Commentary found in this blog does not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the national setting of the United Church of Christ, its Conferences and Associations, its local churches or its member organizations.
Posted by:
Rev. Chuck Currie on
June 18, 2009 at
12:46AM EST
UCC member and former Reagan White House political director Jeffrey Lord wrote yesterday on the website of the ultra conservative newspaper The American Spectator that my response to a recent statement by Jeremiah Wright was better than the statement offered by The Rev. John Thomas, general minister and president of the United Church of Christ. Here is what Lord wrote:
The United Church of Christ's Blogger-in-Chief did a good thing the other day, and it should be noted. Upon hearing the news that UCC minister Jeremiah Wright, the ex-pastor of President Obama, had blamed "them Jews" in the White House for his inability to speak with the man he calls "a son" to him, Currie immediately posted this:
These remarks today from Rev. Wright are despicable and anti-Semitic. I would sincerely hope that the national officers of the United Church of Christ will condemn Rev. Wright's words in the strongest possible language.…I can say safely that Rev. Wright's words do not reflect the feelings of the people of the United Church of Christ.
Rev. Currie is correct. The words of Jeremiah Wright, and the quite obvious gut-level sentiments behind those words, most assuredly do not represent the UCC grassroots. As someone who is a lifelong member of the faith descended from the Pilgrims, as well as a local and Penn Central Conference Board member, I can say emphatically that Currie is correct.
The problem here is that this is precisely the kind of thing that should have come from the denomination president, the Rev. John Thomas. Instead, the UCC website seems only to have a statement of Thomas thoughts issued after Wright's words that expresses mush like this:
"The General Synod of the United Church of Christ has consistently called on its members to speak and act in ways that honor God's enduring covenant with the Jewish people..." Etc, etc. etc. Yada, yada, yada. Moral courage this is not. (You can read the full remarks minus the "yada, yada, yada" made by Rev. Thomas here).
I disagree. Rev. Thomas offered elegant and pastoral words that made the point clearly that anti-Semitic comments have no place in the United Church of Christ or in the church universal.
Mr. Lord suggusted that there was a split between Rev. Thomas and myself on this issue. There is none.
I think Mr. Lord got it right. Your comment was better than Rev. Thomas', which did not "condemn Rev. Wright's words in the strongest possible language", did not identify Rev. Wright's words as "anti-Semitic", and did not label Rev. Wright's words as "despicable". There is most certainly "a split" between your response and that of Rev. Thomas.
With respect, this isn't hard. A simple statement from John Thomas will do: "I agree with Chuck Currie." Does he or does he not agree with you? You did exactly the right thing. What is the hesitance here?
As a former Reagan White House political director, you see the world in a partisan political context. As the general minister and president of the United Church of Christ, Rev. Thomas sees the world in a theological context. Political and theological contexts offer differ types of perspectives and responses. You wanted a “red-meat” political response ala FOX News from Rev. Thomas in regards to Rev. Wright’s statements but Rev. Thomas offered something pastoral. It is good that Rev. Thomas will be joining the staff of Chicago Theological Seminary and not signing up to be a commentator for The American Spectator.
It must also be noted that you are either dishonest or uniformed when you claim that Rev. Thomas has not directly responded to Rev. Wright’s comments (much as you were dishonest during the 2008 election cycle when you repeatedly wrote that I was a staffer for the Obama campaign even after you were informed that I was not…). Rev. Thomas’ remarks, as quoted in my blog post, were issued directly in response to Rev. Wright’s remarks.
Let’s review the entire text of the press release:
“In response to remarks attributed to the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., in excerpts from an interview published on June 10 in the Newport News, Va., Daily Press, the Rev. John H. Thomas, General Minister and President of the United Church of Christ, issued the following statement:
The General Synod of the United Church of Christ has consistently called on its members to speak and act in ways that honor God's enduring covenant with the Jewish people, that nurture deep relationships with the Jewish community, and that recognize how careless readings of our sacred texts, our own use of language, and the perpetuation of negative stereotypes can lend support to persistent anti-Semitism in our culture. Years of rich and thoughtful Jewish-Christian dialogue locally, regionally, and nationally has taught us much about how we speak to and about one another with respect even in the midst of disagreement. I celebrate how far we have come in overcoming the deep prejudices and hurtful rhetoric of the past and call the church to on-going vigilance against anything that diminishes or caricatures our Jewish sisters and brothers. It is true that the General Synod and I have sometimes differed sharply with some Jewish organizations over the policies of the state of Israel, its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and the route of the Separation Barrier even as we share a broad vision of secure and recognized states for both Palestinians and Israelis living side by side in peace. But that important prophetic witness, no matter how difficult for our Jewish partners, will be effective only within the context of disciplined speech and behavior that honors the broader Jewish community."
