A Word From Dr. King
On a blog day set aside for "inspiration," and in a week set aside to remember him, I thought I'd give some time to Dr. King. It's a little long compared to normal blog entries, but if you'll imagine his voice, it will fly by just as it would if he were right here with us. I'll just post this speech and let us all - including me - post any thoughts on the comment board.
Martin Luther King's Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech
December 10, 1964
Oslo, Norway
I accept the Nobel Prize for Peace at a moment when twenty-two million Negroes of the United States of America are engaged in a creative battle to end the long night of racial injustice. I accept this award in behalf of a civil rights movement which is moving with determination and a majestic scorn for risk and danger to establish a reign of freedom and a rule of justice.
I am mindful that only yesterday in Birmingham, Alabama, our children, crying out for brotherhood, were answered with fire hoses, snarling dogs and even death. I am mindful that only yesterday in Philadelphia, Mississippi, young people seeing to secure the right to vote were brutalized and murdered. And only yesterday more than 40 houses of worship in the State of Mississippi alone were bombed or burned because they offered a sanctuary to those who would not accept segregation.
I am mindful that debilitating and grinding poverty afflicts my people and chains them to the lowest rung of the economic ladder.
Therefore, I must ask why this prize is awarded to a movement which is beleaguered and committed to unrelenting struggle; to a movement which has not won the very peace and brotherhood which is the essence of the Nobel Prize.
After contemplation, I conclude that this award which I receive on behalf of that movement is profound recognition that nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral question of our time -- the need for man to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to violence and oppression.
Civilization and violence are antithetical concepts. Negroes of the United States, following the people of India, have demonstrated that nonviolence is not sterile passivity, but a powerful moral force which makes for social transformation. Sooner or later all the people of the world will have to discover a way to live together in peace, and thereby transform this pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood.
If this is to be achieved, man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love. The tortuous road which has led from Montgomery, Alabama, to Oslo bears witness to this truth. This is a road over which millions of Negroes are travelling to find a new sense of dignity.
This same road has opened for all Americans a new era of progress and hope. It has led to a new Civil Rights bill, and it will, I am convinced, be widened and lengthened into a superhighway of justice as Negro and white men in increasing numbers create alliances to overcome their common problems.
I accept this award today with an abiding faith in America and an audacious faith in the future of mankind. I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the "isness" of man's present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal "oughtness" that forever confronts him.
I refuse to accept the idea that man is mere flotsam and jetsam in the river of life unable to influence the unfolding events which surround him. I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality.
I refuse to accept the cynical notion that nation after nation must spiral down a militaristic stairway into the hell of thermonuclear destruction. I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right temporarily defeated is stronger than evil triumphant.
I believe that even amid today's mortar bursts and whining bullets, there is still hope for a brighter tomorrow. I believe that wounded justice, lying prostrate on the blood-flowing streets of our nations, can be lifted from this dust of shame to reign supreme among the children of men.
I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits. I believe that what self-centered men have torn down, men other-centered can build up. I still believe that one day mankind will bow before the altars of God and be crowned triumphant over war and bloodshed, and nonviolent redemptive goodwill will proclaim the rule of the land.
"And the lion and the lamb shall lie down together and every man shall sit under his own vine and fig tree and none shall be afraid."
I still believe that we shall overcome.
This faith can give us courage to face the uncertainties of the future. It will give our tired feet new strength as we continue our forward stride toward the city of freedom. When our days become dreary with low-hovering clouds and our nights become darker than a thousand midnights, we will know that we are living in the creative turmoil of a genuine civilization struggling to be born.
Today I come to Oslo as a trustee, inspired and with renewed dedication to humanity. I accept this prize on behalf of all men who love peace and brotherhood. I say I come as a trustee, for in the depths of my heart I am aware that this prize is much more than an honor to me personally.
Every time I take a flight I am always mindful of the man people who make a successful journey possible -- the known pilots and the unknown ground crew.
So you honor the dedicated pilots of our struggle who have sat at the controls as the freedom movement soared into orbit. You honor, once again, Chief (Albert) Luthuli of South Africa, whose struggles with and for his people, are still met with the most brutal expression of man's inhumanity to man.
You honor the ground crew without whose labor and sacrifices the jet flights to freedom could never have left the earth.
Most of these people will never make the headlines and their names will not appear in Who's Who. Yet when years have rolled past and when the blazing light of truth is focused on this marvelous age in which we live -- men and women will know and children will be taught that we have a finer land, a better people, a more noble civilization -- because these humble children of God were willing to suffer for righteousness' sake.
I think Alfred Nobel would know what I mean when I say that I accept this award in the spirit of a curator of some precious heirloom which he holds in trust for its true owners -- all those to whom beauty is truth and truth beauty -- and in whose eyes the beauty of genuine brotherhood and peace is more precious than diamonds or silver or gold.
MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.
Martin Luther King's Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech
December 10, 1964
Oslo, Norway
I accept the Nobel Prize for Peace at a moment when twenty-two million Negroes of the United States of America are engaged in a creative battle to end the long night of racial injustice. I accept this award in behalf of a civil rights movement which is moving with determination and a majestic scorn for risk and danger to establish a reign of freedom and a rule of justice.
I am mindful that only yesterday in Birmingham, Alabama, our children, crying out for brotherhood, were answered with fire hoses, snarling dogs and even death. I am mindful that only yesterday in Philadelphia, Mississippi, young people seeing to secure the right to vote were brutalized and murdered. And only yesterday more than 40 houses of worship in the State of Mississippi alone were bombed or burned because they offered a sanctuary to those who would not accept segregation.
I am mindful that debilitating and grinding poverty afflicts my people and chains them to the lowest rung of the economic ladder.
Therefore, I must ask why this prize is awarded to a movement which is beleaguered and committed to unrelenting struggle; to a movement which has not won the very peace and brotherhood which is the essence of the Nobel Prize.
After contemplation, I conclude that this award which I receive on behalf of that movement is profound recognition that nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral question of our time -- the need for man to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to violence and oppression.
Civilization and violence are antithetical concepts. Negroes of the United States, following the people of India, have demonstrated that nonviolence is not sterile passivity, but a powerful moral force which makes for social transformation. Sooner or later all the people of the world will have to discover a way to live together in peace, and thereby transform this pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood.
If this is to be achieved, man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love. The tortuous road which has led from Montgomery, Alabama, to Oslo bears witness to this truth. This is a road over which millions of Negroes are travelling to find a new sense of dignity.
This same road has opened for all Americans a new era of progress and hope. It has led to a new Civil Rights bill, and it will, I am convinced, be widened and lengthened into a superhighway of justice as Negro and white men in increasing numbers create alliances to overcome their common problems.
I accept this award today with an abiding faith in America and an audacious faith in the future of mankind. I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the "isness" of man's present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal "oughtness" that forever confronts him.
I refuse to accept the idea that man is mere flotsam and jetsam in the river of life unable to influence the unfolding events which surround him. I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality.
