There is an excellent post about the messianic rhetoric (as this blog has commented on elsewhere) in Obama’s campaign by Patrick Deneen.
[N.B. I wrote about the problems of Messianism in Obama's campaign a year ago; much of this post follows what I wrote there earlier.]
The reason this is important is because the messianic tones of this campaign are the latest instantiation of the constant dynamic in modern politics: to immanentize the eschaton. Eric Voegelin wrote much of this in his New Science of Politics, as well as in other works. What this amounts to is a rejection of the Augustinian (i.e. Catholic) view of politics, a desire to replace the supernatural and eschatological mission of the Church with a secular alternative: salvation by politics. Henri de Lubac demonstrated in his Drama of Atheist Humanism that the progenitors of Modern Atheism, Feuerbach, Comte, Marx, etc., explicitly intended to replace the Church. Since Christians indeed have an obligation to work for justice, on surface levels this may not sound so bad. In fact, the Christian commitment to justice and to building the Kingdom is one that always remains apart from the immanent aims of the world and the worldly. Understanding the difference, however, is not so easy.
In the sixties, Harvey Cox, among others, in his book The Secular City, argued that in this new age Christians must leave the walls of their churches and go out into the world and transform it: the mission of the Church, which Cox understood to be simply the people of God, is to make the world into place of peace and joy. Many Catholics followed a similar orientation, believing their mission as Christians was to make the world a better place, not to convert non-believers or to spend time in contemplation. Church architecture and liturgical music followed (or perhaps in turn, inspired) this mass elan among many Catholics. We’ve all heard “Let us build the City of God” and no doubt wondered about the theological presuppositions there.
I would argue that the Church will always remain uncomfortable (if not, persecuted) in the world, because the world (as a theological concept) always has a competitive aim. There remain, as ever, two cities here on earth, radically different in origin, construction, and purpose.
The difficulty here is that Christians are indeed called to go out to the world. Gaudium et Spes contains much in this vein, to the point that many at the time of its writing, and still to this day, are uncomfortable with the bristling optimism expressed there. This is indeed a difficult debate, with liberation theology on one side, and integralism on the other. In recent years, many Catholic theologians have followed the work of Stanley Hauerwas (as expressed in his Resident Aliens) believing that the job of the Church is not to go out to the world and transform it, but simply to be the Church, living within the tension that the Church and the world will always have radically different aims. For my part, I still think that David Schindler has outlined the most orthodox approach: that the Church transforms the world ultimately by being what she is, and it is in the living out of this holiness as the Spouse of Christ, in the world but not of it, that the Church organically grows in its mission. As Pope John Paul said, there is no genuine solution to the social problems of the world apart from the Gospel. As for a practical example, I believe the Catholic Worker idea (in its original spirit) the best example of how to live this out.
Nonetheless, the temptation to embrace secularism, and see the aims of the Church and politics as the same (or even, to judge the eschatological prerogatives of the Church as a threat and impediment to the success of politics and the construction of a more peaceful just world) remains. Especially every four years when the Presidential election rolls around. Political messianism is just as much a threat as ever.
In conclusion, note what the Catechism says in this regard (676-677):
- Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.
- The Antichrist’s deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatalogical judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism, especially the “intrinsically perverse” political form of a secular messianism.
- The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection. The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God’s victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven. God’s triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgment after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world.
February 21, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Damn, you stole my favorite phrase from Voegelin, the ultimate tongue-twister for cocktail parties. Derrida also made frequent distinctions between “The Messiah” and “Messianicity;” between the Event of “Revelation” and the concept of “revealability.” He says he can’t decide, though he ends up de facto deciding for the structure for “religiosity” without “Religion.” Marion makes the opposite decision as a theologian. The event of Jesus is not conditioned by the a priori concept of revealibility that we have as a condition of the possibility. If and when God wants to reveal, God will offer the conditions for doing so. This will always be an important theoretical question for philosophy as it will remain an important practical question for the Church.
February 21, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Markel: I would say, The Last Gentleman is the perfect literary realization of your thesis.
February 21, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Matt,
Great post. I agree with David Schindler’s being the best approach I’ve read so far.
I also agree that The Catholic Worker strikes that balance perfectly for lay people because it encompasses community living, contemplation, prayer, learning, fellowship, performing corporate works of mercy and, hence, fulfilling our call as Christians to serve the poor and those in need.
February 21, 2008 at 5:55 pm
I would highly suggest people forget Voegelin’s “immanentize the eschaton.” First, in his appeal to this as being Gnosticism, he has himself turned Gnosticism into an incarnation theology. Second, orthodox teaching is that in Christ, this is exactly what has happened. (I would recommend my series on Gnosticism here).
