I was led to this particular snippet via Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite's column in the On Faith forum at the Washington Post online. Thistlethwaite, a United Church of Christ pastor and President of Chicago Theological Seminary (as well as a past faculty member in New Testament studies at my own seminary alma mater, Wesley Theological Seminary). Thistlethwaite writes concerning Father Pfleger:
I preached the first service at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago last Sunday. Rev. Michael Pfleger preached later that day.
I preached a sermon about how a sacred conversation on race has to have Christ at the center.
Father Pfleger, as America now knows, preached a very different message on race, one I greatly resent.
We in the United Church of Christ are trying to have what we call “A Sacred Conversation on Race” and I did not find Pfleger’s sermon to represent what we in the UCC are trying to do in having a sacred conversation.
Instead, Pfleger’s sermon was a bullying rant that was disrespectful of the members of Trinity United Church of Christ, disrespectful of Senator Hillary Clinton and really also disrespectful of Senator Obama and his consistent message of finding common ground.
--snip--
As a woman, I was offended by Pfleger’s mocking of Senator Clinton for showing emotion. Women in leadership get this double-whammy all the time; you have to be strong and not show emotion to be seen as a leader and when you don’t show emotion people say you are cold and unfeeling. I had hoped that stereotype of women had died in the 1970’s, but apparently not for Pfleger.
--snip--
In the sermon I preached last Sunday, I used Paul’s teaching from 1 Corinthians 12 where Paul instructs the Corinthian church that they are one body in Christ and have to overcome their divisions to “put on the mind of Christ.”
That is what the Bible teaches us about a sacred conversation on race, on gender, on any differences. When we are in Christ we have to love our differences and come together as one body. Father Pfleger’s sermon was pulpit bullying of the church and bullying of good people who are trying to run decent campaigns for President. It was anything but sacred and it was certainly not biblical.
What I am about to say will probably go over like a fart in church (analogy apt, I suppose), but I didn't find anything Father Pfegler said either controversial, or even offensive. Indeed, I find it odd that Thistlethwaite would complain about Father Pfegler's characterization of Sen. Clinton, considering the fact that it was used as an illustration of white privilege in a sermon on white privilege. The issue at hand is a "sacred conversation" on race, with the rules apparently being that we should only have this "conversation" if we are nice to one another. The context of Father Pfleger's remarks make it clear that our history of "conversations" on race are a bit unbalanced as far as niceness goes. Was it appropriate for the occasion to preach as Father Pfleger did? One can argue (as Thistlethwaite does) that may have been he case. There is a distinction between being inappropriate for a particular occasion, and un-Christian, lacking a spirit of, as she says, the unity-in-diversity expressed by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 12. Since whites in America have historically not exactly embraced blacks in a spirit of that unity, inside the church or out, it seems to me that to turn around and criticize Father Pfleger for not following the rules of the game as set forth by others is a bit disingenuous.
Thistlethwaite's other criticism - Pfleger's remarks are, as the kids today say, "old school" - I find just plain silly. While it is true that African-Americans have come a great distance in the generation and a half since the opening of the Civil Rights era, the underlying institutionalized racism of our society is very much alive and well. Unless we face the reality that African-Americans face hurdles not faced even by other minority ethnic groups (with the possible exception of sexual minorities, who can still be fired from their jobs and are denied equal protection via the refusal to sanction same-sex marriages), no conversation on race will be honest. Until we accept that race is an incendiary topic, inflaming passions and arousing anger, no conversation, sacred or otherwise, will be either honest or fruitful.
UPDATE: Only after writing and publishing this post did I go to Street Prophets, run by a UCC pastor, and find out that Father Pfleger has apologized for his sermon.
"I regret the words I chose on Sunday. These words are inconsistent with Senator Obama’s life and message, and I am deeply sorry if they offended Senator Clinton or anyone else who saw them," Pfleger said.
Pastor Dan echoes my own thoughts, however, on this whole staged kerfuffle when he writes immediately following Pfleger's "apology":
I think there is a whole lot of truth in what Wright and Pfleger have had to say, but this becomes raw meat for the neo-cons. I am sure all of the typical suspects, Limbaugh, Coulter, Ingram, Malkim etc. will have a field day. It is a real shame they don't listen to all of the clips of right wing preachers--there are a lot more out there than just Haggee and Parsley. I can distinctly remember listening to Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell speaking about how we deserved 9/11 as well--of course, they blamed it on Feminists, gays, abortionists, liberals and so on. Their hatred is palpable--but no one makes a fuss about them. Why is hate from their side acceptable? Are Wright and Pfleger being hateful?
The last question, it seems to me, is the most pertinent. Is it hateful to point out that whites in America enjoy certain privileges that blacks do not? Is it hateful to point out the real justice might mean more than amending a few laws? Is it hateful to point out that all of us have benefited from institutionalized white supremacy, and might just react even without thinking in a way that shows our stubborn refusal to surrender our own sense of entitlement based solely upon the color of our skin?
I realize I am most likely a minority of one (well, two really, since Pastor Dan seems to be saying things similar to my own thoughts), but I just am not all that shocked or hurt by Father Pfleger's sermon. I am far more incensed by the contrived "controversy" and the trap sprung by those who would try to get Sen. Obama in trouble via a guilt by association.
