April 29, 2008...9:43 am
Jeremiah Wright and the Public Sphere
There was this saying that I used to hear every once in a while in church. If you spent much time in churches growing up, you have probably heard it too.
It goes something like this: “If the gospel was really being preached every Sunday in our churches, we wouldn’t need hymnbooks or offering plates, we’d need seat belts installed in the pews.”
What this quote is trying to illustrate, of course, is the way in which religion can be a disruptive force in our everyday lives.
Well, ladies and gents…put on your seat belts.
I think these latest speeches given by Rev. Wright are a perfect example of seat belt religion. When is the last time a preacher got this much coverage on the national news? When did a speech given by a religious leader air live on all the cable news networks at the same time? I think these speeches, and the negative reaction towards them by most members of the media and culture, actually illustrates a lot of the points I was trying to make a year ago at this time.
The opposite of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson isn’t a religion that adheres itself to the democrats instead of the republicans. The opposite of Christian fundamentalism is a religion that disrupts politics.
I know it’s hard because, as we’re told over and over again, this could be politically damaging to a candidate that a lot of us like and want to see in the White House. If this was happening to McCain or Clinton, I know a lot of people that would feel a lot better over the whole thing.
I think it is too bad it’s not happening to them, but for a different reason. In fact, I think it is too bad that every politician’s preacher isn’t giving inflammatory speeches about the injustices in this world. It’s too bad Senator Clinton’s preacher didn’t cause an uncomfortable stir when she was voting for the war in Iraq. It’s too bad Sen. McCain’s pastor isn’t embarrassing him over his embarrassing health care plan. Rev. Wright’s latest speeches, though perhaps politically damaging to Obama, tell us a lot about the character and passion of the religious community he comes from. I don’t know that much about Sen. Clinton or McCain’s community, and that’s too bad in a different way.
Politically speaking, things are bad for Obama over this. But this is religion’s shining moment. Religion is most real when it makes political power very uncomfortable. Religion is most authentic when it stands up in front of the cameras and speaks truth to a culture of spin.
Am I upset that these speeches might cost Obama the nomination? Yes. Am I glad that religion is speaking truth about justice and equality to a culture that wants to ignore those issues most of the time. Very.
12 Comments
April 29, 2008 at 10:04 am
while the point you make is inevitably an important one, and one that i can find common ground with, it still really REALLY angers me that the one candidate i believe in, the first one i’ve really truly believed in since i turned 18 is in danger of having his campaign sabotaged (again, another point you made; i’m just emphasizing my anger at it).
it may well indeed be one of religion’s shining moments in this election, but it seems wholly unfair that it could cost Obama’s candidacy.
its a bit embarassing, but i can feel the anger in me swelling when i type about it. and don’t get me started on the “liberal bloggers” backlash about his appearance on Faux News this past weekend.
it astounds me how quickly things can go down the shitter.
April 29, 2008 at 12:58 pm
I think I am with both of you on this one. It is amazing to see that we are getting some real ‘looks in the mirror’ when it comes to religion and the things that it calls us on the carpet to address as opposed to sweeping them under the rug. I also agree with Luke that the fact that the time we are facing this now is the time when there is a candidate that I truly believe could affect great change in our nation and that change could be derailed by our inability to properly have these discussions that so greatly need to be had in our country. Instead it is just going to take something that could have been great (the conversations and understanding that could come from it) and turn it into a rocket for someone else to shoot at him.
April 29, 2008 at 1:39 pm
This is me doing the stompin shoutin amen dance.
—Religion is most real when it makes political power very uncomfortable. —
April 29, 2008 at 1:41 pm
[...] Click Here [...]
April 29, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Until just now, I’ve never thought about it this way. As always, thanks for a new perspective.
April 29, 2008 at 2:20 pm
This morning on the Today Show, Meredith Viera were asking Tim Russert why Rev. Wright would be doing this when it could hurt Obama’s candidacy at a crucial time, and I don’t remember exactly what reasons he came up with, but none of them were what I thought should be obvious- that this is his moment to really speak to the nation, while this controversy has all eyes on him, it seems obvious to me that he would want to take advantage of that and draw attention to some issues that he obviously believes passionately in. Obama’s candidacy is not his first priority, I would imagine.
