|
Obama's theologian and the Irony Party |
|
|
|
|
Written by Monte Bute
|
|
Wednesday, 30 July 2008 |
Race and gender may have been the most visible currents in the 2008 presidential primaries.
, but what really unsettled the political waters was a riptide of
religion. Beginning in March, a maelstrom encircled Barack Obama's
relationship with his pastor at Chicago's United Trinity Church of
Christ, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.
It started when ABC News discovered some of Wright's old sermons. Cable news channels were soon repeatedly running video clips of the pastor's most racially inflammatory and anti-American remarks. Given this negative coverage and a subsequent dip in the polls, Obama had little choice but to condemn Wright's "incendiary language" but he refused to disown the man.
Just as this political firestorm was about to burn out, the recently retired pastor embarked on a five-day publicity tour, concluding on April 28 with an appearance before the National Press Club. In a performance described by a Newsweek columnist as a "public murder-suicide attempt," Wright seemed as intent on damaging Obama as he was in defending himself.
Obama reacted with uncharacteristic anger. Within a month, Barack and Michelle Obama had resigned from Trinity. In their resignation letter they wrote, "Our faith remains strong and we will find another church home for our family." On Father's Day, Obama gave the sermon at Chicago's Apostolic Church of God.
Wright may have been Barack's pastor for nearly two decades, but it is now obvious that he's never been Obama's theologian.
David Brooks of the New York Times interviewed Obama last year. The columnist asked the candidate if he had ever read Reinhold Niebuhr. "I love him. He's one of my favorite philosophers," he said. Brooks asked what Obama took away from Niebuhr:
"I take away the compelling idea that there's serious evil in the world, and hardship and pain," Obama said. "And we should be humble and modest in our belief we can eliminate those things. But we shouldn't use that as an excuse for cynicism and inaction. I take away ... the sense we have to make these efforts knowing they are hard, and not swinging from naïve idealism to bitter realism."
"My first impression was ... that's a pretty good off-the-cuff summary of Niebuhr's 'The Irony of American History,' " wrote Brooks.”My second impression is that his campaign is an attempt to thread the Niebuhrian needle."
Who was Reinhold Niebuhr? From the 1930s through the 1960s, he was arguably the nation's most influential theologian and political theorist. For three decades after his death in 1971, Niebuhr's influence steadily declined in both ecclesiastical and civic circles. Nearly all of his books had gone out of print.
This was quite a tumble in status for a public intellectual who in 1948 graced the cover of Time magazine's 25th anniversary edition as America's "No. 1 Theologian." His crossover popularity was so great that a Harvard critic once joked about "atheists for Niebuhr" clubs.
It's ironic that it took the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the subsequent debate over terrorism to resurrect Niebuhr — Paul Elie argues that he has become "a man for all reasons." New acolytes include a Noah's Ark of ideological warriors: neoconservatives, liberal hawks, military revisionists, anti-war leftists, theoconservatives and religious liberals.
Each of these factions claims him as their own. Regrettably, most of these latter-day disciples are seeking sound bites rather than subtlety. "Niebuhr was always finding troubling questions," wrote one scholar, "where even his friends found easy answers."
No single work of Niebuhr's does justice to the range and depth of his unique fusion of religious faith and power politics. Nevertheless, if you are among those many readers of the past two generations who have never made the acquaintance of Pastor Niebuhr, "The Irony of American History" is the place to start.
As an interpretation of our national heritage, "Irony" stands alongside the masterpieces of Beard, Du Bois, Miller, Hofstadter and Williams. Even so, portions of a book written early in the Cold War are unavoidably seasonal.
What is perennial about Niebuhr is a style of thought — and his ironic mind is most evident in the first and last chapters. In the alpha and the omega, he sketches an existential drama that is born of the human condition. Niebuhr appropriates the ideas of tragedy, pathos and irony to portray three enduring theories of human nature and destiny. With Abraham Lincoln as his exemplar, the preacher casts his lot with irony:
"The evil in human history is regarded as the consequence of man's wrong use of his unique capacities. The wrong use is always due to some failure to recognize the limits of his capacities of power, wisdom and virtue. Man is an ironic creature because he forgets that he is not simply a creator but also a creature."
Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote, "The two omnipresent parties of History, the party of the Past and the party of the Future, divide society today as of old."
The literary critic R.W.B. Lewis has argued that these polarized perspectives don't account for those thinkers who "seemed skeptically sympathetic toward both parties and managed to be confined by neither."
