Jeremiah Wrights POV -- wrong enough to "detect"?

[BobRyan]

Is this the sermon Barak Hossein Obama never heard from his own pastor?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ

I have to wonder how someone could attend a church and not "really" know that "this" is the average every-day preaching style and POV of the pastor and probably of the average church attender from the sound of the audience.

On the other hand if this was the "shock sermon" then why doesnt the crowd sound shocked and amazed as they hear it?

Something to think about.

 

[BobRyan]

In this 2 minute example we have what sounds to me like "approval" of the "spirt of divination" (in some cases) and uses as proof the case of a demon possessed girl reported to have followed Paul for a time and to have pressured him to take action.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-w5I1MR1NBg&NR=1

 

[StefanM]

Is this the sermon Barak Hossein Obama never heard from his own pastor?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ

I have to wonder how someone could attend a church and not "really" know that "this" is the average every-day preaching style and POV of the pastor and probably of the average church attender from the sound of the audience.

On the other hand if this was the "shock sermon" then why doesnt the crowd sound shocked and amazed as they hear it?

Something to think about.

After listening to the full clip, I'm convinced that this is a manufactured controversy.

No, I'm not voting for Obama.

 

[BobRyan]

Here is a good mix of the "we-vs-they" centric POV of Reverend Wright -- baptized at the last minute with some of the "Jesus has a wonderful name" perspective.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAYe7MT5BxM&feature=related

-- is it any wonder that people have very very different understanding of what the Gospel is really talking about????

also notice that in the "We-vs-they" cadence -- who is the "we" and who is the "They" and this ends up with a discussion about "my enemy" -- who (or whoat group) in the context of that sermon is Wright speaking about when he mentions "the enemy" near the end of the clip?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

After listening to the full clip, I'm convinced that this is a manufactured controversy.

No, I'm not voting for Obama.

It is entirely possible that in some groups people are getting the "America-the-terrorist nation" sermon every week, so Obamah should not be thought of as "out of step" with that group.

But I have to admit that a lot of us don't hear that and would be shocked to think that a Candidate for president had a certain "comfort level" with that kind of "theology".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[bobbyd]

Is this the sermon Barak Hossein Obama never heard from his own pastor?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ

I have to wonder how someone could attend a church and not "really" know that "this" is the average every-day preaching style and POV of the pastor and probably of the average church attender from the sound of the audience.

On the other hand if this was the "shock sermon" then why doesnt the crowd sound shocked and amazed as they hear it?

Something to think about.

Yet there was more excitement for the condemnation and blaming of America and what Mr. Wright "didn't say" with a whole lot of hooting and hollering in support than you heard for the last few statements at the end of the video where he was actually making some valid points.

 

[StefanM]

It is entirely possible that in some groups people are getting the "America-the-terrorist nation" sermon every week, so Obamah should not be thought of as "out of step" with that group.

But I have to admit that a lot of us don't hear that and would be shocked to think that a Candidate for president had a certain "comfort level" with that kind of "theology".

in Christ,

Bob

I think that conservative churches are all too often uncritical of the nation when it needs to be criticized. Oh, of course, abortion and gay marriage get mentioned (rightfully), but the issues of war and peace are important, too. I certainly don't agree with Wright on most issues (especially his theory about HIV), but I do think it is important not to have a naive view of the USA that it can do no wrong and that its wars are always just.

 

[BobRyan]

Yet there was more excitement for the condemnation and blaming of America and what Mr. Wright "didn't say" with a whole lot of hooting and hollering in support than you heard for the last few statements at the end of the video where he was actually making some valid points.

Agreed - there is a distinct "mix" of valid Gospel concepts sprinkled over the flame-America rhetoric.

 

[StefanM]

Yet there was more excitement for the condemnation and blaming of America and what Mr. Wright "didn't say" with a whole lot of hooting and hollering in support than you heard for the last few statements at the end of the video where he was actually making some valid points.

I think this reaction is cultural. I went to high school in an urban context, and it was very common in that culture to get riled up whenever challenging or potentially shocking remarks were made.

Even if one disagreed, one might still get excited because the person "called someone out," so to speak.

 

[BobRyan]

It is difficult to tell from the video that the enthusiastic reponse from the group is in any way "negative" when Wright gets to the flame-America section that goes from WWII all the way through to today. Recall that America "tried" to stay out of WWII. Also the "methods of war" back then were less precise than they are today - but in any case - always ugly.

Nobody in America has recommended violence and war as "a nice thing that happens to innocents". The cost of war is that our sons and daughters are killed - the cost is also that even when our people are not hurt but still things blow up - innocent people are endangered along with the enemy soldiers. There is no "nice war" and never has been.

Soldiers are trained to "break things and hurt people" as if it is "their job". The Red Cross, Police etc are trained to "help victims" and to "restrain the bad guys". That's why we try diplomacy until it completely fizzles out.

 

[LeBuick]

Is this the sermon Barak Hossein Obama never heard from his own pastor?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ

I have to wonder how someone could attend a church and not "really" know that "this" is the average every-day preaching style and POV of the pastor and probably of the average church attender from the sound of the audience.

