The Just War Theory is slowly eroding of its supposed scriptural support as we continue to examine the passages in the New Testament which are often used to support this theory. Next in the tangent of citations is a rather simple one to refute. In John 2, Jesus cleanses the temple of unrighteous religiousness, as the Jewish leaders are making a mockery of the sacrificial system. We do not need to get into all the details concerning this passage and the prophetic symbolism to understand that this narrative does not justify violence. What is focused on primarily here is one particular detail of this story.
And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables.
(John 2:15 ESV)
Okay, so Jesus makes a whip and drives everyone out of the temple. Where is the violence? Nothing indicates that He whipped anyone or even the animals with the whip. Why then did He make a whip? Jesus was angry and expressed His anger in a most tangible way. You can really get your point across when you've got a whip in your hands! People will pay attention to what you're doing when you lash with a whip! Seriously though, I can imagine that whipping the ground a few feet from an animal will surely provoke the creature to flee immediately. Other reasons could be thought up to explain the presence of the whip, but these are just opinions and John does not tell us exactly why Jesus made and used the whip.
I could say more, but nothing else really needs to be said to prove the point that no violence is involved in this scenario. However, though I am going to explore some more practical implications of non-violence after we work through the Scriptures, allow me to address a common misconception concerning non-violence.
Another word to describe non-violence is pacifism. Personally, I do not like the word because it is generally associated with concept of being passive, even though the etymology of the word harks back to the image of a pacifier; as to allay anger or agitation. Non-violence does not mean you assume a helpless, cowardly and inactive posture - at least not according to Jesus. Non-violence also does not mean non-aggression. Our thinking can become so binary at times. Either Jesus is a 'hippie picking lilies with his friends' (as one rapper put it) as an effeminate blonde hair, blue eyed European or he is a 'prize fighter with a tattoo on his leg and a commitment to make someone bleed' (as one pastor put it). Neither figure conveys the historical Jesus. We will explore more of this later, but that should at least begin to help us see that Jesus doesn't have to be either a weak wimp or a wild warrior.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Questioning Common Sense, Pt. 6
As we continue to confound the common sense of the Just War Theory, let's keep examining the typical objections cited from Scripture and see if this theory holds up from Jesus' perspective.
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword."
(Matthew 10:34 ESV)
Unlike the prior passage, this saying of Jesus concerns His mission, thus having direct implications on His followers. As I said when introducing the objections in part four, these objections only appear to have any validity when not examined and this particular case is a great demonstration of that fact. This is the only part which is quoted when one claims that Jesus allows for violence; but let's look at the entirety of this Scripture.
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it."
(Matthew 10:34-39 ESV)
Before we even look further into this passage, let us remember the explicit peace teachings of Jesus as cited earlier in this series. This theme is not minor in the Way of Jesus, but is a prominent motif which is often recalled. We must also keep in mind that this is one odd occurrence in the midst of multiple clear teachings. Whenever we encounter peculiar passages in the Bible, we want to be wise and careful (II Timothy 2:15). One good interpretive principle when reading the Bible is to interpret the unclear sections in light of the clear ones. Simply put, you cannot define an ocean by one random wave.
Nevertheless, what is Jesus trying to communicate in this instance? The context speaks of familial relations. In that light, is Jesus telling us that we should murder our families?! Not only is this untenable, but blatantly absurd. Jesus lived a life that closely kept the fifth commandment to honor your parents. What makes this ironic is that when people typically attempt to justify violence with Jesus' words, they are referring to using violence in order to protect their families!
One helpful thing to realize is that Jesus is echoing the prophet Micah here:
Woe is me! For I have become
as when the summer fruit has been gathered,
as when the grapes have been gleaned:
there is no cluster to eat,
no first-ripe fig that my soul desires.
The godly has perished from the earth,
and there is no one upright among mankind;
they all lie in wait for blood,
and each hunts the other with a net.
Their hands are on what is evil, to do it well;
the prince and the judge ask for a bribe,
and the great man utters the evil desire of his soul;
thus they weave it together.
The best of them is like a brier,
the most upright of them a thorn hedge.
The day of your watchmen, of your punishment, has come;
now their confusion is at hand.
Put no trust in a neighbor;
have no confidence in a friend;
guard the doors of your mouth
from her who lies in your arms;
for the son treats the father with contempt,
the daughter rises up against her mother,
the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;
a man's enemies are the men of his own house.
(Micah 7:1-6 ESV)
Micah is in the midst of a tumultuous time when no one is Israel can be trusted, for they have all become corrupt. Certainly, Jesus' ministry takes place in an analogous period, as Israel is confused, scattered and drifting from God. Looking at the broader context, Jesus is instructing His disciples about a coming persecution (10:16-25), followed up by a teaching on fearlessness (10:26-33). One can quickly see that the Lord is preparing His disciples for a turbulent time that they will have to endure.
