The spectrum of Christian belief tends to fall somewhere between strict fundamentalism and progressive liberalism. The fundamentalist tends to adopt a more uncompromising, literalist approach to the bible, while the progressive is more inclined to take a more allegorical, humanist approach. Fundamentalists are more likely to be opposed any scientific theory (such as evolution) that conflicts with their biblical beliefs while progressives are perhaps more inclined to attempt reconciliation of their beliefs with science.
As Greta Christina has pointed out, both fundamentalists and progressives cherry-pick the bible to suit their particular beliefs. In her book Why Are You Atheists So Angry, Christina expresses herself thus:
…And yes the Christian Right cherry-picks the parts of the Scripture that support their vision, and ignores the parts that don’t. Which is exactly what progressive Christians do when they ignore the “wrath and damnation stuff. Both sides have Scriptural support for their version of Christianity. And neither side has any better evidence for why the cherries they picked are the ones Jesus wants us to eat.
Faith is, by definition, a willful disengagement with reality. Up to now, I’ve largely assumed that progressive believers somewhat were less detached from reality than their more fundamentalist fellow believers. Progressives are also supposedly less prone to willful ignorance and the obscurantism that comes with it. I am now beginning to re-evaluate my assumptions based on recent encounters with a set of progressive believers that I characterize as members of the Jesus-is-Love posse (or JIL posse, or JILISTS).
In one such encounter, a JILIST admitted to some discomfort with some teachings of the bible (particularly on homosexuality) but expressed absolute confidence in the teachings of Jesus Christ. Her confidence remained unshaken even after I pointed out that Jesus Christ was theologically one and the same deity that prohibited same sex relations on pain of death. Despite pointing out other horror stories from the bible that belied her claim of a loving Christ (or a loving god), my JILIST was quite content to declare that:
I guess my belief in the teachings of Christ differs from the rest because of personal feelings. His teachings more line up with a loving God in my heart more so than the rest of the Bible.
Another JILIST posted a meme that proclaimed:
Buddha was not a Buddhist
Jesus was not Christian
Muhammad was not a Muslim
They were Teachers who taught LOVE.
LOVE was their RELIGION
This is the sort of pseudo-profundity (or “deepity” according to Daniel Dennett) that progressive believers tend to lap up uncritically. Nevertheless, I patiently and politely challenged this meme. Initially this JILIST was quite accommodating as I cited numerous verses from the bible that flatly controverted her Jesus-is-Love hypothesis. However, after another poster added another example, her tone dramatically changed to an assault on me and the other hapless poster:
…While I respect your choice on being atheist's I in return expect you to respect my faith and hop the Fu&$ off mine...
…While I respect your choice on being atheist's I in return expect you to respect my faith and hop the Fu&$ off mine...
Now this is the sort of response that I’ve more than come to expect from the fundie believers, but not the progressives.
These narratives illustrate a number of things, not least of which is the privileging of faith over fact. These narratives also suggest that so-called progressive believers are not entirely immune from the spasms of irrationality that are more usually associated with the Shirley Richards/Sarah Palin brand of fundamentalism. This brand of fundamentalism usually takes great pride in denialism, willful ignorance, narcissism, and an inflated sense of entitlement to immunity from criticism or challenge. Fundamentalists often get a bad, but deserved rap for being benighted and delighted. However, it seems that JILISTS may ultimately be no less fundamentalist –certainly as it their refusal to countenance any facts that controvert their JIL theology.
Anyway, for the benefit of JILISTS who might still be open to interrogating their Jesus-is-Love hypothesis, I offer a few fun “facts” from the bible to illustrate some of the “loving” dimensions of the Jesus character. I do so with the assistance of Dan Barker (author of Godless: How and Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s leading Atheists)
1. Jesus considered humanity to be fundamentally evil. In the book of Luke, he is recorded as saying: If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him?
2. Jesus encouraged the beating of slaves (Luke 12:47, 48). Jesus never spoke out against slavery, or did anything to eliminate it.
