Ethics | Near Emmaus

May 18, 2013
by Brian LePort 2 Comments

Live Blog: Ecclesia and Ethics Online Conference: Day 1, Part 2

6:00p, CST: A great first weekend! I’m excited for next weekend with folks like Nijay Gupta and Stan Hauerwas presenting.

__________

5:39p, CST: We need to live within our “creatureliness” rather than trying to be divine in how we manage nature.

5:37p, CST: Three fruits of the ecological vocation: (1) restraint, (2) resourcefulness, and (3) contentment .

5:34p, CST: Fortitude helps maintain these other virtues.

5:33p, CST: Virtues such as prudence and temperance being discussed now.

5:28p, CST: What is a virtue? What is its relationship to ecological ethics? Virtue = acquired human quality…to achieve particular goods and prevent us from not obtaining those goods.

5:27p, CST: Jorgenson presenting:

5:26p, CST: Repentance is change, and this change is a radical reorientation toward ethical behavior. This isn’t a one time event, but we must do it daily

5:24p, CST: Sin is a “relational condition.”

5:21p, CST: Repentance + a pursuit of particular virtues (restraint, resourcefulness, and contentment) are key.

5:20p, CST: Our ecological concerns have not addressed congregations as a whole. Our worship expressed our belief.

5:17p, CST: Jorgenson begins by discussing the “eco-shift” in American consciousness. But this doesn’t mean Americans are ecologically sustainable. Actually, it’s worse than ever.

5:15p, CST: Great shot of N.T. Wright presenting (from earlier today):

5:10p, CST: Last session of Day 1: Kiara Jorgenson (Ph.D. Candidate Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN), “The Role of Repentance and the Virtues toward the Christian Fulfillment of Ecological Vocation”.

__________

4:48p, CST: To allow the aggressive actions to continue would have been unethical for Paul.

4:42p, CST: If the agitators are being aggressive, then expulsion is permissible. This is why his attitude is different than in Romans. The insiders can be expelled.

4:41p, CST: How does a persecuted group expel agitators?

4:32p, CST: Persecution associated the oppressed with Christ, marking their identity, making them the “right kind of children of Abraham,” while those who persecute do not represent Christ.

4:30p, CST: Baptism marks out more than membership, but addresses the kind of community: one with a crucified messiah.

4:29p, CST: Dunne presenting:

4:28p, CST: Suffering and persecution function as boundary markers.

4:25p, CST: The agitators are acting like Ishmael in their aggressive, persecuting behavior.

4:21p, CST: The agitators are not Jews in particular, but particular people.

4:18p, CST: Dunne addressing mission and ethics as it relates to outsiders.

4:13p, CST: Ok, I chose the paper on Paul because that is more my niche, but I do want to go back to watch the recording of Manby’s paper.

4:07p, CST: Two very interesting sessions to choose from next. Either John Anthony Dunne “Suffering, Christian Identity, and the Expulsion of the Galatian Agitators (Gal. 4:29-30): A Response to Susan Eastman” or Aaron C. Manby’s paper on absolute pacifism in the early church!!!

__________

3:47p, CST: The eschatological temple = the church.

3:40p, CST: Rosner explaining the connections between purity and being the temple based on the expectation that temples be pure.

3:30p, CST: If the church is the temple, the bread and wine are the sacrifice.

3:27p, CST: Solomon’s temple was the anti-type of the fulfilled temple which is the church.

3:24p, CST: Entered this session a little late: Brian Rosner, “The Church as Temple and Moral Exhortation in 1 Corinthians”.

__________

2:46p, CST: How does this address the prevailing wisdom of our day? (1) If this wisdom is not that of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, but the prevailing upper class of Corinth? How does that compare to eudaimonia? (2) If this not universal, but specific to Corinth, how do we understand “wisdom,” “power,” and “foolishness” of our day? (3) Does the prevailing wisdom of the day play any role in following Apollos, or Paul, or Cephas, etc? (4) If the modern self-help movement compares favorably to the Corinthians concept of eudaimonia is it compatible with the Gospel? (5) How dangerous is it for Christians today to have our own guru and own wisdom? (6) Does self-help promote the power “in me” and not God?

2:39p, CST: Paul had a specific idea of “foolishness,” it is not a generic idea. Paul is against a particular prevailing wisdom at that time that was unable to point people to God.

2:36p, CST: Paul is addressing how people in Corinth understood the Gospel, as stupid. This is less about “knowledge” and more about influence. The Corinthians see the Gospel as “slave logic,” but it is powerful in God.

2:35p, CST: The contrast is not between wisdom and foolishness, but foolishness and the power of God.

2:34p, CST: Since Paul is vague here, using words like “wisdom,” “power,” and “foolishness,” people can insert their own ideas into this, critiquing what they want to critique, using Paul’s words, but Paul may have meant something less universalistic and more specific.

2:33p, CST: 1 Cor 1:18-25 = popular Christian response to questions of human wisdom

2:31p, CST: Estes presenting:

2:31p, CST: Wisdom was on the mind of the ancients, so how do we read Paul’s statements in 1 Cor 1?

2:30p, CST: How do we speak to people who are interested in the practical wisdom of our day, and speak in this language, when presenting biblical wisdom?

2:28p, CST: North Americans are fascinated with the idea of reaching the fullest potential of our happiness.

2:26p, CST: Estes shares how ancient Greeks understood eudaimonia and whether self-help is a modern form.

2:22p, CST: Estes is introducing us to the self-help movement, it’s positives, it’s negatives, it’s money making potential, and how this relates to biblical wisdom.

2:16p, CST: Douglas Estes discussing “The Transformation of Wisdom: Self-help, Foolishness, and Moral Formation in an Ecclesial Context”.

2:05p, CST: Next up, my former professor and a mentor of mine, Douglas Estes!

__________

1:45p, CST: Cruciformity is not only theology and Christolgy, but ecclesiology!

1:41p, CST: What about “just war?” Paul’s logic: although you’ve been wrong, and you have an authoritative tradition allowing you to response, don’t follow that, overcome evil with good. (1 Cor 6, 9 and “rights”)

1:38p, CST: To follow God we are to forgive and be reconciled. This is not how God is viewed by much of Western society.

1:37p, CST: Rom 5:1, 6-1; 12:9-21

1:33p, CST: I see people using #ecclesiaandethics on Twitter for those interested.

1:30p, CST: 2 Cor. 5:14-15, 18-19, 21. Messiah’s death is an act of Christ’s love and God’s act of reconciliation and forgiveness.

1:29p, CST: The church becomes like God through narrative, cruciform practices.

1:23p, CST: Cruciformity is not merely spirituality, but imitation of Christ, specifically.

1:22p, CST: Cruciformity = cruciform + conformity

1:20p, CST: God is often left out of theology, oddly enough!

1:17p, CST: Paul as theologian: (1) messianic; (2) the cross and resurrection; (3) narrative; (4) ecclesial; (5) mystical.

Michael Gorman presenting:

1:16p, CST: The cross of Jesus Christ answers both of these questions.

1:15p, CST: This passage addresses (1) who or what is God? (2) what is the church?

1:14p, CST: 1 Cor 2:2 tells us about Paul’s theology, Christology, ecclesiology, etc.

1:10p, CST: Technical difficulties resolved. So far, this is the first one. Not bad for an inaugural online conference!

1:06p, CST: Michael Gorman (Ph.D., Princeton Theological Seminary; Raymond E. Brown Professor of Biblical Studies and Theology, St. Mary’s Seminary and University) will begin the second half of day one speaking on “God, the Cross, and the Church” as soon as some technical difficulties are resolved.

See my notes from the earlier sessions: Day 1, Part 1.

About these ads

May 18, 2013
by Brian LePort 6 Comments

Live Blog: Ecclesia and Ethics Online Conference: Day 1, Part 1

12:43p, CST: Until humility is the primary characteristic of the church we risk at standing in pride against God.

12:41p, CST: The only one with the right to judge is the one who has the power to carry out those judgments. We claim our anger to be God’s righteousness, but this isn’t true. God’s grace is to the humble.

12:39p, CST: Very poignant application to the judgment seen in public between “conservative” and “liberal” Christians in the public square.

12:36p, CST: The church should be characterized by humble people.

12:35p, CST: God’s presence in the congregation is not compatible with moral ambivalence and oppression.

12:33p, CST: We need to turn our desire back to God. This is how we escape the need to find success at the expense of others.

12:30p, CST: Mariam Kamell presenting:

12:29p, CST: The greater you are the more you need to humble yourself.

12:27p, CST: Humility is the answer to the problems in community. We need to recognize all good things come from God. Pride is independent identity without God’s grace.

12:26p, CST: “God gives grace to the humiliates because they receive it.” The proud reject it.

12:22p, CST: Our focus should be on our neighbor, but in love, not envy. We are not to emulate the world, but YHWH.

12:21p, CST: “Have we baptized the world’s system and called it Christian?” Good question!

12:20p, CST: The world is not the material world, or people in general, but the anti-God culture.

12:18p, CST: “Adulterers” in 4:4 is an echo of Israel in the OT as a unfaithful spouse to God. Now James uses this of his audience.

12:16p, CST: God is a giver. God is not witholding gifts. Rather, we cannot wait on God, but look elsewhere.

12:15p, CST: Instead of asking from God we desire from our neighbor.

12:11p, CST: One must learn to receive from God, not push their own desires, to take from others.

12:06p, CST: Fight and disputes are reality, and acknowledging this is a necessary step toward healing.

12:04p, CST: James 4:1-12 address, directly, what it means for us to navigate living in community.

12:03p, CST: People of different groups blame “those people” when trying to explain the church’s lack of “progress.”

12:02p, CST: There is pressure on the church to “modernize,” to get on board with the direction Western culture is moving.

11:48a, CST: Next up: Mariam Kamell, “Pride and Prejudice: Community Ethics in James 4:1-12″ for the next main session.

__________

11:32a, CST: Mark is not concerned with one or more ethical issues, but what it means to be human.

11:30a, CST: The other orientation nature of the slave metaphor used by Jesus taps into this innermost moral impulse.

11:28a, CST: Our innermost moral impulse is “toward the other,” which Jesus emphasizes in his teachings.

11:24a, CST: “We are most fully human when we are for the other.”

11:20a, CST: Morality is not a “means,” it is worthwhile in and of itself.

11:18a, CST: Morality cannot be the mere product of society. It must inform society.

11:17a, CST: Morality cannot be about “rules” alone, since rules can be kept without caring for others.

11:06a, CST: The slave metaphor underlines one’s devotion to someone. To say “slave of x” means to be devoted to that thing: food, sex, etc.

11:03a, CST: Wheaton notes the the Markan perspective of morality is under appreciated. The metaphor of slavery provides insights though.

10:58a, CST: I’ve chosen Gary Wheaton (Ph.D., Professor of New Testament at Seminario ESEPA, San Jose, Costa Rica), “To Be Human Among Humans: The Essence of Morality in Markan Perspective”.

10:56a, CST: A few minutes until the next session and I don’t know which one to choose! Thankfully, I hear that these sessions are being recorded, so if you miss one and can go back to watch it later.

__________

10:42a, CST: Wright did a good job answering my question. He observed that dispensationalist thought saw (correctly) the need to read Scripture as a narrative, but their understanding of Israel’s role and Jesus’ fulfilled work is lacking.

10:34a, CST: I’m interested to hear how Wright’s paradigm differs from popular dispensationalist readings of Scripture.

10:27a, CST: N.T. Wright presenting online:

10:22a, CST: Paul’s ethic is a reborn “virtue ethic.” This is not Aristotle’s telos, per se, but “new humanity.”

10:19a, CST: Wright presents Paul’s ethics as active elimination of many of the vices associated with the old age. There has been a transition. Paul mentions some large scale ones, such as the temple into the people of God (as the dwelling place of the Spirit) and Sabbath as time in general, these things transitioned through the Messiah.

10:15a, CST: 80 + attendees in this session!

10:12a, CST: In “new creation” the project of Gen 1-2 “gets back on track,” says Wright.

10:10a, CST: The arrival of the eschaton in the present conditions Christian thinking.

10:09a, CST: Paul’s ethics are grounded in his inaugurated eschatology.

1o:08a, CST: Paul understood YHWH to have returned to Zion, yet the world remained as is. This is the “already, but not yet.”

10:06a, CST: Paul taught to think Scripturally and eschatology through Messiah and Spirit.

10:05a, CST: Paul’s ethics and eschatology will be the focus of Wright’s paper.

9:50a, CST: Next up, N.T. Wright!

__________

9:35a, CST: If this creation is part of God’s future, this should impact how we relate to it now.

9:29a, CST: God has reconciled this world to Christ, says Burkholder, so in Bonhoeffer’s thought we are responsible to participate in God’s plan for this world.

9:20a, CST: Interesting: Bonhoeffer denies the “God became human so humans could become god,” substituting it for “God became human so humans could become human,” or we may say “truly human.” Humans cannot change into deity, but deity being human allows humans to become fully human. If God has entered into creation, then creation can become fully itself through Christ.

9:17a, CST: Bonhoeffer critiques Augustine’s idea of “two cities” arguing there is one reality, that which is revealed by God in Christ. Christ is in creation. In the God who is human both realities are one.

9:11a, CST: Bonhoeffer sees in the image of God the freedom to serve others and creation. Humans aren’t to exploit creation, but serve it. Human rule over creation doesn’t mean we can ruin creation. We need creation as creation needs us.

9:08a, CST: Does Gen. 1-2 present humans as so far above creation that we can do as we want? Bonhoeffer observes that this cannot be so, because humans are “from the earth,” so our relationship to the earth is as people who are “pieces of earth.”

9:05a, CST: Burkholder addresses how the Christian tradition may address ecological crisis. He will be appropriating Bonhoeffer’s Christology, who begins with Jesus, in whom God has come into our material existence.

9:01a, CST: I’ve chosen Benjamin Burkholder (Ph.D. Candidate in Systematic Theology, Duquesne University), “Cultivating Christo-centric Concern for the Environment: Appropriating Bonhoeffer’s Anthropology and Christology in an Age of Environmental Degradation”.

8:52a, CST: Now the hard part: deciding which parallel session to attend!!!

__________

8:44a, CST: 40 + attendees in the first, early session. Cool.

8:40a, CST: Although Chen’s reading is used to critique the Korean church, it seems quite applicable to the American church as well–or the church in general! Leaders who want to be honored, kingly authority, using the people for personal endeavors, trying to gather large crowds, thinking our techniques do things without asking whether God is involved.

8:34a, CST: Interesting to see how Gideon moves from a humble, fearful figure, to one who “rules” over the people, and his “reign” is given hereditary succession (another one of the problems Chun mentioned about the Korean church).

8:29a, CST: Chun provides an interesting insight into how Gideon’s fell0w soldiers go from being presented as co-fighters, to people under his feet, participating in his personal campaign.

8:22a, CST: This story critiques the idea that we humans can do things without the glory going to the Lord. The church think more people equals more success, but this leads us to think “we” do great things. This story shows that God does great things, no matter the number.

8:18a, CST: Chun critiques the Korean church’s fascination with large congregations by observing in Judges 7-8 that God doesn’t need large numbers to do “better and successful ministry.” He calls this “the myth of number.”

8:12a, CST: Chun explores reading the Gideon-Abimelech narrative of Judges 7-8, reading through an ethical lens, asking how this narrative may address the Korean church.

8:10a, CST: Chun observes that the connection between “hurch” and “ethics” is not as obvious as it ought to be. Often, in the Korean church (where Chun lives), the church is seen as a hinderance or stumbling block to living ethically. Chun gave several examples of ethical scandals related to finance, sexuality, and so forth.

8:00a, CST: Main Speaker Session #1, Sugmin Min Chun (D.Phil, Oxford University), a Research Fellow at Nehemiah Institute for Christian Studies will begin the conference with his paper “A Theological-Ethical Reading of the Gideon-Abimelech Story”.

7:50a, CST: The Ecclesia and Ethics Online Conference begins today! I plan on live blogging it. If you are “attending” (signing on?) let me know.

May 17, 2013
by Brian LePort 2 Comments

Israel’s wars

I am reading Holy War in the Bible: Christian Morality and an Old Testament Problem edited by Heath A. Thomas, Jeremy Evans, and Paul Copan. (It is one of three IVP Academic publications I am trying to read and review, so I’m moving slowly, a chapter at a time!) In Chapter 3 “Martial Memory, Peaceable Vision: Divine War in the Old Testament” the author, Stephen B. Chapman, makes the following statement (p. 64):

”…in order for Christ to appear in the fullness of time (Gal 4:4) it was necessary for God to elect and preserve the people of Israel. And apparently–this is the hard part–God was not able, given the violence of the world, to preserve Israel purely nonviolently although, even so, Israel’s history witnesses to and moves toward nonviolence as it moves toward Christ.”

Now, let me be clear, I share this quote not to reflect or comment on Chapman’s essay (which I found thought provoking). Often, when I share quotes from books I have had commenters berate the author (something that is not fair if the chapter itself has not been read) with no knowledge of the broader argument, so I am cautious about short excerpts like this one (i.e., I am not asking comments about Chapman’s essay as a whole), but I wanted to share it because it does present a common view among those who both recognize (1) Christ seems to have taught his disciples nonviolence (to some degree, even if one doesn’t affirm complete pacificity) and (2) YHWH engages and even commands warfare. Many solutions to this problem are seen as too close to Marcionism or more critical of the theology of the Hebrew Bible than even Jesus himself. Chapman’s statement seems to be an attempt to hold together a view of the Hebrew Bible as theologically authoritative alongside the acknowledgment that Jesus called his disciples to a higher ethic (maybe this falls under the paradigm of “progressive revelation”?), so it is worth sharing to hear your thoughts.

Again, the basic idea is this: does it satisfy to propose that YHWH did command violence and warfare in order to preserve Israel, but not as a basic affirmation of war in general, since Jesus (his Son) both taught peace and lived sacrificially or do you think this explanation is insufficient?

May 17, 2013
by Brian LePort Leave a comment

Ecclesia and Ethics Online Conference begins tomorrow!

As I mentioned a while back I will be one of the presenters at the inaugural Ecclesia and Ethics Online Conference which begins tomorrow. The conference takes place this Saturday and the next (I am presenting on the 25th). It includes people like N.T. Wright, Stan Hauerwas, Nijay Gupta, and Michael Barber to name a few of the more familiar faces (see the full schedule here). It cost $10 for full access to both days, and that money goes to an affiliate charity, because an online with a few sponsors is economically (and ecologically, since there is no travel either) sustainable!

If you haven’t had a chance to watch some of the pre-conference interviews you can do so here.

If you’d like to learn more about the conference go here.

January 30, 2013
by Brian LePort 42 Comments

Guns and gun violence from Christian perspectives

Personally, I haven’t blogged much on the debate over how to regulate guns and curb gun violence in the United States. If you want to know why, see Bruce Reyes-Chow’s fine post “My Last Post About Guns. I’m Out.” I do hope our country will come to a place where it can be acknowledged that more safety measures that may prevent easy access to dangerous weapons is not a bad thing, but I am aware that part of the United States Meta-Narrative is “individual rights” and “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” (though, I find the Second Amendment somewhat confusing, since this statement seems to have been made in the context of maintain a standing army, not the individual’s freedom to protect themselves against a rouge government). I don’t expect my fellow citizens to change their position, so instead I focus my attention on talking to fellow Christians–those who claim to share an allegiance to Christ–about what it means to be a Christian in a violent world.

In part, I talk through this blog, so it is through this blog I want to share a few posts written by others on the subject of how Christians should think about guns and gun violence, especially Christians who live in the United States.

Michael Halcomb has been writing a series titled, “A Theology of Guns: A Christian’s Perspective”, that is six parts long as of Wednesday, January 30th:

- Pt. 1 (Lk 22:35-36)
- Pt. 2 (Mt 26:52; Lk 19:42, 22:35-36)
- Pt. 3 (Jn 2:15-16)

- Pt. 4 (Mt 8:5-13 and Lk 7:2-10)
- Pt. 5 (Mt 10:34; Lk 12:51; Rev 19:15)
- Pt. 6

- Pt. 7
- Pt. 8

Kendall Beachey wrote a post titled “A Christian Frame: Gun Control as a Christian Conversation” where he made the following points:

1. As long as Christians frame the discussion about gun control primarily within the context of Second Amendment rights we have traded our identity as Christians for our identity as Americans.

2: A rhetoric of fear can only function as a destabilizing force with society that ultimately undermines the health of the community as a whole.

3: Violence cannot be repaired by violence.

Other posts worth your time include the following:

- Katie Grimes: Guns for the Common Good?

- Christian Salafia: Is There a Biblical Right to Self-Defense?

- Kurt Willems: Following Jesus: The Best Gun Control Ever!

- Brian Zahnd: Why I Don’t Own a Gun

Blogs that address this topic consistently in one form or another:

- Homebrewed Theology

- Political Jesus

- ReKnew

- Swords into Plowshares

- The Pangea Blog

- The Sword and the Ploughshare

For some of my recent (2013) thoughts on active non-violence see these posts:

- Concerns with women in combat

- Jesus, Martin Luther King, Jr., and non-violence

- 42 and active non-violence: “No, I want a player who has the guts NOT to fight back!”

January 26, 2013
by Brian LePort 9 Comments

Concerns with women in combat

Mujeres soldados from the Queen Sofia Museum (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Last night I was listening to Texas Public Radio (TPR) in the car with my wife. The host of the airing show was discussing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s decision to lift the ban on women serving in the infantry unites of the United States. One man called into the show to rant about the horror of women fighting on the front lines. He lamented the idea of a woman, out of bullets, struggling to fight a man using her bayonet. He feared that the physically bigger, stronger gender would overpower our women, and that the result would be horrible things like rape and other abuses. He asked if we want to imagine our daughters on this situation.

My wife is quite the feminist, and she grew tired of the man’s tone of voice and argument, so she turned off the show. I don’t have a daughter, but I did agree with the man that I wouldn’t want my daughter on the front lines of war. I would die inside if I heard that she had been captured, raped, and abused in other ways by enemy soldiers.

I agree with this man: I don’t want my daughter, or any woman I know, fighting in war, but my reasons are different: I hate the idea because my daughter would be a human, not because she would be a woman.

I don’t feel this way because of gender alone, though as a man there is an inherent desire to care for my grandmother, my mother, my wife, and any future daughters. I know that it is often true that men are physically larger, often stronger. If someone attacked a woman in my life, I would defend, and I would hope to disarm the perpetrator with as little harm done as possible to all parties. This is true of other scenarios as well though. If someone attacked my brother, a man much larger and stronger than me, I would feel an obligation to defend him. If I saw a man walking down the street who was physically assaulted I hope I would have the guts to help him. My concerns is defending the attacked, the vulnerable, the weak, the oppressed–not merely a person of a particular gender.

I think this man had begun to feel something right in the wrong way. He feared the idea of a daughter being harmed because he realizes war is horrible. As a man he has allowed himself to recognize that violence against a woman is disgusting. He doesn’t need to lose that sense of the grotesqueness of combat. Rather, he needs to realize that his understanding of masculinity is warped. Men shouldn’t be seen as warriors, primarily, whose deaths are acceptable, especially in the context of modern warfare.

From defense.gov

What if we mourned the thought of a searing hot bullet penetrating the chest of our sons? What if were disgusted by the idea that our brothers might have shrapnel from an IED penetrate their skull? What if we called into radio shows to argue that our uncles shouldn’t have to live with the guilt of dropping a bomb on Baghdad, or catching an Afghan civilian in the cross-fire of war, or control a drone striking a small village in Pakistan.

I remember when my brother was nearing his high school graduation. He was prepared to enlist in the military. He was given a camp to which he would report, and there was some discussion that this would happen prior to his graduation ceremony. I prayed that he would be prevented, even though he was convinced that it was the most noble of vocations. A few weeks prior to the end of the school year he was playing football with some friends, and while running he collapsed to the ground, untouched. Apparently the cartilage in the area of his hip socket was problematic, and the ball slipped from the joint. This hip injury disqualified him from service. He was devastated, and I showed sympathy, but inside I was relieved. This relief had nothing to do with his gender. It had everything to do with my love for him, something that I would feel (ideally) toward my neighbors, and their children, as I imagine anyone being sent into war, whether a citizen of the United States, Mexico, France, Italy, Iraq, or China.

Many of us idealize men like Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, and if you are French, Napoleon Bonaparte, but I don’t think this is the ideal expression of genuine masculinity. As a Christian I find Jesus to be that person, one who was strong enough to realize his enemy was a victim too. I see in Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., people who followed the trajectory of Jesus’ life to the conclusion that active non-violence is more effective at ending wars than wars at ending wars.

I am a realist, which is why I am not fully anabaptistic (though, I want to be as anabaptistic as possible), so I don’t spend much time arguing that the eschatological hope of warlessness is something we can manufacture now. I live as a witness to that hope. I struggle to live a life of non-violence, as far as I am able, but I know there is a “not yet” to the “already, but not yet”. When you read this I hope you don’t advert your eyes from my argument because you don’t affirm “all, or nothing” pacifism. Even if you find nobility in war, we must admit, many of us have lost our ability to understand the gravity of death, especially those of us who are citizens of the United States. We have been handed a narrative that violence begets peace, and we have accepted it to the degree that we don’t ask if there is a way that is better. We expect our nation to be at war and we don’t ask if these wars are “necessary”, 0r “just”, anymore.

I hope with this decision to allow women to go to the front lines of combat that it will make some of us stop, reflect, and ask why we aren’t concerned about our men being placed in that same situation.

January 20, 2013
by Brian LePort 4 Comments

Jesus, Martin Luther King, Jr., and non-violence

MLK Montgomery March 1965 (Photography by Associated Press)

Martin Luther King, Jr., will be honored tomorrow with a federal holiday that celebrates his birthday. This has inspired a few thoughts:

This morning I read this excellent short blog post titled “Weapons and Jesus” from the blog Rudimentary Bible. The author reminds readers that passages like Matthew 26:52 (“For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”) give us good reason to attribute some sort of philosophy of non-violence to Jesus while passages like Luke 22:36 (“And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one…”) temper our anabaptist ideals. He writes:

“The Jesus movement was small. He warned against a futile effort of resisting imperial rule with violence, not unlike Isaiah who warned against futile alliances with Egypt. That’s the most we can say in terms of Jesus and weapons.”

When we discuss Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr., we must acknowledge though Jesus as remembered in the Gospels may have inspired these men, Jesus existed in a different context. As the aforementioned blogger notes, Jesus’ movement was small and he was aware that there was no defeating Rome. Gandhi and King benefitted from living in evil societies whose consciences could be pricked by appeals to Christian teachings (the British Empire and the United States). Gandhi and King could appeal to the Jesus of the Gospels to shame British and American “Christians” who were not following their religion’s ideals. If Jesus would have challenged Rome to live according to the ideals displayed by pagan deities then I think events would have unfolded the same way. Roman deities were murderers, fornicators, and cheaters. While Israel’s God was remembered as a warrior in various contexts there were traditions like the Suffering Servant of Isaiah or the sacrificial deaths of the Maccabean martyrs upon which Jesus could draw from the culture’s memory, but as the Jewish War of 66-70 indicates, approaches like that of Jesus were far less enticing to many than those that advocated violent uprising.

There is something that Jesus shared with King that is more important than what these men taught though: their actions. While we may have a hard time reconstructing Jesus’ teachings on non-violence because we don’t have enough material to establish whether Jesus was being more or less pragmatic (why fight Rome if defeat is assured?), or principled (killing other humans is wrong) or somewhere in-between these two poles, we do know that Jesus is remembered as choosing not to fight and that he suffered a horrible death passively.

Likewise, the early Christians interpreted Jesus’ willingness to die as (1) the will of God for a greater purpose; (2) something he could have prevented, even arguing that he said he could have asked his Father to send warrior angels to his defense; and (3) that (for most Christians) violence does not appear to be an option if one is to be a true disciple (until the rise of Emperor Constantine). We have narratives that depict the early Christians as willing to suffer violence and death as a way of modeling their crucified messiah to the world. If it is impossible to reconfigure Jesus’ exact words on non-violence it is much easier to reconfigure how most early Christians interpreted Jesus’ death.

King’s non-violence is obvious. We have articles and books he wrote. We have interviews he gave to magazines and radio stations. We have audio, video, and transcripts of speeches he gave. Yet, like Jesus, we honor King because he died non-violently, not because he taught non-violence, per se. If King would have fought back, or killed another person in defense of his well-being, we would not remember King as we do. We might forgive him for failing to live up to his ideals. We may have debased him as a hypocrite. We wouldn’t celebrate his birthday every year. It was King’s death that was his ultimate message.

As a Christian who is an American citizen this is where I find my inspiration. I don’t call myself a “pacifist” because, well, I don’t like how it implies being “passive”. I do advocate non-violence though. I do affirm that as a disciple of the teachings of Jesus his actions speak as loud or louder than his words, and I do not think I am alone in interpreting Jesus’ death as a message greater than any of his sermons, since the earliest Christians, as far as we know, interpreted Jesus’ death as advocating for their own cruciform posture in the world.

__________

We could discuss hypothetical situations where my idealism would be challenged: would I defend my wife from an attacker in the home (yes, but not with the aim to kill)? would I have killed Hitler if I had a time machine that put me in the position to do so, saving millions of lives (we don’t know if it would have saved millions of lives since any venture in multiverse must include the reality that one change creates many others, which means it is possible that an outcome worse that World War II could have occurred)? Yet hypothetical extremes do a terrible job of addressing present concerns. When our world and nation are captivated by violent solutions to our problems–whether war against terrorist all over the globe or “Gun Appreciation Day” to advocate for our right to own weapons a few weeks after many of our children were slaughtered by weapons–we don’t need to worry about extreme hypotheticals. We need to worry about taking steps toward peace, especially if we claim to be Christians. As a Christian who is an American citizen let me say to fellow American citizens that our obsession with weapons is more than concerning. We don’t want to own something to shoot a deer only. We want something that can destroy dozens of people at one time. We want weapons made for extreme warfare to be available in our homes. I hope that this causes some to pause for a moment. Even if you are not an advocate of non-violence, surely, common sense indicates that our edginess and our culture of fear is going to increase violence.

__________

In his book Strength to Love King knew that his advocacy of non-violence would be deemed “impractical”, to which he retorted:

“My friends, we have followed the so-called practical way for too long a time now, and it has led inexorably to deeper confusion and chaos. Time is cluttered with the wreckage of communities which surrendered to hatred and violence. For the salvation of our nation and the salvation of mankind, we must follow another way.”[1]

I think we have bought into the lie that our wars, and our violent postures, are the “lesser evil”. We imagine scenarios where if this war didn’t happen this enemy would have risen to greater power bringing this evil on the world. Of course, none of these hypotheticals have happened, but our wars, wars we do not know how to end (as an American it seems like Afghanistan and Iraq are eternal wars, and places like Afghanistan seem ready to collapse into chaos as soon as our military withdraws, causing me to wonder what we did there that was good ultimately).

[1] Martin Luther King, Jr., Strength to Love (Philadelphia: Fortress Press), 56.

	Robert on Pentecost 2013
	Bob Demyanovich on Pentecost 2013
	Doug in CO on Pentecost 2013
	Brian LePort on Pentecost 2013
	doug wilkinson on Pentecost 2013