jimrigby.org

I stopped looking for the historical Jesus years ago. Here is a list of all we “know” about Jesus from sources outside the Bible:

1. There was a man named Jesus.

2. Jesus had a brother named James.

3. A man named Jesus was crucified.

4. Jesus was later called “Christ” by his followers.

The rest of what we know about the historical Jesus comes from the devotional writings of his followers, most of whom never met him. When scholars say they are studying the historical Jesus, what they really mean is they are studying the historical background  of the literature of scripture. Looking for the historical Jesus by studying the Bible is like looking for the historical Achilles based on the writings of Homer.

This is not to say Jesus has been lost to us. Scripture is a witness, but it is witness to truths of the human condition, not a witness to history. Perhaps that is why the four gospel writers made no attempt to correct the discrepancies in their historical narratives. The historical Jesus must die for the living Christ to be born. The truth of the gospel is as stark as the verdict of history: if we do not find Christ in the face of our neighbor, we do not find Christ at all.

Sexist and racist language are not victimless crimes. Language is the thread that ties a people together, so to choose language that reinforces unjust power relationships is to participate in that injustice. And because one is in greater danger as one descends a hierarchy of power, sexist and racist language are not opinions, they are weapons.

One does not even have to actually say overtly sexist or racist words to participate in the language of oppression. One need only speak as if white men are the model upon which all other human beings are to be measured. One need only use concepts like “white trash” and “female minister” and the coded message of hierarchy has been sent.

In Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus, he traces the lineage through four women who might have been stoned had people applied the Bible literally to them. Rahab was a prostitute, Tamar posed as a prostitute to seduce her father in law, Bathsheba was an adulteress, and Ruth, as a Moabite, was eternally barred from the temple because of incest in her history. Why would Matthew go out of his way to put these women in his genealogy?

The four women Matthew listed were brave souls struggling to survive in a patriarchial, sexist culture. Each one of them was faithful within the choices open to her. Biblical literalism condemns them, but the eyes of grace realizes that for humanity to be whole, every person is an irreplaceable piece of the puzzle. Matthew wanted the church to forever remember that, while literalists would cast these women out as “unclean,” grace knows we would not have Jesus without them.

The Pope was recently lauded for saying of homosexual persons, “who am I to judge?” The statement was revealing of how easily a person can hide prejudice from him or herself. If the Pope does not judge homosexual persons, then why won’t he allow them to be married? The Pope does not allow for gay marriage because he judges their same sex love to be a sin. It is utter hypocrisy for him to say he does not judge. He participates in the oppression of the GLBT community every day of his life.

When Jesus forbade judgment, he was not referring to a mere opinion or feeling. Judgment is when you will not give to others the same dignity and rights you afford yourself and your friends.

The “I have a dream” speech is probably the best known of Martin Luther King’s speeches, but the “I have a dream” part wasn’t in his original text. That was a litany he had used many times before in other settings. In some ways that refrain, “I have a dream,” has been turned into a feedback loop that now drowns out the rest of Dr. Kings prophetic critique of America’s militarism, racism and capitalism.

As we celebrate the anniversary of the March on Washington, it is time for America to honor Dr. King the prophet, and not MLK the cultural icon. White America has re-written the story of the Civil Rights struggle to make ourselves the heroes. White America has forgotten that President John Kennedy opposed the March on Washington. Like most white Americans, Kennedy felt Dr. King was rushing things.

If Dr. King had listened to white liberals we might still be waiting for basic civil right legislation to pass. Civil rights were not granted by kindly white leaders, they were bought with the blood, sweat and tears of countless and nameless grassroots activists.

Martin Luther King was an American prophet. We do not truly honor prophets by building statues or naming buildings after them. We honor prophets by fulfilling their vision. So if we wish to truly honor Martin Luther King at this time, we must work to end the exported violence of imperial wars, and pledge our lives to oppose the domestic violence of poverty, racism, economic inequity and unjust imprisonment.

