Thanks to Allison for probing my brain in her comments from my last blog.
She asked and I don't quote: Was Jesus really a pacifist or what do you think a pacifist looks like?
So I began writing this and then decided to make it a new blog entry:
"Allison-- Good questions. Thanks for the prayers too. Here is a response from the top of my head:First, I think Christ will return and is returning for more than just the righteous... But that is neither here nor there.
But I'd describe the pacifism of Jesus as a paradigm/kingdom that flipped the tables on our understanding of power and relational systems. This is described well when Jesus talks about how to treat our enemies "turn the other cheek", "walk with the Roman soldier 2 miles", "love your enemy". A practical example from the scriptures are the stories of the woman caught in adultery and when Peter cuts off the ear of the soldier in the garden.
In both situations a person could justify actions of violence on the party involved. The religious folks who wanted to stone the woman caught in adultery. They were legally (Moses' Law) allowed and even obligated to stone her for being caught in adultery. But Christ shows a better way. Not only was the way better for the woman, but for those ready to throw stones. I believe it is more important to Jesus for us to live in peace and love than to follow the Law of Moses. He showed a new kingdom by which justice is not brought by the sword but through an intentional act of love and forgiveness.
And in the Peter sotry, Jesus must rebuke his most faithful follower because Peter is trying to bring about this new kingdom via the sword-- literally. Peter was reasonably justified to strike the soldier/slave- Malchus (I think that was his name) because they were coming to kill Jesus. It was self defense. He was coming to the aid of God. As Peter shows, when we come to God's aid, we rarely do things right. We ussually really have our own agendas in mind. Instead, Jesus rebuke's Peter and puts the ear back on like he's a magician at a birthday party. (I think it would be great if Jesus would have pulled a coin out of the ear before he put it back on. He could have combined the this story and the story where he pulls the coin out of the fish. I don't think he thought it all the way through or it would have happened like that. See picture of my ear with coin below).
Anyway... I think this is actually the gospel. It is the salvation of a new way to live. It overthrows the way that man has lived through our entire history: might makes right... An eye for an eye... homeland security... etc. Through this new kingdom, God brings redemption. through the death and resurection of an innocent man/God we can experience redemption in our lives (and deaths). It is the only plan that could work because it is the only plan that overthrows the tainted part of our nature. "So... I'm pretty sure I'm going to hell for this way of thinking. Can somebody please confirm that? I know it's not all worked out and that it's pretty messy. But I am pretty sure I believe at least 26% * of what I wrote.
* I have the right to change that number at any time. No animals were injured in the making of this blog.
10 comments:
Christian,
Great post! I am really impressed with the way you are doing some serious theological thinking with the biblical narrative.
I am asking as someone who also believes that pacifism is the best option: how do you handle the cleansing of the temple? And How do you deal with Luke's account of the story you mentioned when Jesus instructs his disciples to sell their possessions to buy swords (Luke 22:35-38) right before he rebukes them for using one on the servant of the high priest at his arrest (22:49). That has always confused me.
I appreciate any thought s you have on this.
Shalom,
Wayne
I forgot how much I enjoy our talks.. haha
Okay, first off, I agree with you... Jesus is coming back for more than just the righteous. Now I know we have major conflicting thoughts on, well, most of our theology, so I'll just say that yes, I agree... but I'm sure deep down we both disagree with each other about that. :) Just know, I'm always talking about Israel in some capacity!
Okay, so yes, I agree with some, not all, of your post. I think we have differing ideas on Sermon on the Mount theology. Without a doubt, it is the Christianity 101 lifestyle that most people ignore. I agree that God calls us to be full of grace and peace, for it is by His Spirit that we are to live, and the fruit of our life is definitely on display when we endure persecution of any degree.
You said, "I believe it is more important to Jesus for us to live in peace and love than to follow the Law of Moses. He showed a new kingdom by which justice is not brought by the sword but through an intentional act of love and forgiveness." Okay, now you know I've got a mouthful of debate here, but I won't carry on, well, not too much *wink*
Jesus is a Righteous JUDGE! Yes, mercy triumphs over judgment, but boy oh boy, He's coming back with judgment and vengeance, and yes, He forgives the repentant and those who recognize Him and worship Him, but He will slay the wicked with zeal! Peter foolishly tried to be the judge and followed through with his misdirected "protection" for Jesus. But when God releases judgment on the Earth, it will not be passive. It will be Great (for some) and Terrible (for others.) To only paint angelic pictures of Jesus in white is to avoid another side of His character... Jesus in red - the blood of the wicked. (Isaiah 63)
Now I know I'm taking up all your blog space, but I have a lot of thought on this (as you know) so I will try to play nice. Yes, I think the Bible is way over-symbolized by a lazy and self-centered Church. Yes, I think that when Jesus comes back He will with much passion slaughter those who deny Him, those who hate His Name, those who persecute His Bride, those who oppress the poor, those who hate/persecute Israel, and so on.
Passive... no. This is not the way I want to be. Full of peace. Yes. Full of grace. Yes. Full of love. Yes. Meek. Yes. Humble. Yes.
Passive? NO.
Zealous? Yes!
p.s. Do you still like me? :)
Wayne- see new post.
Christian,
I simply meant that I liked the way that you were applying some of the sayings and stories of Christ to pacifism. I've never really heard anyone do that with regards to this issue. I was not trying to insult you or your intelligence. It was simply an affirmative statement. There was no implied negative.
Thanks for your thoughtful response to my questions though. The idea you offer from Borg is especially helpful with looking for the meaning of the temple story.
Maybe actively waging peace would be a better way to describe Jesus than pacifist? I don't know - just playing with that.
Peace,
Wayne
Allison- It's nice to have you commenting on here. Thanks for dropping in. I secretly hope you do often and tell all your friends so I can soon take over the world through my brainwashing techiniques of blogging using a high doses of sarcasm...
I posted some prophetic pictures of Jesus when he will come as judge. Jesus looks so mad... don't you agree. I never saw those pictures on the flannel graph in Sunday school. Seriously though... I understand your ideas of Jesus coming back with the sword. I used to believe it. I look at scripture much differently now and this is obviously the "crux" (get it- crux is a form of crucifix which is what we're talking about kind of)of our differences. I certainly don't read Isaih the way you do nor do I read many (maybe all) of the prophetic writings as "foretelling".
One more thing:
"Yes, I think that when Jesus comes back He will with much passion slaughter those who deny Him, those who hate His Name, those who persecute His Bride, those who oppress the poor, those who hate/persecute Israel, and so on."
I don't get that God/Jesus. not that I have to for it to be true, but I think God wants to make sense to us. It goes against everything I lelieve about God. I believe in a redemptive God. A God that brings forgiveness and health at the expense of what God has the right to do. Just as Peter and the religious "stoners" (hee-hee) had the right to use violence, I believe God has the right to do it as well. I guess that language is even kind of weird because God can do whatever God wants whether it is right or wrong because of his God-ness. I believe that this (redemption at the cost of God's pride) is central to the gospel and understanding the kingdom that God is bringing through the Church.
Lastly- I agree that Jesus is not and never has been "passive" as we understand the word "passive". Martin Luther King was not passive but he was not violent. Ghandi was not passive in what he did but he refused to use violence. Jesus is not and was not passive but I believe he refused to force his kingdom on any man woman or child (or any of his creation I guess).
"p.s. Do you still like me? :)"
This infers that I ever did. I'm totally kidding. I have always appreciated the way you have handled disagreements of theology. Always with grace and with gentleness. It gives me hope for your people. :)
Wayne- Oh. I didn't see that second comment because I was posting a response to Allison. Have you read much of Borg? I am reading the book I posted on a few days ago. It really pulls together a lot of my questions I've had with how to view much of what i believe. When he talks of a more than literal translation it makes me smile because it makes things much clearer.