I refuse to accept the cynical notion that nation after nation must spiral down a militaristic stairway into the hell of thermonuclear destruction. I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right temporarily defeated is stronger than evil triumphant.
I believe that even amid today's mortar bursts and whining bullets, there is still hope for a brighter tomorrow. I believe that wounded justice, lying prostrate on the blood-flowing streets of our nations, can be lifted from this dust of shame to reign supreme among the children of men.
I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits. I believe that what self-centered men have torn down, men other-centered can build up. I still believe that one day mankind will bow before the altars of God and be crowned triumphant over war and bloodshed, and nonviolent redemptive goodwill will proclaim the rule of the land.
"And the lion and the lamb shall lie down together and every man shall sit under his own vine and fig tree and none shall be afraid."
I still believe that we shall overcome.
This faith can give us courage to face the uncertainties of the future. It will give our tired feet new strength as we continue our forward stride toward the city of freedom. When our days become dreary with low-hovering clouds and our nights become darker than a thousand midnights, we will know that we are living in the creative turmoil of a genuine civilization struggling to be born.
Today I come to Oslo as a trustee, inspired and with renewed dedication to humanity. I accept this prize on behalf of all men who love peace and brotherhood. I say I come as a trustee, for in the depths of my heart I am aware that this prize is much more than an honor to me personally.
Every time I take a flight I am always mindful of the man people who make a successful journey possible -- the known pilots and the unknown ground crew.
So you honor the dedicated pilots of our struggle who have sat at the controls as the freedom movement soared into orbit. You honor, once again, Chief (Albert) Luthuli of South Africa, whose struggles with and for his people, are still met with the most brutal expression of man's inhumanity to man.
You honor the ground crew without whose labor and sacrifices the jet flights to freedom could never have left the earth.
Most of these people will never make the headlines and their names will not appear in Who's Who. Yet when years have rolled past and when the blazing light of truth is focused on this marvelous age in which we live -- men and women will know and children will be taught that we have a finer land, a better people, a more noble civilization -- because these humble children of God were willing to suffer for righteousness' sake.
I think Alfred Nobel would know what I mean when I say that I accept this award in the spirit of a curator of some precious heirloom which he holds in trust for its true owners -- all those to whom beauty is truth and truth beauty -- and in whose eyes the beauty of genuine brotherhood and peace is more precious than diamonds or silver or gold.
MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.
posted by Al Sturgeon | 5:29 AM
37 Comments:
What stands out to me is that Dr. King's stand for civil rights through nonviolent protest is celebrated today, but he extends his belief to a worldwide scale, rejecting militarism as well.
These three statements stand out to me today:
"I conclude that this award which I receive on behalf of that movement is profound recognition that nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral question of our time -- the need for man to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to violence and oppression...."
"If this is to be achieved, man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love..."
"I refuse to accept the cynical notion that nation after nation must spiral down a militaristic stairway into the hell of thermonuclear destruction. I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right temporarily defeated is stronger than evil triumphant."
Just leads me to believe that Dr. King wouldn't have been any more popular today than he was in the '60s with the establishment.
Should make for interesting discussion.
Love this speech, Al. Dr. King is one of my heroes. I don't think he'd be very popular today, either, because his message was so radical. To him, peaceful resistance wasn't a sign of weakness. He took Ghandi's approach to turn the other cheek -- not a "I don't want to fight back" interpretation but a "is that all you got" interpretation. But rather than funneling his anger into violence, he fought to find a way to channel his anger into something peaceful.
Do you think that Arnold Schwarzenegger would call Dr. King a "girlie man"? Just curious. A commitment to nonviolent resolution of conflicts is considered insufficiently masculine, euphemistically termed "weak," in the current political climate. Gender politics go a long way toward interpreting a lot of the 2004 campaign, IMHO.
That's a great point, Sandi. We associate nonviolence with weakness (which is almost always associated with women), and then the logic follows that we don't want weak leaders. I think it goes to something you said in a comment to another post, something about changing the way we understand or interpret ideas (I think it had to do with equality, but I can't remember what you said, exactly). I think we (myself included) can use Dr. King as an example of someone who lived his life in a way to redefine what is weakness and what is strength.
I hadn't ever thought of Governor Schwarzenegger in relation to his uber-masculinity and how that might have played a role in his election. It could be very interesting, then, if there are two women running for President in 08, which there very well may be.
That's a legitimate point, Joe. My quick one-liner comeback would be: that's exactly what Dr. King saw happening. Lynchings / shootings / beatings / church bombings. Yet he INSISTED on a non-violent approach. You don't have to shoot someone because they are beating someone up. That doesn't mean you have to let them keep beating up the person, though (why not take the bat out of their hands and call the police?). I think there's a difference in short-term solutions (i.e. stopping the beating) and long-term vision (non-violence as a means and not just an end).
My non-one-liner response would be: your right in that enemies who prey on innocent people make this more difficult to practice than to preach. Hitler is a great example of someone who needed to be stopped, and I assume that military force was the only way to do that. But, going back to the long-term vision thing, wars are short-term, often short-sighted solutions. There needs to be a fundamental change in the way we see the world. That was King's vision, and the fact that he was killed for that vision is a testamony to how scarey it was to people in the 60s & 70s. It's just as scarey today.
I'm not anti-military, and I'm not against using force to protect the weak. But I think King's vision could have helped America in the wake of September 11. I don't mean this to sound like I'm on the attack here or anything, and I'm really not blasting Bush here (because so many people thought this way), but what if our first instinct hadn't been retaliation? That doesn't necessarily mean not showing strength, it's just a different way to be strong. And it's a different approach to justice -- which is what Dr. King was seeking through non-violence.
I disagree that nonviolence is only affective when the enemy is not determined. Enemies are always going to be determined. They were determined against King. Killed him, no less. And he knew they were going to kill him. Yet, his approach definitely created change.
Any of that make sense?
Once again, good point, Joe. I'm not completely comfortable with my positions, so I appreciate your making me think. King wasn't in a position of power, but he was in a position of influence over a large number of people. I guess I would like to think that nonviolence isn't inactivity. It doesn't involve doing nothing. It just involves doing something different from what we usually do.
Also, I completely agree that Bush would have been blasted by dems had he not gone to war for being weak. I also think that it wouldn't have mattered if Gore was in office -- I think he'd have attacked Afghanastan as well.
Wow, I'm about too slow to get into this dialogue. Too much good stuff.
First of all, Joe wrote: "But you know what... I have a vision of a world where gumdrop trees grow next to sparkling rivers of lemonade and children never have to go to the dentist. My vision is just about as likely to come true in this world as Dr King's."
Don't forget to add Jesus to this group of visionaries with pie-in-the-sky philosophies. :-)
But the ends don't justify the means, do they?
From Uncle Hub in the movie, Secondhand Lions: "Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most. That people are basically good; that honor, courage, and virtue mean everything; that power and money, money and power mean nothing; that good always triumphs over evil; and I want you to remember this, that love... true love never dies. You remember that, boy. You remember that. Doesn't matter if it's true or not. You see, a man should believe in those things, because those are the things worth believing in."
I've got to run. I'll try to get back in the discussion once I get home in an hour or two.
No idea on Duvall. I love most of the movies he's in. (And despite the horrible-ness of the movie about NASCAR with Tom Cruise, I thought Duvall was great in it.)
As for the money-changers -- I think that was an example of taking the bat out of the hand, defending a home. It wasn't violence in a traditional sort of way. He was mad something terrible, yes, but I wouldn't say violent, at least not what we would recognize as violent today. He didn't seek revenge. That event didn't change and it doesn't undercut his overall philosophy, I don't think. When he was personally assaulted, verbally or physically, he chose nonviolence.
I've never actually thought about Peter and the sword. I'll have to give that a think.
I guess I would just want to reiterate that I don't think nonviolence equals inaction and it doesn't equal simply protesting. King was very active in protests, yes, but also in politics and different organizations. He wasn't just a critic. He was active. I would say the same for Jesus. His nonviolence wasn't inaction. He was very active in spreading a philosophy of love.
I could be completely reading your comments incorrectly, Joe, so please correct me. You may not be saying that nonviolence is inaction, but I think many people do.
Almost a side question, but when did Jesus teach his disciples to use the sword? And when did they use it with the blessing of the “movement?” For several centuries, Jesus’ disciples go on the record as nonviolent teachers as well as practitioners.
But let me try to get at something here.
Joe, I think you misread Dr. King a bit (with all due respect). As Mikey is trying to establish that “non-violence” is not equal to “non-resistance,” I think we should point out the object of King’s protest. You use the phrase “nonviolent protest” and “do nothing” together in sentences like what he taught people to do is some appeal to a violent person’s sense of morality or something (e.g. Someone’s being attacked while someone says, “Now you quit doing that!”). That’s not Dr. King at all!!! His protest was for legislation, and with legislation, the execution of those laws by quite literally “removing the bats” from the hands of the aggressors. His “resistance” was specifically nonviolent, to show the better way, but also to bring about change. Violence escalates. Nonviolence brings attention to the issue at hand to those wielding power, which in this instance was the people of the United States of America. And it worked.
Dr. King believed strongly in “rule by law.” It was unjust laws (along with its executors violating laws) that he sought to change, and his process was to do so peacefully, not by physical aggression.
Everyone please stay with me here, and please comment:
With the unfortunate exception of capital punishment, our nation has almost “got” what Dr. King preached on the national level. Our country allows for “self-defense.” If someone attacks me in my home or on the street, I have a fundamental right to defend myself. Now I can kill someone in self-defense, which is somewhat at odds with Dr. King / Jesus’ approach, but that’s not even being debated here.
What I DON’T have a right to do in America is to take the law in my own hands – to use violence/aggression to right wrongs done against me. Instead, we have laws, executors of those laws, and a judicial system responsible for justice. The power is in the hands of a governing body. They are responsible for “removing the bat from aggressive hands.” And if I don’t get my way, then I have to learn to live with it. I am not allowed retaliation as an option. I can protest injustice, and should, but not with physical aggression. This is what Dr. King preached. And this is what America practices almost naturally now. (With the exception of some states killing people after the bats have been safely removed from their hands.)
But what Dr. King also preached (e.g. today’s Nobel speech) was that this concept extends to every level, even a global level.
You bring up Hitler, the typical example. We’ve got to remember a bit of history here. After WWI, the proposed League of Nations outlawed war, and because America didn’t want to play with the other boys and girls, we stayed out of it. So when Hitler began his rampage, there was no viable international system in place to deal with him. HUGE difference between then and now. There was no structure to “take the bat out of his hand” other than one-on-one national self-defense. No international police force.
But in the aftermath of WWII, the United Nations was established to (generally) allow the type of justice system King preached and we enjoy on a national level. In short, legislation for international justice, an international police force to “take the bat out of hands” of violent leaders, and an international court system to deal with the conflicts that would follow.
Summing up:
• On an individual level, “removing the bat” from an aggressor’s hands on the street is not in violation of Dr. King’s philosophy. Attacking him with a bat is, even if I have been wronged.
• It is the government’s responsibility to do the bat removal on a local/state/national level, but still again, not attack people in retaliation or pre-emptively attack someone who “might” be aggressive…
• So on an international level, the use of military personnel to serve in an international police force to enforce international law in the same way the police force / justice system would work on a national level is not in violation of Dr. King’s philosophy… I would suspect he would endorse it based on his approach to a government’s role in the enactment of justice…
But bottom line: What we have done in Iraq goes completely against his plea we purportedly celebrated this past Monday. The choice of “now this is personal” retaliation is not the path he taught, and this path he learned from following Jesus.
And just because the Democrats would have criticized Bush does not make his actions right. If that is the ultimate justification, then in fact, it makes his actions so very wrong.
I wish I had my book of Dr. King’s speeches here with me, but it is at the office. In his very first speech in his “movement,” from what I remember, he defined justice as “love in calculation” and went on to say that justice had to do with making right the things that go against love. So “do nothing” was not his philosophy in the least, thus ruling out any dismissal of his approach by citing Hitler or a man on the street with a baseball bat – or Saddam Hussein - as unstoppable forces that require us to attack for justice to take place.
There are other, better, ways. Ways we ought to restore to a national dialogue.
I'm currently reading a book called _The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror_, by Michael Ignatieff. He deals a lot with your last sentence: restore a national dialogue. In fact, this sort of advesarial review is the only way democracy can avoid the moral perils involved in a lot of the complicated decisions that have to be made against terrorists. He also gets into the role of international laws and treaties and organizations and how a nation must approach those laws and codes when the morals and needs of the nation differ from the morals of the international organizations.
I've nothing to add. I'm only half way through it and am still digesting it. But I think you'd like it, Al.
And, Joe, what about Duvall? You can't just tease me like that.
I really do think I see your point, Joe (though my lengthy comment may not have communicated that). When you're big enough to "make" things right, then just do it. (Do you see Dr. King's followers as just not being big enough to go beat the @$@$# out of the "man"? Metaphorically speaking?)
But this sort of thinking is not the higher value system. This was the philosophy of Jim Crow, too. We're bigger than you, so we'll force you to do what we think is right.
And it is not the philosophy of God/Jesus (cf. Satan & Jesus sparring on the mountaintop). Jesus does not force.
The democratic "rule by law" value system diminishes who's biggest and emphasizes "what's best," something we all arrive at together regardless of status, then bequeaths the power to a legal entity to enforce it.
In this world, I'm for that way of thinking. And when it screws up, we try our best to fix the faulty system, not take matters into our own hands if we're big enough. You see, that's the sort of thinking we're trying to do away with...
Sorry to comment in machine-gun fashion, but...
"We're big enough to 'make' things right by physical force" is Saddam Hussein's value system. And Al Qaeda's...
