(UNDATED) “It took Jesus a thousand years to die. Images of his corpse did not appear in churches until the tenth century.”
Those are the provocative opening sentences of the new book, “Saving
Paradise: How Christianity Traded Love of This World for Crucifixion and Empire” (Beacon Press), by Protestant scholars Rita Nakashima Brock and Rebecca Ann Parker.
“Saving Paradise” turns upside down the history of the church’s view of Jesus’ crucifixion and its stress on the importance of suffering. The authors attempt to show that for the first thousand years of its existence, the Christian church placed much more emphasis on the resurrection and paradise than the crucifixion.
Before the 11th century, Brock and Parker found, Christian imagery portrayed Jesus alive — teaching and healing and living in this world.
At first, the authors were stunned when they discovered the dearth of crucifixion images in Mediterranean churches, especially given their importance to centuries of later doctrine.
Brock, an ordained Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) minister and director of Faith Voices for the Common Good, and Parker, president of Starr King School for the Ministry in Berkeley, Calif., are also co-authors of the critically acclaimed book, “Proverbs of Ashes:
Violence, Redemptive Suffering and the Search for What Saves Us.” Parker has dual standing as an ordained minister in both the United Methodist Church and the Unitarian Universalist Association.
Expanding on themes in “Proverbs of Ashes,” Brock and Parker argue in “Saving Paradise,” which includes 90 pages of footnotes, that the Christian church of the first millennium never stressed that Jesus’
suffering on the cross was necessary for the salvation of humanity.
In “Saving Paradise,” they attempt to reveal that the early Christian community did not so much draw inspiration from suffering and the next world, but from the here and now, from earthly life and a vision of paradise.
“During their first millennium, Christians filled their sanctuaries with images of Christ … as a shepherd, a teacher, a healer, an enthroned god; he is an infant, a youth, and a bearded elder. But he is never dead,” the book says.
“When he appears with the cross, he stands in front of it, serene, resurrected. The world around him is ablaze with beauty. These are images of paradise — paradise in this world, permeated and blessed by the presence of God. But once Jesus perished, dying was virtually all he seemed able to do.”
The authors tackle what they consider the subversion of the Christian message — exemplified by the ninth-century Holy Roman Emperor Charlemagne, who instituted the death penalty for conquered people who refused to convert.
After Charlemagne, killing, suffering and dying in the name of Christ began to represent the highest honor for Christians, the book maintains.
Brock and Parker argue that Charlemagne’s attitude of conquest remains an undercurrent in some countries’ foreign policy, tying it into modern-day wars and imperialism.
By re-emphasizing early Christians’ focus on paradise, on the kingdom of God on Earth, the authors are convinced they are reclaiming authentic “traditional” Christianity.
For instance, even though the 13th century monk, Francis of Assisi, is now admired as the patron saint of animals, the authors argue that his love of suffering marked an epochal downturn in the history of Christian theology.
When they cite how Francis of Assisi taught that “perfect joy (is) to share in the suffering of the world as Christ did,” they say it was a sign of how far the Christian church had turned from promoting images of paradise and enjoyment of this earth.
Instead, “Saving Paradise” says Francis was fueled by a burning desire to be martyred, to be “torn limb from limb.” He brought that belief, they maintain, to his support of the Crusades, which aimed to convert Muslims by the sword.
Alternatively, Brock and Parker urge readers to see church history in a new light, with an eye toward social justice. They call upon readers to “rekindle Christian traditions that hold fast to love and thereby teach Christian people how, in the midst of horror and tragedy and loss, to resist violence, honor the earth, and to humanize life.”
By Douglas Todd
c. 2008 Religion News Service
Copyright 2008 Religion News Service. All rights reserved. No part of this transmission may be distributed or reproduced without written permission.
Beliefnet
Advertisement
posted October 22, 2008 at 6:40 pm
I don’t know how he can be both Methodist and Unitarian and that may be the reason for his confusion but he’s got to catch up my church does not depict death although the death is important. Jesus had to die in order to be resurrected. Most churches I know of focus on the resurrection that’s the miracle.
posted October 22, 2008 at 7:46 pm
[i]After Charlemagne, killing, suffering and dying in the name of Christ began to represent the highest honor for Christians, the book maintains.[/i]
These two authors have obviously never heard of all the early Christian martyrs who died at the hands of pagans for their faith. This primarily occurred before Constantine in the 4th century. Time to get back to the books and read more Church history!
posted October 22, 2008 at 10:21 pm
cknuck, it isn’t hard to be a Methodist and a Unitarian. I’m a former Methodist and married a Unitarian and raised our 2 kids in a UU church. Not hard at all.
I’ve always thought that in the case of the RCC, using JC hanging on the cross to represent the church was/is a scary way to try and teach love and caring. Why isn’t the cross enough, without a very cardfully covered JC hanging from it?
