|
|
Cross-posted in part from Blog from the Capital
The blogosphere has been notably quiet on yesterday's provocative opinion published in the New York Times entitled "Christ Among the Partisans" by Gary Wills. The author of " What Jesus Meant" challenges any attempt to marshall the message of Christ into a political directive, saying that He was "the original proponent of a separation of church and state."
Wills harbors no marriage whatever between Christian doctrine and the actions of government. His Christ offers a radically personal relationship with the divine, and an anti-institutional contempt that borders on mockery.
Most pointedly, Wills would seem to call into question the increasingly pious tone of political discourse over the last 25 years, from the religious right's advancement within the Republican Party to the more recent determination among moderates and liberals to promote a different set of Christian priorities. Both efforts, he warns, misappropriates the fiercely unpredictable teachings of Jesus.
An excerpt and some questions below the fold...
|
But doesn't Jesus say to care for the poor? Repeatedly and insistently, but what he says goes far beyond politics and is of a different order. He declares that only one test will determine who will come into his reign: whether one has treated the poor, the hungry, the homeless and the imprisoned as one would Jesus himself. "Whenever you did these things to the lowliest of my brothers, you were doing it to me" (Matthew 25:40). No government can propose that as its program. Theocracy itself never went so far, nor could it.
The state cannot indulge in self-sacrifice. If it is to treat the poor well, it must do so on grounds of justice, appealing to arguments that will convince people who are not followers of Jesus or of any other religion. The norms of justice will fall short of the demands of love that Jesus imposes.
...
Jesus should not be recruited as a campaign aide. To trivialize the mystery of Jesus is not to serve the Gospels.
The Gospels are scary, dark and demanding. It is not surprising that people want to tame them, dilute them, make them into generic encouragements to be loving and peaceful and fair. If that is all they are, then we may as well make Socrates our redeemer.
It is true that the tamed Gospels can be put to humanitarian purposes, and religious institutions have long done this, in defiance of what Jesus said in the Gospels. To challenge the intersection of one's religion and one's politics as being un-Christian is a mighty unfashionable suggestion these days, on the right and on the left (it might even call into question sites like this one?). To suggest that applying the Gospels for "humanitarian purposes" is "in defiance" of Christ goes further still. Under this view of Christ, is it even possible to keep the wall betwen church and state high enough, so long as our political discourse is infused with religion? What is the relationship between Christianity, ethics, and justice? And when we focus only on their intersection, what are we missing?
I'm especially curious what bloggers and blog readers think on this challenging topic. The corner of sites devoted to various religious perspectives on government and politics is growing more and more heavily populated by the day. Wills would seem to be arguing against any effort to direct Christ's teaching to a political or governmental end. Do "humanitarian purposes" render us guilty of taming the Gospels? More specifically, while we recognize the importance of maintaining church-state separation in our laws, should we also seek a greater separation internally? In our hearts, motivations, and rhetoric? There are plenty of reasons, aside from religious ones, to strive for a just and fair and good country. Do the Gospels ask us to leave our religion out of the discussion?
I've got more questions than answers....what do you think?
Taming the Gospels | 6 comments (6 topical, 0 hidden)
Taming the Gospels | 6 comments (6 topical, 0 hidden)
|
|
|