How a Pacifist Can Celebrate Memorial Day | Guest Post by Carrie Dedrick

Let’s get something out in the open: I’m a pacifist.

I’m a member of the Church of the Brethren, a denomination established over 300 years ago that believes in pacifism, simple living and fellowship. Our sister denominations, the other “peace churches” are Mennonite and Quaker.

I also love my country.

I’m the daughter of an Air Force veteran, and my cousin just finished his active duty. My parents fly a flag at their house and the 4th of July is one of my favorite holidays; I’m the all-American girl.

It’s conflicting.

That’s not entirely true. Most of the time, the love of my country does not conflict with my faith at all. I am a writer by profession, and write news pieces that cover persecution and violation of human rights every day.

I often give thanks that I live in a country where I am free to express my faith and dress how I like without fearing harassment or abuse and pray for those who suffer at the hands of their governments. My writing keeps me aware of the dire situations that people live in all over the globe.

But then Memorial Day comes along.

It’s confusing.

While I am a proud American and deeply appreciate those who serve our country to protect the freedoms we enjoy, I don’t believe in violence at all.

Killing another person seems unnatural, something that no one should ever be able to go through with. It doesn’t make sense that killing people, often known as “peacekeeping forces” will cease violence as many presidents have claimed. How could that work?

When one person kills another, the other side retaliates. That retaliation will lead to another attack. It never happens that after two sides kill, the violence stops. Both sides want to have the last word, so to speak. The murders does not stop until someone waves the white flag in surrender.

Why not wave that white flag at the first sign of violence? But that flag should represent peace, not surrender.

Matthew 5:44 tells us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us.

Love?

Yes, love.

What would happen if warring parties ceased fire for a moment to consider their similarities? God made us all different; we are certainly allowed to have different viewpoints and ideas. But what about our human needs for food and water, and a desire to be loved and cared for? To the the similarities, one must look beyond the surface.

There are ways to come to an agreement without fighting. That’s why we were given mouths to speak. Our words can speak the universal language of love and friendship, if we are only willing to use them.

Though it will go against our sinful natures to let an act of hate go unchallenged, that is what our Lord asks of us. Actually, it says in Matthew 5:41-42 to go even beyond acceptance, and offer the person who offends an act of kindness in response. “If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go two.”

God is telling us to lead our lives in that way. We should strive to walk a separate path than the rest of the world. The path of hatred and anger is the one of least resistance, but do not fall victim to the ease of that path. It is much more difficult to treat others with different opinions with kindness and acceptance, the path we are called to take.

Do not forget that God made those people, just as he made you.

With those feelings of being called to live differently, Memorial Day is difficult.

As I mentioned earlier, I am grateful that the United States has thousands of people who are willing to sacrifice so much to serve. Military men and women can be away from their families for months; they miss seeing milestones like birthdays or a child’s first steps. And they give all this up for me. For you. For the safety and freedom of complete strangers.

But I cannot shake the feeling that there is a better way.

1 Peter 3:11 says, “He [man] must turn from evil and do good; he must seek peace and pursue it.”

I wish our military could use that scripture to inspire a different method for keeping our freedom. Peace will not come from force.

On Memorial Day, I will thank God for our troops, especially the men and women who have laid down their lives for our nation. We have the freedom to say what we want to say and follow any religion we choose; those military members believed in those rights so strongly, they put their lives on the line and ultimately died to protect them.

But then, I will pray for peace. I will pray for the Lord to shed light upon our dark world.

There are so many stories of people who are suffering at the hands of those who do not know the enduring love of God. I will pray for the victims, but I will also pray for the people who are viewed as monsters in society...the captors of the Nigerian schoolgirls, the Boko Haram, the prison guards who abused American pastor Saeed Abedini, the Sudanese officials who are forcing Meriam Ibrahim to renounce her faith or die, and so many more.

I pray that God will reveal himself to those troubled souls, so they might accept his invitation of love and forgiveness.

This Memorial Day, I implore you to live by the second commandment. “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Take a moment to pray for someone aside from friends and family and say a heartfelt prayer for someone who has offended you.

For Jesus made himself clear speaking to his disciples in Matthew 25:40: I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.

Violence will not cease if we do nothing at all. But peace can prevail with the love of God in our hearts and Jesus as our example.

I wish you all a safe and happy Memorial Day.


