Yesterday afternoon a friend of mine, who works in the Beltway as a political consultant, informed me that he was joining some “good old boys” to drink bourbon, smoke cigars, and watch the State of the Union, to which I said that was a sure recipe for the stomach flu. Civic duty, I added, should compel me to hear the President, but I planned instead to take a vacation from politics, at least for one night, and watch an episode of Ken Burns’ documentary on jazz. After all, culture matters more than politics.
As soon as I turned on my television set, I got hooked by the theater of power. The address was predictably boring in content and vague in details, singing a kumbaya refrain about the “American family” after the Tucson tragedy. One thing stood out, and none of the East Coast pundits had the acumen to discern this: President Obama’s language about “winning the future” and “reinventing ourselves” rests on an Enlightenment anthropology (the self) that is antithetical to a biblical anthropology (the creature).
Under the former view, the human being has autonomous power to choose his identity and destiny. Whether it is environmental rescue, technological innovation, educational pursuits, same-sex love, or economic progress, Obama assured us:
The future is ours to win. But to get there, we can’t just stand still. As Robert Kennedy told us, “The future is not a gift. It is an achievement.” Sustaining the American Dream has never been about standing pat. It has required each generation to sacrifice, and struggle, and meet the demands of a new age.
Under the latter view, the human being only has derivative power insofar as his identity is shaped by the Potter, who circumscribes its possibilities, and his future is governed by Providence, who decrees if there shall be any tomorrows. Contrary to Kennedy, the future is a gift, down to our next breath, and therefore we must receive – not achieve – it through the daily exercise of duty and virtue. The distinction between achieving the future and receiving the future is one with a difference. If the future is a possession, we are owners of time. If, however, the future is a gift, we are stewards of time. For the Christian, “every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change” (James 1:17). One of those good and perfect gifts is time. We are not, as Obama frequently envisions, the ones bending “the arc of history.” That belongs to God alone; he entrusts us with an ethic of stewardship.
What we needed to hear last night was an exhortation to self-sacrifice: paying off debts, cutting spending, and ending some entitlements. Instead, we heard a fantasy of self-creation, which has a long, bipartisan pedigree, encapsulated in Benjamin Franklin’s aphorism: God helps those who help themselves. Proof of the Fool-in-Chief lies in his closing remarks, where a hollow benediction – “God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America” – followed his call to individual and national authorship – “our destiny remains our choice.” Why seek divine favor when we are already favored, by an idolatrous faith in humanity, to win the future and reinvent ourselves?
So…..you don’t think we should take action to better ourselves and our country and instead trust in divine providence? I’m sorry, I’m just confused about why you are offended.
@Ryssa: Jake has done a good job of explaining my point of view, and I have little to add except to emphasize that Christians shouldn’t be concerned about achieving the future, which is an impossibility, but receiving the future through the daily exercise of duty and virtue. The background to this claim is a Christian philosophy of time, in which the past and the future are marked by non-being while only the present is marked by being, or what the Bible refers to as “the fullness of time.” President Obama’s organizing theme in the State of the Union was winning the future, and to Christian ears that’s foolishness because the future lacks freedom and actuality. C. S. Lewis says in Screwtape Letters, “The Future is, of all things, the thing least like eternity. It is the most completely temporal part of time – for the Past is frozen and no longer flows, and the Present is all lit up with eternal rays.” All we have is the present. So rather than talk about something we can’t do (win the future), I’d like to hear our nation’s leader talk about something we can do, right here and now, with future consequences. As Lewis recognized, God “wants men to think of the Future too – just so much as is necessary for now planning the acts of justice or charity which will probably be their duty tomorrow. The duty of planning the morrow’s work is today’s duty; though its material is borrowed from the future, the duty, like all duties, is in the Present.”
Ryssa – I’m not Christopher, so I can only speak for myself, but I don’t think the idea is that we should trust in divine providence and then do nothing. Rather, it’s that the Franklin-inspired self-help that has been at the core of American identity since it’s beginning isn’t doing us any favors today.
Obviously there’s a thousand ways to assess a nation’s health and, in some ways, the USA might look quite healthy. (I’m thinking principally of infrastructure, size of the economy, average quality of life.) But I think all of that may actually be rather superficial: Beneath all of it is a frighteningly self-absorbed culture that, on a daily basis, makes extremely destructive decisions about their lives based primarily on self-centered reasons. Here you can pick on talking points from both the right and the left: You could focus on someone driving an SUV despite its impact on the planet we all have to share or someone voting for a politician who is going to support the rampant killing of Iraqis and Afghanis in unjust wars in the Middle East. Or you can talk about someone who would favor killing an unborn baby over going through the adoption process. Granted, each of these is a very complex issue and calls for great discernment. My point is simply that as a nation we tend to act in our own self interest, even when that has terrible consequences for other human beings.
So why should we try to further advance such a way of thinking? I think that’s part of Christopher’s point.
