This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
The Madison Daily Leader reports on the first annual Mayor's Prayer Breakfast held in Madison last week Thursday. According to the article, Mark Weismantel, president of sponsoring group Vital Link (and -- full dislosure! -- dad of one of my good friends), explained at the beginning of the program that his organization is "interested in promoting prayer to assist with prosperity and positive changes in the community" (Leader's words, not Weismantel's).
Heaven knows (ahem) we can always use more prosperity and positive changes. But when I hear prayer invoked as a useful way to get prosperity, I can't help harkening to Ben Franklin's words about God helping those who help themselves. Plus, hearing the words prayer and prosperity in the same sentence always makes me a little uneasy. Of all the things we might pray for, economic development isn't near the top of that list. When Mayor Hexom quoted James 5:16 at the breakfast -- "The earnest prayer of a righteous man has great power and wonderful results" -- I hope the gathered faithful thought of spiritual, not material, results. Pastor Daryl Schubert (more full disclosure -- my wife's new pastor) appears to have closed the event on the right note, praying for "justice, truth, and peace." Justice, truth, peace, and prosperity -- which of these things is not like the other?
F’ing USD
-
So a friend of mine made this rap a few years back, and I have to tell you
I have friends over the years who went there and tell the same boring
stories, LOL.
7 hours ago
I'm not familiar with the Franklin quote, but Aeschylus did say:
ReplyDelete"God loves to help him who strives to help himself."
Either way, it's a pagan notion, rather than a Christian one.
Hey Cory,
ReplyDeleteYou would probably have to scratch your head for a while to remember me. I am a madville class of '97 alum. I actually went to high school with Cindy.
Anyway, I ran into your blog the other day by chance and was delighted to read up on all of the goings on in the Great White North. You are a man after my own heart. Please keep blogging!
As for this post, I believe Jesus was probably a socialist and would not approve of local government/business leaders invoking his name when scheming to better propagate the wonders of capitalism upon the jewel of Lake County. And, there's always the establishment clause.
-michael reese (from deep in the heart of texas)
Michael! Hello! I do indeed remember you. I hope all is well for you and family. "Jesus was probably a socialist" -- ah, if only I could hear that as a campaign slogan someday! Thanks for the vote of confidence. I'll keep blogging -- you keep reading!
ReplyDelete"Jesus was probably a socialist"
ReplyDeleteI don't think so, unless you are talking about "voluntary socialism"... the redistribution of wealth that comes from individuals choosing to give up their property to help others.
In fact He was so enamored with the latter concept, that He doesn't seem to think the governmental socialism worth mentioning. I guess that's the way I should be, too. That perfect blend of conservativism and liberalism: helping the poor as much as possible, and not relying on the government to get it done.
Jesus didn't mention anything about having prayer breakfasts with the mayor, either.
ReplyDelete[By the way, notice dbergan is happy to cite Jesus's failure to mention a specific issue as support for his position, but when I cite Jesus's failure to mention a specific issue (like, oh, say, abortion) as support for my position, dbergan takes exception.]
Jesus wasn't much into public shows, and I don't know that he would have been too crazy about things like prayer breakfasts. Check the sermon on the mount (Mt 5,6,7).
ReplyDeleteAs far as praying for prosperity, sounds like someone's a little too enthralled by Joel Osteen and his touchy-feely-God-will-give-you-what-you -want garbage.
I'm pretty sure that Jesus said that prayer should be in one's closet and not a public event (Matthew 6), and so was always in agreement with the original post. ("It's a pagan notion.")
ReplyDeleteBut on the issues of socialism, abortion, and capital punishment (I assume that's what you were referring to), Jesus was, as far as we know, silent. He thinks redistribution of property is important, but never once suggests it as a governmental policy. Nor does He suggest anything else as a governmental policy. He talks of pacifism, yet befriends soldiers rather than calling on them to give up their arms in defiance of the State. And unlike John the Baptist, Jesus didn't even attack the clearly immoral governmental figure: Herod.
