We're Going to Cover That In Phase 2

Garry Wills, professor emeritus of history at Northwestern University and the author, most recently, of “What Jesus Meant,” wrote a great op-ed piece in today’s NY Times titled “Christ Among the Partisans.” Long story short, he goes point for point on how Jesus would not be happy with the way that Republicans, and maybe soon Democrats as they try to play catch-up, are perverting his teachings for their own moralistic and political ends. For instance:
>> [Jesus] avoided those who would trap him into taking sides for or against the Roman occupation of Judea. He paid his taxes to the occupying power but said only, “Let Caesar have what belongs to him, and God have what belongs to him” (Matthew 22:21). He was the original proponent of a separation of church and state.
>> Those who want the state to engage in public worship, or even to have prayer in schools, are defying his injunction: “When you pray, be not like the pretenders, who prefer to pray in the synagogues and in the public square, in the sight of others. In truth I tell you, that is all the profit they will have. But you, when you pray, go into your inner chamber and, locking the door, pray there in hiding to your Father, and your Father who sees you in hiding will reward you” (Matthew 6:5-6). He shocked people by his repeated violation of the external holiness code of his time, emphasizing that his religion was an internal matter of the heart.
The first thing I thought of when I read this was the Amazing Race of all things. On the Amazing Race Family Edition (last season’s incarnation of the show), one team extolled their “Christian values” at every chance they got and felt that when no one liked them, they are being persecuted for being the only “Christian” team. The obvious answer of “you are so damn annoying!” obviously didn’t get through their thick Christ loving skulls. Aside from praising Jesus anytime something went their way or praying to Jesus to help them complete challenges, they were probably the most un-Christian team in race primarily due to their poor sportsmanship and bad behavior. Their utter hypocracy bothered me to no end. They surely weren’t exhibiting Christ-like values when they sped by other teams on the highway and chucked food at their cars or when they insulted and mocked other teams or when they plotted their vengence on teams that “hurt” their chances. Where was the lovingkindness that Christ preached? When players thank Jesus at the end of a basketball game, I go crazy. I mean, the nerve to think that Jesus had nothing better to do than to sit around and ensure that your buzzer beater went in. He frankly doesn’t care. By the way, the same player praising Jesus’s love for his jumpshot will obviously think that Jesus isn’t paying attention to him when he is blowing lines with a hooker later back at the team hotel.
Unfortunately, being a good Christian to many in America simply means, “Jesus loves me, I’m going to heaven and I can do whatever the hell I want until then, which includes actingly like a total and utter prick, because I go to Church each week.” I’ve seen this in politics. I’ve seen this in the intolerance shown towards certain segments of the US population and when people vote against their own interests based on politicians playing on their moral fears. I even saw this on the Amazing Race. It all comes back to the fact that more people have been killed in the name of religion than for any other reason. America was founded on the principal of tolerance for all and unfortunately, religion when used incorrectly, breeds intolerance and hate, the old “My God can kick your God’s ass.” Don’t even get me started on how this relates to terrorism in its present fundamentalist incarnation. We’ll save that for another post.
The article itself is very interesting and shows how the true nature of WWJD is not being applied by those that say that they are exhibiting Christ-like values. Christ preached lovingkindness, tolerance and support for all. He didn’t preach the intolerance that many in the Moral Majority lovingly exhibit. As for the op-ed piece, I’ve grabbed it and put it after the jump for those that find this post after the NY Times archives it because I think its important for all to read it.
April 9, 2006
Christ Among the Partisans By Garry Wills (Op-Ed Contributor), Chicago
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.
This is a truth that needs emphasis at a time when some Democrats, fearing that the Republicans have advanced over them by the use of religion, want to respond with a claim that Jesus is really on their side. He is not. He avoided those who would trap him into taking sides for or against the Roman occupation of Judea. He paid his taxes to the occupying power but said only, “Let Caesar have what belongs to him, and God have what belongs to him” (Matthew 22:21). He was the original proponent of a separation of church and state.
