Better Than Believing

Forget about Eternal Life

Peter Peters, a respeced colleague of mine, and I often find ourselves in disagreement over the appropriate role of the church in the political arena. Arguing in favor of the church having a voice in forming public policy, he asked me what I made of Luke 18:18-25, which reads:

A certain ruler asked Jesus, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: 'You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother.'" He replied, "I have kept all these since my youth." When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "There is still one thing lacking. Sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me." But when he heard this, he became sad; for he was very rich. Jesus looked at him and said, "How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."

My first answer was that I doubt if Jesus spoke the words attributed to him. When he pressed me, I had a second answer, which was that I did my best to ignore the passage. On reflection, I decided that my first response had merit and that my second was inadequate.

Although a majority of scholars believe that Jesus must have said something like the words found in this passage from Luke and in the parallel passages in Mark 10:17-31 and Matthew 19:16-26, others see a reflection of the economic condition of the people drawn to the early church. In writing to the Jesus followers in Corinth, Paul noted that "not many were powerful, not many of noble birth." (I Corinthians 1:26) In addressing another early Christian community, the letter of James raised the questions, "Is it not the rich who oppress you? Is it not they who drag you into court?" These two comments suggest that a majority of the people first attracted to the Jesus movement came from the lower classes of society, classes habitually suffering from low self esteem. One way that the poor have always dealt with their own self image problem is to hold the rich in contempt. It is not difficult to imagine that the early followers of Jesus read their own disdain for the rich back into the story. They wanted to believe that God cared more for them than for those who enjoyed the privileges of the upper class.

Given the possibility that I could be wrong about the origin of the gospel teachings concerning the rich , I decided to stop ignoring the passages and to ask myself what they might mean. The primary clues we have to their meaning are found in the context where the gospel writers or editors placed these particular words they attribute to Jesus. They have Jesus offering his negative comments about rich people in response to a request for guidance made by a wealthy man. He is like the unhappy little dog Jenny in Maurice Sendak’s Higglety Pigglety Pop! She says, "There must be more to life than having everything." The man in the gospel story has wealth, righteousness, and social prominence, but he is not content. He is totally fixated on his desire to have something more than everything. He is completely self-centered. Jesus offers a solution for his unhappiness. Jesus tells the rich man to use all his wealth for the benefit of other people and to join the disreputable band of Jesus’s followers.

In another place (Luke 10:25), Luke has lawyer asking for the same advice as the rich man, what he must do to inherit eternal life. Luke does not describe the lawyer as being rich, but the advice Jesus gives is similar. Instead of being focused on himself, the lawyer is to think about what it means to be a neighbor.

Taken together, the two stories suggest that people concerned about their own eternal life are on the wrong track. People who are seeking personal salvation have missed the point. The key to a satisfying life is keeping a balance between taking care of yourself and paying attention to the people around you.

The words attributed to Jesus imply that finding this balance between self and others is more difficult for the rich than it is for ordinary wage earners. I don’t know any rich people, but from what I read in the newspapers about celebrities, I gather that many of them are unhappy. They are not content with having everything. People who have modest incomes or who have very little, however, can be equally unhappy and equally self-centered. The advice Jesus is supposed to have offered was the same for everyone. Forget about eternal life and think about what is going on with other people.

It doesn’t really matter if Jesus himself said the words attributed to him in the stories about a rich man seeking eternal life. The stories as we have received them suggest that the followers of Jesus set aside an interest in eternal life in favor of paying attention to their connections with other people. Paying more attention to their connections with other people might well lead Christians to advocate public policies that would use their tax money to benefit people in situations different from their own. Whether in advocating public policies the church should speak as an institution or should exercise its influence through individual Christians is a matter about which my colleague Peter and I will continue to disagree.

Why We Stick with "Christian"

Many of the organizations with which we cooperate -- such as the Sea of Faith, the Snow Institute of Religion, and the FaithFutures Foundation -- identify themselves as interfaith rather than Christian. TCPC has taken a different approach and has encouraged the use of the terms Christian and Christianity among progressives.

For one thing, I am constantly reminded of what has been the history of unitarian movements in this country and the U.K. First they gave up the trinity and removed Jesus from the godhead. So far, so good. I am with them. Now, however, most of them cannot openly refer to Jesus and many never mention God.

Another reason we emphasize our Christian heritage is that we contest the extremists' claim that only they have the right to call themselves Christians. In the minds of most people outside the church, Christianity tends to be identified with evangelicals and fundamentalists. We need to make every possible effort to let them know that other approaches to the Christian faith are available.

Third, when it comes to interfaith strategy, we have taken an approach that is different from that of our friends who emphasize the interfaith character of their organizations. In my experience, interfaith dialogue works best when each faith group is clear about its identity. I have learned from Jews and Muslims that they don't think that conversations are helpful when liberal Christians attempt to blur the boundaries.

To be a constructive voice in the world, I believe that progressive Christians need to stand firmly on the ground of our tradition. We are first and foremost followers of Jesus.

Theologians Under Hitler

Vital Visions is a project put together by a small band of southerners fighting to stem the rising tide of nationalism in the U.S.  One of the most interesting resources they have put together is an hour-long video "Theologians Under Hitler: Why Religion and Politics Matter".  Three important Protestant professors of theology -- Gerhard Kittel, Emanuel Hirsch, and Paul Althaus -- supported Hitler during the years of the Third Reich. Their scholarship and Christian devotion is unquestioned, yet their political choices set them solidly on the wrong side of history.

This workshop can be structured in several different ways ranging from an evening event to a three-day workshop in a retreat setting.  You can contact the Vital Visions staff to discuss an appropriate format for your organization.

The goal of Vital Visions is to reach evangelical churches, but I doubt that many of them would like to see the movie. Suggesting that they compare themselves with the exuberant Christians who backed Hitler will only make them angry. Although I think that the parallels between Germany in the 30s and the US today are chilling, nothing is particularly unusual about religion being used to promote nationalism. As Jared Diamond pointed out in Guns, Germs and Steel, religion was invented to convince young men to be suicidal in the defense of those with most of the money and all of the power. Although some of us like to think that in the U.S. we have separated church and state, I am sad to say that the truth is otherwise. As long as I can remember, churches in this country have joined in the celebration of military holidays: 4th of July, Veteran's Day, Memorial Day. We provide chaplains for the armed forces. Our clergy offer prayers at political events. We send our sons and daughters off to war with the blessing of the church.

Even though I deplore the use of religion in promoting patriotism, I don't think that the parallels between religion in Nazi Germany and Christianism in the U.S. are as clear as they seemed at my first viewing of the video. Germany was a fairly homogeneous society in 1933. America in 2005 is incredibly diverse. Germany had had only a brief experience of democracy when Hitler rose to power. We have been governing ourselves for over two centuries. The Christianists are dangerous, and people of faith must expose and oppose them, but I don't think that comparing them to the exuberant Christians of Nazi Germany will help.