Christian Oxymorons

In the Central African Republic there are men with machine guns who are killing other people. They refer to themselves as "Christian Militants" but don't you believe it for a minute.

There is no such thing as a "Christian Militant" who goes around shooting his enemies. Just as there is no such thing as "Open Secrets" or "A Fine Mess" and just as no one can ever be "Almost Pregnant" or "A Little Drunk", there can also never be any such thing as a "Christlike Killer".

Would Jesus throw a grenade into a Mosque? Would Jesus bust a cap into someone who didn't agree with his views? Would Jesus set a bomb to kill innocent people at a train station?

No, he would not. How could anyone ever imagine that he would?

That is why a "Christian" - which by definition is someone who follows the teachings of Jesus - can never take a weapon in hand and fire a bullet into their heart. Because once that person does such a thing, they cease to be like Jesus.

Certainly, Christians are capable of failure when it comes to following Him. We've all fallen short of the high calling of Jesus Christ. And for those who have killed others in war, or in the line of duty, can always repent of their sinful actions and receive the full and complete forgiveness of Jesus.

But what a Christian cannot do is to continually kill others in the name of nationalism, or political ideology, or "freedom" or anything else. Not even in the Name of Jesus. Especially not in the Name of Jesus.

So, when you read news stories like this one you can't accept the words "Christian Militant" at face value. There is no such thing as a "Christian Militant" who takes the life of other human beings who are made in the image of Christ.

-kg

WATCH: What I've Learned About US Foreign Policy

AMERICA, NOT BEAUTIFUL

America is not the messenger of Jesus. America is the messenger of Death. She masquerades as an angel of light, but her hands are full of murder and bloodshed. She is the Angel of Death.

America kills more people around the world than Al Quaeda every day around the world.

America spends more of its money on creating instruments of death than any other nation on Earth. More than the other fourteen largest nations combined.

No one loves death and war more than America.

America allows her own children to starve so that the most number of weapons can be built to kill as many people around the world as possible.

American is an Empire, and like all Empires, America rules by death and fear and the sword. All while pretending she is for freedom and truth and democracy.

America has more power than Rome ever had. America has the capacity to kill more people around the world than Rome ever dreamed of. She exploits more poor nations around the world and rules by intimidation and fear.

America is nothing like Jesus. She is not Christ-like. America is a bully.

America will kill children for financial gain.

America will exploit the poor to build greater wealth for herself.

America believes that if it can kill enough people, the world will become a better place.

America does not love freedom. America loves money.

America does not love the poor. America does not love anyone but herself, and money.

America's God is not Jesus. Her only gods are comfort, and safety, and luxury. War, and death and deception are in her heart.

"Behold, this was the guilt of your sister (America): she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were proud and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it." (Ezekiel 16:49-50)

"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.  Render to her just as she rendered to you, and repay her double according to her works; in the cup which she has mixed, mix double for her.  In the measure that she glorified herself and lived luxuriously, in the same measure give her torment and sorrow; for she says in her heart, ‘I sit as queen, and am no widow, and will not see sorrow.’  Therefore her plagues will come in one day—death and mourning and famine. And she will be utterly burned with fire, for strong is the Lord God who judges her." (Rev. 18:4-8)

Why the World Hates Jesus of Nazareth (3 of 7)

By David D. Flowers

 

“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.” Jesus, Jn. 15:18

In the previous installment, I discussed two reasons the world system hates Jesus. Jesus Proclaimed the Kingdom of God and Jesus Was Not Patriotic.

When you’re a part of the world system that glorifies one worldly kingdom over another, you oppose the transnational Kingdom of God.

Likewise, when you respond to the good news by following Jesus in radical discipleship, you oppose nationalism and the politics of Caesar. You become an enemy of the state. Sooner or later you’ll find yourself hated like Jesus.

As I said in the introduction, I’m using seven provocative statements to summarize the radical life and teachings of Jesus as recorded in the NT.

If you’re a skeptic, I hope that you will seriously consider the historical Jesus of the Gospels. If you count yourself among the church, I pray that you will rethink what you thought you already knew about Jesus of Nazareth.

Now, let’s look at another controversial, and oft-neglected, aspect of Jesus’ teaching and example. This specifically involves the religious leaders and the hatred Jesus incited among them for rejecting their religion.

