The difference is in wording. Saying "God damn America" suggests that you invite God to condemn the U.S. for its sins. It's one thing to correctly point out that the U.S. has much worth condemning; it's another to demand punishment.

From the perspective of many in the black church, they are not America. America has not sufficiently accepted them. They are oppressed by America. So it's more a matter of crying out to God for relief from one's adversary, following the biblical pattern.

From the point of view of one who does identify with America, it's not "patriotic," and that's the reason for the furor against Rev. Wright. His jeremiad cuts right to the heart of civic idolatry.

well ... i think there's an important difference between the fact that God judges the nations and a man invoking God's wrath.

There's no question that God sits in judgment over man. the question here, as i see it, is, is it man's place to *call* down that judgment? there's a NT precedent of being able to say what will happen if we are willfully sinful and disobedient, because of what we know of God's character, past actions, and stated promises of the consequences of sin and His judgment of the nations. there is also a NT precedent for praying for the nations, and warning the nations, but not of taking it upon oneself to invoke a judgment that is God's alone. He will do as He pleases, and in His own time.

so, warning and invoking are two substantially different actions. however, if Rev. Wright is a proven prophet, that would give credence and right to his invocation and summoning of God's wrath.

Jonah sat watching and begging for Nineveh's destruction.

Wright is no different.

A preacher of the Gospel ought to be proclaiming the good news of God's forgiveness. God did have Wrath against us, but he poured it out upon Jesus in our place.

Ezek 16:49

49 "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy.
NASU

First, let us make sure we understand why and what happened to Sodom...if we are going to compare the US to Sodom.

I agree there is much to do here - that we do not live in a perfect country. But to compare us to Sodom...let us make sure we understand the true state of that city. While we do indeed have want and need, at least we are trying to counter them. Are the efforts enough? Probably not. Could more be done? Definitely. But - Sodom - not even 10 could be found willing to try!

Second - If we are going to "compare and contrast" two comments - then have the guts to identify who made the second commment. Because truth be told, the agruement will and is devolving to a personality contest.

Third - the problem in the contrast of the two statements is the reason and context in which they were made. Yes, we do have problems - but are they universal to the US, or only universal in the mind and rhetoric of Rev. Wright? His is a political agenda - a series of statements designed to influence the political system and structure of the US - not to truly influence and change people. In his view, there are not even 10 in the US worthy to save. I must disagree wtih that view. So - fine, make a political argument a political argument...but do not take that same argument and try to make it a theological one.

Forth - Are we approaching Sodom? Well...I see missions increasing, communities coming together to help each other, communities taking care of each other, and churches leading the way. Do we have a lot of work to do - you bet. However, there is an effort being made. Pastors are standing firm, and preaching transformation in the pulpit and in the community, and people are listening. Rhetoric is one thing - and there will always be hot air out there...change is something else. Enough of my hot air...

The two statements are substantially the same. It seems like K.W. and elly are making a distinction between calling down God's wrath and simply acknowledging it, which would be fine if the second statement ("If God does not judge America for its sins, He will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.") was actually only acknowledging God's wrath. It might not be quite as direct as Wright's statement, but it is certainly calling down God's wrath. It implies quite strongly that if God does not judge America, God has done something wrong and must apologize for it - its just an indirect way of doing the same thing Wright seems to be doing in his statement.

The "well known" but unnamed source of the quote is Billy Graham.

As one who lives in the rural midwest, I'm surrounded with people who can't believe the Rev. Wright is even a Christian. However, after spending a significant amount of time in inner-city Chicago, I've grown more and more to understand and sympathize with Rev. Wright and those who think like he does.

What Rev. Wright will be judged for is his love of people, clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, housing the homeless. I have a friend ministering in inner-city Chicago and - when he began his ministry - he attended a seminar put on by Rev. Wright. Rev Wright was putting on this seminar because he, and his church, were doing more in the city of Chicago towards community development than any other church in Chicago.

Also, i think Wright's substance was correct. His tone was harsh, and maybe his facts/conspiracy theories weren't accurate (though some surely were), but I think we have to acknowledge that he is more right than wrong.

History is a fickle witness.
Ask it a question, and you’ll most definitely get an answer, but you may not like what’s dumped onto your plate; Nor will the answer be definitive either.
Mr. Wright is a man, nothing more, nothing less, and I seriously doubt he’s the first to invoke G-d’s wrath on the U.S. …in fact, I know he isn’t. And it’s highly unlikely he’ll be the last.
So the question that we really must address is why Mr. Wright feels compelled to invoke G-d’s wrath on the US…racial inequality? Want to discuss the racial inequality that exists in the bible?
How bout economic disparity? Want to discuss the economic disparity in the bible?
What about national misbehavior? Want to discuss how often that occurred in the bible?
So really, what is it that Mr. Wright feels so slighted about?
Well, when someone is up to their ass in gators, and all they see is widening jaws filled with teeth crawling over one another, everyday, 24/7, all trying to take a chunk out of their butt, it’s kinda unreasonable to expect that someone to remember that the initial reason for them being in the thick of things was to drain the swamp.

All that matters is that we do what G-d wants us to do.
Mr. Wright may be little more than a clanging cymbal, or he could be the herald of doom…I don’t know, but I do know this...you don’t know either, so let's just follow G-d because he knows what’s going on and that should be good enough for all of us.

nope, no substantive difference. more to do with the American civil experience and who is doing the speaking.

Would I say it the way Wright did?
No.

Do I understand why Wright said it the way he did?
Yes.

But let's think about it...

Disturbing imagery/rhetoric to highlight national sins--that's just so awful and mean.

I mean, that Hosea, he was a real horrible guy talking about a nation as an adulterous whore who supposedly deserved to be beaten, abused, mutiliated and worse.

Gimme a break.
Really.

When did it become part of the gospel and the Kingdom to perpetuate one's particular nation-state?

That's really what's behind the "offense" people are taking: Idolatry.

Just own it and repent.

The two statements mean essentially the same thing-- that God will judge America for its sins. The difference, I think, is that of tone and aggression. When Wright says "God damn America" it is a distinctly political rhetoric of resentment and reaction against social injustice, tinged with a bit of personal anger and disgust with white America and its leaders. When Graham says it, it is less political and personal than it is eschatological. "God DAMN America" is also, simply in its wording, more assertive and action-oriented than the more passive statement: "IF God does..." which leaves it open for God to judge or not to judge...
As in language in general, while these phrases might mean similar things, they represent different rhetorical strategies that rightly invite varying responses.

There is no substantial difference.

Justification by faith does not preclude judgement by works. Evil left un-condemned is not good news at all.
America (like every other country) has done evil, and inasmuch as it has, stands condemned.

Perhaps the different responses is due to the color of the speaker's skin.

Yes, there is a difference, and this is it: the one who is judging. In the first case, Rev. Wright appears to be the judge, pronouncing the sentence of condemnation; in the second, God is being called upon to be the Judge, and the sentence has not yet been pronounced. There is all the difference in the world between these two judges and perhaps in the two sentences. We are yet to see how the second case comes out. May the Lord have mercy and correct our ways before it is too late!

While Rev. Wright’s comments (those in the sound bytes) were incendiary, racially based (at least in the sense that he speaks from a deep personal and social pain we white folk don’t understand) and inflammatory, he was nonetheless doing the work of a prophet.

If we translated our context to Ancient Israel’s, how would Hosea come across on the nightly news? Jeremiah? Ezekiel? Surely they would be thought unpatriotic, inflammatory and beyond a certain level of respectable (and acceptable) rhetoric. I would dare say the real reason we as American’s are so collectively incensed is because we worship the ideology that is America, not the God and Father of Jesus, the man of sorrows, acquainted with grief who came to preach good news to the poor and the oppressed.

