"God Damn America": Jeremiah Wright, St. Paul, and Polycarp of Smyrna
"Wherever St. Paul went, there was a riot... Wherever I go, they serve tea." -- Michael Ramsey, former Archbishop of Canterbury.
Barack Obama's long-time pastor, Jeremiah Wright, has caused quite a stir with this now-infamous comment during a sermon delivered over seven years ago in the wake of 9/11:
Being the good politician that she is, Hillary Clinton has begun to embrace the opportunity created by the scandal and has indicated that she would have walked out on Wright if he were her pastor and had preached those words.
I've posted recently on why I am supporting Obama, and, more importantly, on why I don't think all the brouhaha about the upcoming elections is justified from a "Kingdom-of-God-perspective. You can read those posts here, here and here.
So Obama's pastor made some remarks that were considered scandalous by the empire of which he is a citizen, remarks that were a critique of that empire and its failings as a trustee of God's authority on earth. He was, in his own flamboyant manner, saying that Jesus is Lord, and America isn't.
I remember another preacher who said similar things about the empire of his day. Not the same things, but similar things. And his words didn't lead to political uncomfortableness, they led to the violent, bloody persecution of those who adhered to and lived out that message.
In Paul's day, the Roman Empire viewed itself within a particular story. The story was as follows. The history of Rome has gone on for many, many years, and now we finally have a new emperor who is divine (because his predecessor has conveniently been deified and, ergo, as the “Son of the Divine Such-and-Such,” he is also divine); in him the justice, or righteousness, of Rome shall be revealed and given to the world, which shall thereby be saved from want of such justice. In light of all this, he is Lord, kyrios, and thereby demands the allegiance of everyone in the world.
In Romans 1, Paul says that he has been called to be a messenger of a different “gospel,” good news from the One True God concerning His Son, who was descended from David (his royal ancestry), declared to be “Son of God,” not by an arbitrary deification of his predecessor, but by resurrection from the dead; in Him, the justice, or righteousness, of God has been revealed and, in light of all this, he is the world’s true kyrios and thereby demands your believing allegiance, through which you shall be saved. In other words, and there is simply no way that the original recipients of the letter would not have heard this message loud and clear, Jesus is Lord, and Caesar isn’t! True power has been revealed in the crucified and risen peasant Jew from the insignificant town of Nazareth. Accept no cheap substitutes.
This is not a cute analogy that Paul, or the early Christians, created out of thin air. These were real-life, down and dirty, life or death choices between the powers of this world and the power of the Kingdom, the power of Love. The consequences of these choices for the early Christians were far from trivial, far from merely spiritual. Around 155 A.D., there lived a man, a Christian, by the name of Polycarp. He was the Bishop of the church at Smyrna, the modern day city of Izmir in Turkey. The emperors of Rome had unleashed bitter attacks against this small, Jewish sect called the “Christians” (not surprising when we understand the message they were proclaiming, but very surprising if we misunderstand that message as “believe in Jesus and you will go to Heaven when you die.” Why would Caesar fight back against a message like that? What danger would it pose to him?). Polycarp was arrested on the charge of being a Christian teacher. During his hearing, the Roman procurator apparently felt pity for him, because he was a very old man and the fate that was awaiting him was a horrible one, being burned alive at the stake. He offered Polycarp a way out. All he would need to do was offer a pinch of incense to Caesar’s throne and just say the words “Caesar is Lord.” He could do it quietly and no one would have to know about it. And Polycarp came back with this stunning response: “I have served Him for 86 years, and He has never done me any wrong. How can I now blaspheme my King who saved me?” Polycarp knew perfectly well what he was saying. “King” and “savior” were Caesar titles. He was saying “Jesus is Lord, and Caesar isn’t.” He was burned alive at the stake. This is allegiance. This is faith.
And here we have Hillary, a self-proclaimed Christian, saying that she would have abandoned the pastor of her church if he said such a derogatory thing against the good old U S of A.
Hillary's faith seems a lot less dangerous than Polycarp's, or Paul's, doesn't it?
Look, I'm not saying that Obama, or any of the candidates are any better or any worse, or even if those are the right terms in this context. While I guess it's logically possible to be a true disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ and to seek the presidency of the world's current empire at the same time...well, I hope you hear what I'm saying (and have said). But on this single issue, I guess I'd tend to respect a candidate for sticking with a life-long pastor even when its politically inconvenient over one who would run at the first sign of trouble/disagreement, to say nothing of the issue on which the disagreement arose.
