This is the kind of third option we talk about – for Afghanistan
Brian Mclaren, Obama, justice, kingdom, non-violence, politics October 15th, 2009Check out Brian Mclaren’s open letter to President Obama. He encapsulates both my frustration with Obama and my hope that he can make better choices. It is time for a third option to be tried in America.
Saw this last night. Wish I had faith that something like this would be heeded, unfortunately I do not.
I believe in Obama; however, I suspect it highly likely that the machine of the U.S. government is taking it’s toll on him…and he may not do what I believe to be the right thing…choose peace over violence. No matter how pure one’s intentions and desires…some systems simply have a tendency to over power purity. Sadly, that’s what I believe may be happening.
While I am a liberal, and I do strongly support the Democratic party, it’s beginning to look like the ideas for which we strive are up against tremendous opposition. Unfortunately, that opposition carries a cross and waves a U.S. flag…which results in many sheeple following….
Too bad there isn’t a Christian Anarchist political party…then we may have a better chance of seeing true tranformation.
…before someone says it.
No, I’m not advocating a theocracy of Christian Anarchists.
That was something I said off the cuff…..
I understand we’ve had this conversation before, but why? Why can’t we be fighting the people that hit us hard and are likely to do it again even if it’s not in our country? I understand the whole “murder is murder”, but is it murder to defend? They’re freaking TERRORISTS! Meaning they purposely strike terror into people by bombing buses and flying airplanes into their buildings. It doesn’t make sense to back out and let them keep doing it. And wouldn’t building a police force be just about the same as sending reinforcements, except now there will be a possibility of more Afghans getting killed?
I don’t know. It doesn’t make sense to not have military. It doesn’t make sense to defend ourselves against people who want to purposely hurt us. It doesn’t make sense that people want to just quit fighting and hope for the best.
<p>Levi said: “Why can’t we be fighting the people that hit us hard and are likely to do it again even if it’s not in our country?”</p>
<p>I think the key is this: Jesus said love your enemy. It is very hard to do that when you are actively trying to hurt/kill them. That is what war is. </p>
<p>Defense it different, but that is not what is going on in Afghanistan. Al Queda attacked us, not the Taliban, and certainly not the people of Afghanistan. Also, if killing 3000 people on Septermber 11 made these people terrorists, doesn’t it make us SUPER TERRORISTS for killing many many times more innocents through attrition of our war?</p>
<p>Jesus taught the Jews of his time to not fight against the Romans. Surely this was not because they were less powerful, right? God would be with them if they were in the right? Not always. And I am sure that we would not agree that it is only ok to fight if we know we can win. That is just might makes right, which is clearly not Biblical. I think the burden of proof should be on those who want to call themselves Christians to prove why killing another person is ok. Especially when killing a “bad” person will result in the death of innocents, like war always does. How would Jesus justify taking an innocent life to protect your own?</p>
How is it then that King David is called a man after God’s own heart, and yet “he has killed tens of thousands”? What about Elijah ordering the slayings of prophets of Baal? How is it that when God created a theocracy (politics, economics, and social ethics) he creates the death penalty? If Jesus’ way is always peace then how do you explain his behavior at the second coming? Why when the Israelites where sent to conquer the Holy Land (by God’s command) did he also command them to kill the women and children? What did the first born sons of Egypt do to Israel or God that the Angel of Death should slay them on the Passover?
The whole idea that war and killing is always wrong would cause us to throw out perhaps more portions of the bible than there are commands to take care of the poor, including many books which contain the very commands to care for those who are poor. I agree that war is always bad, terrible, and tragic…but wrong? Not according to the Bible. The triune God which commands us to love our enemy also guided David’s sling.
…and yet disqualified David from building His temple because of the blood on his hands.
Bad, yes. Wrong, no.
Brendan, I mean no disrespect, but the reading you have of the Old Testament in particular seems a little simplistic.
*Yes, David is called a man after God’s own heart, but did not David also commit adultery? Did he also not murder a man? Did he also not have many wives, unrepentantly? To say that because David was a man after God’s heart makes everything he did not sinful is a bad hermeneutic.
*Elijah was a prophet of God, but again, that does not condone all of his activities as un-sinful. Jonah was also a prophet, but surely God does not condone the racist attitude he held, right?
*The death penalty is not war. Neither is it violence, per se. However, that is something for another blog post.
*I would inquire as to which passages you refer to for a violent second coming of Christ. We would likely interpret those differently. An example: I see the sword coming out of Jesus’ mouth as him using the power of his word to do his fighting, not a literal sword coming out of the mouth of the messiah.
*The conquering of the Holy land is a legitimate question. This is the one I have struggled with for a very long time. I have come to believe, along with many scholars, that the conquest happened, but the legitimacy for it (God said to do…) was placed in later by a redactor. I know this opens up a large can of worms, but there it is. But even taking the other view, if God sends us to war, that is far different than us declaring war ourselves. Or to put it another way, unless God literally, vocally sends us to war, war is sinful. i would stand behind that.
*The killing of the firstborn is not a human act, therefore not really our call to make. I can’t judge the angel of death anymore than I can judge God for allowing someone to have a heart attack. Our purview is human action, not angelic or Godly.
* I would not say that war being always wrong would cause us to throw out portions of the Bible, but it would certainly require many of us to re-interpret and re-imagine what we think the Bible is and is trying to say.
Here is the thing. Jesus is what I believe to be the fullest revelation of God that we have access to. Because I believe this, everything in the Old Testament needs to be subject to his life and teachings. Jesus’ teaching is wholly non-violent and promotes love and not self-defense. The view that Jesus was only kidding when he came the first time and will come back later and really kick ass is (in my view) a faulty interpretation of passages of scripture that some think are about the future.
