|
Hope Built on What?Posted by Scott Haile under music, culture, apocalypticism, world religions, inspiration of scripture | | |
I can’t say that I own a lot of Bruce Springsteen music, but I love the tape of his that I have. He’s an excellent lyricist writing from a working class perspective, kind of like Bob Dylan but easier to follow. Plus his music has a ton of energy. Here is the verse of his that most catches my attention these days, from the song “Badlands” (1978):
The best word to describe the tone of the song as a whole (full lyrics here) is probably defiant. The singer seems to have no real expectation that his circumstances will improve, but he’s trying to convince himself (and his lover) that he’s determined to savor life anyway. I don’t really think Springsteen is trying to be religious in any strong sense of the word, but the allusion to faith, hope, and love is a nice nod to people who know their Bible (1 Cor 13:13). It also highlights how much the idea of hope is wrapped up both in religious faith and in the experience especially of people who live on the border between poor and working class, which Springsteen likes to explore (see his remarkable song The River). It is no great stretch to see commonality between Springsteen’s words here and places in the Gospels that promise reversal of fortunes for the downtrodden (e.g., the beatitudes in Matthew 5 or the Magnificat in Luke 1:46ff). There’s something here that should challenge religious folks, especially those of us who buy into an apocalyptic worldview where God is supposed to some day put everything right. I don’t know if Springsteen is a Christian, but what’s interesting is that his lyrics here don’t demand any particular religious commitment as the foundation for his hope. And since the situation of the song’s narrator doesn’t seem to offer good earthly reason for hope either, it begs a question: Should we see the song as just reflecting a human tendency to hope for the future whether we have any good reason to or not? And if that’s what humans do, should Christians suspect that our own apocalyptic faith is the same thing, just a groundless hope for a better future? There’s an assumption in much academic study of religion that religious beliefs and texts arise ultimately from the needs of their adherents and authors, rather than from any explicit kind of divine revelation. That’s not quite to say that people invent their religion out of thin air, but rather that people express hopes or fears that become stories and religious doctrines, which eventually undergird a religion. I suppose that as a confessing Christian, I’d have to say that this is what the other world religions are in their essence. Certainly God may reveal Godself in different ways to different peoples, but it is difficut (I would argue impossible) to reconcile Christian apocalypticism with the beliefs of religions that make competing claims. So I feel compelled to reject religious pluralism and assume a kind of exclusivism for Christianity. (I’m not a doctrinal purity zealot, but I would argue that some common belief or confession such as “Jesus is Lord” is necessary for Christians.) The scary thing is that I can’t prove (even to myself) that a developmental process grounded only in wishful thinking isn’t the source of all religions, including mine. And as I’ve suggested here before, the only real reason that I find compelling for holding that Christianity is different is the resurrection of Jesus. This is a strong reason in my view, but it is hardly as thoroughgoing as, say, common Christian claims that the Bible is absolutely perfect and therefore obviously the word of God. Scripture is certainly beautiful, powerful, and brilliant, but its inspiration is impossible to prove even though I believe it, and its supposed perfection is hard to substantiate unless it’s simply assumed and posited at the outset. Returning to where I started, I love Springsteen’s lyrics, because of their power, their apparent authenticity, and in this case the biblical intertext they play with. I also like that they force me to think critically about my faith, which used to really scare me, but which now just makes me (hopefully) less smug. |
October 29th, 2007 at 11:59 am
“The scary thing is that I can’t prove (even to myself) that a developmental process grounded only in wishful thinking isn’t the source of all religions, including mine.”
Thanks for saying that. Most of the Christians I know are stuck on the “Christianity is right because the Bible says so,” argument, or even worse, “The Bible is the Word of God because the Bible says so.” That doesn’t fly with most non-Christian people, or even Christians that think critically.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:13 am
Yeah, I think a lot of people hesitate to make that kind of a statement because they think it would somehow reflect on God –– as if it means that God might be a liar or a fraud, which would be (or at least seem) blasphemous.
But I think that’s overlooking a big piece of the gap between God and us. God is whoever God is, and there’s no threat that anything we say will change that. Admitting that I might be totally wrong in my faith is, to my mind, just admitting that I’m a fallible human. And even if it turned out that Christianity and all other religions were just based on what people want to believe, that wouldn’t mean that God was bad, just that God had not chosen to reveal Godself in an explicit way.
Even if we conclude that Jesus is the most compelling revelation of God there is, that only proves that it’s the most plausible theology we’ve found –– it could always be the case that the true theology wasn’t known to anyone at all. Personally, I find the message of Christ persuasive enough to commit my life to following Jesus, but I suppose that God could always do something more obvious (i.e., shout from the sky) that would cause me to reevaluate my beliefs.
November 3rd, 2007 at 9:00 am
Scott, great thoughts. Appreciate reading them. I think Springsteen’s lyrics are very intelligible when heard and read (and sung) in light of the demise of American Labor as a movement, and labor in general around the world. He rages against the injustice of the economic system that produces so many poor, so few rich and a few “kings” as he sings it. Not sure he’s looking for any savior from beyond.
