Better Than Believing

The Gospels against the Jews

Anti-Semitism has been an unfortunate component of Christianity that is rooted in the gospels. To understand the negative attitude toward Judaism that shows up in the Christian gospels, a reader of the Bible must recognize that the Hebrew yehudim and the Greek ioudaioi can carry different meanings.

The Hebrew word originally appeared in reference to the tribe descended from the patriarch yehudah, or Judah. The tribe of Judah was briefly united with ten other Hebrew-speaking tribes under David and Solomon. After the death of Solomon in 926 BCE, Judah became a separate kingdom with its political capital and cult center in Jerusalem. Anyone who lived within the realm was known as a Judean. The other tribes, to the north of Judah, formed a kingdom that was the first of the two to be conquered by foreign invaders. Judah held out until 587, when Jerusalem was invaded and the temple destroyed. The Judeans rebuilt their temple in 520.

Soon after the Maccabean revolt in 165 BCE, the designation yehudim or ioudaioi acquired an additional meaning that was neither territorial nor tribal. People whose worship life centered in the Jerusalem temple also became known as Judeans, even if their ancestors belonged to one of the other tribes. The Romans destroyed the temple in 70 CE, and by the end of the first century, a religion centered on the synagogues and the teachings of the rabbis had evolved from the practice of the Pharisees. Any adherent of this religion was known as a Judean.

Another use of the word further complicates an appropriate understanding of Judean. During the first century people in the southern part of Herod’s realm were called Judeans while people in the north were Samaritans or Galileans. Apparently the division was as important for them as the division between the northern and southern parts of Ireland are today. In Angela’s Ashes, Frank McCourt says that living in Limerick he was always suspect because his father, although a Catholic, was from the north. His own grandmother accused him of having "Presbyterian hair". According to John’s gospel, the Judeans challenged Jesus with a similar kind of guilt by geographical association:

The Jews answered him, "Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon"? [John 8:48]

According to the gospels, most of Jesus’s early followers were Galileans so to outsiders, Greeks and Romans, the later followers of Jesus – even the Gentiles – were called Galileans to differentiate them from the Jews. When these second and third generation Christians wrote their Jesus stories, they naturally identified themselves with the Galileans, in their minds the good people, while they pictured the Judeans as the bad people. This tendency to show Judeans in the worst possible light is especially noticeable in the Gospel according to John. When a story is set in or around Jerusalem, John consistently identifies the local people who resist the teachings of Jesus as Judeans, in English "Jews".

The Christian gospels’ negative attitude toward Judeans, however, was certainly based on something more than regional prejudice. The hostility arose in regard to the use of the term Judean meaning an adherent to a participant in a particular religion. At the same time that rabbinic Judaism was taking form, the followers of Jesus under the leadership of Paul began welcoming Gentiles into their communities without insisting that they conform their diet and dress to rabbinic rules. Neither did they require Gentile men to be circumcised. The leaders of the synagogues, however, were not willing to make such concessions for their Gentile converts. In order to preserve their spiritual identity, the rabbis came to the conclusion that they could no longer tolerate the confusion caused by the Jesus followers in their midst. Even the Christians who were born Judeans and followed the rules were no longer accepted. Their rejection from the synagogues left many followers of Jesus feeling hurt and angry, but there was another reason for the hostility that developed between the two groups, Jews and Christians, that emerged from the Pharisee tradition. They found themselves in fierce competition for converts among the Gentiles. The depth of the animosity on the Christian side is reflected in a curse Matthew attributes to Jesus. In The Five Gospels the curse reads:

"You scholars and Pharisees, you imposters! Damn you! You scour land and sea to make one convert, and when you do, you make that person more a child of Hell than you are." [Matthew 23:15]

Although much of the teaching attributed to Jesus closely parallels what the Pharisees taught, the Christian writers often use the Pharisees as surrogates for Judeans in general when they want to cast aspersions on their competitors. Because of the animosity of the Jesus followers toward the Pharisees and rabbinic Judaism, and because of their ingrained antagonism toward the people of Judah, the early Christian writings have a polemical tone that continues to feed Christian hostility toward the Jews.

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.

Living the Questions

Living the Questions is a new small-group program designed for Christian invitation, initiation, and spiritual formation. The program provides fourteen lesson plans and a series of video clips to stimulate discussion. In reviewing the course for Christian Century (April 5), Debra Bendis and Jason Byassee seem to assume that people who sign up for such a discussion group have been living in a cultural and spiritual vacuum. They also appear to think that in a church-sponsored course of study conformity to a particular party line would be a sign of wisdom. Anyone who agrees with these two positions should obviously avoid getting involved with Living the Questions. Neither of these assumptions, however, check out with my experience of reality.

The reviewers find fault with LtQ for pitching the course to "an audience of people involved enough in church to have been wounded by its fundamentalist versions." I don’t know on what planet Bendis and Byasee have been living. In my forty years of parish ministry, most of the people who showed up were either refugees from conservative congregations, or they were tentative seekers who had been avoiding religion because of what they had thought was the Christian point of view. The latter come from the fastest growing religiously identifiable group in the country, now about nineteen percent. I have yet to meet one who hadn’t thought that all Christians believed that Jesus got up out of the tomb and that baptism washed away all sin. As a test, I quizzed an eleven-year-old boy on these subjects. He has never been to a church, except for weddings, but he knows all about these beliefs, and he holds them in contempt.

The reviewers also complain that the speakers who appear on the video clips are a "discordant mix of voices". From such teachers, "people who are investigating Christianity will have a hard time deriving . . . a coherent introduction to Christianity." To me, the wide variety of views presented by LtQ make the course inviting and energizing. This is one of the most brilliant aspects of the series. In telling the Christian story, the course replicates the Bible, which — as everyone who has ever tried to read it knows — is as incoherent a mix of voices as you can find between two covers. Without having to be told in so many words, those who participate in the course discover the power that emerges when people are living the questions rather than accepting agreed-upon answers.

What is Better than Believing?

Some people who cannot accept church doctrines and dogmas have found other things in Christian congregations that may be better than believing:

• Being part of an extended family with "brothers and sisters" who care about you.
• Participating in the life of a community where your concerns make a difference.
• Locating companions with whom you can work to help bring to the world a greater measure of social, economic, and environmental justice.
• Finding your roots in the rituals and traditions of a people with a history.
• Growing in awareness of your personal values and your potential as a human being.
• Increasing your capacity for open and honest relationships with other people.
• Approaching God directly through disciplined meditation and prayer.
• Having a place to celebrate the joys of birth, marriage, and success as well as to find support in the tragedies of death, divorce, and failure.

The first version of this list appeared in a 1974 flier circulated by St. Mark’s Episcopal Church on Washington, DC’s Capitol Hill, the congregation I served as rector 1966 - 1996.

—

Jim Adams

Christianity or Christianism

Christianity or Christianism

William Saffire, in his New York Times Magazine On Language column, introduced me to a pair of useful terms: Christianism and Christianist.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first of the two can be traced back to the seventeenth century. In 1674, R. Godfrey wrote of a "Heathenish Christianism". In 1855, I. Taylor identified an "easy, overweening, and egotistic Christianism". These examples in the OED demonstrate that the term as a long history of derogatory use. Christianist appears to be of more recent coinage.

I think that both of these terms will be helpful. For a long time I have resented the necessity of adding the modifier "progressive" or "liberal" to the word "Christian" in order to differentiate an approach to Christianity that differs from that propounded by extreme conservatives. Many people have told me that we stand for basic Christianity and shouldn’t have to use an adjective in describing our network. Now we have the opportunity for making a distinction between our understanding of Christianity and that proclaimed by the extremists.

Christians are people who practice Christianity. They do their best to follow the way taught and lived by Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus stands at the center of the constellation of symbols by which they make sense out of their existence.

Christianists are devotees of Christianism. They use Christian symbols in propounding an ideology that they want to impose on society. They make sense out of their existence by convincing themselves that they are right and that any who disagree are outside of God’s favor.

Christianism can appear at either end of the political spectrum. For example, Pat Robertson is a Christianist on the right, while Jim Wallis is a Christianist of the left. Both sides claim to be representing the mind of God, and both want to translate their positions into public policy.

Although using derogatory terms is often a less than admirable strategy in dealing with differences of opinion, such terms can sometimes bring clarity to an argument. In this case, I think it is important to insist on the distinction between Christianity – a religion, and Christianism – a political ideology.

For more on the subject, see the comments of Ruth Walker for the Christian Science Monitor and Rob Kall on Op-Ed News.

