Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
What Did Jeremiah Wright Intend by "Damning" America? (A Preacher's Perspective)
As preacher and minister myself who occasionally gets grief over the words I choose in sermons, I've been watching the recent controversy over Jeremiah Wright with interest.
Much has been said about Rev. Wright, and especially about his juxtaposition of the popular phrase "God Bless America" with it's obvious alternative.
I'm not going to defend, or even discuss all of the clips that that are out there, and I still cannot condone the one in question here.
But, while I personally believe that in a YouTube world he should have had better sense than to proclaim "God *&$*# America," a careful examination of Bible texts indicates that there may well be times when "damning" a nation, individual, or class of people is exactly what the Bible text originally meant!!
Oftentimes in the Bible, the word "woe" gets translated in places where, it is possible, that the word "damn" (or at least the word "curse") might get closer to the original meaning.
(BTW, this whole discussion assumes that everybody understands that Biblical translation is never an exact science...and that "literal translation" is a phrase that makes no logical sense...)
A great example of this is Luke's version of the "Beatitudes," (Chapter 6) where each "blessed" has an equal and opposite "woe."
"Blessed are you who are poor....woe to you who are rich"
"Blessed are you who are hungry now...woe to you who are full now."
In these cases, as I just mentioned, many scholars believe the original word was *much* stronger than "woe." In fact, "blessing" and "damnation" are clearly more direct opposites than "blessing" and "woe."
One of my own United Methodist Bishops interprets these texts from Luke in exactly this way. (Or, at least he did in this one essay from 2004) Bishop Will Willimon very clearly interprets the text as contrasting twin acts of "blessing" and "damning."
Here's an section from Bishop Willimon's sermon:"If that were all there was to Jesus' sermon that day, then we might remember it as one of the sweetest sermons ever preached. But then, true to form (Luke 4) Jesus moves from blessing to cursing.
You rich, damn you! You have already "received your consolation." You were good at working the kingdoms of this world to your advantage. Now, in God's kingdom, you shall be cursed.
For those of you who are full, stuffed with all that can be consumed in this culture, having found so many ways to satisfy your gnawing hunger, what more can God do for you? In God's coming kingdom, you shall be damned to emptiness. Wipe that smirk off your face, you drugged, self-satisfied happy ones! There's a new savior in town. Time for tears.
Damn you who are acclaimed and praised, who are asked to write articles for the Century, called to Waco to receive a gold medal for being a top-tier preacher. You carefully weigh your words, being sure never to offend anyone with the truth. That's the way the false prophets preached before you.
He continues by pointing out that this way of preaching would certainly seem challenging to most ears:
"Is this anyway to preach? It's certainly not how I learned to preach. In Not Every Spirit, Christopher Morse demonstrates that the early Christians were persecuted not for what they believed (Jesus Christ is Lord) but for what they refused to believe (Caesar is Lord). We pastors are distinguished not only by what we graciously support, but also by what we condemn. Any homiletic that seeks to make peace with hearers cannot be faithful to the gospel. Ralph Wood pointed out that in the great Barmen Declaration of the Confessing Church in Germany, every credimus, "We believe . . .," is followed by a damnatis, "We reject . . ." Alas, when it came time for the rest of the German church to say "Nein!" it had lost the theological means to know there was even something about the world worth rejecting, as well as lost the courage to say "No!"
You can read the whole thing here:
Again, I am in no way trying to excuse or even defend Rev. Wright. But it is possible that this is what he intended, at least in this one example of the controversial statements we've seen this past week.
Having said that, it seems to me that an audience would need to know that fuller Biblical context (does anybody know if he attempted that kind of textual interpretation in the sermon itself? Has anybody heard the whole sermon?)
And, my personal opinion? Rev. Wright would have done well avoid that kind of incendiary rhetoric altogether.
He surely had to know that "riffing" on the phrase "God Bless America" was a powder keg so explosive that even many supporters would find it offensive.
Prophetic preachers always walk a challenging tightrope between saying things that catch people's attention, and saying things that drive people away.Prophetic preachers face a challenging tension between being prophetic in a way that calls people to account in ways that moves them to change their lives, and making statements so over-the-top that nobody hears the real message.
Accountable to God; accountable to our own congregations; and increasingly accountable to the entire world (thanks to YouTube); preachers often find that when it comes to choosing their words, they're "damned if they do, and damned if they don't."
Comments (10)
Thoughtful post; I've been appreciating your contributions to the conversation. I haven't heard the whole sermon, and I can't speak to the congregation's background in Biblical translation.
But I can say that the use of antithesis in the black preaching tradition is fundamental, and therefore that the congregation would certainly have heard, and understood, that "damn" was used in opposition to "bless." They would have understood that this was a call to them, not to bless but to do its opposite: to call down damnation, or curse, as you say.
I've written a little more about the it in a post here:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/note-on-rhetoric-with-special.php
March 20, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post on the use of "antithesis." You are absolutely correct that it is fundamental to black preaching.
And I think you are also correct in how the congregation would have "heard" it.
The challenge for preachers now is that they (your own congregation) may not be the only ones listening. Hopefully, that knowledge will not stifle the prophetic voice, but perhaps it might cause the prophetic voice to use all due diligence in making sure they are not misquoted.
