Terry Eagleton and the radical claims of the Gospel of Jesus

51A1suWOeDL._SL160_AA115_ Now here's a long passage from Terry Eagleton, whose approach to Christian apologetics is rather novel. As a non theistic cultural critic not averse to strongly worded criticisms of Christian faith, he nevertheless insists (against Dawkins, Hitchens and the rest) that counter arguments should enage with real Christianity not ignoramus caricatures; and that hostile critics should tackle real Christianity which at every level including the rational, is a scandal.

"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" is a notoriously enigmatic injunction; but whatever it means, it is unlikely to mean that religion is one thing whereas politics is another, a peculiarly modern prejudice if ever there was one. Any devout Jew of jesus's time would have known the things that are God's include working for justice, welcoming the immigrants, and humbling the high and mighty. The whole cumbersome paraphernalia of religion is to be replaced by another kind of temple, that of the murdered, transfigured body of Jesus. To the outrage of the Zealots, the Pharisees, and right wing rednecks of all ages, this body is dedicated in particular to all those losers, deadbeats, riffraff, and colonial collaborators who are not righteous but are flamboyantly unrighteous – who either live in chronic trnasgression of the Mosaic law or, like the Gentiles, fall outside its sway altogether.

7-WomanCaughtInAdultery These men and women are not being asked to bargain their way into God's favour by sacrificing beasts, fussing about their diet, or being impeccably well behaved. Instead, the good news is that god loves them anyway, in all their moral squalor. Jesus's message is that God is on their side despite thier visciousness – that the source of the inexhaustibly self-delighting life he calls his Father is neither judge, patriarch, accuser or superego, but lover, friend, fellow accused, and counsel for the defense….Men and woman are called upon to do nothing apart from acknowledge the fact that God is on their side no matter what, in the act of loving assent which is known as faith. In fact, Jesus has very little to say about sin at all, unlike a great many of his censorious followers. His mission is to accept men and women's frailty, not to rub their noses in it."

Terry Eagleton, Reason, Faith and Revolution. Reflections on the God Debate (New Haven: Yale, 2009), pp. 19-20.

Now one part of me wants to make this long apologia for the Gospel of Jesus the basis of an essay assignment on Contemporary Mission Strategy and the Gospel of Jesus, with the uncomplicated instruction – "Discuss".

Another part of me is left wondering why an agnostic who is resistant to Christianity makes a far better job of stating the core of the Gospel than many a Christian preacher and / or theologian.

In any case – the book is a tonic – not so much comforting as bracing, and not so much an apologia for Christian faith as an apology for the intellectual sloppiness of much new atheism dogma.

Comments

6 responses to “Terry Eagleton and the radical claims of the Gospel of Jesus”

  1. Rosemary Hannah avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    Probably for the same reason that I. a liberal, read the Bible with (or so it seems to me) far more joy than many of the conservatives I know. I truly love it, but it is not a straight jacket to me.
    What reasons does he give for not believing?

  2. Rosemary Hannah avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    Probably for the same reason that I. a liberal, read the Bible with (or so it seems to me) far more joy than many of the conservatives I know. I truly love it, but it is not a straight jacket to me.
    What reasons does he give for not believing?

  3. Jim Gordon avatar

    Actually, a good question Rosemary and thanks for your comment. Eagleton at times sounds as hostile to religion as Dawkins, but at other times is defensive and certainly an admirer of Jesus. Religion when it goes wrong, and is a justification for atrocity and oppression, he rails against with the next one. The revlolutionary love of Jesus, and the radicality of the early Christian movement was eventually lost in the institutionalisation of Christianity and its accommodations to power.
    I said he was non-theist – I think that isn’t fair, as he nowhere says so in this book. But he is undoubtedly agnostic, distant, a commentator who gives every impression he is on the outside or wants to be thought so. Throughout the book he attacks the pseudo reason and category errors of the new atheists, pointing out the fallacies at the heart of the Enlightenment myth of prgoress through scientific discovery, application and development – Hiroshima is as much the outcome of such uncritical technophilia as penicillin.
    Your other point about how you read the Bible is intriguing – I’d make a clear distinction between fundamentalist and conservative – insofar as any labels are helpful. I think the liberal / conservative dichotomy stereotypes, reduces diversity and creates a them/us standpoint. Not all liberals enjoy the Bible and not all conservatives are joylessly strait-jacketed.

  4. Jim Gordon avatar

    Actually, a good question Rosemary and thanks for your comment. Eagleton at times sounds as hostile to religion as Dawkins, but at other times is defensive and certainly an admirer of Jesus. Religion when it goes wrong, and is a justification for atrocity and oppression, he rails against with the next one. The revlolutionary love of Jesus, and the radicality of the early Christian movement was eventually lost in the institutionalisation of Christianity and its accommodations to power.
    I said he was non-theist – I think that isn’t fair, as he nowhere says so in this book. But he is undoubtedly agnostic, distant, a commentator who gives every impression he is on the outside or wants to be thought so. Throughout the book he attacks the pseudo reason and category errors of the new atheists, pointing out the fallacies at the heart of the Enlightenment myth of prgoress through scientific discovery, application and development – Hiroshima is as much the outcome of such uncritical technophilia as penicillin.
    Your other point about how you read the Bible is intriguing – I’d make a clear distinction between fundamentalist and conservative – insofar as any labels are helpful. I think the liberal / conservative dichotomy stereotypes, reduces diversity and creates a them/us standpoint. Not all liberals enjoy the Bible and not all conservatives are joylessly strait-jacketed.

  5. Rosemary Hannah avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    That is why I said ‘many’. It always slightly amuses me, to be honest.

  6. Rosemary Hannah avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    That is why I said ‘many’. It always slightly amuses me, to be honest.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *