Gandhi's take on Jesus and orthodox Christianity

[metis]

I'm currently using a book on Gandhi's writings and excerps from his speaches for my morning meditation, and I came across a couple of interesting quotes that some may want to discuss.  Here they are:

What I would not have given to bow my head before the living image at the Vatican of Christ Crucified?  It was with a wretch that I could tear myself away from the living tragedy.  I saw there at once that nations, like individuals, could only be made through the agony of the cross and in no other way.  Joy comes not out of infliction of pain on others but out of pain voluntarily borne by oneself.

I consider Western Christianity in its practical working a negation of Christ's Christianity.  I cannot conceive Jesus, if he was living in the flesh in our midst, approving of modern Christian organizations, public worship, or modern ministry.  If Christians would simply cling to the Sermon on the Mount, which was delivered not only to peaceful disciples but a groaning world, they would not go wrong, and they would find that no religion is false, and that if they act according to their lights and fear of God, they would not need to worry about organizations, forms of worship, and ministry.  The Pharisees had all that, but Jesus would have none of it, for they were using their office as a cloak for hypocrisy and worse.  Cooperation with the forces of Good and noncooperation with the forces of evil are the two things we need for a good and pure life, whether it is called Hindu, Muslem, or Christian

and...

Today I rebel against orthodox Christianity, as I am convinced that it has distorted the message of Jesus.  He was an Asiatic whose message was delivered through many media, and when it had the backing of the Roman emperor it became an imperialistic faith as it remains to this day.

and finally...

Christ came to this world to preach and spread the gospel of love and peace, but what his followers have brought about is tyranny and misery.  Christians, who were taught the maxim of "Love they neighbor as theyself," are divided amongst themselves

-- all quotes are from "Mohandas Gandhi: Essential Writings", compiled by John Dear, pages 78-80.

Opinions?

[jacknky]

I agree. There was an article recently in the "UU World" magazine that pointed out that Christian churches build before 1000 AD did not have any of the Christ dying on the cross imagry. Instead they had peaceful pastoral scenes depicting Jesus as a shephard leading his flock and so on. The imagry was of Christ at peace with the world. As I recall it was during this transition period to dying on the cross imagry that the Germanic tribes were being forced to convert to Christianity so for these folks Christianity included a violent element. Also, as the Crusade began countries needed soldiers and the Church promoted the killing of Muslim infidels as a virtue not a sin. In other words, the Church became co-opted by states that needed to further their national goals and Christianity became more a religion of war and domination and less a religion of peace.

These are just my poor recollections. I should try to find the article and quote a little from it directly.

[jacknky]

El,
Sorry, I probably wasn't clear. Yes, there were early depictions of crosses but not of Jesus dying in agony. If my memory serves, the first depiction of Jesus on the cross was in the 900's.

I hate depending on my frail memory. I'll make an attempt to get the article tomorrow. The article was clearer about the connection between this and a change in Christianity.

As for Ghandi, perhaps he was influenced by the fact that his country was colonized and oppressed by a Christian country so he is bound to have a different perspective.

[metis]

Let me clarify Gandhi's feelings about Christianity.  First of all, which should have been evident by his posts, he was very familiar with the New Testament and, with his knowledge of history, he felt that the early church was indeed on a path he felt was correct.  But from the time of Constantine on, he believed the church and, later, most churches, began to walk away from the Jesus of the N.T. especially in the below areas:


Deadly Force

Gandhi believed that when Jesus said turn the other cheek, be as harmless as doves, and not to live by the sword, he was not joking.  The pre-Constantine church did not allow its members to join in any military action.  But after, that changed whereas the church and churches not only were willing to use deadly force, they often did it against each other after the start of the Protestant Reformation, with each side blaming the other.  The Wars of Religion plagued Europe for centuries.


Power and Materialism

From Jesus' statments not to be concerned what you wear, along with the fact that in the book of Acts it states twice that the apostles shared their wealth, we saw in the post-Constantine emergence of a feudal system based on the Roman model that created a tremendous disparity of wealth that lasted well over a thousand years.  Then, with the influence of the Protestant Reformation, we saw some of the Protestant churches advocating unbridled capitalism with no safety net, again continuing this disparity of wealth and encouraging greed. 


