Pacifist Fight Club

AMERICA: WE CREATE OUR OWN TERRORISTS

2012-01-28T17:07:00.000-08:00

Michael Hastings, in his hard-hitting new book, "The Operators," discusses "politically correct imperialism," why the military is obsessed with its legacy, and why we're stuck in post-9/11 thinking.

[Excerpt]

But one quote that stuck with me summed up the essential flaws in the thinking, the safe haven flaw, if you will: “Marja must be controlled in order to eventually control Kandahar. Kandahar must be controlled to control Afghanistan. Afghanistan must be controlled to control Pakistan. Pakistan must be controlled to prevent Saudi Arabia terrorists from getting on a flight at J.F.K. Airport in Jamaica, Queens.”

Did that revelation all come to you at the same time? Or how were you able to put that together and make it so crystal clear?

MH: Well, to me this was apparent in Iraq, but it's also apparent in Afghanistan: that nothing that we're doing on a daily basis -- by "we" I mean NATO and U.S. forces -- has anything to do with preventing another September 11. I mean, 99 percent of the people we killed over these past 10 years would never have posed a threat to the United States. I mean, that's a devastating indictment of our endeavors -- it's devastating.

MH: In 2008, after my first trip to Afghanistan, I came back and did a story for GQ, and my editor said something -- and it's a line I've stolen from him – he said we're stuck in post-9/11 thinking. There was this whole period of time where you could be accused of pre-9/11 thinking, but what's happened is we're stuck in post-9/11 thinking. And these misconceptions that I think took hold quite early have become institutionalized. And institutionalized in a way that is meant to shut down debate.

Because you may say, well, we should get out of Afghanistan, and then the answer is, well, what about the terrorist safe havens? Grover Norquist actually made the argument that there's a reason why there's not a robust debate from the other side about Afghanistan – it's because they know how flimsy their argument is.

And we haven't even gotten to the fact that by being in these places – and with the trauma that we're inflicting on these societies while we're there – that's the way you create terrorists, it's not the way you defeat terrorists.

READ THE ENTIRE INTERVIEW HERE>

WOULD YOU GIVE UP BEING AN AMERICAN FOR JESUS?

2012-01-24T22:46:00.000-08:00

by Herb Montgomery

There is a growing desire among American Christians,especially during political races, to reach out and influence others throughgaining political power. Now, I want to be clear from the beginning: I do notbelieve we should sit back and do nothing. My fear, though, is that many of ushave been duped into thinking that by voicing our opinions (i.e. voting) wehave somehow advanced the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom Jesus came to establishis very different from any and all kingdoms of this world, even America. TheKingdom of God is also advanced in a very different way than the kingdoms ofthis world.

This weekend, I made some statements regarding this subjectin my final presentation. A fellow minister that was visiting from anotheraffiliation questioned me afterward. The statement in our conversation thatsticks with me most was, “I’m just afraid we are telling our people not tovote.” I understand my new friend’s concern. I am not saying we should not seekto influence the society around us. What I am saying is that as a follower ofJesus, following His example, we understand that as members of Jesus’s Kingdom,the weapons of our warfare are not the same as those used by kingdoms of thisworld. In all honestly, it’s a lot easier to just vote. It’s much morechallenging to live lives that manifest radical, self-sacrificial love toothers in our society, even those we are different from. God’s Kingdom cannotbe advanced through the legislation of a kingdom of this world using its powerover its citizens, even if it is America. God’s Kingdom is advanced by comingunder our society, by humbly and lovingly serving others in our society,whether they are like us or not. God’s Kingdom is advanced through means thataffect our society, not from the outside in, legislating behaviors, but fromthe inside out in a much more profoundly transformative way.

Let’s be clear: The United States is not the kingdom of God.Our country is, in my opinion, the best kingdom that this world has to offer atpresent, but even at its best, the United States is not the kingdom Jesus cameto establish. It’s still merely a kingdom of this world.

Right now within American Christianity, there are those whoare using the above passage this week to try and say that as Christians we haveduel citizenship, that we as Christians have a duty to America as well as toGod. This kind of rhetoric deeply concerns many, including me.

Notice the mindset and words of first-century Christianity.Followers of Jesus were not “dual citizens.” They saw themselves as aliensliving under an earthly kingdom they viewed as foreign rule.

“Beloved, I urge you as aliens and strangers . . .” —1Peter2.11 (emphasis supplied)

“For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also weeagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ” —Philippians 3.20 (emphasissupplied)

“Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside asaliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,who are chosen.” —1 Peter 1.1 (emphasis supplied)

This does not mean that they didn’t have a right to claimcitizenship in these areas in which they lived (Acts 21.39; Acts 22.28). Whatit means is that they had taken Jesus’s words seriously. “No one can serve twomasters” (Matthew 6:24, Luke 16:13). They had renounced their citizenship intheir respective earthly kingdoms and chose to dwell under the rule of thosekingdoms as aliens. They had embraced their new identity as citizens of a verydifferent Kingdom, for which they were now “Ambassadors” living under a foreignrule (Ephesians 6:20; 2 Corinthians 5:20).

Let me quickly share what this doesn’t mean: It doesn’t meanthat we are to live rebelliously, irrespective of the laws of this country,indifferent to this world’s leaders, or that we should not pay our taxes. Asfollowers of Jesus and members of His Kingdom, He commands us to submit to theauthorities we find ourselves under, to live peaceful lives, and to pray forthis world’s leaders, and pay our taxes. Yet notice the reason we pay ourtaxes, live peaceful lives, and respect law and order is not because we arecitizens of the United States. It’s because we are citizens of Christ’s Kingdomand these are the things Jesus commanded us to do (Romans 13:1-10). I pay mytaxes not because I’m an American, but because I am a follower of Jesus inAmerica. Jesus told me to pay taxes to whatever kingdom of this world I livein. I pray not only for our leaders, but also for leaders everywhere. Jesusdied for Obama, Mitt, and Newt just as much as He did for Bin Laden. In ourprayers for America’s troops we, as followers of Jesus, should be praying forAl Qaeda’s troops as well. What we should be praying for is peace and thesalvation of everyone, regardless of whether they are America’s enemies or not.As a follower of Jesus, I am to love my enemies, realizing that my enemy isn’tthe flesh and blood before me. They have been influenced by the real enemy andI should endeavor to counter influence them through the revelation ofnonviolent love and forgiveness (Luke 23:34). This is the whole story of theCross. This is what it means to take up the Cross, not simply as our message,but as our way of life.

In addition to this, as a side note that is different butrelated, let me add, that my allegiance to God’s Kingdom also doesn’t mean thatI can just trash the earth while I am here. As followers of Jesus, we arecalled to return to our original stewardship of this earth. Some embrace thistruth and feel, “this world is not my home, I’m just a passin’ through.” Yes,Jesus’s Kingdom is not of this world, but this world is the territory Christcame to establish His Reign in through the revelation of radical,other-centered, self-sacrificial love. This is the territory that the “meek”will inherit (Matthew 5:5).

Jesus called us, as His followers, to give to Caesar thethings that are Caesar’s, to give God the things that are God’s, and to alwayskeep those two separate from each other, the former always held as subservientto the latter.

When I began to see this, I was faced with some deeplyprofound questions. You see, on one level, I love American history. I loveDemocracy. I love the Declaration of Independence and what it stands for. Iresonate with the philosophies of American forefathers like Benjamin Franklinand Thomas Jefferson. But none of this belongs to the Kingdom of Jesus.

Which do I see myself as first and foremost: an American ora follower of Jesus? How does a holiday (July 4th) that celebrates Americanfollowers of Jesus killing British followers of Jesus qualify as a greatChristian holiday (as claimed by the recent The American Patriot’s Bible fromThomas Nelson Publishers) rather than a holiday that followers of Jesus shouldmourn? What if I can’t be both an American and a follower of Jesus? Would I bewilling to be an “alien” here in my beloved country? Am I more invested in myidentity as an American than as a follower of Jesus? And finally, would I giveup being an American for Jesus?

When did Jesus ever concern Himself with how Caesar ranRome? America at its best is not the Kingdom of God. There is no such thing asa nation that wields the power of sword that looks like Jesus. As a follower ofJesus, I have to look at all of this with eyes wide open. “Christian” means“one who looks like Jesus.” Some good may have been done throughout history bythe America. Some of our laws may have been originally based on aJudeo-Christian influence. But in our treatment of others, from NativeAmericans, through African American slaves, all the way down to our foreignpolicies of today, we have never been a nation that looked like Jesus. We havenever been a very “Christian” nation. Manifest destiny more closely resembles apagan paradigm than the person and teachings of Jesus Christ. I’m thankful fora country that asks my opinion. I have to realize at the same time that I mayimprove, in my opinion, how this earthly kingdom operates when I vote, but Ican only participate in advancing the Kingdom of God as I seek to humbly, selfsacrificially SERVE the world around me. Caesar and God are not the same.

Whether you see eye to eye with me on any of this or not atall, at the very least it’s something to think about.

Keep loving like the sun shines and like the rain falls.Keep building the Kingdom.

*THIS ARTICLE WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED

HERE

PRAYING FOR WAR IN THE NAME OF JESUS?

2012-01-21T03:00:00.000-08:00

What's wrong with this picture? How can we call ourselves the follower of the Prince of Peace and pray in His Name for War?

Anatomy of Your Enemy

2012-01-20T04:30:00.000-08:00

Ten easy steps to create an enemy and start a war:
Listen closely because we will all see this weapon used in our lives.
It can be used on a society of the most ignorant to the most highly educated.
We need to see their tactics as a weapon against humanity and not as truth.

First step: Create the enemy. Sometimes this will be done for you.

Second step: Be sure the enemy you have chosen is nothing like you. Find obvious differences like race, language, religion, dietary habits and fashion. Emphasize that their soldiers are not doing a job, they are heartless murderers who enjoy killing!

Third step: Once these differences are established continue to reinforce them with all disseminated information.

Fourth step: Have the media broadcast only the ruling party's information this can be done through state run media. Remember: in times of conflict all for-profit media repeats the ruling party's information. Therefore all for-profit media becomes state-run.

Fifth step: Show this enemy in actions that seem strange, militant, or different. Always portray the enemy as non-human, evil, a killing machine.

Chorus:
THIS IS HOW TO CREATE AN ENEMY.
THIS IS HOW TO START A WAR.
THIS IS HOW TO CREATE AN ENEMY.

Sixth step: Eliminate opposition to the ruling party.
Create an "Us versus Them" mentality. Leave no room for opinions in between. One that does not support all actions of the ruling party should be considered a traitor.

Seventh step: Use nationalistic and/or religious symbols and rhetoric to define all actions. This can be achieved by slogans such as "freedom loving people versus those who hate freedom." This can also be achieved by the use of flags.

Eighth step: Align all actions with the dominant deity.
It is very effective to use terms like, "It is god's will" or "god bless our nation."

Ninth step: Design propaganda to show that your soldiers
have feelings, hopes, families, and loved ones. Make it clear that your soldiers are doing a duty; they do not want or like to kill.

Tenth step: Create and atmosphere of fear, and instability
and then offer the ruling party as the only solutions to comfort the public's fears. Remembering the fear of the unknown is always the strongest fear.

We are not countries. We are not nations. We are not religions. We are not gods. We are not weapons. We are not ammunition. We are not killers.
We will NOT be tools.

I will not die.
I will not kill.
I will not be your slave.
I will not fight your battle.
I will not die on your battlefield.
I will not fight for your wealth.
I am not a fighter.
I am a human being.

lyrics by Anti-Flag, from the song "Anatomy of Your Enemy".

Meet Our Newest Fighter: Travis G. Blankenship

2012-01-19T03:30:00.000-08:00

T.G. Blankenship has spent the last 2+ years working as a Resident Assistant for a nonprofit called Transitional Youth in the Pacific Northwest. Transitional Youth helps homeless and at-risk youth get back on their feet through communal living, counseling, education on communication and conflict resolution.

As a Resident Assistant he lives alongside the youth who come into the house and functions as relational support and as an accountability and lay counselor. He has also spent the last few years working with various youth groups and guest speaking and teaching at churches across the nation.

Travis is currently working with his congregation to move siblings of faith from seats to streets by creating awareness of the various ministries already present in the city and helping to make the connections people need in order to begin participating in the ministries that fit their gifts and break their hearts.

He graduated with his Bachelor of Science in Pastoral Ministries in 2007 from Mid-America Christian University in Oklahoma City, OK. During his senior year of studies he became convinced of the call of non-violence within the Gospel and has been studying and writing on the lifestyle ever since.
After graduation he moved to Atlanta, GA to live and work on the streets with the homeless men and women there. He discovered his passion for loving the poor and finding solidarity with those in suffering.

Since then he has worked in various ministries that help those in poverty, prison, drug culture, and rehab.

He recently moved back to Vancouver, WA and he is currently in his final semester for acquiring his Masters of Arts in Biblical Studies at Multnomah Biblical Seminary in Portland, OR.

Travis was raised in his faith in the Church of God movement out of Anderson, IN and he desires to work in congregations to help people understand their identity in Christ as individuals as well as members of the Body of Christ. He would also like to help move people into active and consistent ministries of reconciliation while teaching the ethics and lifestyle of Jesus Christ.

He desires for people to live into the victory and reign of Christ as kingdom of heaven citizens. He wants to see inner-cities transformed through the Church by means of generous hospitality, non-violence, truth speaking, justice seeking, artistic expression, and more.

He would also like to spend some time in Palestine/Israel, if possible, to work for peace.

STOP SOPA

2012-01-18T00:00:00.000-08:00

Reality vs. The Nonviolent Dream

2012-01-17T13:22:00.000-08:00

by Travis Glenn Blankenship

As a boisterous nonviolent advocate I often receive criticisms from people who disagree with my ideas. Whether I am discussing how I would treat a home intruder, a mugger assaulting an innocent person, a wicked and murderous dictator, or nuclear disarmament I am often told that my head is in the clouds and I am not cognitive of the real world. “That’s just not the way it works” people tell me.

Relevant Magazine writer Tyler Wigg-Stevenson wrote an article concerning the recent activity at the United Nations concerning nuclear disarmament and brought it to a personal level with the Church. In his article he wrote “I’ve gotten used to the predictable attacks: “utopian,” “idealistic,” unrealistic” and worse. Some say that I need to live in the “real world.” But there is a simple response to this: Does God rule over the “real world” that you live in?”

This is a fantastic response to the nay-sayers who say living a peaceful or nonviolent life is impossible or that loving enemies and not bringing harm to the wicked will be of no profit. Well, this response works if the nay-sayers are Christian anyways.

Here’s the deal my Jesus loving friends, all things are possible with G-D. Sure the verse that tells us this is in reference to salvation for the rich but it remains true in this context. There can be salvation/deliverance/redemption for anyone with G-D. And if you won’t buy that one then let me say that G-D “is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us” (Ephesians 3:20).

If we seek to love enemies and see this violent world transformed into a peaceful one then our greatest resource is prayer. James 5:17 tells us that “the prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.” This portion of scripture goes on to tell about Elijah and how his prayers came to pass and he was a man just like us. Our Messiah even told us that if we tell mountains to be thrown into the sea (Matthew 21:21, Mark 11:23) it will happen because whatever we ask for will be given to us (Matthew 7:7, Luke 11:9, John 15:7, 16:23-24).

But why all this prayer? Why is it effective? Certainly it is not because of whom we are or our achievements but because the one we pray to and who intercedes for us has defeated both sin and death (1Corinthians 15:55-57) and he has also made a spectacle of all powers and authorities (Colossians 2:15).

Because the earth and its elements obey our G-D (Luke 8:25), and because both good and evil men may be used for his purposes (Judges 2:16, 1Kings 11:14) our prayers may come to pass (otherwise why say “amen”). Because there are promises for protection (Psalm 12:5, 37:28, 41:2, 91:14, Jeremiah 49:11, 2Thesselonians 3:3) and accounts of our L-RD protecting and delivering those who are faithful (1Samuel20:23, Joshua 24:17, Ezra 8:31, Psalm 116:6, John 17:12) we can believe in living faithful lives that embrace enemy-loving nonviolence.

If G-D can create a universe with his voice alone (Genesis 1:3), heal the sick (Matthew 4:23), stop time (Joshua 10:12-13), cleanse the sinful (Ezekiel 37:23), blind men (2Kings 6:18), speak through animals (Numbers 22:28), drive out demons (Mark 16:9), harden hearts (Exodus 9:12), divide mankind through creating new languages (Genesis 11:1-9), bring water out of rocks (Numbers 20:1-11), provide bread and quail from heaven (Exodus 16:1-35), raise the dead (John 11:43-44), protect and deliver his people through the trials of fiery furnaces (Daniel 3), wars (Joshua 24:11-12), storms (Matthew 8:23-26), pits of lions (Daniel 6) slavery (Exodus 20:2, Joshua 24:6-7), a world-wide flood (Genesis 8:1), stonings (John 8:3-11), and genocide (Esther) then why would he not also be capable of such medial tasks as jamming an enemies gun or something similar?

If his power is in the Church (Matthew 28:20b) then why do we see peaceful living and loving enemies as unrealistic?

Often people say it is not because of a lack of faith in G-D but in humanity. It is not because G-d is incapable of empowering and protected his faithful few (Proverbs 2:7) but because humanity is fallen, and often unwilling to submit to righteous living. After all, Satan has dominion in this world (Matthew 4:8). This is a valid point. The only flaw in this argument is that we all know G-D is more than able to overcome evil for us (Psalm 44:7, 60:12, 108:13) and that he stands over and drives out Satan (John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11). If this were not true he would not command us to overcome evil with good (Romans 12:21). We know there is victory in our G-D because it has been shown in Christ Jesus all ready (Romans 16:20). The minions of evil shudder before the L-RD (James 2:9) and plead with him for mercy (Matthew 8:31) because He is greater than the one who is in the world (1John 4:4). This is why we do not fear what others fear (1Peter 3:14); we have a hope in a victory that is all ready present (Luke 10:18-19, Colossians 2:15). We are fearless while faithful.

If there is a righteous and biblical reason for one following Jesus not to embrace a nonviolent lifestyle I would like to know it. I’ve yet to find one but have found every possible reason to believe faith is enough if it is faith in the one true G-D.

Does this mean we will pray “L-RD, may there be world peace tomorrow. May all war end and all people come to love one another” and it will happen? Not necessarily. After all, one has to consider free will and the factors of temptation and sin. Not all submit to G-D and there is no reason for me to think G-D plans on hitting an “It’s all good” button. That button is more likely going to look like the second coming of Christ Jesus.

Until then, the Church is to live in the reality of the kingdom of G-D and the reality of the kingdom of G-D is that G-D reigns supreme and his love abounds. The reality is that the kingdom came to earth in Christ and is continued in the Church and will be fulfilled someday and all mourning will cease (Revelation 21:4). The reality is that G-D can do more than we imagine and if we pray “your kingdom come, your will be done” and are obedient to him then it will come to pass right where we are at. It may end in our death but history has shown that the Church thrives under such conditions (people being killed for following the Way of Jesus) and scripture tells us this is not worth fearing (1Peter 3:16-18).

The reality is that the L-RD our G-D is with us and able to save. The reality is Jesus Christ reigns.

**
This article originally appeared here:
http://thegreatbout.xanga.com/713004505/reality-vs-the-nonviolent-dream/

What Now?

2012-01-16T09:52:00.000-08:00

Our first Pacifist Fight Club is complete. Many of those I spoke to on Saturday told me that they were in the minority in their family, or their church when it came to following Jesus into non-violence, or compassion for the poor, or embracing the immigrant. This alone made our time together valuable.

The very act of coming together as followers of Christ to affirm the words of Jesus and His impact on our lives was a statement in itself.

It wasn't a book, or a political idea that brought us together - it was Jesus. He is the One who compels us to follow Him into this path of radical compassion and love for enemies. Jesus is the reason we endure the ridicule of our own brothers and sisters in Christ for standing our ground on issues of peace. Jesus is the One who calls out to us to keep our feet on this path of non-violence no matter who opposes us, or what the cost.

Make no mistake, this is not an easy path to walk. We struggle not only against those who mock us from the outside, but from our own internal voice of reason. It would be so much easier to stop and rest. It would be much more comfortable for us if we were to give up on these ideas of peace and mercy and justice. But we also know that to do so - to let go of these ideals - is also to release our grip on Jesus, and none of us is willing to pay that kind of price for comfort.

By the grace of God, we will continue to fight for justice without resorting to violence. We will continue to wrestle with these difficult notions of radical love and Kingdom values like mercy, forgiveness, turning the other cheek, and loving our enemies - both personal and political.

Our struggle is not only against the popular culture, or even the current Christian subculture, but against our own apathy and indifference. Only Jesus can rescue us from ourselves. So, we cling tighter to Him and we pray that He would mold us into His image. We ask that Jesus would give us a heart like His own. We pray that Jesus would work the miracle in us that would transform us into His image, so that we can be His ambassadors of the Kingdom and proclaim His message of peace, hope, love, mercy, and redemption.

What happens now? We keep fighting. We keep praying. We keep following.

Pacifist Fight Club never stops. It just changes locations.

Peace,
Keith

IT'S ON!

2012-01-14T10:00:00.000-08:00

If you're reading this the first Pacifist Fight Club is underway.

Follow live Tweets of the event using the hashtag #PacifistFightClub and we'll post follow-up info and details soon.

Peace,
Keith

COMING CLEAN

2012-01-13T06:00:00.000-08:00

From the outside looking in, you might assume that I have no trouble embracing non-violence as an ideal. Especially since I’m the one who’s throwing together this day long conversation about pacifism, poverty and immigration called the Pacifist Fight Club. But the truth is there’s nothing ‘easy’ about following Jesus in these areas. Or any area for that matter.

Jesus warned us that we should count the cost before putting our hands to the plow – or before taking up our cross daily to follow Him. Why? Because he knew it was going to be anything but ‘easy’ for us.

Can I be perfectly honest with you? I struggle personally with several aspects of the non-violence argument. Not that I disagree with it, but that I wrestle with the full implications of the idea on myself and the world around me.

For example, I’m not sure I believe that a non-violent response to the Holocaust of the Jews would have ended the reign of Hitler. Perhaps it would have, perhaps not. In some ways we’ll never know because it wasn’t attempted. History reveals another solution to the problem that runs counter to the idea of non-violence, so we can only speculate. But, honestly I’m not sure how, or if, a non-violent approach may have worked.

I follow Jesus. This is why I embrace the ideas of loving my enemies and turning the other cheek. Without Jesus I would not hold such convictions, but because I love Jesus and I have made a conscious decision to make Him my Lord, I must obey Him in this area and contend for peace whenever possible.

But, if I’m honest, I’m a very violent person. By that I mean that I was raised on television and movies that glorified violence. I read books – and even wrote my own stories – that used the idea of violence as an effective tool to defeat evil. It’s in my blood in ways I cannot even communicate, or fathom completely.

So, I have an internal struggle within myself as someone who believes in the ideals that Jesus communicated, and is trying to live out that Kingdom principle, but is also aware of inconsistencies in his own heart and life.

For example, I recently read a collection of selected writings from Gandhi on the topic of non-violence. Granted, Gandhi is not a Christian, per se, but he was greatly influenced by the Sermon on the Mount (and read it every day). In one chapter, Gandhi made a bold claim that anyone who desired to follow the path of non-violence must become non-violent in every part of his life. In other words, it is hypocrisy to contend for non-violence as an ideal and still practice violence – or take pleasure from violence – in one’s personal life. Or, to put it another way, the condition of our heart must align with our rhetoric before we can honestly speak about non-violence with any sort of integrity.

This idea cut me to the heart. Because I know that I still find violence entertaining. Whether in a film, or a book, or a video game, violence is still tolerated – even celebrated – in my private life.

Then I ran across this quote from an early Christian writer who said, “But we, deeming that to see a man put to death is much the same as killing him, have abjured such spectacles. How, then, when we do not even watch, lest we should contract guilt and pollution, can we put people to death?” - Athenagoras, A.D. 177

Granted, this brother is speaking of watching the actual death of another person, not a dramatic or simulated death. But notice that he says, “…to see a man put to death is much the same as killing him” and “we do not even watch lest we contract guilt and pollution”.

This idea of our imaginations corrupting our hearts is similar to what Jesus says about lust being equal to adultery, or anger being equal to murder. These desires of our heart are revealed as we imagine the sin, and to regard the sin in our heart is the same as committing the sin itself.

So, even though I firmly stand on the side of non-violence for the sake of following Christ, I must confess to everyone that I have not yet arrived at the place where my entire being is fully surrendered to Christ in the way it should be. I am still praying for Him to wash me clean and to turn my whole heart into one that – like His heart – is free from a desire to do harm, or to see others come to harm.

This isn’t the only area where I struggle. I also don’t know how I feel about allowing others to come to harm in the name of non-violence. I don’t know where to draw the line between helping the poor and enabling their sin. I don’t know how to love homosexuals as Jesus does without seeming to approve of their lifestyle. I don’t know how we can help people who are living here illegally without breaking the laws of the land.

Frankly, there are a lot of things I do not know. That’s a given. But these questions are part of why we’re coming together this Saturday (tomorrow) for Pacifist Fight Club. To ask these questions, and to engage in meaningful dialog, and to challenge our assumptions, and hopefully to draw closer to the heart of Jesus so that He might soften us and change us and reveal to us more about who He has called us to be as disciples.

I hope you’ll join us and please bring your own questions with you. I have learned that sometimes well-formed questions are more useful to us than well-formed answers.

Peace,
Keith Giles

Meet Your Fighters: Wendy Tarr

2012-01-12T04:00:00.000-08:00

Wendy Tarr has worked for Clergyand Laity United for Economic Justice of California since 2006 and currentlyserves as the director of the OrangeCounty chapter (CLUE OC). CLUE OC is a vibrant network of clergy andcongregation leaders committed to walking alongside low wage and immigrantfamilies in struggles for justice. CLUE OC draws people from a broad spectrumof faith - including Catholic, Evangelical, Jewish, Muslim and Pentecostal -committed to addressing low wage poverty in our communities.

CLUEutilizes a faith-rooted organizing model that is guided and shaped in every wayby our faith. Our movement is built on the incorporating the practice ofnon-violence and the lessons from the civil rights movement into localstruggles for economic justice. We believe the faith community can providenecessary spiritual and moral leadership and impart vision and courage inmovements that bring broad social change to recognizes the dignity and worth ofall people. CLUE OC also directs the “Loving the Stranger Network” - a networkof evangelicals in Orange County committed to working together from a sharedbiblical concern to support immigrants and just immigration reform.

Wendygrew up in South Florida and has a B.A. from Florida State University in Communications/ Public Relations. In 2004, Wendy worked for the Florida CatholicConference as a project assistant for the Farmworker Solidarity Project. Shelater participated in an intentional community in Calcutta, India that helps torescue and give job training and employment opportunities for women who havebeen victims of human trafficking. Wendy was raised in the evangelical churchand has a passion to see churches understand the biblical call to justice andto actively participate in societal transformation and reconciliation withinthe local community. She has taught courses on justice and faith-rootedorganizing at Biola University and Vanguard University. She has also presentedtrainings on Faith-Rooted organizing for other organizers within the SojournersNational Mobilizing Networks.

Meet Your Fighters: Keith Giles

2012-01-11T05:30:00.000-08:00

Keith Giles is an author, blogger and copywriter living in Orange, California. For over 25 years he's been writing and publishing articles on faith, culture, and the Kingdom of God.

Since 2006 he and his wife, Wendy have been leading a house church in their community where no one takes a salary and all the offerings are given to help the poor.

As the organizer of local events like the Non-Con, Engage, the Heart of Jesus and Poverty in the OC, he has many years of experience planning and promoting interactive, conversational events designed to stimulate thought and most of all - action - in today's Christian community.

Last year, Keith published his 5th book, "This Is My Body:Ekklesia as God Intended" and has since given away over 3,200 free copies of the e-book version which is available HERE:

His other books include, "Nobody Follows Jesus (So Why Should You?)", "The Gospel:For Here or To Go?", "The Top 10 Things Every Christian Should Know (But Probably Doesn't), and "[Subversive Interviews]" which collects his previous interviews with authors, scholars, songwriters and professors like Dallas Willard, Todd Hunter, Jim Wallis, Matt Redman, Dr. Scott Bartchy, John Fischer, Dr. G.K. Beale, and others.

Keith's main blog is found at http://www.keithgiles.com/, but he also created and maintains several other online resources including:http://www.povertyintheoc.com/, http://www.ochousechurch.com/ and http://www.wearethetemple.com/.

His talking points for the Pacifist Fight Club will include poverty in Orange County, "our poor", War is not Christian, and the connection between loving God and loving others.

Questions to consider before you attend this event:
Does God require us to do more than write checks when it comes to engaging the poor?
How serious is Jesus when He says that those who do not care for the poor will enter into eternal punishment? (See Matthew 25:31-46)
What will you say to Jesus when He asks you what you did to the "least of these?"
How can you reconcile being a follower of Jesus and supporting military conflict at the same time?

REGISTER NOW

2012-01-10T08:16:00.000-08:00

PACIFIST FIGHT CLUB: This Saturday, January 14th, from 10am to 2:30pm.

"We will fight for justice, but we will do no violence."

This is a FREE Event. Please Register online to hold your spot. Space is limited.

