Of course God sides with the oppressed and downtrodden in all the records from the Bible. At least He does when the downtrodden are successful in throwing off their oppressors. It's all painfully self-fulfilling really, and when viewed critically tells us nothing. If the oppressed win, then of course God must have been on their side, or else how could they have won? And if the oppressed stay oppressed, well then they're not really worth mentioning, as clearly they are not pious enough to warrant God's intervention. As long as you look only to God to make things better when you're feeling downtrodden, I'm sorry to say you'll never get any better. The whole organized religion thing developed as a way of keeping people in line, after all. Look at all of the rantings of that wack-job Paul. Everything in the New Testament after book 5 (Acts of the Apostles) is deluded commentary by an ego-maniac searching for ways to control people's hearts and minds.
Of course God sides with the oppressed and downtrodden in all the records from the Bible. At least He does when the downtrodden are successful in throwing off their oppressors. It's all painfully self-fulfilling really, and when viewed critically tells us nothing. If the oppressed win, then of course God must have been on their side, or else how could they have won? And if the oppressed stay oppressed, well then they're not really worth mentioning, as clearly they are not pious enough to warrant God's intervention. As long as you look only to God to make things better when you're feeling downtrodden, I'm sorry to say you'll never get any better. The whole organized religion thing developed as a way of keeping people in line, after all. Look at all of the rantings of that wack-job Paul. Everything in the New Testament after book 5 (Acts of the Apostles) is deluded commentary by an ego-maniac searching for ways to control people's hearts and minds.
Of course God sides with the oppressed and downtrodden in all the records from the Bible. At least He does when the downtrodden are successful in throwing off their oppressors. It's all painfully self-fulfilling really, and when viewed critically tells us nothing. If the oppressed win, then of course God must have been on their side, or else how could they have won? And if the oppressed stay oppressed, well then they're not really worth mentioning, as clearly they are not pious enough to warrant God's intervention. As long as you look only to God to make things better when you're feeling downtrodden, I'm sorry to say you'll never get any better. The whole organized religion thing developed as a way of keeping people in line, after all. Look at all of the rantings of that wack-job Paul. Everything in the New Testament after book 5 (Acts of the Apostles) is deluded commentary by an ego-maniac searching for ways to control people's hearts and minds.
There is no African American community, they are Americans. Many have descended from those brought to that land by the founding fathers of colonial settlement. Much as is the case with others, brought by force of circumstance, driven by oppression, persecution, or famine.
The ethnic identifications are but a cynical tactic to divide all in favour of the exploiting classes. The same is true of each of the classifications listed in your article. Look at the insane outcomes of those divisive postures,
a lunatic asylum run by and for the lunatics
wreaking havoc on a global scale.
America is a vast land, rich in almost all the natural resourses, fertile, free from threats of invasion, advanced in technology, yet obsessed with plundering others of all they have. If the Jews reached new hieghts in diaspora, isolationism is the better course for your land.
First God delivered Israel from Egypt because he made a promise to Abraham. This nation was blessed and God carried through with his promise. It had nothing to do with then being poor, but it had to do with them being slaves. Also Israel was sent into captivity for worshipping pagan gods. God gave Solomon riches. I guess God contradicted himself by blessing David's son. Poverty is a curse. It isn't great to be hungry. The Bible has been misinterpretted to keep the lowly low. As far as government goes Romans 13:1 says "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." Understand....the government you have is based on your walk with Christ. If you obey and not revolt, seek the Lord with all your heart nad cry out to God He will deliver a nation. That is what bring deliverance, not running your mouth about how evil government is. Read the books of Judges, 1&2 Samuel, 1 &2 Kings and 1&2 Chronicles and realize why the evil kings reigned and why the good kings reigned. It had to do with the sins of the nation. The liberal agenda is a radical rebelion against the order of God. You want a government that is compassionate? Seek the face of God and be your brother's keeper first, not he government.
You may take the Mr. Wright's side but I do not believe that damnnation should come from the pulpit. Hate is hate and I see hate in this mans so called sermans and I believe he will have to answer to God.Blacks working for a living and taking care of their familys I believe from what I have seen in OK.have the same advantage as anyone else. Mr. Wright makes a whole lot more money than me so does that make him one of the upity rich oppressors. Jesus died tha we would love one another not find fault in them.
I believe that liberation theology is justification for communism, helping the poor is one thing, but this so called liberation theology is unscriptural.
Deserve to be threatened? Deserved to be threatened? Sure, and everything in the world that is bad is the U.S.'s fault. Don't try to hang this on the whites. Billions of dollars have been spent to lift people out of the slums of life. Those who opt not to walk out, but insist that they be carried out will always remain there.
I'm not black, nor white. I am *brown folk*, and Pastor Wright's words (I hesistate to call him "Reverend") sound just as threatening to me. His view of the gospel is too small, which leads me to believe his view of the Savior is also too small. Libertaion Theology is more about *the people* than it is about the Savior. No wonder Marxists and Feminists eat it up.
:-(
I appreciate the emphasis on liberation, which all nationalities equally share a need of. That is the essence of the gospel, that all have fallen short and need the Lord Jesus. However, "Black" liberation theology has elements in it that certainly mirrors Marxist ideology. It responds to a valid injustice with the same spirit, and supremacy attitude. If J. Wright agrees with his friend Louis Fericon, then he would rather have black Americans establish their own nation and separate from white people. When they speak of a "black church," it is counterproductive to the message of the Body of Christ. It's my understanding that Jesus is the head of one church. This ethnocentric mentality that Christians want to carry over into the church has hurt us.
"When the children of Israel cry out for help as they suffer the agonies of their enslavement under Pharaoh, God hears their cry and joins them in their fight for freedom. God sides with the Jews as they seek deliverance from Egyptian domination."
A total myth that even the majority of contemporary Hebrew scholars now reject.
There was no significant Jewish population in Egypt.
The Jews who were there were not slaves. There was no oppression of the Jews by the Egyptians.
There was no exodus.
The entire Exodus story is an anti-Arab lie, positioned as a "mouse that roared" story with the sole intention of uniting a nomadic people into a cohesive nation, said led by an all-powerful god, (an being who - like the exodus story itself - is a pure fabrication) who chooses them as his favored people.
For Rev Wright or anyone else to cite the a-historic story of the Egyptian "oppression" of the Jews as a basis for their liberation theology is to admit that said theology is based upon a lie.
Jesus didn't "side with the oppressed", but rather reached out to those whom religious officals claimed were being punished for their sins by God through poverty and other afflictions. Christ reached out to let them know that salvation was theirs too.
How does such a view and actions meld with Jerimiah Wright's and others claims of "oppression" and God's favor? It really doesn't fit. Jerimiah Wright and many other African Americans are not suffering "oppression" today equal to this.
To be "economically" oppressed is indeed socialist and communist rhetoric for it seems to demand a Goverment fix for something that is an issue of the free market. If someone is not being paid what he/she believes he/she should then get a different job. If one truely believes that someone is paying you less because of race, first PROVE IT then seek legal action to stop that employer from doing so, but please don't treat it as some "conspiracy of oppression" as Jerimiah Wright has.
Let's also not forget that the Hebrews in the Old Testament suffered much because of their disobedience to God and by continually griping and complaining that God wasn't providing even after all God did for them to bring them out of Egypt.
If anything, a lesson could be learned that many people suffer "oppression" as a result of their own actions and attitudes against God.
Repentance is what is needed. Not griping and complaining and screaming out loud as Rev. Wright continues to do.
Also remember that Rev. Wright lives very well.
He certainly is not in poverty.
Someone should tell Rev. Wright that the civil rights "Gettysburg" happened in 1964 and the war has been over for years. Its not an issue of communication, its not an issue of seeing that what was fought for in the civil rights movement has been won. Its like a soldier's unwillingness to give up his gun and become a farmer. Rev. Wright cannot give up his firey sermons and teach his flock how to enjoy what they have won and to lead lives they only dreamed about before 1964, that Martin Luther King dreamed they would be leading.
In spite of Wright many are doing it anyway. Not all blacks feel oppressed. You can find examples of successful black people everywhere. In fact, its probably harder to find one who has not succeeded in some way, and not succeeded due to oppression.
What worries me is that telling people they are oppressed, that their reason for not succeeding is an outside oppression, can be self defeating. It gives those who fail for other reasons someone to blame, and worse, a reason not to try again to succeed. My girlfriend in college was poor as dirt, and worse, her parents thought college was a waste of money and time. They told her to marry me, a college student working part time as a clerk at a drug store counter. "He has a good job" they told her. She ignored them, sought out grants, got a part time job and worked nights, and got her degree. She is now the president of a company. Did she run into barriers? Certainly as any woman in the workforce can tell you, but it did not stop her. She just went around them and kept her eye on the prize, a degree. If she had listened week after week to someone like Rev. Wright telling her she is oppressed, that there are people actively working to keep her down, that only others have opportunities, then she might have given up. I can only hope that, over time, those who preach sermons like Wright does will just fade away and end up on the junk heap of history, and thankfully no longer needed.
