« Again with the church closings | Main | As I said... »
December 12, 2005
Jesus Without Miracles
My, isn't it nice of Harper's Magazine to mark December with not one, but two articles about Christians losing their faith.
I'll just take on the cover piece: "Jesus Without the Miracles" by Erik Reece, writer and son of a Baptist preacher. The conceit is to compare Thomas Jefferson's Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth with the Gospel of Thomas.
The article is quite long, strange, and completely untethered from historical considerations. Completely.
The project, as Reece puts it, is to recover a "truly American gospel" in which otherworldly considerations have been banished, and we are encouraged and inspired to attend to the here and now.
The conceit fails miserably, though, because Reece walks that usual path of ignorance, in which profound thinkers tend to forget, or ignore, the fact that those who have thrown themselves most vigorously into helping individuals afflicted with earthly misery are those who also believe in the entire Gospel, which includes those other-worldly aspects like Resurrection.
It also fails because Reece's preferred redaction of the Gospels posits a totally false dichotomy:
"In all of his teacings, the Jesus that Jefferson recovers has one overarching theme -- the world's values are all upside down, in relation to the kingdom of god. Material riches do not constitute real wealth; those whom we think of as the most pwerful, the first in the nation-state, are actually the last in the kingdom of god; being true to one's self is more imprtant than being loyal to one's family; the Sabbath is for men, men are not for the Sabbath; those who think they know the most are the most ignorant....."
Oh, yes. This Jeffersonian gospel is nothing like the Gospel preached by Christian traditions that take the entire Gospel at its world. The Resurrection of Jesus has nothing to do with worldy values being turned upside down. Jesus healing on the Sabbath has nothing to do with the Sabbath being for human beings rather than vv.
The igorance is amusing - it's an ignorance, not simply of Christian tradition, but of the function and meaning of Jesus' miracles within the context of his ministry. But I suppose if you are predetermined to believe that these miracles and such are just proof-texts added by later writers, there you go.
There's also weird discourse on Alexander Hamilton, and how the miracle-based Christianity is Hamiltonian and leads to a manufacturing-based economy.
Oh.
Then there's the treatment of the Gospel of Thomas which is uncritical and historically bereft.
It's rather shocking - but not so much, given the mag's recent history under Lapham - that such a ridiculous piece would be published and, at such length. It's really long.
The question one ends up asking in the end is - why not just let go of Jesus completely? In the end, he is a genial philosopher who says nothing more startling than any other major world religious leader, all of whom, almost without exception, extol the superiority of spiritual values to worldly values (well, but of course...that's why they are spiritual leaders!) cast a suspicious eye on the things of this world, and tell their followers to be kind. Why the determination to pursue the project that the Jesus of Christianity must be a lie, cannot be the real Jesus? That is not to say Jesus has not been variously interpreted over the centuries. That is not to deny the multitude of groups, calling themselves Christian, that embody that identity in different ways and even stand in judgment of each other.
But the core remains: a determination to accept the truth of what we have been given the reasoned assessment of these texts and their historical authority, and the commitment to the entire package, sayings, miracles and life, as mysterious and challenging as it might be.
And if that is not your bag..well, okay. But why not just admit you are haunted? The Jesus of Jefferson is a bore, and the Jesus of Thomas even more so. There is nothing to recommend them rather than Kahil Gibran. Why not just let go completely?
After all, what's there to lose?
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d8342e437d53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Jesus Without Miracles:
» What kind of gospel is that? from The Anchoress
A church that doesnt provoke any crisis, a gospel that doesnt unsettle, a Word of God that doesnt get under anyones skin, what kind of gospel is that? Preachers who avoid every thorny matter so as not to be harassed to not... [Read More]
Tracked on Dec 12, 2005 7:17:33 PM
Comments
The project, as Reece puts it, is to recover a "truly American gospel" in which otherworldly considerations have been banished, and we are encouraged and inspired to attend to the here and now.
All-New Pocket jesus for Ethical Living! Read all about it!
Aren't these "Your Jesus is too Big" pieces becoming a tiresome Advent tradition? Somebody should compile all the past Newsweek and Time articles that come out around this time which are inevitably marketing some "revolutionary!" Jesus Seminar book.
Posted by: Kevin Jones at Dec 12, 2005 10:51:26 AM
Perhaps the fact that it's really long is a good thing, as fewer people will read it.
Posted by: chris at Dec 12, 2005 10:59:58 AM
Some years back, I read a couple of novels by John Updike, if memory serves -- and I seem to recall, vaguely, reading some other "contemporary" American novelist -- and being struck by a sense that the author was disclosing, "behind" the explicit text of the work, his own loss of faith; and was sharing a regret about that, even as he considered that the "adult" and proper reality.
