I may make some comments on this quote later. This cropped up in a book I've been reading and it was too funny to refrain fram sharing. I'm curious what your reactions are to it, good or bad, happy or angry.
One summer day when Carl Jung was a twelve-year-old schoolboy in Basel , Switzerland, he fell to admiring the cathedral in the town square. In his autobiography he recalls his train of thought:
"The sky was gloriously blue, the day one of radiant sunshine. The roof of the cathedral glittered, the sun sparkling from the new, brightly glazed tiles. I was overwhelmed by the beauty of the sight, and thought: “The world is beautiful and the church is beautiful, and God made all this and sits above it far away in the blue sky on a golden throne and … .” Here came a great hole in my thoughts, and a choking sensation. I felt numbed, and knew only: “Don’t go on thinking now! Something terrible is coming … .” "
The boy could feel some dangerous image presenting itself and fought to keep it from entering his mind. For several days, in fact, he struggled with all sorts of metaphysical confusions about whether or not God, who controls all things, could allow him to think a thought he shouldn’t think. Finally, having worked himself around to believing that God wanted him to have the forbidden thought, he relented:
"I gathered all my courage, as though I were about to leap forthwith into hell- fire, and let the thought come. I saw before me the cathedral, the blue sky. God sits on His golden throne, high above the world— and from under the throne an enormous turd falls upon the sparkling new roof, shatters it, and breaks the walls of the cathedral asunder."
Shared from "Trickster Makes This World: Mischief, Myth, and Art" by Lewis Hyde
Saturday, July 19, 2014
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
You just don't know how much you don't know: A Biblical Theology of the book of Job.
I had the distinct pleasure of joining some of my good
friends on a backpacking trip in Oregon along Eagle Creek over the
course of the memorial day weekend. As one among many aspiring
ministers and professional Christians in the group I was asked to
prepare a devotional for the group. I was doubly honored when they
asked that I be the one to speak in lieu of our normal church worship
service on Sunday Morning. I offer these thoughts up for your
consideration, edification and, should God be merciful, your
sanctification.
(A brief note on our context, at this point in the trip we were a full days walk from our cars, Ten miles up a mountain and a few among us were injured and all were exhausted. This talk was tailored to people in that situation, so if you take a moment to imagine yourself in a similar situation it may become more meaningful than it would otherwise be).
Man, a moment like this is a teacher's dream come true. Often the hardest part about teaching is leading the people you are talking with to see the world similar to the way that you as the teacher see the world. But thanks to our adventures over the last 2 days we have seen much of the same world. Our shared experiences and shared sufferings have given us for a brief moment in time a shared outlook on life. We all want the same things, cold water, hot meals, beautiful scenery and a good nights rest. One of the reasons I believe that the Bible so often locates it's addresses in the wilderness is because it is trying hard to get it's people to pay attention. After 24 hours in the woods nobody cares about their facebook, nobody wants to go back to their job. Our lives have become very simple and very similar. Much more similar than they were when we began our journey two days ago.
I'd like to share with you some thoughts from the book of Job. I'd like to begin by sketching the story in brief so that we can more effectively hear what the book is trying to say. So for those of you who aren't familiar with the story Job was a man much like Abraham. He loved God, worshiped God and worked hard to ensure that he conducted his entire life in light of his relationship with God. At the beginning of the story, God felt it appropriate to permit Job's material and familial blessings to increase dramatically. Job had ten children and numerous herds of cattle. This was a sign of success in the Ancient World. Job was the CEO of a fortune 500 company, he had it made.
One day Satan brings Job's life to God's attention. He complains that Job doesn't actually love God, instead Job is using His relationship with God to gain material blessings. Job's piety isn't genuine, if God were to remove Job's material prosperity he would learn the true condition of Job's heart. For whatever reason God relents to Satan's schemes and allows Job's prosperity to be taken away. In the span of a single day, all of Job's wealth disappears. Bandits stream in from the North and carry off all of his sheep, a freak lightning strike set's fire to the grazing pasture where his cattle were foraging and they are all killed. And most tragically of all, a tornado swirls in from the West and destroys the house where Job's ten children and having a party, and none of them survive. All that Job has left in the world is his wife and the three servants who survived these calamities to tell Job the bad news.
If you are familiar with the story you'll recall that Satan's plot fails, Job falls down in despair at the sorrow that has come upon his life, but he commits his sorrow to the LORD and does not curse God's Name. Satan complains again to God and Job's plight worsens. Job is afflicted with an illness, and as he sinks deeper into depression three of his closest friends come to visit him, and together they begin to think and discuss how such trouble could have come upon someone whom everyone thought was beloved by God.
The cornerstone of their entire discussion revolves around the justice of the world. Everyone believed that God created the world and everyone believed that God was a just God. So the question under scrutiny is this; “how could a just God allow what appears to be punishment to happen to a just man?” As it stands this situation does not compute, either God is not actually just or Job is not actually just. Because those are the two active parties. All of Jobs friends believed that God's action was indistinguishable from the actions of the world. So when calamities strike, they believed that God acted through them and that His character and judgment could be logically inferred from the action of these calamities. So the conversation goes back and forth, because none of Job's friends believe that God is unjust their worldview forces them to believe that Job must actually have done something to merit God's negative action in his life. But Job knows that he didn't do anything wrong. He is the only person who has true access to that information and he refuses to back down from asserting his innocence. Up until these calamities hit Job personally I'm sure he would have reacted much like his friends did. But now his experience has forced him into a world that he no longer understands. The categories no longer make sense.
As we watch Job continue to argue back and forth with his friends we notice some subtle changes come over Job. He continues to assert his innocence, and he never does accuse God of being unjust. The text makes it clear that Job never sinned against God in what he said. But even so throughout his dialogues he does not understand based upon his experiences how God can remain just when something like this has happened to an innocent man. Job never accuses God, but as he goes round after round in his debate, Job's assertions of his own innocence get a little bit bigger, and his perception of God begins to get a little bit smaller. By the end of his speeches Job seems to think that if I could just sit down with God over a pint, if we could just talk this over like reasonable persons we can get this matter sorted out.
This is why the posture that God assumes in His conversation with Job is so mighty. Job is not visited by a angelic messenger who looks like a man and speaks for God with a meek and humble disposition. Job is assaulted by a mighty whirlwind and the voice of God booms from the whirlwind. His voice is devastating, and he begins to ask Job a barrage of questions about the composition of the world. Job has forgotten that the relationship between Godself and Himself is not a relationship of equals. Job has forgotten that the only reason God has even bothered to speak to Job is because of God's tremendous grace that condescends to speak to a lowly man like Job. And when God begins to speak He reveals something curious about the world Job thought that he lived in.
Job and all of his friends assumed that God formed the world on the basis of Justice. God is a good and just God, and when you do good things you get blessed and when you do bad things you get smote. It may not happen immediately but it will happen eventually. This is called the law of retribution. And as we look at the speeches of job and his friends we see that their understanding of this law of retribution is based on a lot of empirical evidence. These men have spent a lot of time paying close attention to the natural world and concluded that it operates according to this law of retribution. But when God begins to ask Job questions, he reveals that human knowledge goes only so far. All of God's questions ask Job to explain what happens beyond the borders of human understanding. Have you seen the heavenly storehouses where the snow is reserved for the wintertime? Have you seen the place where the sun goes to rest before it loops around and rises again in the East? Job, there is so much more going on in this world than you cannot possibly comprehend. You have drawn conclusions about the world based upon your excellent knowledge and observations, but your knowledge base in insufficient. You just don't know enough about the world to make an accurate judgment about the composition and operation of the world.
God's speech to Job demonstrates to Job that this world of ours is not formed on the basis of justice, God is just and He will exercise his justice in the end, but his purpose in creation was not to create a just world. Justice is secured by the activity of God, not by the natural functions of the cosmos. God's purpose in creation was to create a beautiful place whose foundation is not justice but wisdom.
(A brief note on our context, at this point in the trip we were a full days walk from our cars, Ten miles up a mountain and a few among us were injured and all were exhausted. This talk was tailored to people in that situation, so if you take a moment to imagine yourself in a similar situation it may become more meaningful than it would otherwise be).
Man, a moment like this is a teacher's dream come true. Often the hardest part about teaching is leading the people you are talking with to see the world similar to the way that you as the teacher see the world. But thanks to our adventures over the last 2 days we have seen much of the same world. Our shared experiences and shared sufferings have given us for a brief moment in time a shared outlook on life. We all want the same things, cold water, hot meals, beautiful scenery and a good nights rest. One of the reasons I believe that the Bible so often locates it's addresses in the wilderness is because it is trying hard to get it's people to pay attention. After 24 hours in the woods nobody cares about their facebook, nobody wants to go back to their job. Our lives have become very simple and very similar. Much more similar than they were when we began our journey two days ago.
I'd like to share with you some thoughts from the book of Job. I'd like to begin by sketching the story in brief so that we can more effectively hear what the book is trying to say. So for those of you who aren't familiar with the story Job was a man much like Abraham. He loved God, worshiped God and worked hard to ensure that he conducted his entire life in light of his relationship with God. At the beginning of the story, God felt it appropriate to permit Job's material and familial blessings to increase dramatically. Job had ten children and numerous herds of cattle. This was a sign of success in the Ancient World. Job was the CEO of a fortune 500 company, he had it made.
One day Satan brings Job's life to God's attention. He complains that Job doesn't actually love God, instead Job is using His relationship with God to gain material blessings. Job's piety isn't genuine, if God were to remove Job's material prosperity he would learn the true condition of Job's heart. For whatever reason God relents to Satan's schemes and allows Job's prosperity to be taken away. In the span of a single day, all of Job's wealth disappears. Bandits stream in from the North and carry off all of his sheep, a freak lightning strike set's fire to the grazing pasture where his cattle were foraging and they are all killed. And most tragically of all, a tornado swirls in from the West and destroys the house where Job's ten children and having a party, and none of them survive. All that Job has left in the world is his wife and the three servants who survived these calamities to tell Job the bad news.
If you are familiar with the story you'll recall that Satan's plot fails, Job falls down in despair at the sorrow that has come upon his life, but he commits his sorrow to the LORD and does not curse God's Name. Satan complains again to God and Job's plight worsens. Job is afflicted with an illness, and as he sinks deeper into depression three of his closest friends come to visit him, and together they begin to think and discuss how such trouble could have come upon someone whom everyone thought was beloved by God.
