Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Thought Life

Home
Evangelical
The New Yorker on Jesus Christ: Messiah as “Dharma Bum” and Crucified Apocalyptist

The New Yorker on Jesus Christ: Messiah as “Dharma Bum” and Crucified Apocalyptist

Last updated on: May 19, 2010 at 8:44 pm by Owen Strachan

The New Yorker on Jesus Christ: Messiah as “Dharma Bum” and Crucified Apocalyptist 2010-05-19T20:44:35-06:00 Owen Strachan

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Adam Gopnik, writer of renown at The New Yorker, has just penned one of the more engrossing cultural pieces on the person and mystery of Jesus Christ that I personally have seen in a good long while. Entitled “What Did Jesus Do?”, it is rich, rewarding, frustrating, deeply erroneous and a must-read for those who wish to interact with modern intellectual perspective on Jesus.

Because the piece is so weighty, I am going to quote many portions of it. If you don’t care to read all of this, that makes sense. But if you are interested in learning a bit more about how a prominent public intellectual thinks about the God-man, read on. Again, this didn’t run in the Christian Century, but in The New Yorker.

Gopnik looks first at how historical criticism what Jesus said:

They believe it because it seems so unlikely, so at odds with the idea that Jesus always played the star in his own show: why would anyone have said it if it weren’t true? This curious criterion governs historical criticism of Gospel texts: the more improbable or “difficult” an episode or remark is, the likelier it is to be a true record, on the assumption that you would edit out all the weird stuff if you could, and keep it in only because the tradition is so strong that it can’t plausibly be excluded. If Jesus says something nice, then someone is probably saying it for him; if he says something nasty, then probably he really did.

Here’s Gopnik’s basic approach to Christianity:

The intractable complexities of fact produce the inevitable ambiguities of faith. The more one knows, the less one knows.

The author wonders what exactly it was that made Jesus’ teaching distinctive:

What the amateur reader wants, given the thickets of uncertainty that surround the garden, is not what the passionate polemicists want—not so much a verdict on whether Jesus was nasty or nice as a sense of what, if anything, was new in his preaching. Was the cult that changed the world a product of Paul’s evangelism and imperial circumstance and the military embrace of one miracle-mystery cult among many such around? Or was there really something new, something unheard of, that can help explain the scale of what happened later? Did the rise of Christendom take place because historical plates were moving, with a poor martyred prophet caught between, or did one small pebble of parable and preaching start the avalanche that ended the antique world?

Here’s how the present-day academy approaches the Gospels:

Ever since serious scholarly study of the Gospels began, in the nineteenth century, its moods have ranged from the frankly skeptical—including a “mythicist” position that the story is entirely made up—to the credulous, with some archeologists still holding that it is all pretty reliable, and tombs and traces can be found if you study the texts hard enough. The current scholarly tone is, judging from the new books, realist but pessimistic.

Gopnik blatantly informs us of the supposed fabrications of Scripture:

The odd absences in Mark are matched by the unreal presences in the other Gospels. The beautiful Nativity story in Luke, for instance, in which a Roman census forces the Holy Family to go back to its ancestral city of Bethlehem, is an obvious invention, since there was no Empire-wide census at that moment, and no sane Roman bureaucrat would have dreamed of ordering people back to be counted in cities that their families had left hundreds of years before. The author of Luke, whoever he might have been, invented Bethlehem in order to put Jesus in David’s city.

The following is noteworthy; Gopnik gives us his character sketch of Jesus (really, read the whole thing):

Even if we make allowances for Mark’s cryptic tracery, the human traits of his Jesus are evident: intelligence, short temper, and an ironic, duelling wit. What seems new about Jesus is not his piety or divine detachment but the humanity of his irritability and impatience. He’s no Buddha. He gets annoyed at the stupidity of his followers, their inability to grasp an obvious point. “Do you have eyes but fail to see?” he asks the hapless disciples….He’s verbally spry and even a little shifty. He likes defiant, enigmatic paradoxes and pregnant parables that never quite close, perhaps by design. A story about a vineyard whose ungrateful husbandmen keep killing the servants sent to them is an anti-establishment, even an anti-clerical story, but it isn’t so obvious as to get him in trouble. The suspicious priests keep trying to catch him out in a declaration of anti-Roman sentiment: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not, they ask—that is, do you recognize Roman authority or don’t you? He has a penny brought out, sees the picture of the emperor on it, and, shrugging, says to give to the state everything that rightly belongs to the state. The brilliance of that famous crack is that Jesus turns the question back on the questioner, in mock-innocence. Why, you give the king the king’s things and God God’s. Of course, this leaves open the real question: what is Caesar’s and what is God’s? It’s a tautology designed to evade self-incrimination.

