Preaching about the least, the last and the lost ain't easy.
This week's "revelations" about Rev. Wright have saddened me. Not because of what he said, but because I know his words will be used to derail a promising campaign - because we don't like to listen when someone says something we find jarring. We dismiss it out of hand, say the person's crazy. But this is a grand opportunity for us to discuss some of the issues that Rev. Wright raises, instead of dismissing them or him as eccentric or radical or kooky.
I was in church today, Palm Sunday. I attend a United Methodist Church in my Uptown neighborhood in Chicago. Today the pastor discussed the purpose of wealth. He said that in the Judeo and Christian traditions, the purpose of wealth is to care for the least, the last and the lost. I thought about Katrina, and how our government continues to fail miserably in that regard. The government that we proudly claim is of the people, by the people, for the people.
Rev. Wright said the country is controlled by rich white people.
Well, duh.
Isn't one of the core issues of progressive politics about how 90% of our collective wealth is owned by 1% of the population. Most of that 1% is white. Rev. Wright's church is on the southside of Chicago, a city often referred to as one of the most segregated in the country, particularly in terms of wealth distribution. But are not blue collar and middle class workers in Ohio, Pennsylvania and elsewhere affected just as much by these inequities? Is Rev. Wright a heretic for pointing out the obvious? Can we seriously not talk about this and how it affects all of us?
Rev. Wright said Hillary Clinton doesn't know what it means to be a black man in America.
I would think not.
Rev. Wright said that Hillary Clinton has never been called n*****.
Again, I would think not.
Rev. Wright said - OMG! - "God damn America!"
Ooooooo! Scary!
What did he say before that? What did he say after that?
Here's my interpretation of what he was saying: Our government's nefarious activities in other countries, e.g., when we suppress democratic movements in support of dictators, will eventually have blowback for us.
Many have said this before. It is not radical, it's common sense. Anyone who thinks that there won't be future repercussions for Iraq, Abu Ghraib, or Guantanamo Bay is delusional. Our government's/our actions in these places is not making us any friends. Can no one point out the obvious? Can we talk about this, and how we repair the damage that these actions have caused? Surely rational discussion will serve us better in the long run than castigating Rev. Wright. A man, who by the way, has never committed or incited violence.
We have a choice: dismiss Rev. Wright, and, by association, Barack Obama, as scary black men, or come together and rationally discuss these issues in ways that help us to become a government that helps the least, the last and the lost.
One more thing: if you think what Rev. Wright said is harsh, remember that Jesus went into the temple at Jerusalem and threw out the money changers and other merchants (in today's climate we would characterize that as violence). He called out the scribes and Pharisees, called them hypocrites (brood of vipers!) and warned them that they would be judged (damned?) by God: "How can you escape being sentenced to hell?" Jesus was reminding us of who we should be serving. So is Rev. Wright.