state your control

There is concept, loosely defined, that is prevalent among emergents and their ideological kin--empire. Not necessarily in the Star Wars sense; indeed, I think they would consider the government in place before Palpatine declares a "Galactic Empire" to be as much an 'empire' in their sense, and I've no doubt that they would think much the same of the various incarnations of it that come about in the post-RotJ books.

Over against it, they set up their ideas of the Kingdom of God. One can see a bit of that in this theOoze article.

In some countries, the Christian faith is under the control of the State. These governments control the spread and expression of Christianity by regulating churches, and keeping pastors on the payroll. Those Christians who dare to speak out against Government policy or who criticize military operations or otherwise go against the grain are threatened with seizure of property or loss of certain rights.

Not to make a big deal about it, but it would have helped if the writer had maybe pointed a specific country or two where such a thing happens. Now, I've heard of some such goings-on with the Russian government and the Russian Orthodox Church, and maybe other parts of it could be like China and it's Three-Selfs churches (though how 'christian' those are is up for debate). That statement of theOoze writer may be perfectly true, but it suffers from vagueness

Many of you know exactly what I'm talking about because you live in America. Here, the Government requires that all Christian churches register with the State. These State Churches must have a 501(C)3 to operate legally. Without one they cannot open a bank account, claim tax exempt status on their property, or for donations received, or for pastoral salaries.

Oh, so, well, somehow the churches in the US are like those described in the first paragraph? Well, let's see...

I don't see how one can claim that the US Government "control(s) the spread and expression of Christianity" in much of any way, given the many churches and the many varieties of churches in this country that are either Christian or claim it, even when their beliefs are the exact opposite of other churches who also call themselves Christian. And while there are many instances, such as the banning of public prayers in schools, that can be considered sorts of restrictions, by and large those are more annoyances than the kinds of restrictions one would find in, say, almost all Middle Eastern countries, or China.

I can't think of many pastors in the US about who it could be said that they are on the government's payroll. Perhap military chaplains, or other forms of government chaplains, but outside of that, it seems a rather iffy statement on this writer's part.

Now, there could be some point to his last contention in that paragraph. I know that it is a rather recurrent argument, especially when election times come along (this article was written back in March of this year), about how politics comes into the pulpit and there is the occasions threat about a church losing its tax exempt status because of things the pastor says. Not much has come of it, so far as I know, but I do acknowledge that the threat is there.

Ok, so, does the fact that a church has to register with the state make it a State Church, like this Oozey writer claims? I frankly find the claim amusing. I suppose the fact that I have driver's license makes me a State driver? Or the fact that businesses need various registrations and licenses and permits and such makes them State businesses? I, as a 'State drive', can only drive where the government explicitly says I can?

No, I sense a scare tactic on this writer's part--saying churches are State Churches is him saying that churches are only supporting the Government. A rather lame argument, given how varied the politics in the US are and how varied the churches are.

Several times in American History the Government has threatened to revoke the tax exempt status of several of these registered State Churches whenever they speak out in ways that are not approved of. For example, on issues of abortion, or civil rights, or other political issues.

This is not to suggest that the Government is in favor of Politics without Religion, or Religion without Politics. On the contrary, the Government in America is very much in favor of how the State Church supports military efforts abroad. To that end, the Church has been one of the most vocally supportive segments of American Society when it comes to war overseas, the torture of enemy soldiers, and the loss of human life (other than American lives).

In recent years, the State Church in America has also been largely instrumental in helping to elect her Presidents and push political agendas for both the Left and the Right.

I hope it is understandable that I see this person's politics creeping in in these paragraphs.

The church has been supportive of overseas wars? Well, perhaps. Why is that wrong? Would it have been better to have allowed, say, Nazi Germany to possibly take over all Europe and Russia? Surely he's not saying we should not have gotten involved then? If anything, I suppose I would say that we should have gotten involved before we did, though I'll give the benefit of the doubt to those who had to make the decisions at that time.

Now, concerning the torture of enemy soldiers. I suppose some things must be questioned here. If, for example, he is writing about those who were sent to Guantanamo Bay, then I would question how they could be called 'soldiers'. Were they a part of a formal national army? Were they in uniform? Most, if not all, were simply terrorists, or accused terrorists. They may have been a part of an organization, but not an army, and one could call them 'soldiers' in only the loosest of senses.

Next, there is the question of what acts are considered torture. Is something like sleep deprivation the same as having fingers broken? Even if we should say that some of the things that happened at Abu Ghraib crossed the line, would that be enough to condemn other ways of trying to gain information?

It's a little interesting that a television program, 24, may have given us a glimpse of how such things may be. If, like Jack Bauer in that show, we needed to get information from a prisoner in order to stop a certain event that would like kill many people, what would we do in order to make that prisoner talk? And one simply cannot dismiss 24 as merely a TV show, especially as Pomo's like Rollins and Taylor make so much of movies and music and even other TV shows. To put it simply, 24 raised many interesting questions about this issue, and many people seem to have come to the conclusion that it's not a simple issue.

Or, if one watches the movie Taken, and sees the father hurting his daughter's kidnapper in order to learn what has happened to her, then we may come to the conclusion that the father was acting in a way that is understandable and even honorable, the well-being of the daughter being more important than the well-being of the man who kidnapped her. It's an arguable point, I admit, but one that I think as some merit.

So, has the church been supportive of "the torture of enemy soldiers"? Speaking as a religious and political conservative, I can't recall hearing of anyone who favors or supports the torture of anyone. They may get angry when, for example, news comes of US soldiers being kidnapped and later their bodies found, or reporters are beheaded on camera, or when soldiers and civilians are hurt or killed by IEDs or car bombs or suicide bombers, or when hearing tales of women being brutalized and murdered when they don't toe the strictest of Muslim laws that oppress them. Such anger is understandable and even justified, I think.

There is much to be wary of in that anger, I will admit. And a reasoned discussion could be had on what is good or not for us to do, what measured we should take to gain information that could maybe save people's lives. But the need for examination is not only on the right, but also on the left, among those who equate even spanking a child who behaves badly with child abuse. Such over-the-top rhetoric is not very helpful.

taking more, in the name of religion

Laws may or may not be just in fact, and they may very well start out just and become unjust when the circumstances change but the laws do not. Thes there might once have been circumstances in which the personal right to bear arms was justified, although one would expect a Christian to have a very delicate conscience about such things; but to support such laws today, when the dangers to life and limb from the proliferation of such weapons is as plain as the nose on your face, defied comprehension, especially for Christians.
John Caputo, What Would Jesus Deconstruct, pp 63-64

Could you imagine, for example, a similar argument concerning any other of rights or freedoms of the United States? Let's say that, for example, one thinks that the "proliferation" of free speech--all those books of so many and varied opinions, liberal tv editorial shows and conservative talk radio, not the mention the chaotic riot of the internet--is simply too dangerous, and that it is the Christian duty of all good Christians to stop supporting the laws of free speech, and that it defies comprehension that any Christian should not be in support of some form of restriction of free speech.

You can pick any other right or freedom, and plug it in--freedom of the press, freedom of religion, right to life. It really doesn't matter, but in doing so, one can see two very real facts.

One--Such restrictions are not only ridiculous, but dangerous. And this idea of Caputo's, that Christians should not supports the right of regular people to keep and bear arms, is similar. Such a stand would not make us safer, but would simply put us more in jeopardy--from criminals who will not obey such laws, from those who have the 'privilege' to handle such weapons, mostly from the rulers who can restrict such freedoms as they will.

Second--Such things are already taking place, or have been attempted, or the ideas put forth. Consider, for example, the right to life. One does not need to dig far into history to see how there have been people who have found all kinds of reasons to try to deny that right to certain kinds of people--the sick, those with mental or physical defects, those of other races. Nazism comes readily to mind, but so does eugenics, not to mention abortion.

