Larison has been trying to puzzle out Glenn Beck's theology, making the broadly unassailable point that whatever it may be, it's hardly orthodox Christianity. On a related and minor note, I am both amused and bemused by the persistent inclusion of the Judeo- in that goofy neologism, Judeo-Christian, at least insofar as it relates to all this hubbub about salvation, a concept that with a very few exceptions, is totally alien to Judaism. I mean, I certainly understand why certain Western political types seek to link these, uh, Western religions against the minions of Mordor or whatever, but really, although they share some of the same narrative mythology, Judaism and Christianity are very, very, very, very different. To the question of individual vs. collective salvation, Jews tend to look on with puzzled indifference. "Didn't they get it in writing?"
28 comments:
I dunno. My sense of your "Jewish" "theology" is that is exactly the same as my "Christian" one, namely, zero. Atheology. So that's a sense in which "Judeo-Christian" makes perfect sense. We're all atheists now! And indeed, we have a whole religion based on this atheology: it's called progressivism, and its organized political expression is the left. It is only the most powerful religious sect on the planet. Certainly, there is no question about individual salvation in progressive atheology: it's all community. It takes a village to save a child. We are the salvation we've been waiting for! How nice that is, compared to crawling to some God for it! That old fucker is not a feminist!
Now you are right that traditional Judaism doesn't appear to have much thought about salvation. But certainly atheist Jews, like atheist Christians, are very much concerned with it. And yes, we do have it in writing. I'm not sure what you'd make of that: does their evident interest in salvation mean atheist Jews have stopped being Jews?
Now, how does this relate to Glenn Beck? Simple: just as atheology is the organizing substrate of the democratic left, and the left keeps winning, Beck wants a theology to underpin a democratic right. Maybe the right win sometimes, too! Well, what sort of a theology can do that? The real answer is "it can't, not in democracy", but that won't stop Beck. Convinced of the fundamental decency of democracy, he plows on. Whatever he comes up with, it's going to contain individual rights. And its not going to contain all that commie stuff like socialized medicine and magic Negro Muslim Presidents.
Since Larison doesn't bother to consider whether Mormonism is more than nominally Christian in the first place, let alone "orthodox", the rest of his piece is classic garbage in, garbage out. Mormons are anti-trinitarians. No individuated Holy Spirit, and Jesus was Elohim the Father's son in the old-fashioned sense, and Lucifer's brother. They used to call that the subordinationist heresy, but that noble distinction is better reserved for folks like John Milton, not good-works bean-counters from outer space. Mitt Romney and Glenn Beck (but not Mrs. Romney or Mrs. Beck) could qualify to be Elohims on their own planets. Very democratic and very undemocratic at the same time!
Yeah, I compare what goes on at the local Reform temple to the doings of fundegelicals most fond of throwing around "Judeo-Christian," and I can't help thinking, "What do you mean 'Judeo,' white man?"
"Didn't they get it in writing?"
They can't answer that, because they haven't ever read their Bibles.
Anyway, my reaction to Larison's initial attempt to wrestle with Beckology was bemusement, since in Larison's world, neither the Moral Majority nor the Christian Coalition ever existed. There's no such thing as "nationalist Christianity"? The GOP hasn't turned towards Christianism? Let me know when you're returning home to Parallel Earth, Mr. Larison.
Leonard,
Christians aren't monists. Jews - and Muslims - are. The theological differences might seem piddling, but socially the effect is rather startling.
Judaism and Islam did not develop the infective and corrosive ideology of "forgiveness," nor its Quaker and neo-Catholic correlates,"improvement" and "correction."
Respect,
Jack
Also, Larison considers exactly that question in other posts.
Jews believe in everything. We colonized Elohim and Yahweh, we can colonize you too!
WTF? Isn't it all a big scramble over past and future messiahs, with the end results being final happiness and the present means being compliance to various arbitrary rules?
The differences beneath the varying styles seem mighty tiny to me.
Michael D.---
Au contraire. I've learned here that the differences between the followers of Ali versus the followers of Abu Bakr, for instance, are so vast as to beggar description short of cultural bigotry. Maybe Christians are of a piece....
Judeochristianislamicbahaicatholicprotestantanglicanmormon, please
of course it's all relative. the difference between inkberrow and a chimpanzee is somewhat greater than that between a follower of ali and abu bakr. but the difference between a follower of ali and a follower of abu bakr is somewhat greater than that between inkberrow and a bigot.
of course it's all relative. the difference between inkberrow and a chimpanzee is somewhat greater than that between a follower of ali and abu bakr. but the difference between a follower of ali and a follower of abu bakr is somewhat greater than that between inkberrow and a bigot.
Razib on Judeo-Christianity. And because the link there to his earlier post doesn't work, here's Judeo-Christian, an abuse of language?
Reform Judaism is basically an "ethnic" version of mainline protestantism though, minus some theism.
Yeah, but the Mormons get to baptize you and convert you after you're all dead and shit. I can haz solez?
