Jesus Philosopher

This is an unkind thought, but I sometimes wonder what percentage of the people who declare themselves to be followers of Jesus really take to heart what the Bible says that he said. I know the percentage is way above zero, but I suspect that it’s also way below one hundred.

Look at quotes like “Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.” (Matthew 5:39-40–the Sermon on the Mount). That’s a direct command about how you should behave. How many of us can really follow that?

Or how about “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.” (Matthew 19:21). Monks and nuns do that, but few other people do. And just after that: “everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.” (Matthew 19:29). Did Jesus expect everybody to do that? If not, why not?

I think that Jesus was teaching a very radical, unwordly, philosophy. I find it difficult to reconcile that with the way some people act in his name today. Again I am of course not referring to all Christians, just some. In particular, the currently popular notion of “prosperity theology”–the argument that God wants his followers to be rich–seems to me to be particularly, well, unchristian.


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

2 responses to “Jesus Philosopher”

  1. ncm Avatar

    Your posting today succinctly summarizes an actual, named heresy. (The Jesuit order keeps a catalog of known heresies.) Unfortunately I have not been able to find out its name.

    There is a related (and also, of course, named) heresy asserting that if you read just the bits of the New Testament that are quotes from Jesus, you get a very different message than you get by reading the whole text. As you might imagine, whole cults have been based on that heresy.

    Of course the property of being heretical (“hereticality”?) doesn’t neatly map to, over, or into any other property or its negation, including “sensible”, “true”, or “morally defensible”.

  2. Ian Lance Taylor Avatar

    Darn, I should have guessed as much. I’d love to learn the name if you find it.

Leave a Reply