In reality, I would say it is a Gnosticism which rejects working in the world and for its restoration in Christ that fears any notion of making the world better.
Moreover, while I totally dismiss this representation of Obama, he is not even close to what is being claimed (one just need to lcompare him with any Orthodox Emperor; I won’t even bring up that Lion of Judah from Ethiopia… who was an Orthodox Christian), I wonder what people would say to the prophets who had messianic attitudes towards Cyrus. Would they use this to find reasons to reject prophecy?
February 21, 2008 at 6:35 pm
I think one of the reasons for political messianism is the lack of options given to the faithful for religious search in the public square.
Before the rise of secularism, the Search was a field in which no final answer was expected, but instead God was the grounding for discovery and fulfillment. Simply put, there was a recognition among men of the importance of meaning and purpose, which occupies the core of our being. Until the conclusion of the Thirty Years War, this search for meaning and purpose was acceptable to engage in both in private and in public. The search for transcendence was then stripped of its public place, beginning the compartmentalization of various spheres of social activity into those deemed public and private.
In the words of David Schindler, we have become public atheists and private theists. In the United States, we are to think carefully before using religious values to judge or evaluate discussions about politics, economics or general culture. We have to maintain two personalities and are left fragmented by the process. Our deeply seated desires for the Search find other avenues however, and one of the results is messiahs created out of political leaders. Obama is the most recent, but one could also see the cults of Kennedy and Reagan as other examples.
I agree with the words of Cardinal Kasper in his wonderful book, The God of Jesus Christ:
“A person who believes in God as the reality that determines all else cannot acquiesce in the bourgeois separation between the secular public sphere and the private sphere in which alone religion is given a place. We can only agree eagerly with the new political theology insofar as it calls attention to this baneful separation and bids us relate God to public life as the truth about man and human social life.”
February 21, 2008 at 7:19 pm
I hope that “Gnosticism” is not going to become a catch all epithet like “Calvinism.”
Matthew is right: there is a worrying and off-putting messianiac quality to Obama – and certainly from some of his supporters.
“I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth.”
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/08/obama.faith/
Yeah, no thanks.
February 21, 2008 at 7:53 pm
This is a good post. Pope Benedict, in his “Europe” treatise, also talked about the tension between the different ways that Christians are called to engage the world. One the one hand, any claim toward messianism absent the God of relevation is doomed to fail (or worse…). Here we can appeal to the followers of Marx who tried to introduce a classless society and the current American regime that tries to re-fashion the world in its own image.
But, on the other hand, we are clearly called to engage the world, even to change the world. As Benedict stated, Christianity is completely incompatable wih a static conservatism, a kind of Confucian ideal of an earth in harmony with heaven. The latter-day conservatives (and I use the word in its true sense) often miss that by downplaying the importance of social justice. It is for good reason that the early Christians deemed Christ the “Salvator” rather than “Conservator”– and that is because the messianic spirit (“immanentizing the eschaton”) is part and parcel of the Christian message.
So, when looking the Obama, the question we need to ask is not whether or not people are attracted to him on some emotional or inspirational (or even “messianic”) level. They need to ask whether their attraction is compatable with what we know about God and revealed truth. I believe that his message of hope, and of transcending division, is indeed a very Christian message. It is something we can embrace. Catholics, of course, can come to a different conclusion.
February 21, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Jonathan
What I said is valid within the discussion. Not only is there this tendency in modern politics to try to remove the sacred from the secular and keep them apart, Voegelin’s quote comes from his very faulty discussion on Gnosticism in political thought. Indeed, he is famous for making everything he dislikes as Gnostic — though later he would say this was in error. But many people still quote this without recognizing the problems. And they don’t recognize the impact of the incarnation in all pursuits.
I am not saying Matthew is doing the latter, but I still find quoting Voegelin is troubling, especially quoting him without pointing out his flaws. And I still this fervor of “Obama the Messiah” is just people trying to find excuses for why he is popular, without realizing the significant theological problems which can come from this (shall we continue this rhetoric with David? Solomon? Charlesmagne? Vladimir? Louis? Washington? Reagan? etc). There can be legitimate use of messianism in politics (or beyond). Remember, Christ is King — and in this way, it is possible to have world leaders working in unison with Christ which will portray messianic dimensions (St Constantine, for example). I will admit I have problems with this in democracies which see leaders as being decided by the people, not God, but again, I really don’t see anything close to this in Obama. I do think it tells us much about his detractors and would bring in question how they would deal with a real god-chosen leader (like Cyrus in the OT).
February 21, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Henry,
I would be quite impressed if you have read large amounts Voegelin, enough to properly back up your claim that he “makes everything Gnostic”. Most – including myself – are familiar with him through secondary sources. The reason is that he is rather dense, used highly technical language, and wrote a large amount, much of it in German.
