Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Theological "perversions"
In the wake of his weekend rally, Glenn Beck kept up the drumbeat of criticism about President Obama's religion, calling it a "perversion" and saying that America "isn't recognizing his version of Christianity," which Beck characterized as "liberation theology."
Despite critique of Obama's Christianity, a recent poll showed that nearly 20% of Americans believe falsely that the president is Muslim.
Why is there so much attention on Obama's religion? Does it matter what religion the president is?
The religion of a president most certainly matters. But we do not find serious consideration of the issue in Glenn Beck's bizarre peroration about President Obama's "perversion of the Gospel of Jesus Christ." Of course, it's easy enough to bash Beck, especially given his striking combination of hucksterism and theological illiteracy. It's more helpful to look at how thoughtful consideration of President Obama's religiosity might proceed. But I do think exploration of the whole notion of theological "perversions" is in order, especially with reference to the bigoted stereotypes applied to Glenn Beck's own denomination: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
During the most recent Bush administration, Americans saw how the religion of a president can decisively impact policy. George Bush's worldview was crucially shaped by particular themes in American Evangelicalism, such as faith in Divine Providence and a belief in the special place of the United States in God's plan of salvation. Barack Obama's religious sensibilities obviously differ, but that does not mean that they can be caricatured as Marxism in Christian clothing. In fact, Barack Obama's religious trajectory is quite similar to many unchurched Americans who found their way to Christianity through their involvement in community activism.
While Barack Obama may have joined a church strongly influenced by liberationist trends in African-American Christianity, he does not cite standard "liberation theologians" as his formative influences. If he did, we might well hear a discussion of the similarities and differences between thinkers such as Gustavo Gutierrez, James Cone, and Cornel West--all of whom have "liberationist" theological orientations, but whose reflections cannot be encapsulated by trite labels and politically expedient categories
Instead, President Obama acknowledges the abiding influence of the Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr who was a stern critic of the moral pretensions of nation-states. Theologically, Obama's religious vision lacks strong denominational contours, but it nonetheless falls within the broad spectrum of liberal Protestant thought that emphasizes communal solidarity and epistemological humility as primary forms of Christian witness. Obama's commitment to health care reform, his belief in negotiation to resolve international disputes, and his uncertainty regarding the moral status of the human embryo, can all be linked, in some measure, to his religious beliefs.
One can certainly debate whether Christians should agree with any of Obama's positions, but it is clear that the President's religion does indeed matter. Of course, another fruitful subject of debate is the idea that salvation is an individual affair, as Glenn Beck seems to assume in his criticism of the President. The rise of capitalism not withstanding, the Christian tradition has, more often than not, sought to proclaim the collective and universal relevance of Jesus's death and resurrection.
By labeling the President's religious views as a theological "perversion," Glenn Beck diverts discussion away from a substantive consideration of how religion can or should shape the office of the Presidency. What is especially ironic is that Glen Beck belongs to a religious tradition often dismissed as a fanciful, even malevolent, reinterpretation of Christianity. Some evangelical Christians, who admire Glenn Beck's political positions, are nonetheless disquieted by his Mormon identity. As a Roman Catholic who has a deep intellectual interest in Mormonism, I have reflected on how contemporary prejudices against Mormons and Mormonism prevent a serious engagement with the content of the Latter-day Saint tradition. As Glenn Beck should understand, Mormons themselves have a strong social and collective dimension to their identity reflected not only in their attitude toward religious authority but in their belief in the salvific centrality of the family. While one could certainly argue whether or not Mormons should be characterized as Christians, that question can only be seriously considered by first listening carefully to what Mormons have to say about themselves. Likewise, seriously considering President Obama's religiosity is best served by a careful appreciation of how his views draw upon mainstream Christian discourse influenced by ideas of the social Gospel.
Beck's vituperative language--suffused with fear of difference--evokes the worst aspects of America's struggle with the role of religion in public life. Mormons--as well as Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Catholics--are all very well acquainted with the consequences when such fear takes hold in American society.
By
Mathew N. Schmalz
|
August 30, 2010; 3:16 PM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Liberation theology claim really a claim of Marxism |
Next: Why the president's faith matters
Posted by: steelewires | September 6, 2010 5:02 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I don't understand why Mormons want to be considered Christians. They are polytheists and all the men expect to become gods.
Posted by: steelewires | September 6, 2010 4:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I don't understand why Mormons want to be considered Christians. They are polytheists and all the men expect to become gods.
Posted by: steelewires | September 6, 2010 4:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment
To say that Mormons aren't Christians is foolishness. Their Elders preach about Christ and his ministry. They pray in the name of Christ. To declare them non-Christian is simply a tool used in the efforts to prevent their missionary efforts.
Posted by: richard36 | September 2, 2010 9:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Tara's comments make sense as a way for a normal person to behave. But politicians aren't normal: they do have to say things that will get them elected.
What WE the People need to do is change OUR attitudes, so that we would esteem a Moral Atheist as much (or more) than we would a hypocritical espouser of the religion of the majority.
Those elitist Europeans are capable of it. Maybe in 50 years, the USA will be too.
Posted by: jsmith4 | August 31, 2010 3:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I agree that Beck focuses far too much on difference as being problematic. But I personally don't care what religion the President is, and I'm tired of every election season going through the what faith is he/she scenario in our run-up to actually voting for a human being to do a job.
It's illegal for an employer to ask a potential employee what religion they are.
This focus on the faiths of our leaders leads, I think, to the continued bashing of unusual faiths by others.
I for one would be hard-pressed to state a religion if I ran for office (which I'll never do), because I don't belong to an organized religion. Nonetheless I'm a person of deep faith. But everyone who runs for president thinks they must belong to a church. How many qualified people never run because they don't want to have to put up a false pretense of adhering to one particular faith? Yet they know they can't get elected without belonging to a church. Heck, maybe we'd have a better chance of getting a really effective person in office if we stopped paying so much attention to the *stated* faith of the person in the Oval Office.
I place emphasis on "stated" because really someone can say they're a particular religion, but that means nothing about their internal faith, their personal values, and what they really believe in and stand for. That's not verifiable, so stated faith is as likely as not to give a false impression of whether someone can be trusted or agrees with the voter's values anyway.
But Beck is something of a joke, in my opinion. I think people pay far too much attention to him. I'm not even sure how he manages to keep his job. I even sometimes wonder about his mental health. I guess with his employers entertainment is more important than news, good sense, or accuracy.
Posted by: Tara12 | August 31, 2010 12:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Thanks for your comments--strangeness is definitely in the eye of the beholder.
Mat
Posted by: mschmalz | August 30, 2010 9:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment
As an *ex* Mormon, I heartily endorse Mr Schmalz's sentiments.
Mormons believe some strnage things, but so do most of the religions in the world, including Catholics and Anglicans.
But they are by and large good people who are far more interested in raising their families than in whether their god has flesh and bone but no blood, or lives on a planet near the star Kolob.
And is Christ did not centrally preach that we should help those less fortunate (life those without health insurance), then you don't know how to read your Bible.
But again, Beck is so intellectually ridiculous that to take ANY of his comments - Religious OR political - seriously shows a marked deficit in ability to understand the world.
Posted by: jsmith4 | August 30, 2010 9:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
I don't understand why Mormons want to be considered Christians. They're polytheists. All the men expect to become gods.