Gregg Easterbrook's answer to the 10 Commandments fight
Quickly now, which commandments did he leave out? "You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourselves an idol. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God. Remember the Sabbath Day, and keep it holy." These are the commandments having to do with formal religious observance--from today's perspective, the ones that clash with the Establishment Clause. Jesus' Six Commandments make no mention of God or faith. They could be posted on public property without constitutional entanglements.
I'll have more on this later. I found it odd for reasons I can't quite put my finger on yet.


Ugh, Mr. Easterbrook's ridiculous assumption is that by looking at that one instance, Jesus secularized and informalized the observance of religion and the commandments. But of course Jesus didn't say, "Hey Mr. young rich official, don't worry about those first few commandments." Perhaps Jesus knew that the official had kept the first commandments (the benefit of omniscience). Or maybe he wasn't summmarizing the whole Law in those six commandments. He did summarize them later when he said to first love God with everything and secondly to love our neighbor as ourself.
Even when he tells us to love one another as He has loved us, we must ask, "how has He loved us?" He loved us enough to, being God, become man; being Joy, to suffer; being Life, to die; being Holy and Perfect, to bear the weight of our sin. That's secular?
Posted by: Dev Thakur | February 04, 2005 at 10:02 AM
Addendum: I'll support Mr. Easterbrook's suggestion to put up the "six commandments" if it can be preceded by their context: asking God made Man how we can enter his Heavenly Kingdom.
Posted by: Dev Thakur | February 04, 2005 at 10:04 AM
GE's been beating this drum since at least 2000. There's a beliefnet piece that you can find on the web if you google.
He may be on to something as a public-policy matter--the "mere Christianity" ?? that even atheists can agree on. But what about that ban on adultery? Not sure we can get a consensus on that one any more.
As a theological matter, bleck. There surely are commentaries that discuss why Jesus did not cite the first 3 or 4 commandments as he did the last 7 or 6. (Pick your numbering system.) Has GE read the rest of the Gospels? Does GE contend that Jesus didn't teach us to worship God alone, not to take His name in vain, and to keep the Sabbath?
GE's really preaching Marcionism, isn't he? I.e., the Old Testament doesn't matter at all.
Posted by: Don Boyle | February 04, 2005 at 10:05 AM
Also, Christ said that the greatest commanment was love of God (which is summarized in the first 3/4 commandments), and that the second is love of neighbor, which is summarized in the rest. The "six commandments" are subordinate to the "four".
Posted by: eadfrith | February 04, 2005 at 10:31 AM
A 3/5 compromise? Why not? It worked soooo well with slavery, didn't it?
Posted by: Hunk Hondo | February 04, 2005 at 10:41 AM
Debating what laws are more important than others was a long-standing exercise of the rabbinical tradition in which Jesus was educated. But in these verses, which have a parallel retelling in the Gospel of Mark, Christ is not merely offering an opinion about law. Something wholly remarkable happens--Jesus edits the commandments.
That last bit is probably what you found odd, Amy. And it is. I'm preaching to the choir here, but this is why the Church's teaching authority is so essential. Otherwise, any self-styled Christian can crack open a Bible and pick and choose from among little things like the commandments(!) to tell us what Jesus really meant.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi | February 04, 2005 at 10:46 AM
Easterbrook is compulsively clever. You should read his weekly column on pro football.
He is trying to cut a Gordian knot, namely, the role of the Ten Commandments in the public polity in a government where no one religion is supposed to receive special treatment?
Posted by: RP Burke | February 04, 2005 at 11:16 AM
We're covering #7, #8 and #10 in RCIA Monday night. I really can't say enough about the Catechism's treatment of the 10 commandments... quite informing for anyone who wants to apply Christianity to their daily lives.
Posted by: Eutychus Fell | February 04, 2005 at 11:26 AM
The Ten Commandments in RCIA? ;-). When I suggested it in my parish program you'd've thought I dropped a turd in the punchbowl. Good for you Eutychus. The Church is blessed and renewed by her converts.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi | February 04, 2005 at 11:30 AM
You can't post any of the commandmaents in any Court House in our fair land. Especially not those dealing with lying, stealing and adultery because that would create a hostile working environment for the folks who work in these places.
