The Seeds of Political Violence are Being Sewn in a Church Near You
The link above will take you to a must-read piece from David French in The Dispatch.
Using what Evangelical theologians would call correct "hermeneutics," which is nothing more than interpreting the Bible in context, it is not possible to make a case for political violence using the Bible. In fact, the ability of the Christian church to successfully evangelize and win converts in the first three centuries of its existence was largely dependent on their response to what was, at times, cruel and brutal persecution, including their torture and murder, at the hands of governing authorities.
In the gospel account of the life of Jesus, there is only one recorded incident when Jesus reacted with anger at something that was happening. He got upset when he visited the Jerusalem Temple and discovered that it was being used as a flea market, with profiteering money changers and the sale of animals for the required sacrifices at high prices. He made a whip and drove them out, apparently using some of his spiritual authority, because they left. I've seen that narrative depicted in movies and plays, and frankly, I'm not really sure whether they get it right or not. At any rate, he made the point.
There's a little hint of Jesus' spiritual power in the account of his arrest in John 18. When he asked the guards who they were looking for, and they responded, "Jesus of Nazareth," he said "I am he." When he spoke those words, the narrative says that the guards stepped back and fell to the ground. As they moved to take him away, Peter stepped up with a sword and and managed to slice off the ear of the High Priest's slave. In Luke's account, Jesus' response to Peter's action was to say, "No more of this!" and he healed the ear.
No Politics or Violence in the Teachings of Christ
One of the core doctrines among conservative, Evangelical Christians, along with belief that the Bible has "truth without any mixture of error for its matter," (Baptist Faith and Message, 2000 Article I: The Scriptures) is that "All scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is himself the focus of divine revelation" (Baptist Faith and Message 2000, Article I: The Scriptures). This is a rewording of a point that was once known as the "Christ criterion" or, in the theology of Southern Baptists who make up the nation's largest Evangelical denomination, the belief that all of the Bible must be interpreted in light of the coming of Jesus, who was the Son of God, and the savior of the world from its sin.
Much of the Bible is recorded history, and it includes a lot of war and violence in the content. But in these two doctrinal statements, and in multiple other similar statements in the doctrinal statements of almost all Evangelical denominations, the teachings of Jesus are the filter through which all other theology is interpreted and determined.
Even in the Old Testament, the peaceful, non-violent nature of Jesus is seen in the prophecy of Isaiah:
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep before his shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. Isaiah 53:7 (emphasis mine, to be noted later)
The fulfillment of that prophecy is found in New Testament accounts of Jesus' trials in the Jewish Sanhedrin and then before Pilate. There was no resistance from his followers, almost all of whom had fled, and none from Jesus.
But he gave him no answer, not even to a single charge, so that the governor was greatly amazed. Matthew 27:14
Even in clearing out the Temple, he was attacking a group of individuals who had invaded a sacred space and had subverted it for their own profiteering purposes. The money changers and the merchants selling sacrifices were the intruders, the "insurrectionists," if you will. Jesus was just putting things back they way they belonged. But even in that incident, there's no record of any harm that Jesus did to any individual who was there.
In Christ's theology, violence is turned upon its head. He calls peacemakers "the children of God." In that same narrative, he tells his followers that they should consider themselves blessed when they are victims of violence resulting from their faith, noting that the prophets who told the truth were persecuted in the same way. There's no instruction to commit civil disobedience, demand personal rights or freedoms, or take someone to court for violating personal rights.
Throughout the same narrative that is launched by these words, there are instructions directly from Jesus with a whole list of non-violent expectations;
If you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be subject to judgment
If you call someone a fool, you will be liable to the hell of fire
Before giving an offering, if you remember you have something against someone, go and make it right so that your offering will be accepted
If anyone strikes you on your right cheek, give them the left cheek also
If someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, give him your cloak as well
Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you because this will make you children of of your father in heaven
Take the log out of your own eye before trying to remove the speck in your neighbor's eye
In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you, for this is the law and the prophets.
That's just from the words of Jesus himself, without getting into the other apostolic writing in the New Testament. If, as many Christians believe, that Christ is the focus of the divine revelation of the Bible, then violence is a sin in any theological or doctrinal context of Christian teaching.
The Political Testimony of the Church
Followers of Jesus gathered themselves in to churches, the first one of these being in Jerusalem, forming not long after Jesus was crucified. They created a church that was, frankly, socialist. That's right, with today's conservative Evangelicals engaged in politics using that term like a buzzsaw, the organization of the very first Christian church in existence was pure socialist.
Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. Acts 4:32, NRSV.
That's right. The very first Christian church in the world was, from top to bottom, socialist. In fact, the redistribution of wealth was such a major occupation of the daily operation of the church that they actually established a group of men, deacons, they were called, whose job in the church was to oversee the daily distribution of food to widows. It was such a core principle of the church's operation that in Acts 5, there is an account of a husband and wife who sold property, kept part of the sale price back for themselves, but told the church they were giving the whole amount they received. According to the narrative, the consequence of their lie was that they dropped dead right then and there.
