My first thought after reading this declaration was that everyone who says they take the Bible literally needs to read this. So often parts of evangelical Christianity have boldly proclaimed that their church is “Bible based” because they believe that the Bible is inerrant and to be taken literally. So they militantly proclaim the evils of evolution, the sinfulness of homosexuals and that all those who have not asked Jesus in their heart will go to hell. Yet the radical ethic set forth by Jesus in the four gospels is largely ignored. In supposed bible based churches you will seldom hear a sermon on the evils of going to war, or hear a call to civic action calling our government to repentance (unless it is about homosexuality or abortion). Most of what Garrison calls for in this declaration would be seen as inappropriate for our churches yet all he is doing is taking literally the ethical teachings of Jesus.
Why in our churches are we comfortable basically ignoring Christ’s teachings on how we are to live a Christian ethic? The late, great, Mennonite theologian John Howard Yoder lists, in his book The Politics of Jesus, six reasons why we feel justified in not taking Jesus at his word when it comes to ethics (he then spends the rest of the book arguing why these reasons are mistaken). One of the reasons Yoder points out is that often we argue that Jesus dealt with spiritual, not social matters. He did not care about social change but rather a new self understanding. The evangelical mantra of “saved by faith, not by works” nails this understanding home. We understand faith as thinking the right things, holding the right doctrines. What we think is more important then what we do.
Garrison’s declaration stands in opposition to this sort of thinking. Jesus was not killed for just teaching new doctrines. Jesus was a social revolutionary, he introduced a new way of life, a new kingdom, one that operated in a totally new way, and he was calling everyone he met to join. The signing of this declaration was basically a group of people pledging to follow Christ’s kingdom, to follow his direction. It is a pledge of allegiance to the cross.
This is not to say that I agree with everything Garrison says. I would have to say that I do not think that it is impossible for a Christian to be fully living a Christian ethic while in the military, or in public office. That being said, though I think it is possible, I do believe that being a Christian in the military means saying no to killing or any type of violent coercion. How one can be in the military and not be an institutor of violence, I have no idea. It would most likely end in martyrdom. I also think if one was to take seriously the ethics of Jesus and ran for public office they would not last very long.
Where I disagree with Garrison the most is his apparent belief that humans, through our calling of governments and institutions to repent, can hasten the full realization of the Kingdom of God that is sprouting up around us all the time. Though we are called to live out the ethic of this kingdom now, it will only ever be fully instituted by Christ himself. We have been called to work toward this kingdom, and have been promised that the work we do will be used in the building of this kingdom, but it will always be Jesus, not us, who brings it to its full realization.
With all that being said, I found this to be one of the most challenging documents I have read in a long time. I found myself asking if I could sign this document. Am I willing to follow Christ into this exciting and revolutionary way of life? Will I pick up my cross? I pray that Christ will grant me the courage to continue in that direction.
