The Muslim violent protest in reactions to the cartoons of Mohammad is wrong. No matter how offended the Muslim world is by the cartoons of Mohammad, it does not justify violent protest. However, it seems now that some Christians have felt justified in returning such violence by engaging in violent protests themselves. This is wrong too.
Christian violence should be of a special concern for Christians when we consider the fact that our Lord and Savior was treated unjustly, resulting in his persecution and eventual crucifixion. Jesus could have, as the song we sometimes sing, called ten-thousand angels - but he didn't. His disciple, Peter, tried using violence to defend him and he told Peter to put away the sword unless he wanted to die by the sword. Consequently, the earliest Christians, victims of severe persecution as well, refused to resort to violence as a means of defending themselves from injustice. This was in part because of their understanding of the Kingdom they now belonged too but this was also but this was also because they knew God had already given them victory over their oppressors and would bring about this victory upon the return of Jesus Christ to this earth.
Unfortunately today many Christians believe violence is a needed and justified solution to the evil acts of others. Where did we ever develop this idea from? Certainly not the life of Jesus we have modeled for us in scripture. When we use violence against our enemies, it makes us no better than our enemies. It surely does not demonstrate for our enemies and the rest of the world the new "kingdom" way of living to which God has called us to in Jesus Christ.
As a child my mother always told me “two wrongs never make a right.” There is a lot of wisdom in this little proverb. Violence is wrong. Violence is wrong whether it is the Muslim community reacting in protest to a perceived wrong done to them and violence is wrong when it is the Christian community reacting in protest to a perceived wrong done to them as well.
God our Father, your Son was a peaceful and loving servant who went to the cross so that we might live in victory as he does. Father, you raised him from death showing the world your victory over sin and death. Now you have called us to follow your Son Jesus, carrying our own crosses, becoming servants in this world, trusting in you as our victor and our source of life. You have sent you Spirit to empower us to live such a life. Fill us with your Holy Spirit so that we may walk by the power of your Spirit and express in our lives the very fruit of your Spirit. Amen!
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Sunday, February 19, 2006
Why I Am Pursuaded Towards Practicing Non-Violent Justice, Rev. & Expd.
This is not a fully detailed argument for what is commonly referred to as pacifism. There is a lot more that could be said in defense of the Christian pacifistic position. I would like to qualify the term “Pacifism” and suggest that from a Christian view point I would like to understand this term as a non-violent but active approach to practicing justice in the world. This qualification is due to the fact that I do believe Christians should be actively practicing social justice among the world, but only in a non-violent manner. For an accessible but more detailed case, here is my suggestion: Lee C. Camp, "Mere Discipleship: Radical Discipleship in a Rebellious World" (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2003).
At one time I was an advocate of the “just war” position. I am still proud of those who serve in the military because they are convicted it is morally correct as well as they believe it is their calling, and so they serve as though they were serving God. So please do not misunderstand my present conviction to be understood as though I disrespect those who serve in the military, especially those who have given their life while serving in the armed forces.
Nevertheless, over the years since I became a Christian, I have begun to question the ethical appropriateness of engaging in warfare in order to bring about justice among the world. I now am pretty convinced that engaging in warfare is unethical from a Christian viewpoint. Therefore I am now advocating as the acceptable moral/ethic Christian position the pursuit of non-violence in the quest for justice in this world. I will confess however, there are a lot of questions when it comes to the various hypothetical situations which I simply do not have all the answers too. This is the same for me when it comes to my theodicy (a Christian explanation for the problem of evil and innocent suffering). There are plenty of hypothetical situations of suffering (which are actually real for some people) to which I have no answer for. But not having an answer to every possible situation should not keep anyone from defending and living out what is believed to be the correct teaching, the biblical-ethical teaching.
Why have I changed? Primarily, I have changed due to my understanding of hermeneutics. In short, my hermeneutic, by which I determine how to conduct my life as a Christian, is based on how Jesus lived — whom I call Lord and follow after. This is contra to the hermeneutic which I was taught as a child growing up in church, which simply sought a proof text (i.e. cut and paste) from the Bible either by command, example, or inference in order to justify or condemn a particular position and/or practice. My hermeneutic led me to view the Bible as a window (if you will) to the life of Jesus. I am trying to model my life after Jesus and in scripture I see other communities of people trying to follow after Jesus as well, some better than others. As I read the teachings passed on to these communities in response to their own circumstances, these letters become a guiding point for me. However the scriptures are not the pattern I am seeking to follow, they are the window through which I see the pattern – Jesus that is – I am trying to follow. The New Testament scriptures present a window of insight into how other Christian communities incorporated the teachings and life of Jesus into their own life. Because scripture, as God’s written word, belongs to a specific historical context, it calls for all contemporary readers to ask the question of how we take instruction given to an ancient faith community and apply that instruction to our own unique circumstances. However, the intent is not for us to make the written instruction our pattern but rather is to point us to Jesus who is our one true pattern for living a true life.
