It’s the Bad Theology, Stupid
Whenever I talk about disaster that is the war in Iraq, I am often accused of being motivated entirely by Bush hatred. So blind I am, so the argument goes, that I play down the significance of groups like Al Qaeda, since they are “just fighting horrible America”. When I point out that hardly any of the Sunni insurgents in Iraq are members of Al Qaeda, suddenly I am indifferent to the suffering brought about by these murderers.
Let me state this quite bluntly: this is not about Bush, or Cheney, or anybody else. This is bigger than any one person. It is about an outlook, an ideology, an ill-formed Protestant theology. This truly bad theology permeates and underpins much of American foreign policy, and has taken on new and dangerous relevance in recent years. As Catholics, as believers in authentic historical Christianity, we need to oppose this theology. But first we need to understand it.
I’ve discussed this before, as have my Vox Nova colleagues. It ultimately derives from a derivative form of Calvinism whereby the world can be divided into good and evil, the elect and the damned. From its earliest days, America has seen itself as God’s chosen nation, the idea of the Calvinist elect projected onto a country. The role model, of course, was ancient Israel. The early settlers were the “elect”, chosen by God to be saved through no action of their own. And America was their country. This concept resonates deeply among the American evangelical culture today. There was much outcry over Jerry Falwell’s comments after 9/11, when he was accused of blaming abortion, gays etc. for the catastrophe. But what Falwell really said was that God had withdrawn his shroud of protection from America. That presupposes that God was protecting America in a way that other countries could not access.
We know the history. Wiping out the native inhabitants (remember Joshua’s “curse of destruction”?). Manifest destiny. A Calvinist minister’s son named Woodrow Wilson who believed that the United States had been chosen by God to teach the nations of the world to walk in the paths of liberty. Committed Calvinist John Foster Dulles who viewed the United States as a providential nation. Ronald Reagan who re-evoked Winthrop’s city-on-a-hill speech, viewing America as pure and the Soviet Union as an “evil empire”. And George Bush, embracing American exceptionalism on steroids, desiring to re-make the world under the tutelage of the United States.
None of this should be taken as an attack on sincere Calvinists; as a Catholic, I have obvious theological disputes with them, but what I am getting at here is a distortion of Calvinism. Indeed, some observers reach back much further and claim it is Gnosticism in modern garb. Harold Bloom believed that Gnosticism was the true American religion, and pretty much all religions created in America are indeed Gnostic (Mormonism, Scientology, New-Ageism). Gnosticism is underpinned by a profound metaphysical dualism that matches the way certain Americans view he world perfectly. Good and evil, light and darkness, an eternal struggle (some will dress this up in Catholic terms by referring to the supernatural, but they are ultimately invoking Gnosticism). And if creation is not fundamentally good and in need of renewal, then why should be it not exploited through violence and environmental degradation?
Gnosticism is also elitist, with hidden esoteric knowledge available only to a select few (read: America). America becomes the teacher of truth, and liberation follows acceptance of such truth. And then there is a deference to the wisdom of political authority (Catholics like George Weigel can adopt Gnostic-sounding nostrums like the “charism of political discernment”). And, of course, Gnosticism is the ultimate religion of individualism. The classic Gnostics believed that they did not require doctrine or a teaching authority, as all they had to do was release the “spark of the divine” within themselves. Latter-day fundamentalists believe their natural destiny is heaven, as all they have to do is profess Jesus as personal savior (note the individualism!) and it’s a done deal. And of course, wealth and success are rewards for God’s elite. Where Gnosticism lurks, narcissism is not far behind. Left behind is the notion of sin and redemption.
This warped theology drives so much of American foreign policy. It paints the world into stark shades of light and darkness, devoid of context. There is another aspect of this theology, one that goes a long way to explain the over-reaction to the 9/11 terror attacks. With such a theology, you don’t forgive sinners, you destroy them. Americans do not like seeing themselves as mere forgiven sinners, with a “there, but for the grace of God go I” attitude. How else you do validate your status as one of the elect if not by scapegoating others? There is a perverse psychological effect: Americans have an obsessive need to be the good guys, as otherwise they might be damned. I believe this explains continued high levels of support for the death penalty, overlooking the failure to observe ius in bello during world war 2, and the noisy clambering for an global “war on terror” in the aftermath of the collapse of the World Trade Center. Every time the bad guy is punished, the person on the other side feels affirmed in his goodness. Needless to say, this is not Catholic. It is the psychological fallout of a dysfunctional theology.
