Black Churches and the First Amendment

The current controversy over Barack Obama’s relationship to Rev. Jeremiah Wright offers an interesting twist on the Church and State issue. We are familiar with the “conventional wisdom” that would bar politicians from bringing their personal theology into government. But, in reverse, do we then want to penalize politicians for the church they attend? You may send the IRS to check out Trinity Church’s programs, but the 1st amendment doesn’t condone applying a “political test” to the religious sensibilities of parishioners. Obama’s “A More Perfect Union” speech was a dazzling model of how to apply the “original intention” of the 1st Amendment--how to be un-judgmentally religious without being religiously political. He declined to pillory his pastor, yet refused to sanction the political implications of the Reverend’s words. This isn’t fence sitting; it is how to practice the spirit of the Constitution. Preaching in the parish; politics on the stump. Many who comment about Obama‘s membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ speak from a political perspective with little understanding of what a “church” is. It is as if they think people go to church to find political allies, as ambitious entrepreneurs attend to network with business associates. A scrutinizing look into the annotative fog reveals two blindspots in the remarks of Obama critics. First, white people can’t see why a black man, ambitious for public office, would not distance himself from a black preacher who shouts out his pain over the black experience. The common remark made to African Americans today is “get over it.” That is precisely what Obama is trying to help us do, without turning the 1st Amendment inside out. Notice I said “us.” It is not a one-sided problem. The healthy way to move on is to “face up,” not “cover up.” White America tends to want a white/black man who will show the blacks how to forget their heritage. Obama is a candidate for the position, but he declines to “forget” the black part. Many white folk don’t acknowledge that black American citizens are as American as white citizens. For us to come together we must acknowledge our shared history, face up to its odious elements, not erase the inconvenient part of it. Rev. Wright was not running for political office when he made his remarks. He was speaking his pain to his people. How does it help to focus the camera on a background object (Wright) when it puts the foreground (Obama) out of frame? Obama is not a minister, and Wright is not running for President. An honest reading of the history of slavery, Jim Crowism and continuing discrimination against African Americans holds the key for why Obama--though he firmly disavowed the publicized statements of Rev. Wright--did not reject his pastor as a person. An objective view of our national history would brand white Americans as terrorists. Black truth in these matters is no less true than white truth. Black and white Americans share the same, intertwined, historical experience. The difference is not in correct or incorrect facts; it is in different perspective, in how each has “felt” the shared experiences. Blacks and whites in America know our history differently, but what each “knows” is what actually happened. Both sides shared and participated in the same events of slavery and egregious discrimination--perpetrators and victims. White Americans may read the “lite” version of the history of terrorism imposed by Americans of European stock, but don’t identify with it. Because we whites are not willing to “face up” to the story of our involvement in slavery (and yes, refusing to act or speak out against it implicated even non-slaveowners) does not mean blacks should be faulted for not cutting their identifying connection with the story of their victimization. The cultural divide has made it hard for each to understand the other as the incidents stacked up, and virtually impossible for us of later generations to be able to evenhandedly validate opposing truths. As Obama displayed in his “A More Perfect Union” speech, he has taken a stand in the middle ground between the two partners in the story of black/white race relations, and has said let’s talk about it, but don’t cover our ears while speaking. The rules should be the same for both sides. It is not a contest in how to out-indignate the other. The second thing critics of Obama’s speech fail to understand is that churches are more than their pastor. Pastors come and go, even Rev. Wright has now retired. The church is a community of people that worship together, pray together, serve together and share their lives. But more than that, black churches have a special quality. African Americans (naturally, given their forced isolation in the American stream) cling together culturally. I have attended black church services; for me they were inspiring, eye opening experiences. They make Pentecostals look mechanical. Historically the black church has been the one place in white society where black folk could express themselves openly, could be themselves safely, could find respect, and could receive appreciation for their talents. White people don’t know how to interpret black people speaking, singing, sorrowing together and venting before God. I do not wonder why Obama worshiped in a typically black church; a volatile minister is part of black culture. Rev. Wright does not rise to where Obama is, as this Presidential candidate beautifully displayed in his recent speech. I don‘t know if Obama would make a good President, but he has the right idea about how to bring African Americans into the great stream of democracy‘s promise. He is a man with a genuine foot in both camps without the common animus. Now if only the rest of us whites could forget our patronizing disgust. If we can’t hear what Wright has to say, how can we expect Black people to hear what whites have to say. And if all whites have to say is “forget about our sordid past behavior toward you,” we are giving Rev. Wright more fodder. Obama has it correctly--acknowledge the past, learn from it, and move on into the promise our Founders had in mind. Our Founders, despite their political acumen, harbored the cancer of slavery and racial discrimination, unable to remove it when they had the chance. Now it is our turn. We ought to know by now that military conquest (Civil War) or other means of domination, can’t solve relationship problems. By the way, Hillary Clinton‘s remark last week--“We can‘t choose our family, but we can choose our church,”--shows she doesn‘t understand churches (especially black churches), or she is hypocritical. By her rule of thumb, she should have long ago resigned from the Senate, refusing to be a part of a government led by a President with whom she, now, conveniently disagrees. Anything she might say in defense of her staying in the Senate would be an argument Obama could use regarding his church. I won’t fault her if she won’t fault Obama. Doug Good