The cornerstone of their entire discussion revolves around the justice of the world. Everyone believed that God created the world and everyone believed that God was a just God. So the question under scrutiny is this; “how could a just God allow what appears to be punishment to happen to a just man?” As it stands this situation does not compute, either God is not actually just or Job is not actually just. Because those are the two active parties. All of Jobs friends believed that God's action was indistinguishable from the actions of the world. So when calamities strike, they believed that God acted through them and that His character and judgment could be logically inferred from the action of these calamities. So the conversation goes back and forth, because none of Job's friends believe that God is unjust their worldview forces them to believe that Job must actually have done something to merit God's negative action in his life. But Job knows that he didn't do anything wrong. He is the only person who has true access to that information and he refuses to back down from asserting his innocence. Up until these calamities hit Job personally I'm sure he would have reacted much like his friends did. But now his experience has forced him into a world that he no longer understands. The categories no longer make sense.
As we watch Job continue to argue back and forth with his friends we notice some subtle changes come over Job. He continues to assert his innocence, and he never does accuse God of being unjust. The text makes it clear that Job never sinned against God in what he said. But even so throughout his dialogues he does not understand based upon his experiences how God can remain just when something like this has happened to an innocent man. Job never accuses God, but as he goes round after round in his debate, Job's assertions of his own innocence get a little bit bigger, and his perception of God begins to get a little bit smaller. By the end of his speeches Job seems to think that if I could just sit down with God over a pint, if we could just talk this over like reasonable persons we can get this matter sorted out.
This is why the posture that God assumes in His conversation with Job is so mighty. Job is not visited by a angelic messenger who looks like a man and speaks for God with a meek and humble disposition. Job is assaulted by a mighty whirlwind and the voice of God booms from the whirlwind. His voice is devastating, and he begins to ask Job a barrage of questions about the composition of the world. Job has forgotten that the relationship between Godself and Himself is not a relationship of equals. Job has forgotten that the only reason God has even bothered to speak to Job is because of God's tremendous grace that condescends to speak to a lowly man like Job. And when God begins to speak He reveals something curious about the world Job thought that he lived in.
Job and all of his friends assumed that God formed the world on the basis of Justice. God is a good and just God, and when you do good things you get blessed and when you do bad things you get smote. It may not happen immediately but it will happen eventually. This is called the law of retribution. And as we look at the speeches of job and his friends we see that their understanding of this law of retribution is based on a lot of empirical evidence. These men have spent a lot of time paying close attention to the natural world and concluded that it operates according to this law of retribution. But when God begins to ask Job questions, he reveals that human knowledge goes only so far. All of God's questions ask Job to explain what happens beyond the borders of human understanding. Have you seen the heavenly storehouses where the snow is reserved for the wintertime? Have you seen the place where the sun goes to rest before it loops around and rises again in the East? Job, there is so much more going on in this world than you cannot possibly comprehend. You have drawn conclusions about the world based upon your excellent knowledge and observations, but your knowledge base in insufficient. You just don't know enough about the world to make an accurate judgment about the composition and operation of the world.
God's speech to Job demonstrates to Job that this world of ours is not formed on the basis of justice, God is just and He will exercise his justice in the end, but his purpose in creation was not to create a just world. Justice is secured by the activity of God, not by the natural functions of the cosmos. God's purpose in creation was to create a beautiful place whose foundation is not justice but wisdom.
This world is place where seasons cycle back and
forth in a consistent rhythm. This is not a rigidly engineered world of immaculately designed lego blocks that fit together perfectly. This is a world if vast differences that interplay with one another in complex and extended rhythms. Beauty and uniqueness are some of God's values in creation not effeciency. This is a world where creatures beautiful and ugly,
strong and weak, slow and fast all find their place within the cosmos
and glorify God by being themselves. Ostriches and Alligators are some of the most ridiculous and inefficiently designed monsters planet Earth has ever seen. and Yet these monsters are beloved by God and they both have a
place and a purpose within this world. God delights in their
presence among His creation.
Part 2 coming soon. "Hast though considered the Godzilla?"
Part 2 coming soon. "Hast though considered the Godzilla?"
Thursday, July 3, 2014
Dispatches from the rear: A Non-violent manifesto from a Mennonite sympathizer
“I refuse to join any club that would
have me as a member!” -Groucho Marx
“Why do we have to resort to non-violence? Can't we just kick their asses?” -Turanga Leela
“Why do we have to resort to non-violence? Can't we just kick their asses?” -Turanga Leela
Want to play a fun 4th of July facebook
game? See how many passive/aggressive status updates your friends
with pacifistic inclinations post. The 4th of July is one
of the few days of the year that “liberal” Christians feel
compelled to celebrate by offering up a flurry of blog posts against
the founding of America and the role of violence in American culture.
This libation concludes with these “liberal” Christians sacred
blog posts being ceremonially dismissed without comment by their
conservative peers. This lack of communication and mutual
understanding bothers me a lot, and it is the reason I have chosen to
write.
I personally harbor deep ambivalence towards the 4th of July. This ambivalence arises from two deep but contradictory loves of mine. The first love is the joy I have found in my struggle to follow the peaceable way of Jesus, Yin to my Jesus Yang is the sheer visceral ecstasy I derive from blowing s*** up. Though upon further reflection you shouldn't find these twin desires that contradictory. Pacifism can fit well in certain forms of anarchy, and I was home-schooled until college, which is an inherently anarchic practice.
I personally harbor deep ambivalence towards the 4th of July. This ambivalence arises from two deep but contradictory loves of mine. The first love is the joy I have found in my struggle to follow the peaceable way of Jesus, Yin to my Jesus Yang is the sheer visceral ecstasy I derive from blowing s*** up. Though upon further reflection you shouldn't find these twin desires that contradictory. Pacifism can fit well in certain forms of anarchy, and I was home-schooled until college, which is an inherently anarchic practice.
I'd like to begin by explaining in a very brief fashion the events in my life
that have led me to find the teachings of the Christian Pacifists so
compelling. For the last three years, as an addendum to my Seminary
education, I've been paying attention to theologians in the
Anabaptist Peace church tradition. I've been doing this because I was
initially enthralled by the weirdness of their beliefs but slowly but
surely I have come to believe that they are awfully right about an
awful lot of things. Some have even accused me of being a pacifist,
and for all I know those accusers may end up being right.
Unfortunately, I also really enjoy blowing S*** up. If I am at all
ambivalent about the role that military violence has played in the
founding and sustaining of the nation of my birth, how then can I
wholeheartedly celebrate it by blowing S*** up?
What follows is a bit of my story, Some biblical and theological propositions which will be followed by an awful lot of apprehensions. I'm trying to do everything that I can to make sure that nobody enjoys reading this.
The story of my introduction to the peaceable way of Jesus happened innocently enough. I was in my second year of seminary and my hermeneutics professor mentioned offhandedly one day that he enjoyed reading the works of Stanley Hauerwas, and anyone who was interested in the pacifistic stream of Christianity should give his works, and those of his mentor, John Howard Yoder a gander. So I picked up a little book called, “Living Gently in a Violent World.” Co-written with Jean Vanier. This book actually has little to do with pacifism or war ethics, it was about how Christians should incorporate those who are mentally handicapped into their lives and the life of the church. Yet even with this thesis in mind it was clear from Dr. Hauerwas's two essays that the pacifistic strain was dominant in his thought and I found it interesting. It led him to some interesting conclusions about how to live and act in the world as Christians and how we are to respond to those who require much gentleness. So I kept reading. I read Resident Aliens by Hauerwas and Will Willimon, then I read the Politics of Jesus by John Howard Yoder, and as I was working my way through more and more works on the peaceable call of Jesus my whole life fell apart.
During this year a very dear friend of mine confessed to me that they had been victimized by someone whom I held in high regard as a Christian minister and a wise human being. My whole life was flipped upside down in an instant, I had no reason to doubt their testimony and quickly began to reevaluate the most intimate relationship I had ever had with a Christian mentor. I spent every spare moment that semester on the telephone with members of this church who were confronted with a horrendous evil. Nothing in my Christian discipleship up to this point had prepared me to deal with the depravity of sin and the depths of pain that God's creatures experience.
I was seriously considering dropping my faith altogether. As I watched someone whom I respected throw his ministry away and wholeheartedly serve the devil through his actions, I began to lose hope that it could even be possible for me to sustain my commitment to Christ in the midst of the pressures of this world. Yet all through this period of doubt I continued to read through pacifists as they talked about Jesus' words and witness. This is the first time in my life that I could legitimately say that I had an enemy. And I wanted him to die a long terrible death. As a matter of fact I still do, My LORD Himself said that it would be better for men such as this to have a millstone strung about their neck and be cast into the sea. The LORD has stores of fury reserved for those who would harm the “least of these.” I will say no more of this story out of deference to the victims.
Now that I had an enemy, all of the pacifists discussions of Christ's command to “love your enemies,” came into sharp relief. I couldn't ignore them because I disagreed so strongly with their interpretation of the demands of my LORD. Such love is not possible. But the more I read the more I began to see that they were articulating a way of life that made such a practice possible. I learned how deep and rich our LORD's teachings about forgiveness truly are. The pacifists articulated to me a new way of life that has been made possible by the death, resurrection and forgiveness of Christ. When His life is the basis for my life there is no limit to the transformative power that the gospel of Christ's integrated word and work can wreak on a person's life. I do not know how to extricate this transformative power from the pacifistic ethic that Yoder and Hauerwas have articulated. And at this point I see no need to extricate it. At this point in my life I still do not love my enemy. I frequently pray for his death. But I am learning to trust my LORD's assurance that vengeance belongs to God, and this has enabled me to move on and seek healing for myself and for my friends.
What follows is a bit of my story, Some biblical and theological propositions which will be followed by an awful lot of apprehensions. I'm trying to do everything that I can to make sure that nobody enjoys reading this.
