Cousin George W. Bush??

I am an avid amateur genealogist.  [Did I just hear someone say rabid?] I enjoy tracking my ancestors and learning more about their lives, who they were, what they thought, what kinds of struggles did they have.  This all fascinates me.  It also fascinates me to discover how I am related to other people.  It is for me a clear sign of the interdependent web of which we are all a part.  

Ancestry.com has a feature that allows someone as rabid about genealogy as I am to look up famous people and their connections to your family tree.  Of course, the connections are only as good as the research that people have done to confirm these connections.  I discovered that I am related, albeit, distantly, to some 6 presidents and 6 first ladies, as well as Rev. William Ellery Channing, one of the icons of Unitarian history.  Interesting, if this sort of thing excites you.  

What startled me is that one of these Presidents that I am distantly related to is none other than President George Walker Bush through his mother, Barbara. 

Now for those of you who know me know that I am not a huge fan of our President.  In fact, I have pretty strong opinions about where I think he should be instead of at the White House.  But the fact that somewhere  inside him and inside me flows the same DNA has stirred up some things for me.   

First, that someone so [Fill in your own expletives @%$#&*!] could be even remotely related to me is astounding.  But it reveals another thought… oft times expressed as “there but for the grace of god, go I.”  I don’t know what experiences he may have had that led him to being the type of persona I see in the media.  For that matter I am not even sure what experiences I have had that were directly responsible and linked to the expression of my own unique persona.  But here I am and here he is on this planet.  Opposites in our opinion, hanging steadfast in our stubbornness to believe that ours are the right ones. Stubborness must come from his mother’s side of the family as it must come from my father’s side of the family.   

In my quest to understand my heritage, I learned several years ago that one of my great grandmothers, several generations back, was Adrienne Cuvelier.  She was the mother of the first white male born in the New World–New Amsterdam, before it was New Amsterdam, to be exact.  It was her family which is claimed to be responsible for one of the first massacres of the native people here.  She instigated revenge for the killing of a white man after a poker game with the native peoples.  In revenge, the men from the fort in the middle of the night crossed the river into New Jersey to slaughter men, women and children of the native people.  Many were decapitated with their heads placed on stakes brought back to the fort.  Grandma Cuvelier was so deranged that it was said she played kick ball with one of the heads after it fell off the stake.  The chief of this village, it is written, is said to have asked what kind of people would kill their own sons and daughters.  Many of the tribe had intermarried with the families from the fort and therefore white blood flowed within their beings. 

I remember feeling sick, physically sick when I first read this historical account of my ancestors role in this brutal attack.  It was unimaginable to me to act in this manner.  And I wondered what part of her still existed in my veins. 

What her act represents to me is the  beginnings of White Privilege in this country.  The belief that whites are so privileged to act in a manner that this behavior coming from other people would be considered at best; arrogantly rude or as in the example given above; down right evil.  Not justifying the act of the native person’s killing of another person, but for the members of the fort to lay blame on an entire village of people is to declare those people as an other, an object that can be gotten rid of as easily as one would get rid of an insect infestation.  To separate oneself from the shared biological connection these people had is a form of schizophrenia, it is to disown a part of our selves.  And, given that my ancestors included 6 Presidents and 6 First Ladies means that others of my ancestry were in the position to strengthen this notion of White Privilege as it developed in America.  

It is said that all people can trace their DNA back to Africa.  Which means that we are all related some how, albeit very distantly.  So when we find ourselves disagreeing vehemently with another person, whether they are in the same room as us, in the news media or across the globe in Iraq or North Korea, know that he or she is kin.   And just as I may disagree with my immediate family on a variety of issues–just listen in on my families annual Thanksgiving political debates–I do not wish any harm to befall them. 

So too, I wish only well being for my Cousin George Dubya.  I close with this Metta. 

