Commentary on recent news coverage
of the preaching of
the Reverend Dr. Jeremiah Wright
at Trinity United Church of Christ

by the Rev. Dr. J. Michael Solberg, Senior Pastor

Introduction:

As all of you know, Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, and its recently retired pastor, the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, have been much in the news over the past couple of weeks.  As a United Church of Christ congregation in the Illinois Conference, we are organizationally related to Trinity UCC (along with about 275 other UCC churches in the northern part of Illinois).  Because of the way churches are connected to each other in our denomination, our association with Trinity does not imply any particular approval of the congregation, nor of the now widely viewed comments of its former pastor.  But we are part of the same “family” of churches, and when someone in your family is getting the type of attention Dr. Wright is getting, you have to sit up, take notice, and try to understand what is really happening.

The attention Trinity is getting started with a television and YouTube montage of some brief snippets of sermons from Jeremiah Wright.  Although Wright must have preached for at least 60,000 minutes in his time as Trinity’s pastor (36 years), the comments that have created the firestorm amount to a few seconds of preaching.  So, what did he actually say, and what are we to make of it?

In what follows, I am going to examine in detail three of the widely aired comments by Jeremiah Wright.  I believe that Jeremiah Wright, like all of us, deserves to have his words taken in context – in the context of the sermons in which they were uttered.  I address these three comments in detail as examples of what a significant difference context can make in how we understand the controversial passages of Wright’s sermons.

First Example – Wright’s comments about the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001:

One of the controversial comments Rev. Jeremiah Wright made in the brief videos that have been widely aired comes from a sermon preached the Sunday after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.  He said:
“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye…We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."

The way this sermon has been portrayed in the media it seems to be a straightforward example of “blaming the victim” for the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001.  It has been made to sound as if Wright does not blame the terrorists, but the U.S., for that tragedy that so deeply affected us all.  There are few things more disturbing in the face of such evil than for someone to say, “We got what we deserved.”  But that is not what Jeremiah Wright was saying.

When you listen to the passages quoted above in the context of the whole sermon, you can understand the message that Wright was proclaiming.  The sermon was based on Psalm 137, one of the most disturbing psalms of all.  The psalm includes the heart-breaking line:

 “O daughter Babylon, you devastator!
Happy shall they be who pay you back
   what you have done to us!
Happy shall they be who take your little ones
   and dash them against the rock!

Here we see the author of the Psalm giving-in to the overpowering desire for revenge.  Babylon conquered and destroyed Israel, razed Jerusalem, killed man, woman and child, and took most of those who managed to survive into exile, utterly cut off from God and everything else they knew.  Psalm 137 expresses the desire of the Israelites for revenge, to the point of confessing that “Happy shall they be who take [the Babylonians] little ones and dash them against the rock!”  The sentiment is sickening in its violence.  But there it is in Psalm 137.

In his sermon, Wright uses this Psalm to expose the way violence begets violence.  Violence creates a down-ward spiral that consumes all, and ultimately kills all.  Wright goes on to say that international relations are often marked by one country responding to violence perpetrated against it with yet greater violence, driven by the desire for revenge.  As Wright says it, Psalm 137 is a passage “which spotlights the insanity of the cycle of violence and the cycle of hatred.”

Wright then mentions that in the week following the terrorist attacks, he listened to an interview with Edward Peck, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and deputy director of President Reagan’s terrorism task force, who was speaking on FOX News.  It was Ambassador Peck who first said of the terrorist attacks, “America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”

In the sermon, Wright then goes on to list several specific and historically accurate ways in which the United States has responded to violence with greater violence.  He mentions specific times in which the U.S. military killed innocent civilians along with claimed military targets, in Grenada, Panama, Libya, and other places in which the U.S. has acted in what Wright believes is a spirit of revenge.

Then he says, as quoted above, "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. ‘America's chickens are coming home to roost.’"  Unlike the widely played video, however, the sermon continues, and his message becomes clear:
       “Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador said that y’all, not a black militant. Not a Reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said the people we have wounded don’t have the military capability we have. But they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them. And we need to come to grips with that.”