The story of my introduction to the peaceable way of Jesus happened innocently enough. I was in my second year of seminary and my hermeneutics professor mentioned offhandedly one day that he enjoyed reading the works of Stanley Hauerwas, and anyone who was interested in the pacifistic stream of Christianity should give his works, and those of his mentor, John Howard Yoder a gander. So I picked up a little book called, “Living Gently in a Violent World.” Co-written with Jean Vanier. This book actually has little to do with pacifism or war ethics, it was about how Christians should incorporate those who are mentally handicapped into their lives and the life of the church. Yet even with this thesis in mind it was clear from Dr. Hauerwas's two essays that the pacifistic strain was dominant in his thought and I found it interesting. It led him to some interesting conclusions about how to live and act in the world as Christians and how we are to respond to those who require much gentleness. So I kept reading. I read Resident Aliens by Hauerwas and Will Willimon, then I read the Politics of Jesus by John Howard Yoder, and as I was working my way through more and more works on the peaceable call of Jesus my whole life fell apart.
During this year a very dear friend of mine confessed to me that they had been victimized by someone whom I held in high regard as a Christian minister and a wise human being. My whole life was flipped upside down in an instant, I had no reason to doubt their testimony and quickly began to reevaluate the most intimate relationship I had ever had with a Christian mentor. I spent every spare moment that semester on the telephone with members of this church who were confronted with a horrendous evil. Nothing in my Christian discipleship up to this point had prepared me to deal with the depravity of sin and the depths of pain that God's creatures experience.
I was seriously considering dropping my faith altogether. As I watched someone whom I respected throw his ministry away and wholeheartedly serve the devil through his actions, I began to lose hope that it could even be possible for me to sustain my commitment to Christ in the midst of the pressures of this world. Yet all through this period of doubt I continued to read through pacifists as they talked about Jesus' words and witness. This is the first time in my life that I could legitimately say that I had an enemy. And I wanted him to die a long terrible death. As a matter of fact I still do, My LORD Himself said that it would be better for men such as this to have a millstone strung about their neck and be cast into the sea. The LORD has stores of fury reserved for those who would harm the “least of these.” I will say no more of this story out of deference to the victims.
Now that I had an enemy, all of the pacifists discussions of Christ's command to “love your enemies,” came into sharp relief. I couldn't ignore them because I disagreed so strongly with their interpretation of the demands of my LORD. Such love is not possible. But the more I read the more I began to see that they were articulating a way of life that made such a practice possible. I learned how deep and rich our LORD's teachings about forgiveness truly are. The pacifists articulated to me a new way of life that has been made possible by the death, resurrection and forgiveness of Christ. When His life is the basis for my life there is no limit to the transformative power that the gospel of Christ's integrated word and work can wreak on a person's life. I do not know how to extricate this transformative power from the pacifistic ethic that Yoder and Hauerwas have articulated. And at this point I see no need to extricate it. At this point in my life I still do not love my enemy. I frequently pray for his death. But I am learning to trust my LORD's assurance that vengeance belongs to God, and this has enabled me to move on and seek healing for myself and for my friends.
Theological
propositions
What follows is an articulation of
many of the theological beliefs that are currently a significant part
of my worldview. I do not include nearly enough Scriptural references
and I apologize for that, but I had to write quickly and I am willing
to back all of these up with Bible if you press me on them. But also
keep in mind that this is the theological synthesis of my thinking on
the message of the entire Bible as it moves from Creation to New
Creation through the Cross and resurrection of Jesus. It is not a mere allocation of pragmatic prooftexts. My propositions are not thorough there are significant gaps, but I believe my propositions are emblematic of the message of the entire Bible.
This is the result of the last several years of prayer, Scriptural study and life experience. Feel free to see this as what I believe, rather than what Scripture says. Many of these points are debatable. However, if I didn't think I was right I would remain silent. I am willing to examine everything that I have written down here today, and I ask that you would do me the same courtesy and critically examine areas where you disagree with me and why you disagree with me.
Please also note when I write the words, “I believe the Bible says” that is shorthand for “I believe the particular author of that particular Divinely Inspired Biblical book wrote.” I believe that the Bible is the authoritative revelation of God given to his people, and that it displays a multiplicity of voices who speak with a symphonic unity, rather through a monotone uniformity. (And Yes Jesus is the authoritative revelation of the person and character of God, but He is known primarily, though not exclusively, through the pages of Scripture. Expect much more writing on that point in the future)
This is the result of the last several years of prayer, Scriptural study and life experience. Feel free to see this as what I believe, rather than what Scripture says. Many of these points are debatable. However, if I didn't think I was right I would remain silent. I am willing to examine everything that I have written down here today, and I ask that you would do me the same courtesy and critically examine areas where you disagree with me and why you disagree with me.
Please also note when I write the words, “I believe the Bible says” that is shorthand for “I believe the particular author of that particular Divinely Inspired Biblical book wrote.” I believe that the Bible is the authoritative revelation of God given to his people, and that it displays a multiplicity of voices who speak with a symphonic unity, rather through a monotone uniformity. (And Yes Jesus is the authoritative revelation of the person and character of God, but He is known primarily, though not exclusively, through the pages of Scripture. Expect much more writing on that point in the future)
The Old Testament
I believe that God's original intent
for His creation is that it would exist in a harmonious unity amongst
different creatures and environments. One of the many themes of
Genesis 1 that makes it unique amongst the other narratives of
creation that were vying for dominance in the Ancient Near East is
the utter absence of violence in the creation of the cosmos. The
theme of all creation stories is how order has begun to displace
chaos in our world, but all of the other religions believed that
order only truly triumphed through violence and bloodshed. You have
gods defeating other gods and tearing their corpses in half to make
the sky and the earth. Genesis 1 provides a stark contrast, God just
shows up and starts speaking. Through His speaking he calls order
into being from out of the nothingness of chaos and he creates this
environment that is balanced and stable and suitable for human and
animal habitation.
I believe that when the Bible chooses to depict through narrative the horrendous consequences of sin, violence is the image of choice. After humanity's corruption and descent into sin, The narrator of Genesis demonstrates a rapid degeneration into depravity. And the two key images of depravity that he uses are the human usurpation of God's kingly role, and the human exercise of violence. A dispute between Cain and Abel ends in the worlds first murder. And when the author of Genesis begins to describe God's rationale for flooding the world, this is his summary of the Earth's condition, “Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight, and the earth was filled with violence. And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. And God said to Noah, "I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth.” Gen 6:11-13
I understand (And this paragraph is speculative on my part) this in part to mean that there was no judicial structures put in place to limit the spread of violence. I believe the world was overrun with a number of human families in close proximity locked into a never-ending cycle of tribal vendettas against one another. Had God not intervened on behalf of the Earth and the Animals, humans would have destroyed one another.
I believe that God's covenant with Noah is a covenant with all humanity saying that God has hung his bow up in the sky. He shall never again resort to the nuclear option when dealing with human sinfulness on this Earth. God instead chooses to install capital punishment as a means of limiting the spread of violence on the Earth, while patiently suffering the continued effects of his sinful creatures as they act in ways that countermand hes desires for creation. This finds expression further in the Torah in the law of an eye for an eye. This is not permission to poke your brothers eye out, but a restraint upon the extent to which you can exact vengeance upon wrongdoers. If your son had his eye poked out in a dispute with a neighbor, the dictates of an honor/shame culture meant that this offense could bring so much shame to your family that you would be honor bound to avenge the shame by further maiming or even killing the man who blinded your son. This act of vengeance was a way of maintaining a family's honor and strength in the eyes of others. (Additional note, because capital punishment is a means of limiting violence, it is fair and biblical to reexamine capital punishment today with the question of what does it restrain, I won't speak further on capital punishment, but considering we are the people who worship as God an innocent man who was unjustly murdered by the state, we should be a little bit wary of Capital punishment).
I believe that God's next move in the plan of redemption was to call Abram to leave his nation, his culture and his family in order that he might become the father of God's nation. A peculiar people consecrated to the worship of the only true God. This people would live by patient faith in the promises of God in order that they might learn that their existence derives not from their physical strength or their intellectual cunning but through the grace of God.
In the stories of the patriarchs, God ensures the continued existence of Abraham after all earthly hope has departed from him, God rejects the strength of Esau, He breaks the cunning trickery of Jacob, and He humbles the privileged Joseph in order that they all might learn more truly who their God is and how they should appropriately love, honor and represent Him in the world.
When God established His people as a nation, he put numerous legal restrictions upon them that were designed to ensure that these peculiar character traits would be present throughout the entire nation. In Deuteronomy 18 we see that Israel was not allowed to have a king in the same fashion as the other nations. Israel's King was not permitted to amass a large army in order that they might be forced to believe the truth that “Some trust in chariots, and some in horses, but we trust in the name of THE LORD our God.”--Ps 20:7. Israel's king was also not allowed to gather multiple wives into his harem. This was less about sexual ethics than it was about political ethics. Royal marriages bound nations together. If Solomon were to marry the daughter of the Pharaoh in Egypt, that would make Egypt and Israel family. And when your father-in-law decides to go to war to maintain his empire, what should a good dutiful son-in-law do?
I believe that King David was a bloodthirsty warrior whose life was characterized by a sinful behavior that he should have repented of. I believe that David is an example of the way that God providentially uses men who do not fully obey His will as a means of accomplishing His purposes in this world.
In New Testament, the Apostle Paul calls David, “A man after God's own heart.” I believe the primary meaning of this is that for all of David's character faults he was a faithful and committed monotheist for his entire life. In 1 Kings, Solomon was warned that his foreign wives would, “turn his heart away from following the LORD.” David's heart never turned to other gods, he simply disobeyed the commands of the only true God whom he worshiped. I believe it is significant that when David sought to build a temple for God, he was rejected from that role on the grounds that, “you are a man of war and you have shed blood.”--1 Chron 28:3. It is also significant that The last recorded words of King David are vindictive and do not evidence a biblical trust that vengeance belongs to the LORD.