Or consider the freedom of speech, then look at this quote from an essay called Repressive Tolerance by one Herbert Marcuse...

Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left...

The whole post-fascist period is one of clear and present danger. Consequently, true pacification requires the withdrawal of tolerance before the deed, at the stage of communication in word, print, and picture. Such extreme suspension of the right of free speech and free assembly is indeed justified only if the whole of society is in extreme danger. I maintain that our society is in such an emergency situation, and that it has become the normal state of affairs.

Given this situation, I suggested in 'Repressive Tolerance' the practice of discriminating tolerance in an inverse direction, as a means of shifting the balance between Right and Left by restraining the liberty of the Right, thus counteracting the pervasive inequality of freedom (unequal opportunity of access to the means of democratic persuasion) and strengthening the oppressed against the oppressed.

...and now, bear in mind some of the things that have been done in the past and are even now being tried, to try to silence some people--things like the Fairness Act, or hate speech laws, or political correctness.

These examples are a few of many, concerning those and other rights and freedoms.

Almost all of these attempts to restrict freedoms comes from the left, or those how only pretend to be on the right but are really a part of the political left. Is it any wonder, then, that Caputo, who is on the political and religious left, should say that a further restriction, the disarming of the populace, should to him be considered not only a good thing, but something that he thinks is a Christian's responsibility to support.

Well, Mr. Caputo, should you ever descend from on high to read this, I will only say that I do not agree with you. While I have very rarely used a firearm myself, I support the rights of those who have them and use them--to hunt, to practice, to defend themselves, their loved ones, their property. You say that the 'proliferation' of such weapons makes them too dangerous, and likely you mean things like gun violence in the mean streets of the big cities, most of that likely coming from criminals who would not be much effected by such restrictions anyway. What are laws to the lawless but mere obstacles to be worked around?

when the willfully blind speak

Coming on the heals of what happened at Fort Hood, I can think of only one apt response to Claibornes little rant here

Step one: Find sand.

Step toe: Firmly insert head.

Fortunately for him, there are people out there defending his right to say such stupid things. While I respect Claiborne's right to say what he wants, I reserve my respect not for him, but for those who protect him and his rights.

And when he tries to undermine their ability to do so, then I have no use for him except as an example of what NOT to do.

And the fact that he posted it on Veteran's Day is simply insulting.

blaming the victims

When something happens like at Fort Hood yesterday, it's quite natural to view the victims as, well, victims, while the one who committed the act as one who was, to put it mildly, wrong.

Unless your a progressive, then you try to spin things so that the person who did it was really the victim. Such as how a person at Sojo has done.

Fort Hood Shootings and the Prophetic ‘IF’

In Fort Hood, if the reports and claims from the police and military are correct (we already know that a number of falsehoods were reported as facts), an officer, a physician, trained to heal traumatized people from the maiming of their souls, was refused an exit from the soul-destroying prison he begged to leave.

If the reports are accurate, it seems that he broke, choosing murder rather than the nonviolent forms of resistance he might have chosen. In that sense he replicated the violence of the war he abhorred and the violence that kept him in the Army against his will –- replicated the violence instead of resisting it in a deeper way.

I don't know what reports he's heard or read, and my own knowledge of the incident and the people involved is far from complete, but I've heard none of that. What I have heard is that the perp was already talking and writing about terrorists being in his mind people to admire.

It's simply crazy how people like those who write at Sojo are so quick to blame those like the police (as in the incident with the Harvard prof a few months ago, and even when it became clear that the office had acted correctly) and the military, while essentially making excuses for the person who committed the act.

No, it's not simply crazy. It's distasteful. Our soldiers are doing good work, more so than these Sojo elitists, actually putting themselves at risk for the sake of the freedom of a nation on the other side of the world, and this elitist progressive twit has nothing but sympathy for the one who killed some of them yesterday, and disparages their efforts in other places in the article.

