March 27, 2008
An extraordinary amount of energy, copy, and commentary has been expended over the past few weeks to determine the extent to which the venomous, grotesque, and hateful speech emanating out the mouth of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and from his pulpit in Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ represents the views of one of his most famous congregants, Sen. Barack Obama.
There remains undiscussed a fundamental sociological aspect of this entire contretemps. What precisely is the role that churches, synagogues, and their clergy play in the life of Americans who attend houses of worship?
Last week in Philadelphia, Obama addressed the matter in an articulate presentation on the current state of race relations in the United States. He explained how he believed Americans should see him, his candidacy, and his disagreements with his pastor. More significantly — in what many regarded as a most thoughtful effort to address honestly and candidly the question of race — Obama presented an unadorned assessment of the problems and the challenges regarding racial equality and harmony in this country.
Critics of the speech — some among Obama’s Jewish detractors, others observers in general — have dismissed the larger theme of Obama’s presentation and focused entirely on his relationship with his minister. Even this has been viewed through a very narrow lens.
Only America’s enemies and racists can justify or accept Wright’s repugnant attack on America and upon Israel and Jews. Yet, the demand that Obama not only denounce his former minister but also resign from his church is made without context. It fails to comprehend the nature of African-Americans’ relationship with their churches and preachers.
All religions and denominations have different ways of viewing the relationship between congregant and clergy. Roman Catholics regard their priest as the intermediary between them and God. The priest interprets the Gospels and preaches the lessons within the framework of Catholic doctrine. When priests step outside this role and engage in social and/or political activism, they frequently are subjected to limits and restrictions imposed by the church hierarchy.
The ministers in mainline Protestant churches address the Scriptures and frequently give immediate context and relevancy to their text. Their members are free to accept or follow scripture-based calls for social action as they wish. Parishioners are not bound to the preacher’s teachings. Their relationship to their clergy tends to be more social and personal, yet religiously nonemotional.
In Judaism rabbis are teachers and contemporary decisors. While rabbis do engage in calls for public engagement in contemporary issues, Jews do not feel they are measured by the extent to which they follow efforts to draw these connections. Rabbis, like ministers and priests, counsel their congregants and celebrate life-cycle events; in Orthodoxy especially, but among Conservative Jews as well, they interpret Jewish law as it pertains to issues of personal status and religious behavior. But outside the more insular enclaves of the fervently Orthodox, it is the individual who determines the role and the place that the rabbi and the synagogue play in his or her political life.
In traditionally black churches, as well as among many evangelical fundamentalists, the church and the pastor play a different role. In the African-American community, the church is the focus of social activity and the pastor is viewed as the spiritual guide. Especially for women and particularly among single-parent families, the pastor and the church form the engine that enables them to function. It is within the church that many black Americans find themselves able to bond. It is the church’s spirituality and social interaction that are at least as important as the lesson.
While “fire and brimstone” are uttered by the Rev. John Hagee and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, few of their followers dwell extensively on the messages. Not to minimize in any way the inflammatory nature of some of their homilies, except for some momentary success at energizing their congregation, this style of preaching arouses a certain level of spirituality but does not produce significant traction. For the educated followers in both evangelical and black churches, the spirituality of the experience is felt as critical for themselves and their families, at least as much as any inflammatory rhetoric that may be expressed. Much of the connection that many individuals in the black community have with their pastor relates generally to a quest for guidance on personal issues and family matters, and not to major national or international issues.
The publicly circulated ranting and raving of Obama’s minister went far beyond the range of acceptable speech. They were indefensible — but there is no reason to presume that Obama was influenced by such messages.
Individuals can disagree as to whether Obama ought to be the Democratic nominee for president or whether he ought to be president. But the role of Wright and the religious experience of his Chicago church ought not to determine how that decision is made.
Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn is a professor of political science at Kean University in Union.
- Comment: comments@njjewishnews.com