*hehe* "You People" :)
I will respond, cuz you know I have to, but I am tired tonight... so maybe tomorrow...
Yeah, you know my Hermeneutic is literal, mostly, symbolic, some... like when it says it's symbolic, or obviously implied... but, oh well...
So I look forward to more chat. I've missed you guys!
Tell Jodi I say, "Howdy-do"
I'm glad you thought that last little comment was humorous. It was meant to be. But it did say "your people" not "you people". "You" people would have been good too though. It was meant more as a peace pipe/ you are the leader of a foreign tribe kind of thing rather than a middle finger kind of thing.
I don't know you that well and am feeling a little crazy tonight. I hope that I didn't say anything rude. Sometimes when I feel like this, my jolly sarcasm hurts people though. I really do welcome your comments and am thankful for them. I look forward to reading your response when you get more time.
I am not sure what it means to be a true pacifist or if Jesus was actually one, as we understand it in modern political terms. I never thought Jesus physically put His hands on folks when He cleansed the temple, but I did think He displayed a kind of a righteous anger and drove people out of there. The Bible records in Matthew that He “overthrew” the tables of the moneychangers. When I read the Bible, I strive to learn from it and follow what God has taught us through it. There are plenty of times I study and delve deeper, read other people’s commentaries and what not. I encourage everyone to do this. However, I feel compelled to stress two important things. The Bible is God’s revelation to us, all of us. In times past, scripture was read and memorized by a few from a scroll and they shared it with others who committed it to memory and shared it. Fathers taught their children, etc., it was passed down. So firstly, it was meant for people to take at face value, I think. Things are much the same today, in that any ordinary person can read and understand the Bible and take it a face value. God reveals Himself to mankind in a way that makes the playing field more or less level for everyone, but we humans tend to want to complicate things. Then, secondly is all humans have a tendency to make idols or create God in their own image. This happened since the beginning of time, and has to do with pride. Adam and Eve thought they could know as much as God knows and disobey Him (Gen.3:5); Cain brought the wrong kind of sacrifice to God (Gen.4; Heb.11:4). We humans are constantly trying to make ourselves on the same level or above God or circumvent Him somehow. We say things like, “What kind of God would do that?” “If I were God I would do this?” In reality, God is beyond our complete understanding and comprehension and what He does want us to know of Him, and what can truly help us and save us He has revealed in the Bible. So, I might not like or understand some of the things that I read, as Wayne B. noted, on one hand Jesus said He came to bring peace (Matt. 5:44) and on another hand He said He came to divide (Luke 12:51). But it is all I have to go on. God is both a God of peace and a God of war. This would lead me to believe that for a Christian, there is a time for war, and a time for peace, and even a time for ‘peaceful war’ as with Dr. King’s & Ghandi’s methods. Our Lord is a God of mercy and justice, He rewards and He punishes. All I can do is echo Job’s words:
Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD!
EB- sorry. I am just seeing this tonight and am not sure when you posted.
1. I like your comments. Pretty thought provoking. I think a problem we will run into is how we view scripture differently. As the scriptures were passed down orally from mother to son and father to daughter, I think that it must have changed (by changed I mean in meaning and in the crossings of "T"'s and dotting of "I"s. I don't think that this takes away from the truth of the scriptures. I like the term more than literal" to describe how we are to read the scriptures. (I am stealing all of this from a book I'm reading). The scriptures are read differently post Enlightenment than they were pre. There are huge differences in how everything is seen and thought. This may be triggering a "post-modernism is evil" response which I think I get. But just so you know where I'm at as you read my thoughts.
2. It's hard to communicate with sarcasm on a blog but my comment about Jesus not thinking the story all the way through was sarcasm.
I really don't know what to do with much of the war languauge in the scriptures. I think you're right though we must live with the tension of things not fitting perfectly in our brains.
This is probably mostl incoherent hey?
Post a Comment