A second aspect of it is only going to make sense to Christian readers, but it’s that our Christian faith ought to influence the way we view all aspects of life, which means that it will need to kill some of our sacred cows. In the US, one such cow is the whole idea of pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps, becoming an autonomous individual. Biblically, that’s not OK. Human beings are never isolated, autonomous individuals. Rather, we should be learning the right kind of co-dependence which we arrive at through acts of self-sacrifice. Christians, in particular, are freed up to do this because we follow the example of our king, who tells us – and shows us! – that the first shall be last, that the one who seeks his own renown may find it (and if he does, he shall have his reward in full) but that he’s ultimately settling for chump change. The truly glorious way is to seek the fame of others through acts of love and sacrifice. This is a way of thinking that runs completely contrary to the individualism of Franklinian Americanism that Obama was channeling so frequently in his speech.
I also don’t really understand what the point of this post is, if it’s not just an excuse to use the title “Fool-in-Chief”.
Your quote from Obama seems to me to be about self-sacrifice, community, and adapting to meet the needs of the age. Whether these words are empty or not is another question, of course, but I don’t see the distinction between what he said and what you would have had him say.
You say that “we must receive – not achieve – [the future] through the daily exercise of duty and virtue.” But if the future we receive is dependent on how dutiful and virtuous we are, then – by my understanding of the word – we have achieved that future. Sure, I could say that I didn’t achieve my paycheck last week, that I merely received it as a result of carrying out my duties, but it would be more accurate and direct to say that I earned that paycheck.
We may not all agree on the kind of future we want, and we may not agree on the best ways to achieve/receive those futures, but it’s silly to focus on a made-up semantic dispute as indicative of an ideological gulf.
“Under the latter view, the human being only has derivative power insofar as his identity is shaped by the Potter, who circumscribes its possibilities, and his future is governed by Providence, who decrees if there shall be any tomorrows.”
It strikes me that this is a belief not universally shared by all Christians, at least not in the way you seem to be meaning it, Christopher. Many Christians have and do feel that we are free agents in this world, for good and for ill, and that our calling as God’s creatures is to seek God’s will and God’s plan and then follow that. (We are also free to ignore God’s will and behave selfishly, with the tragic results being made manifest in the world.) For many Christians this has meant an active, direct role in the world — to end injustice or to improve the lot of the poor, for example. Certainly not all efforts are successful and some are misguided, but many have brought positive, even essential changes.
To say that it is up to God to give the increase to these efforts (as Christians of most stripes would attest) is not the same as saying we don’t have some responsibility for and control over our own destiny here on Earth. Beliefs on this subject vary among Christians, so to essentially call the President’s remarks unchristian seems over-the-top to me. You may disagree with him based on your own understanding of the Bible, but there are others just as learned and pious who have understood Scripture differently. You seem to object to the phrase “winning the future”. That’s fine, but in practical terms, I don’t see the difference between what you are saying about the potentiality of the future being based on what we do today and President Obama’s exhortation to do what is right today so that the future may be a good one for us. I doubt he thinks we can plan for the future, yet ignore what we are doing now! He would not have gotten to where he is in life if he thought like that. People who think that way are the perpetual day-dreamers — always talking a good game while sitting on their behinds and never getting anything done. You may not like what Obama wants to do or agree with the best way to go about doing it, but he doesn’t seem to fit the definition of “fool” the way the Bible most often describes foolishness. (Idle, lazy, materialistic, mischievous, mocking, slandering, hateful of knowledge, etc.) Speaking of which, you might want to look up and re-read Matt. 5:21-22.
I’ve been thinking about this idea of “achieving” the future vs “receiving” it for most the afternoon, and wanted to venture a few thoughts:
Christians believe in the sovereignty of God. That certainly doesn’t mean we become lazy good-for-nothings who twiddle our thumbs while the world goes to hell quietly whispering “God is on control.” But I think it does mean that we can be more comfortable with limitations. One example that comes to mind is the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end WW2. It represented the killing of at least 225,000 thousand people. (That’s a conservative estimate from this site: http://www.aasc.ucla.edu/cab/200708230009.html) It was justified by our president on grounds that it was necessary to protect American lives. One way to critique that statement Christianly is to say: God gives us a framework in which to live well within his creation. There will be times when violating that framework seems wise but we trust in God’s sovereignty and will be faithful. Therefore, we will not nuke Japan.
In other words, “achieving” the future means thinking that “the future of ______ depends entirely on us and we must do whatever is possible to make that future a bright one.” “Receiving” the future is saying, “the future of _______ depends upon God’s sovereign will. God, of course, works through means and one of his chief means is the faithful practice of duty and virtue by his people. So we will do what he has commanded. Should a situation arise where violating his commands seems the better choice, we will still submit to his word and trust that he will be honored by our obedience and work for the good of creation through it.”
Does that help to clarify? I think there’s a really important point being made here but it’s getting lost in the specifics of the 2010 SotU.
I understand the distinction, but I can only see it being applicable to the individual Christian mind, not to people in general, and certainly not to entire nations. By Christopher’s standards, I can’t imagine anything Obama could have said that wouldn’t have resulted in him being judged a fool.
