The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my whole life will be ruined.
Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship. Christian scholarship is the Church's prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close. Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes, it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament. I open the New Testament and read: "If you want to be perfect, then sell all your goods and give to the poor and come follow me." (Matthew 19:21) Good God, if we were to actually do this, all the capitalists, the officeholders, and the entrepreneurs, the whole society in fact, would be almost beggars! We would be sunk if it were not for Christian scholarship! Praise be to everyone who works to consolidate the reputation of Christian scholarship, which helps to restrain the New Testament, this confounded book which would run us all down if it got loose.
-Søren Aabye Kierkegaard
Dec 2, 2011
Kierkegaard on Exegesis
Nov 19, 2011
The Death of God on Google Video
I want to share with you a fascinating, vintage documentary (about 30 minutes long) about the controversy surrounding Thomas J.J. Altizer’s “Death of God” theology. It’s fascinating how much has changed and how little has changed.
Part I
Part II
Part I
Part II
Aug 20, 2011
Happy Birthday, Paul Tillich
"God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him."
-Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology I
Aug 18, 2011
Ideas v. People: Sketch 3
To this editorial by Warren Buffet, a trusted friend suggested that Buffet is arguing for socially-justified armed robbery.
The ultra-rich only have that money because they exploit a cycle of poverty that allows them to underpay people like me, keeping us helpless and subservient and paralyzed. That’s at least as immoral as the government collecting taxes. I don’t have a choice in either situation, unless I want to rot in a cell (not paying taxes) or in a ditch (not laboring). So, if I have to choose between two kinds of robbery, one which hurts a tiny portion of the population (who, frankly, will still be getting fat and happy anyway), and one that hurts a huge percent of the population…
If the government isn’t going to assure a decent standard of living and at-least-somewhat-equitable opportunity for every American (something that will require armed robbery), then there shouldn’t be a government at all, we should give this land back to the people from whom we stole it, and go back to Europe or whatever sewer we crawled out of. The only possible way we can justify the continued existence of the United States government, and the “United States” as a concept, is to use the considerable resources and ingenuity at our disposal to alleviate the suffering of ourselves and our neighbors. The fact that we are unwilling to do that (gridlocking ourselves with demagoguery, apathy, avarice, masturbatory materialism and petty, partisan mine’s-bigger contests) makes a case for packing up and calling it a day, or at the very least changing our name to The United States of Fuckpoorpeople
The ultra-rich only have that money because they exploit a cycle of poverty that allows them to underpay people like me, keeping us helpless and subservient and paralyzed. That’s at least as immoral as the government collecting taxes. I don’t have a choice in either situation, unless I want to rot in a cell (not paying taxes) or in a ditch (not laboring). So, if I have to choose between two kinds of robbery, one which hurts a tiny portion of the population (who, frankly, will still be getting fat and happy anyway), and one that hurts a huge percent of the population…
If the government isn’t going to assure a decent standard of living and at-least-somewhat-equitable opportunity for every American (something that will require armed robbery), then there shouldn’t be a government at all, we should give this land back to the people from whom we stole it, and go back to Europe or whatever sewer we crawled out of. The only possible way we can justify the continued existence of the United States government, and the “United States” as a concept, is to use the considerable resources and ingenuity at our disposal to alleviate the suffering of ourselves and our neighbors. The fact that we are unwilling to do that (gridlocking ourselves with demagoguery, apathy, avarice, masturbatory materialism and petty, partisan mine’s-bigger contests) makes a case for packing up and calling it a day, or at the very least changing our name to The United States of Fuckpoorpeople
Aug 14, 2011
Ideas v. People: Sketch 2 (St. Paul and Homosexuality)
Could Paul have conceived of healthy, homosexual monogamy? Are Paul's remarks moral proclamations for all time, or the understandably frustrated anti-Roman spite of a politicized first-century Jewish thinker? Does Paul see homosexuality as a symbol of vulgar Roman extravagance? Is there really a heteronormative agenda at work? What does Paul mean when he writes "In Christ there is no male or female"?