Not Dr. King's. Not Jesus Christ's.
What about the American government?
Al,
There's something I've been waiting to interject, but I've been kind of busy. I'll just have to throw out a small piece and see where it goes.
1. Jesus did not come to institute a governmental policy of how nations should conduct international relations. I'm not sure how the nonviolent approach being advocated here speaks to U.S. foreign policy.
2. I would prefer to stick with either foreign policy or domestic policy. There is, in my opinion, a pretty big difference between capital punishment and war. Both, indeed, use violence to kill people, but there are much larger issues involved in both.
3. (and this is my real contribution, I hope) In your theology of Jesus promoting love toward others (which I agree is grounded in Scripture), where do passages like Revelation 19:11-16 (and following), where Jesus is pictured riding a white horse with armies following him to strike down nations and wage war against those opposed to God, and 1 Corinthians 15:24-26, which speaks of Christ destroying all enemies before he hands over the kingdom to the father, fit in? These are clear passages that speak of the violence of war waged by God (or Christ), the "stronger" to impose his will on the weaker so that his final kingdom may be established.
In this last thought, I'm not saying that's how we individuals should treat other individuals, but I am wondering how that fits in with your idea that Jesus is completely nonviolent in his approach. That is true of his earthly ministry but not true of what Christians expect to happen at the end.
Whitney:
I'm sure I am misreading. I was responding to what I read in the comments made dismissing Dr. King's philosophy as impractical and expecting a reply to where my reasoning is incorrect. It is a style of debate. I was not calling anyone anything, just using names to demonstrate my point.
Once again, "physically forcing the way you believe to be right" is the approach both Saddam Hussein & Osama bin Laden take - bin Laden in fact is trying today (e.g. do it my way or else I'll hurt you), and not one Jesus chose to take. I suspect Joe will tell me what he thinks of my point, and where applicable, where my reasoning is flawed.
I'm just debating, not name-calling. The use of dramatic example is a tool for debate (e.g. gumdrop trees & sparkling rivers of lemonade, Hitler, punks w/baseball bats).
Given your defense, Joe has accused me of heartlessness - as one who would allow Hitler to take over the world and let a homeless man die at the hands of thugs.
Now I don't read it that way. I'm debating.
Please don't take it personally.
Duane:
I have to leave for a Habitat for Humanity board meeting, and it may be a late one given our current situation on the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast. I plan to respond when I get back if I have time, but if not, I will tomorrow.
Duane, I agree with some of your points. Jesus didn't come to set up any sort of government. But I think he is relevant in this discussion because our government invokes him so often (and not just this administration).
I disagree with your statement on capital punishment. I think the decision for capital punishment is made from the same set of moral values that guide our foreign policy. (Again, that's not just this administration, so I'm not pointing fingers.) And it is relevant because the world watches our domestic policies -- they see a reflection of our values, even if the policies don't directly effect them.
Michael,
I do think Jesus is relevant to the discussion, but more on how our leaders' personal beliefs inform their decisions. But this is where it is difficult to talk about what reading of Jesus should inform such decisions and what reading of Scripture should. Do we look to Jesus who did not come to set up a political nation-state, much to the dismay of his twelve disciples by the way, or do we look to the value system behind the actual nation-state set up by God, i.e. Israel, for our decisions regarding national politics? I believe that if Bush is doing anything of the sort, which I'm not saying that he is, then it is probably the latter, which had both capital punishment and total annihilation (see the Amalekites, for example, which involved the slaughter of not only men, women and children, but ANIMALS as well). I'm not saying this last example is the pattern he is using either. If I had to guess, I would say that he's most likely doing the typical Christian thing of praying for wisdom from God to guide him in his decisions and is not looking decisively at any particular passage of Scripture as his model.
On a different note, when I talk about separating domestic and foreign policy when it comes to the death penalty and making war, what I mean is that these are both complex issues in their own right and it is not really fair to group them together as if one who agrees with one necessarily agrees with the other. As a member of our military, I know at least several, if not many, people I could name that would not agree with the death penalty but have no problem (their position in the military should tell you that) with going to war, particularly in Afghanistan. To say they come from the same set of moral values requires further explanation. What is this set of moral values you suggest? Is it a set of moral values that allows for the termination of human life when it is justified (according to this assumed moral standard) as opposed to a different set that does not believe termination of human life by another human is right under any circumstances? Please clarify if you can in the short space of a comment because moral values come from so many different sources (religion, nationality, ethnicity, gender, etc.) that I'm not sure one can speak of a certain set of them that are common among a group at least in this case. For a case in point there are Christians on both sides of the debate who assumingly come from at least a similar set of moral values, i.e. Christianity. I guess I would push us more into shades of grey than black/white, but I might misunderstand what you intend.
Finally, I'd still like to see if anyone would like to discuss the idea of the "final battle" that Christ will instigate, which sounds a lot like war and not a whole lot like love one another, but is an essential part of Christian faith. How does this play into our discussion?
For that matter, how does the violence of the Old Testament fit into this picture? Has God's view changed? Do we have a different God? A person who was labeled a heretic in the second century, Marcion, thought this and eliminated the entire Old Testament and any reference to it in Paul's writings because he thought that the God of the Old Testament was too violent and not the God of love of the New Testament.
Any thoughts here?
Interesting stuff.
Duane, you are MUCH more the theologian than me, and I'll admit that the afterlife and the covenant with Old Israel aren't huge concerns with me. I see Jesus as the way, truth, and life, and just purport to try to follow him - to try to walk as Jesus did.
I think this was Dr. King's approach. How would Jesus approach outcasts? He would stand up for their dignity w/o resorting to physical violence and be willing to die for them. This Dr. King did.
His fateful question became, So how do I respond to people who enact violence toward me? Further, how do I teach people to follow Jesus in this regard? His conclusion was to turn the other cheek, to not retaliate, but to pursue every creative means to cry out for justice w/o physical retalitation. This he did.
He believed this to not be only applicable on a person-to-person level, but that decisions made by people following Jesus would be guided by the same ethics on every level of interpersonal relations - even on a global scale. This was his speech accepting the peace prize.
I happen to agree with him. I do not see the apples/oranges distinction (yet) that I believe you see.
If this were a country that did not invoke Jesus' name in its politics, then I'd be off to the side simply teaching that Christians are not to choose the path of retaliation because Jesus taught us to live that way. But, as Mikey said, the political world does invoke Jesus, and I'm just trying to handle what I believe to be PR damage.
If there is justification in the teachings of Jesus for the use of physical violence, I just want to see it.
I simply feel my job is to teach what Jesus taught and ask people to live like Jesus lived. If there are views that justify physical aggression, then people have a right to those views. But I'm going to offer my belief and engage the conversation until either I see it that way, or I'm sure the alternative view has been offered.
I'm feeling bad about the way Whitney read my comments, so I want to apologize before I go to bed.
I know that Joe speaks from a heart of wanting to help hurting people, which separates his way of thinking in a huge way from the Saddam/Osama types - and that heart of wanting to help hurting people places one on Jesus' side of the fence every time.
