Having spent this second semester studying in London, I've had the privilege of exposure to many currents of thought that, while often present in the US, are less popular or go unspoken. Especially in regards to the building tension with Iraq, I've been impressed with the broad range of knowledge here, on both sides of the argument. The British, whether for or against the war, tend to think in terms of alleviating and reducing human suffering, which is surely the best way to go about these sorts of things.
I recently read an editorial in one of the British newspapers by Martin Amis, a moderately popular author in the UK. In his editorial in The Guardian ("The palace of the end,"3/4/03), Amis eloquently analyzes and criticizes both President Bush and Saddam Hussein, condemning the term "axis of evil" as well as pointing out Saddam's "paranoia, gangsterism, and chronic kleptomania." Amis also reaches for broader themes that unsettle and define our world today, such as the way terrorism has undermined our senses of morality and reason.
As well written as this article was (and I highly recommend reading it at www.guardian.co.uk), its most interesting content was not about war specifically. Noting that although Saddam, not known for any degree of adherence to the Islamic faith, absurdly had a copy of the Koran written in his own blood, Amis writes, "we are obliged to accept the fact that Bush is more religious than Saddam: of the two presidents, he is, in this respect, the more psychologically primitive."
Much has been made lately of President Bush's faith; a recent Newsweek cover story (Mar. 3) described how intense involvement in a Bible study group changed the future President, who attributes his repaired marriage and years of sobriety to a personal relationship with Jesus. President Bush invokes Scripture often, most notably quoting Isaiah in memory of the crew of the Columbia, and has not been bashful in describing his belief in redemption through Christ to the press and others. As Newsweek reports, "This presidency is the most resolutely 'faith-based' in modern times, an enterprise founded, supported, and guided by trust in the temporal and spiritual power of God."
If, then, Amis is right, we are faced with a very dangerous situation. For the world superpower to be guided by a psychologically primitive "religiosity" would be disastrous. Many have mocked President Bush for displaying a seeming inability to grasp the subtleties of international relations. Does President Bush's status as a more "religious" man than Saddam Hussein lead to psychologically primitive diplomacy and leadership?
President Bush claims to be pursuing a personal relationship with Jesus, both through prayer and study of the Bible. Perhaps then this is the best place to look for the answer. Was Jesus psychologically primitive?
The best answer is of course to read the teachings of Jesus and decide for oneself For the purpose of my comments, I will confine myself to the investigation of one brief section of Jesus' teaching that has often been highlighted as elemental.
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God. Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven...." (Matthew 5:3-12, NIV Bible).
A brief glance at these verses reveals an unusual tone. Jesus selects certain types of actions and qualities, none really grand or exciting, and promises that they will one day be transformed into joy, honor, and peculiar things like being "filled," "seeing God," and being "called sons of God." Jesus describes things like heaven and God in direct relation to physical life, and ties them to his own person.
Some might argue that the mere invocation of ideas like "heaven" and "God" is psychologically primitive behavior, but perhaps what is meant is something more like "ancient" or "unfashionable." The concept of wheeled travel is nothing new, but we would not call automobiles primitive. "Primitive" carries connotations of outdated, useless, and even amusing qualities, but what Jesus describes here is not outdated at all _ like the wheel, his words meet a definite need. Who has not at one time mourned, been poor in spirit, needed mercy, or seen persecution? These "concepts" are still the daily realities of our world today. Along with his promises of blessing and relief, Jesus apparently sought to inspire a search for right relations between people, purity, and peace, and by juxtaposing these with suffering, mercy, and meekness, he made a very dramatic statement about what it means to truly live.
Indeed the teachings of Jesus, rather than exhibiting psychologically primitive qualities, seem to speak to the essence of our purpose and the means of fulfillment. These complex psychological questions of purpose and fulfillment tend to provoke intense and complex thought, confusion, awe and passion. President Bush's desire for a personal relationship with Jesus is thus understandable _ Jesus, with great psychological relevance, seems to suggest that not only is such a relationship possible, but necessary. Later in the same text, Jesus says, "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest...I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls," (Matthew 11:28-29).
Columnist David Brooks of The Times in London wrote on March 7, "The holy texts that Bush cites do not divide humanity between good and evil, but emphasise the sin, temptations, and goodness entwined in each soul. And when Bush calls a regime evil, surely only the most simple-minded secularist believes he is saying a simple thing. If they think evil is simple, haven't they at least read Dostoyevsky?"
This is not to specifically endorse President Bush's policy as divinely inspired or even a good idea, or to suggest that he represents an archetypal Christian, but rather to show that beliefs and actions of consequence to the soul are profound, subtle, and necessary, psychologically and otherwise. "Good" and "evil" may seem like simplistic reductions, but are rather the qualities that are woven together into every aspect of human life.
We may soon see greater suffering in the Middle East, and we may again soon be made "poor in spirit" at home, whether through an attack of terrorism, or simply the more mundane difficulties of life. It would be truly primitive if we were to toss out faith as a collection of ideas for which we are now too "complex" and refined; for then, how would we be filled, and who would make our peace?
Matt Dysart is a junior majoring in English.
More from The Tufts Daily
