A must read: New Yorker article on college that trains Christian politicians

Parent Cafe
261

<p>Picture is no accident, and in keeping with John.</p>

<p>L. Michael White:
Professor of Classics and Director of the Religious Studies Program University of Texas at Austin</p>

<p>John’s gospel is different from the other three in the New Testament. That fact has been recognized since the early church itself. Already by the year 200, John’s gospel was called the spiritual gospel precisely because it told the story of Jesus in symbolic ways that differ sharply at times from the other three. For example, Jesus dies on a different day in John’s gospel than in Matthew, Mark and Luke… Whereas in the three synoptic gospels Jesus actually eats a passover meal before he dies, in John’s gospel he doesn’t. The last supper is actually eaten before the beginning of passover. So that the sequence of events leading up to the actual crucifixion are very different for John’s gospel. And one has to look at it in say, why is the story so different? How do we account for these differences in terms of the way the story-telling developed? And the answer becomes fairly clear when we realize that Jesus has had the last supper a day before so that he’s hanging on the cross during the day of preparation before the beginning of Passover. </p>

<p>So here’s the scene in John’s gospel: on the day leading up to Passover, and Passover will commence at 6 o’clock with the evening meal, on the day leading up to that Passover meal is the day when all the lambs are slaughtered and everyone goes to the temple to get their lamb for the passover meal. In Jerusalem this would have meant thousands of lambs being slaughtered all at one time. And in John’s gospel that’s the day on which Jesus is crucified. So that quite literally the dramatic scene in John’s gospel has Jesus hanging on the cross while the lambs are being slaughtered for passover. John’s gospel is forcing us, dramatically at least, through the storytelling mode, to think of Jesus as a passover lamb. Jesus doesn’t eat a passover meal, Jesus is the passover meal, at least within the Christian mind in the way that John tells the story. </p>

<p>Now this theme of the Lamb of God, the Passover symbolism, actually is shot through the entirety of John’s gospel. From the very first scene of John’s gospel when Jesus enters the story for the first time, he does so by coming to John the Baptist to be baptized. And when Jesus enters, John sees him coming and looks and says, “Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.” So the whole story is now bracketed by this one motif, the Lamb of God. And of course that’s the kind of symbolism that would eventually become one of the most profound and dominant in all of Christian theological tradition. Later on we will find just that one image a lamb showing up in all kinds of Christian art from the catacombs to the great mosaics at Ravenna because in just that small little capsule form we have a whole theological tradition wrapped up. It’s a theological statement about the significance of the death of Jesus.</p>

<p>The symbolism of John’s gospel while it is probably the most evocative of any in the New Testament, is also provocative. The language of John’s gospel is intentionally antagonistic at times toward Jewish tradition and toward Jewish sensitivities. The idea of the Passover of course is very Jewish but John tends to turn some of those ideas in a much sharper way against Jewish tradition. At one point in John 6 Jesus says, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood you will have no life in you.” But the idea of drinking blood is absolutely abhorrent to Jewish dietary regulations. So the very language and the symbolism that is so rich within John’s gospel also has a decidedly political tone to it in terms of the evolving relationship between Jews and Christians. John’s gospel is witness to a Christianity that’s moving farther and father away from Jewish tradition. And in fact it’s seeing Jewish tradition often as actually hostile to the Christian movement."</p>

<p>You find none of that “I am” stuff in any of the gospel accounts, which is not surprising, as John is written between 95-125 a.d. You’ll notice that while the posted article refers to the Gospels, in fact it contains not a single reference to any of the accounts but that of John.</p>

262

<p>OK, so I guess what you should have said to be more precise: “I read my Jesus in the Gospels **that I approve of **and there’s nothing about resurrection, saving through blood, son of God (son of man, that’s another matter), virgin birth, Trinities, …” Although, you will certainly find reference to the virgin birth in your approved Gospels.</p>

263

<p>Mini,</p>

<p>You wrote:</p>

<p>" You find none of that “I am” stuff in any of the gospel accounts, which is not surprising, as John is written between 95-125 a.d. You’ll notice that while the posted article refers to the Gospels, in fact it contains not a single reference to any of the accounts but that of John. "</p>