Posted by: Tom Kelty | February 04, 2005 at 11:31 AM
Thanks, Rich!
Posted by: Eutychus Fell | February 04, 2005 at 11:56 AM
This is something of an old idea that the Wilberforce group has been pushing. Using the 2nd Table of the Law only.
Violates what the Constitutional Framers and the Founders had in mind by a Christian republic. .
Posted by: Puzzled | February 04, 2005 at 12:01 PM
How profoundly disingenous an exegesis.
So we accept Matthew 19:18, and ignore Matthew 22:37? He's even gone the Jesus seminar one better.
Posted by: al | February 04, 2005 at 12:02 PM
I think Easterbrook has sort of synthesized his own Christian doctrine over the years.
But has anyone checked his math? Since when is "you shall love your neighbor as yourself" one of the Ten Commandments? And what happened to not coveting?
Posted by: Tom | February 04, 2005 at 12:22 PM
Which Ten Commandments?" by Jim Myers has a nice color table comapring the Jewish, Catholic and Protestant(with footnote for variations) versions of the 10 Commandments.
It is an old question.
Posted by: Zhou De-Ming | February 04, 2005 at 12:24 PM
I wonder if anybody would object if the Noble Eightfold Path was to appear in a courthouse or public building:
1. Right Understanding
2. Right Thoughts
3. Right Speech
4. Right Action
5. Right Livelihood
6. Right Effort
7. Right Mindfulness
8. Right Concentration
Who could complain? Of course, this is Buddhist, and implicitly atheist.
Posted by: Zhou De-Ming | February 04, 2005 at 12:42 PM
You can't have the last six commandments without the first one. Our government is based on the premise that we have certain inalienable rights given to us by our Creator. If these rights were not given by the Creator, then they would be given by the majority in a democracy. But if the majority votes to give rights, the majority can vote to take them away. Without God, there is the tyranny of the majority. Look at what is happening in Holland now with euthanasia, for example.
Posted by: austin | February 04, 2005 at 12:43 PM
I imagine all those on the "Left" would complain, Zhou. :)
Posted by: Eutychus Fell | February 04, 2005 at 12:55 PM
So...it's now okay to covet? And _not_ coveting is something that goes against the Establishment Clause?
Look, I'm all for capitalism, but I don't think Mr. Easterbrook should be saying that America is built on envy of the Joneses (and their spouses, houses, and sheep).
Posted by: Maureen | February 04, 2005 at 12:56 PM
I blogged on GE's column on HMS this morning. G'won over and have a look.
Posted by: Kevin Miller | February 04, 2005 at 03:33 PM
Any argument for expressions of specific religions in the public square that goes back to the rely on what our founders believed would presume that the architects were particularly Christian. Which many were not.
I am opposed to public space and money for religious displays because I am tired of dealing with evangelicals using public money to forward their cause. Evangelical Christians control the public square in many places around me. The other religion most attended is the religion of the "choice" crowd for the Democrats. As a consequence, I am happier if evangelicals do not warp the Truth with my contribution to the community wealth (my taxes) by supporting their belief system.
And with all the Christmas hysteria about public square manger scenes, I could not help but notice one thing: on my way to the park near my house, I would pass ten houses. 6 displayed a creche.
On my way to the public square, their were plenty of manger scenes-even if a gaudy one wasn't present in the public square.
Display the Decalogue in your yard. I would have to push aside my Mary statue to do so in my yard.
Just stop using my tax money to support the 7th day adventists and the Baptists.
Posted by: Daniel H. Conway | February 04, 2005 at 04:02 PM
I could see the eight fold path in juvenile hall. What essays could be written on each item, what discussions could be held on what each item means!
What an excellent and useful "penance" for the inmates.
Posted by: caroline | February 04, 2005 at 05:27 PM
Oh boy. Easterbrook seems to think that commandments = "The Ten Commandments" rather than the 613 commandments of Jewish law.
Posted by: LP | February 04, 2005 at 11:21 PM