G. Reale, A History of Ancient Philosophy: The Systems of the Hellenistic Age, trans. John R. Catan (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1985) 403.
B. Farrington (The Faith 18) notes that "Epicurus was more a prophet than a philosopher, more a saint than a prophet. The establishment of the Garden was his response to the evil of this world. His spiritual authority is revealed in the fact that he wisely led the brothers, as did, for example, Saint Bernard of Clairveux, who took with him into the monastic life his whole family."
This quote slightly startled me, since I never put "prophet" and "Epicurean" in the same sentence. A prophet denounces evil and promotes societal justice. An Epicurean, however, is more concerned about the internal happiness of the individual. Can a prophet be an Epicurean?
I don't know what B. Farrington meant when he made this statement, but it reminds me of some of my thoughts yesterday as I watched Bill Moyers' Journal. Bill had on three guests: Cornel West of Princeton, Serene Jones of Union Theological Seminary, and Gary Dorrien, also of UTS. They were talking about the relevance of Christianity to current problems (click here for the transcript).
All three of them acknowledged the existence of original sin, pointing out that greed is what led us to our current economic mess. Dorrien said that the solution was for people to be part of a "community...that continually remind[s] us that, in fact, we don't understand everything and we are not the center of the universe."
Cornel West remarked that the prosperity gospel (the message of "God wants you to be rich") is obsolete because "the prosperity's gone." When Bill Moyers pointed out that the prosperity gospel is actually "spreading like wildfire to the rest of the world," West replied: "But that's part of the escapism. If they define success by how the world conceives of prosperity, rather than greatness. In the biblical text the greatness says what? He or she is greatest among you be your servant. There's a clash here. A very important clash." For West, the message in many churches of "God loves you and wants you to prosper" conflicts with the Gospel imperative to pursue social justice for the "least of these."
I wondered what a dialogue between Cornel West and Joel Osteen would look like. Joel Osteen is a renowned pastor of Lakewood in Houston, Texas, and he is practically a poster-child for the prosperity Gospel. But he does not polarize his message of "God loves you and wants you to prosper" with the Gospel imperative to help the poor. Granted, he doesn't exactly promote the social gospel or liberation theology, but he does affirm that God blesses those who give. He tries to offer people advice on how to get out of debt and wisely manage their finances. In his congregation are people from all sorts of races and economic backgrounds, and Joel tells about those who thank him for helping them turn around their lives. Joel preaches a Gospel of prosperity, faith, and hope, but, surprisingly, it's popular even among the "least of these."
And, conversely, I don't think that Cornel West is really for a religion that totally talks about altruism, without offering people the hope that they can prosper. He promoted unions in the program, which help workers to have a decent standard of living. That's an important element of social justice: for even the poor to be able to enjoy the blessings of life.
I asked myself through the course of the program if American churches really teach people that they are not the center of the universe. There are plenty of people who go to church, yet they turn right around and engage in shady business deals, or they obsess over the great American dollar, or they relish the "dog-eat-dog" atmosphere of American politics. I can think of prominent figures like this who are conservative evangelicals! Don't they learn anything in church? Ellen White once said that by beholding Christ we become changed. How can devout Christians go into church and walk out of it only to act just like the world?
Does any of the problem relate to what they're being taught in church? If the message they continually get is "God loves you and wants to bless you, plus homosexuality and liberals are bad," and that's it, are they going to walk out transformed in a positive sense? Or maybe they actually are learning about service in their churches, but it goes into one ear and out the other. I don't know.
Epicurus believed that he was promoting a positive society by encouraging individuals to be happy. Maybe encouraging people that God loves them is an important aspect of social justice. I don't think that sermons should be entirely about social activism or serving in soup kitchens, since the Bible is also about us prospering and being happy. But there should be a balance between the "me" and the "we" in Christian churches. Yes, God loves me and wants me to be happy, but he also desires the same for my neighbor, especially those among the "least of these."