May all in my immediate family dwell in peace in their hearts and minds and in their actions. May all in my immediate family know their own well-being.  May all in my distant family dwell in peace in their hearts and minds and in their actions.  May all in my distant family know their own well-being. May all living in other lands dwell in peace in their hearts and minds and in their actions.  May all living in other lands know their own well-being. Namaste… Rev. Fred L Hammond          

   

Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King

Today marks the 40th anniversary of Rev. Dr. Martin  Luther King’s assassination in Memphis, TN.  Unitarian Universalists had a special relationship with King’s civil rights movement.  Over 200 Unitarian Universalist clergy answered his call to come to Selma to protest the voting registration policies.  During that call Unitarian Universalists lost Rev. James Reeb to a fatal beating.  These were dangerous times and Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King was able to engender hope and freedom for all of America. 

There are two things that happen when a man like Martin Luther King is killed.  Either he is placed high on a pedestal or his detractors inflate his failings.   Both are true regarding this man.  His work with civil rights has elevated him on a pedestal for many making him untouchable and his legacy as unrepeatable by any other person. His admirers have called him an American Saint (even though Baptists do not canonize people) and Prophet.  His detractors inflate his flaws–his womanizing and his alleged plagiarizing on his doctoral thesis.   The truth is that this man, this human being, was both saint and sinner.   He led a people to the mountain tops.  He made some mis-judgments along the way.  

The lesson is this…  We all have the potential to do wonderful and great things to help right society’s wrongs.  We all have the potential to make errors in judgment and behave poorly as a result.   One does not discount the other.  As humans we can accomplish great and wonderful things regardless of our human failings. We can do things that create suffering and still have moments of grace where good things happen through us.  Humanity is neither 100% good nor 100% evil.  We are a mixture of both. 

To place a person on a pedestal of 100% good is to deny our own potential of doing great things to improve society.  To place a person in the other direction is to deny our own potential to do things that create suffering.  We potentially will do  both and have probably done both in our own eyes and in the eyes of others. 

 Let’s honor Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King for the human he was.  A man who strove to help set a people free in the land of the free.  Who sought to make things right and reduce the suffering of so many individuals and families.  A  man who also  brought suffering to his own family because of his own human inclinations.  Because Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King was human, we too can strive to help set people free in this land of the free.    May we continue his legacy by seeking the path of non-violence in all of our deliberations and actions. 

Blessings,
Rev. Fred L Hammond

5 UU myths debunked

The following is an adapted excerpt from a sermon I gave entitled “Identity Crisis”.   I thought it would be helpful for those exploring Unitarian Universalism to have a minister’s perspective on these very common myths about us.   

1.  Myth:  Unitarian Universalism is a new religion. 

No.  While the Unitarian and Universalist denominations merged in 1961, Unitarian Universalism is a faith tradition with roots in the Protestant reformation of the late 1500’s and theological thoughts going back to the founding days of Christianity.   Unitarian and Universalism thought were profound shapers of the formation of the United States of America.  Five Presidents have been either Unitarian or Unitarian influenced; Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Millard Fillmore, and William Howard Taft.   Thomas Jefferson never officially joined a Unitarian church however,  there is enough documentation to suggest his religious beliefs were very much aligned with Unitarian thought.  John Quincy Adams was raised in his father’s Unitarian church but later joined a Congregational church as an adult.  For fundamentalist Christians to claim that the founding fathers were intending a Christian nation to be developed is a weak argument given the profound influence of Unitarian theology in colonial America which was non-creedally based.   

Judith Sargent Murray, wife of John Murray the founder of Universalism in America had a profound impact on the social development of this country.  Her writings on education,on women’s issues, and on social concerns were ahead of her  time and influenced the development of public education, the suffrage movement, and the development of modern social work. 

2. Myth:  Unitarian Universalists can believe whatever they want. 

Not true.  Yes, we are a creedless faith just as our spiritual ancestors the Puritans did not have a creedal test for membership.  But just as our Puritan ancestors did, we have covenanted together to uphold certain standards.  Today we call those standards our seven principles.   And while our individual theologies may differ from one another, these theologies are to support our striving to live out these seven principles.  If our beliefs counter these principles, then we are challenged to examine our beliefs and explore how to bring them into alignment with these principles. 

