Getting down to the real Obama problem at last

Finally, a mainstream publication, the Washington Times, has raised the most important question in the Wright-Obama matter, which is not what did Obama know and when did he know about the specific statements of Jeremiah Wright, but what did Obama know about the black liberation theology of Obama’s own church, or, as Wright himself calls it, “the prophetic theology of the black church,” or, as I call it, “the nonstop generation of self-righteous hatred of America for its oppression of blacks.”

The Times piece, while labeled as an editorial, has a by-lined author, Ed Sherwood. It is a must read. Sherwood writes:

Why does Barack Obama belong to a church known to be a leader in a seemingly radical, black-centric, movement known as black liberation theology? And the follow-up question is this: How will Mr. Obama’s association with this movement influence his beliefs, ideas, and actions as president of the United States?

Mr. Obama has said that he has not heard many of the statements made by Mr. Wright. But it is likely that Mr. Obama knows about the philosophy, principles, values and teachings of black liberation theology, which is the foundation of his church—the wellspring from which Mr. Wright’s divisive rhetoric flows. Mr. Obama’s veracity and integrity, or at least his judgment, will be subject to question if he denies having detailed knowledge of black liberation theology. And if he knows about the movement, why would he align himself and his family with such a theology for some 20 years?…

If Mr. Obama wants to be the leader of all Americans, he must clearly and decisively separate himself not just from Mr. Wright, but from black liberation theology and those churches and pastors that preach it as truth.

I made exactly the same point in March 2007 when I wrote:

Obama belongs to a church with an anti-white racial ideology. In the absence of strong statements and actions by him to the contrary, possibly including his dissociation of himself from that church, it must assumed he shares that ideology, and therefore is unqualified to be president of the United States.

Sherwood continues:

Mr. Wright claims Mr. Cone to be a spiritual mentor and a modern-day prophet upon whom the teachings of Mr. Wright and Mr. Obama’s church are based. Mr. Cone wrote: “It is important to make a further distinction here among black hatred, black racism, and black Power. Black hatred is the black man’s strong aversion to white society. No black man living in white America can escape it. … But the charge of black racism cannot be reconciled with the facts. While it is true that blacks do hate whites, black hatred is not racism.” (“Black Theology and Black Power,” pp. 14-16).

“Black hatred is the black man’s strong aversion to white society. No black man living in white America can escape it.” That is the overlying and underlying reality conveyed by every syllable and every facial expression of Jeremiah Wright. Not that every black person in America has such aversion, which is what James Cone believes, but such aversion is nevertheless deeply embedded in the black American community, as is suggested by the positive response of the NAACP audience to Wright’s hate-filled speech. Unless whites recognize this unchanging fact about black America, they will always be helpless tools in the face of black activists’ manipulative victimology and white-guilt mongering, and thus remain unable to defend their country and social order against race-avenging blacks, as well as against (since white guilt toward blacks is the fountainhead of white guilt per se) sharia-spreading Muslims, open-borders Hispanics, anti-WASP Jewish movie makers (see the gratuitous and dishonest Anglo-Saxon bashing in Charlie Wilson’s War and The Good Shepherd), anti-American white leftists, and every other group that lives to bring America down.

Here is the entire Sherwood column, followed by a further comment by me:

Obama and Black Liberation Theology
By Ed Sherwood
May 2, 2008

So, Rev. Jeremiah Wright is back in the news. That is not a surprise. What is surprising is that the controversy over Barack Obama’s former pastor at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago has missed an important issue. The focus has been primarily on Mr. Obama’s relationship with his pastor and the pastor’s inflammatory, divisive statements. The lens needs to be widened.

Those who defend Mr. Obama make the point that Mr. Wright has retired and no longer serves on the former’s advisory committee. They say that this ends the matter. (i.e. Let’s move on, there are more important things to talk about.) After all, Mr. Obama has disassociated himself from Mr. Wright’s “out of context” statements and continues to put distance between them—even if he has not chosen to separate himself from Mr. Wright.

Mr. Obama’s controversial relationship with Mr. Wright is a convenient, understandable, made-for-television news story. However, television may not the best forum for a complex, difficult-to-ask question which yet remains unasked and unanswered: Why does Barack Obama belong to a church known to be a leader in a seemingly radical, black-centric, movement known as black liberation theology? And the follow-up question is this: How will Mr. Obama’s association with this movement influence his beliefs, ideas, and actions as president of the United States?

Mr. Obama has said that he has not heard many of the statements made by Mr. Wright. But it is likely that Mr. Obama knows about the philosophy, principles, values and teachings of black liberation theology, which is the foundation of his church—the wellspring from which Mr. Wright’s divisive rhetoric flows. Mr. Obama’s veracity and integrity, or at least his judgment, will be subject to question if he denies having detailed knowledge of black liberation theology. And if he knows about the movement, why would he align himself and his family with such a theology for some 20 years?

Black liberation theology has its roots in the racial turmoil of the 1960s and 1970s. Although Mr. Wright wants us to think that black liberation theology is the typical message of black churches, many black pastors view it as a misguided if not an aberrant form of Christianity. The main theme is not freedom from man’s sin by salvation in Christ, but the black struggle for freedom from the oppression of whites.

Historical, orthodox Christian beliefs are redefined in black liberation theology. For example, the words “Christ,” “salvation” and “gospel” are all the same, but the emphasis is the black experience of deliverance from slavery and ongoing deliverance from political, economic and social oppression by whites. Whites are often portrayed as the real demonic forces of this age. Traditional biblical Christianity is dismissed as an irrelevant, oppressive white man’s religion.

Mr. Obama is to be commended for condemning the statements Mr. Wright made because they “expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country, a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America.” However, Mr. Wright’s statements are typical of deeply held views of many black liberation theologicians: He points to and says he agrees with James Cone, one of the founders of the black liberation theology movement.

Mr. Wright claims Mr. Cone to be a spiritual mentor and a modern-day prophet upon whom the teachings of Mr. Wright and Mr. Obama’s church are based. Mr. Cone wrote: “It is important to make a further distinction here among black hatred, black racism, and black Power. Black hatred is the black man’s strong aversion to white society. No black man living in white America can escape it. … But the charge of black racism cannot be reconciled with the facts. While it is true that blacks do hate whites, black hatred is not racism.” (“Black Theology and Black Power,” pp. 14-16).

Black liberation theology does not seek unity among the races—especially with whites. In seeking equal standing for blacks, black liberation theology sets blacks against whites and so inflames black resentment against whites that unity is all but out of reach. Technically, it is not racist in that it does not claim blacks are superior. But in practice, when black liberation theology’s pastors speak truth to power, that “truth” is filled with the same arrogance, hate, vengeance, and divisiveness used by some whites to wrongly target blacks. It puts a new twist on “separate, but equal.” Mr. Cone says that all whites are “white oppressors” responsible for black oppression and white racism.

On the positive side, black liberation theology also teaches self-reliance and responsibility of blacks as individuals, families, communities and churches. Churches like Trinity, which hold the doctrines of black liberation theology, are energetic in providing programs to improve education and the economic standing of their members. But, on the whole, such a theology ultimately fails. The fate of blacks and whites and all others in America, at least in the nation’s political and civic arena, is bound up in our commitment to common ideals, beliefs, values and aspirations—and our willingness to work and live together.

If Mr. Obama wants to be the leader of all Americans, he must clearly and decisively separate himself not just from Mr. Wright, but from black liberation theology and those churches and pastors that preach it as truth. Why he hasn’t done so is a question that still has been neither asked nor answered.

Ed Sherwood currently works as a senior risk management consultant in homeland security. He is a retired military officer and former pastor with a master of divinity in biblical studies.

I see only one politically correct note in Sherwood’s article, when he writes:

Technically, [black liberation theology] is not racist in that it does not claim blacks are superior. But in practice, when black liberation theology’s pastors speak truth to power, that “truth” is filled with the same arrogance, hate, vengeance, and divisiveness used by some whites to wrongly target blacks.

If there are whites in America who talk about blacks the way Wright and Cone speak about whites, they are invisible and marginalized. It would have been better if Sherwood had said:

“Black liberation theology is not racist in the sense that it does not claim blacks are superior and whites are inferior. But the essence of racism is not a belief in the inferiority of some other group as compared to one’s own, but a belief in the intrinsic badness and evil of the other group. When black liberation theology’s pastors speak truth to power, that ‘truth’ is filled with a hatred and demonization of white people and white America that is the essence of racism.”

—end of initial entry—

Jeremy G., who sent me the Times editorial, writes:

In light of the fact that black liberation theologians preach that black hatred of whites is entirely natural and morally justifiable, I think a good question to ask Obama is whether he thinks blacks can be racist and whether he thinks Reverend Wright, who clearly hates whites, is a racist. I think Obama would have to obfuscate and this would leave him open to yet more criticism. Either a yes or a no answer would alienate one side of the Democratic base or the other.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 02, 2008 01:17 PM | Send