"God made us the boss/God gave us the cross!"

"We turned it into a sword
To spread the Word of the Lord!
We used His holy decrees
To do whatever we pleased!
And it was good! (Yeah!)
And it was good! (Yeah!)
And it was goddamned good!"-from Mass, by Leonard Bernstein

More on the topic of salvation, which even one very lengthy post cannot hope to exhaust. This is actually in answer to a promise I made at L'esprit d'escalier. A quick, Biblically based explanation of why most "evangelicals" (an umbrella term, here, for fundies and their conservative brethren and sistren) are so anxious after the state of your soul.

Begin with scripture, because ever since Martin Luther, non-RC churches have espoused sola scriptura. And the scripture they all prefer, again looking to Luther for guidance, is John 3:16: "God loved the world so much that he gave the world his only son, so that whoever believed in him would not perish, but would have everlasting life." (My rough paraphrase). Now, as is typical in these matters, it's all a matter of em-pha-sis. Rather than focus on the first half of that verse (God+love+world), all attention focusses on 3:16b: whoever believes in him will not die, but instead live forever. Now, "life into the ages" (the direct translation of the NT Greek usually rendered "eternal life") was a slippery concept, and became more slippery when Messiah left after the resurrection and didn't make the expected re-appearance. One interpretation of that phrase then became "life after death," which is how Neo-Platonism got into Christian doctrine (another story entirely), but it also quickly attached to "life in heaven, not hell," or, in short, salvation from damnation. And this was all you had to do: believe in God's son.

Okay, so now you are taken care of. What do you care about everyone else?

Well, of course, Christianity is supposed to be about everyone else, but we're dwelling on scripture alone here; we need a Biblical warrant for caring about others, and we get it in Matthew 25. Before we get there, though, we have to go to the end of Matthew, to the last words of Jesus on earth (according to Matthew), which many learn as the "Great Commission." (Connections to sales and commissions which salespeople both have and earn, and the fundamental culture of America as all salespeople, are not accidental, but won't be remarked on further, here.)

The Great Commission, again in rough paraphrase, is Jesus' command to his disciples to "go into all the world, and make disciples of all nations." Well, that naturally comes down to the present day, in an unbroken chain of discipleship without which we would have no access to salvation (i.e., would not be spared from damnation), so right away we have an obligation to pass it on. But what do we have an obligation to pass on? The message of salvation? Is that the only message of Christianity?

According to some, yes, it is. That's why John 3:16 is so central. It is the clearest statement that some are saved, some are damned. And the clearest teaching on that point (salvation v. damnation) is Matthew 25. Or, at least, it's interepreted that way.

In Matthew 25 Jesus describes the final judgment, when all the believers come before God, who tells them that they saw him hungry and didn't feed him, naked and didn't clothe him, in prison and didn't visit him. Those who failed, are sent to the place of wailing and gnashing of teeth (there isn't a fully developed theology of hell in the NT). Those who did those things to the least among us, and served God without knowing it, are welcomed into the eternal kingdom of Heaven (it is significant that Matthew calls it the "kingdom of heaven," while Luke calls it the "kingdom of God." One is clearly on earth, the other clearly not. Sorry about the digressions.)

Now this is clearly a radical teaching, but it is in line with the Jesus of all four gospels, who doesn't condemn people because society thinks they have sinned and deserve their punishment: he radically overturns that opinion, and cavorts with prostitutes and tax collectors (Jews working for the hated Rome) and beggars (who sinned, that this man was born blind?), etc. Too radical, in fact, and since, as Michel Foucault has noted, "Society Must Be Defended," society cannot allow its carefully arranged structure to be so easily undone. So the clear command to physically care for the homeless and the prisoner (who belongs in prison, don't they? Would God have us comfort the criminal, in the face of the victim?) becomes a spiritual command. After all, what does it matter if you save the whole world, and lose your own soul? Which, in the end, is more important? A comfortable life here, or salvation in the next life?

This decision, by the way, is usually settled in favor of those with a comfortable life, which would be made uncomfortable if they really had to clothe the naked, and visit the prisoner, etc.

So Matthew 25 becomes a command to care for the "least of these," but "the least of these" is interpreted spiritually, not physically (Jesus didn't really want us to consort with prostitutes as if they were like us, did he?). And spiritually, what we need to do, then, is follow the Great Commission, and make them disciples. Because if we don't, they will perish. And we will stand before the king on the last day, and be judged and divided, sheep and goats. And if we haven't saved the souls that came our way, we will be sent to the place of wailing and gnashing of teeth.

I mentioned that this theology gets ugly, and it does. It is predicated, for one thing, on the very theology Jesus rejected: that a difficult life in this world, is a result of sin which God is punishing, either in you or in your ancestors. It also draws sustenance from the "Doctrine of the Elect," which Jean Calvin, ironically, formulated in order to humble believers, but which, in typical fashion, Christians have used to justify their righteousness, and condemn others. The Doctrine of the elect was Calvin's attempt to explain both why salvation was necessary, and why some people would never get it. If salvation is not essential to all, the doctrine of atonement (Jesus died for your sins) falls apart. But if it is essential, and yet (per Luther) we cannot earn it (grace by faith, not works), then why can't we all just get it, and go do what we want? If we have to do what God wants, doesn't that mean we have to earn grace? (which puts us back to works, and undermines grace.) So Calvin said God had elected some from the beginning of time to be saved; but you don't know who you are, so you have to live as if you needed God's salvation. It's still arbitrary, but the problem is less in Calvin's solution than in the doctrine itself.

And Christians use this to justify themselves and condemn others on the socioeconomic grounds Jesus rejected. It works largely like this: I am well off because God loves me, but you are poor because He can't stand you. Now once I save your soul, I can continue to enjoy what is rightly mine, and you might hope for amendment of life which might save you. Or might not; it's all been decided by God beforehand, but just to be sure I don't slip up, I'll make sure your soul has a chance at salvation.

Jesus says all the law and the prophets hang on two commandments: love God, and love your neighbor. But preferring to be in charge (since love puts us distinctly NOT in charge), we come up with reasons why we should run things, or at least be able to control things in the short term, and secure ourselves a place in heaven, in the long term.

At least, some of us do.