Carrie Dedrick is a graduate of Bridgewater College, holding degrees in English and Communication Studies. She currently writes for ChristianHeadlines.com. When Carrie is not writing she enjoys running, biking, and cuddling with her two adopted pomeranians. 

Book Review: "David's Truth in Israel's Imagination & Memory" by Walter Brueggemann

Brueggemann, Walter. David's Truth in Israel's Imagination & Memory. Grand Rapids: Fortress Press, 1985. pp.9-128. ISBN 0-8006-1865-3. ★★★★★

In David’s Truth, Walter Brueggemann tells us up front that he is not concerned with reconstructing the historical David, but rather engages in an exposition of the received David, the David of the biblical narrative: “I do not inquire about facticity, not what happened, but what is claimed, what is asserted here about reality.” (p.14) This distinction runs through most of his work, and is one of the reasons I am so fond of Brueggemann. A reconstruction of Israel’s history is doomed to be inconclusive, as there is so little off of which to make conclusions. Brueggemann sets aside such concerns and moves into how to understand the narrative, in this case how to understand David in the narrative. In doing so, he goes over four different portrayals of the “truth” of David in the biblical narrative: “the trustful truth of the tribe,” “the painful truth of the man,” “the sure truth of the state,” and “the hopeful truth of the assembly.”

When David enters the biblical narrative, he is described with an innocent and uncritical faith in his future. This is the trustful truth of the tribe. It is a celebration of David as the pious chosen one, over against the wicked and rejected Saul. Brueggemann says this trust is naïve in its positivism, but necessary in its hope, as “it tells, generation after generation, that the marginal ones can become the legitimate holders of power. . . . David is a model for the last becoming first.” (p.23)

As we get deeper into the story, we encounter a different voice, one of the painful truth of the man, which is not as unsuspecting as that of the tribe. This perspective pays acute attention to the humanness of David, in his experience of pain, as well as his iniquity. It is an honest portrayal of David the man and his inner experience, one in which death is his constant company, either with David as the sufferer or as the agent.

With literature of kingship, it is never surprising to find political propaganda, which the Davidic narrative suspiciously resembles at times. Brueggemann calls it the sure truth of the state. Whereas the tribe is uncritical because of a naïve hope directed toward David, the state is uncritical because of self-confidence and self-service. These portions of the story were “carefully handled and shaped and managed to serve political interests.” (p.70) This is where we find the Lord declaring over David, “Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever” (2 Sam. 7:16). Brueggemann describes it well: “There is, so it is claimed, no circumstance that will cause Yahweh to pull away from David and David’s family . . . [and] there is no way David will permit Yahweh to renege or escape [the promise].” (pp.77, 81)

Yahweh’s promise of “foreverness” over the Davidic dynasty is transformed in the hopeful truth of the assembly. Here, Brueggemann says, an exilic community takes the narrative of David and transforms it into a messianic hope: “this David is an imagined David who is a project of God’s will for the future.” (p.89) Like that of the tribe, this is a thoroughly positive portrayal of David, but it is not uncritical and naïve. Here, David is reimagined to represent “the whole people of Israel who now share in the promise.” (p.96)

Brueggemann’s treatment of the narrative of David is at different points insightful, powerful, challenging, and entertaining. He is a fantastic storyteller. In his storytelling, he makes the author of the narrative a character in the story, even if it sometimes becomes a Brueggemannian construct which lacks (perhaps on purpose) a revealed connection to authorial intent—but that’s one of the things that makes Brueggemann’s postmodern reading of texts so interesting.

Another strong facet of Brueggemann’s postmodern reading is his keen awareness of theological/ideological diversity in Hebrew Bible texts, the lack of which, he says, “tends to turn the Bible into a closed, ideological statement.” (p.98) His categories for understanding the narrative of David are quite helpful, and it is no surprise to me that this work is widely acclaimed.

In his introduction, Brueggemann says, “We may look for ‘the truth’ and find only David. Or we may seek for David and be surprised at meeting the truth.” (p.16) It is a profound statement which rings true. Trusting, innocent readers may search the Davidic narrative in the hopes of hearing from God, and be caught off guard by the humanness of the man and of the narrative. On the other hand, jaded, cynical readers may search it expecting to find humanness, and find amidst it the Word of God. Likewise, I think we may read Brueggemann’s book looking for truth and find only Brueggemann, or we may read it expecting Brueggemann but finding the truth.

Purchase "David's Truth in Israel's Imagination & Memory" on Amazon (here)

Book Review: "Holy War in the Bible," Edited by Heath Thomas, Jeremy Evans and Paul Copan

Thomas, Heath A., Jeremy Evans and Paul Copan. Holy War in the Bible: Christian Morality and an Old Testament Problem. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2013. pp.9-352. ISBN 978-0-8308-3995-7. ★★★★★

There are 13 contributions in this collection of essays on divine war in the Old Testament, providing a solid, comprehensive treatment of this difficult and important topic. While I could write a review of all 13 contributions individually, such a task would not only be incredibly time-consuming, but perhaps also completely uninteresting to you. Thus, I am forced to summarize each contribution and respond briefly.

Douglas Earl's first contribution, "Joshua and the Crusades," suggests that the book of Joshua has not been used in church history as a proof text for crusading, despite the claims of those like Roland Bainton.(1) He goes through a host of pro-crusade literature, showing that the book of Joshua is almost never used as support for the crusades, while other ancient Hebrew texts are. He says this is due in large part to the popular allegorical reading of the war passages presented by Origen.(2) While this is interesting, one wonders what exactly it contributes to the discussion. After all, while Joshua wasn't really used to support the crusades, Earl did find use of passages from Exodus, Deuteronomy, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Habakkuk, and Haggai in support of crusading.(3) Given this, I can't help but ask, "So what?" Furthermore, that Joshua wasn't used to support crusades doesn't make any less horrendous the war activity in the book of Joshua.

Stephen Chapman's chapter, "Martial Memory, Peaceable Vision," is helpful and well-informed. He makes a good case for the rejection of the term "holy war" to describe the OT's war narratives, opting instead to use terms like "divine war" or "Yahweh war" (most of the contributors to the collection express agreement). About the war material itself, he emphasizes that the wars were not enacted "out of vengeance, rage or ethnic hated but self-protection."(4) While he recognizes that this take away all the horror, it does show that the purpose of the war material was not "to glorify vengeful slaughter . . . but to confess God as the sole source of Israel's deliverance."(5) Furthermore, he says that the OT does not suggest war is ever holy, but only that God "is willing to participate in what is profane and wicked in order to bring about what is good." War, he says, "is always evil."(6) Ultimately, the Bible moves toward peace and a rejection of war, and so Christians should do the same. While Chapman's treatment of the topic is helpful, he doesn't quite solve the theological problem at hand. He seems to imply that God sometimes wills evil. A good and holy God cannot will evil, even if it is supposedly for the purpose of a greater good.

Heath Thomas approaches the topic differently in his contribution, "A Neglected Witness to 'Holy War' in the Writings." Essentially, he says that we have in Lamentations an example of the people of God contending God's warrior activity, providing us with a model for a faith that wrestles with God, a faith that refuses to positivistically accept divine violence, but autonomously questions and challenges God, though not without reverence and a commitment to return to trust and praise. While I applaud Thomas' comments on lament, I don't think what we have in Lamentations can be properly described as wrestling with the warrior activity of God. He says Lamentation provides "a radically different response to the issue of YHWH war as one finds, say, in Deuteronomy or Joshua."(7) Well, sure, but this is because war in Lamentations is against Israel and not her enemies. It is easy to be anti-war and upset by God's actions when the war God wages is against your own people! Had God been fighting for Israel, I highly doubt the author of Lamentations would have been so negative.

While Timothy Gombis, in his contribution "The Rhetoric of Divine Warfare in Ephesians," does not contribute much to a response of the theological problem of divine war in the Bible, he nevertheless provides a fantastic study of warfare in Ephesians. He highlights the counter-imperial, subversive nature of Paul's teaching, which describes a war that is fought through self-sacrifice and becoming a justice-seeking community. He says, "The church's warfare involves resisting [imperial] influences, transforming corrupted practices and replacing them with life-giving patterns of conduct that draw upon and radiate the resurrection power of God. The church's warfare, then, involves purposefully growing into communities that become more faithful corporate embodiments of Jesus on earth."(8) To that, and to the rest of his overview of Ephesians, I give a wholehearted "Amen!"

Alan Bandy's contribution deals with "Vengeance, Wrath and Warfare as Images of Divine Justice in John's Apocaylpse." The title provides a pretty good summary of the argument in his chapter: in Revelation the implementation of justice is manifested in vengeance, wrath and warfare. I have mixed feelings about Bandy's treatment. He highlights well that God's "vengeance" and "wrath" in Revelation really just mean the wicked will reap what they sow, and do not imply excessive or retaliatory action. Furthermore, he shows that "the way to victory for believers [in Revelation] is the way of the Lamb via martyrdom," so that Christian warfare is a.k.a. self-sacrifice.(9) However, when he gets to the section "The Returning Warrior King and Judge," his respect for nuance and rich understanding of John's imagery almost go completely out the window, as he offers a face-value reading of Jesus' return, here understood as a very violent war. What happened to victory via martyrdom? While his footnotes show that he has read several Revelation scholars that offer nonviolent readings of Rev. 19, he not only shares none of their insights, but he does not even dialogue with their arguments. That being said, it is otherwise a good discussion of justice in Revelation.

"Compassion and Wrath as Motivations for Divine Warfare," by David Lamb, is another essay the title of which provides the summary of the argument. Lamb does not deal with the morality of God's warrior activity in the Bible, but merely the motivation for such action, which he says is rooted in God's compassion and a strict commitment to justice. Because of this, Lamb says, God's warriorship should actually be praised. While Lamb's analysis of compassion and wrath in the Bible is insightful, his response to the war material in the Bible is positivistic and amounts to an insufficient response to the problem.

Douglas Earl returns for a second contribution with "Holy War and חרם," which contributes more to the discussion than his first. He makes a strong case for a symbolic (as opposed to a literal/historical) understanding of the herem passages of the Hebrew Bible (see here, my review of Niditch's book on war in the Hebrew Bible, for a discussion of herem). While he essentially suggests the same thing Jerome Creach does in his book Violence in Scripture (see my review, here), I was much more convinced by Earl. Space does not permit me to go over his argument, so I am forced to merely say that it is quite compelling. Though I still think the OT contains some theology that Jesus would have us shed, Earl's treatment of the subject has left me with a lot to ponder.

Daniel Heimbach provided my least favorite contribution in this collection: "Crusade in the Old Testament and Today." After a long discussion comparing just war and crusades, he states that a crusade cannot be considered as morally wrong in itself, because for God, "allowing no surrender, showing no mercy and sparing no one, [can be] entirely justified." Furthermore, God "owes no explanation for anything that he does." He evaluates us "and we have no standing to evaluate him."(10) It seems to me that Heimbach isn't all that familiar with the OT if that is his conclusion. Jeremiah, to use one example of many, evaluated God and accused him of betraying and violating him (see Jer. 20, and my discussion, here). Fortunately for Christian ethics, Heimbach says crusades can only be justified if they are initiated by God and led by God in a way that could be verified.(11) Still left is the immense theological problem posed by the crusading activity of God in the OT, a problem Heimbach flippantly and unfairly dismisses.

Insight returns with Paul Copan and Matthew Flannagan's contribution, "The Ethics of 'Holy War' for Christian Morality and Theology," which analyses the OT literature in comparison with other ancient Near Eastern literature and concludes that the battle stories are hyperbolic in nature. Thus, for example, the author of Joshua didn't really mean to suggest that the Israelites literally "left no survivors" (10:28, 30, 34, 37, 39, 40), but was merely utilizing a typical ANE hyperbolic literary device. They convincingly show this based on examples from ANE literature, as well as the biblical narrative, which often seems to contradict itself as Israelites often encounter survivors of peoples they supposedly destroyed completely. While this doesn't solve the theological problem of a violent God, it successfully makes the war material not as bad as it seems...but it's still pretty bad.