“And there is also with you Shimei the son of Gera, the Benjaminite from Bahurim, who cursed me with a grievous curse on the day when I went to Mahanaim. But when he came down to meet me at the
I believe that when the Bible chooses to depict through narrative the horrendous consequences of sin, violence is the image of choice. After humanity's corruption and descent into sin, The narrator of Genesis demonstrates a rapid degeneration into depravity. And the two key images of depravity that he uses are the human usurpation of God's kingly role, and the human exercise of violence. A dispute between Cain and Abel ends in the worlds first murder. And when the author of Genesis begins to describe God's rationale for flooding the world, this is his summary of the Earth's condition, “Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight, and the earth was filled with violence. And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. And God said to Noah, "I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth.” Gen 6:11-13
I understand (And this paragraph is speculative on my part) this in part to mean that there was no judicial structures put in place to limit the spread of violence. I believe the world was overrun with a number of human families in close proximity locked into a never-ending cycle of tribal vendettas against one another. Had God not intervened on behalf of the Earth and the Animals, humans would have destroyed one another.
I believe that God's covenant with Noah is a covenant with all humanity saying that God has hung his bow up in the sky. He shall never again resort to the nuclear option when dealing with human sinfulness on this Earth. God instead chooses to install capital punishment as a means of limiting the spread of violence on the Earth, while patiently suffering the continued effects of his sinful creatures as they act in ways that countermand hes desires for creation. This finds expression further in the Torah in the law of an eye for an eye. This is not permission to poke your brothers eye out, but a restraint upon the extent to which you can exact vengeance upon wrongdoers. If your son had his eye poked out in a dispute with a neighbor, the dictates of an honor/shame culture meant that this offense could bring so much shame to your family that you would be honor bound to avenge the shame by further maiming or even killing the man who blinded your son. This act of vengeance was a way of maintaining a family's honor and strength in the eyes of others. (Additional note, because capital punishment is a means of limiting violence, it is fair and biblical to reexamine capital punishment today with the question of what does it restrain, I won't speak further on capital punishment, but considering we are the people who worship as God an innocent man who was unjustly murdered by the state, we should be a little bit wary of Capital punishment).
I believe that God's next move in the plan of redemption was to call Abram to leave his nation, his culture and his family in order that he might become the father of God's nation. A peculiar people consecrated to the worship of the only true God. This people would live by patient faith in the promises of God in order that they might learn that their existence derives not from their physical strength or their intellectual cunning but through the grace of God.
In the stories of the patriarchs, God ensures the continued existence of Abraham after all earthly hope has departed from him, God rejects the strength of Esau, He breaks the cunning trickery of Jacob, and He humbles the privileged Joseph in order that they all might learn more truly who their God is and how they should appropriately love, honor and represent Him in the world.
When God established His people as a nation, he put numerous legal restrictions upon them that were designed to ensure that these peculiar character traits would be present throughout the entire nation. In Deuteronomy 18 we see that Israel was not allowed to have a king in the same fashion as the other nations. Israel's King was not permitted to amass a large army in order that they might be forced to believe the truth that “Some trust in chariots, and some in horses, but we trust in the name of THE LORD our God.”--Ps 20:7. Israel's king was also not allowed to gather multiple wives into his harem. This was less about sexual ethics than it was about political ethics. Royal marriages bound nations together. If Solomon were to marry the daughter of the Pharaoh in Egypt, that would make Egypt and Israel family. And when your father-in-law decides to go to war to maintain his empire, what should a good dutiful son-in-law do?
I believe that King David was a bloodthirsty warrior whose life was characterized by a sinful behavior that he should have repented of. I believe that David is an example of the way that God providentially uses men who do not fully obey His will as a means of accomplishing His purposes in this world.
In New Testament, the Apostle Paul calls David, “A man after God's own heart.” I believe the primary meaning of this is that for all of David's character faults he was a faithful and committed monotheist for his entire life. In 1 Kings, Solomon was warned that his foreign wives would, “turn his heart away from following the LORD.” David's heart never turned to other gods, he simply disobeyed the commands of the only true God whom he worshiped. I believe it is significant that when David sought to build a temple for God, he was rejected from that role on the grounds that, “you are a man of war and you have shed blood.”--1 Chron 28:3. It is also significant that The last recorded words of King David are vindictive and do not evidence a biblical trust that vengeance belongs to the LORD.
“And there is also with you Shimei the son of Gera, the Benjaminite from Bahurim, who cursed me with a grievous curse on the day when I went to Mahanaim. But when he came down to meet me at the
Jordan,
I swore to him by the LORD, saying, 'I will not put you to death with
the sword.' Now
therefore do not hold him guiltless, for you are a wise man. You will
know what you ought to do to him, and you shall bring his gray head
down with blood to Sheol." 1 Kings 2:8-9.
What makes these words ironic is that David's initial kingly career was built upon His belief that Vengeance belongs to God. That is why he refused to lay a hand upon Saul but instead waited for God to give him the Kingdom of Israel in his own good time. If you are as cynical as I am you might believe that David was an incredibly skilled political animal who knew that if he struck down Saul's kingship, that would legitimate attempts by other men to end his own royal dynasty by means of assassination. By waiting for God to give Him the kingdom, David secured his reign with God's divine sanction. Something that he would not be able to maintain in the eyes of others if he had violently seized the throne for himself.
I believe that there was much good that was accomplished by King David. He was used mightily by God. And I intend at a much later date to do some detailed exegesis of the narratives of 1 and 2 Samuel. But I believe that that the reputation of David has been whitewashed by a naive reading of Old Testament narrative. The Evangelical community will be better served by some healthy and realistic Davidic iconoclasm before he can truly be appreciated as the complicated but sincere worshiper of God that he was.
By a naïve understanding of Old Testament Narrative I refer to our habit of trying to differentiate the good guys from the bad guys, and once we have determined who the good guys are, we respect them as complicated men and excuse their sordid behavior as something that was necessary at the time. In the Bible the only true Hero is the God of Israel, and He gave Israel the Torah as the authoritative revelation of Himself and the pattern of life that all faithful Jews are to follow. The Torah does a good job of dividing up the world into black and white, right and wrong, holy and unholy. The Old Testament narratives introduce us faithful Torah followers into the world where shades of gray dominate in order that we might learn wisdom. The authors of the Old Testament treat their readers like adults and they presume that their readers know what God has said in the Torah. That should give them everything they need to make the appropriate moral judgments on the actions that take place in the OT narratives.
New Testament
Reflections
I believe that the message of Jesus
was as much social and political as it was spiritual. Forgiveness of
sins is not just the establishment of a peaceable relationship
between God and individual Christians, it is the lifeblood of the
Christian community and the greatest gift that Christianity is
obligated to extend to the rest of the world.
I believe that the ministry of Jesus in part restored the dignity and humanity to people who were living under religious and political oppression. The Land of Israel was ruled over by a pagan empire, this would have created a significant theological crisis in the eyes of the Jews. For the supremacy of nations was a strong indication of the supremacy of one religion over another. The Romans would have taken their dominance of Israel as an indication that Rome's gods were superior to the Only True God. And they had empirical data to back up their claim. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus taught His people how to live lives that that were faithful to their God in the midst of this crisis situation. When Jesus taught that the meek will inherit the land, he was saying that only those who are willing to wait on their God to deliver to them His promises, rather than seize them by force will truly receive God's promises. Jesus taught His people how to resist the dehumanizing practices of their oppressive nation, and to open up their hearts to be willing to love their enemies as God loves them.
I believe that Jesus was a particular kind of Messiah who stood in stark contrast to a host of other men who attempted to act as God's Messiah and establish His kingdom in Israel. All of the other would-be Messiahs employed violence as the means of seizing control of the land they believed that God had promised to give to His people. I believe this is part of the reason that Jesus asked so many people that he healed to be very secretive about who they thought He was and what He had done for them. When Jesus did reveal Himself to His disciples he chose a secluded place outside of the bounds of Israel, and he only did so after His disciples had a long exposure to His character and his actions. Jesus purified the land of Israel not by violent action, but by healing diseases, casting out demons and extending God's forgiveness to sinners. This is a lesson that his disciples never fully understood until after he was crucified and resurrected. As soon as Jesus revealed His messianic vocation to His disciples He began to speak of His coming crucifixion, and Peter rebuked him for speaking in such a fashion because crucifixion is not what happens to God's Messiah. Messiahs win. Even in the garden when Jesus is arrested, Peter seizes a sword and begins to fight back against the soldiers. It is here that Jesus again dissolves the violent situation by healing one of his enemies and telling Peter to put down his sword, because all who live by the sword die by the sword. The location of this passage within the narrative of Jesus is highly significant. Do not dismiss it.
I believe that Jesus was inevitably going to be killed, he witnessed to the costly Word and activity of God through his unflinching opposition to the powers that rule the world without reference to the love and power of God. I believe that Jesus was murdered by religious conservatives, Jewish nationalists, and political pragmatists who were willing to suffer the death of an innocent man to preserve the unity of their political reality regardless of whether that political reality was pleasing to God or not. I believe that this is also what the apostles believed as evidenced by their prayer in Acts 4.
I believe that the New Testament church was a new political reality brought into being by the crucifixion and resurrection of God. Up to this point in honor/shame cultures, groups identified themselves in part by the groups that they excluded from their fellowship for ethnic, political, religious or moral reasons. The church worships the crucified messiah. Crucifixion in the New Testament was the most shameful way that a person could die. Crucifixion was concrete proof that God was not with that person. When God raised Jesus from the dead, he was honoring someone who was the outcast of all humanity. This means that the community that is built upon the ministry of the crucified and raised messiah has room for everyone. There is nothing that you can do that is so shameful that God will reject you if you truly want to be with Him and follow Him. There is a definite pattern to the Christian way of life and a definite direction in which the Community seeks to ethically follow their LORD. But there are no impermeable walls that would restrict ANYONE from entering the community and following Jesus. God's love extends to the worst of the worst and He can transform even the worst of the worst. God has the power to transform a dead body into a living person. Surely he can birth life anew in your heart. This is why forgiveness lies at the heart of Christianity and it is the very lifeblood of the community.