"To we white folks, Jeremiah Wright sounds threatening. But we might ask ourselves if we deserve to be threatened."
I don't understand why white folks would deserve to feel threatened. There is no country in the world that has changed as quickly and to as great an extent as America has with regards to its racist past. It deserves some credit. In fact its a tribute to America that a clown like reverent wright continues to be given a national forum despite the lack of any proof or documentation of his rediculous claims.
That is complete and utter foolishness. Liberation theology is the appropriation of the concept of God for use in violent confrontations. In the 19060's progressives rightly mocked conservatives who insisted God was on their side. Liberation theology is the exact same ideology only employed by the "other" side. Taken to it's inevitable conclusion, it leads to two problems. First, religion enforced by the state. Second, state corruption of the freedom of religion. I would suggest anyone wanting to learn what liberation theology "really" is, I would direct them to the writings of Pope John Paul II. He clearly understood the inherent danger of this poisoned theology.
Typical liberal blindness. Wright blames white American and uplifts Black Africa. Look at the facts, the worst offences to the poor the worst modern slavery is carried on from Black dictators and elected leaders in Africa, not America. Wright is the racest, spewing hatred and condemnation never uttered from the lips of the Master.
Equally valid is a Liberation Theology that recognizes how any man or woman can find themselves in Spiritual Bondage.
Jesus indicates that this kind of affliction attacks all people and falls more heavily upon the wealthy.
In all of these cases, those in bondage need to be set free.
The bondage can be sex, gambling, food, wealth, our perceived position in life, our perceived level of relative deprivation; pick your affliction.
It is individual, however, many refer to it as a class or group form of bondage.
While it took three days to get the afflicted Israelites out of Egypt...it took 40 years to get Egypt out of the Israelites. The Bible says that the murmuring tribe "longed for the fleshpots of Egypt" as they collected and ate manna each day.
If Liberation is from all forms of bondage, my concept of who has the greatest struggle is the one who needs to get a camel through the eye of a needle.
Why was Tony Campolo allowed to write a passage on Liberation Theology? He is a white pastor and is not an authority on this topic.
The person who should have written a perspective on the origins, meaning and purpose of Black Liberation Theology is Dr. James Cone. I would much rather hear his commentary.
Tony, you have given us the politically correct answer. How about being truthful about this. Reverend Wright is a disciple of Black Liberationist James Cone. Here is a quote from Cone.
James Cone defines the theology thus:
"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love."
Mr. Campolo states, "Certainly Rev. Wright is advocating neither Marxism or violent revolution...well when he is shouting from the pulpit God *()& American and all this other filth about this Great country, and you have thousands of congregants shouting 'Amen' in agreement...that to me is the same as poisoning the minds of a great many to think something other of our great country. That to me is starting a quiet revolution. Many prominent influential African American men have said that Wright's ideas are not reflective of the African American church atlarge.
Mr. Campolo states, "Certainly Rev. Wright is advocating neither Marxism or violent revolution...well when he is shouting from the pulpit God *()& American and all this other filth about this Great country, and you have thousands of congregants shouting 'Amen' in agreement...that to me is the same as poisoning the minds of a great many to think something other of our great country. That to me is starting a quiet revolution. Many prominent influential African American men have said that Wright's ideas are not reflective of the African American church atlarge.
Joyce, why must you come on here spreading lies? What Wright says WAS indeed liberation theology. You have to quote the whole sentence, not just the first half, to know that.
Wright said, and this is a paraphrase from memory "God damn America for as long as she continues to treat her citizens as less than human and acts like she is God!" That is pure liberation theology: a prophet of God condemning a corrupt government for its treatment of God's children.
If you just take the first half, the "God damn America" part, without finishing the sentence, then it just looks like an inflammatory, incendiary and hateful curse. When you take the whole sentence, then you see it squares directly with the tradition of the biblical prophets.
Joyce, why must you come on here spreading lies? What Wright says WAS indeed liberation theology. You have to quote the whole sentence, not just the first half, to know that.
Wright said, and this is a paraphrase from memory "God damn America for as long as she continues to treat her citizens as less than human and acts like she is God!" That is pure liberation theology: a prophet of God condemning a corrupt government for its treatment of God's children.
If you just take the first half, the "God damn America" part, without finishing the sentence, then it just looks like an inflammatory, incendiary and hateful curse. When you take the whole sentence, then you see it squares directly with the tradition of the biblical prophets.
Thank you for this piece! This is one of the most eloquent, well-reasoned explanations I have read about Liberation Theology in the press to date. More people need to read it, because people would have a much clearer understanding of Dr. Wright and his preaching style, and added with the Bill Moyers interview, a clearer understanding of the theological context from which he preaches and teaches his congregation.
White people have heard his words, and out of fear and anger, called it racism and bigotry, when it is anything but that. Thank you again for doing such an excellent job. I wish more journalists these days wrote as competently about this matter as you.
Very nicely put, and an important message in the face of God-Bless-America civil religion.
But if this is a defense of Jeremiah Wright, I would add that based on his last set of remarks he has crossed over from righteous prophet to egocentric ranter, more in love with the sound of his own voice and its capacity to shock and to make people squirm, than with the God of justice.
Communication is a two way street. To say that Wright's words only seem strident to "those of us in the white establishment" misses the point. Take any issue, no matter how extreme, and I assure you there will be somebody who advocates it. If the only ground for argument is that some people react a certain way because of the color of their race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation then there is no objective basis for communication much less sharing of values. Such unmitigated relativism leaves faith nothing more than whim, morality self-righteous posturing, and preaching little more than pandering to the crowd.
"Speaking truth to power" is one of the most tired cliches in existence. "Power" is always experienced locally and personally. The hardest thing in the world is not to tell those who have been victimized that their anger is justified, but to help them overcome their anger to achieve a better vision for themselves and others. This is the complete doctrine of Ghandi, King, and (if you believe in him) Jesus.
It is a hard lesson to learn to listen to other people. It is especially difficult to listen to others when they are perceived to be oppressors. But the simple lesson that can be learned from the general reaction to Wright's blathering is that white people, including those of good will, simply will not tolerate such stupidity.
There is plenty of room in sermons for emotional, energetic denunciations of the sins of history and the sins of the present which do not cross into the realm of pandering. Those who have not suffered th pain of oppression are prone to be insensitive to the impact it has had on the victims of oppression. The victims of oppression are prone to the demagoguery of their own leaders in perpetuating dysfunctional half-truths which are not worthy of founding one's identity on.
The struggle to overcome oppression is truly heroic. It is understandable to identify with those who have suffered, and those who continue to suffer. But identification based on shared experience is not a basis for identity.
Obama has done an outstanding job of handling this situation. His initial reaction identified the mistakes in Wright's world view and communicated them clearly. He exercised his Christian values by attempting to maintain the relationship rather than simply renunciating his former pastor. This is the correct expression of hate the sin, love the sinner. He initially chose not to publicly separate himself from Wright. But after Wright's continued folly he had no choice. I give Obama nothing but credit on his handling of the matter. He has shown himself to be a leader of outstanding character and compassion.
These are the words of James Cone:
"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love."
Who is James Cone? Your readers wouldn't know would they? Great reporting there. James Cone is the founder of BLT. Any article about the subject should have at least mentioned him. He's still alive. He might like credit for it.
Informing the public and giving credit to the founder obviouslly wasn't your 'journalistic' goal.
"Rev." Wright and "Rev." Campolo (with their obsessions with politics and influence) aptly illustrate the Apostle Paul's criticism of the Corinthian church, "ye are yet carnal."
Liberation Theology is Marxist to its core, because while some of it has shorn itself of economic analysis, it always looks at the world as oppressors vs. oppressed. It harps constantly on past and current grievances and has to invent oppressions when none are around (U.S. of KKK A., AIDs invented by the government to kill blacks, inner city drugs get there by the government, three-strikes-you’re-out-laws comparable to slavery and segregation, etc.) This is what happens when you abandon the Christian notion that EVERYONE is oppressed ultimately by THEIR OWN sin.
The problem with Wright in not that he believes that because “the African-American community endeavors to establish itself as a people who are both equal with whites and deserving of the dignity that God wills for all human beings, they have God on their side.” Rather, it is the fact he labels everything as evil oppressors versus completely victimized blacks, thereby robbing blacks of the one thing most important in improving their lot: a sense of moral agency and responsibility.
His attempts at up-lift at his church are undermined by his poisonous fantasies.
Wright's comments have absolutely nothing to do with Obama or his campaign. Now the media and the nation are challenged to forget about and ignore Wright, rather than elevate him to the dubious pantheon of charlatans--including Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the Minister Farrakhan--who are the media's symbol of the "other", a Black America supposedly about to burn down every city in the nation, when, in actual fact, Black America pays little or no attention to these preening phonies.
