The Code Has Been Broken

I fully agree with Mr. Simberg on this topic. Most of your commenters haven't really seen the vile material that Jeremiah Wright proclaims as Christianity. Those carefully selected segments on FOX news were only the tip of the iceberg. IN the interests of knowledge, which Mr. Simberg so correctly promotes, it would be good to see the fuller picture. For example see the absolute hate filled bilge in this sermon, the original "Audacity of Hope" sermon that Obama based his book on. What an absolutely miserable, divisive piece of Hype:

Several years ago while I was in Richmond, the Lord allowed me to be in that city during the week of the annual convocation at Virginia Union University School of Theology. There I heard the preaching and teaching of Reverend Frederick G. Sampson of Detroit, Michigan. In one of his lectures, Dr. Sampson spoke of a painting I remembered studying in humanities courses back in the late '50s. In Dr. Sampson's powerful description of the picture, he spoke of it being a study in contradictions, because the title and the details on the canvas seem to be in direct opposition.

The painting's title is "Hope." It shows a woman sitting on top of the world, playing a harp. What more enviable position could one ever hope to achieve than being on top of the world with everyone dancing to your music?
As you look closer, the illusion of power gives way to the reality of pain. The world on which this woman sits, our world, is torn by war, destroyed by hate, decimated by despair, and devastated by distrust. The world on which she sits seems on the brink of destruction. Famine ravages millions of inhabitants in one hemisphere, while feasting and gluttony are enjoyed by inhabitants of another hemisphere. This world is a ticking time bomb, with apartheid in one hemisphere and apathy in the other. Scientists tell us there are enough nuclear warheads to wipe out all forms of life except cockroaches. That is the world on which the woman sits in Watt's painting.

Our world cares more about bombs for the enemy than about bread for the hungry. This world is still more concerned about the color of skin than it is about the content of character?a world more finicky about what's on the outside of your head than about the quality of your education or what's inside your head. That is the world on which this woman sits.

You and I think of being on top of the world as being in heaven. When you look at the woman in Watt's painting, you discover this woman is in hell. She is wearing rags. Her tattered clothes look as if the woman herself has come through Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Her head is bandaged, and blood seeps through the bandages. Scars and cuts are visible on her face, her arms, and her legs.

I. Illusion of Power vs. Reality of Pain
A closer look reveals all the harp strings but one are broken or ripped out. Even the instrument has been damaged by what she has been through, and she is the classic example of quiet despair. Yet the artist dares to entitle the painting Hope. The illusion of power?sitting on top of the world?gives way to the reality of pain.

And isn't it that way with many of us? We give the illusion of being in an enviable position on top of the world. Look closer, and our lives reveal the reality of pain too deep for the tongue to tell. For the woman in the painting, what looks like being in heaven is actually an existence in a quiet hell.

I've been a pastor for seventeen years. I've seen too many of these cases not to know what I'm talking about. I've seen married couples where the husband has a girlfriend in addition to his wife. It's something nobody talks about. The wife smiles and pretends not to hear the whispers and the gossip. She has the legal papers but knows he would rather try to buy Fort Knox than divorce her. That's a living hell.

I've seen married couples where the wife had discovered that somebody else cares for her as a person and not just as cook, maid jitney service, and call girl all wrapped into one. But there's the scandal: What would folks say? What about the children? That's a living hell.

I've seen divorcees whose dreams have been blown to bits, families broken up beyond repair, and lives somehow slipping through their fingers. They've lost control. That's a living hell.

I've seen college students who give the illusion of being on top of the world?designer clothes, all the sex that they want, all the cocaine or marijuana or drugs, all the trappings of having it all together on the outside?but empty and shallow and hurting and lonely and afraid on the inside. Many times what looks good on the outside?the illusion of being in power, of sitting on top of the world?with a closer look is actually existence in a quiet hell.

That is exactly where Hannah is in 1 Samuel 1 :1-18. Hannah is top dog in this three-way relationship between herself, Elkanah, and Peninnah. Her husband loves Hannah more than he loves his other wife and their children. Elkanah tells Hannah he loves her. A lot of husbands don't do that. He shows Hannah that he loves her, and many husbands never get around to doing that. In fact, it is his attention and devotion to Hannah that causes Peninnah to be so angry and to stay on Hannah's case constantly. Jealous! Jealousy will get hold of you, and you can't let it go because it won't let you go. Peninnah stayed on Hannah, like we say, "as white on rice." She constantly picked at Hannah, making her cry, taking her appetite away.

