Onward, Christian Soldiers

Submitted by Mark Van Steenwyk on August 6, 2009 – 11:00 amView Comments

Editor’s Note: This is a reposting of an article first written on April 27, 2008.

“My grandfather fought so that we could have this conversation.”

I’ve heard these words (or their equivalent) a dozen times after sharing my pacifist convictions. The assumption here is that it is easy for me to be a pacifist in America. After all, I am fat and comfortable, living with the freedom to say and believe whatever I want. And for me to exercise that freedom in such a way that seemingly disregards the sacrifices of those in the armed forces…well, that is plain disrespectful.

At this point in the conversation–at that point when my dialog partner has demonstrated that my freedom is contingent upon the sacrifices of American soldiers–I used to cast my eyes down and struggle to find words. If I agreed with them, I had nothing left to say. If I disagreed with them, I was an America-hater. To disagree was to reject the freedom they secured.

When American Christians use the words “freedom” and “liberty” and “sacrifice” they are usually being patriotic. When asked if Jesus “sacrificed” for our “freedom” and “liberty” they would quickly agree…and wouldn’t see any conflict between the American sense of these words and the Christian sense. If pressed, I would imagine that the typical American Christian would explain that American soldiers die for our physical or political freedom. Jesus, however, died for our spiritual freedom. It is as though Jesus is Lord of the Spirit but Uncle Sam is Lord of the Flesh.

Kingdom Patriotism

The last time I had a conversation about pacifism and someone brought up the fact that one of their relatives fought for my freedom, I responded: “No, I don’t believe they did.” Then I went on to suggest that Christians always have the freedom to speak the truth of Christ. And even if they are imprisoned for speaking their convictions, they are no less free. This is what the New Testament teaches.

The only ones who sacrificed for my freedom are Jesus and the martyrs…all of those who suffer for the Faith. If by adopting pacifism I dishonor America’s soldiers, by renouncing pacifism I dishonor the blood of Christ and the martyrs.

At this point in a conversation, my dialog partner is likely to point out that it is “easy for me to believe this.” True. True. I believe that it is easier to be a pacifist in America than anywhere else. But that doesn’t believe my convictions are cheap. Many Christians have suffered for their nonviolent convictions. For them it was costly.

My Anabaptist fore bearers died for the right to put away the sword. They weren’t cowards. And they weren’t passive…at least not in the beginning. [By the way...despite popular beliefs, there is no linguistic tie between the words "pacifism" and "passive." A "pacifist" is one who practices or makes peace. A peace maker. A peace-ist.] Many brave Christians have died throughout the ages turning the other cheek–laying down their lives so that Christ could be clearly revealed to the world. This is a greater sacrifice than that soldiers makes in service of their country. It is kingdom patriotism…laying down one’s life in the cause of Christ.

Making it Personal

Lately I’ve begun to realize that if I am to truly honor the sacrifices of my brothers and sisters throughout Church history, I too must be willing to lay down my life in the cause of Christ. I am compelled to no longer sit upon the sidelines. Instead, after a time of prayer and discernment, I’m going to serve as a Christian Peacemaker.

The Christian Peacemaker Teams launched as a response to a speech by Ron Sider. 1984, Sider challenged the Mennonite World Conference in Strasbourg, France with these words (which you can find here):

“Over the past 450 years of martyrdom, immigration and missionary proclamation, the God of shalom has been preparing us Anabaptists for a late twentieth-century rendezvous with history. The next twenty years will be the most dangerous—and perhaps the most vicious and violent—in human history. If we are ready to embrace the cross, God’s reconciling people will profoundly impact the course of world history . . . This could be our finest hour. Never has the world needed our message more. Never has it been more open. Now is the time to risk everything for our belief that Jesus is the way to peace. If we still believe it, now is the time to live what we have spoken.

“We must take up our cross and follow Jesus to Golgotha. We must be prepared to die by the thousands. Those who believed in peace through the sword have not hesitated to die. Proudly, courageously, they gave their lives. Again and again, they sacrificed bright futures to the tragic illusion that one more righteous crusade would bring peace in their time, and they laid down their lives by the millions.

“Unless we . . . are ready to start to die by the thousands in dramatic vigorous new exploits for peace and justice, we should sadly confess that we never really meant what we said, and we dare never whisper another word about pacifism to our sisters and brothers in those desperate lands filled with injustice. Unless we are ready to die developing new nonviolent attempts to reduce conflict, we should confess that we never really meant that the cross was an alternative to the sword . . . ”

The Christian Peacemaker Teams ask: “What would happen if Christians devoted the same discipline and self-sacrifice to nonviolent peacemaking that armies devote to war?” Like a Christian alternative to the military, hey are engaged in nonviolent resistance around the world. And I believe that joining them is my act of Kingdom Patriotism.

This fall, I’ll join a 2 week delegation (location undecided). After that, if they’ll have me, I’ll receive training and commit to at least 2 weeks of service a year for three years. Several others at Missio Dei are considering similar service.

In the future, Jesus Manifesto will be sharing the stories and struggles of peacemakers around the world. I’m convinced that in these violent times, Christian everywhere need to take a stand for peace. We need to be peacemakers, not people who enjoy the peace that the State offers as we sit on the sidelines. And so, I encourage you to think about the ways in which you and your communities can stand against violence and pursue peace.

Peace is needed in my neighborhood as well as in Palestine. Our community is exploring ways of fostering peace in our neighborhood…through increased hospitality, through friendship, and through service. In the end, the freedom we are pursuing for our neighbors (both at home and abroad) is the freedom found in Christ. The freedom that comes from democracy, while beneficial, is paltry compared to the abundant freedom we have in Christ. The liberty praised by the Declaration of Independence is worthwhile, but it is nothing compared to the liberty that comes from the Spirit is priceless. And both are possible through the sacrifice of Christ. And both are advanced through the suffering of the saints.

http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_32.png

http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_32.png

http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_32.png

http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_32.png

http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_32.png

http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_32.png

http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_32.png

About Mark Van Steenwyk

Mark Van Steenwyk is a member of Missio Dei. He is a speaker, writer, educator, and grassroots organizer. With the support of the Central Plains Mennonite Conference, he travels to radical and intentional communities around the country to help network and offer support.

Jim

I was active Army for eight years and I am now serving in the Pennsylvania National Guard. I've found this site to be very intriguing and thought provoking, not to mention uplifting to my Christian faith. I struggled with the issue of pacifism for awhile.

I've come to believe that there is no conflict between being a soldier and being a Christian. Several Roman soldiers were converted by Jesus himself. Not once did he tell them to stop being soldiers.

derek zika

Just curious, but were you deployed to Pittsburgh for the G20 Summit 24-26SEP2009?

joshuadbau

I have read this entire blog and am unable to see any clear delineation between arguments. None of us here are objective, that is obvious because we are human, we are all advocating positions that we wish to see the light of day. Further, I do not I see a robust sense of subjectivity shared amongst us, the jargon that theologians are so apt to quote of late, rather I read the frustrations of my brothers and sisters towards an unjust and insufficient world. Since we all believe we have discovered, or simply restated the 'original' or the 'proper' way in which to discuss and go about peacemaking in this dark world, the way that Jesus "would have", we have forgotten that we truly belong to each other. (adaption of a Mother Theresa Quote) The poor, the privileged, the oppressed, the oppressor, our world is not and has never been the world, yet we attempt to make it so, or we reason out the world in accordance with such a thought. The world is more complex than academia, the church, theology, or any science humanity has ever dreamed of. As a friend of mine once said to me, "How can these ideas become food for the poor?" How can our conversation become the stones that build shelter? How can our words be those that sow peaceful revolution? How can these words bind us together as a family? I ask myself these questions every day as a theologian, why, to what purpose, how is my study, my reading, my interpretation, my struggle against the predominately 'christian' worldview of health and wealth benefiting my brothers and sisters who don't have enough money to pay the rent, or feed their children. I cannot offer any answers, but I can offer a thought. If we cannot stand together, despite our theological differences, then we will never stand together at all, we will be blinded to the plank in our own eye and the revolution of love and hope that we all yearn for cannot happen. The people that we are becoming through these conversation, through our studies, through our experiences as Christians MATTER, and if we do not believe that the people we and our communities of faith are becoming as Christians is of utmost importance then we might as well not be Christians at all. There is a mark, (I can't begin to tell anyone what it is as I am struggling myself to find it), we are missing it.

paul munn

I hope you won't mind if I respond to your Mother Teresa quote with a Jesus quote that came to mind:
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's foes will be those of his own household.

"He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

"He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it." (Mt 10.34-39)

So I think "in house" struggles and conflict are to be expected, and more so the closer we follow Jesus (since that's what he also experienced). I also think that concepts like "peace" or "family" should never be our primary guides; these can never be a source of true unity.

Only following Jesus will unite us and bring us to true peace (though by a path of much contention and resistance). Which means our primary focus needs to be on him. And that last line of his reflects something very unique and powerful that we see in Jesus: "He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it."

