Labouring for the Kingdom: John O’Brien on Christianity and Social Democracy

By -
Fabian Society coat of arms
Public Domain, via Wikimedia Commons

In his self-published book, John O’Brien, a Roman Catholic actively involved in Labour Party politics in the Republic of Ireland, muses broadly on matters of history, philosophy, theology, and politics. (He sent me a copy gratis, without expectation of a positive review.) This is not a scholarly book, but more of a manifesto reflecting his personal philosophy of life, and I am at a bit of a loss as to how to review it. Still, O’Brien shares his conclusions drawn from broad knowledge and wide reading straightforwardly and with conviction, and I’d love to hash out some of these issues with him over a Guinness, should I ever have the chance. (You can follow O’Brien on Twitter: @irishfabian.)

Christianity and Social Democracy, By John O’Brien (2021).

“I am the first one in my family who joined the Labour Party,” he told me. “I am an ordinary member of the Labour Party but I help out during election time and I contribute with others in the development of democratic socialism in the party.” O’Brien is formed in the reformist, gradualist socialist tradition of the Fabian Society, and opts for the democratic Marxism of Kautsky over the revolutionary praxis of Lenin and Trotsky, whose views, he argues, have enabled tyranny and oppression.

In matters of faith and theology, I’d characterize O’Brien as a (nonfundamentalist) theological conservative, but very friendly to currents in post-Enlightenment modernity. He affirms Roman Catholic dogma on the harmony of reason and revelation without flinching, and casts shade on modern revisionist theologians like Tillich and Bultmann -- a bit uncritically, it seems to me -- who reject or severely qualify such doctrines as the virgin birth, the divinity of Christ, and the bodily resurrection. His book embodies a Roman Catholic respect for reason. O’Brien writes:
The greatest philosopher of the Middle Ages was St. Thomas Aquinas. He united reason and faith. He saw all truth as God's truth. He saw reason and revelation as leading to the same truth. They don't contradict each other (p. 63).
Still, O’Brien is no hyper-traditionalist, either:
Later theologians like William of Ockham and Dun Scotus believed that reason couldn't help us in finding God. For them faith is blind faith. They believed that we should make a leap of faith into the dark and accept Christianity based on the authority of the Church (p. 64).
He offers a glowing assessment of Descartes’ philosophy (I note that the distinguished Catholic philosopher Jean-Luc Marion has worked diligently in recent years to retrieve the work of the benighted early-modern Frenchman). O’Brien is drawn most of all to the dialectical rationalism of Hegel, whom he reads (against the grain of some more postmodern interpreters) as a robust realist. Nonetheless, he applauds Soren Kierkegaard’s turn to the individual subject and draws inspiration from Karl Barth’s life-project of integrating a reasoned theology with socialist practice

How does Christian faith relate to the social order? O’Brien rejects the notion that any particular religion should be established in a modern secular state that protects the free exercise and tolerance of diverse faiths. Still, as a Catholic, he views social democracy as the civic polity most congruent with Christian ethics. He writes:
I believe that social democracy is the political means in which I can express my calling as a Christian. Christ calls on his followers to love their neighbour. I believe that social democracy gives practical political expression to that command (p. 140).
If O'Brien's book prompts some of his secular political friends to consider how a person of religious faith might work with integrity toward the common good, it will have served a useful purpose.

==================================



Subscribe to Die Evangelischen Theologen

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

So, You Want To Read Karl Barth?

By -
Image
Every now and then I am asked for advice about studying Karl Barth. So, I thought that I would share some of my standard advice here. But, before I do that, let me just say that I am by no means a Barth expert as compared to the people whose books I will mention below. I would be thrilled to find myself in their league one day, but as of yet that remains a distant dream. Still, I have been reading Barth for long enough, and under the supervision of a number of the scholars that I will mention below, that I think I can provide a decent orientation. I have never read Karl Barth before. Which of his books should I read first? Barth’s most famous work is the monumental 13-volume Church Dogmatics . Reading the CD with understanding is not an easy thing, so you definitely do NOT want to start here. Luckily, there are two smaller works by Barth that serve as helpful introductions to his work. Evangelical Theology: An Introduction - Based on the lectures that Barth delivered duri
Keep reading

So You Want to Read….Dietrich Bonhoeffer?