Does Paul see homosexuality itself as sin? Does Paul see anything as sin? Does he distinguish "sin" from morally-neutral behaviors? Or is "sin" (to Paul) everything and nothing? Isn't Paul also antagonistic to heterosexual behavior? Does Paul sympathetically characterize homosexuality as a malaise from which people must be saved?
Does the burden of proof fall on me, or on those who claim that homosexuality is sin? If these people appeal to the Levitical code, is their reading selective? What are the assumptions upon which their belief is based?
Don't we have to agree on a few sweeping assumptions before the conversation can move forward? How can I have this conversation with someone if I don't share their view that scripture is inerrant?
Doesn't Jesus himself stand up for the dignity of marginalized people against the moral presumption of the pious?
Can the Spirit of the law be separated from its letter? Are we bound by rules for which we are unprepared?
Aug 13, 2011
Ideas v. People: Sketch 1
If capitalism is your god, your god is dying. As they used to say in seminaries: “Any god that can be killed should be killed.”
Capitalism is failing because – as its adherents will tell you – “We didn’t do it like we’re supposed to.”
Remember, this is why Communism collapsed. No one ever did Socialism “like we’re supposed to.”
We also never did democracy, Christianity or the NFL draft “like we’re supposed to” but we need to accept compromise. If a system is so fragile that only it’s most pristine and flawless permutation can function, then that system is no good to us.
Aug 10, 2011
Ideas v. People
The energy of faith, hope, and love is the unheroic Passion of Christ crucified, the energy of his death and resurrection binding us to him. Passion is not willpower. Passion is the surrender of meaning and power, the emptying that is incorporation into Christ. Passion is the soul’s life.
Paul Hessert, Christ and the End of Meaning
I don’t believe there is a Hell in the afterlife, and this is probably why I am not evangelically-minded. If I did believe in something like that, I would be obligated to spend every waking moment saving (or trying to save) anyone I could from that fate. In light of infinite, endless suffering, nothing else could be worth doing.
I understand the impulse, however, to share profound experiences, and the impulse to defend and explore what we hold dear. The Christian experience compels us to invite (as fishermen, if you can excuse that imperfect metaphor) others to share in it.
When asked which commandment is greatest (see Mathew 22:36-40), Jesus answers “Love the Lord your God with all your heart. Love him with all your soul, and love him with all your mind."
I believe this means to strive toward a connection to Ultimacy, to accept our relative smallness, and to cease rebellion against the laws of the physical universe (our rebellion against our own mortality, for example, as seen in the Transhumanist movement.)
Jesus adds a second commandment, one that is like the first: “Love your neighbor as you love yourself.” Everything in the books of Law, everything from the prophets is about these two things.
Perhaps, then, all or most Christians can agree on these priorities:
1) God
2) Humanity
We may understand the finer points (like, what “God” refers to) differently, but let's use this as a starting point. The two commands are alike. There is no clear distinction between loving others and loving God. What we do to anyone we do to Christ. Christ. God. Meaning. This is why our selfishness and our callousness to the needs of others does not expose the truth that we are very-naughty-indeed, it exposes the truth that we are mired in an existential failure.
Notice that there is nothing on the list between God and people. Doctrine and dogma are not included. In fact, Jesus appears to be saying that doctrine and dogma exist only to promote these two priorities. (If we intend to include our doctrine in the category of “God” we are making a grave mistake.) The conclusion is that people are more valuable than ideas.
Christian churches talk about fundamentals, the things on which they will not budge. At the same time, they evangelize, inviting people to share in the experience while, at the same time, alienating those people with “fundamental” ideas about the role of women, homosexuality, marriage, economics, violence, and a host of other contentious issues. It seems wrong to bend one’s principles to appease potential “buyers” but a question lurks: Is this idea worth more than the people you will lose?
This is why I have so little patience for talk about politics in the US. People appear more concerned with the triumph of their ideology than they are with the needs of others. I can rant about this at length, but why bother?
Any person is more precious than any idea. Christ calls us away from the idols of ideology, away from our loyalty to Truth-claims, and into a wilderness of love.