LOCATION:

Fuller Seminary (Irvine)

2061 Business Center Dr

Irvine, CA 92612

Take the Vow of Non-Violence

2012-01-10T05:30:00.000-08:00

RECOGNIZING THE VIOLENCE IN MY OWN HEART, yet trusting in the goodness and mercy of God, I vow for one year to practice the nonviolence of Jesus who taught us in the Sermon on the Mount:

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons and daughters of God…You have learned how it was said, ‘You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy’; but I say to you, Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you. In this way, you will be daughters and sons of your Creator in heaven.”

Before God the Creator and the Sanctifying Spirit, I vow to carry out in my life the love and example of Jesus

by striving for peace within myself and seeking to be a peacemaker in my daily life;
by accepting suffering rather than inflicting it;
by refusing to retaliate in the face of provocation and violence;
by persevering in nonviolence of tongue and heart;
by living conscientiously and simply so that I do not deprive others of the means to live;
by actively resisting evil and working nonviolently to abolish war and the causes of war from my own heart and from the face of the earth.

God, I trust in Your sustaining love and believe that just as You gave me the grace and desire to offer this, so You will also bestow abundant grace to fulfill it.

More info
HERE

Become Convinced

2012-01-09T06:00:00.000-08:00

"I kicked against the goads of non-resistance for a long time, trying to find loopholes to indulge my baser impulses for violence and vengeance. But the words of Christ and of Paul convinced me that I have no property, no rights, not even my own life that is valuable enough to kill or hurt another over." - Arthur Sido.

Our Weapons

2012-01-08T06:00:00.000-08:00

"For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds." - 2 Corinthians 10:3-4

WATCH: PRAY THE DEVIL BACK TO HELL

2012-01-07T05:30:00.000-08:00

Watch Pray the Devil Back To Hell on PBS. See more from Women War and Peace.

Jesus and the Church Triumphant

2012-01-06T06:00:00.000-08:00

In my opinion, the most tragic event in history took place on October 28, 312AD, in ancient Rome. On this date the emperor Constantine defeated a rival to become sole ruler of the Roman Empire.

This would have been just another example of the sort of bloodletting that has typified human history were it not for one fact: Constantine attributed this victory to his new found deity, Jesus Christ. He allegedly received a vision just prior to the battle that promised him victory if his soldiers marched into it with the sign of Christ on their shields.

It was the first time in history that the name of Jesus was associated with nationalistic violence. Having set this precedent, however, it would hardly be the last.

While Jesus and the Gospel authors identified the quest for political and nationalistic power to be a temptation of Satan (Lk 4:7-7), Eusebius, Augustine and other Church leaders interpreted Constantine’s vision and the consolidation of power under him that his victory brought about to be from God.

A cornerstone of pagan religion throughout history has been the assumption that military victories are granted by the victor’s god. With this diabolic christening of Constantine’s vision, Christianity became, to a large degree, just another violence-prone pagan religion, and Jesus just another nationalistic warrior god. Whereas the New Testament makes it clear that the Church is called to be a community of humble peacemakers who follow the example of Jesus by sacrificially serving the world and loving their enemies, the Church now became “the Church Triumphant.” The Church that was called to look like a corporate Jesus – carrying the cross out of love for the world – now began to look like a corporate Caesar, carrying the sword to conquer the world “in Jesus name.”

The sovereign God of course continued to work through the Constantinian Church Triumphant, and the good that the Church has accomplished throughout history shouldn’t be minimized. Yet, because of this tragic Constantinian transformation, the Church Triumphant (for the most part) failed to bear witness to the self-sacrificial, enemy-loving, character of Jesus that lies at the heart of the Gospel.

While there have thankfully always been Jesus-followers who opted out of the Church Triumphant by refusing to pick up the sword, the Church as a whole has consistently shown itself to be all-too-willing to employ it. In the name of Jesus the Church has at various times carried out barbarically violent crusades against Muslims, Jews, heretics, witches, and even other Christians.

In the name of Jesus the Conquistadors conquered the Americas, slaughtering the natives whenever it was expedient to do so. And in the name of Jesus, Catholics, Protestants and the Orthodox Church frequently engaged in religious, political and nationalistically motivated torturing and killing, often against one other. This macabre bloodshed in Jesus name was significantly curbed throughout Europe with the signing of the “Peace of Westphalia” (1648), a series of politically motivated truces that were imposed by governmental rulers to put an end to the relentless Christian-on-Christian bloodletting that had been going on for centuries. But the violent legacy of the Church Triumphant nevertheless continued in other areas and in other ways.

We should discern this tragic legacy in the American revolution as well as the American civil war, for in both wars the warriors were Christians fighting “for God and country” under the banner of Jesus Christ. And we should discern this violent legacy today in the fact that the vast majority of professing Christians continue to support the use of violence when it’s in their personal or national self-interest to do so.

We should also discern this violent legacy in the fact that most professing Christians in the west, especially in America, continue to believe that the material wealth they enjoy is evidence of divine favor, despite the fact that it is in large part the result of violent exploitation in the past as well as the present. And we should discern this violent legacy in the fact that many American Christians continue to embrace the age-old pagan conviction that our soldiers fight “for God and country” and that our military victories are given us by God.

When the late Jerry Falwell was asked on national Television several years ago what he believed America should do in response to the 9/11 attack, he responded with a calm smile, “we need to blow them [terrorists] all away in the name of the Lord.” He was simply expressing, and perpetuating, the violent legacy of the Church Triumphant.

What makes the legacy of violence in Jesus name demonically ironic is that Jesus – whom all Christians claim to follow – was utterly opposed to all violence!

To appreciate how radical Jesus’ stance on non-violence was, we need to remember that Jesus was a first century Jew. Jews were at this time under the rule of Rome, and they hated it. Most saw submission to pagan rulers as not only oppressive (which it was) but also as an assault on their faith. Since they worshipped the true God, they reasoned, heathens who worship idols shouldn’t rule them.

For this reason, most Jews of Jesus’ day were looking for God to vindicate them by liberating them from Roman rule and reinstating Israel as a sovereign nation. Accordingly, most were looking for a Messiah who would be used by God to accomplish this. Central to their concept of the Messiah was the assumption that he’d be a warrior king like David in the Old Testament. Most expected the Messiah to rise up in the power of God, lead a violent revolt against the Romans, and liberate Israel with the power of the sword.

Into this tense and violent-tending environment comes Jesus. Because of his supernatural power, many started to look to him as the Messiah, and he told his closest confidants that he was, in fact, the Messiah. But instead of talking and acting like a warrior king, Jesus repeatedly, and emphatically, taught his fellow Jews that they shouldn’t seek to violently overthrow their enemies. They should rather seek to love and serve them.

His message couldn’t have possibly been more radically counter-cultural. It’s what ultimately got him crucified. In one passage, for example, Jesus said, “love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn the other also” (Luke 6:27-29). And lest anyone missed the point, Jesus came back to it six verses later.

While everyone loves their friends, Jesus continued, the distinctive mark of all who follow him is that we are to love our enemies and do good to them (Luke 6:35-36).

What’s particularly astonishing is that Jesus made loving our enemies the condition for being considered a child of God. In the Gospel of Matthew Jesus taught: “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Matthew 5:45-46, emphasis added). What Jesus is teaching us is that, just as the Father sends rain indiscriminately, his followers are to love indiscriminately -- all people, at all times, no “ifs,” “ands” or “buts.” And we must love like this so that we may be children of the Father! To refuse to love like this, in other words, disqualifies one from being considered a child of God.

How Constantine and Church leaders like Augustine could ever associate the name of this peace-loving Messiah with violence is an utter mystery. One is tempted to appeal to the deceptive power of the devil to explain it.

A little earlier in Matthew Jesus told his followers, “Do no resist an evildoer” (Mt 5:39). Now, the Greek word translated “resist” (antistenai) doesn’t suggest followers of Jesus are to simply sit back and let evil take over. The word rather connotes resisting a forceful action with a similar forceful action. Jesus is thus forbidding his followers to respond to violent action with a similar violent action. But he’s not saying, “Do nothing.”

Paul made this same point when he instructed Christians to never “repay evil with evil” and to never “take revenge. ” Instead, we are to “overcome evil with good” (Romans.12: 17, 19. See also I Thessalonians 5:15 and I Peter 3:9).

We aren’t to do nothing: we’re to love. If our enemy is hungry, we’re to feed them. And if they’re thirsty, we’re to given them something to drink (Romans 12:20).

This is how we’re to respond to enemies according to Jesus and his earliest followers. This is good for us, because it keeps us from sinking to the level of our enemies. And its good for our enemies, for it opens up the possibility that they’ll see the wrong they’re doing and turn from it. And while it may be costly, it’s ultimately good for the world. For this is the only way of responding to evil that actually prevents propagating it further.

It’s important to notice that Jesus never qualified the “enemies” or “evil doers” we’re supposed to love. Jesus didn’t say, “Love your enemies until they threaten you or your nation; until it seems justified to resort to violence; until they threaten the supremacy of your religion; or until it seems impractical to do so.” Enemies are enemies precisely because they threaten us on some level, and it always seems justified and practically expedient to resist them, if not harm them if necessary. Jesus simply said, “Love your enemies” and “don’t resist evildoers.”

It’s important to also remember that some of the people Jesus was saying this to would before long confront enemies who would feed them and their families to lions for amusement! (The first persecution of Christians broke out under Nero in 64 AD). Jesus wasn’t just talking about being nice to our grumpy neighbors! He was instructing us to love all enemies, regardless of why they’re our enemies, and regardless of how bad an enemy they are.

But Jesus didn’t simply teach about non-violence. He practiced it. When he was being unjustly arrested, his disciple Peter pulled out a sword in self-defense and swung it at one of the hostile guards, cutting of his ear. If ever there was an incident in which “Just War Theory” would conclude that the use of violence was “justified,” this would be it. Yet Jesus rebuked Peter, telling him to put his sword away, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.” (Matthew 26:52).The history of the human race is largely a bloody merry-go-round of people thinking their use of violence was “justified” and that the world would get fixed if only we who are moral could eradicate the “evil-doers” – if only we could “blow them up in the name of the Lord.” The assumption is a demonic delusion. The use of violence has always, and will always, eventually lead to more violence. Kill your enemy today and you recruit his children and grandchildren to be your enemy for generations to come. Jesus is trying to show us a way of finally getting off this mindless, bloody merry-go-round and live a different way.

After telling Peter to put away his sword, Jesus proceeded to illustrate the different, non-violent, mindset he wants his followers to cultivate by healing the ear of the aggressor that Peter had just severed (Lk 22:51). The Jesus-way of responding to enemies and of transforming the world, we see, is not through violent force, but by doing good to those who oppose us.

Jesus obviously is recommending a radically different way of doing life. This is why he told Pilate that his “kingdom” was “not from this world.” If his kingdom were a “normal” earthly kingdom, Jesus said, his followers would of course fight the way soldiers in all “normal” earthly kingdoms fight (John 18:36). But the movement Jesus came to establish -- a movement he called “the kingdom of God” -- was not at all “normal” in this respect. For the distinctive mark of the people aligned with his movement was that they would refuse to fight to further their causes. Instead, they would love, bless, serve and heal their enemies.

The way of Jesus is the way of self-sacrificial love, not coercive force. This is why Jesus allowed himself to be crucified when he could have more easily called on thousands of warring angels to fight on his behalf (Matthew 26:53). He died as an expression of love for all people – including Pilate, the hostile guard, and everyone else who was crucifying him. He died to reconcile us to the peace-loving God and free us from our addiction to violence. He voluntarily gave his life because he knew that what the world needed was not one more futile attempt at fixing it with violence. What the world rather needed was someone who would give his life to transform the world through self-sacrificial love.

And Jesus tells all of us to follow his example. In a world characterized by cyclical violence, we are to lay down our swords and love, bless and pray for our enemies. It may seem impractical if not outright insane. Jesus said it would. But I’m convinced he was right in believing that the hope of the world lies in people opting to live this way, rather than the more typical way of the violent warrior.

The tribe that follows Jesus will someday reign as “the Church Triumphant.” But as we are told in the Book of Revelation, the way we triumphant is not by using force, but by “following the lamb” (Rev. 14:4), offering ourselves up in love toward others, just as he did.

-Greg Boyd, author of "The Myth of a Christian Nation".

The Violence of Doing Nothing

2012-01-05T06:00:00.000-08:00

“No seas metiche” is a phrase I often hear in my neighborhood. In English we would say, “Don’t butt in” or “Mind your own business”.

In general these can be helpful ways of interacting with neighbors, however I think we take it too far when we fail to listen and use it as an excuse to ignore the issues our neighbors are facing.

I have not always cared about Comprehensive Immigration Reform, yet as I “butt in” to the lives and stories of my neighbors, I am moved to action.

Did the Senate vote on December 18, 2010 impact your life? When the DREAM Act died on the Congress floor by five votes did you weep and mourn? Maybe not. If you were anywhere near my sphere of influence you were asked to call and write several lawmakers last year so that undocumented students brought illegally to the US and raised here could earn their legal residency. Some people did it because they believe that our immigration system needs to be reformed. Some people did it because they care about me and trust I will not ask them to do something out of line with their faith. Many people did nothing.

I understand doing nothing. I have done nothing many times. I delete the urgent emails calling for action. Most often I feel that I do not know enough about an issue and the people who do know and care will take the appropriate action and I will do nothing. Nothing seems better than contradicting. My friends who did nothing to push for the DREAM Act a year ago were not out there lobbying against it, so they probably felt they weren’t hurting the cause.

The problem is that while we are doing nothing, thousands of families are being separated as deportations continue. Dreamers, young people who would be able to earn status under the DREAM Act, are losing hope.

Thanksgiving weekend this past year a young dreamer, Joaquin Luna, committed suicide. In a note he left his parents he indicated his depression and hopelessness since the failure of the DREAM Act. As his high school graduation drew near, Joaquin could not envision a change in the system that would usher in the future he desired. In his case, our doing nothing led to a violent end.

As we head into 2012, immigrant advocates are predicting that nothing will happen to move us to immigration reform. No lawmaker will want to take it on in an election year. The president will do nothing. And yet something will happen to my neighbors. They will continue to live daily with the fear that they or their spouse or their grown children will be deported. They will continue to serve us far below a living wage and under the radar with no worker protections. They will continue on in landlord-tenant relationships with very little leverage. 65,000 more undocumented students who were raised in the U.S. will graduate from our high schools with no legal right to work or contribute.
Doing nothing in 2012 will not be neutral. Nothing results in something and in this case it will be the ongoing violence of fear, poverty and mistreatment.

So what do we do? How do we avoid the violence of nothing? How do we bring peace in our immigrant neighbor's pain? First we remember that our something is more powerful than politician’s nothing. We are the people of God and when it feels like there is nothing to do, we pray. In my activist mind I sometimes forget how “something” prayer is. When nothing seems to be moving in the natural, we trust that God is moving and working in the spiritual and at the right moment he will break through in our reality. We pray for His Kingdom to come on earth as it is in heaven.

And we can have the courage to be “metiche”; to believe that our neighbors and their stories matter as much as anything happening to us personally. To open our eyes and our ears to their situation is to do something. When we know a person and care about what happens to them, then what action to take becomes more obvious. And even then the temptation to do nothing is there. We can pat ourselves on the back for listening to people and never take any action to change their situation.

Sometimes listening is the something - is what is needed and called for. Sometimes we need to make a bazillion phone calls and rally our community and speak up for the voiceless until someone pays attention that kids are killing themselves because we have failed to provide a path for their future.

Whatever we do, we have to do something. To do nothing is not nothing. To do nothing is to add to the violence and brokenness that the Kingdom came to abolish.

-Crissy Brooks

What are we (really) fighting for?

2012-01-04T06:00:00.000-08:00

Pacifist Fight Club starts in 9 days.

Join the fight against poverty, apathy, war and violence at Fuller Seminary (Irvine) on Saturday, January 14th at 10am.

This is a free event.

RSVP at Facebook or by leaving your comment here.

Peace.

Passive?

2012-01-03T09:54:00.000-08:00

"There is nothing passive about non-violence." - Shane Crash

WHERE ARE THE PEACEMAKERS?

2012-01-02T06:42:00.000-08:00

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6)

Last month most everyone who follows Jesus took the time to remember the birth of the Prince of Peace. We sang songs that announced the incarnation of Christ and we re-read the scriptures that reminded us of the angels who sang of peace on earth and goodwill towards Men.

Jesus was a man of peace. He said that the peace makers would be called the Sons of God. (Matthew 5:9)

To be someone who loves peace and brings peace and makes peace is to be like the Son of God...it's to be like Jesus.

Never mind that the American Church today is alligned with a political machine that is pro-war. Never mind that Christians today are more notorious for their hatred of sinners than they are for their love of people who sin.

If you want to be a follower of Jesus, be one who makes peace - in your community, in your workplace, in your family and in your church. Promote peace. Stand up for peace. Become someone who brings the peace of God into the room with you.

As followers of Jesus we need to be experts on the subject of peace. We need to be known as people of peace.

If we cannot love another human being because they disagree with us on doctrine, or because they are from another race, or because they embrace a different faith, or because they choose a different lifestyle than us, we must seriously question whether or not the love of God is in us at all.

Our calling as followers of Jesus is to love people. Freely we have received His love, and freely we are commanded to give it away. The love He gives us is not for us to bury in the ground. It's not for keeping to ourselves. It's for sharing with a world who has never truly known what His love is all about.

In this world we will have trouble. That's one of the promises that Jesus made to us. Trouble will come. And people who dislike us will bring that trouble to our door. How then should we respond? Should we call down fire on them from heaven to consume them? Should we pray for God's judgment to fall on them? Hardly. Jesus condemned such responses in his own disciples. (Luke 9:54)

Instead, our response to this trouble and to hardship and to persecution and disagreement should be love and we should work for peace if at all possible.

"If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." (Romans 12:18)

"Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing." (1 Peter 3:9)

"Make sure that nobody pays back wrong for wrong, but always try to be kind to each other and to everyone else." (1 Thessalonians 5:15)

Start today. Let the love of Christ dwell in your heart. Pray for those who persecute you. Ask the Lord Jesus to fill you with His love for people. Learn to walk humbly with your God and to serve others, even (and especially) if they hate you.

How great would it be if a year from now people could see how your life has reflected the love of Christ?

That's my prayer for each of you, and for myself as well.

"Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord." (Hebrews 12:14)

Peace,
kg

MEET YOUR FIGHTERS: TOMMY NIXON

2011-12-26T06:09:00.000-08:00

In 2002 Tommy and his wife moved into the Garnet neighborhood – a low income, predominantly Latino community – in Fullerton. Through gang members, pregnant teens, and broken families Tommy and Rachael began to experience the Kingdom in profound ways. These seemingly insignificant relationships led Tommy to deeper places in his relationship with Jesus. God’s calling in Tommy’s life became much clearer at this point; to envision a church that lives out what it says it believes.

Some say that Thomas Nixon’s perspective on the Church is innovative. Others view the way he lives - and the risks he takes - for God’s cause as inspiring. At first glance one might think that it’s through in-depth study and hours of strategic planning that has brought him to this way of living, but Tommy is the first to admit that he stumbled into this understanding of God’s intention for His Church. It was God’s gift and blessing that he’s been able to experience the Kingdom in the way he has in the past nine years.

Tommy is the Executive Director of Solidarity Rising in Fullerton, Ca.

Topics: “I would love to touch on the church’s involvement in the global protests that have been happening. I recently read Time’s “Person of the Year” article and I keep asking myself, “where is the church in all this?”

ANGELS AT THE DOOR

2011-12-24T06:30:00.000-08:00

It was Christmas week and I was in San Antonio, Texas visiting my sister-in-law. Her church was taking bags of groceries to a local housing project and my wife and I had brought our two little sons along with us to take part in the outreach.

After a quick prayer lead by my little seven-year-old, each of us took a grocery sack and started towards a row of houses across the street.

We knocked on the door and it was opened by an elderly Hispanic woman who looked at us with more than a bit of apprehension. After we introduced ourselves we told her we were offering a free bag of groceries as part of a Christmas outreach from an area church. She invited us inside and thanked us for the food, telling us that she was very hungry.

Standing in her tiny living room, I asked her if we could pray with her for anything. She looked up at me with tears in her eyes and said, "The other day I was so lonely and down. I asked God if He was real to send me an angel so I'd know that He had not forgotten me." She stopped to look at my wife and two little boys and then turned back to me with tears welling in her eyes. "But He sent me four angels," she said.

We were all in tears as we held hands and prayed for Gods blessing in her life, for healing to her body and for her Grandchildren, and then we said goodbye, going next door to pass out another bag of groceries.

Such a simple act of kindness made a wealth of difference to a total stranger.
I will never forget that day, or that woman we prayed with. I know my two little sons will never forget it either.

It's moments like these that Jesus smiles on His children and rains down grace on His people. It's what we were made for.

Even the most casual reading of the New Testament Gospels reveals a Christ who was full of compassion for the poor.

In Mathew, chapter six, Jesus instructs his disciples on the finer points of how to give to the poor with the assumption that they would, of course, be about this practice. "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." Jesus (Matthew 6:3)
It's with the same assumptive reasoning that he follows this up by saying "And when you pray" in the very next verse. His assumption was that His followers would be giving to the needy, and praying.

1 John 3:17 says it even more strongly, "If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?"
How can the love of God be in him?

Every single day, something like forty thousand people die of starvation and malnutrition in this world of ours. That's about twenty-seven people per minute. Even more alarming is the knowledge that, out of these, twenty of these are under the age of five.

I read a commentary recently that compared this number to the dropping of the first atomic bomb every three days.

Boom.

The question is not whether or not people are hungry in the world. The facts are clear. People are most certainly in need, and not just in those Third World countries either.

No, the question is not whether or not people are hungry, the question is whether or not God's people will rise up and do something about it.

I find it more than a little disturbing that every time Jesus tells a parable about someone who ends up in Hell, its because they were completely apathetic towards the poor around them.

For example, at the Judgement Seat described by Christ in Matthew 25, the goats are rejected because they were able to call Jesus "Lord" but had no compassion for those around them who were in need. In fact, seeing people hungry, naked, poor, and alone didn't seem to bother them at all.

Now, I'm not saying that if you don't serve the poor you're going to hell. But, Jesus does seem to use this as a sort of litmus test for those who truly belong to Him. Compassion for the poor is often used in scripture as evidence of salvation.

There's probably no better section of scripture to illustrate this point than in James, the second chapter, verses 14 to 19; "What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, 'Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,' but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, You have faith; I have deeds. Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that and shudder."
The demons believe in a way you and I can't. They've seen God with their own eyes. They've heard the actual, audible voice of Jesus. They don't just believe; they know. But this belief doesn't have the power to save them or change them. It's belief without any corresponding action.

Demons believe, but they don't comfort the sick in hospitals. They don't knock on doors and hand out free groceries to the poor, but those who name the name of Christ can't help but serve those in need with complete joy.

True faith always involves action. Faith is doing something about what you believe.
God's Word is clear as crystal on this issue; Those who call themselves followers of Christ must look with compassion on these who are in need.

Peace (on Earth),

Keith Giles

THE FACES OF WAR

2011-12-23T04:37:00.000-08:00

Photographs by Claire Felicie

How do the faces of soldiers change — before, during, and then after, war? Can we detect profound or subtle psychological shifts just by looking at their portraits?

This is precisely the challenge that Claire Felicie presents with her series of triptych portraits of marines of the 13th infantry company of the Royal Netherlands Marine Corps. The series, Here are the Young Men (Marked), shows close-cropped portraits of the Dutch marines before, during and after they were deployed to Uruzgan, Afghanistan in 2009-2010.

View the entire slideshow
HERE
http://www.lensculture.com/felicie?thisPic=8

AREN’T UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS A DRAIN ON THE ECONOMY?

2011-12-22T06:43:00.000-08:00

Especially in the current tough economic climate, a lot of usually-compassionate people feel like we just can’t sustain immigrants coming into the country right now. The presumption—which is actually inaccurate, according to economists—is that immigrants have a negative effect on the economy.

In fact, the discipline of economics is almost unanimously agreed that immigration is really good for the economy; while we’re in hard times economically now, we’d be in much harder times if it were not for immigrants. The Wall Street Journal surveyed 46 economists recently and found 44 of them said that illegal immigration, specifically, had been good for the U.S. economy. Why?

Basically, because immigrants fill in gaps in our labor market, at both the high and the low ends of the skills spectrum. America’s educational system does not produce enough scientists and engineers to meet the needs of a growing technology sector, so some of the brightest minds from across the world come to the U.S. (usually lawfully). But there are also major gaps in “low-skill” jobs, those which don’t require a college degree, or even a high school degree. Very few Americans are content to endure the long hours and strenuous work required of agricultural work, for example, which is why 50% to 60% of the food that touches our table was touched by immigrant hands along the way. Because immigrants are willing to do this hard work (at least for one generation—many do so knowing that their children will get the education that their country did not offer them and eventually have greater opportunities), we all enjoy inexpensive produce. The same logic applies to many other sectors of our economy, and we all benefit.

Beyond just their labor, though, undocumented immigrants are also contributing in many other ways. They are consumers, “stimulating” our economy as they go about their lives, and they are also disproportionately likely to be entrepreneurs, starting small businesses at nearly double the rate of native-born citizens.

Contrary to popular perception, most undocumented immigrants are also taxpayers. True, about one in four undocumented immigrants is paid in cash “under the table” (some U.S. citizens, I should note, do this, too), but the Social Security Administration estimates that three out of four undocumented immigrants has payroll taxes deducted from their paycheck and is paying income, Medicare, and Social Security taxes. Basically, that means that they are using a false Social Security card, typically with their name and an invented number. In fact, in 2007, the Social Security Administration took in $12 billion from names that did not match the right numbers.

They do not send this money back, though. While they might send a letter notifying the employer, which is usually where the discussion stops, because employers are wary to let go of good employee, the money gets sent out to folks like my grandparents who paid into the Social Security system a generation ago and are now entitled to its benefits. The convenient thing for our federal government is that those millions of undocumented immigrants who are paying in so much will never get a penny out of Social Security: their bogus number is not valid for receiving benefits. Undocumented immigrants provide a huge subsidy to our unsustainable Social Security system. The government could probably make a Social Security card that was not so easy to counterfeit—the current card, unlike practically any other governmental document, has no photo, no biometric information, not even a barcode; it looks to have been made with blue construction paper and a typewriter—but maybe they lack the incentive to do so.

Likewise, though the Internal Revenue Service has actually created a special “Individual Taxpayer Identification Number” that undocumented immigrants can use for filing tax returns (a false Social Security Number is not valid for that purpose, either) and, because they have been clear that they expect undocumented immigrants to pay taxes but will not communicate with the Department of Homeland Security so that they might be deported, many immigrants are filing taxes. But they are not eligible for most public benefits: without legal status, they are ineligible for welfare checks (Temporary Aid for Needy Families), food stamps, federal subsidized housing, Supplementary Security Income, and any other cash benefit.

Immigrants do carry some serious costs with them, particularly for public education (guaranteed by a Supreme Court decision for children through 12th grade) and for emergency room treatment that they are unable to pay. Those costs are primarily borne by local and state governments: in fact, the average immigrant costs state and local government more in services than he or she pays in taxes. At the federal level, though, the reverse is true: immigrants pay in much, much more than they take out, and the overall net result is positive: immigrants pay in $80,000 more over the course of a lifetime than they take out in services, considering federal, state, and local. No wonder the federal government, which is really the only level of government that can comprehensively fix this problem, seems so slow to enact reform, while state and local governments are eager to address the issue.

**
TAKEN FROM THE WEBSITE WWW.UNDOCUMENTED.TV
HERE

CALVIN ON VIOLENCE

2011-12-21T06:57:00.000-08:00

Calvin: "Dad, how does killing one another solve the world’s problems?"

Dad: [No answer]

Calvin: "I think grownups just act like they know what they’re talking about."

Billy Graham on Social Injustice

2011-12-20T06:24:00.000-08:00

"As long as there is one man who should be free, as long as slums and ghettos exist, as long as any person goes to bed hungry at night, as long as the color of a man's skin is his prison, there must be a divine discontent. We Christians have no right to be content until the principles of Christ are applied to all men." - Billy Graham

Fighters Speak: Shane Crash

2011-12-19T06:23:00.000-08:00

"Accordingly nonviolent resistance is not directed against people but against forces of evil. Those who happen to be doing evil are as victimized by the evil they do as those who are the object of their oppression. Therefore, I will not go to war. I will not support war against other nations. I will resist recruitment into the military. I will encourage others to do the same." - Shane Crash

JIM WALLIS: The American Bible

2011-12-18T05:59:00.000-08:00

At an Evangelical Seminary in 1970, a man named Jim Wallis met in his dorm room with eight other new students and made a startling discovery. Although they all had been raised in mainline Evangelical Christian churches, not one of them could remember a single sermon about taking care of the poor.

“One of my colleagues decided to try an experiment,” Wallis remembered. “He took an old Bible and a pair of scissors and began to cut, literally, every single reference to the poor. So, when my friend was done, this old Bible was in pieces. It was literally falling apart in my hand.” Soon after this, Wallis started publishing a magazine called Sojourners to specifically address the biblical mandate of Christians to serve the poor and help the oppressed.

“If the Bible is the word of God, if Jesus is Lord, what does that mean? We need to remember the biblical tradition that we give lip service to, but don’t often pay attention to. That first year of seminary where we made a study of everything the Bible said about poor people, wealth, poverty, injustice and oppression, we found several thousand verses on the subject. It is the second most common theme in the Old Testament. The first being Idolatry, and the two are often connected. In the New Testament, one of every sixteen verses is about this subject. In the first three synoptic Gospels, it’s one of every ten verses. In Luke’s Gospel, one of every seven verses is about the poor,” Wallis stated.

Wallis continued, “I still have that Bible, by the way. I take it out to preach with me and I hold it high above my head and I say, ‘Brothers and Sisters, this is our American Bible. It’s full of holes from all we’ve taken out, ignored, and paid no attention to. We each, might as well, get out a pair of scissors and begin to cut.’” Thirty years later, Wallis is still raising the question of poverty in the Church.

“Whatever else the Gospel may be, it may clean up your marriage, it may solve your drinking problem, it may do all kinds of other wonderful things, but if it isn’t good news to poor people, it’s not yet the Gospel.”

Jim Wallis was raised in an evangelical Brethren church in Detroit. In the early ’60s, at the age of 14, Wallis began to notice that the way he lived in “white” Detroit was drastically different from the way people lived in “black” Detroit. “I asked questions of my little church like, ‘How come there are people missing meals, going hungry, without jobs right here in Detroit?’” The answers Wallis got from asking those questions sent him spiraling away from the church and into a pursuit of social justice outside of the Church. “The answers I got were ‘When you get older you’ll understand’ or ‘We don’t know why it’s that way, it’s just always been that way’ or, as one honest elder informed me, ‘If you keep asking these questions, you’re going to get into a lot of trouble’, and that proved to be true.”

Wallis soon found himself repulsed by the attitudes of those in his church and felt drawn to the people around him in need. He spent time walking around downtown Detroit and exploring a world he never knew existed. A world of poverty and struggle was just beyond his world of comfort and plenty. “I took jobs in the city at old factory assembly lines or janitorial jobs and all my money was being saved for college and all the young guys I’m meeting, their money is going to help their family survive. I met a lot of young guys my age who were just like me except they were black in Detroit, and I was white,” he said.

After making connections with people around him who needed the help of the church, Wallis returned to his church hoping they would share his excitement for this new opportunity to be salt and light. Instead he found a great opposition that was worse than he ever expected. “I was told one day by another elder that ‘Christianity has nothing to do with racism, that’s political and faith is personal.’ At that point, these questions were tugging so hard at my heart as a teenage kid, I decided that if Christianity had nothing to do with these questions then I wanted nothing to do with Christianity. My church agreed with that sentiment; they wanted nothing more to do with me either.”

Wallis found a new home in the civil rights and anti-war movement of his generation. For years he did a lot of work organizing protests at Michigan State that numbered over 2000 people. “I was into some heavy movement organizing and politics, but that still didn’t answer all my questions about why these things were still happening, and what the foundations were for all these things,” shared Wallis.

“I was reading, in those days, Karl Marx and Ho Chi Minh and Che Guervara and all that kind of stuff, but I didn’t find the answers there either. Then, I went back to the New Testament. During all that time, I don’t think I ever got quite shed of Jesus, even though I’d left the church. Looking back now, I’d say that Jesus stayed with me through that whole time. I was pretty angry at the Church, I felt betrayed by the Church, and a lot of young people feel that way. Not only was the Church not doing anything about these issues (of poverty) it was on the wrong side of these issues,” he said.

“I had some deep questions. I would’ve liked some Christians to try to figure out how to help. We were kids. We were young students who made a lot of mistakes, (and we) weren’t getting any help from conservative churches, or moderates or liberals.”

Wallis finally decided to take one last look at Jesus for himself and went back to the New Testament. After years of being chased by police and tear-gassed at rallies, he read the Sermon On The Mount and discovered a Jesus he had never met before. “I’d never heard a sermon on this in my entire life growing up. In my church, this was for the Kingdom dispensation, it wasn’t for now. It was for when we all get to heaven. But, I mean, ‘Blessed are the peace makers,’ what’s the point of that if you’re already in heaven? (This was) the cathetical Scripture for all new converts in the early church. It was the Magna Carta, the Constitution of the new order in Jesus Christ. This was it. This was the way of life.”

Reading the words of Jesus as an adult, Wallis found his view of Christ, and Christianity itself, transformed. “I was mesmerized by it. This was the most radical thing I’d ever read. More radical than Ho Chi Minh and Marx put together because this was going to change everything. It was meant to change the personal, the social, the economic and the political. It turned the world upside down. It turned the values on their heads. This was a whole new order of things. This was a revolution if there ever was one.”

Wallis read until he got to Matthew chapter 25 and began to understand that he and Jesus had a lot in common when it came to taking care of the poor. “My conversion text was this chapter of Matthew. Here is the Son of God standing in Judgement over all of those who think they belong to Him. Both sides name His name. He’s saying, I’ll know how much you love me by how you treat the poor. I had never seen anything as radical as that. This is the God of the universe saying that in some very special, particular way, you’ll find me dwelling ‘in the distressing disguise of the poor’ as Mother Theresa puts it. I was just blown away by that,” admitted Wallis.

“The people who had raised me were just like those who said, ‘We didn’t know it was you Lord’. I realized that they had been keeping Jesus at arms length all those years, while sincerely thinking that they were following Him. So, I hearkened back to that little talk with the elder who told me that ‘Christianity has nothing to do with racism’ and I realized at that moment, God is always personal but never private. That has been a personal theme for me ever since. If we don’t have a personal God, we don’t have any faith. I don’t want just a social teaching of Jesus, I don’t want a Liberal agenda for politics, I don’t want just a philosophy or wisdom to follow. If I don’t have a personal God, I don’t have any faith that means anything. God is always personal, but never, ever, private. When we privatize God and the Gospel and our faith, the truth is we’re committing a heresy.”

Wallis is adamant that the Church needs to do more than give money to their favorite charity when it comes to following the teachings of Jesus in regards to the poor. “It’s not enough to write a check and throw money at your favorite faith-based organization, it’s also not enough to roll up your sleeves and get on the ground and work directly with and alongside the poor. You can’t keep pulling bodies out of the river, and not send someone upstream to find out who’s throwing them in. For the last thirty years I’ve been banging the drum and brother Campolo’s been banging the drum, and Ron Sider, and John Perkins, and a whole generation that’s not so young anymore has been banging the drum, and we began talking about an Evangelical social conscience, and now I see a whole new generation of Evangelicals who are ready to apply that for a 21st century world,” he said.

Having spent the better half of his life on a crusade to awaken the Church to the needs of the poor around us, Wallis sees light at the end of the tunnel. “The audiences are larger and younger and more energetic than ever before. I think we have made enormous gains in the churches. I know younger people today can feel some of the frustration that I felt thirty years ago. But, back then we had no elders, no mentors, we had almost no one to teach us. We had to create our own communities, our own magazine, our own everything. I made a commitment a long time ago, that when the hearts of Christian young people turn in the direction of Justice, that they would have support. I want them to have mentors and somewhere to go for answers. I want them to have a movement to join and not one to begin,” vowed Wallis.

To find out more about Jim Wallis and Sojourners Magazine, go to http://www.sojo.net/

Taken from the book, [Subversive Interviews] by Keith Giles, available
HERE

Shane Crash: Jesus Is Our Example

2011-12-17T05:35:00.000-08:00

"The way Jesus responded to his enemies as he faced crucifixion is the example we’re to follow when confronted by enemies. Peter gave this teaching to Christians facing persecution and possible death. Still, they were to imitate Jesus and abstain from all violence — even in their words. We’re to trust God who will eventually judge enemies if they need to be judged." - Shane Crash

Desmond Tutu on Injustice

2011-12-16T06:45:00.000-08:00

"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality."
- Desmond Tutu

WHAT PART OF "ILLEGAL" DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?

2011-12-15T06:38:00.000-08:00

A Scriptural View of Immigration

Isn’t the term “undocumented” just a euphemism for “illegal aliens”? Basically, yes—undocumented immigrants are those who are present unlawfully in the United States.
While we’re not sure illegal is the best descriptor of the people, but rather their activity (otherwise I might be an “illegal,” too, because I have to confess I have exceeded the speed limit on more than one occasion), and, as the English language has evolved, an “alien” means something to most people other than a human being made in God’s image, these are just semantic preferences: undocumented immigrants are individuals who are present in the United States without lawful authority.

It’s interesting to note that that does not necessarily mean that all the undocumented entered unlawfully. At least half of the undocumented population entered “without inspection” (illegally) across a border, but the other 40% to 50% entered legally, with a visa—but then failed to comply with the terms of the visa and fell out of status at a certain point. That means that, while border security may be an important part of fixing a broken immigration system, it can at most solve half of the problem.

The fact that these individuals are present unlawfully is a big problem for a lot of Christians. After all, Scripture is very clear that we’re called to “be subject to the governing authorities” (Rom. 13:1). So, yes, we do understand that people are here illegally—but that leads to another question: what do we do about it?

The government and the church clearly have very different roles. The church can’t deport people even if it wanted to, so—while we can influence the government (we’ll discuss that below)—we need to figure out our role. It’s important to know that we can minister to immigrants, even undocumented immigrants, without violating the law (at least as it stands in most states). A church can preach the gospel to immigrants, teach English, meet material needs (without offering employment), and be a friend to immigrants and never violate the law.

For the undocumented immigrant who is here unlawfully, this gets more complicated. While one could argue whether they have made themselves “subject to the governing authorities” (some might say that the government has the option of deporting them, but has chosen not to, mostly because it is in the nation’s economic interest for them to be here), they are certainly not obeying the law. But, that’s not to say they are flippantly ignoring Scripture: many stay because they feel it is the only way that they can provide for their families, necessary to fulfill another biblical mandate: “Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” (1 Tim. 5:8). At the end of the day, some have chosen to provide for their families—and be right before the Lord—even if that means disobeying the government, and risking the “sword” that Romans 13:4 tells us it bears.

Christians can disagree on which response is right, but I hope we can all agree that it’s tragic that our system forces people to choose between those two, equally biblical commands of following the law and providing for one’s family. We can advocate for the government to reform the immigration laws so that illegal immigration is very, very difficult and legal immigration—not without limit, but sufficient to keep our economy growing and families united—is much easier. And then we need to find some mechanism that recognizes that those who are undocumented have broken the law—insisting that they pay a fine, for example—but which also recognizes our own government’s complicity in creating a morally hazardous, dysfunctional system and avoids the incredible expense of deporting 10 to 12 million people.

**
TAKEN FROM THE WEBSITE WWW.UNDOCUMENTED.TV
HERE

PEPPER SPRAY: PREPARE FOR THE REVOLUTION

2011-12-14T04:55:00.000-08:00

Created by: Online Criminal Justice Degree

The Good Mexican

2011-12-13T06:34:00.000-08:00

The Good Mexican by Bethany Anderson

I have been thinking about a Bible story found in Luke 10, you may have heard of it - The Good Samaritan.

I have always looked at this story from the perspective of the injured traveler. Why? Because he is who most closely represents me. I am a white, American Christian. I am of the "dominant" ethnicity, culture and religion. I do not see my self as a religious hypocrite (hopefully others don't either) and I don't really relate to the Samaritan either. I have never been looked down upon by society. I have never been treated like a second class citizen and I don't know what it feels like for an entire people to consider themselves superior to me. So I guess I am the wounded traveler.

As I reflect on this story I have to ask how it relates to our society today. I can't help but draw similarities between how Samaritans were viewed by the Jewish people and how our society views Immigrants.

I feel like I just had an epiphany.

I need Immigrants to teach me how to be a neighbor, just like the expert in the law from Luke 10 needed a Samaritan to teach him how to be a neighbor. What a concept.

We NEED those who our society calls week, sinful, valueless to teach us about holiness.

As I think about my own story and how I have come to so deeply carry the burden of the undocumented I know it was not by accident and it surely was not of my own accord. I care because people in my neighborhood took the time to share their stories with me. They took care of me, fed me, loved me, and allowed me to enter into their lives. They welcomed me. They were vulnerable with me. They allowed me to be vulnerable. And now, I am a better person because of it. I have something I don't think very many people ever experience:

I have a calling.

With that calling comes freedom, hope, peace, and joy.

I have never felt more like myself, the person I was intended to be, then I do now. I have never felt more connected to God and His purpose for my life. The words of Mordecai to Esther are ever present in my mind, "Perhaps I was created for such a time as this." Perhaps I was created to stand up for the poor and carry the burden of the Immigrant. Perhaps I was created to be apart of a larger Christ movement of engaging people who look like me in a fight they might not be connected to otherwise.

And what if more people like me were able to enter into meaningful relationships with the "Samaritans" among us? What if more White, conservative Christians, broke bread with the Central American who cuts their grass? If God can use a few Immigrant families to DRASTICALLY change the course of my life, the possibilities are endless. Relationship is key, folks. We have to step out, on both sides. We need the Immigrant church to reach out, love the non-Immigrant church and teach us how to be a neighbor, even if we don't deserve it. And the non-Immigrant church, we need to be willing to learn. We need to see ourselves and others, even if they look different than us, as God sees us all: equally broken and equally loved.

It's changed my life...

And all because a Mexican treated me like a neighbor.

**
Taken from Bethany Anderson's blog www.whyifight.com
HERE

How Evangelicals Became Israel's Best Friend - PART 5

2011-12-12T05:41:00.000-08:00

One Jew who prefers not to worry is Esther Levens. In 1990 she and Christian friend Allen Mothersill decided to start a pro-Israel, interreligious study group after the Bush administration started making loans to Israel contingent on not allowing new Jewish settlements on the West Bank. Levens was surprised to discover the level of support for Israel among evangelicals, so she decided to network as many evangelical and Jewish organizations as she could find. The result was Voices United for Israel, which currently enrolls two hundred organizations, of which two-thirds are evangelical.

In 1998, the Kansas City-based organization sponsored two conferences in Washington, D.C., at which Netanyahu spoke, and the group's "media committee" has consulted with Israeli government officials in the development of new promotional and educational materials for use in American media markets. The organization faxes information about Israel to anyone who is interested and sponsors a speakers' bureau of heavy hitters from think tanks involved in Middle East policy.

Politically, Voices United for Israel is fairly homogeneous, but religiously, it is diverse. While the Christian contingent is almost all evangelical, the Jewish contingent ranges from Orthodox to Reform. What holds everyone together, says Levens, is their support for Israel and its current government and their willingness not to press religious differences. She knows about the prophetic views of the evangelicals in her organization and chooses not to dwell on them. For her, the important thing is that evangelicals love and support Israel. But still, Levens and her Jewish friends can get a bit mystified. A common joke in their circles is, "When the Messiah finally comes, my first question to him will be whether this visit is his first or second."

Ira Nosenchuk of Brooklyn, who attended the Voices United for Israel Conference in April, summarized the spirit of cooperative compromise well: "When you have people supportive of your beliefs,…you have to go with them…. Sometimes I feel like there are more supporters for Israel among evangelicals than among Jews." Supporting Israel makes the strangest bedfellows.

The evangelical-Israel relationship also raises important theological issues. Despite the widespread influence of their views, dispensationalists have always made up a minority of the entire evangelical family. But their prophetic beliefs raise important questions that all Christians need to think about seriously.

As Christian history makes clear, in the wrong hands the doctrines of providence, divine sovereignty, and eschatology become fatalism; and fatalism takes the significance out of human action. If the future is fixed, people are merely playing out their assigned roles, with no ability to alter the direction or outcome of the divine drama. If one is privy to the process, one can identify the players, evaluate their performance, and make judgments about them. When one knows how the drama is going to end, there are no surprises. At times, then, dispensationalist prophecy can be quite fatalistic.

Eschatological activism
So why are evangelicals working so hard to keep Israel strong and independent? Why bother when they know how things are going to end up? How do their prophetic views and their political involvement fit together? These are hard questions to answer because evangelical political activists and prophecy teachers rarely if ever reflect on such issues. They do say that Christians must "occupy" until the Lord comes and that supporting Israel is a basic biblical imperative, citing Genesis 12:3 as their proof text: "I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you" (NIV). But neither observation says anything about what constitutes responsible action when historical outcomes are essentially determined.

Obviously, many evangelicals do not want to do anything to put themselves at cross purposes with God over Israel and the end times. The tendency is for many evangelicals to idealize Israel and believe that it can do no wrong. Some evangelicals have demonized the Palestinians: because they are the enemies of the modern State of Israel, they are also the enemies of God and the servants of Satan.

When evangelicals force all the complicated issues in the Middle East through the tight grid of their prophetic views, they can lose the ability to think critically and ethically about what is really going on there. For example, many evangelicals are reluctant even to consider the ethical issues involved in the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and their 1982 invasion and occupation of southern Lebanon. Many Christians—mainline Protestants, Roman Catholics, and evangelicals among them—believe that Israel has some hard explaining to do.

While Jews have a right to be secure within their own borders, do they have the right to seize other people's land, occupy their territory, ignore their rights of self-determination, and bulldoze or blow up the homes and businesses of Palestininan families? Certainly the relationship between Jews and Palestinians in Israel poses difficult questions, and people of good will may disagree about what is justifiable when survival is at stake. But for prophetic reasons, many evangelicals seem unable to entertain the possibility that Israel may be at fault in some way for the stalemate in the region. Evangelicals need to consider whether believing in Bible prophecy absolves them of grappling with issues of right and wrong. Does having a handle on the prophetic details allow them to turn a blind eye to injustice? Do the ends justify the means, just because the ends have been prophesied? Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals believes that most evangelicals simply have not thought through the issue of Jewish settlements in Palestinian territories. Maybe it is time they start.

Of course, premillennialists are not the only Christians who struggle with issues of human responsibility and divine providence. These are tough issues and worth thinking through. Answers do not come easily. How do human beings participate with God in unfolding history? Drawing lines on a prophetic chart is easy in comparison to unpacking the complexities of the divine-human relationship within the historical process.

The most serious issue that grows out of the relationship between evangelicals and Israel is whether the connection has helped or hindered the peace process. Because of their prophetic views, evangelicals are often less than optimistic about the prospects for peace. For instance, Jerry Falwell sounded downright scornful of the Camp David peace accords that were brokered by fellow evangelical Jimmy Carter in 1979. "In spite of the rosy and utterly unrealistic expectations by our government, this treaty will not be a lasting treaty…. You and I know that there's not going to be any real peace in the Middle East until the Lord Jesus sits down upon the throne of David in Jerusalem."

Falwell and other evangelicals have a right to be skeptical. Agreements have been fragile. But 20 years is not bad for a Middle East peace treaty. Even so, no one really expects any human peace accord to be "lasting." Most are only temporary. But that does not mean that they are worthless. The pessimistic attitude of many other evangelicals toward peace in the Middle East does not give even a temporary peace much of a chance. And it certainly does not honor Jesus' words "Blessed are the peacemakers." No peace is perfect; no peace lasts forever. But how can anyone be sure that we are so close to the end that peacemaking is a waste of time?

Part of the problem is the overconfidence evangelicals have about their prophetic views. Bible teachers are not inerrant; and they have changed their minds often. The history of prophetic interpretation shows that the Devil is in the details. Premillennialist prophecy pundits have been wrong over and over again about identifying Antichrist, setting dates for the Rapture, and a host of other things. Nobody anticipated the demise of the Soviet empire or most aspects of the Gulf War. When history takes unexpected turns, the experts have to make adjustments, redraw their maps, and come out with new editions. History is still full of surprises—so why make categorical statements about what cannot happen between Israel and her neighbors?

A new generation of dispensationalist scholars has toned down the excesses and sensationalism of its predecessors. "Progressive dispensationalists," though seeing a future for national Israel, are less inclined to engage in map drawing and categorical predictions. When one is teaching or writing for a well-defined religious community, speculating about the future is one thing; but when one is engaging in political advocacy with far-reaching consequences, it is another. The future is in God's hands; in the end, Jesus wins. But getting to that point may be more complicated and full of surprises than many people think. It is time for a strategy of humility and hope.

[END]

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Timothy Weber is professor of church history and dean at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Lombard, Illinois.

October 5, 1998 Vol. 42, No. 11, Page 38

SCOTT BARTCHY - "SAVE YOUR BUTT RELIGION" (part 1)

2011-12-11T06:51:00.000-08:00

Scott Bartchy is a radical. He believes in a subversive system that embraces those on the fringes of our society and seeks to establish a new way of life that goes against the status quo.

Kind of like Jesus.

Bartchy, currently the Director of the Center for the Study of Religions at UCLA, notes a great gap between the original, early form of church in the first three hundred years of Christianity, and the modern concept of doing church today. “The biggest difference I see would be that those who became the followers of Jesus (in the early church) were convinced that Jesus was right about God,” says Bartchy. “They weren’t debating whether or not he was God, but simply said that if you’ve seen Jesus, you have seen God. As Jesus said to Phillip, “If you’ve seen me, you’ve seen the Father.” (John 14:6-11)

A SINGLE QUESTION
For Bartchy, the difference between the modern church and the original church is summed up in a single question; “Was Jesus right about who God is?” Bartchy notes, “The earliest followers of Jesus believed that he had the authority to change the rules and to define how the God of Israel is to be thought of.”

So, what is it that Phillip and the other disciples had seen Jesus doing that would inform their ideas of who God is? “First of all they’ve seen Jesus at a wedding, turning water into wine. They’ve seen Jesus at the temple healing a man born blind, and addressing the question of whether or not sin is the cause of someone being born blind, or being sick. Jesus says that it’s not anyone’s fault, but it’s so that God might be glorified,” says Bartchy. “Phillip has seen Jesus comforting Mary and Martha, who are his personal friends, and raising their brother Lazarus from the dead, and of course he’s seen Jesus take the form of a servant and wash the feet of his disciples. Jesus says, if you’ve seen that, you’ve seen the Father.”

Bartchy is quick to make a distinction between the assertion that Jesus is God and the more radical concept that God is like Jesus. “Now, the profound irony of this is that Jesus is named after “Y’Shua”, or “Joshua”, Israel’s dominant warrior who fought the battle of Jericho and lead the children of Israel on numerous conquests. He (Jesus) is saying that the God of Israel isn’t acting that way anymore. Jesus is saying that the God of Israel loves his enemies and he’s not going to kill anybody.”

While much of what the media portrays concerning the “Religious Right” in America deals with the overtly political, Republican, Pro-War version of the Christian Church, Bartchy sees things a little differently. “I really do think that people are so eager for Christ to return today because they don’t like what he did the first time. They still want a kick ass God. They want a divine legitimation for what was done to us at 9-11,” he says. “That’s the only way I can understand how so many people in the Church are in favor of attacking Iraq, or killing people, or whatever. They certainly don’t believe that Jesus is right about God.”

But, the early followers of Jesus, Bartchy contends, did believe that he was right about God. “And for that reason they blew off Temple religion and the whole idea of priests and programs, and the like. They rejected the idea that what God really wants is to be served inside a church building rather than on the street. If Jesus is right about God then it means there are no more Holy Places, and for the first three hundred years Christians didn’t have any Holy Place other than their own homes where the churches met. So, they focused primarily in their relationships with each other because that’s where the Holy Spirit was manifested, in the very people who followed Jesus.”

“SAVE YOUR BUTT RELIGION”
The disconnect, so to speak, for Bartchy comes in the methodology of the modern church which has become so fixated with amassing large numbers of people, establishing political alliances and building larger facilities rather than simply acting out the compassionate example of the founder of the movement itself. “I think the big difference I see is that, today, the church isn’t really believing the same things about God that Jesus himself did and acted out,” he says. “That’s why the success of the Church today is seen not so much in doing the kind of things that we’re told that we’re going to be judged by when Jesus does return to judge us, as seen in Mathew 25, concerning whether or not we’ve clothed the naked or fed the hungry or visited those in prison, etc., and apparently doing so simply because this is the kind of people we have become.”

In Matthew 25 Bartchy notes a profound undermining of the modern apocalyptic rapture scenario depicted in most, if not all, Christian literature. “Yes,” says Bartchy, “The son of man is going to come on the clouds to separate the sheep from the goats. But one of the most fascinating things to me about those sheep is that Jesus identifies them as such because they have been visiting those in prison and they’ve been feeding the hungry, and Jesus says, ‘If you’ve done it unto the least of these, you’ve done it unto me’ and the sheep say, ‘Hey, we didn’t have any idea we were doing it to you’, which is to say, they are doing it because of their new nature, they are doing it because of what they have become as followers of Jesus,” he says.

“The second bunch in this scenario are into what I like to call the ‘Save Your Butt’ religion. These people say, “Hey, if we’d have known it was you buddy we’d have done it” but only in order to save their own butt, not because of who they actually were.”

For Bartchy, what’s missing, sadly, is an emphasis on being a people who are transformed by the Gospel and who embody the example of their Lord. “We have preachers who come onto the campus today at UCLA down by what we call Bruin Walk and those guys all preach a version of the ‘Save Your Butt’ religion. They ask, “If you would die tonight where would you be?” So, it’s still a matter of appealing to the narcissism of the American public. It’s not an invitation to become a part of God’s new people,” says Bartchy.

HERE AND NOW
Even though Bartchy spends most of his time instructing college students in the historical events of a fledgling movement several thousand years ago, he holds a very immediate passion that burns in him to this very day. “Now, what I’m saying then, is not only is Jesus right about who God is and what God is trying to get done, it’s that it’s supposed to be done here and it’s supposed to be done now. Jesus did not teach his disciples to pray, “Take me to heaven when I die”, what he says is, “Your will be done on Earth, as it is in Heaven”, in the here and now. What we’re supposed to be praying for is for Heaven to come here, rather than for us to go to Heaven. Now, I do believe that Heaven is the bonus at the end of the road,” says Bartchy, “But there I’d be on the same page with the apostle John, or with Paul who held that Eternity was a quality of life, not a quantity of life. It was a quality of life that begins here.”

Rather than focus on the typical questions of faith that surround the discussion about who God is, or whether or not He exists, Bartchy feels that the fundamental question begins with whether or not we believe that Jesus is right about who God is. “I find people saying that what I need to say is that Jesus IS God, but the reason I’m reluctant to put it those terms is that people give themselves permission to define God as they please. So, God is whoever they say he is, in the Freudian sense that he fulfills the projection of your desires. So, people define God they way they want and then they make Jesus fit into that,” says Bartchy.

“People tell me that they believe that Jesus is God, and yet they’ve never read the Gospel of Mark from beginning to end, or even the Gospel of John. They may have a formal understanding of the book, but they don’t know what’s in it. In any case, the Jesus that you read about in the Gospel of Mark has a program, Pardon me, Mel Gibson, but there’s only one and a half chapters that deal with his execution, and then there are a few verses that have to do with his resurrection,” he says. “But there are twelve to thirteen chapters that have to do with his program. His program is everything I’ve been talking about so far, it’s the Kingdom of God. It’s everything that Jesus anticipates should be done here and now on this planet by his people. I know the literature of the early church up until the time of Constantine backwards and forwards and I don’t see any evidence there that the appeal being made to people was about ‘If you died tonight would you be in Heaven’. The appeal was to come and be a people of God.”

GOOD QUESTIONS
The questions on the minds of the earliest followers of Jesus reflected more practical concerns of a faith for the here and now. ”Instead of asking people the sort of salvation question we always hear, the early church asked people to consider things like, how would spend your money, how would you treat people, how would you respond to that person who just called you an asshole yesterday, and how would you deal with the real world stuff?”

“Because the church today hasn’t asked this question,” says Bartchy, “ It ends up thinking materialistically and since we’re so fragmented from each other we can’t imagine that we might help each other when we get older, the world plays on our fears. It seems to me that if a church was a real church they’d have their own social security program. Indeed in the early church that was how they got their reputation, it was that they cared for so many people.”

As Bartchy speaks, the chasm between the faith of the early church and that of the modern church begins to grow wider and wider. “None of the current signs of success in the modern church can be found in the New Testament. When the people laid their offerings at the disciples feet it wasn’t so that they could build a bigger building or give the disciples a salary increase.”

UNSTOPPABLE
“One of the things that Jesus does, in contrast to all of the other teachers, including John the Baptist, was to say that we don’t have to wait for God to kill anybody. We don’t have to wait for Tiberius to be knocked off his throne, or for Pilate to go home, we can start living according to the rule of God right now and all they can do to us is to kill us, but they can’t stop it,” says Bartchy.

“Out of the conviction of Jesus being alive after his crucifixion, what we call resurrection experiences, they know that they can’t be stopped and I don’t think that it can be stopped. As a secular historian on the outside and as a follower of Jesus on the inside, I would say it cannot be stopped,”he affirms. “Now, sometimes the gears grind really slowly, but it can’t be stopped. We can be blocked by sin or by oppression or by dictatorship or by injustice and the like, but all I can say is in the midst of that there is still hope.”

[END OF PART ONE]

Read the full interview in the book [Subversive Interviews] by Keith Giles available
HERE

How Evangelicals Became Israel's Best Friend - PART 4

2011-12-11T05:39:00.000-08:00

The late great planet Earth
The 1970s brought a major change in the evangelical-Israel relationship. The Israelis began to understand the importance of the American evangelical community. According to Paul Boyer, "As liberal Protestant support eroded, Israel played its fundamentalist card. Privately ridiculing premillennialist readings of prophecy…, they recognized an important political bloc and dealt with it accordingly." On the American side, evangelicals realized that they needed to become more hands-on in their support of the Jewish state due to the increasing pressure on Israel to make peace with its neighbors by giving up occupied territory. Often this support turned into strong political advocacy, with right-wing political connections.