But it’s safe to assume you can in fact confidently make these claims? His “very faulty claims…” ?
If so, you are ahead of professionals who study him as a part of their living, and I congratualte you.
February 21, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Jonathan
I am suspecting you didn’t read my series on Gnosticism. Is this correct?
February 21, 2008 at 8:42 pm
If there was ever a movement in the Church that left me apoplecticly queezy, it is Constantinianism(?). I understand some of the reasons conservatives sympathize with the Constantinian model, but I think the idea of a “Catholic king” and a “Catholic state” has done far more harm than good to the Church. Cuius regio, eius religio is a pernicious threat to the Gospel, whenever it occurs. Clericalism is one of the evil consequences. Ethnic Catholicism (I’m Irish, so I’m Catholic) is another. So is the concession of the Church to the devices of the state, or at least silence. When the state (as it inevitably will) begins to impose a program and policy contrary to the Gospel, the Church is powerless to intervene. Its voice has become neutered. So whether it’s Constantine, Heraclius, Otto, the Hapsburgs, Vladimir, Charles V, the Valois, Franco, etc.–in the end they are all antichrists of a sort. At least in that, they always usurp the authority of the Church. The great contemporary examples are from Latin America. W.T. Cavanaugh in his Torture and the Eucharist made this clear with the example of Pinochet. Having lived in a truly post-Catholic state (Austria) I saw the consequence of this time and again.
I highly recommend Cavanaugh’s classic article on the Thirty Years War for all this: http://www.jesusradicals.com/library/cavanaugh/Wars_of_Religion.html, as well as his article on why the nation-state is not the keeper of the common good: http://www.jesusradicals.com/library/cavanaugh/telephone.pdf
Ultimately, the real problem with politicians like Obama is that the messianism there is subtle. Obviously the Byzantine rulers in their caesaropapism invited comparisons to the antichrist. In a way, there’s less danger there. It’s worse here, when we live in a country that has a history of subtly twisting the Gospel, using it for its own aims. (e.g. In God We Trust on our coins, or Lincoln’s use of Christian rhetoric) Obama’s use of American religiosity (which IS a gnostic Christianity) eventually undermines the position of the Church, AS LONG AS Catholics go along with this feeling and movement.
I’d rather have the Bishops out there strongly criticizing the State, making clear to Catholics that they exist in an uneasy tension as Catholic and American.
February 21, 2008 at 9:01 pm
How can saints of the Church be antichrists? I do think there has been a lot of post-Enlightenment rhetoric on Constantine which has been unjust. It is not Constantine, nor Constantinian Christianity which is the problem (of course, I know you will agree that Constantine didn’t create the Catholic Church as some believe). Much of the so-called Constantinian Christianity and the claims about it smack of “The Donation of Constantine” to me. It’s problematic because it really doesn’t sit with the real workings of the saint (and yes, he is a saint).
Constantine really worked for a separation of church and state and a separation of powers, but nonetheless understood that there was always a connection between the two. He worked for religious liberty. He wanted to make sure Christianity was united and worked together — but in seeing the division within he worked, with his specific Christian advisors, to combat this. But I would says religious liberty and the seperation of powers, as can be found in the writings of Ossius of Cordova for example, exemplify the Constantinian notion. Vatican II was very Constantinian on so many levels that its ties to I Nicea, once one understands I Nicea and the figures involved, just strengthens the value of Vatican II to me. I plan to post a bit (tomorrow) on Ossius, so I will leave it at this for now… except… I have to do this…
Troparion of Ss Constantine and Helena Tone 8
O Lord, thy disciple Emperor Constantine, who saw in the sky the Sign of Thy Cross,/ Accepted the call that came straight from Thee, as it happened to Paul, and not from any man./ He built his capital and entrusted it to Thy care./ Preserve our country in everlasting peace, through the intercession of the Mother of God,/ for Thou art the Lover of mankind.
February 21, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Sainthood is no guarantee of wisdom. St. Vincent Ferrer famously supported the antipope Benedict XIII. Many other examples could be offered. Whatever is true about Constantine’s own holiness, I still consider his political approach a mistake for the Church (putting it mildly). And I find the hagiography of Eusebius hard to believe–especially when it seems obvious to me (not that God cannot work with this too) that Constantine was motivated by political advantage. That is just my opinion about the man; but I think the historical fact of Constantinianism (whatever the intentions of the man) and its consequences is clear for all to see.
February 21, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Matthew
Of course sainthood doesn’t guarantee wisdom. But I would say sainthood should be seen as proof against claims of “antichrist.” And I am looking at Constantine way beyond Eusebius. Indeed, so many only see him from Eusebius that they ignore the real Constantine.
