I have been trying not to rant lately, and overall have done very well, especially because I have stuck to my Lenten fast from political campaigns. But today too much is in my head and heart and I have to let a little bit out or I will explode.
A few days ago I had lunch with a person from my church, who I had a nagging suspicion was a neo-con. Truthfully, I think a majority of my brothers and sisters who I attend church with fall into this camp, but I try not to think about it or engage in any sort of discourse that relates directly to politics (though I am consistently subversive on matters). At my lunch, though, my fellow diner brought up his love for Bill O'Reilly and Fox News. Oy. I am a calm person, and tried to remain so as I asked a few probing questions, such as: "Doesn't O'Reilly support slaughtering innocent Iraqi's by the truckload?" or "Isn't he a big fan of torture?" or "Is it true that he wants to force illegal immigrants out of the country?" The truth is that I really don't know, as I don't have a television and if I did, I would never watch a moment of his show, after once seeing 3/4 of an episode. But apparently I had opened the floodgates. My fellow diner gave strong reasons why everything O'Reilly says is true and good. It was hard to listen to him.
The problem is that none of his reasons were supported by the Gospel. I'm sorry, but I am just plain sick of this. You cannot follow Jesus and say that it is okay to kill people. You simply cannot do it! You cannot love your enemy while blowing him to bits or torturing him. You cannot love your neighbor as yourself when you are killing innocent civilians so you can feel safer at night. You cannot force people back into their impoverished countries, chanting all the while "it's illegal for them to be here," and claim to love your neighbor. If you are willing to punish these men and women just because of where they are born, I have little doubt what you would have done with Jews in Germany in the 40's or escaped slaves in the U.S. After all, it was illegal to hide them as well. And don't get me started on prisons, which were initially meant to house people as we get them on the right track, but are now meant to punish, punish, punish. Should we be at all surprised at what happens when the average prisoner is released?
The Gospel of Jesus is impractical. It does not provide earthly safety. It does not punish but forgives. It is gentle and kind and forgiving and full of mercy and love. I see few fruits of the spirit showing when a neo-conservative talks about living in America. It saddens me. How about a consistent ethic of human life, where we care about all people and are concerned about nothing other than their complete salvation? Salvation in the Bible is not just about eternity after you die, but about how you live right now. How you are cared for and care for others. All others! This requires forgiveness, hospitality, gentleness and understanding. And it is desperately needed in this country today. No more hate. Please!
That's my rant. It was written on the fly, with little in the way of systematic thought, so I hope you can forgive me. I needed to get all of that off my chest.
Peace (and I really mean it!),
Matt
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Hi Matt. Thanks for the post as it reminds us that following Jesus is a radical action. Just out of curiosity, are you saying that pacifism is the only way to follow Jesus and those who aren't pacifists aren't truly disciples?
Hey Tyler,
I don't know if I would go that far. That would mean that those who sin in any way are not disciples of Jesus. Which means I'm not, and I hope I am. But I would say that killing another person is act that is against the will of Jesus. I cannot read the words of Christ and come to any other conclusion.
Thanks for the clarification. This is a tough issue for me. I'm challenged and influenced by the pacifist reading of Scripture, but I'm not entirely convinced by it. I don't know how to reconcile the protection of all life when we have situations (in our recent history no less) where not physically stopping a perpetrator leads to others' harm or death. It is one thing for me to turn the cheek, but what am I called to do when the oppressor attacks the weaker party and doesn't look like they'll stop even if I were to non-violently sacrifice myself? I guess this goes back to Bonhoeffer's question about what is his responsibility when he sees a madman drive a car into a crowd? Isn't he responsible to the other lives to protect them as well?
Bonhoeffer has been something of a guide for me because I see him wrestling with the question of violence in ways that make sense to me. I think Volf has picked up on it in his pacifism as well. Volf holds that there may be times for violence in the form of physical restraint, but that violence can never be employed in the name of God.
I agree that restraint is sometimes called for and I believe okay. And I hesitate to use the word pacifist, or pacifism, as it can potentially lead to us imagining somebody who is passive rather than active.
