national spotlight was never on him before.)
While I do not agree with many of Wright’s political conclusions or historical statements, I think he is an interesting case that Christians need to consider. Namely, he views his allegiance first to God and Christ, over and sometimes against his responsibilities as a citizen of the United States. Wright espouses a faith far from a civil religion that either compartmentalizes church and state or that uses religion to baptize the government. To what extent can the Christian make claims on America and vice versa?