February 21, 2008 at 9:54 pm
I’ll retract my accusation of “antichrist” against Constantine (which I meant in more of an analogous sense to begin with). He may be the least bad of the bunch. But I think the point still stands. It’s hard to argue that caesaropapism didn’t begin with him; even more, the alliance between the Church and the state there, and the precedent of using the claims and rhetoric of the Gospel for ulterior political purposes is what I find most troubling.
[Not to red herring you, but: and I'm more than a little uncomfortable with the title of "saint" given to Constantine as well. I think the Latin church retreated from this for good reason. There's more than a little secular messianism there in him. I would argue that it was politically convenient for the Byzantine Empire to adulate Constantine, since it progressively sought to usurp more and more control from the Church. I.e. It makes sense historically; a caesaropapist empire would not have heaped such praise upon Constantine if it didn't serve to bolster their claim. But I suppose we can agree to disagree here.]
February 21, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Matthew
Well, I think our disagreement on St Constantine actually helps shed some light on the disagreement over Obama. I think there is a consistent ethic come from the Enlightenment to squash hierarchies, and as such, to view any hierarchical system in suspicion. Moreover, when someone in politics is therefore raised for whatever reason, questions of “messianism” can easily creep up. I do think we will disagree with the role of St Constantine in caeseropapalism (the symphony really was much later). Indeed, if people really wanted to see where things changed, I would suggest it is Theodosius.
Anyway, what is interesting is that today I was looking over Hans Urs von Balthasar on the Old Covenant, in his discussion of the kings. That in the kings, there was always seen a reflection of “doxa” or “glory.” His mentioning of the story of Esther was telling here, and how even she “feinted” in the presence of the king. It really brought to light once again to me how much of our political rhetoric stems not from theological concerns but something else.
February 21, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Back to Obama. Here is his wife:
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/MediaPlayer/AudioPlayer.aspx?ContentGuid=9e3a08aa-ad84-46cf-8492-6aff289bca42
From the 8 minute mark:
“Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”
(via NRO the Campaign Spot)
Again, no thanks. Let’s be on the lookout for more Messianic undertones. I expect we will see more than a few.
February 21, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Would that be the same NRO that says that Obama must come from a Communist family, as he white mother married his black father? Clearly, the 1950s NRO is still alive and well…
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmM2NDQ3ZWQ1YWM0Y2QyZTUxMDdkY2M2OTJlNGE5MWE=
February 21, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Give me a break. Obama’s father was a lout, and I do hope that more journalists step up to the plate and ask him about how his family history has influenced him today. Heck, he wrote a whole book about his psychological issues, subtitled A Story of Race and Inheritence.
And she didn’t write anything like he “must come from a Communist family.” You are being ridiculous.
Finally, if you want to actually deal with Mrs. Obama’s strange messianic statements, I’m game.
February 21, 2008 at 11:00 pm
btw, anyone interested in Obama should be familiar with an extremely smart independent journalist who has actually read Obama’s books and articles, Steve Sailer:
http://isteve.blogspot.com/search/label/Obama
February 21, 2008 at 11:00 pm
“But, for a white woman to marry a black man in 1958, or 60, there was almost inevitably a connection to explicit Communist politics… Political correctness was invented precisely to prevent the mainstream liberal media from persuing the questions which might arise about how Senator Obama’s mother, from Kansas, came to marry an African graduate student…. It was, of course, an explicit tactic of the Communist party to stir up discontent among American blacks, with an eye toward using them as the leading edge of the revolution….Time for some investigative journalism about the Obama family’s background, now that his chances of being president have increased so much.”
Ladies and gentlemen– National Review, 1958 (sorry, I mean 2008).
February 21, 2008 at 11:05 pm
No need to discuss substance – soooo obviously racist!!
It’s going to be a long 8 1/2 months……
February 21, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Why does everything come back to race with you, Jonathan? Always with you. Always. Always.
And by the way, the extended NRO quote is designed to show my initial reading is correct. It’s all there is (ahem!) black and white…
February 21, 2008 at 11:56 pm
“Everything” ? No, not hardly.
Obama? Yes, quite a lot is about race – including the over-heated response to his candidacy. He wrote a whole book about how his identity and personality is deeply tied to his racial identity. And there is plenty of evidence that it is still is. And I’m not placing a value judgement here.
But what we should do is be more willing to discuss it in a productive and informed manner. You don’t seem willing or able to do this.
And again, my offer to discuss the most recent and quite messianic statements of his wife still stands. Perhaps we can actually engage on substance one of these days shortly after you leave the conservative-bashing aside. (He referenced NRO! No need to engage Michelle’s quote! 1958! Communism! Too racial!)