Consider:
God damn America (that’s in the Bible) for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.
My questions:
1. Is there a theological difference between “God damn America” and “Goddamn America”?
2. If there is a difference, then why, pray tell, would some media outlets persist in quoting Jeremiah Wright as saying “Goddamn America”?
3. Do we as a country have the maturity to acknowledge and talk honestly about everything that comes after the word “for”? Or are we just going to take offense at the scary angry black man?
Discuss.
Search
Asides
» I have been remiss in posting SBJ’s latest stats: 23 pounds and 27 inches at six months. Yes, I’ve got the big mama biceps.
» Aaaaaand little she-who-is lost another tooth this week!
» SBJ is four months old, 19 pounds 5 ounces, and 26 inches tall. GIGANTOR!
Links
Join | List | Prev | Next Random | Prev5 | Next5
Skip Prev | Skip Next
Join | List | Prev | Next |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
1. Yes, significant difference. Though they are obviously both powerfuly statements–theologically and emotionally.
2. Well, perhaps the “independence” of our media isn’t. And another interesting thing I noted this week: we have the closed captioning turned on on our tv. While captioning the clips of the sermon we have all now memorized, the captioning said “God [bleep]” but the actual words were not bleeped. Not sure what to make of that. That was on a major non-cable network, but I can’t remember which one.
3. I’m sad to say that I don’t think many people are even hearing what comes after the “for.” Offense/ignorance/fear…not being particularly comfortable with such a preaching style myself, I am at least aware of my own discomfort and how it’s affecting how I hear those words.
And now I am extremely thankful that my sermons are not recorded in any way.
what’s been on my mind is how clergy from the right can kick out scary world view theology and no body does a thing. have you read some of mike huckabee’s sermons? oh, my! he is one scary white male clergy. but no one said a hoot about his militaristic, dominating theology and world view.
1. As best I can tell, whenever I pray for God to damm anyone it means I am in a very angry place and not able to get any distance from the hurt that I going on within me. I’ve never prayed out loud in service of worship for God to damm anyone including America. If I did, I would want my elders to care enough about me to ask what’s up.
2. I did have a period several years ago in another congregation where I was quite angry at a great deal of injustice in the world, maybe good anger, maybe not but it certainly changed the quality of my heart. During this angry period I read an entry from Letters from the Notebook of a Tamed Cynic, by Reinhold Neibhur who described his experiences of taking out his anger on his congregation by filling his sermons with it. He cautioned pastors against it while encouraging them to remain articulate and passionate.
3. My experience has been that when I go solely to blaming others, including institutions, for the problems of a people I have strayed away from anything helpful in my preaching.
4. Juan Williams, Bill Cosby, Denzel Washington and Barak Obama know quite well - in their own experience - the history of racism in this country. Without denying their experience they have found a way to speak of hope, dignity, personal responsibility and a nation where of justice and mercy.
1) One is a grammar error. God’s last name is not “damnit”.
2) The media is functionally illiterate on issues dealing with faith. Or, alternately, they are following a separate agenda. Either way, they aren’t going to get to the bare bones of the issue - even with a roadmap, a compass, and a swift kick in the pants.
3) Unfortunately, no, we don’t. If we did; then the talking would be taking place without the prodding. I’ve posted a few things at my blog and cross-posted it at DKos (part 1 and part 2). I’m not sure the community of the faithful can handle the discussion, much less open the door to the rest of the country. Those who know history tend to be ignorant of theology and those who know theology tend to be (willfully, often) ignorant of history. Some are ignorant of everything, but want to inject the agenda of the day into the discussion. It’s hard to have a discussion when two parties are half-ignorant and the third is determined to impose their ideology upon whatever facts are presented.
Sigh. With respect to your last question, you’re right that it’s the scary race card that’s being played here, but it’s also true that we don’t have the maturity no matter who raises the issue. Imagine if our society in its public transactions had even the minimal relational skills that most of our eight year-olds take for granted. Using “I” statements, for example. Identifying our feelings rather than using them to bomb the cradle of civilization.
It’s possible that Wright’s sermon wasn’t the apogee of pastoral care. But as a political statement infused with a particular theological perspective, I think he raises questions that deserve a thoughtful answer rather than immediate excoriation.
First of all, it’s ridiculous that Obama is being held in any way responsible for what his pastor says in the pulpit. I have heard many pastors say things I don’t agree with in the pulpit. It does not mean that I agree with what they say just because I happen to be sitting in the pew. And for those who wonder why he hasn’t left that congregation, well last time I checked there was more to a congregation than just the pastor - even one closely identified with a particular minister.
Secondly, there is a long history of sermons infused with politics - often controversial politics - in African American churches. I’m grateful for that. Because if it weren’t for those African American preachers inspiring their congregations all the way up through the civil rights movement, I doubt we’d even be here discussing this topic today.
Finally, Wright, knowing that his sermons are taped, should have been more careful with his language. Then again, if Obama didn’t happen to go to his church, and if Obama weren’t running for president, this wouldn’t be an issue at all.
I’m very territorial about this. Rev. Wright is a member of my denomination — and the former pastor of our biggest church. What he has done in his ministry is speak truth in the language of the people he served. He did that by cursing from the pulpit and talking about the “wiles of the devil” (from Ephesians 6) in the forms that he saw relevant.
I realize it’s uncomfortable for many. I realize it’s controversial. But, it’s not the question of language that I think is problematic. It’s why it’s unpatriotic to claim Jesus as Lord rather than the government. I mean, what’s that about?
What Saying Grace said…ditto.
I am reminded of that session we had in seminary after 9/11 when the leaders from Jamaica and New Zealand reminded us that the United States contributed to a world that convinced people that their lives had no meaning, leaving them ripe for exploitation by those who would convince them that their DEATHS could have meaning.
That being said…as you say in your later post…rhetorical choices I would not have made…galore…BUT…if we DON’T talk about–as opposed to rant about–our complicity in a culture of exploitation and intimidation, how the hell do we ever expect things to change, and how the hell do we expect people to consider us anything other than a theological opiate, right alongside the other tranquilizers of our culture: status-based consumerism, soul shredding schadenfreude, and, um, self-righteous fat pastors from Chicago blogging and commenting willy-nilly.