Wright doesn't want to go where Obama wants to go--to find common ground that unites people around common problems that effect poor and working people of all genders, races, religions, ethnicities, and sexual orientations.
By giving such play to Wright's comments, the media seem to want to go Wright's way, rather than Obama's, to play the old politics rather than try to transcend them. It's only too sad.
If Revered Wright has a world view of calling God to help his oppressed brethren against the oppressors, then what does the election of a black man as president do to that world view?
If, however, the right Reverend Wright behaves in such as way that a black candidate is not elected, then doesn't it reinforce his world view?
Mike said: "YeLet me get this straight. Rev Wright isn't spreading ignorance with his claim that our government created the AIDS virus to kill "brown people". Instead, I am somehow to blame because I am white?"
You haven't listened to him have you?
Have you heard of the syphillus experiments on the Tuskegee Airman? Look it up. Our government did do immoral things to black men.
Rev. Wright wants you to think. He wants you to realize that a government cannot act immorally and expect the world or even its own citizens to trust and respect it.
A government that would experiment on black men is certainly capable of doing anything to anyone. And so his words are supposed to point out hypocrisy and immorality and how "chickens come home to roost" when a government mistreats its citizens.
Rev. Wright's words can't harm you. Only your closed mind and fears can.
"Rev. Wright’s words may seem harsh and his style may be strident, but that just may be the way that those of us in the white establishment react."
YeLet me get this straight. Rev Wright isn't spreading ignorance with his claim that our government created the AIDS virus to kill "brown people". Instead, I am somehow to blame because I am white?
Are you kidding?
This is the kind of absurd moral relativism that makes America disgusted with liberals. Not only is Rev Wright poison to Obama because of their relationship, it is poison because it bring liberal pundits out of the woodwork to defend this blatant racist and liar, reminding the average American that liberals are nuts and we need to keep them out of the White House.
the reverend wright does a disservice to liberation theology. he turns it into a black versus white group conflict. LT was not primarily a class struggle in latin america though some liberation theology activists saw it as such, witness the spread of democracy since the 1970's and jimmy carter's human rights policies. what pope jp2 objected to was not that we should take the perspective of the poor, witness his Pueblo thesis and Pope Benedict's affirmation of charity (for the poor you shall always have with you...thanks very much say the billions). What they wanted was that the church should be reformed from the perspective of the poor first, and then this new church would see the world in a different manner! this is what both jp2 and benedict both suppressed, and what the media suppressed by identifying the theology of liberation with Marxism, a swiftboating if you will. the suppression of the perspective of the poor is precisely what leads to a pope benedict embracing a president that has legalized torture and killed and impoverished millions of Iraqis, and embracing the victims of pedophile priests while promoting the bishops who condoned it. liberation theology called for a more humble church. the rev. wright prancing about the stage like an idiot to the applause of his cultic "followers" was not representing the liberation theology that obama would endorse when he calls for change. neither would wright's focus on HIS parish work and HIS perfection as preacher reflect a theology of liberation that would call for the transformation of Wright's own church of rich pastors, poor subjects plus a transformation of a black american world that needs to look at the works of its own leaderhip before looking to the evils practiced historically by whites and which continually need to be addressed. Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone.
"What ever happened to the prohibition of politics and religion "mixing?" I haven't heard a peep about THAT!"
And you won't. Know why? Because the right brought the Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, prayers in the White House, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, the Rapture Watch, and all the rest into the Government. It was the right that made Christianity a political issue. As they say, be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.
Apparently your memory is a bit hazy about the last eight years. As such, your thoughts on Rev. Wright are invalid.
Poweme is right. People are threatened by the delivery and style. As Rev. Wright said, he comes from a background where people raise their voices in Church and protest loudly.
Why are we such a fearful society? I've listened to Rev. Wright and as a white Christian female I found nothing threatening. It was a treat to listen to such a well educated and enthusiastic man! I found conciliation in his words and joy in his message.
Those who are afraid of his message are frightened people. Those who hate what he said didn't listen to his entire speech.
Rev. Wright spent a great deal of time talking about how the white church reached out to black slaves, how they hired lawyers for those from the Amistad and how they set up the underground railroad. Rev. Wright talked about the social programs his church has established, how many of his parish have served in the military including his God-daughter who is in Iraq. Rev. Wright served in the Marine Corps.
I am disappointed in those who can't be bothered to LISTEN but have no problem passing judgement.
Is anyone looking at who God really is? God=Love, point blank. When I read the bible, I see nothing but scriptures of people before our time, though during a different era, suffered some of the same setbacks and mistakes that we make today. The bible is nothing more than a guide through life and shows humanity's downfalls, how they overcame them and who helped them overcome those obstacles. Announcement: We are the new people of the bible! Look at some of the situations in the bible and replace the names that are there with yours, and it will be talking to you. God never meant for there to be prejudice in the world. Prejudice, injustice, inequality are all man-made. God meant for everyone to be the same and to love the same. That's why the scriptures say "treat others as you would like to be treated." That is a strong statement which many of us overlook because we are so caught up in ourselves. Get over yourself!! It took civil rights activists and humanitarians to speak out along the way to get to this point and it is going to take more people like that, as well as individuals in general to change this prejudiced way of thinking. Those are the types of people that God put in place to try to diffuse indifferences in the world. I feel that people opress others so that the opressed will not dominate the people who are not opressed. It's like having the upperhand. It all boils down to power. None of it is right, so how can anyone sit and try to justify it? God already has his plan mapped out for this world. No one knows his total complete plan. We all think we are here to achieve some type of goal in this lifetime, and we were, but for God's glory. Think about it, when we leave this earth, we can't take none of our accomplishments with us. We were made in the image of God. Why do you think religious beliefs is such an issue and has been such an issue since I don't know when? Because we already have this on the inside of us. I get sick and tired of humanbeings always feeling like they have the answer to every problem in the world, whether white, black, asian, hispanic or whatever race you are. Face it, you don't have all the answers. The answers are in the bible. God wants you to recognize him. He wants you to recognize Jesus Christ as your saviour because he is. If it wasn't for Jesus, none of us would have a second chance with God. He wants us to love eachother. Why wouldn't you want to abide by a teaching that teaches nothing but love? That teaches not to hate, but to love your enemy. It's hard for us to grasp because we are human and have our own ways of thinking. Think about it, it's easy for us to say, man I'm not fooling with this person because we are enemy's. This is what the world expects of us. Then we look at the scripture and say, it's no way in the world I can love my enemy...they did something to me that I didn't like and they are going to pay for it, not even understanding that God never meant for us to be enemy's towards each other in the first place. God did give us the power of choice. I'm not perfect myself and often wish I can be exactly how the bible prescribes people should be, but because of this wicked world we live in, our human side get the best of us. We let people get the best of us. If you look at everything around you in the world today, you will see that it boils down to good v. evil. We know what is right and wrong in our hearts, but wrong is so much easier to do than good. Mainly because we are born into a world of sin, so sinning comes naturally. It's turning away from those sins that the world have taught us that is the obstacle.
Right Tony: we all misunderstand the poor guy. Barak Obama, who actually knows him for 20 years and is ripping him apart, throwing him under tha bus now, misunderstands him. All the liberal commentators who are tearing into Wright and urging Barak to do more to seperate himself from him: they are deluded white folk.
What Rev. Wright said is not about liberation theology. From the pulpit, a place of spiritual authority, he pronounced the words, "God Damn America." He lives in a million dollar house in a gated community and attended a very prosperous high school (the same one Bill Cosby attended). When you go to church, usually at some point the pastor gives a "benediction," not a "malediction." Falsehoods are not liberating. With a darkened mind, he proclaimed conspiracy theories that AIDS was a plan against the black man. He needs liberation alright -- from his dark imaginations of soul and spirit, and you, Mr. Campolo, are covering for him rather than speaking truth and commonsense. What ever happened to the prohibition of politics and religion "mixing?" I haven't heard a peep about THAT! This is a political church. Hmmnnn, I mean LEFT-WING political church. Gosh, what happened to the blessed ACLU? Deafening silence and a deep, putrid double standard in this country! He whom Jesus set free is free indeed! People don't need false messiah liberators with an agenda (and throw in the profiteers who make their livings selling book after book).
Jeremiah Wright is not threatening, he's a bigoted buffoon deserving only of our ridicule. Anyone who could listen to his drivel for 20 years is not fit to be elected dogcatcher. As for we white folks deserving to be threatened, why? Have I ever oppressed an African American? Have I ever discriminated against someone due to his or her race? No and no. Those who have deserve censure and punishment, but there is no such thing as group guilt, any more than group rights. I alone am responsible for my actions, and should be held accountable for them. Don't hold me accountable for anyone else's, especially if they've been dead for a long time.
Liberation theology is an abberation of the Christian Faith, something old Baby Boomers in America like to play with when they get bored with the Bible.
Why is it that when religious liberals act like intolerant angry jerks, they are just misunderstood prophets, but when religious conservatives act like angry jerks, they are a threat to tolerance and unity?
Tony Compolo has a lot of white guilt to deal with, apparently. Have fun with that, whitey.
Why is it that when religious liberals act like intolerant angry jerks, they are just misunderstood prophets, but when religious conservatives act like angry jerks, they are a threat to tolerance and unity?
Tony Compolo has a lot of white guilt to deal with, apparently. Have fun with that, whitey.
The gospel, to those of us who believe it, is bad news to both the left and right. For those of us who believe it, it transcends the emphemeral and localized dramatics of the 21st century geolpolitical landscape. Grace is a two-edged gift: we Christians are forgiven and empowered so that we may obey a higher law - a law which contantly addresses the needs of the least of these in every milieu every moment every place.
The gospel is bad news to the liberals because God has A WILL which does not at all sanction solipsism (re: Oprah's "It's all good." pablum). Jesus admonished the woman caught in the act of adultery, whose life he saved, to "Go and sin no more."
The gospel is bad news to the conservatives because it is does not sanction neglect and exploitation. The "Freedom" espoused by the right wing is not the gospel right to be predatory. In the U.S.A., 47 million people lack health care in its marketed system. In this context, Jesus words in Matthew 25:41-45, "Depart from Me, you cursed . . . Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it unto Me." are chilling.
Reverend Wright's mistake is that he twists the gospel to make it "Me" oriented. Wright asks, "What's in the gospel for me, for my race, for my interest group, for my comrades-in-victimhood?"
The gospel is "Other" oriented. It searches out the despised, the outcaste, the jeopardized - regardless of group membership.
The inner injunction of the gospel is that we learn to give; not take.
In the early 70s college campuses were stew pots of disparate separatists groups: the feminists. the La Raza, Black Panthers, Gay Lib. Many movements were co-opted by members who used the interest group as vehicle from which to launch his or her own career. Again, "Me" focusing.
The gospel is shamelessly plebian. Everyone is welcome. Everyone is special. Everyone gets the privilege of giving of himself to the least of these.
As Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, "When Christ bids a man comes, He bids him come and die." (to self)
The gospel, to those of us who believe it, is bad news to both the left and right. For those of us who believe it, it transcends the emphemeral and localized dramatics of the 21st century geolpolitical landscape. Grace is a two-edged gift: we Christians are forgiven and empowered so that we may obey a higher law - a law which contantly addresses the needs of the least of these in every milieu every moment every place.
The gospel is bad news to the liberals because God has A WILL which does not at all sanction solipsism (re: Oprah's "It's all good." pablum). Jesus admonished the woman caught in the act of adultery, whose life he saved, to "Go and sin no more."
The gospel is bad news to the conservatives because it is does not sanction neglect and exploitation. The "Freedom" espoused by the right wing is not the gospel right to be predatory. In the U.S.A., 47 million people lack health care in its marketed system. In this context, Jesus words in Matthew 25:41-45, "Depart from Me, you cursed . . . Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it unto Me." are chilling.
Reverend Wright's mistake is that he twists the gospel to make it "Me" oriented. Wright asks, "What's in the gospel for me, for my race, for my interest group, for my comrades-in-victimhood?"
The gospel is "Other" oriented. It searches out the despised, the outcaste, the jeopardized - regardless of group membership.
The inner injunction of the gospel is that we learn to give; not take.
In the early 70s college campuses were stew pots of disparate separatists groups: the feminists. the La Raza, Black Panthers, Gay Lib. Many movements were co-opted by members who used the interest group as vehicle from which to launch his or her own career. Again, "Me" focusing.
The gospel is shamelessly plebian. Everyone is welcome. Everyone is special. Everyone gets the privilege of giving of himself to the least of these.
As Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, "When Christ bids a man comes, He bids him come and die." (to self)
The gospel, to those of us who believe it, is bad news to both the left and right. For those of us who believe it, it transcends the emphemeral and localized dramatics of the 21st century geolpolitical landscape. Grace is a two-edged gift: we Christians are forgiven and empowered so that we may obey a higher law - a law which contantly addresses the needs of the least of these in every milieu every moment every place.
The gospel is bad news to the liberals because God has A WILL which does not at all sanction solipsism (re: Oprah's "It's all good." pablum). Jesus admonished the woman caught in the act of adultery, whose life he saved, to "Go and sin no more."
The gospel is bad news to the conservatives because it is does not sanction neglect and exploitation. The "Freedom" espoused by the right wing is not the gospel right to be predatory. In the U.S.A., 47 million people lack health care in its marketed system. In this context, Jesus words in Matthew 25:41-45, "Depart from Me, you cursed . . . Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it unto Me." are chilling.
Reverend Wright's mistake is that he twists the gospel to make it "Me" oriented. Wright asks, "What's in the gospel for me, for my race, for my interest group, for my comrades-in-victimhood?"
The gospel is "Other" oriented. It searches out the despised, the outcaste, the jeopardized - regardless of group membership.
The inner injunction of the gospel is that we learn to give; not take.
In the early 70s college campuses were stew pots of disparate separatists groups: the feminists. the La Raza, Black Panthers, Gay Lib. Many movements were co-opted by members who used the interest group as vehicle from which to launch his or her own career. Again, "Me" focusing.
The gospel is shamelessly plebian. Everyone is welcome. Everyone is special. Everyone gets the privilege of giving of himself to the least of these.
As Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, "When Christ bids a man comes, He bids him come and die." (to self)
The gospel, to those of us who believe it, is bad news to both the left and right. For those of us who believe it, it transcends the emphemeral and localized dramatics of the 21st century geolpolitical landscape. Grace is a two-edged gift: we Christians are forgiven and empowered so that we may obey a higher law - a law which contantly addresses the needs of the least of these in every milieu every moment every place.
The gospel is bad news to the liberals because God has A WILL which does not at all sanction solipsism (re: Oprah's "It's all good." pablum). Jesus admonished the woman caught in the act of adultery, whose life he saved, to "Go and sin no more."
The gospel is bad news to the conservatives because it is does not sanction neglect and exploitation. The "Freedom" espoused by the right wing is not the gospel right to be predatory. In the U.S.A., 47 million people lack health care in its marketed system. In this context, Jesus words in Matthew 25:41-45, "Depart from Me, you cursed . . . Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it unto Me." are chilling.
Reverend Wright's mistake is that he twists the gospel to make it "Me" oriented. Wright asks, "What's in the gospel for me, for my race, for my interest group, for my comrades-in-victimhood?"
The gospel is "Other" oriented. It searches out the despised, the outcaste, the jeopardized - regardless of group membership.
The inner injunction of the gospel is that we learn to give; not take.
In the early 70s college campuses were stew pots of disparate separatists groups: the feminists. the La Raza, Black Panthers, Gay Lib. Many movements were co-opted by members who used the interest group as vehicle from which to launch his or her
All Comments (82)
Of course God sides with the oppressed and downtrodden in all the records from the Bible. At least He does when the downtrodden are successful in throwing off their oppressors. It's all painfully self-fulfilling really, and when viewed critically tells us nothing. If the oppressed win, then of course God must have been on their side, or else how could they have won? And if the oppressed stay oppressed, well then they're not really worth mentioning, as clearly they are not pious enough to warrant God's intervention. As long as you look only to God to make things better when you're feeling downtrodden, I'm sorry to say you'll never get any better. The whole organized religion thing developed as a way of keeping people in line, after all. Look at all of the rantings of that wack-job Paul. Everything in the New Testament after book 5 (Acts of the Apostles) is deluded commentary by an ego-maniac searching for ways to control people's hearts and minds.
May 7, 2008 4:51 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 7, 2008 16:51
Of course God sides with the oppressed and downtrodden in all the records from the Bible. At least He does when the downtrodden are successful in throwing off their oppressors. It's all painfully self-fulfilling really, and when viewed critically tells us nothing. If the oppressed win, then of course God must have been on their side, or else how could they have won? And if the oppressed stay oppressed, well then they're not really worth mentioning, as clearly they are not pious enough to warrant God's intervention. As long as you look only to God to make things better when you're feeling downtrodden, I'm sorry to say you'll never get any better. The whole organized religion thing developed as a way of keeping people in line, after all. Look at all of the rantings of that wack-job Paul. Everything in the New Testament after book 5 (Acts of the Apostles) is deluded commentary by an ego-maniac searching for ways to control people's hearts and minds.