Anyway, on any given topic, there are two reasons why He might have been silent. Either (a) the issue wasn't current (which is why Jesus didn't speak on the subject of nuclear war or colonizing other planets) or (b) He had nothing of value to say on it.
For abortion, (a) is likely. Even though I'm sure abortion is nearly as ancient as property, it probably wasn't medically feasible until the Enlightenment. In the first century, maybe it happened on occasion in Rome, but it's severely unlikely to have been seen on the crust of the Empire.
For socialism, (a) is also likely. Plato's Republic is the only document I know of prior to the Reformation that could possibly be construed as socialist... and it's quite a stretch to say even that. Large sections of it seem like outright satire (banning music in minor keys, separating children from their mothers, etc.), and I doubt that it has ever been taken seriously as a political document, even though it represents literature at its finest. No one has ever revolted for Plato's Republic.
But with capital punishment, (a) is impossible since Christ Himself was killed by it. He referenced it in His sermons ("Take up your cross and follow Me"), but never in a sense that suggested the government has a moral obligation to get rid of it. Nor does He argue in favor of it, either. He is silent, and it is ubiquitous at His place and time. Therefore, (b) is our only conclusion.
It might seem like I'm picking interpretations to suit my beliefs, but truly it's the other way around. I pick my beliefs on sound interpretations.
David,
ReplyDeleteThe theologians I encountered during my studies employed a newfangled historical/cultural exegesis of the gospels, founded on the need to acknowledge the distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. There is the Jesus of history who was the product of copulation between a male and female Homo sapien, lived as an oppressed, colonized Jew in rural Judea, loved and probably had sex a time or two (presumably with women, but who knows), became the leader of an anti-Roman uprising among his indigenous am ha aretz, and was executed for his trouble. Also, there is the Christ of faith who was born of a virgin and a Zeus-like god (probably a shout out to Zoroastrianism, which would have won over non Jewish-Christian converts in Asia minor), walked on water, raised the dead, was put to death by those God-damned blood thirsty Jews, and rose from the dead. This distinction is necessary to avoid Faith Schizophrenia, as the gospel accounts of key events and the core ethos of Jesus’ mission differ. My point: very few of the words in Red Letters can conceivably be linked to the Jesus of history, and neither can many of the black letter accounts that surround them. The gospels were written collectively by three distinct and separate communities of early Christians over a hundred year period that was defined by the civil unrest caused by Roman occupation with the 66 CE Jewish revolt at its center.
This is a thumb-nail sketch of a very complex topic, but I present it in rebuttal to this statement of yours, “It might seem like I'm picking interpretations to suit my beliefs, but truly it's the other way around. I pick my beliefs on sound interpretations.” I think you were right the first time. That is really all we CAN do as people of faith. Myself, I’m an agnostic who wants to believe enough to be a deist.
Back to the top of your position, I find the notion that it is either a or b to be the very definition of a false dichotomy.
MY Christ of faith (who I try to match up as closely as possible to the Jesus of history) would DEFENITELY been opposed to the death penalty, ESPECIALLY in the context of Roman-occupied Judea. For Christ’s sake (pun intended), Rome was executing any indigenous Jew who dared to question the right of Rome to rape their resources (land, agricultural bounty, animals, women for sex) while the people, the am ha aretz, were left with scraps. My Christ of faith would say “hell no!” to the death penalty.
Which brings me to socialism… You accuse Cory of being a solipsist, yet your underlying premise for dismissing socialism outright is this: because socialism was never defined in classic Greek summation form or recorded in the annals of any western language, it simply does not nor never has existed as a means of human organization. Crazy talk. Why do you think the western hemisphere was so easy to conquer (with a couple of notable exceptions)?!?! I ask you to read the written accounts of Columbus’ reflections upon arriving in (sic) Hispaniola. He actually stated outright that he could not believe what he saw. These people had no concept of private property. They held all of the community’s resources in common. He could not comprehend the lack of weaponry or any aggressive or defensive posturing. He immediately commented to one of his subordinates, “They would make fine servants.... With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want." I would also postulate that this socialist-based method of human organization was found throughout the indigenous populations of the western hemisphere. Socialism was around before the Reformation, and I believe that Jesus would be on board.