November 5th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
“it is difficut (I would argue impossible) to reconcile Christian apocalypticism with the beliefs of religions that make competing claims.”
I guess another alternative is to just discard all the apocalyptic claims.
Or, another approach might be to place a little less eschatalogical value on what people believe (”Jesus is Lord”) or are willing to assert (”Jesus is Lord”) … which kind of undermines the apocalyptic claims as well.
November 5th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Hmm. How exactly do you mean that?
For example, would you say that Jesus wasn’t actually an apocalyptic prophet, or that he was an apocalyptic prophet who was wrong about the apocalyptic stuff, or something in between, or some other explanation?
November 7th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
OK, unrelated question first: in the Acappella Live from Paris CD, is that Marcus Davis in the audience saying “Bring it on” at the end of “Holy City” … or is that one of the guys in the group?
…
If anybody was going to get the apocalyptic stuff wrong, I think the weak link would have to be the gospel writers.
In my opinion, the thing that makes Christianity interesting isn’t its claim to end-time supremacy (believe our doctrines or God will stomp you). Quite a few religions have said that, and when you choose one you’re necessarily damned by all the others. I don’t really think you lose anything if you let that go.
(I mean, if those particular apocalyptic claims happen to be true, then sure, you’d be losing something, but as far as I can tell, there is absolutely no way to know which God you’re going to get stomped by when things all pan out.)
November 7th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Re: Acappella Live from Paris
I think that album is an embarrassment to the group for so many reasons, so I’ve never bought it, and I couldn’t really give an opinion.
On a related note, I actually talked to Sharon Rice yesterday, and she mentioned getting together with Marcus for dinner recently. So I’m sure he’d be happy that friends in a couple of different states are still talking about him.
November 7th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Re: “…quite a few religions…”
I see a theological question and a historical question here, and since I’m studying mostly history this semester, I’d like to talk about that one first.
A couple of thoughts — one that challenges your argument, another that challenges mine.
1. I don’t think claims to “end-time supremacy” are as common as you suggest. If we assume that to mean that everyone is judged after death according to whether they held to the tenets of the true religion, then sent to heaven or hell, I think you’re basically looking at apocalyptic Judaism, Christianity, 2nd-century Gnosticism, Islam, Mormonism, and Zoroastrianism.
All of those except the last one come out of apocalytic Judaism, which means they’re really all from the same tradition. You can’t say Christianity is just going along with everyone else when a lot of the “everyone else” came later and explicitly derived their ideas from Judaism and Christianity.
Of course, that raises the question of whether Christianity’s use of Judaism is legitimate, or whether we’re just copying them too. The most I can say briefly is that the followers of Jesus, during the time that most of the New Testament was written, were an apocalyptic Jewish sect, not a different religion. Ideas about a coming Messiah, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on all the people of God, and the bringing of Gentiles into the people of God, are solidly grounded in the Hebrew Bible, and I’m not sure Jews really claim alternate ways in which they have been fulfilled.
Am I overlooking other religions –– and by that, I mean religions that believed in a final judgment like this before they had contact with Christianity?
2. Zoroastrianism, which I mentioned above, is the sticking point in all this. It’s an ancient Persian religion that appears to have taught, long before the New Testament and most parts of the Old Testament were written, that people would be judged by their works after death, sent to heaven or hell until the end of time, and then raised on the last day to live eternally (if good) or be destroyed (if bad).
Jewish apocalyptic texts, the kind that created the world of ideas in which Jesus lived and taught, appear to have gotten these ideas of judgment from their Zoroastrian neighbors, though I don’t think they ever actually say that’s where the ideas are coming from.
This raises one of the key challenges to Christianity, namely that it uses so many ideas and teachings that it apparently took from the Greco-Roman world in which it started. With Jewish ideas this is easier for Christians to claim with pride, since we can simply say that Christianity fulfilled what God had taught the Jews. With ideas like Zoroastrianism from Iran, I’m not sure there’s such a good explanation. Not that that will keep me from looking for one.
November 7th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Unrelated: I talked to Sharon too and she’s supposed to give you (Scott) a hug from me when she sees you. Make sure you get that hug, it will be a good one.
“The most I can say briefly is that the followers of Jesus, during the time that most of the New Testament was written, were an apocalyptic Jewish sect, not a different religion.”
I would definitely agree that the followers of Jesus in the first century or two were not a new religion. I would question whether all of them were part of an apocalyptic Jewish sect. Certainly there were some, perhaps most, but were they all?
I think I would agree with Matt that you don’t lose that much if you lose the “end time supremecy” claim. And I do think it’s possible that those kinds of words were put into Jesus’ mouth. But, that’s a pretty uneducated opinion on the subject.
November 10th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
[…] was raising the question under my last post whether Christianity could simply do away with its claim to end-time supremacy –– what I would […]