Again, not the message of nonviolent resistance or coercion, but the same message we see quite clearly in the cross.

paul munn

I've two close friends who were full-time CPTers in Colombia, and I've read the Sider book on nonviolence that helped inspire the work. But I've also had lots of questions about their approach (partly due to what I've heard about their methods from my friends).

Some of those concerns became clearer during the CPT hostage situation in Iraq (and rescue by the military) in 2006. Shortly after that I wrote in my journal:
Thinking more about the recent CPT hostage situation, I recalled something interesting. When [my friend] was telling me about her work with CPT in Colombia, she said they were able to offer some protection to the people there (even though they carried no arms) because they were American citizens, and the local militias were very reluctant to attack American citizens because of the political and possibly military response it would cause. So even though the CPTers were not happy with the U.S. contribution to the problems in that area, they were able to take advantage of their U.S. citizenship to help the local people. From the stories I've read of their work in Palestine, they seem to use the same principle there. And even in Iraq, I believe, they were able to gain better access to U.S. officials because of their citizenship (and also their willingness to use the press) in order to get information about Iraqi detainees.

But as I thought about the hostage situation, I realized that the reason the hostage-takers took the CPT members was precisely their U.S. citizenship. The "Swords of Righteousness Brigade" weren't against the work of CPT. Many other Arab and Iraqi groups supported the CPT work and pled for their release. But the hostage-takers didn't seem interested in what CPT was doing or saying. They were interested in getting at the U.S. forces and forcing them to release Iraqi prisoners, so they kidnapped U.S. citizens and used the media to pressure the U.S. to give in to their demands.

Thus the tool that CPT had used for their protection (and the protection of others) had suddenly become the precise cause for their being attacked.

...I keep remembering Jesus' words, "Those who take up the sword will perish by the sword." Perhaps that applies to the other forms of human power as well.
I've had similar thoughts about their use of the media to exert political pressure and achieve the results they desire. I do think these methods are better than violence, but they still seem like exercises of human power.

And I wonder if this is really a good example of walking "in the way of Jesus."

thomstark

Jesus exercised "human power" all the time, and encouraged his hearers to do the same. The strategies in Matthew 5:38-42 are all examples of nonviolent COERCION, as was Jesus' own temple protest, and just about everything else he did. Jesus did not renounce power. He renounced violence. That's obvious too in the Beatitudes. Jesus calls the populace--the peasantry--peacemakers and sons of God. Those are titles ordinarily ascribed to Caesar. Jesus is saying that true political power is properly in the hands of the people, not a Caesar.

markvans

Could you unpack how you're using the word "coercion." I'm comfortable saying that Jesus applied pressure or wielded power (of a sort), but I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say he "coerced" anyone...excepting, perhaps, the cleansing of the temple...but even then I'm not sure it was coercion in the sense that most people understand the word.

thomstark

Coercion can mean using violence or the threat of violence to secure compliance from an otherwise unwilling party.

But it can also mean (and I'm using it to mean) using any tactic, especially tactics that threaten an unwilling party with something undesirable, to secure compliance with someone who remains unwilling despite their compliance.

In other words, it's not persuasion. It's coercion. Jesus used the threat of populace rioting, the threat of shame (which was real CURRENCY) and shame itself to secure compliance from those who did not wish to comply with Jesus' agenda. Using shame back then is the same as stealing money today. It was like threatening a corporation with massive losses in the marketplace (by, say, leaking information that would create a Wall Street panic attack) unless they made concessions to their workers.

If you want to limit the use of "coercion" to the threat of violence only, then there would be a lot fewer examples of Jesus actually coercing, though I think there are still some examples. One would be Jesus using his popularity with the crowds to win arguments in public, because he knew that his opponents feared the threat of popular revolution. Even if Jesus knew it was an empty threat, it was still coercive because it was the threat of violence that secured his political victory. There are also the many cases when Jesus says that anyone who does not follow his policy and give their allegiance to him are going to be punished and judged negatively by Yahweh--a threat that was very real in his opponents' minds, if Jesus was who he said he was. Those statements about imminent judgment against those who reject him are, among other things, power plays.

But, in my broader sense of coercive, Jesus used all sorts of threats all the time to secure the public compliance of his opponents. Most of the time it was shame, which as I said was real currency. He used the threat of something undesirable to win his little policy disputes with other lawyers and politicians.

But, once again, if we remember the statement of Paul that caused me to jump into this conversation in the first place, all I was saying is that using the media to put pressure on political opponents is the sort of thing Jesus did all the time. Let's not let my use of the word "coercive" distract from that basic point.

paul munn

Good definition of coercion. I agree. I just don't agree that Jesus did it.

This part really highlights what Jesus avoided: "...to secure compliance with someone who remains unwilling despite their compliance." Jesus did not want unwilling compliance. He wanted us to give ourselves freely and willingly. Unwilling compliance would have been no victory for him. Only willing obedience, freely given trust, uncoerced love has any value for the purposes of Jesus.

That's why any coercion (physical, economic, psychological, political) works against the purposes of Jesus. Those tactics simply glorify the power of human beings to force and control one another. They do not inspire love, but they do often stifle it.

Jesus wanted us to give ourselves to him in love. Freely. And his life and death show us how to inspire such love.

paul munn

If you've read this far, you might appreciate this, from LarkNews.com...

God's Little Book of Zingers

thomstark

Paul, you can't just "disagree" in this kind of situation. You have to show why you disagree with arguments from the text. We don't just get to decide who Jesus was or wasn't based on our personal preference and prior theological commitments.

I understand the sentiment of what you're saying, and it's nice and everything, but it's not Jesus. Jesus wasn't as nice as you are. Your reading of him just displays your ignorance of shame/honor societies and the way they carried out debates, and the whole challenge/riposte thing.

However much Jesus may have wanted certain ruling elites and their henchmen to follow him freely and willingly, they constantly opposed his work of liberation and deliverance. Jesus chose (like any just person would) to side with the weak over against the bullies. When the bullies tried to make him look bad for doing good, he used coercive tactics (based on a definition of coercive you and I agree on) to achieve limited public victories in debates in order to make his opponents look bad--because they were. They tried to trap him and he sprung the trap on them. He wasn't trying to save their souls, whatever that would mean. He was displaying solidarity with the disenfranchised and proving in public that the ruling class was standing outside the will of Yahweh. Those are the political victories I'm talking about.

If you want to continue to disagree with me, you really do need to take a text I've mentioned here and show how my reading doesn't do justice to the context of first century, Roman occupied Palestine. Until then, we're just beating our heads against brick walls, both of us.

paul munn

Actually I'm not that nice. Ask anyone.

And of course the cross doesn't have anything to do with being nice. What is does have to do with is a courage and transforming power (the power of God) which is far greater than any "nonviolent coercion" tactics.

Leveller

I agree with Thom. Jesus taught nonviolence, not nonresistance. Jesus in Matt. 5:39 doesn't say (as traditionally translated) "Do not resist evil." "Resist" is in the l.i.d. form in Greek, "locative, instrumental, or dative" all having the same ending. The context determines the translation. It should be translated "Do not resist WITH evil" or "Do not resist By Evil Means.'

What follows shows what one is to do instead. Being slapped on the cheek (backhanded) is a social insult from a social superior to an inferiro: Masters backhanded slaves; husbands backhanded wives; parents backhanded children; the rich backhanded the poor. Jesus shows how to respond--not by submission nor by violence, but by refusing to be treated as an inferior. Turn the other cheek. But now, one cannot be backhanded with the right hand. In Jesus' culture (before toilet paper), one CANNOT use the left hand. Even today in the Middle East to touch someone with the left hand is an offense so grave one could be taken to court. And if one continues to use the right hand, one has to either punch--thereby admitting the equality of the person one has just insulted, or (more likely), walk away while the crowd laughs. This is nonviolent resistance to evil.

Then, Jesus gives another example: If someone sues you to take your outer gament, give the other also. The normal garment of Palestinian Jews was a long inner robe and a thicker outer robe. Levitical law said that if someone was so poor (homeless), one could use one's outer garment as collateral in a loan. But the lender had to give the garment back every night since the poor person would need it to sleep in--and the desert gets cold. Here, one has a corrupt court that, in violation of Leviticus (Jeremiah tells of God's outrage when such happens) allowing the outer garment to be taken for nonpayment. In such a case, Jesus says, just strip butt naked to show what is being done to you. In biblical culture (remember Noah), nudity is shameful, but the shame falls on those seeing the nudity, not on the nude person.. So, Jesus is telling the poor person to literally expose the injustice--even if the embarrassed judge throws you in jail. Nonviolent resistance.

The final example comes from the Roman occupation. Roman law allowed the occupying army to oppress the occupied, but only within limits. So, a soldier could force a nearby Palestinian Jew to carry his pack (or some other object, like when Simon the Cyrene was forced by the soldiers to carry Jesus' cross), but only one mile. There were milemarkers. After that, the soldier had to take the pack back. The penalties for disobedience in the Roman army were severe. So, Jesus says that one should voluntarily go a second mile--this throws off the oppressive soldier. He can get in trouble. He could be reduced to begging or forcefully taking back the pack. Or the oppressed person, taking back his power and dignity can use the opportunity to point out the injustice of the occupation and even the injustice of forcing others to carry your pack even one mile. This is called peacemaking.