Tony Campolo was talking about torture a few years ago and made the point that we cannot stoop to situational ethics when trying to decide when there is finally a point where this sort of violence is okay. And I think that was finally the decision I had to make. Obviously everybody always goes back to WWII and saving the Jews. Honestly, I think that is legit and anybody making that sacrifice is heroic and a good person. But I do not think Christ calls us to go there and kill. That is hard for me to say, but it's where I am. It's practical, and done from a good heart, but it just doesn't seem Biblical.
Check out Greg Boyd's blog where he recaps a conversation with himself, Shane Claiborne, and Chuck Colson. What Claiborne says concerning Bonhoeffer and the Hitler assasination attempt is very interesting.
Good stuff sir,
This is Chauncey. I put a link to your blog on mine.
Matt, thanks for pointing me to the three-way debate with Colson, Boyd, and Claiborne. I'd argue it looked to be only two-ways since it seemed Claiborne and Boyd were in basic agreement on the matters. Oddly enough, I don't fall in line with any of them. I think Colson weds church and state too much. I'm not anabaptist in my understanding of God and state as is Boyd (he admitted as much at a seminar a friend of mine attended). I think there are two conversations that need to happen. One, what is the Christian's role in the state? Clearly our allegiance is to God alone as we are resident aliens and I want to embrace both words: resident and alien. Second, what happens when in a democracy, we are a government of the people, meaning as a citizen, I am technically the government? What are our roles in that setting? The Bible doesn't say anything about participating in a republican democracy, so a lot of conversation needs to happen.
Unlike Boyd, I don't care for Claiborne's book, Jesus for President. Presidents are chosen by the people and are ultimately subject to them. Lords are not. (I assume Claiborne addresses this in his book, which I haven't read, so I'm not going to put words in his mouth.) The term lord may not have as much meaning to us today, but I do not think president works as a substitute. Its title is reminiscent of those books, Jesus, CEO or Jesus, Life Coach. Any of those may make more sense in our culture, but all fail to express the uniqueness and authority lord conveys. I would be curious as to how NT authors would convey Jesus' authority in our culture.
I think it's good to have a debate about Bonhoeffer's tactics and I would disagree with Claiborne's assessment. Let me state that I agree with the pacifist/non-violent statement that the burden of proof lies on those who wish to employ violence. As someone who thinks the just war theory is better than the other options available (though not perfect), I take seriously the demand that violence be the last resort. There are times that that last resort is reached, however. I know it's not a philosophically tenable position, but I do tend to think of war and violence as necessary evils at given times. Bonhoeffer didn't shirk from calling the assassination attempt a sin -- though he admitted he wasn't conflicted about the decision. I like to think that had the world responded differently to Hitler much earlier and had the Treaty of Versailles been more just, much of the violence in Europe could have been avoided. But given the facts of history, I fail to see alternatives to Bonhoeffer and his co-conspirators or the Allies' decision to fight back. (I think of Lot's kidnapping in Genesis 14 and Abram's violent response. I don't see how he could have solved the matter otherwise, nor do I read the Bible ever rebuking Abram's actions.) That's not to say that because it was just to fight back that the Allies were therefore just in all their means of fighting. I think the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo as well as the use of nuclear weapons were grave sins the Allies committed.
By the way, I agree with folks like Campolo and Wolterstorff that torture is an absolute wrong.
Sorry to leave a blog post in the comments on your blog.
Sometimes the best blogging happens as a "rant... written on the fly... with little in the way of systematic thought" - doesn't it?
This is a post very much in line with things I've been thinking about lately. Everything from the Greg Boyd post to illegal immigration to pacifism to the absurdity of neo-cons to Deitrich Bonhoeffer. I've wrestled within the last 2 months with every single issue mentioned here.
Pacifism - I am moving closer and closer to this (of course I'd make a terrible pacifist because I'd just as easily bonk a neo-con on the nose) BUT having said that - pacifism is a noble goal to have. But like Tyler I've wondered about the aggressive call to ethics that Bonhoeffer presents us.
Illegals: no argument there. Dude, if you go to a church where they are slamming illegals, isn't it time to switch? Especially to a church that will do something about it? That will be intentional about the browning of America? Let's have coffee sometime if you are seriously sick of the rhetoric and want to do something about it.
To add icing to the cake, Reilly and his neo-con cronies like Buchanan have basically blamed me for the VA Tech massacre by virtue of the fact that I am Korean. They scapegoat the massacre on immigrant Korean-American communities. If you ask me, this is pure (asshole) idiocy.
(ok breath Wayne breath... we're trying to be pacifist here...)The Gospel is impractical. I agree with you. There is nothing politically compatible about it. Colson is great, but he's wrong if he thinks "God and Country" are synonymous. We are either slaves of the Pax Americana or slaves to the Pax Christi.
I like your comment, Wayne. I just checked your site. You're Evangelical Covenant too? Glad to hear it, man. Were you at Midwinter this year? (I'm at Pasadena Covenant.) Yes, Matt, join us in the Covenant. (Hmm, that makes it sound kind of cultish, which we definitely are not. Ha!) We'd love to have someone as passionate and thoughtful as you.
I wrote a long reply yesterday, but my computer somehow didn't post it...
First of all; wow. I leave for a weekend and come back to discover my site has gotten more comments than it has in a very long time. Guess I somehow struck a chord...
Secondly, welcome Chauncey. You are the business.
Tyler, I love Shane Claiborne, but also find his book title unfortunate. I think he chose the title to imply how the titles given to Jesus were extremely subversive in ancient times, while nowadays to say Jesus is Lord does not really do the same thing. It does convey uniqueness and strength much more than most other words in our society. But the word president definitely carries baggage of its own. I guess all I can say in the continuing Bonhoeffer debate goes something like this: 1. Jesus kept Peter from fighting to keep him alive, even though Peter was completely justified. 2. When Jesus says to love your enemy, the word enemy at that time would have definitely brought to mind the Roman oppressors. These weren't people with whom one might have a dislike, but truly enemies. To be an enemy, somebody has to be seen as pure evil in your eyes. Hitler was definitely an enemy, and so most worthy of love according to the Sermon on the Mount. I'll blog about all of this soon. Oh, and we'll have to wait and see about me becoming EC. :)
Wayne; coffee sounds good. I will say that I stay at my church with the hope of seeing those around me converted not only into believing in Jesus but following him. I have always put myself in places where I am surrounded by many who think this way, where I try to be both upfront and subversive, challenging the status quo. Sometimes there are victories, other times there are blog rants. Alas, we do what we can.
I will be posting some better thought out blog entries on these subjects in the very near future. Until then...
Matt, I think it's mistaken to say Peter was justified in his attempt to protect Jesus at Gethsemane. Jesus' rebuke makes it clear that it was not in that case. Now one could read that in that action Jesus absolutely repudiates all violence, but I think his claim that those who live by the sword will die by it is more of a statement warning those who wish to create and enforce peace forcibly, something those who espouse a Pax Americana should heed. Jesus' rebuke of Peter is wrapped up in his understanding of his mission to fulfill Scripture (Mt. 26.54) by giving himself up for arrest and execution.
I think a love for enemies is absolute, but I disagree that in order to consider someone my enemy I have to see them as absolutely evil. I think of people who I consider to be enemies and it is difficult to forgive and love them, but I still see God's image in them and still believe that Christ is in the process of redeeming them as he is redeeming me.
My question is not so much what should I do when my enemy attacks me? My question is what is my responsibility when the enemy attacks my neighbor? What happens when in loving my enemy, a third party is oppressed? This appears to be the question that haunted Bonhoeffer. I appreciate the non-violent approach because it elevates the enemy and does not exclude them from humanity. But I think restraint and forceful restraint is necessary in extreme circumstances. I hesitate to offer this quotation since I've seen it used to create a lower threshold for using force, but Martin Luther King, Jr., one of the greatest voices for non-violence once said, "If your opponent has a conscience, then follow Gandhi and nonviolence. But if your enemy has no conscience like Hitler, then follow Bonhoeffer." Of course it is extremely difficult to quantify or qualify King's assertion.
fascinating. I never heard that MLK quote. But to hear it from the man himself... MLK's take on pacifism.
Missed midwinter this year - still new to the Cov but enjoying it so far... we'll probably meet sooner or later Tyler :)
Matt: I'll email you about that coffee... at the bombass email. re: "better thought out blog entries" = nahhh. I like your rants better.
Post a Comment