And for the record on the question at hand, I do not think there is a substantive difference between the comments of Rev. Wright and the unnamed Reverend.

grace+peace,
Scott Marshall
Richmond, VA

Difference in substance? I guess I think that depends. Did either of the two/both of them have tears in their eyes when they spoke the words?

Craig W. Moore

Nope. No difference at all. They were both wrong.

The way I see it, when taken in context, when so many Americans say "God bless America" regardless of the worthiness of the nation's actions, its understandable that a pastor such as Wright would want to remind us that no nation is entitled to such a blessing. Either a nation aligns itself with mercy, justice, and humility, or it does not. And only those who intentionally follow the path I just described are the ones who can expect blessing.

This is the point I think Wright is partially making. Don't unthinkingly, assumingly, call out for God's blessing- as if its some sort of entitlement written into the constitution.

Tears in the eyes? Are you kidding? I guess I'll just have to get out a sharpie and edit all the imprecatory psalms out of the Bible.

Invoking God's wrath on unrepentant evil doers, and especially evil doers that still perpetuate the idea of God's special blessing/relationship/etc. with this nation, sounds understandable to me.

Sheeesh. And some of you people get all bent out of shape about truth. Lovely how you can't face it about your own country. Grow up.

It's the difference between hope and despair. Rev. Wright doesn't seem to offer hope. What hope do I offer if I walk up to you and say, "God damn you"? Because this is what I think Rev. Wright is saying.

The other points to God's judgment. What God does is always right and always good and He offers a way to life even in the midst of judgment; a life found in Him.

I'm sorry, but are we going to let Gordon MacDonald control the conversation. From all that I've heard, it is not the statement about "God damn America" which I am most upset about. It is the numerous soundbites where Wright is espousing conspiracy theories from the pulpit or making comparisons between Americas actions in WWII and the tragedy of 9/11.

Even if these arguments have a place (which, accusing America of purposefully infecting black people with AIDS? Shame.), that place is certainly not in the pulpit of God's church. And to claim Jeremiah Wright is a prophet is absurd. The prophets spoke God's Word to an unrepentent people who hated their message. Wright is speaking a message to an audience which fuels their desire for a racial divide and a reason to hate white people. I don't recall Ezekiel ever calling Israel "the 12 tribes of the Nazi's" (I know, they werem't around then) in the same manner Wright calls America "the US of KKK."

In my opinion Wright misuses God's pulpit as a position to divide America and to promote hatred, instead of doing the work of an evangelist, like Billy Graham, and uniting the body of Christ (who, by the way, contrary to Wright's claims, was not black. Has he ever seen anyone from the Middle East?)

Very challenging discussion.

The difference I see in the two quotes is that Billy Graham is passive, whereas Reverend Wright is actively calling for the damning of America.

"Jonah sat watching and begging for Nineveh's destruction... A preacher of the Gospel ought to be proclaiming the good news of God's forgiveness..."

G-d asked Jonah to go and tell Nineveh to repent. Jonah did not want to. Jonah ran. Nineveh was a brutal enemy to the Jewish people. G-d still found Jonah and made him return to Nineveh. Jonah was afraid he would be killed or enslaved or any number of things. But the city repented. Jonah wanted his enemies to be struck down, even after they repented. They weren't. It wasn't fair. Jonah had a tantrum. He didn't learn the lesson of compassion throughout the entire ordeal.

We can point the same finger at Wright. We have to then point the same finger at Pat Robertson, at Jerry Fallwell, at James Dobson. Any number of preachers who condemn our country for bringing fault upon ourselves because G-d is 'judging' us due to our sins... like some Greek god from the sky. If we behave, we will be blessed. If we misbehave, we will be cursed. If we dance the right way, if we bring enough into the storehouse, if we sing the right songs, he will be appeased. When did G-d become Santa Claus? Even Abraham learned this when he offered his son as a sacrifice and a ram was provided.

