natalie's narrative

There are no words...

Again, the former Vice-President is being vocal.  Maybe he feels like he has to be in order to defend what he did for eight years:  Cheney: Torture probe "offends hell out of me."

Not only were his comments on torture and his views on Iran appalling as usual, but he stated this:

"In the intelligence arena, we ask those people to do some very difficult things,'' Cheney said. "Sometimes, that put their own lives at risk. They do so at the direction of the president...if they are now going to be subject to being investigated and prosecuted by the next administration, nobody's going to sign up for those kinds of missions.... It's a very, very devastating, I think, effect that it has on morale inside the intelligence community....''

If I remember correctly, didn't he out a covert CIA agent?  I cannot believe he would worry about the moral of the intelligence community!

Guns and the gospel of peace

I read an article today about a pastor encouraging his parishioners to bring their guns to a church service tonight (contingent on the pastor finding a new insurance carrier, as their current one canceled their coverage for today!!).  

This flies in the face of what Jesus said were the two greatest commandments.  I cannot reconcile supporting gun rights with loving your neighbor.  A different pastor who was shot in a different church while preaching is completely disgusted by the pro-gun pastor's actions, and commented:

“I don’t understand how any minister who is familiar with the teachings of the Bible can do this,” he added. “Jesus didn’t say, ‘Go ahead, make my day.’ ”

Hooray for non-law reading!

I finally get to read whatever I want for a while-- so I picked up The Nonviolent Atonement again. Maybe this time I won't let all the big seminary-level words get to me!

The main idea so far - "the crucifixion of Jesus cannot be interpreted as a divinely sanctioned or divinely willed sacrifice. [...] [V]iolence originates with humans and not with God."

Very interesting and very contrary to what I have been taught in church!

Community economics

In Jesus for President, Claiborne and Haw discuss the way our consumerist, individualistic society may affect our ability to love our neighbor. Acquiring a lot of possessions, a car for each person, and “a house full of ‘my’ stuff purchased cheaply from China,” makes it more difficult to follow Jesus’ teachings (261). We become more worried about protecting our things—about theft, security, and getting even more—that we lose sight of loving our neighbors in need.

If a community focused on loving Christ and loving others shares resources among its members, it frees itself up to live out the gospel. Claiborne and Haw share the story of a group of farmers in Belize that has little wealth but a lot of co-operation—and creativity. When a robber broke into their homes, they responded by printing and circulating currency that is worthless to the national economy but useful to them, and they built this robber a home once he was released from prison. Such a communal act of deterrence and forgiveness wouldn’t be possible outside of a community setting. And since they don’t store up treasures on this earth, they don’t have the temptation to kill those who intrude (261). They can truly pray the Lord’s Prayer, “…as we forgive those who trespass against us.”

Within our individualism and greed, we expend energy protecting our houses built on sand, while this farming community lives “free from the economic fear of being toppled by the enemy.” Free from fear, they can aim their focus outward to redeeming the enemy (261). A great quote from the book: “You cannot follow Jesus socially (in relation to your enemy) if you are not following Jesus economically” (261).

I was immediately reminded of the mess the U.S. is in, what with our “homeland security” and post 9/11 debacles. According to Brian McLaren’s Everything Must Change, the U.S. has about half of the world’s wealth, while only comprising 3% of the world’s population. So here we are hoarding our assets, while continuing to build up our military. The U.S. military is exponentially bigger than that of any other countries, and we have hundreds of bases all over the world. 

It’s evident we’re pretty big on protecting ourselves and our wealth. If anyone so much as threatens us (by stockpiling “weapons of mass destruction” that we sold them in the first place, for example), we will pre-emptively invade their country, no matter how miniscule their military forces. While expending a lot of our resources on “defense” ($550 billion a year), our leaders urge us to continue shopping. George W. Bush has even uttered the words “I encourage you all to go shopping more.” Keep consuming, or else the terrorists win…

Our national situation is a great example on a larger scale of how hard it can be to love your neighbor when you put yourself and your possessions first. It would be difficult to prevent the 16,000 children from dying from hunger-related causes each day when $550 billion goes toward protecting ourselves. And although I recognize the problems with security-driven things such as living in a gated community, I still want to save up for things like a trip to Europe or a MacBook Air instead of focusing on others’ needs and creatively subverting the status quo. The gospel, and trying to follow Jesus economically and socially, challenges me on the most basic level as well: that I have to think critically about choices and systems that I didn’t even know existed before.