To accommodate those intellectual innovators who periodically challenge our taken-for-granted beliefs, Lewis suggested creating a third party. Like Lincoln, Niebuhr and Martin Luther King before him, Barack Obama is today's standard-bearer for Lewis's "party of Irony."
This article, which first appeared in the St. Paul Pioneer Press , is adapted from a longer work he is writing for "Contexts," a journal of the American Sociological Association.
Trackback(0)
 |
Monte Bute |
| About the author: |
| Monte Bute teaches sociology and social science at Metropolitan State University in the Twin Cities, Minnesota.
|
|
|
Last Updated ( Saturday, 27 September 2008 )
|
|
|
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comments
Show/Hide comment form
Every single conflict whether its as atrocious as the WAR in Iraq or the verbal nonsense thats been flickering up our TV screens- absolutely had to start from one person. Someone had to decide that WAR is the "answer" to God knows what, this person then hypothetically placed this idea on the table (justifying that very idea with LIES for instance WMD). Then the News media transmits these delusional stupidity to the mass- and then we just lap it all up like thirsty Dogs.
I digressed from the article, but I do have a point- you see first it was the childish banter between the 2 Presidential candidates, bickering back and forth and throwing cheap shots at each other, just so one person can lead a nation? I absolutely resent politics (even though I follow whats happening like on an hourly basis). The reason why DISCUSSING or ARGUING about POLITICS (and RELIGION) is not exactly my thing is cause, both preach about UNITING people and giving the "PEOPLE" (You know, the brainwashed ones that lap it all up without questioning)- Yet use a DIVISIVE method to get more support- does that make sense?
What I absolutely dont understand is, how can you possible get loyalty and respect by splitting people's opinions about who should be their leader?? My personal observation about the OBAMA and WRIGHT issues didnt faze me one bit.
WHY? Oh I dont know, maybe because there are worse problems in the world that need immediate attention, yet everybody suddenly acts all shocked talking about "Obama associated himself with this Pastor, so that means Obama has the same opinion as the nonsense that Wright was spewing behind the pulpit."
The media who thrive on nonsense like these absolutely blew this out of proportion and were ready to lynch or crucify Obama for associating himself with that mannerless pastor.
Suddenly Obama was GUILTY BY ASSOCIATION huh? Seriously? See the last time I checked Obama happens to be a grown up man who has his own principles. Everytime I turned on my TV. that Pastor Wright was up there absolutely making me cringe with horror at the way he was “humping” the pulpit and talking about the fact that he is REAL and people do not like him because he says the TRUTH. Sadly enough people (like Pastor Wright) use RELIGION to condemn people and treat others like sub-humans because they are more CHRISTIAN than the next person.
Truth be told, ok so THE PEOPLE had a right to question what to expect from a future leader based on the “GUILTY BY ASSOCIATION” theory, I know that he had Wright as his mentor for 20 years. I am not defending Obama by the way, I was just incensed at the media for making some delusional Pastor feel all “MIGHTY THAN THOU” but giving him all that publicity and allowing him to continue expressing his ignorance as the TRUTH. Pastor Wright had a lot to do with separating people based on his racists comments- So he was ultimately a big influence in causing a major DIVISION in the country and allowing more HATRED to thrive- that's actually what bothered me the most.
My understanding of a theologian is quite simple- Seeking, Learning and understanding GOD.- So the pulpit humper does not even come close. What's worse? Giving him the chance to be watched on youtube by millions and desecrating young minds and the house of GOD. The media without realizing it (OR MAYBE THEY DO) gave THE PEOPLE more reason to HATE, RESENT and INSULT each other based on what that Pastor guy talked about. Allowing all that rubbish to take hold within people’s minds and sway opinions- just so they can get higher ratings?? Oh- so aggravating!!!
(I never did follow up on the second Pastor scandal or whatever, I was fed up by the 1st Pastor and frankly quite traumatized by his PORNO antics in the house of GOD- am so serious here, yikes!!)
To tie in what I started with about the EGO- both parties had their Ego’s servely bruised and reacted in irrational ways to soothe that EGO. The problem is, EGO has a way of driving the stake right down the middle of the TRUTH and causes deep rifts and resentment that unfortunately makes it easy for these verbal conflicts to progress into full-blown HATE attacks and WAR among the very people that need to be United by one leader.
To end my long response is a quote by Eckhart that summarizes my response up there, as pertaining to RELIGION and the TRUTH.
“All religions are equally false and equally true depending on how you use them. You can use them in the service of ego, or you can use them in service of TRUTH. If you believe that only your religion is the TRUTH, then you are using in service of EGO. Used in such a way religion becomes an ideology and creates an illusory sense of superiority as well as division and causes conflicts between people"