I wish I could remember better; because I recall Updike's "Owen Meany" -- that may have been the novel -- also expressing a dimension of faith, and certainly do not wish to impugn Mr. Updike or mischaracterize him.
I simply bring it up to highlight what seems to me to be a phenomenon akin to what Amy describes: this sort of accepted melancholy about losing ones faith, as the price one pays to "grow up," that shows up in contemporary writers.
Or perhaps I'm all wet.
Posted by: Fr Septimus at Dec 12, 2005 11:07:48 AM
Why the determination to pursue the project that the Jesus of Christianity must be a lie, cannot be the real Jesus?
Here's the thing -- a lie requires a liar. So who was it: Peter, who was crucified upside down and turned into a human torch?; Paul, who was beheaded?; the rest of the apostles who, save one, all suffered the lonely death of martyrs?; the early Christians, most of whom were Jews chased out of their synagogues and made societal pariahs by their neighbors?
Who, exactly, fabricated this fantastic story?
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Dec 12, 2005 11:22:44 AM
Why the determination to pursue the project that the Jesus of Christianity must be a lie, cannot be the real Jesus?
Validation of one's own conscience? I really can't answer that other than to be suspicious of just plain enmity, which is beyond our knowing and ability to judge. That said, I just wrote yesterday on the issue of how we can believe in spite of the hypocrites and how the hypocritical do not make a valid argument against Christianity:
http://www.brokenmessenger.com/2005/12/how-can-you-believe-jesus-among.html
...so, for me, your timing of this article impecable. Thank you.
Brad
Posted by: Broken Messenger at Dec 12, 2005 11:48:02 AM
"A Prayer for Owen Meany" was by John Irving, not John Updike.
Posted by: Hunk Hondo at Dec 12, 2005 12:04:42 PM
hunk - thanks! See, I told you my recollection wasn't very good!
Posted by: Fr Septimus at Dec 12, 2005 12:12:24 PM
I subscribe to Harper's, sometimes I think as penance, and I read both articles.
At one point in one of them -- I don't remember which -- the author clearly describes his pain at the loss of his father at a young age. I thought, "There it is" -- the hurt, the starting point of all this nonsense.
As Bishop Sheen put it, "Atheism is not a philosophy, it is a cry of wrath."
Posted by: naptown at Dec 12, 2005 12:17:24 PM
admit it, naptown: you subscribe solely for the Index :-)
Posted by: ambrose at Dec 12, 2005 12:28:57 PM
But why not just admit you are haunted?
Bingo.
Arguing with folks like this seems like breaking a butterfly on a wheel, but it needs to be done, just so people know there is a response.
Lapham spoke at the college graduation of one of my children a couple of years ago. He seemed a tolerably sensible fellow but everytime I read something he writes (which I admit is not often) I think "another liberal comes unglued."
Posted by: Maclin Horton at Dec 12, 2005 12:30:54 PM
Guilty! :-)
Posted by: naptown at Dec 12, 2005 12:32:56 PM
Harper's is a really good fiction magazine. Tons of poetry, too.
If you read digitized issues from the 1850's on Cornell's website, that is.
Posted by: Maureen at Dec 12, 2005 12:54:25 PM
Lewis Lapham is living proof that being extremely snotty and subcribing to all the popular prejudices of the chattering classes can take you far in this country.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Dec 12, 2005 12:55:52 PM
"subcribing" should of course be "subscribing", something I will never do to any magazine under the control of Mr. Lapham.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Dec 12, 2005 12:57:21 PM
Thomas Jefferson more or less was the Kahil Gibran of American history....no, wait that was Emerson!
Posted by: bruce cole at Dec 12, 2005 1:10:04 PM
Why not just let go completely? After all, what's there to lose?
That's a good question. Why is it so predictable that Harper's would publish an article like this? Why is it unthinkable that they would publish an article promoting faith in Christ?
Perhaps because if Christ performed miracles then He has power. If He has power, then he might have power over us. It's in the interest of stridently secular publications to weaken faith in a powerful Christ because that has political ramifications, which, in the absence of God, is all they've got. Undermining Christian faith is a way to help eliminate an argument in the public square, therefore having one less voice (that of Christ) to contend with. Which would be particularly helpful with regard to gay marriage and abortion. If God offers only fortune cookie bromides then we're in control.
Posted by: TSO at Dec 12, 2005 1:10:31 PM
The dechristianization of western culture goes apace. I really think these folk - the articles keep pouring in over at "Arts & Letters Daily" too - would be astonished to find highly articulate and intelligent proponents of the Catholic faith ... if they ever met one.