Apr 22, 2011
Mar 8, 2011
Teaching Racial Optimism
When I was working on my teaching degree, I observed a classroom in an Ypsilanti high school once a week. The majority of the students were black, and the teacher was white. The class had been reading Richard Wright’s novel Black Boy and they were asked to write an impromptu essay based on the following prompt: “Write about a time when racism impacted your life.” The students grumbled, but pondered the prompt and began to busy themselves writing. One student raised his hand and politely asked the teacher “What if racism has never affected our life?” The teacher quickly responded “Well, how about a time when someone you know was affected by racism?” This student was drawing a blank. Other students began to ask questions like “Why do we always have to talk about racism?”
It’s hard not to be skeptical of the notion that this student has never been affected by racism, but it’s easy to understand why the topic didn’t arrest the class’ interest: They’re tired of talking about it.
Our classroom discourse on race has become exclusively a discourse on racism, and this negativity encourages social reproduction. Our students are being taught that racism is an inescapable reality of life, and that racial diversity necessarily causes racial tension. (When do we talk about tolerance? When someone has been intolerant.) Because our curriculum automatically links race and racism, positive aspects of racial diversity are rarely discussed, except as a contrast to the norm of (usually white-against-black) racism. I am not proposing that racism be ignored in the classroom. Rather, I am suggesting that a new approach to race be developed for our classrooms, one which doesn’t focus solely on the negative and which celebrates racial diversity through more than tokenism. Our teachers must avoid two traps; ignoring race altogether and discussing it only in a negative context.
According to Lee Anne Bell's "Sincere Fictions: The Pedagogical Challenges of Preparing White Teachers for Multicultural Classrooms", pretending to be unable to see race causes white teachers to shirk their responsibility to challenge racial stratification and teach racial issues. It is a way to proclaim one’s innocence. This “colorblindness” does students a great disservice. Students recognize their racial differences even if we refuse to. They aren’t given any positive platforms to discuss them, however, and that’s where a new, positive, discourse must begin.
Bell is right to discourage “colorblindness,” but attacks the problem from a standpoint that is too negative. She suggests that white teachers must learn to “understand themselves as racial beings” by acknowledging the privileges available to them and recognizing their assumptions. As a racial being, however, a person is more than just a figure trapped in a struggle between warring groups. Possessing racial identity is also about being connected to your heritage and understanding what your unique background has taught you. White teachers need to become racial beings in a way that doesn’t make them shameful, or else students, who will perceive that shame, will interpret it as an admission of guilt, one that confirms a suspicious and defensive worldview.
Shortly after the writing prompt on racism, the teacher in this class asked me to stand in the back of the room during a test to discourage cheating. My presence made one student defensive. “I can’t take the test with you standing there, that’s intimidating,” she said. Other students chimed in; agreeing. One boy stood up and said “I see what’s going on”. He pointed to the six or seven students closest to me. “Black kid, black kid, black kid. This is racism.” I told him that such an accusation was ridiculous, that I wasn’t a racist and the assumption that I was actually exposed prejudice on his part. He brushed it off and told me he had just been joking. The girl sitting next to him, however, looked me square in the eye and asked me, sincerely, “Are you a racist?” I assured her I wasn’t; I just wanted to diminish the temptation to cheat.
This incident gave me a lot to think about. Did this student really believe he was the target or racial profiling? Has he learned that playing the race card is a way to manipulate authority figures even when there has been no demonstration of racial prejudice? Perhaps many of his teachers, feeling insecure in their own tolerance, are so worried about being perceived as racists that they will cave in at the very suggestion that what they are doing could be seen as a racist act. In this way, attempts to acknowledge and discuss racial tensions and issues in the classroom, however well-intentioned, have backfired. Because the only meaning assigned to racial difference is that of a potential source of animosity, many students feel racially estranged from their teacher. They are acutely aware of a racial division, real or imagined, between their teacher and themselves. White students feel alienated and accused. Black students feel either patronized or subjugated. Teachers are often too uncomfortable with racial issues to discuss anything frankly, and revert to “colorblindness” as a defense mechanism.