The argument from “natural law” made sense in a pre-scientific church, but now that biology is a science, you can be pretty sure any theologian who uses the term “natural law” is only turning to biology if it confirms their theological biases. Catholic priests who use the term “natural law” to condemn homosexuality are being dishonest almost by definition. If the laws of nature were really their guide, they would know that homosexual behavior is not unknown in the wilds. What is more unnatural or uncommon in nature among species that use sex to reproduce, is their own practice of voluntary celibacy.

Gregory Johnsen of the Atlantic has report that a drone strike in Yemen against an accused Al Qaeda soldier was made possible because US allies in the region convinced an 8 year old boy to put a chip in the pocket of a man he considered to be his surrogate father.

At the time of the meeting, the boy didn’t know that the United States had decided to kill a man named Adnan al-Qadhi, and had turned to its allies in Yemen for assistance. Now the Yemeni government needed the child’s help. The Republican Guard officers told him what they wanted him to do: plant tiny electronic chips on the man he had come to think of as a surrogate father. The boy knew and trusted the officers; they were his biological father’s friends. He told them he would try. He would be their spy.

Democracy Now has also reported on the story in an interview with Gregory Johnsen:

AMY GOODMAN: Who were the allies that got the little boy to plant this chip?

GREGORY JOHNSEN: Well, this is Yemeni intelligence. This is the Republican Guard. These are the people that the U.S. works with on the ground. And the reason I think this is so important is because we often talk about drones as this amazing piece of technology, and we all know, from reporting that people like Jeremy Scahill and others have done, that the U.S. has been carrying out strikes in Yemen for the past three-and-a-half years, and drones are something that the U.S. continues to argue are this scalpel-like approach which we can go and get only the bad guys and no one else. The problem with that is that drones are a dependent piece of technology, which means they rely on intelligence from the ground. And the U.S. is very, very weak in human intelligence on the ground in places like Yemen, so they often rely on partners like Yemeni intelligence, like Saudi intelligence, and these groups don’t have the same moral and ethical framework that we often take for granted. And so, the U.S. is really getting into bed with some very questionable people here.

In 2008 Congress passed the Child Soldier Protection act that would prevent the US from giving support to nations who use children to commit acts of war, but for the last three years President Obama has signed a waiver for the nation of Yemen.

Link to the Atlantic article:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/09/did-an-8-year-old-spy-for-america/309429/

Link to Democracy Now! interview:

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/8/16/did_an_8_year_old_spy

So, unless there is a presidential pardon, 25 year old Bradley Manning will spend at least the next seven years in prison, and possibly, the next 35. But the big story is not about Manning. The big story isn’t even about the leaders who ordered the torture and other war crimes revealed by Manning who will live in mansions while the whistleblower rots in jail. The big story will be what you and I chose to do about this. Will we demand transparency in government, or will we continue to lay bricks in a wall that will someday be our prison?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/21/bradley-manning-prison_n_3789867.html

Imagine that Hitler won World War 2. Imagine that he conquered America killing and imprisoning millions. The rest of our nation’s population would be reduced to slavery building his monuments and buildings. Eventually, when Hitler died, imagine his much kinder son taking over.

Hitler’s son would eventually free us from slavery and stop the wholesale slaughter, but because he loved his father, Hitler’s son would not want to hear the truth about German atrocities. When he told the history of his father’s building of America, he would leave out the part about American unpaid labor or stolen lands, and thus make Germans out to be the greatest entrepreneurs of all time. When anyone asked for a fairer distribution of wealth, or even for protections for American workers, Hitler’s son would speak of “free markets” which would render his unfairness invisible.

Hitler’s son would not want to hear about the holocaust, but he he might start a sports team called “The Jews” and invite rich Germans to come cheer with game Yarmulkes and waving team Menorahs. Or, after Christianity had been vanquished, he might have a team called the “Martyrs” and let Germans come and wave their game crucifixes.

The son of Hitler would make movies about how the kindly Germans freed the slaves and a movie about an American Butler who inspired noble German leaders to show mercy on the poor little Americans. He might make a movie about a brave German cowboy and his faithful American sidekick, played of course by a German.

After the slaves were freed, German prisons would begin to fill with Americans, which Hitler’s son would see as further proof that Americans need German mentoring. The son of Hitler would believe that as long as he is nice to Americans as individuals there is no need to be fair to them as a group. He would see resentment of Americans against German  discrimination as reverse discrimination and just as bad as the German oppression itself.

Finally, imagine the son of Hitler rewriting history to say his father discovered America, thus making the pain of your mothers and fathers forever invisible.  If you lived in that America, how would you feel? What would you would you want to do to the son of Hitler?

“Religion” is perhaps the least definable of words. William James spent a good bit of time trying to clarify the concept in his book “Varieties of Religious Experience,” but could find no stereotypes that would span the full range of religious expression.

It is understandable then that most books attacking or defending religion usually do not attempt a clear definition of the topic itself. They mostly seem to take sides on whether religion is good or bad, but both sides in the discussion seem to lack a common understanding of the topic they are discussing.

I certainly understand why anyone would want to leave religion as it is usually practiced, but I would like to go on record as to why I have stayed. I completely understand those who do not wish to associate with religion. As I’ve said before, teaching religion in the present age is like trying to teach baseball to people who have already been beaten with the bats. But I would argue that it is precisely because religious superstition is so disorienting that we must not leave the conversation. It is precisely because religious hierarchy is so deadly that we must not leave the conversation. It is precisely because religious moralism is so cruel that we must not leave the conversation.

Plato once said those who consider themselves too pure for politics will be governed by their inferiors. In other words, just because you or I check out of the business of politics does not mean we have left it, it means we have submitted to the politics of those who stay in the game.

In the same way, it seems to me, that religion is a topic concerning humanity’s struggle to find our ultimate values, purposes and meanings in life. William James discovered there are theistic religions and atheistic religions. There are superstitious religions and those consider science to be the best eyes for religion. There are religions that persecute, and religions predicated on a message of liberation for all people.

Einstein did not believe in God, but he spoke often of our need for mystery. He said famously that science without religion loses sight of what is important, and religion without science loses it footing in the real world.

Carl Sagan was also an atheist who did not leave the conversation. He realized the necessity of singing scientific hymns like his beautiful series “Cosmos.” We can argue whether Einstein or Sagan was “religious” but we cannot deny that they made their contribution to the discussion. It seems obvious to me that Sagan spoke not so much to ridicule religion, as to awaken minds. Awakening was Buddha’s most essential concept of religion.

Gandhi’s commentaries on Hindu scriptures make it clear he did not believe them in any literal sense, but he could not have had the power to liberate India had he not appealed to spiritual ideas of what it means to be a human being, and to lift what seemed to be a hopeless struggle into an almost cosmic revelation of truth’s power over cruelty.

Schweitzer unleashed a devastating attack on any notion of the historical Jesus, but he did so not to destroy Christianity, but to bring mysticism and science together in that religion.

“Occam’s” Razor” is the principle that we should not introduce explanatory agents (like God) into our discussion of causes if it is possible not to. The “razor” is often sited as a reason to ditch religion altogether. What is usually lost in those conversations is the fact that the term “Occam’s Razor” was coined by a Christian monk who saw the destruction of superstition as a religious duty.

Just because you or I leave religion, it does not mean that the culture’s religious conversation ceases. Instead, it means we are letting televangelists and cruel moralists have the last word. If people leave the religious discussion just because they are honest or compassionate, it doesn’t mean religion goes away. It means religion becomes a juggernaut driven by the cruelest most ignorant voices in our culture.

I stay in religion because I refuse to let the religion of Ronald Reagan and Pat Robertson be an excuse for not calling people to the religious conversation between people like Gandhi, Schweitzer, Einstein, and Sagan.