Racism

Even though Paul wrote that there was no difference between Jew and gentile in the eye's of God, the church and churches subjugated different cultures, such as we saw with the Africans and Amerindians.  While Jesus taught more inclusion, the churches often taught and created exclusion.  Even today here in the States, it's often said that the most segregated day of the week is Sunday.


Now, what I posted above was pretty much a partial composite of where Gandhi was coming from along with some examples that I provided that fit into his paradigm.  And it's not just an "outsider" making such a statement, as many Chrisitians, especially those in peace churches like the Mennonite, the Amish, and the Society of Friends, have stated as such as well.  So, what Gandhi believed and what I posted above, is not an attack on Christianity but, instead, a view that many have had, both inside and outside of the church.

Even within Catholicism, there's a feeling believed by many that the church often did not live up to its ideal.  At one Catholic conference I attended years ago, one priest said (paraphrased) "Maybe we'll eventually make it into heaven in spite of the Church".  Obviously, he was not anti-Catholic but merely expressed the opinion that the church has made some errors in the past.  And I think there's a growing awareness in many churches that the church is made up of humans with human weaknesses, and that errors will be made.  But instead of crying over spilt milk, maybe the best policy is to recognize our shortcomings and do the best we can to correct the course, and I think that's maybe the best to do in any religion.

There's more that I would like to deal with, but I've run out of time, so I hope you all have a great weekend.           

[jacknky]

What a wonderful summation.

"Even within Catholicism, there's a feeling believed by many that the church often did not live up to its ideal."

Isn't Liberation Theology just such a reaction within the Church?

[Acumen]

What could Ghandi possibly know about true Christianity?

[metis]

Isn't Liberation Theology just such a reaction within the Church?

There was much debate within the Church dealing with liberation theology and exactly what would be appropriate if one went in that direction.  Some clergy felt that bearing arms to change the status quo was justified, whereas others felt that this abandoned the role of peacemaker for the church, and it's this latter group that eventually won out when PJPII interjected what was, versus was not, allowed.

The issue of using non-violence versus allowing violence also was a movement in the Church, especially with Pax Christi U.S.A., which was started by Bishop Gumbleton.  I attended several meetings although I never joined the group.  Gumbleton, who I personally met and have great respect for, visited Lebanon in order to get our hostages out during the latter years of the Carter administration.

But my point here is that there have been some within Catholicism and Christianity in general who disagree with the use of deadly force.  A group that I'm familiar with and have attended services in years past are the Mennonite, who are adamant that most churches abandoned Jesus' teachings on peace.  I have found them to be an absolutely fascinating group and one that I highly respect for more reasons than just this.

Shalom, and thanks for your kind words. 

[jacknky]

Metis,
It's my understanding that, while violence may have been one aspect of some liberation theology, it was also the fact that it was considered "Christian Socialism" because of its emphasis on active participation in political life and focus on Jesus as the Liberator of the oppressed. In other words, anything that tries to work for the beneft of the poor and oppressed must be socialistic.

[Acumen]

It's my understanding that, while violence may have been one aspect of some liberation theology, it was also the fact that it was considered "Christian Socialism" because of its emphasis on active participation in political life and focus on Jesus as the Liberator of the oppressed. In other words, anything that tries to work for the beneft of the poor and oppressed must be socialistic.

I think you are seriously oversimplifying the concept.  The scriptures convict us to give to the poor and served the oppressed, and we don't lay out the charge that the gospel message is socialistic.

[jacknky]

The last sentence was my own editorialization. The term "Christian Socialism" was from the Wikipedia article, not from me.

Do you think that the primary Catholic condemnation of Liberation Theology is that it is violent? We had a Theology Professor who is also an ex-priest and was involved in Liberation Theology in South America speak to our UU Fellowship about Liberation Theology. he didn't saay anything about it condoning the use of violence.

