Theology for the Masses

Christians have historically had problems figuring out how they should relate to the political establishments in which they resided. As seen in an earlier post, Christians have been too eager to align themselves with Liberal Democracies, especially the United States.  In Resident Aliens, Hauerwas and Willimon critique this notion, saying that instead of being Christianity Lite™, Liberal Democracies need war to justify and solidify identity:

“States, particularly liberal democracies are dependent upon war for moral coherence.” [1]

Damn, I think that’s true.  I had previously viewed governments as sometimes morally good, often morally evil, but most of all, morally neutral. And here was an explanation that the best of these governments have a vested interest in unjust violence [2] . [3] Their warning from history is particularly poignant:

“if Caesar can get Christians [in 30’s Germany] to swallow the ‘Ultimate Solution’ and Christians here to embrace the bomb, there is no limit to what we will not do for the modern world.” [4]

A Church that was nuked in Nagasaki.  Where do our allegiances lie?  With the USA, or with God Almighty?

1. Stanley Hauerwas and William H. Willimon, Resident Aliens: Life in the Christian Colony, 1st ed. (Abingdon Press, 1989), 35. [↩]
2. if violence is ever justified [↩]
3. Though, we should expect states to act selfishly. [↩]
4. Hauerwas and Willimon, Resident Aliens, 27. [↩]

I present to you McNaughton Fine Art’s One Nation Under God.   Yes, some people still think we were and are the new israel a shining city upon a hill.  If you click though, be sure to read the artist’s interpretations.  (They’ll make you curse.)  For an interpretation of the interpretation, see Greg Boyd’s commentary on the painting.

Thanks to JR via Tom.

P.S. I am totally not reading Resident Aliens this week or anything.

Yes.  Some people still think we were and are the new israel a shining city upon a hill.

Something I have been wondering about recently is the use of judicial language in letters and our interpretation of said letters. Often antique rhetoric (art of persuation) would employ the language of judicial proceedings to describe/persuade the recipient. In fact these authors were not saying their subject matter functioned as law courts, but the language of law courts was the form through which they made their arguement.

Now, this is just some stuff off the top of my head and I’d need some examples for me to be taken seriously. I am just wondering about this over breakfast.

Humanity has rebelled against their maker and creator, I AM. I AM has therefore cursed his entire creation by taking away shalom, the universe in that state where everything is as it should be. The created order is thrown into chaos and misery. Sin and death reign supreme over I AM’s creation now that shalom is gone. Yet I AM did not abandon his creation to its abysmal failure and self-destructing sinful rebellion against him. He gracious entered into the world and created a community through which shalom is restored. A sacrificial system in put into action, with a priesthood and temple/tabernacle to facilitate it, to atone for the rebellion of the people and re-establish communion between I AM and humanity, and the members of the community. Laws were enacted to facilitate proper relationship of I AM and the people within the community, including amongst themselves. The people were taught how to relate to I AM and to each other. The poor and oppressed were cared for. Now let us see if this worked. continue reading…

To all the Christian Pacifists out there – How do you interpret Romans 13:1-7, especially verse 4?

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God.  Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.  For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience.

For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, busy with this very thing.  Pay to all what is due them– taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. (NRSV)

I read this and I see a justification for violence, an avenger (ἔκδικος) that uses the sword (μάχαιπαν), by the state as God’s agent of punishment on Earth.  I’ve only glanced around at this, but ἔκδικος, from ἐκδικία, the word for vengeance, is the word for and avenger or punisher.  It only shows up elsewhere in Paul’s writings as an avenger of wrongs in 1 Thessalonians 4:6 where Paul is warning against exploiting other Christians because the Lord is an avenger of wrongs.  Μάχαιπαν, the word for sword, shows up both literally, such as in Acts 16:27, and figuratively, such as in Ephesians 6:17.  Also, worthy of noting, is that Rome was a perpetrator of all kinds of evil, and yet, Paul is still giving this advice.  Oppressive governments, through their physical acts of violence, are being called agents of God’s justice in the world.  Furthermore, the act of resisting these governments will incur God’s judgement!  What are we to do with this?  Is this a case of the religion of Jesus being pitted against the religion of Paul? The closest parallel I can think of is Matthew 22:15-22 – the whole “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s” thing – which seems to be in agreement with the above.  But then again how do we unify those teachings with the Sermon on the Mount?  Do we just not worry about the government and work solely through the Kingdom of God for justice in this world? (which is what I lead towards)

Additionally, as a historian, I see this section of Romans as Paul pleading for the Christians there and throughout time to not make themselves a target for Roman persecution thereby giving this fledging movement a chance at surviving.

What about you?  I am curious as to how other’s view this.  Is Paul giving in?  Is he being sneaky?  Should Christian pacifists be cool with governments, even oppressive ones, meting out punishments on God’s behalf in this world?  I am really interested in how some of our self-proclaimed Pacifists, such as Dave, Tom, JR, and Scott, deal with this.

John 18:38:

Jesus answered, “My Kingdom is not an earthly kingdom. If it were, my followers would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish leaders. But my Kingdom is not of this world.”

Two things come to mind as questions to think about:

1. What does this mean for Christians and governments?
2. Is the kingdom of god that we hear so much about on earth now?  Or is it just something that comes later?

“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.’”

– Mark 12:38-44

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.

This is a little off the typical issues that are discussed here. Forgive me if I shouldn’t bring the issue up, it is just that I have tried to post my thoughts else where (espn—yahoo sports) to no avail.

But does any find it annoying that some in our gov’t spend time messing with the sports issue of today.

Marion Jones is sentenced to prison because she took steroids? How does that work? I know that she lied under oath…but come on…she gets PRISON. How many drunks go home and beat their women and spend a night in jail then they do it again (pick any other crime).

What is the connection between MLB and our gov’t? Why should/would our gov’t even think about getting involved in BASEBALL. Isn’t there bigger issues to work on (education, war, immigrant issues, taxes). Why would we want this to happen?

What business is it of the gov’ts to get involved in the steroid issues? MLB can fine players or punish them…but JAIL TIME…whatever.

I have been thinking about this for a long time and the most recent issue (Sen. Arlen Specter wanting to attack the NFL because of ‘Spygate’) really made my water bubble. Before Spygate, nobody would had known Senator Arlen Specter…I think he is just trying to make a name for himself.

Am I the only one who thinks like this or do these things bother you too?

Casey