At first glance Hannah's position seems enviable. She had all the rights and none of the responsibilities?no diapers to change, no beds to sit beside at night, no noses to wipe, nothing else to wipe either, no babies draining you of your milk and demanding feeding. Hannah was top dog. No baby portions to fix at meal times. Her man loved her; everybody knew he loved her. He loved her more than anything or anybody. That's why Peninnah hated her so much.

Now, except for the second-wife bit, which was legal back then, Hannah was sitting on top of the world, until you look closer. When you look closer, what looked like being in heaven was actually existing in a quiet hell.

Hannah had the pain of a bitter woman to contend with, for verse 7 says that nonstop, Peninnah stayed with her. Hannah suffered the pain of living with a bitter woman. And she suffered another pain?the pain of a barren womb. You will remember the story of the widow in 2 Kings 4 who had no child. The story of a woman with no children was a story of deep pathos and despair in biblical days.

Do you remember the story of Sarah and what she did in Genesis 16 because of her barren womb?before the three heavenly visitors stopped by their tent? Do you remember the story of Elizabeth and her husband in Luke I? Back in Bible days, the story of a woman with a barren womb was a story of deep pathos. And Hannah was afflicted with the pain of a bitter woman on the one hand and the pain of a barren womb on the other.

Hannah's world was flawed, flaky. Her garments of respectability were tattered and torn, and her heart was bruised and bleeding from the constant attacks of a jealous woman. The scars and scratches on her psyche are almost visible as you look at this passage, where she cries, refusing to eat anything. Just like the woman in Watt's painting, what looks like being in heaven is actually existence in a quiet hell.

Now I want to share briefly with you about Hannah?the lady and the Lord. While I do so, I want you to be thinking about where you live and your own particular pain predicament. Think about it for a moment.

Dr. Sampson said he wanted to quarrel with the artist for having the gall to name that painting Hope when all he could see in the picture was hell?a quiet desperation. But then Dr. Sampson said he noticed that he had been looking only at the horizontal dimensions and relationships and how this woman was hooked up with that world on which she sat. He had failed to take into account her vertical relationships. He had not looked above her head. And when he looked over her head, he found some small notes of music moving joyfully and playfully toward heaven.

II. The Audacity to Hope
Then, Dr. Sampson began to understand why the artist titled the painting "Hope." In spite of being in a world torn by war, in spite of being on a world destroyed by hate and decimated by distrust, in spite of being on a world where famine and greed are uneasy bed partners, in spite of being on a world where apartheid and apathy feed the fires of racism and hatred, in spite of being on a world where nuclear nightmare draws closer with each second, in spite of being on a ticking time bomb, with her clothes in rags, her body scarred and bruised and bleeding, her harp all but destroyed and with only one string left, she had the audacity to make music and praise God. The vertical dimension balanced out what was going on in the horizontal dimension.

And that is what the audacity to hope will do for you. The apostle Paul said the same thing. "You have troubles? Glory in your trouble. We glory in tribulation." That's the horizontal dimension. We glory in tribulation because, he says, "Tribulation works patience. And patience works experience. And experience works hope. (That's the vertical dimension.) And hope makes us not ashamed." The vertical dimension balances out what is going on in the horizontal dimension. That is the real story here in the first chapter of 1 Samuel. Not the condition of Hannah's body, but the condition of Hannah's soul?her vertical dimension. She had the audacity to keep on hoping and praying when there was no visible sign on the horizontal level that what she was praying for, hoping for, and waiting for would ever be answered in the affirmative.

What Hannah wanted most out of life had been denied to her. Think about that. Yet in spite of that, she kept on hoping. The gloating of Peninnah did not make her bitter. She kept on hoping. When the family made its pilgrimage to the sanctuary at Shiloh, she renewed her petition there, pouring out her heart to God. She may have been barren, but that's a horizontal dimension. She was fertile in her spirit, her vertical dimension. She prayed and she prayed and she prayed and she kept on praying year after year. With no answer, she kept on praying. She prayed so fervently in this passage that Eli thought she had to be drunk. There was no visible sign on the horizontal level to indicate to Hannah that her praying would ever be answered. Yet, she kept on praying.

And Paul said something about that, too. No visible sign? He says, "Hope is what saves us, for we are saved by hope. But hope that is seen is not hope. For what a man sees, why does he have hope for it? But if we hope for that which we see not (no visible sign), then do we with patience wait for it."

That's almost an echo of what the prophet Isaiah said: "They that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength." The vertical dimension balances out what is going on in the horizontal dimension.

There may not be any visible sign of a change in your individual situation, whatever your private hell is. But that's just the horizontal level. Keep the vertical level intact, like Hannah. You may, like the African slaves, be able to sing, "Over my head I hear music in the air. Over my head I hear music in the air. Over my head I hear music in the air. There must be a God somewhere."

Keep the vertical dimension intact like Hannah. Have the audacity to hope for that child of yours. Have the audacity to hope for that home of yours. Have the audacity to hope for that church of yours. Whatever it is you've been praying for, keep on praying, and you may find, like my grandmother sings, "There's a bright side somewhere; there is a bright side somewhere. Don't you rest until you find it, for there is a bright side somewhere."

III. Persistence of Hope
The real lesson Hannah gives us from this chapter?the most important word God would have us hear?is how to hope when the love of God is not plainly evident. It's easy to hope when there are evidences all around of how good God is. But to have the audacity to hope when that love is not evident?you don't know where that somewhere is that my grandmother sang about, or if there will ever be that brighter day?that is a true test of a Hannah-type faith. To take the one string you have left and to have the audacity to hope?make music and praise God on and with whatever it is you've got left, even though you can't see what God is going to do?that's the real word God will have us hear from this passage and from Watt's painting.

There's a true-life illustration that demonstrates the principles portrayed so powerfully in this periscope. And I close with it. My mom and my dad used to sing a song that I've not been able to find in any of the published hymnals. It's an old song out of the black religious tradition called "Thank you, Jesus." It's a very simple song. Some of you have heard it. It's simply goes, "Thank you Jesus. I thank you Jesus. I thank you Jesus. I thank you Lord." To me they always sang that song at the strangest times?when the money got low, or when the food was running out. When I was getting in trouble, they would start singing that song. And I never understood it, because as a child it seemed to me they were thanking God that we didn't have any money, or thanking God that we had no food, or thanking God that I was making a fool out of myself as a kid.

Conclusion: Hope is What Saves Us
But I was only looking at the horizontal level. I did not understand nor could I see back then the vertical hookup that my mother and my father had. I did not know then that they were thanking him in advance for all they dared to hope he would do one day to their son, in their son, and through their son. That's why they prayed. That's why they hoped. That's why they kept on praying with no visible sign on the horizon. And I thank God I had praying parents, because now some thirty-five years later, when I look at what God has done in my life, I understand clearly why Hannah had the audacity to hope. Why my parents had the audacity to hope.

And that's why I say to you, hope is what saves us. Keep on hoping; keep on praying. God does hear and answer prayer.

Was there some point to this waste of my disk space and bandwidth?

Surely Mr. Simberg, In the interests of knowledge, your readers would like to know the full picture behind the Audacity of Hype sermon, No?

We are all better served by full information, right?

So, the real question is:

Was Obama cheering on the Rev. Wright's more offensive comments, or the earlier sermons such as given above which are absolutely in the Christian tradition? Which is it? One cannot visit The Corner at NRO to obtain the full picture, so why not here, in the presence of fine educated scientific folk, led by a deep thinker such as yourself?

your readers would like to know the full picture behind the Audacity of Hype sermon, No?

No. Probably not.

I'm still scratching my head, wondering how someone can be so deranged as to think that there is anything that Pastor Wright could say or write that would excuse his clear hatred, bigotry, and general insanity. Or that wasting my disk space and bandwidth with this would cause any rational and thinking person to revise their opinion of him.

I don't know what Obama was cheering or not cheering--only he knows that. But that he would expose his young and impressionable children to such toxic sermons every Sunday doesn't say good things about either his own love for this country, or his judgment.

Let's apply the scientific method to the Audacity of Hope sermon.

Since you seem to be so concerned about the effect of Mr. Wright's sermons on Mr. Obama's children exactly what in this particular sermon do you think is inappropriate?

Please apply your riveting intellect to the matter and enlighten us.

"Since you seem to be so concerned about the effect of Mr. Wright's sermons on Mr. Obama's children exactly what in this particular sermon do you think is inappropriate?"

So what? I suppose Stalin didn't start every breakfast asking if Trotsky is dead yet. I even bet he hade some good and rational speeches on occasion. Hell, he proabally even loved his mother too!

