Jesus never built a bridge with a Pharisee. He never reached out and tried to seek a compromise with the Roman leaders. He never watered down his message depending on his audience and he never once forsook a central belief for political expediency.
Progressive Christians would do well to learn this lesson. As the “religious left” finally finds itself not just with a soapbox to stand on but an actual audience in the form of the mainstream media—they seem to be struggling to get their message straight. A “rift” seems to be growing between more centrist progressive voices and the more liberal voices of the religious left. The media, which has done an excellent job of ignoring liberal voices of all kinds, religious or otherwise, for decades, is finally paying attention now that it smells like some infighting is brewing—they’re more than happy to stoke the flames:
Indeed, at a moment when the number of alternative faith-based voices to the religious right has exploded, the debate on the left between liberal and more centrist religious voices is raising questions about exactly what it means to be a religious progressive. Those in the more centrist beltway crowd, which prefers the “religious progressive” label, say it means providing an alternative faith voice to the religious right. They want to expand the religion-in-politics agenda to include protecting the environment and ending coercive interrogation techniques, issues that enjoy some bipartisan support. But the religious left prefers direct combat with the religious right, standing firm for liberal values—even on divisive issues like abortion and gay rights.
Jesus was never interested in finding “bipartisan support” for his efforts at helping the poor and the outcast. If there’s one thing I’ve always admired about conservatives, both religious and secular, is that they have their goals and their principles and they are not interested in “bipartisan support.” Instead, they are interested in getting their agenda implemented in the widest and most effect way possible. Liberals, since the 1960s, have lost that sense of simply knowing that their agenda is right, will benefit the greatest number of people, and must be implemented as quickly as possible—even if the partisans of the other side fight them tooth and nail.
In the book The Legend of Bagger Vance, Bagger, the prescient caddy to all-but-washed-up professional golfer Randolf Junah tells him:
”Love your opponents. When I say love, I don’t mean hand them the match. I mean contend with them to the death, the way a lion battles a bear, without mercy but with infinite respect. Never belittle an opponent in your mind, rather build him up, for on the plane of the Self there can be no distinction between your being and his. Be grateful for your opponents’ excellence. Applaud their brilliance. For the greatness of the hero is measured by that of his adversaries.”
For years, conservatives have been battling liberals without mercy—but with infinite respect. Conservatives understand that they need liberals as their foil—and perhaps most often their scapegoat—in order to get their agenda implemented. Liberals, on the other hand, often don’t have the stomach for such matters, preferring instead to win over their opponents to their side by compromising their beliefs for “common ground.”
Jesus, however, had no mercy when he contended with the principalities and powers. He understood that people’s lives were on the line and there was no time to join hands with the Pharisees or Rome and sing Kumbaya. Instead, Jesus spent his time upending temple tables and calling Pharisees a brood of vipers and hypocrites every chance he got. He contended with them to death.
The same is true today. There are people in our own midst, here in the United States, who starve to death every single day. More and more people slip into poverty as jobs dry up or the high cost of health insurance drives the sick into bankruptcy. There are women who desperately need but cannot afford abortions because of waiting periods or other barriers to the procedure. Many other women are forced to bring an unwanted pregnancy to term because there are no doctors nearby who perform the procedure. There are gay and lesbian people who continue to be openly discriminated against at the federal, state and local level. They continue to be the victims of hate crimes that go either unpunished or the attacker is given a light sentence. While the “religious left” dithers over strategy, policy, and, “common ground,” people are suffering and dying.
I told my congregation after the last election that despite a more liberal president and Congress not to expect too much out of Washington for the poor and needy. If the past eight years—heck, the past two decades—has taught us anything it’s that those at the top are concerned mainly with those at the top. There isn’t anyone in Washington who really cares about the poor because there are no poor people elected to office. The poor have no representation. None of them can afford to run, much less be elected, so their issues are never truly addressed.
So, the “religious left” has a choice to make. Do we seek consensus and bridge building while people starve and die, or do we set our agenda to relieve the suffering of the poor and the outcast—no matter who they are, black, white, immigrant, gay, or straight—and contend without mercy with those who would oppose us for their own gain? Or, do we, as the father of the social gospel Walter Rauschenbusch warned so long ago—in his book A Theology for the Social Gospel—give in to our human penchant for the limelight?
”A man’s sinfulness stands out in its true proportion, not when he is tripped up by ill-temper or side-steps into shame, but when he seeks to establish a private kingdom of self-service and is ready to thwart and defeat the progress of mankind toward peace, toward justice, or toward fraternal organization of economic life, because that would diminish his political privileges, his unearned income, and his power over the working classes.”