I believe that Peace with God and within the Christian community was a major concern of the Apostle Paul. This is evidenced most clearly in his mission as the Apostle to the Gentiles who believed that the power of the gospel was most clearly proclaimed through Jews and Gentiles publicly coming to the same communion table and declaring one another to be brothers. These are two cultural religious and ethnic groups who hated one another and have been busy hating one another for generations. But the Gospel of Jesus Christ brought people from these two cultures into the same political body, and they learned to call one another brother, and to love one another. Paul's vision of ministry demonstrated a church of Christians whose commitment to their Savior and messiah runs deeper than their national identity, their cultural class, and their gender identity. (Gal 3:28)
I believe that the book of Revelation is an apocalyptic work that colorfully articulates the inherent conflict between the World and the Church of Jesus Christ. I believe that any political body that does not swear full allegiance to the Messiah Jesus' Christ's aims, AND the means of achieving those aims, then they have in part built their society upon a lie and display tacit allegiance to the father of lies, the Devil. The book of Revelation is chiefly concerned with demonstrating the conflict between the Church and the Roman Empire. I believe that at this point in time the Roman Empire was an example of a political body that had considerably given itself over to the power of the devil. John's aim throughout the book is to peel back the curtain so to speak behind the day to day events so that Christians could see the inner workings of the Roman Empire and understand the dark spiritual influences that were directing her. Not all political bodies give themselves over to the power of the devil to the extent that Rome has done, but no political body is exempt from this diabolical influence. I refuse to call America Rome or Babylon in an uncritical fashion, but this does not make my nation exempt for the criticism that is presented in the book of Revelation. Also keep in mind that all man are mired in sin and cannot be extricated outside of the power of Jesus Christ, and even when one has been saved, it is the work of a lifetime and then some to “un-learn” sin and to learn in instead the love of God and Love of neighbor.
John's commendation to the church is similar to our LORD's promise that the meek will inherit the Earth. Those who patiently wait on the LORD and endure suffering without giving up on their faith and believing the lie that they have been abandoned by God will inherit the land. In John's terminology, by their witness and martyrdom they will conquer the world. That being said, martyrdom is a gift that our LORD gives to His people, never a position to be sought. Such a belief would be masochism and has no place in the life affirming religion of Christianity. Christians just believe that life is a gift from God, and true and faithful worship of the Life giving God is more important than life itself. It is a constant struggle but as Christians, we refuse to confuse the gifts our God gives with our God Himself. And sometimes it requires us giving up our lives in order that we might learn to be more attached to our God than ourselves.
***Rant*** I'm really irritated by some Christian music songs that believe suffering is a shortcut to spiritual maturity. While it is true that suffering often provides the opportunity for us to learn who we truly are and how much we need God, how we respond to those opportunities are not guaranteed. I suspect that a certain American obsession with efficiency and proficiency leads us to inadvertently make some abominable assertions. Some of our music leads us to pray for suffering in order that we might level-up more quickly. That is masochism and it is a refusal to discern how we ought to faithfully live in the place that God has seen fit to place us. Suffering meets us all in God's own time, and it should never be sought. There are plenty of Christian brothers and sisters suffering throughout the world. We can fulfill our proper Christian duty by taking advantage of our privileged position and working hard to ensure that they are able to carry the cross of our LORD well in their difficult situations. Never forget, they are our brothers and sisters and their witness for Christ is our witness for Christ. And your witness for Christ in America is their witness for Christ. Follow the admonition of our LORD in Matthew 25 and honor those who are ill-treated for His Names sake.
I believe that vengeance belongs to God and that he will repay. This is an Old Testament axiom that is picked up by the Apostle Paul and demonstrated viscerally in the book of Revelation. I believe that the apocalypse is an apocalypse. It will be characterized by the sudden violent intervention of God to save His people from utter destruction and fully vindicate their foolish faith in God and to give them the full realization of His promises.
I believe that forgiveness is the lifeblood of the church. I believe that forgiveness is a necessary component of any meaningful Christian relationship. I'm willing to say that if you have never forgiven another Christian then you have NEVER experienced Christian community. We grow together when we learn to receive God's forgiveness from our brothers and sisters and when we emulate our LORD by graciously offering His forgiveness to our errant brothers. If we aren't sinning against one another its because we aren't getting close enough to truly see and be seen by one another. And I believe it is only through the perpetual experience of forgiveness within the Christian community that we will ever even begin to unlearn sin and learn love and grace instead.
I believe that the ministry of Jesus in part restored the dignity and humanity to people who were living under religious and political oppression. The Land of Israel was ruled over by a pagan empire, this would have created a significant theological crisis in the eyes of the Jews. For the supremacy of nations was a strong indication of the supremacy of one religion over another. The Romans would have taken their dominance of Israel as an indication that Rome's gods were superior to the Only True God. And they had empirical data to back up their claim. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus taught His people how to live lives that that were faithful to their God in the midst of this crisis situation. When Jesus taught that the meek will inherit the land, he was saying that only those who are willing to wait on their God to deliver to them His promises, rather than seize them by force will truly receive God's promises. Jesus taught His people how to resist the dehumanizing practices of their oppressive nation, and to open up their hearts to be willing to love their enemies as God loves them.
I believe that Jesus was a particular kind of Messiah who stood in stark contrast to a host of other men who attempted to act as God's Messiah and establish His kingdom in Israel. All of the other would-be Messiahs employed violence as the means of seizing control of the land they believed that God had promised to give to His people. I believe this is part of the reason that Jesus asked so many people that he healed to be very secretive about who they thought He was and what He had done for them. When Jesus did reveal Himself to His disciples he chose a secluded place outside of the bounds of Israel, and he only did so after His disciples had a long exposure to His character and his actions. Jesus purified the land of Israel not by violent action, but by healing diseases, casting out demons and extending God's forgiveness to sinners. This is a lesson that his disciples never fully understood until after he was crucified and resurrected. As soon as Jesus revealed His messianic vocation to His disciples He began to speak of His coming crucifixion, and Peter rebuked him for speaking in such a fashion because crucifixion is not what happens to God's Messiah. Messiahs win. Even in the garden when Jesus is arrested, Peter seizes a sword and begins to fight back against the soldiers. It is here that Jesus again dissolves the violent situation by healing one of his enemies and telling Peter to put down his sword, because all who live by the sword die by the sword. The location of this passage within the narrative of Jesus is highly significant. Do not dismiss it.
I believe that Jesus was inevitably going to be killed, he witnessed to the costly Word and activity of God through his unflinching opposition to the powers that rule the world without reference to the love and power of God. I believe that Jesus was murdered by religious conservatives, Jewish nationalists, and political pragmatists who were willing to suffer the death of an innocent man to preserve the unity of their political reality regardless of whether that political reality was pleasing to God or not. I believe that this is also what the apostles believed as evidenced by their prayer in Acts 4.
I believe that the New Testament church was a new political reality brought into being by the crucifixion and resurrection of God. Up to this point in honor/shame cultures, groups identified themselves in part by the groups that they excluded from their fellowship for ethnic, political, religious or moral reasons. The church worships the crucified messiah. Crucifixion in the New Testament was the most shameful way that a person could die. Crucifixion was concrete proof that God was not with that person. When God raised Jesus from the dead, he was honoring someone who was the outcast of all humanity. This means that the community that is built upon the ministry of the crucified and raised messiah has room for everyone. There is nothing that you can do that is so shameful that God will reject you if you truly want to be with Him and follow Him. There is a definite pattern to the Christian way of life and a definite direction in which the Community seeks to ethically follow their LORD. But there are no impermeable walls that would restrict ANYONE from entering the community and following Jesus. God's love extends to the worst of the worst and He can transform even the worst of the worst. God has the power to transform a dead body into a living person. Surely he can birth life anew in your heart. This is why forgiveness lies at the heart of Christianity and it is the very lifeblood of the community.
I believe that Peace with God and within the Christian community was a major concern of the Apostle Paul. This is evidenced most clearly in his mission as the Apostle to the Gentiles who believed that the power of the gospel was most clearly proclaimed through Jews and Gentiles publicly coming to the same communion table and declaring one another to be brothers. These are two cultural religious and ethnic groups who hated one another and have been busy hating one another for generations. But the Gospel of Jesus Christ brought people from these two cultures into the same political body, and they learned to call one another brother, and to love one another. Paul's vision of ministry demonstrated a church of Christians whose commitment to their Savior and messiah runs deeper than their national identity, their cultural class, and their gender identity. (Gal 3:28)
I believe that the book of Revelation is an apocalyptic work that colorfully articulates the inherent conflict between the World and the Church of Jesus Christ. I believe that any political body that does not swear full allegiance to the Messiah Jesus' Christ's aims, AND the means of achieving those aims, then they have in part built their society upon a lie and display tacit allegiance to the father of lies, the Devil. The book of Revelation is chiefly concerned with demonstrating the conflict between the Church and the Roman Empire. I believe that at this point in time the Roman Empire was an example of a political body that had considerably given itself over to the power of the devil. John's aim throughout the book is to peel back the curtain so to speak behind the day to day events so that Christians could see the inner workings of the Roman Empire and understand the dark spiritual influences that were directing her. Not all political bodies give themselves over to the power of the devil to the extent that Rome has done, but no political body is exempt from this diabolical influence. I refuse to call America Rome or Babylon in an uncritical fashion, but this does not make my nation exempt for the criticism that is presented in the book of Revelation. Also keep in mind that all man are mired in sin and cannot be extricated outside of the power of Jesus Christ, and even when one has been saved, it is the work of a lifetime and then some to “un-learn” sin and to learn in instead the love of God and Love of neighbor.
John's commendation to the church is similar to our LORD's promise that the meek will inherit the Earth. Those who patiently wait on the LORD and endure suffering without giving up on their faith and believing the lie that they have been abandoned by God will inherit the land. In John's terminology, by their witness and martyrdom they will conquer the world. That being said, martyrdom is a gift that our LORD gives to His people, never a position to be sought. Such a belief would be masochism and has no place in the life affirming religion of Christianity. Christians just believe that life is a gift from God, and true and faithful worship of the Life giving God is more important than life itself. It is a constant struggle but as Christians, we refuse to confuse the gifts our God gives with our God Himself. And sometimes it requires us giving up our lives in order that we might learn to be more attached to our God than ourselves.
***Rant*** I'm really irritated by some Christian music songs that believe suffering is a shortcut to spiritual maturity. While it is true that suffering often provides the opportunity for us to learn who we truly are and how much we need God, how we respond to those opportunities are not guaranteed. I suspect that a certain American obsession with efficiency and proficiency leads us to inadvertently make some abominable assertions. Some of our music leads us to pray for suffering in order that we might level-up more quickly. That is masochism and it is a refusal to discern how we ought to faithfully live in the place that God has seen fit to place us. Suffering meets us all in God's own time, and it should never be sought. There are plenty of Christian brothers and sisters suffering throughout the world. We can fulfill our proper Christian duty by taking advantage of our privileged position and working hard to ensure that they are able to carry the cross of our LORD well in their difficult situations. Never forget, they are our brothers and sisters and their witness for Christ is our witness for Christ. And your witness for Christ in America is their witness for Christ. Follow the admonition of our LORD in Matthew 25 and honor those who are ill-treated for His Names sake.