The author examines the morality of Jesus (I found this engrossing as well):

Jesus’ morality has a brash, sidewise indifference to conventional ideas of goodness. His pet style blends the epigrammatic with the enigmatic. When he makes that complaint about the prophet having no honor in his own home town, or says exasperatedly that there is no point in lighting a candle unless you intend to put it in a candlestick, his voice carries a disdain for the props of piety that still feels startling. And so with the tale of the boy who wastes his inheritance but gets a feast from his father, while his dutiful brother doesn’t; or the one about the weeping whore who is worthier than her good, prim onlookers; or about the passionate Mary who is better than her hardworking sister Martha. There is a wild gaiety about Jesus’ moral teachings that still leaps off the page.

Gopnik arrestingly traces Jesus’ approach to life and people:

Jesus isn’t a hedonist or an epicurean, but he clearly isn’t an ascetic, either: he feeds the multitudes rather than instructing them how to go without. He’s interested in saving people living normal lives, buying and selling what they can, rather than in retreating into the company of those who have already arrived at a moral conclusion about themselves.

The author turns his attention to the nature of God:

In Mark, Jesus’ divinity unfolds without quite making sense intellectually, and without ever needing to. It has the hypnotic flow of dramatic movement. The story is one of self-discovery: he doesn’t know who he is and then he begins to think he does and then he doubts and in pain and glory he dies and is known. The story works. But, as a proposition under scrutiny, it makes intolerable demands on logic. If Jesus is truly one with God, in what sense could he suffer doubt, fear, exasperation, pain, horror, and so on? So we get the Jesus rendered in the Book of John, who doesn’t. But if he doesn’t suffer doubt, fear, exasperation, pain, and horror, in what sense is his death a sacrifice rather than just a theatrical enactment? A lamb whose throat is not cut and does not bleed is not really much of an offering.

Gopnik comments on the “twoness” of Christianity:

If one thing seems clear from all the scholarship, though, it’s that Paul’s divine Christ came first, and Jesus the wise rabbi came later. This fixed, steady twoness at the heart of the Christian story can’t be wished away by liberal hope any more than it could be resolved by theological hair-splitting. Its intractability is part of the intoxication of belief. It can be amputated, mystically married, revealed as a fraud, or worshipped as the greatest of mysteries. The two go on, and their twoness is what distinguishes the faith and gives it its discursive dynamism. All faiths have fights, but, as MacCulloch shows at intricate, thousand-page length, few have so many super-subtle shadings of dogma: wine or blood, flesh or wafer, one God in three spirits or three Gods in one; a song of children, stables, psalms, parables, and peacemakers, on the one hand, a threnody of suffering, nails, wild dogs, and damnation and risen God, on the other. The two spin around each other throughout history—the remote Pantocrator of Byzantium giving way to the suffering man of the Renaissance, and on and on.

Gopnik offers some words on the cross that will be of interest to participants in the ongoing dialogue about the center of the gospel:

Beyond the words, we still hear that cry. The Passion is still the point. In Mark, Jesus’ arrest and execution feels persuasively less preordained and willed than accidental and horrific. Jesus seems to have an intimation of the circumstance he has found himself in—leading a rebellion against Rome that is not really a rebellion, yet doesn’t really leave any possibility of retreat—and some corner of his soul wants no part of it: “Abba, Father, everything is possible for you. Take away this cup from me.”