[metis]

It's my understanding that, while violence may have been one aspect of some liberation theology, it was also the fact that it was considered "Christian Socialism" because of its emphasis on active participation in political life and focus on Jesus as the Liberator of the oppressed. In other words, anything that tries to work for the beneft of the poor and oppressed must be socialistic.

Some of those involved in the liberation theology movement were willing to use deadly force and some churches actually began to house weapons.  However, there were others in the movement who felt that they should use Gandhi's tactics of non-violence instead. 

When I was down at a Catholic conference in Dayton, Ohio, I ran across a priest who was the pastor of two lay missionaries and two nuns that were raped and then murdered by a death squad working for the government of El Salvador back in the early 1980's.  He was such a fascinating individual, that we skipped the next two meetings and ended up discussing such matters for around three hours.

One of the many things he discussed was the fact that many in the government, and even the church, who saw this movement as being Marxist-based, which it was not, although some Marxists were attracted to it.  I read a book by one of those who was a Catholic priest in Columbia who decided to join up with Marxist elements there because he felt that they were the only group that could stop the immense suffering of the people.  He later was thrown out of a helicopter by Colombian government forces apparantly.

In El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Columbia, and some other countries, we saw attacks and imprisonments on priests and nuns who dared to speak out for the poor even if they were only using non-violence.  They saw this as a threat against their domination and wealth.  For a while even the Reagan administration supported some of these governments, but later backed away as it became increasingly clear that more and more of world's people, including the American people, were getting increasingly upset over our support of these military dictatorships. 

There's obviously much more that could be said here, but I just wanted to clarify a couple of things. 

This all brings back memories that especially hit home because my oldest daughter was considering becoming a lay-missionary in the Catholic Church and she wanted very much to serve down in Latin America.  We talked about this a great deal, but after getting her undergraduate degree, she decided to go into teaching instead. 

[metis]

Sorry, I don't believe that Gandhi knew the first thing about true Christianity.  There's nothing you can say to make me feel differently.

and Acumen's post:

What could Ghandi possibly know about true Christianity?

Well, I'll deal with the issue of "true Christianity" on a separate thread that I'll start up shortly, but let me just say that I do think that Gandhi may well have a better awareness of what Jesus appears to have said than either of you two.  He read the N.T. as it is and not "modified" by various Christian groups that appear to have "elevated the man but forgot his message".  These groups appear to be unwilling to follow the Jesus of the Bible, so they "modified" Jesus to meet their own ends.

We see this especially in the four areas I've previously mentioned: leaving Jesus' message of non-violence, accumulating great wealth and power, and treating peoples of other cultures and traditions in ways that were often very oppressive.  Did Jesus teach violence, accumulating wealth and power, and oppressing those who are different?  Not from what I see in the N.T.  As one who grew up Christian and taught Christian theology, I had to abandon that which I was taught to believe and, if I had to join any Christian church, I probably would become Mennonite. 

Jesus said to "be not of this world", so what does that mean?  Was it just a sound-bit?  meaningless rhetoric?  I don't think so.  But most of the churches apparantly do.  What we have seen with the Catholic, Orthodox, and most Protestant churches was an accumulation of power, materialism, racism, and a willingness to kill their neighbor if they were in the way.  And it would be disengenuous to simply blame it on individuals since we have seen endorsements of these activities from the heads of the churches for centuries.

So did Gandhi somehow not understand what Jesus taught?  Maybe he understood all too well.     

[metis]

but let me just say that I do think that Gandhi may well have a better awareness of what Jesus appears to have said than either of you two.

LOL!

 

Are you laughing at what Jesus taught?  I'll tell you what, Elluminati, instead at just scoffing at those you disagree with, why don't you actually try dealing with the issues that were brought up?  Is that really too much to ask of you?

Do you honestly think that Jesus would demean others that were or are truly attempting to understand what he said and apply it to their lives?  Would he laugh in their face?  What do you think, Elluminati?     

[Acumen]

Vern,

Well, I'll deal with the issue of "true Christianity" on a separate thread that I'll start up shortly, but let me just say that I do think that Gandhi may well have a better awareness of what Jesus appears to have said than either of you two.  He read the N.T. as it is and not "modified" by various Christian groups that appear to have "elevated the man but forgot his message".  These groups appear to be unwilling to follow the Jesus of the Bible, so they "modified" Jesus to meet their own ends.

Okay, there are a few subtleties here, and I'm not exactly sure what is meant by them.  So, I'll just assume what I think they are and move on from there. 

By "modified by later Christian groups", I presume you mean the ever-popular conspiracy theory so prominent in the ranks of secularist revisionists that Christians, like Paul, took the historical Jesus and transformed him into something he clearly wasn't -- the messiah.  And of course, this is a conspiracy theory because there is not one lick of evidence to support this position other than "what if" statements based upon gaps of history and the assumption that the Christian message couldn't possibly be right.

We see this especially in the four areas I've previously mentioned: leaving Jesus' message of non-violence, accumulating great wealth and power, and treating peoples of other cultures and traditions in ways that were often very oppressive.  Did Jesus teach violence, accumulating wealth and power, and oppressing those who are different?  Not from what I see in the N.T.  As one who grew up Christian and taught Christian theology, I had to abandon that which I was taught to believe and, if I had to join any Christian church, I probably would become Mennonite.

So why didn't you?

Jesus said to "be not of this world", so what does that mean?  Was it just a sound-bit?  meaningless rhetoric?  I don't think so.  But most of the churches apparantly do.  What we have seen with the Catholic, Orthodox, and most Protestant churches was an accumulation of power, materialism, racism, and a willingness to kill their neighbor if they were in the way.  And it would be disengenuous to simply blame it on individuals since we have seen endorsements of these activities from the heads of the churches for centuries.

You won't get much argument from me on this point.  If the purpose of this paragraph is to point out that people, in general, are hypocrites, or that people have a difficult time following the austere codes of a pure religion, then I certainly agree.

So did Gandhi somehow not understand what Jesus taught?  Maybe he understood all too well.

I hear what you're saying, Vern, but it's apparent that Ghandi only understood fragments of what Jesus taught.  He took preferable principles to heart, and he ignored the rest.  And I see that you cleverly set up a rebuttal to this very point in your first paragraph by speaking of those who "modified the NT" whatever that is supposed to mean.  Passivism, resistance to wealth, and helping the oppressed were some highlights of his message, but you would be mistaken (as Ghandi was) if you think the gospel message can be bottled up into a secularist liberation theology, whose only goal is political and civil liberation.  The theme of Jesus' message was a spiritual awakening prompted by the revelation that he was the Son of God who came to die for our sins.  Ghandi never accepted this part of the message, so I seriously doubt he understood Jesus and the NT better than Elluminati and myself.         

[Acumen]

but let me just say that I do think that Gandhi may well have a better awareness of what Jesus appears to have said than either of you two.

LOL!

 

Are you laughing at what Jesus taught?  I'll tell you what, Elluminati, instead at just scoffing at those you disagree with, why don't you actually try dealing with the issues that were brought up?  Is that really too much to ask of you?

Do you honestly think that Jesus would demean others that were or are truly attempting to understand what he said and apply it to their lives?  Would he laugh in their face?  What do you think, Elluminati?     

Vern,

I seriously doubt you would have taken it so well If I said someone outside of your faith understood your faith better than you.  That was sort of a shot.  I chose to ignore it and move on, but El chose not to.

[metis]

Acumen, I have only 4 minutes left here at the library, so I'll deal with what you posted tomorrow or the next day.

[Acumen]

ok

[metis]

I seriously doubt you would have taken it so well If I said someone outside of your faith understood your faith better than you.

I have no doubt that there are some outside my "faith" (whatever that is) who understands it better than I do.  Just because I'm Jewish, this doesn't make me any kind of expert on Judaism. 

But let me take this a bit further.  Does one have to be a Christian in order to understand the basics of what the N.T. teaches?  If your answer is yes, then I think you're going to run into a problem. 

If only a Christian only can truly understand "true Christianity", then one could logically say much the same about Judaism.  IOW, you cannot truly understand Judaism unless you're a Jew.  Therefore, since Jesus, the apostles, most of his early disciples, and the authors of the N.T. (except for those who wrote under direction from the apostles, such as Mark) all were Jews working within the context of Judaism, then you as a gentile can never truly understand the Jesus movement. 

