Rev. Jeremiah Wright

If you turned on the TV you might have noticed a few stories about how Rev. Jeremiah Wright is hurting the Obama campaign. How is it hurting the campaign? I'm not sure. But talking about it does hurt the campaign, and I guess that's how you create news instead of reporting on it.

They play clips of Wright imitating John F. Kennedy, taking it totally out of context, and say this is an indication that he's sparking racial divisions. Say what? Apparently a black man talking in public about racial inequities stirs up divisions.

I don't mean to wax on about politics, in fact I did not intend to write on politics at all. What I want to write on today (taking a break from my 21st Century Christian Fellowship series) is how inspired I became by Rev. Wright after reading his speech at the National Press Club yesterday.

It is good to hear the Gospel of Peace, and it is especially good to have it receive so much attention. I'm half-surprised that it received such a negative reaction. I guess it should not be a surprise considering Jesus promised the world would hate us for the sake of the Gospel. Of course with the majority of the nation claiming to be Christian, it's different.

What this points to is the spiritualization of the United States. If the Gospel does not say "America is blessed by God" or comes down on America for her sins, it's a bad Gospel.

Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.- 1Cor.1.22

Jeremiah Wright isn't against America, and he consistently states how grateful he is to live in this country, and has served six years in the military (often drawing criticism on his accusers who have not served at all). But he does call the nation to repentance for her sins regarding oppression, usury, and rejecting the poor. He gets a lot of criticism for one line out of a forty-minute sermon about the character of God where he said, "God damn America" because we do not care for the oppressed and even cause oppression. I don't think that needs to be defended, but it's not anti-American, and it's not anti-patriotic (except to those who think patriotism is an uncritical view of the nation as a whole - even though they're critical of the "left," hypocritically). But he was using the language of the prophets who said, "Woe to you" for the poor in your land go hungry while you fill your bellies.

So while the media, and right-wing pundits, are falling over themselves to play six-second clips of the Reverend in order to slander him, they ignore when he says, "Maybe now, as an honest dialogue about race in this country begins, a dialogue called for by Senator Obama and a dialogue to begin in the United Church of Christ among 5,700 congregations in just a few weeks, maybe now, as that dialogue begins, the religious tradition that has kept hope alive for people struggling to survive in countless hopeless situation, maybe that religious tradition will be understood, celebrated, and even embraced by a nation that seems not to have noticed why 11 o’clock on Sunday morning has been called the most segregated hour in America."

While they're calling him "racist" and "bigoted," they ignore when he says, "And maybe now we can begin to take steps to move the black religious tradition from the status of invisible to the status of invaluable, not just for some black people in this country, but for all the people in this country."

This is good stuff, but his detractors don't want to hear it, they want to shout over him, demonizing him for no other purpose than it hurts their political foe. His words wouldn't even be in the news if we weren't in a Presidential election year and a black man was running.

Maybe this dialogue on race, an honest dialogue that does not engage in denial or superficial platitudes, maybe this dialogue on race can move the people of faith in this country from various stages of alienation and marginalization to the exciting possibility of reconciliation.

And they continue to smear Black theologians because they don't understand it. They're afraid of the rhetoric because it implicates us all, black and white, in the sin of oppression.

The prophetic tradition of the black church has its roots in Isaiah, the 61st chapter, where God says the prophet is to preach the gospel to the poor and to set at liberty those who are held captive. Liberating the captives also liberates who are holding them captive.

It frees the captives and it frees the captors. It frees the oppressed and it frees the oppressors.

He brings the Church back to Jesus Christ, whose first message was from Isaiah.

The prophetic theology of the black church is not only a theology of liberation; it is also a theology of transformation, which is also rooted in Isaiah 61, the text from which Jesus preached in his inaugural message, as recorded by Luke.

And while the media calls him divisive, he's calling us to unity with one another. Somehow they've missed his message.

The Apostle Paul said, "Be ye reconciled one to another, even as God was in Christ reconciling the world to God’s self."

God does not desire for us, as children of God, to be at war with each other, to see each other as superior or inferior, to hate each other, abuse each other, misuse each other, define each other, or put each other down.

Maybe the offense comes because we don't want to face our sins. We don't want to know we've wronged anyone. Wright evokes Jim Wallis, "America’s sin of racism has never even been confessed, much less repented for."