3. Jesus never spoke out against poverty – and indeed taught that the poor should accept their lot in life. Mark 14:3-9 chronicles the objection taken by some of Jesus’ disciples to the purchase of expensive ointment to anoint Jesus’ head (instead of spending it on the poor). In response to the objection, the great paragon of love declared that “Ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good; but me, ye have no always”.
4. Jesus upheld the Old Testament perspective of women. Not a single one was selected to be one of his 12 disciples or to sit at the Last Supper.
5. Jesus was prone to violence. He cast “devils” into swine; he assaulted moneychangers with a whip. Some of his parables were also R-rate in terms of violent content. For example, in Luke 19, he declared: “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring them hither and slay them before me”. In Matthew, he declared “I come not to send peace, but a sword”. In this same vein, he also proclaimed (in Luke) that “he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.”
6. Jesus was also callous, and perhaps racist. When a Cananite woman implored him to heal her sick child, his initial response (in Matthew 15:22-28) was “It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.”
7. Jesus encouraged castration (Matthew 19:12).
8. Perhaps the best of Jesus’ “love” for humankind is expressed in his explicit teaching and promotion of eternal hell for non-believers. In Mark 9:43, Jesus said that hell is “the fire that never shall be quenched”. In Matthew 13:41-42, he proclaims that “The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be a wailing and gnashing of teeth”.
I am sorry to break it to the JILISTS, but their sensibilities of the Jesus character are reflect no greater sense of love and humanity than his psychopathic papa -Yahweh of the Old Testament. One of the standard defences of JILISTS is that Jesus represents a “new dispensation”; that he effectively abolished Mosaic demands for blood, gore and vengeance for the slightest misdemeanor against Yahweh. As comforting as that might be, it’s completely at variance with the very words of love-boy Jesus. In Matthew 5:17-19, he declares:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
No amount of fundamentalism or willful self-deception parading as “faith” can transform the thuggish Jesus character into some mythical paragon of love. I imagine that some JILISTS will take offence at my characterization, perhaps howling that I’ve misrepresented the Jesus character, or that I’ve taken the bible out of context. I’ve heard it all before, but I’m willing to hear it again – but only if aggrieved JILISTS are prepared to substantiate their contrary positions with evidence, facts and reason. Sorry, but faith and fundamentalism simply won’t cut it…
- Firebreather
- Firebreather
WHY THE NOTION OF JILIST IS SENSELESS….
ReplyDeleteEven if progressives cherry-pick parts of Scripture, the choices are never to marginalize others! Any attempt at exploring what Jesus is likely to have said, must take into consideration whether the attributed statements were: 1) consistent with rabbinic teachings; 2) seemingly unique to Jesus; 3) consistent with the tradition of the gospels.
John H, Hayes, Introduction to The Bible, notes a “set of criteria” which assist in the attempt to determine at least to some extent the words of Jesus. Of course since we are really talking about the Christ of faith and not the Jesus of history, we will not achieve ipissima verba or the exact words. There is value then in employing observance re: 1) The criterion of dissimilarity; 2) The criterion of coherence; and 3) The criterion of multiple attestations.
Since the exegete is trying to reconstruct amidst layers of editorial biases and redactions, one must of necessity accept that the Gospel text is not biographical material. It is a document/statement of religious faith which postulates positions based on the church’s faith, theology, and perceived purpose in the world.
It is not that progressives ignore the wrath and condemnation sections. Instead, it is that they are properly placed in perspective. They are not to be employed as tools of oppression. They often represent how a particular people, in a particular place, interpreted and understood God for themselves, at a particular time. The theological integrity of their interpretation must be subject to scrutiny in terms of reason as informed by the various disciplines available to humanity.
I can pick the cherries of peace and love, and determine that, that is what Jesus would have wanted us to eat, since the Gospel tradition have him saying for example, “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” (Matthew 5:43-44 NIV) Greta Christina’s argument here is therefore lacking in substance.
It is most certainly true that Buddha was not a Buddhist! Jesus was not a Christian! Muhammad was not a Muslim! They were teachers who taught love.