Before I conclude, there is another manifestation of the bad theology that has led to so much grief, and that is America’s one-sided support for Israel. Here, too, the same bad theology is applied, as we see fundamentalists mis-reading the Old Testament to argue that Christ will only return when the Jews are restored to Israel in a political sense. Israel is chosen just as America is chosen. Forget the “Israeli lobby”, it is this notion that drives America’s policy, which diverges so greatly from the rest of the world. And on top of it we have a bizarre “end times theology”, comprising a “rapture” and the return of Christ to establish a 1000 year reign. This is not a minority view, as almost 60 percent of Americans believes these events will take place, and many think they are imminent. And when the president of Iran believes in similar things from his theological perspective, can the rational response be anything else but sheer terror?
Of course, authentic Christianity realizes that Christ has abrogated the idea of a land grant, as the Church he founded is truly universal, and that the secular state of Israel is not divinely-mandated (Jesus rejected the path chosen by some of his fellow Jews to rebel against Rome, and taught that the Messiah was not destined to establish an earthly kingdom). And yet, the failure to take a more balanced approach to the Israeli-Palestinian crisis has only added to the instability in the region, and fostered great injustice. But here again, the lop-sided support fits into the overall narrative of a cosmic struggle between light and darkness. Israel is a “democracy” and the Palestinians are “terrorists”. The shoe fits. And as with everything else, context is thrown out the window.
So, in sum, and in so many different ways, the theology is ultimately at fault.
Trackbacks
- Confirming the Witch Hunt? « Vox Nova
- Collective Punishment « Vox Nova
- Calvinism in America, Vatican Voices « Vox Nova
- Calvinism Seeps Into First Things « Vox Nova
- Weigel and Islam « Vox Nova
Comments are closed.
Yes.
Excellent post, Morning’s Minion.
I see at the center this bad theology a hermeneutic of war that shapes these thinkers perception and interpretation of reality, and which I think contributes to their division of the world into the good guys and the bad guys and their endless endeavor to eliminate the bad guys, rather than, say, evangelize them or at least pray for their conversion. This is a theology that has too much faith in human institutions like Democracy and military might, and stems as you say from an obsessive theologically-driven need to be the good guys and remake the world in their image. Joseph Sobran said it well when he remarked that war is the closest thing America has to a national religion.
What really troubles me is how much influential Catholic intellectuals (e.g., Weigel, Novak) have adopted this kind of thinking.
Fascinating thesis. I have noticed a number of the same manifestations that you have attributed to warped Calvinist theology, but have focussed more on the moral/psychological effect of successful rebellion, theologically and ecclesiastically in the Reformation, and then in the subsequent centuries, in the political arena.
There is something that imprints itself on the national character when a nation, such as America, is born of a Revolution. That Revolution must be canonized. The nation has no choice, and likewise, in Protestantism, the rebellion that is euphemized as the Reformation, must be canonized.
In the process of both psychological exercises, there is also inevitably a moral justification of rebellion itself as a means to an end that is good. There are several dangers that are intrinsic to this mentality, not the least of which is a tolerance for generational rebellion that manifests itself in moral, religious and politicial areas. There is also a certain national belligerence that can manifest itself as the “ugly American” or the “loud American” tourist that Europeans love to hate, but it can also manifest in foreign policy, and I believe that it has in the case of this Iraq war at least.
And, as you rightly point out, there is a rampant individualism and narcissism, which I would suggest also have their roots in rebellion. But I had not considered that what undergirds and feeds much of this is a warped version of Calvinism.