A change of heart

Another compelling and provocative part of Jesus for President is an excerpt from a speech made by a World War II chaplain. Not just any chaplain, but the one who blessed the men who dropped the Enola Gay and the Boxcar—atomic bombs—over Japan, killing an estimated 250,000 people. Father George Zabelka eventually grew to believe that he had been mistaken, and he addressed the church with strong words 40 years after the bombings.

 

First, he said that he was implicitly told by church leadership that the devastating air raids and murdering of civilians were okay. Father Zabelka then realized:

But yes, there it was in the Sermon on the Mount, very clear: "Love your enemies. Return good for evil." I went through a crisis of faith. Either accept what Christ said, as unpassable and silly as it may seem, or deny him completely.

For the last 1700 years the Church has not only been making war respectable: it has been inducing people to believe it is an honorable profession, an honorable Christian profession. This is a lie. (221)

Father Zabelka then reminds us that up until 300 years after Jesus’ resurrection, the Church considered Christ and the gospel nonviolent: “when Christ disarmed Peter he disarmed a

ll Christians” (222). He goes on to say, “There is no way to follow Christ, to love as Christ loved, and simultaneously to kill other people” (222).

Like a modern-day prophet, Father Zabelka said we’re putting our faith in “physical power, militarism, and nationalism. The bomb, not God is our security and our strength” (223). He encourages us to “stop this insanity of worshipping the gods of metal,” and to stand up to idolatry (223). He presented his message in undeniable black and white terms—for him, there was no grey area or wiggle room. After having given his blessing on one of the most horrific acts of violence in history, his change of heart should be encouraging to the church today, that there’s hope for us to stop going down the path of implicitly and explicitly supporting wars and violence.

Reading the Bible through the eyes of America

I loved the critique from Jesus for President that American Christians interpret Scripture through a very American lens. How else would we interpret the Bible? But when our culture honors war and violence, and when 36 cents of every dollar paid in taxes goes towards our military, we may run into some problems with “turn the other cheek.”

Claiborne and Haw write that “the empire of violence and nationalism has crept into the church” (193). We are faced with the danger of reading the Bible “through the eyes of America rather than read[ing] America through the eyes of the Bible. We just want Jesus to be a good American” (194).

 

Claiborne and Haw share a quote from Mark Driscoll, a pastor who wishes to hyper-masculinize Christianity. Although his intentions are laudable, considering many men feel driven from the church, Driscoll’s words betray the violence that has crept into our distinctly American faith:

 

Some emergent types [want] to recast Jesus as a limp-wristed hippie in a dress with a lot of product in His hair, who drank decaf and made pithy Zen statements about life while shopping for the perfect pair of shoes. In Revelation, Jesus is a prize fighter with a tattoo down His leg, a sword in His hand and the commitment to make someone bleed. That is a guy I can worship. I cannot worship the hippie, diaper, halo Christ because I cannot worship a guy I can beat up. (194)

Later, Claiborne and Haw point out that the Christian icon is a slaughtered lamb. That image of Christianity, and of Jesus crucified on the cross, doesn’t fit well with Jesus as a prize fighter, or with God as anointer of our military endeavors. There’s also a quote in the book from a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, describing then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield: “He leads in a way that the good Lord tells him is best for our country” (198). I researched a little more on what this general said, and one article described Rumsfield’s leadership as “inspired by God.”