3. Myth: Unitarian Universalists do not have a faith.  

No, I have a very strong faith.  My faith is not handed to me from some text book written thousands of years ago by a people who could not even imagine my life and culture.  My faith is an intimate and personal relationship with my here and now.  My faith is concerned with how closely I live my values now, and not on whether some hereafter judgment will allow me to enter a heavenly paradise. My faith is focused here in this life; the hereafter will take care of itself.   Yes, I have a strong faith.     

4.  Myth:  Unitarian Universalists are wishy-washy in their values. 

No. I am very firm in my values.  My values are based on my ability to sift through the lessons of humanity, seeing what is moral and good.  Using my intellect, my faculties of reason and experience; I weigh out the measure of what constitutes liberty, justice, and equality.  My values guide me to act in certain ways to help correct societal ills.  Many of us have come to conclude that one need not think alike in order to embrace others into our family. We have learned that from great diversity comes greater ideas and wisdom that can guide us in living our humanity collectively.  Our values give us the basis from which we are free to explore other religious thoughts without being threatened that those thoughts might reveal a truth that contradicts our presumptions.  My faith is firm in its values. 

5.  Myth: Unitarian Universalism is a cult.  

No.  Just because someone may not understand another’s faith does not mean the other person is in a cult.  There are distinct characteristics of a cult.  Cults tend to be insular.  Cults tend to want to separate from society.  They tend to want to isolate members from those from outside the group, including their friends and family.  Cults insist that their way of being and doing is the only course of action that is correct.  Cults tend to discourage questioning and free thinking about their beliefs.   Cults tend to have a central key figure who is charismatic and whose totalitarian authority is supreme above all others. We Unitarian Universalists want to question.  We want to encourage our young people to have critical thinking skills.  We want our young people to find a spiritual path that exemplifies and strengthens their values and moral convictions.  We want to be engaged in society, to seek improvements for all people, of all classes, races, and sexual orientation.  Our faith has been engaged with American Society since the days of King George III.  We value the democratic method of governance within our congregations.  No, we are not a cult.  In fact, we have our seven principles that we covenant to uphold that would help prevent any of our congregations from becoming cult-like. 

If you would like more information on Unitarian Universalism please check out http://www.uua.org or watch this video on youtube  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wezp1W2HKlU 

Blessings,
Rev. Fred L Hammond

 

US Supreme Court to hear Ten Commandments case

The Christian Science Monitor today ( http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0401/p02s01-usju.html?page=2) reports that the US Supreme Court has decided to take up the case as to whether the display of the Ten Commandments the Utah public park constitute a form of government speech which is not allowed to everyone.   The Salt Lake City based Summum church requested to have a monument of their Seven Aphorisms erected next to the Ten Commandment monument (http://www.summum.us/summum.shtml).  

The Seven Aphorisms, the Summum Church contends are the first set of laws or commandments given by G-d to Moses on Mount Sinai.  These were the first set of tablets that Moses broke into pieces when he saw the people of Israel behaving in a manner not worthy of receiving these laws.   The Summum church claims these Seven Aphorisms survived through oral tradition and is found in the teachings of Jewish Mysticism (The Kabbalah) and in Christian Gnosticism.   When the city of Pleasant Grove, Utah refused to allow the monument, the church sued claiming their Free Speech Amendment rights were violated.

The Federal judge hearing the case found for the city. However, the 10th US Court of the Appeals found for the church. This case now goes to the US Supreme court in the fall. 

What is at stake here however is more than simply allowing another religious voice to place a monument on public lands.  The City of Casper, Wyoming filed a friend of the court brief regarding this case.  Rev. Fred Phelps’ church is seeking to use the 10th US Court of Appeals case to have a monument placed next to their Ten Commandment monument in their city park.  Casper is the home for Matthew Shepard. who was brutally murdered and tied to a fence in cruciform for being gay.   Rev. Fred Phelps, as we might remember attended Shepard’s funeral with pictures of the young man surrounded with flames indicating he is now in hell for his sins.   Phelps wants to place next to the Ten Commandment monument in Casper, WY;  a monument stating: ”MATTHEW SHEPARD Entered Hell October 12, 1998, in Defiance of God’s Warning ‘Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination.’ Lev. 18:22.”