Bell talks about racial consciousness and being aware of one’s “racial location in the social order.” Too often, however, a focus on our racial location can create a feeling of inevitability and a self-fulfilling prophecy. And while our racial location can’t be ignored, it is far more productive to emphasize the ideal of racial equality than the problem of racial stratification.
If equality seems too distant an ideal, there is always diversity. The positive components of diversity should be emphasized so students can see the advantages of living in a multi-ethnic society. I can’t emphasize enough that the tensions that have resulted from our racial climate can not be ignored, but they must be tempered with hope. High school students are in the process of developing their worldview, and this worldview will color their actions. Many of the subtler forms of institutionalized racism are perhaps better taught at a college level. At the high school level, students should develop an outlook that will equip them to use information in a positive manner. If taught to expect a racial climate bordering on warfare, students will become paranoid and defensive, and, like the student who accused me of profiling, more susceptible to stereotype-vulnerability.
Our students are very fortunate to live in a country where countless ethnicities coexist peacefully. While far from utopian, America's racial climate is the product of years of hard work. America has shown a tremendous willingness to recognize its own injustices and then change accordingly. The contrast between the rights and circumstances of African-Americans fifty years ago and the rights and circumstances of African-Americans today aptly demonstrates this. Too often, however, our history classes are tainted with a bleak worldview that emphasizes the injustices of the past and not the progress that was made in response.
I read something by James A. Banks (and I'm looking for that resource again, if anyone knows what it was...) in which he describes a democratic classroom as a place where all cultural perspectives are valued. He suggests that teachers not ignore their own personal/cultural knowledge. Just as Bell wants white teachers to see themselves as racial beings, Banks suggests that the often-ignored diversity within European Americans needs to be examined in the classroom. When teachers use their background and experiences to critically analyze knowledge, they are encouraging students to do the same with their own backgrounds. With this kind of discourse, students can simultaneously address inequalities and celebrate their diverse backgrounds by placing value on those backgrounds and emphasizing the importance of diverse backgrounds to the process of interpreting and understanding events and ideas. If students aren’t singled out in a tokenist manner, but encouraged to take the initiative to speak from their experiences, they can develop a sense of racial optimism which will curb social reproduction. Teaching our culture’s struggle to overcome racism must be tempered with this lesson that racial diversity is advantageous.
Our classroom discourse on race must emphasize how lucky we are to live in a multi-cultural country. Cynicism and hopelessness will serve only to preserve and reproduce racial tensions.
It’s hard not to be skeptical of the notion that this student has never been affected by racism, but it’s easy to understand why the topic didn’t arrest the class’ interest: They’re tired of talking about it.
Our classroom discourse on race has become exclusively a discourse on racism, and this negativity encourages social reproduction. Our students are being taught that racism is an inescapable reality of life, and that racial diversity necessarily causes racial tension. (When do we talk about tolerance? When someone has been intolerant.) Because our curriculum automatically links race and racism, positive aspects of racial diversity are rarely discussed, except as a contrast to the norm of (usually white-against-black) racism. I am not proposing that racism be ignored in the classroom. Rather, I am suggesting that a new approach to race be developed for our classrooms, one which doesn’t focus solely on the negative and which celebrates racial diversity through more than tokenism. Our teachers must avoid two traps; ignoring race altogether and discussing it only in a negative context.
According to Lee Anne Bell's "Sincere Fictions: The Pedagogical Challenges of Preparing White Teachers for Multicultural Classrooms", pretending to be unable to see race causes white teachers to shirk their responsibility to challenge racial stratification and teach racial issues. It is a way to proclaim one’s innocence. This “colorblindness” does students a great disservice. Students recognize their racial differences even if we refuse to. They aren’t given any positive platforms to discuss them, however, and that’s where a new, positive, discourse must begin.
Bell is right to discourage “colorblindness,” but attacks the problem from a standpoint that is too negative. She suggests that white teachers must learn to “understand themselves as racial beings” by acknowledging the privileges available to them and recognizing their assumptions. As a racial being, however, a person is more than just a figure trapped in a struggle between warring groups. Possessing racial identity is also about being connected to your heritage and understanding what your unique background has taught you. White teachers need to become racial beings in a way that doesn’t make them shameful, or else students, who will perceive that shame, will interpret it as an admission of guilt, one that confirms a suspicious and defensive worldview.