If – IF, the prophetic word — If we seriously want to help grow a grassroots democracy there, we might send teams of women from American community banks to provide grassroots micro-loans to those who are prepared to use them, especially women, while abandoning the self-destructive effort to impose democracy with Predators. Then Fort Hood might help Americans grow into a new relationship with the hundreds of millions of Muslims who seek to shape their own futures in peace.

Yeah, because American democracy didn't come about through war, right? That whole American Revolution thing? War of 1812? Civil War? World Wars?

At least, not in this person's universe. In the real one, it's a bit of a different story.

you want me to take WHAT literally???

Pages 122-134 in "the lost message of jesus' are pretty much Chalke's and Mann's diatribe for us to become good little pacifists--you know, like Gandhi. Trying to support that, they turn to Gandhi himself, or at least the movie version of him.

Another scene in the films recounts how a young Christian Minister, Rev. Charlie Andrew...

"Doesn't the New Testament say, 'If your enemy strikes you on the right cheek, offer him your left'?"

Andrews looks rather bemused by Gandhi's sudded desire to quote Bible verses. "I think perhaps the phrase was used metaphorically."

"I am not so sure." Gandhi counters. "I have thought about it a great deal, and I suspect Jesus meant that you must show courage. Be willing to take a blow, several blows, to show you will not strike back nor will you be turned aside. And when you do that, it calls on something in human nature, something that makes his hatred for you decrease and his respect increase. I think Jesus grasped that, and I have seen it work."

The verse the movie Gandhi is talking about is Matthew 5: 39, and it goes like this...

But I say to you, That ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite the on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Ok, so, how are we to take this?

Well, it is in the context of what is called the Sermon on the Mount. Earlier in the same chapter, the Sermon begins with Jesus' list of those who are Blessed. A bit after that, there is his list of "You have heard it said..., but I say" statements, and 39 is in one of those.

So, what are some of those things that Jesus said in the "...but I say..." statements?

Be careful about being angry without a cause, or insulting someone.

If you have lust problems, put your eye out.

If your right hand keeps getting you in trouble (considering the context, it probably means you can't keep it off other women), chop it off.

A man who divorces his wife without just cause makes her an adultress, and the man who marries her is an adulterer.

Don't make vows.

It's an interesting list. Let's look at it.

Ok, so, how 'literally' do we take any and all of these?

For example, how literally are we men to take the commands to dismember ourselves if we can't keep our eyes and hands off of women, at least in a lustful way? Usually, not very literally.

What about the one about vows? Would promises fit in there? I'm not sure, though I wouldn't doubt it. Still, we do recognize some vows. Marriage vows, for example, or those in courts. Some churches have various kinds of things they want people to commit to, or events like fasts or prayer sessions of whatever kinds that they want commitments to.

What about anger? That's usually seen more literally, though not completely. We do tend to think a spade should be called what it is.

And the divorce question is one that is very much pertinent today. I'm unsure what the general view is on that.

So, with all of this, what are we to make of the command to "turn the other cheek"? Is it metaphorical? Is it an impossible ideal? Is it to be taken literally in all situation? Is it like the commands to lop off hands and poke out eyes?

Let me give another example, from a few verse later, in 42. "Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away".

How literally are we to take this command? For example, if you are watching TV and see a well-heeled faith-healer on there talking about how his 'ministry' is going to go under if you don't plant a seed of $10,000 right now and God will surely make you a millionaire and keep you from the flu this next winter if you do so, does this verse mean that you are to send $10,000 to this charlatan because you had the misfortune of watching TV when he was on asking you for it? Or if your ne'er-do-well Cousin Bruno asks you for a few thousand bucks to help fund him in his next sure-to-fail get-rich-quick scheme, are you obligated to help him?

I think most of us would say "No" to both of those scenarios, and can easily recognize others. I think we know that we are to use our knowledge and wisdom in determining how best to help others.

So, too, do I think the same in regards to "Turn the other cheek". Perhaps the movie Gandhi was not far off when he said it was about courage, but I don't think it was about pacifism.