And this is a message that needs to be taken to the Church mostly, but also to the world.

Shame on the media, God bless Jeremiah Wright, a brother in Christ.

The expression of love and devotion

I don't think worship music is supposed to "take" us anywhere. Worship isn't for our benefit, it is to lift up the Name of God in this dark world. We're not supposed to be worshiping to find something from it. We're commanded to worship, we worship sometimes because we feel pleased in the Lord. Sometimes the Spirit urges us to worship. And sometimes the Spirit overwhelms us when we're not worshiping! I just find it difficult to say we're supposed to get to a certain place or feel a certain way when worshiping. What happens when we worship and we don't get to that place? Is it not worship then? I know people who have tried so hard to get that feeling that had once, and then they're focusing on that feeling, not on God.

I would have to do a lot more study to be sure, but I think this terminology is relatively new. I don't recall the historical Church or scriptures to speak of worship as something that somehow brings us closer to God, or "lay open our hearts" to His Spirit.

Music is inherently spiritual and secular concerts move people in a spiritual way. So we must discern what is the Spirit and what is the music.

John Piper writes about "Christian Hedonism" so maybe he would disagree with me. Maybe he feels we should seek pleasure from God through worship. But that brings me back to where I ask what part is God and what part is the music?

The Church used canticles and hymns to embed scripture in their minds because people remember song better than words. The same way they used images to tell Biblical stories.

I don't know when worship turned into an emotional experience. Yes, hymns are emotional to me because it is proclaiming the character and works of the Lord in the congregation. It's stirring. It moves me into greater understanding. But modern worship isn't proclaiming God's character so much as it is an emotional outpouring of how we feel about God.

New Testament hymns:

My soul doth magnify the Lord,
and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior.
for he has looked with favor on the lowliness of his servant.
Surely, from now on all generations will call me blessed;
for the Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is his name.
His mercy is for those who fear him from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with his arm;
he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts.
He has brought down the powerful from their thrones,
and lifted up the lowly;
he has filled the hungry with good things,
and sent the rich away empty.
He has helped his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy,
according to the promise he made to our ancestors,
to Abraham and to his descendants forever."

-- Luke 1:46-7 (“Magnificat”)

Blessed be the Lord God of Israel;
for He hath visited and redeemed His people.

-- Luke 1: 68 (“Benedictus Dominus Deus Israel”)

Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace,
according to thy word: for mine eyes have seen thy salvation,
which thou has prepared before the face of all people:
a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.

-- Luke 2: 29-32 (“Nuc Dimittis Servum Tuum”)

Awake thou the sleepest and arise from the dead,
and Christ shall give thee light.

-- Ephesians 5:14

Manifest in flesh,
justified in spirit,
visible to angels,
preached among the nations,
believed on in the world,
taken up into glory.

-- I Timothy: 3-16

Notice how these hymns are declaring God's work and God's character, and responding in praise to His works.

Notice how David responds in praise:

Psalm 22:22
I will declare your name to my brothers; in the congregation I will praise you.

Psalm 68:26
Praise God in the great congregation; praise the LORD in the assembly of Israel.

When I see David expressing himself it is because of something going on in his life. He was depressed, so he wrote about his depression. He was joyous, so he wrote about his joy. This is different than going to worship to enact an emotion. I see this modern worship as a way to engage in an emotion, not an outpouring of an emotion in the heart.

An example from life: If I gave a gift to my wife because she is great and makes me happy, she would be pleased with it. If I gave her a gift to please myself, that's a different story.

I won't say that God doesn't interact with us during worship. That would be foolish to say. I believe God is always interacting with us, we're just not paying attention most of the time. We're called to walk in the Spirit. The Psalm says to "enter His courts with thanksgiving and His house with praise." This is when there was a physical court and a physical house, but now we're to "rejoice always" and to "pray without ceasing." We're calling into a spiritual priesthood where God dwells in us.

I don't have a problem with songs to the Lord about how we feel about him. But I can't always sings some of them because I'm not always feeling that way. I know someone who can't sing "I could sing of your love forever" because they feel it would be a lie. I don't want worship to be a lie. I've excluded myself from worship for a long time because I felt like I was dishonest. I'm trying to get back into it now, I need work, I'm a weak guy.