Ched Myers in his brilliant commentary on Mark, Binding the Strong Man, shows that both Jesus' Galilean ministry and his Jerusalem ministry leading to his crucifixion, are structured as a series of nonviolent campaigns against the system.

Jesus taught nonviolence, not non-coercion or being a doormat.

markvans

I agree. However, I get nervous in conversations like this because rarely is Jesus' command to love our enemies kept in view in the midst of our talk of nonviolent resistance. We don't simply do these things as a tactic, but also because it shows love. The ultimate goal isn't to shame the oppressor, but, I believe, to show love to them. This read is certainly in keeping with our most celebrated nonviolent resistors.

thomstark

Shaming an oppressor is not inconsistent with loving an oppressor. Often, the one is necessary for the other to obtain.

markvans

Could you elaborate? There is a way to shame someone in an unloving way...and a way to shame them in a loving way, how do we discern the difference? I think this is important in deciding what sorts of actions to use. For example, there is a difference between having a large scale sit-in at the site of police brutality to expose the inustice of the oppressor and having a big banner that says "f%$& the police." I'm wondering if there is a theological way of approaching such actions that use shame.

markvans

I agree there is a time and a place for us to enact all sorts of actions that draw from Jesus' own praxis--from cleansing the temple to dying on the cross. Are there tools for discerning when to do which? I've seen lots of protesters bringing a "fuck you" to every protest when something else is needed. Gandhi and King were systemic geniuses who could move well past a big banner that says fuck you to an act that brought shame in a way that made themselves come off smelling like roses. Not that we have to do everything like Gandhi and King. But so much of the imagination of modern protesters lacks that sort of bold creativity. We tend to have a sort of fuck you mentality at the wrong times. This is why I appreciate the CPT...they're not just protesting violence, they're seeking to get in the way in such a way that it brings shame upon the violent. And, for as small of an organization they are, I think it works.

paul munn

If the use of shaming is to appeal to the conscience (which seems to me to be the right and good use of it, hoping for a change of heart), then our rebuke should be primarily directed to the offending person, shouldn't it?

That's the way I see Jesus using it. But then there is no need for the use of mass media, is there? That's the part that I see as a human power play. Not an appeal to conscience but an appeal to popular opinion and a tactic of political coercion.

thomstark

Wholehearted agreement. Imagination is sorely lacking but is vital to progress. Getting in the way is better than shouting so-called profanities from the sidelines. I was merely pointing out that Jesus himself wasn't above shouting profanities, even it's clear that he wasn't doing it from the sidelines. But like I said, I wasn't advocating a position. It might never be the right time to shout profanities. I'm not advocating that per se. Just pointing out that Jesus must've thought it was sometimes legitimate.

I think we agree on just about everything (except the definition of gentle). :)

thomstark

Just kidding. We probably agree on that too.

thomstark

Well, how similar is "f%$& the police" to "you brood of vipers" or "you children of the devil"? How similar or dissimilar is it in you're reckoning?

I'm not advocating a position, just asking a pertinent question.

markvans

Well, that depends. Jesus didn't say those things to the Romans, but to those religious leaders who were guilty of far worse things than straightforward colonization. The police and military seem more like a rough equivalent to the Roman soldiers, who would be the modern day Pharisees? And I sure hope that someone doesn't just give a generic example of some legalistic group...I think the sin of the Pharisees when MUCH deeper than them expecting people to follow lots of rules in order to be saved.

thomstark

Well, I guess that would be my basic response then. There's a time and a place for a fuck you, and a time and a place for something else. But also bear in mind that to Jews, Roman soldiers were outsiders. To Americans like us, the police are insiders. But there's obviously a lot of other institutions to protest against than just the police department. So my response has to be general. There is a time for everything under the sun.

thomstark

But Jesus had some pretty sharp things to say against Rome too (he called Caesar a tyrant in one place and in another place said the Jewish peasants could do a better job than Caesar). But when it was face to face he dissembled. Anyway, sometimes shame should work to redeem an enemy. Other times, they are beyond redemption and they just need to be shamed anyway, in order to declare solidarity with their victims.

paul munn

Sorry, I completely disagree about your interpretation of the sermon on the mount. I've heard the arguments (Wink's and others), but I don't think Jesus had anything like that in mind. His life proves it to me. Those are recent interpretations that seem more to justify a certain activist approach than really listen to what Jesus is saying (and doing). And they really weaken Jesus' teaching, in my opinion.

There is no way the cross is "nonviolent coercion." It is, however, quite a stark example of "turn the other cheek" and "do not resist one who is evil."

thomstark

Furthermore,

"Go the second mile" is as clear a case as any of the nonviolent yet coercive tactics Jesus offered. As Wink has shown, it was common knowledge that it was illegal under Roman military law for a soldier to force someone to carry his pack for more than one mile. Jesus says, "If someone forces you to go one mile, go two." This has multiple effects. 1) It takes the initiative away from the oppressor and puts it into the hands of the oppressed. The soldier is no longer forcing the peasant to work. The peasant is now freely offering help. This changes the dynamics of the oppressor/oppressed relationship. 2) It potentially gets the soldier into trouble. Even though the person is offering voluntarily to carry the pack, the law didn't provide for such an eventuality. The soldier is still committing a crime if the person carries the pack for more than one mile, voluntarily or no. So the strategy is to make the soldier uncomfortable here, but to do so in a completely innocuous way. If Jews started doing this every time, it would probably lead the soldiers to stop making them do it. 3) It's loving. Its virtue of displaying enemy love is not incompatible with its coercive effects.

If anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well. There's no interpretive wiggle-room here. This "suing" would take place in a public court, and Jesus very clearly tells the victim of the credit system to strip naked in public. This would have the effect of shaming the moneylender and exposing him as an exploiter rather than as a benefactor of the people. This is a strategy for the weak and powerless to maintain their dignity (in this culture the naked one is not shamed but the one who witnesses the nakedness, as in Isaiah's streaking episode) and to expose their oppressors as such. This is coercive, but it is not incompatible with enemy love. It is coercive because it uses public shame to marginalize the influence of oppressors and opportunists.

If you still doubt this reading of the text, read James C. Scott's _Domination and the Arts of Resistance_ as well as his _Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance_. If after having read those studies, you still conclude that this reading of the Sermon on the Mount is wrong and that it "weakens" Jesus' teaching, I'll give you a serious hearing.

thomstark

"Turn the other cheek" is about dignity.

The Greek does not say "do not resist one who is evil." Glen Stassen has shown that the grammar indicates Jesus is saying, "Do not resist by evil means." Wink has also shown DEFINITIVELY (using a word study on the word "resist") that the resistance pictured here is a specific kind of resistance, namely, armed, militant resistance. The word literally means militant resistance. Read his work. His exegesis on this point is indisputable.

As for the cross, that wasn't really Jesus' choice, now was it? But the so-called temple cleansing was his choice, and that was nonviolent coercion. He physically attempted to stop the ruling class from exploiting the peasant class. That's not coercion? He constantly put pressure on the ruling elites to break their own laws for what he saw to be justice. He used the presence of crowds and the shame/honor system to his advantage, making it impossible for those in power to contradict him in public. That's not coercion? The cross is important, but that's not something Jesus did to himself. The ruling class crucified him, precisely as punishment for using nonviolent tactics to undermine their power.

As for the Sermon on the Mount, Walter Wink's work on Matt 5:38-42 has become the consensus view among Jesus scholars, precisely because it reads Jesus' statements in the context of first century, Roman-occupied Palestine. You have the right to disagree, but that doesn't make you right to do so. Have you read Wink? If so, please display why he's wrong.

Until then, don't go around telling activists that they're not working in the spirit of Jesus. Far from weakening Jesus' teaching, this reading shows that Jesus had real compassion on those who suffered. A spiritual guru who preached other-worldly bliss and disengagement from society is hardly worth calling a savior. This shows that Jesus was very wise, shrewd and ingenious. It shows that he cared not only about people but about societal structures which affect people. And it shows that he was smart enough to encourage his hearers to seek to transform their society in a way that wouldn't bring down the wrath of the law on their heads at the first sign of resistance.

Frankly, any other reading of Jesus doesn't produce a Jesus worthy of the reverence of those who suffer.

paul munn

Mark's right about Francis of Assisi, and many others, of course. Lots of people understood Jesus pretty well (and demonstrated it with their lives) before Wink came along to enlighten us with his best-selling books.

And I notice you dismissed the example of the cross pretty quickly. It's not enough to say he didn't choose it, for many see Jesus' path to the cross quite differently (like, for example, the author of the gospel of John, who quotes Jesus saying, "For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord." Jn 10.17-18). And Jesus certainly chose to go to Jerusalem, knowing what awaited him there, warning his disciples all along the way.