The decision of the 10th US Court of Appeals places the City of Casper in a bind.  The language of Rev. Fred Phelps is what people have defined as hate speech.  Yet, should it be allowed in a public forum to preserve Freedom of Speech and to prevent a form of government speech?  Does allowing such a hate filled monument then become seen as the sanctioned voice of the government because it is on public land? 

Strictly from an ethical standpoint, I am at a loss to this question.  I understand the argument presented by the Summum church to Pleasant Grove.  AND, I most definitely understand the question raised in Casper, WY where they do not want to honor in any way the murderous actions of those who killed Matthew Shepard but may be forced to if the ruling of the 10th US Court is upheld by the Supreme Court. 

What is clear to me from these proceedings is this: our actions to seek justice in one location could have profound and negative unjust actions result in another location.  We need to be deligent to explore as many possible outcomes in advance of our deciding what causes of justice we are eager to fight for in our society. 

Ours is a faith that comes with no easy answers.  We have no doctrine that delineates easily our actions into concrete right and wrong.  We must search for those answers to the best of our ability and know that an honest responsible search for truth and meaning is enough.   It also means that if we are later proved to have erred, that we accept our errors and begin love again. 

Blessings,

Rev. Fred L Hammond

Rev. Wright: United Church of Christ Response

I thought the response by United Church of Christ’s denomination President Rev. John Thomas to be one that wonderfully illustrates the history of the free pulpit and the role of prophets in the church.  I have linked his response here:  http://www.ucc.org/news/responding-to-wright.html

The comments that Rev. Thomas received appears to prove that old adage that a prophet is never welcomed in his own home.  It seems that once again that only when our prophets are dead– Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, Malcom X– do we then begin to honor their legacy and words to us. 

We also seem to be in an era in this country where patriotism is only thought to be a true character of a person when they only wave the flag or wear a lapel pin or speak lofty praise of governmental actions.  We seem to be living in an era where any voice of dissent is seen as a mark of treason.   Dangerous times when the land of the free is so afraid of a voice of dissent that it must squelch it. 

Rev. Wright’s legacy with Trinity Church in Chicago goes far beyond the soundbytes that a conservative news media chose to focus on and then the rest of the media followed like hungry dogs.  The church has been a beacon of hope to thousands of families living on the south side of Chicago.  Rev. Thomas in his remarks recognizes the whole picture of who this man is.  He is more than a selected soundbyte.   

I offer my thoughts and prayers that Rev. Wright and Rev. Thomas will be able to continue to stand with integrity in their convictions with the freedom of the pulpit to express these. 

Blessings,
Rev. Fred L Hammond

A return to Old Fashion Mississippi values ??

I don’t know if any of you have seen or heard the political ad where the candidate running for congress states several things:  Has conservative values (OK); nation founded on Faith, Family, and Freedom (OK); will not waver on his views of traditional marriage (OK, I happen to be pro equal marriage rights); will continue to stand up for the unborn (OK, I happen to be pro choice);  and Washington needs a good dose of “Old Fashion Mississippi Values.”  (er… WHAT?!).

I understand the conservative values statement but I tend to be progressive in my values.  I am not totally convinced that Faith, Family, and Freedom were the three things America was founded on but I have heard this rhetoric from conservatives before.   I understand how someone could be against equal marriage rights and even against a women’s right to choose.  But to end the ad with wanting to bring to Washington ”Old fashion Mississippi values”?  

