Introduction

In his famous Riverside speech of 52 years ago, Martin Luther King Jr. recognized that racism, extreme materialism, and militarism, if not confronted and changed, would result in the spiritual degradation of the United States, and for this reason he argued, “We are confronted by a fierce urgency of now.”¹ These triple maladies continue, seemingly unabated if not worsened, as the United States continues to employ vast economic and military power across the world. What is different today is the awareness, at least for some, that the world is paying and will continue to pay for our profligacy. The rapaciousness of global capitalism seems unstoppable, and it becomes increasingly resistant when buttressed with U.S. militaristic nationalism and patriotism, both of which are, more often than not, imbricated with the illusions of White supremacy.

King was not the only theologian to live in difficult times. German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer returned to his country to resist racism, militarism, and the imperialism of Nazi Germany. Bonhoeffer knew well that a people can be seduced to elect a fool for a leader, which is not an occasion to praise folly. Rather, the folly of leaders and their people was a dangerous reality. He wrote,

There is no defense against folly. Neither protests nor force are of any avail against it, and it is never amenable to reason. If facts contradict personal prejudices, there is no need to believe them, and if they are undeniable, they can simply be pushed aside as exceptions. Thus, the fool, as compared with the scoundrel, is invariably self-complacent. And he can easily become dangerous, for it does not take much to make him aggressive. Hence, folly requires much more cautious handling than malice. We shall never again try to reason with the fool, for it is both useless and dangerous. (1953, p. 8)

Readers will no doubt make the connection to our present political circumstances in the United States.

Of course, there are significant differences between Bonhoeffer’s context and our own, but the similarity is the folly represented in the election of Donald Trump, who panders to nationalists and militarists. Also, the innumerable racist, misogynist, xenophobic, and bullying comments of Trump and his supporters are enough to make any caring person quake with anger and to spur introverts to protest in the streets. Add to this that Trump and his oft-changing cabinet represent the top 1% of the economic class system. They signify, in other words, the extreme materialism King mentioned as well as neoliberal capitalism’s exultation of greed and individual self-interests. It is not the hidden hand of the market they epitomize but the market’s hidden fist.

Into this grim reality enter pastoral theologians. In general, pastoral theologians are concerned about human suffering and flourishing in all their varied forms. We make use of diverse interpretive frameworks to understand the sources of suffering and explore various methods with the aim of providing interventions, either to alleviate suffering and injustice or to provide solace when suffering cannot be abated. As pastoral theologians, we know well that much of human suffering arises out of myriad types of individual and systemic injustice and carelessness, requiring us to understand the systemic, complex realities of human suffering. In other words, pastoral theologians continue to analyze and confront political, economic, and social structures and systems that undermine human flourishing.

In this issue of the journal, five pastoral theologians take up diverse contemporary issues associated with the 2016 election.² As the author of the first article, I examine Trump’s leadership in light of Hannah Arendt’s work Eichmann in Jerusalem and Daniel Boorstin’s study The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America. These texts bring together an analysis of Trump as an individual and of the wider social-cultural context that gave rise to his “success.” In the second article, pastoral theologian Bruce Rogers-Vaughn moves away from an analysis of Trump as an individual and shifts to what he represents in terms of finance capitalism and the proliferation of debt, which has created an economic and moral quandary. Rogers-Vaughn argues that the acceptance of debt is rooted in the pervasive dominance of a neoliberal ideology or faith narrative and that this gives rise to a new type of moral injury borne by the so-called ‘lower classes.’ He concludes by arguing against Christian theological narratives that understand sin and salvation in terms of debt and debt forgiveness and pointing “to an alternative approach within the history of Christian theology that holds promise given the current environment of toxic and insufferable debt.”

Sonia Waters takes up the carceral state and examines the underlying rhetoric and logic that undergirds the discourse regarding the war on drugs and its conflation with immigration. Waters frames this in terms of penal atonement theory and its link to punitive justice, which reflects a particular worldview comprising “(1) no mercy outside of punishment, (2) pain is essential to justice, and (3) the law is implacable to common sense reasoning.” The result is the stigmatization of immigrants and those caught up in the carceral state, which, in turn, leads to a diminution of care. Furthermore, Waters argues that this worldview inhibits the potential of alternative forms of care and justice.

The fourth article shifts our attention to the role of reality entertainment in the remaking of Trump. Here, Phillip Browning Helsel describes how Trump used the entertainment industry to inflate his successes and downplay his failures. Reminiscent of the first article that makes use of Boorstin’s work on the spectacle, Helsel argues that reality television mirrors the “rituals of neoliberal capitalism, namely, identification with the boss despite the unequal conditions.” Turning to a theological frame, Helsel adds that the tendency of neoliberal self-blaming for failures is closely tied to the theological image of God as judge. This entertainment spectacle enables audiences to identify with the “winners,” which distracts them from responsibility for systemic inequalities.

This issue includes two other articles that are apt given the persistence of racism and the penchant of Trump to pander to White supremacists. Richard Coble’s article takes on White Christian progressive churches that often collude with racism by their silence, especially with regard to White privileges that are secured through white supremacy. Relying on the work of Jacques Lacan and critical race theorists, Coble seeks to explain the psychological dynamics and sources of what he calls White progressive racism. At times, Coble reveals his own experiences with both, noting his participation in the problem and suggesting a way forward. He challenges White progressive Christians to confront themselves, to face their own privileges and silent participation in racism. This confrontation can be included in liturgy wherein we confess and lament our complicity in racism while preparing ourselves to act in the public-political realm to overcome racism.

The closing article explores the roots of resistance to racism from a psychology of faith perspective. Here, I make use of Winnicott’s notion of transitional objects and Bollas’s transformational objects to depict Ta-Nehisi Coates’s faith—a faith that aided him not only to resist despair but also to transform and overcome the grammar of racism. More specifically, I argue that despite the perfidy of racism, Coates found objects and persons that enabled him to discover and secure a positive public self and to resist, defy, and free himself from the shackles of racist beliefs. Coates’s book is about his journey of faith, but it is not a faith in God. Rather, it is an existential journey of faith that struggles to be free of the illusions of racism.

I wish to end by first thanking Lewis Rambo for his support of pastoral theologians who have endeavored to engage critically the powers and principalities of our time. Lewis took over the reins of Pastoral Psychology in 1984 after Vanderbilt’s Liston Mills resigned. Since then, he has been a source of encouragement for those who endeavor to explore other territories of scholarship. I need also to mention that four of these articles were presented at the Philadelphia Conference for Pastoral Theology of Boys and Men. This conference was dreamed up by Princeton professors Donald Capps and Robert Dykstra five years ago, though Don tragically died before the first meeting. Dykstra has led the conferences, with crucial assistance from Nathan Carlin and Danjuma Gibson. To return to Lewis, he has been willing to consider the papers delivered at these conferences (and the conferences of New Directions in Pastoral Theology) for publication. Finally, I wish to acknowledge those who labor in the trenches of the political milieu, seeking justice and care for the marginalized and oppressed. Through their speech and action, they speak truth to power; they aim to comfort the afflicted while afflicting the political and economically comfortable.