Frank Schaeffer on Dr. Wright
Frank Schaeffer has produced some stir with his notes supporting Barack Obama, and now he has written something about the imbalance between the response to Dr. Wright’s comments and the response to those of his, Schaeffer’s, father. He says:
When Senator Obama’s preacher thundered about racism and injustice Obama suffered smear-by-association. But when my late father — Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer — denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr.
I’m not going to try to make comparisons. But I would note that there are moments when many, many preachers have pointed to “God’s curse on America” for some moral failing or other. The question just seems to be who’s the pointer and who’s the pointee.
I’m guessing a number of folks on the right are a bit annoyed with Frank Schaeffer at the moment!
HT: Dispatches
Thanks for this! And for your earlier post “Frank Schaeffer for Obama.”
Frank Schaeffer’s readers (the few left) may also be interested in his confident understanding of Barack Obama before the latter gave his speech yesterday: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/obama-is-a-muslimem_b_91627.html
It’s as if Schaeffer knew Obama would declare this:
“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; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.
As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.”
And Schaeffer wouldn’t be surprised at these comments on Obama’s speech at Huffington Post:
“This New York Jew knew in his bones that what Barack Obama was saying was more powerful than some of the right-wing pundits and Hillary Clinton supporters (on here) are obviously capable of giving him credit for.
I actually welled up several times during the speech. At a couple of points, I even had to stop what I was doing while he was speaking (folding laundry) and sit down because my knees wobbled.
That’s not an exaggeration.”
Henry:
Thanks for this post.
This just reinforces to me that what is terrible behavior for your opponent is OK for your allies.
Let’s not forget that the Democrats made such a big deal about George W. Bush visiting Bob Jones University that he had to apologize; and Jones wasn’t even his pastor.
I am so glad I am not affiliated with either political party!
Dr Wright’s speaking style makes me cringe. He uses a lot of rhetoric and hyperbole that are not part of the culture I’m used to. But of the clips I’ve seen so far (probably far fewer here in the UK than you get in the US) I don’t substantially disagree with his views.
The difference is that Francis Schaeffer merited confidence and respect whereas the same can not be said of Wright.
I would chalk it up to the hyper media environment we have today as compared to when Francis Schaeffer was making his pronouncements.
No matter how incendiary either mans remarks were, they presumably contain an honest statement of their beliefs and it’s difficult to impugn someone for that. The problem I see is that people are beginning to assume that these kind of statements are for furthering political agendas rather than statements of belief.
Our own methodist agencies often get accused of this same problem where a statement of belief is seen as a political statement. The problem is usually with the receiver, not the sender.