Obama and the pastor: It?s a judgment call

It is only a coincidence of timing that this column appears on Easter Sunday, but perhaps it is worth considering the example of Jesus as we continue to debate the fallout of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright?s hate speech on the presidential campaign of his most famous parishioner.

?The chickens came home to roost? for Rev. Wright last week, when the words he had so zealously preached from the pulpit to his devoted followers were suddenly made known across the whole world. Perhaps he could justify condemning America in the wake of 9/11 in the context of teaching his flock something about humility. Perhaps. Or perhaps his willingness to blame America, and ultimately to call upon God to ?damn? America reveals more about the pastor?s hubris than it does about America?s peculiar sins.

Certainly, pastors who use their position of power to preach on a variety of political issues rather than on the gospel of forgiveness are not uncommon. The question, however, which needs to be answered by the nation is whether it reveals any fatal flaw in Barack Obama that he chose to sit in the pews of this church, led by this pastor, for two decades without apparently being either offended by what he heard nor even apparently hearing much that he realized was offensive.

Unfortunately, when we look to Jesus for guidance on this issue, as on many other issues, we find contradictory evidence for what should be our appropriate response. Ultimately, Jesus leaves our choices to our own conscience, thus making us all responsible for ourselves.

In regard to judgment, for instance, it?s well known that Jesus said, ?He who is without sin should cast the first stone.? Under that rule, it would be hard for any of us to condemn Barack Obama. In other words, is there anyone who has not stood by silently when a friend, relative or, yes, pastor said something inflammatory, foolish or just plain wrong? Can any of us say that we have been perfect in rebuking evil?

Perhaps not. But none of us are running for president either. Obama has now condemned the specific statements we have all heard the Rev. Wright make on video clips of his sermons, but can he justify his silence for 20 years when he is claiming that he has the judgment to lead our nation and to protect our interests, so help him God.

That is really the question for most Americans, and it is made especially relevant by one particular passage in Obama?s speech delivered in the wake of the controversy about his relationship with Rev. Wright:

?Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes… But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren?t simply controversial. They weren?t simply a religious leader?s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, 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…?

Can I get a hallelujah!

Here in a nutshell, Obama has summed up his own problem. He had frequently attended the sermons of Rev. Wright, called him his mentor and spiritual adviser, acknowledged that he had himself heard the reverend make statements that were controversial, and confirmed in front of God and everyone that his pastor had a ?profoundly distorted view of this country? ? and yet somehow Sen. Obama was incapable of achieving sufficient insight to realize that his friend and pastor needed help.

Obama?s implication is that he never heard Wright say these particular ?distorted? things, but he also doesn?t tell us just what ?controversial? things he did hear. But even if he didn?t hear the Rev. Wright imprecate God?s damnation upon America, you would think he would have heard about it. First of all, if we accept Obama?s assessment that Wright had a ?profoundly distorted? view of America in these sermons, can we really believe he had a healing, helpful view of America on the weeks when Obama was present?

Secondly, unless that whole congregation just matter-of-factly agreed that God should damn America, you would think there would have been some talk among the parishioners about maybe reining in the reverend before he harmed the church. Obama, being an important member of the church, probably would have been consulted, and thus would have had to make a judgment ? for himself if not for anyone else ? about how to respond. And if alternatively the whole congregation agreed with the reverend?s hateful sentiments, then why did Barack Obama feel so comfortable there in that church?

As for myself, I have left churches over much less than this, and my experience is that many people leave a church because they are not comfortable with the words of their minister, whether it is because the pulpit seems to be used more for fund-raising than for soul-saving or whether it is because politics is being preached instead of the Bible.

Of course, there is a tendency to give your church or your pastor the benefit of the doubt; you might wait a year or two before leaving the congregation. You might decide to confront the pastor or the church board to see if you can help make a difference for the better, or you might just decide to leave quietly. But it is hard to explain how you could remain 20 years in such a church without complaint, without so much as a peep, and then say you were shocked by what was going on there!

The bottom line is that the questions raised by Obama?s relationship with the Rev. Wright are not about race ? as you might think if you heard the senator?s speech or the media?s instant analysis ? but rather about judgment ? and not about Wright?s judgment but about Obama?s judgment.

It will be up to each individual to search his or her own conscience to determine what kind of judgment we consider appropriate in our nation?s leader. Forgiveness, as noted earlier in this column, is the cornerstone of the Christian faith, so most of us prefer not to be too condemnatory of other?s failings. Yet too we must expect discernment and insight from our leadership, lest we fall into the awkward and untenable position of having ?the blind leading the blind.?

Obama concluded that ?if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on television… there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way? as those who criticize him for his association with the church. ?But the truth is,? Obama continued, ?that isn?t all that I know of the man.?

He went on to say some good things about the Rev. Wright, including his service as a Marine, his ministering to the needy, and his 30 years behind the pulpit. But that misses the point, or intentionally obscures it.

Everyone contains both good and evil, but we do not excuse the evil because of the good. To overlook the inflammatory words of Rev. Wright because of his good deeds in the community would make no more sense than overlooking the hatred of a wife beater because he is a good father, or forgiving the evils of a racist because he is kind to his own family. No, you don?t have to disown everyone who is a sinner, but you do need to speak the truth to them or somehow separate yourself from their bad deeds, unless you wish to give the impression that you don?t know the difference between right and wrong.

In a sense, the Rev. Wright is irrelevant. His words are a distraction from the issues which should matter as we elect a president. But on the other hand, Barack Obama?s relationship with the Rev. Wright is not irrelevant. It provides at least a small window on what we could expect in his dealings with world leaders.

Remember, after all, that this is a candidate who has said he wants to meet with Venezuela?s Hugo Chavez, with Cuba?s Raoul or Fidel Castro, and with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Will he give them the same benefit of the doubt he gives to Pastor Wright? Will he dismiss any evidence of their evil intentions as long as they ?make nice? with him in their private conversations?

These are questions, not answers, but they are reasonable questions. As for those who insist that it is never right to ?cast the first stone? of judgment, they should perhaps remember the example of Sen. Obama last year when another ?good man? said something wrong.

When talk show host Don Imus, who by all accounts is a genuine philanthropist and good family man, referred to the Rutgers women?s basketball team as ?nappy-headed hos,? Obama was quick to criticize him.

Not content that MSNBC had suspended Imus for the comment, he told ABC News that he thought Imus should be fired: ?I would also say that there?s nobody working on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude.?

The issue isn?t about race; it?s about judgment ? and perhaps about consistency.

? Frank Miele is managing editor of the Daily Inter Lake and writes a weekly column. E-mail responses may be sent to edit@dailyinterlake.com