Kings and Kingdoms
i'm teaching through the old testament right now. and god's act of freedom for the hebrews (the exodus) was not complete in and of itself. it was only completed in the set up of a new society - a contrast-society as Bruggemann puts it. a society that does not enslave, does not separate the rich from the poor. instead, the new society is to have only liturgical leaders, and everyone is suppose to be equal, receive an equal plot of land and be able to provide for their families. this is, of course, why god is against them having a king "like all the other nations" in 1 Sam 8. god lists there the reasons they should not have a king, reasons that basically come down to the fact that the king will inevitably enslave them. that's what kings do. that's what power does.
god allowed for the possibility of a king in the laws. in deut. god talks about when they get into the land and are settled and want a king like all the other nations that it is ok for them to have a king - BUT, and it's a big but, the king needs to act in certain ways. one of which is to not raise himself above the other people (deut 17:14-20). another is not to gather up horses or gold.
now is this really possible? can you have a king without him raising himself above the other people? Saul couldn't do it. but perhaps david achieved it at times. in the same spirit in which he did not use saul's spear to kill saul when saul was hunting david down in the wilderness. perhaps in this spirit of humility, david at times reached this ideal. though he was living in the now, where all kings ruled completely, he reached for the not-yet, where all people are equal before god. this humility often comes across in his psalms as well.
he of course was not able to reside in that place. he ended up not going out to war and finding bathsheeba left behind, and then placed himself and his office much higher than uziah by commanding his murder.
anyway - all that to say. god's plan from the beginning was that we would live as a contrast-society, living out of a different mind set - a mindset that has to do with equality and justice. it's taking us a long time to get it
Oct 18, 2006
600,000
I can no longer see how people can vote according to the "moral issues" of abortion and gay marriage while ignoring issues concerning our foreign policy. The new estimate is that over 600,000 Iraqis have died since our invasion of the country. Over 600,000.
I must agree with Jim Wallis that this # needs weigh heavily upon us as we vote in a couple of weeks.
I can no longer see how people can vote according to the "moral issues" of abortion and gay marriage while ignoring issues concerning our foreign policy. The new estimate is that over 600,000 Iraqis have died since our invasion of the country. Over 600,000.
I must agree with Jim Wallis that this # needs weigh heavily upon us as we vote in a couple of weeks.
Oct 12, 2006
Oct 9, 2006
The Discussion
There has been some discussion concerning my post about the war in Iraq creating more terrorists. Please see the comments sections for the beginnings of that discussion, but I decided to re-post here my friend Dennis’ thoughts concerning my suggestions, which are then followed by my reactions to him.
I am posting this discussion here because I think it is a very important one. If I thought Dennis were simply way off base, I would not take the time to post his thoughts here. I respect his thoughts a great deal, and my lengthy comments are an expression of that respect, as I know his comments come from a place of respect for my position. I consider this a healthy, and helpful, dialogue. Thank you Dennis, and please continue to respond.
Thanks to Matt for centering our talk on Christian ethics, not on differing political positions.