As to the martyrs dying at the hands of pagans? How about the Muslims dying at the hands of the Christians? Or the Protestants being burned at the stake, because the Catholics didn’t approve? No religion is “kill free.”
posted October 22, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Hey, these guys are really amazing, and they have lots of FOOTNOTES so they must be right! All you have to do is open the Fathers of the Church and there you will see what a huge emphasis is placed on the Cross as the way to salvation: from the first century onward. It’s true that art moved more slowly (out of respect for the body of the Lord) to portray the suffering Christ. Read Ephrem the Syrian’s magnificent hymns about the Crucifixion and you will know immediately this book can be summed up in one word: BOGUS.
posted October 22, 2008 at 11:21 pm
It sounds like they are portraying a better Christianity, clearly one that has some invested in this Christianity worried.
posted October 23, 2008 at 12:03 am
It isn’t so much about portraying a ‘better’ Christianity as it is an inaccurate Christianity. Even believers who don’t unite their suffering to the cruxified Christ tend to believe in putting aside their own well-being for the benefit of others, which is in essence the central message of the cross. No need to worry; as Jeff hinted, a careful study of historical facts and the clear beliefs of early Christians will easily debunk this erronious hoax.
posted October 23, 2008 at 12:18 am
pagan, Methodist, Unitarian and Pagan?
posted October 23, 2008 at 12:28 am
Why is this news? There have been literally hundreds of books with 90 pages of footnotes published on the hisotry of Christianity’s focus on the cross, many of which have claimed it wasn’t strong in the early church and many of which have been critical of its empahsis in medieval and modern Western piety, and many of which have been written by far more important scholars than these two.
posted October 23, 2008 at 8:53 am
“It isn’t so much about portraying a ‘better’ Christianity as it is an inaccurate Christianity.”
All the Christianities are inaccurate if they include any of the usual miracles. But some Christianities are better for the world and for their members than others.
posted October 23, 2008 at 12:35 pm
What miracles do you propose that would constitute an ‘accurate’ portrayal of Christianity?
I’m not even debating whether emphasis on Christ’s suffering is a better or worse form of Christianity (though I find value in suffering even though I don’t ask or wish for any additional suffering.) There are plenty of ‘Christianities’ that don’t emphasize suffering as meritorious or choose to focus on other aspects of the religion more heavily. Not all of them make erroneous claims about the Church in the first millenium, however, as if this is a radical new concept or mutation that evolved over time.
posted October 23, 2008 at 12:36 pm
cknuck:
I like variety!
posted October 23, 2008 at 2:16 pm
I see and I like you pagan.
posted October 23, 2008 at 2:22 pm
nnmns people who cannot fathom miracles and have not personal proof of miracles often have doubt and are quick to deny the possibility of miracles existing. People who have had miracle experiences are just the opposite. But God needs no verification, approval, or consent to Him their are not miracles at all but part of His nature. I feel sorry for those who have not seen yet don’t believe.
posted October 23, 2008 at 4:02 pm
cknuck, so you’ve seen people come back to life after being dead a day or so, or seen a sea part so lots of people could march across the bottom with walls of water on both sides way over their heads or seen actual human virgins give birth? I wish you’d been able to get really convincing documentation of it. Barring that, I have to assume it’s your imagination.
posted October 23, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Read THE MYSTERIES OF THE MIDDLE AGES by Thomas Cahill and discover why Francis of Assisi went on a crusade and what he did to try to bring peace and understanding between Islam and Christianity.
Why were the dark ages considered to be dark? Why have Christians who proclaim Jesus, the Christ to be God incarnate, make images or idols that give the impression that Jesus was a handsome Italian?
posted October 23, 2008 at 7:21 pm
cknuck:
As much as we tend to disagree, I like you too.
posted October 23, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Rod that is a great read along with Desire of the Everlasting Hills by Cahill.
Pagan you should see how my brother, sister and I disagree. He’s a Muslim and I don’t agree with my sister’s church. It’s a riot.
posted October 24, 2008 at 11:44 am
cknuck:
Sounds like your family is more diverse than mine is! You all must have some very interesting discussions.
posted October 31, 2008 at 6:40 am
Here we go again! These folks are just new heretics trying to make a living with yet another angle and a book. Disgusting.
Jesus Himself emphasized that “You cannot be my disciple unless you deny yourself and take up your cross daily” or something to that effect… He definitely said you must “take up your cross daily”. And the cross signifies all that we experience as a result of our being expelled from paradise, all suffering and inconvenience, all one’s issues, etc. etc. Submit to it in the same spirit He did but do what you can using your resources to alleviate the pain and sufferings of others. But we’re not to expect heaven on earth down here people! Yet we are to try to bring about God’s Kingdom on earth by using all resources in works of love for one another.
Check out MY (artistic) angle on the Cross in my URL it you will please. Thanks! And have a blessed day!
posted October 31, 2008 at 6:49 am
I must retract I think what I said. The writers are not heretics but truly mistaken in de-emphasizing the Cross. Considering the horrible pain that Christ endured and upon which they should meditate for their penance, they should be ashamed of themselves. And I apologize for calling them heretics. Mea Culpa. But they are gravely wrong to the point that they really do not have a case for writing their book.
posted November 1, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Evangelartist, the more books and opinions out there the better on JC and friends. Isn’t everyone entitled to an opinion and to interpret their findings? There is no proof of anything done 2000 years ago concerning JC and the boys (and a few women). The Bible has had so many interpretations and versions and rewrites that even IF it had some accuracy in the beginning (what? 30 years after JC died?) it surely doesn’t any more. They should be ashamed of themselves? Why? They are gravely wrong to the point that they really don’t have a case for writing their book? You’re an expert, I assume.