RE: [asa] Harvard study

At 12:36 PM 10/28/2006, Alexanian, Moorad wrote:

See also, ...A Country Ruled by Faith By Garry Wills ~ Moorad

@ See also, The Curious Apologetics Of Garry Wills

"..Wills=92s ecclesiology seems to fall somewhere=20
between populism and pantheism. .."
http://www.sobran.com/wanderer/w2004/w040603.shtml

Washington Post Book Review:

"The Library of Congress holds close to 17,000=20
books on Jesus, and about the best thing that can=20
be said about Garry Wills' 'What Jesus Meant' is=20
that it is probably not the worst. Wills tells us=20
in his foreword that Jesus is 'a divine mystery=20
walking among men,' but rather than reveling in=20
that mystery, he tries to solve it =AD dissolve it,=20
actually =AD in a strange brew of devotional cant and historical Jesus=
  cliches.

For decades, participants in the quest for the=20
historical Jesus have been arguing that Jesus was=20
a radical egalitarian =AD a '60s-style rebel who=20
left his home and his job to seek, in the company=20
of a small cadre of equally disreputable=20
comrades, the kingdom of heaven on earth. This,=20
too, is the Jesus according to Wills: an 'outcast=20
among outcasts,' a 'man of the margins' who broke=20
bread not with the rich and the powerful but with lepers and
prostitutes.

What distinguishes 'What Jesus Meant' from books=20
by the likes of John Dominic Crossan (who has=20
also fashioned Jesus in the image of Jack=20
Kerouac) is its insistence that Jesus was allergic to [insert "p"
word] .

In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus says that he has=20
come 'to preach good news to the poor ... to=20
proclaim freedom for the prisoners ... to release=20
the oppressed.' But apparently Jesus does not=20
always mean what he says. What he means to say,=20
according to his latest amanuensis, is that he=20
came 'to instill a religion of the heart, with=20
only himself as the place where we encounter the=20
Father.' Jesus came not to establish a church or=20
to preach a new [insert "p" word] but to bring in=20
'heaven's reign,' which, according to Wills, is=20
characterized by love and love alone. 'In the=20
gospel of Jesus, love is everything,' Wills=20
writes, adding that this love 'is not a dreamy,=20
sentimental, gushy thing. It is radical love,=20
exigent, searing, terrifying.' Yet Wills' Jesus=20
has no real radicalism in him. His is a purely=20
interpersonal and domesticated love, divorced=20
entirely from the exigencies of politics and economy.

To be fair, it should be noted that Wills (a=20
Pulitzer Prize-winning historian who is Roman=20
Catholic) allows his Jesus to hold forth on=20
ecclesiastical [insert "p" word]; to plump for=20
married clergy and for women priests; and to=20
denounce the hypocrisy and self-righteousness of=20
the Catholic Church, its history of bribery and=20
warfare, and the haughty disdain of its=20
holier-than-thou hierarchy for ordinary=20
believers. In early Christianity, there were no=20
priests, no bishops and certainly no pope, Wills=20
observes. Benedict XVI, 'like his predecessors,=20
is returning to the religion Jesus renounced.'

Though Wills allows Jesus to rail against the=20
papacy's gluttony for power =AD what else can we=20
expect from the author of 'Papal Sin: Structures=20
of Deceit?' =AD he stifles his savior entirely when=20
it comes to the broader arena of [insert "p"=20
word] and society. Jesus 'had no ["p"=20
word] program,' Wills insists. He was 'not a=20
social reformer.' If the question is 'What Would=20
Jesus Do?' and the context is ["p" word] and=20
economic life, then the answer is absolutely, positively nothing.

Wills is trying to undercut efforts by the=20
religious right to cast Jesus as a ["c" "R"=20
words] In one of the strongest passages in this=20
surprisingly flaccid book, Wills likens recent=20
efforts by evangelicals to dress Jesus up 'in=20
borrowed ["p" word] robes' to the burlesque of=20
the Roman soldiers who adorned him with a crown=20
and scepter while mocking him as 'king of the=20
Jews.' Whereas Jim Wallis (the author of the=20
influential 'God's ["p" word') and others on the=20
religious left have criticized evangelicals for=20
getting Jesus' ["p" word] wrong, Wills insists=20
that Jesus had no ["p" word] to get, that 'his=20
reign is not of that order.' Wills wants to see a=20
great wall constructed between American religion=20
and American ["p" word], and he is determined to=20
have Jesus do the heavy lifting.

There are two problems with this approach. First,=20
as Wills' own 'Under God' demonstrated, U.S.=20
religion and ["p" word] cannot be separated so=20
neatly. Except in the mind of Jefferson and his=20
most fanatical acolytes (Wills included), church=20
and state have been intimates here from the=20
moment George Washington put his hand on a Bible=20
and swore to uphold the Constitution. Efforts to=20
make religion ["p" word] impotent have always=20
been futile in this country, as have efforts to=20
make ["p" word] religiously irrelevant. Second,=20
it is just not true that the Jesus of the Gospels=20
has no ["p" word]. As Wills himself argues, Jesus=20
spoke repeatedly about inequality and injustice.=20
He 'renounced theocracy.' He was 'opposed to war=20
and violence.' He was 'a threat to power.'

But how much of a threat can you be if you refuse=20
to act =AD or even to speak =AD for or against the=20
powers of this world? (What would have become of=20
the abolitionist or civil rights movements if=20
every ounce of the prophets had been emptied out=20
of Jesus?) Since the late, great 'faith-based'=20
["e" word] of 2004, in which 'values ["v" word]'=20
reportedly secured a born-again ["P" word]=20
re-election, ["D" word] have been wringing their=20
hands over what to do next. Should they get=20
religion, translate their policies into the=20
rhetoric of revelation and inform American ["v"=20
word] that they have values and even faith, too?=20
Or should they stick to the party line of rights=20
and reasons and continue to insist that religion=20
and ["p" word] have always been and must forever remain separate?

'What Jesus Meant' is an ill-conceived brief for=20
the latter view. As such, it tells us far more=20
about Wills than about Jesus, more about Wills'=20
devotion to our third president than about his=20
faith in the second part of the Trinity. Rather=20
than putting his hand in the hand of the man from=20
Galilee, Wills puts his hand in the hand of the=20
man from Monticello. In the process, he misleads=20
the ["D" word] and misreads the=20
Gospels. http://www.powells.com/biblio/18-0670034967-0

Stephen Prothero teaches in the Department of=20
Religion at Boston University and is the author=20
of 'American Jesus: How the Son of God Became a=20
National Icon.'" Reviewed by Stephen Prothero,=20
Washington Post Book World (Copyright 2006=20
Washington Post Book World Service/Washington Post Writers Group)

~ Janice

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Oct 31 00:14:55 2006