As to the many forms of dispensationalism among Protestants, it is truly disconcerting to find that what was a fringe notion in the early part of the 20th century has gained such ascendency among Protestants and has spilled over into much of the pseudo-Christian culture that percolates through the night on such popular radio shows as Coast to Coast. What is even worse is the fact that many eschatologically un-educated Catholics give assent to the “Rapture” as some sort of established Christian doctrine.
Great post.
Huh? Abrogated land-grant? That is made-up theology,
Tony when you say the US should take a more balanced approach between the Israelis and the Palestinians what specific US policy changes are you recommeding?
When you say that we over-reacted to the 9-11 attack, what actions would you have taken if you had been President following 9-11?
In regard to the former Soviet Union you put quotes around the phrase “evil empire”. What actions would have to be taken by a state before you would deem it to be evil?
In regard to the former Soviet Union do you believe that Pius XI was guilty of bad theoglogy when he attacked that regime in Divini Redemptoris? If not, in what way was the Pope correct in condemning the Communist rulers of the Soviet Union while President Reagan was incorrect in referring to the Soviet Union as an evil empire?
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19031937_divini-redemptoris_en.html
Donald, it is said that Israel is a strategic ally of the U.S. In what sense is this true? How does Israel represent the strategic interests of the US?
If anything, it would appear that Israel is a strategic liability for the US, and has been for quite a long time.
MM, Reagan’s use of the phrase “evil empire” was a strategic calculation that had profound consequences throughout the Soviet Empire. It signaled to the oppressed that the moral neutrality of detente was at an end, and that the US was now engaging in a struggle for “hearts and minds.” Only a few years later, it was those energized “hearts and minds” that brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union.
There is no reason why the deepest themes in America, e.g., American exceptionalism, cannot be used for purposes other than were originally intended. This is the case of Reagan’s use of “evil empire.” Yes, it sounds like the Calvinist struggle between good and evil. But it was not used in that theological sense. Indeed, the US strategic shift away from detente was carefully coordinated by CIA Director Casey with the Vatican. Pope JPII, by the way, also spoke in much the same way as Reagan, although using different words. JPII signaled that the Church would no longer posture itself as neutral in the struggle with Communism. Once again, he was indicating that detente had ended and the struggle for “hearts and minds” had begun.
It is important to use some of these “false themes” in the conduct of US public diplomacy. Once you explore the theme itself, it will often be discovered that they have a deeper significance in the depths of the human person than was intended by Protestant theology. Protestant anthropology is much more shallow than Catholic anthropology. This difference might well be used to the strategic advantage of the US, I would think.
MM, I like what you are doing with this. Please continue the discussion, but try to bring to the table some of the distinctions that I alluded to above. Novak and Weigel, particularly as regards their discussion of “just war,” are less than knowledgeable about strategic calculations. They remain detached from reality and their influence has been quite negative, to my way of thinking. Practical reason requires a breadth and depth of thought that goes far beyond a sophomoric understanding of the principles involved.
Jerry, you are right, but it goes even further than that: there are many “dovish” Israelis (unfortunately, not the majority) who feel that Israel’s involvement with aggressive, militant and expansionist American foreign policy objectives is actually DOOMING Israel to becoming ultimately defunct as a nation, as a result of the “ticking time bomb” of Arab demographic growth, even within the borders of the Zionist State. These Jews recognize–as American Republicans, “Christianists” and “neo-conservatives” fail to–that hope for a viable Israeli state lies in a peace accord with her Arab neighbours.
This is an extremely important piece. It helps to point out the correctness of Cardinal Newman’s dictum that, ultimately, all “serious arguments” between “serious men” amount to arguments about theology.
Nationalists who happen to be Catholic, like Mr. McClary, fail to recognise that, in their indiscriminate fervour for almost every American “cause,” they are actually making alliances with “Error”–an “Error” that began its career on these shores not as program of “religious liberty,” but, rather, as one of Inquisition-style intolerance and persecution–and persecution, particularly, of the more orthodox forms of Christianity, which it labeled “superstition” and “popery.” In the history of the United States, Puritanism has turned out to be far more significant an intellectual and cultural influence than the deism and the so-called “Enlightenment” of the “Founders.”
digbydolbe, I agree with your comment about certain indigenous Israelis and recent trends in American foreign policy. Another point is that those same Israeli populations are concern as well with the assumptions about Arabs held by the Israeli government. They believe their government is in error.