Shortly after the writing prompt on racism, the teacher in this class asked me to stand in the back of the room during a test to discourage cheating. My presence made one student defensive. “I can’t take the test with you standing there, that’s intimidating,” she said. Other students chimed in; agreeing. One boy stood up and said “I see what’s going on”. He pointed to the six or seven students closest to me. “Black kid, black kid, black kid. This is racism.” I told him that such an accusation was ridiculous, that I wasn’t a racist and the assumption that I was actually exposed prejudice on his part. He brushed it off and told me he had just been joking. The girl sitting next to him, however, looked me square in the eye and asked me, sincerely, “Are you a racist?” I assured her I wasn’t; I just wanted to diminish the temptation to cheat.
This incident gave me a lot to think about. Did this student really believe he was the target or racial profiling? Has he learned that playing the race card is a way to manipulate authority figures even when there has been no demonstration of racial prejudice? Perhaps many of his teachers, feeling insecure in their own tolerance, are so worried about being perceived as racists that they will cave in at the very suggestion that what they are doing could be seen as a racist act. In this way, attempts to acknowledge and discuss racial tensions and issues in the classroom, however well-intentioned, have backfired. Because the only meaning assigned to racial difference is that of a potential source of animosity, many students feel racially estranged from their teacher. They are acutely aware of a racial division, real or imagined, between their teacher and themselves. White students feel alienated and accused. Black students feel either patronized or subjugated. Teachers are often too uncomfortable with racial issues to discuss anything frankly, and revert to “colorblindness” as a defense mechanism.
Bell talks about racial consciousness and being aware of one’s “racial location in the social order.” Too often, however, a focus on our racial location can create a feeling of inevitability and a self-fulfilling prophecy. And while our racial location can’t be ignored, it is far more productive to emphasize the ideal of racial equality than the problem of racial stratification.
If equality seems too distant an ideal, there is always diversity. The positive components of diversity should be emphasized so students can see the advantages of living in a multi-ethnic society. I can’t emphasize enough that the tensions that have resulted from our racial climate can not be ignored, but they must be tempered with hope. High school students are in the process of developing their worldview, and this worldview will color their actions. Many of the subtler forms of institutionalized racism are perhaps better taught at a college level. At the high school level, students should develop an outlook that will equip them to use information in a positive manner. If taught to expect a racial climate bordering on warfare, students will become paranoid and defensive, and, like the student who accused me of profiling, more susceptible to stereotype-vulnerability.
Our students are very fortunate to live in a country where countless ethnicities coexist peacefully. While far from utopian, America's racial climate is the product of years of hard work. America has shown a tremendous willingness to recognize its own injustices and then change accordingly. The contrast between the rights and circumstances of African-Americans fifty years ago and the rights and circumstances of African-Americans today aptly demonstrates this. Too often, however, our history classes are tainted with a bleak worldview that emphasizes the injustices of the past and not the progress that was made in response.
I read something by James A. Banks (and I'm looking for that resource again, if anyone knows what it was...) in which he describes a democratic classroom as a place where all cultural perspectives are valued. He suggests that teachers not ignore their own personal/cultural knowledge. Just as Bell wants white teachers to see themselves as racial beings, Banks suggests that the often-ignored diversity within European Americans needs to be examined in the classroom. When teachers use their background and experiences to critically analyze knowledge, they are encouraging students to do the same with their own backgrounds. With this kind of discourse, students can simultaneously address inequalities and celebrate their diverse backgrounds by placing value on those backgrounds and emphasizing the importance of diverse backgrounds to the process of interpreting and understanding events and ideas. If students aren’t singled out in a tokenist manner, but encouraged to take the initiative to speak from their experiences, they can develop a sense of racial optimism which will curb social reproduction. Teaching our culture’s struggle to overcome racism must be tempered with this lesson that racial diversity is advantageous.
