The Tragedy of the Soldier’s Mite
“And in His teaching He was saying: ‘Beware of the scribes who like to walk around in long robes, and like respectful greetings in the market places, and chief seats in the synagogues, and places of honor at banquets, who devour widows’ houses, and for appearance’s sake offer long prayers; these will receive greater condemnation.’ And He sat down opposite the treasury, and began observing how the multitude were putting money into the treasury; and many rich people were putting in large sums. And a poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which amount to a cent. And calling His disciples to Him, He said to them, ‘Truly I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all the contributors to the treasury; for they all put in out of their surplus, but she, out of her poverty, put in all she owned, all she had to live on.’”
The widow in this story is always held up as a model of faithful giving. Though she has almost nothing, she gives everything she has. In doing so, she give far more than all the rich whose monetary contributions were exponentially larger. And so we read Jesus’ statement about her as a commendation. But Dr. Rodney Reeves once asked me this profound question: did Jesus see her gift as admirable or tragic? Just the day before this, Jesus cleansed the Temple and proclaimed its destruction. He’s spent today in the Temple arguing with the religious leaders there. And now he’s criticizing the rich who oppress the poor, and even warns that they ‘devour widows’ houses’ while appearing religious (this of course despite the fact that God said true religion is caring for widows). Here is a woman who is a victim of a corrupt, oppressive religious system, and she’s so enmeshed in the hegemony of that system that she is giving everything she has to the very system that’s oppressing her. Indeed, this woman is tragic. We can applaud her act of giving, but we cannot applaud the object of that gift. We should weep that she’s sacrificing everything for a broken, corrupted system that Jesus has promised will fall.
So too, today. I hear at least once weekly – usually in prayers – that we should be thankful for our soldiers fighting in Iraq who “are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice” because we remember that “freedom isn’t free.” But isn’t it? Isn’t that the point of grace? That we don’t earn any of it? And isn’t it “for freedom that Christ set us free”? In fact, our nation has cultivated a culture of violence and death. And we support our culture of consumption and irresponsibility in large part through our military action around the globe. Now, I’m not going to deny that the American armed forces do a lot of great things. But this does not detract from the fact that they also enact terrible acts of violence in order to support the American way of life. But we know that this life is unbiblical. We are called to use what we need and give the rest away. We are called to serve others first and think of ourselves last. We are called to extol the image of God in all of our brothers and sisters, not to dehumanize them. We are called to care for the poor, to welcome the stranger, not legislate against them. And yet we do the very things we were commanded not to do. And we know that no kingdom is eternal save the Kingdom of God.
And our soldiers are as much victims of this corrupt system as any of us. But they’re so enmeshed in the hegemony of that system (as are we all, I think) that they are giving everything they have to the very system that’s oppressing them (and so many others around the globe). Indeed, they are tragic. We can applaud their act of giving, but we cannot applaud the object of that gift. We should week that they’re sacrificing everything for a broken, corrupted system that Jesus has promised will fall.
Our service men and women don’t need to fight for our freedom. S/he whom the son sets free is free indeed. One man died for our freedom. One man made (literally) the ultimate sacrifice. And he did it that no one else ever need die to purchase what is already paid for.
May we learn what true freedom is.
while I dont disagree with you in principle, i do in practice.
going in to rid Iraq of a leader such as saddam was absolutely necessary. In the end there are probably just as many innocent people being killed as before he was ousted, but we cannot let the ends have justified the means. we had to do something.
i have a friend who was a gunner in the marines, he said he had to sit on top of a vehicle and gun people down that came too close to the caravan. frequently the combatants would use women and children as shields to get close, he had no choice but to gun them down.
there are several victims there, but evil is still at work…
i wish we could have gotten rid of saddam and never had a problem (i.e. the people all get along), but we live in a fallen world.
true freedom is freedom in christ. but freedom from oppression is something we WILL NOT experience in this life. it doesn’t mean we cannot try.
- hey i just found ya’ll… i’ll be coming back… we’d love to have some of ya’ll come join us at our theology forum, it offers a different kind of discussion.
forums.theologer.com
i started a thread based on this post:
http://forums.theologer.com/politics-f10/is-freedom-free-what-is-true-freedom-t70.htm#537
Rogermugs,
Thanks for your thoughts. I used to feel the same as you when you wrote:
While a couple of years ago I would have agreed with you whole-heartedly, I have become convinced that the affairs of the world should not concern me, they concern God and I’ll let him take care of them. I do not see a need for Christians to go in and dispose rulers. I do not see that mandate anywhere in the Bible, most certainly not in the New Testament. In order to say we had to take down Saddam, you must be able to apply that uniformly. You must be able and willing to say that we need to violently reform all unjust governments. As a Christian, are you willing to say that?
