The Soundbite Reverend

I have no doubt that in the past several days and certainly over the last month, there have been entirely too many blog posts centered on Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Up to this point, I have deliberately not commented on Wright's political views or rhetorical style, and this post will not comment on these things either. I will leave that to others who are more invested in such things, both pro and con, than I. But Wright's recent appearance at the National Press Club is worthy of comment. During this appearance and in other recently previous comments, Wright has asked that his sermons and views be taken in context, and he has lamented what he believes is the reduction of his views to soundbites. He has further argued that he speaks not as a politician, but as a pastor, and his comments need to be understood thusly. Fair enough. It is my intention in this post to examine some of Wright's biblical and theological assertions made at the National Press Club. I will look at 3 of Wright's assertions.

1) As part of advancing what he believes is a theology of liberation, Wright asserted that there was 'not one word written in the Bible between Genesis and Revelations that was not written under one of six different kinds of oppression...' This is false as a basic matter of theological history. Regardless of whether one believes that Moses was the primary author of the first five books of the Bible, there is wide consensus that much of the Torah was written during the Israelites's encampment at Sinai. This was not a time of earthly oppression from the Egyptians, since the Egyptians had already been defeated. Contrary to what Wright suggests, the Bible is not a cover to cover account of human persecution at the hands of humans, and it wasn't written in totality in the midst of persecution. That's simply false. What's more, no responsible reading of Scripture can make human persecution the chief concern of God's redemptive or liberating activity. Wright is correct that Scripture is indeed concerned about unjust persecution and portrays God reversing such persecution. But that does not justify the overriding hermeneutic of oppression and liberation that he is forcing onto the text and forcing it to fit. In doing this, the man who dislikes being 'soundbited' is soundbiting Scripture.

2) In answering a question about whether Islam is 'a way' to salvation, Wright cited John 10.16, where Jesus says 'I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen'. Wright seemed to be implying that Jesus is here acknowledging that there are other ways to salvation other than the way that directly expresses faith in Christ as the Son of God. In doing this, Wright is soundbiting Scripture and ripping a passage out of context (again, quite ironic given his complaint about he feels he has been treated). In vv1-5 of chapter 10, the sheep pen clearly represents Judaism, since it is a thematic continuation of the ramifications of chapter 9. So from the sheep pen of Judaism, chapter 10 says that Jesus calls his own sheep from this fold, and they respond to his voice. So when Jesus says in v16 that he has other sheep that are not of this sheep pen, he is clearly referring to Gentiles. The consummation of this theme is in John 11.51-52, which describes Jesus dying for the scattered children of God, making them one. John 10 has nothing to do with comparative religion; it is about the express expansion of the Kingdom of God to Gentile believers in Christ. Readers of John 10 should note the emphasis on the sheep's response to Jesus' voice. The exclusivity of Christ in salvation is clearly being taught here, along with the inclusivity of Jew and Gentile in the Kingdom of God. For Wright to ignore the context of John 10.16 and use it to imply the non-exclusivity of Christ in salvation (in direct contradiction to the context of the verse) is to soundbite the Bible.

3) In supporting his contention that America has invited terrorism onto itself as a result of engaging in its own terrorist activities, Wright quotes Gal 6.7, "Do not be deceived; God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows." Once again, Wright ignores the context of this verse. Galatians is a rhetorical letter written by Paul to address the infiltration of false doctrine and belief. The church is going astray, there are opponents of Paul influencing the congregation to reject the breakdown of Jew/Gentile distinction, and Paul is writing here to get the church back on track. After listing the acts of the sinful nature at the end of chapter 5, chapter 6 transitions into a discourse on gentleness and restoration if possible when handling trespasses. Verse 7 is dealing with the reality that God is not fooled by outward expressions of righteousness, because he knows whether someone is acting out of the flesh (the old self) or the Spirit (the new flesh). This context is clear from v8. The sowing and reaping of v7 is not a Christian version of karma, as Wright suggests. Instead, it is a wise warning to those who sow from the flesh rather than the Spirit. God won't be mocked by such things, because he sees through such things. By ignoring this context and using v7 to advance a secular political cause-and-effect argument is to soundbite the Bible.

Rev. Wright's tenuous hold on Scriptural context is most unfortunate, because it discredits all that he says. This is unfortunate because Wright is not wrong about everything. He is right in suggesting that 'different doesn't mean deficient'. He is right when he says that caucasian Christians have much to learn and gain from the African American religious experience in America. In my view, an increased sensitivity to the issues and experiences that greatly concern many African Americans would help prevent the kind of radicalized liberation theology that Cone and Wright advocate.

But Wright's soundbiting of Scripture is inexcusable in light of his complaint that he himself has been wrongly soundbited. Now let me be clear, the practice of cherrypicking Bible verses completely out of context is not unique to liberal pulpits - it happens in conservative pulpits too. They are equally inexcusable, and offensive to me as a Christian. It both saddens and maddens me that such reckless theology has gained a hearing in supposedly respectable American seminaries and pulpits. It's bad to reduce a human being to soundbites. But it's much worse to do the same thing to the Word of God, no matter who does it.