At this hour He hangs.
The blind He healed no longer see; the deaf He healed no longer understand. Those who stood close are now only brave enough to watch -- from a safe distance.
He cries out; they bring Him vinegar and gall to drink. A small Roman market opens at the foot of a dripping cross: guards place bids on His garments, even the hem of His garment.
Nothing can stop His bleeding issue.
No one knows, perhaps not (yet) even He, that everyone hangs in Him, that His exsanguination is theirs; is their only hope. There is mockery, scoffing, cursing;
the unknowing living spit sarcasm into His wounds,
He, the only knowing dying,
turns vitriol to wine
He has finished His cup
and it pours out
pooling beneath so many
nervous feet
one thief finds paradise in His great poverty
another finds nothing worth taking
not even this broken bit of bread
a sign maker admires his work,
dumb to the irony of his irony
a crown weaver picks a thorn from his thumb
thinking about furlough
a virgin finds her son finding her Son
and a son finds the mother who gave birth to
a dying God
a rabbi weeps at the Law's last breath
a guard feels the weakness of the sword,
the strength of surrender
a spear pierces the side of heaven
and hell spills out
there is no safe distance
©2007 Bill Gnade. All Rights Reserved.
Showing posts with label Jesus Christ. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jesus Christ. Show all posts
Friday, April 02, 2010
Monday, June 09, 2008
Obedience? Hmm.
The other night a friend shared these few sentences from Oswald Chambers' Christian devotional classic, My Utmost For His Highest:
"The golden rule for understanding spiritually is not intellect, but obedience. If a man wants scientific knowledge, intellectual curiosity is his guide; but if he wants insight into what Jesus Christ teaches, he can only get it by obedience."
I find this statement incredibly interesting. But I wonder if most Christians not only disagree, they don't really care about obedience.
In these rather economically challenging days, where does obedience fit in with Jesus' call to truly trust God? Here what the Lord of Lights says:
"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?
"And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own."
I confess that I do indeed run to and fro, planning, worrying, laboring, fretting -- anxious about the very things Jesus assures me the Father will provide. One stop at the gas station is enough to set my heart racing, all for the wrong reasons. But I would love to know anyone who obeys Jesus' teaching here. Who doesn't worry about what tomorrow will or will not bring? Who isn't working, striving, struggling, planning?
It seems self-evident that this is one of the most disobeyed statements in all of Christendom. I absolutely have never known any person to obey this teaching; and if I've ever heard of such a person, that person is usually someone of distant lore, trusting God in some far away land or some remote time. Personally, I cannot imagine a person with children living this way.
I wonder what my readers think.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All rights reserved.
"The golden rule for understanding spiritually is not intellect, but obedience. If a man wants scientific knowledge, intellectual curiosity is his guide; but if he wants insight into what Jesus Christ teaches, he can only get it by obedience."
I find this statement incredibly interesting. But I wonder if most Christians not only disagree, they don't really care about obedience.
In these rather economically challenging days, where does obedience fit in with Jesus' call to truly trust God? Here what the Lord of Lights says:
"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?
"And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own."
I confess that I do indeed run to and fro, planning, worrying, laboring, fretting -- anxious about the very things Jesus assures me the Father will provide. One stop at the gas station is enough to set my heart racing, all for the wrong reasons. But I would love to know anyone who obeys Jesus' teaching here. Who doesn't worry about what tomorrow will or will not bring? Who isn't working, striving, struggling, planning?
It seems self-evident that this is one of the most disobeyed statements in all of Christendom. I absolutely have never known any person to obey this teaching; and if I've ever heard of such a person, that person is usually someone of distant lore, trusting God in some far away land or some remote time. Personally, I cannot imagine a person with children living this way.
I wonder what my readers think.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
The Gospel Of Guilt: The Wright Way To Preach
I can't resist writing a few theological responses to Rev. Jeremiah Wright's speech and subsequent comments at yesterday's National Press Club. Of course, I would not be interested in Rev. Wright if he were not undermining what I initially took to be a noble goal in the campaign for the presidency of Barack Obama. That goal was not racial harmony. It was that America would transcend race; that our politics and related discourses would get us past the bitternesses of our fathers. But Rev. Wright has sabotaged all that. Now, like a bad LSD flashback into the heart of the 1960s, race is everything. According to Rev. Wright, God is on the side of the oppressed -- solely. According to Rev. Wright (who cites, in passing, white "evangelical" Jim Wallis) America has not even repented of its sin of slavery. America, be damned.