From Dennis -
I am going to try to address these ethical issues succinctly, but please allow me to restate my opinion that this medium is not the best avenue to have such discussions because of its nature. I have tried to discuss big topics like this in the past on my own blog, and it is certainly not without merit, but it will never take the place of two or more people simply sitting down and having conversations about huge issues such as these. The fundamental difference here involves the role of the individual and the role of the government. I would agree that we as individuals in this country are far too self-centered, and we should be reaching out to those in the third world with the love of Christ. An example of what we should be doing comes to mind when I think of some friends of mine who are currently serving as missionaries in Ghana. Their primary reason for being there is to be witnesses for Christ, and one of the ways they are doing that is by being the first full time doctor in an area populated with about 30 rural villages. The average individual here in the U.S. cannot even tell you where Ghana is on a map. We are in a unique position in the world to be able to offer all manner of assistance and aid because of our amazing prosperity, but instead we are often too consumed with the latest building project for the “community center” for the church or the latest domestic political issue to consider that we don’t give any time or energy to the simplest and most obvious way that we can serve Christ by “serving the least of these.”However, what I have just described is a failure of the individuals within this country and specifically the church. Is it possible that the government reflects some of these same attitudes in its policy? Of course, it is, but that is not a problem that you fix from the top down but from the bottom up. I believe that the Bible makes it clear that the government is ordained by God and is not given “the sword” in vain. (Romans 13, I think) Therefore, I believe that non violence is in regards to our lives as individual believers when we come into contact with the world representing Him. When we receive persecution or stiff resistance, we are not to respond with violence in an attempt to defend Him. However, I do not believe that non violence is taught to us in regards to self-defense or in a legitimate government role that is not acting immorally. I do not believe that violence in and of itself is inherently immoral for the believer. Obviously, it can be, but for example, I do not believe it is wrong for a believer to become a cop, FBI, Coast Guard, or any of the other forms of law enforcement even though they are jobs that innately carry the potential for violence on the part of the officer. I do not believe it is wrong for me as a father and husband to protect my family from an attacker with physical violence. I also do not believe that it is wrong for a Christian to be a soldier. I will acknowledge that this would be a particularly difficult position to be in because the nature of the job, more than any other, causes the person to have to constantly decide whether to take someone’s life or not which is a heavy burden to place on any man’s shoulders. My main point is that Tim’s comments would be best described as non-violent and violent ethics instead Christian and non-Christian ethics. To do otherwise is a slap in the faces of people who love Christ with all their hearts but are put into situations that require them to use their God ordained authority to protect others through violence. I realize that many will say that the Iraq conflict is an inherently immoral war and therefore does not qualify for such a distinction, but I disagree, in spite of acknowledging that the administration has committed many tactical blunders along the way.
Dennis,
Of course I'd love to have coffee.
And you're right that this blogging does not allow for some beautiful aspects of sitting together and discussing things. However, it does allow for some greater permanance of thought. We are perhaps more careful with what we say when we're putting it out there in this form of discussion. This can, of course, be helpful as well (not that you were saying it couldn't be).
I've sat back and allowed this conversation to form on its own a little before responding. I've enjoyed ya'll's sparring. I must admit that I have up until this last post been fully on the side of Matt. I understand, however, where you were coming from Dennis. Comments I've made in the past certainly did link these issues to the Bush administration and such. These comments, however, were written from a place of sadness, not frustration. I was sad that we have acted so unChristianly.
Dennis, you are right in your assumptions about my being pro non-violence, and frankly I don't see how any Christian can not be pro non-violence. You are wrong, however, in assuming that I rule out any use of force. I agree (though tentatively) with Bonhoeffer's decision to join the plot of those attemping to assassinate Hitler. I agree also (for the most part) with the U.S.'s decision to go to war against the Nazis. Saddam, however, is not a Nazi, and to associate the two (as Bush has often done) is absolutely ridiculous in my opinion. I think it is possible for war to be just, but only as a last resort, and it is very, very difficult for me to imagine a situation in which a pre-emptive war is a last resort.
Also, Dennis, I strongly disagree with you about the personal/political split, particularly when we are in a democracy. A democracy is meant to be a reflection of the people's will, and we as Christians are part of that. To say that issues of violence and non-violence are personal issues only is to deny their earthly power and affect. It is to say that what Jesus taught really only has to do with something beyond this world. We are to suffer violence only because it points people beyond this world to a different world. I think, in contrast, that God's kingdom has something to do with this world. I think that loving your neighbor is meant not just as a way of trying to keep in focus the possibility of saving his or her soul from hell, but it is meant as a means of changing the actual relationship with that person. It is in that change, and perhaps only in that change, that there is a possibility of eternal salvation. From an evangelical viewpoint, then, we as a "Christian" nation (I'm referring both to the right's view of having a Christian as the president and to the Muslim perception of our being a Christian nation - which we, particularly Bush, constantly espouse) -- so, from an evangelical viewpoint (a view of intending to save others) we are failing miserably. We have distanced ourselves from Muslims. We are in an ideological war against them (a clash of civilizations as many have put it). We are not building relationships as Christ did with sinners. We have alienated ourselves. Can you imagine being a missionary in Baghdad right now? Anywhere in the Middle East?? How about if we had taken the actions that I mentioned in the previous post? What if we had reached out to Muslims and attempted to address their concerns? What doors might have been opened then for evangelism?
I am not suggesting that we should have done things differently simply for the sake of evangelism. Rather, even from a concern for evangelism, we should still (and perhaps especially) be against the use of force as much as possible. For, it is part of the essence of Christianity that it can never be forced upon anyone. (On a somewhat similar note, I would argue that it is nearly impossible to force Democracy on someone who does not want it.)
