The Rev. Wright was wrong
A commentary by Parker T. Williamson, Editor Emeritus and Senior Correspondent ,The Layman Online, May 6, 2008
Presbyterian Church (USA) agencies and the leader of a liberal Presbyterian caucus have risen to defend the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s “God damn America” sermon.
“He spoke the truth,” said the Rev. Gregory J. Bentley, a Presbyterian minister and president of the National Black Presbyterian Caucus of the Presbyterian Church (USA). In a statement released by the caucus and published on the denomination’s Web site Bentley identified Wright as a modern day prophet, one who “stands squarely within the Prophetic Black Church Tradition.”
Bentley reminded his readers that Biblical prophets were universally unpopular. “Predictably, this prophetic activity engenders hostility and fierce resistance from those who are vested in the status quo – a status quo that often masks itself with superficial politeness and gentility.”
Presumably, Wright’s only wrong when he damned America, suggested that America got what was coming to it in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on New York City, and is responsible for AIDS is a failure of “politeness and gentility.” Had Wright spoken that “truth” in a more dulcet-like tone he would not have been judged wrong.
A sermonic defense
The Rev. John Buchanan, pastor of Fourth Presbyterian Church in Chicago and a founder of the Covenant Network, a caucus of Presbyterians that was organized to remove sexual behavior standards from the denomination’s constitution, joined Bentley in defending Wright.
In a March 30 sermon, Buchanan said “I wish he had made his point without saying ‘God damn America,’ but not for a moment do I wish he had been less prophetic.”
Buchanan also wished Wright had not said “The chickens are coming home to roost” about the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001,” but he granted some credence to Wright’s thesis that the attacks were understandable if not excusable because they constituted a retaliation for unwise US foreign policy decisions.
Buchanan also wished Wright had not “suggested that the government were [sic] responsible for AIDS,” but he deemed the sentiment excusable in light of findings that between 1932 and 1972 some 399 African Americans who had late-stage syphilis were left untreated by the U.S. Public Health Service “simply so it could document the disease’s deadly toll.”
Clearly, Buchanan’s problem with Wright was merely an issue of civility. Wright was not wrong. The problem was not truth, but tone. But then the Chicago pastor had an excuse for that as well, for “the great biblical prophets did and said outrageous, controversial things, which consistently got them in trouble and occasionally in jail.”
Racism in reverse
Ironically, Buchanan who routinely denounces racism, employed racism when defending Wright’s remarks. “I’m distressed by white people, out of a very different religious, cultural, racial, theological/ecclesiastical experience, presuming to judge African American faith practices and religious expression and preaching.”
In other words, Jeremiah Wright, an African American preacher, was just doing what comes naturally (in the same way that sexually active homosexuals, whose “rights” Buchanan also champions, do what for them comes naturally).
By logical extension, a kleptomaniac should not be criticized for stealing, since theft is an authentic expression of who he or she is. Pedophilia justifies sex between adults and children. In Freudian fashion, this list of excuses for behavior that Scripture condemns could go on interminably.
By this calculus, an act is not deemed right or wrong intrinsically but extrinsically, only in terms of its congruence with the perpetrator’s self definition. Therein is the crux of Buchanan’s argument. It is okay for Jeremiah Wright to say “God damn America,” or for him to explain away the 9/11 killing of thousands of Americans, or for him to hold the government responsible for AIDS because, after all, that’s what Black preachers do.
A demeaning defense
What a demeaning defense! If ever there was a racist thesis, this is it. According to Buchanan and the denominationally funded Black Presbyterian Caucus, Wright is right on two counts. He is right because, along with the great Biblical prophets, he speaks the truth, albeit lacking civility in its expression. And he is right because being uncivil comes naturally to African Americans.
Biblical ethics does not judge an act on the basis of a person’s skin color or sexual inclination, but on the basis of the revealed Word of God. On that basis, we find arguments proffered by John Buchanan and the Black Presbyterian Caucus sorely deficient.
The Rev. Wright was wrong.