MDDM Ch. 65 strange inconsistencies

[Doug Millison]

At 8:27 AM +1100 7/29/02, jbor wrote:
>I actually thought the questioning of the existence of an historical Jesus
>was a radical position to take, and it was one that I hadn't come across
>before.

It's an argument as old as Christianity, actually, neither "radical" nor
original.  The challenge to Christianity motivates 2,000+ years of
apologetics for Christianity.


As an American writer, as a writer in the Western tradition, for Pynchon
the Judeo-Christian worldview and literary tradition is like water to a
fish, whether he swims against the current or with it, that's where he
swims.  I don't believe you can successfully defend an argument that places
Pynchon outside of a worldview that includes God and  some sort of
non-material component that transcends the material realm:  his writing
express doubt, surely, but doubt doesn't equal denial. The comparison to
Job is apt, imo.


>The snip posted from Justin Scott Coe's essay


...is hardly the basis on which to honestly evaluate the entire essay, is it?




> What does seem
>noteworthy, however, is the ardent pluralism and disdain for intolerance
>which seem constantly to be peeking through the curtain.


Can't disagree with that.

Many  readers argue that Pynchon's texts don't "privilege" Christianity in
his texts, but if that's true it's also true that they don't "privilege" an
atheist, existential, scientific-materialist worldview that definitively
precludes the possibility of a transcendent power, either. Pynchon's texts
are  both/and, not either/or.


>I'm inclined to think that, yes, Pynchon accepts the existence of an
>historical Jesus, and that, yes, his works are quite critical of the
>brutality and injustices which have been wrought by men in "His" name.


We find common ground again, although I don't pretend to know what Pynchon
personally believes, my focus is on what he writes in his fiction and
non-fiction published works.


It's easy to demonstrate that Pynchon's texts deal with a wide spectrum of
beliefs and practices which fit beneath the big "Christian" umbrella (what
does "catholic" mean anyway?), Calvinism being one rather extreme version,
the Gnostics being another, just to mention a couple of possibilities that
get good air time, M&D brings in other flavors that came with the revival
that took hold in North America in the late 18th and 19th centuries.


Some wise Christians understand that huge numbers of people who may know
nothing of Jesus Christ or Christianity or any "church" or religious
institution, or who find themselves within other faith traditions,  manage
to live lives that embody the love, charity, faith, hope, and healing that
the historical Jesus seems to have encouraged people to practice --
practices which, unfortunately, the institutional church that Pynchon's
works  savagely attack at times, haven't always lived up to.


When they do manage to find a little comfort and happiness and warmth,
Pynchon's characters do it in ways and circumstances that, to my mind,
emerge from a way of living that embodies the Golden Rule (at the heart of
Jesus' teachings, by the way, and found in many other faith traditions as
well) -- these moments and situations may be shortlived, limited, fleeting,
but they exist all the same in his texts, and they shine all the brighter
for the shadow and darkness that threaten to but don't quite engulf them.
I think this may be what some readers refer to as Pynchon's tendency to
"secularize" a worldview that, in another time and place, finds expression
within an explicitly "religious" framework.





http://www.ntgateway.com/xtalk/debate.html
Jesus at 2000 E-mail Debate
During the Lenten season of 1996, Harper San Francisco publishing company
sponsored an e-mail debate which explored the significance of the
historical Jesus for Christian faith. The seven-week debate took place
between John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg, both members of the Jesus
Seminar, and Luke Timothy Johnson, the Seminar's foremost critic. Here are
the messages from this contentious and intense debate. Each week except for
the last consisted of a main message from one of the participants and
replies from the other two.