WWJSD?

"What would Jeff Stout Do?"  That's a question I've been mulling a little of late, since so many "progressive" or "leftish" or "emergent" evangelicals seem to think Stoutian (?) pragmatism is the answer to all our hopes and dreams.  So I'm curious: I know this is old news, but we've been hearing for a few weeks various sermonic claims made by Pastor Jeremiah Wright, such as the following:

The Government “wants us to sing ‘God Bless America’ ” despite treating black people as second-class citizens. “No, no, no,” Mr Wright said, “God damn America!”

More recently, he has said that Mr Obama “knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich, white people; Hillary would never know that, Hillary ain’t never been called a nigger”.

Now, wouldn't Jeffrey Stout pretty much agree with both of those claims?  That is, would Stoutian-emergent-progressive evangelical pragmatists pretty much be inclined to agree with Wright's claims?

So what, then, do these same Stoutians make of Barack Obama's distancing himself from these claims?  If Wright is closer to Stout than Obama is, then I would think that emergent/evangelical Stoutians would not be fans of Obama.  But that doesn't seem to be the case.

Or is it the case that, at the end of the day, the one blasphemy that can't be tolerated is blasphemy against the god of Americanism?   (There's always that nagging question of who "we" are at the end of Democracy and Tradition...)

Comments

[Colin]

I remember reading some responses to this situation. There was quite a buzz around the internet when Mike Huckabee, considered unlikely to say something of this sort, replied to Wright's invective in a very generous and sympathetic manner. He said:

"As easy as it is for those of us who are white to look back and say, "That's a terrible statement," I grew up in a very segregated South, and I think that you have to cut some slack. And I'm going to be probably the only conservative in America who's going to say something like this, but I'm just telling you: We've got to cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told, "You have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie. You have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant. And you can't sit out there with everyone else. There's a separate waiting room in the doctor's office. Here's where you sit on the bus." And you know what? Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment. And you have to just say, I probably would too. I probably would too. In fact, I may have had a more, more of a chip on my shoulder had it been me."

[Kevin]

Jamie:

It's the last paragraph that I don't get. Who is it you don't think will tolerate blaphemy against americanism, the stoutian-emergent-progressive evangelical pragmatists?

I read Wright's God damn America as God damn the America or kind of America--or any other institution-- responsible for such practices as segregation. I'd agree with the sentiment expressed there. I hope you would, too. And I suspect BO does as well. Of course you don't get elected by nuance. So, political prudence would seem to dictate that you distance yourself from what was said instead of trying to make clear what was likely meant by what was said.

Anyway, I'm no fan of americanism, left or right. And although I am of the belief that anyone would be better for the world than GW Bush, I like BO. Why? Because the sort of america and world BO paints and the reality I am called to actively anticipate--i.e., a kingdom inaugurated by the incarnation, life, death and resurrection of Jesus and one day to be consummated--seem to intersect at important points. At all points? No. But enough to make me vote for him.

[Not TJ]

Tony?

[James K.A. Smith]

Sorry, Kevin, for being a bit obscure at the end there (my wife caught me blogging so I had to finish quickly! ;-) I guess my concern is this: Why couldn't Obama--who has been hailed as having a kind of 'prophetic' voice in contemporary politics--why couldn't he just come out and say, "Yes, Rev. Wright has pretty much hit the nail on the head. Shame on America--this sort of injustice is in our very bones"? If one can't say that because it makes one "unelectable," then can't we at least be honest and say we pawned off the so-called prophetic mantle long ago? If the pragmatism of getting elected costs telling (or in this case, affirming) the truth, then doesn't that raise some questions about whether we can really play along with democracy in America?

For the record, I don't think this makes me any more cynical about politics than, say, the Democratic party which has pretty much completely reduced political concerns to "electability" and strategies for gaining power.

As for whether the world under Obama would look much more like the kingdom than the world under GWB? I _want_ to think it would--why am I so sceptical?

[James K.A. Smith]

Let me try that one more time, with a little different emphasis: Yes, I guess my question is, are Stoutian pragmatists (sure, like Tony Jones, if you want) willing to entertain the claim that racism, segregation, and other injustices are not _distortions_ of the American experiment, but are part of the warp and woof of the American capitalist dream? (I'll not make the bigger claim about "democracy," for now, but I will say that as a Canadian reading _Democracy and Tradition_, I felt like its conclusions were foreign to me because I was not part of the American "we" that seemed to be assumed there, in the name of 'democracy.')

You read Jeremiah Wright as having a kind of late-MLK hermeneutic, where the "America" to be damned is different from the "America" of the dream--and so, like MLK did, one could critique American injustices precisely by invoking a different "America" of the American dream. One then calls America to live up to its calling to be "America." (Thus one can find a certain Americanism in MLK, too.) Whether that's a good reading of J. Wright, I'm not sure. I'll admit that I heard it more radically than that: that the injustices were inscribed in the very fibre of "America."