I think the points are still worth discussing, but I sure want that last paragraph to be crystal clear.
(I'm about to use the word evil a lot, and I don't mean it in a Satanic sort of way.)
Defining moral codes is so hard to do. What I was going for is that democratic states recognize all individuals, not just citizens of their country, as humans who have certain rights. (I do understand that some individuals forfeit their rights by violating this code to begin with.) The link I see is how the US approaches individuals who are murderers and terrorists. If our moral code is such that we allow ourselves to kill someone (justifiably or not -- I'm not saying murderers don't deserve to die), we are choosing to do something that we already define as evil (taking a life). It is justified (rightly or not) as less evil because it is justice. To me that's a justification of doing something that we already define as wrong. I think we do the same sort of justification with terrorists. We choose to detain suspects without extending to them the rights we extend to other individuals (I think the UN defines this as treating individuals with dignity, but it's been a couple of years since I read their document on Human Rights). No one claims that this is the best thing to do, but it is justified as a necessary under the circumstances. Both instances seem to me to be examples of our society having a moral code that allows us to do the wrong thing if we think it leads to a positive end.
(I just read back over that and it doesn't make much sense, so help me out by taking something from it, Duane.)
I'll admit that I don't even understand Revelations, so I can't tackle that one, Duane. I would love to hear more of what you have to say about it. My quick response is that that is a completely different game. It doesn't deal with humans and nations, it deals with souls and sin. The idea of hell has always bothered me. I don't understand that to be justice. But, that's just me. On earth, Jesus's teachings and philosophy concerned two things: how to treat each other while we're on earth, and how to live in a way that we can get to heaven. In Revelations, the former of those goals is now not even a possibility, as life on earth no longer exists. And I don't understand much of the OT. It seems a radically different perspective on human existence than the NT.
Thanks, Joe! Hope you have a good day. Don't drink the water.
To Duane/Mikey's OT discussion, I don't believe there's a different God in the NT, but Jesus did say things like "you've heard that its been said an eye for an eye..." in the NT. Yes, that had been said, by GOD no less in the Torah! Then Jesus goes on, "But I say to you..."
There's a definite change of approach in the NT, and God seems to eschew the political approach (which is why I can understand the "stay out of politics" approach of following Jesus). But when one is empowered politically (when you happen to be Caesar on some level), it seems to me that its best to use that power responsibly. What I have a hard time seeing (as in this entire discussion) is a different set of Jesus-following rules for politicians.
Duane, you can explain much of the following to me better than my current understanding I'm sure. I heard a lecture, then read a few books, on this concept a couple of years ago, on how the ethical teachings of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount are applied to our world today.
Three approaches:
(1) The "counsels of perfection" approach, with proponents like Aquinas and mainstream Catholicism, which separates Jesus' ethics into a couple of boats - seen best as one set of rules for clergy (celibacy, etc. being the higher order of following Jesus) and the laity. None of us seem to be arguing from this school of thought.
(2) The "two kingdoms or ethics of vocation" approach, with proponents like Martin Luther and most mainstream Protestantism (including Churches of Christ) - seen best as the approach that separates the world into "spiritual" and "secular."
Here's a Luther quote to demonstrate: "Do you want to know what your duty is as a prince or a judge or a lord or a lady, with people under you? You do not have to ask Christ about your duty. Ask the imperial or territorial law. It will soon tell you your duty toward your inferiors as their protector. It gives you both the power and the might to protect and to punish within the limits of your authority and commission, not as a Christian, but as an imperial subject."
IOW, when President Bush (or Clinton, or whomever...) has to decide whether to invade a nation or stay an execution or whatever, don't look to Jesus for guidance because Jesus doesn't speak to such things. Jesus doesn't deal in secular matters, but spiritual matters.
This seems to be your approach, which is in keeping with the largest part of modern Protestantism, including Churches of Christ.
(3) There's a third approach, probably unfairly called the "Kingdom of God" approach, with proponents like the Anabaptists, early American restorationists, and arguably the early church - seen best as the approach that teaches that Jesus' ethical teachings in the Sermon on the Mount applies to everyone in every station of life - including presidents.
This third area is the perspective I'm trying to come from, that Jesus' teaching in regard to retaliation is not confined to "the common folks," but to all humanity.
This is also the approach that seemed to be taken by Dr. King.
It is hard to know where to start, but I'll start by responding to Michael since I think I see his comment closer to mine and Al wrote two replies to me.
Michael,
I guess what I take from your discussion about a moral code/standard for democratic societies is that a basic belief is in the protection of the rights of individuals, including the right to live. It seems that you take this value of human rights as the foundational element of any public policy or decision (this is not stated very well, sorry). In other words, executing the murderer is wrong because what is ultimate is the murderers right to live (or the terrorists' right to a trial). Let me try to clarify:
Michael says:
"Both instances seem to me to be examples of our society having a moral code that allows us to do the wrong thing if we think it leads to a positive end."
I see a different principle at work than the idea that we are justified in doing something wrong because it will lead to a good end--the ends justifies the means. The principle I see at work is that there is something more basic than the rights of the individual when that person has chosen to act outside the boundaries of society's laws. It is not the sanctity of human life and individual rights override justice and upholding the laws of the state. It is that the laws of the state determining how one should act in society are determinitive. When one has given up his/her rights by violating a fundamental right of another human being to live (the one who has been murdered), the state decides what it deems the appropriate punishment for such an action. That person has willingly given up his/her rights that were protected by the state when he/she violated state law and the rights of the other individual. While we can debate whether this action by the state--the death penalty--is just, in the eyes of the state it is. The way I see it then is not that the state is doing something normally consider wrong, i.e. murder, but is protecting the rights of other citizens in a way that it deems just.
The foundation for this decision then is justice not human life. The rights of a certain individual are overriden because he/she has committed a grave offense against a fellow human being. Part of the belief in human rights in democratic societies is guaranteed protection of those rights by the state. When the state fails to do this, individuals lose their rights.
I hope I'm making sense here. My overall point would be that we can argue about what is just punishment, but I don't think we're on the same level if you seem to be taking the stance that the sanctity of human life is foundational and the state (in those that believe in capital punishment) is starting from a sense of justice. Then we talk across each other.
I am by no means qualified to participate in this conversation (though I'm having a great time reading it!). I did see this article in the NYT this morning and thought it was interesting and somewhat relevant. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/20/opinion/20marsh.html?incamp=article_popular_5
And as long as we are on the subject of evangelicals, could someone explain to me in an admittedly tangential comment what the difference is between fundamentalist and evangelical, and whether the C of C is just f or both f and e?
Al,
I have a couple of thoughts to reply to you, but then I really need to get to work.
I'll start with your most recent comment.
