Jesus was radically progressive then and now
When any debate arises, I ask, "What about Jesus was conservative?" This will stymie a debater. If one is to look at Jesus' example the short, simple answer is, "Nothing." Jesus had a certain due respect for the systems of his day, as with taxation ("Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's), but he did not personally subscribe to their values. Jesus came to change everything, and Jesus did. For Jesus, it was all about honoring, accepting, and working for things of the spirit and bringing spirit to the world in our treatment of one another, rather than idolizing things of the world, pretending those were holy, and using them to separate and judge people.
Jesus was so far ahead of his time that he is still radically progressive today. In his day, Jesus' strongest challenges were reserved for the highest and mightiest conservatives, the Pharisees (who idolized their own piety), the wealthy (who idolized possessions), the Roman rulers (who idolized political power), and the moneychangers (who idolized profit). If he were alive today, he would be taunted and rejected by our conservatives as a wager of class warfare, as anti-business, as anti-patriotic, as anti-Christian (er, um, anti-religious). [Hmm, "Jesus' war on Christians" has a nice ironic ring to it doesn't it?].
Jesus' living spirit still has the power to transform our world. You can say what you want about the Son of Man, but he was not in favor of the "ownership society". Jesus was more of a "care for the least of you" kind of person. Jesus was no war profiteer or CEO. Jesus brought an opposite message of radical love, so radical that he even advocated loving one's enemies. Wow. Hey, I admire Gandhi, but even he wasn't in shouting distance of Jesus.
What does this mean to us as progressive Christians? Christianity is not primarily about belief. The Pharisees believed THEY were holy, but Jesus unmasked their deceptions. How could holy people put themselves above God? The Roman rulers believed they were righteous, but how could the righteous execute an innocent person or neglect the starving? Christianity is about following the example of Christ. I can say I believe and that "I've accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior," but if I do not follow Christ's example, I am not Christian.
I am no more a Christian by belief, than a surgeon by belief. If I convert to "surgeonology," am I a surgeon? No. If I accept deep in my heart that I am a surgeon, if I have a personal relationship with my profession, but I don't know the difference between a butter knife and a scalpel, am I a surgeon? No. If I cannot even stitch a simple cut? Nope. Progressive christianity is marked by ACTIVE radical (all-inclusive, strong) love of God, neighbor, and self. These are rooted in the words, thoughts, and deeds of Christ, the Prince of Peace. These are expressed in Jesus' teachings, his limitless compassion, his refusal to exclude. These are expressed in Jesus' awe-inspiring power to "evoke", to call out peoples' spirits, and therefore to account for their worldly lives in the presence of God. This evocation made many, especially those who had a good wordly thing going on, more than a little nervous or angry. So it is today.
What did Jesus say, think (according to his teachings), and do about the "gay agenda". Hmmm. Interesting... Nothing! How about guns, prayer in schools, creationism, abortion? Not a thing. These may be legitimately differing conservative cultural and political concerns but they aren't Christian. What did Jesus say, think, and do about non-violence, social justice, care for the suffering, the life of spirit. Everything. His whole ministry dealt centrally with these. Let us as progressive Christians take inspiration from the Jesus' gospel, rediscover and translate his example into contemporary words, thoughts, and deeds. AIDS is the leprosy of our day. We can see how Jesus treated the lepers, not with scorn, exile, and judgment, but rather the tenderest blessing and care. The poor and the children suffer from neglect. Let us attend to them.
That is what the spirit looks like brought into the world. We have joyful labor to do, my brothers and sisters.
In spirit,
Zeus
- Zeus's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
Linda: Progressing Away from Belief, I think...
I guess doing conservative impersonations is a tricky business. When you referred to me as “sharing
How Jesus lived or How Jesus died
Darius,
I think there might be a simple answer to the very real conundrum presented by you: Certain believers take Jesus' death as not only the defining event for Christians but a license to interpret his sacrifice and grace to mean whatever wordly thing they want it to mean. Your quote was:
"I left Chicago convinced that all the apologetics and theology that can be written by the finest minds willing to devote themselves to the task can’t get around the essential literal-mindedness of the incarnation, the resurrection, and the manner in which the gospel writers misunderstood who Jesus was, including the idea that he will come to judge and condemn unbelievers to hell."
I think the progressive response might be quite simple. What about Christ's life, Christ's example? How does one know that they have truly accepted Jesus, by proclamation or by emulation? I think this is where are strength is as progressives. We say, "Enough with the words and extrapolations, get to the "fundamentals" of Christ's example and FOLLOW." That is what a Christian does. The resurrection is still of ultimate importance as a confirmation of the Living Christ among us, that arose and transcended death IN ACCORD WITH THE example of the living Jesus, but now available for all people by grace and sacrifice. So called "fundamentalists" continually have to ignore Jesus' life and pretend that the resurrection made it irrelevent. I say, that the resurrection, confirmed and consummated the life of Jesus as the Life of Christ among us. Now we are asked to be a part of that body and example. The only reasonable way we can do this is by studying, choosing, and following Christ's example, the Gospel OF Jesus. We have our own minds and can add to that, but we cannot simply transgress and re-write for ourselves what Jesus lived. Jesus never subjugated, coerced, profited from, violated, converted. He "evoked" the spirit and made it the law of the land. Our right-ward friends seem to think that they can unto themselves judge and condemn and neglect the gospel, which is the life of Jesus. Enough! I insist, and will exemplify with my own life, the best that I can, this Gospel. I don't know what a supposed Christian is who directly defies the example of Christ, but I do not call that Christ-like. Let us not be distracted in this way. The example is there and it is concrete, simple, and literal.