On a side note, Christians (and people in general, I suppose, though Christians have more of an incentive) often set up these false dichotomies that divide the world into two groups: those who think exactly like them and the other 99% of the world. If someone doesn’t worship Yahweh, they must worship themselves as little gods. If someone doesn’t have faith in God, they must have “an idolatrous faith in humanity.” Sure, there are Randian objectivists and true progressives out there, but they are a negligible minority. It is not true that most people who don’t accept a Christian worldview instead adopt an antithetical one.
In practical terms, I see no difference between “receivers” and “achievers”. Both will do what seems best while staying within the range of their own moral options. The “receiver” just gets the benefit of feeling that God is on his side.
EC – Couple thoughts:
a) Wouldn’t the example I gave above be applicable to nations? Suppose Harry Truman is in the White House and decides to think about the decision to drop the bomb as a Christian instead of as an American nationalist? He could say “We will not drop this bomb. Murdering thousands of innocents might seem like an easy way to fix the problem, but God doesn’t allow us to do that. I can’t Christianly say ‘it’s OK to kill thousands of Japanese civilians to spare the lives of American soldiers.’ We’ll find another way to reach peace.” Or suppose Bush decided to think like a Christian about torture? His argument for waterboarding: “It saved lives” is instantly out the window. To a receiver, it doesn’t matter what potential good might be gained through disobedient behavior. It’s still disobedient and, therefore, wrong. (True, there are other arguments for why both of those behaviors are immoral. I don’t contest that. I’m just saying that this way of thinking can make a difference on a broader level.)
b) To anticipate one potential objection to point a, it’s true that the only reason that view is making a difference for the nation is because it’s making a difference for an individual who happens to be the president. But isn’t that a problem for your response? As individuals we don’t – or at least most of us don’t – live in autonomous isolation. My beliefs have an impact on those around me. So even if it’s true that the view of the receiver can only be applicable to Christian individuals, it’s also true that to whatever extent those Christian individuals are connected to others, their view has influenced other people.
c) But isn’t that phrase “while staying within the range of their own moral options” the key phrase? Being a receiver puts constraints on your moral options that are not necessarily there for achievers.
I see your point Jake, but since this is not a theocracy, I’m not sure how the president could have stated that explicitly even if he were in total agreement. (Perhaps he is, I don’t see how anything he said in the SOTU would preclude his personal agreement with your distinction.) I think both “receivers” and “achievers” could come to agreement on how to act in many, many areas of policy and life, even if they may personally have different theological motivations for doing so. That is the essence of democracy, and our leaders must speak to that commonality first, rather than laying out a specific theological position.
FWIW, I think there is a third possible position between your “achieving” and “receiving”: “the future of _______ depends upon God’s sovereign will AND the human response to God’s will. So we will do what he has commanded because if we do, the future will more closely resemble God’s kingdom on earth, and if we don’t, the future will be an unhappy one.” People have written whole books on this topic, so obviously it’s more complex than that, but you get the basic idea. I believe many (not all) of the founding Fathers may have been of this mindset.
EC, excellent point about the false dichotomy.
Jake –
a) Yes, individual moral choices do often have consequences that affect other individuals and even nations, but I don’t see how one’s being a “receiver” or “achiever” of the future makes any practical difference. I think it’s just two different ways of viewing the world that may or may not be useful to individuals in sorting their thoughts. Ultimately, we all agree that shit needs to be done in order to get shit done.
c) Sure, there are amoral “achievers”, but that’s only because those defined as “receivers” have a moral code by definition. Everyone else gets lumped into the “achiever” category. It’s not really fair to judge the catch-all group as defective because sociopaths are barred from the primary group.
I’m grateful for hearing all of the comments on my post. You have forced me to better articulate my doctrine of man (and woman) and my philosophy of time. Consequently, I made an addition to my original post.
@ECSchmidt: The distinction I made between achieving the future and receiving the future is not “a made-up semantic dispute” because the former views the future as a possession, in which the human is an owner of time, while the latter views the future as a gift, in which the human is a steward of time. For the Christian, “every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down form the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows” (James 1:17). One of those good and perfect gifts is time.
@naturalmom: First, an identity shaped by the Potter and a future governed by Providence does not, in my estimation, negate human freedom; it simply puts restraints on what is possible. Second, the distinction between achieving the future and receiving the future is a distinction with a difference because in the former view it is the human being who “bends the arc of history,” as Obama has repeatedly said, while in the latter view it is God who bends the arc of history, and we are merely invited to be his stewards – not authors – in the process.
One other thought, and then I’ll shut up. Actually, I’ll have little choice in the matter b/c I’m flying out tomorrow morning at 6:30 for Birmingham to meet my future in-laws. Anyway:
Perhaps one of the difficulties here is that the chief marker of being a receiver of time vs a possessor of time is psychological. (Here I should note that there are obviously many other attitudes toward time amongst other religious groups. I think Christopher’s purpose was to contrast a typically-American, DIYer approach to time with a Christian view of time.) Because the primary manifestation of the difference exists in our thought life, it may be difficult to nail down hard and fast rules that we can measure that will quantify the differences between receiving time or possessing it.
Alright, I’m out. See y’all next week.