Reza Aslan on Authentic Christianity

In his NY Times op-ed urging people to have a more sophisticated view of religion, Reza Aslan starts talking about varied perspectives in a religion with these examples of Christianity:

What a member of a suburban megachurch in Texas calls Christianity may be radically different from what an impoverished coffee picker in the hills of Guatemala calls Christianity.

I think many Christians who have traveled or otherwise engaged different cultures have seen their faith transcend cultural and socioeconomic barriers. (There are such barriers to be transcended even within a "suburban megachurch.")  Given though the centrality of Reza places on "social justice" and a hyper-Marxist "chilling new reality," Guatemala seems like this is a veiled reference to the "liberation theology" advocated or supported by many Jesuits in Latin America.

I was introduced to the historical Jesus at Santa Clara University [in California] by a group of brilliant, academically trained Jesuits. The Jesuits see Jesus through the lens of his preferential option for the poor. Now I also tend to believe that there is really no way to read the Gospels either as a person of faith or as a historian without recognizing Jesus’ preferential option for the poor. But some people — for example, [megachurch pastors] Joel Olsteen and T.D. Jakes, and frankly a great many Republicans in the U.S. Congress — would disagree because they are using the Gospel in an attempt to do away with food stamps and welfare, which blows my mind.*

First of all, as far as I know neither Joel Osteen nor most conservatives I've talked to are attempting to do away with food stamps and welfare.  A more fair generalization would be that conservatives question the explosion of food stamp use in the last 8 years and its efficacy in fighting poverty, and progressives are opposed to it being questioned, content to dismiss it as an unavoidable consequence of the recession.  There is a growing movement to draw deep principles of balancing accountability and liberty in a Christian context, but that is largely orthogonal to the "prosperity gospel," something that cannot be understood in isolation from the "healing gospel."

"The argument of the prosperity gospel, if I can put it flippantly, is that Jesus wants you to drive a Bentley. That is basically what the argument is.*

Aside from how lucrative the gospel of redistribution has been for this apostle of neo-Marxism, this is pure caricature.  It should be beneath a "scholar of religion" though it is par for the course with a political pundit.

Reza, who balks at lumping in jihadis with other radical Muslim groups, does not mind painting with a broad brush here.  It may not be deliberate as he does not have the most sophisticated views of Christianity or Judaism, his expensive education notwithstanding.  Since so much of his understanding of religion seems to be understood through a lens of "class struggle," it is hardly surprising that the nuances of various theologies are lost on him.

Even lumping in T.D. Jakes with theologically similar preachers misses the point; the outlandishness of Rev. Jakes makes him a convenient poster boy for any form of Christianity that doesn't espouse the "absolute hatred of wealth" that characterizes Aslan's revisionist Messiah.  
Let's revisit Aslan's words: 

Now I also tend to believe that there is really no [legitimate] way to read the Gospels either as a person of faith or as a historian without recognizing Jesus’ preferential option for the poor.

The "preferential option for the poor" is a modern Roman Catholic phrase (coined by a Jesuit) that embodies a relatively recent development in Catholic thought.  The Jesuits perhaps "see Jesus through the lens of" their "preferential option," not necessarily Jesus's.  If anyone should understand this distinction it is Aslan.  It is an anachronistic for a scholar to apply this (or "Marxism" for that matter) to Jesus' teachings, and in Aslan's case it's a theological interpretation masquerading as historical science—at least, to the degree that he has liberation theology in mind rather than Pope John Paul's or Pope Benedict's interpretation of this phrase.  There are certainly people of faith and historians that don't understand Jesus' elevation of the powerless in "class struggle" terms, even if Aslan doesn't consider this legitimate.  And there have certainly been Popes whose understanding of canon "social justice" is not what progressives have meant by it.

But how is one form of Christianity more authentic or legitimate than another, if one takes the approach that one's form of Christianity is simply a reflection of one's personal and cultural values?  By lumping together, he seems to be redefining the "prosperity gospel" to mean any view of the New Testament in which God isn't judging Christians for prospering like Abraham, David, and Solomon prospered.  In other venues, Reza has denigrated his two favored icons for this view (Osteen and Jakes) "charlatans."

Since Aslan is judging these ministers publicly, I'd be interested to know exactly how Reza is a devoted follower of the man who announced the blessedness of the meek and poor, and how he participates in that sacrament of poverty.  As I understand it, Aslan fought for the house and business that he had with his domestic partner at the time--seemingly thinking that she didn't contribute enough to either to be deserving of any part of them.  Where is the re-distribution of wealth? 

“It is astonishing that centuries of biblical scholarship have miscast these words [“render unto God what is God's”] as an appeal by Jesus to put aside “the things of this world”—taxes and tributes—and focus one’s heart instead on the only things that matter: worship and obedience to God. Such an interpretation perfectly accommodates the perception of Jesus as a detached, celestial spirit wholly unconcerned with material matters, a curious assertion about a man who not only lived in one of the most politically charged periods in Israel’s history, but who claimed to be the promised messiah sent to liberate the Jews from Roman occupation.”

Jesus as Guevera iconography

So (1) Jesus was a political revolutionary since he lived in a time of political revolutionaries, and (2) people who think Jesus is a "detached, celestial spirit wholly unconcerned with material matters" are predisposed to not caring about people's physical needs in favor of a more detached piety.  (Which begs the question, how divine is the Jesus of the Jesuits?)  The underlying idea behind (2) is that God is Himself "detached" and "wholly unconcerned with material matters," the Torah notwithstanding, since He is a spirit.  And as he argues in the Inside the Studio session and elsewhere, if Jesus is "also God" in addition to being a man, we miss his humanity completely and his care for humanity as well.  It may surprise Reza to know that in the New Testament writings, the divinity of Jesus was taken as proof that God is not "wholly unconcerned with material matters."