So with this hermeneutical shift, this is what I noticed. Rather than defending himself, Jesus endured the evil of humanity and trusted in his Father to vindicate him. Such endurance led Jesus to the cross but the cross was followed by a resurrection. Even though the cross was certainly part of God’s plan of salvation for humanity, it was also a result of Jesus’ refusal to give way to the political and religious positions of his day while at the same time refusing to engage with tactics of warfare in the proclamation of the kingdom of God. So Jesus was active in bringing about social justices, as seen in his public ministry which proclaimed and embodied the kingdom of God. However, while proclaiming this new kingdom (which was a threat to the existing political and religious powers) and living the kingdom values out, Jesus simultaneously resisted the political and religious powers in a non-violent manner.
Jesus called people to follow him, carrying a cross as well (Mk. 8.34). The promise of the Son of Man (i.e. Jesus) returning in glory was the promise of victory for those who followed him as well. Thus the earliest Christians were also called to endure the evil of humanity rather than defend themselves and then “in faith” trust God to vindicate them (Rev. 13:7-10 and 14:9-12; passages that usually goes unnoticed when discussing topics like this). This practice of Christians enduring the evil of humanity rather than rising in defense of themselves and others continued until the fourth century. They chose to be martyrs rather than to use the sword on their own behalf and thus trusted in God to vindicate them. This was the practice of the Christian church up and until the Roman emperor Constantine was converted to Christianity. Further, to rise up in support of the worldly, political kingdoms seemed to be considered offering worship to someone other than God.
If non-violent resistance was the practice of Jesus and his earliest followers, why should it be any different now? Why should it be different now when Christians are still people who belong to the kingdom of God and thus should embrace the values of the kingdom, which was demonstrated by Jesus? Can we who are Christians in the twenty-first century not also trust in God to vindicate us? Especially since we are promised that the kingdom of God, which we belong too, is victorious and that all worldly kingdoms have been, are, and will be destroyed.
Such non-violent resistance does not mean that Christians should be passive when it comes to social-justice. Christians should work to help those who are oppressed, whether such oppression is found in the form of tyranny or poverty or some other form. What can be done? First, Christians should be in constant prayer for those who are oppressed (and prayer is something rarely considered as a “powerful” response to injustice – which betrays our faith in prayer). Second, Christians can live out their baptism (see Romans 6) and realize they have already been baptized into death and therefore have been raised into life with Jesus. This means Christians are free to live and minister to the oppressed without fear of social reprimand, political persecution, or worse, even death. I realize that in the United States of America, it seems unlikely that Christians will ever face political imprisonment or execution for ministering and seriously taking a non-violent stand against social injustice. But I believe Christian who do minister in an incarnational manner among the oppressed will face social persecution from their peers, because such a lifestyle will become a stunning rebuke to the way thing exist in society – even in the United States of America. I know this because one of my most beloved undergraduate teacher has been told at times throughout the 1950’s and 1960’s that he was unwelcome in a Christian house of worship because of his outspoken and living stance against the racial segregation and oppression of African Americans. Third, Christian must be the alternative to an oppressive society. Where worldly political – nation – states, among other empires, are concerned with self-preservation, Christians know the Kingdom of God is the only ever lasting Kingdom. The kingdom is a reality where life is experienced the way God created life to be lived. The kingdom of God is perfectly embodied in the life of Jesus Christ. Christians, who belong to the alternative community called church, are called to embody this kingdom life (literally the reign of God) as well, offering the world an alternative way to the temporary kingdoms where the Kingdom Way is demonstrated, experienced, and embodied to its fullest.
At one time I was an advocate of the “just war” position. I am still proud of those who serve in the military because they are convicted it is morally correct as well as they believe it is their calling, and so they serve as though they were serving God. So please do not misunderstand my present conviction to be understood as though I disrespect those who serve in the military, especially those who have given their life while serving in the armed forces.
Nevertheless, over the years since I became a Christian, I have begun to question the ethical appropriateness of engaging in warfare in order to bring about justice among the world. I now am pretty convinced that engaging in warfare is unethical from a Christian viewpoint. Therefore I am now advocating as the acceptable moral/ethic Christian position the pursuit of non-violence in the quest for justice in this world. I will confess however, there are a lot of questions when it comes to the various hypothetical situations which I simply do not have all the answers too. This is the same for me when it comes to my theodicy (a Christian explanation for the problem of evil and innocent suffering). There are plenty of hypothetical situations of suffering (which are actually real for some people) to which I have no answer for. But not having an answer to every possible situation should not keep anyone from defending and living out what is believed to be the correct teaching, the biblical-ethical teaching.
Why have I changed? Primarily, I have changed due to my understanding of hermeneutics. In short, my hermeneutic, by which I determine how to conduct my life as a Christian, is based on how Jesus lived — whom I call Lord and follow after. This is contra to the hermeneutic which I was taught as a child growing up in church, which simply sought a proof text (i.e. cut and paste) from the Bible either by command, example, or inference in order to justify or condemn a particular position and/or practice. My hermeneutic led me to view the Bible as a window (if you will) to the life of Jesus. I am trying to model my life after Jesus and in scripture I see other communities of people trying to follow after Jesus as well, some better than others. As I read the teachings passed on to these communities in response to their own circumstances, these letters become a guiding point for me. However the scriptures are not the pattern I am seeking to follow, they are the window through which I see the pattern – Jesus that is – I am trying to follow. The New Testament scriptures present a window of insight into how other Christian communities incorporated the teachings and life of Jesus into their own life. Because scripture, as God’s written word, belongs to a specific historical context, it calls for all contemporary readers to ask the question of how we take instruction given to an ancient faith community and apply that instruction to our own unique circumstances. However, the intent is not for us to make the written instruction our pattern but rather is to point us to Jesus who is our one true pattern for living a true life.
So with this hermeneutical shift, this is what I noticed. Rather than defending himself, Jesus endured the evil of humanity and trusted in his Father to vindicate him. Such endurance led Jesus to the cross but the cross was followed by a resurrection. Even though the cross was certainly part of God’s plan of salvation for humanity, it was also a result of Jesus’ refusal to give way to the political and religious positions of his day while at the same time refusing to engage with tactics of warfare in the proclamation of the kingdom of God. So Jesus was active in bringing about social justices, as seen in his public ministry which proclaimed and embodied the kingdom of God. However, while proclaiming this new kingdom (which was a threat to the existing political and religious powers) and living the kingdom values out, Jesus simultaneously resisted the political and religious powers in a non-violent manner.
Jesus called people to follow him, carrying a cross as well (Mk. 8.34). The promise of the Son of Man (i.e. Jesus) returning in glory was the promise of victory for those who followed him as well. Thus the earliest Christians were also called to endure the evil of humanity rather than defend themselves and then “in faith” trust God to vindicate them (Rev. 13:7-10 and 14:9-12; passages that usually goes unnoticed when discussing topics like this). This practice of Christians enduring the evil of humanity rather than rising in defense of themselves and others continued until the fourth century. They chose to be martyrs rather than to use the sword on their own behalf and thus trusted in God to vindicate them. This was the practice of the Christian church up and until the Roman emperor Constantine was converted to Christianity. Further, to rise up in support of the worldly, political kingdoms seemed to be considered offering worship to someone other than God.
If non-violent resistance was the practice of Jesus and his earliest followers, why should it be any different now? Why should it be different now when Christians are still people who belong to the kingdom of God and thus should embrace the values of the kingdom, which was demonstrated by Jesus? Can we who are Christians in the twenty-first century not also trust in God to vindicate us? Especially since we are promised that the kingdom of God, which we belong too, is victorious and that all worldly kingdoms have been, are, and will be destroyed.
Such non-violent resistance does not mean that Christians should be passive when it comes to social-justice. Christians should work to help those who are oppressed, whether such oppression is found in the form of tyranny or poverty or some other form. What can be done? First, Christians should be in constant prayer for those who are oppressed (and prayer is something rarely considered as a “powerful” response to injustice – which betrays our faith in prayer). Second, Christians can live out their baptism (see Romans 6) and realize they have already been baptized into death and therefore have been raised into life with Jesus. This means Christians are free to live and minister to the oppressed without fear of social reprimand, political persecution, or worse, even death. I realize that in the United States of America, it seems unlikely that Christians will ever face political imprisonment or execution for ministering and seriously taking a non-violent stand against social injustice. But I believe Christian who do minister in an incarnational manner among the oppressed will face social persecution from their peers, because such a lifestyle will become a stunning rebuke to the way thing exist in society – even in the United States of America. I know this because one of my most beloved undergraduate teacher has been told at times throughout the 1950’s and 1960’s that he was unwelcome in a Christian house of worship because of his outspoken and living stance against the racial segregation and oppression of African Americans. Third, Christian must be the alternative to an oppressive society. Where worldly political – nation – states, among other empires, are concerned with self-preservation, Christians know the Kingdom of God is the only ever lasting Kingdom. The kingdom is a reality where life is experienced the way God created life to be lived. The kingdom of God is perfectly embodied in the life of Jesus Christ. Christians, who belong to the alternative community called church, are called to embody this kingdom life (literally the reign of God) as well, offering the world an alternative way to the temporary kingdoms where the Kingdom Way is demonstrated, experienced, and embodied to its fullest.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Mandisa'a Grace
I am not a fan of the popular television show American Idol, and have only seen a couple of the episodes. However, fan or not, you would need to be a complete hermit to not know what American Idol is.