Glen Stassen (R.I.P.) also contributed to this collection, with a chapter entitled, "The Prophets' Call for Peacemaking Practices." I have to say, I was a little disappointed by his essay. I am an advocate for Stassen's Just Peacemaking initiative and an admirer of him and his work, but this chapter was a little underwhelming. It's really more of an overview of Norman Gottwald's book All the Kingdoms of the Earth.(12) Don't get me wrong, I love Gottwald, and Stassen provides some grade A quotes, but the title of the chapter is a little misleading, as it is mostly an overview of the prophetic vision of justice and peace over against imperial systems; it is not so much about peacemaking practices. I was disappointed because peacemaking practices are what Stassen usually offers so well. For this reason, I would suggest the reader supplement Stassen's contribution here with his contribution to War in the Bible & Terrorism in the 21st Century,(13) or his book Just Peacemaking: Transforming Initiatives for Justice and Peace.(14) And please do! His assertion that regardless of whether you're a just war theorist or a pacifist, Jesus has called us to seek peace--and that despite popular opinion there are practical ways governments can seek peace--is urgently needed.

Robert Stewart brings the discussion into new territory with his, "'Holy War,' Divine Action and the New Atheism." He responds primarily to Richard Dawkins, suggesting that OT holy war is not an argument against belief in God. While he does this convincingly, he does not sufficiently dispel OT holy war as an argument against biblical inerrancy. He asks, "is it the case that God, who created all other living beings, does not have the right to take back the life that he has given?"(15) God may have the right to take back the life that he has given, but that does not mean that to do such a thing is loving and morally right. I have the right to kill someone who attacks me and threatens my life, but that does not mean killing someone in self-defense is loving and morally right (in fact, I would say it's not). Furthermore, taking back life is not the only problem, nor is it all God is said to have done in the OT. Violence on the part of God is the problem. For example, God is depicted as responsible for mass rape in Num. 31:18, Deut. 20:14, and 2 Sam 12:11. While his discussion is humble and fair, Stewart's insistence on biblical inerrancy is its weakness.

Murray Rae's contribution, "The Unholy Notion of 'Holy War'," is, unsurprisingly, one of my favorites. In his first section, he talks about the pacifism of the early church, providing several quotes from early church fathers, and then discusses the reasons for the church's widespread change of heart (Constantine's "conversion," the rise of the Holy Roman Empire, and Augustine's influence). The second section deals with objections to pacifism from Reinhold Niebuhr and Karl Barth, who essentially said that pacifism is unrealistic because every once in a while coercion is necessary. He responds to them in the third section by appealing to the teaching and example of Jesus, whose self-sacrifice and resurrection provide the model for Christian ethics. Jesus, he says, "refused the temptation of political or armed power and accepted that it would cost him his life." Furthermore, this example "is to be followed not because a more satisfactory outcome is thereby assured [in human history] but because it is not our will but God's that should be done." Thus, to think in terms of war being sometimes necessary is to think in strictly human terms, which amounts to "the abandonment of Christian ethics."(16) On divine war in the Bible, Rae says, "Christians must take more seriously" the new commandment which Jesus introduced which is "more stringent than the old," and in which "war waged with the implements of violence and destruction is always a failure . . . [and] can never be holy."(17) Altogether, I found this to be one of the strongest and most compelling contributions.

The final contribution is "'Holy War' and the New Atheism" by Stephen Williams. Approaching new atheism from a different angle than that of Stewart, Williams highlights several problems with New Atheist thinking, which is guilty of the same kinds of errors as those of Christian fundamentalism; namely, they are based on straw men, sweeping generalizations, caricatures, and simplistic literal readings of Scripture. One example is the New Atheist reading of the "holy war" passages in Scripture, which Williams says are pre-Christian.(18) A nuanced reading, he says, would "seek to understanding the ways of God in the Old Testament," utterly defined by pathos and which respond to violence with grief.(19) So at the very least, divine war was an accommodation that God made with sorrow for the sake of preserving Israel in order for Jesus to penetrate our violent world with his message of peace. While he is often insightful, Williams' line of thinking is sometimes hard to follow and his chapter lacks focus. His assertion at the end that New Atheism is a "holy war" against religion is odd and I couldn't help but feel like I missed the point.

The afterward, written by Jeremy Evans and Heath Thomas and entitled "Old Testament 'Holy War' and Christian Morality: Where do we go from here?" seeks to wrap things up by providing what needs to be considered in future discussions of this pressing issue: 1) we shouldn't confuse an "is" with an "ought" in Scripture, meaning we shouldn't see all the violence in the Bible as divinely ordained, but should distinguish what is divine violence from what is not; 2) we need to distinguish between objective and absolute commands, meaning we should set apart commands that were for a specific time, situation, and people and not for all followers of God; 3) we need to pay attention to the vital role of Scripture (see here for a recent blog in which I posit that the issue of divine violence is primarily an issue of the authority of Scripture). While I agree with all of these, their discussion of them includes conservative assumptions that do not apply to progressive Christians, including certain contributors to this collection. For example, they say at one point "God indeed commanded 'holy war'," which begs the question, "What about the many Christians who don't believe he did?"

