advertisement
RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

A Nobel Prayer

by Jim Wallis 10-13-2009

I got the first call at 6:30 a.m. from a reporter: “What’s your reaction to Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize?” “What?” I answered, and then had the presence of mind to say, “Call me back when I’m awake.” My surprise sounded much like Obama’s, when he was awakened with the news a half hour earlier than I was. Given what my Friday was like, I didn’t get a chance to do a post or interviews about it all. But over the weekend, in the midst of my usual baseball coaching and full-scale family activities, I did keep my eyes and ears open to the responses of other people. “WOW” is all I can say to the cavalcade of abuse heaped on the new president, whom they said so far had “accomplished nothing!”

Martin Luther King Jr. won this award, along with Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, and an array of courageous heroes for peace, justice, and human rights. Most suffered greatly, all sacrificed a great deal, and some were eventually killed for their witness to a different kind of world. The committee has sometimes slipped — never giving the award to Gandhi, but once to Henry Kissinger. But the collection of people who have been honored with the world’s most notable prize for peace is pretty impressive company to be in.

President Obama was actually appropriately humble in admitting in his statement that he didn’t “deserve” to be in such company. Instead he said that he would accept the honor as “a call to action.” May it be so, I say. To state that the award was “premature,” as many did, is not an unreasonable opinion; thus far, the very early stages of this new presidency have been characterized, quite reasonably, by more expressions of commitment and intent than by the results of those words.

But those words, intents, and commitments have already struck a very hopeful tone that the rest of the world has noticed — and that was the real reason for the award. It is a quite different and quite welcome tone than the world has seen and heard from the U.S. for some time. And the award says very clearly that most of the world is glad for the change — even if it’s mostly just a change in words so far.

It is the offer to engage rather than the threat to dominate, the desire to work together rather than to dictate terms, a multinational approach rather than a go it alone foreign policy, a whole new approach to the Muslim world rather than fulfillment of the prophecy of a “clash of civilizations,” a willingness to challenge both sides in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, and apparently even a deep personal commitment to move us toward “a world without nuclear weapons.” Even if those are all just words so far, they are very hopeful and very welcome words to most of the world.

But ah — not to Obama’s critics! You see, it’s not that they just think the award is premature, because he has only offered words and not many deeds; it is that they are totally against the intent and commitments of Obama’s words. That’s the issue. Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill Kristol, Lynne Cheney, Christopher Hitchens, and all the other apologists of the old order that I heard raging against Obama this weekend, want the opposite of all the things the new president says he is for. They want the opposite of all the new tone and directions cited above, and the re-assertion of a world dominated by the military might of one superpower, which they unabashedly claim is the only way to “peace.”

The vitriol against Obama’s peace prize and “those Norwegians” who gave it to him is much deeper than the president’s lack of achievements thus far; it is based on a fundamental clash of worldviews. But the bad news for the old order advocates is that more and more Americans are rejecting their view of the world, embracing new global realities and possibilities, and are glad that much of the world is now viewing their country in a more positive light.

The best description I read of what the Nobel Peace Prize might mean for Obama and the U.S. was embedded in a long article in The New York Times which called it “a prayer.” Indeed, may the granting of this prize not just be an award to a young and yet unaccomplished president; may it also be a prayer for the U.S. itself, to lead in a new way and to seek a fundamentally different approach to the many global decisions that this new president will now have to make.

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)

  • hopeful11
    Amen!
  • Hannity2
    Since our humble award winner inspires so much peace with his words. Maybe he should talk to his General in Afghanistan more than once in 9 months.
  • kansasmennonite
    This is just "eating" you alive isn't it? I hope you get some rest and peace tonight.
  • canucklehead
    'tis my studied opinion that it doesn't take much to eat the Hannitys of the world alive.
  • letjusticerolldown
    He does daily. It's called a chain of command. The nation has real issues and real choices and in my opinion needs to stop wasting time on these kinds of silly charges.
  • Lord_Voldemort
    "You see, it’s not that they just think the award is premature, because he has only offered words and not many deeds; it is that they are totally against the intent and commitments of Obama’s words."