One has to ask a fundamental question: If one has been in the neighborhood for over sixty years, and still has not made a friend, isn’t there something wrong? I believe there is. But it would not be wise to assume the majority of neighbors are wrong!
The current posture of the Israeli government towards the Arab populations signals strategic defeat. Israel cannot win a struggle for “hearts and minds” using its long-standing animus toward the Arab people. Israel will have to change its assumptions substantially or be greatly marginalized in the future. As the US should learn from Iraq, conventional military power cannot settle political problems.
The Arab and Israeli people have the inherent capacity to live with each other quite well if only their leaders would bring them to that place.
As for US foreign policy today, it is simply a disgrace. We might even say we have no foreign policy. It’s too astonishing for simple words.
Thanks for all the comments. I think there is a subtle, but nonetheless profound, distinction we need to make between metaphysical dualism and moral dualism. As Catholics, of course we believe in the existence of good and evil, and see it as out duty to seek the good and avoid avoid evil (the most basic premise in natural law). But we do not believe in a Gnostic-style metaphysical struggle. It is one thing to label some of the practices of the Soviet Union “evil”, and denounce them accordingly. It is quite another thing altogether to define oneself as the intrinsic “good” in opposition to the others’ “evil”. I believe Pius XII did the former, while Reagan did the latter. In other words, one’s “election” is confirmed by attacking the evildoers. Here is the key test: a Catholic in opposition to the Soviet Union would not have allied himself with hideous and repressive regimes simply on the ground that they were anti-communist. Reagan did this. And for a believer in metaphysical dualism, this is less probematic, as it’s just another front in the eternal struggle. But as I said, these distinctions are subtle, perhaps excessively so.
Great post!
In response to Donald’s practical question over what I would have done, here is my quick answer. Consider it preliminary and incomplete.
While still having qualms about the war in Afghanistan, I think it, on balance, justified (with the usual ius in bello conditions). I think the US should have then compensated Afghanistan for the war with a massive reconstruction program, doing whatever it took to secure peace. Pakistanic journalist Ahmed Rashid is considered one of the leading experts on the Taliban and Afghanistan. He was telling anybody who would listen at the time that the vacuum in Afghanistan created a unique opportunity for the west, but time was limited before the Taliban regrouped. Rashid was ignored. I would certainly not have invaded Iraq. And I would have immediately thrown every every resource possible into the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. And removed all troops from the Arabian peninsula, and created some distance from the thuggish and venal Saudi dictatorship. In short, I would not have played into Bin Laden’s hands. I would have tried hard, though actions and not just words, to convince the Islamic world that America was a trusted friend, or at least an honest broker (and trust me, as somebody with friends in the region, the Israeli conflict is THE issue, whatever you hear in the US media). Basically, I would have one the total opposite of what Bush actually did.
Great, great post, Morning’s Minion. The theology you describe explains an awful lot that has happened in the last 27 years or so.
I should add: not to mention the past 400 years….
MM,
“a Catholic in opposition to the Soviet Union would not have allied himself with hideous and repressive regimes simply on the ground that they were anti-communist. Reagan did this.”
I’m not sure what you are talking about here. Do you still feel that way about Great Britain!!! Seriously, though, could you explain a little more?
I can’t imagine any decision being made simply because a country was anti-communist, or pro-West for that matter — unless one is merely trying to create a red and blue map!
Decisions involve much more, which was the thrust of my comment. Practical reason is not a science. Metaphysics is.
MM, your points in response to Donald are on point with me.
I would suggest you take an interest in learning about public diplomacy. The full range of options available to the United States are not contained in the current debate between military and political options. Clearly, the military is wrongheaded. I can think of no instance where conventional military forces have been able to bring about a political reconciliation. Organized military force structures are designed to defeat organized military force structures. This they can do. But there is no instance where they have done much more.