I believe that vengeance belongs to God and that he will repay. This is an Old Testament axiom that is picked up by the Apostle Paul and demonstrated viscerally in the book of Revelation. I believe that the apocalypse is an apocalypse. It will be characterized by the sudden violent intervention of God to save His people from utter destruction and fully vindicate their foolish faith in God and to give them the full realization of His promises.
I believe that forgiveness is the lifeblood of the church. I believe that forgiveness is a necessary component of any meaningful Christian relationship. I'm willing to say that if you have never forgiven another Christian then you have NEVER experienced Christian community. We grow together when we learn to receive God's forgiveness from our brothers and sisters and when we emulate our LORD by graciously offering His forgiveness to our errant brothers. If we aren't sinning against one another its because we aren't getting close enough to truly see and be seen by one another. And I believe it is only through the perpetual experience of forgiveness within the Christian community that we will ever even begin to unlearn sin and learn love and grace instead.
Historical Judgments
Since
this is the 4th
of July I am honor bound to comment on the American Revolution. What
follows are my own personal moral reflections as a Christian upon the
founding of America.
I believe that the American revolution was an unbiblical revolt against our proper political authority. I believe that our willingness to spill blood over issues of taxation and representation is a heinous sin. This means that I believe that we murdered thousands of British troops so that we could be more free to philosophize and enjoy our wealth. Not an easy pill to swallow, but that is what my convictions lead me to conclude. I shall henceforth refer to American aggression as bloodshed and not war, because I do not believe that an unjust war can rightly be called a war.
I believe that one of the conditions that made our willingness to shed blood easier was the unbiblical fusion of an Old Testament theology with the political vision of many American settlers. I do not fault the early Americans for drawing analogies between Israel and their situation as settlers in a new land in the wilderness. Considering many of them were leaving situations of political and religious oppression I do not fault them for gaining much comfort and solace in the book of Exodus and the rest of the Old Testament. I am quite confident I would have done the same thing in their position, and I believe I would have done so with God's blessing. I fault them for blurring the theological lines when they declared, not, “our situation is like Ancient Israel,” but rather instead proclaimed, “We are the New Israel.”
I believe that the chief taxes that Americans were struggling against were taxes put in place to offset the financial burden placed upon the British Empire as a result of their efforts to defend the colonies during the French and Indian war. That America would rage against the taxes that were bankrolling many of their privileges is a grave ingratitude for which we are culpable before God.
I believe that Britain did a supremely poor job of communicating the rationale for their new taxes. I work as the on site manager for a warehouse. All of my supervisors telecommute and nearly all of our communication occurs over text messages and e-mail. Many of our biggest management issues have arisen from communication blunders that are exacerbated by our finite scope of vision. I cannot imagine being the political governor of a colony on the other side of the ocean where the fastest means of communication is a boat sailing across the Atlantic. I understand the American desire for colonial representation, It was a good and just desire. It grieves me when I listen to the manner in which Britain sold their taxes to the colonies. Such decisions bordered on political incompetence and I am not surprised that the Molasses, Sugar and Stamp taxes fed the flames of revolution. However, that is no excuse for American bloodshed.
I believe that, in spite of the sinful, violent beginnings of our nation, the ideals that animated the government that we established come from a rich well of Christian and Political reflection. There appears to me to be a sincere desire to ensure that America does not become a nation that would treat it's subjects the way they were treated by Britain. The government that was established was built upon wisdom and prudence and is a commendable human achievement that I believe pleased God. This does not excuse American bloodshed, but the established government should not be condemned on the basis of the American revolution. God has been merciful to us by permitting such a government to arise. This may not be the best government in the world, but the ideals that animated it are worth retaining as Christians.
We need to humbly relearn our history. We need to look past the myths that animate our lives as Americans to understand the nitty-gritty sins and vices that have played a role in us gaining the place we now hold in the world. We need to learn to repent and tell the truth about who we are and what have done in the hopes that we might truly find ourselves useful in the hands of our LORD. We should be especially mindful of the ways in which the ideals of freedom and justice upon which America was founded are not shared equally by all American citizens. If whole communities in America are deprived of legitimate and realistic access to these ideals, then we are not done realizing the American vision.
I believe that the American revolution was an unbiblical revolt against our proper political authority. I believe that our willingness to spill blood over issues of taxation and representation is a heinous sin. This means that I believe that we murdered thousands of British troops so that we could be more free to philosophize and enjoy our wealth. Not an easy pill to swallow, but that is what my convictions lead me to conclude. I shall henceforth refer to American aggression as bloodshed and not war, because I do not believe that an unjust war can rightly be called a war.
I believe that one of the conditions that made our willingness to shed blood easier was the unbiblical fusion of an Old Testament theology with the political vision of many American settlers. I do not fault the early Americans for drawing analogies between Israel and their situation as settlers in a new land in the wilderness. Considering many of them were leaving situations of political and religious oppression I do not fault them for gaining much comfort and solace in the book of Exodus and the rest of the Old Testament. I am quite confident I would have done the same thing in their position, and I believe I would have done so with God's blessing. I fault them for blurring the theological lines when they declared, not, “our situation is like Ancient Israel,” but rather instead proclaimed, “We are the New Israel.”
I believe that the chief taxes that Americans were struggling against were taxes put in place to offset the financial burden placed upon the British Empire as a result of their efforts to defend the colonies during the French and Indian war. That America would rage against the taxes that were bankrolling many of their privileges is a grave ingratitude for which we are culpable before God.
I believe that Britain did a supremely poor job of communicating the rationale for their new taxes. I work as the on site manager for a warehouse. All of my supervisors telecommute and nearly all of our communication occurs over text messages and e-mail. Many of our biggest management issues have arisen from communication blunders that are exacerbated by our finite scope of vision. I cannot imagine being the political governor of a colony on the other side of the ocean where the fastest means of communication is a boat sailing across the Atlantic. I understand the American desire for colonial representation, It was a good and just desire. It grieves me when I listen to the manner in which Britain sold their taxes to the colonies. Such decisions bordered on political incompetence and I am not surprised that the Molasses, Sugar and Stamp taxes fed the flames of revolution. However, that is no excuse for American bloodshed.
I believe that, in spite of the sinful, violent beginnings of our nation, the ideals that animated the government that we established come from a rich well of Christian and Political reflection. There appears to me to be a sincere desire to ensure that America does not become a nation that would treat it's subjects the way they were treated by Britain. The government that was established was built upon wisdom and prudence and is a commendable human achievement that I believe pleased God. This does not excuse American bloodshed, but the established government should not be condemned on the basis of the American revolution. God has been merciful to us by permitting such a government to arise. This may not be the best government in the world, but the ideals that animated it are worth retaining as Christians.
We need to humbly relearn our history. We need to look past the myths that animate our lives as Americans to understand the nitty-gritty sins and vices that have played a role in us gaining the place we now hold in the world. We need to learn to repent and tell the truth about who we are and what have done in the hopes that we might truly find ourselves useful in the hands of our LORD. We should be especially mindful of the ways in which the ideals of freedom and justice upon which America was founded are not shared equally by all American citizens. If whole communities in America are deprived of legitimate and realistic access to these ideals, then we are not done realizing the American vision.
Epistemological propositions
Up to this point I have offered Biblical interpretation with some ethical reflection mixed in there. This is what I believe Scripture teaches. I also believe that we now need to learn and reflect upon how to wisely integrate these Scriptural ideals into our concrete way of living in the world. In case you have any doubts I find myself identifying quite strongly with the Anabaptist, pacifist steams of Christianity. From here I will not advocate a political position but I will elaborate a number of thoughts on how pacifists and Just War theorists and more radical advocates of the judicious or injdudicious use of military force can have a profitable conversation.
How do we speak to others with whom we disagree? If one such as I were to become convinced that all exercises of military force are sinful, something I do not at this point believe, how do I proceed in dialoguing with those who think otherwise? What about those friends of mine who wear the uniform of my country's military? For in all honesty many of them have committed their lives to a significant cause and have endured far more suffering for their convictions than I have. I find it very difficult to take myself seriously considering my vantage point. I honestly do not blame anyone who writes me off as an unrealistic, over-educated, Hippy, liberal, ivory tower elitist whose big ugly face is as dumb as a butt.
The issue at the end of the day is an issue of character. What sort of person must I be if I am to find myself qualified to speak authoritatively on issues such as these? I will be the first to admit that I have very little business saying anything to anyone in this area. I've just read a lot of books and learned how unforgiving I can be. All that my pacifism really means for me today is that I stand under perpetual judgment for my willing refusal to live in peace with my neighbors. Pacifism has given me words to name and confess my tendency to bully my peers and attempt to dominate the people I supervise in my workplace.
Pacifists
We need to be extremely diligent to ensure that our lofty ideas about peace and justice are working themselves deeper and deeper into the concrete actions of our daily lives. If this is not occurring then were are nothing but damnable hypocrites. Our convictions do not mean anything until we demonstrate a sober willingness to suffer for them. The world has to see us bleed for our beliefs if it is ever going to take us seriously. The reason I don't re-post compelling blog articles others have written is because I believe it is bit passive aggressive and disingenuous to post somebody else's thoughts while still being able to casually distance myself from a position I fully agree with simply because I did not personally write it. Feel free to disagree with me here, those posts do some good but more than anything else the world needs your own words to be spoken in this issue. Our communities need us to personally communicate the deep convictions of our hearts and the process it took for us to arrive at those convictions. May we never forget the process we underwent before we arrived here. We do a lot of damage when we are quick to articulate our conclusions in these matters with no respect for the amount of time it took for us to reach those conclusions. Without patience with those whom we disagree with we cannot help but become judgmental bullies. I know I have been just such a person. People need to see us sweat and weep and bleed. Otherwise our words are empty. We have to put our own reputations on the line and make ourselves vulnerable to others as best as we can.