Faith: Another Word Hijacked

It was bad enough when the extreme conservatives gave Christianity a bad name (see my first blog), but now they threaten to discredit all religious persuasions. According to a report in The New York Times, the Family Research Council has put out a flier advertising a meeting to be held at a Kentucky megachurch that reads, "The filibuster was once abused to protect racial bias, and it is now being used against people of faith."

Any person who already holds a dim view of organized religion could read that statement and conclude that all, or maybe most, people of faith want the Democrats in the United States Senate to be deprived of the historic power of the minority to protect the country from the tyranny of the temporary majority. People of faith appear to be those who have been duped into demanding a judiciary that would add to the wealth of the corporate elite, the Texas billionaires, and the Wall Street insiders.

The thoughtful citizens of the United States are perfectly aware that the big money people care little or northing about abortion, gay rights, or end of life issues. The big money people give lip service to such issues because there will never be enough of them to control the democratic process. They figured out a long time ago that they needed to forge an alliance with some other sector of society to gain and keep power. They chose the extreme conservatives among the Christians. The federal judges the big money people want to put on the bench are ideologically disposed to supporting the agenda of the extreme conservative Christians, but they would also support the big money agenda.

To enhance their political clout, the big money people have decided to claim that the only faith that matters is fundamentalist or evangelical Christianity. Anyone who does not agree with their social agenda is by definition not a person of faith. Like most other adherents to a religious tradition, I object. First, they hijacked the word "Christian" and made it unusable without a qualifying adjective, and now they seem bent on seizing and twisting the term "faith" in a similar fashion. I wonder, will faith become a term that liberals and progressives will have to abandon in fear of being misunderstood? Or can we add a modifier to separate ourselves from the ranks of Christians with whom we have serious disagreements and identify ourselves as "people of progressive faith"?

Whatever we do, I think we must object to the use of religious language that in the long run will undermine any hope of institutional religion being a respectable and constructive component of a democratic society.

The Deplorable Legacy of John Paul II

From . . the tyranny of the bishop of Rome and his detestable enormities, Good Lord, deliver us. (The Great Litany, 1544)

Now that John Paul II is safely in his tomb, perhaps we can relax a little from the old standard, "Speak no ill of the dead." The international fuss made over the death of the pope strikes me as truly inappropriate in the light of his behavior, and I think that it is time for progressive Christians to be forthright in their denunciation of his legacy.

He worked consistently against the right of women to control their own bodies and their own destinies. He was rigidly opposed to both birth control and abortion, and he would not even permit an open discussion about the possibility of ordaining women for ministry.

He revived the animosity of his church toward gay and lesbian people, insisting that they have no right to form partnerships let alone to marry.

He worked to deprive all people of the right to end the artificial prolonging of life even when the personality was long dead.

He encouraged an alliance in this country between his church and the protestant fundamentalists in attempting to give their joint religious views the force of law. These age-old antagonists finally realized that they were both cast in the same mold. They differ only on their views about the death penalty, but I have not yet heard of any bishops threatening to excommunicate politicians who advocate executing criminal offenders, a tactic they have employed with the abortion issue.

He attempted to remove from Catholic colleges and universities all teachers who failed to follow the party line or even to raise questions about the doctrine or practices of the church.

He has concentrated authority in the Vatican at the expense of the national and local manifestations of the church. He clearly mistrusted democracy as far as the Catholic church is concerned.

He refused to take seriously the abuse of children by his clergy, preferring to condemn the media for sensationalizing the issue. He promoted known pedophiles and rewarded bishops who tried to cover up the scandal.

Although he is being praised for his openness to other faiths, especially Judaism, he showed his true colors early in the year 2000 when speaking to the cardinals, bishops, and theologians who make up the Congregation of Faith. He warned the group: "In recent years a mentality has emerged in theological and ecclesial circles which tends to relativize Christ’s revelation and his unique and universal mediation in the order of salvation." He declared that the Roman Catholic Church is the "royal road" to salvation, unlike the incomplete religions of other Christians and non-Christians. He did not seem to understand that it is this exclusive and arrogant attitude that makes anti-Semitism possible.

