Wednesday Lunchtime Camel-Driving Blogging

Yet more evidence that the economics coverage of the National Review is not the nadir of the magazine. Here we see it flunking theology:

Ross Douthat: [T]he traditional Christian attitude... wasn't that every rich man needed to sell all he had and enter a monastery, but that some did. Christ told the rich young man to give away all his possessions and follow him, but he didn't tell that to everyone he met -- it was a specific mission for a specific person, or kind of person.

Oh yeah? Context, boys, context. Let's roll the videotape from today's Gospel Lesson:

There came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, "Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?"

And Jesus said unto him, "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. Thou knowest the commandments: Do not commit adultery. Do not kill. Do not steal. Do not bear false witness. Defraud not. Honour thy father and mother.

And he answered and said unto him, "Master, all these have I observed from my youth."

Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, "One thing thou lackest: Go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me."

And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.

And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples: "How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!" And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them: "Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God."

And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves: "Who then can be saved?"

And Jesus looking upon them saith: "With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible."

Then Peter began to say unto him: "Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee."

And Jesus answered and said: "Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, but he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.

"But many that are first shall be last; and the last first."

The injunction "sell whatsoever thou hast and give to the poor" is addressed to "they that have riches" because "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God." Jesus is not issuing "a specific mission for a specific person, or kind of person"; Jesus is warning all with "great possessions" of the danger he sees that they are in.

Jesus doesn't shut the door: God will move mountains and make miracles in order to get the camel through the eye of the needle, "for with God all things are possible." Nevertheless: "many that are first shall be last; and the last first."

By cutting off the passage at "follow me" and suppressing the subsequent dialogue between Jesus and the disciples, Ross Douthat is performing the equivalent of putting his fingers in his ears and screeching: "I can't hear you!! You're not talking to me anyway!!" This is common practice at National Review. But screeching "You're not talking to me!!" is a distinctly odd posture to adopt when one is addressed by one's God.

Comments

[Charles Kinbote]

Wasn't it Ross Douthat who wrote the book about how he spent four years at Harvard and managed to avoid learning anything?

Good training for the National Review, apparently.

[Anna Haynes]

"Many wealthy people are little more than janitors of their possessions."
- Frank Lloyd Wright

[Jim Dandy]

Their "camel theology" (nice!)proves, once again, the pure hypocrisy of the modern conservatives’ principle of “rugged individualism”.

The rich and powerful have no responsibilty except to themselves as individuals – their personal needs and greed. It’s the poor and weak who are expected to shoulder responsibility – to observe the law, pay taxes, avoid corruption, and live chaste.

[Jim Dandy]

You've changed the title. I prefer "camel theology". "camel-driving" has less resonance.

[Francis]

I read/heard once that the Needle's Eye was the name of one of the gates into Jerusalem that was so narrow that camels had to be unloaded before they could pass through.

wiki tells us that this interpretation has no historical support but dates to the 9th century.

[Delicious Pundit]

You should have titled this post, "That's funny, I happen to have Jesus of Nazareth right here."

[cactus]

I was always struck when reading the Acts of the Apostles at how communist Jesus' followers were, including those who had actually known him in person and therefore were most likely to be following his teachings. even God the Father helped enforce the communist lifestyle, striking down Annanias and his wife Saphhira simply because they lied about how much wealth they had to turn over when they joined Church.

I'm neither a Christian nor a communist (or even a socialist for that matter), but I cannot understand how anyone who considers him or herself a Christian, after reading the New Testament, would not be a communist.

[Ben V-L]

wiki comes from Wikipedia, which comes from WikiWikiWeb and encyclopedia.

WikiWikeWeb comes from creator Ward Cunningham (http://c2.com/doc/etymology.html) and the Hawai'ian term wiki-wiki, meaning quick.

Encyclopedia comes from the Greek, meaning educating children.

So Wikipedia means "quick children", or, since only half of wiki-wiki is used, perhaps it should be "qui-children".

Wiki is "qui". Time for me to put myself in my auto.

[Steven Donegal]

The Franciscans fought this battle within the Church in the 13th and 14th centuries and lost.

[RKKA]

"By cutting off the passage at "follow me" and suppressing the subsequent dialogue between Jesus and the disciples, Ross Douthat is performing the equivalent of putting his fingers in his ears and screeching: "I can't hear you!! You're not talking to me anyway!!" This is common practice at National Review. But screeching "You're not talking to me!!" is a distinctly odd posture to adopt when one is addressed by one's God"

The god of National Review is Mammon. Thus, her attitude to Christ's teachings makes perfect sense.

[Tad Brennan]

yeah, Douthat has proven his utter shallowness and ignorance on several occasions.

[Blissex]

This is what I think is theology is called the ''heroic virtues'' escape: the Gospel is a bit harsh on what it takes to be a proper Christian, as you report, so in order to sell it better most Christian churches distinguish between ''virtues'' (don't be evil :->) and ''heroic virtues'' which is what actually the Christ described for everybody, but most churches say are for saints only.