Just because the Law says something, or the Old Testament says something is from the mouth of God, that does not mean that it is a wholesale endorsement of that practice. Also, the same Law that says we should stone our children for disobedience, refrain from touching dead pigs (football is now a sin?), never get tattoos, not work on Saturday, not marry prostitutes (which God tells his prophet to do anyway), and not eat lobster is the law you are trying to convince me authorizes war and/or violence. You can’t have it both ways.
At very least, we can admit that Jesus overides any other interpretation or authority of the law. And in Jesus’ kingdom, war and violence has no place. If we can’t admit this, then perhaps we can admit that when the kingdom is finally recognized, war will be no more. If this is true, then the church, as a place where the kingdom is foreshadowed, should be a war-free zone. Until the third century, Christians were not even allowed to join the army. Why did these early Christians take that stance? Because they believed in loving their enemies, and killing someone, no matter who it is, is antithetical to love. You can’t kill someone and claim you love them.
“Until the third century, Christians were not even allowed to join the army. Why did these early Christians take that stance? Because they believed in loving their enemies, and killing someone, no matter who it is, is antithetical to love. You can’t kill someone and claim you love them.”
Good point Chad. Americans tend to believe they have a better understanding of the concept of “Christian” than any other group of people in the world…which shouldn’t surprise anyone since Americans tend to think they have a better understanding of every concept in the world (but that’s a subject for another blog).
While “American Christianity” supports death penalty, war when declared by the U.S.A. or its allies, etc….this isn’t necessarily an accurate view on Christianity from a biblical or historic perspective. In fact, my wife still finds it shocking how American Christians are so gung-ho for war…when Christians in Bulgaria are whole heartedly against war…for any reason. Dare I say there are two completely separate religions bearing the “Christian” label: American Christianity…and then Christianity. I prefer Christianity.
Thank you Chad for answering my objections with well thought out responses. I by no means take offense when my ideas are questioned, especially if the arguments are not ad hominem. Perhaps I should share a little about myself so that you may better understand where I’m coming from and how to better challenge my ideas (though you’ve done a great job thus far).
First off, I went to Fuller (not Talbot or Dallas) which should tell you I’m very much a postmodern theologian with strong Neo-Orthodoxy tendencies. I love Barth and Bonhoeffer, and I find it a shame that they are not better received in our culture. However within this framework I’m very conservative with my ideas of scripture and of God. I may be uneasy with inerrancy but I believe infallibility strongly (redactions or not, no false teachings).
Karl Barth was credited with giving the Bible back to the preachers, by not ignoring scholarship but by maintain a high view of scripture. This is where I sit. I understand that Jesus is the hermeneutic of scripture and that Jesus is the Word of God and with that I believe if “not one yot or tittle” will pass away then we aren’t to ignore scriptures that don’t line up with our personal interpretations of Jesus (be they typical “greedy republican”, “godless liberal”, or “disenchanted emergent(ing)”).
Secondly, I am quite familiar with the works of Post-modern Liberal Christians such as Shane Claiborne, Glen Stassen, Rob Bell, Jim Wallis, and the like. When I say I’m familiar with them I mean that I’ve read them, heard them, and learned from them. These people and others like them have made me a better Christian. However after hearing from them by their own words, I remain unconvinced by SOME of their foundational points. Jim Wallis I have the biggest problem with because I find him slightly dishonest in his book God’s Politics. But that is a post for my own blog.
Thirdly, most of the time I spend debating with people or challenging their ideas of scripture I find my self on your side of the fence. Many of the points you bring up I myself have used. However, I find that merely questioning and leaving open to possibilities and ideas is sometimes entirely unhelpful to guide my life in pursuit of Jesus. I am not assuming that you are guilty of this, but merely expressing why I come across black and white at times. I believe in gray but I also believe that on a gray scale white sits on one end and black the other.
Lastly, while agreeing with Scott on some points I do find it arrogant to simply label ideas that we may disagree with as “American” and therefore heretical. I did this for many years and realized it was hypocrisy…I still struggle with it.
If you are still willing I’d be interested in continuing the discussion on the actual topic matter here on this blog. Thank you for you patience and time.
Brendan
Brendan, you are a gentleman and a scholar. I love Fuller, having spent a year and a half there myself. Thank you for your gracious comments and your bio. On that same note, if you knew Scotts bio, it might clarify where he is coming from. Scotts wife, Joy is from Bulgaria and so she brings a non-American centric view of the USA and it’s policies to the table. Along with Scotts own views, this adds up to lots of passion for a more generous foreign policy. Where can I find your blog Brendan?
Gentleman and a scholar? lol, if I was only half of either…
My Blog, well for the most part its dead. I had considered reviving it (and I even moved it to a new site) but alas, I haven’t the time and I’m afraid I’ve lost my audience by now. Since I’m now the Senior Pastor/Youth Pastor/Music Leader of our church, it’s all I can do to respond to your blog.
However if you are looking for blog to read I highly recommend http://www.internetmonk.com and its “Dispatches From the Post Evangelical Wilderness”. I find it right along the heart of my own theology, Post-modern Conservative. Its also a very ecumenical blog with regular contributors who are Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, and Southern Baptist (yeah, quite the lot). You may be interested in his “The Coming Evangelical Collapse” post http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-original-coming-evangelical-collapse-posts
And indeed, Scott does make more sense to me now. I guess I stereotyped him as a person like myself five years ago. It seems he has a bit more to say.
after reading the above post I realized I made Internet Monk sound *WAY* more conservative than it is. Its not a fundamentalist or even overly conservative site. The blogger is Southern Baptist, but mind you he believes “outrageously” non-conservative things like Catholics are Christians and an old earth creationism and the like.
Now I fear I’m doing him a great injustice so I’ll shut up now. Lol, just check him out. He’s cool.