Jesus for President Part Three
June 9, 2008 - 4:18pm by ThomasAfter I read the first five pages of part three of Jesus for President I looked over at my wife and told her the book had made me really pissed off. I felt lied to, deceived, and manipulated.
Claiborne and Haw had not written much to persuade me. Barely anything at all, actually. They had merely listed quotes from the church father's about Christian service in the military and the state.
As opposed to today, when the American church seems to glorify military and government service, many of the early church fathers, including many of the big ones (Tertullian, Origen, Justin, Justin Martyr). The martyr story of Minucius Felix, how he refused to kill as a soldier because he had become a Christian, so he was executed on the spot, was particularly touching.
I went through a bit of a grieving period as I read the this third part, "When the Empire Got Baptized." I grieved for myself and how I had willingly deceived myself into condoning and even celebrating acts of war and death. I remembered how in middle school I had aspired to become a CIA sniper or a Navy fighter pilot. Up until four years ago, I was an adamant celebrator of the "war on terror" and the killing of "the other." I don't blame anyone, it was my fault for giving in.
That my blame does not fall on any one or any thing in particular points to how systemic this problem is.
Claiborne and Haw argue for a pre-Constantinian outlook to become the dominant worldview of the church again. For too long we have hugged and caressed the power of big "C" Christianity and protected that power with swords and guns. The Crusades, the Middle Ages, the Reformation, World War I, and beyond have all had a tribalist Christian aspect to them. We fought against each other for the correct version of Christianity instead of listening to the ancient voices of Christianity and refusing to pick up weapons in the first place.
The two co-authors also make a willing plea for pacifism that is active and willing to die for something. The pacificism of Minicius Felix as an example. Pacifists cannot abstain or become isolated from the world. Instead, pacifists need to stand up in rebellion, revolution or compassion and actually do something, even if it gets them killed. This is a pacifism, which some have called "just pacifism," that is sorely needed in a world where so many "say put down your weapons" from afar so they never have to be in harms way.
In the end, the authors realize the past cannot be fixed---it's already happened. So as Christians the most important thing we are called to is confession, repentance, and forgiveness. We need to stop forming apologies for the Crusades (in which Christians killed other Christians for power, by the way) and our quiet approval of war and just ask for forgiveness, repent of our ways, and confess to each other and the world that we are sorry, guilty, but most importantly, forgiven by Jesus Christ.
Comments
How we feel about our sins is not the issue. It's how Jesus Christ felt during his horrible ordeal while on the tree when the penalty of all human sin was imputed to him. To be "forgiven" has nothing to do with what many think it does in regard to relationships. I hurt you, I'm sorry, will you please forgive me? Forgiveness in context to redemption is the equivalent of receiving a pardon. That is, once we believe in the report regarding the death, burial and ressurection of Jesus Christ, we "receive the atonment" and an automatice pardon(John 3:18). We have eternal life immediately. This gift has nothing to do with our "good", personal sacrifices or whatever we deem as acceptable to God, the theology of Cain. It is faith and faith alone not validated by its fervor, but the object is beholds, the Lord Jesus Christ. How can so many miss it? Time and time again the Apostle Paul spoke of the marvelous powerful gospel while discounting the futility of works.
You must be perfect. Anyone who thinks they can gain God's love, acceptance must be perfect. As the disciples put it, impossible. But, Jesus Christ responded by saying all things through God are possible. I beleive he was refering to his sacrificial death. Scriptures are clear that if one fails the law in one point he is just as guilty as one who failed the entire law(one definition of perfection). The good news is that perfection in time is a judicial imputation based on faith or agreement with the work of Jesus Christ. That is redeemed are considered "perfect" or righteous even though we still sin in time.
The "lost gospel" is why I beleive we are in the closing period of the last days. A time where teachers with "itching ears" and demon theology abounds, especially in the religious realm. The "falling away" mentioned in the new testament regarding the last days has nothing to do with losing one's salvation. It refers to a falling away from the love of truth replaced by fables or fiction. Global religion is on the move, growing and soon to be exploding. The only thorne in the side of religion is the marvelous gospel, the information the Apostle Paul devoted his entire ministry to.
Enough said. Thanks.
Your closing paragraph. You listed several conditions, which based on the context, seemed to pertain to gaining God's acceptance, salvation. Nowhere does "feeling sorry for sins" accomplish anything, especially prior to faith in Jesus Christ, salvation. So many fail to distinguish between the singular command(nonmeritorious) to obtain the free gift of eternal life and the many commands after salvation motivated by love. That is the post salvation life is about love, works, not to obtain salvation or even preserve it. Rather to express it to God and others in love by our works. This was the primary message in James 2. Those saved by the law of liberty pointing the nonbeliever to faith in Jesus Christ without works, by their works. For the believer, when we do sin, we lose fellowship only, nothing more. I John 1:9 gives God's response to us when we do sin. We are simply to name them, identify them, acknowledge them. By so doing, we are pointed back the path of love and fellowship with our Father.
You say I miss your point. Not really. But when anyone leaves ambiguity in a closing paragraph regarding the gospel I respond.
Because when it's all said and done. It's really all that matters. The work of salvation is complete. The penalty of all sin was imputed to Jesus Christ. Sin is dead. Salvation complete. All that is required is for the person to understand the Gospel and believe. Sin can wreak havoc in a person's life and hurt others, but from a spiritual(penalty) point of view, it is dead.
I think you might have misunderstood the context I was implying in this post.
First, I am reviewing a book, and in the last paragraph I am summarizing and giving perspective on the authors' views. If you would like to understand more of how the authors' understand the moral and eternal properties of sin within the individual Christian's life I would seek out the book and gain their perspective. Even if you do not agree with them, this book is crucial to understanding an increasingly important perspective within Evangelicalism.
Second, I think that in the last paragraph you are understanding me to be discussing the individual Christian. That is not my intent. If it is ambiguous than that is my fault. My intention is to speak of the role of the Christian in community, and that is to corporately ask for forgiveness for the wrongs we have committed as a whole group. We need to seek forgiveness from those we have hurt, or from those who have hurt us, as a community.
What one of the Amish communities did in Lancaster last year was remarkable. As a community, they banded together after a massacre in their schoolhouse and actually helped out the killer's family. They gave forgiveness as a community. But sometimes, the Christians are the one's in the wrong. Sometimes we need to seek forgiveness as a community. I, for one, am an adamant proponent of the letters drafted by different denominations in America asking for forgiveness for condoning war. It's not about the War in Iraq in particular. It's about Christians, since the time of Constantine, letting war and killing go on and turning a blind eye to it as a community (or network of communities). [I do understand that war is a very complex issue. Some suggested reading on this issue is Novena in Time of War].
In short, I am not attempting to comment on the individual Christian's relation to sin in any way in my final paragraph. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Grace and Peace.
Thom,
Thanks for the review. I personally consider myself on the side of Christian non-violence and support apologizing for our condoning of war. Church history in this area has been neglected. I have attempted to talk to many evangelicals about war and Christ's message of peace, but many actually get really upset (surprisingly?).
I remember when I spoke at church about the Peace of Christ, metaphorically speaking, and I remember one response that got back to me, that is, "What is Evan going to say to the war veterans in the congregation?" It's almost as if we defend war because it is American rather than Christian. I suppose this comes from thinking that what is (traditionally) American is Christian; obviously, a poor understanding.
Sorry to ramble on...good stuff.
PS - I got what you were saying