Natalie suggests another perspective, and challenges that American-centric viewpoint that seems to be filling the church--to say nothing of the push for the "masculine Jesus" and away from what Mark Driscoll calls the "limp-wristed hippie" image. You know, the Jesus who actually told us to love our enemies and turn the other cheek.
"Claiborne and Haw write that “the empire of violence and nationalism has crept into the church” (193). We are faced with the danger of reading the Bible “through the eyes of America rather than read[ing] America through the eyes of the Bible. We just want Jesus to be a good American” (194)."
Click over to read her entire post and check out the wonderful images she included.
49 comments:
Those are some scary images. Trade the cross for a swastika and they'd be practically indistinguishable from Nazi propaganda posters.
How did I miss the torture discussion? I am going to have to throw in my two cents.
She raises a good point. I have gotten into some thoughtful discussions that have really challenged my beliefs and will readily admit that I still have a lot to learn. Like many, I tend to focus on the passages that I like and ignore the ones I don't. I think it was CS Lewis that told Christians to spend more time reading the stuff in the Bible they didn't agree with (I am paraphrasing here).
Personally, I think Jesus was very complex, not mention you have to consider the OT and context. I think there is great danger in assuming you have it all figured out.
I agree. Creepy stuff. That is how I felt reading Monica's gushing "what do you love about Bush" questions. It was as if we had been transported into a Soviet or Nazi propaganda machine.
And now Chuck Colson uses a Nazi warmaking term in German, not translated (e.g. "enhanced interrogation techniques") as is customary.
I am not sure I want to even get into this one, but oh well.
First, there seems to be a disparity on both the left and the right on the role of the Bible in Government.
According to the Bible there is nothing wrong with soldiers and Jesus is (to the dismay of those on the left) displayed in Revelation as a warrior coming back to violently dispose of his enemies.
We should never forget that Jesus is the slain lamb and the Lion of Judah!
Where as the right has chosen to focus on a more militaristic approach to the Bible the left has chosen to emphasize a more pacifist position.
Neither are wrong, but must be taken in processed and then balanced with other sections of the Bible.
For example Jesus said to turn the other cheek and then when struck before his death he doesnt turn the other cheek. With a steely eyed look he very sternly says "Why do you Strike me!"
Though I thought Natalie had a good article with some great points particulary about reading our culture into the Bible, it was just as unbalanced with reading american liberalism into the Bible.
Jesus may be portrayed in Revelations that way, but he spent his days on earth living a non-violent life. I am not a Biblical scholar, but I would suggest that the different biases you identify are not equivalent. One is militaristic and openly violent, and equates God with American power. The other hopes for some kind of peace, and understands that God is not an American.
Streak, I believe they are equivalent. Both have been taken out of context and interpreted from a biased American ideology. Both the liberals attempt to have peace without justice and the rights attempt to have justice without compassion and mercy.
They equally abuse the Scriptures.
FP, I think I see your point. I am not completely convinced that liberals misuse the Bible as much as you argue, but conceding for the moment your point, the misuse as you describe it is an equivalent misuse of the texts.
I think my point was that the end result of the conservative misuse is far more destructive to global and national issues and results in more death and destruction than the liberal move toward peace.
I am sure we will disagree, but perhaps we are now at least using the same terms?
interesting point streak. You are right though we disagree. I think a unbalanced move to peace does as much damage and destruction as an unbalanced move towards war and violence.
Peace without strength will never work...imagine WWII without strength. How would that have turned out for us? What about WWI? What about (lets leave the current war out of it since we both will never agree) terrorism?
Streak as I reread your post I felt I should use a more clear example.
What would peace have accomplished with Adolph Hitler, Stalin, WWII Japan, or Osama?
There is a proper time and place for both peace and war. It is when we approach either with the ultimate goal to be war or to be peace that we get in trouble and out of balance which always leads to death and destruction. Both paths without the other to balance it out leads to death.
Yeah, I don't think World War II is a great example. Most liberal Christians would concede that there is a time and place for war. But the types of people that Natalie criticized in her post are not the ones pushing for a "just war" but those who have conflated American power with God, and have glorified violence as an answer to everything.
