Ministers and their Sermons

by: Mike Lux

Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 14:58


Cross-posted at Huffington Post

I haven't written much about the Rev. Wright thing because so many people have taken this topic on ad infinitum that there hasn't seemed much new to say. But with him doing his media tour thing, I thought I would weigh in on a topic not that much covered in the progressive blogosphere, which is the nature of ministers and their sermons. I only go to church these days when I am back home in Lincoln, but as the grandson and brother of Methodist ministers, and the son of the lay (non-clergy) leader of the Nebraska Methodist Church, this is a topic I know something about- at my family dinner table, if the topic was politics, you could take even odds on whether we were talking regular politics or church politics.

My minister brother and I were taking a few days back about the whole Wright thing, and he commented, "I sure wouldn't want my parishioners to be held responsible for the stuff I've said in my sermons." And that sentiment is true for every good minister I know of. What I was always told growing up was that a minister's job was to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. Bad preachers speak in mushy truisms watered down to the lowest common denominator. Good ministers stir people up, challenge their congregants' assumptions, make people uncomfortable. They should serve, in the language of the church, a prophetic role that speaks truth to power.

They can get away with that, if they are good at their work, by that comforting the afflicted part of their job: visiting sick and elderly people at the hospital and in their homes, doing the funeral services, counseling those in trouble. When a minister does that sort of thing, they build an unshakable loyalty that allows them to survive, say, giving a sermon in favor of gay rights in North Platte, Nebraska. There were probably five people in my brother's congregation of 300 that agreed with what he said in such a sermon that day, but they didn't fire him or quit the congregation in droves because of it. That congregation knew my brother to be a good and gentle man who had been there for all of them time and time again in the hardest of times, and so they accepted what he said in his sermon without necessarily agreeing with it. I'm guessing that if one of them had run for office in North Platte, and bee confronted with that gay rights sermon by my brother, they would have said about what Barack Obama did of Jeremiah Wright- "Well, I didn't like what he said, but that man performed my marriage and baptized my children and brought me closer to my faith, so I'm not going to walk away form him personally."

Good ministers say dramatic things, stir things up, and push people hard to look at what they believe and how they act. That's their job. To hold their congregants accountable for every word they say in a sermon is absurd, and shows the people who attack them for such that they don't understand religion very well.

Mike Lux :: Ministers and their Sermons

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Well said. (4.00 / 1)
You've articulated what I felt but couldn't quite put into words. Thanks. Wright by all accounts has been the best of the best in his service to his congregation and his community. As he demonstrated on the Moyers interview, he's sharp and smart and reality based. It's amazing how easily the liberals and alleged lefties turn on one of the few who actually says what needs to be said instead of spewing happy mush.

Your definition of what preachers do does bring up another question, though: does that then let candidates who suck up to the likes of Hagee, Dobson, and Phelps off the hook? I think there is a difference in that they lead political movements, and candidates who seek their endorsement and participate in their marketing have no real history as their congregants. But the argument isn't entirely sharp-edged. What's your take?


Hagee, etc (0.00 / 0)
I think if someone who is crazy or a bigot supports you even though you don't ask for their support, you shouldn't be blamed for that. But if you know them only through a political context, and appear with them at a press conf, "proudly accepting" their endorsement, and they are an outrageous and widely known bigot, that sucks.

[ Parent ]
Context of Rev. Wright's comments (0.00 / 0)
I haven't seen any of Rev. Wright's sermons other than those which were aired on the Bill Moyer's interview.  I do know that the things that he argued were at least based in historical facts (including his reasoning at least in regard to the AIDS comments which were based on previous transgressions regarding syphilis by the US GOV in the 30's, the facts of how we got to where we are today etc).  I'm not saying these are great talking points, but if they are going to bring them up anyways..  So America has made her mistakes (point out the facts that were the basis of Rev.'s sermons), but we have also fought and died for incredibly good causes, like equal rights, the right to vote, etc.

What historical basis/context do Hagee and his lot have for their absolutely ludicrous imo sermons/rants regarding Katrina and Catholicism?  Is there any?  If not that may be a way to approach it from the Obama camp's perspective.


