There is an interesting Op-Ed in today’s New York Times written by Garry Wills, professor emeritus of history at Northwestern University, entitled Christ Among the Partisans.
Referencing certain political parties that try to hijack Jesus as their spokesman, he says:
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.
The institutional Jesus of the Republicans has no similarity to the Gospel figure. Neither will any institutional Jesus of the Democrats.
You can read the full article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/opinion/09wills.html?th&emc=th (you’ll have to log on).
Can’t say that I disagree with Dr. Wills. The more I study the Bible the more complex and challenging things I find. It’s sometimes tempting to just ignore the parts of the bible that offend, scare, or confuse, but we do so at our own peril.
Last weekend in Sabbath School (Adventist Version of Sunday School) we were studying the metaphors used to describe the Holy Spirt. The theology professor who was leading the discussion pointed out the wide varience in the way humans are compared to God. They range from potter and clay where humans are an inanimate object, to husband and wife nearly equal beings. We discussed how different heresies were based on people camping around one metaphor or another to the exclusion (or reinterpretation) of all the rest. He argued, pretty convincingly in my opinion, that we need all the metaphors, and what’s more, all of Scripture to even begin to understand God. Tossing out parts of the bible will only help us convince ourselves that we actually know him when we don’t. Talk about an unpleasent suprise.
It is much easier to just pick certain parts of the bible, those that back up what you’re doing, and to say you’re representing Christ.
I would say the institutional jesus of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Joel Osteen doesn’t really have a whole lot to do with the Jesus of the Bible. But hey, if it brings in the money…
Heh! and boy does it.
But I’m not sure we can get away with the relativism of “if it works for you…” Don’t we owe something more to those deceiving themselves? To those being deceived? To God? There are no easy answers even if we can agree what we owe. But you’re the rebel blogger.
In my humble opinion, it’s possible to point out the incompleteness of pictures of God without falling into the “mine is better than yours” trap and the “there is not correct view”. For one I am comfortable with the idea that until Christ returns we will “see through a glass darkly” and as a result only “know in part” the fullness of God. Indeed, I think there will be still more to learn when we see clearly and face to face. Knowing does not preclude learning. I think we’re on dangerous ground when we think we have God figured out and reduce the mystery to a mere doctrine.
My last sentance in my previous post was of course meant factitiously. I do think we need to point out errors, to point out those who would shape god into whatever will help them most.
And yes, we will only “see through a glass darkly” in this world. Which is why living in community is so necessary, so that “iron can sharpen iron” and we aren’t given the chance to form solid opinions based on incorrect doctrines.
Jack Balkin writes “Gary Wills tries his very best to keep Jesus from being used by the two major political parties, arguing that “there is no such thing as a `Christian politics’”, but at the end of the day he can’t quite manage it.”
More Here: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/04/would-jesus-stay-out-of-politics.html
Thanks for the link. Balkin raised some good points. I don’t agree with everything that Wills wrote, and neither do I agree with all the Balkin writes. I think Wills tried to press the point too far.
I do agree with Wills about school prayer. It is rather ironic that the very action that Christ enjoined us not to partake in, empty man-pleasing prayers, has become a rallying call for the religious right as a way to show your rightousness.