When facing difficulty, our character becomes revealed and we will make some significant choices that will surely alter the course of our lives. Jesus is calling His followers to pledge their full allegiance to Him, even above our most natural alliances, our own family. Instead of reverting to what is familiar 'when the going gets tough,' Jesus is calling us to step up our game and place our full trust in Him. He is certainly not calling us to forsake our families, but to be on guard to ensure that He has our complete, undivided commitment. Therefore, Jesus has a dividing effect. Just as you cannot worship both God and money, (Matthew 6:24) you cannot worship both God and family. If for whatever reason, we are forced to choose between Jesus and family, we cannot forsake Him.
Metaphors have multiple meanings and the meaning in each use of a metaphor is determined by the way it is used. Jesus is called a lion (Revelation 5:5) as is Satan (I Peter 5:8). Clearly, there is a nuanced way that the depiction of a lion is employed in each passage. The sword is symbolic of violence in many instances, but in this case, it is clearly pointing to a sword's work of dividing, because Jesus will divide families with His polarizing effect. Elsewhere in Scripture, we see that Jesus is depicted as a sword which divides (Luke 2:34-35; Hebrews 4:12-13).
Finally, Jesus concludes this teaching with the recurring theme of willingness to die. As noted earlier, willingness to die is starkly contrasted with self-preservation, typified by murder. How then can one understand this passage as advocating violence? Perhaps seeing this Scripture as advocating violence is so much easier to digest than the exact opposite. Are we willing to take the teachings of Jesus THAT serious?
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword."
(Matthew 10:34 ESV)
Unlike the prior passage, this saying of Jesus concerns His mission, thus having direct implications on His followers. As I said when introducing the objections in part four, these objections only appear to have any validity when not examined and this particular case is a great demonstration of that fact. This is the only part which is quoted when one claims that Jesus allows for violence; but let's look at the entirety of this Scripture.
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it."
(Matthew 10:34-39 ESV)
Before we even look further into this passage, let us remember the explicit peace teachings of Jesus as cited earlier in this series. This theme is not minor in the Way of Jesus, but is a prominent motif which is often recalled. We must also keep in mind that this is one odd occurrence in the midst of multiple clear teachings. Whenever we encounter peculiar passages in the Bible, we want to be wise and careful (II Timothy 2:15). One good interpretive principle when reading the Bible is to interpret the unclear sections in light of the clear ones. Simply put, you cannot define an ocean by one random wave.
Nevertheless, what is Jesus trying to communicate in this instance? The context speaks of familial relations. In that light, is Jesus telling us that we should murder our families?! Not only is this untenable, but blatantly absurd. Jesus lived a life that closely kept the fifth commandment to honor your parents. What makes this ironic is that when people typically attempt to justify violence with Jesus' words, they are referring to using violence in order to protect their families!
One helpful thing to realize is that Jesus is echoing the prophet Micah here:
Woe is me! For I have become
as when the summer fruit has been gathered,
as when the grapes have been gleaned:
there is no cluster to eat,
no first-ripe fig that my soul desires.
The godly has perished from the earth,
and there is no one upright among mankind;
they all lie in wait for blood,
and each hunts the other with a net.
Their hands are on what is evil, to do it well;
the prince and the judge ask for a bribe,
and the great man utters the evil desire of his soul;
thus they weave it together.
The best of them is like a brier,
the most upright of them a thorn hedge.
The day of your watchmen, of your punishment, has come;
now their confusion is at hand.
Put no trust in a neighbor;
have no confidence in a friend;
guard the doors of your mouth
from her who lies in your arms;
for the son treats the father with contempt,
the daughter rises up against her mother,
the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;
a man's enemies are the men of his own house.
(Micah 7:1-6 ESV)
Micah is in the midst of a tumultuous time when no one is Israel can be trusted, for they have all become corrupt. Certainly, Jesus' ministry takes place in an analogous period, as Israel is confused, scattered and drifting from God. Looking at the broader context, Jesus is instructing His disciples about a coming persecution (10:16-25), followed up by a teaching on fearlessness (10:26-33). One can quickly see that the Lord is preparing His disciples for a turbulent time that they will have to endure.
When facing difficulty, our character becomes revealed and we will make some significant choices that will surely alter the course of our lives. Jesus is calling His followers to pledge their full allegiance to Him, even above our most natural alliances, our own family. Instead of reverting to what is familiar 'when the going gets tough,' Jesus is calling us to step up our game and place our full trust in Him. He is certainly not calling us to forsake our families, but to be on guard to ensure that He has our complete, undivided commitment. Therefore, Jesus has a dividing effect. Just as you cannot worship both God and money, (Matthew 6:24) you cannot worship both God and family. If for whatever reason, we are forced to choose between Jesus and family, we cannot forsake Him.
