Niebuhr Bieber!

Thanks all for the comments. It is a bit strange to do a blog as it seems so one-sided--me and the
computer--rather than relational and conversational. I also realize that the longer the post, and thus
the more complete of an argument, the less likely it will be read. So I am going for broader issues
and themes that will hopefully simulate broader conversations.

On Taxes: 
Some issues that I didn't go into include: The critical role that the church plays in terms of being a community that is critical towards the government, nation-state and the church itself as a human institution (think Bonhoeffer here). This critical edge holds all human creations accountable to the ethics of Jesus, love of neighbor, focused on helping all live abundantly.

The further issue is what is life abundant? In my view, it is not attached to material riches or success, but instead a relationship with others and God that helps everyone find fulfillment, with fulfillment not being a Porsche or 68" TV. Instead, fulfillment relates to developing one's capabilities (ala Martha Nussbaum) and helping others do so as well. Policies and actions that prevent others from having the opportunity to be fulfilled, such as lack of access to health care, education, living in unsafe neighborhoods, the lack of employment opportunities that prevents fulfillment and abundance. It is also a communal idea, for only in a community that strives for the abundance of all can one find abundance.

To Kaethe: So yes, this critical edge means that money used to perpetuate violence around the world is wrongly used. The issue, though, then becomes the use of the military for things like peacekeeping, "just" defense. I am partial to Reinhold Niebuhr's view that human pride and desire for power, both of which are consequences of sin, can never be removed and gets more problematic the larger the institution or community. So there is a need for some role, albeit a minimal role to protect the innocent, maintain peace, clean up after a flood, etc. But certainly not to the extent that the US military has, invading Vietnam, Panama, Iraq for unjust reasons and spending 1/3 of the overall budget on the military.

To Tyler: If I understand your concern, the implication is that you wonder if humans really know whether what they do is God's work. My view is that one never knows absolutely that they are doing God's work, but we do have clues and intuitions that help us think about the good. Kathryn Tanner works with an idea of God as transcendent, meaning we can't know God; but this lack of transcendence doesn't mean our actions in the world should not relate to faith or be limited because we aren't certain about what is good. Instead, humans debate, using reason, tradition, revelation, science, other religious traditions, to work out as a community the good. This conversation has a frame in the sense that it assumes that God and humans work together to help human life flourish, which is a reasonable proposition (since you can't be certain about transcendent norms). I find her argument quite well developed, and think that we need both better debates in this country (that go beyond spin and sound-bites) and actions that focus on helping everyone find fulfillment and live abundantly as God reveals to us through Christ.

To Peter: Ah, the specter of individualism. I find much rhetoric (esp. Tea Party) based on the myth of self-sufficiency: I am self-made, I built my business, I made myself into the wealthy, confident person that I am (i.e. Rand's John Galt). This view ignores the reality that all of us within our context are born, shaped and succeed/fail within a community: schools, health care, jobs, infrastructure, etc. To avoid this fact of cultural situatedness, focusing merely on personal responsibilities, ignores the real gifted nature of our lives. So much of our development and success is a gift, much as Luther argues that being right with God is a gift. To acknowledge this gift is then to see the receiver as responsible to treasure and share the gift with others.


Now on to something different: Niebuhr Bieber!
Bieber has certainly been in the news, dominating the NBA Celebrity All-Star game but also giving a controversial interview to Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/justin-bieber-talks-sex-politics-music-and-puberty-in-new-rolling-stone-cover-story-20110216). In the interview, he talks about sex (only for those who truly love each other), abortion (not acceptable even if raped or after incest), health care (the joy of the Canadian health care system) and how God has a plan for everyone. He's the son of a born-again Christian who posts Bible quotes on her twitter site.

Now, what does this have to do with Niebuhr? Again, he was a Christian Realist, who believed humans could never create the perfect, ideal society as sin, especially pride and the lust for power, are always present. Christians must work within their society to have access to power, including military power, in order to change a culture for a limited "better" (with the "better" based on love of neighbor and equality).

So is Justin Bieber using his power to promote his view of Christian social ethics? Well, yes, though it is unsystematic (an interview here and there) and comes across as impulsive rather than well-thought out. It most likely will change over the next few weeks as he starts to hear feedback to his comments. His PR handlers will handle his comments no doubt!

The intriguing thing about his message, especially about sex, is that his power derives from his ability to use an ambiguous sexuality as the means to use and be used by the media.  I don't pretend to know his sexuality, but his hair is cut in a way that is appealing to both males/females; his face, dance movements, physical size and even voice blends masculine and feminine qualities. This androgyny works well for his pre-teen, teen, tween audience, and has also made him a curiosity to many (including me).

Niebuhr, who stressed the role that power and ambition plan in human decisions, might see Bieber as someone who, though he lacks the ability to really comprehend his power, is benefiting from this power, but not doing so for the "better." He also seems rather prideful, what with his belief that God has a plan for everything (which clearly means that his discovery was a matter of divine concern). Niebuhr, no doubt, would be troubled by his lifestyle and use of sexuality for profit, not love, or God or a more just society.

I am not trying to make Bieber into the Anti-Christ. He's a 16-year old who likes to sing and dance (and does them well), not someone who is clearly focused on thinking critically about what the good life is at this point in his life. (He's unlike someone like Sarah Palin on this front). Ultimately, maybe Bieber should read some Niebuhr? Couldn't he benefit from a deeper awareness of the dimensions of power that he has access to and the need to be critical and mindful of pride and neighbor love as a life abundant (rather than a dance single)? I think so....