In the light of John Paul’s destructive legacy, I think it is fair to ask if anything good might be the result of his reign. To that question, I think we can say that the good he produced was the unintended consequence of his attempt to return his church to its pre-Vatican II ways of doing things. The primary good I see is the mobilization of the Catholic laity. In Africa, Catholics are finding ways to worship that are not authorized or are even forbidden by the hierarchy. In Massachusetts, Catholics have taken over some of the parishes that their archbishop attempted to close. In Latin America, Catholics are continuing the tradition of liberation theology in spite opposition by their bishops. Catholics nearly everywhere are practicing birth control and resorting to abortion. Many Catholics have exercised their newly-found self confidence by choosing to worship in other traditions. On this last point, I must say that I consider the migration of Roman Catholics to main line churches to be a fine thing.

Perhaps another unintended positive legacy of John Paul II is the proof he offered that to build loyalty and enthusiasm, the church must use all the public relations techniques employed by those who market anything from pills to politicians. His appearances on television were as good as Ronald Reagan, often seen as the undisputed master of that medium. Like Reagan, on the small screen John Paul came across as the stern father with the kindly demeanor. It will be interesting to see if the cardinals pick another telegenic personalty to lead the church. Other churches to be successful will have to learn John Paul’s techniques.

As I look at the evidence, I think it is a great mistake for Christians of other persuasions to talk about John Paul II as if he were a saint in the universal church. I think that the early Protestants in England were wise to keep reminding themselves to keep aloof from the tyranny of the bishop of Rome and all his destructive tendencies.

Fundamentalism and the Decline of Christianity

The cover story in The New York Times Magazine for March 27, 2005, featured an Assembly of God megachurch in Surprise, Arizona, about 45 minutes northwest of downtown Phoenix. The pastor, Lee McFarland, founded Radiant Church in 1996, and now weekend attendance has now reached 5,000 people. Impressive? Yes, until you stop to think what the impact of this kind of Christianity has been on the Christian enterprise as a whole. Many people have failed to realize that the success of fundamentalism in this country has been gained at a terrible price, the loss of respect for Christianity among people who want to think for themselves.

The story of Surprise, Arizona, is a good example of what has been happening around the country. The author of the Times story, Jonathan Mahler, notes that Surprise, a town of 80,000 people, has 27 other churches, but he dismisses them with the observation that "none of them are growing at anything that approaches the pace of Radiant." He does not supply statistics – maybe they are not available – but we can make some guesses based on national averages. Half of the churches in the United States have fewer than 100 members, and only 10% have more than 400 members, which puts them in the class of "large churches". Let us give those 27 churches the benefit of the doubt and assume that on the average they are large churches with a membership of 500, for a total of 13,500. If you add in Radiant’s 5,000 members, you will see that 18,500 church members are the most you are likely to find in Surprise. On the basis of my informed guesses, at least 73% of the Surprise citizens have no church connection at all.

Would other churches in town have better luck if Radiant were not giving Christianity a reputation for being anti-intellectual, anti-scientific, anti-gay, and anti-choice in medical decisions such as the end of life and the termination of pregnancy? No one can say for sure, but the statistics collected by the National Council of Churches and various polling agencies suggest that while groups such as the Assemblies of God and the Southern Baptists grew rapidly in the latter half of the 20th century, church membership as a whole declined. The so-called main line churches suffered serious losses, but the most significant trend may have been among those who claim no religious affiliation. In 1952, only 2% of the people polled claimed no connection with organized religion. By 1990, the figure had climbed to 10%. According to a survey conducted by the City University of New York, by 2001, 19% of the people in this county did not identify themselves with any particular religion. According to this survey, during the same period, 1990 to 2001, the percentage of Americans identifying themselves as Christians declined from 86% to 77%.

From my college course in logic, I am aware of the weakness in any argument based on post hoc ergo propter hoc, after this therefore because of this, so I will admit that I cannot prove the decline in American Christianity as a whole is entirely the result of fundamentalism’s success in winning converts. I do think, however, that in the minds of most people who read newspapers and magazines the word "Christian" has become identified with extreme conservatism. Only a generation ago, according to most dictionaries, you could call someone a Christian and mean a decent, respectable human being. Today, if you identify someone as a Christian, most of the people I know will assume that you mean a narrow-minded, self-righteous bigot.

The negative connotation has made considering Christianity as an option unlikely for many well-informed people. To get their attention, churches reaching out to them can never use the word "Christian" without a qualifying adjective, such as progressive. Even when we do, we have a hard time convincing the skeptical that we are different from the politically influential right-wing Christians they read about in the news. Is it any wonder that a shrinking number of people in America are willing to call themselves Christians?