Unarmed truth...or trick Jesus?

Taking a break from Pagan Christianity, I have been trying to finish up Brian McLaren's Everything Must Change. There are a ton of good things to chew on in his book, so I wanted to share a few that relate to violence, since I've been thinking about non-violence/Christianity lately:

"...[I]f we believe that God will ultimately enforce his will by forceful domination, and will eternally torture all who resist that domination, then torture and domination become not only permissible but in some way godly. The implications for, say, military policy (not to mention church politics) are not hard to imagine." (144)

McLaren discusses eschatology, namely the type that teaches that Jesus' "Second Coming" will be a brilliant show of might and bloodshed:

"If we believe that Jesus came in peace the first time, but that wasn't his 'real' and decisive coming--it was just a kind of warm-up for the real thing--then we leave the door open to envisioning a second coming that will be characterized by violence, killing, domination, and eternal torture. This vision reflects a deconversion, a return to trust in the power of Pilate, not the unarmed truth that stood before Pilate, refusing to fight. This eschatological understanding of a violent second coming leads us to believe (as we've said before) that in the end, even God finds it impossible to fix the world apart from violence and coercion; no one should be surprised when those shaped by this theology behave accordingly." (144)

When we view Jesus' words and actions through the lens of this type of violence-and-domination-conquer-all eschatology, the nonviolence in the Gospels may end up being viewed as a "strategic fake-out." Mclaren continues: "The gentle Jesus of the first coming becomes a kind of trick Jesus, a fake-me-out Messiah, to be replaced by the true jihadist Jesus of a violent second coming" (144).

If the two seemingly most important things in our narrative as Christians (the crucifixion and the "Second Coming") hinge on violence, what type of theology emerges? Most Christians believe in the existence of hell, to add a third violent element. I would venture the theology that results is not a very peaceful one, on so many levels. Thank goodness there are many Christians who are willing to articulate a counter-narrative to so much violence...that's why I can't wait to get started on Denny Weaver's The Nonviolent Atonement!

Comments

[Chris Johnson]

Those quotes are fundamentally illogical. If there is a God, He is by definition omnipotent, and would have no context for enforcement or coercion. Also, the conclusion of the first quote does not line up with the Bible, which says:

''Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the Lord.' (Romans 12:19)

That passage distinctly removes any analogy between God's wrath and Christians. Because of that, there is no conflict between God's judgement and a Christian's responsibility to love.

[Kris Anne Swartley]

Hello again, Natalie!

I see where Chris J. is coming from in his comments, and I find that helpful as I read the judgment imagery of the apocalyptic texts (Daniel, Revelation, etc.). I have always struggled with the two pictures that I get in scripture.... The death-dealing God of Israelite conquest and ultimate violent judgment and then the Jesus of nonviolent justice, of upside down politics and lavish mercy... it's very confusing and disturbing.

However, and this may be philosophically dangerous territory, I'm not sure.... I'm wondering if the wrath of God is against the principalities and powers, the evil that twists and destroys His creation, including His people. He pours out His wrath on that which threatens and mutates His beloved. Not sure.... what do you think?

[Natalie]

Chris I'm just developing these nonviolent beliefs, so I understand how it seems that scripture and McLaren's conclusions would contradict. I wonder if our definitions of "omnipotent" and "vengeance" HAVE to assume that violence is a foregone conclusion. McLaren says in this same chapter that Jesus "conquers not with physical weapons but with a message of justice." I think it's a greater display of strength to win someone over through nonviolent means rather than through force and violence.

Kris Anne I agree with you that God's wrath would be directed at those who seek INjustice rather than justice, but then where does nonviolence come in? I'm obviously not a biblical scholar and need to read up more on these things...

[Chris Johnson]

That is true; I would not say that wrath inherently requires violence, though they are frequently seen together. But if I understand wrath rightly, it will always contain some negative effect upon the one recieving the wrath. Violence is generally a physical effect, but wrath could also be acted out in other forms like such as by causing mental anguish.

Have you ever read CS Lewis's "The Great Divorce"? I like how in that Lewis describes Hell as simply people rejecting the goodness of God and being left all alone with themselves. Or as someone else I heard once put it: when we die God gives us what we want; if we want God then we spend the rest of eternity with the source of all good and happiness; if we don't want God we spend the rest of eternity separated from the source of all good and happiness.

But as for the Bible's use of violent wrath, I think one of the reasons for that is to show just how grievious it is to reject God. No human (at least not in this life) will feel the full weight of God's name, and understand just how truly horrible it is to spit in the face of God, our Creator, Savior, and the Architect of every joy we will ever know.