Those who want the state to engage in public worship, or even to have prayer in schools, are defying his injunction: “When you pray, be not like the pretenders, who prefer to pray in the synagogues and in the public square, in the sight of others. In truth I tell you, that is all the profit they will have. But you, when you pray, go into your inner chamber and, locking the door, pray there in hiding to your Father, and your Father who sees you in hiding will reward you” (Matthew 6:5-6). He shocked people by his repeated violation of the external holiness code of his time, emphasizing that his religion was an internal matter of the heart.
But doesn’t Jesus say to care for the poor? Repeatedly and insistently, but what he says goes far beyond politics and is of a different order. He declares that only one test will determine who will come into his reign: whether one has treated the poor, the hungry, the homeless and the imprisoned as one would Jesus himself. “Whenever you did these things to the lowliest of my brothers, you were doing it to me” (Matthew 25:40). No government can propose that as its program. Theocracy itself never went so far, nor could it.
The state cannot indulge in self-sacrifice. If it is to treat the poor well, it must do so on grounds of justice, appealing to arguments that will convince people who are not followers of Jesus or of any other religion. The norms of justice will fall short of the demands of love that Jesus imposes. A Christian may adopt just political measures from his or her own motive of love, but that is not the argument that will define justice for state purposes.
To claim that the state’s burden of justice, which falls short of the supreme test Jesus imposes, is actually what he wills — that would be to substitute some lesser and false religion for what Jesus brought from the Father. Of course, Christians who do not meet the lower standard of state justice to the poor will, a fortiori, fail to pass the higher test.
The Romans did not believe Jesus when he said he had no political ambitions. That is why the soldiers mocked him as a failed king, giving him a robe and scepter and bowing in fake obedience (John 19:1-3). Those who today say that they are creating or following a “Christian politics” continue the work of those soldiers, disregarding the words of Jesus that his reign is not of this order.
Some people want to display and honor the Ten Commandments as a political commitment enjoined by the religion of Jesus. That very act is a violation of the First and Second Commandments. By erecting a false religion — imposing a reign of Jesus in this order — they are worshiping a false god. They commit idolatry. They also take the Lord’s name in vain.
Some may think that removing Jesus from politics would mean removing morality from politics. They think we would all be better off if we took up the slogan “What would Jesus do?”
That is not a question his disciples ask in the Gospels. They never knew what Jesus was going to do next. He could round on Peter and call him “Satan.” He could refuse to receive his mother when she asked to see him. He might tell his followers that they are unworthy of him if they do not hate their mother and their father. He might kill pigs by the hundreds. He might whip people out of church precincts.
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.
He 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.
It was blasphemous to say, as the deputy under secretary of defense, Lt. Gen. William Boykin, repeatedly did, that God made George Bush president in 2000, when a majority of Americans did not vote for him. It would not remove the blasphemy for Democrats to imply that God wants Bush not to be president. Jesus should not be recruited as a campaign aide. To trivialize the mystery of Jesus is not to serve the Gospels.
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 was the victim of every institutional authority in his life and death. He said: “Do not be called Rabbi, since you have only one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father, the one in heaven. And do not be called leaders, since you have only one leader, the Messiah” (Matthew 23:8-10).
If Democrats want to fight Republicans for the support of an institutional Jesus, they will have to give up the person who said those words. They will have to turn away from what Flannery O’Connor described as “the bleeding stinking mad shadow of Jesus” and “a wild ragged figure” who flits “from tree to tree in the back” of the mind.
He was never that thing that all politicians wish to be esteemed — respectable. At various times in the Gospels, Jesus is called a devil, the devil’s agent, irreligious, unclean, a mocker of Jewish law, a drunkard, a glutton, a promoter of immorality.
The institutional Jesus of the Republicans has no similarity to the Gospel figure. Neither will any institutional Jesus of the Democrats.
Garry Wills is professor emeritus of history at Northwestern University and the author, most recently, of “What Jesus Meant.”