I went to the public library today and looked through a book about Jimmy Carter's "crisis of confidence" speech, also known as the "malaise" speech. The book is by history professor Kevin Mattson and is entitled, What the Heck Are You Up To, Mr. President?: Jimmy Carter, America's "Malaise," and the Speech That Should Have Changed the Country. Mattson tries to argue that the malaise speech should be put on par with the Gettysburg Address, for it exhorted the American people to affirm certain basic values, such as humility and a regard for their fellow human beings. Michael Moore makes a similar point in Capitalism: A Love Story, in which he features an except of the speech where Carter laments materialism in America and the tendency to honor people not for what they give, but for what they make.
Ironically, the book says that Jimmy Carter's message actually overlapped with that of Jerry Falwell, who was conducting "God Save America" rallies at the time. Both disliked the shallow culture of America, with all its self-centeredness. The difference was that Falwell didn't support the sort of "humility" that Carter advocated, for Falwell tried to incorporate his critique of American society into a larger patriotism and optimism. And that's essentially what Reagan played on: he encouraged Americans that they were good and could pull through together, rather than putting them down for being selfish and lacking confidence.
One part of the book that caught my eye concerned Jimmy Carter's admiration for the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, who had a significant influence on Carter's worldview. Niehbur emphasized that human beings are sinners who seek to dominate, yet he also believed that a just society was possible. He wasn't a utopian, mind you, but he thought that society could be fairer than it currently is. At the same time, he maintained that we should always have an attitude of humility, for our nature is sinful, and even our best intentions can go awry because of our selfish desire to be number one.
My religious background (Armstrongism) was always skeptical about the ability of humans to create a just society. We're sinners, after all, incapable of self-government! According to Herbert Armstrong, God gave us 6,000 years to rule ourselves, all to show us that we couldn't rule ourselves, for we're corrupt. That would set the stage for the second coming of Jesus Christ, the only one (besides God the Father) who can rule us in a righteous fashion.
But I wonder: can I believe that human beings are sinful, while also having hope that justice can be possible in this society? I'm not saying society will ever become perfect, but can it become more just than it currently is? Maybe we are incapable of self-government all by ourselves, but can we govern ourselves better with the help of God? And if we're simply supposed to sit on our hands, wait for Jesus Christ to return, and do nothing to promote and bring about justice in this world, then why did God command the rulers of ancient Israel to do justice? It's all over the Torah, Psalms, Proverbs, and the prophets! Was God commanding them to do something he didn't think they could do, at least on some level?
8 comments:
I was just stumbling over a statement from Anselm that a single act can be simultaneously both just and unjust, depending on the perspective.
Hey Looney, I have an Anselm question for you. Did Anselm believe in penal substitution, or are people wrong to conflate Anselm with that? I've been wondering this for a while, but it came more to the forefront of my mind recently while I was reading Ken Pulliam's blog.
James, following is another quote. From what I see, Anselm presupposes Penal Substitution as something everyone agrees with, so he spends no time explaining this but instead looks at potential objections. The quote comes from a discussion as to whether Jesus was compelled to do the substitution, or did it by his own free will. (Was Anselm an Arminian?!)
"B. ... What man would not be judged worthy of condemnation, if he were to condemn someone innocent and release the guilty party? For the argument seems to be moving towards the same unsatisfactory position which was referred to earlier. If God could not save sinners except by condemning a just man, where is his omnipotence? If, on the other hand, he was capable of doing so, but did not will it, how shall we defend his wisdom and justice?
A: God the Father did not treat that man as you apparently understand him to have done; nor did he hand over an innocent man to be killed in place of the guilty party. For the Father did not coerce Christ to face death against his will, or give permission for him to be killed, but Christ himself of his own volition underwent death in order to save mankind."
Anselm is quite thorough in two matters. First, he is insistent that he is in no way an innovator regarding any aspect of orthodox theology. It is only his intent to explain things again in terms that are more consistent with classical reason. Second, he tries to itemize all conceivable objections to a particular orthodox theological point, and then deal with them one by one.
In the matter of penal substitution, he is only dealing with objections to the matter at hand by hypothetical non-believers, but there does not seem to be any competing theory known to Anselm. I should temper that with a note that Anselm spends some time considering whether some being other than Jesus could have performed the substitution, which seems to vaguely correlate with some 2nd or 3rd century heresies.
I have just started reading "Why God Became Man", which is Anselm's non-abbreviated answer to all questions related to Christ as the Son of Man and the crucifixion. This is arranged as a dialog - (per Plato?) - and I skimmed ahead to see what I could find. This may not be the best quote, but it should give an idea where he is coming from on the matter of Penal Substitution:
"A. What if someone were to follow this up by saying, 'Either you will kill him or all the sins of the world will come upon you'?
B. I would answer that I would rather take upon myself all other sins, not just all the sins of this universe - both those committed in the past and those to be committed in the future - but whatever sins can be conceived of as existing in addition to these. And I think I ought to make this answer not only with regard to the act of killing him, but with respect to any small injury whatsoever which would harm him." - Why God Became Man, part 2, chapter 14.
Thanks, Looney. That's penal substitution all right!
I was mystified at the wiki writeup. It seems to claim that penal substitution was dreamed up by protestants after the reformation, but Anselm is an odd pre-reformation exception. Are people teaching things along those lines today?
I'm not sure, Looney. Usually, when I was in school, penal substitution was blown off with "that's just Anselm." But one professor I had at Harvard acknowledged that a I Peter passage (I think) and Irenaeus believed in penal substitution.
What HWA actually taught was that man was created incomplete--in need of a second creation of a spiritual type, which without, he could not ultimately succeed at anything (John 15:5). The 6000 years was given to prove this fact, and to demonstrate that our thoughts are not God's and His are not ours, and that sowing to our thoughts only produces corruption (Gal.6:7-9). Unfortunately for Herbert, he was allowed to experience and prove this true, for this very process is what destroyed him and his movement. And since God is not mocked, the same results await any one, nation or agency who thinks they can bring about anything good (world peace, world justice, an end to world hunger, etc) through their own might, power, and fleshly methods, or as Christ put it--"WITHOUT ME"!!
So what did God expect of Israel of old and now of man today?---but to "do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God" (Micah 6:8). Results will require these traits, but unfortunately for man these are of a different mindset!
Post a Comment