<p>All three of the synoptic gospels are very clear that the chief priests got very upset by the “blasphemy” of Jesus portraying himself as the Christ, Son of God. You can try to nitpick and say that in two of the synoptic gospels he only repeats their assertion, but when the chief priests respond that he had spoken blasphemy and this was the only statement he made, it is evident that the chief priests (who were there) were interpreting that he was claiming /assenting that he was indeed the Son of God. And in Mark, it says “I am.” (Perhaps, you think that the chief priest were upset because 60 to 90 years later, John would assert that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God??)</p>

<p>It would certainly be intellectually honest for a person to claim that he believes that the Bible is pure fiction, or that he somehow doesn’t believe that it represents the true words of Christ. But if you want to read the Bible for what it says, you only have three options. According to the chief priests and other eyewitnesses mentioned in the Bible, Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. Therefore, consistent with the Bible, Jesus was either a LIAR, or he was CRAZY, or he was indeed the Son of God. Jesus simply as a noble and/or wise man (who is NOT the Son of God) is INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE SCRIPTURES.</p>

<p>Matthew 26
63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
64 Jesus saith unto him, “Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.”
65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.</p>

<p>Mark 14
61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
62 And Jesus said, “I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.”
63 Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses?
64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.</p>

<p>Luke 22
66 And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council, saying,
67 Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, “If I tell you, ye will not believe:”
68 “And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go.”
69 “Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.”
70 Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, “Ye say that I am.”
71 And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth.</p>

264

<p>What about the many gospels that were not put in the bible, rejected by men, because they didn’t fit their specific way they wanted the church to be…the Gospels chosen “fit together”, I guess</p>

<p>As for translations- check out the current discussions regarding the Red Sea and The Sea of Reeds…I am not choosing a side here, but it is interesting to say the least</p>

<p>And not to mention the way Mary Magdellan has been portrayed, the may stories have been blended in reference to Marys</p>

<p>As for “your approved Gospels”- well, some men along the way approved the gospels…so why can’t we decide and interpret and question those Gospels…they decided to approve some and reject others, and these were humans, so why can’t we as humans question those decisions, and because they chose what they did, and the stories were all written down and translated and modified, how do we REALLY now what were the real words spoken back then…</p>

<p>We have seen TODAY many interpretations of the Bible in the myriad Christian Churhes around the world, many different ways of practice, many twisting and turning of phrases and passages, so who is to say that didn’t happen 2000 years ago?</p>

265

<p>I am always amused by the anglicization of all the names-- even Jesus was not “Jesus,” guys.</p>

<p>The best commentary on the fallibility/infallibility of the gospels has to be that of “The Life of Brian.” ;)</p>

266

<p>The same man (Iraneaus) who “approved” the Gospels (actually put together the entire book) has Jesus surviving the crucifixation and in Asia for the next 20 years, as above, and doesn’t see any particular problem with it.</p>

<p>Again, no references to the Hillelic tradition where the phrase “Son of Man” was already common parlance, where the priestly tradition was already being rejected (in favor of the synagogic one). The priests’ problems were only secondarily with Jesus, but rather more primarily with an entire personal “holiness” tradition that was springing up outside of its purview, and culminating in the reforms of Jochanan Ben Zakkai after the destruction of the Second Temple. “Son of God” is just the singular version of “children of God”, language that was commonly used by the followers of Hillel, and anathema to the followers of Shammai, who during this period controlled the Sanhedrin, the governing priestly council. (i.e. “Blessed are the Peacemakers, for they shall be called Sons of God” - they didn’t degenderize the pronouns. But note the plural - Jesus didn’t think it odd to be calling lots of folks “Son of God”, so it would be a very strange thing if he rejected it for himself.)</p>

<p>But there were notable differences between Jesus and Hillel, and here’s where the innovations lie.</p>

<p>Hillel said “Love your neighbor”.
Jesus specifically said, “Love your enemy”.</p>

<p>Hillel moved the center of worship away from the Temple and toward the synagogue.
Jesus condemned public prayer and called on people to pray in secret.</p>

<p>Hillel called on folks to be charitable.
Jesus called on his followers to sell all they had and give it to the poor.</p>

<p>And the most wonderful innovation of all:
Hillel, citing Deuteronomy 14.1 against the priests, calls the people of Israel “Sons of God”.
Jesus rejects the racial specificity, and calls peacemakers “Sons of God”.</p>