Therefore, you should never ever challenge any Jewish concepts whatsoever and, since there are renegades in all faiths, you should let the matter of dealing with Jesus rest with us.  And how we are guided?  By "God's spirit" according to the Tanakh.  And since God says he would never abandon us, there's no way that a gentile can somehow inherit that which God promised us as "his chosen".

BTW, if I were ever to actually believe in what I just wrote, I hope my family tosses me off a bridge.       

[jacknky]

Meta,
"Therefore, since Jesus, the apostles, most of his early disciples, and the authors of the N.T. (except for those who wrote under direction from the apostles, such as Mark) all were Jews working within the context of Judaism, then you as a gentile can never truly understand the Jesus movement."

"For salvation is of the Jews." (John 4:22)

Just thought I'd throw that in.

I always take it when Acumen and others exclude non-Christians" from truly understanding Christianity that it's because our non-belief prevents us from truly understanding the experience of being Christian. If we don't believe in the divinity of Christ we can't share in the Christian experience and knowledge. We non-believers often can quote scriptures and discuss their intellectual meaning but we can't move beyond the intellectual to the deeper experience.

[metis]

By "modified by later Christian groups", I presume you mean the ever-popular conspiracy theory so prominent in the ranks of secularist revisionists that Christians, like Paul, took the historical Jesus and transformed him into something he clearly wasn't -- the messiah.

 

LOL!  I'm not laughing at you, btw.  You should have seen the lengthy and rather heated debate that Howie and I had on this several years ago, whereas Howie accused me, and probably rightfully so, as being too reliant on the authors of the N.T., including Paul.  So, no, that's not what I was referring to.

What I was mostly referring to was actually events that took place centuries later-- especially from Constantine's time onward.  From that point on, the church tended to take on the Roman model with all of it's emphasis on heirarchy, accumulation of wealth and power, and the willingness to use deadly violence.  Now, I'm not saying is that Chrsitianity pulled off a Jekyll/Hyde flip in all areas.  





 

So why didn't you?

A funny thing happened on my way to the "Vatican" when my "plane" got hijacked to "Jerusalem", but that's sort of an "interesting" story that I have no interest in covering in this forum-- plus I don't have enough time anyway.  What separates me from the Mennonite is mostly how they and I perceive Jesus.      





 

I hear what you're saying, Vern, but it's apparent that Ghandi only understood fragments of what Jesus taught.  He took preferable principles to heart, and he ignored the rest... but you would be mistaken (as Ghandi was) if you think the gospel message can be bottled up into a secularist liberation theology, whose only goal is political and civil liberation.

Why would you draw such a conclusion?  If you ever read anything about Gandhi, he studied Christianity quite intently and, as a matter of fact, it was his reading of the N.T. that prompted him to read more about Hinduism when he was just out of law school and taking on a job in South Africa.  No, Gandhi knew his N.T. very well and even conducted prayer sessions that included Christian prayers and Christians.  He had a very substantial Christian following, including many clergymen, and I doubt they'd be willing to do as such if he didn't take the time to understand where they were coming from.


 

 

The theme of Jesus' message was a spiritual awakening prompted by the revelation that he was the Son of God who came to die for our sins.  Ghandi never accepted this part of the message, so I seriously doubt he understood Jesus and the NT better than Elluminati and myself. 

That message may well have been added later by his followers, but who knows for sure.  But the main theme of Jesus' message was not the elevation of himself, but his constant emphasis on love, compassion, and justice.  Just check out how many times "love" ("agape") appears in the gospels.  Matter of fact, didn't Jesus say he came to serve and not be served?  And what meesage do we see in the Sermon on the Mount?  And what do we see him saying in the parable of the sheep and goats?

To me, the best "understanding" of Jesus is to live by the principles of love, compassion, and justice.  Isn't that what Jesus implies when he said that you shall know them by their fruits?  I frankly don't see Jesus intending to create another religion but, instead, to teach a message that cuts across all religions and cultures-- love, compassion, and justice.