But even if Wright's hermeneutic were more like MLK, I still wonder (and I really am just sort of putting this out there, wondering out loud): would Stoutian pragmatists ever countenance the possibility that "America" might just have it fundamentally wrong? That the dream of its founders and the vision enshrined in its founding documents is in itself plagued by a systemic injustice? I'm not saying that it is (and whether J. Wright was saying this, I can't say)--I'm just wondering whether the possibility could even be entertained. And if not, then wouldn't that mean that "Americanism" is a faith that cannot be transgressed?

[Tony Arens]

Interesting read - thanks! The key difference between BO and the good Pastor is that BO is looking forward to a future America and Mr. Wright is perhaps stuck in the America of a dark and dismal past. Maybe Emergents are stuck in a quandry between longing for the future, but at the same time insisting that we continue to seek forgiveness for the past.

[Kevin]

Jamie:

You ask:

If the pragmatism of getting elected costs telling (or in this case, affirming) the truth, then doesn't that raise some questions about whether we can really play along with democracy in America?

If the pragmatism of getting elected costs who telling the truth? If it costs BO telling (or affirming) the truth, then that doesn't raise any questions concerning whether I can play along with democracy in America. (It would be a different story if my getting elected costs telling the truth.)

My view is simple (you might say simple-minded; if you do, just whisper it so I can't hear). I don't for a moment expect any candidate w/in the system (part of the empire, you might say) to operate always or even mostly according to the values characteristic of the kingdom. By defintion, they can't, it seems to me. But I can play along with democracy in America for several reasons. First, wherever I see hints and flashes of the kingdom I won't hesitate to promote them even if the flashers do not themselves realize those flashes for what they are. Why? Because my task is to anticipate God's coming, consummated kingdom by sowing little parables and foretastes of that kingdom and wherever I see something that has the odor of the kingdom about it, I'm going to point and say "there; that's what God's kingdom looks like.". And there are foretastes of that kingdom even in the bosom of the empire. Second, I won't champion BO or anyone else who seeks power or position. But I will vote for such a one if it seems to me that enough of what they themselves champion strikes me as more in line with the contours and textures of God's kingdom than any of the alternatives.

American-ism is not my religion. I am a resident alien. But I'm a resident alien. If I can find the resources within the values and ideals of the empire to call it to its better self, I'll do it. All the while recognizing that America is not the new society of Jesus. Nor do I expect it to be. So, whether or not the dream of America's founders and the vision enshrined in its founding documents is in itself plagued by systemic injustice (I don't think it is) I still reside w/in its borders and my calling is the same, whether it is or isn't.

[Kevin]

Jamie,

One more thing. You said Deana caught you blogging so you had to be quick. You've probably heard that your condition now has a DSM VII classification; it's called SWOTI. SWOTI stands for: Someone's Wrong On The Internet. It apparenly afflicts millions, and especially bloggers. [Wife calling to husband down the stairs: "Honey, are you coming to bed?" Husband to wife: "I'll be there in a few minutes, dear; someone's wrong on the internet."]

[James K.A. Smith]

Great! One more reason for my wife to tell me I need to go to therapy! ;-)

Just a few thoughts in reply, Kevin:

1. So I guess you would concede that this might be an issue _for Obama_, but not those who elect him. Are the stakes raised when he is hailed as basically "the Sojourners candidate?"

2. I didn't mean to suggest some kind of purist denouncement of any and all regimes as equally bad, nor did I mean to sound too naive about what's possible in politics. (Hans Boersma and Oliver O'Donovan have convinced me that we need an ad hoc approach to these things.) But I guess this particular issue of race got me thinking. One of the things I've appreciated about Stout's work is his constant attention on issues of race and justice. And it seemed to me that Wright's comments were a chance for these issues to really get put on the table. But instead, Obama distanced himself from Wright's radical critique of America's legacy with respect to race. If the black presidential candidate can't 'name names' and prophetically affirm what I think is very close to Stout's own diagnosis (and heart), then why would emergent Stoutians be so excited about Obama?

3. I'm always intrigued when the resident alien metaphor is invoked by people who are American citizens (including Hauerwas). As a non-U.S. citizen, the metaphor is loaded with the experience of crossing the border, sometimes knowing that getting back to my house and job pretty much lies within the caprice of some grumpy person who generally doesn't seem very happy about 'foreigners.' It comes with the experience of not being able to vote (not just choosing not to vote), even in municipal and county elections, where federal citizenship seems an odd requirement, etc., etc. In short, being a resident alien always has a feel of not being in power, not being in control (and obviously this situation is ramped up for others who are not, like me, professional white males). So I think anyone who votes is not really functioning as a "nonresident alien." But that could be simplistic on my part.

Thanks for pushing me, as always.