My wants and desires as an American citizen (and as a godless libertarian) wants us to do that, to reform the world in our image for the world’s sake; but as a Christian, a follower of Christ, I cannot and therefore I cannot support actions which attempt to do so.
If I am coming off as harsh, I do not mean to do so. I used to follow the same line of reasoning as you seem to rogermugs, and I am listing what changed in my thought process.
“In the end there are probably just as many innocent people being killed as before he was ousted,”
I too used to feel the same way at one time…but unfortunately I was wrong. Saddam did kill some of his own people…in the late 80s. But that amount is no where near the almost 100,000 innocent civilians (which is an admittedly low estimate) who have been killed as a result of our unprompted (i.e. illegal) invasion of another country. Removing Saddam WAS NOT necessary, and our doing so has worsened the lives of millions of people and will have terrible ramifications for the entire Middle East for decades. There are victims indeed, and unfortunately our country is the initial perpetrator of that victimhood. There’s no freedom from oppression happening in Iraq, we merely replaced one oppressor with a far worse oppressive existence.
Violence begets violence. As long as we support systems that rule by the sword, the sword shall rule us. We, as Christians, are called to a different way of living…we are to follow Christ’s example and put down the sword and instead carry a cross. For us to support the mass violence of any war is to turn away from Christ. We need to stop justifying our actions and realize the sins we have committed, the violence we have perpetrated on a global scale. We have much to confess.
I’ve been thinking about those last few lines up there recently. May we learn what true freedom is… It is a freedom not found in this world. It is a freedom that could care less about political freedom – it has to be, or we are a militaristic faith, no?
Honzo,
You say in response to Roger, “I have become convinced that the affairs of the world should not concern me, they concern God and I’ll let him take care of them. I do not see a need for Christians to go in and dispose rulers. I do not see that mandate anywhere in the Bible, most certainly not in the New Testament.”
While I’m in agreement with the spirit of what you’ve written, I must respectfully disagree with this segment of your quote. There are all kinds of mandates in the NT to be concerned about the affairs of this world – why else would Paul have us be praying for kings and rules to rule with justice, why else would the political rhetoric of Jesus and Paul be so prevalent in the NT? Even criticism entails some sort of “concern for the affairs” of the world.
Furthermore, while I agree with JR that violence is not part of the Christian ethic, this does not at all entail that “throwing down rulers from their thrones and lifting up the poor” (See Mary’s Song) isn’t part of the Christian narrative! I think Saddam should’ve been taken from power – I just disagree with the violent means by which
it was done!
Hope my disagreement, here, was respectful and can further conversation.
Cheers, brother,
Tom
It is important that we are to disciple the nations – and that means, in some sense, we must be concerned about their affairs. Your non-violence in commendable, but that doesn’t necessitate non-involement.
Tom,
A. Don’t worry about upsetting me. You are far from approaching that in your comment!
B. I understand what you are saying. However, Mary’s song seems to support my argument (or my wondering position, since most of it is based on idle speculation at this point). God is doing all of those things (esp the throwing down of unjust governments), not Christians. Further, while there may be political criticism in Paul and by Jesus (and the authors of the Gospels), I see advocacy for Christian private replacements called for, not infiltration of government ranks and movement there. If there is anything that the generation should have learned is the peril of trying to play God in the creation of other’s governments.
I don’t see an impetus in the New Testament for Christians to be involved in governmental affairs. Now, I will acknowledge that our cannon might just be occasional enough as to not mention how we should orient ourselves in the creation of just societies by means of governmental involvement. If that is the case, then perhaps there is liberty in the various approaches that people are allowed to take, as long at it is Spirit-lead.
I don’t mean to say that we should not be concerned for the affairs of this world, but rather that we should not worry about Rome, but instead worry about our fellow human living in Rome, if that makes sense.
(note: A few years ago I was more neo-libertarian (libertarian that favors a pro-active role in the world because of the ramifications of inaction would ultimately be more detrimental to freedoms here [whoops]) than Christian and favored reshaping the world by whatever means necessary in order to create just societies in which people lived in politically and economically just societies. I have movede away from that. My stance now could quite possibly be the first step away from that.)