One of the facts about the show is the candid, some would say mean-spirited, remarks and criticism hurled upon the contestants by Simon. One particular victim of Simon’s sense of humor and personality was a contestant named Mandisa. The remarks were directed at her physical size, as she is a larger woman. Naturally these remarks were very hurtful to Mandisa and she admitted that she was brought to tears by the comments of Simon.
The natural response to an attack and insult on our personhood is to put up our defense by going on the offense and lashing out our pain and anger on the Simon’s of this world. I know this is what I naturally want to do when someone does something that angers me or hurts my feelings. I must get even! Get revenge! No, not just get even and get revenge but hurt them worse than they hurt me. That will teach them a lesson… “They messed with the wrong person this time” is what I think.
But Mandisa showed the world what it means to have experienced grace and what it means to extend that same grace. Instead of unleashing a verbal assault, or worse, on Simon she said something to the effect of…
“I’ve forgiven you. You don’t need someone to apologize to offer them forgiveness. If Jesus Christ could die for my sins then I can extend that same grace to you.”
Simon responded by admitting that he was humbled. And we have learned a lesson that vengeance, hatred, defensiveness, etc… does not make right of the wrongs done to us in life. Grace, the extension of the same grace God has shown us in Jesus Christ, rights the wrongs of this world. And I am sure that Mandisa, out of her willingness to forgive and unconditionally extend grace to Simon, is at peace for doing so.
One of the facts about the show is the candid, some would say mean-spirited, remarks and criticism hurled upon the contestants by Simon. One particular victim of Simon’s sense of humor and personality was a contestant named Mandisa. The remarks were directed at her physical size, as she is a larger woman. Naturally these remarks were very hurtful to Mandisa and she admitted that she was brought to tears by the comments of Simon.
The natural response to an attack and insult on our personhood is to put up our defense by going on the offense and lashing out our pain and anger on the Simon’s of this world. I know this is what I naturally want to do when someone does something that angers me or hurts my feelings. I must get even! Get revenge! No, not just get even and get revenge but hurt them worse than they hurt me. That will teach them a lesson… “They messed with the wrong person this time” is what I think.
But Mandisa showed the world what it means to have experienced grace and what it means to extend that same grace. Instead of unleashing a verbal assault, or worse, on Simon she said something to the effect of…
“I’ve forgiven you. You don’t need someone to apologize to offer them forgiveness. If Jesus Christ could die for my sins then I can extend that same grace to you.”
Simon responded by admitting that he was humbled. And we have learned a lesson that vengeance, hatred, defensiveness, etc… does not make right of the wrongs done to us in life. Grace, the extension of the same grace God has shown us in Jesus Christ, rights the wrongs of this world. And I am sure that Mandisa, out of her willingness to forgive and unconditionally extend grace to Simon, is at peace for doing so.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
True Freedom vs. the Idolatrous Illusion
In his 2006 State of the Union address to Congress and the Citizens of the United States, President Bush made this the following statements with regards to the U.S. military involvement among the rest of the world:
“The only way to protect our people, the only way to secure the peace, the only way to control our destiny is by our leadership -- so the United States of America will continue to lead.”
He goes on to say, “There is no peace in retreat. And there is no honor in retreat.”
And finally our President speaks of our country by saying:
“…We must never give in to the belief that America is in decline, or that our culture is doomed to unravel. The American people know better than that. We have proven the pessimists wrong before -- and we will do it again.”
I find these comments strangely interesting, considering that our President is a confessed Christian along with many of us who also live in the U.S.
I thought as Christians we believe that Jesus is our only security and peace. In fact I thought as Christians we believe Jesus showed true honor and peace by retreat and refusing to fight when the Roman soldiers came to arrest him and execute him. I thought as Christians we believe that every nation is in decline, even our own, and that the only everlasting nation/kingdom is the Kingdom of God.
I guess not every Christian believes that.
This post is not about whether the use and support of warfare and military power by a Christians is ever justified. This post is about the idolatry many Christians who live in the U.S. have bought into. Is our security and peace dependent on a government and its military force?