Finally, abortion. Even today, in pre-industrial civilizations, women of child-bearing age are expected to be pregnant perpetually until they are not able in order to assure that enough progeny survive to adulthood. Infant mortality rates and the belief that women are chattel would have largely made abortion a non-issue. HOWEVER, the feminists throughout history (just because they were not chronicled in Plato doesn’t mean they didn’t exist) did have methods to help their fellow women avoid bearing unwanted children (herbs, and whatnot). That said, I believe that MY Christ of Faith would defend a woman’s right to choose.
Peace in the mid-east,
mpr
"The theologians I encountered during my studies employed a newfangled historical/cultural exegesis of the gospels, founded on the need to acknowledge the distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith."
ReplyDeleteWell, this is an unusual argument... Now you are here to tell me that everything I know about Jesus is wrong, and everything you know (or made up) is right. And then based on the latter you are telling me what Jesus actually thought about contemporary moral issues, while simultaneously downgrading him from God to philanderer (or possibly a pederast).
Even if I take all you say to be true, two things come to mind.
1) What sort of certainty is there that your "historical" Jesus was as you said he was? What's to stop me from saying that I think he was such and such, and therefore in favor of hanging and opposed to abortion?
2) If Jesus was just a guy like you and me, why should I give his opinion any extra weight? We might as well speculate on Buddha and Confucius's opinions... they would be just as important. In that case your conclusion that Jesus is pro-choice isn't quite meaningless, but virtually so. Saying that Julius Caesar was pro-life would be an adequate rebuttal.
Here's where I come from on this. I've tracked the canonicity of the New Testament as far as an amateur possibly could. I've read every fragment of each alternate gospel I could find, and consulted Bible experts from the inerrant Fundamentalists to the non-believing liberals. I called one on the phone, and kept a healthy email correspondance with another. Here are the conclusions I have come to:
First - Jesus attained "legendary" status in the generation of his death.
There are similar legendary stories about Buddha, Zarathustra, and other sages like that. For example, Buddha was supposedly conceived in his mother by an elephant's trunk. Zarathustra's "guardian angel entered into a haoma plant, and passed with its juices into the body of a priest as the latter offered a divine sacrifice; at the same time a ray of heaven's glory entered the bosom of a maid of noble lineage." However, with Buddha (and any of those other figures like him) you will notice that the writings that build up this aura of deity are all written about 200 years after his death. With Christ, those such writings appear in the first generation (practically the first decade) after His death.
Second - Jesus was resurrected.
The first argument is important because it lends credibility to His miracles... especially the central miracle, His resurrection. Claims about Buddha's deity weren't recorded in the first century after his death, because too many people knew the man directly and wouldn't have testified to it. After 100 years, he takes on a special reverence. After another 100, he becomes a legend... and at that point anything is possible.
However, Christ had testifiers almost instantaneously. His disciples were quickly making converts from all varieties of Jews and gentiles. There is no way that Rome or the Sanhedrim would have let the heresy run wild if they were sitting on top of the evidence that proves it false. If all they had to do was open the tomb, they would have done it.
