Barak Obama and the language of hope

In his book, What is the Point of Being a Christian?, Fr. Timothy Radcliffe, OP observes that despite the fact that we in the West are in most ways "safer than our ancestors," that "we are more protected from illness, violence and poverty" than previous generations, we remain fearful. We have, rightly, even come to fear human progress, "ecological disaster, BSE [i.e., mad cow disease], nuclear power, genetically modified crops," etc. This fearful environment, which produces an anxious climate, Radcliffe points out, "is manipulated by politicians, who practise (sic)'the politics of fear'." He was writing this passage on the day of the 2005 General Election in the U.K. Just as with our current presidential election, some of those running for office tried "to impel [them] to vote by tapping into fear of hoards of immigrants, violence in the inner city, the collapse of the Health Service [oh that we had one!], and hospital bugs." If hope does not win our vote, then fear will, or at least-ironically-it is hoped it will. I think Fr. Radcliffe is correct in concluding that it is "fear that has justified the reduction of human rights since 9/11 and the scandal of Guantanamo Bay". This weekend it is fear mongering by the Administration in arguing for continued infringement on our civil liberties. I think Radcliffe correct in his statement that "Fear dissolves society and undermines citizenship" (pgs. 70-71).

I understand and even find legitimacy in concerns expressed about the messianic aura that Sen. Obama has for many. I, too, am dubious about political messiahs. On the other hand, like Bill Clinton, Barak Obama speaks the language of hope. This resonates with people. I think it important to note that his campaign, his message, is that he may not have all the answers, or even the best answers, but working together there is nothing we cannot do, no problem we cannot solve. At the heart of a speech entitled One Nation Under God?, which he delievered in June 2006, are these remarks by Sen. Obama about religion and public life:

"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."

To me at least, this sounds a lot like the late Jesuit John Courtney Murray.

I think then-Archbishop Levada's The San Francisco Solution shows us how we can be creative in the public square, not reactive, not constanly fighting a rear guard action. Things like this proposal are true to what the Church teaches. Access to neccessary heath-care, for example, is a human right according to Church teaching. Therefore, the more universal we make it the more we are in the service of the truth.

Christian culture reborn

There's so much in Robert Wilken's "Amo, Amas, Amat: Christianity and Culture," that I hardly know where to begin. In her post, Sharon repeated Wilken's call for a rebirth of Christian culture.
It would be worth it to unpack the historical development of Christian culture as Wilken traces it.

The starting point is the way that Christ came into the world: «But Christ entered history as a community, a society, not simply as a message, and the form the community’s life takes is Christ within society.»

This society, the Church, started by embracing the good around them, and by discovering a new significance in the symbols already in use around them.

«In buying and displaying objects such as lamps or ring or seals Christians created the first Christian art (of which we have knowledge), but what the symbols represented lay in the eyes of the beholder, not in the object. As far as Roman society was concerned Christianity was invisible.»

My mother gave me a metal decor cross to me for my birthday. This cross was bought and sold as an object with no memory of its significance except as a conventional form. But my mother recognized it for what it means and gave it to me. A similar example would be to listen to the human cry of pop songs with the ear of Christ.

Then Christians begin something new. They bury their dead in catacombs, hallowing out a place of memory that is out of the way and yet public.

«Significantly Christian culture first takes material shape in connection with caring for and remembering the dead. Memory, especially of the faithful departed, is a defining mark of Christian identity.»

Memory is the key word here, but it is not only the memory of the dead, of the saints that we remain in communion with - it is above all the memory of Christ's presence, his crucifixion and resurrection. The memory of the saints is the experience of Christ's resurrection in His people. Christ present keeps the saints present with us.

In time, the universal (catholic, ecumenical) dimension of the Christian proposal becomes evident. Christendom becomes the expression of a society transformed by the leaven of the Christian people.

«It is shallow and petulant to rail against the political aspects of Constantinianism while ignoring the efforts of Christians of ancient times to stamp the face of Christ on the mores of society, in the ordering of time, in architecture, and law (e.g. prohibition of the exposure of infants, an ancient form of birth control).»

Christ has conquered the whole world, and so it is no wonder that Christians will propose the boldest changes to society at the broadest levels. Our goal, however, is not to run the world, to fix all the world's problems, to impose (like others) a final utopia. It is to accompany the world and to foster true freedom by having the courage to show another way of living.