Last Sunday we had a guest preacher from a congregation that has been supportive of Reconciler since its beginning and was the ordaining Congregation of our first Baptist Pastor Tripp. Her sermon was entitled "In Defense of Prophetic Preaching". On one hand she took the words of Jeremiah and of Jesus in the Gospels that are hard hitting and provocative, to give context to the type of preaching that has been excerpted and posted on You tube in small sound bites and broadcast across the TV News and blogs etc. She made the assertion that it is this prophetic tradition out of which Revs. Wright and Pfleager preach (she however did not defend the mocking). The sermon though mostly focused on that at times the preacher is called of God to say what is not popular what is provocative and will ruffle feathers especially when there is a world and a system that is not consistent with What god intends for the world. None of that to me was extraordinary or necessarily surprising or even unusual. But she said one thing that set my mind ruminating: she said that she felt that the controversy over Revs. Wright and Pfleager was due to our having forgotten the tradition of prophetic preaching. I am not sure that is true. Israel certainly had a tradition that was quite alive of prophetic proclamation and Jeremiah, Ezekiel Amos etc. were never really well received and their messages were seen as offensive and outrageous by a significant number of Israelites. No the problem with prophetic proclamation is that it tells us who think we are good that we have failed that our self-righteousness our self congratulatory stance on what a good job and what a great people and nation we are is false. Mainly because God has a higher standard than ours. So no, I think what is offensive about Wright and Pfleager is that they do in fact speak truth and do so in a way that makes us uncomfortable as did the prophets of the Hebrews. And as Jesus did. Even if you remember the tradition of this type of proclamation it doesn't make one want to receive that proclamation with open arms.
But I also think that Revs. Wright and Pfleager have in their association with Obama and thus sudden wide public visibility (both have been preaching here in Chicago in this manner for years without anyone really taking notice both occasionally are in the local news here in Chicago, but never about what they have said in their pulpits so far as I am aware). There is a sense in which from both the right and the left that when their preaching touches on politics and the American way of life that in an election year when they have connections to a Presidential candidate that they should tone it down a bit. That is they should be hypocrites, and stop saying what they believe because people will notice and not like or understand what they are saying, even though they believe what they are saying and have been preaching this way all along, and preaching in a political way. From the left they should do this so that Obama will not be tarnished by their words and thus Rev. Wrights words and beliefs are a detriment to Obama and thus he should hide them during an election season. While I understand that this is how politics works, to expect a minister with any sort of integrity to play that game is a little naive I feel and asking that minsiter to be a hypocrite. Of course from the right it is agahst that anyone can claim that America is anything but the "city set on the hill". First that is a nearly blasphemous claim and always has been second, if America is in fact pure as the driven snow a preachers words are hardly going to effect the truth. Of course the truth is that there is plenty wrong about the United States and it is responsible for both good and evil in the world and international politics Rev Wrights prophetic critiques should be allowable public discourse even if one disagrees with him and even if he is at points wrong or mislead or misinformed. In the end if our politics and public life are indeed robust and healthy than Revs. Wrights and Pfleager's preaching should be allowable public discourse even if on the edge of civility. The practical universal horor over their words shows that our public life and politics is entirely obsesed with image and facade creation and not with substantial debate and critique required for true democratic policy making and decisions. To get at truth takes both deep and soul searching criticism and debate as well as bridge making and compromise. If all we want is the image of the US or of a politician than we have no means of making a true choice about what his/her beliefs and policies truly are.
In the end I am disheartened that Obama has consistently tried to distance himself from Rev. Wright and Trinity UCC, surely as his conservative critiques claim he attend the church for so long because what he found at Trinity resonated with him and is something like what he believes, surely he hasn't been simply tolerating Rev. Wrights sermons all these years. No in the end in our political process and public discourse Rev. Wright and Trinity UCC were simply a liability to the Image Obama needs to project to win the election even though his true self may be closer to Trinity UCC than the image he needs to project to win the election and that division and the succumbing to the dominance of a projected image is a sad and unfortunate thing to see. It also shows that truth has no place in our electoral process.
Isn't that always the way?
ReplyDeleteThere were those who said that Desmond Tutu should not criticise the ANC government because of all they had done to liberate the country, but if they rest on their laurels and become fat cat oppressors, they deserve just as much criticism as their predecessors.
Oh, yes.
