Date: Sun, 14 May 1995 12:38:57 +0800
From: rgeeland-AT-cc.curtin.edu.au (David Geelan)
Subject: HAB: Jesus of Nazareth (and Walter Benjamin)


At the conclusion of a message last week, Craig Howley wrote:

> Marx didn't, after all, have the big picture of Jesus of Nazareth
>in view.  I'm not sure about Habermas, actually.

and then didn't elaborate further. Nobody seems to have taken this point up
in the interesting discussions over the weekend (I particularly enjoyed
KERRY's contribution: there's food for further cogitation there!), so I
thought I would, on a couple of fronts.

To take the last sentence first: In one of the interviews in 'Autonomy and
Solidarity', Habermas says: (this draws in Walter Benjamin as well!)

"How can there be universal solidarity with the victims of merciless
historical progress, when past crimes, when the sufferings, the
humiliations and the misery of past generations, appear irreversible to the
secular gaze, and beyond redress? Benjamin, groping for response to the
horror of all this, developed the idea of an anamnetic solidarity, which
could bring about atonement solely through the power of remebrance. Perhaps
we can discern in Benjamin's sometimes crypto-theological reflections the
outlines of a way of thinking which would attempt a serious answer to your
question...The problem is one which faces all modern societies once the
religious traditions that point beyond the purely human realm have largely
lost their former authority. I observe palpable regressions into new forms
of paganism which undercut the ego-identity that was achieved by means of
the major religions. If that is the case, then how can, if not the
substance, then at any rate the humanizing power of traditions that protect
us against such regressions, how can the legacy of religion be salvaged for
the secular world? For the moment we can only say: not AS a religious
legacy." (p 54)

My own question would be "Why not?" I should state my biases up front: I am
a Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ. At the same time, I am very aware
that enormous damage has been done in His name, and that the church which
has borne it has moved a long way from Jesus' own radicalism. I believe
Habermas' last sentence above grows out of the unfortunate legacy of the
distorted religious history of Europe, and that the "humanizing power" of
Christianity can be reclaimed through a re-construction of the way
Christians operate in, and talk about, the social world.

I believe that the ultimate answer to social ills is conversion: if every
person in the world lived the value system described and demonstrated by
Jesus Christ, the injustices that James McFarland has so eloquently
described would disappear. (The value system often demonstrated by the
church is quite a different matter.)

But this is unlikely, and I believe that it is also the responsibility of
Christians to strive for social change by other mechanisms. These may
include using the work of Marx and Habermas to explain and discuss moral
and ethical problems with people who do not share a Christian moral
framework: the important thing is to maintain the dialogue and be open to
the views and beliefs of others.

For those who are bristling at this point, perhaps it's necessary for me to
describe what I mean when I talk about Christianity. In Robert Pirsig's
(Lila) terms, Jesus Christ (like Buddha) was one of the most Dynamic people
who ever lived. He was a visionary and revolutionary, who taught the
communal ownership of property, tolerance and acceptance, personal and
social emancipation. He tore down rigid codes of law, and emphasised
relationship and mutual understanding. The church which has taken His name,
however, is one of the most reactionary organisations the world has seen,
and concentrates on building whole new rigid codes of law. Catra Lyons, a
friend of mine who happens to be a witch, makes a distinction between
'christians' - those who live and teach the values described above, and
'xians' - those who 'don't believe anyone should have any fun'. I think
it's a useful one.

But Jesus was not just a social reformer (Barbara Theirring's recent work
notwhithstanding), he had a vital eschatological (end of the world)
component in his teachings. This, in Habermas' words "point[s] beyond the
purely human realm" - there are sanctions and rewards, there is a reality
beyond what we are able to see. I happen to believe in conditional
immortality: the 'good' (for want of a better term) live eternally, the
'wicked' (ditto) die eternally. There is no everlasting hell of torture.

For those of you who are uncomfortable with religion, I apologise, but hope
you've listened with an open mind. I do believe that "Why not?" is a viable
answer to Habermas' statement, and have tried to outline why.

Regards, David