Want the Right to Help Shape the World?
Barak Obama broke ties with Trinity United Church of Christ this weekend. I hate it. He had to do it, no doubt. It was the politically expedient thing to do. He probably couldn't have won the general election without it... but I hate it.
George Will said it well when he described it as the only way Obama could "coderize the wound." Now, George and I probably differ greatly on what we interpret that wound to be. The wound that George and others often speak of is, frankly, imaginary to one who has been through the crucible of race. It's the self-delusion that racism as an institution has been dismantled and that the wounds it once inflicted on the public psyche are categorically on the mend and that comments such as those made by Rev. Wright or Father Phleger only serve to lacerate regenerated tissue. I find this to be naive wish-fulfillment. The wound I perceive has been the lancing of the dominant culture's racial sensibilities and ahistorical fantasies, precipitated by the viable Presidential candidacy of a person of color and the inevitable revelation that his story validates some but not most of the myths the dominant culture has told itself about "truth, justice and the American way." (By the way, "dominant culture" in this instance is not code for "white".) Obama had to leave Trinity because all too many could not have heard his message of unity otherwise.
I get why he left. I believe Obama understands intuitively an ethic that is difficult for me to appreciate at this very moment: If you want the right to help shape the world, you have to give the world the right to help shape you. The same is true of one's country. And these are the very rights—not just privileges—we extend to the person we as citizens vote into the White House.
Obama's decision to leave Trinity is thus deeply political, so deeply political that its public expediency trumps any personal or spiritual considerations. Not that there are no personal or spiritual considerations, but the argument that they are somehow paramount is kinda like arguing the significance of one's flashlight in the flood of a glaring spot light. Yet I do not believe this to be a bad thing. It's probably the most righteous politically expedient thing I've ever seen done.
George Will said it well when he described it as the only way Obama could "coderize the wound." Now, George and I probably differ greatly on what we interpret that wound to be. The wound that George and others often speak of is, frankly, imaginary to one who has been through the crucible of race. It's the self-delusion that racism as an institution has been dismantled and that the wounds it once inflicted on the public psyche are categorically on the mend and that comments such as those made by Rev. Wright or Father Phleger only serve to lacerate regenerated tissue. I find this to be naive wish-fulfillment. The wound I perceive has been the lancing of the dominant culture's racial sensibilities and ahistorical fantasies, precipitated by the viable Presidential candidacy of a person of color and the inevitable revelation that his story validates some but not most of the myths the dominant culture has told itself about "truth, justice and the American way." (By the way, "dominant culture" in this instance is not code for "white".) Obama had to leave Trinity because all too many could not have heard his message of unity otherwise.
I get why he left. I believe Obama understands intuitively an ethic that is difficult for me to appreciate at this very moment: If you want the right to help shape the world, you have to give the world the right to help shape you. The same is true of one's country. And these are the very rights—not just privileges—we extend to the person we as citizens vote into the White House.
Obama's decision to leave Trinity is thus deeply political, so deeply political that its public expediency trumps any personal or spiritual considerations. Not that there are no personal or spiritual considerations, but the argument that they are somehow paramount is kinda like arguing the significance of one's flashlight in the flood of a glaring spot light. Yet I do not believe this to be a bad thing. It's probably the most righteous politically expedient thing I've ever seen done.
3 Comments:
I dunno - I feel like Christ calls us to be shaped by our relationship to God, which gives us the right (and responsibility) to shape the world. We are shaped by the world only so much as we have to be to understand whom we are bringing a message of love and justice to. My mum (who's a pastor) always says we are in the world but we are not of the world.
Then again, Obama's not a pastor, he's a politician.
What I hate is that it was a church Obama had to leave. Why couldn't have the challenging comments have been made by (for a total hypothetical example) the person who runs Obama's dog-training club or whatever? (Does that make any sense?)
I also hate that it seems like Obama is turning his back on the issues Rev. Wright brought up. I know he's not, and that simply by running - for good or bad - the issue of race is there. But I think we've got a lot of dialogue to do before we can allow the prophets to hang up their hats and say "I'm done for the day."
thanks for commenting, aerin. i'm really looking forward to your thoughts on a post about sexism in the campaign I hope to have up today or tomorrow.
i think i understand the source of your response. as persons raised in the Christian tradition, we were taught to understand certain language only in a 'spiritual' context. so it's hard to talk about anything outside of GOD influencing us and that being a good thing. i know i often feel like i must have blasphemed somehow ;-). but aren't we all routinely shaped by much more than our relationship with GOD (strictly speaking)? I don't believe GOD is threatened by this.
the idea of being in the world and not of it, i would imagine to be a very different matter. its an admonishment to not let the ends and means of self-interest become our own.
in this instance, however, i'm talking about being in legitimate conversation/relationship with the other. christians struggle with conversation (as opposed to parallel presentation) for the very reason that conversation presupposes the other person's privilege to change us. relationship seems to me to take matters further by making that privilege a right. we see this even in the stories that have been passed down to us. how many times does GOD get sick enough of Israel that GOD wants to destroy her, yet moses convinces GOD to change GOD's mind?
You have a very insightful perspective on this issue. I agree that it is purely political and it breaks my heart that he has to go there in order to succeed politically.
Post a Comment
<< Home