This seemed profound to me. I thought I should share it with the group:
"In the New Testament, in fact, there is no duality between the good which concerns civil society and the good which concerns the Christian's so-called 'private' life: one's difficulty in finding adequate terms is in itself significant. No, there is only a single Christian morality, only a single good in the eyes of the God of Jesus Christ; and the ultimate norm of that good is that it glorifies God in Jesus Christ. There is no good which denies Jesus Christ, contradicts Him, or even leaves Him out of account.
Christians cannot have a split personality. It would be superfluous to say this, if so very many of them did not implicitly accept such 'schizophrenia', finding it quite normal to kill and lie when the State requires it, or seems to require it, while protesting virtuously that the would never perform such acts in their 'private life'. This schizophrenia is surely, in the last resort, the most serious consequence of the Constantinian heresy. The true Christian life implies a tension between different aspects of man's personality, not its disintegration.
The idea of a dual morality would mean that Christians were constantly on the wrack between contradictory duties: that God asks me as French citizen to kill the soldiers who invade my country, and at the same time as member of the Church to welcome them by proclaiming the Gospel to them. This is plainly impossible, I can only choose, according to my lights and my courage, to be either death-giver or life-giver; I must give up being either a soldier or witness of Jesus Christ."
- Jean Lasserre, War and the Gospel
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Saturday, May 22, 2010
The Crucifixion of the Warrior God
Pastor, theologian, and prolific author Greg Boyd recently presented an outline of his upcoming book which attempts to make sense of Old Testament violence from a christological perspective. In this video, pastor Boyd shares the principles that guide the book and which, taken together, offer a coherent understanding of Scripture's word on war and violence. I encourage you to check out the video as well as the book due to come out soon.
The book was originally going to be called Jesus vs. Jehovah, but may now be titled The Crucifixion of the Warrior God.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Meeting Tonight: Lasserre on the OT
Just posting a note up here last minute: We'll be meeting tonight from 7-9 PM at the Cheers bar downtown. Hope to see some of you there!
I'll be reading a short excerpt for group discussion from a book by Jean Lasserre titled, "War and the Gospel". It's an older, originally french, work that is perhaps one of the best defenses of non-violence as a Christian ethic I have EVER read. Please go purchase it… it's worth every cent.
In this passage, Lasserre is confronting arguments opposed to pacifism which have an old testament basis:
— "Yet from one end of His ministry to the other it remained the great temptation for Him (Jesus), all the more terrible because by resisting it He was carving out an entirely new road. This is how all the Biblical scholars interpret the third temptation (Matt 4:8-10), when the Devil offers Him the conquest of the world 'if thou will fall down and worship me,' that is to say, if Jesus will agree to Satan's means, including violence, to conquer the world. Then there is the plot whereby the crowd try to take him away by force to make Him King (John 6:15), that is, to compel Him to be a military king. There is the entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday when Jesus deliberately chooses to ride an ass instead of the horse of a political chieftain. There is the agony at Gethsemane where He must accept the need to be conquered without resistance. Several sentences He lets slip during his Passion help one to guess the inward drama developing in His heart, because right to the end He is still tempted by the use of violence: 'Thinkest thou,' He says to Peter, who has just brandished a sword, 'that I cannot pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?' (Matt 26:53). And Pilate is treated to the same echo of his inner conflict: 'If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight that I should be delivered from the Jews…' (John 18:36). Finally of course, the temptation reaches its paroxysm at the Crucifixion when the crowd mock Him: 'He saved others, let Him save Himself, if he be Christ…' (Luke 23:35). But He stands firm, faithful to the line of conduct He has set Himself, however disastrous it may appear: 'Father forgive them for the know not what they do.'
The whole Gospel drama cannot be reduced, of course, to this question of violence. But I think it will be agreed that the stubborn rejection of violence is a positive and illuminating factor in the development in Jesus ministry. His independent attitude in this, compared with the tradition of violence emanating from the Jewish Scriptures, is found again among the writers of the New Testament and the Fathers of the Church. They too were brought up on the Old Testament, with all its glorifications of nationalism and militarism; they saw in it the Word of God in its full sense; yet they were unanimous in following Jesus on the road of non-violence.
And the Christians who so readily invoke the Old Testament to justify war a little presumptuous, since they are thereby claiming to know and interpret the Old Testament better than the Christians of the first three centuries did, including the apostles and Christ himself.
Let us fall neither into the Marcionite heresy or the Constantinian. Let us keep the Old Testament because Jesus and the Gospel were nurtured on it and because it is orientated towards the Messiah's coming. It remains for us the Word of God, even though some of its ordinances are superseded because of the Gospel. But let us keep also the non-violences of the Gospels, because its new note compared with the Old Testament is evidently a personal and original affirmation by Jesus Himself. To muffle this note by linking the Church once again with the use of violence seems to be a betrayal of the Master's thought and intention, which He expressed clearly and forcibly enough, and for which He certainly paid a heavy enough price. It has always been the Church's temptation to construct a theology of glory which dispenses with the Cross (1 Cor. 2:2)" ---
Please comment! I want to know what you think.