Metaphors have multiple meanings and the meaning in each use of a metaphor is determined by the way it is used. Jesus is called a lion (Revelation 5:5) as is Satan (I Peter 5:8). Clearly, there is a nuanced way that the depiction of a lion is employed in each passage. The sword is symbolic of violence in many instances, but in this case, it is clearly pointing to a sword's work of dividing, because Jesus will divide families with His polarizing effect. Elsewhere in Scripture, we see that Jesus is depicted as a sword which divides (Luke 2:34-35; Hebrews 4:12-13).
Finally, Jesus concludes this teaching with the recurring theme of willingness to die. As noted earlier, willingness to die is starkly contrasted with self-preservation, typified by murder. How then can one understand this passage as advocating violence? Perhaps seeing this Scripture as advocating violence is so much easier to digest than the exact opposite. Are we willing to take the teachings of Jesus THAT serious?
Friday, October 22, 2010
Questioning Common Sense, Pt. 5
Perhaps the primary text employed to justify the Just War Theory is found in the book of Romans:
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.
(Romans 13:1-7 ESV)
First, it is glaringly obvious that this passage is discussing the role of governments, not the role of the church, the community of people who have decided to follow Jesus. This is a significant distinction which must be noticed. In the passage are instructions of how the church ought to respond to governmental authority and that is through general obedience and paying taxes.
There is an instance in the book of Acts that indicates we should not always obey the human authorities placed above us, as Peter and John testify, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard...We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 4:19-20; 5:29 ESV). When told not to preach the Gospel, they rebel against the authorities and even pray: "Grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness" (Acts 4:29, ESV). They do not pray for this earthly power to have a change of heart and thus allow them to preach the Gospel, but the apostles simply rebel.
Second, the passage certainly allows for the established authorities to wage war, but we must remind ourselves that Jesus commands His followers to engage in no acts of violence. In this sense, a Just War Theory would be ideal, for we would hope that our governments would not be temerarious with human lives and would instead take every precautionary measure to prevent war. Remember, in the prior paragraph, Paul practically recites the teaching of Jesus from the Sermon on the Mount (in Matthew 5:38-48) by instructing the church to never retaliate, exact vengeance or engage in violent acts (Romans 12:14-21). Therefore, it seems that this paragraph at hand is articulating one way in which God justly delivers recompense to evildoers (see 12:19).
While more questions could be raised about Romans 13:1-7, these primordial points suffice to demonstrate that Jesus' disciples are forbidden from rebelling against Him in favor of being submissive to humans. Allow me to close with this thought: for the first 300 years of church history, it was unanimously considered apostasy (leaving the faith) to enlist in the military. If a bishop heard of a Christian who was a Roman soldier, the bishop would seek them out and call them to repentance. If you know even a little bit about early church history, you know that theologians of this epoch disagreed on almost every topic imaginable, but it is interesting to note that they have a unified consensus that engaging in violence and/or enlisting in the military was not negotiable. They debated about every theological topic under the sun, but this issue was never questioned until the Constantine became a Christian and established Christianity as the official religion of the empire, baptizing those who resisted this edict by the sword.
Therefore, we must ask: can one serve both God and country? Can we pledge allegiance to the flag and the cross? Can we find a middle ground by somehow draping the flag over the cross? Certainly, we should love our country in the sense that we love all people, including all the people in America. We should submit to the American government insofar as we are not asked to compromise the Gospel and the teachings of the New Testament. However, I must ask if we have compromised what Jesus has called us to "for (too much) love of country?" To explore this specific issue further, I highly recommend Dr. Gregory Boyd's "The Myth Of A Christian Nation: How The Quest For Political Power Is Destroying The Church."
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.
(Romans 13:1-7 ESV)
First, it is glaringly obvious that this passage is discussing the role of governments, not the role of the church, the community of people who have decided to follow Jesus. This is a significant distinction which must be noticed. In the passage are instructions of how the church ought to respond to governmental authority and that is through general obedience and paying taxes.
There is an instance in the book of Acts that indicates we should not always obey the human authorities placed above us, as Peter and John testify, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard...We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 4:19-20; 5:29 ESV). When told not to preach the Gospel, they rebel against the authorities and even pray: "Grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness" (Acts 4:29, ESV). They do not pray for this earthly power to have a change of heart and thus allow them to preach the Gospel, but the apostles simply rebel.
Second, the passage certainly allows for the established authorities to wage war, but we must remind ourselves that Jesus commands His followers to engage in no acts of violence. In this sense, a Just War Theory would be ideal, for we would hope that our governments would not be temerarious with human lives and would instead take every precautionary measure to prevent war. Remember, in the prior paragraph, Paul practically recites the teaching of Jesus from the Sermon on the Mount (in Matthew 5:38-48) by instructing the church to never retaliate, exact vengeance or engage in violent acts (Romans 12:14-21). Therefore, it seems that this paragraph at hand is articulating one way in which God justly delivers recompense to evildoers (see 12:19).
While more questions could be raised about Romans 13:1-7, these primordial points suffice to demonstrate that Jesus' disciples are forbidden from rebelling against Him in favor of being submissive to humans. Allow me to close with this thought: for the first 300 years of church history, it was unanimously considered apostasy (leaving the faith) to enlist in the military. If a bishop heard of a Christian who was a Roman soldier, the bishop would seek them out and call them to repentance. If you know even a little bit about early church history, you know that theologians of this epoch disagreed on almost every topic imaginable, but it is interesting to note that they have a unified consensus that engaging in violence and/or enlisting in the military was not negotiable. They debated about every theological topic under the sun, but this issue was never questioned until the Constantine became a Christian and established Christianity as the official religion of the empire, baptizing those who resisted this edict by the sword.
Therefore, we must ask: can one serve both God and country? Can we pledge allegiance to the flag and the cross? Can we find a middle ground by somehow draping the flag over the cross? Certainly, we should love our country in the sense that we love all people, including all the people in America. We should submit to the American government insofar as we are not asked to compromise the Gospel and the teachings of the New Testament. However, I must ask if we have compromised what Jesus has called us to "for (too much) love of country?" To explore this specific issue further, I highly recommend Dr. Gregory Boyd's "The Myth Of A Christian Nation: How The Quest For Political Power Is Destroying The Church."
Questioning Common Sense, Pt. 4
It is my claim that the Just War Theory relies solely on common sense and has no Scriptural grounding. Allow me to now explore some of the often cited verses which proport to defend violence in Jesus' name. Let me first say that these objections only work well as sounds bites quickly rattled off, finding favor only in the uncritical mind. When one examines these passages closely, however, it becomes pelucid that they do not promote religious violence in the least.
Moreover, prior to examining these passages, let us remember vividly the unambiguous teachings we have already explored. The gravity of these Scriptures cannot be disregarded. In theological discourse, it is often simply a matter of a preferred doctrine that enables certain verses to seemingly carry more weight than others. One will often hear, "well, my doctrine must be right because of a, b and c verses, so x, y and z verses cannot possibly mean what your doctrine promotes." Answers such as these reveal that one has not done sufficient study and is a case of interpretation desperation. When all else fails, just take a defensive posture and do not allow for seemingly conflicting verses to take any precedence. This is essentially what happens. I am going to work hard not to commit the same fallacy.
In my study, I am going to look at New Testament passages only. As far as Old Testament violence and holy war that occurs in Israel is concerned, there is much to discuss. Let me remind us that Jesus is our Lord, not Joshua, David, Elijah or any other Hebrew figure. This does not mean that we cannot learn from them and uncover great pearls of theological price in the Hebrew Scriptures. But recall that Jesus did overturn key concepts of the Law, such as the foundational eye for and eye, tooth for a tooth ethic of recompense (Matthew 5:38). In a situation identical to Elijah, James and John ask Jesus if they can imitate him by calling down fire on the city and the Lord rebukes them (Luke 9:51-55). Jesus even goes so far as to say "no one knows the Son except the Father and know one knows the Father except the Son" (Matthew 11:27 ESV). 'No one' includes even the magnificent leaders of Israel.
The book of Hebrews is utterly clear on this matter: "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world" (Hebrews 1:1-2 ESV). Read chapters nine through eleven in this epistle carefully. What the kings, preists and prophets prior to Jesus did was all well and good, but the Son of God is the full revelation of God: "He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power" (Hebrews 1:3 ESV). Jesus is THE Word of God (John 1:1) - not simply A word of God. Whoever has seen Jesus has seen the Father (John 14:9). Paul overstates his case, claiming that in Jesus "the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily" (Colossians 2:9 ESV). Jesus is not just deity, not just the fullness of deity, but the whole fullness of deity! He is the definitive, final, decisive, unambiguous, entire, complete and full revelation of all that God is, was and ever will be - period. Therefore, what He says takes prominence over any other divine revelation, though it certainly does not abolish the Old Testament Scriptures (Matthew 5:17).
For more on Old Testament violence, I would encourage readers to check out a helpful blog by Dr. Gregory Boyd here. In this post, he lists a few principles to consider when reading the Old Testament, especially in relation to the issue of the divine violence found in these Scriptures. I have taken some time to study his position and others' views on how to reconcile some of the violent portrayls of YHWH, so if you would like to discuss these issues, feel free to commence a dialogue in the comment section below.
Let's continue questioning common sense and explore some of the objections to the teachings on non-violence in the New Testament in part five of this series.
Moreover, prior to examining these passages, let us remember vividly the unambiguous teachings we have already explored. The gravity of these Scriptures cannot be disregarded. In theological discourse, it is often simply a matter of a preferred doctrine that enables certain verses to seemingly carry more weight than others. One will often hear, "well, my doctrine must be right because of a, b and c verses, so x, y and z verses cannot possibly mean what your doctrine promotes." Answers such as these reveal that one has not done sufficient study and is a case of interpretation desperation. When all else fails, just take a defensive posture and do not allow for seemingly conflicting verses to take any precedence. This is essentially what happens. I am going to work hard not to commit the same fallacy.
In my study, I am going to look at New Testament passages only. As far as Old Testament violence and holy war that occurs in Israel is concerned, there is much to discuss. Let me remind us that Jesus is our Lord, not Joshua, David, Elijah or any other Hebrew figure. This does not mean that we cannot learn from them and uncover great pearls of theological price in the Hebrew Scriptures. But recall that Jesus did overturn key concepts of the Law, such as the foundational eye for and eye, tooth for a tooth ethic of recompense (Matthew 5:38). In a situation identical to Elijah, James and John ask Jesus if they can imitate him by calling down fire on the city and the Lord rebukes them (Luke 9:51-55). Jesus even goes so far as to say "no one knows the Son except the Father and know one knows the Father except the Son" (Matthew 11:27 ESV). 'No one' includes even the magnificent leaders of Israel.
The book of Hebrews is utterly clear on this matter: "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world" (Hebrews 1:1-2 ESV). Read chapters nine through eleven in this epistle carefully. What the kings, preists and prophets prior to Jesus did was all well and good, but the Son of God is the full revelation of God: "He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power" (Hebrews 1:3 ESV). Jesus is THE Word of God (John 1:1) - not simply A word of God. Whoever has seen Jesus has seen the Father (John 14:9). Paul overstates his case, claiming that in Jesus "the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily" (Colossians 2:9 ESV). Jesus is not just deity, not just the fullness of deity, but the whole fullness of deity! He is the definitive, final, decisive, unambiguous, entire, complete and full revelation of all that God is, was and ever will be - period. Therefore, what He says takes prominence over any other divine revelation, though it certainly does not abolish the Old Testament Scriptures (Matthew 5:17).
For more on Old Testament violence, I would encourage readers to check out a helpful blog by Dr. Gregory Boyd here. In this post, he lists a few principles to consider when reading the Old Testament, especially in relation to the issue of the divine violence found in these Scriptures. I have taken some time to study his position and others' views on how to reconcile some of the violent portrayls of YHWH, so if you would like to discuss these issues, feel free to commence a dialogue in the comment section below.
Let's continue questioning common sense and explore some of the objections to the teachings on non-violence in the New Testament in part five of this series.
Questioning Common Sense, Pt. 3
I am continuing to question the common sense of the Just War Theory. After exploring the overt teachings of the New Testament regarding non-violence, allow me to now follow up the previous post with some further considerations regarding the explicit nature of this biblical teaching.
It is essential to remember that the Gospel literally means "Good News." This Good News is inclusive in its broad scope, being for all people (Luke 2:10) and is characterized by peace (Luke 2:14, cf. Acts 10:36; Ephesians 2:17, 6:15). Indeed, Jesus is proclaimed as the Prince of peace (Isaiah 9:6). As He wept over Jerusalem, the anguish in the Lord's tone is evident as He cries out: “Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes." (Luke 19:42 ESV). Jesus' ministry is summarized by Paul as aiming "to reconcile to Himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of His cross" (Colossians 1:20 ESV). Peace is an absolutely essential component in the Gospel.
In defense of the Just War Theory, Augustine suggested that when slaying someone, you ought to not hold any bitterness, resentment, vengance or rage in your heart. Does that even make any logical sense?! Jesus tells us that simply refraining from murder is not enough, but even hating someone qualifies as manslaughter (Matthew 5:21-23). Murder is what simply follows from harboring hatred. How can one commit the consequential action apart from the prerequired attitude? How does Augustine's junction square up with what Jesus says in any sense whatsoever? Imagine counseling an angry husband to not retain any resentment towards his wife as he furiously beats her! This ludicrious example is simple an assuaged version of Augustine's teaching! I mean, think about it! Paul tells Timothy that murderers are diametrically opposed to the Gospel, (1 Timothy 1:9-11) but I guess it is okay as long as you are praying for that person during their dehumanization. Really?!
It is telling that Jesus distinguishes His kingdom from the kingdoms of the world by the fact that His followers do not engage in violence (John 18:36). This is the fundamental reason why He excoriates His disciples when they attempted to preserve Jesus' life by fighting with the sword (Luke 22:49-51). Just after Jesus predicts His execution, He tells His disciples that anyone who attempts to preserve their life will lose it and those who are willing to give it away will find life (Luke 9:21-24). These two teachings paired in the same section reveal the obvious intent of Christ. When Jesus tells us to deny ourselves and pick up our crosses, He means what He is saying - we are to being willing to die rather than defend ourselves!
