Rohr Wants to Balance Jesus; No One Wants to Lose…
Posted: July 24th, 2011 | Author: Peter | Filed under: Uncategorized | 4 Comments »I still get Fr. Rohr’s daily meditations, though I find him increasingly difficult to relate to. Recently, he wrote:
It is easiest to begin “conservative,” if I can use the word. Most conservatives are not yet skillful in taking risks, using their imagination, or understanding freedom for anybody else; but at least they do develop some respect and basic impulse control, which is necessary to get started and to be at all teachable. You have to know the rules before you can break the rules properly and to understand why the rules were created in the first place. A lot of “liberals” don’t develop the first-half-of-life qualities, or understand why the rules were there in the first place.
It is rather difficult and even dangerous to begin life with an entirely open field, because the isolated ego takes over as the “decider.” So the “Ten Commandments” are ideal first-half-of-life statements, and necessary for basic civilization and impulse control. Yet isn’t it interesting that people always want the “Ten Commandments” on American courthouse lawns but never the “Eight Beatitudes”? The “beatitudes” of Jesus are second-half-of-life statements, and frankly ridiculous and naive to first-half-of-life people. They make Jesus sound like a soft, war-protesting, tree-hugging, bleeding heart liberal.
I agree that being conservative is easier… it’s safer. It’s where I came from, and it’s a worldview carrying an inherent comfort in its certitude.
In the second paragraph, Fr. Rohr deteriorates into the sort of provisos and requirements that systematically render Jesus’ words meaningless and even impotent (I am cognizant of that word’s misogynistic overtones). Of course Jesus is naive, ridiculous, soft, tree-hugging, and a bleeding heart liberal. This is “foolishness to men…” A New Testament Christianity would be disastrous to our economies, suicidal to our militaries, and would mean political annihilation to its idealistic adherents. Kierkegaard saw this clearly.
The wisdom of humanity is foolishness in the economy of Christ (God) so why do we (in this case, Rohr) spend so much time trying to reconcile the two? Why are we so bent on pragmatism? Because we don’t want to lose. We want to use words and concepts and systems of Christendom, but we don’t want to suffer the inevitable loss and humiliation that comes with the cross of Jesus of Nazareth.
"A New Testament Christianity would be disastrous to our economies, suicidal to our militaries, and would mean political annihilation to its idealistic adherents. Kierkegaard saw this clearly."
That sounds a bit dramatic! I'm not sure I agree; but then again, I've never been able to quite be on the same page with Kierkegaard.
As I read the NT, particularly in Acts 2, the community of believers shared all things in common and achieved some form of harmony. Presumably, a NT-informed politics would seek for a similar harmony by seeking to create a societal structure that was more conducive to harmony than our current system.
For the record, though, I'm not necessarily defending Rohr. I like him, but I think Rohr is also a bit overly-simplistic in his distinctions: first half v. second half of life as well as "conservative" vs. "liberal." I mean, I think there is some truth to what he is saying, and I think it can be helpful to think in these terms; but I'm not sure that his distinctions have the explanatory scope that he asserts.
But enough about me…I'm curious what you mean by "The wisdom of humanity is foolishness in the economy of Christ (God)." What do you mean by "the economy of Christ"?
The thing I wonder is… when I heard Richard Rohr speak he was all about non-dual thinking. But this quote sounds pretty dualistic…
Yes, Tobias. I agree. It's a little bit like Rohr sometimes becomes dualistic about non-dual thinking! I think using language tends to force us into dualistic categories (and then into dualistic thinking). I do sympathize with where he is coming from, though, and I certainly appreciate Rohr's overall direction.
We are always being encouraged to look at the big picture as if from above – Kant's universalism is the pinnacle of reasoned virtue. Operating from ones unique place isn't considered ethical but selfish (traditionally).
However most of what Jesus left people with was not advice on administering a system (He's not Confucious) but instructions for our own actions. There's a divide between Kantian and existentialist ethics based on the role of the ethical actor – and most of us like most of Jesus' audience are just not in Kants top of the system role. I think Kant murderised the Golden Rule when he turned "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" into "Act as would be appropriate if everybody were to act in the same way" but I'm not sure he noticed the difference.
The first may have you pardon a murderer but the second (in Kant's mind) makes such pardons unethical.
I think that's the philospohical issue behind the "pragmatic"/"radical Christian" tension. Are we supposed to worry about the universal ethical system we're acting in line with, or should we just love madly and act accordingly?
(Great post btw)