First, I'm not sure what you mean by the early church taking the tack that the Sermon on the Mount applied to anyone other than Christians. If you are saying that the early church believed it applied to Christian rulers, I'm not sure where you are getting that because we don't really see an example in the New Testament of Christian rulers being addressed, with the exception of masters and their slaves, but this did not involve the Roman government. If you have one in mind that I'm missing, please let me know what it is. I don't know of any place offhand in the New Testament that addresses rulers and tells them how their Christian values should dictate their political decisions. There are passages that speak about how Christians should act toward the government (Romans 13, 1 Peter 2), but not how Christians in government should use their values to make political decisions. Once again, I might need to be corrected here if there's one that I'm missing.
Assuming that there is not, any attempt to apply Sermon-on-the-Mount principles to the way governments should be run is an interpretation. I'm not speaking to its validity or lack thereof, but just pointing out that it is an interpretation. Jesus in that sermon was speaking to Jews and how they should treat one another when he talks about the "you have heard that it was said....but I tell you...." This must also be kept in context. Before he starts in with these sayings, he says this in Matthew 5:17-20:
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
The way I read this is that he is not saying that these commands in themselves are wrong, but their interpretation by the Jewish religious leaders (Pharisees and teachers of the law), was wrong. In discussing kingdom living, he is consistently telling would-be disciples that they must apply these commands more strictly because that was their intent. In a nation state like Israel where "an eye for an eye" was part of the justice system of a political entity, in the new kingdom, which transcends all political and national boundaries, such retaliation won't do.
On a side note, try finding the Scripture that says, "Hate your enemy" in the Old Testament (what Jesus says in Matthew 5:43). Apparently the religious leaders had interpreted loving one's neighbor to include hating one's enemy. That is where I really think this shows that Jesus was talking about misinterpretation, not simply refuting Old Testament teachings.
On the application of such teachings, Al said about Dr. King's love one another approach:
"He believed this to not be only applicable on a person-to-person level, but that decisions made by people following Jesus would be guided by the same ethics on every level of interpersonal relations - even on a global scale. This was his speech accepting the peace prize.
I happen to agree with him."
[end quote]
This is admittedly Dr. King's interpretation and application of Jesus' teachings. One can choose to say he was absolutely correct and that one wants to follow him, but one must also allow for the possibility that Dr. King erroneously applied Jesus' teachings to international relations. This is what I would argue.
I would also suggest that either you or I misunderstand the Anabaptists and the early American Restorationists. From my understanding, their "kingdom of God" approach did not say that people in politics should apply the "love principle" to their political decisions. To the contrary, both groups had strong positions on completely abstaining from getting involved in any part of government, including voting (see Barton Stone on this). For at least the latter, this had a lot more to do with his millenialist stance than it did with his ethical theology, but millenialist thought also played a part in Anabaptist theology as well.
I would call your third approach Dr. King's approach but would argue that the other groups you number there would fit better in your category 2, where you place me, though I don't think I fit there.
I think I need to stop for now.
Sandi,
I don't have much time and will add a little more on how I think that a Christian value system informs decisions made by political leaders.
Where I think you'd add a great deal to this discussion is by giving us some insight on what value system or set of values in some general way informs or should inform lawmakers, etc. It seems like your work with the ACLU would give you some insight here. I'd appreciate comments if you have time.
Whitney: I go with Secondhand Lions. And thanks. :-)
Sandi: I'd prefer Duane give the good answer defining those two terms. I know fundamentalism got its name from the Scopes monkey trial era when the fear of liberalism led many to begin to demand certain "fundamentals" before you could qualify as Christian.
And I'd say that from the way "evangelical" is used today that CofC's generally are in that bunch, or are at least evangelical wanna-be's.
I see a difference in the "evangelical movement" and the original idea of the "restoration movement," but its been so long since I gave myself that particular headache that I can't remember a handy way to describe the difference.
To me, evangelical churches are trying to come up with the cool ways to persuade people to come to Jesus - while a restorationist church wants to reenact the way of the early church whether that is popularly received or not.
And I'm just saying that I think most CofCs today are gravitating toward the idea that we want to be popularly received (slick mission statements, cool websites, fun small groups, "you'll like our church!" sentiments. etc.).
Just my perception...
So no short answer from me. I see a fundamentalist as someone who has a list of beliefs that she/he demands of others, and an evangelical as someone who is seeking a popular reception of the church.
I'm probably way off base. What else is new?
I agree with Al's overall presentation of fundamentalists and most evangelicals would fall under that category as well. The more recent Community Church Movement (for lack of a better way to express this) of nondenominational churches, would definitely be evangelical, but having left behind what drove the fundamentalist debate, they might not characterize themselves as such. From the article to which Sandi put a link, the Lausanne Covenant of 1974 would probably be a more defining moment in helping to link together different Christian denominations together in a set of beliefs. This is at least part of the Ecumenical Movement in which Christian denominations tried to join together in a loose connection to assert common beliefs. I don't have notes and books right now so I can't go into more detail.
CofC would not consider themselves evangelical or fundamentalist because we, too, are a loose-knit connection of churches that believe similarly, but also vary to enough of an extent so that one cannot be sure when entering a CofC in a different town that one could be assured one knows what a congregation there believes. The lack of a larger structure that is evident in most denominations, including Southern Baptists with the annual convention even though they are run congregationally, makes it difficult to nail us down. We could not join the ecumenical movement because one church cannot speak for every other church.
In belief, mainline CofCs have bought into most evangelical teaching. This includes what is portrayed in the Left Behind series, the Calvinist predestination, and other such beliefs. I think this is very much a result of reading authors with these views and leaving behind our high view of Scripture. So many are swayed by these prominent evangelical leaders whose teachings seep in through either their publications or through preachers who read such works and then teach these elements to their congregations. If you couldn't tell by my tone, I think this is a mistaken move. In an interest to be more ecumenical and accepting others as Christians (a great move on our part, I think), we have unfortunately failed to maintain essential parts of our own identity.
That's probably a longer answer than what you wanted.
Getting back to the discussion at hand, I am not saying that Christian values should not inform our decisions, quite the contrary. But I'd rather discuss how they should inform them and also the way in which they currently do. For instance, I don't think most Christian politicians go to a particular text in the Old or New Testament to decide how to act (or vote) in a given situation. I think they function more from a perspective that says God will tell me what I should do and which way I should vote. This can become a very biblically-uninformed way of acting that nominally claims Christianity as the driving principle in one's actions and thought while ultimately turning out more to be using Christ and God to justify one's own opinions and speculations. Practically speaking I think the decision-making process runs something like this:
1. A situation happens on which I need to make a decision.
2. I gather all the information I can to help me make a well-informed, sound judgment.
3. I decide what I think is best.
4. I pray that God will give me wisdom to decide what is best.
5. There is no sign or new wisdom that occurs contrary to what I have already decided.
6. My conclusion is that God backs my decision and so I say that I'm being informed by Christian beliefs, because, after all, if God did not tell me otherwise, he must agree with what I think.
This is just a rough, general sketch and as a general sketch, is open to much criticism, but I think basically holds true in many situations. 3 and 4 might be reversed sometimes, but I really think that we have usually already made up our minds before we ask God what we should do.