May 7, 2008 4:51 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 7, 2008 16:51
Of course God sides with the oppressed and downtrodden in all the records from the Bible. At least He does when the downtrodden are successful in throwing off their oppressors. It's all painfully self-fulfilling really, and when viewed critically tells us nothing. If the oppressed win, then of course God must have been on their side, or else how could they have won? And if the oppressed stay oppressed, well then they're not really worth mentioning, as clearly they are not pious enough to warrant God's intervention. As long as you look only to God to make things better when you're feeling downtrodden, I'm sorry to say you'll never get any better. The whole organized religion thing developed as a way of keeping people in line, after all. Look at all of the rantings of that wack-job Paul. Everything in the New Testament after book 5 (Acts of the Apostles) is deluded commentary by an ego-maniac searching for ways to control people's hearts and minds.
May 7, 2008 4:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 7, 2008 16:50
There is no African American community, they are Americans. Many have descended from those brought to that land by the founding fathers of colonial settlement. Much as is the case with others, brought by force of circumstance, driven by oppression, persecution, or famine.
The ethnic identifications are but a cynical tactic to divide all in favour of the exploiting classes. The same is true of each of the classifications listed in your article. Look at the insane outcomes of those divisive postures,
a lunatic asylum run by and for the lunatics
wreaking havoc on a global scale.
America is a vast land, rich in almost all the natural resourses, fertile, free from threats of invasion, advanced in technology, yet obsessed with plundering others of all they have. If the Jews reached new hieghts in diaspora, isolationism is the better course for your land.
May 6, 2008 11:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 6, 2008 23:03
First God delivered Israel from Egypt because he made a promise to Abraham. This nation was blessed and God carried through with his promise. It had nothing to do with then being poor, but it had to do with them being slaves. Also Israel was sent into captivity for worshipping pagan gods. God gave Solomon riches. I guess God contradicted himself by blessing David's son. Poverty is a curse. It isn't great to be hungry. The Bible has been misinterpretted to keep the lowly low. As far as government goes Romans 13:1 says "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." Understand....the government you have is based on your walk with Christ. If you obey and not revolt, seek the Lord with all your heart nad cry out to God He will deliver a nation. That is what bring deliverance, not running your mouth about how evil government is. Read the books of Judges, 1&2 Samuel, 1 &2 Kings and 1&2 Chronicles and realize why the evil kings reigned and why the good kings reigned. It had to do with the sins of the nation. The liberal agenda is a radical rebelion against the order of God. You want a government that is compassionate? Seek the face of God and be your brother's keeper first, not he government.
May 6, 2008 9:01 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 6, 2008 09:01
You may take the Mr. Wright's side but I do not believe that damnnation should come from the pulpit. Hate is hate and I see hate in this mans so called sermans and I believe he will have to answer to God.Blacks working for a living and taking care of their familys I believe from what I have seen in OK.have the same advantage as anyone else. Mr. Wright makes a whole lot more money than me so does that make him one of the upity rich oppressors. Jesus died tha we would love one another not find fault in them.
May 5, 2008 12:13 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 5, 2008 12:13
I believe that liberation theology is justification for communism, helping the poor is one thing, but this so called liberation theology is unscriptural.
Rev. Daren Drzymala
May 3, 2008 12:05 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 3, 2008 12:05
Deserve to be threatened? Deserved to be threatened? Sure, and everything in the world that is bad is the U.S.'s fault. Don't try to hang this on the whites. Billions of dollars have been spent to lift people out of the slums of life. Those who opt not to walk out, but insist that they be carried out will always remain there.
Kaz
May 2, 2008 10:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 2, 2008 22:22
I'm not black, nor white. I am *brown folk*, and Pastor Wright's words (I hesistate to call him "Reverend") sound just as threatening to me. His view of the gospel is too small, which leads me to believe his view of the Savior is also too small. Libertaion Theology is more about *the people* than it is about the Savior. No wonder Marxists and Feminists eat it up.
:-(
May 2, 2008 4:15 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 2, 2008 16:15
I appreciate the emphasis on liberation, which all nationalities equally share a need of. That is the essence of the gospel, that all have fallen short and need the Lord Jesus. However, "Black" liberation theology has elements in it that certainly mirrors Marxist ideology. It responds to a valid injustice with the same spirit, and supremacy attitude. If J. Wright agrees with his friend Louis Fericon, then he would rather have black Americans establish their own nation and separate from white people. When they speak of a "black church," it is counterproductive to the message of the Body of Christ. It's my understanding that Jesus is the head of one church. This ethnocentric mentality that Christians want to carry over into the church has hurt us.
May 2, 2008 10:26 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 2, 2008 10:26
"When the children of Israel cry out for help as they suffer the agonies of their enslavement under Pharaoh, God hears their cry and joins them in their fight for freedom. God sides with the Jews as they seek deliverance from Egyptian domination."
A total myth that even the majority of contemporary Hebrew scholars now reject.
There was no significant Jewish population in Egypt.
The Jews who were there were not slaves. There was no oppression of the Jews by the Egyptians.
There was no exodus.
The entire Exodus story is an anti-Arab lie, positioned as a "mouse that roared" story with the sole intention of uniting a nomadic people into a cohesive nation, said led by an all-powerful god, (an being who - like the exodus story itself - is a pure fabrication) who chooses them as his favored people.
For Rev Wright or anyone else to cite the a-historic story of the Egyptian "oppression" of the Jews as a basis for their liberation theology is to admit that said theology is based upon a lie.
May 1, 2008 5:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 1, 2008 17:44
Jesus didn't "side with the oppressed", but rather reached out to those whom religious officals claimed were being punished for their sins by God through poverty and other afflictions. Christ reached out to let them know that salvation was theirs too.
How does such a view and actions meld with Jerimiah Wright's and others claims of "oppression" and God's favor? It really doesn't fit. Jerimiah Wright and many other African Americans are not suffering "oppression" today equal to this.
To be "economically" oppressed is indeed socialist and communist rhetoric for it seems to demand a Goverment fix for something that is an issue of the free market. If someone is not being paid what he/she believes he/she should then get a different job. If one truely believes that someone is paying you less because of race, first PROVE IT then seek legal action to stop that employer from doing so, but please don't treat it as some "conspiracy of oppression" as Jerimiah Wright has.
Let's also not forget that the Hebrews in the Old Testament suffered much because of their disobedience to God and by continually griping and complaining that God wasn't providing even after all God did for them to bring them out of Egypt.
If anything, a lesson could be learned that many people suffer "oppression" as a result of their own actions and attitudes against God.
Repentance is what is needed. Not griping and complaining and screaming out loud as Rev. Wright continues to do.
Also remember that Rev. Wright lives very well.
He certainly is not in poverty.
May 1, 2008 3:14 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 1, 2008 15:14
Someone should tell Rev. Wright that the civil rights "Gettysburg" happened in 1964 and the war has been over for years. Its not an issue of communication, its not an issue of seeing that what was fought for in the civil rights movement has been won. Its like a soldier's unwillingness to give up his gun and become a farmer. Rev. Wright cannot give up his firey sermons and teach his flock how to enjoy what they have won and to lead lives they only dreamed about before 1964, that Martin Luther King dreamed they would be leading.
In spite of Wright many are doing it anyway. Not all blacks feel oppressed. You can find examples of successful black people everywhere. In fact, its probably harder to find one who has not succeeded in some way, and not succeeded due to oppression.
What worries me is that telling people they are oppressed, that their reason for not succeeding is an outside oppression, can be self defeating. It gives those who fail for other reasons someone to blame, and worse, a reason not to try again to succeed. My girlfriend in college was poor as dirt, and worse, her parents thought college was a waste of money and time. They told her to marry me, a college student working part time as a clerk at a drug store counter. "He has a good job" they told her. She ignored them, sought out grants, got a part time job and worked nights, and got her degree. She is now the president of a company. Did she run into barriers? Certainly as any woman in the workforce can tell you, but it did not stop her. She just went around them and kept her eye on the prize, a degree. If she had listened week after week to someone like Rev. Wright telling her she is oppressed, that there are people actively working to keep her down, that only others have opportunities, then she might have given up. I can only hope that, over time, those who preach sermons like Wright does will just fade away and end up on the junk heap of history, and thankfully no longer needed.
May 1, 2008 1:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 1, 2008 13:43
"To we white folks, Jeremiah Wright sounds threatening. But we might ask ourselves if we deserve to be threatened."
I don't understand why white folks would deserve to feel threatened. There is no country in the world that has changed as quickly and to as great an extent as America has with regards to its racist past. It deserves some credit. In fact its a tribute to America that a clown like reverent wright continues to be given a national forum despite the lack of any proof or documentation of his rediculous claims.
May 1, 2008 12:45 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 1, 2008 12:45
That is complete and utter foolishness. Liberation theology is the appropriation of the concept of God for use in violent confrontations. In the 19060's progressives rightly mocked conservatives who insisted God was on their side. Liberation theology is the exact same ideology only employed by the "other" side. Taken to it's inevitable conclusion, it leads to two problems. First, religion enforced by the state. Second, state corruption of the freedom of religion. I would suggest anyone wanting to learn what liberation theology "really" is, I would direct them to the writings of Pope John Paul II. He clearly understood the inherent danger of this poisoned theology.
