| quote of note |
| “The nature of a paradigm is such that it cannot change unless it is replaced" - Sarah Sumner |
| nehemiah project |
|
| from my library |
| |
| online biblical study resources |
|
| worthy endeavors |
|
|
| Saturday, October 18, 2008 |
| Anabaptist theology and John Woolman |
I am not sure why, if it is the political season or the evolution of some of my social theories and theology, but I am finding myself more and more attracted to Anabaptist theology. Whether be John Howard Yoder, Menno Simons, or newly discovered for me, John Woolman.
John Woolman was a Quaker whose abolitionist views and practices preceded many of the well known abolitionists in the colonies and in England. As he was just recently introduced to me, I introduce him to you. Check him out here.Labels: abolitionist, Anabaptist, church history, john woolman, pacifism |
posted by Unknown @ 8:12 AM   |
|
|
|
| Wednesday, June 04, 2008 |
| Politics, Peace, and The Church |
So, finally that is it. We have a match up. Let me take this time to share what I have said before. I really do not like the two party political system that dominates the American Political system. I agree with our first President, Washington, when he said that the two party system will be the death of the effectiveness of the American Political System. With that said it is what we have, so we work with it. Now that we have clear candidates for the general Presidential election, I thought it would be good to start a series of posts on some of the issues we as Christians see as important, and some that we don't but should. First, let us begin by quoting NT Wright when he was asked how we as Christians should deal in the Public Sector. "We should ask ourselves, what would this world look like if God was running the show?" This is a formative question that we should view all issues through when approaching our civic duty to participate in elections, or work for social justice. So let us start with the idea of advocating for peace. For some reason there have been other issues that mainstream church has elevated above the issue of peace, such as homosexual marriage, abortion, and others. Let me say that I agree with the importance of some of these issues (setting aside H Marriage), especially abortion. But being pro-life while not being anti-war seems to me to be hypocritical. Why does it seem that so many Christians have no problem picketing abortion clinics while supporting elected officials who send young men and women to war? I guess the better question is, "If God was running things, would war be an option?" I admit, that some Christians that speak for peace have treated this as if it is a "no brainer", and in a sense I can understand, however, it is still complicated to some. This complication comes from a number of issues, including how one reads the story of God in the scriptures. There are those that support war by going to the Old Testament (OT) and more specifically books like Judges, and point out that God is not anti-war for he commanded the people of Israel to go to war and to kill, even women and children. These passages are difficult and can be fully explained in one post, other than to say that we as Christians living in America can not use these passages to defend our country's decision to go to war because we are not a "Theocracy" as Israel was. A Theocracy is a God (Theos) led country (cracy). God was their king and was preparing them to inhabit a land that was full of influences that would have, and did, lead them away from him. There are no more God led countries. Rather, God spread his redemption that was once focused on one nation, Israel, to all of Creation through the life death and resurrection of his Son Jesus. Now, the nation or kingdom of God knows no geographical, national, or other boundaries. All who believe in Jesus are a part of the kingdom of God. With this in mind, we understand that when Paul said our "Citizenship is in heaven" (Phil 3:20), our priority is to our kingdom citizenship. And, we have fellow citizens in every country of the world, including Iraq. We can't support war against other citizens of the kingdom can we? I am going to stop and return to this conversation. Comment with your disagreements, comments, or otherwise. Labels: elections, pacifism, peace, war |
| posted by Unknown @ 10:04 AM |
|
|
|
| Friday, March 09, 2007 |
| The call for non-violence |
OK, I might have used the word, but I don't think "pacifist" is the best description of my stance. I would much rather be described as holding to Christian Non-Violence. Anyways, my stance continues to change and grow. Here are some reasons why.
- Loss of faith in "Just - War". I have held to the "Just - War Theory", which says, (in a very simple way), that war is needed if the act of not going to war will cost more lives than the act of going to war. This sounds good in theory, but I agree with Stanley Hauerwas, that in theory is where it usually remains. In conflicts both sides tend to use this theory as ammunition against the other, claiming moral superiority and the right to fight. Also, there is no good way to truly know whether more lives will be saved by going to war than by not. A war is usually justified after it is over. If I was to only have this reason for not supporting "Just - War", than I admit that WWII is a problem for me, for it might be a war that fits the bill.
