Mike Huckabee on Rev. Wright’s controversial comments:

And one other thing I think we’ve gotta remember. As easy as it is for those of us who are white, to look back and say “That’s a terrible statement!”…I grew up in a very segregated south. And I think that you have to cut some slack — and I’m gonna be probably the only Conservative in America who’s gonna say something like this, but I’m just tellin’ you — we’ve gotta cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told “you have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie. You have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant. And you can’t sit out there with everyone else. There’s a separate waiting room in the doctor’s office. Here’s where you sit on the bus…” And you know what? Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment. And you have to just say, I probably would too. I probably would too. In fact, I may have had more of a chip on my shoulder had it been me.

He gets it. While I may have my theological and philosophical beefs with liberation theology and some of its logical progeny, I know that in most cases, it ain’t wrong, even if it ain’t right. Considering that American racism is antecedent in the development of liberation theology in the first place, and especially considering the tepid-at-best response of the Evangelical community during the Civil Rights movement, I’m not exactly sure why some people are acting like they can’t figure where Reverend Wright is coming from. And I’m sayin’ - I don’t even necessarily agree with him all that tough, but what he said didn’t come completely out of NOWHERE. It’s just extrabiblical.

Liberation theology (LT) is prominent in the news this week due to unearthing of one of Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s sermons. Being that LT has long been one of my intellectual interests, I’m a little more familiar with it than somebody who’s hearing about it and getting all hyped up about the inflammatory aspects of Rev’s remarks. So let me be clear about this: while I think LT is, at least in part, a misnomer, since the former is emphasized at the expense of the latter, I don’t think it’s appropriate to junk the whole car. There are some very useful elements. After all, LT arose because of an improper application of the scripture. In a way, it’s like the natural response to state-sponsored (for lack of a better term) opression theology. Well, I’ll say it’s the natural in-kind response without defecting to another religion altogether. (Hello, NOI.)

Liberation theology’s chief weakness lies in its greatest strength: its focus on the oppressed. Specifically, I think LT goes beyond addressing the needs of the poor and actually casts God in the image of the oppressed. Hence the emphasis on the ethnographic and sociocultural aspects of Jesus’ incarnation at the expense of his deity.

Now understand, I don’t think any part of Jesus’ physical manifestation was random. God’s plan was (is) far too exacting and detailed for it to be any other way. Nevertheless, I think it’s possible to read too much into it. That is, because of our postmodern sensibilities and our emphasis on the census-type social address marker elements of a person’s identity, we have a tendency to act like those descriptions are definitions. But they’re not. They may help to enhance a definition, but, and this is a sofa, relying on descriptors as definition effectively takes the person out of the equation. What you have in that case, in essence, is a composite that should do a, b, and c, based on the fact that he has traits, x, y, and z. So while I don’t think it’s outta line to note the significance of Jesus having been incarnated into a certain flesh within a certain community at a certain place in a certain time, I don’t think it’s right to take those address markers as definitive. Primarily because inasmuch as he occupied a particular space, he also transcends that, so to limit him to that space, or even to act as if the community of the oppressed is his primary locus of activity, is reductive to the point of absurdity. Jesus didn’t just come for the materially poor, he came for the poor in spirit. While his goal had practical, material applications, it was always spiritual. Always. To miss that is to miss the Gospel itself.

(And as a side note, I can never seem to escape people who seem to think that Revelation 1:14 is about Jesus’ physical description. I saw a t-shirt with a picture that could’ve been JJ’s painting from the Black Jesus episode of Good Times, talkin about it was the description from Revelation. But if that’s supposed to be the case, where is the flaming sword and the candlesticks? Why does nobody who quotes that scripture as a physical description EVER wanna talk about those verses? They all go together. But naw. Can’t do that. Reading is fundamental.)

Liberation theology is ripe for critique on many levels, but first and foremost as a legitimate theology. Any time you have to interpret God through your lens as a [insert your brand(s)], then your god is an idol. God is way too big to be defined by our “otherness.” God is also way too big to be defined by our sameness. The point is not to understand God through the perspective of our own experiences, it’s to understand our experiences through the lens of God’s word.

On Friday, I had the opportunity to play the boards as our staff band did a rendition of Bustin Loose in honor of Chuck Brown. I ain’t gon’ lie, I was pretty nervous. Not that he woulda been all able to single me out and say something, but it’s just the point. Bustin Loose is definitely in my 50 favorites, so I would’ve wanted to do it justice if it had just been the students in the audience, but with HIM there? Pssshhhh. But I wasn’t really tryin to crush it, I just wanted to be easy and play my role.

Expanding a little bit, what this really makes me think of is this: I was seriously pressed because the author/composer of a song I really like was there when I played that song, yet it’s sometimes hard to keep that same kind of focus when it comes time to realize that God, the creator of everything, is always there. Hm.

I stay watchin The Ten Commandments. Especially the 2nd DVD, which is when all the good action takes place, but I like the first DVD too. The best thing about having the DVDs is that I don’t hafta wait until April to see it.

Anyway, a couple thoughts come to mind every single time I watch:

1. It’s a good thing I wasn’t Moses. I like to think I would’ve stood by my people and all that, but to give up being Pharoah to become a slave? Maaannnn….iono. Not to mention having to deal with that dude, Dathan all the time? Uh-uh. That staff would’a split his lip before it split the Red Sea.

2. That scene with the parting of the Red Sea? For its time, that had to be THE BADDEST special effects job of all time. I still think it’s in the top 10, even with all our advanced technology.

3. With all the movie remakes, this is one that should be done with Black folks as the main characters. Even though I have my questions about the historical veracity of Africentricity, I’d go see that 10 Commandments at least 3 times. Especially if it was big-budget enough to really make the parting of the Red Sea look decent.

Who could we cast at which roles?