[ Parent ]
As a pastor... (0.00 / 0)
I have said some WILD things that ripped out of context to stand on their own would make me look so stupid.  As you said, there are issues I can talk only after I have buried the faithful, worked with the torubled and shared of myself as a pastor.  In the suburban church I served I was able to talk about health care and wealth, because we had seen a member who was poor suffer without health care.  Now if you ripped out 15 seconds of what I said in that semon, I would look like a fool.  ("I have come to believe that she does not deserve it because she has spent her money wrong- and people need to make tough choices.  Maybe if she had turned off the cable and paid for health insurance she would not be so sick.")  But I was able to speak to the truth of the room and be heard.  Most sermons are not made for TV.  They are made for the pastor's people.  Does Wright need to visit Iceland for 9 months?  YES!!!!  But should a preacher be demonized like he has?  No.  Unless you have sat in the pew for years, you have no clue what he is saying.  

Really good pastors who want to see their congregants elected president (0.00 / 0)
know not to throw themselves back into the headlines right when the election is being decided.

I appreciate your efforts here Mike, but the real problem is that those who need their minds changed or perspectives opened about this are not reading this site. The ability of progressives to help Obama do damage control on this is very out of reach, making Mr.Wright's current media barnstorming tour all the more frustrating. I'd love to say I hope Obama can get Mr.Wright under control, but at this point it is probably too late for the time which it matters the most:this week. Mr.Wright's need to suddenly make this all about him is horrifically tragic for Obama.  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare


agreed (0.00 / 0)
There's a point where PR common sense needs to kick in, and we're well past it now.

[ Parent ]
I've defended Wright up until this point (0.00 / 0)
even after the Moyers interview, which I thought was rather harmless. But now he has actively inserted himself and his ego deeply into this campaign.

I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he didn't mean to infer that Obama said things as a politician for purposes of pandering, to shield his real thoughts, or for expediency. But in his Press Club talk, he proved me wrong by affirming that was indeed the thrust of his statement.

It now appears that the pastor is throwing Obama under the bus. I suspect there is an interpersonal dynamic going on between these two that is potentially more harmful to Obama's candidacy than I had originally thought.

Of course, I agree with Mike's post. I don't think anybody should hold Obama accountable for his pastor's comments in the least. But I am no longer cutting Wright any slack at all. Perhaps Barack won't or can't denounce him (and I admire that he hasn't), but that doesn't prevent his supporters from doing so.

Slacking toward the apocalypse


[ Parent ]
hello? (0.00 / 0)
there's a difference between denouncing someone for objectionable political views and denouncing them because they're messing up your campaign. If Obama were going to start doing the latter, he should start with the Clinton campaign and McCain, not Wright.  In fact, he's done neither, though he did sell Wright out a little bit, and that's why you're seeing a (healthy) tension between someone running for President (a moderate, at best, and in elite politics) and someone who ran a Black church (who is more radical, and possibly more community based--i don't really know)

[ Parent ]
hello there (0.00 / 0)
Yes, I myself only denounce the Rev. Wright for allowing his ego to mess up Obama's campaign. With friends like that, who need enemies? It's hard for me to believe Wright isn't completely unaware of the harm he might inflict. And if that is the case, then one has to wonder if he is not intentionally attempting to undermine Obama's chances.

In terms of his preachings, I am mostly in agreement, save for the AIDS conspiracy theories and the like...

Slacking toward the apocalypse


[ Parent ]
i just disagree with you (0.00 / 0)
that from wright's vantage point (and those who are in his camp), an attack on the black church is fine to tolerate, even if it advances as a middle-of-the-road candidate for presidency.  I seriously doubt he is trying to undermine Obama's chances...I think he has simply made a choice that he has bottomlines, and the national debate (including Obama) has crossed it.

Now whether you agree with the tactical efficacy of his strategy is a totally different question, but let's not frame this in terms of friends and enemies...to an extent, it's still politics.


[ Parent ]
Double Standard (4.00 / 1)
When it comes to ministers and their inflammatory comments, there is a decidedly double standard.  The Republicans have embraced and courted the evangelical minsters such as Hagee, Roberston, Parsley, and Falwell.  There is never the outcry from the MSM about the hateful and divisive comments made by these evangelical ministers, and they have made plenty of them. But the media lets Republicans off the hook time and time again.  But let a black minister of a black Democratic candidate for President make an inflammatory comment, and the the media spends days pounding the candidate for his association with such a minister. Is that fair?  I think an honest observer would say that it isn't.  Why does it happen over and over again?  Well, first of all, Democrats are always held to a higer standard by the media and second of all, the media is racist.  Maybe they don't realize it, but they are.  Hagee can call the Catholic church a "whore religion" and a "cult," insulting all the Catholics in this country and nary a word passes the lips of the media condemning him or the man who sought out his indorsement, John McCain. But Obama will pay the price for, after all, he is a Democrat and he is black.  Two facts that make him anathema to the media.  Why do we not rise up in protest of the news shows who run this tripe night after night?  Why do we not demand that the news shows report the news and not the salacious story of Wilson?  We need to take back our country and we need to start with a total bombardment of every news outlet on television and of every newspaper that does not offer equal criticisms of Republican candidates and the ministers who support them.  Are the media saying that hate speech by a white minister is all right but a black minister dare not go there or they will destroy him?  I think that fact is crystal clear.  