The reputation and the faith testimony of all Christians is tied to their obedience to governing authorities. The two major apostles of the early church, Paul and Peter, both write about the significant impact this would have on the ability of Christians to evangelize and win converts to Christ. Paul writes these instructions to one of his proteges who was serving the Christian church on the island of Crete:
Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle and to show courtesy to everyone. Titus 3:1-2
Observing what is going on in many segments of American Christianity with regard to politics today, especially the conservative Evangelical branch of the church that claims so high a level of biblical fidelity, does this describe what can be observed, especially as militant Christian nationalism becomes so prevalent?
There are two other passages that are compatible with this principle, one by Paul to the church at Rome, in Romans 13:1-7, the other by Peter, also written to a specific church or group of Christians and found in I Peter 2:13-17. Neither apostle was writing with any concept at all of what it meant to live in a country with representative democracy, where people chose their own rulers. They were writing just before the Roman emperors began to notice the growth of Christianity, its philosophical and practical incompatibility with their belief in the emperor's divinity, and set out to persecute Christianity out of existence.
Christians who endured over two hundred years of brutal persecution did not rebel, organize insurrections, set themselves self-righteously above the civil government and resist. They followed the instructions given by the apostles, both of whom were eventually executed by the Roman government. The result of their obedience was not that they were wiped out by persecution, but that the testimony of their faith in the face of persecution verified its veracity, and led to the conversion of thousands. By the time Constantine came to the throne, and outlawed the persecution, the Christian church was the dominant religious belief in the empire and its next emperor, Theodosius, himself a convert to Christianity, would make it Rome's officially endorsed religion.
It was a spiritual "revolution" achieved without the use of violence, rebellion, insurrection or resistance.
Drifting into Apostacy
Political dogma has been replacing Christian theology in churches since there were churches, it's nothing new. America, with its broad and sweeping principle of religious liberty, has not been a stranger to the complete and total perversion of Christian doctrine and theology since the founding of the country. Books have been written about the origins of the tendencies within groups of Christians to drift away from orthodoxy. What we're seeing now is exactly the same tendency, except that those who are using churches and church groups to build their own power base are pulling them into political "cults" rather than religious cults.
In spite of claiming that they believe the Bible to be the "written word of God," without error and infallible in practice, "Biblical illiteracy" is extremely high among those who claim membership in conservative, Evangelical churches. Most of the "Bible study" in which their church members are involved is taught by individuals who are themselves uneducated, who pass along their own presuppositions and prejudices, who haven't had any theological education, studied the original languages and the complicated history and context of a collection of books written over a thousand years of ancient human history. Fewer than half of the members of any given church are involved in any kind of study of the Bible at all, beyond the Sunday sermon preached by their pastor, who may also be prone to interject his own biases, prejudices and philosophical perspective into his sermons.
But not all conservative Christians claim the Bible as their only source of authority. In the article cited at the beginning, David French attributes much of the militant brand of Christianity to Pentecostalism, and to "Charismatics", a more recent branch of the same group. These churches teach that "revelation" is still being given and that written scripture can be "re-interpreted" in the presence of miraculous works, most notably speaking in tongues, a very deceptive practice which convinces many people nevertheless that these people are speaking truth. That's how manipulators and phonies like Greg Locke, in Tennessee, and Paula White, who is Trump's "spiritual advisor" are making themselves rich and powerful. Locke uses his claims of "revelation" to isolate individuals in his own church he considers "enemies" and pushes them out. Without a historical background, the ability to accurately translate an ancient language, and an understanding of the entire scope of these things across the time period that each book was written, the Bible can be "interpreted" to mean just about anything that the interpreter wants it to mean. And as many critics of Christianity claim, it is used as the "magic book of manipulation." That manipulation includes building a system by which those who preach and lead churches control those who attend them. There are examples of this anywhere you look.
But I think there's more to it than that. There's a sense of power and influence that comes with church leadership, especially when the church is independent, autonomous and not connected to a denomination or to one of the branches of Christian tradition. There's a temptation to use that kind of power and influence that is temporal, dependent on "worldly" influences. Christ himself was tempted with that same kind of worldly influence and power, the idea that one man could rule the whole world (Matthew 4:8-11).
That's why, when someone like Donald Trump comes along, a man who built his life, business and personal reputation on everything that the Bible labels as "debauchery" and worldly pleasure, and he says, "Hey, I love the Evangelicals. And turning the other cheek and doing unto others are nice things, but where have they gotten you?" he still has their ear. He can deny the very belief that is at the heart of Christian faith, claiming, "I haven't done anything that requires me to ask forgiveness from anyone," live a lifestyle that is the polar opposite of Christian submission to God, and still get the support of Christians. It is no longer the gospel that is the focus for many, it is gaining worldly power and influence. That takes less time and is more certain than prayer is, I guess, in their thinking anyway.
A Form of Godliness, but Denying Its Power
I don't buy into the "last days nonsense" of most Evangelicals. Those end of the world scenarios are for the purposes of manipulation and to justify bad behavior. But the Apostle Paul gives a good description of what I believe we are now seeing in some branches of the Christian church, and I think it gives some perspective on where these "seeds of violence" are coming from.
For people will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, brutes, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to the outward form of godliness but denying its power. Avoid them! For among them are those who make their way into households and captivate silly women, overwhelmed by their sins and swayed by all kinds of desires, who are always being instructed and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth.
The emphasis is mine, and it makes my point here perfectly.
No comments:
Post a Comment