<p>I could go on, but the irony here is that, as part of the religious/ethical tradition, Paulism has for the most part rejected the innovations of Jesus, and settled into a comfortable following of the teachings of Hillel. Pretty good I’d say, if not particularly revolutionary.</p>

267

<p>Mini,</p>

<p>Just to clarify a few points …</p>

<p>The implication that Christian’s accepted books of the Bible as scripture BECAUSE Irenaeus thought they should be included is FALSE. Irenaeus is one person whose writings we have from the early second century, but he was not considered to be the head of the Christian church or a special authority on which books SHOULD be included or anything like that. His writings confirm that he was among a significant number of those who had already at that time accepted the 27 books which Protestants nowadays consider to be the New testament portion of the Bible. </p>

<p>Why were the chief priests angry with Jesus’ answer and why did they accuse him of blasphemy? Was it because he was calling himself a person of Israel (per Hillel) or he was claiming to be a peacemaker? Or could it be, that according to the verses I previously posted, that Jesus was assenting that he was indeed the Christ, the Messiah?</p>

<p>Your statement that Jesus “called on his followers to sell all they had and give it to the poor” is not consistent with Jesus’ dealings with Zaccheus. While Jesus certainly told the “rich young ruler” to sell all of his possessions and give them to the poor, he did not require this if everyone.</p>

<p>If you do not agree with the canon as agreed upon by modern-day Protestants, that is fine. But you should distinguish this argument from trying to attack what you purport the Bible to say. I have no problem with discussing why the canon we have accepted is appropriate, but this argument is entirely separate from you trying to claim that Jesus, as represented in the modern Protestant Bible, did not claim to be the Christ, or that He did not claim that HE was the ONLY way to heaven. Those latter statements simply cannot be supported by any reasonable reading of the Bible. Go ahead and read it (even if you consider it fiction) and you will see this yourself.</p>

268

<p>Oh, I didn’t know that was the problem. Well, don’t we all read stuff that are written by people, maybe from a long time ago, and maybe even translated? It is not unlike reading a scientific report on an experiment we’ve never really done ourselves; the only different part would be that God plays a part in preserving His word. God would not take sending His message as a joke. </p>

<p>You can say God did write the Bible - if you belive in the Holy Spirit that is. The unity of the scripture from several different authors from different ages in history is quite a miracle, regarding “some of those jokes sent around about mix ups in translation” and “MAN has never been known to write an accurate version of history. It is always biased and always interpreted by their vision.” </p>

<p>And also, people do actually study Hebrew to understand the Bible as it is, but those who know two or even more do not oppose one version or the other, though they often prefer the original.</p>

269

<p>to mini, that is wonderful observation. The purpose of the four gospels are: Matthew - to see Jesus as the King (lion), Mark - to see Jesus as the Servant (calf), Luke - to see Jesus as Man (the spiritual Adam)(person), and John - to see Jesus as God (spirit)(eagle). Jesus is indeed, all four, and the four gospels gives us a clear view of them separately. (You can find this symbolism in Revelations) </p>

<p>Another correspondence is how the book of Isaiah is separated by the message of Jesus into a first part with 39 chapters and a second part with 27 chapters, corresponding to the 39 books of the old testament and the 27 books of the new testament. </p>

<p>Though we may be able to find many evidence against the validity of the Gospels, there are, I belive, equally many evidence that is for.
And judging by the sources which are against the validity of the Gospels, they seem to be as ‘certified’ as the Gospels themselves. I don’t think I would throw all this wonderful theory away just because they exist! Then it comes down to our choice. </p>

<p>Coming from a mixed Buddhist/Taoist family, I have chosen this way, and have never regretted it or thought of turning back. Bye for now!</p>

270

<p>“Religious Bigotry? To question? To Wonder? Please, that is once again calling names for those that have a curiosity.”</p>

<p>The pot finds offense in the kettle?
Calling opposing views bigotry was, I thought, a currency minted by broad-minded liberals for all open intellectual exchanges and markets. </p>

<p>–Give it a go with a debate on Gay marriage and racial/sexual preferences, among others sacrosanct and ‘progressive’ beliefs; a certain Harvard president has recently experienced the business end of that knotty and misshapen stick.</p>

271

<p>To claim “men” write Holy Scripture, but that some hallowed mystical (secular) entity known fondly and reverently as the “Founding Fathers” wrote the law-of-the land is an irony too delicious to add to any chef’s 5 star menu–most especially for those who are previously known to work up their intellectual concoctions from scratch. </p>

<p>If you do not believe that God acts upon history, or even that there is a God as such, why all the fuss about Holy Scripture since to even imply that scripture could in any way be “Holy” or “Holier” is to accept that God’s hand directs it. Do we assume that God lost interest in the divine offering the moment it was passed along? And to say that Holy Scripture is diminished because it was written by those with opposing thumbs (people, rather than Gods) ignores the whole communal divine/temporal point of Holy Scripture. Who would God pass it along to if not humanity, through humanity, for humanity?</p>

<p>If you believe in God, you either believe God is aware of humanity, cares for humanity (in soul and spirit) and has made divinity known to us historically and in our consciousness or you don’t; if you don’t, there are no moral implications to a belief in God and thus no imperatives at all (knock yourself out); if you do believe in God and Holy Scripture, you will believe in the divine imperatives written/revealed there (historically handed down) and choose to act on them or not. </p>

<p>I can see having a belief in a God without an accompanying belief in Holy Scripture; however, I cannot see a belief in Catholicism, Judaism, Quakerism, Islam, a divine Christ, or any of the beliefs associated with Wesley, Calvin, Luther, Knox, Aquinas, Fox, Muhammad or Moses (amongst many others) without a belief, in large part, based on Holy Scripture (and specifically, the fact that it is and was a Holy and Divine revelation). </p>

<p>It may be that certain individuals here have had their own prophetic revelations and for them I feel nothing but awe, but why identify yourself, as some here do, as a Catholic, or a Quaker, or a Christian for that matter when you could simply and honestly take on the implications of your own revelation and feel no need to dilute it with the unsubstantiated revelations of a bunch of “Dead-White-Men,” as they say (thus, according to The College Board, those from the Middle-East are Caucasian and, thereore, Jesus, Moses, Abraham and Muhammad are, sadly and bluntly, DWM) .</p>

272

<p>I’ve read through most of the previous posts and am intrigued by the fact that non-evangelicals are so offended by the fact that evangelical Christians believe the Bible to be God’s Word which teaches that only those who have received Jesus Christ as their Savior will spend eternity in heaven. If you don’t believe it to be true, why do you care what they think? I’m sure that there are many from other religions who think that evangelicals will spend eternity in hell, and others who think that they’re simply misguided. The reality is that truth is what matters, and people’s opinions are just that. Evangelicals share the gospel with non-believers in hopes that they will believe and be saved. It’s not as if they want others to go to hell.</p>

<p>I am also perplexed by those who think that if a person’s worldview is informed by their Christian faith they are not qualified to hold public office. Everyone has beliefs about what is good or bad for the culture at large, and ideally those who are seeking to be involved in politics do so because they want to improve society. If you don’t generally agree with a candidate’s agenda you probably won’t vote for him, but to say that only non-religious people are qualified for political office strikes me as ridiculous. </p>

<p>Fountain Siren: You are wise beyond your years. One seldom encounters people who think deeply about these matters, and you seem to be such a person. I’ve enjoyed reading your posts. </p>

<p>Driver & Funding Father: You’ve also made excellent points. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.</p>

273

<p>We care because religion is becoming more and more public policy issues. We care because we see our public dollars going toward programs that are not scientifically based. We see public health issues not being addressed in a medical way. We see people being discriminated against because they do not live the life exactly as prescribed by a certain group. I could absolutely care less what someone does in their home, their church and their families, But when they want to make that part of government and policy, their religious beliefs, we want to talk about it.</p>

<p>If you have a college that is training people for public service who say on their own website that they want religion in government and those who do not believe will all go to hell, well I take that very seriouslly. And they want that government religion to be THEIR version of Christianity, not mine, not my mom’s Buddhism, not my friends Judiasm, and not other forms of Protisisem or Catholcism…but THEIR personal religion that those non-believers (as our Supreme court justice say) are all going to spend eternity damned? Do we trust they will trust all us sinners fairly? Do we trust they will use science? Do we trust they will use the Constitution and not the Bible to make government decisions? So we must question and discuss, and be watchful.</p>