Let me be the first to assert that "America be damned" is not one whit inaccurate. I say this for the simple reason that both blind nature and Christian eschatology admit that everything is damned, damned by the great cosmic implosion or God's building of a new heaven and new earth. This point may seem glib and even silly, but it isn't, as it points to a very leveling moral and social principle: death equalizes us all. And at the very least Rev. Wright is all about leveling, about equality.
Also, I would not be pursuing Rev. Wright had Mr. Obama not given his permission, as he himself believes that Rev. Wright's religious views are fair political game.
THE BIBLICAL HISTORY QUESTION
I think it wise to quote Rev. Wright's remarks about the Holy Bible which he offered during the press club's Q&A period following his speech. Note that he is defending the black liberation idea that God is the God of the oppressed:
"In biblical history, there's not one word written in the Bible between Genesis and Revelations that was not written under one of six different kinds of oppression, Egyptian oppression, Assyrian oppression, Persian oppression, Greek oppression, Roman oppression, Babylonian oppression. The Roman oppression is the period in which Jesus is born. And comparing imperialism that was going on in Luke, imperialism was going on when Caesar Augustus sent out a decree that the whole world should be taxed. They weren't in charge of the world. It sounds like some other governments I know."
Those of us who possess some biblical literacy should immediately see the falsehood of Rev. Wright's assertion. It is NOT TRUE that every word of the Bible was written under some form of political oppression. Many of the words of the Torah (or Christian Old Testament) were penned during relative political and social calm. The words of Solomon -- the wildly rich king and revered "wisest man on earth" -- drafted proverbs and poems that were written while he and his kingdom were, in effect, in charge of a whole region. King David's famous psalm of contrition, Psalm 51, was penned while he was in power, despite the fact that he might have been at war. Ecclesiastes appears to have been penned during a period of relative ease, and I think it clear that Job, arguably the oldest of the biblical texts, was not penned by someone under political oppression. And even some of the New Testament is arguably penned by men who were not under oppression either, men like Luke, a Greek physician, or Paul, a Roman citizen of rather high standing. In the end, just one exception, and there is more than one, devastates Rev. Wright's sweeping and dogmatic assertion. (It should be noted that Rev. Wright does not acknowledge that much of the biblical record was written under brother-on-brother or Israel-on-Israel oppression.)
Hence, it is safe to conclude that Rev. Wright is flat-out wrong, and is seeing Christianity through a sieve, one not justified by either Christian tradition or its sacred texts.
But I would like to highlight one absolutely essential point, one that debilitates much of Rev. Wright's liberation theology, and it is this (I have written about this here): Jesus Christ, who was indeed born as a Jew living under Roman oppression, NEVER mentions that He or His disciples live under occupation. OK. That might be extreme. But it is not extreme to assert, with all due confidence, that Jesus clearly ignores the Roman occupation. And He clearly ministers to those occupiers without once asking them to denounce either their Roman citizenship or their positions.
Hence, Rev. Wright is not only wrong about the biblical record, He is wrong in averring that Jesus came to emancipate ANYONE from social oppression. Jesus's concerns, made clear in statements that His kingdom was not of this world and that "the poor you will always have with you," were not political or even societal concerns. They were concerns of the heart, soul and mind of individuals. He was not a social liberator, nor was He revolutionary in any political sense. His political influence was accidental (I mean this philosophically) to His message. His intent was to free humanity from sin, primarily the pervasive, ubiquitous sin of envy.
THE EXCLUSIVITY QUESTION
Here's another excerpt from yesterday's Q&A at the National Press Club:
MODERATOR: Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh unto the father but through me." Do you believe this? And do you think Islam is a way to salvation?
WRIGHT: Jesus also said, "Other sheep have I who are not of this fold."
(APPLAUSE)
I have to inject here that Rev. Wright's body language, tone, and countenance showed utter contempt for his interlocutor during much if not most of this exchange. To me, Rev. Wright was thuggish, condescending, arrogant and -- immature.
