You Too, Jeremiah?

Hat tip to regular reader djenk23 for the heads-up on this story


Jeremiah Wright has the distinct honor of being featured in two categories on this blog: “A Different Gospel” and “Pulpit Pimping Gone Bad”. 

Take a look at yesterday’s edition of the New York Post:




wright & wife

May 4, 2008 — The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’sloose cannon of a spiritual adviser, stole the wife of a parishioner – after the man sought Wright’s help in saving his troubled marriage, the former husband told friends.

Delmer Reed, 59, confided to pals that he believed the minister moved in on his wife while Wright was counseling the couple at his Chicago church in the early 1980s, The Post has learned.

“That’s exactly how he said it,” Reed’s divorce lawyer, Roosevelt Thomas, told The Post.

“It looks like Delmer might have been right,” he said, because after Delmer and Ramah Reed were divorced, she got remarried – to Wright. “Either that or this was the biggest coincidence in the world.” (click here to read the article)

Here’s an interesting note from the article:

A spokesman for the Wright family flatly denied the allegation yesterday.

“This story has no merit whatsoever and is not based on facts,” said George Lofton. “They had problems throughout the course of their turbulent marriage, and the couple never received marriage counseling from Rev. Wright or anyone else.”

But Reed, a former investigator for the Illinois secretary of state, told The Post he and his ex-wife went to Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ for counseling when their marriage hit the skids over his demanding work schedule.

“I spoke with [Wright] four times over a few months,” Reed said in an interview at his upscale home in Lemont, Ill.

So, Wright (through a representative) denies providing marital counseling to the couple at all, but the ex-husband says they spoke at least four times…I’m sure the truth may be somewhere in the middle.

I can hear you asking “Why are you even bringing this up? You said that this blog will not advance gossip”.

Well, it’s not gossip if the ex-husband asserts that Wright was a factor in his divorce (as potentially evidenced by Wright’s subsequent marriage to Reed’s former wife).

I’m bringing this up as further evidence of the fruit of a false teacher – if Wright twists doctrine to support a different gospel, why would he honor the sanctity of marriage…especially a marriage that is hanging in the balance?

As thorny as the issue of divorce is within the church (this is Wright’s 2nd marriage), Paul clearly speaks to the qualifications for pastoral leadership throughout his epistles, but this passage of scripture addresses multiple points (my emphasis in bold):

5For this reason I left you in (T)Crete, that you would set in order what remains and (U)appoint (V)elders in every city as I directed you,

 6namely, (W)if any man is above reproach, the (X)husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of (Y)dissipation or (Z)rebellion.

 7For the (AA)overseer must be above reproach as (AB)God’s steward, not (AC)self-willed, not quick-tempered, not (AD)addicted to wine, not pugnacious, (AE)not fond of sordid gain,

 8but (AF)hospitable, (AG)loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled,

 9(AH)holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in (AI)sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict. (Titus 1:5-9)

Wright has shown that he’s quite self-willed, quick-tempered and pugnacious, as evidenced by his behavior recently (and in his past sermons). Also, since Black Liberation Theology is not “sound doctrine”, how can he legitimately refute those who contradict it?

I’ll say again, it is my opinion that Jeremiah Wright is a false teacher because he embraces the wicked Black Liberation Theology and holds it on par with the message of Christ crucified for the remission of sin.

While I could care less (in general) about who he’s married to, the circumstances behind the genesis of this marriage can not be separated from his flawed theological allegiance, his public denouncement of “middleclassness” while he privately embraces it, and his attempt to glorify himself instead of the Savior he claims whenever he gets the chance.

Sometimes false teaching and hypocrisy go hand in hand…


15 Responses to “You Too, Jeremiah?”

  1. 1 lavrai May 5, 2008 at 2:41 pm

    A false teacher is a hypocrite by definition.

    This is an interesting subject, considering the ‘coincidence.’ And it’s quite sad. Pastors are supposed to help couples to try and save their marriage if possible.

    I wonder how long after the couple’s divorce, did Wright marry the woman….

  2. 2 Speaking Truth May 5, 2008 at 2:52 pm

    Good point LaVrai.

    Oh, and the article states that the Reeds separated in ’82 and divorced in ’83 – Wright married Reed’s former wife 6 years later (’89?).

  3. 3 Ann Brock May 5, 2008 at 8:54 pm

    This post seems to be heading toward tabloid gossip. Why? after all the good you do with scripture and all. I don’t see the benefit of this post no more than to past along something that could be untrue.

    As a Christ follower I don’t think we should practice this. You have no proof that this happen and even if it did how can we benefit from knowing about it?

    As long as you attack Wright on what he teaches I can understand that but to say that he was the reason that a man and his wife divorce and he married her 6 years later is going a little bit low.

    Do you have some thing personal against Rev. Wright? And I disagree with your statement that Jeremiah Wright is a false teacher because he embraces Black Liberation Theology. Did not Martin Luther King embraced the same thing?

    I love reading your blog and the comments from the people that stop by but I just don’t like it when it becomes personal. Another thing why is this being put out right now?

  4. 4 djenk23 May 5, 2008 at 9:22 pm

    how is it going low?…ok lets exclude to part about Wright “stealing” the man’s wife….that still leaves us with Wright being on his second wife and his wife being on her second husband….how does that square up with scripture as far as the qualifications of an elder go?…also Black Liberation Theology is not Biblical no matter who preaches it….the only liberation we will need or obtain is in Jesus Christ….here’s a quote from James Cone, the creator of Black Liberation Theology:

    “Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.”

    Does that sound Biblical???

  5. 5 Speaking Truth May 5, 2008 at 9:30 pm


    Thanks for speaking your mind. I’d respectfully like to address your specific points:

    This post seems to be heading toward tabloid gossip. Why? after all the good you do with scripture and all. I don’t see the benefit of this post no more than to past along something that could be untrue.

    It’s only by the grace of God through Jesus Christ that He allows me to use His Word to expose His enemies. I respect what you said about this story, and I thought long and hard about whether or not to post about this because of it’s potential gossip slant.

    I decided to post this because it’s relevant to the duality of Jeremiah Wright’s personality: fiery “preacher” who is passionate about defending the black family while shunning “middleclassness” vs. comfortably enjoying sepakers honorariums and a soon to be completed mansion in an affluent community that is almost 94% White – and possibly assisting in the dismantling of a black family.

    It’s hypocritical, at best. The only proof that I have is the word of the ex-husband, who chose not to throw JW under the bus completely out of respect of his children. As I stated, the truth lies somewhere in the middle of his story and JW’s account.

    Do you have some thing personal against Rev. Wright? And I disagree with your statement that Jeremiah Wright is a false teacher because he embraces Black Liberation Theology. Did not Martin Luther King embraced the same thing?

    The only thing that I have against JW is the fact that he espouses a false gospel yet presents it on par with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I don’t say that lightly – I’m from Chicago and I grew up less than 10 minutes from JW’s church.

    I’ve watched JW for a number of years. As I mentioned in a previous post, I visited his church on several occassions, and I was moved by his radical committment to addressing the social ills of the community. As I matured in the faith, I learned that the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation – not a theology that can be attached to a radical movement that trumps race superiority over the blood of Jesus.

    JW is a false teacher because BLT/BVS is a false gospel – and he embraces and espouses it. You read my previous posts on the matter – have you read the links at Trinity UCC? Have you viewed any of the James Cone videos that I previously mentioned, or taken a look at Cone’s book? If you do, I think (at least I hope) that you would see how this flies in the face of the immutable Word of God.

    Also, and this is well documented, MLK was a pioneer in the Civil Rights Movement. I dare saw he was called by God specifically for the task of shining a light on the plight of us black folks here in the US. As a social reformer, he was on point, but his theology has been challenged.

    MLK embraced the teachings of Eastern philosophy, universalism, and more. It is well documented that MLK didn’t believe in the virgin birth, Christ bodily resurrection, and the Lordship of Jesus Christ (click here to read some of Kings papers).

    MLK was an ordained minister of the Gospel. Instead of Christ alone, King believed that Christ, Ghandi, and ecumenical universalism would aid in advancing civil rights. As I’ve said before anyone who advances any gospel that does not begin and end with God through Jesus Christ – and doesn’t add anything to it – is a false gospel, and those who teach it are false teachers.

    That said, I genuinely enjoy your visits and your comments, and I would hope that you still visit and contribute, but I won’t assuage the Word of God or Godly doctrine for anyone.

  6. 6 Ann Brock May 5, 2008 at 10:14 pm

    I want to thank you for your response. No way was I trying to be mean but I respect your writing and did not understand why this post about gossip.

    In a way I feel as if Rev. Wright is getting a bad rap. If people attack his doctrine and have proof of it I don’t have a problem with that but when they attack the man after he has done great work for our people I don’t understand that. Thanks again!

  7. 7 Speaking Truth May 5, 2008 at 10:56 pm

    No disrespect taken, Ann. It’s a tough pill to swallow because it’s easy for us blacks to align with one another on race and the merits of social action.

    As a Christian, however, our chief objective is to declare the glorious Gospel and expose the enemies of that Gospel, no matter the color of the enemy.

    Paul spoke explicitly clear in Galations 1:1-12, and I believe that BLT is one of the man-made religions that Paul specifically referenced.

    At the end of the day we MUST let God arise, and his enemies be scattered.

  8. 8 LaVrai May 5, 2008 at 11:55 pm

    Ann, I’m curious about your phrase: ‘Christ follower.’

    I don’t want to assume I know exactly what you mean, though I will guess it’s just another word for ‘Christian.’

    But why that particular phrase? Just curious.


  9. 9 Byron May 6, 2008 at 12:46 pm

    Is not all religion man-made?

    Was not Paul, the theologian, merely a man that created/invented the doctrine we know today as Christianity?

    Isn’t it true that Paul’s version of the gospel is merely hear-say on to it’s self?

    Is it not true that hardly any of the prophecies Paul maintained were imminent never came to pass (i.e. The Kingdom of God)?

    Is there any evidence that Paul ever even met Jesus?

    Is it not true that Paul was rebuked by the original followers of the “The Way” (Christianity) for opening the religion to gentiles (non-Jews)?

    Is it not true that Paul attempted to purchase credibility by donating large sums of money to the Christian church in Jerusalem?

    Is it also true that the first gospel, Mark, was publish 50 – 70 years after the crucifixion of Jesus followed by John, Luke, and Matthew?

    How is it possible to ACCURATELY document the life, the beliefs, the teachings of Jesus in an age of spoken word with out the benefit of even middle-age technology?

    Is it not true that the so called Bible is merely a compilation of books written over the span of centuries by many different authors with different sets of beliefs and agendas as evidenced by the many contradictions?

    Is it not true that there were many other gospels (Judas, Mary, Barnabas, Thomas, etc.) and books of the Bible that were labeled as either Gnostic or heretic by early church leaders? (Reference: The Gnostic Gospels – Elaine Pagel, Lost Books of the Bible, The Dead Sea Scrolls)

    How could you justify Joshua maiming, looting, and slaughtering all the inhabitants of Jericho (go and read the actual words) against the loving, caring, characteristics attributed to Jesus and maintain it is all part and parcel the same doctrine?

    Did not Jesus show some of the same characteristics when he ran the money changers out of the temple during a period of great discontent over the occupation of Jerusalem by the Roman pagans? (Reference: The Great Roman-Jewish Wars – Flavius Josephus)

    Do you know of the Council of Nicaea where the pagan Emperor Constantine presided over a council of religious men from all over the middle-east to finally determine the official doctrine of the church, in the year 325AD, a full 3 centuries after the dead of Jesus? (Proceedings from the Council of Nicaea – Dean Dudley)

    Was it not during this council that the nature of Jesus (mere man versus GOD) was debated and determined by men, overseen by a pagan, Constantine, who like most of today’s PIMP PREACHERS, co-opted the religion for his own political and financial benefit? (Constantine appointed himself head of the Christian Church, in affect becoming the first Pope)

    Given all of this intervention by men, how can you dictate what is the official and only doctrine of the so called Christian Church?

    The truth of the matter is Jesus preached during a period of great unrest and tumult in what we know today as Israel. It was occupied by a foreign invader, the Romans, who imposed a heavy burden on its citizens in the form of taxes broker by Herod the Jewish King. Like Martin Luther King, he preached to an audience that was ripe for civil unrest and liberation (or can we call it Jewish Liberation Theology), so much so there were groups of Jews that lashed out against the occupiers using violent means (i.e. the Dagger Men).

    His alleged teachings have a haunting similarity to the teachings of the Eastern philosopher Buddha who form his religion 500 years before Jesus. (Reference: The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors – Kersey Graves) So much for your criticism of MLK’s eastern influence on his belief system.

    Who died and appointed YOU or Paul or Constantine on any subsequent so-called “anointed” person the purveyor of the true Christian doctrine?

    The truth is that Christianity is a very fluid, diverse, and lucid set of beliefs that vary depending on the socio-political circumstances at a given time. It has served to justify everything from slavery (Children of Ham) to invasions of foreign lands (The Crusades) to Pimp Preaching (paying 10% tithing). When Jesus allegedly say “Give unto Caesar what is Caesar” did he really mean give him 10% of your earnings. Or was he actually using his parable style to say give Caesar nothing? Or did Constantine or his supporters add that little ditty to the Bible text for obvious reasons? These are items you need to ask yourself!