The author concludes the piece on a very interesting note, suggesting that though scholars disagree strongly on the identity and significance of Christ, there does seem to be something resonant in His message:

The argument is the reality, and the absence of certainty the certainty. Authority and fear can circumscribe the argument, or congeal it, but can’t end it. In the beginning was the word: in the beginning, and in the middle, and right there at the close, Word without end, Amen. The impulse of orthodoxy has always been to suppress the wrangling as a sign of weakness; the impulse of more modern theology is to embrace it as a sign of life. The deeper question is whether the uncertainty at the center mimics the plurality of possibilities essential to liberal debate, as the more open-minded theologians like to believe, or is an antique mystery in a story open only as the tomb is open, with a mystery left inside, never to be entirely explored or explained. With so many words over so long a time, perhaps passersby can still hear tones inaudible to the more passionate participants. Somebody seems to have hoped so, once.

********************

Clearly, there is a lot to chew on here. Those of us who are evangelical Christians might well be tempted to pass on a piece like this, writing it off as some unbeliever’s personal take on Jesus. In one sense, this is true, and I am fundamentally in major disagreement with Gopnik. In fact, we have essential disagreement on the most important reality in all of life.

On the other hand, it is not necessarily the case that we can’t pick up any insights from unbelievers. I think we can. Throughout the piece, mixed in with faulty conclusions and unhelpful generalizations (the Bible’s message, I would contend, is not nearly as mysterious and open-ended as Gopnik emphasizes), are some very rewarding ideas. It’s valuable to read about the Bible–and Jesus, and the gospel–from the perspective of someone who does not share your theology. Sometimes they see things that we can’t see. Thus we should read them, and profit from them where we can.

There is a great deal to work through in this piece. I think Gopnik has some helpful words on the teaching style, the personality, of Jesus. To put it plainly, Jesus is enigmatic. He says surprising things. He sometimes goes the opposite direction from what we would think. He reformulates existing conceptions of Jesus.

In addition, Gopnik is surely right about the passion of Christ being at the center of Christianity. This is surely true. His words on that point bear re-reading, because even as professing Christians disagree on the centrality of the crucifixion, an urbane New Yorker with no professed affinity for substitutionary atonement sees the cross as the centerpiece of the Bible.

Gopnik has another great insight on the nature of Jesus’ mission. The following could have been written by an evangelical theologian: “He’s interested in saving people living normal lives, buying and selling what they can, rather than in retreating into the company of those who have already arrived at a moral conclusion about themselves.” This is surely right.

In the end, it seems to me that Gopnik gets a good deal right–sometimes movingly so–but also gets a good deal wrong (including central and essential matters). He buys into critical scholarship on Jesus, even as he seems to realize that there is something ethereal, something majestic about the God-man. He asks whether Jesus merely popped up at the right moment in history (and thus we find the significance of His person), yet he closes his piece by noting that there may still “tones” that can be heard from the testimony about Jesus.

Gopnik is seeing something, but only as best as one can see without faith. In reality, Jesus’ mission and message were not enigmatic. They were not open-ended. Jesus was not a “dharma bum”, some kind of first-century postmodern essayist, but very wisdom itself. He was an apocalyptist, but He was also the apocalypse. He not only spoke of the need to get right with God, but became the very means by which sinners are made right with God.

In the end, I was startled to find a modern intellectual, writing for America’s most avant-garde publication, affirm that the cross “is still the point.” On this point, Gopnik is right, and profoundly so. The cross is the point. Jesus is the messiah. Salvation is in Him. He was a great teacher, if a strange one; His legacy is disputed; and yet, as is plainly seen, the pages of Scripture offer, over and over again, from diverse regions and times, the message that God has provided salvation for every man in the form of the Messiah. Gopnik does not know how right he is.

Previous Post

May 18, 2010

Swagger Wagons, 9/11 Politics, and Fake Godliness

Next Post

May 26, 2010 Boys in Skirts and Marriages Under Fire: The New Journal for Biblical Manhood & Womanhood Is Online

