RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

Obama’s Ethic of Responsibility

by Brian McLaren 12-02-2008

In a recent interview with Barbara Walters, President-elect Obama said,

… When people are pulling down hundred million dollar bonuses on Wall Street, and taking enormous risks with other people’s money, that indicates a sense that you don’t have any perspective on what’s happening to ordinary Americans. …
[O]ne of the things I hope my presidency helps to usher in is a return to an ethic of responsibility. That if you’re placed in a position of power, then you’ve got responsibilities to your workers. You’ve got a responsibility to your community. Your share holders. That if — there’s got to be a point where you say, ‘You know what, I have enough, and now I’m in this position of responsibility, let me make sure that I’m doing right by people, and, and acting in a way that is responsible.’ And that’s true, by the way, for members of Congress, that’s true for the president, that’s true for cabinet members, that’s true for parents. I want all of us to start thinking a little bit more, not just about what’s good for me, but let’s start thinking about what’s good for our children, what’s good for our country. The more we do that, the better off we’re going to be.

His words struck me for four reasons. First, it’s clear how they resonate with Jesus’ words about much being expected from those given much. (Spiderman didn’t originate the idea, but he was smart enough to pick it up!) The whole Bible affirms this correlation between advantage and accountability to God for how the advantage is used: wealth or power or special talent or privilege or extraordinary success do not exempt their recipients from responsibility, but increase their responsibility.

Second, it’s clear how out of sync President-elect Obama’s sentiments are with the kind of “economic fundamentalism” that says, “What’s mine is mine and I’m not gonna share it,” and with the kind of religious fundamentalism that equates morality with sexuality.  The President-elect seems to believe that there is a morality to salaries and positions and how they’re used, and that morality is not only an issue for the bedroom but boardroom.

Third, I’m struck by how conservatives and progressives could come together on an issue like this, especially because the president-elect was not advocating (contrary to the fears of some) socialism, but “an ethic of responsibility.” It may be that if participants in capitalism can’t find a way to sustain this ethic, its fatal flaw has now been demonstrated, and its days are numbered. Might progressives and conservatives be able to join forces to promote “an ethic of responsibility?”

Finally, I was impressed by the way the president-elect was suggesting that government alone cannot solve our current crises. This ethic of responsibility and the concern it implies for the common good and not just “what’s good for me” — these habits of the heart are needed in Congress, in the White House, and in the Cabinet — but also on Wall Street, on Main Street, and around the family dinner table.

I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised to hear something like this from a president-elect. After all, it’s common sense. But common sense seems to be less common than its name might suggest. There was a lot of talk about hope and change during the election, and these words from the president-elect gave me hope about the kind of change we really need.

Brian McLarenBrian McLaren (brianmclaren.net) is a speaker and author, most recently of Everything Must Change and Finding Our Way Again.

Categories: Economics
Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • liberalinlove
    Are we saying here then that Jesus' ministry had a preference to those in physical and economic poverty and this is the model we should follow?
    Yup!
    Well if you read your scripture, you may find that Jesus, our Good Shepherd, did come because of these people. Read Ezekiel 34. While He is not opposed to wealth, he did tell Nicodemus, to sell all he had and give it to the poor, in order to be perfect in the letter of the law. And he does tell the Pharisee's that washing the cup, or outward expressions of religious fidelity does nothing to make one righteous, but giving what is in the cup to the poor, makes one righteous. So social justice is biblical, but so is wise stewardship. The bible is pretty clear, a man must work to eat. Responsible government is should be fair to all including the wealthy.
  • liberalinlove
    So he's an effective and organized organizer. Personal ambition to serve others. What an "aweful" thing. still pays $20.00 for a hair cut from the same barber he's had for a long time. Are we talking about the same person? I see this man as a servant first and then a leader. Which is what we are called to be.
  • There is a responsibility, but it goes against the personal ambition for power that tends to motivate people. Someone who rejects public financing and takes hundreds of millions of dollars from monied special interests to buy an election probably isn't going to be effective in then arguing that these interests should behave responsibly. Not surprisingly, the President-elect is choosing to surround himself mostly with people representing the power interests of these people.