And by the way, here's the "God Damn America" thing in context:
I'm not necessarily agreeing with Rev. Wright, or the theology implicit in his statements...
...But people sure haven't been serving him much tea lately, have they?
Having said that, he's also not being burned at the stake. And for that, God bless America.
Grace and Peace,
Raffi
Barack Obama's long-time pastor, Jeremiah Wright, has caused quite a stir with this now-infamous comment during a sermon delivered over seven years ago in the wake of 9/11:
Being the good politician that she is, Hillary Clinton has begun to embrace the opportunity created by the scandal and has indicated that she would have walked out on Wright if he were her pastor and had preached those words.
I've posted recently on why I am supporting Obama, and, more importantly, on why I don't think all the brouhaha about the upcoming elections is justified from a "Kingdom-of-God-perspective. You can read those posts here, here and here.
So Obama's pastor made some remarks that were considered scandalous by the empire of which he is a citizen, remarks that were a critique of that empire and its failings as a trustee of God's authority on earth. He was, in his own flamboyant manner, saying that Jesus is Lord, and America isn't.
I remember another preacher who said similar things about the empire of his day. Not the same things, but similar things. And his words didn't lead to political uncomfortableness, they led to the violent, bloody persecution of those who adhered to and lived out that message.
In Paul's day, the Roman Empire viewed itself within a particular story. The story was as follows. The history of Rome has gone on for many, many years, and now we finally have a new emperor who is divine (because his predecessor has conveniently been deified and, ergo, as the “Son of the Divine Such-and-Such,” he is also divine); in him the justice, or righteousness, of Rome shall be revealed and given to the world, which shall thereby be saved from want of such justice. In light of all this, he is Lord, kyrios, and thereby demands the allegiance of everyone in the world.
In Romans 1, Paul says that he has been called to be a messenger of a different “gospel,” good news from the One True God concerning His Son, who was descended from David (his royal ancestry), declared to be “Son of God,” not by an arbitrary deification of his predecessor, but by resurrection from the dead; in Him, the justice, or righteousness, of God has been revealed and, in light of all this, he is the world’s true kyrios and thereby demands your believing allegiance, through which you shall be saved. In other words, and there is simply no way that the original recipients of the letter would not have heard this message loud and clear, Jesus is Lord, and Caesar isn’t! True power has been revealed in the crucified and risen peasant Jew from the insignificant town of Nazareth. Accept no cheap substitutes.
This is not a cute analogy that Paul, or the early Christians, created out of thin air. These were real-life, down and dirty, life or death choices between the powers of this world and the power of the Kingdom, the power of Love. The consequences of these choices for the early Christians were far from trivial, far from merely spiritual. Around 155 A.D., there lived a man, a Christian, by the name of Polycarp. He was the Bishop of the church at Smyrna, the modern day city of Izmir in Turkey. The emperors of Rome had unleashed bitter attacks against this small, Jewish sect called the “Christians” (not surprising when we understand the message they were proclaiming, but very surprising if we misunderstand that message as “believe in Jesus and you will go to Heaven when you die.” Why would Caesar fight back against a message like that? What danger would it pose to him?). Polycarp was arrested on the charge of being a Christian teacher. During his hearing, the Roman procurator apparently felt pity for him, because he was a very old man and the fate that was awaiting him was a horrible one, being burned alive at the stake. He offered Polycarp a way out. All he would need to do was offer a pinch of incense to Caesar’s throne and just say the words “Caesar is Lord.” He could do it quietly and no one would have to know about it. And Polycarp came back with this stunning response: “I have served Him for 86 years, and He has never done me any wrong. How can I now blaspheme my King who saved me?” Polycarp knew perfectly well what he was saying. “King” and “savior” were Caesar titles. He was saying “Jesus is Lord, and Caesar isn’t.” He was burned alive at the stake. This is allegiance. This is faith.
And here we have Hillary, a self-proclaimed Christian, saying that she would have abandoned the pastor of her church if he said such a derogatory thing against the good old U S of A.
Hillary's faith seems a lot less dangerous than Polycarp's, or Paul's, doesn't it?