The cross stands as the ultimate expression of what Jesus came to communicate, the word he was speaking through all his teachings written in his own blood, the perfection of God's love revealed to the world. And, again, this is not a word of "nonviolent coercion." It is a word of love that accepts death rather than coercing or forcing himself in any way on those who reject him.

And it is the power of God (and God alone) that raises him from death and preserves his word forever.

thomstark

Here are your comments to which I was responding originally:

"I've had similar thoughts about their use of the media to exert political pressure and achieve the results they desire. I do think these methods are better than violence, but they still seem like exercises of human power. And I wonder if this is really a good example of walking 'in the way of Jesus.'"

You said that you think the use of the media to exert political pressure and achieve certain results is an exercise of "human power" that is not a "good example of walking in the way of Jesus."

All I'm doing is pointing out that Jesus used public debate and worked the shame/honor system very shrewdly in order to exert political pressure to revise policy and law in his society. He frequently publicly shamed his political opponents, and used all sorts of different tactics to back them into a corner, so that they had to publicly agree with him whether they wanted to or not. I don't know what you call coercion. But that's as clear an example as any as far as I'm concerned. That's an exercise of "human power" in order to achieve a certain result.

thomstark

Wink doesn't have any best-selling books, Paul. And his exegesis on Matt 5:38-42 appears only in an obscure journal publication, one that happened to be very influential nevertheless because of its explanatory power. I take this to be an indication that you have NOT examined the exegesis you are here rejecting out of hand. So I'm afraid I still can't take seriously your rejection of this reading of the Sermon on the Mount. It seems to me that it's more than anything else a decision you're making before you come to the text.

As for the rest of your remarks about the cross, I have nothing really to say in response. I never claimed the cross was coercive. I just said that a lot of the things Jesus did were coercive. Since you haven't been able to counter my arguments about Jesus' use of nonviolent coercive tactics, I'll just assume that means you begrudgingly accept them.

paul munn

Well at least we agree about the cross not being coercive. My point was that Jesus' path to the cross, and his acceptance of it, brought his whole life and teaching to a single clear point. His whole message (the meaning of his life) displayed in one enfleshed image. Total love responding to evil.

So we need to understand all his life in light of the cross. I think you have misinterpreted some of Jesus' teachings and actions that we have been discussing here. But he gave us the perfect expression of the cross to help us understand all he did before that moment.

"Turn the other cheek" and "do not resist the evil man" become crystal clear in light of the cross. The hard part is then following Jesus' example.

thomstark

Paul,

Nobody's life can be summed up in one event like that, no matter how historians or tradition collectors shape the stories to idealize a person. Is your life all summed up in one event? Could it be all summed up in one future event? Is it possible for one event to satisfactorily define you? I suggest that if a biographer tried to do that to you, he'd be doing a serious violence to your life and character. That's just bad history.

We can, however, understand all his life in the light of the cross without glossing over elements of his life WE THINK are inconsistent with OUR UNDERSTANDING of the cross.

Your idea of exegesis is interesting, but I can't say it's good historiography. You have started with one event in a man's life, and from that point you force everything else he did into compliance with some principle you think that one event represents.

I'm afraid that if you're not able to see how this is bad historiography, we're not going to be able to take this discussion (or debate rather: HT Maria) much further. If you want to follow an idealized picture of a religious figure, that's fine. But I want to be guided by the real Jesus, not the Jesus religious people or certain theologies need Jesus to be.

As far as the contradiction you see between Jesus' use of coercive tactics and the cross, I believe it's in your imagination. And you haven't done one thing to display how my reading of the Sermon on the Mount and Jesus' public debates is not good exegesis. You've insisted on a totalizing interpretation of Jesus' life filtered through one event. (And you take statements in John placed in Jesus' mouth to be on firm ground historically, when it is widely accepted that "John's" gospel is not about the historical Jesus but about theological debates contemporary to him.)

markvans

I'm mostly with you man, but I would gently push back a bit. Saying things like "any other reading of Jesus doesn't produce a Jesus worthy of the reverence of those who suffer" is probably going too far. For example, Francis of Assisi didn't hold that view of Jesus and I'm fairly confident that Francis' proclamation of Jesus is/was worthy of reverence.

Frankly, statements seem a bit too dismissive of not only Paul but also those among the suffering who disagree with you. Nevertheless, I have a lot of sympathy for what you're saying...if you and Paul Munn are on a spectrum, I'm about 72.8% towards your end of that spectrum.

thomstark

I hear you. Let me put it this way. A Jesus who isn't concerned with transforming oppressive social structures but is only concerned with loving those who violently perpetuate oppressive social structures is not worthy of the esteem of those who suffer, whether they esteem him or not. That Jesus is the opiate of the masses, because he teaches the masses to disregard their present suffering in the hope of a heavenly reward. That is the cooptation of Jesus' gospel by the powers, and, although many sufferers continue to esteem this Jesus, I do not believe this Jesus is worthy of their esteem. It is misplaced. So I'll stand by my statement, while recognizing that the restatement was called for.

markvans

Thom,

It seems like you're creating a false dichotomoy: either Jesus wants to transform social structures or he only cares about heavenly rewards. Can't Jesus care about physical realities without wanting to change social structures? It seems that there are a number of traditional responses that attempt to foster a counter-cultural approach to oppression that don't try to redeem or transform culture. Or am I missing something?

It seems like your statement is fueled by neo-Marxism (which, don't get me wrong, has a lot going for it) rather than the actual experiences of the poor. There is a danger in getting one's theopoetics from scholars. I'm not saying that is where your thoughts are coming from, but that is how it comes off. I guarantee many of my homeless friends would feel personally offended by what you're saying, and the fact that you feel that they are simply duped wouldn't help assuage their frustration.

I know my comments sound confrontational, but I'm genuinely not trying to pick a fight. It is just that your comments seem rather idealized and you're making statements that sound like vast edicts over the whole of Christian experience...it feels totalizing and condescending.

thomstark

Mark,

Here's the dichotomy: Either Jesus understands that the suffering of his people came from unjust social structures, or he didn't. Healing people is a temporary fix to a bigger problem. But the fact of the matter is, Jesus DID address social structures (no one said anything about "transforming culture"). He critiqued the corrupt temple regime, and critiqued the usury system, and Roman taxation, and the temple tax. He critiqued the system of exploitation. He critiqued Israel's actual LAWS; he undermined them, and called for them to be changed. His message and his actions were designed to make the Temple (read: the political and economic hub of Israel) not only irrelevant but a thing of the past. He engaged social structures, and sought to change them. He did this because he wasn't an idiot. He realized that just healing the immediate results of a broken system wasn't justice enough. It was a start, but the whole system had to be critiqued and transformed.

We can say a lot about the alternative envisioned, and that's fine, but my only point here is that Jesus used coercive tactics to expose and relativize unjust social structures--the very thing Paul was telling you that you shouldn't do because it wouldn't be in the spirit of Jesus.

Mark, I've got poor friends too, and homeless ones. Some of them understand what I'm saying, some of them don't. Your claim that my comments about the poor are derived from an academic ideology rather than experience on the ground is flat out wrong, not to mention a wee bit pretentious. I didn't say that all religion is the opiate of the masses. I said that a certain sort is, and the fact that some people (poor and wealthy alike) are SINCERELY duped by a certain form of religion doesn't mean they are any less duped.

I noticed that below you have a link to Paolo Freire's book, _Pedagogy of the Oppressed_. If you've read it you'd recognize that the reason so many poor people are duped by false consciousness is because the ruling classes invest a lot of energy into indoctrinating society, and that it takes a lot of work to get those who have been indoctrinated to see that that's what they are. Many become offended. All of them are frustrated. But it doesn't change the reality of the situation. Freire's understanding of these dynamics don't come from academia, but from his work among the poor and illiterate. (Read Pedagogy for Liberation as well, for more on the way the education system is hegemonic, and the struggles involved with undoing that indoctrination.)

I also see the work of Jesus similarly to Freire's. Jesus did some reconscientization of his own--exposing the religion of the ruling elites as false, and going through the frustrating process (to both parties) of reshaping the mindset of those duped by the repressive religion.

I'm not being condescending. I'm actually relying on the work of others (like James Scott, Paolo Freire, Karl Marx, etc.) who actually spent most of their lives working with and living among the poor, as well as on my own experience with those who suffer needlessly. It's not about me being right and "stupid poor people" being wrong. We've all been indoctrinated on every level of society, as you well know, and part of that indoctrination includes our understanding of Jesus.

I'm not saying Jesus was trying to institute a parliament and be the first Israeli prime minister. Obviously he envisioned alternative societies that could sustain one another in the midst of unjust social structures. But to say that he didn't engage, critique and call for the dissolution of those unjust social structures is just naive, and probably betrays a lack of understanding of the way politics works in first century Palestine.

markvans

To my defense, I didn't say that you're thinking lacks a real engagement with the poor. I said it comes off that way. My whole point in pushing back isn't so much with the content of your ideas, but the tone you seem to be using and the totalizing statements you're making. I just think it is unfair and doesn't invite dialogue. Instead, it is making declarative edicts that don't really allow for disagreement.