The finger of judgment always comes back towards ourselves when we play god. We're all in this together. Use discretion and discernment when looking at 'G-d's will' or who are 'G-d's people' or what is 'G-d's country.'

"We can point the same finger at Wright. We have to then point the same finger at Pat Robertson, at Jerry Fallwell, at James Dobson."

Oh the temptation...Sara, you tempt me...the question is: do I bring it, or let it pass?

No, I will let it pass...sometimes if love isn't in my heart...hmm...perhaps restraint is the best I can summon.

very good point, darren king, in bringing up the contrast between the common (over?)use of "God bless America."

Leo, you have taken a verse out of context and used it to make a point God did not intend. Always a mistake. Read the entire passage.

sheerahkahn:
the reason I bring up those names is because I'm hearing more about Wright than I ever have from any of the Religious Right and they all can be stuck in the same boat -- same message of 'victimhood', different colors. I have a bit more respect for Wright tho, because there is a little more truth in what he speaks. but again, I need to remember that they are all my brothers and I need to pray for them all. it's tough.

The difference is this: Rev Wright appears to be calling down judgement on America because he doesn't like most Americans, even though he lives in a $10,000,000 house, while Billy Graham, who has generally lived well below his financial means seems to like most Americans, and he seems genuinely concerned for their well-being. Graham is warning us, Wright is condemning us. For a conservative businessperson to love Dr. Wright would be a clear expression of loving your enemies. Dr. Wright sets himself out to be an enemy to many mainstream people - he may be justified in hating most Americans, but he makes it pretty clear he has contempt for people like me. It's hard not to take it pesonally.

Dr. Wright is wrong just as Dr. Graham and Dr. Falwell. We are not living in Israel and we are not going to be judged like Israel.

Second, Dr. Wright's facts are wrong.

Third, Dr. Wright's goal is to set Blacks against Whites and cause racial hatred. The other preachers mentioned were doing that.

Fourth, Dr. Wright's history is distorted. Every African slave was sold into slavery by fellow Black Africans, most of whom were Muslims.

Fifth, many Whites died and suffered before and in the Civil War to free and protect slaves and the drive for emancipation was led by fundamentalist Christians.

I led a group of pastors through the Underground Railroad Freedom Center and many of all races were shocked to learn that White men and women led the fight for freedom. Many of the group had never heard the history of emancipation and mixed up the Nineteen Sixties with the Eighteen Hundreds.

Most Americans confuse the Civil Rights battle with the political and actual battles of the Civil War. I would not be surprised if Gordon Mac were not in that group.

Last, Dr. Wright seemed gleeful that God should curse and kill America. the others indicated worry of that happening. And, Mr. Obama, perhaps our next President, has been inculcated in that hatred.

Jeff Swan,

or maybe it's an opportunity to own our participation in and support of structures that created the offense in the first place?

Maybe it's a chance to let go of cherished, but sinful "values", and to imagine new ways of relating in this country that address the grievances of communities and seeks to forge new ways forward that will not oppress/hurt/damage people again?

Wright is entirely wrong -- unless you are willing to ride roughshod over the gospel that does not have one shred of ethocentricity to it.

"For ye, as many as have been baptised unto Christ, have put on Christ. There is no Jew nor Greek; there is no bondman nor freeman; there is no male and female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus: but if ye are of Christ, then ye are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise."

Further on this subject.

Where in all the pages of the New Testament do we get the idea that Jesus Christ was in anyways interested in the political structure of the day? His one response when the Pharasees tried to trick Him into a political statement was "Render unto Caeser the things that are Caeser's and unto God, the things that are God's."

The Apostle Paul got it right!

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief."

The quote from the well-known preacher is merely a paraphrase of the words of the Lord Jesus in Matthew 11 which are as follows:

Then began he to reproach the cities in which most of his works of power had taken place, because they had not repented. Woe to thee, Chorazin! woe to thee Bethsaida! for if the works of power which have taken place in you, had taken place in Tyre and Sidon, they had long ago repented in sackcloth and ashes. But I say to you, that it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in judgment-day than for you. And thou, Capernaum, who hast been raised up to heaven, shalt be brought down even to hades. For if the works of power which have taken place in thee, had taken place in Sodom, it had remained until this day. But I say to you, that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in judgment-day than for thee.