Dennis, I'm not comfortable with the split you made between violence vs. non-violence and Christian vs. non-Christian, as though the use of violence is not a Christian concern (which is of course not what you meant, but making that split does make that what you were saying).
You said that these things are not an issue that you fix from the top down but from the bottom up. I agree with this statement. However, in a democracy we do fix it from the top down by electing those in power. We have to know what we believe and fix it from the bottom first, but the jump to the top is quite quick in a democracy. It matters how we vote. Though we can't "fix it from the top down" that does not mean we should not fix it from the bottom UP. You seemed to suggest that we should just fix the bottom, fix only how we as Christians in individual acts respond to violence, and that that should have no affect up the chain to our government, that it should have no upward movement.
Saying that the government is not given the sword in vain by no means relinquishes the government from responsibility for how they choose to use it - and in a democracy, that responsibility falls back on us as individuals (and particularly on us as Christians). The OT especially is replete with warnings against Israel and other nations for how they use the sword. God judges them for their poor use of the sword. Pick any prophet!
Despite all this other stuff I've written, my primary point is that Jesus' commands have to do with the way we live our lives. I fear that you have spiritualized the command to love your enemy and made it only into a matter of spirituality, a state of the heart. I think Christ meant it to also (actually I think Christ meant it to be primarily) an action. Non-violence is not an acceptance of the other's violence. It is not a back-door endorsement of someone eles's violence. Non-violence, at least what Christ teaches as I see it, is always an action. It is always a statement against the violent action of excluding the leper. But is never only a statement against, it is always a reaching out to touch the leper. Non-violence is always a statement against the violence of slavery (Deut 15 talks about letting slaves free every 7th year), and it is always also an action against the systems of slavery (the people are then commanded to give to them liberally from their flocks and storehouses - presumably so that the freed slave would not simply continue in the cycle of having to sell himself or herself into slavery in order to survive). Non-violence is always a statement against violence. For example, Mt. 5:38-39 – “You have heard it said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth but I say to you not to retaliate revengefully by evil means." But non-violence is also always an action. For example, Mt. 5:40-42 – “But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if any one wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. Give to one who begs from you, and do not refuse one who would borrow from you.” These are specific situations of violence being done. It was unjust, unfair and violent for the Roman soldier to make a Jew carry his burden for a mile, but it was the law (was that law justified in God’s view – the sword not given in vain?). Jesus says that one’s response should not be – well, one day I’ll get revenge and hurt him in the same way he hurt me. This speaks to America’s need for revenge shortly after Sept 11, a need that I think most of us would say was (and in some cases still is) wrong. Jesus says to respond to the soldier’s act of violence by going the extra mile. It is an action of non-violence, not merely a statement against violence and a recoiling from the situation. Similarly, if someone does the socially violent act of suing you, Jesus suggests that you not retaliate revengefully. But that is not all that Jesus says, and it is not all that non-violence says. Rather, Jesus says to give your cloak as well. These are not mere spiritual platitudes. They are not just about the condition of our hearts. Jesus is giving specific, material advice. We cannot separate Jesus’ command from the actual cloak that is envisioned. There is something tangible that should happen. Non-violence is to be done, not merely stated.
There has been some discussion concerning my post about the war in Iraq creating more terrorists. Please see the comments sections for the beginnings of that discussion, but I decided to re-post here my friend Dennis’ thoughts concerning my suggestions, which are then followed by my reactions to him.
I am posting this discussion here because I think it is a very important one. If I thought Dennis were simply way off base, I would not take the time to post his thoughts here. I respect his thoughts a great deal, and my lengthy comments are an expression of that respect, as I know his comments come from a place of respect for my position. I consider this a healthy, and helpful, dialogue. Thank you Dennis, and please continue to respond.
Thanks to Matt for centering our talk on Christian ethics, not on differing political positions.
