Magic Statistics

Here’s a mind-boggling headline: “Christian mavericks find affirmation in ancient heresies”.  The Christian Science Monitor article that follows is equally mind-boggling.  Many “Christian progressives”, “scholars”, and “modern theologians” find the Gospel of Judas inspiring and appealing, “[n]ot so much for its heretical theology, but as an ancient symbol of their modern mission to update what defines faithfulness.”

The ancient document, say the Judas enthusiasts, shows that the early church was characterized by “dissent” and “diversity”, and therefore the contemporary church should “accept the growing diversity of beliefs and lifestyles in their religious communities as well.”  Can you say “non sequitur”?

"The Christianity of the ancient world was even more diverse than it is today," says Bart Ehrman, a religious studies professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a former fundamentalist Christian turned self-described "happy agnostic" - someone who claims it cannot be known if God exists. "My hope is that when people see how diverse Christianity was in its origins, [they] will be a little bit more tolerant of diversity in Christianity today."

The early church, to state the blindingly obvious, did not look benignly on theological diversity.  Just read Acts 15, the story of the Council of Jerusalem, which was prompted by diverse opinions on the question: Do Gentile believers need to be circumcised and follow Mosaic law?  Those who held the affirmative view claimed to be followers of Christ, yet St Paul accused them of teaching “a different gospel”.  The Church, agreeing with Paul, rejected the necessity of being circumcised before one could become a Christian.

Soon there followed centuries of wrangling over Arianism, Nestorianism, and other Christological and Trinitarian heresies.  (Oops, there’s that word again.)

The “progressives” apparently don’t know much about the history of theology.  Fortunately, others do, including this fellow:

To think that noncanonical texts legitimizes [sic] diversity today "is to ignore the fact that that diversity was not accepted [in the early church]," says Ronald Simkins, director of the Kripke Center for the Study of Religion & Society at Creighton University in Omaha, Neb. "It's a naive use of history."

Inevitably, however, there’s an official of the Episcopal Church USA to assert that subjective feelings are more important than the Bible and Church teaching.

The Rev. Jayne Oasin, a social justice officer for the Episcopal Church, USA., says that "to consider there to be only one truth is to me a form of oppression."

I wonder if the circumcision advocates said the same in their day.

via Kruse Kronicle.

Garry Wills says “No” in his recent New York Times column "Christ Among the Partisans".

There is no such thing as a "Christian politics."  If it is a politics, it cannot be Christian. Jesus told Pilate: "My reign is not of this present order.  If my reign were of this present order, my supporters would have fought against my being turned over to the Jews.  But my reign is not here" (John 18:36).  Jesus brought no political message or program.

Mr Wills argues against the idea that one political party or another can claim that Jesus is on their side.  I agree with that as far as it goes, but Mr Wills goes even further.  He implies that Jesus cares neither what politicians do nor what policies government enacts.  His line of argument is tantamount to claiming that Christian faith should not inform political views.

One could maintain that Christians, including politicians, who do not act on the convictions of the faith are hypocrites.  It is well-known that the sin Jesus railed against more than any other was hypocrisy. 

The Jesus of the Gospels is not a great ethical teacher like Socrates, our leading humanitarian.  He is an apocalyptic figure who steps outside the boundaries of normal morality to signal that the Father's judgment is breaking into history.  His miracles were not acts of charity but eschatological signs - accepting the unclean, promising heavenly rewards, making last things first.

Many Bible commentators and theologians have argued that our Lord's miracles were both acts of charity and eschatological signs.  Where is it written that they cannot be both?  In his miracles, Jesus revealed God's kingdom as a realm where the unclean are accepted, heavenly rewards are bestowed, and the last are first—i.e., both charitable and eschatological.

He [Jesus] is more a higher Nietzsche, beyond good and evil, than a higher Socrates.  No politician is going to tell the lustful that they must pluck out their right eye.  We cannot do what Jesus would do because we are not divine.
. . .
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.

Jesus "beyond good and evil"?  Religious institutions that derive humanitarian motives from the Gospel of Christ are acting in "defiance" of him?  That's away over the top.  If Jesus was unconcerned with good and evil, then why did he tell his disciples to obey his commandments?  Does Mr Wills think his commandments had no moral content?  I think Mr Wills needs to re-read the Sermon On the Mount for starters.

Jesus does indeed encourage love and peace, but those encouragements are not "generic": they are directed toward those who would follow him.  And there's the rub.  One can agree that no particular political party does or can embody in toto Christ's teachings, but the real challenge, it seems to me, is this: What does God expect of Christians whom he has called to positions of earthly power or influence?  I agree with Mr Wills that the popular query "What Would Jesus Do?" is often misguided.  But Mr Wills skirts the fundamental question: "What does Jesus want his people to do?"  For the faithful Christian, this is unavoidable.

Many of the benefits of Western civilisation have been brought by people who pondered that question.  Christian politicians, for example, have done great things by obeying what they understood to be God's will for their lives.  Mr Wills claims, "The state cannot indulge in self-sacrifice."  Christians working in and through the state, however, have indeed sacrificed themselves for what they believed to be God's will for the greater good of humankind.  (This point is not obviated by the observation that great evil has also been done by those who thought they were obeying God.  That only moves the focus to discernment, faithfulness to the Bible, and the witness of the Church.)

William Wilberforce and his fellow members of the Clapham Sect dedicated themselves to the abolition of the slave trade and then of slavery itself in the British Empire.  Clapham Sect member Charles Grant, together with David Brown, another evangelical Christian, successfully campaigned for the abolition of suttee and infanticide in India, as well as the introduction of Western-style education and criminal justice.

Today's commentary by Charles Colson calls on American Christians to contact their elected representatives and urge the government to take action to stop genocide in Darfur.  (I would suggest that applies to Canadians, too.)  I don't think it's very far-fetched to believe that this is something Jesus wants his people to do.  Nor, therefore, would it be far-fetched to believe that Jesus would be pleased if some politicians—or political parties—took up the cause of alleviating suffering in Darfur.

As Mr Wills says, "The Gospels are scary, dark and demanding." Well, what do the Gospels demand, exactly?  "Take up your cross and follow me", Jesus said both to his disciples and to the crowd.  The way of discipleship is always challenging, but I would say that any Christian, whether in politics or some other vocation, who determines to stand for good and against evil has made a step in the right direction.

The collect for today, Monday in Easter Week, from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer:

Almighty God, who through thine only-begotten Son Jesus Christ hast overcome death, and opened unto us the gate of everlasting life; We humbly beseech thee, that, as by thy special grace preventing us thou dost put into our minds good desires, so by thy continual help we may bring the same to good effect; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost, ever one God, world without end. Amen.

For the Epistle: Acts 10:34-43
The Gospel: St Luke 24:13-35