Moreover, I doubt that the disciples would have been so eager to preach about Christ, had He not risen. They might have stayed friends and honored the anniversary of His death (like Buddha or Confucius's students)... and perhaps passively passed along His best sayings to their grandchildren. But it is highly unlikely that they all would have left their homes to preach and be martyred in far off lands, if they didn't believe that Jesus was who He said He was. John's gospel shows a good story (if not exactly true, it is at least very probable) where Peter and a few others are moping about wondering what to do with their life now that Jesus died. Then the rock declares, "I am going fishing," and the others come with him. It makes perfect sense that they would return to the trade that they knew. There had been other false messiahs among the Jews, and Peter knew that there wasn't any hope trying to evangelize a dead one. They would have stayed fishing until something else came along, like a personal meeting with Jesus. It was the resurrection that changed them... sent them out with haste to make followers of all nations.
Thus, from a historical perspective we can be sure that the alacrity of the early church confirms the most essential thing about Christ... that He rose.
Third - The 4 gospels of the New Testament were chosen because of their accuracy.
Are they perfect? No. But when you compare them to the rest, you walk away with a refreshing notion of who Christ actually is. Each gospel does have a bit of its own agenda, but more remarkable than the differences are the similarities, especially of the first three. The texts show a very consistent man, with a very consistent message. He believed in a Heavenly Father, He came to bring the Kingdom of God, He emphasized faith as being the most important, and thought that money was very very bad. He was crucified for blasphemy... so He must have thought He was God. (It's easy to escape blasphemy charges, you only have to deny that you are God.) The story reads exactly like history. Sure there are some healing miracles, but all in all, it's of the form: "Jesus went here. Then He said this. Then He did that. Then He said this to this person. Then He went here."
That's one other difference between the stories of Christ compared to other sages. He's legendary, but the story is quite dry and plain. There's no haoma plant or elephant's trunk in Jesus's virgin birth, just the homely story of a woman being chosen during her prayers. Usually when a touch of the legend is added, it infects all parts of the story. With Christ, His ministry was very Earthly.
Read the other fragments and we have Jesus killing little children, confiding secret missions with Judas, talking a lot of nonsense, and feeling no pain on the cross. Are there some falsities in the accepted 4? Quite likely. Are there some truths in the rejected 50? Quite a few (many of them confirm the 4). But altogether, based on how early the first manuscripts are, and how many copies of the manuscripts exist (with very little variation)... they are one of the most confirming pieces of history we have. 100 times more confirming than the records of Caesar invading Gaul.
In my mind, the only logical reason to deny outright the 4 NT gospels is if you don't believe in miracles, a priori.
"My Christ of faith would say “hell no!” to the death penalty."
Show me a first-century document where He says this.
"[You assume] because socialism was never defined in classic Greek summation form or recorded in the annals of any western language, it simply does not nor never has existed as a means of human organization."
You are right that it existed among tribal people, but it doesn't enter civilized thought until probably Thomas More. And again, I see no documents where Jesus refers to governmental redistribution.
"HOWEVER, the feminists throughout history (just because they were not chronicled in Plato doesn’t mean they didn’t exist) did have methods to help their fellow women avoid bearing unwanted children (herbs, and whatnot)."
Like I said, "Even though I'm sure abortion is nearly as ancient as property, it probably wasn't medically feasible until the Enlightenment." The herbs don't usually work (that's why we just now have RU-486), and their attempts at medical procedures were riskier to the health of the mother than birth. But infanticide was quite popular.
"That said, I believe that MY Christ of Faith would defend a woman’s right to choose."
I thought you didn't want to talk about religious mumble-jumble on the issue of abortion...
David,
ReplyDeleteI read your creed on your website. It is just the sort of stuff that humanity would benefit from and make God smile if more people saw the world the way you do. I applaud you, sincerely and truly.
I believe that it is necessary, in these unfathomably consequential matters, to split epistemological hairs. Here goes…
I believe that only God is absolute. All else is relative. I believe that because God is God, NOTHING about God can be KNOWN. We can only BELIEVE things about God, God’s nature, or God’s will for us. I define idolatry as absolutizing the relative. I believe that we unwittingly commit idolatry when we attempt to limit God by imposing our knowledge of God upon God (not using pronouns is cumbersome). All human attempts at constructing religious systems inevitably result in anthropomorphization and the attribution to God of various man-made prejudices in varying degrees. I believe this is inevitable, and should not deter humanity from seeking God through religious practices and beliefs. Quite the contrary, I believe it is God’s will that we do so, just without the ineluctable hubris of claims to absolute knowledge where only belief is appropriate or even possible.