A classic market segmentation strategy: Christianity Lite for the vast majority, and Christianity Regular for the enthusiast. It has been essential to the growth of most churches from niche to mass operations.

There is even a theological device used to justify this after-the-fact distinction.

[sm]

It depends on where you locate the traditional teachings of Christianity. He may be wrong about what Jesus said in the Gospels, but for much of antiquity and the whole Middle Ages he's quite right.

[derrida derider]

Its not surprising. If the bible can be used to justify massacres and torture (as it has been and still is), then justifying plutocracy with it is child's play. It's just part of the hypocrisy of religion - they can all be construed to suit the follower's self-interest. "Republican Jesus" is only a bit more of a stretch than "muscular christianity".

BTW, I really liked Blissex's bit about market segmentation.

[dubblblind]

Matthew makes it more clear here as to what the issue is:

Matthew 6:24
"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."

People with lots of money become devoted to the preservation and accumulation of wealth, it becomes the ruling force in their lives hence they become its servant. It is a rare person indeed who is able to stand outside their wealth and see it as unimportant in their life. Now technically Ross Douthat gets a pass with his qualifier "it was a specific mission for a specific person, OR KIND OF PERSON". However, since that "kind of person" is pretty much everyone with lots of money, he manages to miss the mark by a wide margin.

[nate]

What water is Ross Douthat drinking anyways?

[Rob]

Wow, this really is a new theologoy. The parables really are just instances for the specific person that Jesus was talking to at the time. And since pretty muuch all we know of Jesus himself are from the parables, well it makes his teachings really more a collection of Ann Landers columns.

[christofay]

What does Jesus say when he talks to W?

Does W listen when Jesus talks to him, or is he still day-dreaming about hitting the gym? ("How much do you jerk Jesus? Your upper arms are looking thin.")

Will W ask Jesus one of his bunker busting penetrating guestions? (Money changers are people too, just what is wrong with money changing in the temple?)

When W comes out with his W talks with his favorite philosopher Jesus book, Kierkegard as the ghostwriter will turn it into one of those too hard to follow the way thingies. I know the right combo to make the book lite and super-size, can I get the ghostwriting contract?

[ajay]

Encyclopedia comes from the Greek, meaning educating children.

So Wikipedia means "quick children".

No, encyclopaedia comes from en+kuklos+paideia = in+circle+education - it encompasses all learning.
The root paid-, meaning a child, transliterated into English as paed- (as in paediatrics) comes from pais, a child.
There may well be a link in Greek between pais and paideia.

[a different chris]

Hmm I can't believe we're losing to these people. They consider *us* secular elites condesceding to fundy Christians, and yet this guy is fooling around with a quote that they* can look up for themselves. Does he think they literally can't read?

Remember they pulled out of public life not too long ago, until Ralph Reed and the like rallied them again. I don't like Bible-thumpers in the very least, but I can say they are very serious about what they believe and where they get those beliefs and it isn't from Rush Limbaugh. Something not true of the Republican Party elite, and a secret that cannot be hid forever.

*I was tempted to say "even a Berkeley Professor :)

[Vanya]

Professor DeLong could have piled on more. Ross goes on to say later "And conservatism, like Christianity, needs to be attuned to the needs, political and spiritual, of most people." Maybe conservatism does, but how can a believing Christian say that Christianity needs to be attuned to the needs of the people? Isn't the other way round - the people are supposed to follow God's law if they seek salvation. Ross sounds suspiciously Straussian here.

[kharris]

Vanya,

You're ignoring the verse where Jesus describes his teachings as an opiate for the masses. That's the verse that Douthat had in mind when saying Christianity needs to be "attuned" to the "needs" of most people. See?

[Martin Langeland]

Arcane side note:
A comparison of the King James Version with the "Peshitta", or 'clear' Aramaic, translates to 'camel'. But in the first, that is a large, humped, desert mammal, whereas in the second it is a large rope or hawser. This is according to "The Holy Bible" by George Lamsa.
The Aramaic makes the metaphor clearer.
--ml

[DaveL]

There is longstanding theological support for the Douthat point of view, however much it seems to we mortals to contradict the plain text of the passage. As a previous poster pointed out, the passage about "serving two masters" is generally considered relevant. I've had this discussion myself with various Christians from conservative or fundamentalist churches, and it is absolutely the standard argument they give.

It's hardly worth a blast of dudgeon when a conservative commenter agrees with a conservative religious point of view.

[Buce]

"Christianity, needs to be attuned to the needs, political and spiritual, of most people..."

Among those who would disagree, I think, is the current Pope. I believe he's made it clear more than once that a smaller Church would be no bad thing, if of higher quality.

[Buce]

'It's hardly worth a blast of dudgeon when a conservative commenter agrees with a conservative religious point of view.'

Why not, exactly? Unlike many religious "points of view," it is an assertion that is demonstrably false, and its persistence and pervasiveness only aggravates the offense.