-Caveat Lector- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">
</A> -Cui Bono?-
from:
http://www.zolatimes.com/V4.10/jesus_republican.htm
Click Here: <A HREF="http://www.zolatimes.com/V4.10/jesus_republican.htm">Is
Jesus a Republican?, by Jim Peron</A>
-----
Is Jesus a Republican?
by Jim Peron
George W. Bush wants to be President of the US, and he expects Jesus to help
him. While seeking the Republican Party nomination, Bush was recently asked
what political philosopher had the most effect on his life. He answered:
“Christ. Because he changed my heart.” Orrin Hatch and Gary Bauer quickly
followed suit—and suddenly Jesus was considered one of the great political
philosophers within the Republican Party. Now what’s wrong with this picture?
In fact Jesus had very little to say about political philosophy. He tended to
speak about matters in the realm of personal ethics more than anything else.
Now, of course, politics is simply an extension of ethics, so one can
rationally deduce a political viewpoint using one’s ethics as the starting
point. But when we do this with the teachings of Jesus, we find views which
are more at home in the far left wing of the Democratic Party. In fact the
socialists, Marxists and radical Greens would love the ethical teachings of
Christ — and they do.
Fidel Castro, it seems, is quite fond of these quotes from Jesus. He has
said: “I believe that Karl Marx could have subscribed to the Sermon on the
Mount.” While the Sermon on the Mount is considered great teaching by most
Christians, very few actually pay attention to what was said:
“No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the
other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other, Ye cannot
serve God and mammon. Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your
life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what
ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor
gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much
better than they? Which you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his
stature? And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the
field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: And yet I say unto
you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to
morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of
little faith. Therefore take no thought, saying What shall we eat? or, What
shall we drink? or Wherewithal shall we be clothed? ...But seek ye first the
kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added
unto you. Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take
things of itself.”
The Sermon starts out with a condemnation of money: you can’t serve God and
mammon. Then it goes into a discourse on why you shouldn’t make an effort to
support yourself, since the great welfare state in the sky will provide all
your needs. But this is entirely consistent with every other quote attributed
to Jesus in the New Testament. Jesus never had a kind word regarding wealth
and the wealthy (see: Matthew 13:33, Mark 4:19, Luke 8:14, Mark 10:21-25,
Luke 14, and Luke 19). These assaults on wealth are openly endorsed by
numerous other disciples throughout the New Testament. Wealth is repeatedly
listed as an impediment to salvation. In fact Jesus, on more than one
occasion, said that one must abandon wealth in order to be saved.
The Great Welfare State in the Sky
In a previous article (http://zolatimes.com/V3.50/pope_capitalist.html)
entitled "Is the Pope Capitalist?", I showed how Pope John Paul II has openly
and explicitly embraced a form of socialism. And many people understand that
such concepts have always dominated Catholic social teachings. But the same
is true for Protestants as well. Martin Luther, the father of the Protestant
Reformation, was no friend of capitalism. He said that: “The pursuit of
material gain beyond personal needs must thus appear as a symptom of lack of
grace, and since it can apparently only be attained at the expense of others,
directly reprehensible.”
J.A. Hobson notes that: “Luther’s intention and personal influence were not
directed to release the economic or business conduct of men from the rule of
spiritual life exercised by the Christian community. His earlier attitude
during his reforming activities was a disparagement of material gain, an
indifference towards the economic life.” Hobson says that: “The early
Lutheran Church, thus inspired, cannot be regarded as friendly to
capitalism.” In fact: “Luther’s own repudiation of usury, or indeed interest
of any kind, involves a definitely reactionary attitude towards the rising
commercial and financial capitalism of his time.” Conservative Christian
author Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn says that Luther, “was a typical
medievalist.” And instead of, “advocating anything like classic liberalism,
Luther taught the omnipotence of the state and opposed all forms of
rationalism, Christian or otherwise...”
Some of the very first experiments in socialism were imposed by Anabaptist
Protestants in Europe. They not only anticipated Stalin’s economic policies,
but his reign of terror as well. The Reformation didn’t release the forces of
capitalism but instead helped revive the idea of communism. R.H. Tawney in Rel
igion and the Rise of Capitalism makes this point: “ If it is true that the
Reformation released forces which were to act as a solvent of the traditional
attitude of religious thought to social and economic issues, it did so
without design, and against the intention of most reformers.” Tawney says the
early Reformers had no intention of relaxing the rules which controlled
economic life and, in fact, argues that they held to a more fervent
enforcement of such rules—arguing that Catholics were too tolerant of such
moral lapses. Hobson says that, “in estimating the influence of Protestantism
upon economic theory and conduct, we must distinguish the intention of the
Reformers from what may be termed the natural consequences of their
reforms.... The severance of ‘business’ from the moral control of the
Christian community, and the adoption of a laissez-faire individualism had no
place whatever in early Protestantism.”
The Reaction Against the Renaissance
Kuehnelt-Leddihn makes the point that the Reformation was not an attempt to
modernize the church but to plunge it backwards. He says:
“It is important, however, to remember that the Reformation, contrary to an
obsolete concept still surviving in English-speaking countries and finding
its way into textbooks and films, was by no means the “beginning of
liberalism” (genuine or fake), nor anything like the fulfillment of the
Renaissance but a late medieval and “monastic” reaction against humanism and
the spirit of the Renaissance. To Luther the Renaissance (no less than
Humanism) was a foul compromise between Christianity and paganism. After all,
Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle, according to him, all were broiling in the
eternal fires of Hell.”
Calvinism was a religion of the better-off, and they were better-off before
becoming Calvinists. Calvin’s doctrines were far more intellectual than those
of Luther or Wesley. Luther appealed to the uneducated rural poor who envied
the wealth of Catholicism. Wesley appealed to the working class poor. But
Calvinism appealed to those who were educated. It was the logic and rigor of
Calvin’s arguments which attracted the support of the educated urban business
elite. At this time in human history no other non-religious perspective was
tolerated, and those unhappy with the workings of the Church had no practical
choice but to choose one of the dissenting religions. Hobson notes that the
Calvinists were not friends of capitalism theologically and tried “in their
earlier Church communities to lay down and to enforce discipline in the
detailed conduct of a business life. But neither the temperament or their
adherents nor the new commercial environment of their time favoured such
attempts.”
Margaret James, in Social Problems and Poverty during the Puritan Revolution,
wrote that: “Puritanism was strongest among those classes who were best able
to take care of themselves and had nothing to gain and all to lose by the
interference of Church and State in economic affairs.”
Business as a Vocation
The general argument made for the thesis that Calvinism liberated capitalism
is that the Calvinist saw business as a vocation, in much the same way that
others saw the priesthood as a vocation. And this is true. The Calvinists
believed that each segment of society had a specific sphere in which they
were to operate. But this does not mean that they supported free markets.
Prof. Bob Goudzwaard of the Free University of Amsterdam explained Calvinist
teachings by looking at the social views of the prominent Calvinist
theologian Abraham Kuyper. Kuyper, according to Goudzwaard, believed that
both the State and Society had distinct spheres but that Society was not “an
aggregate of individuals, but...a living organic entity...” Now once this
premise is accepted one is well on the way to collectivism.
Kuyper said the State has the function to intervene in the economic affairs
to insure social justice. Kuyper also accepted that “absolute ownership
belongs only to God; all our property is on loan for our use, all our
administration is only stewardship.” Thus, says Goudzwaard: “Between the
Kingdom of God and capitalism, according to Kuyper, ‘there is an absolute
contradiction.’ ‘Where poor and rich stand over against each other, Jesus
never choose the side of the rich; he joined the poor.’” Goudzwaard explains
how this works:
“This summary makes clear the conception of society in Dutch neo-Calvinism is
not only non-capitalistic, but also differs essentially from the reactionary,
corporatist point of view. While the concept of society is organic, the idea
of a state as the natural head of the organic body of society is decidedly
avoided. State and society are spheres of life, each with its own distinctive
calling. It is only the administration of public justice which may and should
bring the state to intervene in society. For instance, if different social
spheres collide, as in the exploitation of employees and their families by
business firms, then government must rightly become involved.”
State Power Without End, Amen
If you read this summary of Calvinist social teachings carefully, you end up
with an inability to see where State power ends. Dr. Irving Hexham of the
University of Calgary Department of Religious Studies asked a similar
question: “The emphasis on the calling of each sovereign sphere of society is
an attempt to relativize the authority of all human institutions before the
law of God. In theory this sounds great. The problem comes, however, when one
wishes to identify the callings of different social spheres and set their
boundaries. What, in fact, does God’s calling mean in practical terms?” With
all the talk of spheres and “vocations”, in the end the State is the final
arbitrator of conflicts of values.
And this is based on a concept of Christian social justice where we find a
Jesus who always sided with the poor against the rich. And while doctrines
regarding spheres were intended to limit state power, we shouldn’t ignore
what Calvinists in South Africa erected. Hexham draws this conclusion about
Calvinist economics : “Neo-Calvinism rejects capitalism and socialism. It
sometimes sounds dangerously like fascism.” Discussions of Calvinist
teachings regarding government tend to ignore the example which Calvin
himself left. In Geneva the Calvinist society was an authoritarian regime.
Kuehnelt-Leddihn notes: “Calvin’s reforms had a far stricter character than
Luther's and Geneva under Calvin and later under Besa and Farel actually
became the first totalitarian state in Europe.”
Conservative sociologist Peter Berger admits: “The last thing in the world
that the great Calvinist moralists wanted to explain and justify was
capitalist economics.”
The Jesus Bandwagon
Protestant Republicans like Bush, Hatch and Bauer may wish to invoke Jesus as
the most important political philosopher in their lives. But it is wise of
them to avoid his actual teachings. Nor should they dwell too long on the
history of the Protestant church either. As in Papal economics and Catholic
social teachings, the free market is not high on the list for endorsement.
The teachings of Jesus and the economic views of most Republicans are
generally in conflict.
Of course, when the Jesus bandwagon got rolling, Al Gore jumped aboard as
well. He said that he often asked himself: What would Jesus do? Now with his
apocalyptic visions of the environment, his radical egalitarianism, and his
“you are your brother's keeper” welfare state views, Gore may have a bit more
of a claim on Jesus than does Mr. Bush. It is an unfortunate fact of history
that every time Christianity has been mixed with politics, economic and
social freedoms have been the losers.
-----
Aloha, He'Ping,
Om, Shalom, Salaam.
Em Hotep, Peace Be,
All My Relations.
Omnia Bona Bonis,
Adieu, Adios, Aloha.
Amen.
Roads End
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soap-boxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
