Dan Barker decontextualizes the Ten Commandments and he also does the same to the Beatitudes. Let's see how.
Five of the eight beatitudes have nothing to do with morality. At face value the entire group is more of a pep talk than a code of ethical behavior. None of them are truly ethical in themselves since they are all conditions for a future reward. A true ethical code might mention the benefits ("Blessed are") of certain actions, but should stress the inherent value of the behavior on its own merits before detailing the gain or loss for the individual.
Like most moral codes expounded by great teachers like Confucius and Buddha, things like "inherent value of the behavior on its own merits" just aren't there. It won't be, because the average peasant, whose main worry was whether he was going to have to eat his sandals to stay alive, didn't particularly want or need a lesson in ethical gerrymandering to that level of detail.
Barker's objection applies in fact to every moral code in antiquity. The Code of Hammurabi falls with the Roman Ten Tables just as easily, and all speak of punishment and not "inherent value". The same made be said for modern sets of statutes.
And is it true that 5 of 8 have nothing to do with morality? Perhaps so, if you decontextualize. As Malina and Rohrbaugh note in their Social Science commentary, statements like these "express the speaker's acknowledgement of some cultural value; and the value can be found in some attitude, line of conduct, possession..."
In this context particularly, an honor-shame setting, the beatitudes lay out behavior that is considered honorable in an agonistic setting.
(1) "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven." This praises a condition which is not admirable. Are we all supposed to become "poor-spirited?" What does "poor-spirited mean?" This verse does not advocate any specific, positive ethical action. It only says that if you happen to be "poor in spirit," then be happy because you are going to heaven. Verses such as these have been cited to keep slaves and women in their place with promises of "pie in the sky."
Interesting how Barker admits he has no idea what "poor-spirited" means, and then because he does not know, figures that no one else does either and thereby claims that it does not advocate any ethical action. I know of no exegete who relates this passage to pie, but "poor in spirit" refers in context to persons not materially poor particularly (though those are part of the group, a great part of it in the ancient world) but those who are socially vulnerable who were preyed on by the greedy and powerful.
In essence Jesus affirms the value of the oppressed person, which is exactly the opposite of what Barker's alleged "pie in the sky" interpretation says, by offering them the consolation that God is on their side and agrees with their outrage over the tactics of the "rich".
(2) "Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted." As with the first one, this does not advocate any behavior, unless it is interpreted as a command to go into mourning. Instead, why not encourage people to comfort those who are in mourning?
Barker thinks "mourning" here is only the stuff you do at funerals. In context it's actually those who "protest the presence of social evil" (cf. 1 Cor. 5:1-2), so it is related to the first beatitude.
(3) "Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth." This might have some value if meekness is equated with gentleness, but even then it is valued only as a condition for a major pay-off in the future. This is like saying, "Be nice to Grandma because she might put you in her will." Incidentally, meekness is one attribute which is rarely seen in Christian history, currently or past.
Barker says more on this which we will ignore, because he's wrong about "meekness" from the get-go. Meekness in the ancient world (per Pilch and Malina's Handbook of Biblical Social Values) IS gentleness, coupled with non-violence that is followed not because of any revulsion to violence, but because the meek person CAN use violence but has enough confidence and ability not to threaten or challenge others, and whose opponent is unworthy or too weak -- in other words, he's not strong enough or right enough for you to bother with.
The OT example in Ps. 37 are those who do not protest the loss of their land to greedy landowners, knowing that God owns the land and will get it back for them or else judge the greedy.
Of course this is a value that Barker as an atheist would find useless anyway, but it remains that he has the jist wrong -- and that "they will inherit the earth" is not so much a pay-off as a prediction.
(4) "Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled." This merely encourages religious rituals, such as prayer. It offers no advice about how to treat other human beings. If "righteousness" is interpreted politically, then this is a dangerous verse. Righteousness breeds censorship, segregation, persecution, civil inequality and intolerance. Millions have been killed and persecuted by the righteousness of others.
Religious rituals? Politics? Barker is wrongly applying a Pentecostal definition of "righteousness" when it had yet to exist. He is confusing "righteousness" with "self-righteousness". The word here actually means equity of character and action, or to put it another way, justice.
