October 21, 2014

Advertise with Stand Firm

January 28, 2013


Behold the “New American Religion”

That would be the one proclaimed by the Messiah of American Progressivism, Barack Obama. At least that’s the way Episcopal “theologian” Diana Butler Bass sees it in the Washington Post:

In the days following President Obama’s inauguration address, commentators across the political spectrum have made much about how it overtly expressed a progressive agenda.

It was not only a politically progressive speech, however, it was a masterwork of progressive theology: a public sermon on the meaning of America, a creedal statement and a call to practice that faith in the world. It was an expression of a genuinely pluralistic America, the first inaugural address of a new sort of American civil spirituality.

In other words, it was Unitarianism.

[T]he old civil religion is no longer enough. In the first decade of the twenty-first century, the percentage of the Christian population has declined as the number of nones, atheists, agnostics, and those adhering to non-Christian religions increased exponentially. In 2011, according to the Pew Forum, the United States became an officially pluralistic religious country for the first time in its history, with no single faith tradition claiming the allegiance of 50 percent of the population. Overtly Judeo-Christian understandings of God are no longer adequate to address and include all of America’s people. President Obama is the first president who, as a Christian person, has to speak to and for the new communities of American faiths.

Actually, the idea of the president speaking “for” any faith in any kind of official capacity is supposed to be repugnant to the First Amendment, according to progressives.

What can a president do? Leave faith out of the equation? Or find new ways of expressing the transcendent meanings of community? Abandoning the language of faith would, of course, be the easier path (and the favored choice for the atheists in our midst). In his inaugural speech, President Obama did not choose the easy road. Instead, he linked his progressive political agenda with transcendent values, with a spiritual appeal to the new American pluralism.

This means that he presented liberals politics the way a Unitarian would do it, which is to say he presented liberal politics.

What binds together the variety of American faiths? President Obama insisted that our unity is found in a powerful theme, borrowed from the twin theological sources of his own African-American Christianity and Protestant liberalism: Life is a journey. In both of these theological traditions, one is never fully satisfied with the way things are. We are on perpetual pilgrimage, never arriving to a settled place. We seek deeper justice, greater knowledge of ourselves in and through God, elusive wisdom, and wise action as we sojourn in and through the world. At the outset of the speech, President Obama stated, “Today we continue a never-ending journey to bridge the meaning of those words [of our founding texts] with the realities of our time.” We are political sojourners.

The “new American civil spirituality” of which the president is the avatar just morphed into New Age mush. Well, there are lots of New Age types in Unitarianism, too.

Not only is this idea at the core of President Obama’s liberal Christianity, it is also central to contemporary spiritualities, Judaism, Buddhism, forms of native religion, Islamic traditions and agnosticism.

Which is another way of saying that it is foreign to anything remotely resembling historic Christianity. Just so we’re clear about that.

To call the American people into a journey is both a spiritual and political invitation toward new understanding of who we are and who we might be. To President Obama, the appeal is a Christian one, but also one shared and understood by others. It is both specific and open at the same time.

To be truthful, it’s neither, given that this was the most openly partisan and yet mostly squishy vague inaugural address in many years. But that’s how Unitarians roll.

In the second section of the speech, President Obama articulated six beliefs of a spiritual and political, as well as inclusive and pluralistic, creed: 1) We believe in community; 2) We believe in shared prosperity; 3) We believe in mutual care of one another; 4) We believe in stewardship of the Earth; 5) We believe in peacemaking; and 6) We believe in equality and human rights.

In short, Unitarianism.

Each one of these creedal statements was backed by subtle references to Hebrew or Christian scriptures, an occasional historical reference to a noted sermon or hymn, as well as more general appeals to God or divine favor.

Those references were, for the most part, so subtle that it was impossible to detect them with electron microscopes, but I’m sure Bass brought her super-spiritual decoder ring to bear and was able to ferret them all out.

Finally, President Obama ended the speech with a call to action. Almost all good sermons end with the preacher telling his or her congregation to do something. Serve the poor, proclaim the faith, have hope in the future, renew your hearts. Indeed, the inauguration address did just that: Answer the call of history by renewing our ancient covenant of justice and equality in this new and uncertain world. We must make a new American future.

Amazingly enough, the action plan of this “new American civil spirituality” look just like the leftist platform of the Democratic Party, Fancy that.

