Obama's Theologian

Today, as I was listening to a news report about Obama's recent decision to increase troop numbers in Afghanistan, I remembered an old podcast I'd listened to awhile back from one of my favorite shows, Speaking of Faith (SOF). Niebuhr was a mainline Protestant theologian, and one whose name gets thrown around a lot at Candler. While I have no manner of expertise on Niebuhr, having studied him even a little gives me a certain appreciation or insight into the way Obama governs, for he once called Reinhold Neibuhr his "favorite philosopher" and "favorite theologian". No doubt, Obama, and every presidential candidate after him, have some answer ready for the "who's your favorite philosopher?' question, since W. so famously remarked during his election campaign that his was Jesus (as if that response said anything of his political style, ethical decision making, or anything else valuable to those deciding who to vote for - it was like saying "Uh, I don't know, whoever you like best", because at least a good majority of persons in the U.S. like "Jesus", even if they have millions of different views as to who he is). I wish he would have said more about how the philosophy of Jesus informed his policy-making.

At the risk of sounding elitist, not folksy enough, Obama's answer is Niebuhr, and thank goodness it is, because Obama is facing some serious challenges. Although he's my Lord, I'm not sure Jesus models presidential behavior quite perfectly. I'd rather not have a president that claims he is the Son of God. I'd rather have one whose understanding of society is complex and whose decisions are consistent. After all, I didn't see W. utilizing a lot of the philosophy of Jesus in his administration. Obama, to his credit, spoke just like Niebuhr in his defense of just war at the Nobel Prize ceremony. Whether I agree with his action or not, I appreciate that his decisions are complexly-informed, rational and pragmatic.

Recently, some people have suggested to me that maybe I was on the "Obama train", that his celebrity, eloquence of speech and even skin color attract me to him. But, beyond agreeing on policies (for which there never seems to be a candidate who fits me perfectly), I need to see in my politicians virtues like: careful decision-making (which is an ethical responsibility!), commitment to the care of the disadvantaged, and ideological clarity combined with humility. These things characterized Niebuhr and are truly Christian, I believe.

Rather than trying to give a synopsis of Niebuhr's thought (for which I'm unqualified), I lead you to the podcast.

SOF: Obama's Theologian: David Brooks and E.J. Dionne on Reinhold Niebuhr and the American Present

We're Watching: X-Files

So you know I finished Frankenstein, but it seems as of late our attention has been focussed on the grotesque, because our latest Netflix ventures have been into the Hitchcockean psyche (we're watching Rear Window) and the paranormal province of Detectives Mulder and Scully. That's right... the X-Files (my stepbrother would be so proud).

We've watched four episodes and I love it (so far). But I really think Jen would love it (unfortunately she's already headed west back to B-Ham for the holiday). Why would a lovely, Hope Floats-watching beauty love such a freakish show? Because of William James. That's right, this show is hard-core Jamesian (if you haven't figured this out yet, this post is pretty much for Jen.. you're welcome to keep reading, but if you don't have an interest in - or an inkling as to who is - James, then you're not in for a fun read).

Seriously, Jen, you have to watch this show. It's all about the modern scientific paradigm, and the defense of human experience. There's not much that can rile the cool-witted Mulder, but when you start denying people the right to their own experience, he becomes bad ass. He demands that human experience(s) be taken seriously. Scully is the epitome of empiricist, but she doesn't have the fine appreciation for the subjectivity of human experience, without which empiricism fails. While she seems to only think in the scientific paradigm (in which her training in medicine and the FBI academy have equipped her), she seems to have a sense that Mulder's free-wheeling enthusiasm for the unexplained is something to be admired. She desires freedom from her trade, but loves it so dearly for giving her tools for meaning. I love the tension in the actor's face when she is clearly struggling with how to reconcile her trained ways of thinking with her intuitive appreciation of the complex cases found (dum, dum, duuuum) in the X-Files.

