Wright and Moyers Defy Sound Bites, Do Good Exegesis

Ken Blanchard is flat wrong. He and the GOP (and Hillary Clinton) want to prooftext Reverend Jeremiah Wright. The good Reverend and Bill Moyers went on the air last night to do exegesis. And exegesis always beats prooftexting... if people will listen.

I want to respond in full to Blanchard's comments, but I can't reduce the response to blog-bites. Even the following post, which is far too long for blog standards, only provides talking points, not the full argument. Wright provided the real response last night. If you want the full argument, watch the PBS video, read the transcript.

So for those of you with short attention spans, let me say this: Mrs. Madville Times and I watched the full interview last night. (It was worth cheating on TV Turnoff Week.) We listened closely. Neither one of us heard Wright say anything that disagreed with our political beliefs, our patriotism, or with Christianity. One of his profs was the great Martin Marty (a Lutheran, for Pete's sake!). Reverend Wright knows his theology and his history. He embodies the finest tradition of speaking in the Christian prophetic voice -- no, not predicting the future, but speaking truth to power. The Bible was written by oppressed peoples, Reverend Wright reminds us. The faith so many Americans conflate with their patriotism was born of opposition to worldly powers of all sorts, from Pharaoh and Caesar right on down to the military-industrial complex. His words deserve our attention and our agreement.

By the way, Barack Obama was a professed religious skeptic when he met Reverend Jeremiah Wright. That preacher's counsel turned Obama into a dedicated Christian. Wright saved Obama's soul, some would say. I'm surprised more Christians don't acknowledge the great service Reverend has done for his community, his church, and his country. But when people put gotcha politics over understanding, sympathy, and truth, all sorts of foolishness ensues.

* * *

And now, as a study guide, here are Blanchard's mistakes (but be sure to read Blanchard's entire post, make sure I'm not prooftexting, either):

...Moyers and Wright missed a great opportunity, for it seems to me that all the material was there, right in front of the viewer, out of which Reverend Wright might have constructed a reasonable explanation for his rhetorical excesses [Ken Blanchard, "Wright Wash," South Dakota Politics, 2008.04.25].

The rhetorical excess is Blanchard's. Moyers and Wright spent a full hour offering the most complete, resonable explanation they could of the words Blanchard, Clinton, and the North Carolina GOP have taken out of context. I can't recite the whole argument, because it takes a full hour, probably more, to understand the full history of blacks, Christianity, slavery, and all the other personal and public history that lead to every one of Reverend Wright's sermons. Watch the video, read the transcript.

All Wright had to say was something like this: as someone who loves America, I hold her to a very high standard; as a preacher of the gospel, I am duty bound to remind her of her sins. For both reasons I sometimes get carried away and say things that I do not mean and do not really believe [Blanchard].

*Wright chose not to make that simple statement, because it's not true. Like Obama, Wright means what he says. He explained to Moyers very clearly and deeply the full meaning of his words. Watch the video, read the transcript.

The defense of Wright that emerges from the interview was based on two sophisms. The first goes like this: Reverend Wright criticized America and he said "Goddamn America." Therefore, anyone who objects to the latter is really intolerant of the former [Blanchard].

Blanchard starts breaking out the rhetorical terminology; he should have included the term non sequitur for his own statement here. How therefore appeared between the two clauses Blanchard wishes he could join here is beyond me. Wright did indeed express intolerance in the Moyers interview: for slavery, oppression, the conflation of Christianity with European culture, the separation of church from daily life, corporate-owned media, the killing of innocents, all sorts of evils that do indeed deserve condemnation, not tolerance.

When Wright said, quite rightly, that no government is God and that all governments fail, Moyers chimed in to say that you [Wright] could be crucified for saying that. That, of course, is utter krap. [Blanchard].

Try some context:

REVEREND WRIGHT: ...And when we start talking about my government right or wrong, I don't think that goes. That is consistent with what the will of God says or the word of God says that governments don't say right or wrong. That governments that wanna kill innocents are not consistent with the will of God. And that you are made in the image of God, you're not made in the image of any particular government. We have the freedom here in this country to talk about that publicly, whereas some other places, you're dead if say the wrong thing about your government.

BILL MOYERS: Well, you can be almost crucified for saying what you've said here in this country.