I doubt that was more than cold comfort to those stuck in a Gulag.

AHC, rule number one of holes is when you find yourself in one, stop digging. Learn it, love it, live it!

Since you seem to be so concerned about the effect of Mr. Wright's sermons on Mr. Obama's children exactly what in this particular sermon do you think is inappropriate?

The long-winded sermon with which you wasted my disk and bandwidth is irrelevant, since that wasn't the one that I was concerned about. Have you ever taken a course in logic? If so, you should ask for your money back.

A previous poster essentially wrote, paraphrasing, "Look at this glorious speech he made and tell me where the hate is in it."

You know, most of us who are adults can recognize that as a cheap rhetorical trick. One good speech doesn't do away with everything that disturbs people about all of the others.

Fair enough dear Mr. Fraering, Mr. Puckett etc.

Let us obtain every one of Mr. Wright's sermons and examine them in detail. A worthy project no doubt occurring as we speak at various illustrious right-wing think tanks.

Let us in particular look at the frequency with which the bile and venom of the highlights featured recently occur.

Sounds like a nice project for Mr. Simberg. Do the analysis as a scientist should. Not assuming you know what he preaches regularly from the Fox selected highlights . It's also a matter of the African American, or more correctly older African American preaching style which is not something the average White person is used to on TV.

Take the 911 comment from Mr. Wright, the libertarian Ron Paul said some of the same things about 911 didn't he? How do you feel about that? If Mr. Paul jived around the podium gesticulating in the manner of squaking birds in flight, as chickens coming to roost would you have perhaps been more perturbed?

"A worthy project no doubt occurring as we speak at various illustrious right-wing think tanks."

Like the Clinton Cmapaign?

Let us in particular look at the frequency with which the bile and venom of the highlights featured recently occur.

If he does it once, that's once too many.

Sounds like a nice project for Mr. Simberg.

A typical "progressive." You're very generous with other peoples' time.

Do the analysis as a scientist should.

This isn't science. It's politics. There is no "analysis" to be done.

Take the 911 comment from Mr. Wright, the libertarian Ron Paul said some of the same things about 911 didn't he? How do you feel about that?

I thought it atrocious. One of the many reasons that I didn't support him. You moronic troll.

Rand,

Thanks for putting the commenter's name first. It makes it easier to skip past the noise, even if it takes a long time to skip past it...

So basically you're saying the rest of us have no right to criticize Wright unless we get a full-time job reading his stuff or some bunch of bull like that?

I also wonder if the pseudonymous poster here is "preparing the ground" to misquote all of us in punishment for our having accurately quoted the "reverend" Wright.

Harry Truman was an anti-semite who helped create the State of Israel. He would surely have been condemned by Mr.Simberg.

Is it possible that Mr. Wright has a lot of what may be called Christian good coupled with some inflammatory rhetoric? Could it be the good, such as in the sermon above, that remains as his appeal to many?

Should we want perfection not just in our Presidential candidates also but in their pastors?

Nobody is asking for 'perfection', we are asking for a lack of batshit crazy.

I ask, If McCain claimed David Duke as an friend, Fred Phelps as an advisor, inspiraton and pastor and went to Wesboro Baptist Church for the past 20 years, would you be on this forum trying to make weak strawman arguments to exonerate him?

Should we want perfection not just in our Presidential candidates also but in their pastors?

Yet another idiot straw man from an anonymous coward. To ask that someone not shout wacked-out conspiracy theories and yell "God DAMN America" from the pulpit is hardly asking for "perfection." Nor is it unreasonable to be uneasy about a presidential candidate who seems to have no problem exposing his young daughters to this kind of insanity.

SO your last defense comes down to "You don't really need criteria or judgemnets."

Harry Truman was FDR's vice-president during a war against a bunch of real anti-semites. Obama has no such track record.

I'd also like to note that Obama thinks the revelations about Wright are important and damning enough to attempt to pretend that he never really knew any of this was going on. So yeah, he's already acknowledged that it's "important," he just wants to pretend that changing his website changes the situation.

Phil Fraering: One good speech doesn't do away with everything that disturbs people about all of the others.

It's simple. The sermons of Robert Wright that Obama likes are the ones that everyone else would like too. Obama is the one running for president.

The sermons of Robert Wright that Obama likes are the ones that everyone else would like too.