Mulder reminds Scully that the scientific paradigm itself rests on testing "unscientific" claims, that it relies on (and works with) more than the objective. Its assumption of "always a reasonable explanation" is often productive, but if submitted to slavishly, can also delude. Come home, Jen.

Who's the Real Monster?

Am I to be thought the only criminal, when all humankind sinned against me?

--The Creature, in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein

Just finished reading my Halloween book, Frankenstein. I mean to have it finished in October, but instead my blood-curtled far into Thanksgiving season. I hadn't read it before, but generally love gothic fiction, and this was no exception.

It strikes me as interesting though that most people think Frankenstein is the name of the monster in the book, and as far as movie monsters go, "Frankenstein" has always seemed to me kind of lame (maybe why I hadn't read this book yet), just a bumbling, sappy, Eyore-type figure, with nowhere near the potential to scare that Dracula possessed. Frankenstein is actually the name of the doctor who creates the creature, and he's not a mad scientist, he's really kind of like you or me. Frankenstein, blinded by his desire for "achievement", creates a being with physical and intellectual capacities, but then forgets about him, without ever fostering virtues in him. The creature is left to form his own estimation of virtue, and being without companionship, devoid of community in a world where no one looks like him, he turns on his creator after Frankenstein refuses to make him a companion.

The book is really about (in my estimation) our ability to perversely delude ourselves. I kept thinking about the "monsters" of our society, the modern-day criminal, and how we react to the actions of those who terrorize, murder and often look physically different from us. What if, instead of seeing these people as monsters, we were able to recognize our own part of the responsibility each time a crime was committed? What we felt the pain of having failed this person and our community in our complacency towards the virtue-formation of others? What if, being aware that the communities and societies we live in are fundamentally our "creators", we were convicted by each conviction of a crime to pour our resources into rehabilitation, education and the fostering of virtue in those WE are responsible for?

I'm not against holding people accountable for their actions. In fact, I'm just suggesting that in actuality we fail to do that. While it couldn't be the place of the "justice" system to somehow convict the societies themselves that crimes emerge within, maybe we could pay more attention to the ways in which we create the "monsters" in our midsts. In Missouri the juvenile delinquency system is rehabilitative, and the ACLU recently posted a blog about it in honor of the 20th anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Love it.

Sweet, Sweet Conversation

Today I finally listened to this podcast from last week of the Diane Rehm Show, featuring bluegrass (or old-time mountain music) legend Ralph Stanley. Listen to it twice: first for the great content and stories from a serious music legend, and second for the aural experience of hearing radio's most beautiful voice in conversation with the gnarled, slow voice that to me epitomizes Appalachia. What disease and age have done to the vocal apparatuses of Rehm and Stanely respectively is remarkable, and left me with a feeling of equanimity towards all life's "constant sorrows," disease and age included.

WELCOME

Welcome, friends, to my new blog!

I've been blogging for over 5 years now (since 2004), but when I first started blogging, there were very few of the features there are for bloggers today (or at least very few accessible), so over the years of the blogging boom, my former blog had lost a bit of its coherence. I wasn't sure how to use it, nor when I got an idea did I know how to implement it. So I usually used it like a teenage girl uses her diary: gushing about my latest experiences, lampooning my enemies and forgetting about it for weeks at a time while she is distracted with other things.

Hopefully, with a new blog, I can create something more blogger-friendly and reader-friendly. At this germinal stage I'm sure I'll still be figuring out how that looks, so bear with me, but know I'm not just writing for me anymore. I hope to include pictures and updates more frequently. I'm sure I'll also write about theology and current events. I'm inspired by the great bloggers in my life (Lainey, Kate, Perez... okay, not Perez).

So I hope you will join me: I'm hoping by making my blog a more blogger- and reader-friendly "space" that it will actually be more hospitable and inviting. So pull up a chair, grab your hot cocoa, and meet me in the blogosphere. You're all invited (at least until 2014, when blogs will have been replaced by 3D vlogs and I'll be in my 30s so probably more focused on my hair regrowth treatments).