But no need to dwell on that. I get what you're saying and am happy to move on to engaging your ideas...

Here's a question: in what way does the Cross figure into Jesus' desire to transform structures of oppression? Given everything that happened leading to the Cross, it is easy to say that Jesus was a failure at transforming anything.

Yet, in retrospect, the Apostles seem to suggest that Jesus changed everything.

Part of my reason for not being totally on board with what you're saying (or being totally on board with Marxist-influenced theologies) is that they seem to assume that Jesus simply started a campaign of liberation that we, the church, have yet to fulfill. But to me, the Anabaptist instincts within me that balance my own liberationists instincts, want to affirm a largely realized eschatology that suggests that was Jesus did in his life did achieve liberation in a very robust and complete sense.

thomstark

Yes, I understand the theologies that give sense to your realized eschatology, but I just do not believe the texts of the New Testament, especially of the Gospels, can be appealed to in justification of such theologies. See my latest two blog posts (and some of the comments) for my arguments and rationale on that. Neither Jesus nor Paul believed that Jesus' liberation was complete at the cross. Paul certainly believed that it was guaranteed at the cross/resurrection, but not completed by any means.

I wouldn't say that Jesus was a failure at transforming ANYTHING. But he was obviously a failure in some respects. But that's okay. The issue isn't whether he was a success or a failure. The issue is what it was he was attempting to do, or at least what it was he was saying needed to be done. And the point there is that he pointed to political institutions and social structures, just as regularly as he pointed to the heart, and to the local communities. I'm saying Jesus' ministry and vision was more holistic.

But I'm also only really INTENDING to say what I just said to Paul in my last comment, when I quoted his original comments that initiated my whole participation here. That's my limited point.

As for me making "declarative edicts that don't really allow for disagreement," that's not the case at all. I state my arguments, and I state my positions, my perspectives, my opinions. I state them like I believe them. Paul is welcome to counter them with whatever exegetical insights he can muster. And I'll respond to those reasoned arguments in turn. He hasn't done that. That's his prerogative. I'm also not calling your homeless friends stupid. I think you should be able to see that. I'm pointing out a sociological reality that has been documented all over the world and all throughout history. I'm saying (based on my exegetical arguments about Jesus' gospel) that certain visions of Jesus are the products of hegemony and are therefore not worthy of the esteem of those who suffer under that hegemony. That most people are victims of that hegemony does not speak ill of them, but of the engineers of the hegemony itself.

Now I'm always open for debate about how to interpret Jesus. But that has to be based on actual references to the relevant texts we have that tell us about him (or about how he was idealized, or both). My claims about certain versions of Jesus being the product of hegemony are based on my understanding of the historical Jesus. That understanding can always be challenged, but only with appeal to evidence and by virtue of, you know, some sort of argument (excepting ad hominem arguments against biblical scholars).

If my understanding of the historical Jesus changes, then I may need to revise my statements about which Jesus was or was not a product of hegemony. As it happens, I can say a lot about Francis (awesome as he was, and right as he was on a number of things) and how his Jesus was a product of centuries of hegemonic versions of Jesus. Granted, his Jesus was better than most in his day. But that doesn't make it the historical Jesus.

I'm also not claiming to have unfettered access to the historical Jesus. But, as wonderful as your and my poor and homeless friends are, I know a thing or two more about the historical Jesus than most of them. That's not elitism. That's a reality I try to remedy any chance I get. But there it is.

Of course (and you may not), I work on the assumption that any faith I have in Jesus needs to be in the real Jesus who actually lived and breathed, not the idealized product of any one person or group's imagination.

mariakirby

Your language is one of 'debate' rather than 'discussion'. You are using language of 'put up or shut up' with Paul. I like your passion, I like how you substantiate your arguments, but it seems you are in the mood for a fight. Sometimes that is appropriate, but in this circumstance, it is probably over the top.

thomstark

Maria, thanks for your counsel, but I didn't ask for it, to be frank.

My language with Paul, as it happens, is not "put up or shut up," but rather prove your position with reference to the text, or don't. It's his choice. And he keeps making it. I've given Paul (and will continue to do so) every opportunity to display the correlation between his position and his text.

I'm not asking for a lesson in your manners, but I suppose I appreciate the thought. That's what counts.

markvans

Being in an online format where you are trying to espouse certain ideas doesn't mean that you no longer need to season your words with gentleness. I can't know whether or not your intentions or loving or gentle, but I've repeatedly pushed back on the way in which they certainly come off in a harsh way.

I didn't offer such push-back for my own benefit, but for yours. You didn't ask for it, but too bad. Just as you are free to challenge ideas, I am just as free to challenge one's posturing and tone.

Manners aren't insignificant--especially in a conversation centering around Jesus' nonviolence and love. Perhaps you need to learn more from the sort of understanding of Jesus' love that you seem to be rejecting. Jesus was so much more than a radical...he was compassionate--both to the oppressed and the oppressor. Gentleness, compassion, understanding--these things certainly have a place in this conversation.

Feel free to keep dismissing other's attempts to challenge your tone. In the end, folks will simply dismiss your logic. Folks would rather listen to a loving idiot than a harsh genius.

thomstark

"Feel free to keep dismissing other's attempts to challenge your tone. In the end, folks will simply dismiss your logic. Folks would rather listen to a loving idiot than a harsh genius."

"Genius" has nothing to do with anything, Mark. That's a cheap trick you're trying to pull.

I'll just say this. If people want to use my (alleged) lack of their bourgeois etiquette as an excuse to ignore my argumentation, they can do that. It's not my job to elevate myself to their degree of civility just to try to give them no excuse. In my experience, people willing to make an excuse out of bad manners will make an excuse out of anything. It's their problem, not mine.

As for Jesus' "compassion" and "gentleness," he was compassionate and gentle with some, but harsh and offensive toward others. I wasn't harsh or offensive, until you people started accusing me of that. Now I am, because this is strong-arming, elitist bullshit couched in "concern for people."

I am gentle with those who need gentleness. I am straightforward with those who can handle it. I have no patience for those who should be able to handle frankness but start whining when it rubs them wrong.

markvans

And there it is. You assume that my asking you to tone down is based in my own bourgois rhetoric and that folks like me are whining. That is disrespectful. And I don't get why I (or Maria) aren't worthy of respect.

And you call it all bullshit. Get off your damned high horse. We're on the same fricking side...I have dedicated my life and livelihood to this stuff too, so please show some respect. That isn't some sort of tactic to silence you. Calling people to humility shouldn't be so dang offensive.

markvans

Thom,

I've been able to get some feedback from some wise friends. They agreed that you've been a bit rude. But they also pointed out that I made comments early on that were less than charitable. I probably wasn't giving you the benefit of the doubt like I should have. Later, when I started calling you on your tone (which is still important to me), I got pretty rude again. While I stand by my believe that graciousness and gentleness are important for web discussions, I realize that I've been guilty of falling short. For what its worth, you are still welcome to comment here; if I evict you, I have to evict myself...and we can't have that, can we?

Having said all that, it would mean a lot to me if we could try to start over, to deal with the actual content of what we're saying (like you want), while at the same time, trying to keep with "local customs" of how communication flows. Clearly your threshold for strong debate isn't the same as others, so perhaps you could keep that in mind as discussion continues.

thomstark

I'm replying to your private message. Hold your horses.

thomstark

I'm not here to debate manners or to play games guessing what my interlocutor's "heart" is full of. If that's what you want to turn this into, feel free. It's your blog. It's a bunch of bullshit, but it's your blog. You're not my daddy, and I'm not a member of your intentional community. I have no covenant with you that says I have to abide by your idea of etiquette. I also don't have to waste time defending myself when some people's "sensitivity to the Spirit" or whatever gives them a "check" about my attitude, based on uncharitable and uncareful readings of my language.

If you want to have a discussion about the issues, come over to my blog. If you want to talk about manners, I have no interest.

I'm surprised you've taken this tact, Mark. I expected better from you.

markvans

And I expected you to, when challenged to watch your tone to say "you're right, I should tone it down a bit, thanks."

I don't get your malfunction...everything I've said you've thrown into my face. Etiquette matters because people matter. If I talked to you in your face like you've been communicating here, I'd expect you to rebuke me. But you don't listen to the different rebukes. I'm not going to assume that you're motivation is pride, so don't look into my motives when I say that you are no longer welcome here until you apologize.

mariakirby

Thom,

Please listen to yourself: "Maria, thanks for your counsel, but I didn't ask for it, to be frank." Is that statement one of gratitude? You have been counseling us about coercion. No one asked for your comments either, but you gave them.

I think Mark had a good point about the tone that you are using. You didn't seem to get it, so I was trying to point out some specific examples to help you understand. You are not going to convince anyone through the rightness/provability of your arguments. The Spirit will convince others of the truth that you present through the love that you show.