An intense courtship began. In 1971 Carl Henry, former editor of CHRISTIANITY TODAY, announced a prophecy conference in Jerusalem. Fifteen hundred delegates from 32 nations showed up. Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion greeted the delegates, and the Israeli government provided the meeting hall free of charge. That started a flood of favored treatment of American evangelicals from the Israeli government. The airport in Tel Aviv was quickly overrun by evangelical tour groups.

Entourages led by the likes of Jerry Falwell, Oral Roberts, or Hal Lindsey were treated to briefings by Israeli cabinet officers, such as Defense Minister Moshe Arens or Prime Minister Menachem Begin. Every televangelist worth his Nielsen Ratings scheduled his own tour; and the Israeli Ministry of Tourism brought evangelical pastors to Israel at little or no expense so that they could return later with their own tour groups. In January 1998, Israel brought at its own expense a large contingent of American evangelical seminary presidents and deans to the Holy Land.

The more this relationship developed, the more blatantly political evangelical support for Israel became. Hal Lindsey is a perfect case in point. In 1970 he published what became the best-selling book of the decade, The Late Great Planet Earth, which introduced dispensationalism to the widest audience ever. Lindsey jazzed up the standard dispensational scenario by showing its connection to current events. The Antichrist's revived Roman Empire was the European Common Market. The northern confederacy was the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc. The southern confederacy was an Arab-African coalition headed by Egypt. The kings of the east were the Chinese Communists. He translated "fire and brimstone" into nuclear explosions and showed the chaos of the sixties as signs of the times. He predicted that before Antichrist is revealed and end-times events accelerate, the United States will decline into a second-rate power, done in by materialism, immorality, addiction to drugs, and false religion—or possibly destroyed by a surprise nuclear attack.

It was scary stuff, and Lindsey said exactly what he wanted his readers to do about it: accept Jesus as Lord and Savior and escape the wrath to come. For all its prophetic razzle-dazzle, The Late Great Planet Earth was essentially an evangelistic exercise.

When Lindsey took another look at world conditions ten years later, his perspective had changed considerably. Though still interested in evangelism, The 1980s: Countdown to Armageddon contained a full-blown political agenda. He maintained his prediction that "the U.S. must fade from its place of leadership for the west and its former supreme superpower status," but now he believed that if American Christians acted quickly, it might not happen until after the Rapture. His suggestions for slowing America's downward slide sounded like a page from the political Right's playbook. He blamed America's ills on a group of conspirators (the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, and other political liberals) who had dismantled the military and undercut free enterprise. "…I believe that the Bible supports building a powerful military force. And the Bible is telling the U.S. to become strong again." "We need to clean house in Washington, and elect a Congress and a President who believe in the capitalist system." Only then could America give Israel the help it needed.

The politics of loving Israel
By the time Lindsey wrote The 1980s, conservative American evangelicals were finding their political voice. Concerned about what was happening to their country, they formed groups like the Moral Majority and the Religious Roundtable to help elect Ronald Reagan President in 1980. For the first time ever, premillennialists were becoming political insiders, and they liked it. In The 1980s Lindsey reported that the success of The Late Great Planet Earth had opened many doors for him. He had been invited to speak about Bible prophecy to Jamaican government officials, military planners at the American Air War College and the Pentagon, and to Israeli government officials.

It was becoming obvious to everybody that believing in Bible prophecy could have profound political consequences. Shortly after the Six-Day War, evangelicals organized Christians Concerned for Israel, which later changed its name to the National Christian Leadership Conference for Israel. The NCLCI's goal was to "educate the American public, and especially the Christians, in the political and religious significance of the close relationship between the United States and Israel." The NCLCI opposed any attempt to internationalize Jerusalem or trade West Bank land for peace. It defended Israel's invasion of Lebanon by putting on a pro-Israel rally at the White House and running a large ad in the New York Times.

No Israeli prime minister since Menachem Begin would think of making a trip to the United States without checking in with leaders of the New Christian Right in both public and private meetings. In April 1998, Benjamin Netanyahu spoke to a National Unity Coalition for Israel gathering, which included Kay Arthur of Precept Ministries, the 700 Club's Terry Meeuwsen, Paige Patterson (now president of the Southern Baptist Convention), columnist Cal Thomas, and a host of politicians such as Senators Trent Lott and Sam Brownbach and Representatives Dick Armey, Dick Gephardt, and Tom DeLay. Jerry Falwell was there, too, and gave a speech against the internationalization of Jerusalem.

Falwell is a major player in the evangelical-Israel connection. When Netanyahu visited the United States in January 1998, Falwell helped arrange a meeting between the prime minister and a number of other evangelical leaders, including John Hagee and Southern Baptists Morris Chapman and Richard Land. Falwell and the others pledged to mobilize the evangelical community against the Clinton administration's pressure on Israel to give up more land to the Palestinians. "There are about 200,000 evangelical pastors in America, and we're asking them all through e-mail, faxes, letters, telephone, to go into their pulpits and use their influence in support of the state of Israel and the prime minister."

Pat Robertson likewise uses his vast connections and his Christian Broadcasting Network to promote Israel. He regularly features news stories about the Holy Land on his 700 Club and invites Israeli officials to appear. During a January 1998 interview with Netanyahu, Robertson asked him, "What would you like our audience to do?" He replied, "I think they are already doing it…, letters to the editor, communications with representatives … to support Israel."

The pro-Israel network
Examples of this kind of public advocacy by evangelical leaders are endless. But the real story in the last 20 years is the founding of scores of small, grassroots, pro-Israel organizations that rarely get into the headlines. They exist to educate and mobilize their local evangelical community to support Israel in the current crisis.

Some have rather specialized missions. Many help Israel by teaching Christians about the Jewish roots of their own faith. The Restoration Foundation of Atlanta puts on seminars, colloquia, and retreats to promote "the restoration of all believers to their rightful heritage in the Judaism of the first century church" and love for Israel and its people. The Arkansas Institute of Holy Land Studies in Sherwood, Arkansas, advertises itself as a "specialty college" and offers unaccredited bachelor's and master's degrees in "Middle East History."

Some of these groups promote Messianic Judaism as the truest form of Christianity. Hebraic Heritage Ministries of Houston wants Christians to worship on the Sabbath (Sunday worship is a product of paganism) and observe the Jewish festivals. First Fruits of Zion Ministries is based in Jerusalem but tries to get American Christians to live like Jews: to keep kosher, study Hebrew, keep the Sabbath and the festivals, and learn messianic Jewish dances (see CT, Sept. 7, 1998, p. 62).

Some of the pro-Israel evangelical groups are more humanitarian than educational. The Tulsa-based Bridges for Peace is a charitable organization working in Israel. Its "Operation Ezra" provides food, blankets, kitchen and school supplies, home-repair items, and the like to new immigrants and others in need. It claims its food bank is the only one currently operating in Israel. Its pitch for support says, "Don't just read about prophecy when you can be part of it!"

One of the most innovative humanitarian organizations is Christian Friends for Israeli Communities, which was founded in 1995 by Ted Beckett, a commercial real estate developer from Colorado Springs. He organized the CFIC to provide "solidarity, comfort, and aid" to Jewish settlements in Judea, Samaria, and the regions of Gaza by linking them with evangelical congregations in the United States.

At present 35 congregations are part of the program. Beckett's goal is to provide an evangelical partner for every Jewish settlement that wants one, which he estimates to be 100 to 110 out of 150 settlements. Each congregation is taught how to "link" with its assigned community by identifying pen pals, making e-mail connections, helping with fundraising, sending books or other supplies. Churches are also expected to promote awareness of Israel in their own communities. Beckett knows that his work is also political because, he says, God is sending Jesus back to Israel to set up his kingdom. There is nothing more political than that.

In short, there is an enormous network of pro-Israel and Christian Zionist organizations. Most of them have their own Web pages on the Internet, and they usually have links to one another. Unlike many other evangelical groups, they understand the virtues of cooperation. An umbrella organization that tries to bring them together from time to time is the International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem. Founded in 1980, the embassy, which has no real diplomatic standing, opposes internationalizing Jerusalem and establishing a Palestinian state. It has offices in over 50 countries and does what it can to encourage and facilitate Christian Zionism. Over 1,500 people from 40 countries attended its Third International Christian Zionist Congress in Jerusalem in 1996.

Last things
Israel has needed all the friends it can get, and evangelicals have been loyal, productive supporters. When Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, no one defended it more strenuously in the U.S. than evangelicals. At one time, Israeli prime ministers could count on the strong support of both the U.S. President and the American Jewish community. But the present prime minister has neither. Netanyahu's relationship with President Clinton is strained, and the Jewish community is deeply divided over some policies of Israel's present government. Netanyahu was correct when he said that American evangelicals are the best friends Israel (i.e., his government) has.

But friendship comes at a cost. Supporting Israel has often meant that evangelicals must not be as evangelistic as they would like to be. Cooperation is difficult when one side is trying to convert the other. This does not mean that evangelicals stop believing that Jews need to be saved, only that evangelism must always be the first priority in their relationship. Evangelicals probably learned how to do this when they re-entered the world of politics in the late seventies. The Moral Majority welcomed Jews, Catholics, Mormons, and anybody else who shared common concerns. Falwell often said that since the organization was political, not religious, everybody could get along. Ted Beckett tells participating churches that people are always free to share their faith if asked, but they are not permitted to engage in any kind of overt proselytism. He says that he will "yank the charter" of any congregation in his project that tries to make a direct religious appeal to Jews in Israel. But old habits die hard.

For their part, Jews must learn to ignore what evangelicals believe about Bible prophecy and the need for all Jews to come to Jesus. Just as it is difficult for evangelicals to lay evangelism aside, so some Jews find it hard to ignore the motives behind evangelical support.

Rabbi James Rudin, interreligious affairs director of the American Jewish Committee, complains that "some of the very same people who are most supportive of the state of Israel and its security and well-being don't see Judaism as a full and valid religion. It's like 'Israel si, Jews no.' " Rudin is also critical of Jews who turn a deaf ear to such teachings in order to gain more allies for Israel. "Many American Jews will say: 'Any port in a storm. If they support Israel,…don't worry too much about the apocalypse.' "

[END PART 4]

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Timothy Weber is professor of church history and dean at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Lombard, Illinois.

October 5, 1998 Vol. 42, No. 11, Page 38

Faces of Reform: Immigration

2011-12-10T06:29:00.000-08:00

Faces of Reform: Immigration
by Crissy Brooks

Roman was a pretty average student at the after school teen center where we met nine years ago. He was timid but he liked to joke around. As neighbors, I still saw him after graduation. He worked here and there and was always trying to keep his sister on track.

At the community center, church volunteers are great about helping kids with their homework. Volunteers coach kids in soccer. They teach Bible studies and put on Vacation Bible Schools. Our volunteers truly want good things for our students. They plan field trips and college visits. They take kids to the theater and sporting events to expose them to culture and our community.

People love to be a part of seeing an immigrant kid be the first one in his family to go to college. Volunteers take it upon themselves to help students fill out applications and some volunteers even help kids pay for college. It’s hard to argue with education. There aren’t too many arguments against educating immigrant kids. It is the way to get ahead, the way out of poverty, the hope for their future.

But what is the future of undocumented immigrant children? What is the future for students like Roman? There are 2.8 million of them who would benefit from legislation like the Dream Act- http://dreamact.info/. If they do go to college, which they legally can in the state of California, what is their future when they graduate with a degree? They still can’t legally work. Despite the fact that they have a bachelor’s degree, they cannot work even the most menial jobs. So are we holding out a false hope to our students by telling them, “If you work really hard, you can be successful”?

And what does this say about our stewardship as the Church and a nation? Our volunteers invest hours and hours of their time and energy. We give thousands of dollars to worthy programs to help students succeed. The director of an admirable program I spoke with last week estimates they invest $40,000 in one student over the course of nine years to make sure they attend and graduate from college. That doesn’t take into account the thousands of taxpayers’ dollars we invest in a student’s public education.

As the Church we are quick to invest in community betterment programs. Our ministry has been the grateful recipient of thousands of dollars to prepare students, many undocumented, to be leaders in our community. But we cannot go the distance. We cannot make good on our intentions for these students under the current system. Until we engage in systemic change, we are lying to kids and poorly stewarding our resources.

It is hard to find volunteers to fight for immigration reform. When it comes time for systemic change we spend our time debating and nitpicking while the kids we have poured so much into are literally dying. Last month Roman was found dead in the desert. After years of schooling and tutoring and field tripping with church volunteers, Roman was deported for fighting and on his way back home across the border he died in the desert.

Now you can say that he should not have been fighting. And you can say that he never should have come to the US without papers in the first place but the fact of the matter is that millions of children were brought here by their parents without having any say in the matter, were loved and educated by us, and were then failed by a system that does not go the distance for them.

We will engage in a life up to a certain point but will not participate in changing systems to ensure that those we care about will continue to succeed. A couple years ago, when we had an opportunity to reform the immigration system the Church, for the most part, did not engage. It was too controversial, too political. Some of us lament the sad situation but when it comes to speaking up, we shrink back. We don’t bother to get involved. We are silent. Is all we have worked for, for nothing?

We have two choices then. We can give up. We can see the futility with our current system and not even start to help undocumented students. We can realize that it is a risky investment- one that may end up dead in a desert. So we can choose to not even try.

Or we can work to change the system. We can recognize that these students aren’t “investments” they are beloved children of God. The same Father who from the beginning of communicating his heart to his people said, “Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt.” (Exodus 22:21)

And we are aliens here. We are citizens of heaven and not of this world. In the Kingdom I am a citizen of it is heartbreaking that the neighbors we love are dying in the desert. In this Kingdom we speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. We speak up and judge fairly; we defend the rights of the poor and needy. (Proverbs 31:8-9)

Cornel West said, “Justice is what love looks like in public.” Roman is dead because we only loved him in the confines of our church buildings and community centers. He is dead because our love didn’t go far enough to ensure justice. Our voices were silent when we had a chance for change. For the sake of the millions of undocumented students like him, for the sake of obedience to the Scripture and the Church’s witness in the world, let us not be silent anymore.

Crissy Brooks

**
Visit her blog online
HERE

How Evangelicals Became Israel's Best Friend - PART 3

2011-12-09T09:45:00.000-08:00

The Protocols Conspiracy
Despite such rising expectations, it would take 30 more years and another world war to establish a Jewish state. But the events of 1917-18 gave dispensationalists ample assurance that they were reading the Bible correctly; and further evidence was pouring in: Ecclesiastical wars between fundamentalists and modernists confirmed the rise of religious apostasy. The public schools were overrun by evolutionists and secularists. Personal and public morals took a nosedive, with increasing divorce rates, the obscenities of the "new woman," and the open flouting of Prohibition laws. Dispensationalists watched the rise of fascism in Europe, the spread of communism, and growing anti-Semitism. Civilization was obviously spinning out of control, and for the prophecy pundits, everything fit and was right on schedule.

During the twenties and thirties, a number of leading dispensational teachers promoted right-wing conspiracy theories and even fell prey to Nazi propaganda. Shortly after World War I, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion started making the rounds in Europe and America, purporting to be the secret minutes of a group of Jewish conspirators plotting to take over the world by destroying Christian civilization. When Henry Ford serialized them in his newspaper, the Dearborn Independent, in the early 1920s, many people believed what they read. From then on, American anti-Semites made The Protocols "exhibit A" in their propaganda campaign.

Not all dispensationalists were fooled by The Protocols, but a number of leading Bible teachers were. In 1921, James M. Gray, president of Moody Bible Institute, called The Protocols "a clinching argument for premillennialism and another sign of the possible nearness of the end of the age." Arno Gaebelein also believed that the plan outlined in The Protocols was consistent with Bible prophecy. Well known as an evangelist to Jews, Gaebelein obviously loved some Jews more than others. He liked Orthodox Jews because they still expected the coming of Messiah, read Bible prophecies with expectancy, and honored their traditions. But he had no use for Reform or secular Jews, whom he considered apostates capable of anything. Though he could not be sure, Gaebelein thought that The Protocols were "from the pen of apostate Jews" who were responsible for Russian Bolshevism, the illegal liquor traffic in the U.S., and the general decline in morals. "There is nothing so vile on earth as an apostate Jew who denies God and His Word."

Most dispensationalists paid little attention to The Protocols until Gerald Winrod gave them a new lease on life. In 1933, Winrod, founder of the Defenders of the Christian Faith in Wichita, Kansas, published an elaborate exposé to show that Jews were in charge of the world's banking system and responsible for World War I, the Great Depression, President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, and just about everything else.

In 1934, William Bell Riley, who presided over a fundamentalist empire in the upper Midwest, published The Protocols and Communism to show that the same conspiracy that turned Russia communist was at work in Roosevelt's New Deal. "Today in our land many of the biggest trusts, banks, and manufacturing interests are controlled by Jews…. Most of our department stores they own…. The motion pictures, the most vicious of all immoral, educational and communistic influences, is their creation." Riley preached such views regularly from his pulpit at the First Baptist Church of Minneapolis, which some Jewish leaders considered a major center of anti-Semitism.

Gray, Winrod, Gaebelein, and Riley strenuously denied that they were anti-Semites. They were simply explaining events in light of biblical prophecy. But most dispensationalists quickly figured out that using such arguments put them in very bad company. By the thirties, The Protocols were identified with the peddlers of virulent anti-Semitism, which dispensationalists said was a horrible sin against God.

Eventually The Protocols split the dispensational movement. Jewish-Christian believers objected to their use, arguing that it was not enough to distinguish between good Jews and bad: when people believed conspiracy theories, all Jews suffered, even Christian ones. Others concluded that some of their colleagues had been duped by Nazi propaganda. Harry Ironside, pastor of Moody Church in Chicago, was grieved "to find that the Protocols are being used not only by godless Gentiles, but even by some fundamentalist Christians to stir up suspicion and hatred against the Jewish people as a whole."

In 1938, Keith Brooks, a former Winrod associate, founded the American Prophetic League in California to put as much distance as possible between dispensationalism and Nazi anti-Semitism. The next year Brooks published a "Manifesto to the Jews," signed by 60 leading dispensationalists, which condemned the spread of pro-Nazi propaganda under the guise of biblical prophecy and disavowed further use of The Protocols. Three years later, Brooks was still trying to get fellow prophecy teachers to "clear the church at large from the charge laid against it by unbelievers, that it had been a tool of Hitler and the Jew-baiters." Before his death in 1935, Gray swore off ever using The Protocols again; but Winrod and Riley never backed down. Some time after the "Manifesto" appeared, Gaebelein tried to get his name added to the list of signers. The fact that he never told his own constituency and continued to sell Conflict of the Ages until he died in 1945 made the gesture disingenuous.

Suffering with a purpose
Dispensationalism had a dark side that grew out of its beliefs about the Jews' complex role in prophecy. Jews are God's chosen people and heirs to all the prophetic promises; but present Jews are under the power of Satan and contributing to the decline of the present age. The glory of Israel is future.

It is no surprise that dispensationalists received news of the Holocaust with a combination of horror, resignation, and hope. They were among the first to warn the world of the coming catastrophe. In 1930, Gaebelein told his readers about Hitler and what might happen to Jews if he ever got control of Germany; and by the late thirties, premillennialist leaders had figured out what was going on in places like Buchenwald long before most people realized what the Nazis were capable of.

While dispensationalists condemned persecution of the Jews, they believed such things were inevitable and were happening for a reason. Just like Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians centuries before, Hitler and the Nazis were God's instruments of judgment. God was using them to increase the Jews' desire for a homeland of their own in Palestine. As Harry Rimmer observed, "By driving the preserved people back into the preserved land, Hitler, who does not believe the Bible…, is helping to fulfill its most outstanding prophecy." Needless to say, once their awful work was done, God would judge the Nazis just as he judged the Babylonians.

Sometimes dispensationalists took comfort in their belief that persecution made Jews more susceptible to the gospel. Moody Bible Institute president Will Houghton claimed that Jewish youth in Warsaw turned to Christ en masse in the summer of 1939, immediately before the Nazi invasion. "Perhaps that is the reason the Devil saw to it that Warsaw was wrecked and the Jews scattered."

Later the same year dispensational leaders called for an international day of prayer for the Jews. Interestingly, the organizers did not advise people to pray for the persecutions to stop, only that Jews might turn to Christ in their despair. The best thing people could do for Jews under the circumstances was send them more New Testaments and missionaries.

The State of Israel
As bad as things got, dispensationalists knew that the Nazis would never annihilate the Jewish people. After all, God's entire prophetic plan hinges on getting a Jewish remnant back to Palestine to establish their own state in preparation for Armageddon and the Second Coming. Prophetically speaking, the most crucial point was not that millions were dying, but that some would survive.

In the thirties and forties, dispensationalists thought that the formation of a Jewish state was imminent. But the British were not so sure. For obvious reasons, the Palestinians, who greatly outnumbered Jews in the Holy Land, disliked the Balfour Declaration and mounted a massive resistance campaign. They went on strike, rioted, and occasionally committed acts of terrorism against the British and the Jewish population. The British did what they could to stop the protests, including restricting Jewish immigration and suggesting in the spirit of compromise that the Holy Land be partitioned into both Arab and Jewish states. But nothing worked. In 1939 the British issued a white paper that essentially abandoned the Balfour Declaration.

By the end of the war, not much had changed, except the Jews were now well armed and ready to force the issue of statehood, sometimes through their own brand of terrorism. Looking desperately for a way out, the British appealed to the newly organized United Nations. In August 1947, the UN Special Committee on Palestine also recommended that the area be partitioned into Arab and Jewish states; but Arabs refused to relinquish their land, so the UN abandoned the idea. By the spring of 1948 it was obvious to everybody that a political solution was not possible.

The British finally announced plans to withdraw their forces from the region on May 14, 1948. On that day the Jewish National Council declared statehood; and Arab armies invaded. Almost immediately, the U.S. recognized the new state. The fighting was fierce. By November the better-trained Israeli troops had prevailed, and a cease-fire was called. In May 1949 Israel was admitted to the UN.

Dispensationalists were ecstatic. This was the "sign of all signs." Louis Talbot of the Bible Institute of Los Angeles declared, "I consider it the greatest event, from a prophetic standpoint, that has taken place within the last one hundred years, perhaps even since 70 A.D. [sic], when Jerusalem was destroyed."

In the flush of prophetic fulfillment, most evangelicals showed little or no concern for Palestinian rights—which was ironic since there have always been more Arab Christians in the Middle East than Jewish ones. During the thirties and forties, a few evangelicals raised questions of justice, self-determination, and fair play for Arabs. After all, Palestinians had been there for centuries, much longer than the United States had been a nation. But most evangelicals believed that God's prophetic purposes were more important than such local concerns. Their attitude seemed to be, "This is the fulfillment of prophecy; the Palestinians will just have to get used to it."

Many evangelicals saw the establishment of an Israeli state as the beginning of the end. But there were unresolved problems: The new Israel occupied only a fraction of the land it held in Bible times. Therefore, dispensationalists were eager to see Israel expand its territory. In 1956, with French and English support, Israel attacked Egypt: the Israelis wanted the Sinai; their European allies wanted the Suez Canal. The U.S. government opposed the action. Most dispensationalists objected to the U.S. position because they considered it anti-Israel. For dispensationalists, not to support Israel was to align oneself against the purposes of God.

Evangelicals who thought this way were elated by the Six-Day War of June 1967. Fearing an imminent attack from Soviet-supplied Egyptian and Syrian forces, Israel struck first. In less than a week, the Israelis defeated the Arab coalition and occupied the Sinai peninsula, territory west of the Jordan River, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights. Now the modern State of Israel looked more like the "Bible Lands" maps on the walls of Sunday school rooms. The most important result of the Six-Day War was that Israel controlled all of Jerusalem. Nelson Bell wrote in CHRISTIANITY TODAY, "That for the first time in more than 2,000 years Jerusalem is now completely in the hands of the Jews gives a student of the Bible a thrill and a renewed faith in the accuracy and validity of the Bible" (CT, July 21, 1967, p. 28). Here was an obvious fulfillment of Luke 21:24: "Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled" (NRSV).

For most evangelicals, the war for Jewish statehood and the Six-Day War were nothing short of miraculous. News reports on the wars of 1948 and 1967 read like excerpts from Exodus and Joshua. How could Bible believers complain or question what was happening? One did not have to be a dispensationalist to see that God was obviously in control and vitally concerned with Israel. After 1967, many people who had not given it much thought before were willing to consider Israel's prophetic significance.

[end part 3]

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Timothy Weber is professor of church history and dean at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Lombard, Illinois.

October 5, 1998 Vol. 42, No. 11, Page 38

CALVIN & HOBBES ON WAR

2011-12-08T05:44:00.000-08:00

WAR: ANYONE'S SON WILL DO

2011-12-07T05:44:00.000-08:00

How Evangelicals Became Israel's Best Friend - PART 2

2011-12-06T05:35:00.000-08:00

Dispensationalism's sensational influence
Clearly, one does not have to be a dispensationalist to be influenced by one. In his recent study of prophecy belief in modern American culture, historian Paul Boyer found that in addition to the relatively small number of committed "experts" who study Bible prophecy and seem to have everything figured out, there are millions of others who are not so well informed but still believe the Bible contains valuable clues about the future. Such people are susceptible to popularizers who "confidently weave Bible passages into highly imaginative end-time scenarios, or who promulgate particular schemes of prophetic interpretation."

Even secular people who normally ignore the Bible may, during times of crisis, pay attention to someone who uses the Bible to explain what is going on when the world seems to be falling apart. Boyer concludes that dispensational views about Israel and the course of history have influenced popular opinion far beyond the boundaries of the dispensational movement.

What dispensational beliefs have influenced a significant number of evangelicals and the broader American culture? For a hundred and fifty years, dispensationalists have been predicting something like the following:

*After the "times of the Gentiles" are finished and the Jews are regathered in the Holy Land, human civilization will begin to unravel. Morals will decline, families will break apart, crime and anarchy will increase. Wars, political and economic unrest, natural disasters, unstoppable epidemics, shifts in weather patterns, and other calamities will increase suffering and despair. Organized Christianity will experience apostasy; religious leaders will abandon historic beliefs and behavioral standards and openly embrace heresy and immorality. Despite massive efforts to stop civilization's demise, nothing can stop its downward slide.

*After the rapture of the church, a charismatic leader will gain a following by promising peace and security. This Antichrist heads up a ten-nation confederacy in western Europe. Unaware of Antichrist's true identity, Israel will sign a treaty with him to guarantee its security, then rebuild its temple in Jerusalem. After three and a half years, Antichrist will break the treaty, declare himself to be God, and persecute all who refuse to worship him and receive his mark on their foreheads. Antichrist will be helped by a False Prophet, a seductive religious leader, who will use miraculous powers and repressive measures to force compliance. For three and a half years, a remnant of God's people who were converted after the Rapture (Rev. 7:4) will suffer horrible persecution in the Great Tribulation.

*Despite Antichrist's power, other nations will rise in opposition. Some time after Antichrist betrays Israel, a northern confederation of nations under Russian control will join with a southern confederacy to launch a devastating double attack against Israel. This move will prompt the intervention of Antichrist's armies from the west and a 200-million-man army under the "kings of the east." As armies from east and west converge on Israel, the Russian confederates will try to destroy Israel; but God will intervene to destroy them. With the northern confederacy annihilated, the forces of Antichrist and the "kings of the east" will do battle at Armageddon, a valley northwest of Jerusalem. While the battle rages, Jesus will return, wipe out the surviving armies, subdue Antichrist, and set up his millennial kingdom. Finally, the surviving Jews will accept Jesus as their Messiah. For a thousand years, King Jesus will rule the world from Jerusalem, while Jewish priests perform sacrifices in the restored temple. In the end, God will fulfill all the promises to Israel. The redemptive plan will be complete.

Obviously, the key to this entire prophetic plan is the refounding of Israel as a nation state in Palestine. Without Israel, the whole plan falls apart.

Reading the signs of the times
In the nineteenth century, most British and American evangelicals did not believe in the restoration of the Jews. They believed that God is essentially finished with the Jews as a people. According to this "replacement theology," because Jews had rejected Jesus, God had rejected them and had transferred divine favor to the church. The church has become the New Israel and has received all the Old Israel's promises and prophecies.

Dispensationalists (and a few nondispensationalists besides) insisted that God is not yet finished with the Jews, and while there was little movement in that direction, they looked for evidence that Jews were heading back to Palestine. A few Jewish agricultural colonies were established in Palestine in the 1880s and '90s, but the number of colonists was small. The Zionist movement was organized in the 1890s, yet at first few Jews paid it much mind. Dispensationalists at that time seemed more eager for Jews to move back to Palestine than did Jews themselves.

Most dispensationalists were content to let God handle the details. It was their job to teach the truth and monitor the signs of the times. But not all dispensationalists were bystanders. A small minority wanted to help move things along.

No American dispensationalist beat the drum for a Jewish state more than William E. Blackstone (1841-1935). Born in New York and reared in an evangelical Methodist home, after the Civil War Blackstone settled in Oak Park, Illinois, and established himself as a successful businessman and lay evangelist to the Chicago business community. He became a dispensationalist and a close friend of D. L. Moody. In 1878 he published Jesus Is Coming, which went through three editions, was translated into 42 languages, and was dispensationalism's first bestseller in America.

In the late 1880s, Blackstone visited new Jewish settlements in the Holy Land and returned to Chicago committed to helping the restoration of the Jews. In 1890 he organized the first conference of Christians and Jews in Chicago and used the occasion to push for a new Jewish state. Most participants, including the Jews, were not interested.