The inaugural address was assertively progressive. It was also a powerful and deeply nuanced piece of public theology in the liberal Protestant tradition. As such, it embraced the new American pluralism as a welcome expansion of our national journey. In the process, President Obama gave us an innovative new form of public address-his was the first spiritual-but-not-religious inaugural sermon, a twenty-first century expression of American civil spirituality, embedded in but not dependent upon the ancient vision of American Protestant theology of and for God’s almost-chosen, always striving nation.

Whatever. In fact, the speech was riddled with the kind of extraordinarily pedestrian, amorphously uplifting rhetoric so beloved of the therapeutic culture. Oh, and liberal politics that were far enough left that even some reporters who have been covering the president for years, and who apparently had bought his faux-moderate shtick, were surprised. In other words, it was made to order for a Unitarian, or an Episcopalian like Bass. But I repeat myself.

Oh, and can we please retire the word “spirituality”? After this, I think we can officially say that it is a word that no longer means anything. Just say “liberal politics,” and we’ll get the reference.


Share this story:


Recent Related Posts

Comments

Facebook comments are closed.

13 comments

How many more identities for the disrupting nature of TEo can be made from the initials,
‘DBB’?  Could they be pseudonyms for Devil’s Bringer of Bestiality?  Hmmm?  Could they?

[1] Posted by Fr. Chip, SF on 1-28-2013 at 09:49 PM · [top]

Worse yet: David Booth Beers

[2] Posted by paradoxymoron on 1-28-2013 at 10:44 PM · [top]

Ms. Bass is a theologian in the same sense that TEC is a Christian communion. In other words, recognised only by entities that lack both discrimination and competence.

[3] Posted by wyclif on 1-28-2013 at 10:49 PM · [top]

For the mainline/oldline denominations, this is the same old same old.  Chaplaincy to the culture rather than embassy for the kingdom.  The culture has changed its reference points, and so our theologians are busy justifying the new stuff.  In the same old way.

[4] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 1-29-2013 at 06:37 AM · [top]

Well Timothy, as I pointed out above, Bass isn’t a “theologian.” Not if words have meanings. I *might* be willing to refer to her as an historian (if I thought she’d read the books, which I’m not certain she has). She’s really an apologist for TEC. Everything she writes is done with that end goal in mind.

[5] Posted by wyclif on 1-29-2013 at 09:07 AM · [top]

I know this might get me banned, but I would file her analysis under the keyword “Obasm”.

[6] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 1-29-2013 at 10:11 AM · [top]

“...For NEWSWEEK told her so,”  http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/29994

[7] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 1-29-2013 at 11:25 AM · [top]

“1) We believe in community; 2) We believe in shared prosperity; 3) We believe in mutual care of one another; 4) We believe in stewardship of the Earth; 5) We believe in peacemaking; and 6) We believe in equality and human rights.”

What bothers me is that people are such gullible idiots. Why don’t they ask the question: “What does all this nonsense cash out to in the end? What are the implications”? Aren’t liberals supposed to be sophisticated and rational? When they swallow up this swill uncritically, it’s hard to see how they differ from the most anti-intellectual fundamentalist.

[8] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 1-29-2013 at 11:40 AM · [top]

“But the old civil religion is no longer enough” says Ms. Bass. The Constitution is also not enough— Obama has now “come out” against it, suggesting that it can be circumvented if convenient.

Who decided that the “old religion” is “no longer enough”? Why, progressives did because they hate Christianity! Case closed. Let the revolution continue.

[9] Posted by wyclif on 1-29-2013 at 11:44 AM · [top]

#4. Tim+
” Chaplaincy to the culture rather than embassy for the kingdom. ” What a great turn of a phrase!

[10] Posted by Fr. Dale on 1-30-2013 at 09:00 AM · [top]

Timothy+,

I will remember and use your expression, as well!  Thanks from West River.

[11] Posted by Fr. Chip, SF on 1-30-2013 at 09:03 AM · [top]

Liberals believe the old remedies have no treatment efficacy. Unfortunately, their new treatment is a toxic mix of secular humanism and liberation theology.

[12] Posted by Fr. Dale on 1-30-2013 at 09:06 AM · [top]

Daily Office today includes Galatians 2… about not seeking legalistic justification but by being crucified with and living new life by faith in Christ. 

The new civil religion is just a checklist of litmus test questions to prove one’s “goodness.”  Stuff like, “Are you for gay marriage?  Are you for sensible gun control?”

It can get you approved of by the party, it can’t save you for the kingdom.

[13] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 1-30-2013 at 12:35 PM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.