Love thy Niebuhr

Svenn!

I started to reply to your comment but then decided to make a whole new post. For one thing this is gonna be lengthy, plus I really need more content here. Anyway it seems like you and I are the only ones here so what does it matter...

Actually thats not true.

In fact one of the lurkers here -- in the spirit of the previous post, let's call her "J" -- sent me a great question via chat after reading your comment: "Why does Svenn think the church ought to be humble, but the US government should not?" Takes a Canuck, huh? (Oops... ack, this anonymity thing is really hard!)

I was surprised by your summation of Niebuhr, given what I know of him, but then I haven't read The Nature and Destiny of Man so I'm perfectly willing to take your word for it. I am somewhat familiar with this German theologian who sat under Niebuhr at Union Theological for a while: Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Toward the end of his life (awaiting his death sentence for assassination attempt on Hitler), Bonhoeffer explored the notion of Jesus as "God of weakness" which I think touches on our conversation regarding AA's, and also connects to J's question.

For Bonhoeffer and his comrades, Germany in 1923 and the official Protestant Church which was complicit with the Nazi regime required rethinking patriotism and faith. He came up with the idea that "religion" (here used in a negative way in agreement with Kant) is the dominating characteristic of a institution to gather power to itself.  Jesus preached a Kingdom that stood in opposition to all the other "religions" of his time (Raman Empire, Jewish establishment, Hellenic mystic cults etc) not only in ideology, but in its very nature.

OK, once again in English. Roman Empire had the ancient equivalent of a nuclear arsenal at her disposal, Jesus had a ragtag army of beggars and harlots. Caesar was swathed in purple and gold since birth, Jesus graduated from hay-swaddle to a crown of thorns. But in this 1st century death match between the might of the imperial god and the God of weakness, Jesus won. How? By dying-- even dying on his enemy's weapon of terror, the cross.

Getting back to J's question then. If your reading of Niebuhr is right, we can agree with him that choosing the way of Jesus as the basis of foreign policy would doom US to failure from the very start. On the other hand, failure is precisely how the Kingdom of God triumphed. Where is Caesar now? Stalin? Caiphas? Hitler? Irrelevance at best, ignominy at worst beneath the sands of time.

How am I doing so far?

Heat/Sin/Water/Skin*

Wanted to continue a couple of conversations I have had recently regarding the recovery culture.

Alcoholics Anonymous is a people full of contradictions (but really, who isn't?) Anonymity proves to be elusive, especially for celebrity 12-steppers. The 12 Traditions declares AA ought never be organized except locally, but a quick glance at the website shows plainly it is now an international behemoth.  Despite wanting to have no opinions on outside issues, AA exerts heavy influence on the penal system and medical research. Because of AA's religious DNA, it also draws comparison and criticism from the Christian church.

I spent 4 years in the 12-step community, and continue to recommend it even though it has been over a decade since I last attended meetings regularly. It just seems obvious to me that the Christian church is generally inhospitable to recovering addicts, except perhaps at advanced stages of sobriety. If you have seen otherwise, please let me know. 

There are of course 12-step off-springs that specifically claim the name of Christ, but those remain in the shadows of church basements. It is as if addicts somehow embarrass us, blemish the pomp of our rites, or worst: addictive behaviors might be contagious.

Leprosy happens to be one of the major metaphor for sin in the Bible. If we could somehow recover (!) the fundamental doctrine of Original Sin and embrace all of its implications, we might have a chance at breaking bread openly as fellow addicts. Here are some of the benefits of recognizing the connections between addictions, sin, and disease:

1) We are first and foremost victims of sin. Whatever evils we can and have inflicted on others, our responsibility to repentance comes after the relief of acknowledging our helplessness. Get this order wrong and we are forever addressing the symptoms of the illness rather than its causes.

2) Most Christian traditions recognize that sin is not the things we do, but something we inherit from the Fall. When we forget this (and we do often) we minimize sin to the trivial infractions we see in our lives, and create a gulf between us and the addicts who exhibit this nature in much more obvious ways.

3) Consequently we would also have a new category to measure contrition. Without this deep understanding of the baffling and insidious nature of sin, we can only hold up as examples people who are far removed from external signs of sins, as opposed to folks locked in mortal combat with lust and envy. Abstinence is good, but even AA understands there's more growth that must happen beyond being a dry drunk. Key to this growth is the posture of weakness/victimhood mentioned above.

*Title of this post stolen from Betty Soo, without permission but ample admiration.