Undeterred, in 1891 Blackstone drew up a petition (or "memorial") advocating the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. In short order, he collected 413 signatures from leading Americans, including the chief justice of the Supreme Court, the speaker of the House, the mayors of Chicago, New York, and Boston, and business leaders such as Cyrus McCormick, John D. Rockefeller, and J. Pierpont Morgan. Blackstone forwarded the memorial to President Benjamin Harrison, who ignored it, and later he sent others to Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

In spite of his ongoing efforts to convert Jews to Christ, he became good friends with Zionist leaders and regularly sent them the results of his prophetic study. In 1918, at a Zionist conference in Philadelphia, organizers hailed Blackstone as a "Father of Zionism"; and in 1956, on the seventy-fifth anniversary of his memorial to President Harrison, the citizens of Israel dedicated a forest in his honor.

A few of Blackstone's Chicago friends took another approach. In 1881, Horatio and Anna Spafford and 16 others established the American Colony in the Muslim quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem to watch at close hand the restoration of the Jews and the second coming of Jesus. The Spaffordites held all property in common and, at least for a while, made celibacy the house rule.

The Spaffordites went there primarily for prophetic reasons. As one settler put it, "We wanted to see the prophecies fulfilled." One of the children of the community recounted years later how for a while the group "went every day to the Mount of Olives with tea and cakes, hoping to be the first to offer the Messiah refreshment." When hundreds of penniless Jews from Yemen arrived in Jerusalem in 1882, the colony considered them part of the Ten Lost Tribes and a clear sign of prophetic fulfillment, so they provided them with food, shelter, and other support. The colony became a popular stopover for visitors to the Holy Land. Blackstone came; so did Moody. The colony prospered economically when over 100 Swedes from Chicago and the old country joined up in 1896.

For over 50 years the colony survived as a religious community, but subsequent generations lost their prophetic zeal and turned the colony into a business concern. By the 1930s, their perspective on life in Palestine had changed. The colony identified more with the needs of the indigenous Arabs and considered Zionism a threat to their legitimate rights.

Blackstone and the American Colony in Jerusalem were exceptions, not the rule. Most dispensationalists were content to study the Bible and scan the horizon for prophetic fulfillments. During the twentieth century, signs of the times multiplied. World War I gave a major boost to their hopes for the future. Dispensationalists used their Bibles to predict with uncanny accuracy the results of the war, including the redrawing of the map of Europe, which was necessary to get ready for their end-times scenario. But nothing brought them more pleasure than the disposition of Palestine.

When World War I broke out in 1914, Palestine was firmly in the grasp of the Ottoman Empire. By 1916, there was widespread speculation, even in the secular press, about the restoration of a Jewish homeland if the Turks could be vanquished. By late 1917, events were rapidly moving along those lines. As British forces fought their way into Palestine from the south, Lord Arthur Balfour, the British foreign secretary, wrote to Lord James Rothschild, a leader in international Zionism: "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best efforts to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

Five weeks after the Balfour Declaration, the Turks surrendered Jerusalem to British forces, virtually without a fight. This sent shock waves through dispensationalist ranks. Here was the most concrete proof ever that the "times of the Gentiles" were coming to an end. It made little difference to dispensationalists that Jerusalem had passed from one Gentile power to another. The important thing was that the British had declared their intention to establish a Jewish state. If the "times of the Gentiles" were coming to an end, could the restoration of Israel be far behind?

Dispensationalists could barely contain themselves. Arno C. Gaebelein, editor of Our Hope, called the coming restoration of Israel "the sign of all signs." In 1918, dispensationalists organized two well-attended prophetic conferences in New York and Philadelphia, where the real possibility of establishing a Jewish state got much attention.

[END PART 2]

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Timothy Weber is professor of church history and dean at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Lombard, Illinois.

October 5, 1998 Vol. 42, No. 11, Page 38

How Evangelicals Became Israel's Best Friend - PART 1

2011-12-05T05:32:00.000-08:00

How Evangelicals Became Israel's Best Friend
By Timothy P. Weber, from Christianity Today 10/5/98

In its fiftieth anniversary year, the State of Israel has no better friends than American evangelicals. So it seemed to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he addressed the Voices United for Israel Conference in Washington, D.C., in April 1998. Most of the 3,000 in attendance were evangelicals, including Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition, Kay Arthur of Precept Ministries, Jane Hanson of Women's Aglow, and Brandt Gustavson of the National Religious Broadcasters. (Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson supported the conference but did not attend.)

On the day before he met with President Bill Clinton, who urged him to trade West Bank land for peace with the Palestinians, Netanyahu told the conference: "We have no greater friends and allies than the people sitting in this room."

To many observers, the close relationship between Israel and many American evangelicals seems baffling. Many American evangelicals pledge their love for the State of Israel, support its claims against those of the Palestinians, and resist anything that might undercut Israel's security. But they also target Jews for evangelism and sometimes blame them for the mess the world is in. Israel eagerly accepts evangelicalism's public support and aggressively courts its leaders. But many Jews bitterly condemn Christian proselytism and do what they can to restrict the activities of missionaries in Israel. Nevertheless, both sides seem to be getting more than enough out of their relationship.

The close tie between evangelicals and Israel is important: It has shaped popular opinion in America and, to some extent, U.S. foreign policy. To understand how it developed, one must know something about how many evangelicals interpret Bible prophecy and what difference their beliefs have made in the world of politics.

Why do evangelicals care so much about Israel? How did this special relationship develop? What has it produced? On the most basic level, evangelicals love Israel because of the Bible. Many evangelicals have vivid memories of sitting in Sunday school rooms, staring at maps of Bible Lands and listening to Bible stories week after week. Through such experiences, evangelicals came to view the Bible's story as their own and the land of the Bible as a kind of home away from home. Israel is where the Lord Jesus was born, ministered, was crucified, and rose again. Every year thousands of evangelicals take what amounts to a religious pilgrimage to Israel to "walk where Jesus walked" and see for themselves places they have read about their whole lives.

Evangelicals' view of the Bible gives them a proprietary interest in Israel. It is the Holy Land, the site of God's mighty deeds. In a way, they think the Promised Land belongs to them as much as it does to Israelis.

Writing the end-times script
But there is much more to the evangelical-Israel connection: Most of those who gathered in Washington to show their support for Israel believe that the Holy Land will be ground zero for events surrounding the second coming of Jesus Christ. Such evangelicals read the Bible as though it were a huge jigsaw puzzle of prophecies, with Israel in the center. They believe that human history is following a predetermined divine script, and they and Israel are simply playing their assigned roles.

These beliefs come out of a complex system of biblical interpretation known as dispensationalism, which is a version of premillennialism (the belief that Christ will return before setting up his millennial kingdom). As the name implies, dispensationalism divides up the Bible and human history into various eras or dispensations, based on how God deals with humanity. Basic to the system was the way it detected two distinct divine plans, one for an "earthly" people (Israel) and the other for a "heavenly" people (the church). According to John Nelson Darby, the Englishman who shaped dispensationalism in the mid-1800s, biblical prophecies for one group do not apply to the other, and God deals with only one group at a time. Thus "rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15) means keeping the two peoples and programs completely separate.

God's dealings with Israel are the key to the dispensational system. Through a series of covenants with Abraham, Moses, and David, God made Israel his chosen people and promised to establish Messiah on David's throne forever. In Daniel 7-9, nineeenth-century dispensationalists believed, God spelled out the divine plan: because of its sin, Israel will be subjugated by four successive Gentile powers until, finally, the "times of the Gentiles" are complete. On divine cue, one of the Gentile rulers will issue a decree to rebuild Jerusalem's fallen walls. Sixty-nine weeks later, Messiah will come to the Holy City but be rejected ("cut off") by his own people. During the Seventieth Week, an evil ruler will try to destroy the Jews, but at week's end Messiah will return to defeat him and re-establish David's throne.

These dispensationalists believed that much of Daniel's prophecy of the Seventy Weeks was literally fulfilled in the history of Israel and the first coming of Jesus Christ. But there was a major problem: why did Messiah not return to finish his work at the end of the Seventieth Week as predicted? To answer this question, those dispensationalists developed a "postponement theory." When Jews rejected Jesus, as the prophecy said they would, God unexpectedly postponed Jesus' return, started putting together a new people, the church, and unplugged the prophetic clock. Thus, for its entire history, the church has existed in a prophetic time warp, what dispensationalists call the "great parenthesis."

A second question then needed answering: When and how will God resume the prophetic countdown? Dispensationalists answer, "At the pretribulation rapture of the church." Since God had decided to work with only one group at a time, God must remove the church from the earth before focusing attention again on the Jews. After Jesus comes for his saints in the "Rapture" (1 Thess. 4:13-17), the prophetic clock starts ticking again. Once the church is gone, Daniel's Seventieth Week (the "great tribulation" of Matt. 24, 2 Thess. 2, and Rev.) can begin, after which Jesus will return with his already raptured saints to defeat Antichrist, the great persecutor, and establish his millennial reign.

During the 1870s, Darby made a number of trips to the United States, where his dispensationalism got mixed reviews. Most evangelicals at the time were either postmillennialists (Christ will return after the world is Christianized) or amillennialists (the millennium should be taken figuratively). In an age of optimism, dispensationalism seemed too pessimistic for most evangelicals, some of whom labeled it a "heresy."

Despite its minority status among evangelicals initially, dispensationalism gained a respectable following through prophetic conferences, Bible institutes, a plethora of magazines and popular books, and a committed clientele for whom it was the key to unlock biblical truth. Every major American revivalist since D. L. Moody has been a premillennialist of some kind; and Pentecostalism has more or less followed the dispensationalist line since its inception in the early twentieth century. The Scofield Reference Bible, whose notes explained biblical texts from a dispensational perspective, was published in 1909 and became an authoritative and effective recruiter for the movement.

By the twenties, many fundamentalists considered dispensationalism a nonnegotiable part of Christian orthodoxy. Since then, the system has been nurtured through an elaborate network of schools, publishing houses, mission agencies, radio and television programming, and the like. Channel surfers on cable tv know that dispensationalists are master communicators.

[end part one]

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Timothy Weber is professor of church history and dean at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Lombard, Illinois.

October 5, 1998 Vol. 42, No. 11, Page 38

Read the full article
HERE

ISRAELI SOLDIERS BREAK THE SILENCE

2011-12-04T14:27:00.000-08:00

Yitzchak Ben Mucha, Paratroopers Special Forces, Israeli Military

“My opinion about such things, then and today, hasn’t changed much. I thought it was wrong then and I still think so. But where I had a certain innocence, back then, that we’re in the territories to protect the country, and we’re doing it temporarily until there’s peace and such, and that other people are doing the lesser of the evils. That naivete was cracked during my military service. And what hit me mainly is the extent ...the extent to which the occupation creates this hatred. The little things that occur within the population – soldiers coming, entering your home, ruining (your) things while conducting a search, in such an extroverted manner. If you take people against their will, to enter their houses, in the line of fire, you create a new hatred. On the other hand, the ignorance of the soldiers to understand how wrong it is, how incorrect and wrong. This defense that we seem to think we are providing. All of these lead me to understand, today, how radical it is, and how much it has to be stopped...with actual action against it. (I’m) not just saying it’s bad and that’s it, (and) let’s continue serving the army until things get better, until there’s peace."

MAKE PLANS NOW TO JOIN US FOR PACIFIST FIGHT CLUB

2011-12-03T17:45:00.000-08:00

PACIFIST FIGHT CLUB - Saturday, January 14th, 2012.
9am to 2:30pm at Fuller Seminary (Irvine)
ADMISSION IS FREE - MUST RSVP TO ATTEND

We will fight for peace, but we will do no violence

Join us for an open dialog on issues that matter.
Topics:
*Non-violence
*Solidarity with the poor
*Immigration reform
*Loving God
*Loving others

Our Fighters
*Brandt Russo
*Shane Crash
*Chase Andre
*Thomas Crisp
*Thomas Nixon
*Crissy Brooks
*Wendy Tarr
*Keith Giles

THE RULES
The first rule of Pacifist Fight Club is, you do not talk about Pacifist Fight Club.
The second rule is, you must move from talk to action.
The third rule is, you must love all people, at all times.
The fourth rule is, you must daily fight to the death in a struggle against your own apathy, selfishness, prejudice and pride.

Find out more at our Facebook page and RSVP
HERE

More Love, Less Politics

2011-12-02T09:36:00.000-08:00

American Christians will always be frustrated by a desire to see our laws correspond with the Bible. The truth is, it never will. Why? Because our laws are built around a document called the Constitution, not the scriptures.

So, for example, if our courts have to determine whether or not it is legal to enforce a law that gives one set of rights to some people and a different set of rights to others, they will look at the Constitution and see that everyone is considered equal under the law and rule against that law.

Under the law of our land people have the right to enter into marriage with one another. Any law that gives this right to some people and takes it away for others will be considered unconstitutional.

Christians will always want those laws to be interpreted primarily by the Bible and secondarily by the Constitution, but since these two documents have different authors, and different purposes, they will not agree on most issues, including homosexual marriage.

When our nation was founded and our Constitution was written, they did not feel any need to write down laws which reinforced the morality and the common practice of society around them. It was a given. Therefore they wrote laws which, in tandem with their existing morality and observable societal norms, combined to create a harmonious nation of free people.

What has changed? Our Constitution is fundamentally the same, but the morality and practice of our society has changed. The laws we write cannot hope to touch our inner person. Laws do not change hearts.

If you hope to write and create laws to govern society you look to politicians and lawyers and presidents. However, if you hope to influence behaviors and change the heart of a person you, only Jesus can do that.

Our society has failed to live up to the ideals of our past because our churches have failed to pass on the morality and the practice of hospitality and brotherly love. We have not loved our neighbor as ourselves. We have not been known for our love. Our laws have stayed the same, but our Churches have gotten off track and lost focus.

American Christians have become so disillusioned with the world around them, and yet they have no one to blame but themselves. For the last several decades the Church in America has been embracing a mentality of retreat. We have created a neat and comfortable little version of the world with a cross on top where our interaction with "those unbelievers out there" is minimized as much as possible.

Because we have refused to be salt and light as Jesus commanded us, the society around us has slowly become more and more "un-Christian" and really, what else should we expect it to become like? If we have reduced our interactions with others, focused all of our time and energy on ourselves, built larger and more expensive buildings to hide in, and invested millions of dollars building empires of entertainment, fashion and communication to occupy our time and tell us what we want to hear, how else should our world have developed in our absence?

In our frustration we have now turned to politics to create the change we have failed to create by avoiding contact with unbelievers. Now we hope to dominate these people politically and have our way, regardless of whether or not they agree.

In some ways, I wonder if it's too late for any of this. Too late for us to get back to our original calling to love and serve and live out the selfless beauty of the Gospel. Too late to attempt any sort of dialog with people we have avoided for so very long. Too late to be the Church that Jesus intended for us to be.

The solution to the problems facing American society is not found in changing our laws, and even if it were that would be a job for a lawyer or a politician, not a follower of Jesus.

Our only job is to love and to serve and to model a society where all people are equally important in the eyes of God.

Let's do our best to obey our Lord and Savior when he commands us to be known for our love.

If it's not too late....

-kg

OUR POOR

2011-12-01T09:26:00.001-08:00

Poverty in our country may not be as severe as what we see in Africa or India or Mexico, but that does not mean that it is any less poverty.

For example, if you were to give air conditioning or color television to one of those families living in a cardboard box in the Sudan, would they cease being poor? Of course not. And families in America with color tvs and air conditioning are no less poor because of their level of comfort. They are still poor. And they are "Our Poor".

I belive that there is a Biblical difference between how we are called to serve the poor in other countries and "our poor". The poor in India, Mexico, Ethiopa, etc. are seriously, desperately poor. No one argues that. This is why I've served on the board for groups like Arms of Love (www.armsoflove.org), a ministry that builds orphanages in the poorest nations of the world to provide homes for street children who live in the city dumps and are forced into prostitution, etc.

So, please, let's be clear; I'm not saying don't help the poor who are "out there".

But the poor in your city, in my city, down the street from me, they are "our poor", and what we're called to do, Biblically, is something about it. Not to solve poverty. Not to cure it. Not to erase poverty forever, but to do what we can to help a few, in the name of Jesus and with the compassion of Jesus.

Actually, as I've said before, the point of serving the poor is not to "cure" or "solve" poverty, but to befriend people who are in need and to learn to love and serve them as we would serve and love Jesus. We are the one's who are most changed in that relationship, by the way.

The quote from Jesus in Matthew about "the poor you will always have with you" was Jesus referencing Deuteronomy 15:7-11. You should seriously read this passage. The point is that God, the Father, is commanding the Jews to not have a hard-heart or a closed fist towards the poor, the stranger, etc., but to give generously, freely to the poor among them. At the end of the passage, God say, "There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land."

That's what Jesus means when he says what he does in Matthew.

Read Matthew 25. At the Judgment Seat of Christ the one criteria is whether or not those who call him "Lord" had any regard for the poor, the hungry, the thirsty, the homeless, the prisoner. The Sheep almost unconsciously care for these poor, not because they think it will get them into Heaven, but simply because they have genuinely been transformed into the people of God. The Goats, who also call Him "Lord", have the same unconscious attitude, but towards the existence of the poor or their needs.

The people of God, redeemed by the Blood, saved by Grace, seem to have an inability to walk past someone who is naked, poor, hungry, thirsty, lonely, etc. and do nothing. They cannot do that. It's not in their new nature.

We have a Biblical mandate (and it's alllll over the Scripture, both Old and New) to care for the poor..."our poor"...and that takes more than writing a check.

Again, this is my very biased conviction. I've been hammered by God on this issue and I cannot let it go because it won't let me go.

Do you know what the sin of Sodom is? Read Ezekiel 16: 49. It's not what you think. "Now this is the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were proud and did detestable things before me. Therefore, I did away with them as you have seen."

Wow.

How about this one?

Galatians 2:10- "All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do." (Paul being sent out as the first missionary by Peter, James and John).

or...

{God is speaking of King Josiah:}
"He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?" (Jeremiah 22:16)

Wow.

"Is that not what it means to know me?"

What does it mean to "Know" God? This verse suggests that it means to care for the poor and the needy.

and of course we could also look at, Isaiah 58:6-7, Amos 5:21-24, 1 John 3:17-18, James 2:14-17, etc., etc.

God has called us to care for the poor, not to justify their poverty or our lack of compassion by comparing them to the "real poor" in third world countries.

So..how are we doing with serving and loving and befriending "Our Poor"?

-Keith Giles

Non-Violence According to Jesus

2011-11-30T08:57:00.000-08:00

Jesus said, "You have learnt how it was said to our ancestors: 'You must not kill; and anyone does kill he must answer for it before the court.' But I say this to you: anyone who is angry with his brother will answer for it before the court." Mt. 5:21-22

Jesus said, "You have learnt how it was said: 'Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.' But I say to you, Offer the wicked man no resistance. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; if a man takes you to law and would have your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone orders you to go one mile, go two miles with him." Mt. 5:38-41

Jesus said, "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy; But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those whose persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Mt. 5:43-46

Jesus said, "If anyone wants to be a follower of mine, let him renounce himself and take up his cross and follow me. For anyone who wants to save his life will lose it; but anyone who loses his life for my sake will find it." Mt. 16:24-25

Jesus said, "You must love your neighbor as yourself." Mt. 22:40

Jesus said, "It is from within, from men's hearts, that evil intentions emerge: fornication, theft, murder, adultery, avarice, malice, deceit, indecency, envy, slander, pride, folly. All these evil things come from within and make a man unclean." Mk. 7:21-23

Jesus said, "You know the commandments: you must not kill..." Mk. 10:18

Jesus said, "When you stand in prayer, forgive whatever you have against anybody, so that your Father in heaven may forgive your failings too." Mk. 11:25

Jesus said, "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who treat you badly." Lk. 6:27-28

Jesus said, "Be compassionate as your Father is compassionate. Do not judge, and you will not be judge yourselves; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned yourselves; grant pardon, and you will be pardoned." Lk. 6:27

Jesus said, "Why do you call me, "Lord, Lord" and not do what I say?" Lk. 6:46

Jesus said, "What is written in the law? What do you read there? He replied, "You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself." "You have answered right," said Jesus "do this and life is yours." Lk. 10:26-28

Jesus (from the cross) said, "Father, forgive them, they do not know what they are doing." Lk. 23:34

Jesus said, "If there is one of you who has not sinned, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Jn. 8:7

Jesus said, "I give you a new commandment: love one another; just as I have loved you, you also must love one another. By this love you have for one another, everyone will know that you are my disciples." Jn. 13:34-35

Jesus said, "Anybody who receives my commandments and keeps them will be one who loves me;" Jn. 14:21

Jesus said, "This is my commandment: love one another, as I have loved you." Jn. 14:22

Jesus said, "What I command you is to love one another." Jn. 14:27

Jesus said, "Mine is not a kingdom of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, my men would have fought to prevent my being surrendered to the Jews. But my kingdom is not of this kind." Jn. 18:36

JESUS IS TRYING TO KILL ME

2011-11-29T09:00:00.000-08:00

For several years now I have made a conscious effort to follow Jesus in my actual life. In the process, I have discovered that following Jesus on a daily basis is impossible without dying to oneself.

This is what Jesus meant in Luke 9, verse 23 when he said, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me." He means, that following him is not possible if you have not first surrendered your life completely. In the same way that it would be impossible to work as a lifeguard without first knowing how to swim, we cannot follow Jesus if we are not engaged in the ongoing process of dying to ourselves.

Unfortunately, surrendering your life to Jesus isn't a one time event. I used to think that it was, but I've also learned that my decision to lay down my life and live for Jesus must be a daily activity in order to have any real significance. It's mainly because we are fickle creatures and we require constant, daily, reminders of the need to surrender or else we revert back to our old ways of life. I know I do, anyway.

For over a year now I have been undergoing a painful process of death to self. This has not been due to any effort on my part. Rather, it has been a process that I have endured at the hand of my Master.

We have an understanding, the Master and I, that death to self is vital to my spiritual development. I know that my heart is wicked, that my flesh is prideful, that my natural tendency is towards selfishness and vanity. So, I have surrendered to this process of being put to death - one day at a time.

As one might expect, the process is not easy. Nor is it an enjoyable one. However, the fruit of this death is life in the Spirit. As my flesh decays, the life of Christ is revealed in me over time.

A few days ago I was in prayer and I began to realize that much of the pain in my life at the moment was due to this process of dying to self. Over time I have lost friendships, endured suffering at work, in our church family, and in my personal life. As I enumerated these gradual losses it dawned on me that Jesus was trying to kill me. Specifically, he was doing the work I had conracted him to perform many years ago. He was putting to death my flesh in order to make room in my heart for his enduring, glorious life.

In short, Jesus - the son of God, the prince of peace, the lamb of God - was trying to kill me.

Fenelon, a 17th century christian writer, describes this process as "Circumcision of the Heart":

"Our own hands would never put the knife in the right place. We would cut away only a little of the fat and bring about a few superficial changes. We do not understand ourselves well enough to know where to cut. We could never find the sensitive spot, but God finds it easily. And even if we knew where the spot were located, self-love would hold back the knife and spare itself. It does not have the courage to wound itself. And even if the knife were plunged into the vital spot, the nerves would steel themselves against the pain, and the teeth would be gritted, in order to deaden some of the pain. But the hand of God strikes in unexpected places, finds the very place where the infection is fastened and does not hesitate to cut it away, regardless of the pain. And, oh, how self-love cries out! Well, let it cry, but do not let it interfere with the success of the operation." - (Let Go, page 86-87)

As I daily endure this slow process of being put to death, I also enjoy the sweet taste of the life of Christ in my spirit. My old self dies - Halleluiah - and the new self inhales the sweet breath of Jesus every single day.

The best I can do is to submit to this process of mortification and try my best to stay out of the surgeon's way.

"I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." - Galatians 2:20

-kg

Is This A Christian Nation?

2011-11-28T06:54:00.000-08:00

"Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word ‘Jesus Christ,’ so that it should read ‘a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion.’ The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan [Muslim], the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination."

- Thomas Jefferson (April 13, 1743 – July 4, 1826), third president of the United States, author of the Declaration of Independence, referring to the Virginia Statute For Religious Freedom, which became law on January 16, 1786.

SOURCE

NO HYPOTHOSIZING

2011-11-27T06:35:00.000-08:00

Instead of hypothosizing whether Jesus would have modified a parable to reflect the values you may sincerely believe to be reflective of Christ, wouldn't it be more productive to look at what he did say and ask rather why he said them?

Honestly, I don't believe Jesus would have made the modifications you suggest for one simple reason: They are contrary to what Jesus did in fact teach and he would not contradict Himself in that manner.

Bart Breen
12 September 2010 at 22:28

WAR IS NOT CHRISTIAN: THE DIALOG

2011-11-26T06:49:00.000-08:00

About a year ago, over on my Facebook page I posted this simple statment:
War Is Not Christian.

What followed was a very long and fascinating dialog debating the topic, and several peripheral concepts related to the ideas of non-violence and following Christ.

Here is the text of that exchange between myself, Paul Martin, Lionel Woods, Sam Sim, John Lamoreau, Randy Gallagher, Robert Manigold, Martin G., David Flowers, Derrick Pedranti, Lito and Ruth Bujanda-Moore and several others.

**
War Is Not Christian.

Robert Manigold But, it gets you out of the house....

Samuel Sim ...but what if the Pope says I have to go kill infidels?

Kathy Johnston Lindquist Praying for our soldiers is.

Lionel Woods Kathy, praying for Iraqi soldiers and terrorist is also :o) hopefully we are not just praying for "our soldiers".

Kathy Johnston Lindquist Please pray for mine.

Lionel Woods I was in six years Army as a Tank Gunner I was in the middle east so I understand, though it was not as bad when I was there about 13 years ago

David D. Flowers I am reminded of Mel Gibson's character prayer in the movie WE WERE SOLDIERS: "Lord, ignore their heathen prayers and help us blow those bastards to hell."

Wendy Engebrecht Giles Kathy we will pray for yours.

Kathy Johnston Lindquist Lionel, my husband is a retired tanker. He also served during Desert Storm. My son is in the Army now.

Lionel Woods I will definitely be praying. My heart aches and I know everyone involved wants to see this thing be over. I am grateful for both your son and husband and like Mrs. Giles said I will be praying. Whats his name?

Kathy Johnston Lindquist Noah, thank you.

Keith Giles Yes, we will. And we'll also pray for everyone caught in the violence of war.

Paul Martin War is not "not Christian"-it is sometimes necessary, a form of social justice (i.e., the righting of wrongs).

Ruth Bujanda-Moore @ Paul M: The righting of wrongs is not done so by MORE wrong doings...and, as Keith poined out, we will pray for eveyone caught in the violence of all current wars going on: soldiers (ours and theirs), civilians, etc.

Anthony Mathenia War is a necessary business of the World - thankfully our Lord says we are no part of it. Praise God!

Keith Giles Whether or not War may be necessary, it is not necessary for a follower of Jesus to engage in War. In fact, it is never "necessary" for a Christian to engage in War.

Paul Martin Yes, we should pray for ours and theirs. But "our Lord" never said to his followers "though shall not go to war." In fact, he told his followers to pay taxes...so that Rome could continue its wars!

And thank our Lord that, for example, men and women fought (war) to end the murderous injustices of Hitler.

Keith Giles "Love your enemies", "Turn the other cheek", "Pray for those who mistreat you", "Do good to those who seek to harm you", "Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword", "Do not return evil for evil for overcome evil with good."

Does any of this ring a bell?

Keith Giles Wars will be fought. No argument. But Christians need not fight them.

Paul Martin Thank God millions of Christians have disagreed with the pacifist stance you take!--it has saved the lives of millions of innocent women and children.

Anthony Mathenia It doesn't take long before Hitler gets raised from the dead, dusted off and trotted out in support of military action by Christians. Since he is already out I'll give you something to think about, Adolph Hitler's "murderous injustices" were carried out with the support of "Christian" churches. If the Christians living in germany had been obedient to Jesus' word then the course of World War II would have been entirely different.

Keith Giles War saves lives. Not sure why I never realized that before. Wow.

Paul Martin Guys: google Obama's Nobel Peace Prize speech on war.

Anthony, respectfully, "churches" don't support anything. I think what you mean is that certain people who called themselves by that name supported Hitler. To that claim, (1) you will find, should you wish to study this, that so much of Germany didn't learn of these atrocities until after the war. And (2) any German who was both aware and supportive of Hitler's injustices, I think it's fair to say, could not have been a follower of Jesus.

I think it's important to understand the very lucid distinction (yes, Biblical and linguistic) between murder and killing. And yet, Keith, while the Romans were even murdering, Jesus says nothing to them about it--but he tells his followers to give them more money for war. I'm with you about murder, but this issue cannot be a simplistic as turing a blind eye to those kinds of atrocities found in concentration camps. That was, by definition, social justice.

Charles Pike paul, can you please explain this: " In fact, he told his followers to pay taxes...so that Rome could continue its wars!" ? i am curious to know what you are talking about, where the source information is, and how you come up with this conclusion? thank you.

Andy Yoon Surprised no one has yet mentioned the biblical accounts of God's role with Israel as it warred against other nations.

Paul Martin Sure, Charles. Matthew 22. Another plot to have Jesus deemed heretic by Jews or worthy of immediate death by Romans. Who will he side with? The Pharisees or Herodians (Rome)? They hand him a coin--one with Tiberius' face, a Roman coin that the Palestinian Jews had to use for poll taxes. What Jesus does not say: "they are holding Jews hostage," "Rome will wage war with this and kill the innocent (eventually me!)," "don't give him these coins..they are evil/pagan/for ill purposes."

