Duke Divinity Call & Response Blog

Read. Discuss. Imagine.

 
  • Print
August 26, 2010

Anthony B. Robinson: David Brooks as public theologian

One of the games people play in the worlds of church and theological education goes, “Where have all the Niebuhrs Gone?” Reinhold Niebuhr was a well-known writer and lecturer in the mid-twentieth century. His influence extended beyond the church to politicians and civic leaders.

Where are such figures today? Do they exist?

Some names that come up include Princeton professor Cornel West, social justice evangelical Jim Wallis, and the Jewish novelist Elie Wiesel.

My own nominee would be the political columnist David Brooks. Brooks is not a professional theologian or a religious leader. But he does bring theological perspective to bear on American life and politics. Sometimes he does this in explicit ways, as in a column headed, “Obama’s Christian Realism.” More often the theological themes tend to be subtle.

There are several regular theological themes or perspectives at work in Brooks’ columns and essays. One is a sense of human finitude. This leads Brooks to be cautious about huge government programs and or promised technological panaceas. In a recent column on the economic stimulus plan, Brooks wrote, “The overall message [to the administration] is: don’t be arrogant. . . Cut programs that don’t enhance productivity. Spend more on those that do. You don’t have the ability to play the economy like a fiddle. You do have the ability to lay some foundations for long-term growth and stability.”

This sense of finitude also leads Brooks to chide Americans who expect too much of government. In the aftermath of last December’s attempted terrorist bombing of an airplane, Brooks commented, “In a mature nation, President Obama could go on TV and say, ‘Listen, we’re doing the best we can, but some terrorists are bound to get through.’ But this is apparently a country that must be spoken to in childish ways.”

A second and related theme that regularly pops up is the classic Christian notion that all humans are sinners. We need temper our own claims to absolute virtue and cut others some slack. This came to the fore in a column on the firing of General Stanley McCrystal, where he argued that “a culture of restraint” has been overtaken by “a culture of exposure.” “During World War II and the years just after, a culture of reticence prevailed. The basic view was that human beings are sinful, flawed and fallen. What mattered most was whether people could overcome their flaws and do their duty as soldiers, politicians and public servants. Reporters suppressed private information and reported mostly—and maybe too gently—on public duties.”

Such an awareness of human fallibility leads to a third theological theme: grace. We’re not completely left to our devices here and we have some reason for hope not grounded in ourselves alone.

Brooks expresses such trust not so much in God but in a basic confidence in a certain American genius. Recently, this has led him to argue for locally based input and solutions to the BP oil spill and not the wisdom of outside experts alone. After the failed bombing attempt he wrote: “It wasn’t the centralized system that stopped terrorism in this instance. As with the shoe bomber, as with the plane that went down in Shanksville, Pa., it was decentralized citizen action. The plot was foiled by nonexpert civilians who had the advantage of the concrete information right in front of them—and the spirit to take the initiative.” This tends to be Brooks’ version of grace. Unexpected people come through. There are forces at work for renewal which experts miss.

These core theological themes together compose a kind of non-systematic public theology that shows this tradition still has considerable life in it.

Why don’t such contributions come forth from professional theologians or from religious leaders?

Professional theologians have largely lost the ability to address wider audiences. Mimicking those in other academic and specialist sub-cultures, they have developed languages that aren’t accessible or even particularly interesting. Religious leaders have tended to mirror the polarization of the culture at-large, preferring to choose sides in the culture and political wars.

But we do continue to have some wise public voices, Brooks among them, keeping alive a tradition that has been a major, positive force in American life and culture. In the African-American church they say, “God will not leave himself without a witness.” I, for one, am grateful with the witness which Brooks offers.

Tony Robinson is a United Church of Christ minister and consultant to congregations and their leaders. His most recent book is “Changing the Conversation: A Third Way for Congregations” (Eerdmans). You can catch his comments on the weekly lectionary texts here.