I am informed particularly by the Mennonites on this point. The Mennonites as a general rule do not wright systematic theologies. They do not spell out in intricate intellectual detail their beliefs about God. Instead they write books about Ethics. That is, they believe that our concrete action in this world is more important than our presumed beliefs about the God we worship. Ultimately, if our actions do not cohere with our stated beliefs, that is because we do not actually believe what we claim to believe.
We need to take seriously the well-reasoned objections to our position. We need to listen and listen well to the long tradition of Christian Just-War thinking. I see too much talk on the internet from people who have discovered pacifism and pit their well-reasoned, nuanced understanding of Scripture against the worst, most flagrant straw-man characterizations of Just-War theory. We cannot afford to be ignorant of the other side of the argument and we need to take their position seriously and listen with respect. This may require us to become educated in the tradition and then educate those we argue against on the position they claim to adopt. This may make your opponents more adamant advocates of Just-War theory, but it is the only way to ensure honest communication occurs between both sides. I'm not convinced by the arguments for Just-War theory that I have heard, but it is an intellectually serious and morally respectable position in it's best iterations. We only hurt our own position when we refuse to learn the best contributions of those we argue with.
One of the frustrating things I discover when I find myself in discussions among people who all share the same assumptions about Christianity and violence is that the bigger the crowd gets, the lower the level of compassion, understanding and empathy for those who disagree with you becomes. Which is kind of ironic because this strong position against violence comes from the Dominical statements of Jesus about loving our enemies and doing good to those who persecute us. I will grant that when your ideological “enemies” are fellow Christians, it is easy for patience to grow short when people appear to be rationalizing away their refusal to even listen to Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. But I would love to see more patience and understanding among those who have become enthralled by His peaceable way of life.
We would also be wise to learn a nuanced appreciation for our homeland. I know many Christians who are very quick to distance themselves from the nation and culture of their birth without considering the ways in which this place has formed us and remains personally and emotionally significant to our lives. Convictions such as mine will put you at odds with American culture, but my convictions are born at least in part out of a desire to serve and be faithful to my LORD. And I know Jesus Loves America and Americans. I need to learn a nuanced respect for the land that gave birth to me and the many things I ought to be more grateful for, even as I strive to un-learn the sinful patterns of life that are peculiar to citizens of America.
The main reason that I find myself fascinated by pacifists is because they seem to be more determined to follow Jesus at personal cost to themselves than anybody else I know. More than anything I want my life to look like the sort of life that they articulate in the best of their works It may be easy for me to be a blogging pacifist in the hippy-dippy Pacific Northwest but it still puts me outside the norm.
Up to this point I have offered Biblical interpretation with some ethical reflection mixed in there. This is what I believe Scripture teaches. I also believe that we now need to learn and reflect upon how to wisely integrate these Scriptural ideals into our concrete way of living in the world. In case you have any doubts I find myself identifying quite strongly with the Anabaptist, pacifist steams of Christianity. From here I will not advocate a political position but I will elaborate a number of thoughts on how pacifists and Just War theorists and more radical advocates of the judicious or injdudicious use of military force can have a profitable conversation.
How do we speak to others with whom we disagree? If one such as I were to become convinced that all exercises of military force are sinful, something I do not at this point believe, how do I proceed in dialoguing with those who think otherwise? What about those friends of mine who wear the uniform of my country's military? For in all honesty many of them have committed their lives to a significant cause and have endured far more suffering for their convictions than I have. I find it very difficult to take myself seriously considering my vantage point. I honestly do not blame anyone who writes me off as an unrealistic, over-educated, Hippy, liberal, ivory tower elitist whose big ugly face is as dumb as a butt.
The issue at the end of the day is an issue of character. What sort of person must I be if I am to find myself qualified to speak authoritatively on issues such as these? I will be the first to admit that I have very little business saying anything to anyone in this area. I've just read a lot of books and learned how unforgiving I can be. All that my pacifism really means for me today is that I stand under perpetual judgment for my willing refusal to live in peace with my neighbors. Pacifism has given me words to name and confess my tendency to bully my peers and attempt to dominate the people I supervise in my workplace.
Pacifists
We need to be extremely diligent to ensure that our lofty ideas about peace and justice are working themselves deeper and deeper into the concrete actions of our daily lives. If this is not occurring then were are nothing but damnable hypocrites. Our convictions do not mean anything until we demonstrate a sober willingness to suffer for them. The world has to see us bleed for our beliefs if it is ever going to take us seriously. The reason I don't re-post compelling blog articles others have written is because I believe it is bit passive aggressive and disingenuous to post somebody else's thoughts while still being able to casually distance myself from a position I fully agree with simply because I did not personally write it. Feel free to disagree with me here, those posts do some good but more than anything else the world needs your own words to be spoken in this issue. Our communities need us to personally communicate the deep convictions of our hearts and the process it took for us to arrive at those convictions. May we never forget the process we underwent before we arrived here. We do a lot of damage when we are quick to articulate our conclusions in these matters with no respect for the amount of time it took for us to reach those conclusions. Without patience with those whom we disagree with we cannot help but become judgmental bullies. I know I have been just such a person. People need to see us sweat and weep and bleed. Otherwise our words are empty. We have to put our own reputations on the line and make ourselves vulnerable to others as best as we can.
I am informed particularly by the Mennonites on this point. The Mennonites as a general rule do not wright systematic theologies. They do not spell out in intricate intellectual detail their beliefs about God. Instead they write books about Ethics. That is, they believe that our concrete action in this world is more important than our presumed beliefs about the God we worship. Ultimately, if our actions do not cohere with our stated beliefs, that is because we do not actually believe what we claim to believe.
We need to take seriously the well-reasoned objections to our position. We need to listen and listen well to the long tradition of Christian Just-War thinking. I see too much talk on the internet from people who have discovered pacifism and pit their well-reasoned, nuanced understanding of Scripture against the worst, most flagrant straw-man characterizations of Just-War theory. We cannot afford to be ignorant of the other side of the argument and we need to take their position seriously and listen with respect. This may require us to become educated in the tradition and then educate those we argue against on the position they claim to adopt. This may make your opponents more adamant advocates of Just-War theory, but it is the only way to ensure honest communication occurs between both sides. I'm not convinced by the arguments for Just-War theory that I have heard, but it is an intellectually serious and morally respectable position in it's best iterations. We only hurt our own position when we refuse to learn the best contributions of those we argue with.
One of the frustrating things I discover when I find myself in discussions among people who all share the same assumptions about Christianity and violence is that the bigger the crowd gets, the lower the level of compassion, understanding and empathy for those who disagree with you becomes. Which is kind of ironic because this strong position against violence comes from the Dominical statements of Jesus about loving our enemies and doing good to those who persecute us. I will grant that when your ideological “enemies” are fellow Christians, it is easy for patience to grow short when people appear to be rationalizing away their refusal to even listen to Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. But I would love to see more patience and understanding among those who have become enthralled by His peaceable way of life.
We would also be wise to learn a nuanced appreciation for our homeland. I know many Christians who are very quick to distance themselves from the nation and culture of their birth without considering the ways in which this place has formed us and remains personally and emotionally significant to our lives. Convictions such as mine will put you at odds with American culture, but my convictions are born at least in part out of a desire to serve and be faithful to my LORD. And I know Jesus Loves America and Americans. I need to learn a nuanced respect for the land that gave birth to me and the many things I ought to be more grateful for, even as I strive to un-learn the sinful patterns of life that are peculiar to citizens of America.
The main reason that I find myself fascinated by pacifists is because they seem to be more determined to follow Jesus at personal cost to themselves than anybody else I know. More than anything I want my life to look like the sort of life that they articulate in the best of their works It may be easy for me to be a blogging pacifist in the hippy-dippy Pacific Northwest but it still puts me outside the norm.
Just Warriors
Please
work diligently to maintain the distinction between becoming a
soldier and being called as a Christian to suffer a martyrs death. We
need to work extremely hard to keep the two categories distinct in
our minds and in the way we speak and act. Whenever you pick up a gun
with the intent to end the life of another human being, you
disqualify yourself from Christian martyrdom. Martyrs take their cues
from Jesus who, “was
oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a
lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its
shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth. like
a lamb who was led to the slaughter, he was silent before his
shearers.”--Isaiah 53:7 That is not to say that we pacifists are
silent, oh no the internet is a testament to the fact that we are
loud and obnoxious. What I am getting at is the difference between
soberly entering the arena of combat and recognizing that it may
claim your life and the even more impressive act of voluntarily
laying down your life for your enemies while at the same time
refusing to fight back.
Those who give their life in combat are engaging in morally serious and emotionally compelling work. But we need to be extremely careful that we do not co-opt the language of Scripture and attribute more significance to their noble gifts than is proper. Martyrs are worthy of veneration, soldiers as soldiers are not. Solders do not “lay down their lives for their friends,” Jesus told Peter to put his sword away. Their self-sacrifice is commendable and ought to be highly honored in the Christian church. Those who have been in combat have access to stores of wisdom that I cannot ever hope to attain, but even this is not the same thing as Christian Martyrdom.
This is an incredibly difficult distinction to make on another level because we in the American Church have in a sense been cut off form the church of martyrs. We do not have many stories to tell of men who have lain down their lives as a result of their great love for God and their enemies. But we personally know many men and women who have put their bodies on the learn in service to their country.
May I also say a few words on the issue of dissent? I have heard the thought bandied about that soldiers died for my right to speak freely. What is often implicit in that claim is the conclusion that I should therefore shut up if I am going to say anything negative about the necessity of that sacrifice or the sort of freedom that such a sacrifice actually produces. The belief that because people died for my right to dissent I should therefore refrain from dissenting against them is ridiculous. If that is the case you aren't dying for that right at all if you simultaneously make it so socially unconscionable to actually exercise your right to dissent. And it's not that whatever sacrifices have been given for the sake of freedom aren't on some level noble and commendable, but this is an act of rhetorical bullying that intends to shut down a dialogue rather than have a discussion. And such sacrifices are not the only source of my freedom of speech. My LORD has provided His people with the freedom to say what must be said on His behalf because He has made it possible for us to live without fear in the face of a world opposed to His rule.