It's clear in Bible stories that there are several times when questioners are trying to trick Jesus. And usually in those cases, he dodges and weaves, rather than give them ammo for a first-century YouTube attack.
March 20, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent and insightful post (as usual).
I'm glad to have your perspective at TPM.
March 20, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another excellent post. One of your previous posts was part of my inspiration for musing what would happen if we (hypothetically) YouTubed "clips" from the Bible together. I'd bet you we could find an awful lot of hateful speech (especially if we were allowed to go Old Testament).
Atheists like myself should consider that there are many great atheist scientists that could similarly get an awful "best of" video. (Richard Dawkins, who I admire, is an obvious candidate.)
March 20, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
YouTube presents challenges for all but the most simplistic public speakers.
March 20, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
HEY!!!
That's our current president your talking about!
March 20, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I doubt that this is the case. The use of "woe unto me" is used throughout both testaments as a phrase meaning "I deserve misery/grief/sorrow IF or BECAUSE" of an action taken or not taken. For example Job 10:15 "if I be wicked woe unto me" or Psalms 120:5 "woe is me, that I sojourn in Mesech" and in Revelations 9:12 (?) "one woe is past, and behold, there come two woes more thereafter" meaning calamities or great sorrows. It simply doesn't make much sense to claim that this means "damnation to you" or "damn you" in any context. It makes more sense in the Beatitudes that Jesus was making explicit that those who are not meek, or peace makers and so on are damned - he is explaining to all that those who are not without virtues will suffer misery and sorrow, not eternal damnation.
Nice try though...
March 20, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Bev:
Hi Bev:
Well, it sounds like you and I could get into a really long and boring debate about Biblical Greek.
The word in question is "OUAI" in the Greek (I'm not going to speak to the Hebrew examples you cite...)
Scholars are clearly *not* unanimous about the appropriate translations of the word.
There's a pretty good discussion thread I found among some scholars on a message board, for those really wanting to delve into it.
Just click here, and you'll find some interesting discusison.
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/1998-09/27459.html
Here's two of the responses:
"If anything, I suspect that "Damn you" is rather weak for OUAI hUMIN,
although of course the force of this phrase in English depends considerably
on the circumstances in which it is uttered and the assumptions that the
speaker and hearer of it have about the phrase's meaning."
"Nevertheless, what seems right about this suggestion is its propriety if
one views the beatitudes and their antithesis (more clearly balanced in
Luke's "Sermon on the Plain") as following in the older tradition of
"blessings and curses" for obedience and disobedience to the covenant, as
those appear, for instance, near the end of Deuteronomy and as the
Mendenhall hypothesis assumes was an essential part of a suzerainty treaty
upon the precedent of which the Sinai covenant is thought to be formulated."
"Wouldn't the listeners to John the Baptist's "Brood of Vipers" speech have
felt the same way about that? If this is not a curse in the proper sense of
a prayer for someone's damnation, it is at the least a powerful admonition
that rejection of this opportunity for salvation must be damnation."
And another:
"I think one of the reasons we're having so much trouble finding a modern
idiom is that this is not a modern sentiment being expressed. I've gone to
churches all my life and never heard a preacher say "Woe to you" and have
it directed at individuals in the congregation. The pronouncement of curses
is generally frowned upon. ;-) "You better watch out" is as close as I've
heard and that's seems way short of OUAI hUMIN."
"The Bible in Basic English translates it "A curse is on you", which to my
mind is a more modern idiom and since it's indicative, avoids the causitive
nature of "Damn You". "Grief and despair are yours" might work, it gives
the core meaning of OUAI."
As I mentioned, Bible translation is not an exact science, and you can make an good counter argument that "damn" is too strong, or that "woe" is better. But I don't think it can simply be dismissed as a nice try.
March 20, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've heard the phrase "woe is me" all my life. Just thought I'd get that out of the way. I also don't think that Rev. Wright at the time he spoke his infamous phrase was thinking of the basic process of translating an ancient text that could have been written in spoken Hebrew, rabbinical Hebrew and later biblical Hebrew to Greek and then to English and whether the correct word was ovai in Hebrew or ouai in Greek and woe in English - or whether "damn" is a better translation and of course how influenced the Greek translator was by contemporary Hebrew or whether his knowledge extended to distinct varieties of the same language while standing at his pulpit. That just seems a tad on the scholarly side for extemporaneous speaking.
He might have, but I doubt it. I think it's really kind of you to try to paint this as an academic conundrum running through his head at the time, but I think he meant "God damn America" in the sense that it was taken. I'm not making moral judgments about the man, frankly, I really don't care and feel no need to make excuses or rationalize his phraseology. People get carried away.
March 20, 2008 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
In truth, I really should have titled this "What Might He Have Intended?"
Because, like you, I have no idea what was really going through his mind. I was merely pointing out that, from strictly textual point of view, there's a place for the view that the Bible sometimes calls down come very hard curses on people, nations, etc...
However, I find myself straddling the fence on this...because while I can argue that the Bible text might give him that leeway...I think the current environment we preacher must be aware that many outside our particular "church family" may be listening in. Especially if we're going to put stuff out where it can be put on YouTube, etc, I might argue we have a different moral test to now consider...the merits of whether our provocative statements might be irresponsible.
It's possible to be prophet without them.
March 21, 2008 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment