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

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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