Worship does bring us closer - sometimes. Worship does lay our hearts open - sometimes. I just don't think that's the goal of worship. Maybe I'm wrong. All I know is I need help.

The 21st Century disciple

One thing we don't hear in church on Sunday morning very often is the cost of discipleship. As I mentioned in the last segment, our churches today have spiritualized the Gospel, making it an individual decision. This comes from the western mindset of individualism. We want to be our own man, to lead our own lives. So we have detached spirituality from the community and have placed it in the individual.

Our pastors now feed lines of profession to saints during their baptisms, this is because our young brothers and sisters are not being taught what this profession means. It is more than signing a membership card and paying tithe every week. Christ has called us to a total devotion to him.

Matthew 16:24-26

Then Jesus said to his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it. What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?

Luke 14:26-30, 33-35

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters–yes, even his own life–he cannot be my disciple. And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple. “Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it? For if he lays the foundation and is not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule him, saying, ‘This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.’ In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple. Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is fit neither for the soil nor for the manure pile; it is thrown out. “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”

So what does it mean to hate? The common explanation comes from the likes of Bible commentators such as Matthew Henry who says, "he must comparatively hate them, must love them less than Christ, as Leah is said to be hated when Rachel was better loved. Not that their persons must be in any degree hated, but our comfort and satisfaction in them must be lost and swallowed up in our love to Christ, as Levi’s was, when he said to his father, I have not seen him. (Deut. 33:9)"

This is a great explanation pulled from scripture, but the comparative is added to help us make sense of things. The Jacob/Esau comparison is a comparison, but the "hate" there is an "opposition to." God opposed Esau, and blessed Jacob.

Interestingly, Esau was a successful person, as we see that he had many servants. Which shows what Jesus said that God causes rain to fall on the righteous and wicked. (Matt. 5:45) So this opposition/hate by God toward Esau could be seen as God hating Esau's wickedness, and blessing Jacob's righteousness. But Jacob was in no way more righteous than Esau when he was blessed, or chosen, when he was born ("the older will serve the younger" (Gen. 25:23)). He was a deceptive young man, and even deceived his uncle later in life by interbreeding their sheep. (Gen. 30)

Paul's application of the Jacob/Esau divide was in explaining election. Clearly Jacob was elected before his birth, and Esau was despised. And this election was for the blessing of the Lord and of the lineage of the Messiah. Our election is to eternal life. So from this we see that Esau is the image of the unbeliever and Jacob is the image of the believer. God's hatred is thus towards the unregenerate, and the elect are chosen to be saved through the washing by blood and renewing of mind by the power of the Spirit. We too were hated by God, but he loved us so much he saved us. Paradoxical.

So what do we learn from all of this in relation to Luke 14:26 and onward? What I believe is that we are to follow Jesus and his commands while entirely disregarding the demands and commands of all others as they conflict with the Word of the Lord. As God both hated us and loved us, we are to hate and love the world. We are sojourners here. We are not of this world, and our work here should be the work of one from another world reaching into this one to show love and mercy to the enemies of God.We are opposed to the world, and are enemies of it; but we love our enemies and give ourselves to them.

Because our language is so limiting, this hate is not spite, evil thoughts or anger towards anyone, it is then correctly placed, as Matthew Henry and so many others say, in a comparative view. This is a simplistic way on answer, but when you discover what it truly means, it's political, it's social, it's spiritual. It alters the way in which one lives.

And I think in this country something has been spiritualized, like in so many past empires and kingdoms, and that is America. America is placed on par with Christ, and it is a great evil. We disobey the Lord of Hosts to carry out the plans of the nation. We're encouraged to lie, steal, deceive, kill, abandon the sabbath, idolize our sovereignty, and dishonor our parents all for the sake of "national security" or "foreign interests" or whatever it is. And that's what it means to "forsake all others." That's what it means to "be a stranger in this land." One blogger friend of mine explained why he didn't vote by saying he wouldn't vote in France either. The image here is that of a resident alien. We live here under the laws of the nation, but we are not a part of this nation, we are not vested in her interests.

As a disciple of Christ, we are to be apart from the world. Church derives from ekklesia, "called ones out." We are pulled out of this world, not a part in the temporal worries and cares of the day. No not live as the world does. (Rom. 12:2) The 21st Century Church needs to get back to following the commands of Christ.