(5) "Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy." This might be admirable, but how many of us are ever in a position to bestow mercy? The ability to grant mercy implies an authoritative rule over others: slavery, kingship, military. Christian parents ought to observe this mandate when they are about to follow the Biblical command to spank their children. However, the motivation for this Beatitude is wrong: "for they shall obtain mercy." This Beatitude is actually a threat, implying that God will not be merciful to those who are not merciful. Wouldn't the "crime" of a lack of mercy be one of those situations producing a need for God's mercy? A better moral principle might say, "Blessed are the merciful, because no human being has the right to harm another."
The use or morality of a rule is based on how many of us are able to follow it? In the ancient world 99% of the people were under "authoritative rule" of someone in a position to grant them mercy (which means, actually, paying of debts of personal obligation 0-- see link below) and so does not apply if i.e., spanking is an earned punishment, and does not indicate that the "crime" requires a "mercy" response from God).
As for motives, one may as well say that the Ten Tables and the Code of Hammurabi are full of "threats" too, as are all our administrative codes.
I wonder if Barker's "no human being has the right to harm another" would apply if he found someone beating up his children and they wouldn't stop without physical violence. The irony of it is that he calls it a "dark side" when believers forgive the inexcusable sins of church leaders (which is also an erroneous use of "mercy").
(6) "Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God." When does "pure" mean, in real terms? If it means "the lack of desire to hurt others," then it is not bad. If it means "being spiritual, separate from worldly concerns," then it is bigoted and potentially dangerous. No ethical benefits arise from anti-social or self-denying attitudes. The Apostle Paul talked about having a "pure conscience," and this might be considered an admirable attitude in certain groups, but if there is no elaboration about how this affects conduct, then it is useless as a moral guide.
That seems to be Barker's only objection, and in making it he sends Confucius, Lao Tzu, and a host of other great moralists away for not "elaborating" enough. The word "pure" here is used to refer to the cleansed leper (Matt. 8:2) as well as to moral cleanliness, so it is inclusive of, but hardly restricted to, Barker's "no desire to hurt others" and would not include per se being "separate from worldly concerns" unless there was moral evil involved in not being separate.
The ancients by the way would not have needed elaboration such as this. Their native context -- which we have neglected and forgotten -- would have told them all they needed to know.
(7) "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God." This is the best of the bunch. We all want peace. But how do we obtain peace? Was the bomb at Hiroshima peaceful because it ended the war? Are nuclear warheads "blessed?" The United States is currently "at peace" with the Native Americans; was United States policy therefore peaceful and blessed toward the Indians? Besides, Jesus contradicted his own advice, warning, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword."
Unfortunately for Barker, that last word by Jesus was spoken of people who would lay it hard on believers, not Jesus bringing the war to the fore himself. Barker may as well call his examples of Hiroshima and Native Americans "useless" for their lack of elaboration; but the meaning here of a "peacemaker" is one who brings order, stability, and what "is necessary for a meaningful human existence" [M and R, 49].
Hiroshima has been argued by ethicists to qualify on these grounds. The Native American example is not clearly relevant.
(8) Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you." This Beatitude is potentially dangerous. Besides being in the passive voice and not advocating any specific moral behavior, "Blessed are they which are persecuted?" appears to invite, encourage, and praise confrontation and dispute among human beings. Some have even interpreted this verse as a command to go out and "get persecuted." This persecution complex, admittedly not shared by all Christians, contradicts the seventh beatitude! If you stir up trouble for Jesus, you are blessed, and will receive a great "reward in Heaven." You are supposed to "rejoice" and be exceedingly glad" when your actions incite others to treat you badly. Persecution is something that could happen to anyone, whether that person has integrity or not, in the course of supporting a cause, but to seek it and to "rejoice" about it is perverse.
Elsewhere Barker tells us that masochists can use the Golden Rule to hurt other people. Now he wants to tell us that this Beatitude encourages people to go out and get persecuted. I suppose then that no one should tell civil rights protestors that they might get publicity to their cause if they let cops hit them with fire hoses and police dogs or beat them or jail them, and should not rejoice in being able to advance the cause that way.
Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Barker says you're out of touch. At any rate, owing to the definition of "peacemakers" above, this is no contradiction to #7 and if anything is in line with it.
Barker closes by declaring the Beatitudes "immature" and "fluff" and "mere platitudes" to "keep the poor and disenfranchised content to stay in their place." Given what we have noted above, the beatitudes are anything but this. Jesus himself was a rural, impoverished Galileean peasant. One may as well say that Gandhi's "passive resistance" was a secret tool to keep Indian peasants starving and happy about it. The real immaturity here rests in decontexualizing and refusing to read the Beatitudes any way but uni-dimensionally.
-JPH