Obama's Nobel Speech: Reflection and Response

In the old thomist tradition, which I will over-simplify, distinctions were drawn between an essentialist or idealist interpretation and application of Gospel norms and an existentialist or realist interpretation and application of them. This distinction is necessary because we live in a tension where we are undeniably realizing the Kingdom now even as we, as created co-creators, join all of creation in the labor and groaning of the act of giving birth to an ever more full Kingdom realization. The Church is a sign, symbol and partial realization of the Kingdom, not the Kingdom, itself.

The essentialist understanding seizes upon the undeniable efficacies of the Spirit's help and the Word, itself, proclaimed and lived by faithful witnesses. The existentialist understanding recognizes our intractable human frailty due to our radical finitude and sinfulness and so makes allowances knowing humankind will yet fall short of Gospel ideals.

One would not want to say that the essentialist approach is theoretical and the existentialist practical, because one would not want to discourage any courageous persons from living out the Gospel, radically, as prophetic witnesses and lovers of God and of all. We can say that the existentialist approach is pastoral, however, looking with compassion and understanding on us in our human condition, helping us to do the best we can.

Concretely, then, for example, our tradition affirms BOTH pacifism (essentialist) and just war principles (existentialist) as legitimate expressions of Gospel ideals. While I am not a pacifist, myself, I am in deep solidarity with and very much supportive of my pacifist sisters and brothers in my denomination and in other traditions. I would not want to live in a world without their voice of prophetic protest and without the witness of their lives. This witness is sacramental and has power and efficacy to bring into reality precisely what it brings into our hearts and minds.

Because Nobel's will was so vague about the criteria for the peace prize, MOST of its recipients have been non-pacifists. But it was inappropriate to use the ocassion to rehearse JWT or to justify escalation in Afghanistan.

Also, the Hitler justification is overblown as Howard Zinn has repeatedly shown. Obama missed the chance to outline things that can be done to work for peace.

It was a failure of a Nobel speech. He could have announced U.S. support for the Land Mine ban. Or talked about strengthening the UN.

He could have talked about how to make nonviolent movements more effective so that, even if one does reserve a right to use force, it is needed less and less often. He did none of these things.

I was hugely disappointed.

My reaction to the whole issue is that it was just his way of rationalizing his decision to continue "business as usual", preferring military engagement over diplomacy. It would be heartbreaking to me if I had voted for him last year...

I think that when people talk about war being an inevitable, sad consequence of being human, they do support it on some level. They may not like the possibility of collateral damage and human rights abuses, but they don't seem to have the imagination or wherewithal to envision an alternative. In my not-so-humble opinion, President Obama joins that crowd, despite the absurd irony of being a "Peace" laureate.

At this season of Advent, I think it's worth noting that Jesus Christ declared a "pre-emptive war" on our sinful world and "invaded" the fallen world with his Incarnation. God, in Christ, didn't wait for us to attack. We were already at enmity with God, and most of us see the Incarnation as an offense and an affront. Christ invaded the world. But he did so for redemptive reasons.

I think we need to be VERY careful before we start any military action. But I also think that Obama's military action in Afghanistan is fundamentally different from the retaliatory, destructive, and unredemptive invasion of Iraq by the Bush Administration.

Having already invaded, this troop escalation is about protecting and preserving more lives. By having adequate numbers of troops we can win the peace, having already won the war.

It was not more philosophical and theological than the sorts of speeches presidents normally give. Wallis just HAS to believe that Obama is smart and caring and all that stuff which he has shown himself not to be. Wallis has invested himself in an idolatrous view of Obama which he can't let go of--and he has slandered those who want to topple this idol by speaking truth to power, such as Palin.

Obama is not that smart of a person. I suspect that when it comes to military strategy, he would be easy to beat at chess. I suspect he gave his generals what they wanted because he didn't really know what was going on well enough to contribute to the decision.

The Oslo speech was exactly the speech Bush would have given, except Bush would have meant it. And Wallis would have been decrying Bush as the anti-Christ for sending troops to an unnecessary war. Obama is a shallow hypocrite, Jim. Let go of the idol.

How can we set an example to others to lay down arms when we continue the war? Is the war actually achieving anything, if it were a 'just war' and the women of Afghanistan could be free, all the people educated, maybe it would be worth the cost in lives and health and dollars.

I love President Obama and I supported the platforms he was elected with, but just in simple monetary cost I wonder if the health reforms will be so watered down they will be ineffectual in delivering universal health care...to pay for the cost of this war.

For me the Bible is the Old Testament, the legacies of wars and atrocities and lack of civilisation, moving towards a just and compassionate way of life with the teachings of Jesus Christ. Poverty, ignorance, fear and degredation persist in our world despite 2000 years of human development, and a large part of that is the reluctance to share resources and to stay in a model of competition and hierarchy which over-profits the few at the cost of many. So many of us claim to have embraced the teachings of Christ yet still hold on to the values of the Old Testament.

In Muslim countries the UN has been fighting increasingly to keep educational programmes honest and global. Persuading people that there are good ways to live where everyone has enough sustenance and clean safe living conditions has to be backed up with action and charity, but there are preconditions too, like teaching modern values and keeping to a moral code.