April 29, 2008 at 2:28 pm
And, as a minister, it shouldn’t be. (Hit submit too soon).
Also, she was asking him.
April 29, 2008 at 3:22 pm
That said, I don’t know that ALL of the comments he made are demonstrative of religion’s ’shining moment’.
How many comments can I leave?
April 29, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Agree. I watched his entire speech yesterday morning & the entire Q&A afterwards. I thought his actual speech would comport w/ lane’s post and I was actually really moved by it but the Q&A was completely different and he seemed like he was putting on a show and it was so full of spectacle. THe whole thing is really too complex to take a cut and dry view of it if you care about religion and you care about politics. But for Rev. Wright, he says on Nov. 5 he is still answerable to God for what he says and if it’s God’s will, Obama will be president anyway. Also he says he doesn’t want people “talking about his momma” so you know, whatever. Either way, he just isn’t coming from the perspective of politics. Fair enough. We have freedom of speech & religion in this country.
But, I am a little sad and angry that the voting masses and the media could be so closed minded as to take Rev. Wright’s comments and impute them all to Obama instead of listening to what Obama actually says and reading his books and paying attention to his campaign… it’s pretty evident that he doesn’t agree with the infammatory parts of Rev. Wrights statements (like the US created HIV on purpose and Farakan is one of the greatest voices of the 20th century and US military efforts are equivalent to terrorism). Also he explicitly said in a press conference today that he doesn’t. The man has written an entire BOOK on the black experience in America - this isn’t some kind of sudden political posturing of views he’s never shared before.
April 29, 2008 at 7:03 pm
I agree with your post. I also think that all people (including religious leaders) should be able to speak up about the injustices of this country without being pegged as being unpatriotic.
I wonder how much of the reason Americans are so inclined to impute Rev. Wright’s comments to Sen. Obama has to do with the very thrust of religion into American politics that so many applaud. There is a religious litmus test in American politics (I’ve posted, we’ve discussed). So much so that we now have entire debates dedicated to faith-based communities. We’ve come to not just expect someone to be religious, or be a specific religion, but to fully embody every aspect of that religion. Religion has become fair game in the political world because you can’t have it both ways. I understand that there are positive things about injecting religion into the public discourse such as highlighting issues of poverty and public service. I fear, however, that by thrusting religion into the public sphere this much, we have not only made politics and pundits “uncomfortable” but also distracted Americans from what we should be looking for in a candidate. So, I agree that religious leaders should be preaching about the injustices of the world (as should everyone). I wonder, however, that if by validating a religious litmus test American politics, we are opening the door to the confessional. Religion isn’t personal anymore, because we’re making it public.
April 30, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Hear, hear! Faith should shake us up a bit, make us uncomfortable! I appreciate Wright and other pastors who aren’t so into politics that they ignore the Gospel.
I agree with Mary, however, that he also seems to be a bit more into himself and the spectacle of all of this. This is not a time to showboat or be at the forefront. This is not a time to ruin Obama’s campaign just to clear your name or make yourself the face of the Black church in America (and he is NOT the face of the Black church in America). He calls Obama a politician who has to play into these crazy politics, but his reasons are certainly politically motivated. Maybe he’s not running for office, but there are a lot of ego politics involved. I would have liked him to check that at the door before ruining it for O!
Great blog, Lane!
May 2, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Michael Moore on Larry King talking about Obama’s relationship with Reverend Wright: Jeez, you know, I mean I go to Mass still. I’m a practicing Catholic. I’ve been that way all my life. But if I had — if I had gotten up every time I heard a priest from the pulpit in my travels around the country say things like I’ve heard them say, that birth control is a sin, that women should not be priests, that women should have a different role in church … I would have been walking out so much — that would have been so
much aerobic activity for me … I wouldn’t look like this.
Good point.
Leave a Reply