I am not sure how to discuss terrorism without this current war, and neither can I speak for all of Christianity, but I will tell you that I have always argued for a strong response to actual terrorism, with a mind to reducing the pool from which terrorism draws from. Call it the mosquito control response--attempting to reduce the breeding ground (which means diplomacy, economic justice, education, etc) while addressing terrorists with a firm hand (the Rand report suggests that happens best through law enforcement methods).
My sense is that the pro-war Christians not only ignore all of that. They seem to have glorified violence as the answer to all bad in the world--especially terrorism. They found their perfect President in Bush who reminds me of the adage that "when your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."
Before this current administration started prosecuting this war there were plenty of examples of terrorism that Clinton and others tried to deal with in a peaceful manner. It didnt work but actually encouraged the enemy to become more aggressive.
Well, except Clinton also responded forcefully. I understand you have to blame him for a lot or you have only Republicans to thank. Bill did a lot of things wrong, but I don't think he dealt with terrorists nearly as bad as you want to suggest.
And FP, I appreciate your congenial responses here, but you continue to ignore the main point of both Natalie and my take here. It isn't just peace, though the warmongering is frightful among the right, but it is also the assumption that God is on our side. In fact, you ignored most of my comment--except the criticisms of this administration.
Do you deny that Christians (especially American Christians) have glorified violence and openly embraced war as THE solution in dealing with terrorism?
Second, are you still asserting that there is no political solution to terrorism because all Muslims are terrorists? Or does my suggestion of limiting the recruiting of terrorism have merit?
First, streak I disagree about Clinton. I was in the Army while he was in office. I brought him up because I was in when there was 4 separate attacks that he did nearly nothing about. His response to these attacks...was soft at best.
Second, I for one dont blame him for todays problems. If it hadnt been Osama it would of been another radical.
As far as God on our side...this depends on what in particular you are asking about. Is God on our side in Politics? In this war? Against terrorism? What in specific would you like a response to?
I think that it is a stretch to say American Christians all fit in this catagory. I am one though. I believe that when dealing with Terrorist you must resort to Military force. They cant be bartered with, bribed, or treated well enough to get them to let go of their agenda.
I have never said all Muslims are Terrorist. So I am not sure what your point is there.
I think that limiting the ability to recruit terrorists has merit, though I am not sure how one could accomplish such a thing without force. For example there are literally hundreds of training camps all through out that region of the world. There is also the problem that their entire education process is based on that ideology. For example teaching children that Christians and Jews are apes and pigs according to the Koran.
As far as God on our side...this depends on what in particular you are asking about. Is God on our side in Politics? In this war? Against terrorism? What in specific would you like a response to?
Is God on our side in any of it? Seriously?
I am actually pretty sure you said that there were no moderate Muslims. Perhaps I misunderstood your point. Yes, we have a lot of problems in the region. Bush and Cheney refuse to stand up to Saudi Arabia where a lot of the radical Islam comes from--but they are our friends. Not sure firepower will fix that. Do you think that we can just bomb them into submission? If so, we better start making more soldiers and soon, because we don't have the military to sustain that kind of global crusade against Islam. Bush's response, "bomb them so they will become democratic" doesn't seem to work.
As I said earlier, you might want to check out the Rand Corporation's take on our war on terror. They studied previous terrorism and how it ends. Rarely, if ever, does it do so based on military power. Law enforcement combined with political and economic diplomacy works better.
What I said Streak is where were the moderate Muslims when 9/11 happened? Where are the Moderate Muslims voicing their outrage at the atrocities committed by the Radicals everyday? Finally I said that there are no Moderate Muslims who are "good" Muslims. The Koran is filled with over 300 references about how they should deal with us infidels!
No where does that mean that every Muslim is a terrorist!!!
I dont believe God is on anyone's side!!!! I think we have a choice. We can either be on his side or not.
The mere idea that God is on our side is the problem with Liberal and conservative alike. It is a ego-centric worldview, not a Theo-centric worldview!!
For example Terrorism vs. American War-mongering (your words not mine).
I will tell you whoever fights for Justice against hate, cruelty, murder, abuse of women and children sides with God.
When we align ourselves with God then we join his side, not Him joining our side!
Ok. I don't want to get into the whole "moderate muslim" argument.
But you did say this:
As far as God on our side...this depends on what in particular you are asking about. Is God on our side in Politics? In this war? Against terrorism? What in specific would you like a response to?
Where is God on our side? How do liberals appropriate God as many conservatives do?
I think I answered that in the above post. God is never on our side. We have a choice to honor God and do the things that God states that we should do and join with him or go against what He states we should and then be against him.
Next, if you didnt want to get into the moderate muslim discussion why bring it up?
Lastly, I have heard on numerous occasions some true and some false from both Liberals and Conservatives in the use of the Bible to say God is on their side.
Conservatives: The war
Liberals: Aids, Poverty, etc
FP, I am not sure what makes you go from being respectful to pugnacious, but I am tiring of this kind of stuff from you:
Next, if you didnt want to get into the moderate muslim discussion why bring it up?
That said, I think you may have a point on liberals appropriating God on poverty. I think there is a difference in how that is done, however, but there is room for argument here.
what makes me go from one to the other is when you bring something up and I respond, then you say you arent interested in discussing it.
What would make you go from bringing it up to not wanting to discuss it?
Streak, unfortunately many people liberal, conservative, non-political people use the Bible more than any other religious text in the world to support any issue they want it too support! Some examples that are clearly false and not taught in the Bible.
Women are property/subservient to men.
Slavery (though practiced in 1st Century it was nothing like we had) and the Bible has provisions to free slaves. Slavery was predominately a Greco-Roman Issue.
White Supremacy
Nazism
etc, etc
I don't disagree with your list. But you previously noted anti-poverty. I think we can argue that God may not approve of all wars (which was the point of the original post, btw), but are you saying that God doesn't have a problem with poverty? When liberal Christians suggest that God calls on us to care for the poor and the needy, they are appropriating God just as much as the right wing Christians who claim that God is on our side in the Iraq war?
I don't buy that.
Oh no. GOD IS TOTALLY ANTI-POVERTY!!!
I already stated that so I just left it out.
There is no problem with the left telling people God desires them to take care of the poor. But it is never the job of the government, but the church. Secondly, taking care of the poor is not entitlement or enablement.
But it is never the job of the government, but the church.
Ok. That is your opinion, and that is fine. Some of us believe that the government can do some positive things about poverty. And further, we are not convinced that the churches are willing or able to address poverty, certainly the roots of poverty. Nor, I would suggest, could the church manage things like disabled poverty and the mentally ill.
We can agree to disagree there. Though I will say this...the reason why the government started taking care of this is because the church became introverted during the depression and stopped.
Another reason is that the government rarely does anything well. The corporate sector almost always does it better. That is why the welfare and social security systems are broke. Another example will be if they pass that national health care plan, that is just plain suicide!
I will say this...the reason why the government started taking care of this is because the church became introverted during the depression and stopped.
Another reason is that the government rarely does anything well. The corporate sector almost always does it better.
That is your opinion. Certainly isn't fact.
probably more fact than you are willing to admit.
It is your opinion. Government became involved in welfare because the church wasn't able to pick up the slack. It wasn't just the depression. The difference between poverty at the turn of the century and the depression was simply that during the depression it hit more people across ethnicity and race. Jacob Riis ring a bell for you? Immigrants lived in absolute squalor and the church was unable to keep up with the slack.
How did the church become introverted during the depression? Do you have some evidence for that? Or were the churches often hit as hard by the depression as the rest of the working class and rural communities?
And this: Another reason is that the government rarely does anything well. is simply your opinion and conservative talking points. Certainly there are many examples of government programs that have been administered badly, and poorly conceived. No one doubts that. But there have also been good programs. FDIC comes to mind, which, btw, is saving our banks right now from massive closings. Interstate Highway act, which not only connected the country, but allowed for suburbs to spring up (maybe not a good thing) and for cheaper goods and a lower cost of living for Americans. Or how about the government created, and subsidized public university system? That has turned out to be a real disaster, hasn't it? Allowing even working class students to gain college degrees.
And private companies have had a great run under this administration. Very little oversight and very little regulation. That has worked out very well in the mortgage industry, where private corporations greedily went after bad loan after bad loan.
No liberal thinks that government is the answer to everything. Not by a long shot. The market can do amazing things, and has done so in the past. But it isn't a magical talisman. Neither, of course, is government programs. They are filled with flawed human beings. They require a vigilant and thoughtful citizenry.
Because the church was hit by the depression as well they withdrew. Exactly my point. Because of the depression they were forced to withdraw from humanitarian aid and the government stepped in.
Is the failure of Social Security a talking point? Who ever gave the government the right to determine how to provide for my retirement.
So what about the church's inability to deal with poverty before. Do you think the depression was the only time we had poor? The difference after the depression v. before was that there was some attention to a social safety net, not that there was not substantial poverty before then.
I notice you just ignored the positive government programs I talked about. Of course, many of those government investments (roads, schools, libraries, public safety, etc) have allowed average Americans to better themselves. I have attended three different state universities and could not have afforded the actual cost of my degrees. I like to think that was a good use of public money, but perhaps others would disagree. It certainly allowed me, my wife, and most of my family members, to get the proper education to compete in the modern world.
And I am not sure that Social Security has been a failure. It occurred because people were shocked in the 30s to see old people eating out of trash bins, and Social Security was a nice compromise to what some people wanted to do (ie., massive redistribution of wealth). Last I checked, it isn't dictating how you retire. You are free (and wise) to provide for your retirement on your own. But for some, Social Security may be the difference between eating and not.
I have asked this of other critics of government welfare. You suggest that churches don't do as much, because the government has stepped in. (I have never seen any evidence on that either, by the way, it is another "assumption"). So, you would prefer the government to get out of the way and let churches take care of the poor. What would you do if the churches were unable to take care of the poor? Would it just "suck to be them?"
What makes you so sure the Church could pick up the slack? Just your assumption that as private entities, they are more efficient? Would they be able to tend to the disabled and elderly poor that required extensive and specialized medical assistance? What happens if we slip into another extensive recession or depression? Can those private churches carry the load? And if they can't?
I guess that depends on how you define poverty. I have been too quite a few 3rd world countries where I have seen real poverty. Out of genuine curiosity…have you ever been out of this country? Anyway back to the point. I think if the church would get back to what Jesus Christ was telling us that true religion is taking care of the poor, widows, and orphans the church could do it! There is more wealth in the church than what most people would like to admit. So the only question that remains, is “WILL” they do it? I think as long as the government continues to provide money for welfare and food stamps without an actual plan to teach people how to make money and provide for themselves the church will continue to fail in one of its primary purposes.
I think that there are several programs that the government does well with. I never said they didn’t. I said corporate America does better. Private schools often times have better athletics, academics, and job placement. To clarify, I never said we couldn’t use public funds for the betterment of individuals.
Who said it was the government’s responsibility to redistribute the wealth of its citizen’s? That sounds like socialism. I am free to provide for my own retirement. But let me see…I have been working since I was 12 (started detasseling as a kid) and they were taking 7.65% up until 8 years ago. Now as a self-employed person they take 15.3%. So let’s do the math. These are estimates so bear with me. From 12-18 I made at least $5,000 a year which is a total of $30,000. If I am doing my math right that means I paid $3922 in Social Security taxes. From the age of 18-28 I averaged $30,000 a year, meaning I paid $39,215 in Social Security taxes. Now for the last 7 years I have been self employed and netted $40,000 a year meaning that I have paid $18,300 in Social Security. The total of Social Security paid till this point is $61,437. If I invested that money right now and kept it in a savings account until retirement I would have $111,284. This is way less than if I just popped this down in a 401k. With a 401k it would give me $815,216. So tell me if the government is managing my money correctly. Let’s not even discuss that you and I will never see that money.
I would prefer the churches to step to the plate. Once again there is more wealth in the church than government programs.
Let’s make the assumption that the church couldn’t take care of the poor. Why does that make it the government’s responsibility to take care of the poor? Why should my tax dollars be taken against my will to provide for other peoples retirement?
No, I have not had the opportunity to travel overseas.
Read Jacob Riis and tell me that wasn't real poverty. This isn't some semantic about relative poverty--this is people living in rat-infested, disease-ridden and hygene-free "housing." Churches were unable or unwilling to address that level of poverty. That is my point, and you slid past it. Poverty has always been a problem, but since the New Deal, we have attempted to have some kind of basic social safety net. That safety net is what you object to and claim that the church could do that better. Well, nothing is stopping them from doing it now. Eradicate poverty in this country. Should not be that tough with all the government programs helping out. This phantom "if the government got out the way" is just a ruse.
BTw, you are free to believe that Social Security is socialism. I hear that bandied around a lot--and it suggests that our education system is failing us greatly if that is how people understand socialism. But yours is a political viewpoint, and that is fine. Don't confuse it with God, however.
Private schools often times have better athletics, academics, and job placement. To clarify, I never said we couldn’t use public funds for the betterment of individuals.
Really? I am sure all the public school graduates who frequent this blog will be pleased to know that their education is not as good as the private places. No doubt that many of them have better luck placing graduates, but that doesn't mean their education is better. Liberty and Regent University come to mind as barely competent Universities that are clearly private. I couldn't care less about their athletics, but you just assume that private=better.
Let’s make the assumption that the church couldn’t take care of the poor. Why does that make it the government’s responsibility to take care of the poor? Why should my tax dollars be taken against my will to provide for other peoples retirement?
Ah, where the conservative trumps the Christian. "It is MY money and if I want to help people, that is up to me. But if the government can't provide that social safety net, and the church can't, then they can just starve."
That is the logical conclusion of your assertion. Since government should not take care of the poor, and the church may not be able to, then that is the end of my obligation. Screw the poor--a great slogan for the conservative right, but a very bad one for the Christian church.
Why should my tax dollars be taken against my will to provide for other peoples retirement?
It seems to me that if this question even needs to be asked, there is far too much of a gap for useful discussion to happen here.
Leighton, you might be right. I am increasingly troubled by the rhetoric that places taxes as some kind of evil foisted on citizens. No sense that this came out of a democratic process, or that we are part of the government.
It makes me sigh.
Streak, you have no idea how much I my money I invest in impoverished people so unless you want to compare tax deductions dont tread down this path. I as a pastor and a citizen do more than what can be expected of individuals. When I get back from supper I will respond to the rest of your comments
Never said social security was socialism. You have a habit of taking my comments out of context to paint me as the evil conservative.
I said the redistribution of wealth sounds like socialism.
Streak, you have no idea how much I my money I invest in impoverished people so unless you want to compare tax deductions dont tread down this path. I as a pastor and a citizen do more than what can be expected of individuals. When I get back from supper I will respond to the rest of your comments
This is part of our communication difficulty. This isn't about you and your ministry. You yourself said, "Let’s make the assumption that the church couldn’t take care of the poor. Why does that make it the government’s responsibility to take care of the poor? Why should my tax dollars be taken against my will to provide for other peoples retirement? "
My response back was to say that if you follow that logically, that means you are willing to let people starve rather than have the government do something. Unless you think you personally will be able to pick up the slack, your laudable work has nothing to do with our conversation.
You think I take your stuff out of context. I think you might switch arguments in midstream.
Oh, and regarding your comment:
Never said social security was socialism. You have a habit of taking my comments out of context to paint me as the evil conservative.
I said the redistribution of wealth sounds like socialism.
Look again at what I said:
It occurred because people were shocked in the 30s to see old people eating out of trash bins, and Social Security was a nice compromise to what some people wanted to do (ie., massive redistribution of wealth).
I said that Social Security was what happened to fend off those who wanted to dramatically change our economic system.
I beg to differ. You said
"Ah, where the conservative trumps the Christian. 'It is MY money and if I want to help people, that is up to me. But if the government can't provide that social safety net, and the church can't, then they can just starve.'"
You specifically at the best call into question my actions and at the worst insult me with the whole "where the conservative trumps the Christian. It is MY money."
Now since you have decided to make it personal I would like to see what each of you do besides pay your taxes to help the poor?
Which of you has personally feed them, gave them good clothes, gave them good furniture, paid their rent and utilities?
This is why it is so frustrating to talk to you. You avoid and miss the main questions. And look, my regular commentators disappear when you are in this mode of slipping and avoiding questions.
Re-read what I said about the difference between your contribution and the governments. You said that if the church could not feed the poor, you still didn't think the government should. What are the remaining options?
Otherwise, perhaps it is time for you to go. I want to talk to more than one commentator, thanks very much. And in about a day, I am going to start hearing from people through email.
Streak if you go back i have answered each of your questions. But you continue to insult me and accuse me. Why is that? I usually go line by line or question by question. Yet you continually disrespect me and insult me. I have gone out of my way to make sure that I was at least polite. Yet you insult.
As far as the question...I am not sure where to go but it is foolish to think the current system works.
You still havent answered my question. What gives the government the right?
You have not answered the questions. If the church cannot, and the government should not--who will?
It is rather simple.
I think that the real answer would be a combination of 3 things.
One the individual should be a entry level answer. When in need people should give.
Two the churches should be working at a local level to meet the needs of their individual cities and counties.
Three the slack can possibly picked up by the government.
The problem with the liberal agenda is there is the giving away of money and food without ever fixing the problem of poverty.
My main problem with Liberalism in this particular area is this. They just want to throw food or money at the problem without the education or opportunity to teach these people how to provide for themselves. Therefore it is a cycle of throwing more money at the problem.
For example...how many of these poor people took the oportunity of the Military? Regardless of what you believe about the military it is an option. It will provide food, clothing, job training, educational benefits, health benefits, etc.
Why are welfare individuals not assigned to city or state level work? Mowing the government property, picking up trash on the highways, cleaning toliets in schools, etc?
Why are we just handing these people money with no real requirements?
Ok, so you are changing your answer. If the church can't pick up the slack, then the government can step in.
I agree.
We can argue about how that money should be distributed. We just need some honesty from the right about what they are willing to deal with. This constant bashing of government assistance is not helping the situation. If the church wants to step in and eradicate poverty, they should do that. Otherwise, perhaps a little cooperation and less hostility might be helpful. The constant liberal bashing is annoying as well.
Oh, and hint "throwing more money at the problem" is a talking point.
Streak, that is not what I said. Notice I gave two prefered methods with the government adding to what is left at the end.
The church could do this on its own, but to be quite frank it wont. Nonetheless what gives the government the right or authority to come in and appropriate our funds to fix a problem that cant be fixed through social programs?
Throwing more money at the problem may be a talking point...I dont know. What I do know is that my family was on welfare for a time in Illinois becuase my dad was laid off from Cat. There was no education, no training, no requirements, no nothing. I have people now in my church who are on welfare...guess what...surprise no education, no training, no requirements.
Sorry if that is a talking point but that seems like throwing money at a problem to me.
Out of curosity do you have any friends or associates on welfare?
Someone here might be able to commment on this. I dont know anything about it but I am curious. Does anyone have any data on how many children whose parents were on welfare are on welfare?
How about this...what type of education, training, and requirements are offered with welfare?
Does the welfare system have a plan to get people off the system? Time limits, I mean everyone wants one for Iraq, why not for the poor?
Just some thoughts
from wikipedia (still havent figured out how to just link to it)
"...Conversely it has been suggested by cycle of poverty theorists that socialization and values handed down by family may have an influence on deciding not to work. Among German social workers, the informal term "welfare nobility" (Sozialadel) is used to describe families which have not worked for several generations, value their independence from domination by employers and evolve low-cost lifestyles. The term, usually used pejoratively, implies that this rejection of menial work is akin to the value codes of the aristocracy and may be inherited in the sense of being learned in the family."
Ok. I think we are done here. We are way off topic of "reading the Bible through the eyes of America" and like I said, I would prefer to have a conversation with others.
hello
Post a Comment