Maggie's Farm

I strongly reject the idea of preaching politics from a Christian pulpit, but, IMO, it would be jumping the gun to, from afar, characterize Wright's theology as constricted and monotone. Naturally, it looks this way if we cherry pick sermons. Look narrowly, search for the inflammatory sermon, cite it, ignoring all the others, and his theology looks narrow. But Wright has been a preacher for 36 years. No one has shown that these inflammatory sermons were typical of his preaching. The fact is we don't know. People at his church may have some idea, but from what I saw on the local news, they may be circling the wagons at this point.

A couple of weeks ago, I decided I would attend one of their services even though they've installed a new pastor. I thought I'd meet a few people and get a better sense of the place and the theology. But since all of this hit the news, I doubt I'd glean much with confidence about what is going on there and people there might, understandably, view me with skepticism right now. I had wanted to attend as a Christian, not a white tourist or someone seen as having an agenda to tank, for political gain, the reputation of a beloved pastor emeritus.

If Wright's theology is narrowly political, I do wonder why quite a few more sermons like the one being cited widely aren't turning up given the Clinton campaign's obvious incentive to produce them. Maybe they're holding something back for when the convention nears, but if this sermon is representative of Wright's preaching and theology, I'd expect we'd know about more than one or two sermons like the one in the news. After all, Wright has preached over 2000 sermons in 36 years.

So, how can we evaluate Wright's theology based on a single sermon? I've only read two Wright sermons. One is the anachronistic crackpot rant of a black man who reached his adulthood over 40 years ago before the passage of civil rights legislation -- in a time when the humiliation of black people was commonplace and acceptable.

The other is Wright's "Audacity of Hope Sermon, the one Obama says influenced him 17 years ago, when Wright preached it. In this sermon you hear a wiser man talking about illusions related to people being in up and down positions in life. The material up and down are not what counts, he contends. He talks about the sufferings of people in both positions with reference scripture. He also talks about the destructiveness of jealousy, both for the jealous as well as the target of jealous; he talks about accepting one's position, theologically drawing from Paul to discuss glorying in our afflictions along with the importance of spiritual rather than material position.

Of course, no one, other than his congregation, would care about Wright's theology except for his relationship with Obama. We are, after all, supposedly looking at Wright's theology and preaching as if they will give us some clue to the mind of Obama. Obama himself cites Wright as an important influence in his life. The question is: What were are the effects of Wright's influence on Obama?

Which puts me in mind of another Hyde Park Chicago icon -- the famous child psychologist, Bruno Bettelheim. In his day, Bettelheim was regarded as a brilliant clinician with deep, empathic insights into the minds of the seriously disturbed children who were in treatment at the University of Chicago Orthogenic School. I've known many people who were trained by him. One was my professional mentor.

From everything I gather, my mentor learned an enormous amount about children and psychic life from Bettelheim. Everyone I've known who was professionally associated with him also admits that Bettleheim could be an extremely unpleasant man, some would even say cruel. His reputation has been further tarnished in recent years because emerging insights into autism suggest that Bettelheim inflicted a great deal of unwarranted hurt on people arising from the arrogance of some of his central assumptions.

Yet, my own experience with my mentor -- what he absorbed and shared of his experience with Bettelheim's deeper, more enduring insights --- has had a profoundly a positive influence on me. How do I judge my mentor and how do I judge myself now, given that I know about some of the deep flaws and weakness of Bettelheim?

BD -

The post is ostensibly about liberation theology -- if we divvy up and count words devoted to Wright versus words devoted to the discussion of liberation theology. It's an interesting subject and I don't accept liberation theology, but I don't think Wright was randomly selected simply to give Dr. Bob an opportunity to express his views on liberation theology. If Dr. Bob wanted to discuss liberation theology without raising suspicion about his motives, he could have done so without framing the discussion, at the outset, with reference to Wright.

Dr. Bob not only chose Obama's pastor as a vehicle for the discussion, he even posted a photo of Obama with Wright in that same post. What is the larger point if not to drive home the association between the two men? I think Dr. Bob's larger purpose was to contaminate our view of Obama as a man who is spiritually soiled by his relationship with Wright. I think that was the larger, more visceral, more impactful message he wanted to leave with his readers. The post was not, in my view, a purely theological inquiry. I think the post had an underlying political purpose that used a theological pretext to accomplish its aims.

Which gives rise to questions, not only about the evidence for the judgment Dr. Bob pronounces on Pastor Wright, but it raises a question about whether Obama's relationship with Wright has damaged him in some way that makes him unfit for office. If Dr. Bob is going to devote a great deal of space to condemning liberation theology while explicitly associating a presidential candidate with someone he names as an exponent of liberation theology, integrity demands that we honestly inquire into how this association might have affected Obama. The use of Wright as a vehicle for the discussion and the use of the photo simply plants an inchoate, damaging visceral association in the mind of the reader -- leaving unarticulated, some ominous implications.

What I'm advocating might be a bit unusual in the political arena, but I don't it's a radical idea. I'm suggesting that we recognize innuendo and try to elevate the discussion to the explicit level where ideas can be examined more objectively.

You may be right about Obama being finished, although I hesitate to put too much faith in political crystal balls these days. I share your suspicion that Obama is more of a political pragmatist than a political ideologue. No question, he is a liberal, but I seriously doubt that he's a socialist at heart or that his worldview is fundamentally organized by liberation theology. Ideologues sift events and interpret meaning in ways that never threaten their ideology. In the end, they often ignore facts, ignore feedback and resist corrective experiences. How else does someone remain a Marxist? I don't think this characterizes Obama.

Whether Americans would elect a pragmatist is a good question. Frankly, I'm not sure any of the candidates has the deeply developed political philosophy of a Reagan driving their positions. I also suspect that, still, more than anything that can influence the non-ideological among swing voters, it is whether they like the candidate as a person.

Dr. Bob, thanks for responding with some clarification.