By -
Image
"I fear that Christians who stand with only one leg upon earth also stand with only one leg in heaven." "The exclusion of the weak and insignificant, the seemingly useless people, from everyday Christian life in community…may actually mean the exclusion of Christ; for in the poor sister or brother, Christ is knocking at the door." "Since ethical thinking in terms of realms is overcome by faith in the revelation of the ultimate reality in Jesus Christ . . . there is no real Christian existence outside the reality of the world." "People who reject their bodies reject their existence before God the Creator." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer Prelude Andreas Steinhoff [Attribution], via Wikimedia Commons I envisioned having a lot of time for blogging this summer, but that simply has not been the case - the last month has been a crazy one, to say the least. For two weeks, I was working at a theology summer camp of sorts, the Duke Youth Academy, and s
Keep reading

2010 KBBC: Week 1, Day 5

By -
“You Wonder Where the Spirit Went”: Jenson and Barth on the Hiddenness of God By Peter Kline I am entering into a conversation that Jenson has already begun with Barth. In a constructive essay on the hiddenness of God (Jenson 2000), Jenson considers Barth’s position on the matter only to find it lacking. I want to explore why Jenson has problems with Barth on this issue, as well think critically about his constructive alternative. I will suggest that Jenson is only partly right in his diagnosis of Barth; he in fact overlooks the heart of Barth’s teaching on divine hiddenness. The reason is that he looks in the wrong place for Barth’s pneumatology. Jenson can’t find the Spirit in Barth not because the Spirit isn’t there, but because the Spirit is hidden . These considerations will open out into a comparison of Barth and Jenson on the logic of revelation. By “logic” I mean: what is discourse about God’s revealedness and hiddenness supposed to accomplish? Part I Jenson focuses his a
Keep reading

2010 KBBC: Week 3, Day 1

By -
On the Monstrosity of Christ : Karl Barth in Conversation with Slavoj Žižek & John Milbank By Paul Dafydd Jones For a while, I hoped to frame this conversation in terms of a dramatic interchange – something along the lines of “A Slovenian philosopher, a British theologian, and a Swiss dogmatician walk into a bar…” Alongside an eye-wateringly hip assemblage of cinematic references, literary allusions, and comedic scenes – my early favorites being when Barth imagines a young adult novel, entitled Are you there God? It’s me, Žižek , and when Milbank waxes poetic about the Twilight movies – I wanted to engage some topics that would likely receive attention, were the authors to meet for drinks. Primarily, I envisioned an intense discussion of the logos asarkos and the logos ensarkos , with Milbank talking up the former category, Barth emphasizing the latter, and Žižek asking whether recent debates are but symptoms of secret puzzle, embedded in the Church Dogmatics – a puzzle that
Keep reading

Karl Barth on Hell, the Devil, Demons, and Universalism – A Florilegium

By -
Image
You know, all the most interesting topics. Although Barth often confessed that he didn’t find these questions particularly interesting. At best they might draw sideways glances, as it were, as one travels the theological road. But I found a number of places in the records of Barth’s later conversations that I thought folks might find interesting, so I’ve collected them here. And if you aren’t familiar with the term “florilegium,” here you go ! All these texts are from the first volume of Barth in Conversation , with pages numbers given in parentheses along the way. As usual, italics are in the text and bold is mine. Hell “Now we come to hell. You shouldn’t laugh! There is nothing to laugh at! What does hell mean? I think hell means to be in the place where you are once fore all damned and lost without ceasing to exist, without losing the image of God, being what you are but being damned and lost, separated from God, whose creature you are, separated also from your neighbor, from
Keep reading