Those in the more centrist progressive camp seem quick to sell their liberal souls for a little piece of “common ground” and “political privilege” on issues like abortion—arguing for “abortion reduction” while often sacrificing unfettered abortion rights for women. Or, forsaking their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters altogether as Jim Wallis and other politically privileged “progressive” Christians are doing. What motivates the search for “common ground”? Are those on the religious left really seeking systemic equity or are they simply seeking to “establish a private kingdom of self-service”? It’s a question that needs to be seriously considered.
I understand the liberal need for bridge building—I do. I love Susan Thistlethwaite’s idea of the “true joy in finding the unexpected ally, the better position that benefits more people. Sure there are roadblocks, and temptations to confuse common ground with lowest common denominator. But true change is possible. And religious faith is all about possibility, unexpected joy and the movement of grace.” I believe true change is possible and enemies can become friends, but compromise is not the way to get there. Liberals want to believe that the other side will change if only we can make an effective, logical, and compassionate argument. But, we must understand that conservatives are not interested in compromising with progressives. They are only interested in capitulation. They are interested in hobbling us—or watering down our issues to the point where any policy that gets implemented will be toothless and often only truly benefit the policy makers instead of the poor.
I also understand her analogy that “the point of a football game is not to perfect the huddle, it’s to move the ball down the field,” but the current game being played in Washington in stacked against the needy and oppressed. The true challenge for the religious left is to change the game so that the rules favor “have-nots” and the suffering instead of further enriching the “haves” and the “want mores.”
True, the Obama administration has made some great strides already in righting public policy toward the least of these—but I don’t expect this administration to fully implement a religious left agenda anymore than they will implement a religious right agenda. Unless it’s in their best political interest they will continue to hand each side a bone or two and continue to do whatever is most politically expedient—all politicians do that whether they are liberal or conservative.
Our struggle as progressives is not for political privilege or the right to be on CNN instead of a more conservative voice. Our struggle is to end poverty, economic imbalances, and oppression of any kind. To be successful, we must reclaim our agenda and refuse compromise on it. We cannot bargain with the lives of the poor, the sick, the imprisoned, the tortured, or the outcast. Their lives are not building material for bridges—their suffering is not fodder for political gamesmanship.
Jesus knew it was easy to talk about the poor—easy to want to help them, but hard to put that into practice. The rich young man who wanted to follow Jesus went away sad because Jesus required that he give up his worldly wealth—that he give up whatever political influence he had. The “religious left” is like this rich young man, finally wielding some worldly influence only to find that those in power are at odds with his agenda. The choice is clear: do we move “toward peace, toward justice, or toward fraternal organization of economic life,” or do we compromise and refuse to diminish our “political privileges, (our) unearned income, and (our) power over the working classes”?
Jesus’ refusal to compromise with the powers and principalities got him into hot water. Instead of watering down his concern for the poor and outcast or finding “common ground” with the powers that be, he was sent before a kangaroo court and killed for his trouble. So, too, liberals will find themselves pilloried on the steps of Congress, given a trial in the kangaroo court of the popular media and perhaps even nailed to a cross in the end—but by not compromising Jesus began a grassroots movement that hasn’t been stopped to this day.
I know critics on both the right and the left may find my suggestions naïve. “Oh, you don’t understand how to get things done in Washington. You have to build bridges, seek consensus, and compromise.” Hogwash. Jesus never compromised. Jesus never built a bridge with a Pharisee, and neither should we. If the “religious left” is to be effective, we must be firm in our agenda to uplift the poor and the outcast. We must contend with our opponents without mercy, but with infinite respect. We cannot lose sight of our goal or give in to temptations of political popularity. People’s lives are at stake.
Tags: faith in public life, gay marriage, lgbt, liberals, newsweek, on faith, progressive, religious left, religious progressives, same-sex marriage
Pharisees are the basis of what would become Rabbinic Judaism. If one put the headline "Jesus Never Built a Bridge with a Jew", that could perhaps highlight why using the word Pharisee as an anti-type is problematic. Maybe we could raise the question of what does it mean for a religious position (including those found in the New Testament) to be so dependent on an "other" to define itself over and against? Christianity's other in some measure was Judaism and that history is an ugly one.
As someone who is liberal and gay, my otherness has been the occasion of family division and strife. So I'm worried when liberals have an "other" too, whether it's the old stock caricature of a pharisee or the newer religious right. Contending over real differences as your article describes is important. But we ought to be mindful of how and in what spirit we contend. So we don't repeat some of the mistakes from the past and so we can be open to what God might call us to be in light of engaging others.
I understand your concern about the title, but it's accurate in that those with whom Jesus contended in his day were indeed Pharisees. There is no other intended meaning above and beyond that simple fact. So, please, don't read too much into it.