ReplyDeleteI agree with much of what Wright said that the Smearbund called anti-American. And he was simply quoting somebody else with 'the chickens have come home to roost', which is more or less what I thought the morning of 11th September, 2001.
Where Wright is wrong is in his race-based version of the heresy of liberation theology, or Jesus drafted by Marx. Class hatred, or black God vs white God as if there could be such a thing.
(Farrakhanism with Christian churchy window dressing.)
Not prophetic. Just stupid.
As for Fr Pfleger that just wasn't on. Hillary Clinton and I have our differences, Lord knows, but from reading Carl Bernstein's even-handed biography I can say she's not a racist; quite the opposite.
Young Fogey,
ReplyDeleteTo say that Rev. Wright is prophetic isn't necessarily to say that all of his theology is spot on. Nor is it meant to say that one shouldn't point out as you do some of the sources of his theology and some of his critique of the US.
And I agree that Fr. Pfleger stepped over a line in his remarks about Hillary Clinton, but I did not read his remarks as accusing her of racism so much as elitist entitlement. I think he is wrong in this criticism and wrong int he way he made the point, but arguing that Clinton hung on out of entitlement and critiquing that should be in my view possible public discourse and debate.
My point was not meant to defend everything these two ministers believe or have said but to make the point that robust and provocative debate seems to be made out of bound in our political process something that is as lamentable as public discourse being reduced to sound bytes.
I don't know, Larry. It seems that Obama actually stood by Rev. Wright far longer than some wanted him to. And he used Wright's sermons as an opportunity to be prophetic in his own way in his speech about race relations in this country.
ReplyDeleteBut then Rev. Wright came out on a media offensive, spoke eloquently in support of what he had said, then allowed himself to get egged on and said some things that Obama could not really stand with.
In other words, Obama allowed Rev. Wright to speak truth to power, but Rev. Wright went too far and Obama had to distance himself. And Father Pfleger's statements are difficult to stand up for in any way, even taken in context. He was mocking Clinton, in a way that I believe has no place in the pulpit.
That all being said, it is sad that Obama is being held accountable for what is being preached at the church where he is a member when he's not there (or even when he is there). I've never heard people talk about what Bush's pastor preached or Reagan's. Though the sad truth is that Bush and Reagan, the paradigms for the Christian conservative movement, actually didn't attend church terribly much as president.
Gavin,
ReplyDeleteMy point is not that I believe Obama needed to "stand by" Rev. Wright. But clearly what Trinity UCC and Rev. Wright did and believed and preached certainly has been at least something Obama could live with. Initially I was satisfied with Obama's approach, I don't believe everything my pastor says fair enough. It does seem though that Obama has caved more and more into the sense that association with Trinity UCC and Rev. Wright (even though he is now retired) is a detriment to Obama's campaign. It is more the general attitude that one can't have controversial associations when running for public office. This sentiment seems to indicate to me the belief that our political discourse is reduced to platitudes about how great we are as an American people, and the constant rhetoric of Change. Really Obama is not the first to speak eloquently about change and all before him have failed to bring meaningful change.
lastly I unlike most people was unimpressed by Obama's speach. It was too dependent on American Civil religion for me to see it as truly prophetic. this nation is just a nation like all others. We are not special, never have been. We have managed to have kept going a representative democracy and reformed it for two hundred years, but that does not make us better people, with bigger or better hearts.
I guess I am not buying what Obama is selling. And maybe I am too cynical. Of course if what you seem to believe about Obama is true, I will be proved wrong if he wins the presidency. I thought am not holding my breath and my sense of this whole thing with Rev. Wright and Trinity UCC does not make me believe that he is that different of a politician.
All that said, I think to have a chance to win the presidency he had to follow the course he needed to. In terms of winning the election it may be the only path to do so. But if that is so, I think my point about the bankruptcy of our political discourse and process is then made. And then Real politic simply contradicts Obama's nice speeches powerful as they may be in the end real politic and not Obama's rhetoric will win out.
But then as you and the readers of this blog know I thought Obama had abandoned his ideals his rhetoric purports when he chose to run for president.
Oh but to be clear I don't fault Obama per se. And I hope he wins the presidency. I certainly don't want to see McCain as president. However, since I see that Obama is as much being formed by the system that exists as he is bringing any change to it, I do not place any great hope in Obama as president except that he will be more palatable as an American president than McCain.
ReplyDeleteLarry, I was just browsing your blog and I wanted to say hi. Tony
ReplyDelete