May 1, 2008 10:39 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 1, 2008 10:39
Typical liberal blindness. Wright blames white American and uplifts Black Africa. Look at the facts, the worst offences to the poor the worst modern slavery is carried on from Black dictators and elected leaders in Africa, not America. Wright is the racest, spewing hatred and condemnation never uttered from the lips of the Master.
May 1, 2008 9:01 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 1, 2008 09:01
It's "To US white folks" Tony
May 1, 2008 8:46 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 1, 2008 08:46
It's "to US white folks" Tony.
May 1, 2008 8:42 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 1, 2008 08:42
Reminds me of the liberation theology movement invented by a Colombian priest-then-guerilla and that has only caused death and destruction.
May 1, 2008 8:21 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 1, 2008 08:21
Mr. Campolo,
Equally valid is a Liberation Theology that recognizes how any man or woman can find themselves in Spiritual Bondage.
Jesus indicates that this kind of affliction attacks all people and falls more heavily upon the wealthy.
In all of these cases, those in bondage need to be set free.
The bondage can be sex, gambling, food, wealth, our perceived position in life, our perceived level of relative deprivation; pick your affliction.
It is individual, however, many refer to it as a class or group form of bondage.
While it took three days to get the afflicted Israelites out of Egypt...it took 40 years to get Egypt out of the Israelites. The Bible says that the murmuring tribe "longed for the fleshpots of Egypt" as they collected and ate manna each day.
If Liberation is from all forms of bondage, my concept of who has the greatest struggle is the one who needs to get a camel through the eye of a needle.
May 1, 2008 7:47 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 1, 2008 07:47
A question:
Why was Tony Campolo allowed to write a passage on Liberation Theology? He is a white pastor and is not an authority on this topic.
The person who should have written a perspective on the origins, meaning and purpose of Black Liberation Theology is Dr. James Cone. I would much rather hear his commentary.
May 1, 2008 7:18 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 1, 2008 07:18
Tony, you have given us the politically correct answer. How about being truthful about this. Reverend Wright is a disciple of Black Liberationist James Cone. Here is a quote from Cone.
James Cone defines the theology thus:
"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love."
May 1, 2008 5:29 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 1, 2008 05:29
Mr. Campolo states, "Certainly Rev. Wright is advocating neither Marxism or violent revolution...well when he is shouting from the pulpit God *()& American and all this other filth about this Great country, and you have thousands of congregants shouting 'Amen' in agreement...that to me is the same as poisoning the minds of a great many to think something other of our great country. That to me is starting a quiet revolution. Many prominent influential African American men have said that Wright's ideas are not reflective of the African American church atlarge.
May 1, 2008 4:57 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 1, 2008 04:57
Mr. Campolo states, "Certainly Rev. Wright is advocating neither Marxism or violent revolution...well when he is shouting from the pulpit God *()& American and all this other filth about this Great country, and you have thousands of congregants shouting 'Amen' in agreement...that to me is the same as poisoning the minds of a great many to think something other of our great country. That to me is starting a quiet revolution. Many prominent influential African American men have said that Wright's ideas are not reflective of the African American church atlarge.
May 1, 2008 4:57 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 1, 2008 04:57
Joyce, why must you come on here spreading lies? What Wright says WAS indeed liberation theology. You have to quote the whole sentence, not just the first half, to know that.
Wright said, and this is a paraphrase from memory "God damn America for as long as she continues to treat her citizens as less than human and acts like she is God!" That is pure liberation theology: a prophet of God condemning a corrupt government for its treatment of God's children.
If you just take the first half, the "God damn America" part, without finishing the sentence, then it just looks like an inflammatory, incendiary and hateful curse. When you take the whole sentence, then you see it squares directly with the tradition of the biblical prophets.
May 1, 2008 3:43 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 1, 2008 03:43
Joyce, why must you come on here spreading lies? What Wright says WAS indeed liberation theology. You have to quote the whole sentence, not just the first half, to know that.
Wright said, and this is a paraphrase from memory "God damn America for as long as she continues to treat her citizens as less than human and acts like she is God!" That is pure liberation theology: a prophet of God condemning a corrupt government for its treatment of God's children.
If you just take the first half, the "God damn America" part, without finishing the sentence, then it just looks like an inflammatory, incendiary and hateful curse. When you take the whole sentence, then you see it squares directly with the tradition of the biblical prophets.
May 1, 2008 3:39 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 1, 2008 03:39
Campolo,
Thank you for this piece! This is one of the most eloquent, well-reasoned explanations I have read about Liberation Theology in the press to date. More people need to read it, because people would have a much clearer understanding of Dr. Wright and his preaching style, and added with the Bill Moyers interview, a clearer understanding of the theological context from which he preaches and teaches his congregation.
White people have heard his words, and out of fear and anger, called it racism and bigotry, when it is anything but that. Thank you again for doing such an excellent job. I wish more journalists these days wrote as competently about this matter as you.
May 1, 2008 3:31 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 1, 2008 03:31
Very nicely put, and an important message in the face of God-Bless-America civil religion.
But if this is a defense of Jeremiah Wright, I would add that based on his last set of remarks he has crossed over from righteous prophet to egocentric ranter, more in love with the sound of his own voice and its capacity to shock and to make people squirm, than with the God of justice.
May 1, 2008 2:12 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 1, 2008 02:12
Communication is a two way street. To say that Wright's words only seem strident to "those of us in the white establishment" misses the point. Take any issue, no matter how extreme, and I assure you there will be somebody who advocates it. If the only ground for argument is that some people react a certain way because of the color of their race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation then there is no objective basis for communication much less sharing of values. Such unmitigated relativism leaves faith nothing more than whim, morality self-righteous posturing, and preaching little more than pandering to the crowd.
"Speaking truth to power" is one of the most tired cliches in existence. "Power" is always experienced locally and personally. The hardest thing in the world is not to tell those who have been victimized that their anger is justified, but to help them overcome their anger to achieve a better vision for themselves and others. This is the complete doctrine of Ghandi, King, and (if you believe in him) Jesus.
It is a hard lesson to learn to listen to other people. It is especially difficult to listen to others when they are perceived to be oppressors. But the simple lesson that can be learned from the general reaction to Wright's blathering is that white people, including those of good will, simply will not tolerate such stupidity.
There is plenty of room in sermons for emotional, energetic denunciations of the sins of history and the sins of the present which do not cross into the realm of pandering. Those who have not suffered th pain of oppression are prone to be insensitive to the impact it has had on the victims of oppression. The victims of oppression are prone to the demagoguery of their own leaders in perpetuating dysfunctional half-truths which are not worthy of founding one's identity on.
The struggle to overcome oppression is truly heroic. It is understandable to identify with those who have suffered, and those who continue to suffer. But identification based on shared experience is not a basis for identity.
Obama has done an outstanding job of handling this situation. His initial reaction identified the mistakes in Wright's world view and communicated them clearly. He exercised his Christian values by attempting to maintain the relationship rather than simply renunciating his former pastor. This is the correct expression of hate the sin, love the sinner. He initially chose not to publicly separate himself from Wright. But after Wright's continued folly he had no choice. I give Obama nothing but credit on his handling of the matter. He has shown himself to be a leader of outstanding character and compassion.
May 1, 2008 1:37 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 1, 2008 01:37
Thanks for your understnding and wisdom.
May 1, 2008 1:03 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 1, 2008 01:03
These are the words of James Cone:
"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love."
Who is James Cone? Your readers wouldn't know would they? Great reporting there. James Cone is the founder of BLT. Any article about the subject should have at least mentioned him. He's still alive. He might like credit for it.
Informing the public and giving credit to the founder obviouslly wasn't your 'journalistic' goal.
How is your circulation doing by the way?
May 1, 2008 12:41 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 1, 2008 00:41
"Rev." Wright and "Rev." Campolo (with their obsessions with politics and influence) aptly illustrate the Apostle Paul's criticism of the Corinthian church, "ye are yet carnal."
May 1, 2008 12:16 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 1, 2008 00:16
Liberation Theology is Marxist to its core, because while some of it has shorn itself of economic analysis, it always looks at the world as oppressors vs. oppressed. It harps constantly on past and current grievances and has to invent oppressions when none are around (U.S. of KKK A., AIDs invented by the government to kill blacks, inner city drugs get there by the government, three-strikes-you’re-out-laws comparable to slavery and segregation, etc.) This is what happens when you abandon the Christian notion that EVERYONE is oppressed ultimately by THEIR OWN sin.
The problem with Wright in not that he believes that because “the African-American community endeavors to establish itself as a people who are both equal with whites and deserving of the dignity that God wills for all human beings, they have God on their side.” Rather, it is the fact he labels everything as evil oppressors versus completely victimized blacks, thereby robbing blacks of the one thing most important in improving their lot: a sense of moral agency and responsibility.