3. Jesus Was Not Religious

The word “religion” derives from the Latin religio, which referred to a binding obligation. In first century Palestine, the word was not used the way we use it today. In the time of Jesus, if someone said something was “religio to me”, it meant that they had a special obligation to it.

This obligation could be anything from a commitment to cults of the gods, to something more “secular” like oaths to family, government, military, etc.

Whatever the oath involved, this special obligation was about life and identity. Therefore, it meant that this “religion” involved a set of rules, regulations, and rituals that provided cultural meaning and purpose.

The danger of religion, in ancient or modern times, is that LIFE is said to be found in a system of behavior and beliefs.

This requires that a person root their identity in the ideas and boundaries set by the religious community. You don’t want to buck the religious system.

For this very reason, second temple Judaism could not contain Jesus. The religious leaders, and guardians of their sacred religion, demanded strict adherence to their own system of correct behavior and beliefs.

Consider some of the ways that Jesus rejected their religion:

• He healed on the Sabbath, violating their religious code (Matt 12:9).
• He ate with enemies and sinners (Matt 9:11; Mk 2:16).
• He touched “unclean” people, they touched him (Lk 5:12, 8:43).
• He turned over the tables of the Temple (Mk 11:15; Jn 2:15).
• He challenged religious traditions (Mk 7:3-5).
• He challenged traditional interpretations (Matt 5:38-48).
• He despised religious prayers (Matt 6:5-8; Lk 18:11).
• He rebuked religious authority (Matt 23:13; Lk 12:1).

While Jesus was certainly a good Jew, a true Israelite (Jn 1:47), it can’t be denied that he opposed religion’s threat against the Kingdom of God. And for this act of sedition, the religious leaders wanted him dead (Mk 12:12).

 

Since religious people get their life from the rightness of their behaviors and beliefs, anyone who challenges them, is a threat to their life. Their response is to stop the threat, violently if necessary. We call them fundamentalists.

 

Jesus said that religion is merely a self-righteous platform by which a person can judge others who aren’t like them. It’s bad for the soul. It creates obstacles for people, even repelling them from coming into the Kingdom.

 

Not only did Jesus oppose this club mentality, invariably found within religion, he rebuked the religious leaders, saying that they themselves didn’t live up to their own standards of behavior and belief.

 

“The teachers of religious law and the Pharisees are the official interpreters of the law of Moses. So practice and obey whatever they tell you, but don’t follow their example. For they don’t practice what they teach. They crush people with unbearable religious demands and never lift a finger to ease the burden.” Jesus, Matt 23:1-4 NLT

 

Religious people crush others with their religious demands, and they are a burden as they stand at a distance condemning people that don’t share their beliefs and practices. All the while they’re dirty on the inside.

 

“What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs—beautiful on the outside but filled on the inside with dead people’s bones and all sorts of impurity. Outwardly you look like righteous people, but inwardly your hearts are filled with hypocrisy and lawlessness.” Jesus, Matt 23:27-28 NLT

 

The words of Jesus recorded in Matthew 23 has to be the strongest rebuke by Jesus in all of the Gospels. In fact, nothing quite compares to Jesus’ rebuke of religious hypocrites. It’s no wonder they hated him.

 

“Snakes! Sons of vipers! How will you escape the judgment of hell?” Jesus, Matt 23:33

 

Jesus taught that if you want to escape the doom of religious people doing religious things, then you must repent of religion. Stop trying to find LIFE in your system of “right” beliefs and behaviors, even in the Bible. And instead root yourself in the One of who is LIFE: Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

 

“You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.” Jesus, Jn 10:38-40 NIV

Many evangelicals are convinced that they are getting their LIFE from Jesus, but instead they continue to drink water from a well that has been condemned by Christ. They drink insipid water. And the symptoms of this religious disease is pride, arrogance, intolerance, and a judgmental spirit.

“The Kingdom’s revolt against religion, including the Christian religion, is on a totally different level. It is a revolt against all attempts to get Life from particular beliefs—including true ones. For where God truly reigns over an individual or a community, their only source of Life is God, not the rightness of their beliefs.” Greg Boyd, The Myth of a Christian Religion, pg 60.

It is quite clear from the Gospels that “religion” is part of the world system. When Jesus said the world hated him first, religion is a part of that world.