. . . they are using the Gospel in an attempt to do away with food stamps and welfare, which blows my mind. I don’t understand how you can arrive at that interpretation, but people do.

This seems very strange seeing that Dr. Aslan has said elsewhere that people can and do read any interpretation in to scripture because that is how religion and scripture works.  Speaking at the Indian Summer Festival, Aslan called the 'prosperity gospel'  "honestly the fastest growing version of Protestant evangelical Christianity in North America. That's because Jesus can be whatever you want Him to be, and the Christian message can be whatever you want it to be."1,2 

Earlier in that speech, Aslan replayed his recurring theme of the "infinite malleability" of a religion: "what I have been talking about all along, which is the incredible malleability of the Christ story, the way that it can become whatever you want it to become.”* Since people always read their cultural values into their religious narrative?
Here is Reza's view in an interview with Jesse Singal about the New Atheists (emphases added):

People don’t derive their values from their religion — they bring their values to their religion. Which is why religions like Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity, [and] Islam, are experienced in such profound, wide diversity. Two individuals can look at the exact same text and come away with radically different interpretations. Those interpretations have nothing to do with the text, which is, after all, just words on a page, and everything to do with the cultural, nationalistic, ethnic, political prejudices and preconceived notions that the individual brings to the text. . . . [I]f you are just a person who doesn’t know much about the history, philosophy, sociology of religion — it seems like a logical thing to say that people get their values from their scriptures. It’s just intrinsically false. That’s not what happens. People do not derive their values from their scriptures — they insert their values into their scriptures.  . . . [Before the Civil War] both slave owners and abolitionists not only used the same Bible to justify their conflicting viewpoints, they used the exact same verses. That’s the power of scripture, it’s the power of religion: It’s infinitely malleable. We do not read scriptures that were written 5000 years ago still because they’re true — we read them because they’re malleable, because they can address the ever-evolving need of a community, of an individual, because they can be shaped to whatever one’s political ideology is.*

Wait.  That doesn't sound like the Reza who said, "What fascinates me is the way that the political Right in this country has absorbed Jesus and made Jesus their own icon."*  There should be nothing particularly fascinating about it, if that were the case, given what Reza says he thinks.  This also doesn't sound like the Reza from the Indian Summer Festival* talking about "infinite malleability": 

. . . The fastest growing version of Protestant evangelical Christianity in North America  is this movement called the 'prosperity gospel' . . . The gospel preached by, you know, people like Joel Osteen and T.D. Jakes--and when I say "people" I mean "charlatans"-- This [prosperity gospel] is as profoundly an unscriptural interpretation of Jesus' message that exists. I mean, if there is one thing that is just so clear-cut and just [note: Aslan raises his voice here] not open to interpretation of any kind, when it comes to Jesus's message, is this condemnation of wealth.  . . . That's because Jesus can be whatever you want him to be, and the Christian message can be whatever you want it to be.

How Reza sees the Religious Right

Sounds to me like he's saying that this "movement" as he calls it is not true to the religious text, is insincere, and much less authentic than its alternatives—you get the idea (whether he's right or wrong) that it takes a lot of extra torturing of the Christian text and its inherent message to get this belief.  You might say that it is (as he has said about Islam) against the "nature and fabric" of the religion.  Let's go back now and continue with what he was saying to Jesse Singal: 

. . .  [Scriptures] can be shaped to whatever one’s political ideology is. You have Christians in the hills of Guatemala who view Jesus as a liberating warrior who takes up arms against the oppressor, and Christians in midwestern Chicago who believe that Jesus wants you to drive a Bentley. Who’s right? They both are! That’s why Jesus matters.

They're both right? Does Reza really believe they are both equally right?   When Rush Limbaugh suggested that Pope Francis' statements were so Marxist that "someone must have gotten to" him, Aslan commented, "Limbaugh is right. Somebody did get to Pope Francis. It was Jesus." Whose Jesus?  Apparently the "Real Jesus" that the Jesuits introduced him to.

While modern Christianity has tried to spiritualize this [radical materialist] message of Jesus, transforming his revolutionary social teachings into abstract ethical principles, it is impossible to overlook the unflinching condemnation of the wealthy and powerful that permeate Jesus’ teachings.

I've read Reza's book Zealot, and it seemed to me that the book forcefully argues that it wasn't modern Christianity that did this, but the earliest Christianity.  According to Aslan, the Apostle Paul and his lackeys invented Christianity precisely to spiritualize Jesus' message into "seeker-friendly" abstract ethical principles accessible to the Roman world.

Last of all, Reza Aslan's many caricatures of the political right and of conservative Christianity are heavily influenced by the trope caricatures denounced by Rod Leher in his article "When Liberalism Hurts People."  It seems like Reza is promoting the view that a Christianity not based on progressive values is both an inauthentic Christianity and one that is based on rationalizing greed.  Jay Richards has written a thoughtful article discussing the lessons of scripture in terms of government control.  A HuffPost article provides a somewhat more nuanced view of the food stamp battle in which it doesn't seem that the Right is making Jesus an "icon" any more than the Left; if anything, it gets tricky to play the WWJD game with other people's money.