[saint egregious]

It seems to me that Obama did not at all distance himself from Wright's jeremiad on the problems of racism. His speech on race is one of the most substantive, nuanced ones in recent memory, and it does hit hard. His 'distancing', if we can call it that, is from the way the media and right wing pundits have 'framed' Wright's comments in such a way as to raise the specters of 60's black power radicalism.
Obama is, I think, distancing himself from that framing and from the particular contours of late 60's politics. I think that is a wise, nuanced political position to take. The fact that Wright and Obama talked about, in advance, the likelihood that Obama would need to 'distance' himself from his pastor suggests that both understood the political thickets that would have to be walked through. One can read that cynically, (i do not) or one can see the political skill of Obama in trying to talk about race in a country where that is virtual political suicide. That he has not yet been destroyed by his candor is a sign of his political giftedness and integrity, which is the main reason I will be voting for him should he become the Democratic nominee.

[Kyle]

@ Jamie and Kevin,

This dialogue has been informative. Thank you both for your continued elucidations and constructive interaction.

@ Jamie,

A few comments:

I appreciate this post as well as your article last December. Your critique is trenchant and exposes the feigned approach of many politicians in using religion to acquire votes, which, ironically enough, is not the "religion" of Christians (i.e., as you note, the KOG).

Like you, I too, never know how to render some emerging church folk's promulgation of Hauerwas and his "resident alien" approach. It would seem to me that more would align themselves with Yoder than with Hauerwas (Kudos to my friend Wess for informing me of a few fundamental distinctives in their approach: the former _For the Nations_ the latter _Against the Nations_).

And, perhaps, as I have considered on several occasions, more might align themselves (read: be challenged and influenced by) Augustine/Kuyper/Dooyeweerd if they actually read them and didn't rely on some quite erroneous caricatures.

Hope to see you soon.

Blessings,
Kyle

[Kyle]

@ Jamie and Kevin,

This dialogue has been informative. Thank you both for your continued elucidations and constructive interaction.

@ Jamie,

A few comments:

I appreciate this post as well as your article last December. Your critique is trenchant and exposes the feigned approach of many politicians in using religion to acquire votes, which, ironically enough, is not the "religion" of Christians (i.e., as you note, the KOG).

Like you, I too, never know how to render some emerging church folk's promulgation of Hauerwas and his "resident alien" approach. It would seem to me that more would align themselves with Yoder than with Hauerwas (Kudos to my friend Wess for informing me of a few fundamental distinctives in their approach: the former _For the Nations_ the latter _Against the Nations_).

And, perhaps, as I have considered on several occasions, more might align themselves (read: be challenged and influenced by) Augustine/Kuyper/Dooyeweerd if they actually read them and didn't rely on some quite erroneous caricatures.

Hope to see you soon.

Blessings,
Kyle

[Dan Morehead]

"If Wright is closer to Stout than Obama is, then I would think that emergent/evangelical Stoutians would not be fans of Obama."

This doesn't really follow. One could still claim that Obama is still closer to the prophetic (even if it has been watered down). As a student of Dr. Hauerwas and Dr. Stout (and recovering evangelical), I think this post overstates the draw (or the awareness) of Dr. Stout amongst "progressive" or "leftish" or "emergent" evangelicals.

[My point above was to follow the logic, not endorse Obama.]

[Ed Brenegar]

Here's what I want to know.
1. How is a person to be consistent in their actions if they hold a particular belief? What would be the logical action to a belief that American is damned or America is God's chosen people, the new Israel? What actions should we expect to see from people who hold those views? As a pragmatist, does this mean that I choose one, and there by, to be consistent, abandon my pragmatism and become a true believer?

The issue of integrity is a real one for me, and leads to my second question.

2. What's in it for these very public religious / political figures? Not some grand vision, but personally. What do they gain from making the claims they do? Politics is power game, with the human ego the playing field. The arguments may be sound philosophically and historically, but what's in it for the speaker. I don't know what it might be, but I ask the question, because it makes my pragmatism less susceptible to being decieved.

Which leads to my last question.

3. What does this person sacrifice by publicly holding a particular view? Do they risk public ostratization? Do they risk the ruin of their career? From what I can tell, no one is risking anything in this regard. They risk nothing because the rhetoric doesn't lead to the kind of actions where sacrifice is warranted.

So, at some point pragmatism, a noble intellectual perspective, becomes a risk averse expediency. Show me the person who risks greatness by the integrity of his or her rhetoric and actions, and that will be the person who will make the difference they all claim to make.

I'm not saying any of these candidates or pundits lack integrity. I am saying that we don't know, and not knowing matters.

[unorthodoxology]

Americanism=Consumerism. The consumption of wealth, of greed, of people, of race, of souls.

So, as an Obama supporter, his distancing of himself from Wright does make me balk at casting a vote for him. I think Obama would have greater integrity if he would have admitted that Wright had most of what he said right. But he would have also lost the election.

I don't think, though, that Wright is stuck in the dark, dismal past. While progress has been made in myriad ways, there are still places -- many of them -- which more resemble the dark, dismal past than the bright future of hope Obama speaks of.

I think we would do well to vote for Obama, but listen to Wright.

[Randy Gabrielse]

Thank you Jamie, for raising the issue of who is being blasphemed and who we will tolerate being blasphemed. I too found it more troubling how quickly Obama distanced himself from Wright than I did how troubling Wright's comments might be.

Peace,
Randy