From Dennis -
I am going to try to address these ethical issues succinctly, but please allow me to restate my opinion that this medium is not the best avenue to have such discussions because of its nature. I have tried to discuss big topics like this in the past on my own blog, and it is certainly not without merit, but it will never take the place of two or more people simply sitting down and having conversations about huge issues such as these. The fundamental difference here involves the role of the individual and the role of the government. I would agree that we as individuals in this country are far too self-centered, and we should be reaching out to those in the third world with the love of Christ. An example of what we should be doing comes to mind when I think of some friends of mine who are currently serving as missionaries in Ghana. Their primary reason for being there is to be witnesses for Christ, and one of the ways they are doing that is by being the first full time doctor in an area populated with about 30 rural villages. The average individual here in the U.S. cannot even tell you where Ghana is on a map. We are in a unique position in the world to be able to offer all manner of assistance and aid because of our amazing prosperity, but instead we are often too consumed with the latest building project for the “community center” for the church or the latest domestic political issue to consider that we don’t give any time or energy to the simplest and most obvious way that we can serve Christ by “serving the least of these.”However, what I have just described is a failure of the individuals within this country and specifically the church. Is it possible that the government reflects some of these same attitudes in its policy? Of course, it is, but that is not a problem that you fix from the top down but from the bottom up. I believe that the Bible makes it clear that the government is ordained by God and is not given “the sword” in vain. (Romans 13, I think) Therefore, I believe that non violence is in regards to our lives as individual believers when we come into contact with the world representing Him. When we receive persecution or stiff resistance, we are not to respond with violence in an attempt to defend Him. However, I do not believe that non violence is taught to us in regards to self-defense or in a legitimate government role that is not acting immorally. I do not believe that violence in and of itself is inherently immoral for the believer. Obviously, it can be, but for example, I do not believe it is wrong for a believer to become a cop, FBI, Coast Guard, or any of the other forms of law enforcement even though they are jobs that innately carry the potential for violence on the part of the officer. I do not believe it is wrong for me as a father and husband to protect my family from an attacker with physical violence. I also do not believe that it is wrong for a Christian to be a soldier. I will acknowledge that this would be a particularly difficult position to be in because the nature of the job, more than any other, causes the person to have to constantly decide whether to take someone’s life or not which is a heavy burden to place on any man’s shoulders. My main point is that Tim’s comments would be best described as non-violent and violent ethics instead Christian and non-Christian ethics. To do otherwise is a slap in the faces of people who love Christ with all their hearts but are put into situations that require them to use their God ordained authority to protect others through violence. I realize that many will say that the Iraq conflict is an inherently immoral war and therefore does not qualify for such a distinction, but I disagree, in spite of acknowledging that the administration has committed many tactical blunders along the way.
Dennis,
Of course I'd love to have coffee.
And you're right that this blogging does not allow for some beautiful aspects of sitting together and discussing things. However, it does allow for some greater permanance of thought. We are perhaps more careful with what we say when we're putting it out there in this form of discussion. This can, of course, be helpful as well (not that you were saying it couldn't be).
I've sat back and allowed this conversation to form on its own a little before responding. I've enjoyed ya'll's sparring. I must admit that I have up until this last post been fully on the side of Matt. I understand, however, where you were coming from Dennis. Comments I've made in the past certainly did link these issues to the Bush administration and such. These comments, however, were written from a place of sadness, not frustration. I was sad that we have acted so unChristianly.
Dennis, you are right in your assumptions about my being pro non-violence, and frankly I don't see how any Christian can not be pro non-violence. You are wrong, however, in assuming that I rule out any use of force. I agree (though tentatively) with Bonhoeffer's decision to join the plot of those attemping to assassinate Hitler. I agree also (for the most part) with the U.S.'s decision to go to war against the Nazis. Saddam, however, is not a Nazi, and to associate the two (as Bush has often done) is absolutely ridiculous in my opinion. I think it is possible for war to be just, but only as a last resort, and it is very, very difficult for me to imagine a situation in which a pre-emptive war is a last resort.
Also, Dennis, I strongly disagree with you about the personal/political split, particularly when we are in a democracy. A democracy is meant to be a reflection of the people's will, and we as Christians are part of that. To say that issues of violence and non-violence are personal issues only is to deny their earthly power and affect. It is to say that what Jesus taught really only has to do with something beyond this world. We are to suffer violence only because it points people beyond this world to a different world. I think, in contrast, that God's kingdom has something to do with this world. I think that loving your neighbor is meant not just as a way of trying to keep in focus the possibility of saving his or her soul from hell, but it is meant as a means of changing the actual relationship with that person. It is in that change, and perhaps only in that change, that there is a possibility of eternal salvation. From an evangelical viewpoint, then, we as a "Christian" nation (I'm referring both to the right's view of having a Christian as the president and to the Muslim perception of our being a Christian nation - which we, particularly Bush, constantly espouse) -- so, from an evangelical viewpoint (a view of intending to save others) we are failing miserably. We have distanced ourselves from Muslims. We are in an ideological war against them (a clash of civilizations as many have put it). We are not building relationships as Christ did with sinners. We have alienated ourselves. Can you imagine being a missionary in Baghdad right now? Anywhere in the Middle East?? How about if we had taken the actions that I mentioned in the previous post? What if we had reached out to Muslims and attempted to address their concerns? What doors might have been opened then for evangelism?
I am not suggesting that we should have done things differently simply for the sake of evangelism. Rather, even from a concern for evangelism, we should still (and perhaps especially) be against the use of force as much as possible. For, it is part of the essence of Christianity that it can never be forced upon anyone. (On a somewhat similar note, I would argue that it is nearly impossible to force Democracy on someone who does not want it.)
Dennis, I'm not comfortable with the split you made between violence vs. non-violence and Christian vs. non-Christian, as though the use of violence is not a Christian concern (which is of course not what you meant, but making that split does make that what you were saying).
You said that these things are not an issue that you fix from the top down but from the bottom up. I agree with this statement. However, in a democracy we do fix it from the top down by electing those in power. We have to know what we believe and fix it from the bottom first, but the jump to the top is quite quick in a democracy. It matters how we vote. Though we can't "fix it from the top down" that does not mean we should not fix it from the bottom UP. You seemed to suggest that we should just fix the bottom, fix only how we as Christians in individual acts respond to violence, and that that should have no affect up the chain to our government, that it should have no upward movement.
Saying that the government is not given the sword in vain by no means relinquishes the government from responsibility for how they choose to use it - and in a democracy, that responsibility falls back on us as individuals (and particularly on us as Christians). The OT especially is replete with warnings against Israel and other nations for how they use the sword. God judges them for their poor use of the sword. Pick any prophet!
Despite all this other stuff I've written, my primary point is that Jesus' commands have to do with the way we live our lives. I fear that you have spiritualized the command to love your enemy and made it only into a matter of spirituality, a state of the heart. I think Christ meant it to also (actually I think Christ meant it to be primarily) an action. Non-violence is not an acceptance of the other's violence. It is not a back-door endorsement of someone eles's violence. Non-violence, at least what Christ teaches as I see it, is always an action. It is always a statement against the violent action of excluding the leper. But is never only a statement against, it is always a reaching out to touch the leper. Non-violence is always a statement against the violence of slavery (Deut 15 talks about letting slaves free every 7th year), and it is always also an action against the systems of slavery (the people are then commanded to give to them liberally from their flocks and storehouses - presumably so that the freed slave would not simply continue in the cycle of having to sell himself or herself into slavery in order to survive). Non-violence is always a statement against violence. For example, Mt. 5:38-39 – “You have heard it said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth but I say to you not to retaliate revengefully by evil means." But non-violence is also always an action. For example, Mt. 5:40-42 – “But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if any one wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. Give to one who begs from you, and do not refuse one who would borrow from you.” These are specific situations of violence being done. It was unjust, unfair and violent for the Roman soldier to make a Jew carry his burden for a mile, but it was the law (was that law justified in God’s view – the sword not given in vain?). Jesus says that one’s response should not be – well, one day I’ll get revenge and hurt him in the same way he hurt me. This speaks to America’s need for revenge shortly after Sept 11, a need that I think most of us would say was (and in some cases still is) wrong. Jesus says to respond to the soldier’s act of violence by going the extra mile. It is an action of non-violence, not merely a statement against violence and a recoiling from the situation. Similarly, if someone does the socially violent act of suing you, Jesus suggests that you not retaliate revengefully. But that is not all that Jesus says, and it is not all that non-violence says. Rather, Jesus says to give your cloak as well. These are not mere spiritual platitudes. They are not just about the condition of our hearts. Jesus is giving specific, material advice. We cannot separate Jesus’ command from the actual cloak that is envisioned. There is something tangible that should happen. Non-violence is to be done, not merely stated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)