Jesus didn’t ask me to defend him, but sometimes I do anyway. He gets picked on so.
Today’s potshots come from Barry Seidman, who describes himself as a humanist and secularist. In response to recent advances by the Christian Left, Seidman writes that he’s happy the Christian Left is “joining the good fight against Christo-fascists like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Tim LaHaye and President Bush.” However,
… the coupling of religion and politics is as dangerous for the left as it is for the right, because absolutism, authoritative supernaturalism and the actual tenets of the Abrahamic religious texts can never be reconciled with democracy and freedom.
In my experience religious liberals tend to respect the principle of separation of church and state, so it’s not clear to me what worries Mr. Seidman. I infer he thinks religious people will always try to impose their doctrines on others and thus cannot be trusted in politics, liberal or not.
Seidman bases much of his opinion on a book by Hector Avalos titled Fighting Words: The Origin of Religious Violence. Avalos is an anthropologist and biblical scholar who teaches at Iowa State University. I have not read this book, but Avalos states his basic thesis in this interview:
In Fighting Words Avalos looks at the role religion has historically played and continues to play in violence in the three main Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam).
“Most religious violence is the result of real or perceived scarce resources,” he said. “When people believe that there is not enough of something valued, they may fight to acquire it or to maintain it. When religion causes violence, it does so because it has created new scarce resources.”
Fighting Words focuses on four scarce resources that can be created by religious beliefs – inscripturation (sacred scriptures), sacred space, group privilege and salvation. The book shows examples of how each of these can be seen as scarce resources that have precipitated violence in Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
The “scarce resource” of inscripturation can look at religions who say that God communicates to us in only one text (the Koran or Bible for example) and access to God is available only through the one text the religion believes in.
This explanation seems thin to me. I am inclined to think most religious violence occurs when religion (any religion) becomes tribalistic or gets mixed into struggles for political power. As I said I haven’t read the book, and perhaps Avalos makes a good case. But the “Abrahamic religion” thing bothers me. One, we’re back in the same old trap of defining religion as monotheism, when most of the world’s religions are not, in fact, monotheistic. And as I sort of argued here, even within the monotheistic religions the occasional genius or mystic has broken out of the God box — Spinoza comes to mind.
It has long seemed to me that there are two basic ways to approach religion — legalistic (or dogmatic) or mystical. All three of the major monotheistic religions — Judaism, Christianity, and Islam — have mystical traditions as well as legalistic ones. It is true that the legalistic and dogmatic approach is far more common. The dominant sects of all monotheisms tend to treat scripture as law and assume that theological and moral questions can be answered by referring scriptural statute.
On the other hand, most other religions (there are exceptions) more often take a mystical approach and treat sacred texts as guides to truth, not truth itself.
His Holiness the Dalai Lama was once asked what he would do if science disproved something written in a sutra. He said that he would revise the sutra. Westerners sometimes don’t know how to take this, but even the Buddha told his followers they shouldn’t accept anything he taught them on faith. Believing the sutras is not the point of the sutras, any more than believing in science is the point of science.
Christianity may be the most dogmatic major religion on the planet. (Judaism is much less dogmatic, and I don’t know enough about Islam to judge.) In most denominations the follower is presented with an elaborate belief system and told he must accept these beliefs absolutely; doubt often is considered weakness. Since the West is overwhelmingly Christian, even the nonreligious assume this must be what religion is all about. But it can be argued that Christianity’s emphasis on literal and rigid belief in doctrines is an aberration among religions and is not even true of all schools of Christianity.
Further, the notion that a Christian must accept the entire Bible without question is not as rigidly a given as Seidman and, apparently, Avalos believe. I have had lovely discussions with liberal Christians who understand the Bible was written by people with limitations and prejudices, and that ideas about God have evolved over time. They can even accept historical evidence that the Gospels were not, in fact, written by Apostles but by second- and third-generation followers who didn’t know Jesus personally. Once you accept that Jesus’s teachings may have been imperfectly recorded in the Gospels, then disregarding the parts that seem out of whack or are of questionable provenance (e.g., most of the Gospel of John) is not “cherry picking,” but critical thinking. (See also the Jesus Seminar.)
Seidman writes,
Even apart from his discussion of religious-created scarcities, Avalos uses a close reading of the Bible to reject the view that Christianity essentially espouses love and peace. He argues that in Romans 12:14 we do not really see an example of Christians loving their enemies at all, though this section is often cited by Christians for this very reason. The section begins, sure enough, “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them.†But what most liberal Christians then ignore is the rest of the section, “If your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads†(Romans 12:20). Heaping burning coals on their heads? Avalos suggests that read as a whole, the commandment to be nice is a way to build up the potential for violence against an enemy. The nicer one is to one’s enemies, the more they will deserve the violence done to them in the end.
To which a liberal Christian would say that the book of Romans was written by Paul, and reflects Paul’s understanding, which may not have been the way Jesus saw things. Look instead at Matthew 5:43-48, which possibly had a eyewitness account as a source:
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
I submit that to love others requires not wishing to heap burning coals on their heads, the authority of St. Paul notwithstanding. Seidman snorts at Christians who “cherry pick,” then does some pretty selective cherry-picking himself.
Whatever Jesus was about got buried pretty quickly under the interpretations of lesser teachers and dogmas that arose in the centuries after his death. The Doctrine of Trinity itself didn’t become the central doctrine of the church until the 4th century; many biblical scholars doubt very much that Jesus saw himself as God. (As a Jew, he might have been appalled at the idea.) And although most Christians don’t question doctrine, there are some who find their true spiritual quest in digging through the doctrinal minutia of the ages to get closer to the authentic Jesus.
Dogmatism and mysticism struggled with each other throughout Christian history. Great Christian mystics like Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross lived in the shadow of the Inquisition. Dogmatism prevailed, but mysticism didn’t die altogether. And in a time when the light of science makes dogma seem absurd to thinking people, some Christians are working to restore the mystical traditions to their former place of respectability. Even though I ducked out of that struggle to take up the Buddhist path instead, I heartily wish them well.
My point here is that secularists like Mr. Seidman should not prejudge the religious and assume we’re all enslaved by ancient superstitions or even believe in God. Clearly, Mr. Seidman has a narrow and limited understanding of what religion is.
Thomas Jefferson said “it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” Likewise, Mr. Seidman need not concern himself with the religious views of others who aren’t concerning themselves with the secularist views of Mr. Seidman. Instead of worrying that the Christian Left will contaminate democracy, I recommend that he, like Jefferson, swear “eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” That’s the enemy of us all, religious or not.
Another wise and thought-provoking essay, maha – (which has provoked many…thoughts!)
“inscripturation (sacred scriptures), sacred space, group privilege and salvation†– stated as sources for the precipitation of violence primarily from “People of the Book?†Seems pretty thin to me, too.
People naturally lean this way in any “true belief” system –
Inscripturation = Reg-Veda, Egyptian Book of the Dead, Gilgamesh, among others. Even in nationalism (U.S. Constitution) and in philosophy (Marx, etc). I’m sure history could give numerous examples – more that I’ve thought of off the top of my head.
Sacred space = “the nation,†“the tribal territory,†“sacred groundâ€
Group privilege = “old boy network,†nomenklatura, feudal nobility, priesthood of all ancient religions
Salvation = (see above)
In my opinion, it comes down to the tendency of human beings to focus anxieties and desperation for survival (here and in an afterlife) into a laser beam of enthusiasm which can be used for good OR bad. I always think back to what Eric Hoffer wrote when he argued that The True Believer has been at the core of destruction and evil throughout our history, but also at the core of rebirth, art, love and the good.
As for Jesus, you can think about the evil actions that have taken place in his name, but it’s inaccurate and just plain dishonest not to look at the good as well. And if you can’t see the good, then you must have your blinkers on. Anyway, it’s human nature we’re talking about.
There has been a lot of “stuff†piled on since Jesus lived. Seems ironic that those who try to “get back to the real Jesus†often cling to “the stuff†even more than the older Christian sects (Eastern Orthodox, in particular). They’ve shed the ritual (which was meant to “transcend†the earth) and focused on “The Writings†which were written down by human beings.
“Believing the sutras is not the point of the sutras, any more than believing in science is the point of science.†I like this!
And your reminder that our real enemy is “tyranny over the mind of man” is good to keep in mind. However, I often wonder if many “fundies” (for lack of a better word) consider science as a kind of “tyranny.” Here’s where we get into a sticky issue, perhaps?
Anyway, fantastic post! I’d better quit and let someone else have a turn…
I strongly recommend the works of Karen Armstrong. “A History of God” was a spectacular view of the 3 “Abrahamic” religions throughout history, and their change in emphasis on doctrine, mysticism and belief. “The Battle For God” goes heavily into how the current legalistic views of modern Fundamentalist Christianity and Islam are also something new and modern.
Actually, I think Avalos may have something when he mentions “group privilege” as a scarce resource. Although white people still have plenty of privilege in this society, the absolute legitimacy of that privilege is no longer accepted — in other words, the legitimacy of white group privilege is now a REALLY scarce resource. That’s scary to a lot of white people who confuse “loss of absolute privilege for your own group” with discrimination. I’ve always thought this was part of the appeal of fundamentalism, which (among other things) harks back to a time long ago when things are supposed to have been better. In this country, anyone who looks back past the 1960s sees a time when white privilege was absolute, and absolutely accepted.
Thank you for this. As someone who uses Christianity as an interface for understanding the universe (but without assumptions that mine is The One Way), I squirm uncomfortably whenever people are going on what essentially amounts to fundamentalist anti-religionism.
You have a point there, AnnieCat, but I still don’t think it has as much to do with religion as the author is arguing. This is what Maha was pointing out about it going back to being tribal. Reminds me of many of the issues we’ve dealt with in our discussions on immigration. There has always been a view in the U.S. that “They” are going to take it away from us. I think it has to do with the rapidity of change in our personal lifetimes. We’re remarkably open about accepting others as a nation (compared to Europe, for instance), but for some of us individually, it’s too much. Also, there is always the fear of what seems different from us (Catholics, blacks, them furrinurs) People who look back to the times before the 1960s often forget that there was anxiety then, too. (Why else were there so many lynchings?) And our nation has always had fundamentalist religions, too.
“I’ve always thought this was part of the appeal of fundamentalism, which (among other things) harks back to a time long ago when things are supposed to have been better.”
It pretends to “hark back” but fundamentalism is a very modern form of religion.
I guess I am with AnnieCat if I understand any of this. Personally, I think religion and politics are one and the same and that saying you are a pro-life, fundamentalist Christian sounds better in polite company than saying you are racist member of the KKK. This is not to belittle genuine people of faith many of whom are very good people, but I have seen too many fakers and posers to have any use for any religion. And given the crimes committed by religious people, I will stick with secular humanists any day.
I also find AnnieCat’s comment quite interesting, but I’m not sure how it explains the fast-growing segment of Christian fundamentalists of color. My sense is that their bias these days is based much more on gender/sexuality than race.
I always thought of the “heap burning coals on their head” as a metaphor for leading ones enemies to confront their own guilt. Think Gandhi.
“Love your enemies — it will drive them crazy.”
One cannot take what is freely given. And hostility that is not reciprocated often either dissipates or implodes. (Though sometimes not — it’s naive to think that “love thy enemies” is an automatically winning strategy.) The key here is that Paul realized that the recipients of his epistle generally had little choice but capitulation, and he was attempting to motivate them by showing that how one capitulates can turn defeat into a winning strategy. Enough people followed this strategy — even to their deaths — to inspire converts and generate a thriving Christian underground in Rome.
All of the Bible has to be read in terms of its context and intended audience, the Epistles especially so. Thoughtful Christians do so, though there are times when “thoughtful Christian” seems an oxymoron if one assumes “Christian” = “Fundamentalist.”
I always thought of the “heap burning coals on their head†as a metaphor for leading ones enemies to confront their own guilt. Think Gandhi.
Probably, although from a Buddhist perspective wishing one’s enemies to feel guilty is an impure motivation that will come back and bite you, karma-wise.
And our nation has always had fundamentalist religions, too.
Fundamentalism as a distinct movement came into being in late 19th century. It borrowed a lot of stuff from earlier movements, of course, so a lot of attributes we associate with fundamentalism are older than that.
Ah, but Enlightenment (or Salvation) for individuals wasn’t always Paul’s focus. He was a movement strategist, often focused on the survival and growth of the church. He wrote his letters for motivation as well as illumination. This is why Evangelicals seem to quote Paul even more than Jesus — his writings suit their ends better.
This is why Evangelicals seem to quote Paul even more than Jesus — his writings suit their ends better.
Exactly. I don’t necessarily have anything against Paul, but it can be argued that the religion of Christianity has more Paul in it than Jesus.
I think that religion is like a good neighborhood gone bad. It used to be the center of town, where everybody would go, including the gentry. Eventually the money and power moved elsewhere, but the old neighborhood still held its head up… until the wrong element started to move in. First it was the conmen, then the crazies, then the thieves, then the killers. Now we barely even notice when atrocities happen there; and many have forgotten how good a neighborhood it used to be.
Religion is like a good neighborhood gone bad; and the real tragedy is that good people still live there. They didn’t change, they didn’t move, they’ve always held the place up, and now they can only watch as it runs downhill.
Please note, maha, that this metaphor goes beyond the Abrahamic faiths, though it surely includes them. Note the Hindufascist parties in India; or Sun Myung Moon’s cult.
In this analogy, leftist Christians are like people who try to redeem the bad neighborhood by opening up a soup kitchen. I admire their spirit, and am skeptical about their chances.
For those of us who long ago moved away from the old neighborhood (or, like you, maha, moved to one of its classier outskirts) the question is; should we visit the old place again, scary and dirty though it has become, in order to support the embattled good people there? Or do we continue to stay away?
Excellent and thoughtful response to Seidman’s poorly conceived attack on religion. Seidman clearly is very poorly versed in theology and relies on cliches and stereotypes based strictly on thge most simplistic readings and crude interpretations of the Bible.
Unfortunately, “secularism” has really beocome a lmost a code word for anti-religious prejudice and hatred.
Seidman needs to get out more. With respect to Professor Avalos, this…
When religion causes violence, it does so because it has created new scarce resources.
…doesn’t make sense. IMO religion may be adjunct to scarcity, but it’s hard for me to envision it being a cause of scarcity. And this guy is an anthropologist and biblical scholar? I’m obviously missing something, obviously I don’t understand Avalos’ context.
When liberalism politically went into retreat a few decades ago, and right wing bullying took over, religious liberalism similarly went into hiding. It’s still alive but not as visible or as obvious as fundamentalism. Just as liberals politically have had to come to grips with a right that operates by a completely different playbook, and are beginning to fight back, so too are religious liberals, finally getting their act together, finally seeing how dire the situation is, and finally seeing to the bottom of the right’s collective depravity. Part of this is seeing into their own timidness and denial about the seriousness of both the political situation and of their own spiritual weakness.
Sadly, Seidman is all too representative of the secular left. I see it all the time on blogs such as DailyKos and Digby and others, blogs that I hold in high respect and am glad are there, which I support as much as I can. I don’t really fault the secularists and their misunderstandings – until religious liberals can find the courage to step into political battle armed with spirit and wisdom, why should the Seidmans of the world give them any respect or understanding? People like Seidman are really just mirroring the situation.
The Tao Is Silent.
alyosha,
Liberal Christians have brought this on themselves, at least in part, by failing to speak out against the abuses of the Fundamentalists on the one hand, and by shunning political involvement on the other. I understand some of the reasons behind this. (The example I’m most familiar with is the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), which suffered so much from internal politicking after remerging its Northern and Southern halves 23 years ago that it essentially neutralized itself in terms of any external political effectiveness. I’ve read that other denominations also still suffer from such civil war-related dissent.) But I also understand why those outside of Christianity have no interest in making fine distinctions between different group’s beliefs. Unless liberal Christians take the time to speak up against Fundamentalism loudly enough for unbelievers to hear them, I don’t see the latter becoming any more open-minded.
Liberal Christians? What next?
Progressive Facists?
A common denominator shared by ‘denominations’, whatever the specific ‘faith’ or ‘sect’, is projection of human foibles onto the divine entities [God, Jesus] who are being worshiped….so, this allows the members of any group to, essentially, exalt and worship themselves and feel some sort of ok-ness.
Probably it’s one’s parents, in particular, one’s father who most gives kids the deepest and earliest notion of authority, which notion then segues into whatever ideas are later adopted about ‘God’, ‘God’ being variously generous, loving, punitive, withholding, angry, etc.
Since my teen years, when I really struggled with the whole idea of organized religion, I have concluded: ‘what is finite [human] cannot really ever fathom what is, by definition, infinite [deity]’. That’s the awe I start with as I realize that I am a tiny speck within the ‘all’.
“….two basic ways to approach religion…legalistic or mystical.”
This seems about right to me. I grew up both as a religious fundamentalist as well as a die-hard Democrat. As an adult I’ve maintained my Democratic (as well as democratic allegiances) but it was only in the last year or so that–increasingly fed up with the authoritarianism of traditional Christianity represented in the media, I began to seriously question the literalist assumptions of my religious tradition and began reading books by John Shelby Spong, Karen Armstrong (who you’ve mentioned), Elaine Pagels and others on the more humanistic, critically minded spectrum of religious thought and research.
Sam Harris’s book, The End of Faith, contends that religious moderates (or mystics if you will) have much less to go on, logically and empirically, than the fundamentalists he is primarily opposed to. This is a discouraging take to those of us, and maybe we’re a dwindling number, who continue to find the Bible and other religious texts an important aspect of our human experience while we tentatively retreat from the literal dogmatism of our heritage.
For the time being I’m still somewhat active in my church although I know my changing views of biblical interpretation may ultimately create a conflict someday.
Anyway, thanks for this piece.
Pingback: Thudfactor » Blog Archive » On the Religious Left
I hate to be the one to say it,but,….Jesus is pure mythology. He doesn’t save, he doesn’t heal and he certainly hasn’t delivered. Aside from a few admirable sentiments that have been ascribed to the name of Jesus, there is nothing of value in the New Testament. There is more truth to be found in a Helen Rice Steiner Hallmark card than in all the words that Jesus supposedly has uttered.
Very funny, Swami! But wait, where did those Hallmark card sentiments come from? If I know my history, I do believe that Jesus came first. 🙂
As for the mythology part… do you mean the real man who sort of inspired the whole deal, or do you mean all the stuff that’s been piled on since that time? (You’ve read all about Mithra, I take it?)
Religions are man-made institutions and as such are flawed. They are not and can never be God-centered because God is not a space/time entity, or to put it another way God does not fit in an institution. We inevitably end up worshiping a god of our own making, a false god which is far worse than worshiping no god at all.
I agree with much of what you say, felicity smith, but I think there is a distinction between “worship” in the religious sense and “spirituality,” which is what maha has been discussing. I don’t feel a sense of worship so much as a sense of awe. I believe there is a difference in that the former is action-based, the latter is experienced. It’s what I (and other human beings) do with that sense of awe is makes the difference. Does that make sense?
By the way, I don’t “worship” Jesus personally, but I do find many of his teachings inspiring – particularly against the backdrop of his historical times. Do you disagree?
do you mean the real man who sort of inspired the whole deal,
There is no real man outside of the gospels. The whole deal was the creation of Saul of Tarsus..the master of the quibble.
I don’t know about Mythra…but I did read,Sinners in the hands of an angry God.
I agree, Sam. The great mystics of the ages, often maligned and even imprisoned for their lack of religiosity, speak of the inherent danger in attending solely to the trappings of worship while ignoring the experience of God. Fundamentalism beliefs, no matter the religion, focus on the trappings which has contributed and continues to contribute to unnecessary human suffering.
Ye Gods, Swami! You mean that Fire and Brimstone guy? No wonder you’ve never been the same. Those guys were a menace. To this day, I can’t hear the name Cotton Mather without a shudder. How about we call it a draw. The jury seems to out on this yet, but here’s a site that might be helpful to some who wonder:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm
I also read somewhere that the teachings of “Jesus” were a conduit for people of that time to bring back some of the Greek cynic philosophies. Who knows? Apparently the Romans were building lots of roads at the time which meant that the religious stew was getting quite a heady mix.
How about we call it a draw.
Done deal..
Twits in the hands of an angry blog administrator?…. 🙂
felicity smith –
I think this happens whenever “groups” get together in an us versus them configuration, don’t you? The passion that religion unleashes can really add gasoline to the fire. We can learn a lot from some of the Eastern “religions.” They seem to have gotten the tolerance part down pretty well. The “drive” that got us to our modern era, though, came from the Abrahamic religions. There’s good and bad to it Would science have developed so quickly? Would you be happy living in India? Maybe, if that’s all you knew. How much is culture and how much is religion? It’s mighty confusing to me.
By the way, alyosha, I thought you made some very thoughtful coments in your last post.
Swami –
Twits in the hands of an angry blog administrator?
Good one! There was a time not so long ago when we might have believed it, too!
Sam, there is a wonderful story about the Buddha. It recounts how he wandered the countryside, starving himself to reach enlightment. Eventually, exhausted and near death he sat down under a tree. Soon a young shepherdess saw him and did a very human thing. She promised to bring him her dinner that night. His followers were shocked that he did not send her off, denying her offer and they fled in horror at the Buddha’s behavior. Soon she returned. She held his head in her lap and fed him. It was then that he received enlightment. It’s not about starving oneself, about ideologies, it’s about being a true human being. A wise man was once asked if there were any in the world and to be on the safe side he said perhaps one. I am a Catholic and a devoted follower of the Buddha.
About #13, Barbara, I do have a lot against Paul. He clearly didn’t like women.
I’m one of those liberal Christians – Christ’s teachings are meaningful for me, and I have a hard time imagining Paul being humble enough to really accept all of them. Paul is an administrator.
Maha,
Thought you and others would enjoy this BBC article on the Dalai Lama and Tutu and Tintin. (We love Tintin, too!)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5040198.stm
Thanks for the link, Sam
It’s a nice change to read something positive in this world is happening.