Just Warriors, please remember that people like me attend your churches. Would you please does us a solid and FOR THE LOVE OF GOD! please stop singing “Battle Hymn of the Republic” during the corporate worship of the Church of Jesus Christ. The Beautiful, Revolutionary Peaceable Gospel of Jesus Christ IS NOT, “Writ in burnish'd rows of steel.” The fusion of the exercise of American military force with the apocalyptic judgments of Revelation is Blasphemy. Revelation details the coming day when God's perfect justice will cleanse the Earth. America can never claim to execute perfect justice. We must be content as Just Warriors to offer our humble and meager attempts to thwart evil up to God, while at the same time praying that God would be exceedingly merciful to us and permit more good than evil to be brought about by our use of force.
Those who give their life in combat are engaging in morally serious and emotionally compelling work. But we need to be extremely careful that we do not co-opt the language of Scripture and attribute more significance to their noble gifts than is proper. Martyrs are worthy of veneration, soldiers as soldiers are not. Solders do not “lay down their lives for their friends,” Jesus told Peter to put his sword away. Their self-sacrifice is commendable and ought to be highly honored in the Christian church. Those who have been in combat have access to stores of wisdom that I cannot ever hope to attain, but even this is not the same thing as Christian Martyrdom.
This is an incredibly difficult distinction to make on another level because we in the American Church have in a sense been cut off form the church of martyrs. We do not have many stories to tell of men who have lain down their lives as a result of their great love for God and their enemies. But we personally know many men and women who have put their bodies on the learn in service to their country.
May I also say a few words on the issue of dissent? I have heard the thought bandied about that soldiers died for my right to speak freely. What is often implicit in that claim is the conclusion that I should therefore shut up if I am going to say anything negative about the necessity of that sacrifice or the sort of freedom that such a sacrifice actually produces. The belief that because people died for my right to dissent I should therefore refrain from dissenting against them is ridiculous. If that is the case you aren't dying for that right at all if you simultaneously make it so socially unconscionable to actually exercise your right to dissent. And it's not that whatever sacrifices have been given for the sake of freedom aren't on some level noble and commendable, but this is an act of rhetorical bullying that intends to shut down a dialogue rather than have a discussion. And such sacrifices are not the only source of my freedom of speech. My LORD has provided His people with the freedom to say what must be said on His behalf because He has made it possible for us to live without fear in the face of a world opposed to His rule.
Just Warriors, please remember that people like me attend your churches. Would you please does us a solid and FOR THE LOVE OF GOD! please stop singing “Battle Hymn of the Republic” during the corporate worship of the Church of Jesus Christ. The Beautiful, Revolutionary Peaceable Gospel of Jesus Christ IS NOT, “Writ in burnish'd rows of steel.” The fusion of the exercise of American military force with the apocalyptic judgments of Revelation is Blasphemy. Revelation details the coming day when God's perfect justice will cleanse the Earth. America can never claim to execute perfect justice. We must be content as Just Warriors to offer our humble and meager attempts to thwart evil up to God, while at the same time praying that God would be exceedingly merciful to us and permit more good than evil to be brought about by our use of force.
Common objections to an ethic of Christian Pacifism
There are three common objections that Just Warriors invoke to shut-down the pacifist argument. I'll make note of them in brief here.
First there is the home-invasion-rape-scenario. The scenario goes like this, What would I do if I found myself awake in the middle of the night in my house with a gun in my hand looking at a violent intruder that I somehow know is going to rape my wife and children if I do not kill him on the spot. Given such a scenario how can I possibly be a pacifist? I would retort that this is an unfair scenario that arbitrarily restricts my choices to an either/or decision of justifiable homicide or complicity in the sexual assault of my loved ones. You do realize that pacifists are allowed to shoot people in the knees right? But more importantly we pacifists reject such narrow divisions of possibility. We believe that each such scenario like this must be discerned on a case by case basis. Perhaps the LORD will send an angel to miraculously intervene on my behalf, perhaps a Christian extension of forgiveness can melt the intruders heart and cause him to surrender. Please read Amy Laura-Hall and Kara Slade's amazing essay in the collection, “A faith not worth fighting for” edited by Tripp York.
Another Trump card is the question of what would we pacifists do when we are confronted with an evil dictator like Hitler? This is another trump card that is supposed to render all pacifists mute and trembling before his military might. Please consider that we pacifists attempt to look at the whole life, including the circumstances that led up to the war. Rather than beginning with the declaration of war and then deciding to make sure we follow our Just War check lists. We believe we are just as culpable for the actions we took in the years and decades prior to the outbreak of war that made such a war appear necessary and even good. And God may hold us responsible for such actions, Lord knows that on the cross Jesus forgave men who, “knew not what they were doing.” We would begin our discussion of Hitler with some very serious questions about what happened to the Christian church in Germany decades before Hitler was even born. And we would also note that the church endured the homicidal rage of several Roman Emperors before we finally conquered the Roman Empire. The meek will inherit the land.
One of the common objections to a pacifistic interpretation of the message of Jesus is that this interpretation produces an ethic that is unworkable in the real world. I find it very interesting that the segment of the Christian culture that insists that the world we live in determines what we can and cannot believe in the Bible is also the segment of our Christian culture where six-day creationism is taught dogmatically in some circles. I don't mean to equate the two beliefs or insist that they necessarily follow one or the other I'm simply pointing to a larger idea about interpretation. In the example about 6 day creationism many conservative Christians will insist that the overwhelming consensus of the scientific world makes no difference to how they read the Biblical text. That is, more liberal Christians can justifiably say that your 6 day interpretation of Genesis 1 is unworkable in the real world in which we live. Both texts are difficult to understand and faithfully obey, but it should be our goal as faithful interpreters of Scripture to work out a consistent hermeneutic that understands the extent to which our current understanding of world constrains our interpretation of the text, and the extent to which our imagination needs to be stretched by the demands of Scripture in order that we may become more faithful and more biblical Christians.
I would also say that the recent record of history, particular as it is evidenced by the Revolution of the Candles that brought down the Berlin Wall, as well as Ghandhi's and Martin Luther King Jr.'s non-violent campaigns did for the most part achieve their political goals without exercising violence. Jesus Christ is alive and well and the meek will inherit the land. Have patience and do not give up.
Consider this anecdote in closing. Stanley Hauerwas was once asked a question about Just War theorists after a lecture that he gave about non-violence. He said many kind things but he also had this scathing comment that has stuck with me. “When Truman dropped the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where in the hell were the Just-War proponents who should have come out and condemned such actions as murder?” Pacifists are taken to task all the time for their convictions. When your theory really matters, why didn't anybody stand up and oppose such a blatant disregard for proportionality and discrimination? Where do we see Just-War advocates suffering for their positions and taking a costly stance against flagrant use of violence in warfare? If you are truly an advocate for the Just War tradition, you need to work hard to demonstrate how exactly you believe that our practice of warfare has been constrained by those convictions or at least to demonstrate cases where it has not been constrained but it should have been. Until you demonstrate this, your convictions are as empty as you claim mine to be. They become nothing more than a cheap justification for state-sponsored violence. (I should say, that I fully agree with Hauerwas's comments here, considering how I spoke against hiding behind authors and despising retweets earlier).
I hope you found this interesting, incisive and agitating. I commend you for working all the way through this blog post. It was not an easy haul I'm sure. I promise to buy you a cup of coffee if you want to personally discuss anything that I have written here. If you feel I have in any way been unfair please let me know. I do not mean to misrepresent anyone. If you believe I have spoken out of turn anywhere in this essay please let me know. My zeal to get this out on time has no doubt caused me overlook uncharitable and unkind prose. I have no business asking you to respect my intentions because this entire blog post is an articulation of what I in fact believe. If I have wronged you in any way please confront me on it. I will listen and repent if that is the required response.
I wish that you all may experience the peace of Christ that I so richly enjoy as a Child of the Heavenly Father.
Bibliography-
Zahnd, Brian “Farewell to Mars.” (If you are new to this discussion start here, it details an Evangelical pastors conversion from a more traditional conservative evangelical worldview to something similar to what I have articulated here.)
McClendon, James William “Ethics: Systematic theology vol. 1” (this is an excellent introduction to the way of doing theology and ethics that is characteristic of a more Anabaptistic tradition. This is one of my all time favorite books and it is among the most important and interesting that I have ever read. I return to it often).
Zahnd, Brian “Farewell to Mars.” (If you are new to this discussion start here, it details an Evangelical pastors conversion from a more traditional conservative evangelical worldview to something similar to what I have articulated here.)
McClendon, James William “Ethics: Systematic theology vol. 1” (this is an excellent introduction to the way of doing theology and ethics that is characteristic of a more Anabaptistic tradition. This is one of my all time favorite books and it is among the most important and interesting that I have ever read. I return to it often).
Hauerwas, Stanley
--Everything.
“Resident Aliens” (co-written with Will Willimon)
“The Peaceable Kingdom.”
“War and the American
Difference”--Everything.
“Resident Aliens” (co-written with Will Willimon)
“The Peaceable Kingdom.”
Bell, Daniel M. Just War as Christian Discipleship. (Pacifist friends, I adjure you to understand your opposition before daring to argue with them).
Yoder, John Howard,
“The Politics of Jesus”
“The Original Revolution” (Specifically the essay, “The Original Revolution.”)
--Everything else.
Nugent, John C. “The Politics of YAHWEH.” (For those interested in a reading of the Old Testament that harmonizes well with a pacifistic interpretation of the New Testament)
York, Tripp
“A Faith not worth fighting for.”
“The Purple Crown: The Politics of Martyrdom.”
“A Faith not worth fighting for.”
“The Purple Crown: The Politics of Martyrdom.”
Brimlow, Robert W. “What about
Hitler.”
Camp, Lee C. “Mere Discipleship”
Books on my shelf that intend to read,
if you promise to read them with me and talk about it they will get
done sooner.
Camp, Lee C. “Who is my enemy.”
Grossman, Dave “On Killing: The Psychological cost of learning to kill in war and society “
“War as a force that gives us meaning.” Chris Hedges
Camp, Lee C. “Who is my enemy.”
Grossman, Dave “On Killing: The Psychological cost of learning to kill in war and society “
“War as a force that gives us meaning.” Chris Hedges
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)