I'll be reading a short excerpt for group discussion from a book by Jean Lasserre titled, "War and the Gospel". It's an older, originally french, work that is perhaps one of the best defenses of non-violence as a Christian ethic I have EVER read. Please go purchase it… it's worth every cent.
In this passage, Lasserre is confronting arguments opposed to pacifism which have an old testament basis:
— "Yet from one end of His ministry to the other it remained the great temptation for Him (Jesus), all the more terrible because by resisting it He was carving out an entirely new road. This is how all the Biblical scholars interpret the third temptation (Matt 4:8-10), when the Devil offers Him the conquest of the world 'if thou will fall down and worship me,' that is to say, if Jesus will agree to Satan's means, including violence, to conquer the world. Then there is the plot whereby the crowd try to take him away by force to make Him King (John 6:15), that is, to compel Him to be a military king. There is the entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday when Jesus deliberately chooses to ride an ass instead of the horse of a political chieftain. There is the agony at Gethsemane where He must accept the need to be conquered without resistance. Several sentences He lets slip during his Passion help one to guess the inward drama developing in His heart, because right to the end He is still tempted by the use of violence: 'Thinkest thou,' He says to Peter, who has just brandished a sword, 'that I cannot pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?' (Matt 26:53). And Pilate is treated to the same echo of his inner conflict: 'If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight that I should be delivered from the Jews…' (John 18:36). Finally of course, the temptation reaches its paroxysm at the Crucifixion when the crowd mock Him: 'He saved others, let Him save Himself, if he be Christ…' (Luke 23:35). But He stands firm, faithful to the line of conduct He has set Himself, however disastrous it may appear: 'Father forgive them for the know not what they do.'
The whole Gospel drama cannot be reduced, of course, to this question of violence. But I think it will be agreed that the stubborn rejection of violence is a positive and illuminating factor in the development in Jesus ministry. His independent attitude in this, compared with the tradition of violence emanating from the Jewish Scriptures, is found again among the writers of the New Testament and the Fathers of the Church. They too were brought up on the Old Testament, with all its glorifications of nationalism and militarism; they saw in it the Word of God in its full sense; yet they were unanimous in following Jesus on the road of non-violence.
And the Christians who so readily invoke the Old Testament to justify war a little presumptuous, since they are thereby claiming to know and interpret the Old Testament better than the Christians of the first three centuries did, including the apostles and Christ himself.
Let us fall neither into the Marcionite heresy or the Constantinian. Let us keep the Old Testament because Jesus and the Gospel were nurtured on it and because it is orientated towards the Messiah's coming. It remains for us the Word of God, even though some of its ordinances are superseded because of the Gospel. But let us keep also the non-violences of the Gospels, because its new note compared with the Old Testament is evidently a personal and original affirmation by Jesus Himself. To muffle this note by linking the Church once again with the use of violence seems to be a betrayal of the Master's thought and intention, which He expressed clearly and forcibly enough, and for which He certainly paid a heavy enough price. It has always been the Church's temptation to construct a theology of glory which dispenses with the Cross (1 Cor. 2:2)" ---
Please comment! I want to know what you think.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Charles McCarthy on Non-Violence and Seminaries
You should all go check this out right now: McCarthy on Non-Violence
The essay is about how important it is that non-violence be taught at the seminary level as a principle tenet of Christianity's ethical teaching. I found it particularly awesome that he quotes Jacques Ellul, who is both a pacifist and an anarchist. Needless to say, the content is fascinating.
You should also go read whats available on the website for the Center for Christian Non-Violence. The site has some great stuff on non-violence as taught from a Catholic tradition.
The essay is about how important it is that non-violence be taught at the seminary level as a principle tenet of Christianity's ethical teaching. I found it particularly awesome that he quotes Jacques Ellul, who is both a pacifist and an anarchist. Needless to say, the content is fascinating.
You should also go read whats available on the website for the Center for Christian Non-Violence. The site has some great stuff on non-violence as taught from a Catholic tradition.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Justice
I've been thinking a lot lately about the fact that many of our churches have been calling for Christians to take a stronger role in matters of "social justice". I've realized that it's undeniable that our call as a group to spreading the message of non-violence is tied together in some way or another with this new movement of Christians who "are thirsty for God's justice." For the most part I am very pleased with this change of heart. I think I can speak for several of us when I say that this has been something that the church has needed for a very long time, and I am very excited about where it might lead us. However, I desire for this movement to be Christlike and so I want to propose something that I think "stirs up the waters" a little bit when it comes to God and justice. Here it is:
I'm not convinced that we follow a God of "justice", at least not as we know "justice" today.