This is where I think evangelical Christianity is more informed by their leaders' interpretation of Scripture than by Scripture itself. Prominent leaders dictate what should be believed and do so in such a strong way that to believe otherwise makes one not a Christian. CofC has bought into much of this, unfortunately, and tends to not be any more biblically informed than others.
This is just my take and might seem offensive to some here. I'm certainly open to criticism and would appreciate challenges to my thinking.
Revelation, while difficult to interpret, does not categorize this battle as one of soul and spirit instead of flesh and blood.
In speaking of this battle, Revelation 19:17b-18 has an angel say to birds, "Come, gather together for the great supper of God, 18 so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and mighty men, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, small and great." The next scene is all the armies gathering to wage war against Christ and his armies. The battle occurs, Christ wins, and 19:21 says, "all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh."
Although this is a difficult book to interpret, I would suggest we at least deal with the way this is cast. Whether or not we can take it literally, the second return of Christ is cast in the form of a physical battle on earth in which he and his armies violently overthrow the current world powers to set up Christ's final kingdom. This at least coheres with the way God executes justice in the Old Testament whether for or against Israel. It is part of our text and needs to play a part in our discussion here.
This is the type of understanding that I think informs C.S. Lewis' presentation of the Lion in the Chronicles of Narnia. I'm not completely well versed in all of the characters' names, but a question is asked by one of the children about the Lion, "Is he safe?" The answer is an astonished, "Is he safe?! No he isn't safe! But he is good."
I think there is something to this.
To Duane's last two comments:
(1) I completely agree with your assessment of how Christian politicians make decisions now.
(2) I love that particular quote from Narnia. When my youngest daughter and I were reading the book, we had to stop and talk about that one. That threw her for a loop, which probably says a lot for the way her screwed-up dad has taught her in life so far. (From her perspective "safe" and "good" always seem to be associated together with me!)
Now back to a response to Duane from earlier...
Duane wrote: "First, I'm not sure what you mean by the early church taking the tack that the Sermon on the Mount applied to anyone other than Christians. If you are saying that the early church believed it applied to Christian rulers, I'm not sure where you are getting that because we don't really see an example in the New Testament of Christian rulers being addressed..."
Al: You're right. There were no Christian rulers at the time. And I don't claim that it applied to anyone other than Christians. This is not my point. I'm saying that it "seems" they believed that the Sermon on the Mount applied to ALL Christians, so by extension if a ruler became a Christian, then the ethics the movement taught would apply to him/her at work. It's an assumption, possibly a wrong one.
Duane: "Assuming that there is not, any attempt to apply Sermon-on-the-Mount principles to the way governments should be run is an interpretation."
Al: No argument from me there. You may be saying more in this statement than I'm catching, but that's all I'm doing is offering my interpretation. I've offered several different schools of thought (i.e. interpretations) myself, so there's obviously more than one way to read all this.
Duane: "On a side note, try finding the Scripture that says, "Hate your enemy" in the Old Testament (what Jesus says in Matthew 5:43)."
Al: In response, try finding "love your enemies" there, too! It almost sounds as if you're saying that Jesus brought nothing new to the table, just a clarification of the Old Law on how to live. Is that what you are saying?
Duane: "...one must also allow for the possibility that Dr. King erroneously applied Jesus' teachings to international relations. This is what I would argue."
Al: Complete agreement that Dr. King could have been wrong in his application - and me with him. I am interested in your stance of the correct application. Are you suggesting that the Torah should be a Christian ruler's guide to justice? How would a Christian politician make her/his decisions? With what value system or guide?
Duane: I would also suggest that either you or I misunderstand the Anabaptists and the early American Restorationists.
Al: My bet would be on me here. But what I've related is what I was taught in a course based on the teachings of a legend in this field, John Howard Yoder ("The Politics of Jesus"). You are correct in saying that these groups did not say that people in politics should apply the "love principle" to their political decisions and that they abstained from government. But they refused to participate in government - not because government agents are guided by a different standard than the ethics of Jesus, but - because they could not figure out how to follow the teachings of Jesus and be a government participant. Does this make sense? These groups and Dr. King see the role of government differently, but they agree on this one thing: that a person who purports to follow Jesus is guided by the ethical lessons of the Sermon on the Mount regardless of vocation.
Duane: "I would call your third approach Dr. King's approach but would argue that the other groups you number there would fit better in your category 2, where you place me, though I don't think I fit there."
Al: Once again, I could very well be wrong on who fits where, but it wasn't my grouping. It was something I was taught in a seminar (possibly my explanation above explains how they landed in Group 3). But as to where you fit, I'm interested in your response on how a person claiming to follow Jesus - let's use President Bush or Clinton, take your pick - goes about making his decisions in international relations. If I read correctly, you do not believe that the ethical lessons taught by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount apply to him in this regard. Is this correct? And either way, when you have time, please explain your way of thinking...
Thanks for taking the time to engage me in this discussion. It sure helps me, and I appreciate it.
Duane,
There was a great deal of debate in legal academia 10 or 15 years ago about whether or not politicians should base their decisions on their religious beliefs. By the time I got to law school, I think that debate was pretty much over, so I never got into the literature on it very much. I don't know that there was ever a consensus, but my loose understanding is that it is futile to ask people to make political decisions wholly unrelated to or uninformed by their religious beliefs. This is surely true. It would be asking people to truncate themselves in a professional context in a way that does occur with respect to other issues (like their health or their families), but I think it's unacceptable in any context. People should bring their unique perspectives to the table, whatever they are based on. After all, there's not much that is discussed in religious terms that couldn't also be discussed in secular terms, and have both types of justifications.
I would like to believe that there is some set of civic values of virtues that all Americans can subscribe to regardless of religious background -- principles of honesty and fair dealing, civility in discourse and interaction, the rule of law, liberty, equality, etc. In theory, I think most people would agree with those things. Now, whether they live up to them is another matter. Too, when you consider what kinds of policy choices flow from those values, the values themselves seem to become meaningless, empty vessels that you can fill with whatever you want.
I guess I sometimes wonder -- well, I used to say this as an assertion, but now I don't know -- whether some folks, particularly Religious Right types, say that their political beliefs are based on their religious beliefs but act in such a way that it appears that they are merely using religion as a vehicle to advance beliefs that are garden-variety political and have little to no spiritual aspect to them.
I haven't gotten enough sleep five nights in a row, so I am probably making no sense. But I would also add that under Establishment Clause jurisprudence, at least for the moment, there is a prohibition on lawmakers having a solely or primarily religious purpose in enacting a law. How that squares with what I said above, I'm not sure. I think the answer is that there needs to be a reason for a law that can be put into terms that are applicable and accessible to everyone, including those who do not share the majority's religious beliefs.