On the other hand if this was the "shock sermon" then why doesnt the crowd sound shocked and amazed as they hear it?

Something to think about.

I actually thought he hit some good points in this message. I particularly like where he encouraged self examination.

Secondly, I didn't see any white's in the congregation. I read that he had a good portion in his Church. I guess we can't believe all we read.

 

[LeBuick]

In this 2 minute example we have what sounds to me like "approval" of the "spirt of divination" (in some cases) and uses as proof the case of a demon possessed girl reported to have followed Paul for a time and to have pressured him to take action.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-w5I1MR1NBg&NR=1

He didn't do too bad with this text. I preached this as, "When Persistence Pays Off" a few Sundays ago.

 

[LeBuick]

Here is a good mix of the "we-vs-they" centric POV of Reverend Wright -- baptized at the last minute with some of the "Jesus has a wonderful name" perspective.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAYe7MT5BxM&feature=related

-- is it any wonder that people have very very different understanding of what the Gospel is really talking about????

also notice that in the "We-vs-they" cadence -- who is the "we" and who is the "They" and this ends up with a discussion about "my enemy" -- who (or whoat group) in the context of that sermon is Wright speaking about when he mentions "the enemy" near the end of the clip?

in Christ,

Bob

Now this theology is waaaay off... Jesus is a Black Man. Clearly he was a Jew. Matter of fact, King of the Jews. Where he might have been right about Hillary not being a black boy none of this was in his text. I can say this and don't know what his text was.

 

[LeBuick]

Yet there was more excitement for the condemnation and blaming of America and what Mr. Wright "didn't say" with a whole lot of hooting and hollering in support than you heard for the last few statements at the end of the video where he was actually making some valid points.

Wasn't the condemnation repeating what someone had said on the news?

 

[LeBuick]

I think that conservative churches are all too often uncritical of the nation when it needs to be criticized. Oh, of course, abortion and gay marriage get mentioned (rightfully), but the issues of war and peace are important, too. I certainly don't agree with Wright on most issues (especially his theory about HIV), but I do think it is important not to have a naive view of the USA that it can do no wrong and that its wars are always just.

:applause: :applause: :thumbs:

 

[LeBuick]

It is difficult to tell from the video that the enthusiastic reponse from the group is in any way "negative" when Wright gets to the flame-America section that goes from WWII all the way through to today. Recall that America "tried" to stay out of WWII. Also the "methods of war" back then were less precise than they are today - but in any case - always ugly..

Sorry to repeat my question but wasn't he repeating what someone on the news said?

 

[BobRyan]

I actually thought he hit some good points in this message. I particularly like where he encouraged self examination.

That is true - each of his flame-america speaches seem to have "some gospel sprinkled in" -- baptized with actual Christian values at some point in the lecture.

Here is an interesting debate where "The defense" for Rev Wright by his supporter when asked about the "all black all the time" focus of the church and the churches endorsement of racism and antisemitism in the form of "life time achievement for truth" given to Louis Farrakhan is that "there have been white presidents that supported Jerry Fallwell who is a racist and a homophobe".

(I think the h- word there simply means anyone who admits that it is a sin the way Lev 18 and Romans 1 says it is).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FUnBi1i90E&NR=1

My question is -- "is that level of equivocation really the defense for Wright?" when supporters weigh in? That "White presidents have supported Jerry Falwell" and this should "balance out Wright's support of Farrakhan".

At some point doesn't a Wright supporter have to compare his actions to the Gospel and the Bible?

Seems like these people have been lead down a not-so-rosey-path to a place that has left in it "very little Gospel". It is political activism of a very questionalble nature being wrapped in the Bible at times to help the medicine go down.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Sorry to repeat my question but wasn't he repeating what someone on the news said?

If you listen to the entire speach -- I don't think Wright himself is "quoting anyone". I think he is making the charge that this is historically (starting with WWII??) a "terrorist nation" and now the terrorist acts committed against America is just "Chickens coming home to roost".

Did I miss his point?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[LeBuick]

Here is an interesting debate where "The defense" for Rev Wright by his supporter when asked about the "all black all the time" focus of the church and the churches endorsement of racism and antisemitism in the form of "life time achievement for truth" given to Louis Farrakhan is that "there have been white presidents that supported Jerry Fallwell who is a racist and a homophobe".

(I think the h- word there simply means anyone who admits that it is a sin the way Lev 18 and Romans 1 says it is).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FUnBi1i90E&NR=1

My question is -- "is that level of equivocation really the defense for Wright?" when supporters weigh in? That "White presidents have supported Jerry Falwell" and this should "balance out Wright's support of Farrakhan".

At some point doesn't a Wright supporter have to compare his actions to the Gospel and the Bible?

I'm inclined to believe these are not the every Sunday message's but were some exerts from messages preached on Sunday. I could be wrong. I just see his reputation and supporters spread too wide to let that be his only or predominant message. I do agree the comparison is not equal because all Christians should be somewhat the H word to some degree even if to say, "God says in His word etc...".

Then again a racist is a racist and we can't have a double standard there. I still believe we are free to support a Man without saying I totally agree with every word that preceedeth from his mouth or all his views.