He was in a perfect position for a sermon on war, secularism, the evils of this godless government, the perils of paganism, the effect of using these coins (how they will be used for evil), or even the need for pacifism.

He says, "give Caesar what's his" (he is referring directly to the coin), appeasing the Herodians, "and to God what is God's," appeasing the Jews....

You see Paul do the same later when he calls for submission to governing authorities (even if you happen to be their slave!).

Paul Martin So, Andy, it seems as if God was not always against war. Though I agree with Obama's speech, which is an eloquent packaging of Just War Theory.

Keith Giles If you go to the OT then you can justify war. But I said that War wasn't Christian which is NT.

Jesus was not concerned w/ politics so his answer about the coin was meant to put emphasis back on the Kingdom of God. "Give to God what is God's" was his point. Not to submit his opinion of Rome.

I just can't reconcile Jesus' commands to love our enemies, turn the other cheek and do good to those who harm you with the concept of participating in - or supporting - a war.

Your mileage may vary.

Paul Martin We agree to disagree, again. Dang. You had to have rooted for the Saints though? Please say yes! :)

Keith Giles Of course I rooted for the Saints! I'm not THAT crazy.

Paul Martin K. If we are to follow him, should we not engage in politics either? Jim Wallis is listening.

Paul Martin After I sent that I remembered you lived in Indiana. Is that right? So I was scared for a moment!

Andy Yoon i would posit that if (1) 'turning the other cheek' still allows for certain acts of self-defense (ex: protecting one's family); and if (2) some wars are fought as an act of self-defense for a nation; then (3) 'turning the other cheek' would allow for these types of wars.

Martin Gugino Holy cow. What a discussion

Paul,
1. re Obama's Noble speech that you asked us to google: he said "We have never fought a democracy" http://bit.ly/aBgX23
Of course we have, Germany among them.
2. you mention the command to pay taxes as a proof text for the support of war, but why dont you quote 'go the extra mile' as approving military logistical support? That seems like a more specific verse to me.
3 re Just War: http://bit.ly/9dLZX6...
4. If you can conduct a war while full of love for the enemy, then I suppose it would be morally ok.

A question might be why God was so bloodthirsty and warlike in the OT, and such a pansy in the NT. But I assume that the reason is that the Jews were numbskulls and

He wanted to be practical rather than go fanatic on them. After all, he only gave them 10 rules, and they couldn't manage to keep those, and one of them was: try not to kill too many innocent people if you can. Very sketchy guidance if you ask me.

Even Jesus later said - you dont get it when I talk of earthly things - so how can you expect me to talk to you of heavenly things? meaning he was leaving some things out.

Paul: You are suggesting that the Pope is not Catholic?

Paul Martin Martin: To point #1, I don't believe that you believe Hitler's Germany was a democracy. You've studied the burning-down of the Reichstag building and Hitler's Enabling Law, right. The US declared war on, by definition, a Dictatorship. To point #2, I don't understand what you mean. To point #3, I don't understand what you mean. To point #4, I might have loved Hitler as an Allied Christian soldier; I might have prayed for him, too. Same with Bin Laden (I do pray for him). My love form them has nothing to do with my duty to save the lives of innocent men, women and children.

Martin Gugino The Christians in America did " turn[] a blind eye to those kinds of atrocities found in concentration camps."
Unless I am mistaken.

Paul Martin The pope is not a catholic? Huh? And, the Americans were the ones to let them out of the camps (am I missing something here?).

Martin Gugino Are you agreeing with Obama that the US has never fought a democracy, and if so, what is the conclusion that you draw from that statement? That's the real question. But also -
History shows that Germany held elections. Are you saying that you believe that those elections were not as fair as the recent elections in Afghanistan?

Martin Gugino
re #2: maybe someone else can explain point 2 - it seems as clear as i can mke it to me.

re#3: Just War is the title for the theory of the good war.
But war entails atrocity, and atrocity is just war - a play on words. It means that all war is sick, and modern war more so.

re#4: if you shoot the enemy out of indifference or hate, then it's wrong. Raghead and gook and chink and other such terms, used in military training, indicate that even if you think that some wars may be dandy, we are not waging those kinds of wars.

Paul Martin Iraq was a democracy as well under Hussein, I suppose? Because the people voted? OK, then. Have it your way. The US fought Democratic Germany. Same end. We saved the lives of millions of innocent men, women and children. Like my grandparents who lived in Italy and had to live in the mountains with my (then newborn mother) because the Nazis would come into the villages and rape, pillage and murder. Thank God that Christians--even if they acted against Jesus' teachings, which I don't believe they did--came to rescue lives.

Paul Martin I see your point, Martin. I'm not a hawk. Was very outspoken against Iraq (as was the Pope). But I just don't see how we can sit back when we know there are plans being devised to, quite literally, murder innocent lives. The US has by no means be perfect. Gotta go. War...I mean peace out. (:

Martin Gugino Regarding Germany, it IS true that by the time the US got involved, Germany was well at war, and they had raised their threat level to White, and certain emergency measures were being taken to secure the Homeland, but I don't think that that meant that Hitler was unpopular with the people, or would have lost another plebiscite, had the security situation have allowed one.

Timothy L. Price That's why I have a t-shirt that askes: Who Would Jesus Kill for America's foreign policy... Its a poignant thought seriously, no credit to me whatsoever.

Peace :)

Marlys Samler Does anyone understand how the same God (Jesus) who tells us to turn the other cheek, told the Jews to fight a lot of bloody wars in the Old Testament? I don't really get it. The Old Testament is very hard to comprehend sometimes.

Paul Bujanda-Moore wow... what a small venue for such a heavy topic of faith, society, and history. My worldly interests find me grateful for a standing military and law enforcement, prepared to destroy lives in the name of society's expectations. It's the threat of force that sometimes compel many to rethink their intents. But, I readily agree with Keith's initial statement. History is full of examples of devout believers committing acts in direct contrast to how others view their faith ("killing in the name of....") Turns out, very few people really want to kill... but, even fewer still want to die or see harm come to their loved ones.

Keith Giles Marlys: Jesus himself pointed out this difference, so it's not something we should be afraid to talk about.

Jesus said, "You've heard it said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth', but I say to you, do not resist and evil man, and whoever shall shall strike you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." - Mtt 5:38-39

So, Jesus came to announce a Kingdom and to proclaim a New Covenant. The New is not like the Old. So, we shouldn't be surprised at the differences. In fact, what frustrates me is how we seem to confuse the OT and the NT when it comes to Christianity and the Gospel of the Kingdom and what Jesus was coming to proclaim.

We suffer from "Old Testament Christianity" (as I sometimes call it). What we need is true New Testament Christianity that fully embraces and understands the Kingdom that Jesus came to announce.

Paul Martin Keith. It's both. Not either, or. Right?

Keith Giles Paul: If I'm understanding your question correctly (please let me know if not), I'd say that the OT and NT are not concurrent. I'd say that the OT is fulfulled in Christ and now we are under a New Covenant. Behold the old is gone and the new has come.

Paul Martin I guess I'm in the historical/traditional camp here, where we see Jesus' model of using the OT. He quoted it quite often. Not under the law of course, but as part of sacred scripture and the fabric of our story, God's nature, etc.

Keith Giles The OT is not irrelevant at all. But it's the shadow which pointed to Christ and so understanding it is important to connecting all the dots in the New Covenant. I think the challenging part is understanding what has been fulfilled and what hasn't.

So, the 10 commandments are still valid as God's Law, but we're under Grace (as an example).

I think that it's the areas where Jesus says things that challenge us that are most important. Like this one, actually. We're more comfortable with "an eye for an eye" and we have all our reasons and justifications (IMHO), but then have to reconcile this with Jesus words which challenge that: "Love your enemies".

I'd suggest that the remedy is more to adopt Jesus' viewpoint than it is to justify the opposing argument simply beause we're more comfortable with it.

John Lamoreau This is not a matter of war or peace. If you are a Christian it is a matter of following Christ. If Christ taught His followers war then go. But if he taught His followers love your enemy, do good to those who hate you, to turn the other cheek, to go the extra mile... then if you are a Christian... you should stop making excuses for not following these instructions and start giving your whole heart and life to Christ.

Jesus died on the cross for His enemies. He asks us to be willing to the same.
Yesterday at 8:57pm · John Lamoreau The Christians closest to the time of Christ renounced Christiian participation in violence and war. From the first 300 years of Christianity there is no writing from any of the early church leaders who supported Christians being engaged in any form of violence. None. It was the fallen church that argued the church could be violent.

John Lamoreau “We, who were formerly slayers of one another, not only do not make war upon our enemies, but, for the sake of neither lying nor deceiving those who examine us, gladly die confessing Christ.” - Justin Martyr, 100 - 165 A.D.

“You cannot demand military service of Christians any more than you can of priests. We do not go forth as soldiers.” Origen of Alexandria, 185-254 A.D.

"And so, in this commandment of God, no exception at all ought to be made to the rule that it is always wrong to kill a man, whom God has wished to be regarded as a sacrosanct creature…Thou shalt not kill… It is always unlawful to put a man to death.” - Lactantius of Bithynia, aprox 240-317 A.D.

Martin Gugino My response "Is the pope Catholic"? was to your statement that "Any German who was both aware and supportive of Hitler's injustices, I think it's fair to say, could not have been a follower of Jesus."
Since Cardinal Ratzinger was a German and was both aware of and supportive of Hitler, it follows that you think that the pope is not Catholic. I say that Ratzinger was supportive of the Nazis in that more Nazis than Jews were smuggled out of Italy.

This may be a bit of a stretch, but it is close enough to be worth stating. The many Christians who supported Hitler are like the many Christians that you thank God for that are waging the war on terror - mistaken.

Martin Gugino Paul - you dodged the question - why does Obama repeat the false statement that we have never fought against a democracy? Ans: the implication is that if the leaders of the other countries would just pay attention to the will of their people, as we do here in America (flag waves in breeze), then we would have no need to go kill those people.

This veiled assertion is absurd of course. We kill people not because the ruler is a dictator, but because our Way Of Life is not negotiable, and we need what they have.
[We have obviously undermined many democracies and assisted others who fought against them - as noted in the list referenced - to which we can probably now add Bolivia].

Martin Gugino re:"I'm was very outspoken against Iraq. But I just don't see how we can sit back when we know there are plans being devised to murder innocent lives. "

Kind of an odd argument. That cant be in relation to Iraq. Do you mean that there are Iraqis planning to murder American soldiers, do you?

The invasion of Iraq was not a "mistake", it was a war crime, and Bush & co will be tried and convicted for it.

Martin Gugino Keith re: "Jesus himself pointed out this difference"
I am holding out for a reconciliation of the OT and the NT, so I would like to comment on the difference, which I am sure you know.

An eye for an eye was intended as a limit (No more than: an eye for an eye) I believe. So that Christ's instruction was to through light on what God's heart was, not the practical political this-world matter of restraining excesses. The OT kingdom WAS of this world, not that God intended that, but was dragged into it as He is with so many of our hair brained ideas. (maybe)

Martin Gugino By the way, in Iraq, we have passed 'an eye for an eye' quite a long time ago. Actually, we lost no eyes at all, and our corrupt embargo, itself an act of war, killed hundreds of thousands of innocents. The formulation of "plans devised to kill innocent lives" could be pointed towards the US all too easily.

Charles Pike paul, thank you for sighting a quote from scripture as your source. this makes it easier to see where you are coming from. i can see how you would make those assumptions about matthew 22. "..give to caesar what is caesar's, and give to God what is God's...".

you seem to interpret this as a command or suggestion for us to pay both. perhaps Christ's wish is for us is to weigh what belongs to each. so, for sake of argument we ask our selves, "well, what belongs to caesar?" and we list off things. servants, wives, land, countries, the civilized world. etc. a lot of stuff. the we ask, "what is God's?" and the answer is to long to list, because we realize that everything belongs to God, including caesar and all of his stuff. it all belongs to God. the pharisees were trying to trap Christ. trying to get him to speak out against rome, or against the temple. instead he does something really jiggy and invites them to think for themselves.

It all belongs to God, and there is more "all" than we can even imagine. i am curious, do you have any other examples of Christ endorsing war, taxes, revolution, or rome's political structure?

Martin Gugino @John Lamoreau: right on.

Martin Gugino hermenuitics: the pay tax command implies that war is ok.

My altenative proof text was that Jesus advised people to carry a soldiers burden for two miles rather than one, and that this could be interpreted to mean that he supported the Romans and their wars in so far as they had logistical requirements.

He approved ad hoc "CO" service in the Army. This seems a slightly more direct text that the one you chose (taxes) as a support for His backing of war, but of course, I am intending to ridicule the argument - probably not a nice thing to do.

Charles Pike thank you martin. i was reiterating paul martin's quote of matthew 22. a roman soldier, as occupier, by law could force a subject to carry his burden for only one mile. more than that would be an abuse the soldier could be disciplined for. Jesus has offered a hilarious way to subvert the occupying power. it would make it more worth while to carry one's own load and not risk recrimination.

Martin Gugino yes Charles - we were both struggling with the idea that Mathew 22 on taxes could be interpreted as an acceptance of war. Your understanding of Jesus's reason for 'an extra mile' are amusing, but I don't believe that the advice was offered as a tricky way to subvert the Roman practice. Rather I think it was a suggestion first to accept reality unpleasant as it may seem at times, and then second to be generous even while in that unpleasant reality in recognition of the abundant grace of God if nothing else, and lastly being friendly with grumpy people who are heavily armed is generally a sound idea.

Martin Gugino Regarding Hitler and World War II
Howard Zinn examines our Holy Wars
http://bit.ly/9NajzU

Timothy L. Price I think its needful to differentiate "our" wars as in the secular belonging to the nation states that have to do such to stay in existence and "your wars" putting us outside such belonging into the kingdom of God, which does not have to fight to stay in existence. Our kingdom exists through war, tyranny, "freedom" plenty and famine: coexisting with the reality of the world that the unregenerate have recreated it in their image. Our kingdom is a testimony that contrast theirs, their foolishness and inability to better than "mankind" (thats people in general for all you gender neutral folks) has been in the past. Man cannot "improve" himself in the ultimate sense and war is mere proof. In all the so-called improvements in mankind of the last three centuries, in the last more wars were fought and people killed in such than in the prior 17 centuries COMBINED. That kind of "improvement" I want nothing to do with. This is why all the peace efforts are bullocks of the highest order. Man is not capable. Peace is one of the chief marks of the Kingdom of God. We are peace because we are subjects of the King of peace.

Paul Martin The weirdness factor is only rising here. Martin: study your facts about what the Nazi Youth was. I am ignoring the folly about democracies, etc. The US does not and never has been an aggressor in the spirit of the Axis powers, Russia under Stalin, Amin, Pot, etc. Look into the eyes of those rescued by our courageous in France, Italy, Germany. Speak with English men and women who can recall years of the terror of bombs being dropped into their neighborhoods. Look these people in the eye and peddle this flimsy and trendy pacifism which is being utilized while you enjoy the luxury of freedom at the expense of Christians who had the courage to love their enemies by standing-up to their murderous schemes. I would kill to defend my children, my wife, and for that matter you. We are called to care for the helpless, those being targeted for murder. Jesus never said a word about war, he said many things about murder. And if you want to get fancy with passages about going the extra mile, then I'll misuse passages about Jesus saying he would bring the sword, not peace.

Paul Martin Charles: to your question. Do I have examples of Jesus making endorsements of war, taxes, Rome, etc.?

Here's my logic:

1. Some Christians have firm and ardent convictions about war--namely, that war, in any and all cases, is wrong, and especially wrong for Christians....

2. These Christians cite Jesus as their example and teacher on issues of morality and ethics (war). They are FOLLOWERS of Christ's teachings.

3. During Jesus' life, Rome was an aggressive, pagan, warring, superpower that, at the time, held "God's chosen people" captive.

4. What did Jesus say about Rome in general, and about war specifically?

5. At this point, it seems to me at least, that a proponent of pacifism would have clear, direct and lucid material from Jesus. Instead (as Keith states earlier) he appears to have not shared your passion about the evils of superpowers, military might, Rome's murderous history around the world. Nothing. Not a word. Zilch. Instead, he talks about caring for the lost, least and oppressed. He says so much about social justice--the righting of wrongs.

6. So, to you Charles, why is he so silent about Rome's pagan, murderous and warring regime? Charles, why is he so silent on the issue for which you are all so passionate?

David D. Flowers Paul, you confuse "pacifism" with Jesus' actions. And it's Jesus' living that Keith is promoting (1 Jn. 2:6). Pacifism is non-violent "political" revolt. It uses non-violence with an intent to change the political landscape. It still has in mind the same thing as a person who trusts in the sword to suppress evil. But we are called to overcome evil with the good of Jesus. And that always looks like the cross.

Pacifism doesn't require a person to love their enemies, only trust in non-violence as a method. If it's just a method... I agree... it's a bit "flimsy." Folks like Ghandi can actually hate their enemies and not harm them. But Jesus did something much different. His actions were born solely out of God's love in a wonderful display of the Kingdom of God. And he intended us to follow. Christ and his followers do effect worldly kingdoms by their living, but it is always indirectly, not by directly involving ourselves in their civil affairs. Our citizenship is in "heaven."

Take a long hard look at the New Testament and church history. Ask yourself, "Did Jesus really mean for me to love my enemies as he loved them? Does Jesus truly show us how to live? Why is it that Christians first started killing in the 4th century?" If we are honest... I believe... the answer to these questions will totally change the way we view the world and our radical call to discipleship. His Kingdom is "not of this world" but it is coming to this earth.

Paul Martin Thank you, David. The problem with my position is that I immediately become a non-loving, neo-con, hawk to those taking the true "Jesus/kingdom position." Undergrad and graduate degrees are both in philosophy, and ethics was a big part that. The definition of love varies from believer to believer to believer; the issue if ethics ("what should be done?") from philosopher to philosopher. The argument from the first centuries is irrelevant. So what? Believers have changed their minds on war and on the practice if making the Sign of the Cross. We disagree. But what should we do to today to protect women and children from being murdered en masse? Talk? Have a conversation? Sing All You Need Is Love? Think social justice here. Not how do we do good to the murderers; how do we do good to the murderees?

David D. Flowers Paul, "love" is not defined by Christians, but by Christ. And his love always looks like the cross. It changes the hearts of men... it does not use force to reform their actions. (Matt. 5:38-48; Rom. 12 & 13:8; 1 Cor. 13)

Romans 12-13 contrasts believers with the kingdoms of the world. We are agents of Christ's "love" and are called to overcome evil with that love. The state is ordained to be "agents of wrath" to execute force and suppress the evildoer. What kingdom do we trust?

Regardless, of how Christians have defined "love" through the centuries... it remains the same in Jesus. Look to the Gospels... every time you turn there... you will find Jesus commanding Peter to put away his sword. And it was Peter that said we should mimic Christ's example of love in patient suffering. I have found that there have always been those who have taken Jesus at his word. They were the ones being persecuted by the state and the imperial Church who discarded those first-century believers as primitive.

Jesus' love always looks like His example. If we move away from that... it's all relative and we've lost Christianity. There can be no Christianity without Christ.

Paul Martin Oh no, David! I shudder. I just realized that I am not taking "Jesus at his word." I guess I'm not a real follower. Thank you also for pointing out that love is defined by Christ. I will now turn my attention to the gospels instead of of diaries of Charles Manson.

Has it dawned on you that good people might disagree about Christ's definition of love? Or do you possess some supernatural interpretive powers that those for whom you disagree lack?

I think Jesus calls us to be inclusive of others' views, without judging them as having "Christianity without Christ." That's old fashioned fundamentalism.

Martin Gugino Paul - we clearly disagree.
-Re: the US has never been that bad an aggressor: The war against Iraq was a war of aggression. Did you forget? Together with the "run-up" to the war, sanctions, killed maybe a million people? And at the other end of our glorious history, we see the US killing off the Indians. Manifest Destiny was realized by the gun. The USA has pursued its national interests even when it could not achieve those interests peacefully, viz The Panama Canal; the actions of the Dulles boys supporting the United Fruit Company.

- I am sure you would retract your comment that freedom is a luxury. Not sure what you mean by the folly of democracy - you probably mean that you think that my argument related to democracies is foolish, but of course, I don't think so; I think it betrays a deep national self-deception, as I pointed out.

- I don't take seriously the idea that Jesus forbids killing but allows war.

- You ask - what should we do about evil and evil doers? Like the Nazis. And your solution is to say that luckily many Christian soldiers killed them lovingly? Not historical, obviously. Or possibly you say that that is the ideal, what Christ would want, which we approximated more or less. Well, less.

-You say Jesus never said a word about war? I thought you were arguing that by supporting taxes he was approving war. Glad to see that you have stepped away from that thought. And, Jesus did mention "war" twice in the gospels.

- yes He did say "I came not to send peace, but a sword."
meaning I assume something like "Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed."

Keith Giles Paul: I don't know David very well (we're just "online friends") but I don't think he's intentionally trying to insult you here. I think (maybe I'm wrong?) that he's pointing out his own difficulty with your position when you appeal to other philosophers or modern examples to justify your postion.

Ok, maybe I'm projecting here. I guess I have a problem with that, too.

For me, (and I know for you as well, Paul), I'm trying to follow Jesus here, and it makes me nervous to interpret the words of Jesus through Catholic saints or political figures or even my own inner voice. ...

I am constantly being challenged by the words of Jesus. "If you look at a woman lustfully you have committed adultry in your heart". Now, I can go to all sorts of other sources and smooth that statement out until I'm comfortable with it...or I can grapple with those actual words on a daily basis and draw wisdom from Christ and try to reconcile His words with my life.

So, we wouldn't recommend that a brother in Christ treat the words of Jesus in this way when it comes to lust or greed or anger, etc...and it makes me nervous when we appear to waffle on His words about loving our enemies and turning the other cheek, etc.

We know that the Kingdom is upside down to the World system. We should expect that His words would challenge and come into conflict with what we know to be common. "That's just the way things are" and "The real world doesnt' work that way" are not acceptable responses to the sermon on the mount.

David D. Flowers Paul, please do not resort to sarcasm. I'm really not trying to be rude. It is Jesus' word when we call others to live by "love your enemies." It's not my word... it's His. And living by it... is "taking Jesus at His word."

I know good people disagree, brother. I didn't always believe this way. It seemed quite foolish to me at first. But there was simply no way I could reconcile the American view of Jesus with the Christ of the Gospels. If there is no authority in the words of Jesus, then I guess there's nothing to talk about.

Jesus "includes" people into himself. And he "excludes" those not coming into the Kingdom of God by the way in which he has laid before us....

Love you, bro.

Martin Gugino I want to express my thanks to all who are contributing.

David D. Flowers Thank you, Martin. :-)

Paul Martin Oh but Martin. I never defended war with Iraq. In fact, I vote for John Kerry because Bush's war was totally unjustified and evil. That was not a just war. Nor was the murdering of the Indians. You see, I am support of just wars. Those that save the lives of millions of innocent people who are under direct threat. Those I support precisely because of the call of Jesus for social justice--to defend the cause of the weak and defenseless.

Don't categorize me as one ignorant of the US's imperfections. May I say it again... I am not a hawk. Extremes, Martin, are easy. Either war or no war. Either Jesus or not Jesus. Either peace or violence. I am glad to have on my side great liberals (meaning non-hawks) like FDR, Kennedy, Clinton, Obama, all of whom understand the sad necessity war (though they are never perfect either).,

Martin Gugino Paul re " why is he so silent on the issue for which you are all so passionate?" - or - why is christ silent on the Roman oppression?

Ans: I assume that he felt that the corruption in the temple was the issue that needed urgent attention, and that the oppressive Roman administration could only kill the body; in the larger scheme of things, not that important.

Paul Martin David. There is no "American view of Jesus." There are people. Millions. Each with his or her own view on Jesus. There are individual views, like yours and mine. There is not one "American view."

David D. Flowers Paul, I understand. I had other things in mind as well. You're right, maybe that's not the best descriptor when targeting this issue alone. I guess I find that there's usually a whole system of thought that accompanies the belief that it's perfectly in-keeping with the Christian faith to support war in any form.

Martin Gugino david - yes!
"It changes the hearts of men... it does not use force to reform their actions."
Not only is war useless, so is force.

Keith Giles I would also like to thank everyone in this thread for maintaining civility and demonstrating what brotherly Christian love (and debate) should look like.

I would also acknowledge that this issue is not an easy one and that we are all in process when it comes to grappling with this - and every - command of Jesus.

Charles Pike paul, i am having a little trouble following you. you seem to be addressing several people and issues at once. the result is rather convoluted. i say this with no passion whatsoever. by the way, thank you for listing your degrees, i am a high school drop out. in which courses did they teach you that failure to mention a subject is a defacto endorsement of anything? i am very interested in the logic and assumptions you make about Christ based upon what he does not say. thanks.

Paul Martin I couldn't agree with you more, Keith. I guess my feathers get a bit whacked when I hear the dualism. I read the exact words you read. I've given my life to promoting, preaching, living, teaching, sacrificing to follow these words. I'm called a liberal by my conservative friends, a hawk/right-winger by those with views like yours. I look at individual issue. I read the red letters every day. Jesus is my final source.

But you and I have disagreed before on "other sources." If you are honest, you also drink for other sources (Shane Claiborne?, Jim Wallis?). Honesty, Keith. Each of us has a free will, a choice, as to what genres of literature we will attend to. You seem to gently critique the influence of "Catholic Saints or political figures" upon my thinking.

But I'm just like you, and David, and Martin. I am an ardent follower of Jesus Christ, and very, very serious about the thoughtful study of his teachings, and, moreover living them....

And yet, we disagree. But please don't imply my lack or unwillingness to take them seriously, just because my interpretations differ from your.

That, to me at least, is a judgment of my heart.

Martin Gugino Paul: " how do we do good to the murderees?"

Yes how do we protect, for example, the children.

Again, as an example, the pretty girl whose picture I use as an icon, recovering nicely from a cluster bomb.

Ans: oppose the war.

David D. Flowers Thanks for your patience, Paul.

What do you think about Jesus' words "love your enemies... turn the other cheek" and the apostle Paul's words "love does no harm to its neighbor"?

How do you understand "Those who claim to live in Him must walk as Jesus did."
1 John 2:6

Keith Giles To go back to our original touch point: "War is not Christian" was the statement that launched this dialog. My point was that it is not specifically "Of Christ" to kill another person for any reason.

When we debate the need for use of force, or the merits of a"Just War", etc. we are not specifically doing so as followers of Jesus. (I feel).

Under the definition of "What is a Christian?" I would argue that "one who participates in the shedding of blood" does not belong there.

Charles Pike but keith, isnt this what the eucharist is all about :) ??

Paul Martin OK, Charles. War is evil. Rome was a warring machine. Jesus did not directly speak about Rome. Keith agrees on that earlier.

Peter tried to stop the cross; he struggled earlier about his Lord being murdered, earlier.

The passage about the sword is about Jesus not letting Peter get in the way of the cross, not about war....

Gotta go, guys. I love you all. I pray that we be honest with ourselves. We write about all this without the immediate threat of violence to us and our loved ones.

I really wonder if your respective Christian pacifism would endure while your families were under the direct threat of evil and crazed murderers.

Keith, Jesus said murder is also about hating your brother though your words. Did he mean that literally? If he did, then murder cannot be reduced only to physical killing. So the believer that shoots and kills with a gun is no different than he that shoots hate with his mouth. So I guess we are all murders?

Keith Giles You tell me, Paul. What did Jesus intend to communicate?

David D. Flowers Paul, Jesus didn't speak to Christian's about war because his words and living preclude the notion that his followers can kill for Rome. He is calling them to come out of Rome and come into the Kingdom.

Is it wise to compartmentalize Jesus' words and actions? To say that Jesus simply didn't want them to interfere with the cross is not only a stretch here... but it also says that Jesus' words and actions were merely a guise in order that he might get nailed to a tree for our sins. If this is the case, then Jesus doesn't truly show us the character of God and how to live out the Kingdom on the earth. He only wants to "woo" us by words that don't really mean what they mean. Then we make Jesus out to be a liar and a deceiver.

Was Peter really going to stop the cross from happening? One lone man who can't swing a sword right (chopping of ears instead of heads)? And Jesus put the man's ear back on his head. Does that not reveal something else is going on in the garden?

Jesus went on to say he was not leading a bunch of rebels that you need to come at him with clubs. Why? Is this just a bunch of nice proverbial adages or is Jesus speaking about the eternal nature of His Kingdom that is "not of this world"?

I really hope we can dialogue about this. It just seems to me you have quickly swept Christ words aside to go about this business of swinging swords for Rome.

Paul Martin Again, David, your comments are sad. You accuse me of sweeping Jesus' words aside because my interpretation differs from yours. Brother, I hate war too. Call me one who compartmentalizes. Call me names. I respect you nonetheless. I respect your earnest belief in your position. Even though I disagree with its conclusions. I will remain inclusive and tolerant of all those serious about understanding and following the teachings of Jesus. Bless you.

David D. Flowers Paul said: "We write about all this without the immediate threat of violence to us and our loved ones. I really wonder if your respective Christian pacifism would endure while your families were under the direct threat of evil and crazed murderers."

