“Is God Violent?”

In the January 2011 issue of Sojourners magazine is an article by Brian McLaren which deserves a wide and thoughtful readership.  Readers of this blog will perhaps recognize some themes, as I have posted here and elsewhere about my own thought processes about the practical implications of taking the Way of Jesus seriously and reading the Bible through a red-letters-first filter. (Everyone who reads the Bible reads through some filter or other, whether secular, doctrinal, political, analytical, historical, devotional, or something else; I choose to begin with Jesus, of whom scripture itself testifies that he is the beginning and the end).

McLaren admits,

I remember the first time I heard of something called pacifism: My response was that it sounded terribly impractical and dangerous.

but in this piece outlines how he has come, through his discipleship to Jesus, to recognize something that (in my view) everyone who claims too be a follower (student, disciple, imitator)  of Jesus sooner or later will have to come to grips with, in terms of what approach to take with respect to human conflict:

And the staggering reality is that Jesus didn’t kill anybody — something that can’t be said about Abraham, Moses, David, Paul, or Mohammed (no disrespect intended to any of them). He didn’t hit anybody. He didn’t hate anybody. He practiced as he preached: Reconciliation, not retaliation. Kindness, not cruelty. A willingness to be violated, not violation. Creative conflict transformation through love, not decisive conflict termination through superior weapons.

Since the purpose of this piece is evidently to stimulate further discourse within Christian circles about this matter, my purpose here is not just to regurgitate his views, but to build on them, perhaps, by expounding some thoughts of my own.  I have a bit of an advantage over McLaren, maybe, in that I grew up in a family where pacifism was not a bad word, where I knew that I had two uncles (my mother’s brother and my mother’s sister’s husband), who did alternative service as conscientious objectors during World War II.   I thought about going that route during Vietnam, but did not see my way clear to do that, not because I had no objection to the war, but because I did not at that time have a way to honestly say that I could base that objection on religious faith.  My faith came later, and it was only later that I also came to understand that the radical position my two uncles took was actually the generally accepted stance of the Christian movement during its first two or three hundred years of existence.  That is, until Augustine introduced something we call the Just War Theory.

These days nobody much argues that Augustine’s theory, when brought into service, can successfully justify most modern conflicts.  The weapons are too deadly, the politics too murky, the responses too disproportionate, to pass muster by the standards he articulated.  But we moderns tend to take some sort of comfort in thinking that, in the dimness of antiquity, a respected Christian leader propounded what was then a novel way to justify institutionalized violence.  But over time, as I have thought about this, I realized what, I think, others more famous than myself are now struggling with. Namely:  the argument starts somewhere other than Jesus.

Robert H. Clark | Marbury Church of God

In Memoriam

Robert H. Clark | Marbury Church of God

Posted using ShareThis

Not dead yet

Regular readers (assuming for the moment there are any; kind of like assuming there really are unicorns, I know) of this blog will have noticed that my output/production has slowed to a mere trickle or less in recent months.  Not to worry, I have not met with any disasters or any such thing.  It’s just one of those seasons of life where there is more absorbing going on.  I continue to follow current events with keen interest, devote myself to the ongoing task of the interpretation of ancient texts in the context of modern situations, and engage in the daily tasks of visiting the sick, encouraging the downhearted, interfering in local politics, and pretending that I’m several decades younger than the calendar would allow.  So:  an interesting observation, coming right up.

For reasons completely mystifying to me, I find that as an individual human being, I, the writer of this blog, am, on the whole, more happy than not.  This is an astonishing revelation, and it runs counter to the assumptions under which I have operated for a long time.  A colleague recently made this observation to me, though, and I could not easily refute him:  that I come across as one who operates from a center of deep contentment.   I laughed (a deeply contented belly laugh) when I heard that.  It’s true that all the things that I think should worry me (household bills, the state of my own and others’ health, how well various groups and organizations are doing, the economy, the environment, local politics, international politics, whether I can really get something worthwhile accomplished before I die, and on and on) don’t actually worry me as much as some part of me thinks they should — and I’m not even all that worried about this lack of worry.  Something has changed, some corner has been turned within me.

I am content, but I am not satisfied.  I cannot be satisfied while others are hungry, in danger, depressed, discouraged, at risk.  So today, for example, in one hour I will be at a local community center where groups of citizens will come together to try to match  needs and resources with regard to adequate housing.  Later, I’ll be on hand to rejoice with a neighbor’s family as they celebrate a high school graduation.  Tomorrow, I’ll think out loud in the presence of others concerning the vision of Isaiah the prophet, and how in a time of change and turmoil (and what time is not?) he had a glimpse of holiness and renewed and deepened his own sense of his place in unfolding history.  It is to be hoped that this great vision will be renewed in someone at our own moment in unfolding history.  I am content, not satisfied, but hopeful and somehow confident.

Could we be entering the generation where the word of God is no longer twisted to serve the interests of nations and individual peoples, at the expense of others, but in which the truth that “the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein” (Psalm 24:1) is indeed recognized and followed up with “He makes wars to cease to the ends of the earth” (Psalm 46:9)?