 

Those who repent of religion will stand out like Jesus, and be known for their love, justice, mercy, and forgiveness (Matt 23:23; Jn 13:34-35).

 

Like Jesus who led the way, his followers may be dubbed a liberal, sin-loving, blasphemer by those who are invested in the religious system, but they will be called the greatest in the kingdom of God.

 

D.D. Flowers, 2013.

Should Complementarian Theology Lead to Pacifism?

Saluting Pacifist, or
Head Scratching Theologian?

What do famous complementarian John Piper and hardened pacifist Greg Boyd have in common? No, it's not that they're both Minnesota Vikings fans. And I'm not talking about their teaching stint at Bethel University.

David over at the Christians for Biblical Equality blog suggests it might be how they read the Bible.

In his post, "Why (Most) Complementarians Should Be Pacifists" David lays out two passages of scripture:

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (1 Timothy 2:11-15, NIV)

And:

Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. (Romans 12:17-19, NIV)

Arguing that the plain read of the first, which is often cited as defense for Complementarian read of Scripture. It's David's reasoning that those who take a plain read of 1 Timothy 2 have good reason to take a plain read of Romans 12 and end up a pacifist.

Here's the part I like:

...Why this disparity? Here’s one possibility: The non-pacifist complementarian is from a cultural context in which having Christians in the military (or other potentially violent occupations, such as the police force) is simply so normal that he (or she) could not imagine Scripture possibly teaching something contrary. At the same time, he is in a church context in which certain gender-based roles are so normal that Scripture couldn’t possibly teach something contrary to that either.

So what do you think? Read his whole argument, then leave a comment below. Should Complementarian logic lead those same folks to Pacifism? 

Some Thoughts About Non-Violence

By Rachel Hester

I was talking to one of my friends about the burden in my heart about my friend Michael going to the military, and I noticed that one of the other things that came up was how some people genuinely feel like G-d is calling them to go to the military.

My main concern for Michael's not going is his spiritual wellness, and whether if going to the military or not would advance or detract from the Kingdom being furthered. Michael, although he doesn't want to be in combat, feels like the Lord wants Him in combat. My friend Laurel was asking me questions such as, do i believe that Christians who are going to the military and feel like they are called to be there by the Lord, are disobeying the voice of G-d? Is it fair for us to say that refusing to support the military is against G-d, and that a voice that tells us to go to the military is definitely not the Lord's? Or could we consider that maybe the Lord may call us to the military for other purposes?

I think one thing that we can do is to talk to our brothers and sisters about it, and why they feel the way they do, and also pray for them.

I think because of the fact that non-violence is hardly ever talked about in church, we feel like we don't have any options when it comes to opposing violence, and I think that is why non-violence is often seen to be synonymous with passivity. Usually when I mention non-violence, I always receive at least one remark saying that the Lord calls us to brutal, ugly war. But, I have always thought that the war we face was more of a spiritual war, and that non-violence is part of that spiritual battle.

She also asked me, that if we believe in using non-violence in real life situations, what should we do? She believes that violence can be necessary in being able to defend ourselves, and that there is a time for everything. She gave me scenarios, such as if a group were to storm a brothel, and rescue women there, and if there were crazy men who were threatening to kill everyone, should we kill those men to defend the women?

I told her that I really didn't know what to do, but I believed that there must be another way, but perhaps we just haven't figured out another way yet. These are hard questions, and it is hard to think of such a situation where innocent people are being threatened and killed, and whether we can allow someone who may not understand why some of us choose not to be violent to be threatened, because of the fact that we do choose non-violence. It would be wonderful for us to have a way where we do choose not to be violent, but we can also say that we didn't choose to do nothing, because we did do something to defend these innocent people.

All I know is that non-violent love is definitely not a passive love. And I think that when Christians teach Christians about non-violence, that that is definitely something that needs to be mentioned. By no means, if a man is hungry, will we just pray and not do anything about it, but we will feed the man himself. There are times, where we use common sense, and we know that we are the answer to our prayers.

This is so complex. But, now I'm thinking about how we are told, that nothing is impossible for G-d.

My other concern is that Christ's turning the tables (in the Gospels) is often used as a way to defend violence. But, I think Christ's turning the tables and forcing people out of the temple is not to be confused with violence and showing a lack of mercy.