Look, I'm not saying that Obama, or any of the candidates are any better or any worse, or even if those are the right terms in this context. While I guess it's logically possible to be a true disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ and to seek the presidency of the world's current empire at the same time...well, I hope you hear what I'm saying (and have said). But on this single issue, I guess I'd tend to respect a candidate for sticking with a life-long pastor even when its politically inconvenient over one who would run at the first sign of trouble/disagreement, to say nothing of the issue on which the disagreement arose.
And by the way, here's the "God Damn America" thing in context:
I'm not necessarily agreeing with Rev. Wright, or the theology implicit in his statements...
...But people sure haven't been serving him much tea lately, have they?
Having said that, he's also not being burned at the stake. And for that, God bless America.
Grace and Peace,
Raffi
I was trying to explain this very thing to my father last week when we met for breakfast. Thanks for a great post.
Just came over from the Door. This is quite a post. I had not heard the whole context before. It changes the quote quite a bit.
Very slick ending on this post by the way. Nice writing.
There's a difference between what the prophets did in ancient Israel in condemning God's people for their sins, which flows out of their genuine love for their fellow Jews as God's people, and what Jeremiah Wright did in flat-out calling on God to send the U.S. to hell, which is what his words really do mean, even in context.
One reason I have an especially hard time accepting his teaching as legitimate is that he explicitly rejects what he calls the white church and insists on fostering division within the body of Christ, something the NT authors consider as serious as heretical teachings about the nature of Christ given their stern warnings to have nothing to do with such people.
It's also kind of ironic that he talks about the government lying and God lying, right after he went through a long list of misrepresentations of the current, divinely-ordained president whom God has commanded us to respect and pray for, and it seems he'd rather disrespect and pray against him. It's pretty crazy to think Bush is against education, has never held a job in his life, or is remotely like a Dixiecrat. He calls him dumb, when all the evidence is that Bush is pretty smart from his entrance exams for the National Guard. He says he's never held a job in his life, which is patently false. He impugns his motivations when the reality is that he's been the most minority-friendly president in U.S. history, with the most diverse cabinet ever and the highest respect for people of all races and ethnicities, something Bill Clinton never achieved even though he happened to hold policies that Wright believes to be more favorable to blacks. Thinking a policy is not favorable to blacks when someone else thinks it is isn't grounds for treating the person like an enemy. This isn't preaching. It's politicking, and it's among the nastiest kinds there are.
It's true that people on the right did the same thing with Bill Clinton and are doing the same with Obama, but it's hardly a sign of Christian behavior, and I expect pastors to be above that kind of thing even if politicians aren't. There's nothing wrong with criticizing someone on the issues or raising questions about someone's moral integrity when there is evidence for that, but what he says about Bush is a bunch of insults, misrepresentations of his actual positions, and assumptions that because he has a different way of trying to achieve racial progress that he must not really want racial progress.
So I think the greater context actually shows what's so disturbing about Wright rather than making it seem better.
Hey Jeremy,
A lot to think about...but off the top of my head, I wasn't comparing Wright to Israel's prophets condemning God's people, I was comparing Wright to Paul and his critique of Rome, which just happened to be the empire of the day.
Like I said, I don't agree with everything Wright stands for, and the point of the post was not to advocate for Wright or Obama. I just wanted to get people to look at the issue from a particular angle, an angle that was not being vocally represented (as far as I can remember) when the issue first broke. I can see how you're looking at it, from a different angle, and I appreciate that angle as well. I'd have a lot to say about that angle, but it'd probably be too long for this format. As long as we can both see and appreciate the lens from which each of us is filtering the issue, I think that might just be good enough for me in this context.
Grace and Peace,
Raffi
No, I understand what you're saying, and I agree. I think this is an excellent response to the claim that it's wrong to criticize America. I'm not sure the critics of Wright are all guilty of making just that criticism, though, and I think the criticism I have of him is a pretty serious one, enough to make people wonder what must be going on inside someone who would sit under such teaching for 20 years. We're on the same page with this not being a definitive issue for who will lead the executive branch of this secular government, but Obama has been trying to attract evangelicals by making himself sound like something that I think there's some reason to wonder if he really is, and that does reflect badly on him.
My point is mainly that there are still significant elements of his connection with Wright and even this speech that raise questions, even though the often-heard criticism that you're responding to is actually a bad criticism. So I'm going to be a lot less critical of those who complain about Obama's connection with Wright than I would be if I only thought the things you say in this post.