The political options in the national debate are usually couched in terms of state-to-state relations. This is also wrong headed. Why? Because the real problem is not with states but with populations.
What part of US grand strategy deals with populations? Public diplomacy. We need to build our relationships with populations throughout the Islamic world. Public diplomacy is the one option that is not on the table. Even when mentioned in the Baker Report, the suggestions made were predicated on a misunderstanding of public diplomacy. Indeed, Baker diminished the role of public diplomacy when he was Sec. of State. He had little knowledge of it then and even less today.
USIA was abolished in 1999 and placed in the State Department. This was a strategic error. Public diplomacy is not a PR firm for the State Department. Why defend a failed policy? That will anger populations more than anything.
As for Israel, it is already strategically defeated. It cannot win with its current strategy, unless the call for an endless war is a winning strategy. They will be defeated over time unless they change their security policy away from reliance on conventional military weapons to dialogue with the Arab populations. The US can best assist Israel by placing them in a predicament where they have to reassess their strategic posture from the ground up.
You are correct about the Palestinian problem. It is everything. In large measure, it explains why we are in Iraq. Saddam posed no threat. Indeed, his secular government stood firm against radical Islamists.
Tony, today is a hectic day in court for me, so just a brief point for now. In regard to your point about Reagan, how does his policy differ from Pius XI and Pius XII supporting the Nationalists in the Spanish Civil War while condemning the Republic, outside of the Basque areas.? Were the popes wrong to decide that from a Catholic point of view that the Nationalists, in spite of the atrocities that they committed, were preferable to the Republic? If they were not wrong how then can Reagan be condemned for determining that a non-Communist faction in a civil war was preferable to a Communist faction.?
Ahh Thanks for linking ot me.
Let me say I understand your viewpoint on what you term bad theology. I have seen your post on what you call “American Exceptionalism” Some I agree with. Others though are a tad overblown i think.
I was taking your post as a whole as well as the two comments you made as to that post.
As to Bush I will say your comment here at this post did not escape my attention
http://vox-nova.com/2007/09/07/air-force-flies-weapons-of-mass-destruction-across-us/
However I was more struck by your post a few days earlier called the Lure Of Fear
http://vox-nova.com/2007/09/04/the-lure-of-fear/#more-1040
There was precious little theology when you talked of “Staged terror alerts” , the Supposed “crushing of diseent”- where is that happening? , and the “straagetic release of the Bin Laden” video by the Bush adminsitration.
The point is that Catholic have got to start looking at the facts on the ground a tad more. AQ is significant. They are trying to trigger a civil war. The fact they have overeached has now caused a significant new attitude in IRaq among the Sunnis that perhaps needs to be incorporated into thinking here.
As to Occupation the Iraqi Govt doesnt want us to leave at this point. I think that is pretty clear. If we are dicatating to the Iraqi Govt we are doing a darn bad job of it. We are not telling them what kind of Govt they need either. It would perhaps be best if they revamped the system. But that will be for them to decide.
I guess also I take exception to what I view as to to a too simplistic version of Calvanism as you put it. On the ground it is far more complex how that interacts with American foreign policy. Often it does not at all
Right-wing liberation theology.
“The most sincere and self sacrificing defender of an unjustly exploited neighbor must realize that if he rises to arms to put down an aggressor, the arms may turn upon him if he does not have that “superhuman virtue” which can allow him to survive. The problem of the soldier, then, may not be death endured or inflicted so much as the destruction of all combatants by bestial fury.
Warfare in a just cause provides just the excitement that will allow the beast inside to crawl out unnoticed. It is not so much the war itself, as what war summons out from within us. Armed intervention can destroy the possibility of peace when its target is a resolute group of men and women who believe themselves to be defending their families, their homes and homeland, their faith and their freedom; in short, the precious things people are willing to die for. Every decision to use force or to abstain from force can be justified only by its realistic claims to make peace more possible.”
James T.Butchaell, CSC, quoted by John Deedy in a supplement to the July 1991 issue of Overview, entitled The Persian Gulf War
True then; true now!
Kevin,
Yes!
MM,
Great post, btw. Forgot to tell you that.