Offering a cup of water with a bad attitude isn't very kind. Done without love, any action or argument no matter how noble or true is like a clanging gong and a clashing cymbal. Love triumphs over everything. I think that is what Paul is trying to communicate wrt the cross. If we took the actions of Jesus out of the context of his love for those he interacted with we might see those actions in a different light.

A parent who spanks their child may do so out of love or self interest. Those who love their child will be more effective with discipline than a parent who does not love but uses the same means, or non-corporal means of punishment.

I am not questioning your manners but your attitude, and that's what counts.

thomstark

Maria, there's a big difference between my critique of Paul's biblical interpretation and your attempt at a critique of my attitude. You don't know me, and you haven't earned the right to question my motives and attitudes. Very presumptuous of you.

I don't subscribe to your understanding of "love." so your attempts to hold me to your own unstated assumptions are ill-fated, I'm afraid.

mariakirby

What is my understanding of love? What unstated assumptions am I holding you to?

I have been listening to you. You have been using insulting language such as 'displays your ignorance', superlatives such as 'nobody', and 'any other reading ', and you make supposition that the only relevant discussion is one based on historiography with biblical scholars as its basis. While I think it is important to understand the historical Jesus, and I value the information we get from biblical scholars, to limit our discussion to that arena gives us blinders. Who knows but that those poor duped people you pity might have a thing or two to teach you about the scriptures?

I am not making presumptions of you past what you have revealed. Your words display your attitude. I have the right to question inappropriate behavior no matter when it is displayed or how long I have known the offending person.

mariakirby

I guess I didn't need to say anything more you guys figured it out on your own.

mariakirby

Am I really being judgmental to ask you to not be so argumentative? Am I judging your motives and attitudes to say that caustic language is not helping you convince anyone? I thought we were talking about questions of faith which by their definition are not provable in the strictly rigorous way that you are talking about. The only standard I am applying to you is that I would have difficulty having a congenial conversation with someone who used the vocabulary and tone of voice with which you have been using. I don't appreciate the way you are talking to Paul, or myself. It feels very demeaning. It feels as if you think you have some superior knowledge/argument that I should concede to because of your educational background or logical defenses. Your questions feel like they are designed to discover weaknesses that you can attack with your arguments. I really don't like conversations where I am feeling on the defense.

I don't believe that a theological discussion needs to be so intense. I think we can convey our ideas in ways where both parties are comfortable. The truth doesn't depend on us, but God.

I am trying to give you some information about how to relate to myself and possibly others. You do not have to behave to the standard of kindness that I am suggesting. You are right that I am judging your speech. You are right that I don't know if you would behave the same way in person.

I am asking you, please, to change the way you are presenting your ideas here on JM because I find your tone condescending and offensive. It could be that I am being too sensitive, but since it was already mentioned by Mark, I thought I would re-enforce the request and tried to give you some clarity as to what was being offensive.

thomstark

Right, Maria. So I'm not allowed to say that Paul's reading is wrong, based on my exegetical argumentation, but Paul is allowed to dismiss my reading out of hand, based on his prior theological commitments.

I never called Paul an ignorant person (which would be offensive) but said that he was ignorant OF something, which should not be offensive. I used superlatives because I can and will back them up with argumentation.

There's a place for theological imagination, but Paul was grounding his theology in "the way of Jesus," and I was merely pointing out that "the way of Jesus," the Jesus of history, is not what Paul claims it is. If he wants to talk about "the way of the idealized Jesus of his theological imagination," that's all very well and good. But if he wants to ground his praxis in who Jesus really was, he's going to have to have a historiographical conversation. There's no way around that.

I'm happy for "poor duped people" to teach me a thing or two about the scriptures. There voices actually constitute my primary hermeneutical lens. But they don't all agree with each other, and I side with those who happen to have a historical basis for their reading.

As for whether or not you have earned the right to judge my motives and attitude, I'll determine that. Not you. I'm not making assumptions about your motivations. In fact, I have given you the benefit of the doubt that you're well meaning. But your reading of my language is off-base, and you haven't earned the right to get a defense from me. You don't know the first thing about me, and yet you presume to apply your standards to me. No wonder so many non-Christians hate talking to Christians.

markvans

There is something to what you're saying...but it seems like you're potentially straining out gnats. One could also make the comparison between American CPTers and Paul using his Roman citizenship, though that comparison breaks down after a while.

I believe as CPTers grow in international diversity, this issue will become less significant. But in the meantime, I am glad to use my American status to get in the way if it saves lives. While some folks may target CPT folks because they are American, that isn't universally the case. Any American involved in peacework in the Middle East is susceptible to this reality and I'm not sure there is any feasible alternative.

paul munn

Yeah, though Paul seems to have been just trying to save himself by using his citizenship (which I kinda think was a mistake, comparing his arrest and trial to Jesus'). It is very similar. But I'm saying that I don't see Jesus using tactics like that.

If the CPTers were locals, they wouldn't have either the power of US citizenship or be targets to those who want to use it as a bargaining chip. I know CPT is trying to gather and train local peacemakers. But they wouldn't have the same political influence then, so I wonder if they could be as effective (as protectors, for example).

I think this is important (and not just gnats) because the use of human power is diametrically opposed to Jesus way and purpose. We see him intentionally avoiding the usual power tactics and using only God's power (miraculous healing, speaking truth, trusting in divine provision and protection, selfless suffering, and most of all: resurrection). All of those point to and glorify God. The use of human power, the power of nations and media, glorifies politics and wealth. Ultimately it glorifies us, the People.

thomstark

Oops. I meant to hit reply, but instead I clicked that I "like" this. Well, I don't, obviously. In fact, I hit reply to say this: That's it. It's settled. I'm writing my thesis on Jesus' use of coercion and political power plays in his public engagements with his political opponents.

markvans

As with most things you say, Paul, I can go about 85% of the way and then I stop and say...that goes further than I believe Jesus is calling me to go. There are, it seems, a few key assumptions that we differ on (including the nature of Christian community and the legitimacy of certain kinds of tactics). But I'm glad you are around to non-coerce my thinking. :)

paul munn

85%, eh? I think we're making progress...

markvans

Hey folks, here's the results on our recent poll on Christianity and war:

of 172 responses...

4 think that it is ok to participate in armed conflict if it serves the interests of their nation.

16 think it is ok only if it meets just war criteria.

8 think it might be ok if it is in defense of one's homeland.

17 don't know.

20 think it is only ok if it is against profound evil.

29 say it is never ok to take up the sword.

69 say that not only should we refuse the way of violence, but we should nonviolently resist war and conflict

6 people wrote in that it is ok to participate in conflict as a non-combatant who serves teh spiritual and physical needs of those in arms.

3 said that Christians should institage wars. I assume that these 3 are joking...good one, you tricksters, you!

dustin

I'm genuinely asking this question so don't freak out please...

How do you marry the old testament and new testament in the context of war? In the old testament God led the children of Israel into war and commanded them to kill. If God is the same yesterday today and forever how do you justify not being able to defend this country? I'm not talking about the war in Iraq, but in general. Yes, Jesus preached peace, but there was a lot of war in the old testament by God leading the way.

Part two of the question...
If someone broke into your house and started raping your daughter and wife you wouldn't fight at all? what would you do? You wouldn't defend them at all? I believe that there is a difference between being passive where we love our enemies, but does that mean you don't defend your family or anything? I mean what about being led by the spirit? What about it being a case by case basis?

On a side note...

I am active duty in the Coast Guard (part of the military) I am proud to serve this country. I do not kill people and do not go to war. It is easy to think that I would know what I would do if I had to, but I can't. I would like to think that I could look an enemy in the face and love them by praying for them or something radical, but unless put in the situation I don't know what I would do.

Anyway, thanks for listening/reading.

I really am curious about these things, so if someone wants to tell me their thoughts I would appreciate it. You can email me at dustin@endurelife.com

thanks,
dustin
www.endurelife.com

Jim

This is my first comment on this site, so I hope it goes through and all can read it. Let me first say that I am loving the philosophy that Jesus Manifesto is preaching. Having said that, I'm glad you're here, Dustin, because I've been wondering if I am indeed the "odd man out." I am currently a soldier on active duty in Iraq.

I do not consider myself a pacifist because I do believe that there are times when violence is necessary and just. Peter the Apostle carried a sword. Not only was he "packin' heat," but he assaulted a police officer during the arrest of Jesus. Now, it is true that Jesus rebuked Peter for his actions during the police raid. However, I do recall a speech Jesus made later when he said that hard times were coming and he said that they should all have a sword. He even said that he who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy a sword. I can't recall where it is chapter and verse, but it is there.

I believe that a father is duty bound to protect his family. I certainly do not want to harm or kill anyone, but I am not ashamed to say that I would use violence if it was necessary for the safetly of my loved ones. Understand that I am speaking of using violence only in defense and only as a last resort.