Going beyond "seeker-friendly"

Every generation has a new approach to worship. The Baby Boomers created the "contemporary worship" style. The current Generation X churches are "seeker-friendly." This is great! The only problem is when they come seeking and find nothing. We bring them in and show them how easy it is to be a Christian - that is to be a Christian in the same sense that one can be a Charger's fan - but never ask them to count the cost. While trying to put aside piety to attract sinners, we have turned church into a "museum of saints."¹ hoping that, instead of being convicted by the Gospel, they will see how great Christians are and convince the, that was to be a part of our club.

But when the Gospel is preached, God is engaging the world in a temporal manner. The Gospel alone is attractive enough to draw seekers and sinners - who are one-in-the-same - and bring them into not just a club, but into communion with God through His Son, Jesus Christ.

When the Church is instead a "hospital for sinners,"¹ it becomes the most attractive, effective force on Earth. This is a place where needs are met, wounds are healed, bellies are filled, and hearts are poured out. This is where freedom is gained, and devotion is formed.

Instead we have opted for a moralism which is easy to fake. We're not open to any seeker, just the moral ones. We don't want the gays, the immigrants, the poor and dying. We want seekers just like us. They might have ragged edges (and who doesn't?), but those are easy to hide. They might change their lifestyles a little to fit in more, but this is just moralism on the surface. This is not true change or repentance. Jesus said to the moral leaders they were "whitewashed tombs" - they were attractive on the outside but dead within. He said it is what is in the heart that makes us sinners.

This is an impasse here, for the seeker-friendly church will not say we are sinners in need of grace. They do not admit to sin. Instead, they hold out morals to live by without convincing anyone as to why (and is it any wonder why Christians don't act any differently than the world?). Instead of sinners, we are just "off track" or "not living up to God's standard" or some other pillowy term. But without this knowledge, how do we extend grace? The seeker will ask, "What is this for? Why do I need forgiveness?"

But when we bring in the sinners - the rock stars, revolutionaries, politicians, gays, prostitutes and me - and extend to them the Gospel of Peace, we are humbled and fall at the grace of the one called Merciful. When our lives are laid out before the eyes of God and he imparts His righteousness over all of our sins, we are given a new perspective. What God has done for me is available for all! It doesn't matter what we have done, we are called "holy!" And on the Day of Judgment, when all of our deeds are exposed, we are not ashamed because we are viewed as righteous for nothing more than Calvary's Cross.

This is the first, and greatest need of the post-church of the 21st Century. We cannot forget the power of the Gospel. We cannot deny the grace of our Lord. This is the standard behind all other churchiness must follow. For without the Gospel of Christ, all else has no meaning or purpose and we can all go about our lives as if nothing matters at all.

1. These quotes are attributed to Morton Kelsey

Prologue: Why church needs to change

This is the heaviest thing on my mind lately, and and this is like a manifesto on Christian fellowship. These are a few quick points where I see change is needed:

I'm coming to this place where I find it increasingly difficult to "go to a church"¹ that is rich. Jesus had a lot of harsh things to say about the rich, let alone what James had to say. But when the poor are shuffled to the back of the building during worship, and when the congregation does nothing to reach out to the poor and oppressed, I don't know if that is really worship at all.

James 1:27 says that true worship is caring for the poor and widow in their distress. If a congregation is not doing that, what are they doing?

While so many congregations here in the valley keep trying to bring in more rich people, they are pushing out the poor. Instead of taking James 5 to the streets of Mecca - where the farm workers are living in shanties with open sewers - we're taking a casual, cuddly approach to some twisted Gospel to the mansions of Indian Wells.

I don't know a church in the valley (excluding the Christian Scientist and Unitarian communities) that are reaching out to the large gay and lesbian community here. Jesus hung with the lepers and I don't know of one faith-based AIDS outreach here.

There is only one missionary for every six congregations in the United States. Are we more concerned about entertaining our Christian youth groups than saving souls, and caring for the needy?

I think I wrote too much here, but it's what's been going through my mind. Baby steps.

I need help. more than anyone.

1. This is in quotes because it is in common vernacular but is a misnomer - it is really "communion with the saints"

Introduction: What does the next church look like?

I hear a lot of opposition to the so-called "postmodern" or "emergent" church movement. I understand there is concern for weak doctrine, cheap grace and relativism, but I think there's mostly a fear of change.

