Is Obama Niebuhrian?

Theologians tend to find it interesting when political figures invoke the name of some theologian. That is why many ears perked up when Obama claimed to have read and been influenced by Reinhold Niebuhr. Perhaps this is surprising to many of us because theologians don’t seem to serve a particularly important function in contemporary politics–unless, of course, you’re willing to count Rick Warren or Dobson among the theologians. Of course, political speeches often invoke names and it is not at all unusual to allude to some famous and universally well-regarded religious figure. Indeed, a lot of energy goes into finding the right theo-religio-rhetoric to employ in a political speech. But, it seems to me that it is more rare to find a political figure actually invoking the name of an academic theologian. I suppose this says much about the place of academic theology in U.S. politics and the place of academic theology in popular culture in general. Back in the day it seems like folks like Paul Tillich and Reinhold Niebuhr were not only respected scholars, but they were something like rockstars at a popular level and among the political and cultural elite. We simply don’t have a Tillich or a Niebuhr today.

There has been some commentary on Obama’s relationship to Niebuhr. One particularly bad one on Speaking of Faith featuring David Brooks a conservative columnist for The New York Times, E.J. Dionne a liberal columnist at The Washington Post, and an invocation by the neoconservative theologian Jean Bethke Elshtain. So, it came as a bit of a relief to see this wonderful post on Niebuhr and Obama by the always brilliant and balanced Gary Dorrien at The Immanent Frame. In this post Dorrien distinguishes between the many competing Niebuhrs–the liberal, moderate, conservative, radical, and even neoconservative interpretations of Niebuhr–in order to situate Obama’s alleged Niebuhrianism. Against the neoconservative (mis)appropriation of Niebuhr, Dorrien rightly states, “If the neocons had absorbed even half of Niebuhr’s realism, we might have been spared the very bad idea of invading Iraq.” In Dorrien’s assessment, “the key to Niebuhr, and to Obama’s interest in him, is the idea of combining a realistic understanding of politics and human nature with a religiously inspired idealism.” For Obama, according to Dorrien, Niebuhr symbolizes the “possibility of a progressive realism that defends America’s interests more prudently and advances the cause of social justice.” Both figures “blend liberal internationalist and realist motifs, contending that multilateral cooperation is compatible with the power-seeking clash of nations. The case for a strong international community has a realistic basis, that the benefits of cooperation outweigh the costs and risks of not working together. All parties are better off when the most powerful nations agree not to do everything that is in their power and nations work together to create new forms of collective security.”

I think this is entirely correct. Now I am no Niebuhrian–in fact, rarely do I agree with Niebuhr, especially when it comes to politics. But I think Dorrien is correct on this and indeed such a politics strikes me as a much better way forward than the last eight years. In seems that in Dorrien’s perspective Obama actually knows his Niebuhr quite well and to at least some extent is faithful to Niebuhr. If only our politicians would take seriously the opinion of Time Magazine and read a little more of “America’s Best Theologian.”

The Legacy of Dietrich Bonhoeffer

I’m beginning to realize that part of what I find intriguing about Dietrich Bonhoeffer is the mysterious character of his legacy. Out of all the great figures of twentieth century theology Bonhoeffer no one is perhaps more well-known, and therefore also probably more misunderstood, than Bonhoeffer. Bonhoeffer is an iconic figure all over the world for his involvement in the Confessing Church, his participation in the resistance against the Nazi-regime, his involvement in a plot to kill Hitler, and his execution by the German state. Like other iconic figures, Bonhoeffer’s life story has been told in a variety of different media from biographies, plays, and films. Bonhoeffer has become one of those kind of figures–like MLK or Gandhi–that you simply must appreciate and honor regardless of your political or theological persuasion.

At first glance, this seems like a good thing, but I wonder if this type of widespread popularity doesn’t come at a great cost. I wonder if such symbolic popularity actually has the obverse effect of deadening a powerful message, of softening it–or better, of “cheapening” it. Does everyone love Bonhoeffer because no one understands him? To the popular imagination, why does his witness transcend politics? Let me just say out front that I am almost always skeptical of stuff that seems to help us transcend our differences. One of the reasons I’m skeptical is because this a characteristically liberal maneouver–a maneouver that has the effect of stifling the confrontation of real difference.