In his inauguration speech President Obama said we have to keep our own moral compass. That is difficult in a war, when priorities blur and ethics becoem confused. And wars make profits for large corporations at the expense of the taxpayer, there is a vested interest for some in not seeking peace.

Is non-violence only to be an aspiration, a dream? We humans make those choices, collectively by commitment to international agreements and organisations, but also individually one person, one word, one thought, one choice at a time.

Fifty years ago it would have been an impossible dream for a black man to be President of the United States. Henry Thoreau believed in peaceful protest, and he wrote: 'Go confidently in the direction of your dreams! Live the life you've imagined. As you simplify your life, the laws of the universe will be simpler.'

Peace begins in the hearts and minds of those determined to create and preserve it.

First of all, I thought it was inappropriate that President Obama should win the Nobel Prize. Down deep, I was proud of the Norwegians' refutation of the eight years of unmitigated disaster that was the Bush/Cheney years, because, in my view, that is what this award was. But I believe it put the president in an impossible situation. For the many reasons he so eloquently explained, he should NOT have been eligible to win the award.

Garry Wills wrote an article recently that posited the idea that Obama willingly concede to a one-term presidency, and then remove all troops from both Iraq and Afghanistan, which by doing so would almost certainly ensure his defeat in 2012. For THAT, he would deserve the Nobel Prize. For now, he is just doing the minimum to preserve the Great Machine. I suppose all modern first-year presidents, no matter what their ideology, or prior thoughts on the matter, come to realize that this beast must be fed at all costs. There is too much of our economy wrapped up in the military beast, and I imagine that sooner rather than later, any idealistic American leader comes to the sobering conclusion that it will be fed first, faithfully, and often.

I wish that the president had spoken truthfully about these matters; that we are there in Afghanistan also to protect our short-term energy future by not conceding the region to the Chinese, the Indians, and the Russians. For if we were primarily concerned with Islamic terrorism, wouldn't it make sense that the Chinese and the Russians (and the Indians), being both much more geographically closer to the epicenter and having their own issues with these same terrorists, would be a) be as concerned or more concerned with it than we are, and b) be in a much better position to do something about it?

Imagine terrorists from Canada or Mexico blowing up a venue at the 2008 Olympic games in Beijing. Would we allow 100,000 Chinese troops in Canada? Might we not consider it our hemispheric problem?

I, like many others, remain vastly disappointed.

A response to jesse3, 'no doubt many wars throughout history have lead to peace'; war in no way ever leads to peace. If that were true, sexual promiscuity would lead to purity, murder would lead to life, and hate would lead to love. War is the opposite of peace, not a means to it. That just make no sense. Sure, peace takes place after someone surrenders, but that in no way means peace was a result of the war.

Pacifism, what a loaded word. I want to lay something out here. Following Jesus and his example doesn't "work". As long as we live in a world that is not ordered according to the values of God's kingdom, the way we are called to live will not make sense or advance us. No, Jesus even acknowledged that if we follow his teachings we will be despitefully used, and told us to love those who so use us. Is there a cost? Yes. Is that cost one that we don't really want to pay? Yep.
I am a pacifist. It doesn't usually work. When it does I am pleasantly surprised. For Christians, what works in the world's systems should not be our concern. Living out the values of the kingdom is our concern, and we will be poorer and taken advantage of and mocked for it.
I am a lousy pacifist. I have a vast capacity for violence. Not just physical, but mental and emotional violence as well. I can't live into the ideal that Jesus calls me to, but that doesn't make it any less worth striving after.

"Sure, peace takes place after someone surrenders, but that in no way means peace was a result of the war."
--Why do people surrender?

Thanks for sharing these wise words.

And I wonder, "Is it possible to serve as a head of state AND embody kingdom living at the same time?"

Probably the only way for peace to "go viral" is through freedom of choice, the preconditions for which are not embraced by the vast majority:

Non-violence
Respect for diversity (by which I mean differences in both opinion and cultural lifestyle)
AND THE BIGGEST ONE OF ALL: Trust (openness) that others want peace and that we can work peace out between us, trust which is based on the assumption that we are all in this together

All of which lead to *much* more dialogue between individuals *not* governments only, which after all is composed of individuals being overloaded with the responsibility for the choices of all the other individuals in the world, for whom they can't realistically (how's that for realism?) be responsible.

If-- IF-- Obama had done anything significant regarding Health Care, one might reasonably consider his "Just War" theory and application regarding Afghanistan. IF Obama had done anything significant regarding the economy, i.e. for small business, working people and the poor, then one might reasonably consider his "Just War" theory and application with either a positive interpretation, agreeable, or with some extension of "the benefit of the doubt". IF Obama had made bold Cabinet appointments and taken bold action (a la FDR or even LBJ) in his first 11 months, then one might say, okay, maybe I'll consider that his "just war" approach is reasonable. IF Obama had begun significant withdrawal from Iraq, prosecuted Blackwater and any of the Bush Administration, ended CIA crimes, closed Gitmo, ended the abuse of Executive signing statements, offered genuine leadership... then maybe his Nobel Peace Prize speech on "Just War" might be worth considering... BUT... Wall Street, war profiteers, Patriot Act supporters, Blackwater, the Insurance industry, Toxic industries that buy pollution credits, Union Busters-- they win; we lose. There is no reason to give a moment of consideration to his justification for continuing the war as he has proven himself to be akin to W. Bush, Nixon and the LBJ/War presidents, liars and murderers all. Isn't it time to say Basta Ya! and build a third party? After all, George McGovern was the last genuine anti-war candidate nominated by the Democrats, and the GOPs are always pro war, despite their periodic rhetoric.

Christ did make the first move - he humbled himself and came as one of us, lived among us, and died for us. His anger was mainly directed at his 'supposed' representatives at the time, the religious leaders of the day.

His offer of redemption to people was and is still a choice. He does not force it on us.

Sure he waged a war on sin and death but not on people.

His intent and will are pure and good.

Also, I think it's a stretch to say that this military action is redemptive. Ultimately it is about protecting US interests, and people can argue whether that's oil or actually protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks but it is first and foremost for America, not for the Iraqis.

For all these reasons, I don't think we can compare the two.

Actually, it a little unclear to me if you are in fact comparing them, so I apologise if I've misread you completely.

It is clear to me that they are very obviously different.

Well, many will tell you that you stop a bully by giving him one forceful punch, and then you have peace.

I'm not particularly fond of that philisophy, but many mothers will tell their kids to "Bite their brother back" to stop biting between siblings. Forgive me if I'm over simplifying this, but I do believe it is the reasoning many people use.

I think it's more about discipline than being pro-violence.

It sounds like one part of it works -- you're not the man you once were -- and that's a really cool thing.

I didn't know Wallis claimed to be a pacifist.

Wallis didn't claim to be a pacifist, but it is a "slur" used against him.

On one hand, I disagree with your low estimation of Obama's intelligence. Perhaps this is proof that I, too, idolize him (though I don't mean to), but I believe he could play separate games of chess with you and me and five of our smartest friends--simultaneously--and probably win most of them.
However, I do appreciate your point about Obama and George W. Bush getting very different treatment for doing very similar things. Although Bush could not, in his wildest dreams, have written Obama's Nobel acceptance speech (I have yet to find the speech attributed to any writer other than Obama himself), nor would Bush have reasoned in the same terms, he probably would nonetheless support a "troop surge" (or some other euphemism) in Afghanistan. And his critics on the left (and in the center, for that matter) would have been loud in their condemnation. That this has happened to a far lesser degree, if at all, with Obama is a sign that, as you say, many of us are unwilling to evaluate him by his actions.
Perhaps, as Michael Tomasky of the Guardian wrote, the speech simply represents Obama's actual, sincere beliefs and reasoning, which itself is a watershed for a major political leader in a public speech. As disappointed as I am with Obama's decision to increase troop levels in Afghanistan, I must forgive him for doing his best to fulfill his numerous and weighty responsibilities as President, and concede that, as I have never been in that position, I have no idea how I would fare under such a burden.

how again do you justify following Jesus and his message of "love thy enemy" but yet advocate killing the enemy?

Is anyone else amazed that so many Christians out there are OK with ending the life of another one of God's children?

was "thou shalt not kill" not clear enough?

I agree with you entirely here... how sad that message that it's 'ok' for Christians to kill other people, who are also God's children, is propagated by a man that just won the Nobel Peace Prize.. that is freaking sad.

When you say that the surge in Iraq worked, I wonder what it is that you mean by "working." If the goal is to temporarily silence opposition, violence "works." If the goal is to create lasting peace, it's not so good. We've had a number of wars to end wars, have we not? Shouldn't WWII have wrapped things up? But we have been in constant war since then.

my goodness that was an amazing peace of writing Gil. I'm gonna show other people this post if you don't mind. I encourage others to do the same and see what more people think about this. thanks

When Obama was debating Hillary, he always went second and frequently repeated her response. I suspect that was because he really didn't know anything about the issue. His answers off-teleprompter are garbled and rambling and frequently ungrammatical. I think he's a man of average intelligence who knows how to make people think he's intelligent. He became what liberals wanted him to become in order to get elected, and now he's becoming what he thinks centrist Americans want. He wants people to like him above all else.

Sarah Palin, who wrote her own book (unlike Obama who had Ayers' help), is quite smart and perceptive. She is able to quickly get to the heart of the matter and express it in a way which everyone can understand. But, for some reason, it's OK to call a woman stupid and backward and not call it sexist, but it's not OK to critique a "cool black guy." Because that's racist.

Obama is doing what the generals are telling him to do because he has no idea how to run a war. He's had no executive experience. I don't think he's doing his best. I think he's running away from his own incompetence.

Leftist Christians need to get over their idolatry of Obama. Wallis, McLaren, and Campolo are the worst. They have tied their dreams to a shallow, unimaginative, humorless, egocentric, hypocritical fake. And leftist Christians also need to stop slandering their fellow Christians such as Palin and Glenn Beck who are doing the hard work of speaking the truth to power.