- Taking Seriously the Words of Jesus. Lets admit it. There are somethings that Jesus said that just aren't easy to hear. So much so, that there are those that say we aren't expected to adhere to these difficult challenges until Christ returns and all is well. Statements like, "Love your enemy", and "if someone hits you, turn your other cheek to him, or if someone takes your cloak, give them your tunic as well" we try to over spiritualize and misapply, attempting to elude the thing they are really telling us. To live in the Jesus way is to not respond to violence and violent people in the same way, with violence. It is a whole counter cultural view of how to live in a violent and many times abusive world.
- Looking at the Life of Jesus. One has to look no further than Jesus' life to see what his words on love of enemies and response to violence look like when lived out. Unlike the zealot movement of his time, Jesus didn't accept the idea that violence should be used in the name of God. Jesus had opportunity to sway his many followers in violent revolt against their Roman captors, yet, he displayed another way.
This is not an exhaustive list of reasons. Any thoughts? Labels: enemies, Jesus, just war, non-violence, pacifism, zealots |
| posted by Unknown @ 3:48 PM |
|
|
|
| Wednesday, March 07, 2007 |
|
So, when I first started blogging, I told myself that I wouldn't get into politics with my posts. This mirrored my life as a pastor for the past 8 years. I kept clear of mentioning anything that might be understood as a political stance when in the presence of parishoners. The more I grow in relationship with God through Jesus of Nazareth, and the more I grow in the knowledge of the Bible, the more I am convinced that we should not be dualistic in our lives. There are those that hold to the idea, if not with their mouths, definitely with their lives, that your "spiritual" life should be separate from your "secular" life. As if, these are two separate compartments holding the quantities acquired of each, never to influence the other. I don't believe this is true, or is even possible. What we believe influences all of who we are. We are not compartmentalized people. With that said, my faith drives me to speak about many things including political issues. Also, it is my understanding in reading the New Testament that the Gospel (or good news) of Jesus is counter to the rise of empericism in our world. Empiricism is the call of the empire to all of its citizens to give allegiance to it as the presiding kingdom. I live in a modern day empire, the United States of America. I know that this will be construed by many as unpatriotic, but this empire calls for my allegiance over against all else. As Christians, we know that we give allegiance not to any human built empire, but to the Kingdom of Heavan that was ushered in by the life death and resurrection of Jesus. When the apostle Paul would spread the "good news" of Jesus and the Kingdom, he would use the Koine Greek word"euangelion", which is the same word used to make announcements about the Roman Emperors. "Euangelion, the Emperor of Rome is Tiberius", or "Come celebrate the Emperor's birthday". So, when Paul or someone like him would use this word to tell the story of Jesus, those listening would have most definitely heard him saying, "Jesus is Lord and Caesar is not." Of course you don't have to know but a little about the Roman Empire and its leaders to know that this was not just a slightly prickly political statement. Rather, this was a stance that got Chrisitans thrown to the lions, beheaded, and burned. Paul didn't stay away from Political issues because he thought they shouldn't mix with his spiritual life. It is obvious that one can't perfectly compare the Roman Empire with the empire of today, but the point is that there will always be empirical pressure for allegiance which will always be countered and upstaged by the euangelion of Jesus, driving his followers to stand at times in opposition. So, back to me. I have come to see that this blog might one of many places to take a stand. As you can see, I have posted a banner pointing to one of the first things I will talk about, Christian non-violence and war. I think I am becoming a "pacifist". Labels: Christianity, Empire, gospel, non-violence, pacifism, Paul, politics, Roman Empire, USA |
| posted by Unknown @ 11:12 AM |
|
|
|
|
| ben thomas |
|
| previous thoughts |
|
| links |
|
| blogs I read | |
|
| archives |
|
|
| stuff |
|
|
|
