Wright's theology not "new or radical"

[kskiska]

Black religion expert Jonathan Walton on black liberation theology's roots in slavery, MLK Jr.'s "God damn America moment" and what Jeremiah Wright has in common with Gennifer Flowers.

(snip)

To discuss black theology, its history and its influence today, I spoke with Jonathan L. Walton, an ordained minister, expert on African-American religion and assistant professor of religious studies at the University of California at Riverside. Walton argues that black theology is not as radical as it has been made out to be and that Martin Luther King Jr. was actually more controversial than Wright. He also says that Wright -- the most visible adherent of black liberation theology in America -- will end up as a footnote in the history books alongside Gennifer Flowers, Willie Horton and Donna Rice.

(snip)

Essentially you're saying Wright uses that same approach.

Wright ain't necessarily King. Wright sees himself in that tradition. King was very much in the tradition of the African-American jeremiad. And that is where he would call out the sins of the nation so the nation would live up to its ideals and its promises. That's how King saw himself. But that's not how people looked at King. On April 4, 1967, King stood in front of the Riverside Church and said that if America does not change its ways, America, if you continue to be so prideful, God will tear down this nation, and rise up another nation that doesn't even know my name.

It was his "God damn America" moment, except there wasn't YouTube.

It was his God damn America moment. And the Sunday after King was assassinated, do you know what King was scheduled to preach that Sunday morning? His sermon title was "Why America May Go to Hell."

more…
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/05/03/black_church/

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. No, it's old & worthless.

[MADem]

2. "Wright ain't necessarily King." That's succinct.

Now, I'm a Clinton supporter, so feel free to discount what I say. Here's what I think, though.

I think Wright has made many good and valid points. I think he's done many good works. I think in many cases, his heart is in the right place, but I also think he's a bit 'puffed up' in the Biblical sense, and that pride goeth before a fall.

I also think that when Wright says two things that make sense, and follows it up with a third thing that is so fucking far out as to leave people saying :wtf: that he completely screws his first two points.

I also think his use of dramatic invective, while it may sell DVDs at the church gift shop, was most unhelpful to his protege. It made him look like a crazy man.

I think getting a million dollar home as part of a retirement package, and the fishy land deal that went with it, where he bought the land and sold it back to the church for them to build him a house, looked a little "Ponzi-ish" to me.

I think Wright is a little jealous of Obama, and that might have motivated his performance at the press club. I think he knew what he was doing when he dropped that pastor-politician dig when speaking with his old pal and fellow minister on PBS.

I don't know if Wright will shut up. If he doesn't, he'll make Billy Carter look like a fucking stateman.

[susankh4]

3. I don't know about black churches in particular...

but, as someone who cut her teeth in a Liberation Theology tradition... I can tell you that Wright is not always preaching Liberation Theology. His divisive messages, when they come, will hurt this brand of theology if theologians allow them to stand. They threaten to undo the good he has accomplished.

King understood, as did Gandhi, that the liberation message must be coupled with one of non-violent resistance. Otherwise it risks inciting a painful revolution that, ultimately, brings about a backlash from the powers that be. To quell the masses.

I was glad to see the UCC president coming out to answer some questions and to begin a dialog based on his own denomination's concerns.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/03/us/politics/03church.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin

I hope this is the beginning of a long conversation....

[Igel]

4. Walton strikes me as interesting.

He knows exactly what a person--Wright or Cone--was thinking, exactly how he intended something, when it serves to show them right, when he agrees with them.

Their words are metaphors, are tropes: They don't stand what they appear to stand for, but stand for other, deeper, more spiritual things.

He has absolutely no clue, and believes that nobody else does, when the people he's asked to comment upon say something he can't explain or amplify upon in a way that shows them right or is something he agrees with. Such words are not metaphors, are not tropes: They must not stand for anything, since there's no obvious deeper or spiritual thing they can stand for.

Interesting.

Unfortunately, it's a very easy game to play, redefining terms, translating them from what they mean on their face to what they must mean in some other context. It's a game I've seen played far too often not to recognize. And it's a game I have absolutely no respect for.