There's always a threat to us believers. We are like "sheep for the slaughter" everyday. And there are many Christians presently enduring extreme persecution that would disagree with you. Some of them pray that we would experience this "immediate" threat in order that we might know the real power that is missing in our pop-culture Christianity.

And again... it's not "pacifism." I clarified that in a previous comment: it's living like Christ called us to live (as he lived) and ceasing this carnal desire to trust in redemptive violence and protecting earthly goods. We are called to overcome evil by cross-shaped living... always.

Paul Martin Keith: he intended to communicate that we are all sinners in need of grace. We all murder with our mouths. Murder is not only about the physical. Hate and divisiveness and lust is the root of all war. Hate is the problem, it is the genus. War is a species of hate. Peace is more than mere pacifism. Christians have honestly believed that stopping rampant murdering was a form of social justice. You just cannot dismiss these people as being un-Christian. That judges the heart of the person. You might say that you disagree with their interpretation; but to say they are not followers of Christ, is wrong.

I stood up to your view on the church, exactly for the same reason. Let's separate people from their ideas. People are not evil or not Christians because they differ in their respective interpretations. Paul SPECIFICALLY gives us instruction on issue for which Christians disagree. His summary: don't judge you brother, don't be mean to him, he's part of God's family even though you disagree with him on war and church polity.

Paul Martin David: when I said "we" I was referring to you and me. Your theory on pacifism is easy as long as you remain in your warm living room, with your remote control. It's different from previous believers who did not have the luxury you now have--who had to put their pacifism into action at the expense of the lives of their loved ones.

David D. Flowers Paul, I am not "accusing" you of anything. I am only saying that you have not sufficiently dealt with the words and example of Jesus... and the entire New Testament. You can not sweep aside his words with a quick jab of the computer keys by presenting a weak argument that doesn't reflect any serious engagement with the text.

I'm not calling you names. I expressed my heart before... you never acknowledged it. I am sorry if our limits on this thread has given you that impression. I'm simply trying to talk about the words of Christ.

Martin Gugino Paul: "So the believer that shoots and kills with a gun is no different than he that shoots hate with his mouth"
Reply: "no different" is not the right phrase. But I do agree that "pushing someone out of your heart" is the action that is being spoken against, of which shooting would be a typical extreme manifestation.

Paul Martin Again, David. Because you don't "see" my interpretations, you accuse me, me, say I "sweep aside his words." Sad. Accusatory. Mean.

We could play tennis with his words all day long. I could cite passage after passage, just to have you judge me again of not being a real follower.

I could tell you that he says "inasmuch as you've done it to the least of these, you've done it unto me." Then, I could say that saving hundreds of thousands of captives on the brink of death in concentration camps, IN MY HONEST VIEW, is a mode of following Jesus. But you will accuse ME of "not sufficiently" dealing with the words and example of Jesus..."and the entire New Testament."

So, my friend, I cannot convince you. But I do respect you, and know that you are sure of your position, even though I disagree. But I will not accuse you of sweeping aside anything. Peace to you.

Martin Gugino Paul: What's the reference for this: Peter tried to stop the cross?..... ?Is it this: http://bit.ly/beb3AX

Here Christ looks at Peter and sees a flash of Satan - surely the enemy. Does he try to kill him? No. Does He reject him? No, not even Satan.

David D. Flowers Paul, you have spent the majority of this thread arguing about the differences of opinion that Christian's have on the issue and insistent on driving in one direction (regardless of what others are actually saying)... instead of meeting us around the words of Jesus. That's my only concern. I will back out now.

JUST TO BE CLEAR: If we are calling ourselves "Christian"... we must look to Christ in everything and follow His example. He is central and supreme for life and living. We must not be so quick to resort to philosophy, ethics, and human logic to come to any "not of this world" interpretation.

Blessings, bro. If you are interested in discussing these things further, please shoot me (poor choice of words) a message. :-) Thanks!

Martin Gugino Paul, here is a problem. you say: "Christians have honestly believed that stopping rampant murdering was a form of social justice. You just cannot dismiss these people as being un-Christian."

Let's forget Christ. Let's go back to an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, a much more lax standard. Even by that standard, we need to stop the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have exceeded our allotment of eyes and teeth five times over.

Why do you not see the fire-bombing of Dresden and Tokyo, the atomic bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the napalming of villages in Vietnam and France as rampant murder?

Paul Martin And that's what I just did in my last comment, David. I cited a specific passage...of Jesus' words! I met you "around the words of Jesus." And you didn't respond to them.

Earlier in the thread, I commented on Jesus' lack of specific teaching on a topic--war. I surmise, if war was such a big deal, if governments and politics, and policy was so paramount, why didn't Jesus speak specifically about them? Michael has much to say, as believer, about the US and its anti-Christian policies. So, it would seem to me, that Jesus would have shared this kind of explicit censure of Rome.

He doesn't. So Keith concluded earlier that "Jesus was not concerned w/ politics..." If HE wasn't concerned with politics, and we are to follow his example, why are you concerned with politics?

Paul Martin Michael: I really have to go this time...(: There's a context to the "eye for eye" passage that I don't have time for.

I despise the atrocities you cite. Pathetic.

I can only say that many believe the actions to be defensive, ultimately, in nature.

We did not, one day, decide to invade France or Japan or Vietnam. There was justification. You know that. We tried to stay out of WWII for years. You know that, too. Estimates were that millions of innocent lives would be lost if Japan didn't stop. Germany had already murdered millions before their (forced) surrender.

Some hold that the killing of those lives prevented the killing of millions of others. Hard stuff, I know. Sad. Seems to me, though, that the evil initiated (in these cases) with murderous aggressors. Would it be just have let Hitler to take over the world (then exterminate and experiment on "sub-humans"?).

Keith Giles Jesus doesn't explicity speak about torturing puppies or child trafficking, etc., etc., but we can take what he did teach about and apply those principles of the Kingdom - or at least wrestle with the application of them - in light of His life, His example, and how the earliest disciples who walked with Him responded.

Martin Gugino paul. "accuse me of sweeping Jesus' words aside because my interpretation differs from yours." Not exactly.

He IS saying show me the words that you interpret to mean that war, that killing another, is OK, in the face of Love Your Enemy. Show where it says that people are allowed to kill provided that they are in an official army and the Congress has declared war, and they need to protect the lives of their darling children or national interests or do regime change.

Some may want to justify war on the basis of common sense, but your claim is that your interpretation of His words is different.

David D. Flowers Ok, I couldn't resist.... :-)

Paul, I did answer your question. Are you reading my comments? I said...

"Jesus didn't speak to Christian's about war because his words and living preclude the notion that his followers can kill for Rome. He is calling them to come out of Rome and come into the Kingdom."

Martin Gugino Paul: "You see, I am a supporter of just wars."

Possibly it would help if you explain how one goes about justifying war, or at least say that the justification for war is not to be based on the words of the gospels or the leading of the Holy Spirit.

David D. Flowers I highly recommend the book: "The Myth of a Christian Nation" by Gregory Boyd. His presentation on "war" and the rest of the concerns is one of the best I have read. It's a very helpful book for those interested.

Keith Giles Well, if you need a source outside of Jesus and the NT, I'd suggest "Jesus for President" by Shane Claiborne and that other dude.

Paul Martin Keith. From a point of grammar, War is not Christian" is incorrect. Christians have fought in wars. Christians have had abortions. Christians have not loved their enemies. Christians have been materialistic and selfish and thieves and fornicators and blind to the plight of the poor. For 2000 years. You and me too. None of us are true followers of Christ.

David D. Flowers "Jesus for President" was good. I also like "Jesus and Empire" by Richard Horsley. "Mere Discipleship" by Lee Camp is challenging. But that's for us who believe that books can help shed light on the New Testament. :-)

Martin Gugino Paul:I could tell you that he says "inasmuch as you've done it to the least of these, you've done it unto me."

Is this the passage upon which you want to base your defense of war?

You also did mention you could cite passage after passage. I wonder what the next passage might be?

Martin Gugino Paul "I can only say that many believe the actions to be defensive, ultimately, in nature."

Michael: So defensive wars are ok then?
Paul: There was justification. you know it.

Michael: I thought that was what we were questioning: Is there justification for war. I mean, for followers, and what is it. That's "begging the question", it its original (and correct may I say) sense....

Paul: Estimates were that millions of innocent lives would be lost if Japan didn't stop."
Michael: Yes, but were those estimates after the fact attempts to justify of a war crime? Yup. http://bit.ly/c33NkX

Martin Gugino Paul:"Christians have fought in wars. "
Michal: True but aside from the point. The question is SHOULD Christians have fought in wars. Or under what conditions SHOULD Christians fight in wars, or what kind of wars SHOULD Christians fight in. You mention "just wars" I assume referring to a vast collection of Catholic literature. But could you summarize one or two of the more salient points. You mention saving innocents or helping the poor. So do you mean it is ok to kill the strong to save the weak? Or kill the rich to save the poor? And can you explain if or how the other statements in the NT about "love your enemy" etc do or do not restrain that interpretation.

Martin Gugino It would be nice to collect all these comments and try to arrange all the arguments in a tree of some sort. some software thing that would do this would be so helpful.

Keith Giles Paul: I would say, in your examples above, that whenever Christians do those things: kill, steal, committ adultry, etc., that they are not following Jesus in those actions. I think that is my point. Whenever a follower of Jesus engages in activity that is un-Christlike they are not "following Jesus" in that action.

So, when I say, "War is not Christian" I am saying that whenever a follower of Jesus engages in this un-Christlike activity they are not being like Christ.

"Nobody Follows Jesus"...hmmm..sounds like a great title for a book!

Paul Martin You are funny, Keith.

Martin Gugino I think that Paul's question amounts to: what do we do about Hitler?

He could use Proverbs 24:11-12
11 Rescue those being led away to death;
hold back those staggering toward slaughter....
12 If you say, "But we knew nothing about this,"
does not he who weighs the heart perceive it?
Does not he who guards your life know it?

This is, I believe, the Operation Rescue text.

The problem with using this text is that it is intended to stimulate involvement, not limit involvement; so that you cant get at the limits through this text, in my opinion.

As to Hitler, Dietrich Bonhoeffer's answer was it was worth a try to assassinate Hitler. This didn't work out well as a practical matter, nor establish its morality.

**
Keith Giles It's amazing to me how those 4 words can cause such a negative reaction. It makes me wonder, what if I had said, "War IS Christian" - would I have an equal level of response or would I get "Amen, brother!"...?

David D. Flowers Yep. In our last organized church a few years ago, we were basically told we weren't welcome there anymore because we believed Jesus when he said, "love your enemies" and Paul when he said, "love does no harm to its neighbor."

I was actually asked, "Where in 'love your enemies' does it say not to kill them?" I kid you not. We stood up against nationalism and began questioning the church's faithfulness to the teachings of Jesus. This concern was one among many growing suspicions we had about the Church. It factored in to our exodus of organized religion.

Isn't it a horrible thing that we must defend this among the brethren? I have found it's not so much a confusion with the Old and New Testament Scriptures as much as it is an unhealthy love of the world that forces us to read those Scriptures in keeping with our blind nationalism. The very walls of tribalism that Christ destroyed on the cross.

Derrick Pedranti I hear you both but remember sometimes war is necessary. I agree which wars is indeed debatable. But we wouldn't have our nation without the Revolutionary War. And we might not still have it if we didn't fight in WWII... I believe there is a difference between a nation defending it's national security and us loving the neighbors who mistreat us. Unfortunately we live in a fallen world where sometimes we need to protect ourselves and our children from evil forces that would kill or enslave us.

Keith Giles For a follower of Jesus who is chiefly concerned with following Christ, the question of whether or not war is necessary or not is moot. It doesn't matter to us because we are not going to be fighting in those wars or taking another human life to show our nationalism.

War is a fact of life. I agree. But Christians need not participate in those wars.

Ruth Bujanda-Moore @ Keith: "Amen, brother!" (and no, you would not have gotten that response from me had you posted "War IS Christian)

Derrick Pedranti I don't think though that soldiers who fight to defend our country are not true Christians.

We are blessed to have the freedom to talk about these things and voice our opinions and religious freedom without being jailed or killed for it. I'm thankful for those who fought for those freedoms.

And remember if we didn't fight against ruthless madmen like Hitler, we might be living under tyranny and genocide. War in of itself is a terrible thing but I think unfortunately sometimes necessary.

Ruth Bujanda-Moore @ Derrick: "we might be living under tyranny and genocide"...WE who? There are many peoples, cultures still living under these conditions, and war (whether OURs or not) does not create sustainable, viable solutions to these and other horrid conditions.

Derrick Pedranti Do you think we should have not fought against Hitler? Do you think we should have a national defense that protects us against foreign invaders? Is it ever okay to fight against these kinds of atrocities? I believe in my heart that it is. And even in the Bible some battles are righteous. Agree to disagree I guess. I still love you guys! :)

Keith Giles Derrick: What I want to point out is that being a follower of Christ isn't the same as being an American. So, when you say, "We are blessed to have the freedom to talk about these things.." I agree, but is having that freedom "Christian"? Wasn't our faith born under the tyranny and oppression you say we should be afraid of?

Not that I WANT to live under tyranny or oppression, but my point is that Christians aren't called to fight or kill to avoid oppression and tyranny. In fact, orginally, the only blood shed in opposition to Government such as this was our own as we (followers of Jesus) lived peacefully and died by the sword. Was that "UnChristian"?

Derrick Pedranti I agree with your last point. There is no greater love than to give your life for the Lord or your brother. That definitely is Christian. Though we can never comprehend what that would be like -- to give yourself over to be eaten by lions -- we should never deny our faith and be willing to suffer the consequences for doing so.

If someone came into my house and tried to kill my wife and children and I killed that person to stop them I don't think that goes against the teachings of Jesus. In that case I wouldn't sacrifice my family or myself for this person's evil intent.

Forget nationalism. I agree with you that the life of a person in another country is viewed equally in God's eyes. But if an evil ruler like Stalin tried to invade this country, impose their rule, enslave the citizens, ban Christian or for that matter, free expression and commit genocide, I don't think it's unchristian to fight against him. Remember that God viewed some battles as righteous such as those fought by David. BTW, this stuff can get a bit heated but it's good to talk about it!

Keith Giles Derrick: In the case of self-defense or the defense of the innocent, it is not always automatic that our response should result in the death of the perpetrator. It's possible to disarm them, to render them unable to harm others, etc. Killing shouldn't be our intent- even in that extreme example.

As you point out, if I were to take the life of someone who was attempting to harm an innocent then perhaps that would not be a sin (murder), assuming I did not want or intend to kill the person.

Again, this is not my original point. My point was that War is not Christian. All of the other debate is fascinating, and important, but not exactly on point.

For a follower of Jesus, the one who said, "love your enemies", it is not consistent to engage directly in the act of taking another human life in War. Period.

Should wars be fought? Should we be allowed to defend our children from home invasion? I think these are good conversations to have. And we are. But, again, this was not my original point.

Keith Giles We can fight, but does that always mean killing? MLK fought for human rights, but the only one who died was MLK.

Again, if you want to justify violence you have to go to the OT. But God wouldn't allow David to build His Temple on Earth. Why? Because David had blood on his hands. Apparently there is a need to separate these two things: violence and holiness.

**
NOTE: A huge "Thank you" to everyone who participated in this long, and mostly civil dialog of such a touchy subject.

Share your comments and reactions below if you like.

Peace!
kg

More: Early Christians on Peace

2011-11-25T07:37:00.000-08:00

"Wherever arms have glittered, they must be banished and exterminated from thence."
—Lactantius’ Divine Institutes IV

"I do not wish to be a king; I am not anxious to be rich; I decline military command... Die to the world, repudiating the madness that is in it."
—Tatian’s address to the Greeks

Meet Your Fighters: Chase Andre

2011-11-25T04:53:00.000-08:00

Chase Andre began his fight club training when his grandma bought him karate lessons at 5 years old. Over the next 15 years of study, he discovered, as Mr. Miyagi taught, that one trains so he does not have to fight. This practice of preemptive meditation initiated a process that informed many facets of his thought life.

At a Vineyard Church in Cape Coral, FL, Chase’s view of the Kingdom of God bloomed. There, he helped develop and execute a month-long internship for high school students — a regular "Project Mayhem," expressed as a monastic boot camp — that experimented in intentional community and discipleship.

While living in Taichung, Taiwan, the Kingdom expanded again. Submerged in another society, Chase’s white-American cultural lenses fell off his eyes like scales. As it often does, the backwards Kingdom turned his world upside down. After a year spent living as an expatriate, he returned to the States with a lot of questions about the unquestioned status quo. Yet, more than ever, Chase was convinced that a strong, intentional community, empowered in prayer and pursuing the Way of Jesus together, is the best way to live.

Since Taiwan, Chase has experienced poverty in Thailand, India and Haiti. Currently living in Southern California, Chase attends Biola University where he pursues a degree in communication studies, with a minor in philosophy. There, he is an active member of the Dorothy Day Society, the White Identity Process Group (a discussion group for helping white people understand God's multi-ethnic, and often segregated Kingdom), and serves as the assistant director of Revive Ministries.

Points of Interest:
*The Kingdom of God
*Prayer as Protest
*Racial reconciliation as a battle against systemic poverty
*Changing rhetoric as subversive opposition

Like Jesus?

2011-11-24T06:33:00.000-08:00

Those in favor of war always make up a fictitious story to think about because they don't believe that the early believers didnt fight back and neither should they

not for themselves

not for their family

not for others

they wouldnt even take a person to court normally

even for murder because it would be in a sense killing someone

but humans will do what they want regardless of if they believe it is wrong or right

people dont want peace unless peace is given to them

Christ DIED for His enemies

so should we.

-Mike Xpietoe Pollie
September 12, 2010 at 10:30pm

Look Down From Space

2011-11-23T06:30:00.000-08:00

It was a surreal night to say the least. The four of us, two former astronauts, an Air Force Major General and I sat on the front porch sipping single malt scotch and Jeremiah Weed while a huge air force jet was making touch-and-go’s a hundred yards away.

When in the company of astronauts, the conversation, undoubtedly, turns to space travel. It is an experience so few people in the world have ever had or will ever have the opportunity to try, so the curiosity of the two non-astronauts at the table was bubbling. It was the two-star general who asked the question that we both needed to know the answer to: “did going to space change you?”

The first astronaut answered. “It didn’t change me,” he said, “but it reinforced many of the values I already held.” The second astronaut had been on more missions and spent more time in space than her colleague. “Yes,” she said, “it profoundly changed me. If you didn’t go up a pacifist, odds are pretty good you came back as one.”

This is a common theme among those who have ever had the opportunity to look back at our planet from so far away. Looking down at our little blue world, free from all the noise and hubbub, they can’t help but think: why can’t we all just get along.

This perspective is not unique to astronauts. We all have the ability to understand more when we step back to look at a situation with a wide-angle lens. Especially at times when we can see no alternative than to respond with anger, wage “war” with our competition or even just feel like we can’t see the light at the end of the tunnel. In these moments, we need to stop and pretend we are looking at the situation from space.

MORE AT THIS LINK
HERE

Meet Your Fighters: Shane Crash

2011-11-22T14:19:00.000-08:00

"Shane Crash is an advocate for the homeless who has published several zines centered around social justice."

Taking Points: The importance of non-violence in bringing about meaningful social change.

LEARN MORE
HERE

RADICAL LOVE IN COLLISION WITH PATRIOTIC SENTIMENT

2011-11-22T06:43:00.000-08:00

Over the last few days I have been thinking a lot about how following Jesus affects our actual lives. Specifically, I’ve been thinking a lot about what it really means to love our enemies, and turn the other cheek, and overcome evil with good. If I take the words of Jesus seriously, they have strong implications for me when it comes to war, and violence, and torture.

Last week an article was published that revealed a disappointing trend for church-going Christians to support the torture of our enemies. This lead me to respond here on this blog and a dialog was started in the comments section that continues to challenge my ideas of sincere discipleship to Christ and how it collides with my ingrained sense of patriotic pride.

You see, I am a good Republican Christian. Or, at least, I was raised as one in my Southern Baptist church back in Texas. These radical ideas of actually following Jesus and putting his words and teachings into practice are only just now beginning to churn within my heart and mind. I hear myself saying things I never thought I would say, and part of me bristles with the sound of my own voice and the inflection of these anti-military, pro-peace concepts.

Beyond my own internal struggles with these radical ideas of peace and love for enemies, I have an additional challenge to wrestle with. My father-in-law spent most of his life in the military and civil service. Several of my dearest friends are either in the military now or have served overseas in the Gulf War. I do not speak of these things lightly or without full realization that my words here may have emotional consequences. Let me apologize in advance to those friends of mine who are confused by what I’m suggesting here. My intention is not to offend or to insult you or anyone else in the military. But, when I honestly ask these questions and investigate these issues, I am troubled by what I see and hear and learn.

Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." – John 18:36

What does it mean to be part of the Kingdom of God? What is the true cost of following Jesus? Am I willing to follow Him even if it means giving up my identity as a good American citizen? What do I do when the Gospel and the Constitution collide?

Where do my allegiances lie?

How do you obey Jesus in the command to love your enemy and still take up a weapon and kill him with it?

How do you obey Jesus in the command to turn the other cheek and drop bombs on his children?

How do you obey Jesus in the command to pray for those who persecute you and forgive those who hate you and fire rockets into their cities?

For anyone serious about following Jesus you have to start, as you might have guessed, with Jesus. What did Jesus teach? How did Jesus model our practice of faith?

How did those first Christians walk out the things that Jesus taught them? We can look at how they walked and lived and practiced following Jesus for a clue as to how we (you and I) should follow also Jesus.

Those early Christians (for over 300 years) were put to the sword, thrown to the lions, had property confiscated, were imprisoned, burned alive, etc. and not one single Christian (not one in all of our recorded history, whether pagan or Christian in origin) - not one of them took up a sword in self-defense. Not one of them killed to protect their property. Not one of them killed to save themselves from being imprisoned or tortured or burned or eaten alive.

Is this compatible with the American Dream? Does this behavior have any correlation with the founders of American independence? Hardly. Although we’re always told that our founding fathers were focused on creating a nation where religious freedom was paramount, it seems incongruous for a follower of Jesus to fight for his right to love his enemies peacefully.

How did we get to this point? After about 300 years of enduring oppression and persecution, Emperor Constantine not only lifted the boot from the necks of Christians, he put their leaders on the payroll of the Empire, handed them ornate marble temples to worship in and elevated their pastors to high positions within the political arena.

What’s more, Constantine was allowed to re-define for the entire Church what it meant to be a Christian. Before this, a follower of Jesus was defined as someone who put the words and teachings of Jesus into practice every day of their life. After Constantine’s influence, the definition of "Christian" was changed to: "Someone who believes a set of doctrines". This definition still dominates our imaginations today, in fact. And I believe it’s why Christians today can claim to be “followers of Jesus” without actually, you know, “following” Him.

The effect on the Christian community of Constantine’s day was devastating. Within just one generation we have those same peaceful, formerly-oppressed Christians taking up the sword to go and put to death and oppress and persecute another group of people who disagree with their religion. The oppressed become the oppressors. Those under the sword now take up the sword and fight for the very Empire that once put them to death.

This same paradigm shift is what allows Christians in America to support torture, and to cheer military victory, and to participate in the killing with little or no reservations about how any of this might be anti-Christian behavior.

I have to ask, can you honestly picture Jesus allowing or endorsing or supporting torture? Really? Can you honestly picture Jesus blessing his disciples to go out and kill people? Seriously?

I can't. I'm sorry.

As Lew Rockwell, author of “Christianity and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State” asks:

“Can a Christian smash someone against a wall in the name of the Lord Jesus? Can a Christian heartily lock someone in a dark box for hours at a time? Can a Christian deprive someone of sleep to the glory of God? Can a Christian give thanks to God while he hangs someone from the ceiling?

Sure he can, but not without violating the whole tenor of the New Testament.

Christians are told to put off anger, wrath, and malice (Colossians 3:8), to not render evil for evil (1 Thessalonians 5:15), to not give offense (1 Corinthians 10:30), to abstain from all appearance of evil (1 Thessalonians 5:22), to not be a brawler (Titus 3:2), and to abhor that which is evil (Romans 12:9). I think this rules out waterboarding.”

I must agree.

If we are serving a king and a kingdom from this world, then let us take up arms against our oppressors and kill every last one of them. However, if our king and our kingdom is not of this world, then let us not fight. Instead let us obey our King and love our enemies, pray for those who persecute us and do good to those who hate us.

Let us live a life where practicing our faith and actually following Jesus with our everyday life defines our Christianity, no matter what.

-peace,
kg

Clement of Alexandria on Peace and Love

2011-11-21T06:36:00.000-08:00

"As simple and quiet sisters, peace and love require no arms. For it is not in war, but in peace, that we are trained."

"Above all, Christians are not allowed to correct with violence."
—Clement of Alexandria

Meet Your Fighters: Crissy Brooks

2011-11-21T05:23:00.000-08:00

Crissy Brooks is the Executive Director and Co-Founder of Mika Community Development Corporation in her hometown, Costa Mesa, CA. Mika works with neighbors and church partners to transform their city through neighborhood organizing and youth development. Their desire is to see Costa Mesa reflect the justice and mercy of God’s Kingdom.

Crissy serves on the board of CCDA (Christian Community Development Association). She has a deep desire to see Comprehensive Immigration Reform and works toward that end. She loves to run, write, and travel.

Read Crissy's article "THE GOD WHO SEES" published at Sojourner's website:
HERE

Crissy's Recommended Reading List:
"Welcoming the Stranger" by Soerens and Hwang
"Christians at the Border" by Daniel Carroll

MENNO SIMONS ON NON-VIOLENCE

2011-11-20T06:36:00.000-08:00

If Christ fights his enemies with the sword of his mouth, if he smites the earth with the rod of his mouth, and slay the wicked with the breath of his lips; and if we are to be conformed unto his image, how can we, then, fight our enemies with any other sword? Does not the apostle Peter say, "For even hereunto were ye called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: sho did not sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously?" 1 Pet. 2:21-23; Matt. 16:24. This accords with the words of John who says, That he that abides in Christ, walks as Christ walked. Christ himself says, "Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me," Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23. Again, "My sheep hear my voice .... and they follow me," Jn. 10:27. And this is the voice of Christ, "Ye have heard that it hath been said, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."

Again, Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy: But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven, for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. [pp. 435-436]

O, beloved reader, our weapons are not swords and spears, but patience, silence and hope, and the word of God. With these we must maintain our cause and defend it. Paul says, "The weapons of our warfare are not carnal; but mighty through God." With these we intend and desire to resist the kingdom of the devil; and not with swords, spears, cannons and coats of mail.

True christians know not vengeance, no matter how they are maltreated; in patience they possess their souls, Luke 21:18; and do not break their peace, even, if they should be tempted by bondage, torture, poverty, and, besides, by the sword and fire. They do not cry for vengeance as do the world; but, with Christ, they supplicate and pray: "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do," Luke 23:34; Acts 7:60.

According to the declaration of the prophet, they have beaten their swords into
plowshares and their spears into pruning-hooks. [p. 307]

NOTE: All excerpts are from The complete works of Menno Simon (Elkhart, Ind., 1871).

MORE ONLINE

SHANE CRASH ENTERS THE RING

2011-11-19T06:25:00.000-08:00

On Non-Violence

The New Testament commands us never to “repay evil with evil” but instead to “overcome evil with good” (Rom.12:17; cf. I Thess 5:15; I Pet 3:9). Jesus said, “Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also”(Mt 5:39). He also said, “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you” (Lk 6:27-28). The teaching seems pretty straightforward, yet this very straightforwardness presents us with a dilemma.

On the one hand, we who confess Jesus as Lord don’t want to say that Jesus and other New Testament authors are simply off their rockers in telling us not to resist evildoers, to repay evil with good, to love our enemies and to do pray for and bless people who mistreat us. If our confession of faith means anything, we have to take this teaching very seriously. On the other hand, we have to frankly admit that it’s very hard to take this teaching seriously when it comes to extreme situations like having to protect ourselves and our family from an intruder. Not only would most of us resist an evildoer in this situation, killing him if necessary, but most of us would see it as immoral if we didn’t use violence to resist such an evildoer. How can refusing to protect your family by any means be considered moral? Isn’t it more loving, and thus more ethical, to protect your family at all costs?

How do we resolve this dilemma? It helps somewhat to remember that the word Jesus uses for “resist” (antistenai) doesn’t imply passively allowing something to take place. It rather connotes resisting a forceful action with a similar forceful action.

Jesus is thus forbidding responding to violent action with similar violent action. He’s teaching us not to take on the violence of the one who is acting violently toward us. He’s teaching us to respond to evil in a way that is consistent with loving them. But he’s not by any means saying do nothing.

Still, the teaching is problematic, for most of us would instinctively use, and feel justified using, violence to protect our family from an intruder if necessary.
The most common way people resolve this dilemma is by convincing ourselves that the “enemies” Jesus was referring to are not our enemies – e.g. people who attack our family (or our nation, or our standard of living, etc…. ). Jesus must have been referring to “other kinds” of enemies, less serious enemies, or something of the sort. We tell ourselves that when violence is justified – as in “just war” ethics – Jesus’ teachings do not apply. This approach allows us to feel justified, if not positively “Christian,” killing intruders and bombing people who threaten our nation — so long as we are nice to our occasionally grumpy neighbors. Unfortunately, this common-sensical interpretation makes complete nonsense of Jesus’ teaching.
The whole point of Jesus’ teaching is to tell disciples that their attitude toward “enemies” should be radically different from others. “If you do good to those who do good to you,” Jesus added, “what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same” (Lk 6:32). Everybody instinctively hates those who hate them and believes they are justified killing people who might kill them or their loved ones. In contrast to this, Jesus is saying: “Be radically different.”