Not everyone. I haven't heard anything from the pastor that I "like." Even the stuff that's unobjectionable isn't particularly likable to me. Of course, I'm not a Christian. But the issue isn't the speeches that Obama likes--it's the ones that he never seemed to have a problem with, and was happy to have his kids hear them, until it became a campaign issue.

You keep mentioning Obama's kids. Take a look at the timeline for the toxic sermons, and then consider the kids' ages -- in some cases, the younger child in question had not even been born, and in all cases, the kids would have been too young to pay any attention -- kindergarten and pre-school age kids tend to tune out sermons.

More importantly, Obama says he didn't personally hear the toxic sermons. If Obama wasn't in church, his kids may not have been in church either.

Take a look at the timeline for the toxic sermons, and then consider the kids' ages

So, as long as they took place before he took the kids to the sermons, it's all right, because of course he knew that the sermons would become hate-free once he began bringing his kids?

-- in some cases, the younger child in question had not even been born, and in all cases, the kids would have been too young to pay any attention -- kindergarten and pre-school age kids tend to tune out sermons.

Some do, some don't. It's actually surprising how much kids pick up on, even if you think they're "tuning out."

More importantly, Obama says he didn't personally hear the toxic sermons.

[sarcasm]Well, if Obama says it, it must be true.[/sarcasm]

If Obama wasn't in church, his kids may not have been in church either.

So, did he precoordinate with the pastor each Sunday to determine whether or not the subject would be safe for kids? Was there a program posted earlier in the week, so that he could decide whether or not to attend, and not to have his ears sullied by what he now says is offensive?

These defenses of Obama are simply pathetic. And it's kind of pointless to defend him to me here about this anyway, since there was never a prayer (so to speak) that I was going to vote for him, even before this, for many other reasons.

I thought the point was to read and occasionally participate in an interesting conversation.

With respect to Wright: I think you've made good points. I just wonder what the nice-to-toxic ratio was for Wright, and I wonder how that ratio shifted over time.

The Wright stuff said: is torn by war, destroyed by hate, decimated by despair, and devastated by distrust. The world on which she sits seems on the brink of destruction. Famine ravages millions of inhabitants in one hemisphere, while feasting and gluttony are enjoyed by inhabitants of another hemisphere. This world is a ticking time bomb, with apartheid in one hemisphere and apathy in the other

This is the drivel that drives the hatred. This passage shows America as a bad big brother, responsible for all the evils in the world, even if not specifically mentioned. "feasting and gluttony" "apathy" point the rhetorical finger directly at us, and yet the idiot poster wonders what passages are destructive. Basically, it all boils down to one thing. If we're such a bad place, get the Hell out. Oh, but we can't do that, because the FREEDOMS allowed in this country (never mentioned in drivel are the great things we do) allow hucksters like Wright to inflame the passions of hatred on a regular basis. Without the freedoms he enjoys in this country, his message would be squashed, if he were allowed to speak at all. His overall message is actually decent, in that not all things are as they appear and those that appear to be living a great life may indeed be suffering. But to wrap all the personal hatred into the sermon is just wrong. Spending years listening to these sorts of messages, and learning to sift the message out of the rhetoric of doom for prosperity, one is forced to wonder if Obama is able to discern the difference anymore. That he is trying to distance himself tells me that he forgot somewhere along the road how to differentiate the two. He realizes now that the Wright man said some wrong things and may just take his nomination bid with him. You know the Clintons are just salivating now.

I don't expect perfection in either the President or their Pastor. However, I do expect patriotism in the President of the US, so I would expect he would choose a Pastor who believes everyone should sing "God Damn America". I also expect a first lady to always be proud of her country.

On the politics of the issue, I'm starting to hear rumors that the DNC wanted this to come out now, while Hillary was still a viable candidate. It certainly would have been bad for Hillary to drop out, and then people get an earful of Wright and what Obama prefers to listen too. However, many Republicans knew of this stuff for some time. Interesting that ABCNews waited to put out their hit piece after the election for Hastert's seat.

Dear Albert Hussein Camus,

Just so you explicitely know, the proper etiquette would have been to provide a link to this speech rather than quoting it here. The people that read Rand are all capable of following links without getting lost.

You might take note of Mac's point that even this hopeful sermon has a hate supportive basis. Also note the scriptural admonishion that love builds up and hate tears down. You can't mix them and expect the result to be love anymore than you can mix clean with dirty and expect clean.

You like experients? Clean one hand and fill the other with filth. Now run them together. What do you have? Two clean hands?