Ralph Luker, aka the Blogfather*, has a post up at Cliopatria about Rev. Wright’s sermons. Luker, a historian of American religion and civil rights (and also an Obama partisan), places Wright’s sermons in a particuar context: the jeremiad.
Here’s a sample:
But Wright’s and Obama’s critics are too far removed from biblical study to recognize that Jeremiah Wright is following in the footpath of the biblical prophet, Jeremiah, whose oracles read the sufferings of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah as punishment for their failure to live up to their covenant with God. To be in covenant with God, to be “under God,” is to be blessed by the divine when we are faithful. But woe betide us when we have failed “to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with our God.”
As someone who is — as I’ve admitted repeatedly — “far removed from biblical study,” I found Luker’s intervention into this ongoing debate very interesting.
[Update: David Carlton, in the comments, had this to say:
“The words are certainly condemnable.” Condemnable for what? Ralph [He’s an old friend] is right; this is classic prophetic language, and it definitely outrages those who refuse to accept the proposition that this nation is under judgment. That’s OK to a point; Wright’s speaking out of a tradition that not everybody shares in modern America. But the above statement declares that a long tradition of American discourse that hearkens back to the Puritans, and whose practitioners have included Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King, Jr., is to be condemned. Prophets aren’t nice people; they come in from the wilderness [In this case, the black church, which might as well be Outer Space to the white guys who dominate the chattersphere] and say disquieting things, usually prefaced with obnoxious lines like “Thus saith the Lord.” But while Wright may be extreme, is he being unjust? Was Lincoln unjust when he declared the Civil War to be the just deserts of all Americans for having protected slavery? Was Douglass unjust when he compared the good people of Rochester, NY to the sneering conquerors of “By the rivers of Babylon”? Those who denounce the prophetic tradition would gut American culture of much that has made it worth celebrating.
Again, more historical context for Wright’s rhetoric.]
* It may be that only I know him by this name.

9 comments
March 17, 2008 at 2:11 pm
KRK
See also Remembering another Jeremiah at Crooks & Liars.
March 17, 2008 at 3:23 pm
asl
“those who feign shock at and condemn Jeremiah Wright’s words.”
I’m pretty sure many were genuinely shocked at the clips. The words are certainly condemnable. Obama will still likely win the nomination, but in the general, many people won’t buy the uncle analogy or that he’d not heard him say such things over 20 years (true or not). And the argument that, ‘hey, that’s what they say in black churches and don’t really mean it” is offensive to all.
He’s done the best he could, narrowing his repudiation to the pastor’s words and not the man, because doing so would damage his relationship to his strongest base. People analyzing his statements on this as if he’s expressing his true feelings are naive. He’s working off of political calculations on this one. He’s definitely lost votes, but I still think he’ll beat McCain.
March 17, 2008 at 6:56 pm
David Carlton
“The words are certainly condemnable.” Condemnable for what? Ralph [He’s an old friend] is right; this is classic prophetic language, and it definitely outrages those who refuse to accept the proposition that this nation is under judgment. That’s OK to a point; Wright’s speaking out of a tradition that not everybody shares in modern America. But the above statement declares that a long tradition of American discourse that hearkens back to the Puritans, and whose practitioners have included Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King, Jr., is to be condemned. Prophets aren’t nice people; they come in from the wilderness [In this case, the black church, which might as well be Outer Space to the white guys who dominate the chattersphere] and say disquieting things, usually prefaced with obnoxious lines like “Thus saith the Lord.” But while Wright may be extreme, is he being unjust? Was Lincoln unjust when he declared the Civil War to be the just deserts of all Americans for having protected slavery? Was Douglass unjust when he compared the good people of Rochester, NY to the sneering conquerors of “By the rivers of Babylon”? Those who denounce the prophetic tradition would gut American culture of much that has made it worth celebrating.
March 17, 2008 at 7:05 pm
ari
David, I hope you won’t mind if I move your comment into the main post as an update. If you do, mind that is, please let me know. I’ll then remove it.
March 17, 2008 at 8:24 pm
bitchphd
Nice post!
March 20, 2008 at 6:53 pm
serns
What’s the Lincoln quotation, exactly? I couldn’t find anything like that on Lincoln quotation pages.
March 20, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Hemlock
I believe Professor Kelman referred to Lincoln’s Second Inaugural, delivered in the usual pithy form. Is it me, or did Lincoln’s speeches get more and more concise as the war dragged on? This quote came prior to the eloquent “With Malice Torwards None” denouement (as if the rest of the address wasn’t eloquent).
“If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said ‘the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether’.”
——from an edited collection of all Lincoln’s private and public papers…in my bedroom right now and I’m too lazy to get up and write a formal citation (like usual)
March 20, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Hemlock
I believe most scholars cite the last sentence as evidence for Professor Kelman’s above interpretation…that is, in his Presidential papers.
March 22, 2008 at 10:15 am
serns
Hemlock: Thanks.