Sad thing is, they believe if belief in God is swept away the house will remain a blissfully empty and clean secular one. Jesus says something else; about seven demons coming and dwelling in the swept and refurbished digs.
Posted by: Jeff at Dec 12, 2005 2:09:02 PM
Rich, what is the basis for your statement that St. Paul was beheaded? I thought that all we knew is that when we last heard from him he was in a Roman prison and it is presumed that the Romans subsequently put him to death.
Posted by: Dan at Dec 12, 2005 5:02:10 PM
Sad thing is, they believe if belief in God is swept away the house will remain a blissfully empty and clean secular one.
Until they find out the hard way that once you have banished the Cross, the Crescent will still beckon from the Arabian deserts.
The Cross has a track record of being able to stand against the Crescent. Even when the Crescent has gone completely lunatic, as it does now. Let's see if "the blissfully empty and clean secular" society can do any better.
Posted by: Ken at Dec 12, 2005 5:12:08 PM
I believe that Paul was beheaded is one of those traditons which are not Sacred Tradition, just stories that folk tell. We do know that he was a Roman citizen and that supposedly put the breaks on how he could be executed. In art he is always depicted with a sword.
Posted by: Caroline at Dec 12, 2005 5:13:23 PM
"Bartimeus wanted to SEE, he didn't want his blindness explained to him!"
--Monsignor Lorenzo Albacete
Posted by: Santiago at Dec 12, 2005 5:30:11 PM
I just read those two articles, and it strikes me that they both hone in on the crux of what many cannot deal with - sin and the afterlife. These people want Christianity to be a system of this-world ethics alone. Reminds me some of Albert Schweitzer's ideas, even if his rep is really collecting dust these days. AS isn't exactly the poster child these post-Christian types are looking for.
You'd think the last century would have made the idea of reasonable folks sorting out their differences by talking out their differences and following that nice, wise, securely dead, and all around generous man Jesus a bit hard to imagine. Without supernatural redemption, what do you have? Good natured folks calmly arguing and then finishing up with a hug?
Let's see - two world wars, the Great Leap Forward, the Soviet famines in the Ukraine, Rwanda and DR Congo in the 1990s, Cambodia, Vietnam, Baathists in Iraq and Syria...and that's in about a minute of thought. If mankind isn't fallen, and that sin and resurrection stuff is just for kids (like the Trix rabbit!), then why have any hope after all this? I'd rather deal with an out and out godless nihilist any day of the week rather than someone spouting this kind of thing.
Posted by: Jeremy Rich at Dec 12, 2005 5:33:27 PM
When last the USA was a Christian culture, the mainstream media spokespersons for "the Christian viewpoint" came from places like the PC-USA and the ELCA.
Perhaps we are better off now, knowing that American culture is essentially hostile to Christianity, and that you'd be well advised to turn to a Catholic or a Southern Baptist if what you want is a Christian's point of view.
Posted by: Doug Barber at Dec 12, 2005 6:04:29 PM
Let's see if "the blissfully empty and clean secular" society can do any better.
I would call what's happening in Sydney, Australia an example of the secular confronting the Crescent: it will become close to the "war of all against all" (Hobbs) because of the lack of prohibitions of the nearly forgotten Judeo-Christian ethos. The secular vainly tries to find "strong foundations" (Charles Taylor) for ethical behavior, but lacking the transcendence of Divine Revelation, it takes on the reminiscent staleness of the Communist project.
We humans just can't tackle the Second Great Commandment without recourse to the First.
Eurabia ... in how many years? Bless him, the Holy Father knows what dear old Christendom is up against.
Posted by: Jeff at Dec 12, 2005 6:05:41 PM
Why the determination to pursue the project that the Jesus of Christianity must be a lie, cannot be the real Jesus?
Well, the author of the article is the son of a preacher man, isn't he? How can you just shrug and walk away from something your old man dedicated his life to, something your early life was filled with? My guess is that it would be pretty difficult - unless you came up with an intricate rationalization for doing so.
Yes, I suppose I'm playing dime-store shrink - but then, atheists are always quick to psychoanalyze us, aren't they? Religion = projection, the need for a father figure, blah, blah, blah. It never seems to occur to them that their own unbelief might very well be based on their own psychological needs, not reason or 'fact.' In fact, considering that the vast majority of humankind has always and continues to feel the need for religion, it's the atheists who are the exceptions. (Again, of course, that always gets twisted into 'Well, that's because we're enlightened and mature and light years beyond the rest of humanity.')
Posted by: Donna V. at Dec 12, 2005 6:16:48 PM