<p>It is not that we are saying Christians can not hold office. When did anyone here say that. That is once again trying to make the people that are trying to protect EVERYONE’s rights the bad guys. No, a Christian has every right to hold office, as do Muslims, Jews, Agnostics, Scientologist, LDS, and more. Its the bringing of ONE faith as the only true one into public policy that needs to be watched.</p>

<p>As a non-born again, I find it offensive when someone says I will go to hell because I do not follow their faith. I am not going to go to hell, because I am a very good person.</p>

<p>As well, when you have politicians making public policy decisions based on THEIR faith, to the exclusions of other belief systems, that is scary.</p>

<p>PS- Any group that says anyone who is not saved is going to hell or is in hell, such as Mother Teresa, the Pope, Albert Einstien, Ghandi, my Mom, because they were not born again, well, what can one say? I will be in good company.</p>

<p>And I really do believe the earth is more than 20 thousand years old. Me bad</p>

274

<p>acts 16:31</p>

275

<p>Logos, I don’t care a fig about what you think. I care very much about what you and yours may wish to imposed upon the rest of us. </p>

<p>Most evangelicals are for prayer in public school…but would object if it were Wiccan. Most evangelicals approve of public displays of religion…but would be appalled if it were Islamic. Etc. etc. etc. It’s the stamp of a relatively narrow form of Protestantism that they want to impose in public and intellectual life. </p>

<p>I have nothing against believers of whatever stripe holding public office. I come from a moderately religious extended family, enough so that my Mom jokes that it’s “the family business,” which includes two pastors, a theology teacher, and a sacristan. But I will fight the use of public office to impose their beliefs to the last ditch. </p>

<p>You find particular entertainment to be offensive? Use the “off” switch.</p>

<p>You find abortion to be a sin? Don’t have one.</p>

<p>You want to tell your kids to ignore evolution? Do so in the privacy of your own home, don’t foist your anti-scientific dogma on the rest of us.</p>

<p>You don’t believe in gay marriage? Don’t have one. Don’t belong to a church that allows it.</p>

<p>You have your interpretation of Scripture? If I’m interested, I’ll invite you to share. Otherwise, bug off and I shall do likewise.</p>

<p>You’ll start to “get it” when you realize just how offensive some people will find the first paragraph of your last post.</p>

276

<p>well said thedad
If I wanted to participate in a society that allowed religious views to infiltrate every day life including and especially politics I would move to Iraq.</p>

277

<br>

<br>

<p>Iran might be an even better choice - Islamic law is in full swing there. The issue with religious extremists of all stripes is that they have an unfailing belief that they are right and everyone else is wrong, and that they must impose their beliefs on those that don’t share them.</p>

<p>Truly religious people derive an inner strength and a personal code of behavior from their beliefs - it’s the marginal, insecure, and fanatical who desire to impose their beliefs and behavioral choices on their fellow citizens.</p>

<p>Getting back to the original topic, there’s nothing wrong with a school that trains Christian politicians - as long as they train those students that when they become a public servant they must put sectarian beliefs aside and fully represent everyone, including Muslims, Catholics, agnostics, Buddhists, atheists, etc.</p>

<p>Where the Christian beliefs would be most welcome (and perhaps uncharacteristic of many politicians) would be in the personal code of ethics of the politician. Who wouldn’t welcome a politician who was always truthful, couldn’t be swayed by campaign contributions, and was concerned with the well-being of all segments of society?</p>

<p>If the school strives to encourage personal integrity and public service free of sectarian beliefs, more power to them.</p>

278

<p>

I would argue that the same holds true for the secular “progressive” extremists that dominate academia. I’m not really fond of either extremist point of view, but I’m somewhat more comfortable with the religious folks, who believe that there’s something bigger than themselves and whatever thought happens to be passing through their heads at the moment.</p>

279

<p>I’m somewhat less comfortable with the Ayatollahs, Christian or otherwise. To each her own. ;)</p>

280

<p>I’m somewhat less comfortable with the little tyrants, cynics or otherwise. To each his own.;)</p>