Perhaps it is our definition of what violence is that is unclear. I think violence is whatever causes folks to live apart from mercy and peace and encourages destruction and or self-destruction. How do you define violence? How does PFC define violence?

Laurel also argued that in the New Testament, when Christ returns, that he will be violent.  Since he'll be on horseback and wielding a sword, (she thinks) that he isn't about peace, but rather justice. I always thought that his justice would end in peace, but would require a lot of work. I don't know how I feel about assuming that his coming with a sword on horseback will result in violence and lack of mercy. I honestly don't know how I feel about this type of "coming back with sword on horseback" argument or rebuttal, as:

1. I'm not very educated on the book of Revelations and the way it is written and intended to be read, and

2. i know she's a huge fan of Mark Driscoll, and I typically don't know what to believe about some of the things he says about the character of G-d/Jesus. Furthermore, she said that as long as we live in a broken world, that violence will remain as a means of defense that we will have to resort to.

But I don't believe that we HAVE to resort to it. I do believe we can find another way, if Jesus did tell us to turn the other cheek. I feel like turning the other cheek is best explained by MLK's (statement, that) "We will wear you down with our love".

I told her that even the idea of applying non-violence in our lives as a means to follow Jesus Christ, is something that even I, which despite the fact that I want to believe that Jesus calls Christians to live in self-sacrificial love, cannot even fathom how non-violence makes sense, other than the fact that refusing to continue the pattern of violence may encourage others to put down the sword as well.

I think to follow Christ in a life of non-violence is something that requires a lot of faith and wisdom and lots of love.

I know that in the Old Testament, violent acts where done out of faith until Christ came and fulfilled the law and gave us all these new instructions. Paul even warns us later in the New Testament, that if we even have faith to move mountains, but have no love, that we are doing it in vain, and what we have is nothing.

Shouldn't our faith be motivated by love by power of the Holy Spirit? Because Christ has loved us, and shown his mercy to us, that we extend that to others, by committing to non-violence? Are we not to tell if our actions and decisions are of the Holy Spirit if they produce the fruits of the spirit, such as love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control – remembering “that against such things there is no law.” (Gal. 5:22-25)

I think that if we love our friends and enemies the same, that we will find that the non-violence, if done in love, will lead us to producing the fruits of the Holy Spirit.

I almost though, feel like believing that Christ calls us to non-violence in all situations, and not just certain situations, is seen to be very idealistic and unrealistic to most people. Maybe that is why it is such a hard topic.

I hope that my thoughts that I'm presenting can be productive, though. I really appreciate Laurel presenting to me these thoughts, as they really help me, too, and I hope they help you guys in being able to affirm what we believe, and have the courage to teach these ideas, with the ability to present common concerns and thoughts, and also the courage to live it out.

I was reading an article called "To Teach What Jesus Taught: A Call to Fidelity" by Rev. Emmanuel Charles McCarthy. He talks about why teaching non-violence is so difficult, and lots of other things.

Teaching non-violence, according to this article, is something that would result in many of us giving up a lot; a lot of us wouldn't have the income we have, which would trouble a lot of Christians who are not ready to bear such a discipline as voluntary poverty. I think that it is an interesting perspective to read in preparing for Pacifist Fight Club, especially because of the fact that you guys will be talking a lot about war and militarism.

You can read the article online here>

Violence tends to be more intertwined with economic situation and riches (or lack of) more than I thought.

What do you think? Do you think non-violence can be practiced in faith in all situations? Or do you think it should only be practiced in certain situations? And why do you think these things?

I want to believe that even though the non-violent life and committing to non-violent action in violent situations is tricky, scary, "impractical", and threatens our security, that it can do a lot to show the love of G-d; His mercy and patience.

I think that because Christ lived a non-violent life, that that says a lot about how grand his love and patience and mercy and grace for us is like.

I think our views on non-violence pretty much reveal how we see G-d, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

It is really hard. I pray that we can have the faith and wisdom to figure these things out together, not just within Pacifist Fight Club, but in the church as well.

I hope my thoughts aren't too jumbled and unorganized.

Your sister in the faith,

Rachel Hester

P.S. I've grown up not punching my sister when she punches me and beats me up, and i guess i'm still okay. ;)

Is This A Christian Nation?

"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