I am firmly of the belief that ultimately there is no "us" and "them." Brian McLaren has coined a beautiful theme of "some of us for all of us." This is where I see my commentary pointing to. We must contend with those who set themselves apart from us, but we contend with them not to exclude them but to ultimately draw them in.
The liberal agenda is the inclusive agenda. It draws circles of inclusion where more conservative agendas draw circles of exclusion. Liberals need to embrace their beliefs, refuse to compromise them, and, in in the end, draw in all of us.
I appreciated both the column and the remarks and think you're right on both counts. I think my concern was based on how the early church defined themselves with the anti-type of Pharisee and then Judaism. One finds that expressed in the communities of which Gospels came out of and throughout church history. To find that used again, even if for a good purposes, could re-enforce inadvertently the negative teaching/relations the church has had with its many others, in this case Judaism. But I do appreciate the purpose and sentiment behind this column and a number of them you've written.
I'm sorry but I have to agree with Servetus. Not only in the title but in the body of your essay you pair off Jesus vs. the Pharisees. You write: "He understood that people’s lives were on the line and there was no time to join hands with the Pharisees or Rome and sing Kumbaya." For the vast history of Christianity, "Pharisee" has been used as code for "Jews." You are feeding into this by not looking critically at how these texts have been used to marginalize and "other" Jews. If there ultimately is no "us" or "them" then why perpetuate such an insidious trope as the opposition of the Pharisees? Moreover, there were more ways in which Jesus was like than unlike Pharisees, something your analogy completely erases. Beyond that, you pair a deeply spiritual movement of the Pharisees who believed in the possibility of holiness for all Jews with the crushing power of the Roman colonization of Judea. I really suggest you read a little more deeply into this issue before saying "don't read too much into it."
many scholars and historians believe that Jesus himself was a Pharisee, which would again support my underlying point that even Jesus was at work in a "some of us for all of us" framework. His salvific work was for everyone, not just those who followed him.
Yes, it appears that there is an "us" and "them" dynamic in the phrasing of the article, but the work liberals should be about doing is work that includes all of humanity - even those who oppose the work of liberals. Ultimately, the work we do helping the poor and the outcast is work that benefits everyone, even those who, on the surface may appear as "enemies."
Certainly, my intention was not to reinforce any stereotypes or make anti-Semitic comparisons. Jesus was a Jew, doing battle against other Jews. This is a historic fact and still I insist, there is no deeper meaning other than that. To see boogeymen at every turn of a phrase is not helpful to moving the conversation forward.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
The bogeyman in this case is the history of an idea (Jesus vs. the Pharisees) and how its been used. If it's been used for ill (which it has), if we use this idea or this language, we have to be careful in how that's done. It's not so much a matter of personal intention as how our language can be take by others, (especially if that language has a long and unfortunate history).
And while I agree that we do find this in the Gospels that doesn't lessen the problem. If anything it may make us more critical in looking at how the communities that formed the Gospels defined their status against other people. The Pharisees prominence as a competitor to Christianity, especially after the fall of Jerusalem, makes these stories of Jesus clashing with the Pharisees all the more suspect.
It doesn't mean there wasn't clashes. In fact these stories are occasioned by such clashes. Whether it was in Jesus life or certainly in the life of these early Christian communities. But it does call for a hermeneutic of suspicion as we look in these texts on how such a divide is played out. In that we may learn how we want to relate and not relate to those who are different.
As I read this, I am struck by the sheer number of labels and factions and walls that the author acknowledges to make his/her point, and the seemingly implied label of liberal onto Jesus. I think Jesus defied labels. He saved the harlot from stoning, but then told her to go and sin no more. His primary mission was not to feed the poor or heal the sick or raise the dead, although He did all these things when those around Him exhibited faith in Him as the Son of God. That's not to say that He wasn't compassionate, but he also didn't use magic tricks or full bellies to lure people into following Him. Ultimately, His ministry was about redemption and salvation and the promise of eternity in God's presence.
Jesus also commanded us to love our enemies. Today, I believe that would include those who interpret the scriptures differently than we do, or belong to a different political party or possess a different ideology. He also said, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's," and that always seemed like a reasonable compromise to me. What is going to happen when we die and go to Heaven? Will we be divided there as well? And before we go there, can we not find a way to coexist within the Body of Jesus, as the Church, the bride of Christ (if the label "Bride" isn't too offensive to some of our contingents)?
As my self-described progressive minister has pointed out to me, fundamentalists exist on both ends of any spectrum, whether it be political, religious or other. Fundamentalists are so certain in their minds about their beliefs and agendas, labels and prejudices, that they cannot conceive that there's any chance that they are wrong, and tend to vilify those who don't share their views. I'm not saying that the writer is a liberal fundamentalist, but I am saying that this is a trap that can and does ensnare any of us if we let it. Fundamentalists tend to allow the importance of the cause or belief to replace love. I Corinthians 13 does a much better job of explaining this than I can. I know this is Paul talking, and not Jesus, but I think it's in the Bible because it is God's Word...