But let us note the problem. Rev. Wright has been asked if he believes whether Jesus Christ, the Man He purportedly believes is the Savior of the whole world, is the only way to God. Alas, acting like some pompous smart ass, Rev. Wright, in a most self-satisfied manner, replied that Jesus referred to "sheep ... not of this fold." With that, Rev. Wright pulled away from the microphone, satisfied that he has shown not only his superior wit but that his sense of irony has no bounds: he, too, can make Jesus say whatever he wants Him to say. Of course, the real irony is lost on the smug Rev. Wright, as his obscene citation of the "other sheep" only supports Christ's claim as being the exclusive Savior of the world: Jesus is the Shepherd of the other sheep who still must come to God through Him. Jesus, only to augment His point, also argues that He is the Gate of the sheepfold, so no one enters that fold -- irrespective of whether they are OTHER sheep or not -- unless they pass through Him.
Rev. Wright's inanity is indicative of his fear of estranging his black Muslim friends, who share his identity politics. Muslims, who deny that Jesus IS the Christ, the gate-keeper, or the "way and the life," are the other sheep to which Rev. Wright refers. And this from a man described even by Barack Obama as a "renowned" biblical scholar. Rev. Wright's curt reply merely avoids the question by obfuscating simple Christian passages. Jesus claims to be the way for ALL sheep, irrespective of whether they are of the Jewish fold. Rev. Wright intimates, utterly and completely erroneously, that there are "other sheep" who do not need Christ.
And let us put this in boldest relief: Rev. Wright, or so it was reported yesterday, is getting security help from the Nation of Islam.
THE SOCIOLOGY PROBLEM: Standing Black Liberation Theology On Its Head
Let us again return to something that Rev. Wright said in his speech. Here he is talking about how our ideas of God influence us:
"Dr. Jones, in his book, God in the Ghetto, argues quite accurately that one's theology, how I see God, determines one's anthropology, how I see humans, and one's anthropology then determines one's sociology, how I order my society. Now, the implications from the outside are obvious. If I see God as male, if I see God as white male, if I see God as superior, as God over us and not Immanuel, which means "God with us," if I see God as mean, vengeful, authoritarian, sexist, or misogynist, then I see humans through that lens. My theological lens shapes my anthropological lens. And as a result, white males are superior; all others are inferior."
Let us review the sequence: God-ideas influence our views of mankind, and our views of both influence how we order society.
Rev. Wright goes on:
To say "I am a Christian" is not enough. Why? Because the Christianity of the slaveholder is not the Christianity of the slave. The God to whom the slaveholders pray as they ride on the decks of the slave ship is not the God to whom the enslaved are praying as they ride beneath the decks on that slave ship.
How we are seeing God, our theology, is not the same. And what we both mean when we say "I am a Christian" is not the same thing. The prophetic theology of the black church has always seen and still sees all of God's children as sisters and brothers, equals who need reconciliation, who need to be reconciled as equals in order for us to walk together into the future which God has prepared for us.
Now, look at what Rev. Wright says about black liberation theology, a theology he gladly espouses:
Now, in the 1960s, the term "liberation theology" began to gain currency with the writings and the teachings of preachers, pastors, priests, and professors from Latin America. Their theology was done from the underside.
Their viewpoint was not from the top down or from a set of teachings which undergirded imperialism. Their viewpoints, rather, were from the bottom up, the thoughts and understandings of God, the faith, religion and the Bible from those whose lives were ground, under, mangled and destroyed by the ruling classes or the oppressors.
Liberation theology started in and started from a different place. It started from the vantage point of the oppressed.
I hope you can see the problem. Rev. Wright tells us first that we should start our theology from the top: how we view God informs not just our theology, but our anthropology and sociology. In sharpest Christian terms, it is asserted by all orthodox Christians that God defines for us Who and What He is and What He is like. To God, our relation is responsive: He reveals, we respond. He is Who He Is, or so even Moses reported thousands of years ago. Christianity's starting point is the God Revealed.
But according to Rev. Wright's own words, he actually inverts the paradigm: black liberation theology begins in sociology, the sociological status of the oppressed. The oppressed, beginning in the mire, see God from the pit, defining Him as their liberator and the judge and damner of those who have enslaved them. God, then, is defined not by His own fiat, but by the conditions of the lowest social group. God is coming to judge, and the top social group shall be tossed down and the bottom elevated: the last are now first, the oppressed are now the judges.
That is why Rev. Wright can say, essentially, that the oppressors pray to a different God, even if those oppressors are Christians.
But the FACT IS THIS: All people are prone to manufacture God in their OWN IMAGE! And Rev. Wright has done EXACTLY that!
Alas, this is what passes, at least in Rev. Wright's world, as the prophetic voice. Curiously absent is any sense of proportion. Yes, Rev. Wright concedes that God loves the whole world, as he remarked in his talk, but this concession seems almost reluctantly offered. It even smacks of elitism, as it suggests that God prefers to love the oppressed but, almost despite Himself, He can love, well, "others" too.
Let me say with all due candor: this stuff is preposterous.
THE GOSPEL OF GUILT
In the end, we are left not with a gospel of liberation preached by Rev. Wright, but one of oppression, even extortion. Despite the fact that Rev. Wright is supposed to represent a faith that proclaims that Christ has paid our debts, that He forgives with abandon (assuming folks want forgiveness), that He absolves us of our guilt, Rev. Wright brings the glad tidings that Americans are still guilty, still reprobate, still WRONG. He has not forgiven, nor has he offered that forgiveness. Instead, he brings the gospel of extortion, of indebtedness: America, you still OWE! America, you still must pay! And this is not merely directed at institutions, as institutions cannot be divorced of their constituents. This is aimed at people, individuals.
This is not the gospel. We are not hearing the voice of Christ. We are hearing the voice of envy, resentment, anger, entitlement. This, believe it or not, is imprisonment dressed as liberty.
It is not the gospel at all.
Peace to you.
©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Let me be the first to assert that "America be damned" is not one whit inaccurate. I say this for the simple reason that both blind nature and Christian eschatology admit that everything is damned, damned by the great cosmic implosion or God's building of a new heaven and new earth. This point may seem glib and even silly, but it isn't, as it points to a very leveling moral and social principle: death equalizes us all. And at the very least Rev. Wright is all about leveling, about equality.
Also, I would not be pursuing Rev. Wright had Mr. Obama not given his permission, as he himself believes that Rev. Wright's religious views are fair political game.
THE BIBLICAL HISTORY QUESTION
I think it wise to quote Rev. Wright's remarks about the Holy Bible which he offered during the press club's Q&A period following his speech. Note that he is defending the black liberation idea that God is the God of the oppressed:
"In biblical history, there's not one word written in the Bible between Genesis and Revelations that was not written under one of six different kinds of oppression, Egyptian oppression, Assyrian oppression, Persian oppression, Greek oppression, Roman oppression, Babylonian oppression. The Roman oppression is the period in which Jesus is born. And comparing imperialism that was going on in Luke, imperialism was going on when Caesar Augustus sent out a decree that the whole world should be taxed. They weren't in charge of the world. It sounds like some other governments I know."
Those of us who possess some biblical literacy should immediately see the falsehood of Rev. Wright's assertion. It is NOT TRUE that every word of the Bible was written under some form of political oppression. Many of the words of the Torah (or Christian Old Testament) were penned during relative political and social calm. The words of Solomon -- the wildly rich king and revered "wisest man on earth" -- drafted proverbs and poems that were written while he and his kingdom were, in effect, in charge of a whole region. King David's famous psalm of contrition, Psalm 51, was penned while he was in power, despite the fact that he might have been at war. Ecclesiastes appears to have been penned during a period of relative ease, and I think it clear that Job, arguably the oldest of the biblical texts, was not penned by someone under political oppression. And even some of the New Testament is arguably penned by men who were not under oppression either, men like Luke, a Greek physician, or Paul, a Roman citizen of rather high standing. In the end, just one exception, and there is more than one, devastates Rev. Wright's sweeping and dogmatic assertion. (It should be noted that Rev. Wright does not acknowledge that much of the biblical record was written under brother-on-brother or Israel-on-Israel oppression.)
Hence, it is safe to conclude that Rev. Wright is flat-out wrong, and is seeing Christianity through a sieve, one not justified by either Christian tradition or its sacred texts.
But I would like to highlight one absolutely essential point, one that debilitates much of Rev. Wright's liberation theology, and it is this (I have written about this here): Jesus Christ, who was indeed born as a Jew living under Roman oppression, NEVER mentions that He or His disciples live under occupation. OK. That might be extreme. But it is not extreme to assert, with all due confidence, that Jesus clearly ignores the Roman occupation. And He clearly ministers to those occupiers without once asking them to denounce either their Roman citizenship or their positions.
Hence, Rev. Wright is not only wrong about the biblical record, He is wrong in averring that Jesus came to emancipate ANYONE from social oppression. Jesus's concerns, made clear in statements that His kingdom was not of this world and that "the poor you will always have with you," were not political or even societal concerns. They were concerns of the heart, soul and mind of individuals. He was not a social liberator, nor was He revolutionary in any political sense. His political influence was accidental (I mean this philosophically) to His message. His intent was to free humanity from sin, primarily the pervasive, ubiquitous sin of envy.
THE EXCLUSIVITY QUESTION
Here's another excerpt from yesterday's Q&A at the National Press Club:
MODERATOR: Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh unto the father but through me." Do you believe this? And do you think Islam is a way to salvation?
WRIGHT: Jesus also said, "Other sheep have I who are not of this fold."
(APPLAUSE)
I have to inject here that Rev. Wright's body language, tone, and countenance showed utter contempt for his interlocutor during much if not most of this exchange. To me, Rev. Wright was thuggish, condescending, arrogant and -- immature.
But let us note the problem. Rev. Wright has been asked if he believes whether Jesus Christ, the Man He purportedly believes is the Savior of the whole world, is the only way to God. Alas, acting like some pompous smart ass, Rev. Wright, in a most self-satisfied manner, replied that Jesus referred to "sheep ... not of this fold." With that, Rev. Wright pulled away from the microphone, satisfied that he has shown not only his superior wit but that his sense of irony has no bounds: he, too, can make Jesus say whatever he wants Him to say. Of course, the real irony is lost on the smug Rev. Wright, as his obscene citation of the "other sheep" only supports Christ's claim as being the exclusive Savior of the world: Jesus is the Shepherd of the other sheep who still must come to God through Him. Jesus, only to augment His point, also argues that He is the Gate of the sheepfold, so no one enters that fold -- irrespective of whether they are OTHER sheep or not -- unless they pass through Him.
Rev. Wright's inanity is indicative of his fear of estranging his black Muslim friends, who share his identity politics. Muslims, who deny that Jesus IS the Christ, the gate-keeper, or the "way and the life," are the other sheep to which Rev. Wright refers. And this from a man described even by Barack Obama as a "renowned" biblical scholar. Rev. Wright's curt reply merely avoids the question by obfuscating simple Christian passages. Jesus claims to be the way for ALL sheep, irrespective of whether they are of the Jewish fold. Rev. Wright intimates, utterly and completely erroneously, that there are "other sheep" who do not need Christ.
And let us put this in boldest relief: Rev. Wright, or so it was reported yesterday, is getting security help from the Nation of Islam.
THE SOCIOLOGY PROBLEM: Standing Black Liberation Theology On Its Head
Let us again return to something that Rev. Wright said in his speech. Here he is talking about how our ideas of God influence us:
"Dr. Jones, in his book, God in the Ghetto, argues quite accurately that one's theology, how I see God, determines one's anthropology, how I see humans, and one's anthropology then determines one's sociology, how I order my society. Now, the implications from the outside are obvious. If I see God as male, if I see God as white male, if I see God as superior, as God over us and not Immanuel, which means "God with us," if I see God as mean, vengeful, authoritarian, sexist, or misogynist, then I see humans through that lens. My theological lens shapes my anthropological lens. And as a result, white males are superior; all others are inferior."
Let us review the sequence: God-ideas influence our views of mankind, and our views of both influence how we order society.
Rev. Wright goes on:
To say "I am a Christian" is not enough. Why? Because the Christianity of the slaveholder is not the Christianity of the slave. The God to whom the slaveholders pray as they ride on the decks of the slave ship is not the God to whom the enslaved are praying as they ride beneath the decks on that slave ship.
How we are seeing God, our theology, is not the same. And what we both mean when we say "I am a Christian" is not the same thing. The prophetic theology of the black church has always seen and still sees all of God's children as sisters and brothers, equals who need reconciliation, who need to be reconciled as equals in order for us to walk together into the future which God has prepared for us.
Now, look at what Rev. Wright says about black liberation theology, a theology he gladly espouses:
Now, in the 1960s, the term "liberation theology" began to gain currency with the writings and the teachings of preachers, pastors, priests, and professors from Latin America. Their theology was done from the underside.
Their viewpoint was not from the top down or from a set of teachings which undergirded imperialism. Their viewpoints, rather, were from the bottom up, the thoughts and understandings of God, the faith, religion and the Bible from those whose lives were ground, under, mangled and destroyed by the ruling classes or the oppressors.
Liberation theology started in and started from a different place. It started from the vantage point of the oppressed.
I hope you can see the problem. Rev. Wright tells us first that we should start our theology from the top: how we view God informs not just our theology, but our anthropology and sociology. In sharpest Christian terms, it is asserted by all orthodox Christians that God defines for us Who and What He is and What He is like. To God, our relation is responsive: He reveals, we respond. He is Who He Is, or so even Moses reported thousands of years ago. Christianity's starting point is the God Revealed.
But according to Rev. Wright's own words, he actually inverts the paradigm: black liberation theology begins in sociology, the sociological status of the oppressed. The oppressed, beginning in the mire, see God from the pit, defining Him as their liberator and the judge and damner of those who have enslaved them. God, then, is defined not by His own fiat, but by the conditions of the lowest social group. God is coming to judge, and the top social group shall be tossed down and the bottom elevated: the last are now first, the oppressed are now the judges.
That is why Rev. Wright can say, essentially, that the oppressors pray to a different God, even if those oppressors are Christians.
But the FACT IS THIS: All people are prone to manufacture God in their OWN IMAGE! And Rev. Wright has done EXACTLY that!
Alas, this is what passes, at least in Rev. Wright's world, as the prophetic voice. Curiously absent is any sense of proportion. Yes, Rev. Wright concedes that God loves the whole world, as he remarked in his talk, but this concession seems almost reluctantly offered. It even smacks of elitism, as it suggests that God prefers to love the oppressed but, almost despite Himself, He can love, well, "others" too.
Let me say with all due candor: this stuff is preposterous.
THE GOSPEL OF GUILT
In the end, we are left not with a gospel of liberation preached by Rev. Wright, but one of oppression, even extortion. Despite the fact that Rev. Wright is supposed to represent a faith that proclaims that Christ has paid our debts, that He forgives with abandon (assuming folks want forgiveness), that He absolves us of our guilt, Rev. Wright brings the glad tidings that Americans are still guilty, still reprobate, still WRONG. He has not forgiven, nor has he offered that forgiveness. Instead, he brings the gospel of extortion, of indebtedness: America, you still OWE! America, you still must pay! And this is not merely directed at institutions, as institutions cannot be divorced of their constituents. This is aimed at people, individuals.
This is not the gospel. We are not hearing the voice of Christ. We are hearing the voice of envy, resentment, anger, entitlement. This, believe it or not, is imprisonment dressed as liberty.
It is not the gospel at all.
Peace to you.
©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Friday, March 21, 2008
The Day They Call Good (Redux)
[In honor of Holy Week, and mindful of what this day means to all Christians, I repost a meditation I wrote for last year's Good Friday.]
At this hour He hangs. The blind who were healed no longer see; the deaf He made hear no longer understand. Those who once stood as close as possible are scattered, most now only brave enough to stand -- at a safe distance.
He cries out; they bring Him vinegar and gall to drink. A small Roman market opens at the foot of His dripping cross: guards place bids on His garments, even the hem of His garment.
Nothing can stop His bleeding issue.
No one knows, perhaps not (yet) even He, that everyone hangs in Him, that His exsanguination is theirs; is their only hope. There is mockery, scoffing, cursing;
the unknowing living spit sarcasm into His wounds,
He, the only knowing dying,
turns vitriol to wine
He has finished His cup
and it pours out
pooling beneath so many
nervous feet
one thief finds paradise in His great poverty
another finds nothing worth taking
not even this broken bit of bread
a sign maker admires his work,
dumb to the irony of his irony
a crown maker picks a small thorn from his thumb
thinking about furlough
a virgin finds her son finding her God
and a son finds the mother who gave birth to
this dying God
a rabbi weeps at the Law's last breath
a guard feels the weakness of the sword,
the strength of surrender
a spear pierces the side of heaven
and hell spills out
there is no safe distance
©Bill Gnade 2007, 2008./Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
At this hour He hangs. The blind who were healed no longer see; the deaf He made hear no longer understand. Those who once stood as close as possible are scattered, most now only brave enough to stand -- at a safe distance.
He cries out; they bring Him vinegar and gall to drink. A small Roman market opens at the foot of His dripping cross: guards place bids on His garments, even the hem of His garment.
Nothing can stop His bleeding issue.
No one knows, perhaps not (yet) even He, that everyone hangs in Him, that His exsanguination is theirs; is their only hope. There is mockery, scoffing, cursing;
the unknowing living spit sarcasm into His wounds,
He, the only knowing dying,
turns vitriol to wine
He has finished His cup
and it pours out
pooling beneath so many
nervous feet
one thief finds paradise in His great poverty
another finds nothing worth taking
not even this broken bit of bread
a sign maker admires his work,
dumb to the irony of his irony
a crown maker picks a small thorn from his thumb
thinking about furlough
a virgin finds her son finding her God
and a son finds the mother who gave birth to
this dying God
a rabbi weeps at the Law's last breath
a guard feels the weakness of the sword,
the strength of surrender
a spear pierces the side of heaven
and hell spills out
there is no safe distance
©Bill Gnade 2007, 2008./Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Friday, February 08, 2008
The "Blessed" Won; Is Still Winning
When I read yesterday the Online Journal's James Taranto (See "Obama: A Love Story"), or ABC News' Jake Tapper (see "And Obama Wept"), or the comments of sundry analysts (not my analyst, of course), I shook my head in incredulity. "Where have you all been?" I asked.
The question, as you may know, refers to the religious, messianic dimensions of the Barack Obama phenomenon, and why so few have noted it until rather recently. Surely there is a blatant messianism playing out before our very eyes.
Needless to say, I noted this as far back as October 2006, long before Mr. Obama entered the race for the presidency. See my "A New Magnificat."
In December 2006, in "Blazing To The Top Of Charts," I wrote:
THE CULT OF PERSONALITY
I think it is important to note how many folks are indeed already committed to voting for Mr. Obama should he run. How can this be? He is hardly known, he is hardly seasoned in the public eye. On what are his enthusiasts basing their enthusiasm? I have already heard much about his charm and charisma. Is that it? I have heard Harold Ford Jr. describe Mr. Obama as brilliant. But is that all? And I know Mr. Obama has written a couple of books. But is that enough? Is this, at least right now, merely the cult of personality, the adoration of persona? Surely it is not the cult of substance, or the cult of strong political record, right? It is something other than these things. Is it more hosanna politics?
I wonder.
In January 2007, I wrote a piece about Mr. Obama's newness, and his positioning himself as a deliverer; the piece was called "A Newbie Attitude." The play on words should be evident to anyone familiar with Christ's beatitudes. A month later, I wrote a piece about Mr. Obama's imminent pronouncement of his candidacy called "Two Annunciations." The same February day, right as Mr. Obama made his candidacy official, I wrote this piece, "And Now The Presentation."
Any attentive Christian will know that these titles all refer to events around the birth and ministry of Jesus Christ; any attentive American will know that these essays point out the messianism of the Obama movement -- that it almost seems to plagiarize real religious events (and even American historical symbols, e.g., the steps of the Illinois legislature -- Lincoln's house). And I drafted these essays not for mere color or entertainment. I drafted them as warnings.
A few months ago, I attended an Obama event in which Mr. Obama's wife, Michelle, spoke with great passion and fervor. In her talk she said this:
"We are all broken. Every one of us is broken. ... And we all have a hole in our hearts, a hole that needs to be filled."
It would be imprudent of me to expect you not to notice the religious language here; I know you do. But I wonder how many of us hear what she is saying: that her husband can help fill the void. Millions of evangelicals have heard similar language describing the "God-shaped hole in the human heart." Does Ms. Obama mean to suggest that we have a Barack-shaped hole in our hearts, too?
Not long ago, Mr. Obama told the congregation in a South Carolina evangelical church, "I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth." Surely this sort of language is richly religious. One would expect to hear some outcry from those on the left, particularly since the left generally berates such language when uttered by those on the right. Even weirder, perhaps, is that no one can name a viable Republican candidate who has ever said such a thing. At the very least, hoping that a democratic republic can establish a "kingdom on earth" sounds sufficiently Tory enough to launch an investigation into whether a rebellion to reestablish a monarchy is afoot.
So, all this to say that Hosanna Politics, as I have dubbed them, are at full force ... and that in the Obama campaign. Right-wingers are perennially chided for pushing theocratic ideas, with hardly any evidence that they push them at all. And yet today we have a candidate for president -- whose name means "Blessed" -- using biblical language and establishing religious parallels that hardly raises an eyebrow.
Mr. Obama's great promise from last February's Annunciation? "WE shall issue in a new birth of freedom on this earth." And you thought Bush and Co. were all about expansionism and American hegemony. Where Mr. Obama gets the idea that Americans need a leader to save the earth is a puzzle. That his supporters seemingly have no problem with his ambitions is really quite scary. He -- and they along with him -- shall heal the land.
Who, really, does not want to be known as a healer?
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
The question, as you may know, refers to the religious, messianic dimensions of the Barack Obama phenomenon, and why so few have noted it until rather recently. Surely there is a blatant messianism playing out before our very eyes.
Needless to say, I noted this as far back as October 2006, long before Mr. Obama entered the race for the presidency. See my "A New Magnificat."
In December 2006, in "Blazing To The Top Of Charts," I wrote:
THE CULT OF PERSONALITY
I think it is important to note how many folks are indeed already committed to voting for Mr. Obama should he run. How can this be? He is hardly known, he is hardly seasoned in the public eye. On what are his enthusiasts basing their enthusiasm? I have already heard much about his charm and charisma. Is that it? I have heard Harold Ford Jr. describe Mr. Obama as brilliant. But is that all? And I know Mr. Obama has written a couple of books. But is that enough? Is this, at least right now, merely the cult of personality, the adoration of persona? Surely it is not the cult of substance, or the cult of strong political record, right? It is something other than these things. Is it more hosanna politics?
I wonder.
In January 2007, I wrote a piece about Mr. Obama's newness, and his positioning himself as a deliverer; the piece was called "A Newbie Attitude." The play on words should be evident to anyone familiar with Christ's beatitudes. A month later, I wrote a piece about Mr. Obama's imminent pronouncement of his candidacy called "Two Annunciations." The same February day, right as Mr. Obama made his candidacy official, I wrote this piece, "And Now The Presentation."
Any attentive Christian will know that these titles all refer to events around the birth and ministry of Jesus Christ; any attentive American will know that these essays point out the messianism of the Obama movement -- that it almost seems to plagiarize real religious events (and even American historical symbols, e.g., the steps of the Illinois legislature -- Lincoln's house). And I drafted these essays not for mere color or entertainment. I drafted them as warnings.
A few months ago, I attended an Obama event in which Mr. Obama's wife, Michelle, spoke with great passion and fervor. In her talk she said this:
"We are all broken. Every one of us is broken. ... And we all have a hole in our hearts, a hole that needs to be filled."
It would be imprudent of me to expect you not to notice the religious language here; I know you do. But I wonder how many of us hear what she is saying: that her husband can help fill the void. Millions of evangelicals have heard similar language describing the "God-shaped hole in the human heart." Does Ms. Obama mean to suggest that we have a Barack-shaped hole in our hearts, too?
Not long ago, Mr. Obama told the congregation in a South Carolina evangelical church, "I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth." Surely this sort of language is richly religious. One would expect to hear some outcry from those on the left, particularly since the left generally berates such language when uttered by those on the right. Even weirder, perhaps, is that no one can name a viable Republican candidate who has ever said such a thing. At the very least, hoping that a democratic republic can establish a "kingdom on earth" sounds sufficiently Tory enough to launch an investigation into whether a rebellion to reestablish a monarchy is afoot.
So, all this to say that Hosanna Politics, as I have dubbed them, are at full force ... and that in the Obama campaign. Right-wingers are perennially chided for pushing theocratic ideas, with hardly any evidence that they push them at all. And yet today we have a candidate for president -- whose name means "Blessed" -- using biblical language and establishing religious parallels that hardly raises an eyebrow.
Mr. Obama's great promise from last February's Annunciation? "WE shall issue in a new birth of freedom on this earth." And you thought Bush and Co. were all about expansionism and American hegemony. Where Mr. Obama gets the idea that Americans need a leader to save the earth is a puzzle. That his supporters seemingly have no problem with his ambitions is really quite scary. He -- and they along with him -- shall heal the land.
Who, really, does not want to be known as a healer?
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)