If we are honest, we have severely assuaged the strong and offensive teachings of Jesus. "Deny yourself" simply means endure some discomfort and muster up the ability to do the right thing even when you don't feel like it. "Love your enemies" simply means slap a fake smile on your face and say something nice to your grouchy neighbor when her dog deficates on your lawn. Jesus uttered these words to Jews oppressed by power-weilding Romans who were more than eager to make an example out of them by subjecting them to a torturous, horrific and humiliating execution of hanging by spikes on a cross. We need to honestly reconsider the enormous body of teaching regarding suffering in the New Testament according to its context. These men and women are not talking about getting laughed at for wearing a Christians t-shirt (you probably should be mocked for that!) or enduring some occassional discomfort. Suffering in their minds had strong correlations to martyrdom, even during the periods when persecution was not as acute. If their Leader was crucified, they sure were expecting it, especially when we remember that Jesus had directly told them they would be martyred. Persecution and martyrdom is therefore held up as a glorious ideal by Jesus (Matthew 5:10-12), because it is true evidence that one has literally picked up the cross. Without the willingness to lay our lives down, we are simply not following Jesus (Luke 14:27).
If the primary characteristic of following Jesus means the willingness to die the most hellish death imaginable, then the antithesis of this call - namely, murder - is diametrically opposed to Jesus. From Jesus' perspective, is there then any hint of a prospect for the Just War Theory?
It is essential to remember that the Gospel literally means "Good News." This Good News is inclusive in its broad scope, being for all people (Luke 2:10) and is characterized by peace (Luke 2:14, cf. Acts 10:36; Ephesians 2:17, 6:15). Indeed, Jesus is proclaimed as the Prince of peace (Isaiah 9:6). As He wept over Jerusalem, the anguish in the Lord's tone is evident as He cries out: “Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes." (Luke 19:42 ESV). Jesus' ministry is summarized by Paul as aiming "to reconcile to Himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of His cross" (Colossians 1:20 ESV). Peace is an absolutely essential component in the Gospel.
In defense of the Just War Theory, Augustine suggested that when slaying someone, you ought to not hold any bitterness, resentment, vengance or rage in your heart. Does that even make any logical sense?! Jesus tells us that simply refraining from murder is not enough, but even hating someone qualifies as manslaughter (Matthew 5:21-23). Murder is what simply follows from harboring hatred. How can one commit the consequential action apart from the prerequired attitude? How does Augustine's junction square up with what Jesus says in any sense whatsoever? Imagine counseling an angry husband to not retain any resentment towards his wife as he furiously beats her! This ludicrious example is simple an assuaged version of Augustine's teaching! I mean, think about it! Paul tells Timothy that murderers are diametrically opposed to the Gospel, (1 Timothy 1:9-11) but I guess it is okay as long as you are praying for that person during their dehumanization. Really?!
It is telling that Jesus distinguishes His kingdom from the kingdoms of the world by the fact that His followers do not engage in violence (John 18:36). This is the fundamental reason why He excoriates His disciples when they attempted to preserve Jesus' life by fighting with the sword (Luke 22:49-51). Just after Jesus predicts His execution, He tells His disciples that anyone who attempts to preserve their life will lose it and those who are willing to give it away will find life (Luke 9:21-24). These two teachings paired in the same section reveal the obvious intent of Christ. When Jesus tells us to deny ourselves and pick up our crosses, He means what He is saying - we are to being willing to die rather than defend ourselves!
If we are honest, we have severely assuaged the strong and offensive teachings of Jesus. "Deny yourself" simply means endure some discomfort and muster up the ability to do the right thing even when you don't feel like it. "Love your enemies" simply means slap a fake smile on your face and say something nice to your grouchy neighbor when her dog deficates on your lawn. Jesus uttered these words to Jews oppressed by power-weilding Romans who were more than eager to make an example out of them by subjecting them to a torturous, horrific and humiliating execution of hanging by spikes on a cross. We need to honestly reconsider the enormous body of teaching regarding suffering in the New Testament according to its context. These men and women are not talking about getting laughed at for wearing a Christians t-shirt (you probably should be mocked for that!) or enduring some occassional discomfort. Suffering in their minds had strong correlations to martyrdom, even during the periods when persecution was not as acute. If their Leader was crucified, they sure were expecting it, especially when we remember that Jesus had directly told them they would be martyred. Persecution and martyrdom is therefore held up as a glorious ideal by Jesus (Matthew 5:10-12), because it is true evidence that one has literally picked up the cross. Without the willingness to lay our lives down, we are simply not following Jesus (Luke 14:27).
If the primary characteristic of following Jesus means the willingness to die the most hellish death imaginable, then the antithesis of this call - namely, murder - is diametrically opposed to Jesus. From Jesus' perspective, is there then any hint of a prospect for the Just War Theory?
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Questioning Common Sense, Pt. 2
In questioning the common sense of the Just War Theory, I am seeking to promulgate the abundantly clear teachings of the New Testament regarding non-violence. Allow me to use this post to simply list a few of the overt passages from Jesus and His apostles reagrding this subject. Consider these Scriptures and the direct implications of this teaching. If we are to be serious followers of Jesus and students of Scripture, this is where we must begin. Rather than establishing the conversation with questions ragarding emotionally laden, hypothetical situations, we should start with the question: what does the Bible teach?
