I suppose I bent the parameters of the Q&A a bit to discuss this, but I think it was interesting to note Crossan's response to radical egalitarianism as presented by Jesus. The only example he used was electing the president of the United States by lottery and then going on to say that we are not ready for it. Of course I'm biased myself in the way of radical egalitarianism, which is why this stuck out to me.
Despite this I don't think his bias will harm his conclusions significantly. If he was that sort of scholar I think he would have not included that section at all.
I don't think we are ready for that kind of radical egalitarianism either. I think we could do a lot more in our society to make it more equal and for everyone to at least be guaranteed the basic rights of nutrition, good education, housing and not be letting people go without some of those while others live in mansions! That needs to change and we could do a great deal to become a more equal and accepting society. However, I do think Jesus would see where we are as progress from the time in which he lived. I think he would also be pushing for more reforms which I agree with. I do think people should be given a much fairer short than they are today but do you really think taking egalitarianism to the point where we would be electing president by lottery would be a good idea? I don't. I think people must prove themselves to get certain positions in life. What we need to change and do a great deal of work to level, is the playing field.
ReplyDelete