Overall, Holy War in the Bible is perhaps the best introduction to the topic of divine war in the Bible that one could read. It would have been even better if they included a chapter on war in Revelation (the one on wrath and vengeance doesn't quite cover it), and if they included a contribution from a more liberal perspective. Notwithstanding, I highly recommend it, as it offers several differing viewpoints, all of which are presented with sophistication. It also includes a tremendous bibliography, and each chapter has a ton of footnotes with other great sources to check out. For the thoughtful Christian, for the student or teacher of the Bible, for the Pastor, for whoever interested in this topic, get this book. It's probably the best place to start.

Notes:
(1) See Roland H. Bainton, Christian Attitudes Toward War and Peace: A Historical Survey and Critical Re-evaluation (Nashville: Abingdon, 1960).
(2) See Earl, "Joshua and the Crusades," 39.
(3) See Ibid., 29-34. 
(4) Chapman, "Martial Memory, Peaceable Vision," 57.
(5) Ibid., 63.
(6) Ibid., 65.
(7) Thomas, "A Neglected Witness to 'Holy War' in the Writings," 82. Holy war is put in quotes throughout the book, because several contributors note the invalidity of the phrase for referring to the Bible's war material. One wonders why they didn't just call the book "Divine War in the Bible" or something else, so that all the contributors didn't have to put "holy way" in quotes all the time.
(8) Gombis, "The Rhetoric of Divine Warfare in Ephesians," 100. Emphasis his.
(9) Bandy, "Vengeance, Wrath and Warfare as Images of Divine Justice in John's Apocaylpse," 114.
(10) Heimbach, "Crusade in the Old Testament and Today," 190.
(11) See Ibid., 196.
(12) Norman Gottwald, All the Kingdoms of the Earth: Israelite Prophecy and International Relations in the Ancient Near east (New York: Harper & Row, 1964).
(13) Glen H. Stassen, "Just Peacemaking Reduces Terrorism between Palestine and Israel," in War in the Bible & Terrorism in the 21st Century, eds. Richard S. Hess and Elmer A. Martens (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 127-148.
(14) Glen H. Stassen, Just Peacemaking: Transforming Initiatives for Justice and Peace (Lousville: Westminster John KNox Press, 1992).
(15) Stewart, "'Holy War,' Divine Action and the New Atheism," 273. Emphasis his.
(16) Rae, "The Unholy Notion of 'Holy War'," 306.
(17) Ibid., 310-311.
(18) Williams, "'Holy War' and the New Atheism," 323.
(19) Ibid., 324.

Purchase Holy War in the Bible on Amazon (here)

Why I am No Longer a Christian Anarchist

A couple years ago, I read Greg Boyd's Myth of a Christian Nation. I had been developing a political consciousness through my study of Jesus and the prophets, as well as through conversations with my dad, who often critiqued the widespread desire to "take America back for God" and "re-"establish a "Christian Nation." Precisely two years ago--May 15th, 2012--I wrote my first blog on Christianity and politics (read it, here), in which I said, "Our nation needs more than legislature imposing Christian moral values on all people" and "We need to change this nation from the inside out, not from the outside in." Soon after that, I read Boyd's book, which reflected the same exact understanding. I was instantly a follower.

Boyd advocates Christian Anarchy. Although, given the chaotic connotations of "anarchy," he eventually laid aside that title, preferring "Christ-Archy." I prefer Christianarchy. Whichever label one prefers, the idea is that Christians are called to cultivate a mustard-seed kingdom, a community of other-focused love in which Christians seek to emulate Christ. Such a community would not seek political power in order to impose moral laws on the whole country, but would seek to transform the world by being an inviting, love-filled people who grow and grow. It is the Christ-like, counter-cultural alternative to the systems of power implemented by the empire.

I still firmly believe in such a community, and I still firmly believe that the church is called (dare I say, demanded) by God to be such a community.