The Apostle Paul believed that Jesus had died and arose from death and therefore death had no more mastery over Jesus. Furthermore, Paul believed death had no more mastery over any Christian because Christians too had died with Jesus and therefore have also been raised into the resurrected life of Jesus (Romans 6.8-10). The death and resurrection of Jesus changed the reality of the world. Through Jesus death was conquered and therefore brought about the ultimate peace to those who believe in Jesus.
Because Paul believed in Jesus, Paul also believed death held no mastery over him (or any other Christian). This is why Paul can say in his letter to the Philippian church, a letter he wrote in prison:
“I eagerly expect and hope that I will in no way be ashamed, but will have sufficient courage so that now as always Christ will be exalted in my body, whether by life or by death. For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain.” (Philippians 1.20-21, TNIV)
Paul knew he was facing a date with the executioner for being a Christian. However, the possibility of martyrdom did not scare Paul, it did not threaten his sense of security and peace because Paul knew that dying in this world simply meant gaining the reward of eternal life with Jesus Christ. Now that is true freedom!
Jesus Christ is the only true freedom and it is only in Jesus that a person can obtain true freedom. It is an idolatrous illusion to be a Christian and yet buy into the notion that our freedom, our hope, our security, and our peace is dependent on our government or any other nation/state.
I am sure that our President means well but he is wrong, dead wrong. And so are the Christians who believe that our freedom is dependent on any person or people besides Jesus Christ. When we Christians finally realize that we have been set free in Christ, we then, like Paul, can be free to live each and every day in complete surrender to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and stop worrying whether some other nation, people group, etc… is going to persecute us. We can do this just like Paul did along with the rest of the Christians in the first three centuries and just like many other Christians today who live a “free” life under a tyrannical regime.
“The only way to protect our people, the only way to secure the peace, the only way to control our destiny is by our leadership -- so the United States of America will continue to lead.”
He goes on to say, “There is no peace in retreat. And there is no honor in retreat.”
And finally our President speaks of our country by saying:
“…We must never give in to the belief that America is in decline, or that our culture is doomed to unravel. The American people know better than that. We have proven the pessimists wrong before -- and we will do it again.”
I find these comments strangely interesting, considering that our President is a confessed Christian along with many of us who also live in the U.S.
I thought as Christians we believe that Jesus is our only security and peace. In fact I thought as Christians we believe Jesus showed true honor and peace by retreat and refusing to fight when the Roman soldiers came to arrest him and execute him. I thought as Christians we believe that every nation is in decline, even our own, and that the only everlasting nation/kingdom is the Kingdom of God.
I guess not every Christian believes that.
This post is not about whether the use and support of warfare and military power by a Christians is ever justified. This post is about the idolatry many Christians who live in the U.S. have bought into. Is our security and peace dependent on a government and its military force?
The Apostle Paul believed that Jesus had died and arose from death and therefore death had no more mastery over Jesus. Furthermore, Paul believed death had no more mastery over any Christian because Christians too had died with Jesus and therefore have also been raised into the resurrected life of Jesus (Romans 6.8-10). The death and resurrection of Jesus changed the reality of the world. Through Jesus death was conquered and therefore brought about the ultimate peace to those who believe in Jesus.
Because Paul believed in Jesus, Paul also believed death held no mastery over him (or any other Christian). This is why Paul can say in his letter to the Philippian church, a letter he wrote in prison:
“I eagerly expect and hope that I will in no way be ashamed, but will have sufficient courage so that now as always Christ will be exalted in my body, whether by life or by death. For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain.” (Philippians 1.20-21, TNIV)
Paul knew he was facing a date with the executioner for being a Christian. However, the possibility of martyrdom did not scare Paul, it did not threaten his sense of security and peace because Paul knew that dying in this world simply meant gaining the reward of eternal life with Jesus Christ. Now that is true freedom!
Jesus Christ is the only true freedom and it is only in Jesus that a person can obtain true freedom. It is an idolatrous illusion to be a Christian and yet buy into the notion that our freedom, our hope, our security, and our peace is dependent on our government or any other nation/state.
I am sure that our President means well but he is wrong, dead wrong. And so are the Christians who believe that our freedom is dependent on any person or people besides Jesus Christ. When we Christians finally realize that we have been set free in Christ, we then, like Paul, can be free to live each and every day in complete surrender to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and stop worrying whether some other nation, people group, etc… is going to persecute us. We can do this just like Paul did along with the rest of the Christians in the first three centuries and just like many other Christians today who live a “free” life under a tyrannical regime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)