If Jesus Read The New York Times

If Jesus read The New York Times, he would not see a world so different from his own, except in externals. He would still see the poor, the hungry, and the marginalized. He would recognize military occupations, tribal warfare (even in Washington), and rulers who acted like gods. He would experience déjà vu as he read about a variety of attempts at world domination, this time not by the Roman Empire, but by corporations, governments, religion, even terrorists. Misogyny, patriarchy, racism, and xenophobia would not surprise him. And misuse of God’s creation has been with us since Eden. 

Religious battles, spiritual abuse, clergy misconduct, religious hierarchy, fundamentalism, exclusivity, scapegoating, judgment, and self-righteousness—he challenged all of these in his own time.  Wealth and greed in its myriad expressions (money, property, possessions, knowledge, ancestry, etc.) he has already testified as  stumbling blocks to entering God’s commonwealth. 

Drones have replaced crosses, weapons of mass destruction have replaced the swords we were to beat into ploughshares, AIDS has displaced leprosy, terrorist acts by individuals and governments alike have more “sophisticated” expressions—but all still intimidate the human spirit. Equally harmful, they may distract us from the life of the spirit. There’s even been a recent slaughter of the innocents. 

Violence comes neatly packaged in celluloid and video and digital formats, but the violent games of the Roman circus might also have been considered “wholesome” fun in their time. The internet provides just the latest opportunity for greedy lust to overrule the better natures of our hearts. Prisons, at least in the West, are more humane, but those in the U.S. house a higher percentage of the population than in Jesus’ time. 

So Jesus’ calling still has relevance, as he quoted Isaiah, “to bring good news to the poor, proclaim release to the captives, recovery of the vision we need, and to let the oppressed go free.” 

And his calling to us still resonates. “Give to the poor.” “Feed the hungry.” “Provide shelter.” “Welcome strangers.” “Turn the other cheek.” “Love your neighbor.” “Love your enemy.” “Do not judge.” “Pray in secret.” “Seek, and you will find.”  “Do not be anxious.” “Blessed are the merciful.” “Avoid anger.” “Do good to those who persecute you.” “Avoid revenge.” “Forgive as you have been forgiven.”  “Don’t shut others out of the temple.” “Woe to religious leaders who tie heavy burdens on others.” “Be compassionate as God in heaven is compassionate.” “Do to others as you would have them do to you.” “Whatever you do to the least of these, you do to me.” 

If Jesus read The New York Times, I believe he would lament over the world as he did over Jerusalem, “You who kill the prophets and stone those who are sent to you! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!” 

I offered this post on March 6, 2013. 

Tax-deductible donations may be made safely to the “Chris Glaser Archive” through the Tribute Gift section of The Center for LGBTQ and Gender Studies in Religion. 

Personal gifts may be made safely by clicking here.  Thank you! 

Copyright © 2013 by Chris R. Glaser. Permission granted for non-profit use with attribution of author and blogsite. Other rights reserved.

Religion Is Not a Conspiracy

A writer from Iceland questioned this phrase from a New York Times book review: “the negatives that have made Christianity a byword for tyranny, cruelty and licensed hatred.” She wrote, “The simple exercise of substituting any other institution with a history of ‘negatives’ for ‘Christianity’ in this phrase might have quickly showed up the hurtful error of dismissing the religion of Dorothy Day, St. Augustine, Lutheran World Relief, or the Amish, for example, as a byword for cruelty.” She then offered examples of institutions and categories of people that might similarly be impugned unfairly.

Does our culture automatically assume malignant conspiracies when it comes to religion? And what about progressive Christians?

Recently I began watching a documentary-style film that began with an overlong collage of violent images with no explanatory narrative. Growing impatient, I fast-forwarded to the eventual narration, and was met with a male voice speaking declarative “certainties” oracle-fashion about the destructive conspiracy of religion to control us and take over our innocent and inherently divine planet. I escaped the sermon, turned off less by its criticism of religion than its presumptuous certainty!

It reminded me of a book I read that had many insights, but whose perspective viewed religion as a sinister plot. I began circling loaded words the author chose, highly judgmental words that might sell books but limit understanding. On two pages alone, I found religion associated with these words and phrases with no “ifs ands and buts”: weapon, conformity, self-serving, defensive, false piety, God-manipulation. Oddly, the writer’s eventual conclusions are those of any enlightened religion.

Perhaps what I witnessed in the film and the book was actually anger over a restrictive religion in which the narrators were reared. I too was taught biblical literalism and religious fundamentalism, but I no longer view either as a malicious conspiracy, just a misunderstanding of what sacred texts and religion are about. In truth, I wonder if I would still be writing about the Bible and Christianity had I not been given the zeal of that upbringing!

I do not think of religion as a conspiracy. It was an attempt by people as good as you and me to comprehend the incomprehensible, and to discern and affirm our place in the universe.

Do people use religion to their own ends? Of course, just like they use the computer and government and science to get what they want.

Is religion co-opted and manipulated by “the powers that be”? You bet. Over and over, in human history, you can find evidence of that. You can see patriarchy in the male-dominated church, for example, evidenced as recently as the Anglican Church’s vote that narrowly rejected female bishops.

Can religion make itself a god? Yes, and that’s when we must be iconoclastic—when we must demythologize and deconstruct.

As Christianity began to blend with imperial culture and political power, the Christian monastic movement began. According to Thomas Merton, it saw civilization as a shipwreck that needed to be abandoned, with the hope that those who safely escaped to the shore might reach out to others trapped in the wreckage.

Those we consider founders of world religions—among them, Moses, the Brahmins, the Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed—all had to contend with the powers that be, religious, cultural, political, and define their spiritual views in those contexts. 

You and I have a similar role, in our own small way. We must step back, step away, gain a contemplative perspective, employ a “hermeneutics of suspicion” of both contemporary culture and religious tradition, questioning both our unique personal perspectives as well as our commonly shared views.

Religion is to spirituality what a question is to the answer. One may lead to the other, but the answer may require the reframing of the question.

Copyright © 2012 by Chris R. Glaser. All rights reserved. Permission granted for non-profit use with attribution of author and blogsite. Suggested uses: personal reflection, contemporary readings in worship, conversation starters in classes.  This ministry is entirely funded by your donations.