    We have to work at the grass roots to change the whole atmosphere to one where it would be unthinkable to buy elections in order to further personal ambition. Obama has organized his entire life around personal ambition, to a degree unusual even among politicians.
  • usatrini10
    What is interesting to me is Pres. Elect Obama's "morality" in economics but lack thereof in real moral issues such as abortion. And if Obama wanted to do good works in private, he wouldn't run for Public Office. There are too many laws that require transparency of POTUS. And, here's the link for the Washington Post on Obama and his family relations. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008...
    I find it a little disingenuous that one espouses an ethic of responsibility but practices little when it comes to his own family? This gentleman has been a community activist, a State Sen, and a US Senator and has no idea where his aunt is living or her status in this country?? hmm, likely story.

    While I am certainly no defender of greed in this country, I come from a country dominated by social justice from the public policy perspective and let me tell you it's not all that it's cracked up to be. In full disclosure I truly struggle with this notion of a gospel preferential to the physically poor by attacking those who "pull down millions". Are we saying here then that Jesus' ministry had a preference to those in physical and economic poverty and this is the model we should follow?

    continue to struggle with this doctrine:(
  • liberalinlove
    Living righteously, or rightly or with virtue, means living with the values of Jesus, in business, in personal life, in family life. As long as competition is based on righteous behaviors, then like the faithful steward investing talents there will be multiplication. How can anyone be afraid of a call to personal and corporate responsiblity? Responsibility encompasses how we spend our resources, how we share, how we take care of employees and consumers.

    There is a delightful story that goes around about Obama, just heading off to law school, making a "gift" of $100.00 to a stranger heading overseas to live with her spouse. At the airlines she discovered she needed the amount for her possessions, and he offered the full amount. I think this is a kind man, who sees real need and takes care of it without self-promotion.

    Giving handouts isn't always helping. Can you honestly believe any President elect, is buttering his own bread, by talking like this. I'm thinking giving up lucrative job possibilites, with large salary potential, to work as a community organizer can't be measured in chunks of charitable change. I"m always amazed at how negative people can be about these articles. What does living responsibly mean to you? I've tried to teach my children these values and try to live them myself.
  • erbe
    Well, Obama did sacrifice his private life to save us from the likes of McCain and Palin. He deserves a little credit for doing that.
  • calledme
    ""Hate the messenger" is right (dlowen below).

    jeffp, do you have solid, honest evidence to back up the "Biden and Obama are the picture of talk..." comment? If not, then I rest my "I know I'm right don't confuse me with the facts" case.

    And if it's just a gut-level thing for you, of course you still have the right to voice it. I just can't see any "applicable to all" wisdom in it. Is this blog back to passionately arguing secular issues with secular passion?
  • erbe
    Yeh, I agree with you. Need some money or stuff? I need to give some of mine away. But maybe that wouldn't be good for you either.
  • erbe
    "Capitalism is an economic system in which capital goods are owned, operated and traded by private individuals, businesses, or corporations for the purpose of profit." That's one definition, yours is another.

    I think capitalism is regulated by politicians (legislators) for the benefit of their paying constituents (lobbyists). Just a little hyperbole here.

    Like an old time politician from California (Jesse Unruh) once said , "money is the mothers milk of politics".
  • dlowen
    I agree wholeheartedly. I also question the wisdom of those who would reject wise words simply because they hate the messenger. Is "moral authority" required to speak wisdom? I love Rush Limbaugh referring to the current recession as the "Obama Recession." He has not been sworn in as president and a recession that began a year ago is blamed on him.

    Regarding the church as recorded in the second chapter of Acts, how powerfully would the gospel of Christ be proclaimed in our world if those who claim His name lived as such!!!

    May His Holy Spirit lead us all into such a life.
  • Eric77
    Making money is not the goal of capitalism. There is no goal of capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system. Participants in a capitalist system (i.e. you, I and everyone else) have goals, which are as varied as our personalities, desires, and beliefs.

    Also, if you think we live in a country with unregulated capitalism, let me show you the U.S. Code and the Federal Register when you have a few minutes or hours or days.
  • Eric77
    I agree with President-elect Obama’s thoughts on an ethic of responsibility. We should all be thinking less about “me” and more about others. When God has blessed people with positions of power they should use what they’ve been blessed with to do good for others. What I don’t understand is how Obama hopes his presidency will help to usher in this ethic. What does he plan to do that will make people more responsible? Does he think his personal life and actions will serve as a such a guiding light for others that they’ll change their behavior?

    On Brian’s points, his second one is simply a bunch of caricatures created to make a point. Lame. His third point is valid and has been expressed in other ways such as “The problem with capitalism is capitalists, the problem with socialism is socialism.” If we (meaning the vast majority of the world) want to base our economy on capitalism we must maintain a sense of responsibility to others. If we don’t, capitalism will fail. And I’d agree with Brian’s fourth point, that government alone cannot solve the problem of responsibility. Responsibility isn’t something that can be forced on someone. It’s an ethic he/she must choose to adopt. Justice is done when people voluntarily choose to do what’s right.
  • JamesM
    You jump to a lot of conclusions based on incomplete data. How do you KNOW how much he has or has not given. His tax returns may not be reflective of his actual giving. After all wasn't it Christ who said to do you good works in secret and your reward will be in heaven? By the way, what right-wing talking head pundit did you get that information from anyway? I am asking because I tend to listen to left-wing talking head pundits so I would not have the opportunity to pick up on that line of attack.

    What is entirely clear from your posting is that you dislike both Obama and McLaren. That is your right. But to accuse them of hypocrisy is another thing.
  • jeffp
    "No political system is inherently good or bad -- it's either depending on the character of the folks who represent it. That's where the responsibility ethic comes in -- being willing to back up beliefs with behavior that shows a concern not just for self but for others."

    That is exactly my point. Biden and Obama are the picture of talk with no person action to back it up.
  • jeffp
    Obviously finances are an important issue for our incoming president. What I'm saying is his moral lecturing on the issue rings hollow when you look at his giving record. Here is a guy that worked in the inner-city, lived in and has family in Africa so we know he is aware of the need, but has given little if no money to help. To have him turn around and take a moral high ground is hypocrisy. I have more of an issue with McLaren who is skilled at accusing the brethren from the high grass of subtly and then retreating to the high ground of an appeal for unity.
  • JamesM
    Well, 53% or so of the American people thinks that he does. That translated into an electoral college victory. That will probably be sufficient to be hearing from Obama on the subject of ethics in finances and many other subjects for the next four years. I for one am looking forward to hearing him speak. ;-)
  • JeanM
    Can you please stop referring to Obama as "H?" I always thought it was disrespectful to refer to President Bush as "W," even though his own campaign did. But, specifically, calling Obama "H" brings up the specter of "his middle name is Hussein, he's an Arab, he's a terrorist, etc, etc, etc, that was one of the low points of the campaign and some of the low rhetoric on this blog. Also it gives rise to the sneaking suspicion that you really don't regard him as "your president." JMO, of course.
  • I do sometimes wonder what Bible people are reading when I look at some of the threads on this blog. It seems to have huge chunks of the Law and the Prophets missing, not to mention swathes of Jesus's teaching about wealth and poverty (e.g. "Blessed are you who are poor" - Luke 6:20 and "Woe to you who are rich!" - Luke 6:24). The comments earlier in this thread about people in the rich North reading Scripture through the lens of capitalism are spot on. How hard, indeed, for those who are rich (including me, by any global standard of comparison) to enter the Kingdom of Heaven!
  • "Second, it’s clear how out of sync President-elect Obama’s sentiments are with the kind of “economic fundamentalism” that says, “What’s mine is mine and I’m not gonna share it,” and with the kind of religious fundamentalism that equates morality with sexuality. The President-elect seems to believe that there is a morality to salaries and positions and how they’re used, and that morality is not only an issue for the bedroom but boardroom."

    This second point seems not only a necessary diversion to attack conservative and dare I say more biblical theology, but it also is problematic. The assumption is that fundamentalist Christians, who I would probably be one based on your definition, are greedier than their Liberal/Progressive counterpart. I don't think the facts back this up, it usually is the case that conservative Christians give more of their hard earned money to charity and causes they care about. While Progressives like to spend other peoples money. Having said that, yeah CEO's make way too much money so I think the point could have been made without attacking others.

    The second issue is then the injection of sexuality to the comment. To take issue with the morality of sexuality seems a bit strange, because sexuality is a moral issue. I can only think this some reference to the issue of homosexuality. God's Word is clear on this, that homosexuality is a sin, as is adultery, and sex outside of marriage. The point made can stand without trying to remove sexuality from a moral context. What happens in the boardroom is of equal concern of what happens in the bedroom. The problem is the radical gay rights agenda is taking it out of the bedroom and trying to force acceptance of their immoral behavior on everyone else. We need to show love to them but not love devoid of the truth of God's Wrath on sin and the need to repent from sin.

    http://whyimnotademocrat.blogspot.com/
  • erbe
    "it's not the religious population that keeps the poor "down". it's the politicians." ...

    along with their rich and influential friends.
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008