Al,
I hope my comment about try finding "hate your enemy" in the Old Testament was not taken offensively. What I intended to say by that is that Jesus is reinterpreting what is already there and making it stricter. It is a matter of giving a fresh, and stricter, interpretation of the commandments he does address and refuting those teachings that are not commandments (i.e. "hate your enemy"). That is what I see as new. It just appeared to me that you were saying that he is contradicting Old Testament teaching and replacing it with a new ethic. Is that what you intend?
Check out this link and the series entitled "The People of God--God's Kingdom" parts 1-7. This is the ethic for a leader who is really a servant of the people. We used to have this understanding of public office, but I think in some sense officeholders think of themselves more as leaders than servants.
I think we miss important ethical teachings from the Old Testament because we are at least Old-Testament illiterate, even not completely biblically illiterate. Christian public servants would be wise to try to understand what God considers ethical leadership to entail. As God's representative, since HE is KING, one should learn how he wants to be represented on earth. You might notice that these passages overwhelmingly deal with a sense of justice, and justice that is aimed toward helping the powerless. Current political leaders on both sides of the spectrum miss this important point.
No worries. No offense taken. And after re-reading, I see your original point. I was simply afraid you were saying that Jesus wasn't teaching anything "deeper," but on second look, that's not what you were saying at all.
And no, I wasn't saying that Jesus contradicted the OT (or "Older," or "First" Testament, as Professor Willis would say!).
And thanks for the link and the last paragraph. I agree with you.
You wrote: "Christian public servants would be wise to try to understand what God considers ethical leadership to entail. As God's representative, since HE is KING, one should learn how he wants to be represented on earth."
It is my understanding that God wants to be represented like Jesus. He is the image of the invisible God. He left us an example so we would walk in his steps.
Would Jesus, if in the U.S. Presidency today, invade another nation? I just don't see it happening. You may argue what God did pre-Jesus of Nazareth or what may come in the end times, but now? I just don't see it at all.
To take Yoder/Anabapists, etc. a step further, would Jesus seek the presidency (i.e. worldly power) in today's world in the first place? They went with "no." They have a decent argument worthy of debate.
It is my personal conclusion that power is inherently dangerous to a student enrolled in Jesus-school (Yoder says you must run away from it). Power, however, can be used for justice (Dr. King said use it to help the oppressed). They differ on these practicalities. I'm attracted to the purity of Yoder's thinking, but I tend to side with Dr. King.
Seek justice.
I'm just offering that Jesus' way to seek justice, the way he taught us to seek justice, was nonviolent. Well, nonviolent on his side, though quite violent on the other. His path was to seek justice by demonstrations of self-sacrificial love.
Al,
Jesus definitely would not be in the presidency today. Look at the end of Luke 4 where people wanted to make him king by force. He rejected political power.
But the Sermon on the Mount was addressed to Jews who were under the power of Roman rule. It was not addressed to the Romans who were excercising that rule. It was not even addressed to the Sadducees, who did exercise at least some political influence at that time.
As I read (or am the product of those who read) Mark 13 and Matthew 24, Jesus was telling his disciples what to do when they saw the signs that Jerusalem was about to be destroyed by the Roman army due to Jewish rebellion. His answer was get the heck out of dodge. Pray that the really bad times don't come in the winter. All that kind of stuff. It would lead one to think, perhaps, that the answer really is to stay out of government altogether, and especially out of any attempts to overthrow it.
God in the Old Testament used brutal powers to overthrow governments and to punish his people. He also used such empires to save his people. Are we suggesting he does not do the same today? Just read Lamentations and you can get a feel for how horrible conditions were in Jerusalem during the siege by the Babylonian army. God did not seem to have a problem with letting/causing that to happen to his people. It was gruesome and brutal. When it went too far, he put an end to the empire that caused so much destruction. He did this brutally as well.
Obviously all of this is written from the perspective that God is in control of the nations of the earth and they all do his bidding. But my point is that it involved violence among world powers and smaller nation-states.
Did Jesus say anything like this? It seems that you paint Jesus into a picture much like Dr. King as a person nonviolently advocating for justice for the oppressed. (I hope I'm being fair here, but challenge me if I'm not.) You're last statement makes me think this. You said:
"I'm just offering that Jesus' way to seek justice, the way he taught us to seek justice, was nonviolent. Well, nonviolent on his side, though quite violent on the other. His path was to seek justice by demonstrations of self-sacrificial love."
[end quote]
Was he really seeking justice by demonstrations of self-sacrificial love? Whose justice? When I see him helping the oppressed he is doing just that--helping them. He heals, he teaches, he challenges the religious leaders who have a spiritual hold on the poeople. I think even talking about Jesus as "nonviolent" reads our Civil Rights movement back into Jesus' life. The release from oppression was freeing people from infirmities and from religious domination. The misunderstanding ones thought he came to do this on a larger scale and so wanted to set him up as king. I see him going to each person who needs help and helping them. That is not nonviolent protest for a cause, it is love for powerless human beings.
Does all of this make sense?
You're being fair. And making sense, I think.
I am confused as to our disagreement.
You write: "Was he really seeking justice by demonstrations of self-sacrificial love? Whose justice?"
My answer: The oppressed, the outcasts, etc. The people you listed. "Love for powerless human beings" works for me.
Okay, I've lost my place in this debate.
Okay, I've already written far too much, but I think the effect that's had is to blur what I mean.
Let me try one last time to crystallize:
I'm not saying that the military should be abandoned or never used. I don't think Dr. King was saying that either. Not at all. Instead, he (and I in agreement) vote against "revenge, aggression, and retaliation" as paths of human conflict resolution. (7th paragraph of his acceptance speech)
I believe the military is vital to the (primarily global) need to disarm aggressive lawbreakers, just as the police is vital to this need on a local, state, and national level, and to bring them to court for justice. Also, if attacked, for self-defense.
So we make laws for justice, we live by them, and we (as a government) enforce them. This does not seem to be antithetical to the teachings of Jesus in any way.
For a Christian to physically "take matters into her/his hands" for justice (which, by nature, is outside legal bounds) goes against the teachings of Jesus. This is what Dr. King preached, and I join him in that sermon.
This is what America has done on a global scale in Iraq I believe: seek justice by "taking matters into our own hands" outside legal bounds.
This was intended to be my original point. If we didn't like the way the UN handled things (like the Civil Rights victims didn't like the way local/state govts. handled things, like early Christians didn't like the way the Romans handled things), then picking up our guns should not have been our modus operandi.
Instead, Romans 13. God has ordained more than the United States of America. He has also ordained the United Nations, et al. We should respect that authority, submit to it, and not rebel against it. Just like the Bible teaches.
O Captain, my Captain...
Thanks for the movie recommendation. I hope to check it out.
I just returned from the movie "Glory Road" with my wife. I went to see it last weekend, too, with my oldest daughter. Its the kind of movie I'd go to every weekend if I had the chance. Awesome, awesome movie. And it relates to all this stuff, too.
If any of you go, stick around after the credits roll. There's some good stuff you'll miss if you don't.
Time to study. Some of us have to work tomorrow.
Post a Comment
<< Home