Justifying a Just War…?

jr. April 17th, 2008

here’s a thought I had a few days ago…

…rough and unexamined, off the top of my head.

your thoughts/critiques?

“The Kingdom of God is the only state that will endure eternally. Thus, any war undertaken by any other state to preserve itself is unjust because that state will not endure anyway. The only kingdom we can justly defend is the Kingdom of God, and the final, decisive battle for that kingdom was fought at the Cross. We already won. Thus, any war we undertake to preserve the kingdom of God is also unjust.”

* this does not include, obviously, wars fought to protect the powerless (if that has ever actually happened).

Relinquishment of Dominance as a Requirement for Citizenship in the Kingdom of God

Honzo April 2nd, 2008

In the Roman world, within the household, the position of child is the lowest in terms of power and hierarchy.  Taking this into account, consider Mark 10:15:

I tell you the truth, anyone who doesn’t receive the Kingdom of God like a child will never enter it.

Rather than assuming our standard in pouring of innocence and naiveté into the phrase “like a child,” perhaps we are better served with assuming a Roman view of children, of powerlessness over others into this phrase.

Also consider Luke 22:25-27

Jesus told them, “In this world the kings and great men lord it over their people, yet they are called ‘friends of the people.’  But among you it will be different. Those who are the greatest among you should take the lowest rank, and the leader should be like a servant. Who is more important, the one who sits at the table or the one who serves? The one who sits at the table, of course. But not here! For I am among you as one who serves.

Here again we see the same theme - the relinquishment of dominance as a command of Jesus to his followers, to the members of the Kingdom of God.

If we do not relinquish culturally inherited claims of dominance over others and see them as true equals then ours is not the Kingdom of God.

Seeing people as the imago deis involves the complete removal of claims of dominance and superiority.  This must be applied in terms of race and gender.  It is a command to give up our claims of dominance over others.

Pre-70CE Concerns Amongst Jewish Religous Groups

Honzo April 1st, 2008

As I am going through part of of Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza’s book In Memory of Her I came across this nice, compact orienting passage of the various Jewish movements in Israel before 70CE and how the Jesus movement fit in with these other movements.

All these diverse Jewish renewal movements of the time were strongly concerned with how to realize in every aspect of life the obligations and hopes of Israel as the kingly and priestly people of God. … Some stressed and strongly utilized the cultic priestly traditions, some claimed prophetic authority, some reenacted the Exodus, and still others integrated wisdom teachings with an apocalyptic perspective. Regardless of differences in lifestyle and theological outlook, however, all these groups were united in their concern for the political existence and holiness of the elected people of Israel. the proclamation of the [kingdom] of God by Jesus and his movement shared this… However, the Jesus movement refused to define the holiness of God’s elected people in cultic terms, redefining it instead as the wholeness intended in creation. (Page 113)

A “Biblical Notion of Husband and Wife”

Honzo March 18th, 2008

A comment by Hank on The Way I need Jesus got me thinking: is there such a thing as a “biblical notion of husband and wife?” What notion are we talking about? Pre-Israel marriage? We gonna pattern it after the marriages in Genesis? Ancient Israel? 2nd Kings? Isn’t that what got us good US citizens up in arms against the Mormons a hundred or so years ago (poly-what?)? Are we gonna talk about the Jewish ideas of what marriage is in the time of Jesus? Are we gonna talk about marriage as it was practiced by the Romans (i.e. baby factories = wives)? Are we going to talk about those writing in the name of Paul when they are giving advice on how to be a couple of equality under the yoke of the empire?

The more I look at actual marriages in the Bible the less I am enamored with the monolithic notion of the so-called “biblical notion of husband and wife.” We need to realize that marriages in our Holy Scriptures are described (not prescribed) in different structures with different power realationships between the parties involved.

We see in the myth of Genesis 3 the consequences of the fall in marriages - women and men will try to dominate each other. This arrangement (both women looking to dominate their husbands and husband dominating their wives) is unnatural; God teaches us this in Genesis and He confirms it in the writings of Paul.

It gives me great pleasure to see people attempt to justify our culture’s (or rather the 1950’s) version of marriage where one party dominates the other.

With the coming of the Kingdom of God, we must work to restore the equality inherent in the “two becoming one flesh” by means of our practice and our teachings. What we need to do is rediscover the the pre-fall power relations between husband and wife and make those relations real in our lives. It is up to us to enact the Kingdom of God on Earth - now.

Question of the Day: How To Construct Satan

Honzo December 14th, 2007

Given the shift in the way the Bible portrays Satan from a member of God’s royal court in Job to leader of the rebellion against the Kingdom of God with Paul, how do we, as Christians, construct our concept of Satan?

I think this is a great question on two levels, i) what the heck is Satan and how does it function? and ii) how do we interpret scriptures that have varying views on religious phenomena?

I have some suggestions, but I have a couple of hours to iron out a paper proposal, a panel proposal, and have lunch with Meredith, so I will leave mine later.

Question of the Day: Christians and Government

Honzo November 25th, 2007

If we accept, which I do, Tom’s rejection of the soteriology of the State, how should Christians interact with the government? I don’t see a scriptural imperative, as the situation of a participatory government as we Americans have currently did not exist during the writing of our set of sacred texts. Given that lack of an imperative, do Christians vote, run for office, try to legislate the tenants of our faith?

Do we wash our hands of participation in government and focus solely on the work of the Kingdom of God, the whole while reaping the benefits of this country’s contradicting history of domination and freedom? Do we actively engage it, using it as a tool to bring God’s distributive and or retributive justice to the people that we can bring it to?

I don’t know, but with the November of 2008 slowly approaching debate by debate, I am giving increasing thought. I’d like to hear yours.

Church and State

Honzo October 27th, 2007

I took this picture a few weeks ago while I visiting my hometown.


(Click for larger view)

A couple of things leap out at you at first:

  1. The American Flag draped around the Cross
  2. The lack of any Church officials on the parade, just two service persons.

However, the most striking part of the float is the captions at the bottom:

The Savior and the soldier

paid the price to set us free.

The Savior and the soldier ~

we give our thanks to thee!

This is a haunting image. It animates the term, American christianity.

One of the things I have been rethinking this year is the role of the Christian in a government. This picture serves to remind me that it is a topic worthy of consideration.

At what point does one meld the Christ and the military? Where is the message of peace? How does this function to a) define Christians from other cultures/nations; b) tie our faith to the state; c) link criticism of one to criticism of the other?

On the one hand, military personnel are responsible for the creation and sustention of my political freedoms and Christ has freed me from the bonds of sin. I like both of these things. On the other hand, the float serves to equate the two, to meld them together, to raise up the political (earthly) to the religious (heavenly). Should we, as Christians, be overly concerned with our political freedoms, or should we simply focus on furthering the Kingdom of God and let our political/economic conditions take care of themselves? I can justify the words and the float a variety of different ways. However, I keep coming back to one question:

Why did this church decide to interweave the message of patriotism with the message of Christianity in their singular public statement to the thousands of people that would be watching the parade?

I’d like to get your thoughts on the matter.

Bad Behavior has blocked 806 access attempts in the last 7 days.