His message is about the never-ending and ultimately self-destructive cycle of violence.  I believe it was important in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks, and is important now, to realize that the 2001 terrorist attacks did not (and the continuing terrorist threat to America does not) come from a vacuum. The threat is not unconnected to America’s actions in the world.  Almost all violence on the international stage is related to other acts of violence, and it is a deadly cycle.  And Jeremiah Wright’s sermon was a cautionary message that the U.S. should not give in to the very understandable, but ultimately self-destructive, temptation of seeking mere revenge.

Understood in context Wright’s sermon was a powerful exposition of Psalm 137 and an important, cautionary message about the ultimate futility of violent revenge. 

Second Example - the “God damn America” clip:

The second passage I want to address is a brief part of a sermon from 2003, in which Wright criticized the U.S. government:

"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, 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."

A troubling sound bite, to be sure, and it may be that such words should not be preached at all because the angry tone is inconsistent with the ultimate message of Christ, the Lord of love.  But again, as is true with all of us, and with every sentence we speak, Jeremiah Wright deserves to have his words taken in context.  I have watched a much longer section of this sermon than has made the rounds on television, and my view is that most of us would agree with what the words meant in the context in which they were originally spoken.  The disturbing quote above, taken in context, does NOT say simply that God should damn America rather than bless America.  This quote comes at the end of a long section of Wright’s sermon in which he noted that all governments (not just our government) fail to fully live up to the demands of justice given in scripture.  He went on to list specific and rightfully troubling ways in our history that the government of the United States has caused injustice: killing of Native Americans; internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII; the tragedy of slavery and racist laws and practices of the past and present.  He then spoke the words quoted above.

In that context, nearly the whole quote above is understandable, and, while it is disturbing, it was a fair proclamation of the Biblical message of God’s judgment on injustice.  Wright named specific “sins” committed with the authority and power of the U.S. government, and then, as did the prophets of the Bible, announced that God is against such injustice.  When we hear simply the dramatic rhetorical conclusion to this part of his sermon, we miss the context, and miss the point.  As Christians, we believe that real patriotism requires that we address the failures of our government to uphold what is just.  In that sense, Wright showed his love for his country, even with such powerful rhetoric.

Notice, however, the words at the beginning of my previous paragraph: “nearly the whole quote above in understandable.”  Part of what Wright said is, I believe, simply wrong, and irresponsible.  Speaking of ways racism has shaped some specific government policies, he said, “…the government gives them the drugs…”  As I said, I think Wright is simply wrong about this.  The words are based on an all too common belief among African-Americans in this country that the government somehow actively supported the proliferation of crack-cocaine in the past two decades as a way to harm urban African-American populations.  I think there is no reasonable evidence to support such a belief.  The claim grows out of the distrust many urban African-Americans feel toward government in general, and law enforcement in particular.  That distrust is real, and in many ways understandable, even if in the end self-destructive.

We, as a country, need to work to improve relations between law enforcement and many urban African-Americans, including being absolutely certain that racial prejudice plays no role in law enforcement or criminal justice system practices.  Wright was wrong to propagate beliefs about the conspiracy of crack-cocaine (and AIDS), and now that those words have been widely spread, I believe he should retract that particular comment.  But I believe those few words do not undermine the overall message Wright was making in his sermon.

Third Example - criticism of “rich white people”:

And finally, I want to talk about a third passage that has been widely aired.  This passage gets into the very difficult issue of race in America.  Wright said:
"Barack [Obama] knows what it means to be a black man to be living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary [Clinton] can never know that. Hillary ain't never been called a nig---."

The passage is particularly inflammatory because of the overtly political reference to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and the clear and marked contrast between whites and blacks, as if our race was the most important thing about us.  The passage seems to demonstrate that Wright is a purveyor of “reverse racism,” disparaging all whites, just as some whites once disparaged all blacks.  Did this passage really have any value, any important message, when taken in the context of the whole sermon?

It is interesting that these few inflammatory words come from a sermon Wright preached just before Christmas last year.  The sermon is about the visit of the angels to the shepherds and their announcement of the birth of Jesus.  Wright goes through this passage line by line and focuses on the phrase (from Luke 2:10) “I am bringing you good news of great joy for all the people.”  Then he very strongly emphasizes the word “all.”  He preached:

”I want to look in the few moments we have left at the message God sent [to the shepherds] regarding his son.  The message?  God is sending you some good news of great joy.  The message?  God is sending a gift for you, and the gift is for all people.  Not just the people you like.  But all.  All people.  Somebody say, “All people.”  Turn to your neighbor and say “All people.”  See I want my gay-hatin’ holy folk to hear God’s message on Christmas.  God’s good news is for all people.  Somebody say “all” again.  It’s right there in verse 10.  The message?  God has given us grace.  Grace is a gift that you cannot earn.  Grace is a gift that you did not, and do not, deserve.  Like Nicholas the Saint, it’s just a gift that God wants you to have.”

Wright then soon moves on to the next line, Luke 2:11, in which the angel says that Jesus will be laid in a manger.  And this begins the section in which he made the controversial statements touching on race which have been widely quoted.  Wright explains that the fact that Jesus was laid in a manger means that Jesus was poor, and the fact that Jesus was poor means that Jesus can identify with the poor and oppressed of the world.  Wright quickly connects being poor and oppressed with being black in America.  Before I go on, I think that connection needs to be addressed.

Why does Wright connect being poor and oppressed with being black in America?  Is that characterization fair and accurate?  By many measurements, I think we have to be honest and say, yes, it is.  Wright uses anecdotes to explain the connection.  He talks about black men being pulled over by police simply for driving nice cars in nice neighborhoods (the car must be stolen), and about blacks not being able to get taxis to stop for them on city streets (even Colin Powell has attested to this reality).  Also, simple statistics point just as clearly to the unfortunate reality that being black and being poor are still closely connected in our society.  The poverty rate for African-Americans is three times (300%) higher than it is for whites - about 24% to about 8%.  So it is clear that being black means you are much more likely to be poor.

But is that the result of being “oppressed” by whites, as Jeremiah Wright claims, or is it for some other reason?  Well, here lie the difficult questions about race in our society.  First, let me say that our country has made tremendous improvement with regard to racial prejudice over the past fifty years.  That is true legally, of course, as we no longer have any explicitly racially discriminatory laws.  But I also believe it is true personally.  I do not believe that there are very many white people in our society who are prejudiced against blacks simply because of the color of their skin.  Racism is now widely recognized as the sinful, destructive force it is.

I think it is critical to realize, however, that although personal racism is increasingly rare, that does not mean that the racism of the past does not continue to have an effect on our society.  Just 145 years ago, blacks were held as slaves in half of our country.  Just 50 years ago, “Jim Crow” laws throughout the southern United States legally and intentionally oppressed black people.  And even more recently than that, personal racism by whites against blacks, and unjust policy and practice by institutions controlled by whites, served to keep blacks from decent educational and financial progress.  This history of racial discrimination in various forms continues to have lasting, and highly toxic, effects on African Americans today.  Are all the problems of all African Americans today the fault of white people in the past?  No.  But it is still true that, all other things being equal, a child born with “white” skin in America today has a much better chance of freely flourishing in life than does a child born with “black” skin.  This is perhaps not so much about ‘racism’ as it is about ‘white privilege’, a term people use to name the still-true reality that, as a group, white people in this country have access to more resources and are faced with fewer systemic barriers than African Americans and other people of color.

When Jeremiah Wright talks of “oppression” of black people today, he is primarily talking about the continuing effects of racism and white privilege in America.  He also powerfully calls to judgment the ways that some people still oppress blacks today.  In the Bible there is a name for the same type of forces that lead to the oppression of blacks today.  Those forces are called the “principalities and powers.”  They are unseen, difficult to identify, cunning, extremely powerful, and desperately resist the will God.  And this is of great importance: before the principalities and powers we, on our own, are powerless – they can only be controlled by God.  It is really these principalities and powers that Jeremiah Wright is talking about in his preaching.  Wright’s message, primarily for blacks (because that is his experience and that is his congregation), is that in Jesus Christ, God conquered the principalities and powers, although the skirmishes are not yet finished.  Those skirmishes include the battles over race in our society today.