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category "heaven is a world of love" 9Marks abortion academics Adam Sandler adoption adultery adulthood aesthetics aging ajith fernando al mohler alice walker America american education american shaolin apologetics architecture atheism atonement august rush barack obama baseball basketball batman beauty berry mauve or muted wine Bible biblemesh biblical studies biblical theology biblical womanhood billy wolfe blogging bob kauflin body book culture book reviews boston celtics boston college bowdoin college bowling alone boyce college boyhood Brooke Fraser Bruce Ware bullies bullying business business ethics C.S. Lewis calling calvinism canada Capitol Hill Baptist Church carl henry carl trueman carolyn mahaney cbmw celebrity Chicago child's play children Christ Christ and culture Christian education christian hedonism christian ministry Christian vocation christian womanhood christianity and culture church government church history church internships church life church matters blog church membership church planting cities CJ Mahaney colin adams college college admissions college life college ministry collin hansen complementarianism conferences congregational worship conservative thought consumerism conversion council on biblical manhood & womanhood council on biblical manhood and womanhood covenant life church creativity credo magazine credobaptism cross movement crossway books crucifixion culinary culture cultural engagement cultural theology culture culture shift d. a. carson dads daily mail dan barry dancing with the stars daniel dennett darrell bock dating David Barash davy rothbart death death of God debt desiring God developmental league devotional thoughts dick morris dining disability discipleship doug sweeney douglas groothius economics economy education egalitarianism eliot spitzer ella rose strachan enlightenment entrepreneurs entrepreneurship environmentalism Eric Metaxas ethics evangelical theological society evangelicalism evangelism extended adolescence extreme home makeover family fatherhood feminism fiction film flame food foodstuffs football four gospels frank miller friendship gay gay Christianity gender roles genderblog george marsden girltalk gk chesterton God gospel gospel of John gospel risk gq greek mythology guillermo del toro happiness harold ockenga Harvard health heaven height hell henry center herb london higher education hillsdale hip hop historical theology history holidays holiness Holy Spirit home-school homemaking homes homosexuality hope human dignity human flourishing human life image of God imagination intellectual Christianity intellectual life iron man Islam J.I. Packer james mcavoy James Q. Wilson jeremy lin Jesus Christ jim hamilton joe namath John Calvin John McCain john owen john piper john rockefeller jonathan edwards journalism justice justin taylor kairos journal keira knightlet la times leadership lesbian life of the mind Lifeway links literature Lord's prayer louie giglio love male sex drive mall manhood manners Mark Dever Mark Driscoll marriage mars hill martial virtue martin luther masculinity materialism matthew hall maureen dowd memoirs of an ordinary pastor mentoring military millennials ministry missional missions monergism moral argument morality motherhood music national review nba new atheism new england New Testament new york new york times new yorker newsweek nietzsche northeast notre dame npr obedience oprah oprah's big give orphan care overheated prose award owen wilson pain parenting Park Community Church pastor-theologian pastoral ministry pastors persecution philosophes philosophy political philosophy politics poverty prayer preaching presidency presidential race pro-life professors proverbs psychology public school public square public theology publications quebec quilting race racism radical womanhood rap music rc sproul rebecca walker Reformation 21 relevant magazine religious liberty resources revelation revival richard dawkins richistan risky gospel robbie george robert putnam ron chernow Russ Moore salvation salvo magazine sam harris same-sex attraction sanctification scholarship science scripture secularism seminaries seminary life sex sex drive sexual ethics sexuality sexualized culture shooting sacred evangelical cows shootings simple church singleness social justice social media social networking Southern Baptists southern seminary sovereign grace Spanglish spirituality sports sports illustrated sports injuries stanford steve mccoy suburbia suffering superhero t. suzanne ellder Tea Leoni technology television the darjeeling unlimited the gospel coalition the southern baptist theological seminary the wackness theological journalism theology theology of work thinking Thom Rainer tim challies tim keller time magazine titan Together for the Gospel tom carson tom wolfe tragedy transgender travel trinity trinity evangelical divinity school truth twitter ty pennington unashamed workman Uncategorized violence virtue vocation voddie baucham war wayne gretzky wayne grudem weddings wikipedia will smith williams winnie hu womanhood work world magazine worship writing youth sports

Select a Month August 2021 July 2021 May 2021 March 2021 December 2020 October 2020 June 2020 February 2020 January 2020 October 2019 August 2019 June 2019 May 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 October 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 November 2017 October 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

How many children did Job lose in the disasters at the beginning of the book?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Twelve Seven Ten Five