One of the things I've learned in talking to fellow pacifists and contrasting their views with those who are more "pro-military" is that one must not deny that there is a sense of "honor" in the duty a soldier performs when that duty is done to protect the weak and innocent. As pacifists and as people who choose non-violence its important that we do not dismiss this. The idea of protecting the innocent through whatever force is necessary is as close to the world can get to knowing Godly justice. HOWEVER, what Christ calls us to in his "sermon on the mount" is a new ethic which goes beyond the old "eye for an eye" sense of justice to something completely different which calls us to love even our enemies and to bless them when they persecute us.
What I fear is that the new cry for "social justice" in the Church, if not tempered by a constant reflection on the non-violent ethic of Jesus Christ, will gradually resort to a worldy "soldiering" kind of justice.
I believe (as I think many Christians do) that we are called as Christians to follow in Christ's footsteps and because of this I believe it is our responsibility as His disciples to "incarnate" him as best we can in today's world. When I look at the cross and when I look at the way Jesus spoke to the sinners and enemies he was surrounded by I do not see "justice", I see great "injustice". Christ's sacrificial death on the cross was certainly not an act of true legal "justice" as we know it. We know that Christ was innocent but that he died on our behalf, even when we were still a part of the mob calling for his death. We also know that loving our enemies and blessing them as Christ has taught us to do, when lived out, certainly does not look like the kind of "justice" we see revolutionaries and politicians calling for in today's world. The God we follow came as a sacrificial lamb, pure and blameless:
And so I want to suggest that perhaps how we are really called to live is more of a lifestyle of holy "injustice". For if God had meted out "justice" to us fairly, as we deserve it, we would have no salvation and Christ would never have gone to the cross.
As is written in Luke 12: "Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more."
Go out and forgive unjustly, as your father in heaven has forgiven you.
I'm not convinced that we follow a God of "justice", at least not as we know "justice" today.
One of the things I've learned in talking to fellow pacifists and contrasting their views with those who are more "pro-military" is that one must not deny that there is a sense of "honor" in the duty a soldier performs when that duty is done to protect the weak and innocent. As pacifists and as people who choose non-violence its important that we do not dismiss this. The idea of protecting the innocent through whatever force is necessary is as close to the world can get to knowing Godly justice. HOWEVER, what Christ calls us to in his "sermon on the mount" is a new ethic which goes beyond the old "eye for an eye" sense of justice to something completely different which calls us to love even our enemies and to bless them when they persecute us.
What I fear is that the new cry for "social justice" in the Church, if not tempered by a constant reflection on the non-violent ethic of Jesus Christ, will gradually resort to a worldy "soldiering" kind of justice.
I believe (as I think many Christians do) that we are called as Christians to follow in Christ's footsteps and because of this I believe it is our responsibility as His disciples to "incarnate" him as best we can in today's world. When I look at the cross and when I look at the way Jesus spoke to the sinners and enemies he was surrounded by I do not see "justice", I see great "injustice". Christ's sacrificial death on the cross was certainly not an act of true legal "justice" as we know it. We know that Christ was innocent but that he died on our behalf, even when we were still a part of the mob calling for his death. We also know that loving our enemies and blessing them as Christ has taught us to do, when lived out, certainly does not look like the kind of "justice" we see revolutionaries and politicians calling for in today's world. The God we follow came as a sacrificial lamb, pure and blameless:
And so I want to suggest that perhaps how we are really called to live is more of a lifestyle of holy "injustice". For if God had meted out "justice" to us fairly, as we deserve it, we would have no salvation and Christ would never have gone to the cross.
As is written in Luke 12: "Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more."
Go out and forgive unjustly, as your father in heaven has forgiven you.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
A Statement from the Mennonite Brethren
In my quest for a US denomination which claims to be both "evangelical" and "pacifist" I've spent the last two days reading up on the Anabaptist (particularly Mennonite) movement. Churches with origins in the Anabaptist tradition seem to be among the few Christian movements today that still hold on to non-violence as a key value of the Christian life. I would encourage you all to go do some reading up on the history of the Mennonites. I think many of us would find that we hold many values in common with church denominations such as the Mennonite Church USA and the Mennonite Brethren. In particular I find myself drawn to the Mennonite Brethren church in the US, which seems to have a strong evangelical understanding of salvation while also maintaining a statement in their confession for non-violence as a central teaching of Christ's. You can read more about them HERE. Perhaps most interesting is article 13 in their detailed confession of faith which I took the liberty of posting below. Enjoy!:
"Article 13: Love and Nonresistance
God’s Community of Peace
— Believers believe that God in Christ reconciles people to himself and to one another, making peace through the cross. The
church is a fellowship of redeemed people living by love. Our bond with other believers of Jesus transcends all racial, social and national barriers.