Our classroom discourse on race must emphasize how lucky we are to live in a multi-cultural country. Cynicism and hopelessness will serve only to preserve and reproduce racial tensions.
Feb 27, 2011
On First Things (Part Three - The Holy Ghost)
Read Part One here.
Read Part Two here.
Implicit in the Christian concept of a “new covenant” is the possibility that at a particular point in history the parameters of the relationship between God and humanity may be redefined. To put this in terms of the parent-child relationship favored by so many theists, we could think of the way a parent will offer more autonomy and expect more responsibility as a child develops the capacity to handle those things.
The belief that God has intervened in history (through the prophets and through Christ) in order to teach us implies that God never intended to hold our hand forever. If we are taught something it is because we are expected to learn something. We are expected to evolve and change intellectually. Perhaps God does not change, but humanity clearly does. This means our relationship to God will change.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer believed humanity was outgrowing our adolescence and he understood profoundly the experience of the inaction of God. Setting aside his pacifist beliefs to join a conspiracy to assassinate Hitler, he was imprisoned by the Gestapo. While waiting for his execution he wrote, in a letter dated July 16, 1944:
Read Part Two here.
Implicit in the Christian concept of a “new covenant” is the possibility that at a particular point in history the parameters of the relationship between God and humanity may be redefined. To put this in terms of the parent-child relationship favored by so many theists, we could think of the way a parent will offer more autonomy and expect more responsibility as a child develops the capacity to handle those things.
The belief that God has intervened in history (through the prophets and through Christ) in order to teach us implies that God never intended to hold our hand forever. If we are taught something it is because we are expected to learn something. We are expected to evolve and change intellectually. Perhaps God does not change, but humanity clearly does. This means our relationship to God will change.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer believed humanity was outgrowing our adolescence and he understood profoundly the experience of the inaction of God. Setting aside his pacifist beliefs to join a conspiracy to assassinate Hitler, he was imprisoned by the Gestapo. While waiting for his execution he wrote, in a letter dated July 16, 1944:
Bonhoeffer was executed, no miracle saved him. The Third Reich was defeated, but not by a miracle, and not before unspeakable atrocities were committed. Our experience in the Second World War not only demonstrated that we cannot rely on divinity to prevent atrocity, but also that the apocalyptic power once ascribed to God was now in our hands. The atom was split and self-extinction became a real possibility. In the wake of this development the stakes would appear to be higher than ever.So our coming of age leads us to a recognition of our true situation before God. God would have us know that we must live as men who manage our lives without him. The God who is with us is the God who forsakes us (Mark 15:34). The God who lets us live in the world without the working hypothesis of God is the God before whom we stand continually. Before God and with God we live without God. God lets himself be pushed out of the world and on to the cross. He is weak and powerless in the world and that is precisely the way, the only way, in which he is with us and helps us.
Through the lens of a superstitious belief in God’s intervention these events demonstrate the callousness of a God who is disinterested, even cruel. Though a purely materialist lens, these horrible things have no larger meaning and are simply bad things that happened; there is no Truth that can prevent them on our behalf. Through Bonhoeffer’s lens, however, these events demonstrate to us that God trusts us and believes in our potential to solve our problems on our own. The onus is on us. On this point, a Bonhoeffer-theist and a humanist-atheist agree. It’s not easy for a parent to allow a child to make mistakes, but if we aren’t allowed to make mistakes we are eternally helpless.
"Pushed out of the world and on to the Cross"
(The Crucifixion, as depicted by St. John of the Cross)
Many Christians object to this view and call for us to put our trust In God, but to deny our ability to reason, to deny our ethical imaginations, and to deny our autonomy and freedom, is to insult God. To demand that God be our benefactor in worldly affairs, the solver of our problems and the fulfiller of our needs (when we are completely capable of doing these things for each other) is to trivialize God and to neglect our responsibility.