The ninteenth century saw the end of the institution of slavery as an accepted part of the normal life of nations, for the first time in the history of the planet.  I am now praying that something comparable will happen in the twenty-first century with regard to the institution of warfare.  There is more biblical foundation for the latter than for the former.

Content, yes, for myself; but for this old world there’s a lot of work to do.  I’ll do it online, on the ground, and in the secret place of prayer.  I am confident that I won’t be the only one.

Resurrection

Richard Rohr’s meditation for today.  I think it is particularly fitting on the 40th anniversary of the death of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Resurrection      

Question of the day:    How do I join in the liberation of the victims and executioners?

The good news of the resurrection is not that the poor victims of this world will finally triumph over the executioners, while the executioners will be fittingly punished. That is our petty notion of justification.  If the resurrection is truly God’s great answer and God’s good news, then God is telling us that Jesus died and rose not only for the victims but also for the executioners. God is not just liberating the liberated and saving the saved.  The new righteousness, the good news that is too good, is that God is somehow seeking to free the executioners too. 

from Near Occasions of Grace

On government authority and Christian responsibility

From the e-mail archives: Thought I’d revisit a response I gave to a thoughtful discussion starter back in 2004. I should first say that the writer of the original comment regularly provides fair-minded, well-thought, balanced answers to many difficult questions and actively encourages others to think things through and not just take his word as gold. It was in that spirit that I wrote this response. Here it is:

I have a comment about your answer to the question at this link:

http://www.seriousfaith.com/question_detail.asp?questionid=718 (“A Jehovah’s witness told me that they do not vote or do anything with the government. Does the bible teach us not to vote?…”)

It’s very important, when dealing with scriptural questions, especially on matters of some controversy, to keep in mind some principles, and proceed accordingly. I’ve never forgotten an old saw that I heard many years ago: “A text without a context is a pretext.” This cautions us from being too free with pulling isolated texts from different places, stringing them together in support of an idea, and calling the result biblical doctrine. Closer to home is an Old Testament principle that is affirmed in the New Testament: “By the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established.” A strict application of my first principle above will quickly reveal that this has to do with what constitutes valid testimony (on the part of an accuser) in a court of law, but I take it that this is also helpful in biblical understanding, since “in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.” Thirdly, we learn from the Revelator that “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy,” and from Peter (in his sermon to the household of Cornelius) that “to him [Jesus] all the prophets give witness.” and as Jesus says concerning the scriptures themselves, “It is they which testify of me.” I give you these principles, Brent, just so you can have at least an inkling of where I am coming from and on what basis I am thinking about these scriptural matters, since I will be disagreeing with you on certain things even though I also agree with you on many things and enjoy reading your devotional.

Now, in your response to the questioner, you provide a serious and reasoned answer with regard to voting, and bring in, additionally, some material of your own that the questioner did not ask about. Nevertheless your way of framing the question is legitimate and open-ended: “”what is our duty to the government and the authorities as Christians?” What I want to get you to think about more closely is whether or not a single answer covers all of the categories that you then identify: voting, saying the pledge of allegiance, serving in the military and general civic issues. You cite three passages (Romans 13:1-7, Matthew 22:21, and 1 Peter 2:13-17) to make your point (fulfilling the “two or three witnesses” requirement; good for you!); all of them deal with general issues of whether or not to submit to what is a clearly unjust, pagan government that is persecuting or oppressing the people of God. We know this by applying the context test: in this case, the historical context which is known to us. It is within this same context that you provide yourself a bit of balance with a fourth reference (Acts 5:29). I want to look at the textual context of each of these, one at a time, and draw some observations.

waiting for United

Personal journal, 1/15/2008: a redundant recording of the date, to be sure.

My bride and I are going to board an airplane together for the first time, so we have discovered to mild mutual surprise, since the trip we took to England in 1978, just within a month of our wedding day. It’s been that long since we’ve really had a vacation (and that wasn’t a vacation, it was a college history class with assignments and mandated places to see in Ye Olde Countree) and here we are, set to go somewhere vaguely exotic for the express purpose of doing nothing, in terms of meeting anyone’s expectations, for ten days. I’ll try to keep a little record of how it goes.

No one has ever accused me (I think) of being what’s called a Type A personality. I’m pretty laid back, but it has been noticed recently that in a certain way I am driven. I surmise that it goes with the territory in my line of work. I’m always looking for the one that got away, the job undone, the parishioner unvisited, the meeting unattended, the notes not taken, the book (alas, the book!) not yet written. I preach a good game about observing the Sabbath, but my own sabbaths are as filled with toil as all my other days. Of course, I pass that off with a mystical slant: in the work of God all is rest and peace, etc., which is certainly true, but one must remember, musn’t one, that it’s best to begin with rest and peace, and use that as a foundation for peaceful (and peacemaking) action. In a world torn by war and conflict, it seems that bustling about in the name of promoting serenity among one’s fellow-creatures is de rigeur. No matter; this weekand next, we decompress, live with no agenda except our own. What will that be like?

