|
|
Post by Jeff on Apr 19, 2006 15:13:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Apr 19, 2006 16:15:34 GMT -5
It doesn't matter if he did or didn't. We can't win without lying to the morons to get their votes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest Justin on Apr 19, 2006 16:53:58 GMT -5
I don't think that's such a great essay, and not just 'cos I disagree with much of what the author says. He doesn't make the case very strongly against the Jesus~left-winger pov as he does against the Jesus~right-winger. Plus, he insists on speaking about the two parties in terms of certain assumptions of behavior, but doesn't necessarily examine either of their platforms or background ideologies. I think he could have done better.
Oh, and Tyler, everytime I see your signature ("$35 and a sixpack to my name"), I think of the first line from the first song on Warrant's pathetic big label debut, Dirty Rotten Filthy Stinking Rich, which goes as follows: "32 pennies in a Ragu jar are all I've got to my name." Please don't ask me how I know that line, or why I remember it nearly 20 years after the fact.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Apr 19, 2006 17:38:19 GMT -5
It's the first line from '6-pack' by Black Flag. Not Warrant... never ever Warrant
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Apr 19, 2006 17:40:24 GMT -5
I disagree in fundamental ways with the author.
1. “The state cannot indulge in self-sacrifice.” False. We did this during all previous wars and to get a man on the moon. The Great Society and the Marshall Program are examples of American sacrifice for the common good. In fact, examples abound. Much of our foreign aid is not given to preserve American interests, though certainly not all and not enough. I would argue that what is great about America consists in large measure of our willingness to pull together, to sacrifice willingly, our personal good for our common good.
2. Jesus’ commitment to love is part and parcel of his conception of justice. The author wants to drive a wedge between these two ideas, but Jesus never did. I think he was right not to. If you want to understand the liberating power of love and the ultimate value of self-sacrifice then you have to link it up to justice. Anyone who says that Christianity doesn’t do this is not thinking clearly. “No greater love hath a man than this: that he lay down his life for his friends.” Self-sacrifice is connected to love here, but what is the value of love? Consider:
a. "Here is my servant (Jesus) whom I have chosen, the one I love, in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will proclaim justice to the nations.” Matthew 12:18
b. "Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone.” Luke 11:42
In these passages both the love of God for man and the love of man for God is connected explicitly through the concept of justice. Now, I readily admit that there is a personal conception of justice and a social one. But these are intimately related as well, though frequently in complex ways. For example, the source of our social ideals is frequently described in terms of casuistry, and even today our legal system is based on precedent and stare decisis. Our conception of individual justice is inextricably tied to our ideals concerning social justice. Jesus upset the tables of the moneychangers. He condemned those who would stone the prostitute. He railed against those who would oppress the poor and the disenfranchised. These things he did out of a sense of both love and justice. While I agree that this translates into no definite political agenda, it does translate into a commitment to these values.
3. “The Jesus of the Gospels is not a great ethical teacher like Socrates, our leading humanitarian.” This is lunacy of the first order and almost deserves no comment. But being a loudmouth, I’ll just say that the Sermon on the Mount does describe a list of Christian virtues which stand up quite well against any competing list the Greeks offered. (I go further and say it is the highest description of human goodness that the West has ever offered.)
4. “[Jesus] is an apocalyptic figure who steps outside the boundaries of normal morality to signal that the Father's judgment is breaking into history.” Yes, but he also speaks to the concerns of history and social justice. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. The author of the article, Garry Wills, engages in this kind of false dichotomy throughout the article. His either/or reasoning is objectionable, uncritical, and figures throughout the article as a sign of a latent commitment to the division between church and state. Jesus did not have this conception in mind. Rather the source of his order to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s is an injunction to treat EVERYONE with love and justice, even those who might oppress us.
Again, I do agree with some of the general ideas, here:
1. Jesus’ life and message does not translate obviously and directly into any political agenda. (It does make some political ideals overwhelmingly attractive, e.g., helping the poor and the social outcasts.)
2. “To trivialize the mystery of Jesus is not to serve the Gospels.” Amen, brother. This is my almost constant message to anyone who will listen.
3. “The Gospels are scary, dark and demanding.” Sickness unto death, Fear and Trembling…Kierkegaard was onto this essential feature of faith. The good news is only good for spiritual realists. (I think that is what I most aspire to be.)
4. “It is not surprising that people want to tame [the Gospels], dilute them, make them into generic encouragements to be loving and peaceful and fair.” Not surprising at all, the average spiritual person would trade faith for rationalism any day of the week…and twice on Sunday.
5. Finally, Wills is surely right in saying that Jesus was never respectable. In fact, Jesus railed against the idea of respectability more than any character, fictional or real, that I know. I would even go so far as to say that the more respectable you are the less likely you are to be a Christian. But, of course, no one really knows whether you will pass the old eye of the needle test except for you and your maker.
Nevertheless, the author is flat out wrong when he denies that Democrats espouse a platform more in line with Jesus’ basic teachings and ideas. They emphatically do. Wills is certainly right to claim a certain looseness between individual virtues and political ideals. Deciding when to act for the good of all is a heart wrenching decision, as David and Justin discovered recently. But it is necessary from time to time for spiritual people to talk truth to power, witness the interaction between Nathan and David. This is a function of both love and justice.
What is truth? That was Pilate’s question, not Jesus’. To deny Jesus a version of truth is simply to misunderstand him. Our reactions to Jesus do not allow us to question his commitment to what he thought was true. For better or worse, Jesus thought he was right. He died for it. We can reject his ideas, but Christianity, like morality itself, is not a movable feast. It is not subject to our personal whims, and it is not compatible with every political ideal. However careful we must be about the connection between love and social justice, the connection does exist. And a large part of Jesus’ message was describing its nature.
Jeff
|
|
|
|
Post by rickus on Apr 20, 2006 9:39:18 GMT -5
Not to detract from this conversation but would someone explain this sentence in Jeff's last post: Deciding when to act for the good of all is a heart wrenching decision, as David and Justin discovered recently. |
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Apr 20, 2006 10:05:44 GMT -5
Justin and David made the agonizing decision to fill me in on some stuff that led to the current situation between Jenn and I. Out of respect for all involved, I would prefer to PM the details to you. I didn't talk about it in the semi-mojo thread because I have no desire to sow any seeds of malice or dissention. (I am finished making that mistake...I hope.)
Jeff
|
|
|
|
Post by wrikkus on Apr 20, 2006 10:18:43 GMT -5
No. I wasn't trying to pry. I didn't know. It was only the context in which you said it. "Deciding when to act for the good of all..." Just from my casual reading of it I had images of Justin and Dave dawning Super Hero garb and battling injustice and racism where ever it reared it's ugly head. Not that they couldn't do it if they wanted to, but it just seemed a little unlikely. So I thought I'd ask.
|
|