“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."
(Matthew 5:9 ESV)
“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire."
(Matthew 5:21-22 ESV)
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
(Matthew 5:38-48 ESV)
Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword."
(Matthew 26:52 ESV)
Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”
(John 18:36 ESV)
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
(Romans 12:14, 18-21 ESV)
Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing.
(1 Peter 3:9 ESV)
Do not simply breeze through these Scriptures mindlessly, but take some time to ponder and meditate on them. In the following posts, I will respond to the common rejoinders which are offered from Scripture and the primordial philosophical inquiries. For now, I challenge all of us to honestly wrestle with these passages and stare continually into Jesus' and the apostles' words on this subject. From there, we will venture into other issues.
“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."
(Matthew 5:9 ESV)
“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire."
(Matthew 5:21-22 ESV)
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
(Matthew 5:38-48 ESV)
Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword."
(Matthew 26:52 ESV)
Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”
(John 18:36 ESV)
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
(Romans 12:14, 18-21 ESV)
Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing.
(1 Peter 3:9 ESV)
Do not simply breeze through these Scriptures mindlessly, but take some time to ponder and meditate on them. In the following posts, I will respond to the common rejoinders which are offered from Scripture and the primordial philosophical inquiries. For now, I challenge all of us to honestly wrestle with these passages and stare continually into Jesus' and the apostles' words on this subject. From there, we will venture into other issues.
Questioning Common Sense, Pt. 1
Common sense is a helpful aid in regards to common situations. When it comes to the run-of-the-mill, everyday, common occurences, common sense can not be disregarded. Paying bills, cleaning the house, morning routines, casual conversation, basic skill sets and the like, require common sense. As far as almost everything else is concerned, I question the value with which common sense is often invested by the majority of Americans.
When it comes to colossal issues such as career development, familial care, national legislation, foreign policy, global poverty, AIDS alleviation and the like, I question the glory with which common sense is frequently exalted. Now, I believe that common sense will certainly play a role in such complicated matters. However, there is quite often this pervasive sentiment that regards common sense as akin to the woman in the book of Proverbs know as Wisdom:
“And now, O sons, listen to me:
blessed are those who keep my ways.
Hear instruction and be wise,
and do not neglect it.
Blessed is the one who listens to me,
watching daily at my gates,
waiting beside my doors.
For whoever finds me finds life
and obtains favor from the LORD,
but he who fails to find me injures himself;
all who hate me love death.”
(Proverbs 8:32-36 ESV)
Perhaps I am exaggerating a bit, but am I? How often do we hear politicians loathe over the fact that 'common sense is not so common anymore?' How often do we hear people respond to our mistakes with the 'obvious' question: 'why didn't you just use common sense?!' Certainly, there are instances when our fumbles could have been prevented by the grip of common sense. But can we say that common sense is practically synonymous with wisdom? Of course, no one overtly states such a thought, but if you pay attention, it is subtly implied.
Let's think about this for a second though. Jesus and the New Testament authors teach that the first will be last and the last will be first; the greatest is the least and the least is the greatest; the one who exalts herself will be humbled and the one who humbles himself will be exalted; the weak are the strong and the strong are the weak; the wise are the foolish and the foolish are the wise; mercy triumphs over justice. God almighty, the sovereign Creator of the universe flexes His omnipotent muscle by becoming a human being, hangs out with the social outcasts, constantly ridicules religion, lives a perfectly sinless life, dies a hellish death and then rises from the grave! Sinful humans freely inherit the divine nature (II Peter 1:4; cf. Ephesians 1) simply by grace through faith the size of a grain of sugar (or a mustard seed)! The Gospel is completely upside down, flies in the face of all that is typical and offends our common sense!
I love what Siddhārtha Gautama had to say about common sense: "Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true." The Buddah was on to something with this one, I believe.
This rambling arises from my recent musings on the idea of the Just War Theory. Certainly, from a common sense perspective, the Just War Theory is perhaps one of the highest ethical ideals when it comes to the tragedies of violence and war. However, I take seriously the teachings of Jesus and I cannot help but hold up His opinion on the subject. Jesus is unambiguous, straight-forward and lucid as to what He understands as the ideal when it comes to this topic. However, it depresses me that the church has not taken this teaching seriously and has opted for common sense.
For instance, groups of Christians who claim that they take all their direction for life from the Bible have constantly deferred to common sense when it comes to this question. You will hear things like, "If someone invaded my home and sought to take my family's life, it would be unethical for me not to put a bullet through their head!" "How could we NOT charge into Germany and fight for justice during the Holocaust?!" Now, I completely understand why these questions are asked; they NEED to be asked! I applaud the sincerity of those who ask such questions, as I myself seek answers to these kinds of questions.