Christian Peacemaking
— We seek to be agents of reconciliation in all relationships, to practice love of enemies as taught by Christ, to be
peacemakers in all situations. We view violence in its many different forms as contradictory to the new nature of the
Christian. We believe that the evil and inhumane nature of violence is contrary to the gospel of love and peace. In times of
national conscription or war, we believe we are called to give alternative service where possible. Alleviating suffering, reducing strife, and promoting justice are ways of demonstrating Christ’s love.
Exodus 20:1-17; Matthew 5:17-28, 38-48; Romans 12:9-21; Romans 13:8-10; I Peter 2:19-23."
I thought it would be good also to post the documentary we watched last week, "Prince of Peace, God of War" for those who were unable to join us last Saturday. It's a pretty good documentary, although we all agreed that it would have been made better by a more diverse collection of interviewees. I think it does a great job at explaining the historical basis for the churches rejection of Christ's teachings on peace as well as doing a great job at respectfully explaining arguments from both sides of this discussion.
"Article 13: Love and Nonresistance
God’s Community of Peace
— Believers believe that God in Christ reconciles people to himself and to one another, making peace through the cross. The
church is a fellowship of redeemed people living by love. Our bond with other believers of Jesus transcends all racial, social and national barriers.
Christian Peacemaking
— We seek to be agents of reconciliation in all relationships, to practice love of enemies as taught by Christ, to be
peacemakers in all situations. We view violence in its many different forms as contradictory to the new nature of the
Christian. We believe that the evil and inhumane nature of violence is contrary to the gospel of love and peace. In times of
national conscription or war, we believe we are called to give alternative service where possible. Alleviating suffering, reducing strife, and promoting justice are ways of demonstrating Christ’s love.
Exodus 20:1-17; Matthew 5:17-28, 38-48; Romans 12:9-21; Romans 13:8-10; I Peter 2:19-23."
I thought it would be good also to post the documentary we watched last week, "Prince of Peace, God of War" for those who were unable to join us last Saturday. It's a pretty good documentary, although we all agreed that it would have been made better by a more diverse collection of interviewees. I think it does a great job at explaining the historical basis for the churches rejection of Christ's teachings on peace as well as doing a great job at respectfully explaining arguments from both sides of this discussion.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Evidence of the Transformational Power of Peace: A Bishop Who Stood in the Way
Last night, the Tanks to Tractors Christian peace group met for the third time. Tim and Alice Colegrove were wonderful enough to allow our motley crew to converge on their beautiful home. THANK YOU TIM AND ALICE!!!
For the first time in our extremely brief history, we implemented a very important part of our reason for existence: Prayer. We all agreed that prayer must play a central role in how and why we gather. In particular, I was moved by Libby's prayer for the group that we be protected from self-righteousness and continue to 'walk humbly with our God.' This is certainly a real danger for Christians who hold the Peace position. We can easily give way to judgement of others who do not share our convictions. I am thankful that our group is already cognizant of this potential source of sin and is taking preemptive steps of resistance.
We also viewed a documentary film entitled "Prince of Peace, God of War" (which can be downloaded for free) by director John Campea. The film is made up mostly of short clips from interviews the director conducted with Christian scholars, that unfortunately did not represent the diverse Body of Christ, but hold to either the Peace position or Just War theory. Among the scholars interviewed was Dr. Tony Campolo. In his interview, he recounts a moving story of the power of peace. He tells of an Orthodox priest (Metropolitan Kirill) in Bulgaria during WWII who so identified with the Jews Nazi soldiers were rounding up to be transported to concentration camps, that he joined them in their confinement and proclaimed the words of Ruth, "Wherever you go, I will go. Your people will be my people. Your God will be my God." When the SS saw that this demonstration was attracting a crowd too formidable to fend off, they abandoned the mission and none of the Jews in that Bulgarian town were killed.
I was so moved by this story, I wanted to seek out confirmation of its historicity. A few quick web searches returned overwhelming support. It seems this small town in Bulgarian was not alone. The Orthodox church in Bulgaria seems to have unanimously opposed cooperation with the Nazis and refused to hand over Bulgarians that happened to be Jewish. It also appears the Jewish community remembers this event well and has honored Bishop Kirill for it. I found an account of this story that is nearly identical to the one Campolo tells on the website of the Orthodox Peace Fellowship.
A detail they include that Campolo omits is even additionally inspirational. It is said in multiple locations I found, that Bishop Kirill and his followers threatened to lay down on the train tracks should the Nazi attempt to transport their Jewish neighbors out of the town.
This is truly the Christian witness that we are called to be.
Grace and peace
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)