Now, as I mentioned, as he comes to the end of his sermon, Jeremiah Wright mentions that Jesus was born in a manger, a sign of poverty, and he talks of the oppression that went along with poverty.  And as I said, he connects race and poverty and oppression in the world today.  Then, as an aside, Wright made his comments about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton:
"Barack knows what it means to be a black man to be living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary can never know that. Hillary ain't never been called a nig---."

Wright’s point was that, as a black man, Barack Obama can identify with what it means to be poor and oppressed far more easily than can Hillary Clinton.   I think Wright was on questionable ground with these comments.  He failed to recognize the importance of three things.  First, he failed to recognize that the vast majority of white people would like to end the continuing effects of past racism.  While white people do continue to benefit from white privilege, we would be better as a whole if all things could be equal in our society today.  Second, he failed to distinguish between race based oppression, and non-race based economic oppression in the world today.  There are some ways in which the most important part of being a poor, black person in our society today is the “poor” part, not the “black” part.  I believe that there are very powerful forces at work in our society keeping poor people poor, regardless of race, and many of those forces are much more intentional than any racism is today.  Third, Wright failed to recognize the challenges that Hillary Clinton has faced simply because she is a woman.  While there is no doubt that certain kinds of racism are still a problem in our society, it is also true that certain kinds of sexism are still a problem.  Just as Hillary Clinton can’t know what it means to be a black man in America, Barack Obama can’t know what it means to be a woman in America.  I believe Wright should have done more to recognize the cunning complexity of all the principalities and powers that are work in our society.

With those three comments, though, I really must add a more important comment.  Even when understood in context, Jeremiah Wright’s comments about race may still be a little disturbing, and, I believe, a little off.  But for me to criticize Jeremiah Wright for his rhetorical flaws in this bit of preaching seem trivial, even hypocritical, when I think of how little I really do to address the effects of racism (and sexism) in our society.  My sins of omission are surely much more important in the eyes of God than are the flaws in Jeremiah Wright’s preaching.

Finally, on the issue of race, I want to mention that Jeremiah Wright and Trinity United Church of Christ live out the good news of the gospel far more faithfully than the vast majority of congregations in our nation.  They have many white members who are fully involved in every aspect of the life of the church.  Every week they welcome visitors, white and black, into worship.  I have heard many first hand stories from people (Matt Emery and Fred Krauss of our congregation among them) who have been to Trinity and felt completely welcome.  Jane Fisler Hoffman, who until recently was our Conference Minister, and who has led seminars for us at Second Con, and who preached at my installation service, is a proud member of Trinity and highly respects and admires Jeremiah Wright.  There is absolutely no doubt that Wright and the people of Trinity are full of God’s love for all people, white and black.

Conclusion - the importance of context:

I hope that by addressing those three controversial comments in detail, in the context in which they were preached, I have helped you see that Jeremiah Wright is not a disturbed, racist, crazy preacher, as some in the media have portrayed him.  In context, much of what he said is not offensive, and is often a very legitimate proclamation of the gospel.  Obviously, I am not trying to defend everything Wright has said.  I have criticized some of what he said, and tried to honor the rest.  The important point is that everything Jeremiah Wright says (and everything any of us say) should only be taken in the context in which it was originally spoken.  Only in that context can his words be properly evaluated.

I believe we all need to think carefully about the way this story about Jeremiah Wright has played out in our society.  We need to think seriously about whether our own racial or political biases played a role in how we responded to the brief clips of Wright’s sermons that were played on television and the internet.  In particular, those of us who are white need to be mindful of the fact that, even for those of us actively committed to being anti-racist allies, we still do not truly know the experience of what it is to be African American in this country.  Understanding people takes work, especially when someone is coming from an environment that is unfamiliar to us.  To be fair, we have to be willing to do that work.

My mother-in-law sometimes uses a very insightful phrase: “It takes thirty seconds to scare someone; and thirty years to teach them.”  I hope we will all continue to learn, perhaps for thirty years, about injustice, nationalism, violence and race, so that we can also participate in the work Jeremiah Wright has done to overcome all forms of principalities and powers at work in the world today.

The Rev. Dr. J. Michael Solberg
Second Congregational United Church of Christ
Rockford, IL
April 3, 2008