This is why Jesus (and Paul) didn’t qualify the “enemies” or “evildoers” he taught us to love and not violently oppose. Jesus didn’t say, “Love your enemies until they threaten you; until it seems justified to resort to violence; or until it seems impractical to do so.” Enemies are enemies precisely because they threaten us on some level, and it always feels justified and practically expedient to resist them, if not harm them if necessary. Jesus simply said, “love your enemies” and “don’t resist evildoers” – and note, some of the people he was speaking to would before long confront “enemies” who would feed them and their families to lions for amusement.

The teaching could not be more radical and as kingdom people we have to take it seriously. At the same time, what do we do with the fact that most of us know we would not take it seriously, let alone obey it, in extreme situations like our family coming under attack?

As with all of Jesus’ teachings, it’s important to place this teaching in the broader context of Jesus’ kingdom ministry. Jesus’ teachings aren’t a set of pacifistic laws people are to merely obey, however unnatural and immoral they seem. Rather, his teachings are descriptions of what life in the domain in which God is king looks like and prescriptions for how we are to cultivate this alternative form of living. In other words, Jesus isn’t saying: “As much as you want to resist an evildoer and kill your enemy, and as unnatural and immoral as it seems, act loving toward him.” He’s rather saying: “Cultivate the kind of life where loving your enemy becomes natural for you.” He’s not merely saying, “Act different from others”; he’s saying, “Be different from others.” This is simply what it means to cultivate a life that looks like Jesus, dying on a cross for the people who crucified him.

How does this insight help address our dilemma? A person who lived with the “normal” tit-for-tat kingdom-of-the-world mindset would instinctively resort to violence to protect himself and his family. Loving his attacker and doing good to him would be the farthest thing from his mind. As with the Jerusalem that Jesus wept over, the “things that make for peace” would be “hidden from [his] “eyes.” (Lk 19:41-42).

Indeed, from this kingdom-of-the-world perspective, Jesus’ teaching seems positively absurd. But how might a person who cultivated a non-violent, kingdom-of-God mindset and lifestyle on a daily basis respond differently to an attacker? How might a person who consistently lived in Christ-like love (Eph 5:1-2) operate in this situation?
For one thing, such a person would have cultivated the kind of character and wisdom that wouldn’t automatically default to self-protective violence. Because he would genuinely love his enemy, he would have the desire to look for, and the wisdom to see, any non-violent alternative to stopping his family’s attacker if one was available. He would want to do “good” to his attacker. This wouldn’t be a matter of him trying to obey an irrational rule that said, “look for an alternative in extreme situations.” In extreme situations, no one is thinking about obeying rules! Rather, it would be in the Christ-like nature of this person to see non-violent alternatives if they were present. This person’s moment-by-moment discipleship in love would have given him a Christ-like wisdom that a person whose mind was conformed to the pattern of the tit-for-tat world would not have (Rom. 12:2). Perhaps he’d see that pleading with, startling, or distracting the attacker would be enough to save himself and his family. Perhaps he’d discern a way to allow his family to escape harm by placing himself in harm’s way.

Not only this, but this person’s day-by-day surrender to God would have cultivated a sensitivity to God’s Spirit that would enable him to discern God’s leading in the moment, something the “normal” kingdom-of-the-world person would be oblivious to.
This Christ-like person might be divinely led to say something or do something that would disarm the attacker emotionally, spiritually, or even physically.

For example, I heard of a case in which a godly woman was about to be sexually assaulted. Just as she was being pinned to the ground with a knife to her throat, she out of nowhere said to her attacker, “Your mother forgives you.” She had no conscious idea where the statement came from. What she didn’t know was that her attacker’s violent aggression toward women was rooted in a heinous thing he had done as a teenager to his now deceased mother. The statement shocked the man and quickly reduced him to a sobbing little boy.

The woman seized the opportunity to make an escape and call the police who quickly apprehended the man in the park where the attack took place. He was still there, sobbing. The man later credited the woman’s inspired statement with being instrumental in his eventual decision to turn his life over to Christ. The point is that, in any given situation, God may see possibilities for non-violent solutions we cannot see and a person who has learned to “live by the Spirit” is open to being led by God in these directions (Gal. 5:16, 18).

Not only this, but a person who has cultivated a kingdom-of-God outlook on life would have developed the capacity to assess this situation from an eternal perspective. Having made Jesus her example on a moment-by-moment basis, she would know — not just as a “rule,” but as a heart felt reality — the truth that living in love is more important than life itself. Her values would not be exhaustively defined by temporal expediency. Moreover, she would have cultivated a trust in God that would free her from defining “winning” and “losing” in terms of temporal outcomes. She would have confidence in the resurrection. As such, she would be free from the “preserve my interests at all costs” mindset of the world.

Of course, it’s possible that, despite a person’s loving wisdom and openness to God, a man whose family was attacked might see no way to save himself and his family except to harm the attacker, or even to take his life. What would such a person do in this case? I think it is clear from Jesus’ teachings, life and especially his death that Jesus would choose non-violence. So, it seems to me that a person who was totally conformed to the image of Jesus Christ, who had thoroughly cultivated a kingdom mind and heart, would do the same.

At the same time, I have to frankly confess that I’m not sure this is what I’d do in this situation. Indeed, I have to honestly admit that, like most people, I don’t yet quite see how it would be moral to do what I believe Jesus would do. Yet, I have to assume that my disagreement with Jesus is due to my not having sufficiently cultivated a kingdom heart and mind. If I felt I had to harm or take the life of another to prevent what clearly seemed to be a greater evil, I could not feel righteous or even justified about it. Like Bonhoeffer who, despite his pacifism, plotted to assassinate Hitler, I could only plead for God’s mercy.

What we must never do, however, is acquiesce to our present, non-kingdom, spiritual condition by rationalizing away Jesus’ clear kingdom prescriptions. We must rather strive every moment of our life to cultivate the kind of mind and heart that increasingly sees the rightness and beauty of Jesus’ teachings and thus that would naturally respond to an extreme, threatening situation in a loving, non-violent manner.

-Shane Crash
**
Further Reading
Boyd, G. The Myth of a Christian Nation (Zondervan, 2007)
Brimlow, R. What About Hitler? (Brazos, 2006)
Yoder, J. What Would You Do? (Herald, rev. ed. 1992).

JESUS: TERRORIST KILLER?

2011-11-18T06:22:00.000-08:00

On Sunday, May 1, I heard the news that Osama bin Laden was dead, assassinated by the United Stated government/military. Folks in the U.S. rejoiced in the streets. To be honest, I even felt a sense of “he got what he deserved.” I mean this dude did some pretty awful stuff. But here’s what I don’t get…. Some churches (people who follow the teachings of Jesus and are called to advance the Kingdom of God) took part in the celebration and even attributed the success of the assassination to God. Wait, what?

Here are a few comments and tweets from churches and pastors (I don’t pretend to be a real news site and my intent is not to call out specific people or churches, so I’ve decided not to cite these quotes):

"...it was good and right for the US government to seek [bin Laden], find him, and kill him. … this is an instance when [the US government] fulfilled its God-given purpose."

"Some tweets suggest we should feel guilty being happy about this, but I don’t."

"The cheering crowds remind us that justice is glorious & comes ultimately through Jesus’ cross or hell. Justice wins."

If people who attend church are happy bin Laden is dead, I get that. People feel how people feel. But when church leaders suggest that there is some sort of “divine happiness” over his—or anyone’s—death, it seems to bastardize everything Jesus stands for. Is Jesus really throwing a party because he finally served justice to bin Laden by working through the U.S. government to kill him? The same Jesus who allowed himself to be crucified by his enemies?

I recently finished a series of Easter designs where I read through the gospels accounts of Jesus’ death and resurrection. Based on that, I can’t see him celebrating the death of anyone, much less a death caused by violence. In fact, during the story of Jesus’ death and resurrection, there are some people who celebrate and rally around the murder of someone, but they are not portrayed as being Christ-like at all.

When you look at this design, it may not feel true. Honestly, it doesn’t feel true to me either. But guess what? I don’t get to decide whether it’s true or not. In Jeremiah 31:3, God says “I have loved you with an everlasting love.” In John 3:16, Jesus says that “God so loved the world…” The Bible is full of passages that paint God as loving people indiscriminately. If those passages apply to me and you, don’t they apply to everyone? I mean it’s not like we can just choose who God loves, right? If I believe the Bible, I have to believe this design is true—whether or not I feel it.

I’m not saying I’ve got this down. I’m just saying that, through Jesus, I know what God calls me to, and every time I fall short of that call, there is no excuse or justification. Instead I need to ask for forgiveness, fix my eyes on Jesus and ask him to continue to help me see the world through his love instead of through my judgement.

Hate bin Laden? Fine. Glad he’s dead? I feel you on that. But do you believe—not feel—that God loves him with an everlasting love? Because that is true, whether we like it or not.

Jim Lepage
see original article
HERE

GOD'S WARRIORS - GREG BOYD

2011-11-17T06:19:00.000-08:00

NOTE: I apologize for the audio being a bit off, but the content is worth it.

Brennan Manning on Living the Gospel

2011-11-16T06:14:00.000-08:00

"Let us be bold enough to ask ourselves, as Christians, whether the church of
the Lord Jesus in the United States has anything to say to our nation and
its ideologies of materialism, possessiveness, and the worship of financial
security. Are we courageous enough to be a sign of contradiction to
consumerism through our living faith in Jesus Christ? Are we committed
enough to his gospel to become a counter-current to the drift? Or have we so
accommodated the faith of our fathers to consumption that the question of
simplicity of life, sharing of resources, and radical dependence on God's
providence no longer seem relevant? How do we build the kingdom of God on
earth if what we incarnate in our lives is the dogma of our culture rather
than the revelation of Jesus?" - Brennan Manning

Meet Your Fighters: Thomas Crisp

2011-11-15T10:03:00.000-08:00

I was born and raised in Southern California. I am married to Alison, and we have two daughters, Madeline and Peyton, ten and seven years old respectively. I am a philosophy professor at Biola University, where I have taught for seven years. A couple years ago, I had a sort of conversion experience to a more justice-oriented Christianity. Since then, I have been thinking and writing on Jesus' ethics of poverty, and hope to do a lot more thinking and writing in years to come about Jesus' ethics of violence, the Sermon on the Mount, agapistic theories of ethics, Christian anarchism, and the Catholic Worker movement. I and several of my students have been practicing a ministry of listening among the houseless at the Orange County Catholic Worker for a year or so, which has been very healing for me.

Here's some thoughts to share:

Since the 1970s, the controversial Princeton ethicist, Peter Singer, has been arguing that it is deeply immoral for the affluent of the world to indulge themselves in needless luxury whilst others die from lack of access to food, clean drinking water and basic medical care. (For a popular presentation of his argument, see more
HERE

For years, I puzzled over Singer's argument, utterly convinced by it but not doing much about it. Recently, I starting thinking about his argument afresh, particularly his claim that his argument fits nicely with some of Jesus' teaching on wealth and poverty. Is he right? Does Jesus teach similar things about the moral demands of affluence?

He does! He tells his followers not to store up treasure on earth, but to give to anyone who asks, and to store up treasure in heaven by selling our possessions and giving the proceeds to the poor. He says that no one can be his disciple who does not give up all his/her own possessions, and that those who live in splendor, dressing in fine clothes day after day, whilst people starve around them, risk damnation. Strong stuff, I know, but these and many teachings like them fill the pages of the gospels.

Interestingly, for the first three or so hundred years of Church history, most of the major teachers, bishops, apologists, and church leaders said very similar things about the moral demands of affluence. As Augustine put it:

"Not to give to the needy what is superfluous is akin to fraud."

And John Chrysostom:

"I beg you to remember this without fail, that not to share our own wealth with the poor is theft from the poor and deprivation of their means of life; we do not possess our own wealth but theirs."

And Ambrose:

"You strip people naked and dress up your walls. The naked poor cries before your door, and you do not even look at him. It is a naked human being that begs you, and you are considering what marbles to use for paving. The poor begs you for money and gets none. There is a human being seeking bread, and your horses chew gold in their bits. You rejoice in your precious adornments, while others have nothing to eat. A harsh judgement awaits you, oh rich! The people are hungry and you close your granaries. The people cry and you show your jewels. Woe to one who can save so many lives from death, and does not!"

Justo Gonzalez's masterful Faith and Wealth: A History of Early Christian Ideas on the Origin, Significance and Use of Money (Wipf and Stock: 2002) explores early Christian teaching on these things, and offers fascinating explanation how, beginning around the time of Augustine, the Church gradually softened its teachings on wealth, adopting the Roman perspective on surplus wealth, according to which one has little to no obligation to use one's excess to care for the needy.

In short, Singer is right: Jesus's teachings on wealth and poverty make heavy demands on the affluent. The most important early writers and teachers of the early Church taught the same thing. To be a follower of Jesus, one who enters into his teachings and practices, is to live in radical simplicity and generosity toward the suffering. The big questions for us: How best to do this? What would it look like in Southern California? What are some good models?

I'll be talking about some of these issues/questions at the Pacifist Fight Club. For further reading, download my paper "Jesus and Affluence" on PDF HERE

Comments/criticisms welcome.

-Thomas Crisp
Associate Professor | Department of Philosophy
Associate Director | Center for Christian Thought
Biola University

Justin Martyr on Love for Enemies

2011-11-15T06:35:00.000-08:00

"We who formerly used to murder one another now refrain from even making war upon our enemies."
—The First Apology of Justin Martyr

SHANE CLAIBORNE: THE MYTH OF A JUST WAR

2011-11-14T06:09:00.000-08:00

MLK ON NON-VIOLENCE

2011-11-13T06:07:00.000-08:00

FIGHTING THE GOOD FIGHT?

2011-11-12T06:40:00.000-08:00

"When troops move to take a beachhead, they do so with the conscious plan that they will sacrifice thousands of men. What if the Christian church moved into the world with the same convictions? What if we had a conscious plan to follow (Jesus) even though it might cost many lives? ...It would appear that before the Christian church justifies giving the lives of so many of its people in military involvement it should look at the greater sin of being unwilling to sacrifice lives of affluent ease for the cause of building the Kingdom of Christ." - Myron S. Augsburger; War:Four Christian Views, page 93.

Counting the cost is difficult. It forces us to look at ourselves with unflinching honesty. It means looking into the mirror to see who we really are without our masks on. It means not turning away from that painful reflection, no matter what we see staring back at us.

Where does the loyalty of the Church truly lie? Are we more passionate for our flag or our nation than we are for our Savior and our God? Perhaps the answer is more obvious than we care to admit.

An idol, by definition, is anything you will sacrifice your children to in order to maintain your own comfort and protect your way of life. What, then, do we in America sacrifice our children to? What is the name of the god we appease when we send our sons and daughters off to a foreign land in order to protect the American way of life?

"And I heard another voice from heaven saying, 'Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues. For her sins have reached to heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities'" (Revelation 18:4,5)

What does it mean to be in the world but not of the world? Are we primarily citizens of the Kingdom of God? Or are we first and foremost the patriotic sons and daughters of the United States of America?

The Church is part of a global nation whose citizens are found all around the world. Most of our brothers and sisters were not born under the banner of the red, white and blue. They do not call themselves Capitalists, or Socialists. They are simply followers of Jesus who hold their greatest allegiance to the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords.

To this day the worldwide Body of Christ is made up of former communists, capitalists, socialists, and zionists. We are now members of One Body. We are not properly identified to our Lord as Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, Charismatics, Pentecostals, or Anglicans. We are simply His children. We are His Body. We are ambassadors of His Kingdom, and His Kingdom alone.

The question before us now is, are we willing to lay down our lives for the Kingdom of God? Are we willing to die for the Gospel of Jesus? Do we honestly place Jesus on the actual throne of our lives?

There is a profound difference, I am learning, between "being willing" to lay down your life for Christ and actually laying down your real life for Him.

And now, sitting here at the keyboard typing out these words, here in my 3 bedroom house in one of the richest counties in our nation, I am reminded of the words of Jackie Pullinger who said, "The Gospel is always life for the one who receives it, and death for the one who brings it."

Where is my death? Where is my dying? Where, even more, is the life of Christ in the one who has received the Gospel I have championed?

What has it cost me to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom? What is the fruit of the Gospel of Jesus in my actual life? Am I being transformed daily into His image? Am I capable of letting go of my life in order to receive the rivers of living water that Jesus offers me now?

"Are you able to drink from the cup of suffering that I am about to drink?" - Jesus (Mark 10:38)

Would I sacrifice my bank account to advance the Kingdom of God? Would I surrender my career for the Gospel of Christ? Would I risk everything - or anything - for Jesus?

Would I?

-kg

Early Christians on Peace

2011-11-11T06:34:00.000-08:00

"Whatever Christians would not wish others to do to them, they do not to others. And they comfort their oppressors and make them their friends; they do good to their enemies. Through love towards their oppressors, they persuade them to become Christians."
—The Apology of Aristides

Russo Enters the Ring

2011-11-10T06:04:00.000-08:00

"Jesus died for His enemies; He did not kill them. You can not follow Jesus and war against flesh and blood. The Kingdom comes not through taking lives disguised as justice, but by people of love laying down their lives in the name of the slaughtered lamb. His Kingdom is not of this world, and His servants do not fight like those who know not His heart of compassion." - Brandt Russo

Can a Christian Be a Soldier?

2011-11-09T06:33:00.000-08:00

"A soldier of the civil authority must be taught not to kill men and to refuse to do so if he is commanded, and to refuse to take an oath. If he is unwilling to comply, he must be rejected for baptism. A military commander or civic magistrate must resign or be rejected. If a believer seeks to become a soldier, he must be rejected, for he has despised God."
—Hippolytus of Rome

VOTE FOR JESUS

2011-11-08T06:02:00.000-08:00

Regardless of what the literal meaning of "Traditional Values" may imply, most everyone in America today would agree that the term conjures up a laundry list of good, old-fashioned concepts like "God, Grandma, Apple Pie, and Chevrolet", or some similiar combination of words. At the core, it's a reflection of our inner desire to return to those thrilling days of yesteryear when politicians were honest, prices were low and life was simple.

The problem of course comes when we realize that this is nothing but a fantasy. Sure, we might love to kick back and remember the good old days with fondness, but the reality is that we've always complained about high prices, lying politicians and never having enough time to slow down and enjoy our lives. Besides, we do not have access to time travel technology outside of Hollywood and science fiction, so any longing we have to turn back the clock is automatically moot. It's just not going to happen.

Therefore, what we're left with now is what you see in front of you. This world we live in is the only world there is. There is no such thing as a "Christian World" other than the one we create when we surround ourselves with media, clothing, and services that shelter us from reality. There is no such thing as a better yesterday that we can return to by wishful thinking or by breeding a super senator who can dismantle the corruption in Washington with his bare hands and restore sanity with the stroke of his mighty pen. It's not going to happen.

As followers of Jesus, our only hope is Him. When we place our hopes in politics, or politicians, we've already lost the battle. In fact, nothing so underscores our lack of faith in the Messiah or His Gospel than our attempt to solve the world's problems by legislating the outward behaviors that only Jesus can create from within.

The American Church is currently lusting for political influence and power. Why? Because "Plan A" has failed to create the result we desired, and so we have now reverted to "Plan B" which is to attempt to Christianize the society around us and to legislate our Christian values.

I would encourage today's American Christian to remember this: The Christians we read about in the New Testament lived under an oppressive pagan government. They were killed for sport and persecuted horribly. Instead of attempting to reform their government, they obeyed Jesus and loved their oppressors. They did not take up the sword and fight back. They did not verbally abuse the pagans for their sinful lifestyle. They did not attempt to form a coalition or a lobby group to force legislation that aligned with their views. Instead, they simply loved the people around them, shared all that they had with others and, in time, they turned the world upside down by imitating Christ Jesus our Lord.

Our faith was born under intense persecution and the Church survived by emulating the humble, peaceful, loving response of Her Lord and Master, Jesus Christ. If we do anything less - or more - than follow the example of Jesus today, we are hopelessly lost.

-kg

Ignatius of Antioch Writes to the Church on Peace

2011-11-07T06:32:00.000-08:00

"There is nothing better than peace, in which all warfare of things in heaven and things on earth is abolished."
—Ignatius of Antioch to the Ephesians

WHO WOULD JESUS TORTURE?

2011-11-06T06:57:00.000-08:00

I've been saying for a long time now that being a Christian in today's culture does not equate with being a "follower of Jesus" and once again we have more proof of this sad fact when we see that a majority of regular, church-going Christians are more likely to support torture.

What really saddens me is that we live in a world where those who claim to follow Jesus are completely divorced from what it actually means to love and live as Jesus would.

Instead, we have Christians in America who believe that if they vote the right way and belong to the right political groups and read the right books and watch the right TV shows and listen to the right kinds of music that they are "Christians".

How can someone who claims to be a disciple of Jesus turn around and say that it's alright to torture another human being? For any reason?

More and more I find that there is a blurred line in American Christianity between "The American Way" and "The Kingdom of God".

The Kingdom of God and the American Dream are not the same thing, and in fact, they are two opposing viewpoints which are in conflict on many levels.

The American Dream is founded on the concept of every person's right to the pursuit of happiness. Whatever you can imagine would make you happy you are free to pursue it with all your heart. That's your right.

The Kingdom of God is founded on the concept of laying down your life, your idea of what will make you happy, in favor of receiving what Jesus knows will really make you happy.

Following Jesus involves laying down your life and giving up your rights. It means full and complete submission to God because you recognize that His perfect will for your life is a million times better than anything you could ever dream up, or pursue, on your own.

Jesus didn't ever instruct any of his disciples to fight for their God-given, "Inalienable Rights", and neither did Paul the Apostle. In fact, they both encouraged their disciples to live humble lives, serving others and not demanding more because they deserved more. Paul even specifically told those followers of Christ who were slaves to remain slaves, even if they were being mistreated.

Historically, the early Christians didn't fight for their rights as citizens, they took it on the chin, and in the Lion's den, and in the arena. They literally would rather die than to take another person's life.

Simply put, they followed their Lord and Savior, Jesus and they followed His example of non-violence and submissive service to those who hated and mistreated them. Does that sound like the American Dream to you?

STAY FOCUSED
We cannot afford to become distracted by nationalism or led astray by politics.

As followers of Jesus, He must be our one and only priority and influence. This is what it means to make Jesus our Lord.

As Christian pastor and activist Jim Wallis has said, "God is not a Republican or a Democrat. God is not partisan. God is not ideologically committed to our Left or Right. God's politics challenges all of our politics. It includes the people our politics regularly leave out; the poor and the vulnerable. That's God's politics."

OUR WITNESS
It would have been virtually impossible for an unbeliever living in those first three hundred years of Church History to ever reject Christianity on the grounds that it lacked compassionate people or failed to teach loving kindness.

In fact, we have testimony from many of the most hostile pagans who lived during the first three hundred years of Christianity who were put to shame because of the overwhelming generosity of the Church. Julian, the Apostate wrote of this frustrating situation when he said, "..The godless Galileans feed not only their poor, but ours also."

Christian philosopher Aristides (125 AD) wrote about the radical charity of the early Church also, recording the fact that, "...if there is among them a man that is poor and needy and they have not an abundance of necessities, they fast for three days that they may supply the needy with their necessary food."

For a Christian, killing our enemies is not acceptable. If being a good American citizen means you need to cheer on a war that kills innocent people then you must lay aside your Christianity.

If being a faithful member of a political party trumps over 2,000 verses in the word of God about caring for the poor, then you need to make a choice.

A few years ago I had an opportunity to speak to Jim Wallis on this very subject and his response has stayed with me ever since. He said, "The Church today is more American than Christian. The Kingdom of God is not the same as the American Empire. When we are more American than Christian we confuse the meaning of the Body of Christ with any nation state. This notion of the Church as a counter-cultural movement is Biblically obvious. There's no doubt about that. We're in the world to transform the world for the sake of this new order that has come in Jesus Christ. If Jesus' vision of the Kingdom was so threatening, why is our vision of the Kingdom so safe?"

The Gospel of the Kingdom is not the American Dream.

It saddens me to see Christians more passionate about their political party than they are about the Kingdom of God.

Peace,
kg

Irenaeus Speaks on Peace

2011-11-05T06:31:00.000-07:00

"The new covenant that brings back peace and the law that gives life have gone forth over the whole earth, as the prophets said: "For out of Zion will go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem; and he will instruct many people; and they will break down their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks, and they will no longer learn to make war." These people formed their swords and war lances into plowshares,” that is, into instruments used for peaceful purposes. So now, they are unaccustomed to fighting, so when they are struck, they offer also the other cheek."
—Irenaeus

GREEN CARD

2011-11-04T06:52:00.000-07:00

Recently, I read an article where someone suggested that Churches should issue green cards to converts who are baptized in order to remind them that they are resident aliens in this World.

Jesus agreed with this idea of Christians as immigrants when he said, "My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of it."
(John 17: 15-16)

We are not of the world, any more than Jesus was of it. So, why do we continue to live our lives as if this were our home?

Beyond the implications of what this verse suggests about our materialism, or our pursuit of fame, money or position, I am wondering about what this verse might mean in terms of our identity.

I am especially curious about how we fail to see ourselves in the plight of the current immigration reform debate that is currently raging in our own Nation. We are more like these resident aliens living here among us in the United States than we realize. So, why are we not out there marching alongside them, asking for them to be treated fairly and seen as worthy human beings who deserve the same chances we've been given?

Even if we weren't especially called to skip work and carry a sign in the park alongside the activists, what about simply praying for them? What about defending their position to those we call our friends? What about taking the time to identify with these fellow outcasts and unwanted immigrants?

Jesus told us, "If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you" (John 15:19).

This verse is especially troubling to me. It makes me ask myself, "Does the World hate me?" or even worse, "Do I hate the World?" Now, I don't mean "hate" in the sense that I should hate other people, but do I hate the system, the consumerism, the focus on the flesh rather than the spiritual?

"You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God." (James 4:4)

Do I love what God hates? Do I hate what He loves?

We, as followers of Jesus, should be comfortable among the the ranks of the misunderstood, the hated, the outcasts and the despised. We should go out of our way to embrace those who are, like us, always in the world but never of the world. That means the poor, the prostitutes, the unpopular, the prisoners, and yes, even the undocumented immigrant.

Welcome to the church. Do you have your Green Card?

Kg

The Early Church and Pacifism

2011-11-03T06:30:00.000-07:00

"We would rather shed our own blood than stain our hands and our conscience with that of another. As a result, an ungrateful world is now enjoying–and for a long period has enjoyed–a benefit from Christ. For by his means, the rage of savage ferocity has been softened and has begun to withhold hostile hands from the blood of a fellow creature. In fact, if all men without exception…would lend an ear for a while to his salutary and peaceful rules,…the whole world would be living in the most peaceful tranquility. The world would have turned the use of steel into more peaceful uses and would unite together in blessed harmony."
—Arnobius

A Palestinian Christian Seeks Peace

2011-11-02T06:39:00.000-07:00

"As believers, we are by no means immune to the destructive traits that mark our respective communities, and all of the factors that have further entrenched the divisions in the past decade have also affected us. We may disagree on how to go about reaching reconciliation, but we do still have hope for an improvement of our relations, and we have our shared faith in the Messiah who calls us to dwell in unity as brothers and sisters. If nothing is done to restore the relationships that have been damaged, there are dark days ahead, and this is why it is crucial that we allow God to use us as an instrument of his peace. We are called to be peacemakers, and stand against division, hatred and violence with love."
-Salim J. Munayer
Musalaha Director

ABOUT MUSALAHA
"Musalaha is a non-profit organization that seeks to promote reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians as demonstrated in the life and teaching of Jesus. We seek to be an encouragement and facilitator of reconciliation, first among Palestinian Christians and Messianic Israelis, and then beyond to our respective communities."

The name Musalaha comes from the Arabic word for 'reconciliation'.

The Early Church and Non-Violence

2011-11-01T06:29:00.000-07:00

"Those soldiers were filled with wonder and admiration at the grandeur of the man’s piety and generosity and were struck with amazement. They felt the force of this example of pity. As a result, many of them were added to the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ and threw off the belt of military service."
—Disputation of Archelaus and Manes

Origen on non-violence

2011-10-31T06:28:00.000-07:00

"Christians could never slay their enemies. For the more that kings, rulers, and peoples have persecuted them everywhere, the more Christians have increased in number and grown in strength." —Origen Contra Celsius Book VII

Church Fathers on Non-Violence

2011-10-30T06:27:00.000-07:00

"We have rejected such spectacles as the Coliseum. How then, when we do not even look on killing lest we should contract guilt and pollution, can we put people to death?"
—Athenagoras of Athens’ A Plea for the Christians

Tertullian on non-violence

2011-10-29T06:26:00.000-07:00

"The Lord, in disarming Peter, disarmed every soldier." —Tertullian from "On Idolatry"

“Can it be lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that ‘he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword’? And shall the son of peace take part in battle, when it does not become him even to sue at law? Shall he apply the chain, the prison, the torture, and the punishment, when he is not [even] the avenger of his own wrongs?” - Tertullian, The Crown

“Emperors could only believe in Christ if they were not emperors – as if Christians could ever be emperors.”- Tertullian’s Apology, 2nd century