That being said, I no longer consider myself a Christianarchist. This is because Boyd and others like him who seek to revive the Anabaptist tradition claim that Christians should not engage in politics. All social change should be embodied practical change and not coercive governmental change. I sympathize with this view, but I can no longer accept it. I have come to see that there are many practical steps that the government can take to bring about positive social change, and I think we Christians should seek Christ-like social change in whatever way we can.

I am now registered to vote, and I plan to vote every time I see a candidate who represents Christ-like ideals for social change, especially if he/she is running against someone who I think has it all wrong. This includes voting in non-presidential elections.

I used to object to voting because you can never trust a politician. You can't tell whether or not the person for whom you're voting is a wolf in sheep's clothing. And since power corrupts, I felt justified assuming that all politicians are wolves in sheep's clothing. That very well may be the case. Voting is risky business. However, wolf in sheep's clothing or not, a politician has deciding power, and deciding power means the ability to influence legislature, and legislature can bring about positive, Christ-like changes, or it can cause our country to take a turn for the worse. I have come to see that voting is worth the risk.

I recently sent a letter to Virginia senator Mark Warner asking him to vote in favor of the Minimum Wage Fairness Act. He responded, informing me that he did vote in favor of it as he thinks the minimum wage is too low (the motion to proceed to the bill ended up failing 54 to 42). I realized through this experience that I can seek the kingdom of God through political means, even in the midst of a corrupt system. The mustard-seed can be planted in the government. Positive change can happen.

Wall Street banks borrow money from the government at interest rates of less than 1%. They then take the borrowed money and use it to give their top execs multi-million dollar bonuses, even while laying off workers. Government students loan interest rates, on the other hand, range from 3-7%. These student loans don't enable students to live lavish lives, they enslave them (see Prov. 22:7), and the education that was meant to make them successful becomes a lifetime burden. Raising interest rates for Wall Street banks borrowing from the government and including stipulations on how government loans can be used, while simultaneously lowering interest rates on students so it is less burdensome to go to college and become successful, are practical steps the government can take to make our society better. Such changes would be moves in a Christian direction, and so I think they should be sought after. 

I wish if someone asked me where I stand politically, I could simply say, "I'm a Christian." That would seriously be the best way to describe it. Every issue for which I take action, and every candidate for whom I vote, I will always have the teachings and an example of Jesus Christ at heart, influencing my every stance.

Unfortunately, if I simply said, "I'm a Christian," people would probably assume I'm a Republican seeking to take America back for God (Kenneth in 30 Rock says, "I don't vote because I think choosing is a sin, so I just put in the Lord's name," and Jack Donaghy responds, "That's Republican. We count those"), or they'll think I have no political opinion whatsoever and I say "Christian" as a cop-out. The truth is quite different.

I still agree with 19-year-old John Daniel that "Our nation needs more than legislature imposing Christian moral values on all people." I still agree with him that "The people in our nation need a thorough reform of the soul. They need God to change them from the inside out." While I still embrace the pursuit of a counter-cultural alternative community of other-focused love that embodies the teachings of Jesus, I would explain to my past self the need for the pursuit of social change through politics. 

Apathy is the Work of the Devil

Conservative Christians are generally pretty good at teaching Christian ethics for the individual, moving towards the alleviation of one's sin and helping people break free of their individual bondage.

Liberal Christians are generally pretty good at teaching Christian social ethics, including care for the poor, care for the environment, and so on.

Unfortunately, conservative Christians aren't typically very good at Christian social ethics, and liberal Christians aren't usually very good at individual inner reform. Both engage in a measure of apathy, either apathy in the face of social injustice, or apathy in the face of one's own sin.

There is an obvious middle ground here that Jesus taught and lived. Jesus understood that seeking inner reform must result in seeking social reform and seeking social reform must include inner reform.

I will demonstrate this by using John Lennon as an example. Lennon was in sync with Jesus in that they both taught peace as the ultimate goal we should all be working towards ("War is over if you want it," is basically the Christian message--I'll deal with that in a future blog). However, John Lennon was also a very angry person, and I'm not talking about righteous anger. He was often impatient, belittling, explosive, verbally abusive, and in at least one case, physically abusive. While he taught "do everything for peace," he often failed to actually embody peace. As Richard Rohr says, activists "might have the answer, but they are [often] not themselves the answer."(1)

Jesus shows us that you cannot be an activist for social change without being an activist for your inner change. I watched an interview of a millionaire businessman and democrat describing what he does with his money. Since he doesn't need or want millions of things, he doesn't stimulate the economy through consumption, because one person can only spend so much. So what does he do? Capital gains. He turns his money into more money, accumulating more and more. He also exploits tax loopholes and ends up paying a lower percentage than many of his subordinates.

This, he says, is bad for the economy. He shouldn't be able to do that. He says we need to change the system so this kind of thing can't go on. Does it occur to him to maybe...stop doing it himself?! How funny it is that rich democrats believe in taxing the rich in order to provide for the needs of the poor, and yet they often keep most of their wealth for themselves. Sure, maybe they give to charities now and then, but is it ever enough to actually make a dent in their finances? Is it as taxing as their political opinions are?

My message to conservatives and liberals--as well as to myself!--can be summed up in Lennon's words: "Apathy isn't it. We can do something." Apathy in the face of evil is indifference to evil. You can be cognitively aware and attentive to the evil and injustice in the world, but you are ambivalent towards it if you are apathetic. As Thomas Merton says, "How can we claim that our inertia is innocent? It is the source of our guilt."(2)

So, let us not be apathetic. Let us pursue inner and social change. Conservative Christians, listen to the liberal Christians who emphasize social injustice and the need to pursue social change. Liberal Christians, listen to conservative Christians who emphasize the need for one to face one's inner sin and move toward spiritual change.

Are you an angry person? Do you have road rage? Are you impatient? Are you sexually immoral? Are you envious? Do you have addictions? Do you lie a lot? Are you manipulative? Are you selfish?

Whatever your inner vice is, know that your pursuit of the abolition of injustice should begin and end with the pursuit of the abolition of evil within yourself.

Are there people around you in need that you don't help despite having the means? Do you support companies that profit off of cheap and/or slave labor? Are you ambivalent towards care for the environment? Are you ambivalent towards the maltreatment of animals? Are you ambivalent towards the poor? Are you ambivalent toward those in need? Is your political ideology self-focused?

Whatever your social vice is, know that Jesus said failure to be salt to the earth makes one good for nothing (Matt. 5:13).

The steps toward change, social or personal, will for the most part be small. Whether you're trying to be a more Christ-like driver, or you're trying to reduce student loan interest rates, it will be a long, inch-by-inch road. But as Jesus showed with his mustard seed analogy, little things have power, for they can grow. Don't mistake lack of action for realism. As Heschel says, "remain[ing] neutral, impartial, and not easily moved by the wrong done unto other people" is "an evil most of us condone and are even guilty of."(3)

When it comes to social change and personal change, I am guilty of failure in both courts. We all are. The Christian response to that is not apathy. It is not, "What's the use?" The Christian response is to seek the realization of the kingdom of God at all times, through failure and victory, through small changes, big changes, bad changes, or no changes. Apathy is the work of the devil.

"All of heaven is waiting on us. I can hear all of creation crying: 'We're waiting!'" - Jason Upton

Notes:
(1) Richard Rohr, Everything Belongs, rev. ed. (New York: Crossroad Publishing, 2003), 73-74.
(2) Thomas Merton, Raids on the Unspeakable (New York: New Directions, 1966), 56.
(3) Abraham Joshua Heschel, The Prophets (New York: HarperCollins, 2001), 364.

Give Workers a Voice

Yesterday was International Workers' Day, and the National Day of Prayer. It was a good reminder that we need to be giving workers a voice, not only in the public sphere, but also in our prayer lives. We have a dire need in our society for the rights of workers to develop a dominant voice. America is becoming an oligarchy, ruled by those rich enough to invest in politics.

As Jose Miranda says, we do not have to “submit to the conditions which are favorable to the capitalist class.” Workers through labor and consumption are the means of production that capitalists depend on for their wealth. The capitalist’s dependence on workers gives workers a right to deciding power. That right is being ignored and the voice of the worker, suppressed.

If our economy is to return to the abundance of past eras, the worker needs to have a voice that can stand in contest with the voice of the top 1%.

"I will be a swift witness … against those who oppress the hired worker in his wages." (Mal. 3:5) 

Woe to those who profit off of the oppression of their workers. (Jer 22:13-14) 

"Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you have held back from your workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter." (James 5:1-6)