Amen to that, brother Ioz.
God demands more foreskins.
TGGP - your second paragraph contains a glaring misperception that would easily be corrected by attending any Friday night service.
I've always thought Judaism to be the religion created by intelligent folk who understand that although it is not true, it has positive features - social cohesion, a place to 'objectively' define society-friendly morals, a way to identify us vs them, a meme to ensure ethnic survival through time and place, etc. Now of course even the Jews have their low IQ brethren (or maybe Aspergery is more accurate), those who take the religion seriously (Hasidim). But they seem to focus internally - following silly rules to ridiculous degrees but not concerned with the lack of true religion in others.
Whereas Christianity was created by middle managers who thought they could leverage their synergy or whatnot and keep people in line better than government decree. And their Aspergery (or perhaps low IQ is more accurate) members also take it seriously, but are focused as much (or more) with other people's salvation than their own.
If you add magical underwear to the mix, you can see how the religions differ by comparing say, Matisyahu, to Glenn Beck.
People with Asperger's have low IQs? Could have fooled me; the likely-but-I-don't-like-to-diagnose-if-I-don't-have-to folks I've met whose behavior seems consistent with an Asperger's diag are actually rather intelligent.
In any case, mixing several metaphors may also be seen as a hallmark of a relentlessly practical and syncretic culture. We Romans don't know what we believe, but you had better damn sure respect it.
I've always thought Judaism to be the religion created by intelligent folk who understand that although it is not true, it has positive features... Christianity was created by middle managers who thought they could leverage their synergy or whatnot and keep people in line better than government decree
This shit is hilarious. Dude, not only was Judaism not "created by intelligent folk who [understood] that... it is not true," Judaism was never created. It's not like some group of Old Wise Men sat down in the Levant five thousand years ago and said, "Okay, we want to make up a religion, let's start writing a bunch of disparate and largely contradictory holy texts and laws to go with it." Judaism started out as a polytheistic tribal religion with a pantheon fairly similar to, and heavily influenced by, its Mesopotamian and Akkadian neighbors; it gradually became monolatrous as the cult of its chief god became increasingly tied to support for Israel's king, it probably didn't become actually monotheistic until after the sack of Jerusalem by Babylonian forces, and very little of Judaism even then would seem remotely familiar to a modern Ashkenazi Jew, raised in a tradition influenced by centuries of European culture.
As for Christianity - Christianity started out as Judaism. The first-century followers of Jesus of Nazareth were Jews who obeyed Jewish law and observed Jewish rituals; outside Paul of Tarsus, few of the earliest Christians thought you could be Christian without being Jewish. That Christians were messianic Jews who happened to believe the Moshiach had already come didn't make them terribly unique, either - there were plenty of eccentric sects, cults and offshoots of Judaism running around in the first century; if the Essenes were the ones to take off, you'd be saying stupid shit about them instead.
I say stupid shit about the Essenes all the time, myself. ;)
Yeah, if the Essenes were such celibate hermits, where did new Essenes come from, huh? Huh?
stras,
Christianity didn't start out as Judaism. Christianity - right from the beginning - started out as a Roman-Hellenic syncretic stew of mish-mashed theology, eschatology and ritual, with a passing resemblance to a half dozen other mystery cults.
Stras wins with a new twist on creationism.
I'm not sure stras' description and that of Jack crow cannot BOTH be true to some degree. Stras is right that Christianity WAS originally a Jewish cult, but Mr. Crow is correct in that said cult from the beginning incorporated an awful lot of "stuff" floating around the Roman world at the time. Of course, over time, the Jewishness was diluted (per the influence of Paul) and the weird stuff became more and more dominant, but...
Brian,
The problem, I think, with the classic view is that it neglects what Judaism was, and was not - at the time of the emergence of Christianity.
Judaism was not an ethnic and national religion, common to all members of the tribal group, if only as a cultural marker - as it is today.
It was the priestly possession of the Judean ruling class - a ruling class which governed a largely pagan and Hellenized population.
The peasants and underclass in Judea, Samaria and the larger Palestinian region were not "Jews" as we now understand the term. They were syncreticists, who worshiped the Hellenic, Roman, Syrian and Anatolian gods which dominated the region.
Christianity emerged among these population groups, and was condemned and attacked by the Hasmonean descended priestly monotheists.
There was, of course, a lot of cross over - since the whole region was in religious, political and ideological ferment.
But, it was not Judaism proper (which didn't exist at the time) that produced Christianity.
Christianity was not a Jewish cult. It was a syncretic faith, from the start - borrowing liberally from Mithraic and Iranian messianism (which strain rather heavily influenced the development of late Judaism proper, esp. the cult of the Saoshyant), Hasmonean monotheism, Anatolian mystery religions and Roman stoicism.
Respect,
Jack
oh noes. more bible criticism! Jack and Moloch should get a room.
Huh, clown? Criticism? Nyet, maroon. Just historical explication.
Post a Comment