    Actually, we are not simply opposed to his words, we are opposed to the deeds that he has actually done: the sniveling, cynical and cowardly deeds of:

    Selling out Iranian protestors cheaply.

    Failing to take decisive action to prevent the Iranians from developing both nuclear weapons and missiles capable of dropping said weapons on Israel, much of the Middle East, and even parts of Europe.

    Knuckling under to Russian pressure to cancel a purely defensive anti-missile system in Poland.

    Collaborating with an incipient dictator in Honduras, one who was removed peacefully after attempting to subvert that country's constitution, and replaced by his own deputy.

    Weakening the value of the dollar through reckless spending without any thought to the effect that would have on the global economy.

    Refusing to meet with the Dalai Lama, a fellow Nobel laureate and the spiritual leader of the Tibetan people.

    We have no problems in principle with multilateralism. But weakness and dishonesty are not the same as international cooperation, in fact they undermine peaceful relations between nations. It is astonishing that there are so many people who cannot see the difference.

    LV
  • Yeah, but will he actually deliver on his promises? That's what I want to know.
  • ford49
    If the US is going to advance the cause of Peace it won't be by demostrations of its stores of testosterone, but by demonstrating critical thinking and thoughtful action. We've tried chest pounding and reckless warfare and the results have been dismal and too costly in terms of lives and dollars. Obama is rightfully reordering the prioities of the country...with resultant weeping, wailing and nashing of teeth. He has also demonstrated a modicum of humilty on the world stage while projecting the power of the US.
  • I guess my “WOW” moment came when I checked my Facebook page on Friday morning. Friends around the world, who supported President Obama, were very critical of the choice and felt it was undeserving.

    I do not agree with Jim Wallis that the opposition to this award is a "worldview" clash. From my vantage point I heard critics like Limbaugh use this to attack our President- are we shocked?, but I also saw those who supported President Obama question whether this prize was warranted as well. Can you support President Obama and question whether he deserves the Nobel at the same time? I believe you can.
  • ando
    "Can you support President Obama and question whether he deserves the Nobel at the same time? I believe you can."

    I agree. This is just another attempt by Wallis to simplify the world in the same way Ronald Reagan used to: you're either with us, or you're again' us.
  • BrotherMarcus
    When she accepted the Nobel Peace Prize, Mother Theresa said this: " ...the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a direct war, a direct killing – direct murder by the mother herself."

    President Obama is a good and thoughtful man, doing the best he can in a difficult job. But he is also a champion and enabler of "the greatest destroyer of peace today." For his unrelenting advocacy of such violence, the President is unworthy of the Nobel.
  • kansasmennonite
    Run this by the Nobel Peace Commitee and see what they say. Should there be a "litmus" test and only those labeled anti abortion should qualify? What about anyone in the US (since it's not against the law to abort in the US) that promotes peace but doesn't take a stance on abortion?

    Should any person responsible for the directing of the military to take life ever receive the peace prize? What about a man who enlisted in the military? Has enlisted in the military? Doesn't take a strong stance against the military use of death? DO you see what I'm getting at?
  • NC77
    Not sure I see your point. Obama IS responsible for the directing of the military to take life. So how does that statement qualify him as someone who does not do such things?

    The Nobel Peace Prize now puts him in a postion to make hard decisions about Afganistan. And how about all the collateral damage from his orders to bomb areas of Pakistan with unmanned drones? How about the escalation of support troops now going to Afganistan as quietly as possible?

    How about not speaking up against Iran over the killing and torture of protestors after the election?