His attempts at up-lift at his church are undermined by his poisonous fantasies.
April 30, 2008 11:17 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2008 23:17
Wright's comments have absolutely nothing to do with Obama or his campaign. Now the media and the nation are challenged to forget about and ignore Wright, rather than elevate him to the dubious pantheon of charlatans--including Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the Minister Farrakhan--who are the media's symbol of the "other", a Black America supposedly about to burn down every city in the nation, when, in actual fact, Black America pays little or no attention to these preening phonies.
Wright doesn't want to go where Obama wants to go--to find common ground that unites people around common problems that effect poor and working people of all genders, races, religions, ethnicities, and sexual orientations.
By giving such play to Wright's comments, the media seem to want to go Wright's way, rather than Obama's, to play the old politics rather than try to transcend them. It's only too sad.
April 30, 2008 10:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2008 22:50
Thank you for a breathe of sanity.
April 30, 2008 10:11 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2008 22:11
"syphillus experiments on the Tuskegee Airman" ???
are you really that ignorant?
April 30, 2008 9:14 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2008 21:14
If Revered Wright has a world view of calling God to help his oppressed brethren against the oppressors, then what does the election of a black man as president do to that world view?
If, however, the right Reverend Wright behaves in such as way that a black candidate is not elected, then doesn't it reinforce his world view?
I believe this is currently in play.
April 30, 2008 9:13 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2008 21:13
Mike said: "YeLet me get this straight. Rev Wright isn't spreading ignorance with his claim that our government created the AIDS virus to kill "brown people". Instead, I am somehow to blame because I am white?"
You haven't listened to him have you?
Have you heard of the syphillus experiments on the Tuskegee Airman? Look it up. Our government did do immoral things to black men.
Rev. Wright wants you to think. He wants you to realize that a government cannot act immorally and expect the world or even its own citizens to trust and respect it.
A government that would experiment on black men is certainly capable of doing anything to anyone. And so his words are supposed to point out hypocrisy and immorality and how "chickens come home to roost" when a government mistreats its citizens.
Rev. Wright's words can't harm you. Only your closed mind and fears can.
April 30, 2008 8:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2008 20:41
"Rev. Wright’s words may seem harsh and his style may be strident, but that just may be the way that those of us in the white establishment react."
YeLet me get this straight. Rev Wright isn't spreading ignorance with his claim that our government created the AIDS virus to kill "brown people". Instead, I am somehow to blame because I am white?
Are you kidding?
This is the kind of absurd moral relativism that makes America disgusted with liberals. Not only is Rev Wright poison to Obama because of their relationship, it is poison because it bring liberal pundits out of the woodwork to defend this blatant racist and liar, reminding the average American that liberals are nuts and we need to keep them out of the White House.
April 30, 2008 8:02 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2008 20:02
Liberation Theology? An excuse to be a racist or a communist.
April 30, 2008 7:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2008 19:30
the reverend wright does a disservice to liberation theology. he turns it into a black versus white group conflict. LT was not primarily a class struggle in latin america though some liberation theology activists saw it as such, witness the spread of democracy since the 1970's and jimmy carter's human rights policies. what pope jp2 objected to was not that we should take the perspective of the poor, witness his Pueblo thesis and Pope Benedict's affirmation of charity (for the poor you shall always have with you...thanks very much say the billions). What they wanted was that the church should be reformed from the perspective of the poor first, and then this new church would see the world in a different manner! this is what both jp2 and benedict both suppressed, and what the media suppressed by identifying the theology of liberation with Marxism, a swiftboating if you will. the suppression of the perspective of the poor is precisely what leads to a pope benedict embracing a president that has legalized torture and killed and impoverished millions of Iraqis, and embracing the victims of pedophile priests while promoting the bishops who condoned it. liberation theology called for a more humble church. the rev. wright prancing about the stage like an idiot to the applause of his cultic "followers" was not representing the liberation theology that obama would endorse when he calls for change. neither would wright's focus on HIS parish work and HIS perfection as preacher reflect a theology of liberation that would call for the transformation of Wright's own church of rich pastors, poor subjects plus a transformation of a black american world that needs to look at the works of its own leaderhip before looking to the evils practiced historically by whites and which continually need to be addressed. Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone.
April 30, 2008 6:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2008 18:20
THIS HAS BEEN THE ONLY HONEST OPINION I HAVE READ IN THE INTENET OVER THE WRIGHT ISSUE.
April 30, 2008 5:56 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2008 17:56
To Joyce;
"What ever happened to the prohibition of politics and religion "mixing?" I haven't heard a peep about THAT!"
And you won't. Know why? Because the right brought the Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, prayers in the White House, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, the Rapture Watch, and all the rest into the Government. It was the right that made Christianity a political issue. As they say, be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.
Apparently your memory is a bit hazy about the last eight years. As such, your thoughts on Rev. Wright are invalid.
April 30, 2008 5:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2008 17:55
Poweme is right. People are threatened by the delivery and style. As Rev. Wright said, he comes from a background where people raise their voices in Church and protest loudly.
Why are we such a fearful society? I've listened to Rev. Wright and as a white Christian female I found nothing threatening. It was a treat to listen to such a well educated and enthusiastic man! I found conciliation in his words and joy in his message.
Those who are afraid of his message are frightened people. Those who hate what he said didn't listen to his entire speech.
Rev. Wright spent a great deal of time talking about how the white church reached out to black slaves, how they hired lawyers for those from the Amistad and how they set up the underground railroad. Rev. Wright talked about the social programs his church has established, how many of his parish have served in the military including his God-daughter who is in Iraq. Rev. Wright served in the Marine Corps.
I am disappointed in those who can't be bothered to LISTEN but have no problem passing judgement.
April 30, 2008 5:40 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2008 17:40
Translation: kill all the honkeys and take their stuff.
April 30, 2008 5:12 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2008 17:12
Is anyone looking at who God really is? God=Love, point blank. When I read the bible, I see nothing but scriptures of people before our time, though during a different era, suffered some of the same setbacks and mistakes that we make today. The bible is nothing more than a guide through life and shows humanity's downfalls, how they overcame them and who helped them overcome those obstacles. Announcement: We are the new people of the bible! Look at some of the situations in the bible and replace the names that are there with yours, and it will be talking to you. God never meant for there to be prejudice in the world. Prejudice, injustice, inequality are all man-made. God meant for everyone to be the same and to love the same. That's why the scriptures say "treat others as you would like to be treated." That is a strong statement which many of us overlook because we are so caught up in ourselves. Get over yourself!! It took civil rights activists and humanitarians to speak out along the way to get to this point and it is going to take more people like that, as well as individuals in general to change this prejudiced way of thinking. Those are the types of people that God put in place to try to diffuse indifferences in the world. I feel that people opress others so that the opressed will not dominate the people who are not opressed. It's like having the upperhand. It all boils down to power. None of it is right, so how can anyone sit and try to justify it? God already has his plan mapped out for this world. No one knows his total complete plan. We all think we are here to achieve some type of goal in this lifetime, and we were, but for God's glory. Think about it, when we leave this earth, we can't take none of our accomplishments with us. We were made in the image of God. Why do you think religious beliefs is such an issue and has been such an issue since I don't know when? Because we already have this on the inside of us. I get sick and tired of humanbeings always feeling like they have the answer to every problem in the world, whether white, black, asian, hispanic or whatever race you are. Face it, you don't have all the answers. The answers are in the bible. God wants you to recognize him. He wants you to recognize Jesus Christ as your saviour because he is. If it wasn't for Jesus, none of us would have a second chance with God. He wants us to love eachother. Why wouldn't you want to abide by a teaching that teaches nothing but love? That teaches not to hate, but to love your enemy. It's hard for us to grasp because we are human and have our own ways of thinking. Think about it, it's easy for us to say, man I'm not fooling with this person because we are enemy's. This is what the world expects of us. Then we look at the scripture and say, it's no way in the world I can love my enemy...they did something to me that I didn't like and they are going to pay for it, not even understanding that God never meant for us to be enemy's towards each other in the first place. God did give us the power of choice. I'm not perfect myself and often wish I can be exactly how the bible prescribes people should be, but because of this wicked world we live in, our human side get the best of us. We let people get the best of us. If you look at everything around you in the world today, you will see that it boils down to good v. evil. We know what is right and wrong in our hearts, but wrong is so much easier to do than good. Mainly because we are born into a world of sin, so sinning comes naturally. It's turning away from those sins that the world have taught us that is the obstacle.
April 30, 2008 5:02 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2008 17:02
Right Tony: we all misunderstand the poor guy. Barak Obama, who actually knows him for 20 years and is ripping him apart, throwing him under tha bus now, misunderstands him. All the liberal commentators who are tearing into Wright and urging Barak to do more to seperate himself from him: they are deluded white folk.