To trust God is to trust that God’s inaction confirms the value of our ability to reason and solve problems. The old chestnut about the Earth being the center of creation was a symptom of the belief that the purpose of creation is to give humanity a home. We were not made for it, it was made for us. As arrogant as this view is, if lifted out of its pre-modern cosmology, it charges humanity with a tremendous amount of responsibility. We have to take what we have learned from our respective God-experiences and leave the nest. We have to let go of things. We have to forsake and be forsaken, as Christ was forsaken. Christ points the way out of the Temple, away from the insulated world of cultic practice and sacred laws, and into the fullness and richness of the human experience.
Feb 20, 2011
On First Things (Part Two - The Son)
Read Part One here.
The tenants of Judaism are on the one hand confirmed and deepened by the teachings of Jesus, and on the other hand they are renounced as obsolete. Jesus approaches religion in a way that is remarkably complex and would be deeply offensive to the community around him (as well as to our community today).
In the second chapter of Mark’s gospel, Jesus and his followers pick wheat on the Sabbath, which is forbidden by religious law. When the Pharisees criticize him, he reminds them that when King David and his men were hungry, they ate bread that had been set aside as a sacrifice to God even though only priests were allowed to eat this bread. David had privileged the basic human needs of his companions over the dogmas of religious law. Jesus says “The Sabbath was made for the good of human beings; they (human beings) were not made for the Sabbath.” This is a humanist position, one that demands that the needs of human beings be put above religious precepts and that these precepts have value only insofar as they benefit human beings. Because that is not always the case, the value and purpose of these precepts must be reconsidered.
In the fifth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus says he has not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. To “fulfill the law” meant to interpret and follow it perfectly. A very pious, observant Jew “fulfilled the law” when he understood it comprehensively and adhered to it above all other things. Jesus claims that he is fulfilling the law even though he and his followers, on the surface, disobey the precepts of that law.
This is more than simply a challenge to religious fundamentalism. Jesus proclaims that he is the truly pious one, in no small part by virtue of the fact that he does NOT necessarily adhere to the rigid moral codes of his faith. It is as if there is something beyond the law, something to which the law points and that “something” is the real reason for the law. If we take him at his word, this means the law was always (and by necessity) doomed to fail, that this religion, and by extension ALL religion, serves its true function only when it fails. Jesus was pushing anyone who would listen to step beyond religion. This is not a step back from religion, or a step around it. It is a step beyond, using the lessons learned from humanity’s religious experience to transcend that experience, an experience which is rapidly losing relevance and meaning.
This is a step beyond the law as well as a step beyond morality. Jesus structures many of his teachings in a formula that says “You have heard it said… But I am telling you…” Each of these sayings builds on the moral rule even as that rule is rejected in favor of a more abstract principle. Not committing murder is adherence to a moral code, while loving your enemy is embracing an abstract principle. Abstract principles must be applied anew in every unique situation to account for the virtually infinite number of possible ethical dilemmas. Now the comparatively abstract theology of Judaism is merged with an equally abstract ethical dimension.
In his excellent book The Subversion of Christianity, Jacques Ellul argues concurrently on the basis of much more orthodox theology:
In light of this, behavior can no longer be based on rule and authority. Concepts of eternal reward and punishment (contrary to superstitions frequently used as fear-based recruiting tools) lose their meaning. Belief in this absolution can be (and often is) abused as a free pass to behave in selfish and destructive ways, but if correctly applied within the larger picture of the Christian ideal, it means that a person chooses to do the right thing because it is the right thing. This is motivation superior to a construct of reward and punishment. It is a sign of a maturing world-view, and that maturity is essential because the “right thing” will be situational, and principles must be uniquely applied by a developed ethical imagination.
This is wildly idealistic, and places a great deal of faith in humanity, and I am perfectly comfortable with that. Is it ethical anarchy? In a certain sense, yes, but it is not ethical nihilism. The apostle Paul said “Everything is permissible” but he immediately followed that statement with the statement that “not everything is beneficial” and an exhortation to seek well-being of others instead of one’s own well-being. What that will look like will depend on our own abilities and circumstances.
But what becomes of our relationship with God if this is the case? What role does God play if not the role of law-giver and judge?
Read Part Three here.
The tenants of Judaism are on the one hand confirmed and deepened by the teachings of Jesus, and on the other hand they are renounced as obsolete. Jesus approaches religion in a way that is remarkably complex and would be deeply offensive to the community around him (as well as to our community today).