The citations of Dan Barker, proudly used with profound confidence by Greta, are no more than another form of cherry picking approach to make some points albeit rather weak. It would be rather boring for me to attend all the selections. I will just note that it is rather disingenuous at point number one to pick ‘out of context’ (ever text must have a context) some words which were simply making the point – if you who are capable of sin etc – making the point that even sinful people know how to give gifts. (Of course the concept of sin here is a theological perspective.)
When I speak to a text, I address it in context. That is actually not cherry picking in terms of Biblical scholarship. Cherry picking is where someone just grabs a verse to support a view. Some fundamentalists for example will say that they do not use incense since in the Bible the prophet has God saying, “I detest your incense”. However when viewed in context, it was a rejection of anything connected with worship, if the worshipers did not practice justice.
I am sure you can appreciate the fact that Jesus would not have eliminated slavery anymore than he eliminated poverty and corruption. Christian theology teaches that it is people, transformed in their minds, ways, and actions that will change the world.
That said, I believe the teachings attributed to Jesus called Christ, are wholesome; but should also like any other literary work be subjected to critical analysis, and scholarly scrutiny.
Fr. Sean Major-Campbell, September 16, 2015
WHY THE NOTION OF FUNDAMENTALIST JILISTS IS SENSELESS….
ReplyDelete(re-posting with corrections)
Even if progressives cherry-pick parts of Scripture, the choices are never to marginalize others! Any attempt at exploring what Jesus is likely to have said, must take into consideration whether the attributed statements were: 1) consistent with rabbinic teachings; 2) seemingly unique to Jesus; 3) consistent with the tradition of the gospels.
John H, Hayes, Introduction to The Bible, notes a “set of criteria” which assist in the attempt to determine at least to some extent the words of Jesus. Of course since we are really talking about the Christ of faith and not the Jesus of history, we will not achieve ipissima verba or the exact words. There is value then in employing observance re: 1) The criterion of dissimilarity; 2) The criterion of coherence; and 3) The criterion of multiple attestations.
Since the exegete is trying to reconstruct amidst layers of editorial biases and redactions, one must of necessity accept that the Gospel text is not biographical material. It is a document/statement of religious faith which postulates positions based on the church’s faith, theology, and perceived purpose in the world.
It is not that progressives ignore the wrath and condemnation sections. Instead, it is that they are properly placed in perspective. They are not to be employed as tools of oppression. They often represent how a particular people, in a particular place, interpreted and understood God for themselves, at a particular time. The theological integrity of their interpretation must be subject to scrutiny in terms of reason as informed by the various disciplines available to humanity.
I can pick the cherries of peace and love, and determine that, that is what Jesus would have wanted us to eat, since the Gospel tradition have him saying for example, “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” (Matthew 5:43-44 NIV) Greta Christina’s argument here is therefore lacking in substance.
It is most certainly true that Buddha was not a Buddhist! Jesus was not a Christian! Muhammad was not a Muslim! They were teachers who taught love.
The citations of Dan Barker, proudly used with profound confidence by Greta, are no more than another form of cherry picking approach to make some points albeit rather weak. It would be rather boring for me to attend all the selections. I will just note that it is rather disingenuous at point number 1, to pick ‘out of context’ (every text must have a context) some words which were simply making the point – if you who are capable of sin etc – making the point that even sinful people know how to give gifts. (Of course the concept of sin here is a theological perspective.)
When I speak to a text, I address it in context. That is actually not cherry picking in terms of Biblical scholarship. Cherry picking is where someone just grabs a verse to support a view. Some fundamentalists for example will say that they do not use incense since in the Bible the prophet has God saying, “I detest your incense”. However when viewed in context, it was a rejection of anything connected with worship, if the worshipers did not practice justice.
I am sure you can appreciate the fact that Jesus would not have eliminated slavery anymore than he eliminated poverty and corruption. Christian theology teaches that it is people, transformed in their minds, ways, and actions that will change the world.
That said I believe the teachings attributed to Jesus called Christ, are wholesome; but should also like any other literary work be subjected to critical analysis, and scholarly scrutiny.
Sean, apologies for the late reply, but let me ask you this: if a secular text contained similar (unloving) references to a given character, would you characterize this text as "wholesome"?
ReplyDelete