    Let's see, what else? Oh yeah, how about the four pirates whose heads got blown off by Navy snipers to free the American captain? Did they get their day in court? Obama no longer has clean hands, he is as guilty as any.
  • kansasmennonite
    Obama is responsible for life as the commander in chief. I agree with you. You misunderstood my scarcasm. BrotherMarcus said that Obama couldn't win the peace prize because of obortion and I was trying to put it back on him that obortion wasn't the only taking of life. Marcus might not see anything wrong with taking life in the military.
  • schroeder37
    AMEN AMEN AMEN. this all that needs to be said on this subject!
  • I think this was an excellent article by Jim Wallis. It is one thing to be critical of the Nobel committee's action in choosing Obama, and quite another to be critical of Pres Obama for getting the award. Our President did not ask for this award, and he has accepted it in the best possible manner. Awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama this early in his tenure illustrates the high value the world places (and we should all place) on choosing international cooperation over dictatorial hegemony, and on the value of civility over acrimony. It also shows just how important the attitude and actions of the U.S. President still is to the world.
    I was surprised by the award, but I think it was a good move on the part of the Nobel committee to encourage Obama and his administration to continue and increase their activities toward peace and cooperation. It's a vote of confidence that the American people have elected a leader who can inspire the world.
  • Hannity2
    It's classic liberal politics. Demonize someone (i.e. Limbaugh, Beck etc.), then label anyone who disagrees with you to be just like the one you demonized. I'm surprised he didn't call anyone who didn't celebrate the award racist.

    I heard Obama might win the Heisman next. He doesn't play real college football, but he's phenomenal on playstation.
  • kansasmennonite
    So are you demonizing Wallis? and Limbagh? , Beck? or deomonizing Wallis but supporting Limbagh and Beck? You forgot Sean Hannity? Is he your older brother?
  • letjusticerolldown
    I agree with the first half of the Wallis piece. Let's make this a nation of peacemaking.

    I disagree with the second. The nation IS Rush Limbaugh and B Obama. If we think the nation will somehow fulfill on a vision and calling of peacemaking AND be at war with itself is faulty. I understand Wallis sees the source of the internal war as an old order. But that still leaves us with a war--and his contention that the new order dominate/dismiss the old order. Maybe a way of peace would be to grant space for critics to air legitimate concerns.

    For example, the "world" desiring a "new order America" is also entwined heart and soul with the old order. It is possible much of the middle east wants us in the region and out of the region at the same time. We are not the only people on the planet given to a double-mindedness. So it often takes both sides to get all the issues out on the table and then seek a transcendent understanding of what will deliver the best for all.
  • kansasmennonite
    I was hoping that when Obama got elected the country would come together instead it has split more I'm afraid! The religious right has just got it's "enemy" it needed to start the campaign of new collecting money for their coffers (got a call from Jay Sekulow the other night in commemoration of Roe vs Wade) trying to collect more money. Perhaps Obama could have appeared more religious but don't believe that would have helped either as he really gets blasted for pretending to be a "christian".
  • letjusticerolldown
    One would think the multiple crises we face might be enough for the nation to act with unity; but so far the political parties continue to see opportunity to consolidate power to be impotent and do nothing. They can't imagine that if they actually accomplished something together for the nation and world that they might both have more credibility, power and value.

    Obama was swept in by a "change" election. However, I think the "change" vote was really more significant than a "get rid of Bush--bring in the Dems" vote. It seems the bailout votes before the change and after the change were pivotal. The nation smells a skunk. Even if the bailouts were needed (debatable) we still think there is a great big stink. And every addition to the deficit makes it stronger.

    Obama is blessed in that it is clear to everyone the stink started before his watch; but the continued rescues of Wall Street, continued wars, and escalated deficits are really amping up the basic perception that the change needed is something much more than the name on the mailbox at 1600 Pennsylvania.

    But I am in full agreement that the nation desperately needs to address the challenges with a unified commitment.

    Every moment the Republicans spend in their "Well we're just the helpless opposition in exile" the weaker they become. They may have some success in the 2010 elections--but it will be a success in which they gain seats and lose legitimate power to do anything.
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertisement
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement


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