My friend Wayne asked me in the comment section about some of my views on scripture that appears to conflict with a Jesus who is a pacifist. Here is what i started writing and then, once again decided to make it into an actual post:
I have thought a lot about the cleansing of the temple. Here are a couple thoughts.
1. I don't think he struck anybody. -When I think of violence, I think of striking another human. Though he was pissed, he never hurt anybody physically. However, this still doesn't make sense for the upside down kingdom that I was talking about because he used force to bring about change.
2. I also heard an explaination of the story where the author did some hocus pocus with the Greek explaining that it was less violent that many of us understand. - I don't know Greek so I wasn't very interested in what the speaker or writer had to say. I've been around enough preachers to know that the "actual translation" is going to support whatever their interp is anyways.
3. The story is true, but metaphorical (or more than true as Marcus Borg would say). The importance and value of the story shouldn't be on whether or not he actually used a whip or hit people or was cursing. The truth in the story is that he was pissed about people marginalizing the people and selling forgiveness. The Temple leaders were profitting on the sins of humanity and whoring out a sacred and holy place. The story could include Jesus poking people in the eyes three stooges style and wiping boogers on them and the importance would still be on how God wants reconcilliation and redemption to be carried out and how to not carry it out.
And, I don't think that even if he used violence, (3 stooge style or whip style) it doesn't fit with the rest of the gospel. So, if he did in fact use violence, and one is reading the story literally, maybe Jesus wasn't a pacifist. Maybe he will come back with a sword to kill and destroy even though he said to turn the other cheek. Maybe he only meant "love your enemies" until I return and then we can all have a good time killing them and making fun of them and enjoying the slaughter of our loved ones together as one happy family. In my mind that wouldn't make sense. Why would he teach peace for now until he returns to kill. It seems like the white military bringing a peace offering of small pox infected blankets to the unsuspecting and trusting Native Americans. It sets up a superiority hierarchy. Christians on top... the rest on the bottom... and then muslims under that... and homosexuals under that... and homosexual muslims over in a different chart. (sorry about that... i thought it was funny).
But maybe I'm wrong. This is actually possible and quite likely as I'm wrong a lot of the time. But the non-pacifist Jesus doesn't make sense to me. It did for a while, but now it doesn't. If I'm wrong, I'll be damned...literally. but if I'm right, then the mean Jesus people will be OK as well as the pacifist Jesus people. That would be beautiful.
I have thought a lot about the cleansing of the temple. Here are a couple thoughts.
1. I don't think he struck anybody. -When I think of violence, I think of striking another human. Though he was pissed, he never hurt anybody physically. However, this still doesn't make sense for the upside down kingdom that I was talking about because he used force to bring about change.
2. I also heard an explaination of the story where the author did some hocus pocus with the Greek explaining that it was less violent that many of us understand. - I don't know Greek so I wasn't very interested in what the speaker or writer had to say. I've been around enough preachers to know that the "actual translation" is going to support whatever their interp is anyways.
3. The story is true, but metaphorical (or more than true as Marcus Borg would say). The importance and value of the story shouldn't be on whether or not he actually used a whip or hit people or was cursing. The truth in the story is that he was pissed about people marginalizing the people and selling forgiveness. The Temple leaders were profitting on the sins of humanity and whoring out a sacred and holy place. The story could include Jesus poking people in the eyes three stooges style and wiping boogers on them and the importance would still be on how God wants reconcilliation and redemption to be carried out and how to not carry it out.
And, I don't think that even if he used violence, (3 stooge style or whip style) it doesn't fit with the rest of the gospel. So, if he did in fact use violence, and one is reading the story literally, maybe Jesus wasn't a pacifist. Maybe he will come back with a sword to kill and destroy even though he said to turn the other cheek. Maybe he only meant "love your enemies" until I return and then we can all have a good time killing them and making fun of them and enjoying the slaughter of our loved ones together as one happy family. In my mind that wouldn't make sense. Why would he teach peace for now until he returns to kill. It seems like the white military bringing a peace offering of small pox infected blankets to the unsuspecting and trusting Native Americans. It sets up a superiority hierarchy. Christians on top... the rest on the bottom... and then muslims under that... and homosexuals under that... and homosexual muslims over in a different chart. (sorry about that... i thought it was funny).But maybe I'm wrong. This is actually possible and quite likely as I'm wrong a lot of the time. But the non-pacifist Jesus doesn't make sense to me. It did for a while, but now it doesn't. If I'm wrong, I'll be damned...literally. but if I'm right, then the mean Jesus people will be OK as well as the pacifist Jesus people. That would be beautiful.
6 comments:
These are good questions, Christian, and I have been struggling with the same thoughts.
As far as this: "Why would he teach peace for now until he returns to kill."
I think a lot of the pacifism that Jesus taught had more to do with us learning to trust Him. It is very difficult to love your neighbor, and it's sometimes even more difficult to love ourselves. We can only acheive such things through Him. So, I think on some level--and maybe I'm wrong, but I'm thinking--Jesus told us not to use violence because he did not want hatred and anger to corrupt us. The OT (Ecc 3) says that there is a time for everything (a time to kill, a time to hate, a time of war...), but it also says that vengence is the Lord's (Lev 19). When human beings use violence it is usually justified in our minds: we are "solving" a problem; we are "defending" something (family/country/what have you); we are taking things into our own hands. But we can't serve Him if we are serving ourselves or our own self-righteous causes. I guess I'm saying that Jesus very clearly told us not to act in that way, but that doesn't mean that He can't or won't. I don't think that means that He is a hypocrite. It's that WE can be and are being destroyed by violence, anger, and the like, but He can't be.
I don't think that the example of cleansing the temple can ever be used, really, to defend violence or war or whatever. If we want to use it for an example, then it is that we can just go into the church and start throwing tables around and nothing else. Jesus can cleanse the temple but we can't. Our "righteous anger" can quickly turn to wrath, judgement, hatred, and self-righteousness, but Jesus's intentions were, and always will be, pure.
Does that make sense? I'm kind of thinking as I go along, so I'm sorry if I'm not making any sense!!
"The story could include Jesus poking people in the eyes three stooges style and wiping boogers on them and the importance would still be on how God wants reconciliation and redemption to be carried out and how to not carry it out."
This made me laugh right out loud. Save that one for you book!
I think Jesus was about reconciliation, and if we are made in the image of God, we can assume some things:
1. We have characteristics like that of God (meaning we are able to strive to be like God's character of love)
2. We have been charged to bear the fruits of the spirit to all of creation (patience, kindness, gentleness, etc.)
3. When in history has reconciliation (or restoration of relationship) ever occurred through violence?
Your examples of leaders of pacifism are right on. And Jesus is at the TOP. Pacifist doesn't mean weakling. On the contrary, it means use your God-given character to restore relationship and bring God's creation back to the Kingdom. I'm kind of rambling, sorry.
Hope that all makes sense. If not just ask, I'll clarify:)
Peace!
Well said. Yeah, i think flipping a table is a lot different from killing people.
Being a pacifist doesn't mean we don't take action or get angry. It doesn't mean we don't hit inanimate objects. It doesn't mean that we don't want to hit other people, because we do want to, but choose not to.
i'm sorry, but Jesus flipping over some tables cannot be compared with killing, torturing, or forcing others into submission.
Cat- sorry it has taken me so long to reply. We were camping all weekend and now I'm back at work and ready to get tot the nitty gritty on my blog.
I need to think more about your explaination of my perceived conflict of God/Jesus' character. As I was saying, It seems weird that Messiah would want us to turn the other cheek and then at some point Jesus would himself act out in violence. Do I understand you correctly that you think that violence isn't the problem because justice must be brought about at some point in whatever manner God desires? I'm not sure what to think about that because I think that force is a very poor and cheap way to bring redemption. I'll think more.
I am not sure what I should do with the Ecclesiates scriptures or much of the scriptures that explain the use of force to bring about justice. Your examples make some sense though which bothers me.
Shooting from the hip again... I don't believe that God will ever bring about justice via the sword. The sword doesn't correct or bring about redemption. It brings about death. I believe God is a god of life. God wants to bring new life to all creation and therefore chooses not to use force (especially the sword).
I could use feedback on this.
Holy crap Jodi- I just robbed a lot from your comment. It is very smart. I really like the fruits of the spirit thing. Why isn't one of the fruits "hitting"? Because it's not nice to do. Why isn't there a fruit of "cammel clutch"? Because the Iron Shiek wasn't a representative of God. (You guys might not know who that is).
Keith- when do you want to get together and drink some beers and flip some bar tables? Seriously?
Post a Comment