As far as being a soldier is concerned, I am contractually bound to fulfill my term of service to the Army. John the Baptist preached to soldiers to be content with their wages. He did not tell them to go AWOL or throw down their weopons or anything like that.

I want to finish by saying that I am not trying to start any kind of debate. To the pacifists here, you are my brothers and sisters, and I love you. Continue to serve our King as you feel led. But I do think that it is an error to believe that pacifism is the ONLY way for Christians.

Joel

As far as the OT portion of your question, here is my response. In the old testament, God commanded Israel (the nation of people descended from Abraham who He had made an agreement with) to fight for the land that He had promised them. Typically, most if not all of the wars that God sanctioned in the OT were to build or defend the promised land. America ain't the promised land and we (Americans) ain't a special people set aside for God. I know that ole George W likes to think that God told him that He wanted him to attack Iraq, but I think George is a lying nutcase.

For the second part of your question I would simply like to say that if someone were to attack a member of my family, it would be possible that I could (as the CPTers like to say) "get in the way". People always assume that violence has to be answered with violence. But I don't have to harm the attacker. I could just get in the way in my attempt to stop him. I could continue to get in the way until I am either unconscious or dead. If the attacker is willing to kill me when I try to stop him non-violently, he was probably going to kill me if I attacked him in a violent way also.

Of course, none of us really knows what we would do until we are really placed in that sort of situation.

hewhocutsdown

On the OT question:

Greg Boyd is doing an interesting voyage through the questions and issues of that on his blog here:

http://gregboyd.blogspot.com/

The second question is one Mark and I were debating as new fathers each of us. I'm not 100% sure what I would do. I lean towards this, but I probably would not be above using violence and attempting to be non-lethal I think.

http://salsa.net/peace/conv/8weekconv7-4.html
(I totally swiped this link from TimN below)

Thanks for writing, peace.

JoelB

I think the point here is an excellent one, although iterated a tad bit better by Flight of the Conchords.

"If every soldier in the world put down his weapon and picked up a woman
what a peaceful world this world would be"

TimN

I know that lyric supposed to be a joke, but I have a hard time laughing at it given the way it just turns women into another object to be picked up and put down. It's also a questionable tactic given the long history of rape as a weapon of war. Soldiers have rarely bothered to put down their guns when "picking up" women.

In terms of statements by musicians on pacifism my favorite is this dialogue by Joan Baez, What Would You Do If? in which she responds to the classic "What would you do if someone were, say, attacking your grandmother?" question.

Baez manages to make the discussion both a hilarious and highly articulate case for nonviolence. Highlights from the piece:

Fred: You haven't answered my question. You're just trying to get out of it...
Joan: - I'm really trying to say a couple of things. One is that no one knows what they'll do in a moment of crisis and hypothetical questions get hypothetical answers. I'm also hinting that you've made it impossible for me to come out of the situation without having killed one or more people. Then you say, 'Pacifism is a nice idea, but it won't work'. But that's not what bothers me.
Fred: What bothers you?
Joan: Well, you might not like it because it's not hypothetical.
It's real. And it makes the assault on Grandma look like a garden party.
Fred: What's that?
Joan: I'm thinking about how we put people through a training process so they'll find out the really good, efficient ways of killing. Nothing incidental like trucks and landslides. Just the opposite, really. You know, how to growl and yell, kill and crawl and jump out of airplanes. Real organized stuff. Hell, you have to be able to run a bayonet through Grandma's middle.

DC

If the men with the guns are the only thing granting your freedom, the wolf is not at the door - it's inside the house.

You hit the nail on the head - we are born free. There are places in the world that are more hostile than others to the expression of your freedom, but that's just the local weather.

Good for you on your CPT decision...I wish I had the courage.

Flum

Very interesting post. I'm stuggling at the moment with my whole political outlook (I was raised in a conservative 'yellowdog' Republican household). Although I am not quite ready to join the pacifist team, you offer a very compelling argument. Do you have any suggestions on what I can read that will offer a Biblical exposition on pacifism? A systematic theology of pacifism so to speak?

JoelB

And if you haven't the time to work through Yoder's brilliant work, try _Jesus for President_. Both texts are incredibly insightful, drawing on a political Jesus who, yes, could be considered a pacifist, but moreover is presented as apartisin--a Christ, and a Christianity, who isn't compelled by the spectacle, but in spite of it.

As well, Agamben's _Coming Community_ , I believe, would accompany these texts quite well.

Best

hewhocutsdown

Jesus for President is an awesome, easy read read that convicts and inspires. Cannot recommend it highly enough.

hewhocutsdown

The Politics Of Jesus by John Howard Yoder is a good start, although it's fairly academic.

Brian in Aus

Well done Mark and timely. I have traveled a similar road to you I suspect. From gunsmith to ministry via East Timor and Zimbabwe. Openness to the spirit and the journey is such a rush. Hope the birth went well and that your amazement lingers.
Grace and Peace

Kevin

Mark,

Thanks for the excellent post. I am struck by how relevant Sider's comments are now 24 years later.

A friend of mine is interested in serving with CPT. I will point him toward your blog..

Nathan

I'm not overly familiar with CPT's, but I know this is a pretty common reaction. I think their high profile campaign at the start of the Iraq War may have been detrimental to their reputation since it seemed that they were defending a ruthless tyrant from attack. Their mission was presented to the world in a ways that were contradictory to their true intent. As much as I hate to say it, I think they may need to get a bit more media savvy, particularly if they are going to engage in public campaigns.

joet

Hey Mark,
I am challenged and onvicted by what you shared. I think this is the time. Time to wage peace. It is an exciting time to be alive. Maybe you can do something for me?

CPT is so scrutinized in the circles I live in. They are seen as trouble makers and sometimes as a hinderance to peace (by others definition). I would love to hear what your experience will be like. Sometimes it is hard to get a balanced view of what is going on. Thanks brother

TimN

Hi Joet,

I've been a Christian Peacemaker Teams reservist since 2003 and this month I started work as Outreach Coordinator for CPT, so I'm particularly interested to hear more about why CPT are seen as troublemakers in the circles you live in. CPT's certainly been the target of plenty of criticism over the years. What are the arguments that you've heard?

If you're interested in reading some stories from my work with CPT, my user name above is linked to the CPT category of my blog.

joet

Hey Tim, we may know each other around the blogosphere way. some of the criticism i hear mainly has to do with cpt's work in palestine. people have been not too specific but they say your presence sort of exasperates the problems over there. now,granted, the few voices i heard that said that have been zionists or have those leanings. but there concern is that it is not as much bringing peace as it is pushing some anti-israeli agenda. i try to take it with a grain of salt until i can learn more about it. i hope you have some good insight. you have probably heard this before. thanks tim.

TimN

Oh, hey Joe, yes I do know you from YAR.

CPT's work in Israel/Palestine has always drawn the most criticism. The most useful way of thinking about it that I've come across was a metaphor from Rich Meyer, who worked for 10 years as the support coordinator for the Hebron (and later the At-Tuwani) project.

Rather then dividing the political landscape in the Middle East into pro-Israel and anti-Israel camps, he described the division as pro-violence and anti-violence. There are both Israelis and Palestinians who seek to keep the conflict going for their own interests. There are also people on both sides who are working for a lasting peace and justice. CPT seeks to work with the second group of people. On the Israeli side this includes groups like Rabbis for Human Rights and Israeli Coalition Against Home demolition. On the Palestinian side it is shepherds in At-Tuwani who have refused to respond to settler violence in kind among many others.

I went on a CPT delegation to Hebron project in 2003 and as I recall we spent about as much time visiting peace groups in and around Jerusalem as we did in Bethlehem and Hebron. One of the highlights was talking with Rabbi Arik Ascherman, with Rabbis for Human Rights.. Rabbi Ascherman, who describes himself as a Zionist has worked tirelessly to "[give] voice to the Jewish tradition of human rights in the context of Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories." On the airplane to Tel Aviv I saw photos of him on the roof of a Palestinian home trying to prevent it's demolition. You can read more about the amazing work of his organization here:

http://rhr.israel.net/

One of the interesting points the site makes it that it is the only Israeli rabbinical organization that brings together rabbis and students from the Reform, Orthodox, Conservative, Reconstructionist and Renewal traditions.

This is just one example of an organization that CPT who defies the stereotypes in the conflict. For more I recommend the Palestine project page on the CPT website:

http://www.cpt.org/work/palestine

joe_turner

As someone who has been there and seen what is happening, I think it is worth thinking through a bit of the reality on the ground and some of the history.

Hebron (where CPT work) is a bustling and busy Palestinian town within the main Palestinian area of the West Bank and is well within the green line (the defacto peace line dating from the 1967 conflict). At its center is a religious area which is holy to both Jews and Muslims going back many centuries.

This area had Jewish and Palestinian families resident for generations as neighbours - until the 1929 massacre when many Jews were slaughtered by Arab militia, even as some Palestinian families attempted to save their neighbours.