 

Does this inspiration come from the same God that teaches “Blessed are the meek, the merciful, and the peacemakers”? Is God schizophrenic? According to the World Health Organization, an estimated 150,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed in the war. I really hope that I’m not trying to follow a God that would approve of such a thing…

 

So I wonder if reading America through the lens of the Bible requires us to take a more visible stand for peace and for life (not just in the womb!). I wonder if it would cause us to rethink the American flags in our churches and the number of Christians in the military. I like the experiment that Claiborne and Haw encourage readers to try in their churches: Put up an Iraqi or Afghan flag alongside the American flag in the sanctuary, to remind us of the suffering and horror of war.

 

Sorry Mark Driscoll, the Jesus I follow wants to shape his church into people who will refuse a commitment to make someone bleed—we have enough blood and swords in the world as it is. This doesn’t mean that Jesus or peace-promoting Christians are wimps, since confronting evil without weapons seems like a much braver act!

Another great book from Shane Claiborne...

Today I finished reading Jesus for President: Politics for Ordinary Radicals, by Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw. Like most of Shane’s ideas, it was really challenging. Drawing heavily from Yoder’s Politics of Jesus, Jesus for President gives a compelling argument that following Jesus requires you to be a pacifist. It also prohibits you from being a patriot. I do struggle with being proud of my country, after seeing the shameful things our government has done in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, Central America…the list goes on. So, I smugly thought I would be safe from Jesus for President’s challenges to the “typical American.” Was I ever wrong!

Although I call myself a pacifist and criticize the imperialism of the US, to be honest, I still find comfort in being part of an empire. At this point in time, I still wouldn’t be able to reject the protections of the largest and most powerful military in the world. I’m all talk and no action; it’s comforting, with news of more countries building up their nuclear weapons, to know that the nation in which I live would be able to fight back and protect me and my family. I’ve also forgotten that great-sounding people, like Barack Obama, are still involved in this new Roman Empire, and that if elected he would be the commander of the military. Anyway, I like the safest, easiest option. I won’t deny that. But I can’t hold on to that comfort, protection, and security and still consider myself a member of the worldwide church, a follower of Jesus…I can’t serve two masters.

Caesar called himself the Son of God, so when Jesus also used that name, he was making an overt political statement. But today we don’t think we have any Caesars. Claiborne and Haw summarize today’s line of thinking: “Calling a ruler ‘Son of God’ is out of style. No one really does that nowadays. We can support a president while also worshipping Jesus as the Son of God” (166). Au contraire. Jesus taught enemy-love and forgiveness, a mindset that directly opposes the policies of the United States. We can’t pledge allegiance to both! Claiborne and Haw continue:

When the church takes the affairs of the state more seriously than they do Jesus, Pax Romana becomes its gospel and the president becomes the Son of God. After all, what is the point in calling anything God if it does not also hold sway in every part of one’s life—especially one’s politics? (166)

Our nation’s “theology” revolves around democracy, liberty, and capitalism—and more American Christians have died (and killed) for those things than for the gospel. A quote in the book, from a US soldier in Iraq, stood out to me: “We are dying and killing for abstract nouns like freedom and democracy…but this is not the gospel of Jesus Christ” (183).

Jesus for President does a great job of pointing out the idolatry that many of us have committed. Although I don’t agree with everything (I’m bothered by what seems to be an emphasis on withdrawing from the world), I would love to continue to share the more compelling parts of the book. And I don’t have to return this one to the library, so I actually have time to do so! One last thing--this book has amazing visuals! It's so aesthetically interesting and creative...go here to see the actual first pages of the book to see what I mean: Jesus for President.

Real freedom

Thanks to Emergent Village, I read a great post today about pacifism. Mark Van Steenwyk, on JesusManifesto.com, shares a struggle that he used to have when sharing his nonviolent stance: Onward, Christian Soldiers. Many respond that the only way we're able to hold pacifist beliefs or have the freedom to converse about them is because our fathers and grandfathers sacrificed and fought. I'm like Mark was, and didn't really know how to answer that. Now, however, Mark has a different response. He shares:

When American Christians use the words “freedom” and “liberty” and “sacrifice” they are usually being patriotic. When asked if Jesus “sacrificed” for our “freedom” and “liberty” they would quickly agree…and wouldn’t see any conflict between the American sense of these words and the Christian sense. If pressed, I would imagine that the typical American Christian would explain that American soldiers die for our physical or political freedom. Jesus, however, died for our spiritual freedom. It is as though Jesus is Lord of the Spirit but Uncle Sam is Lord of the Flesh.

He talks about kingdom patriotism:

The only ones who sacrificed for my freedom are Jesus and the martyrs…all of those who suffer for the Faith. If by adopting pacifism I dishonor America’s soldiers, by renouncing pacifism I dishonor the blood of Christ and the martyrs.

[...]

Many brave Christians have died throughout the ages turning the other cheek–laying down their lives so that Christ could be clearly revealed to the world. This is a greater sacrifice than that soldiers makes in service of their country. It is kingdom patriotism…laying down one’s life in the cause of Christ.

Mark has decided to join the Christian Peacemaker Teams in order to put his beliefs into action. He clears up the misconception that pacifist equals passive-ist: "despite popular beliefs, there is no linguistic tie between the words 'pacifism' and 'passive.' A 'pacifist' is one who practices or makes peace. A peace maker. A peace-ist."

He ends his thoughts with this comment:  "The freedom that comes from democracy, while beneficial, is paltry compared to the abundant freedom we have in Christ." The freedoms and liberties we have gained come at a great human cost, and we spend a lot of money maintaining "security" for America. I responded to a comment to an earlier post of mine with a few statistics from Brian McLaren's Everything Must Change, and thought I would re-post some of them here:

The U.S. spends $100 million a day just maintaining our weapons in case someone attacks our soil, and just a tenth of the military budget  could provide the basic needs of the entire world's poor! One half of 1% of the military budget could also be used to decrease hunger by 50% in Africa by 2015 (162, 165-66). McLaren also describes how the U.S. makes our weapons in bulk since it's cheaper, then sells them to other countries. How will that secure real peace and freedom?

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!

GI Joe

I’m finding it harder and harder to continue my attempts to affiliate myself with the evangelical church. I don’t know why it would be a big deal, anyway, except I was really trying not to abandon a group that I didn’t necessarily agree with wholeheartedly…This morning a good friend and I went to yet another new church, and the sermon illustration was a real live American soldier and his battle gear. The speaker even said, “Wow I really like this…having a real GI Joe up here.” A little boy sitting behind me was so excited, he kept whispering "Cool!" The sermon was of course about the armor of God.

It really messed with my head the whole time, since I’m a pacifist. I tried to focus on the message, but I kept thinking about the Sermon on the Mount…loving enemies, turning the other cheek, blessed are the peacemakers. Any time the soldier mentioned the enemy (he really did use that word, enemy), I kept thinking about Iraqis. I thought about how American Christians would react to an “insurgent” being used in a Christian or Muslim gathering in Iraq.

It would be difficult to speak out against the war in Iraq in that church. Then I realized—while I was busy not paying attention to the sermon—that it was hard for me to think of any evangelical church that would speak out against the war in Iraq. The marriage between the American evangelical church and the American military is going pretty well, as well as the inseparable bond between the church and our nation in general (such as patriotism).

I waited in suspense to see how the “peace” part of the passage would be addressed: “and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace” (Eph. 6:15). I kid you not, it was skipped over, and we heard a short definition of the word “gospel” instead.

On a more positive note, my friend and I were excited to sign up to volunteer for Feed My Starving Children. Many churches have been raising money for hundreds of thousands of packaged meals, and volunteers pack them to send off to countries like Haiti. Each meal costs 15 cents. It seems like a very creative way to address the existence of both wealthy Christians and hungry children. So I guess I haven’t cut myself off completely from evangelicals!

I'm off to reread Jesus' words in the Sermon on the Mount about judging others...but it might be kind of hard with this plank getting in the way!