03-29-2008, 12:27 AM
Quote:I would agree that Wright is not as outrageous as Cone, and that Cone is less outrageous than Farrakhan. As for "cult" versus "Cult of Personality", I used the later intentionally. Rev. Wright is heretical to UCC doctrines, but I'm not sure where misdirected ends and cult begins. David Koresh is a horrible comparison to Wright in all ways, but in that a religious leader however weird and twisted can hold great sway over a group of people who are willing to believe the man over the standard accepted doctrine of their parent organization. Once a group deviates from the core beliefs, its easy to lose the way entirely. Another better example might be Jim Jones, who in SF was also originally a great social activist and beloved in the community who also over time strayed markedly from his original theology. Now, just to be clear, I was not "comparing them" in the sense of equal which we've discussed above, just that there is some congruence in this "cult of personality" surrounding someone who leads a church, and also in straying from the accepted theology of the parent organization.
A Cult of Personality is about the exhaltation and worship of a false idol. (Now, I don't believe in true idols, but running with it for the moment...) In the cult of David Koresh, people worshipped David Koresh. In the cult of Jim Jones, people worshipped Jim Jones.
Is it just a very weird coincidence that both these nutcases ended up killing every one of their followers in a spectacular mass suicide? Or is that just another one of those "comparing-but-not-equal" things? Because if you continually talk about someone in the context of mass murderers, people really start to wonder why, especially when there is an entire history of the world filled with charismatic religious leaders who didn't, y'know, drink the kool-aid.
Rev. Wright clearly does not run a cult of personality. He mentions the Christian God as the obvious target of worship dozens of times a sermon. He is a religious leader, not a false idol. He is no more the object of worship than any charismatic preacher, and while I am distrustful of the mindset of anyone who would take on religious leadership, Wright appears to be blameless on this front. And, of course, he recently retired, which is a very strange thing for a Jim Jones or a David Koresh to go do. Whether the church has been "misdirected" or turned into a "cult", its leader has taken his leave.
Your defense of religious orthodoxy is disturbing in light of our earlier discussion of Jefferson. Every man must make up his own mind about religion, and that this is a sign of clear thinking and strong character, but "Once a group deviates from the core beliefs, its easy to lose the way entirely"? We should stick to old, safe religion now, lest we lose our way, become lost lambs in the woods?
And, on the topic of losing one's way, isn't it up to the UCC to determine who is and isn't "heretical to their doctrines"? Seems a little funny that the President of the UCC in this video here would call (crazy, racist, bigoted heretic) Rev. Wright "remarkable", "a bridge-builder", and a "prophet" in a downright fawning speech commemorating his retirement? ( http://www.tucc.org/home.htm ) Or are you now reserving for yourself the right to vet religions for heresy?
-Jester