After the creation of Israel, the settlement movement was not content with the peace agreement and aimed to continue colonising in the Palestinian areas, which is totally illegal under international law. One particular focus was the Abraham Synagogue in Hebron, which some saw as more important than Jerusalem, and one of the most fundamentalist groups of settlers moved on-mass into a small area of the town. The effect on the surrounding population is considerable, as this group has its own road system and a large military security force - unfortunately not enough to prevent a reciprocal atrocity at the nearby Ibrahim Mosque in 1994.

Today the settlers literally live on top of the Palestinian homes, separated by a thin roll of barbed wire and a mountain of hatred. Moving around is extremely difficult for the 30,000 Palestinians (though not for the 800 settlers with their own private roads and soldiers).

There have been many reports of military brutality - most recently from a group called Breaking the Silence, a group of ex-soldiers. CPT acts as a human buffer between children going to school and soldiers who have been known to shoot them. Bringing peace by getting in the way.

Given that few people complained when a few fundamentalist terrorists decided to make a 2000 year old claim on land that wasn't theirs (I'm not even sure of who would own my country if 2000 year old claims were upheld) and even fewer seem to be particularly bothered about the day-to-day lives of Palestinian families, I'd say there is no justification for claiming that CPT 'exacerbates the situation'.

markvans

I have friends that think CPT sucks too. They assume they are anti-American hippies that are stirring up trouble. Let's face it though...in our country, how else would someone who embraces conservative politics view a group of people who go into conflict zones to wage peace? After all, in many of the situations CPT finds itself in, the US and its Western Allies are either supporting or benefiting the violence.

I've sent a link to this article to a couple people in CPT. Hopefully they'll be able to address your comment, joet (not to be confused with the OTHER joet).

joet

Ok I need to change my login name.

T'other joet - I've seen CPT at work in Hebron and heard from the men taken captive in Iraq. If anyone says that CPT sucks, then they've clearly no idea what they're chuntering about.

joet

let me know if you change yours. otherwise i have no problem changing.

Jablue

very interesting. It seems like such an understood and simple truth that we cannot have freedom without war. But what a huge false dilemma- forced to choose between freedom and peace. We need to take a step back and see the absurdity of this restricting choice. Have your cake of peace and freedom and eat it too!

Luke

My answer to the question of whether my freedom to be a pacifist is dependent on the willingness of previous and present generations to go to war is that it is a logical fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc or, "after the fact, therefore because of the fact." The fallacy looks like this: 1. There was a war in the past, 2. we experience some freedom today, therefore 3. we experience freedom because of the war.

It might be identical to this fallacious argument. 1. There have been pacifists in American history. 2. we experience some freedom today, therefore 3. we experience freedom because of the pacifists.

I like that argument better and I've used it to counter the previous argument, but in reality it's still not any sounder.

Or how about this one. 1. I drank a Newcastle Ale last night. 2 we experience some freedom today, therefore 3. we experience freedom because of my drinking.

I like that argument a lot too, but it's just plain lame.

Freedom is a gift of God. If we enjoy it, then the proper response for Christians is not ancestor worship, but to serve the God that grants it by doing the works that His Son has called us to do.

Good luck with your work Mark.

mountainguy

I've read about CPT working in southern Bolivar, here in Colombia. If you ever come here, please write me at facebook, or mail, or anything (you must be in Bogotá before going anywhere in COlombia).

Blessings, and congrats for this post

markvans

That'd be awesome...I'm actually leaning towards Columbia. :)

Joel

That is a brave thing, Mark. Especially with your newborn child at home. How is your wife taking your decision ? If I'm getting too personal, just tell me to shutup.

I have been considering doing something like this. After my years in the military, I feel a need to do something to actively promote peace. My wife would have a hard time with it though. She thinks I'm some possession of hers to be put away in a drawer for safe keeping. She is very much in favor of peace in words, but not so much in deeds. God bless on your decision.

markvans

Well. to be fair, there haven't been very many CPT deaths. It is certainly dangerous, but certainly not as dangerous as it might sound.

Amy was in on the decision. In fact, we even discussed her serving as well...though that could be difficult with her work schedule. She is of course a little nervous. But she is more worried about my absence for 2 weeks each year, since I already travel a bit for speaking and things. We both feel like it isn't out of hand, but we're cautious not to over-extend ourselves. I'm trying to find ways of bringing Amy and Jonas with more in my regular travels so that the times I travel alone don't become excessive.

Currently, I'm leaning heavily towards doing my delegation and subsequent service as a reservist in Columbia (though that is somewhat dependent upon timing and cost). Amy is excited about that possibility, since she is fluent in Spanish and wants me to expand my Spanish-speaking abilities. In the long run, we feel like it would be very helpful to be able to connect with the growing Latin American population in Minneapolis. And personally, I believe that if we in the US are going to learn to submit (in the sense of being called to mutual submission) to Latin American brothers and sisters, more folks need to learn the language and be prepared to learn what Latinos have to teach.

Maria Kirby

My initial impression was great! A pacifist is putting his money where is his mouth is, so to speak. I'm all in favor of walking out what we preach.

But my maternal instinct cringed. Your timing is not so great for the family. I'm glad to hear Amy is excited about the possibility and wants to be involved too. I'm also encouraged to hear that she has a job. Even though Columbia is not as dangerous as some other regions, you might want to get some life insurance. If for some reason you were not able to come back after two weeks, some extra cash would help her make the transition a little easier.

I'm also glad to hear that you're thinking about how to minimize family seperateness. When my husband had to work lots of extra hours such that my little boys didn't get to see their Dad that much, they started playing more games where they were defending/fighting off danger. During that time it was much more difficult to keep their games from deteriorating to fighting with each other. Instead of playing a defense against an outside enemy, each other became the enemy. So some times keeping the peace is staying home.

The tragedy of many immigrants is that they are so busy trying to provide for their families the things they were not able to have in their home country, that they lose the valuable family connectedness and time together they had in their previous situation. I think the children suffer more from lack of parental presence than just about any other material item. I don't have any hard data, and of course each person makes their own choices, but I think it is much more likely that children will make poor relational choices when they don't have very much parental involvement. Living a life of balance is a very good witness and not so easy to do.

mountainguy

Just a question: when you say "Columbia", do you mean British Columbia, or Colombia (Southamerica)?

markvans

Doh! I am such an idiot. Of course, I meant Colombia. Sorry for my spelling error.

Joel

Well, thats wonderful that Amy is so supportive. I may bring up the subject with my wife when she returns from her trip overseas to visit her family. I'm gonna need some prayers said though because she isn't typically supportive of things like this.

Cam

Pacifism is such a big issue, so it'll be a while before I've come to terms with it.
I heartily concur with the point you make about 'kingdom patriotism': it struck me that in 1 Cor 10:32, Paul differentiates between Jews, Greeks (ie: non-Jews) and Christians. We are indeed a peculiar people, a third race, part of embodying a distinct (and often) rival theo-poetic/theo-political reality.
But to suggest "The only ones who sacrificed for my freedom are Jesus and the martyrs" concerns me. Doesn't that leave open the possibility of the kind of bigotry we are meant to be beyond, a kind of third-racism? I remember similar arguments during my fundamentalist schooling: art by non-Christians doesn't really glorify God and atheistic scientists don't really discover truth.
Is there a way in which we can elevate Christianity without diminishing the rest of humanity? If there is, surely not just all those whose vocation is beauty or truth, but also all those whose vocation is justice or peace might be vindicated - Jew, Greek or Christian?

markvans

I think you take my statement further than intended. Let me put it this way: American solidiers have died for my freedom as much as they have died for the freedom of New Zealanders. I don't invalidate their sacrifice for America. I believe that the freedom I have was purchased by Christ...I don't believe this is a bigoted statement. This isn't like saying: the good deeds of non-Christians aren't glorifying. It isn't like saying art from non-Christians isn't glorifying. It IS to say that when America goes oversees to kill other people to secure American interests, that ISN'T God glorifying. It is America glorifying. And it secures freedom in the Democratic sense, but not the Christian sense.

hewhocutsdown

Very first thing in college here in the states, we studied a paper that presumed that the 2 conditions for a free society are 1) the bill of rights and 2) a liberal education.

Thank you, but freedom requires neither. It makes freedom easier to enact, but one has to make the personal choice to live free, irregardless of the environment one finds themselves in.

Darren

Mark,

That is excellent! May God bless you in this. If you're interested, Glen Stassen edited a book called Just Peacemaking: Ten Practices for Abolishing War, it's got me interested in pursuing vocational ways to peace

joet

Fantastic. I've seen CPTs on the streets of Hebron, Palestine. A great response.

By the way, Banksy, whose graffiti you show above, recently painted a lot more on the Wall there. Which is also an interesting response. We need more people who will dance in the face of oppression and draw on the walls that divide people.

Onward, Christian Soldiers

About Mark Van Steenwyk

Submissions

Advertise with Jesus Manifesto?

JM on Facebook

Recent Comments

Link Love!

Radical Readings (Free)

Most Commented

Kindred Websites