What might it be like to live without an agenda? Impossible, of course: one must sleep, and eat, on some sort of schedule, and as the day and night follow one another, the circadian rhythm will to some extent conform. Much work awaits us when we return to our place; perhaps we will do so with a clear mind and fresh insights, ready to take on the challenges that will no doubt be beating at our door. But look, please notice: I got all the way to Paragraph Three before mentioning the work that awaits. A bit of progress, that, isn’t it?

Lately I’ve been trying to express to a few people how I think about big ideas: not in words, in the first instance (though the words come, eventually, on the best of days) nor even in pictures, though sometimes an image can be evoked; rather I think of, or rather look at, big ideas in terms of what I call their shape. Almost it’s like being a blind man in the presence of the proverbial elephant, don’t you know; and now look, I’ve put words and an image on this idea I have about big ideas, and have thus perhaps made it intelligible to some reader, to some degree, but have also limited and diminished it, just as the proverbial blind men do when they try to describe their piece of that elephant to one another. No, I look at, take the measure of, an idea by (not exactly this, but it’s another image) walking around it, perceiving dimly its general shape, too much to get my arms around (there I go again) and undefinable in terms of any single image or set of words, but there it is, an idea, something that can change how I perceive and think about many other things, something that if I can get hold of it, let its shape shape me in some way, will give me a better capacity for interacting with the world as I find it. A preacher’s or philosopher’s or storyteller’s task is to draw that shape around his audience, enfold them in it, so that they feel it themselves, see its outlines, share its space, and begin to articulate in their own ways the images and words that it calls forth.

All of life is poetry. It is the attempt to give expression to the inexpressible beauty and sadness inherent in all things.

First update: Arrived in Orlando a bit late, got the luggage alright, waited in line at the Alamo counter and talked the attendant, somehow, into upgrading us from an economy to a compact…. got the paperwork and walked over to the garage, picked a Chevy Cobalt (just what I wanted). Paid for a full tank of gas upfront, cheaper than paying four dollars and change for them to refill at the end of the rental. Then off we went, with the address of our first night’s hotel and the google map on the iPhone, only to find after a while that we left the airport going south where we should have gone north….. paid two dollars in tolls we didn’t need to, added some driving time, and got to our one-night stop at going on two a.m. The protocol here was to use the courtesy phone outside the door to get the attention of the night attendant. It took about five redials (going to voicemail each time) before he came on the phone. I guess we woke him up. However, now we are here, more or less settling, reading and writing and soon to turn out the lights.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 7:53 AM: It will take a while to get the two of us in sync. Free of all responsibility, I find myself well rested after just a few hours sleep, but best beloved roused up to worry out loud about my health. Not to worry. Did I say all responsibility? I’m thinking I do need to call the senior center where I would have normally had an event next Tuesday, to let them know I’m not coming. Will sneak off and do that sometime soon.

At the airport last evening, and on the plane, I got to reading The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell. Lots of detailed analysis here of movements and events, with the basic premise being that much can be understood about changes in social behavior if we think of them as structured like epidemics of disease. Gives lots of meat and bones to the little “truth is a virus” meme — and even to the virus-like character of the concept of meme at all. I guess much of his target audience is marketers, people who want to influence behavior. However, the sorts of things he points out do seem to map pretty well onto the spread of ideas all beyond proportion to their beginnings. Got me to thinking of a fellow like St Paul as an infectious agent for Christianity. Methinks he had characteristics of all three of the special personality types —Connectors, Mavens and Salesmen — who contribute to the bringing about oflarge-scale change.

Notes on the visit to the Magic Kingdom to be continued in the next entry.

Auld Lang Syne and Brighter Days

We’ll take a cup o’ kindness yet
For auld lang syne!

 Indeed, as a new year passes into view and the old one into history, we remember, yes, remember the days we have lived through.  We remember the sweetness, the sorrow, the hope, the disappointment, the people we loved, the ones we lost, the unique moments which seemed so commonplace, so briefly.  We’re a bit older, and we hope a bit wiser for all that.  We’ll look with fond affection, but not too much regret, on the passing year.

 It was a year in which more good people, some near and dear, some all too young, were taken from our midst.  The bittersweet awareness of their memories lingers.  I’m thinking the sweet will outlast the bitter, when the final tale is told.

It was a year of failed leadership and missed opportunities in the political struggles of the United States, Russia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, to name a few.

It was a year of promises made and renewed…. new life begun…. hope rekindled in quiet ways and quiet places.

It was a year of hunger and poverty, and opulent wealth.

In short, it was a slice of our life, and as we turn from yesterday to tomorrow, there is  an opportunity, oh so brief, to make the best of what is ahead of us.  Life continues, good surprises await, even in the midst of tomorrow’s tragedies.

To all my friends and whoever else may read this, I say:  May the new year bring you abundance of goodness beyond your expectation, relief from toil, and hope for a new generation.

Search the scriptures

Here’s one who did:

“Love thy enemy” — U.S. soldier gets discharge

NEW YORK (Reuters) – A U.S. soldier who said his Christian beliefs compelled him to love his enemies, not kill them, has been granted conscientious objector status and honorably discharged, a civil liberties group said on Tuesday.

I like it here

My yard, in the spring: