Thursday, February 4, 2010
Article and Response
After going through the 'Declaration of Sentiments Adopted by the Peace Convention', read by William Lloyd Garrison in 1838 and for reading on pages 11 & 12 of [in] justice 102 on the Google Machine at http://issuu.com/vanderherberg/docs/injustice_102, Albert Lindt and Martin Gosfelt have contributed their response in the two entries below. Read through the Declaration, read their responses, and comment away on this post.
Martin Bosfelt
The main thrust of the document seems to be that neither individual nor nation has the right not only to engage in offensive violence (fair enough), but also (problematically) not to defend ourselves from any sort of attack, no matter who the attacker might be. The Bible is used to make this argument but the references in this declaration are not well balanced by other words of scripture; specifically “act justly”, “look after orphans and widows in their distress”. This Declaration also leads us to never have the right to physically defend anyone, ever, under any circumstance. Also, if we can’t defend ourselves physically in deference to other’s rights how can we choose any persons rights over another? That would require a choosing of sides, which this document seems to have a problem with. This would ultimately result in no rescue for victims of violence or oppression and ultimately a choice to support the oppressor. This is a problem.
As much as it is scriptural that “he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword” and “vengeance is mine, says the Lord”, the Bible speaks often of justice, and coming to the aid of the defenseless and vulnerable. The Book of James speaks of a religion that pleases God by coming to the aid of the widow and the orphan. James also speaks of a faith that acts to relieve the suffering of hunger or nakedness, not just acknowledging it. The reality of these things is to be met with action. So, if someone is being violently oppressed, or forced into a life of pain and abuse, how can we as people who have been told to “act justly” (Micah 6:8) simply speak of the tragedy, and not act against it? Of course every effort should be made through advocacy and education, but there will come a point where public sympathy is not enough and physical intervention is required.
An example of this might be one of the 1 million children who are kidnapped and sold into a life of forced prostitution every year. This document suggests that they have no right to attempt freedom on their own and that it would somehow honour God to do nothing about their own situation. “That if a nation has no right to defend itself… no individual possesses that right in his own case.” My own declaration would shout loudly that they are in need of our intervention. Can we just print flyers and have preachers preach, but never send law enforcement to set them free? Their very lives are crying out, and I believe God would have us respond through well trained men and women. At the same time as speaking and publishing on their behalf, faith shown by works would result in a need to act physically against their oppressors, to stop the oppression and to gain freedom for the victims. To stop short of that would be empty words and useless faith.
As much as it is scriptural that “he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword” and “vengeance is mine, says the Lord”, the Bible speaks often of justice, and coming to the aid of the defenseless and vulnerable. The Book of James speaks of a religion that pleases God by coming to the aid of the widow and the orphan. James also speaks of a faith that acts to relieve the suffering of hunger or nakedness, not just acknowledging it. The reality of these things is to be met with action. So, if someone is being violently oppressed, or forced into a life of pain and abuse, how can we as people who have been told to “act justly” (Micah 6:8) simply speak of the tragedy, and not act against it? Of course every effort should be made through advocacy and education, but there will come a point where public sympathy is not enough and physical intervention is required.
An example of this might be one of the 1 million children who are kidnapped and sold into a life of forced prostitution every year. This document suggests that they have no right to attempt freedom on their own and that it would somehow honour God to do nothing about their own situation. “That if a nation has no right to defend itself… no individual possesses that right in his own case.” My own declaration would shout loudly that they are in need of our intervention. Can we just print flyers and have preachers preach, but never send law enforcement to set them free? Their very lives are crying out, and I believe God would have us respond through well trained men and women. At the same time as speaking and publishing on their behalf, faith shown by works would result in a need to act physically against their oppressors, to stop the oppression and to gain freedom for the victims. To stop short of that would be empty words and useless faith.
Albert Lindt
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)