However, I find it ironic that those who claim the Bible as their authority immediately allow common sense to be their authority rather than Jesus. Appeals such as these to emotionally difficult situations without considering te teachings of Jesus are devoid of wisdom. Consider the issue of abortion. What if, when asked about how the unborn should be treated, we immediately asked: "What about the 13 yeard old girl who gets brutally raped by her uncle and is told by the doctor that the baby is going to have severe deformities and may cause even further complications, even potentially causing death to the baby and the mother?!" From this emotionally-charged perspective, abortion seems like an ethical ideal!
I'm currently reading Mark Juergensmeyer's "Terror In The Mind Of God," and the casual way these terrorists talk about religious violence is astounding! Common sense is at the heart of this reasoning. Rev. Michael Bray, a Christian terrorist who was responsible for abortion clinic bombings in America, is depicted in the book holding up a sign which casually asks, "Is it wrong to use force to stop the murder of innocent babies?" When common sense reigns as king, the answer is obvious, as Rev. Bray's actions display.
So I begin this series by asking the church to question common sense, especially when it comes to the Just War Theory.
When it comes to colossal issues such as career development, familial care, national legislation, foreign policy, global poverty, AIDS alleviation and the like, I question the glory with which common sense is frequently exalted. Now, I believe that common sense will certainly play a role in such complicated matters. However, there is quite often this pervasive sentiment that regards common sense as akin to the woman in the book of Proverbs know as Wisdom:
“And now, O sons, listen to me:
blessed are those who keep my ways.
Hear instruction and be wise,
and do not neglect it.
Blessed is the one who listens to me,
watching daily at my gates,
waiting beside my doors.
For whoever finds me finds life
and obtains favor from the LORD,
but he who fails to find me injures himself;
all who hate me love death.”
(Proverbs 8:32-36 ESV)
Perhaps I am exaggerating a bit, but am I? How often do we hear politicians loathe over the fact that 'common sense is not so common anymore?' How often do we hear people respond to our mistakes with the 'obvious' question: 'why didn't you just use common sense?!' Certainly, there are instances when our fumbles could have been prevented by the grip of common sense. But can we say that common sense is practically synonymous with wisdom? Of course, no one overtly states such a thought, but if you pay attention, it is subtly implied.
Let's think about this for a second though. Jesus and the New Testament authors teach that the first will be last and the last will be first; the greatest is the least and the least is the greatest; the one who exalts herself will be humbled and the one who humbles himself will be exalted; the weak are the strong and the strong are the weak; the wise are the foolish and the foolish are the wise; mercy triumphs over justice. God almighty, the sovereign Creator of the universe flexes His omnipotent muscle by becoming a human being, hangs out with the social outcasts, constantly ridicules religion, lives a perfectly sinless life, dies a hellish death and then rises from the grave! Sinful humans freely inherit the divine nature (II Peter 1:4; cf. Ephesians 1) simply by grace through faith the size of a grain of sugar (or a mustard seed)! The Gospel is completely upside down, flies in the face of all that is typical and offends our common sense!
I love what Siddhārtha Gautama had to say about common sense: "Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true." The Buddah was on to something with this one, I believe.
This rambling arises from my recent musings on the idea of the Just War Theory. Certainly, from a common sense perspective, the Just War Theory is perhaps one of the highest ethical ideals when it comes to the tragedies of violence and war. However, I take seriously the teachings of Jesus and I cannot help but hold up His opinion on the subject. Jesus is unambiguous, straight-forward and lucid as to what He understands as the ideal when it comes to this topic. However, it depresses me that the church has not taken this teaching seriously and has opted for common sense.
For instance, groups of Christians who claim that they take all their direction for life from the Bible have constantly deferred to common sense when it comes to this question. You will hear things like, "If someone invaded my home and sought to take my family's life, it would be unethical for me not to put a bullet through their head!" "How could we NOT charge into Germany and fight for justice during the Holocaust?!" Now, I completely understand why these questions are asked; they NEED to be asked! I applaud the sincerity of those who ask such questions, as I myself seek answers to these kinds of questions.
However, I find it ironic that those who claim the Bible as their authority immediately allow common sense to be their authority rather than Jesus. Appeals such as these to emotionally difficult situations without considering te teachings of Jesus are devoid of wisdom. Consider the issue of abortion. What if, when asked about how the unborn should be treated, we immediately asked: "What about the 13 yeard old girl who gets brutally raped by her uncle and is told by the doctor that the baby is going to have severe deformities and may cause even further complications, even potentially causing death to the baby and the mother?!" From this emotionally-charged perspective, abortion seems like an ethical ideal!
I'm currently reading Mark Juergensmeyer's "Terror In The Mind Of God," and the casual way these terrorists talk about religious violence is astounding! Common sense is at the heart of this reasoning. Rev. Michael Bray, a Christian terrorist who was responsible for abortion clinic bombings in America, is depicted in the book holding up a sign which casually asks, "Is it wrong to use force to stop the murder of innocent babies?" When common sense reigns as king, the answer is obvious, as Rev. Bray's actions display.
So I begin this series by asking the church to question common sense, especially when it comes to the Just War Theory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)