    It is incumbent among all people to get an education, not just an education by religious or non religious institutions, but a self education. Turn off the television. Stop taking what the preacher, priest, iman, elder or whom ever verbatim. Sit down and READ. Read for yourself and your own interpretation. Read the Bible. Reach the Koran. Read Confucius. Read the Mormon Book. Read Elijah Muhammad. Read the teachings of Buddha. Read about Zen. Read any and everything religious.

    Take your blinders off. Don’t be hoodwinked into a religious GROUP-THINK. Understand these are all belief systems, nothing more, nothing less. Seek and find the commonality of these various belief systems. Only then will you find the truth.

    Being Godly is not the teachings of a single individual. Being godly, you will find, comes from within. Give God more credit than the self-serving doctrines espoused by the so-called anointed. Simply use you god-given ability to absorb knowledge and conduct your lives based on the constant feedback life’s experiences affords you. God is not Jesus. God is not Buddha. God is not Muhammad. God is YOU!

    Seek and you will find!

    Byron D. Johnson

  10. 10 Speaking Truth May 6, 2008 at 1:16 pm

    In accordance to 2 John 1:7-11 (my emphasis in bold), I will not address Byron:

    7For (Q)many deceivers have (R)gone out into the world, those who (S)do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh This is (T)the deceiver and the (U)antichrist.

    8(V)Watch yourselves, (W)that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward.

    9Anyone who goes too far and (X)does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.

    10If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, (Y)do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting;

    11for the one who gives him a greeting (Z)participates in his evil deeds.

    I approved his comment so that anyone who reads this will clearly see how doctrinally blind and ignorant he is. This is not a teaching opportunity, so I’ll side with sound doctrine and leave it where it is as a warning of the powers that are working against the immutable Word of God.

    I’m growing tired of engaging ignorance, so I won’t do it. He’s been banned so he can’t respond to any of your comments, so save your breath.

    Just pray that God’s truth continue to prevail in this wicked age…

  11. 11 Ann Brock May 6, 2008 at 11:59 pm

    @LaVira I used the phrased Christ follower because the word Christian has been water down to mean any body that go to church. I personal don’t like that. You can ask people do they consider them self to be a christian and they would say yes but there is no evidence of that in their lives so, I rather say do you follower what Christ taught.

  12. 12 Speaking Truth May 7, 2008 at 3:29 pm

    That’s a fair enough explanation Ann, especially since many “Christians” embrace the “multiple method to heaven” theory.

  13. 13 Jeanie May 7, 2008 at 8:46 pm

    So are you saying that MLK was a false prophet? I knew he was caught up into the eastern religions and Gandhi,univeraslism. It seems the light has been shown to me since I have been in the Word. Thank you so much!

  14. 14 Speaking Truth May 7, 2008 at 9:45 pm


    MLK wasn’t a false prophet because by definition he would’ve claimed to hear a “prophetic word” that never came to pass.

    I’m not entirely comfortable dismissing MLK as a false teacher.

    He embraced an ecumenical philosphy based on the world religions – and applied that philosphy in his non-violent approach to civil rights.

    As an ordained minister who was called to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, he should have embraced scripture alone, and trusted in the Word of God to act as a beacon in such a dark time in history. By co-opting the Word with Eastern philosophy, etc., it diluted the presentation of the unadulterated Word of God.

    Also, as I referenced in a comment above, MLK himself struggled with the Lordship of Jesus Christ, the authoritative Word of God, and the virgin birth, so it stands to reason that his theology would be a mixed bag anyway.

    So – false prophet? No. False teacher? I’ll let history decide that one…

  15. 15 Jeanie Franklin May 8, 2008 at 8:14 pm

    Thank you for answering my question. It seems to me it should have been cut and dried about Jesus’ death burial and resurrection since he was a minister. I was a young child when he was killed and all I remember him talking about was ecumenicalism if that is a word. I never heard him preach on salvation and the price Jesus paid for us all. I pray this is not judging but i did not hear this coming from him. As i have discovered,not all preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified. It has been a real eye opener. Grace and peace be multiplied to you.


Comments are currently closed.

AddThis Feed Button Add to Technorati Favorites

Get Daily Email Updates:

Sign up for email updates and get the latest articles in your email inbox!

People Looking For Truth:

  • 1,103,334 ...and counting

RSS John MacArthur Sermons

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS John Piper Sermons

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS RC Sproul Sermons

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS The White Horse Inn

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.


Archived Articles…


%d bloggers like this: