Even though I don’t agree with everything in the two articles
I’ve mentioned, they are worth reading and discussing.
Andrew Sullivan, a Catholic, writes in Newsweek about “The
Forgotten Jesus.” He laments how in America faith has become too politicized.
Early in the article he asks two questions: “What does it matter how strictly
you proclaim your belief in various doctrines if you do not live as these
doctrines demand? What is politics if not a dangerous temptation toward
controlling others rather than reforming oneself?”
He refers to Thomas Jefferson’s Bible, from which he removed
all but those passages he thought reflected the actual teachings of Jesus.
Jefferson (and Sullivan, apparently) considered this “a simpler, purer,
apolitical Christianity.” That’s naïve, to say the least.
Sullivan assumes a certain framework for "politics." In Chapter 4 of my book Present Tense I use the word in a different sense, that of a community making decisions together. Jesus had plenty to say about politics (see John Howard Yoder's The Politics of Jesus, for example), but he wasn't talking about American politics.
Sullivan goes on to point out that organized religion is in
decline, largely because churches have pursued power rather than faithfulness
to Jesus’ teachings. He notes the Catholic hierarchy being exposed as
“enabling, and then covering up, an international conspiracy to abuse and rape
countless youths and children.” Mainline Protestant churches have declined
rapidly, he writes, while Evangelical Protestants, to give one example, is the
group that American pollsters have found to be most supportive of torturing
terror suspects. He writes: “This version of Christianity could not contrast
more strongly with Jesus’ constant refrain: ‘Be not afraid.’ ”
Sullivan claims that Christianity (and he means in America;
he ignores Christianity in other parts of the globe) is in crisis. He notes
that “many Christians now embrace materialist self-help rather than ascetic
self-denial,” that “the fastest-growing segment of belief among the young is
atheism” and that “many have turned away from organized Christianity and toward
‘spirituality.’ ”
His solution? Christianity needs to go back to Jesus by
emulating Francis of Assisi, who did not seek power but lived nonviolently.
Sullivan makes an important point when he says this does not imply a privatization of faith,
which has been a typical American response to religion. He writes that great
injustices, such as slavery, imperialism, totalitarianism and segregation,
“require spiritual mobilization and public witness.” But the greatest examples
of such movements renounce power and embrace nonviolence.
The cult of the individual enters when we pit "Jesus" against the "the church" without designating what those words mean. The church becomes a monolithic bogey man that is the locus of all evil, while Jesus generally represents a nice person who embraces all my beliefs. We end up with an unspecific, simplistic "church" and thousands of Jesuses, all made in our image.
Thomas Jefferson, a deist, exemplified this individualistic approach when he made a Bible that included only Jesus' teachings. Where did he think those teachings came from? Did he—do we—not recognize that Jesus was a Jew, a member of his religious community who loved Israel (the people, not the country) and criticized it from within?
There's no doubt churches and other religious groups have done horrible things, but they have also done wonderful things. And who made each of us arbiter or judge of those entities?
Generally I like Sullivan's article. But I don't like the cover title. It sets up a false dichotomy.
In the Time article, “Heaven Can’t Wait,” Jon Meacham, also
a Christian, notes that while 85 percent of Americans believe in heaven, “we
don’t necessarily agree on what heaven is.”
Meacham explores the history of the afterlife and shows how understandings of heaven have evolved. He points out the difference between the New Testament's view of heaven and the way many Christians view it today. He quotes New Testament scholar N.T. Wright: "When first-century Jews spoke about eternal life, they weren't thinking of going to heaven in the way we normally imagine it." Instead, "eternal life meant the age to come, the time when God would bring heaven and earth together, the time when God's kingdom would come and his will would be done on earth as in heaven."
Today, Americans have different understandings of heaven. "Many Christians," writes Meacham, "often focus more on accepting Jesus as their personal savior and the subsequent enforcement of biblical laws in preparation for the world to come."
Others, Meacham writes, argue that “the alleviation of
the evident pain and injustice of the world is the ongoing work that Jesus
began and the means of bringing into being what the New Testament authors meant
when they spoke of heaven.”
But Erik Thoennes, chair of biblical and theological studies at Biola University and a pastor, thinks
this focus “tends to come from white dudes wearing skinny jeans who live in the
suburbs and not poor, suffering people.”
Meacham seems to agree more with Wright, who is white but as far as I know doesn't wear skinny jeans, that this as the work of religion:
“bringing reality closer to conformity with theocentric aspirations in a world
in which loving one another as we would be loved is a sacred act and a way of
expanding the dominion of God—or heaven—in the world.”
I also fall more on Wright's side, though I understand the need for comfort and encouragement in the midst of suffering, and I do believe God embraces us in life or death. One thing I like about this view Meacham describes is that it focuses on God's bringing justice to the entire creation. It's not just about my soul.