Rather, it is about wisdom.

In the whole of the NT, there are three instances when interactions with soldiers are mentioned--when some came to John the Baptist for advice, when a Centurion came to Jesus to ask for his servant to be healed, and when Peter was sent to Cornelius' house as the beginning of taking the Gospel to the Gentiles.

In none of these are soldiers told to stop being soldiers. They are not told to leave the army. Nor are they told to stay in the army but not fight.

The "Turn the other cheek" text is an interesting one to try to understand, and I'm certainly open to being corrected on it. But if you're going to say that should be taken absolutely literally, I'm going to want you to send photos of yourself with your eyes gouged out and your right hand chopped off, and I'm going to ask you for all the money you got, so you'd best be ready to pony up.

jumping ahead

...First, those committed to nonviolence based on the teaching of Jesus--if they are wrong now--wil someday be right. If God's dream is to come true for planet Earth, someday we will not "learn war anymore" (Isaiah 2:4 ESV). If we disagree with people presently committed to nonviolence, we should at least appreciate them for their foresight...
McLaren, The Secret Message of Jesus, p. 155

To really make this work, I have to go into slacker-Cali-surfer-dude mode.

Duuuude!!!

I was, like, you know, just look through this, you know, book, and saw this, you know, thing he said here. And I'm, like, so into that, you know, cause if I had, you know, like, go be a soldier, I couldn't, you know, stay here on the, like, beach, and surf my life away.

Duuude, that would be, like, so ungnarly, you know.

But then I thought, whoooooa, duuuude, take a look at this.

And I thought, hey, dude, doesn't, like, the Bible say that, like, in heaven there is no marriage? That people will be, like, you know, not married?

So I thought, whooooa, duuuude, if that's so true, then maybe I should, like, be like those people this, like, guy is talking about, you know? I mean, it's not, you know, like he's making a bit deal out of if they're, like, you know, right or not, only that they're, you know, ahead of their time or whatever.

So, dude, I think I'm ahead of my time, too, so, you know, maybe I can, you know, be like them.

I mean, if someday we're not going to have, you know, marriage, then, you know, maybe I should worry about it.

Duuuude, I so like that way of thinking, you know!! I can, you know, sleep around as much as I want, and, you know, all I'm being is, you know, like, ahead of the times, see.

Ok, enough of the slacker dude act, thankfully.

Hopefully that little bit of an attempt at humor will show how dangerous McLaren's thinking is here. Mention has already been made of his attempts to read his extreme pacifism into Scripture, and for him to try to make such people "ahead of the times" seems rather a stretch.

going too far

In other words, he (John the Baptist) says, "Being a soldier gives you extraordinary power. Don't abuse that power by extorting money or falsely accusing people." Through Christian history, most Christians have chosen to take a similar approach regarding war. It's not that Christians should be pacifists, they say, but we shouldn't abuse power--including the power of weaponry. We may still have to go to war, but we should be just and restrained in the way we conduct ourselves.

Others, though, have not been satisfied with this approach. they have looked at Jesus' kingdom manifesto, and they have felt it is impossible for a person to simultaneously put Jesus' teachings into action and participate in war.
McLaren, 'The Secret Message of Jesus', pp. 150-151

That, in a nutshell, summarizes the whole problem with emergents (though to be fair, they are not the only ones who are not 'satisfied' with the Bible's words and try to add to them).

You will not find any place in the New Testament were a radical (I hate that word) pacifism is either commanded or encouraged; in fact, in the three instances where John the Baptist, Jesus, and Peter had dealings with military personnel (John giving advice to soldiers, Jesus healing the centurion's servant, and Peter at Cornelius' house to open the door to the Gentiles for the Gospel), we see no condemnation at all of the military. John does not call them 'brood of vipers', Jesus commends the centurion as having more faith then any He had seen in Israel, and Peter is send by God to Cornelius.

Factor in, then, the Old Testament, and we can say that the pacifists must add to what the Bible says in order to support their position.