Think of the MLK example. MLK is an almost universally recognizable icon for good, so much so that the U.S. takes a day to celebrate his witness. Whether your a republican or democrat you must honor King and all that he represents. What is silly about this is that King was decidedly not republican or democrat. Not that he somehow “transcended” these differences, but rather he was highly critical of both parties. MLK was critical of the American project altogether–in fact, in his later years he even became quite vocal in his opposition to capitalism. Of course, the divisiveness of King’s message must be fully downplayed in order for it to adequately transcend, and so we uphold this vague, but powerful image, of a figure that represents America’s great struggle for racial justice. Thus, King’s legacy binds us together precisely because he reinforces the notion that we are at heart a good nation, a light on a hill–a nation that has overcome racism. What King’s legacy does not do is break us and divide us. In short, King’s legacy doesn’t do what it should: expose us as racist liars.

I think that Bonhoeffer’s popular legacy is similar in this way. What is interesting to me is how Bonhoeffer’s theological legacy is so appreciated by so many theologians of differing persuasions. To some, Bonhoeffer represents a sort of political realism akin to Reinhold Niebuhr. For others, he exposes the weaknesses of pacifism and demonstrates why it is sometimes necessary to kill. Thus, Bonhoeffer has been in employed to bolster support for the war on terrorism. To others, at the heart of Bonhoeffer’s work is a commitment to radical discipleship and Christianity community. Or, for those who read Bonhoeffer’s letters from prison out of context, he becomes the quintessential advocate of a ‘secular’ or religionless Christianity. To be fair, Bonhoeffer’s work is extremely difficult–something that I am keenly aware of at the moment–which is partially at the root of the differences in the way people have chosen to take him. But, Bonhoeffer can’t be everything for everyone–if we all love him, perhaps we don’t understand him. Perhaps we’re all in some way “cheapening” his message in advance, in order to avoid confronting the real cost that his message demands of us.

The Clinton Nomination

And you voted for him because you thought his foreign policy was less hawkish than hers? Stupid.

On the financial crisis

A couple interesting articles on the current financial crisis: “Welcome to the faith-based economy” by Arjun Appadurai and Slavoj Zizek’s “Don’t Just Do Something, Talk”

Reflecting on American “politics”

H/T Thomas

Neither Left nor Christian: The Politics of Barack Obama

American politics is the hot topic right now and I’m finding it devastatingly boring to watch. Sure, it does stir up emotions for me, as I watch the American civil religion express itself–full blown–through the good-for-nothing corporate media. This is “convention time”–America’s holy days–the days when people gather together to worship around the flag and to celebrate and remember all the blood shed, all the blood sacrificed, for the nation. For the American tradition, convention time is the time when we do what we do best, prepare to compete and coerce. For those who think that American democracy, the rule of the majority over the minority, is free from coercion, should think again.

In a recent post, James K. A. Smith rightly points out that Barack Obama’s politics is neither new, left, nor Christian. Rather, as Smith notes, Obama’s politics looks to be little more than Republican lite and promotes the same old civil religion and Americanism Democratics and Republicans have always been about. Referring to Obama’s acceptance speech, Smith writes, “In language that could have just as easily appeared in Bush’s second inaugural or the National Security Strategy of the Bush administration, Obama promised to ‘restore our moral standing, so that America is once again that last, best hope for all who are called to the cause of freedom, who long for lives of peace and who yearn for a better future.’”

For Obama the god who has elected America to be the savior of the world comes before the God who delivered Israel from Egypt and raised Jesus from the dead:

I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain. The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and Independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a Red America or a Blue America – they have served the United States of America.

So I’ve got news for you, John McCain. We all put our country first.

Another interesting point Smith makes is that Obama invokes Scripture in a way that echoes the Religious Right. As Smith notes, scripture passages that refer to Israel or the church are transposed into a new context in order to refer to America.

Alluding to Hebrews 10:23 Obama states, “Let us keep that promise – that American promise – and in the words of scripture hold firmly, without wavering, to the hope that we confess.” ["Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised if faithful." Heb 10:23]

To quote Smith again, “The context makes it clear that this is the church‘s hope in Christ, but here Obama idolatrously transposes that to the ‘American promise.’ This is a ‘new kind of politics?’ Sounds like the same old sort of civil religion we’ve heard from the Religious Right for years–the same (idolatrous) civil religion of Americanism.”

Zizek on Democracy Now!

One of the best journalists in the U.S. Amy Goodman recently interviewed the so-called “intellectual rock star” Slavoj Zizek on Iraq, Bush, and the War on Terror. You can watch, listen, or read the transcript of Part I and Part II.

Distilling the Obama and Jeremiah Wright Debacle

If you are flabbergasted by the whole media debacle over Obama and his relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, I highly recommend perusing D.W. Horstkoetter’s posts on the issue.

Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer Interview

I rarely endorse political candidates, but you gotta love Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer. Jack is a friend and former professor of mine. He was instrumental in my conversion to pacifism. He is running for U.S. Senate – Check out this interview on MPR.