1If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
I find a lot of quiblling here about words. I don't even think the Gospels are accurate history. How in the world can I be expected to have faith in let's say the Gospel of Mark, considered the earliest written gospel, when it was at least one decade after the fact. I'm have to say memories aren't that good, providing of course any one could prove it was actually Mark that wrote it. Good luck on that.
So decisions on Pharisee's being a code word for Jew are not worth haggling about. Historical context is what I thought the author was aiming at.
As for building bridges. I think it's a waste of time with dogmatics. If they want on the other hand, to be co-belligerent with me on an issue, I'm glad for their voices. We can then find a common way to solve that issue. I have however, often found that issue involvement by fundamentalists an excuse to evangelize. Which makes their show of compassion an outright contradiction to the one posters listing of the Corinthian model of love.
Maybe Jesus didn't build bridges. Who cares. The issue before us is deciding whether or not we want or need to, to solve a problem. Isn't it time to grow up and make our own decisions like adults?
Just for fun, isn't Nicodemus a Pharisee Jesus built a bridge with? Sure, you could say Nicodemus sought out Jesus, but according to your perspective Jesus should have said, "No middle ground, Nicodemus. I can't be caught having serious dialog with a Pharisee, people's lives are at stake." But Jesus did meet him (at night) and a bridge was built, as John carefully brings out for his readers in chapter eight.
The apostle Paul is another possibility, and in that case Jesus certainly did all the initiating. But I guess Paul didn't exactly have a lot of room to bargain, and took Jesus' position without much compromise. But I stand by Nicodemus!
But in a more serious response to your article, I think the danger of the religious left digging in their heels and refusing to compromise on their stances is that they could easily (and in my view already have) created a left-leaning fundamentalism/Pharisaism. Openness to dialog and the willingness to learn (in other words--humility) is pretty central to faithful discipleship. It doesn't matter if you tend toward the right or the left, the potential for a creating new law (through which we can control others) exists for us all.
Matt, great point, but I would say that the difference is that Nicodemus came to Jesus and was willing to hear Jesus out and in the end accepted what Jesus said. When our opponents come to us seeking dialogue and we refuse to compromise our position and still win them over then we're certainly following Jesus' example from the Nicodemus story.
What I'm talking about are Jesus' opponents that told him to change or die. He refused to compromise even under threat of losing everything. Liberals, too often, fold too fast on their principles - selling the farm for some manner of hollow policy victory.
The basic issue you raise in article is whether to those of us on the religious left should compromise or stand firm. That's a good question--more important than whether the title should have referred to the Pharisees. (Okay, I see the point there, too, but it is not relevant to the basic question, so I'd like to move on.)
While you raise an important question, I don't find the options you present so clearly divided. For example, the "left progressive" can work with Jim Wallis on dealing with poverty and other "progressive evangelicals" on the environment, while standing firm on sexual orientation and marriage equality. In fact, liberals and conservatives can work together on poverty and the environment to a significant degree even though they may disagree in part with each others' analyses of the cause of these problems.
Further, I think the political compromises to which legislators often resort is not an entirely apt analogy for what goes on in the broad progressive Christian movement. In political compromises, getting "half a loaf" is an end in itself. But if left progressives work with conservatives to reduce abortions that does not necessarily mean that they must give up on their commitment to defend abortion rights. If they try to restrict abortions by legislation, then of course they do compromise inappropriately. If they seek to reduce abortions through sex education and improved primary health care, they do not. Here compromise means seeking to stand on common ground where it is possible. It does not mean ignoring continuing differences.
So I don't see the mutually exclusive options. Perhaps I would been helped had we'd been given specific examples of where left progressives have compromised in such a way as to betray their principles. I'm sure some have, but I am less sure where those options were necessarily mutually exclusive.
Finally, I think there is an additional sense of compromise that is appropriate. It is an attitude that springs from the awareness that we may be wrong, or at least not entirely right, and thus a hesitation to try quickly to inscribe into law what we sincerely, but fallibly, believe to be right and good. And it also probably springs from the hope that some of those on the other side might also be aware of their fallibility and be similarly open. This often leads to a partial advance for a time--the partial character of which, however, is later painfully obvious. The ideology of "integration" may have been such a half-way-house house in the '60's, as perhaps was "don't ask, don't tell," and, more recently, "civil unions" rather than marriage for gays and lesbians.
But whatever my questions you have addressed an important issue, which I greatly appreciate.
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.