April 30, 2008 4:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2008 16:29
What Rev. Wright said is not about liberation theology. From the pulpit, a place of spiritual authority, he pronounced the words, "God Damn America." He lives in a million dollar house in a gated community and attended a very prosperous high school (the same one Bill Cosby attended). When you go to church, usually at some point the pastor gives a "benediction," not a "malediction." Falsehoods are not liberating. With a darkened mind, he proclaimed conspiracy theories that AIDS was a plan against the black man. He needs liberation alright -- from his dark imaginations of soul and spirit, and you, Mr. Campolo, are covering for him rather than speaking truth and commonsense. What ever happened to the prohibition of politics and religion "mixing?" I haven't heard a peep about THAT! This is a political church. Hmmnnn, I mean LEFT-WING political church. Gosh, what happened to the blessed ACLU? Deafening silence and a deep, putrid double standard in this country! He whom Jesus set free is free indeed! People don't need false messiah liberators with an agenda (and throw in the profiteers who make their livings selling book after book).
April 30, 2008 4:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2008 16:21
Tony! Right on brother. Right on!!!!
April 30, 2008 4:15 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2008 16:15
Jeremiah Wright is not threatening, he's a bigoted buffoon deserving only of our ridicule. Anyone who could listen to his drivel for 20 years is not fit to be elected dogcatcher. As for we white folks deserving to be threatened, why? Have I ever oppressed an African American? Have I ever discriminated against someone due to his or her race? No and no. Those who have deserve censure and punishment, but there is no such thing as group guilt, any more than group rights. I alone am responsible for my actions, and should be held accountable for them. Don't hold me accountable for anyone else's, especially if they've been dead for a long time.
April 30, 2008 4:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2008 16:09
Liberation theology is an abberation of the Christian Faith, something old Baby Boomers in America like to play with when they get bored with the Bible.
Why is it that when religious liberals act like intolerant angry jerks, they are just misunderstood prophets, but when religious conservatives act like angry jerks, they are a threat to tolerance and unity?
Tony Compolo has a lot of white guilt to deal with, apparently. Have fun with that, whitey.
April 30, 2008 3:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2008 15:55
Why is it that when religious liberals act like intolerant angry jerks, they are just misunderstood prophets, but when religious conservatives act like angry jerks, they are a threat to tolerance and unity?
Tony Compolo has a lot of white guilt to deal with, apparently. Have fun with that, whitey.
April 30, 2008 3:54 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2008 15:54
The gospel, to those of us who believe it, is bad news to both the left and right. For those of us who believe it, it transcends the emphemeral and localized dramatics of the 21st century geolpolitical landscape. Grace is a two-edged gift: we Christians are forgiven and empowered so that we may obey a higher law - a law which contantly addresses the needs of the least of these in every milieu every moment every place.
The gospel is bad news to the liberals because God has A WILL which does not at all sanction solipsism (re: Oprah's "It's all good." pablum). Jesus admonished the woman caught in the act of adultery, whose life he saved, to "Go and sin no more."
The gospel is bad news to the conservatives because it is does not sanction neglect and exploitation. The "Freedom" espoused by the right wing is not the gospel right to be predatory. In the U.S.A., 47 million people lack health care in its marketed system. In this context, Jesus words in Matthew 25:41-45, "Depart from Me, you cursed . . . Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it unto Me." are chilling.
Reverend Wright's mistake is that he twists the gospel to make it "Me" oriented. Wright asks, "What's in the gospel for me, for my race, for my interest group, for my comrades-in-victimhood?"
The gospel is "Other" oriented. It searches out the despised, the outcaste, the jeopardized - regardless of group membership.
The inner injunction of the gospel is that we learn to give; not take.
In the early 70s college campuses were stew pots of disparate separatists groups: the feminists. the La Raza, Black Panthers, Gay Lib. Many movements were co-opted by members who used the interest group as vehicle from which to launch his or her own career. Again, "Me" focusing.
The gospel is shamelessly plebian. Everyone is welcome. Everyone is special. Everyone gets the privilege of giving of himself to the least of these.
As Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, "When Christ bids a man comes, He bids him come and die." (to self)
April 30, 2008 3:47 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2008 15:47
The gospel, to those of us who believe it, is bad news to both the left and right. For those of us who believe it, it transcends the emphemeral and localized dramatics of the 21st century geolpolitical landscape. Grace is a two-edged gift: we Christians are forgiven and empowered so that we may obey a higher law - a law which contantly addresses the needs of the least of these in every milieu every moment every place.
The gospel is bad news to the liberals because God has A WILL which does not at all sanction solipsism (re: Oprah's "It's all good." pablum). Jesus admonished the woman caught in the act of adultery, whose life he saved, to "Go and sin no more."
The gospel is bad news to the conservatives because it is does not sanction neglect and exploitation. The "Freedom" espoused by the right wing is not the gospel right to be predatory. In the U.S.A., 47 million people lack health care in its marketed system. In this context, Jesus words in Matthew 25:41-45, "Depart from Me, you cursed . . . Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it unto Me." are chilling.
Reverend Wright's mistake is that he twists the gospel to make it "Me" oriented. Wright asks, "What's in the gospel for me, for my race, for my interest group, for my comrades-in-victimhood?"
The gospel is "Other" oriented. It searches out the despised, the outcaste, the jeopardized - regardless of group membership.
The inner injunction of the gospel is that we learn to give; not take.
In the early 70s college campuses were stew pots of disparate separatists groups: the feminists. the La Raza, Black Panthers, Gay Lib. Many movements were co-opted by members who used the interest group as vehicle from which to launch his or her own career. Again, "Me" focusing.
The gospel is shamelessly plebian. Everyone is welcome. Everyone is special. Everyone gets the privilege of giving of himself to the least of these.
As Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, "When Christ bids a man comes, He bids him come and die." (to self)
April 30, 2008 3:46 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2008 15:46
The gospel, to those of us who believe it, is bad news to both the left and right. For those of us who believe it, it transcends the emphemeral and localized dramatics of the 21st century geolpolitical landscape. Grace is a two-edged gift: we Christians are forgiven and empowered so that we may obey a higher law - a law which contantly addresses the needs of the least of these in every milieu every moment every place.
The gospel is bad news to the liberals because God has A WILL which does not at all sanction solipsism (re: Oprah's "It's all good." pablum). Jesus admonished the woman caught in the act of adultery, whose life he saved, to "Go and sin no more."
The gospel is bad news to the conservatives because it is does not sanction neglect and exploitation. The "Freedom" espoused by the right wing is not the gospel right to be predatory. In the U.S.A., 47 million people lack health care in its marketed system. In this context, Jesus words in Matthew 25:41-45, "Depart from Me, you cursed . . . Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it unto Me." are chilling.
Reverend Wright's mistake is that he twists the gospel to make it "Me" oriented. Wright asks, "What's in the gospel for me, for my race, for my interest group, for my comrades-in-victimhood?"
The gospel is "Other" oriented. It searches out the despised, the outcaste, the jeopardized - regardless of group membership.
The inner injunction of the gospel is that we learn to give; not take.
In the early 70s college campuses were stew pots of disparate separatists groups: the feminists. the La Raza, Black Panthers, Gay Lib. Many movements were co-opted by members who used the interest group as vehicle from which to launch his or her own career. Again, "Me" focusing.
The gospel is shamelessly plebian. Everyone is welcome. Everyone is special. Everyone gets the privilege of giving of himself to the least of these.
As Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, "When Christ bids a man comes, He bids him come and die." (to self)
April 30, 2008 3:46 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 30, 2008 15:46
The gospel, to those of us who believe it, is bad news to both the left and right. For those of us who believe it, it transcends the emphemeral and localized dramatics of the 21st century geolpolitical landscape. Grace is a two-edged gift: we Christians are forgiven and empowered so that we may obey a higher law - a law which contantly addresses the needs of the least of these in every milieu every moment every place.
The gospel is bad news to the liberals because God has A WILL which does not at all sanction solipsism (re: Oprah's "It's all good." pablum). Jesus admonished the woman caught in the act of adultery, whose life he saved, to "Go and sin no more."
The gospel is bad news to the conservatives because it is does not sanction neglect and exploitation. The "Freedom" espoused by the right wing is not the gospel right to be predatory. In the U.S.A., 47 million people lack health care in its marketed system. In this context, Jesus words in Matthew 25:41-45, "Depart from Me, you cursed . . . Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it unto Me." are chilling.
Reverend Wright's mistake is that he twists the gospel to make it "Me" oriented. Wright asks, "What's in the gospel for me, for my race, for my interest group, for my comrades-in-victimhood?"
The gospel is "Other" oriented. It searches out the despised, the outcaste, the jeopardized - regardless of group membership.
The inner injunction of the gospel is that we learn to give; not take.
In the early 70s college campuses were stew pots of disparate separatists groups: the feminists. the La Raza, Black Panthers, Gay Lib. Many movements were co-opted by members who used the interest group as vehicle from which to launch his or her