I believe that to Christians, Christ is THE son of God. I believe that to Muslims, the writings of the Prophet represent THE definitive correspondence from God, that to the Lakota Sioux, wakan tanka makes himself known to the people through the people’s relationship to the bison, etc, etc, etc. People will and must make war and hate over things they KNOW to be true, but will not nor should not over things they BELIEVE to be true. More suffering has been visited upon humanity in the name of religion than any literal horned devil could muster. Inter and intra group religious schisms virtually define the timeline of human conflict. I recently spent a year in the midst of warring Shia and Sunni Muslims in cradle of civilization, all parties ABSOLUTELY certain their KNOWLEDGE of God justified and demanded their actions.
What I’ve just described is the point of departure for the Christ of Faith/Jesus of History distinction. I was very flippant and impious when describing this distinction in my last response, and I apologize. You should hear me in person around a table of beer swilling revelers! I tend to be quite vulgar.
As is, we will not be able to accomplish the following two desirable goals: 1.) seek to know, love, and obey God as defined by the current predominant understanding of religion and 2.)continue to exist as a species. Either we will stop believing in God or we will destroy ourselves. I do not believe this is a false dichotomy.
I believe we need to greatly re-think the nature of religion. There is too much at stake.
With great respect and wishes of peace in the mid-east,
mpr
PS: Some food for thought. The prevailing dating of the Gospels (outside of the 6000 year old earth crowd) is Mark: 67, Matthew: 80-82, Luke: 82, John: 85-90.
The chronological length of a generation in first century Judea was substantially shorter than today.
PPS: on a tangential topic, I detect a steady dose of Monumentalism in your outright dismissal of the evidence that socialism-based methods of human organization are not only possible, but were prevalent throughout much of human history. Humans have lived outside of the geographical and conceptual confines of the European continent, ancient Greece, Rome, and the Enlightenment. Further, the victors of the wars write the history!
PPPS: Consider the following quote from Vice President Cheney as testimony to the gravity of the semantic difference between the word “knowledge” and “belief.”
- “We know where they [WMD] are there…”
Well, I’m back from my morning run. I’ve had my shower and coffee, but I can’t seem to shake the urge to tap away at this keyboard. I’ll have to slow down for awhile, though, as my left middle finger is starting to get it’s tingly ache (I cut it off a while back and had it sewed back on by some good ol’ army doctors).
ReplyDeleteI wanted to mention a couple of more things about religion/Christianity/Jesus of history VERY briefly.
First, I cannot stress enough the absolute necessity of acknowledging the Roman occupation of 1st century Judea as the preeminent socializing and politicizing force of the Jesus of history and his followers. The Roman occupation surely would have defined their world view, just as the decade long US imposed embargo, invasion, and occupation defines the world view of Iraqis coming of age during the last twenty years.
Second, Jesus was Jewish. This is the other elephant (or camel) in the room that would shed light on discussion if its import was understood as foundational.
I maintain that absolutely NOTHING in the New Testament makes a lick of sense without being understood in the context of 1 and 2.
Next, we have a nearly inexhaustible supply of highly detailed and chronicled indigenous insurgent uprisings against colonizing oppressors to draw from when trying to understand how living in this condition would affect a society’s values, politics, etc.
This in mind, I present the following item: The Anti-Roman Cryptogram. Oppressed indigenous peoples have employed written and spoken cryptograms to help organize and spread messages of hope in their plight to cast off invading colonizers ever since one group of people looked over a hill and saw another group of people and coveted their resources. Simply put, an anti______ cryptogram is a verbal or written message meant to only be understood by the source and the intended recipient that communicates information (again, either organizational data or simply hope) that will not be understood by the colonizing forces if intercepted. I contend that the entire book of Revelation is an anti-Roman cryptogram with almost no other narrative quality. This is why it is nearly unintelligible today. We have no way of decoding what the hell they are talking about. I encourage you to read Revelation with the idea of Anti-Roman Cryptograms at the forefront of your mind. I think you will be surprised. (Satan=Cesar, wild beasts=soldiers, whore of Babylon=Rome..)
Two other somewhat related items:
I want to briefly discuss the import of understanding the “lived experience” of the three early Christian communities that produced the 4 gospel accounts of the Christian canon. Very briefly, consider that the Johannine community’s lived experience was incredibly different from the Markan and Lukan during the period their gospel account was written. In the civil unrest leading up to and following the successful Jewish uprising of 66 CE, the Johannine community retreated from the battle scarred region of Galilee into the desert region of the Golon Heights. Here, they lived in near complete isolation for a period of years where their numbers dwindled to near extinction (around 60 men – read the fishers of men passage in this context) before finally relenting and traveling northward into Asia Minor to seek resources and converts. This isolation and strife fostered the community’s development of a self-described “beloved” status, elevated above the other two predominant Christian communities. The Johannine community believed collectively that they were the beloved disciple, better than those other jokers who immediately went north into the interior of the Roman empire where they went about denying Christ and accepting Pagan practices from converts. It is difficult to keep this brief, but I feel my finger failing me.
On the subject of miracles: Loaves and Fishes. I believe that the miracle of the loaves and fishes is not that God lightning-bolted food from heaven into the baskets of the assembled. I believe that the miracle is that the massive assembly was so moved by Jesus’ words that when mealtime came, they looked to their left and right and shared what they had with each other. No one went hungry and there was much left over (there it is again, that notion of holding resources in common). I believe that inspiration to humanity to be kind to one another is the true miracle of Jesus.
One last thing: Truth. There are different types of truth. The uniform acceleration rate of a free falling object in a vacuum is a different type of truth than the truths we can find in the bible or any other religious document. I believe it is far more meaningful to shout on Easter morning, “He is risen indeed!” with the belief that his resurrection is testified to and proven by the continuation of his message of peace and love to this day; and not that literally, he descended into hell (at 9.8 m/s), literally ascended into heaven, and literally walked again on earth following his execution by Roman forces. However, I believe all of this to be true (the death, burial, resurrection).
Man, one LAST thing: Why do the gospel accounts (and Mel Gibson’s snuff film) describe Jesus being executed on the behest of the blood thirsty Jewish leadership? Again, context is everything. The Jews successfully killed or cast out every single Roman soldier and authority figure in the year 66 CE. In typical Roman style, the legions returned with a vengeance, burning, killing, raping everything in their path. The early Jewish Christians who were already at odds with their Jewish brethren for not acknowledging the indescribably special nature of Jesus HAD to distance themselves from the Jews as a distinct demographic in order to avoid Roman reprisals. The Romans (like our US forces) could not distinguish a Christian Jew (who had nothing to do with the uprising) and a regular old Jew who had taken up arms. They simply killed anyone who looked like they were physically capable of participating in the uprising. This is the context in which the early Christian Jews sought to separate their communities from the mainstream Jewish community. If these early Christian Jews had widely circulated their gospel accounts accurately describing the Romans as the culprits in Jesus’ death, the Romans would have been CRAZY to not immediately kill off this new sect of Jews who declared that they blamed the Empire for killing their messiah. The early Christian Jews avoided extermination by pointing the finger at the religious leadership of the mainstream Jewish theocrats. I will not relent from this point as the historically indefensible position that the Jews killed Christ screaming,” Let his blood be upon us and our children!” has caused the persecution, murder, torture, pogrom, etc that has permeated the last two millennia.
My finger is killing me. I have to quit.