Zeus Yiamouyiannis, Ph.D.
Berkeley, CA
Zeus: The Light-Beam In Our Own Eyes
Well said! Our views are either identical or highly similar - and, if the latter, similar in what I'd see as all substantive respects.
Basically, I say Amen. And you've put it in a great way - the idea that progressives focus on striving to live as Jesus lived - at least, I would add, by our selective reading. Because again, there are, for example, many verses where Jesus is portrayed as condemning others for unbelief. But of course there are many other verses where he is shown forgiving and not judging.
Perhaps if Christians are ultimately judged, it will be by how we pick our verses. For as you say, we have our own minds. I'd add that to use them rightly, which is always challenging and even tricky, is never to transgress or rewrite, or think outside the box of scripture; but to take the cover off the Bible-box and let the Word shine by and with the light of our own eyes.
Darius at http://possiblegospel.blogspot.com/
This Is What Works for Me.
I have gone through an evolution with my Catholicism over the years. I even looked into Judaism (of which I decided to come back to a Christian belief, but it helped clear up much of the clutter that pushed me away from Christian thought in the first place).
This is what works for me: something really different happened after Jesus came into the world. Other messanic off-shoots of Judaism eventually disappeared (save Islam; but that discussion is for another day). There was something that the Apostles and other original followers of Jesus witnessed that made them go out into the world at the risk of death to spread the Word. But with that said, I do not stop thinking about my faith and mindlessly follow what the heirarchy commands. As Pope John XXIII believed, Christians are a people on a pilgrimage better trying to understand the Gospels, He rghtly saw disagreement over Gospel meaning as a healthy thing, not as heresy (a very Jewish concept that Jesus Himself engaged in). I personally believe that part of that pilgrimage is being ready to challenge even our own preconceived notions of faith. As an exstension of this idea, I always try to go back to thinking what would a Jewish Jesus of the Mediterranean be trying to say, not the blonde hair, blue-eyed anglo-saxon model we are so often presented with by European/American-centered Churches.
But in the final analysis, it doesn't matter whether Jesus really walked on water or that it was just a metaphor that all things are possible with Jesus. What matters for me is that the saving grace of Jesus is righteousness and that after going through a humilitaing painful Crucifixion He proved that God is greater than death. Inerrancy is not important to me (Didn't Jesus scold Peter and the Apostles how they often misunderstood Him? Didn't Peter deny Him? Then why should we then expect the Gospels to be written free of human bias?). No, what is important to me is living by the Golden Rule.
I believe that salvation comes by living Christ's teaching, not simply by rote repititions and then by shoving them down other peoples' throats. Instead, live by the Golden Rule. To dwell on all the other man-interpreted dogmas is what Hillel called commentary. Keep it simple. Just don't hung up on the commentary. It's that simple, at least for me.
Symbols Over Dogma?
NYGaribaldi, sounds like you may be saying something along the lines that Christian symbols point to truths greater than literal understandings of them - truths that we are still in the process of uncovering? I would agree with that.
I'd personally be less impressed by the fact that Christianity survived and became a powerful institution. That is, institutions don't necessarily become powerful because they are repositories of truth or wisdom. I understand that Elaine Pagels is good on presenting the political and historical circumstances behind the emergence of Christianity as a major institutional religion.
Darius at http://possiblegospel.blogspot.com/
I Don't See Your Point.
Where was I discussing symbols? I miss that entirely. I was discussing thinking about one's faith, that's all. Don't make it more complicated than it really is.
Huh??
You mention “the Word,
I Misunderstood
I thought by "symbols" you meants croseses, Bibles and things of that nature. I use the word metaphor--same thng.
Gotcha...
I understand.
I've found blogging about religion and spirituality pretty challenging linguistically. Just take the word "spirituality." Or "mysticism." A lot of these words have multiple associations and different people often have different ones in mind.
Darius at A Possible Gospel, http://possiblegospel.blogspot.com/
Linda, Stephen
Stephen: Yes, there are some relatively well-known spokespersons for the left. Maybe this is just a subjective impression, but I feel as though people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are better known to the general public. In any case, of course the left getting organized will have to be a process.
You mention donating - that might be an example of the wealth disparity I was pointing to. I'm severely disabled, on social security disability, and after things progressed to a point where I became too fragile to leave the house 2 years ago, have had essentially no medical treatment. Doctors, particularly specialists, simply will not, for any reason, come to your house.
Linda: Geesh, guess I was convincing! I should have played a conservative in the movies! In my previous remark, I stated that I was stating how I thought a conservative might answer Zeus. My little gospel-like quote at the end was meant as an indicator of my own real position.