So, what's this all about? If anyone says they get politics out of this statement I will be dumbfounded.

Interesting, Bob.
the "Woe" in those verses, in their context, had the same impact as "Damn you" does today.

"Woe" is misfortune or calamity and is really a warning in the context. Matthew also uses "reproach" in his narrative which is closer to what you are saying and means to bring shame upon or disgrace.

The salient difference is that the Lord Jesus is deity and it is His place to reproach any one or any thing. The interesting thing I find is that we, Christians, are not called upon to "damn" anyone. Even the Apostle Paul, when he is before Ananias in Acts 23 withdraws "God will smite thee, whited wall." when he is informed that Ananias is the high priest. Why? Because "...for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evilly of the ruler of thy people."

I just did a quick search and looked up all the verses in which the Lord "damns" or "reproaches" He reserves it for unbelief (in Him)and the dissimulation of the religious (scribes and Pharasess). He never uses it of the government.

The interesting thing is that the Lord Jesus pretty much ignores the government during his public ministry. Two occasions only are recorded -- He pays his taxes (and Peter's too) and he avoids the trap of the Pharasees when He says "Render unto Caeser...".

What I'd like to hear someone acknowledge is that the tone of the two comments makes very little difference. It seems to me that both speakers have a particular sin in mind. Rev. Wright is concerned about white oppression of African Americans (though he has what seems to me a distorted view of that oppression). The other speaker mentions "Sodom and Gomorrah," which (in my mind, at least) alludes to the issue of homosexuality. What is at issue is not whether we think the U.S. should be judged, but for which sin. I suspect more of us are comfortable calling down judgment for homosexuality, because (presumably) our hands are clean of it. But white oppression ... we may all be guilty of that.

J. Joyce says: "What I'd like to hear someone acknowledge is that the tone of the two comments makes very little difference."

I suggest that there is great difference between the two. Wright actively calls God's damnation upon America. The other speaker suggests that God cannot overlook America's sins. That statement is passive and leaves the ultimate decision up to God. Wright's statement is presumption in the realm of things that should be left up to God.

To me the difference is radical.

Bob,
would it bother you just as much if someone said, "God damn Iran"? Really?

Or "God damn Uzbekistan"? Really?

What would you say to the critique that the negative response from right-wing evangelicals to Wright is really about their idolatry of this country?

Dear Skeptical,

Sorry for not responding earlier.

Actually, it would bother me just as much. I believe that being "not of this world" carries a level of responsibility as "ambassadors of Christ" not to call damnation upon any "kingdom" of this world. God has already damned this world for the rejection of His Son. I can neither add nor subtract from that.

My responsibility is to "...go forth with Him, outside the camp, bearing His reproach". "Outside the camp" means to me to take a position outside of the geopolitical system. What does it mean to you?

"If God doesn't judge America, He is going to have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah"

If God judges America, He is going to have to apologize to Jesus. Read Romans, His wrath was satisfied.

Creating and furthering racial hatred, which is what this pastor Wright is really about, is not Christian, is not positive and is not in keeping with Christ's message. Hatred creates anger and anger will cause wars on the races. I have found that blacks and whites do well together, seem to get along on all levels pretty well. Why create rifts when changes over the past forty years have movesd blacks along and made it possible for them to get greater opportunities of all types. As for this "America" that Rev. Wright so despises, his version of "America" consists of manipulative and collusive leadership masking as all sorts of social activists as part of their agenda. Ex.: When they take over another country by installing our military snd causing unnecessary wars, they call it promoting democracy!!!!! They are not ME, or anyone I know. Seldom in this world are things as they may seem. But, someone preaching Christ's message of love in anger and hatred is blasphemy.