10 Comments

I don't understand how the

I don't understand how the works of David Brooks could be considered theological. In some ways he may exhibit virtues that should be found in theological writing and in a Public theologian, but being a virtuous writer does not make one a theological writer. You have to talk about God, not simply restraint and temperance.

He's kidding, right?

If David Brooks is public theologian in the tradition of Reinhold Niebuhr, then I'm a cross-eye purple baboon. Brooks is nothing but a mouthpiece for the religious right, and therefore a political hack as much as anything. How disappointing that this publication would publish such an ill-thought-out essay.

Cross-eye purple baboon

Well said, first guest.The post is a head-spinner.

For another take on Brooks' column about the firing of Gen. McCrystal,see Matt Taibbi's piece in Rolling Stone
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/matt-taibbi/blogs/TaibbiData_May201...

Glenn Greenwald at Salon has also done an excellent job documenting Brooks'work http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/09/25/brooks
as has his colleague, Andrew Leonard
http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2010/04/06/david_bro...

Charity: a quaint virtue

And once the harrumphs begin about being disappointed in a publication the other cliches are sure to follow.

Let's have a bit of interpretive charity shall we? The points Robinson makes about Brooks' claims above strike me as measured and wise, whatever else Brooks stands for elsewhere (and 'religious right'? Come on, have you listened to Falwell?!).

I myself don't agree with Tony's third point, that for Brooks the equivalent of the resurrection is a sort of American genius, populism as opposed to the elites etc. And I agree with the first commenter that this isn't theology in the proper sense. But that's also Reinhold Niebuhr for you: the resurrection does vanish into the periphery beyond history, as it does here in Robinson's description of Brooks.

Faith in the midst of Uncertainty

The witness Brooks offers shows faith in the midst of uncertainty. While Americans are uncertain reaching across political divides, Brooks - a Republican - has faith in our current president. While human nature is uncertain about trust in the past (looking for the next best thing), Brooks encoruages faith in an 'entrouage of heroes' by drawing on the strengths of those who have gone before us. Creating thereby, faith in a cloud of witnesses. And as Robinson's third point suggests, when it seems uncertain that a person will 'step up', Brooks has faith that an unexpected person will come through. This is salvation theology.

In a 2007 address to Wake Forest graduates, Brooks asked, "Do you know how to make uncertainty your friend?" This act of 'faith' is paramount to survival in an increasintly complex and uncertain world.

In a world where 'towers of Babel' are everywhere (oil rigs, financial markets, air travel), we will be humbled by what we can not build and challenged to look beyond our certainty in these systems to that slippery uncertainty faith in something greater demands.

I could say that if you had

I could say that if you had been able to include my whole essay (cut for length here) maybe people would have liked it better, but judging from these comments, I'd guess not. I guess liberals are every bit as polemical as conservatives. I did notice that again this week (Tuesday) Brooks brought the doctrine of sin into play.

Yes, his version of grace is limited. It does, however, remind me a bit of a wonderful phrase I heard used by Kenda Creasy Dean, that 'God has a preferential option for the unlikely.'

Beyond liking...

Beyond liking this essay, it made me think - as does David Brooks. Thank you for giving me a new window into reading his weekly columns - as texts conversant with our sacred one.

David Brooks as "Theologian"

Our society has deteriorated in quality of thought so much that we jolly well ought to listen to anyone with a new or unusual point of view. A non-professional may have a fresh idea that can help.

Sociologists and Brooks

The sociologists over at Contexts magazine have highlighted the sociological imagination of David Brooks. My guess is that few sociologists vote the same way as Brooks. This hasn't stopped them from learning from his work: http://contexts.org/articles/winter-2008/jacobs-brooks/

Brooks as sychophant

Interesting analysis of Brooks writing.
While we're at a critique of large institutions, why is it that government is the focus of failure and embedded sinfulness and the large corporate world is unmentioned? Brooks does not see how government is a counter-vailing force to the practiced greed and selfishness, as well as destructiveness of large corporations. Niebuhr would argue that power balances between large institutions serves as a hedge against monopoly of power. Brooks nowhere argues for this!

Post new comment

Comment Policy

* required field