REVEREND WRIGHT: That's true. That's true. But you can be crucified, you can be crucified publicly, you can be crucified by corporate-owned media. But I mean, what I just meant was, you can be killed in other countries by the government for saying that. Dr. King, of course, was vilified. And most of us forget that after he was assassinated, but the year before he was assassinated, April 4th, 1967 at the Riverside Church, he talked about racism, militarism and capitalism. He became vilified. He got ostracized not only by the majority of Americans in the press; he got vilified by his own community. They thought he had overstepped his bounds. He was no longer talking about civil rights and being able to sit down at lunch counters that he should not talk about things like the war in Vietnam... [Bill Moyers interview with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, transcript, Bill Moyers Journal, PBS, 2008.04.25].

Wright made very clear what he meant by crucified, and, again, he is right.

No one prays to George W. or confuses the U.S. Government with the Divine Power. This was a straw man made of rather transparent straw.

No, actually, a lot of people confuse the U.S. Government with the Divine Power. And praying to George W.? See Jesus Camp, where children are directed to pray to a cardboard cutout of the President. But Wright makes the bigger point above: "my country right or wrong" essentially does confuse government with God.

The second sophism, for which Reverend Wright was solely responsible, was that in saying "Not God Bless America, but Goddamn America" he was simply saying that God disapproves of many of America's actions. But that is a silly argument. A blessing does not imply approval, else no human being would warrant God's blessing. When someone says "God Bless America," this is a simple, informal prayer for God's help, on behalf of one's country. It is the equivalent of "God Save the Queen." If Reverend Wright was saying that God condemns many of America's past deeds, he would surely be correct, or so it seems to me. But condemnation is something we can respond to by atonement, and a will to be a better people. Damnation is final judgment. Reverend Wright is a smart enough man to know that he is playing the sophist with language here.

The sophism is Blanchard's. Blanchard tries to perform the exact reverse of the verbal chicanery he falsely ascribes to Wright. Blanchard tries to drain "God Bless America" of the meaning it is used to convey in the public arena. And Wright himself addresses condemnation and damnation, noting their shared etymology. Watch the video, read the transcript.

It is one thing to say that America's misdeeds have created the conditions that were partially responsible for the terrorist attack on the world trade center. It was reasonable and altogether appropriate for a preacher to warn us against the excesses of revenge at that moment, days after the September attack. It is something else to say that we deserved the 9/11 attack, which is what the phrase "chickens coming home to roost" means.

Violence begets violence. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Where's the un-Christian or unjustifiable statement there? Wright wasn't justifying the killing of innocents in the World Trade Center. He was putting the killing of innocent Americans in the historical context of the killing of innocents worldwide and warning his congregation (bravely, the Sunday after 9/11, when such sentiments might have started a fistfight) not to give in to the urge for bloody revenge that motivated the terrorists themselves. Watch the video, read the transcript.

Reverend Wright's real trouble, I think, is the same as Obama's: they never talk to anyone who doesn't believe the same things they do. Wright's interview with Moyers was more of the same. He efforts at hagiography did Wright no favors.

Madville Times cheap shot: "Never talk to anyone who doesn't believe the same things they do" -- and that differs from millions of conservative talk radio listeners how?

Madville Times real shot: Baloney, Ken. Wright is a pastor. Do you really think every person Wright ministered to over 40 years agreed with every hard truth he had to tell them? The real trouble is that people who should believe the same things as Wright respond to honest criticism of our society with prooftexting, name-calling, harassment (of sick and elederly parishioners), and bomb and death threats. And the interview was no hagiography. It was history. It was context. And it was a discussion the beliefs, words, and actions that come from a consistent Christian theology.

Blanchard follows up with "Wright Wash 2," an exercise in the wishful thinking of Republicans who would much rather fight Clinton than Obama in the fall. Moyers and Wright are almost certain to hurt Obama. Why do the interview? Ego trip for Wright? Sabotaging Obama's campaign? Winning a mandate for "their view of America"?

Why not try the simplest explanation: Wright is a minister. His job is to speak the truth. With all the attention on a handful of his words, now is the perfect time to try turning that attention into a real discussion of how to follow God's will. Any preacher would be remiss to pass up an opportunity like this.

------
Update 10:25: Back from breakfast, I realize (thanks to proofing from my wife) that I misread Blanchard's original comment. My apologies, Ken and readers, for the misunderstanding; I have edited my comment to respond to what Blanchard was really saying.