Uhm… I don’t know about you but here is what popped into my mind when he said this…  White supremacy…  White Privilege… Re-instituting the Sovereignty Commission which spied on civil rights activists and colluded (or if that word is too strong … conveniently turned a blind eye) with the terrorist organization known as the KKK… segregation of schools…  lynchings…  Burning churches…  The free use of degrading terms to demonize groups of people (such as the n word)…  These were the values of Mississippi 40-50 years ago.  These are the old fashioned values of yesteryear and he wants to bring these back?  To do what?  …  (My ability to be facetious won’t really work here.)

How about some new values or better yet a return to values that a very wise teacher taught on the shores of Galilee…  Love your neighbor as your self… Do unto others as you would have others do unto you…  How about being like the good Samaritan–that reviled demonized race of ancient times–who sought to relieve the suffering of another…   How about seeking to emulate those values… 

How about wanting to keep jobs in Mississippi instead of having them leave for cheaper wages in other countries.  How about wanting to ensure equal educational opportunities in our schools so that all students regardless of the school district they live in have the same chance to excel.  How about insisting on a living wage in Mississippi?  How about wanting equality for all the citizens of Mississippi.     How about ensuring affordable housing for low-income families?  How about ensuring that couples who are looking to adopt and raise children in loving homes can, regardless if they are common-law wed or same gendered (This is a bill before the state legislators).  How about not creating felons of undocumented employees and their employers for hiring them (This was just signed into law by Governor Barbour).   How about fixing our judiciary system so that the punishment is the same for a person of color as for a white person who commits the same type of crime. 

These actions are based in values that I could get behind.  They represent the values that my faith teaches…  inherent worth and dignity of all persons;  Justice, compassion, and equity in human relationships.  

May our hearts embrace the desire for a different kind of Mississippi,  not one from the past, but one that seeks to uplift all of its citizens towards a better future. 

Blessings,
Rev. Fred L Hammond

Iraqi War 4,000 US casualities

I am in a conundrum when I think of the US military occupation of Iraq.  Yes, I believe we are an occupation force.   We now know definitively that all of President Bush’s advisers, the Pentagon, the CIA told him in advance that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, that he had no Al Qaida terrorist links, and there was no direct link to the events of 9/11.  We now know definitively that Iraq was not a threat to our national security.  We now know that President Bush lied to the American people to promote some other agenda.  (What that other agenda might have been is open for speculation.) These are now historic facts and we have not held President Bush accountable for lying to the American people. 

And while Bush is now saying that it was right to remove Saddam Hussein because he was an evil heinous dictator; these reasons after the bold face lies do not hold water for me.   The cost to America as a result of Bush’s stampede of the American public into a war on false pretenses is our loss of the moral high ground in the world; the trillions of dollars of debt after having record surpluses; a looming recession; and not the least of these the increased suffering of the innocent people of Iraq. 

Al Qaida now has a presence in Iraq where one did not exist before.  Terrorism is a daily living nightmare in Iraq.  Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died since our occupation began.  Where is the morality in our going in to free a people from a dictator? 

My conundrum is this… will leaving Iraq result in a better Iraq?  Or will it create and allow more terror and horror to proliferate?  Will our leaving open the doors for a Taliban type government to form which would be worse than the government we toppled five years ago?  Will leaving improve the lives of the Iraqi people; reduce their suffering?  Is our presence there at this time keeping the nation from experiencing out and out civil war? 

Some have said, that we should leave and allow the Iraqi’s to determine the fate of their own country.   That is what we should have done five years ago.  We should never have interfered with the evolution of another people. Freedom will come to a country from within its people.  It is not something that can be bestowed to another by an outside force.  We have evidence that this is so when we look at every communist regime in the world.  Some have now embraced democracy.  And even though China remains a communist state and there are uprisings in Tibet, the Chinese people have experienced through a form of capitalism some increased freedoms.  The desire for freedom may result in violence but it must be from the people who are not free.  Not from an outside force, who will rightly be seen as an occupying force determined to dictate their will over another people.  Have we learned nothing from Korea and Vietnam?  Evidently not… because here we are caught in the maelstrom of Iraq with either choice being less than desirable.   Either choice ensures the suffering of an innocent people. 

I don’t have an answer.  Imagine that. 

I only know that I want our troops safe. If our troops must be sent into the battlefield then I want them to be used in ways that preserve the integrity of this country.  I feel our president has  degraded our nation’s integrity and the office he holds.   The scars of this current presidency will be difficult to heal.  We have to reflect on these past eight years and learn the lessons that they teach us, including I believe to always hold our president accountable for the atrocities and the benevolence he or she commits in our name.   May our hearts be open to humbly accept the responsibility each of us have played in creating this war and to find the wisdom to empower us to correct the errors of our ways.  Blessings, Rev. Fred L Hammond

Easter 2008

I am often asked by others what do Unitarians Universalists do for Easter.  Do you even believe in Jesus?  If not, then how exactly do you celebrate Easter?   These questions usually refer to the question of whether Unitarian Universalists believe in the doctrines that many Christians have about Jesus–born of the virgin Mary, ability to perform miracles,  his descent into hell, and his physical resurrection from the tomb, and then ascension to heaven where he sits on the right hand of the father.   These are doctrinal questions that have been debated for 2000 years.

Unitarian Universalists have no doctrinal test or creed that a person has to subscribe in order to be a member of a Unitarian Universalist Congregation.   What they are asked to ascribe to is a covenant with the members to seek to uphold a set of principles, seven to be exact.  These set of principles if upheld would be evident in hopefully ever increasing measure through our behaviors and deeds as Unitarian Universalists.   Like all covenants, some principles are harder to adhere to than others and so create opportunities for us to apply our spiritual disciplines that inform us.   These disciplines come from our living traditions and include direct experience of the trancedent mystery, the words and deeds of prophets, our Abrahamic faith heritage from which Unitarian and Universalism emerge, the humanist teachings using reason and science, wisdom from world religions, and the earth-centered spiritualities.   

A Unitarian Universalist does not need to subscribe to the doctrinal beliefs about Jesus in order to celebrate the resurrection of life.  There is enough evidence around us to tell us that resurrection is a living reality.  Many Unitarian Universalists celebrate Easter as a re-birth in the cycle of life itself; the return of spring, birds and animals are giving birth to new life, there is an abundance of life all around us this time of year.  Unitarian Universalists tend to emphasize the life of Jesus, his teachings of compassion, his willingness to confront the institutional evils of his day rather than focus on whether or not Jesus physically raised himself from the dead.  These teachings are resurrected in us daily, every time we show compassion to the least of these, or confront the institutional evils of our day, or insist on the equality of all people. 

So for me, do I even believe in Jesus?  Yes, I believe that Jesus is a historical figure.  I trust teachings of Jesus.  I seek to emulate them daily in my life.  Do I believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus?  I do not need to. Everytime I see a person express compassion, confront institutional evils such as racism, or seek to reduce suffering in the world; there Jesus is incarnated.  His message is resurrected in our deeds.   Therefore as a Unitarian Universalist, I join Christians from around the world to celebrate Easter. 

Blessings, Rev. Fred L Hammond

Truth Commission in Mississippi

A few weeks back, I attended an exploratory conversation regarding the potential development of a Truth Commission in Mississippi.  The purpose the organizers (Susan Glisson, among others, from the Winter Institute at Ole Miss) stated is to “provide an historic forum for the people of the state to understand a divisive and violent history.  From this beginning, we can create effective organizing strategies and public policy initiatives to confront structural racism.”

This opportunity to explore and understand our past is important for this state to be able to move beyond the racism that is incidiously intertwined in our governmental policies from the state level to the most benign local level.  Many people were impacted by Mississippi’s Sovereignty Commission created by State Legislature in 1956. This was a spy organization created to spy and squelch civil rights activities in the state.  This state mandated commission supported the violent efforts of the white supremacist groups.   It is time for us to look at the full scope of its reach.  It is time to hear the stories of the lives impacted and destroyed by this arm of the law in Mississippi. 

The potential of mandating a Truth Commission to look at our painful past is also vital to Unitarian Universalists in this state.  Many Unitarians and Universalists were active in the civil rights movement of the 1960’s.   We suffered for our stance.  Here in Jackson Mississippi our minister received death threats and were critically wounded.   The current building of Jackson’s congregation was built to reduce the risk of firebombing and sniper shooting. It was built in the early 1970’s when the Synagogue in Jackson was firebombed and leveled by that event.   At Our Home in Ellisville, trucks would pull up during Sunday services and yell out threatening words to the worshippers within.  African American Churches across Mississippi burned in those days.  Fear was part of waking up in the morning. 

Healing can only begin when we allow ourselves to look at the wounds that continue to define us and understand how those wounds impact our decisions and actions today.  Understanding how our past has shaped our present can empower us to make different choices.  Choices where justice, compassion, and equity can be enhanced in our state.

I look forward to the conversation, understanding that such a conversation will be painful to hear but also understanding that hearing it 30, 40, 50 years after its occurance is not as painful as it was for those individuals living it the first time.   May our hearts be ready to embrace the truth and may that truth truly set us free to reach our full potential as people of faith.

 Blessings,
Rev. Fred L Hammond 

Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Freedom of the Pulpit

There has been quite the uproar over comments Rev. Jeremiah Wright, former pastor of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, made in regard to racism in America and whether or not presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama agrees with these sentiments.

My paths have crossed Jeremiah Wright’s several times over the last 20  years. I first met him when the majority of African Americans were refusing to acknowledge the impact of the AIDS pandemic in their  communities.  His words were challenging to his community.  He confronted  Homophobia and he advocated for Black churches to respond to the pandemic when  White America was not addressing the unique issues African Americans  were facing with AIDS.  I remember the congregation hearing him in New  Haven, CT being ruffled by his message and this was a congregation  active in AIDS ministry to African Americans.  His challenge helped change  the way supports were given to African American families living with  HIV/AIDS many of them orphaned HIV+ children living with grandmothers.  I  was grateful for his words, wisdom, and insights then and I continue to  be  grateful for his words, wisdom, and insights today.   He is, in my  not so humble opinion, one of the great religious leaders of our day.   He lives up to the qualities of the prophet of the same name.

I think it  is unfortunate that his message will be lost on White America because his style of preaching is contextual to his community and not to White  American culture. I think if we read his sermon rather than heard out of context quotes from it, we would read and understand the logic and reasoning he sets forth.  

Unitarian Universalists and the United Church of Christ come from the same roots in the development of religious freedom in this country.  We are distant cousins with the Puritans as our direct ancestors.  The Puritans valued the right of the minister to be able to preach a message unhindered by the congregation or community.  This enabled the minister to speak out on moral issues of their day that may go against the current thinking or acceptable customs.  It empowered the minister to be able to challenge the congregation in its moral and spiritual development. 

Rev. Jeremiah Wright has done exactly that.  In an age where it is considered to be unpatriotic to speak hard truths about America, he has spoken from a critical eye on what he sees in America.  In an age where people are flocking to the soothing words of Rev. Joel Osteen, he speaks a word of prophetic justice.  

His words have been taken out of context.  He is being maligned in the press. Such is the fate of prophets from age eternal. 

The minister’s role in the pulpit is not to be agreed with what he or she says.  That response simply becomes a self-congratulatory clap on the back.  No, the role of the minister in the pulpit, in the free pulpit,  is to offer words that may challenge our perspectives, cause us to think and ponder, and reconsider our positions.   The role of the minister in the free pulpit is to enable the congregation to stretch its wings to being more of who we are called to be as a people of faith.  A people that seeks to have justice flow to water the fields, where compassion blossoms across the land, and equality is the fruit of our harvest. 

Rev. Jeremiah Wright is fulfilling his call as minister.  We should all be so blessed to be able to hear what his message really is to America.  It is a prophetic message.  A message that challenges our world view in the larger context of faith. 

Blessings,

Rev. Fred L Hammond