You owe Rev. Thomas an apology for falsely claiming, as you did again today, that “Thomas is still quieter than the proverbial church mouse on the subject of Wright.” Rev. Thomas issued his statement eight days ago. How many days will it take for you to retract your false allegation?
Finally, I am a local pastor in the UCC and a blogger. To compare my position to that of Rev. Thomas is simply silly. I am not part of the national leadership of the denomination and whatever influence I have on the UCC is minor.
It seems to me that all Mr. Lord wants is a response like yours to Rev. Wright's "them Jews" comment. Was your response "a “red-meat” political response ala FOX News"?
It was you, not Mr. Lord, who stated that you sincerely "hope that the national officers of the United Church of Christ will condemn Rev. Wright's words in the strongest possible language". It seems more than a little odd that you now are critical of Mr. Lord for wanting exactly what you sincerly hoped for.
You have presumed to tell Mr. Lord what his perspective must be because of his former political position, what must your perspective be as a former "writer on the new official campaign site “People of Faith for Barack.”?
The problem, Chuck, is that Rev. Thomas has spent his time as President of the UCC making it vividly clear that he wishes to be involved in politics. Indeed, he quite freely speaks of his view of a “progressive” church. One does not have to be a political conservative as I am to recognize that the word “progressive” is decidedly not a word of theology. Precisely because I have a background in politics, history and government I know it to be defined correctly in the dictionary (in this case Webster’s): Progressive means “advocating progress or reform, esp. in political and social matters.” There is not a wisp of theology here, just simple home-grown American politics dating roughly from the end of the 19th century. To say that one desires a “progressive” church is to instantly say you view the church as a political institution. If you are saying this as president of the church, you are inviting others to treat you as a politician. This Rev. Thomas has done repeatedly.
“ Political and theological contexts offer differ types of perspectives and responses,” you say. This is correct. But alas, Reverend Thomas has made crystal clear that he wishes to participate in the world not as a theologian but a politician, and a “progressive”politician at that. I therefore deal with him on those terms – terms which he himself has chosen. I’ll address this in a future column over at The American Spectator, but it is very safe to say that having put himself well out there in a political role his response to Reverend Wright – or lack thereof – can only be seen as nothing more or less than pure politics.
In fairness to Rev. Thomas, this kind of behavior by a UCC president or the national office is not new. A while back I took a look at the Justice issues listed here on the church web site. There were over 200 listed (I counted.) There are members of Congress who haven’t thought through their positions on that many issues. In looking today at the site the number of issues seems to be pared back a bit. But in either case, every single one of these “Justice” issues are 100% pure politics. One can agree with the church’s stance on them – or disagree. But having a church position on everything from social security to the environment to the federal budget is to cast the church in the role of politician, not theologian
Chuck, let me say that I am pleased that you have responded. Once before I came to these pages and after one (maybe two) postings was very deliberately shut off by you. Quite specifically you noted there would be “no dialogue.” And that was that. People came here and asked me questions and I was not allowed to respond, which of course, they had no way of understanding. As a responsible person, a church member, a local church council president and now a member of the Penn Central Conference Board I can only suggest to you that responding in such a fashion is simply not the best way to deal with dissent.
This time you have allowed my posts to appear, and I appreciate the change. I really do believe you did the right thing in addressing the Rev. Wright issue. I continue to see a very political response from Rev. Thomas. He has indicated he wants very much to be taken seriously as a politician and, in the vigorous spirit of American politics, I have addressed his actions in just that fashion. I’ll let you know when my column posts.
I wish you well. We are members of the same denomination with a difference of opinion – that’s all. From what I see of your activities as described on your personal blog you are a good Dad, husband, minister and community member. Would that the whole world were that way.
I repeatedly posted...you said no dialogue...you simply cut me off. That is a fact. I have made no "false allegations" against John Thomas. Also fact.
"I would hope that as a Christian you would take the issue of honesty more seriously." This, of course, is my point to you. Again, I wrote the posts...they did not appear. In the middle of a conversation with you. You were explicit.
If this bothers you there is a simple way to solve the problem. The UCC has these records, right? Just go back and find them. Somewhere in your e-files should be exact, word-for-word transcripts of what was said, what was submitted, what was or was not posted. If this is that big a deal to you - you are the record keeper. Please show us all. I have absolutely nothing to fear and I believe honesty is the best policy. Get the records out now and let everyone judge for themselves. Problem with that? As you said: "I would hope that as a Christian you would take the issue of honesty more seriously." I do indeed. The transcripts you possess will tell the truth.
You have written, Mr. Lord, that “Thomas is still quieter than the proverbial church mouse on the subject of Wright” and I have shown that your statement is false by providing the full text of the release issued by his office.
My point has been made. I don’t have time to play games with you, however, and feel that continuing this discussion with you is pointless. You clearly will print or say anything regardless of the truth involved and nothing that I can say will change that.
For the record, you have effectively accused me of lying in saying that my comments on this site were not posted. I have responded by asking you to produce records that will show conclusively otherwise. Suddenly you "don't have time to play games" and, apparently, are refusing to produce records that will in fact show me to be telling the truth.
All this because John Thomas cannot bring himself to agree with your quite specific denunciation of Wright’s vividly expressed anti-Semitism! Quite aside from this sideshow caused by your remarks about me, the central focus is John Thomas's outright refusal to condemn the anti-Semitic remarks made by one of the most famous UCC ministers in the land - a man President Obama himself has felt compelled to renounce.
Here - below - are the Thomas remarks as you have presented them. Again, I'm including them for the record. The statement, while saying in an introductory paragraph that it is in "response" to remarks "attributed" to Wright, never mentions Jeremiah Wright a single time - not once - in the body of the statement. The introductory paragraph even goes so far as to say the remarks in question are "attributed" to Wright as if they were merely written down somewhere and could have been misquoted or garbled - when in fact they were on tape and could be heard - have been heard - by any listener in Wright's own voice. These remarks under discussion were not "attributed" - they were said by Jeremiah Wright. On tape. Period.
Here is the statement as you have quoted it in full, with the explanatory paragraph that precedes it:
“In response to remarks attributed to the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., in excerpts from an interview published on June 10 in the Newport News, Va., Daily Press, the Rev. John H. Thomas, General Minister and President of the United Church of Christ, issued the following statement:
The General Synod of the United Church of Christ has consistently called on its members to speak and act in ways that honor God's enduring covenant with the Jewish people, that nurture deep relationships with the Jewish community, and that recognize how careless readings of our sacred texts, our own use of language, and the perpetuation of negative stereotypes can lend support to persistent anti-Semitism in our culture. Years of rich and thoughtful Jewish-Christian dialogue locally, regionally, and nationally has taught us much about how we speak to and about one another with respect even in the midst of disagreement. I celebrate how far we have come in overcoming the deep prejudices and hurtful rhetoric of the past and call the church to on-going vigilance against anything that diminishes or caricatures our Jewish sisters and brothers. It is true that the General Synod and I have sometimes differed sharply with some Jewish organizations over the policies of the state of Israel, its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and the route of the Separation Barrier even as we share a broad vision of secure and recognized states for both Palestinians and Israelis living side by side in peace. But that important prophetic witness, no matter how difficult for our Jewish partners, will be effective only within the context of disciplined speech and behavior that honors the broader Jewish community."
Again, not a solitary mention of Wright in the body of that statement issued in the name of the Rev. John Thomas. Not one.
On top of which you accuse me of not telling the truth and then refuse to produce records that would say otherwise.
I have left the following comment under the "Report This Blog" function for this site: "Chuck Currie has used the official news blog of the UCC to publicly accuse a UCC member of dishonesty with respect to that members assertions regarding the posting of his comments to Chuck's prior blogs. The UCC member has asked Chuck for proof, and Chuck is dodging the request. While I don't know who is telling the truth in this case, I have seen Chuck make questionable assertions before, and then refuse to back them up when challenged, typically by attempting to distract the issue away from his own truthfullness. If this wasn't the official News Blog of the UCC, it could be ignored, but the fact is that it is, and Chuck's conduct cannot be ignored.
Thank you. I have to assume this site has tech backup and archives. I came here in good faith sometime last year, posted successfully (twice, I think) in a discussion with Chuck. He took offense not unlike he has in this thread and said…and while this was some time ago I remember words to the effect that “There will be no dialogue”. After that, same thread, I posted comments and they did not appear. At the same time others showed up and I was asked questions. I tried posting answers but they did not appear. I assumed this was Chuck’s doing as the person in charge. My communications went unanswered. It was not the end of the world and I wrote it off to simple pettiness and did not return. Is it possible there was something else at work…a glitch, a tech mistake? Sure. Again, I assume this is all archived somewhere. In truth Chuck’s conduct doesn’t bother me other than the fact he has an official capacity here and if he acts this way towards me, what has been happening to others? The real issue I am trying to get to the bottom of is not about the blog but the Thomas-Wright business, something I believe to be serious as it involves a quite vivid anti-Semitism. In his own fashion, by his own conduct, Chuck is telling me volumes about that and none of it is good.
FYI for you, I am a church member in good standing, a local Council president, and a member of my Conference Board. I love my faith and certainly wish everyone in it – Chuck included (as mentioned above) – well. But gee – this is not the way to run a railroad when one disagrees with others.
All of this because, ironically, I was impressed with Chuck’s own statement on Wright and said so. Oy!