Let's make up a name for my conservative character: Rev. Right, everybody just calls him, "RR."
RR would say to you:
"Linda, your father's absolutely right, God bless him! But I fear for your soul. For what you are calling the religion 'about' Jesus is in fact the religion of Christ Jesus. There are many many more passages than the one about the sheep and the goats that make it abundantly clear that the gospels tell us that the good news is that Jesus suffered, died, and was resurrected to save those who believe.
"Again, anybody who reads the gospels can see that the overall narrative, considered just as a piece of literature, builds to the climax of Jesus going up to Jerusalem to be crucified and resurrected. One of the main things Paul does in his letters is vigorously defend the idea of the resurrection. He says it's of the 'spiritual body' and not the physical body. It's a body that has been transformed, as the body of Christ Jesus, first born of the dead, was transformed. Which is really cool - I mean, that we get to have transformer-bodies... {okay, I lapsed there...}
"How's this for a few more quotes. If this isn't explicit, I don't know what is:
“Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
Darius and Rev. Right
Hi, Darius,
I got that you were merely playing the Devil's advocate! :-) For a much more eloquent reflection than mine (for those who really may have questions in this area) please see Marcus Borg's "Reading the Bible Again for the First Time" and "The Heart of Christianity: How we can be Passionate Believers Today.
This Quote Says It All
"In the best sense of the word, Jesus was a radical: His religion has so long been identified with conservatism that it is almost startling sometimes to remember that all the conservatives of his own times were against him, that it was the young, free, restless, sanguine, progressive part of the people who flocked to him."
Phillips Brooks, Episcopal Bishop, 1883
Zeus and Stephen: Of Wealth, Dogma, and Salt
Stephen, one thing that really bothers me though, speaking of wealth, is how do we get a progressive Falwell or Pat Robertson? In other words, how do we get high-profile progressive spokespersons? Religion today seems a lot like politics in that it takes being rich to get the message out.
And where do you find ministries with huge congregations whom they're not shy about asking for donations? Not so much on the left, I think...
Zeus: I agree with you, and really believe that the Christian right's got it backwards and wrong, and that on a level playing field where the voices of left and right got an equal hearing, most of the general public could recogize hypocricy and self-servingness in "religion" for what they are.
But how does this happen...
Zeus, re. your question, "Whatever on earth was 'conservative' about Jesus?" as a good way to rebut conservatives... Here's what I think a conservative could come back with (NOT my position!):
"Jesus himself was a revolutionary, but we conservatives conserve the true faith that he established. The New Testament itself says that nothing shall be added or taken away from the text. Yes, there was a process of canonization, but it was inspired by the Holy Spirit that Christ handed down to the church through his disciples.
"The belief that Jesus was resurrected to reveal himself as God and Savior is clearly central to the gospel narratives and to Paul's thinking. The resurrection is the climax of the teaching. This is the 'good news' - no literal minded interpretation, but what any honest person with basic reading comprehension would have to admit is an accurate reading of the text.
"The text is also very clear: Jesus will come again as judge. And he will condemn those who do not believe and bring eternal life to those of us who do believe." But as for me personally:
"Salt has salt of itself or it is good for nothing. How can you season it? Therefore have salt in yourselves that is not borrowed. This salt has saltiness like light from fire, and lights the world." From 5/10/06 A Possible Gospel, http://possiblegospel.blogspot.com/
The Religion OF Jesus
Darius
Your sharing of the conservative position brings up a good question: Is Christianity primarily about following and acting upon the religion OF Jesus or is it about allegiance to the dogma and doctrine in the religion ABOUT Jesus?
When you posit a conservative voice that says, “Jesus was resurrected to reveal himself as God and Savior,
talking heads and collective action
We do have our share of talking heads on the religious left...certainly not our fair share, but Jim Wallis and Michael Lerner come to mind. To me, the problem is not so much the need for talking heads as much as organizing every day people like you and I to take collective action for progressive social change.
And yes the left does need to be more emphatic about funding institutions, ideas and people who will make progressive social change. I would encourage you and others reading this blog to make the financial commitment to CrossLeft by becoming a member with a $25 dues. For those who can do more, its welcome and appreciated. We're still building out what membership means, but it includes voting for which campaigns and board members for CrossLeft. It also means deepening your relationships with other commmitted progressive Christians who are volunteering with CrossLeft. Together we are going to realize Christ's vision for on earth as it is heaven.
Active Faith
Zeus,
Thanks for these inspirational definition of progressive Christianity. I agree that Christians need to get this priorities straight and then be active on those priorities.
If Jesus thought that homosexuality, abortion, and the divisive social issues were so important, perhaps he would have commented on them. Jesus has plenty to say about healing the sick and taking care of the poor. He has plenty to say about nonviolence and unfortunately for the Christian millionaires, he has plenty to say about giving up one's wealth if one is to truly follow him.
I think those of us involved with CrossLeft are responding to your call Zeus engaging in a joyful labor of winning hearts and minds to active progressive Christianity.