The real irony (0.00 / 0)
of course, is that almost every pastor, reverend, rabbi, minister, mullah or priest says totally freaking outrageous and incredible (literally) things each and every week, i.e., talking snakes, immaculate conceptions, dead people flying up to live in the sky forever in eternal bliss, etc.

Slacking toward the apocalypse

[ Parent ]
so well said (0.00 / 0)
RAmen!

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
interesting take (0.00 / 0)
but this remains about racial politics.  In American politics today, Reverend Martin Luther King is fine, Minister Malcolm X is not.

Which is tragic.


martin luther king (0.00 / 0)
King expressed many of the same sentiments as Rev. Wright in his sermons.  They just aren't known about.  They aren't the speeches he made during the civil rights movement, but he spoke very harshly about the policies of our government and condemned them.  Rev. Wright is not unique.  And as a previous poster noted, church sermons all over this country are commonly offensive and hate filled.  This is nothing new.  Gays have been their targets for years, but I can remember the sermons I heard in the late 50's and early 60's here in the South.  Hatred of blacks was a weekly subject in many churches in the South.  It sickened me to the point, that I had to stop going to church for years.  But it hasn't gotten any better in the area that I live in.  I am sure from what I have been reading on the blogs lately that I am not alone in being shocked at the things that are said every Sunday in our churches.  I still go to church but only occasionally because the sermons do great damage to my spiritual life and I just can't take much of it any more.  What a shame that our churches are such places of hate speech and ignorance. I fon't blame Obama for going to this church because as a Christian he wanted a church family.  I don't think we ought to assume that he feels the same way Rev. Wright does. I know from his books that he does not.  

Very Well Said, Mike! (0.00 / 0)
I had been thinking very much along these same lines, and thus was quite happy to see this.

If ministers don't stir folks up with controversial statements from time to time, they're just not doing their jobs.  Everybody and their uncle should know that.

This whole things is one big gane of make-believe, pretending that this is unusual, unheard of, and that people should leave their cogregations whenever they hear something that offends them.  Almost nobody acts like that.

OTOH, you have Hagee, who really is a hate-filled bigot, and McCain chases his endorsement, and the media as a whole basically ignores it.  A few raised eyebrows for a couple of news cycles, and its "old news."

That's beyond double standards.  That's two different universes.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


Ain't there some way... (4.00 / 1)
...that an "institution" such as is represented by this site and the rest of these "netroots" could actually exercise the influence and leverage that we are told exists herein to push these issues to the fore?

Not just the radical white fundamentalists that McCain buddies up to - the clearly impeachable scandals that seem to be popping up like tulips in the spring, too.  I've lost count of how many individual cases of "high crimes and misdemeanors" we've watched get swept under the rug - put them together and the pattern is clear.  

Where is the outrage?  

The "netroots" can muster up a good show of outrage when Obama does this, or Clinton says that - the denizens (myself included) will go on, and on, through posts, diaries, comments - so cleverly delineating how they were right all along - about minutae. While issues like this are pretty much relegated to one-off, single paragraph, expressions of, well, resignation:

"OTOH, you have Hagee, who really is a hate-filled bigot, and McCain chases his endorsement, and the media as a whole basically ignores it.  A few raised eyebrows for a couple of news cycles, and its "old news."

I've done what one little man can do - I've sent letters, e-mails, and made phone calls to the "news" organizations every time I heard them talk about Wright and not Hagee - especially when McCain was in NO recently.  

What more?  Does anyone really think that convincing the Democratic candidates not to debate on FOX actually changed the situation - or even had a chance of changing the situation? That was like fighting a forest fire with a garden hose - and not turning it on full blast.

Truly, I'm not trying to be cheeky, or confrontational

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search