In the second chapter of Mark’s gospel, Jesus and his followers pick wheat on the Sabbath, which is forbidden by religious law. When the Pharisees criticize him, he reminds them that when King David and his men were hungry, they ate bread that had been set aside as a sacrifice to God even though only priests were allowed to eat this bread. David had privileged the basic human needs of his companions over the dogmas of religious law. Jesus says “The Sabbath was made for the good of human beings; they (human beings) were not made for the Sabbath.” This is a humanist position, one that demands that the needs of human beings be put above religious precepts and that these precepts have value only insofar as they benefit human beings. Because that is not always the case, the value and purpose of these precepts must be reconsidered.
In the fifth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus says he has not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. To “fulfill the law” meant to interpret and follow it perfectly. A very pious, observant Jew “fulfilled the law” when he understood it comprehensively and adhered to it above all other things. Jesus claims that he is fulfilling the law even though he and his followers, on the surface, disobey the precepts of that law.
This is more than simply a challenge to religious fundamentalism. Jesus proclaims that he is the truly pious one, in no small part by virtue of the fact that he does NOT necessarily adhere to the rigid moral codes of his faith. It is as if there is something beyond the law, something to which the law points and that “something” is the real reason for the law. If we take him at his word, this means the law was always (and by necessity) doomed to fail, that this religion, and by extension ALL religion, serves its true function only when it fails. Jesus was pushing anyone who would listen to step beyond religion. This is not a step back from religion, or a step around it. It is a step beyond, using the lessons learned from humanity’s religious experience to transcend that experience, an experience which is rapidly losing relevance and meaning.
This is a step beyond the law as well as a step beyond morality. Jesus structures many of his teachings in a formula that says “You have heard it said… But I am telling you…” Each of these sayings builds on the moral rule even as that rule is rejected in favor of a more abstract principle. Not committing murder is adherence to a moral code, while loving your enemy is embracing an abstract principle. Abstract principles must be applied anew in every unique situation to account for the virtually infinite number of possible ethical dilemmas. Now the comparatively abstract theology of Judaism is merged with an equally abstract ethical dimension.
In his excellent book The Subversion of Christianity, Jacques Ellul argues concurrently on the basis of much more orthodox theology:
Not only is it honestly impossible to derive a moral system from the Gospels and Epistles, but further, the main keys in the gospel-the proclamation of grace, the declaration of pardon, and the opening up of life to freedom-are the direct opposite of morality… To elaborate a moral system is to be a sinner before God, not because the conduct is bad but because, even if it is good, another good is substituted for the will of God.This is not exactly the same as my position, but the practical result is the same, and it illuminates the fact that the incompatibility of Christianity and morality is not unique to any one specific Christian theology. It is essential to the Truth of the Gospel: the truth that humanity is absolved. This absolution is not earned, it is given. A person’s good deeds or bad deeds are not tallied. They have no bearing on a person’s standing or eternal fate.
In light of this, behavior can no longer be based on rule and authority. Concepts of eternal reward and punishment (contrary to superstitions frequently used as fear-based recruiting tools) lose their meaning. Belief in this absolution can be (and often is) abused as a free pass to behave in selfish and destructive ways, but if correctly applied within the larger picture of the Christian ideal, it means that a person chooses to do the right thing because it is the right thing. This is motivation superior to a construct of reward and punishment. It is a sign of a maturing world-view, and that maturity is essential because the “right thing” will be situational, and principles must be uniquely applied by a developed ethical imagination.
This is wildly idealistic, and places a great deal of faith in humanity, and I am perfectly comfortable with that. Is it ethical anarchy? In a certain sense, yes, but it is not ethical nihilism. The apostle Paul said “Everything is permissible” but he immediately followed that statement with the statement that “not everything is beneficial” and an exhortation to seek well-being of others instead of one’s own well-being. What that will look like will depend on our own abilities and circumstances.
But what becomes of our relationship with God if this is the case? What role does God play if not the role of law-giver and judge?
Read Part Three here.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
