The Rev. Wright Issue

Many have denounced Jeremiah Wright's comments as un-American, un-Christian, inappropriate for any sermon, racist, among many other criticisms. He did little to dissuade his detractors from declaring themselves justified and vindicated through his April 28th appearance at the National Press Club. The wake of the appearance brought the expectedly bland responses.

George Will summarized the Wright controversy as a nearly limitless source of political capital for McCain, which with every unfolding of the controversy seems unavoidably true. Additionally, he provides a mind-numbing analysis of Wright's rhetorical logic that tortures his Press Club words into denying that American government is representative.

Eugene Robinson takes on Wright's central claim that the controversy centers on "the black church" and not Wright himself. He concludes that Wright is wrong, that the controversy is about Wright, that he threw Obama under the now proverbial bus, and that Obama should return Wright's favor.

But there is an inconvenient truth out there: Wright has a point, in fact several. Let me lay out just a couple.

1) Wright criticizes the media for exhibiting a near-willful misunderstanding of his comments, fundamentally failing to provide requisite context, and failing to provide relevant, accurate facts. He is, to some extent, correct. His comments where he purportedly invoked God to damn America came in the midst of a sermon on the infallibility of God and the the fallibility of government. The sermon crescendoed when he claimed that God could damn America if it saw itself as God-like in its power. This is a fundamental Judeo-Christian belief that finds its roots in numerous biblical parables. One could argue that it is the dominant theme of the Old Testament (if not the entire bible).

2) Wright claims that the controversy revolves not around Wright but "the black church." First, E. Robinson is correct when he claims that Wright does not represent the entirety of the black church. But I don't think that is what Wright meant. In my view, when Wright says that the controversy is about the black church, he means that the black church (whatever that term means in any given usage) must be brought into the conversation when discussing the import of Christianity to the American social, political, and religious landscape.

One could offer further defenses of some of the now-celebrity comments. That being said, there are certainly many comments that are without evidence or merit, such as the accusation that the US government invented HIV/AIDS to exterminate African-Americans.

But what is more remarkable than Wright's comments is how unwilling many are to understand his positions, even listen to the entirety of his sermons. For example, in the context of the fallibility of governements, Rev. Wright argued that the government allowed the drug trade to continue to the US as a means for the Contras to supplement their income and help shoulder the cost of US provided arms. That is at least in the ballpark. In fact, the history of US involvement in South America should prompt us all to take a second look.

This controversy opens yet another opportunity to talk to each other, to understand each other, and substantively agree or disagree. Unfortunately, the current flash in the pan highlights our unwillingness to seek substance in debate.