I started out with a point I wasn't trying to make originally. Let me digress; I'm not trying to defend the emerging church at all.

What I'm trying to get at is community. This generation is yearning for something new. We want real community, real worship, real service. We're sick of the "Christian" subculture that is marketed for sale.

But the modern church structure is battling against these needs, trying to stick with the old structure - the structure that is modeled after secular businesses, not 1st Century communities. I remember when one local college/career group set up non-traditional worship stations encouraging attendees to worship through expressive means such as art, prayer and meditation. The church-parent stopped that practice within a month.

But the "church" we have now is not traditional itself, it was created in the 70s when the last generation rebelled from the previous generation's worship structure. They played guitars, they didn't wear ties - they even created something called "pre-tribulation" eschatology (not to make an issue of that however).

This next generation doesn't have a strong devotion to any denomination. Right now I could go to any denomination congregation and have no idea what set them apart, they're all focused on families, moralism, and don't teach doctrine and have a soft-focus on the gospel. But our generation loves orthodoxy, and orthopraxis. We appreciate the traditional methods of fellowship and worship. We want doctrine and mystery, somewhat of a paradox but also in the tradition of the monastics of the past.

But what do we do? I'm personally sick of the spirit of schism which broke the Catholic church in two and then later caused the Protestant schism which itself brought dozens of smaller schisms. Now we have several churches in this valley who broke off from other churches, and the process continues. I don't want to break off, that's contrary to the community I so want.

21st Century Christian Fellowship

This is an introduction to an introduction. I am developing a series on the new face of the 21st Century Church. This is a Church who is breaking away from the empirical structure of the dominant evangelical Church of the latter 20th Century.

If you have been reading along with me previously, you might read what has already been said, and it is redundant, but that is now a part of this series.

It's very possible that I will expound on this a bit more and attempt to publish it, but I'm not one to make plans for next week, let alone plans like that. So it's all up in the air.

All parts of this series will be tagged with 21CCF so you can find them. I have several sections mostly complete (in fact everything I post here is not going to be complete), but I am missing some sections which are in my outline that are not begun. I will do my best to post all sections in order, but it's possible I might just around a bit.

My overall outline looks like this (names may change over time):

21st Century Christian Fellowship

• Introduction: What does the next church look like?


• Prologue: Why church needs to change

Sections

1. Going beyond "seeker-friendly"


2. The 21st Century disciple


3. Making disciples


4. The Gospel is communal


5. The Gospel is political


6. What it means to worship


7. The expression of love and devotion


8. Identity in poverty - blessed are the poor in spirit


9. Identity in oppression - blessed are the persecuted


10. Identity in peace - blessed are the peacemakers


11. From the bottom up: control by the laity

This is a rough beginning, so be patient and understanding please.

Christian priorities and violence

It makes me sick that Christians complain about TV because its sexuality, music because its vulgarity, and businesses because they hire gays.

Yet I haven't heard a single complaint about the hottest trend amongst teenage boys: Ultimate Fighter Challenge and other "mixed martial arts" events and shows are filling our networks with violence. Kids are practicing to fight, they're fighting at school and form fighting clubs. They're now using fighting in gyms for fitness. On Discovery Channel and The History Channel they both have shows about guys traveling the world learning how to fight and be "warriors."

But somehow this is fine in the Christian ethic. Somehow violence is more acceptable than skimpy clothes.

I'm not advocating a campaign to end violent programs, I just wanted to hold a mirror up to American Christianity's moral priorities.

A quick look through Ecclesiastes 3

I think the key to the Ecclesiastes 3 passage is "time." If there really is a time for "everything" then there is a time for sin and a time for repentance. A time for rebellion and a time of service. This does not mean that it's right to do all of them, even in its time, does it? It's not giving us the "OK" to do as we will, but only points to time in which it is done.

This passage is also in the middle of Solomon's pondering and shouldn't be taken verbatim - much like most of Job is bad advice from his friends. Let's look in the context:

14 I know that everything God does will endure forever; nothing can be added to it and nothing taken from it. God does it so that men will revere him.

15 Whatever is has already been,
and what will be has been before;
and God will call the past to account.

I think this shows that God's work is much more important than man's toils. God's work is eternal, and man's work means nothing.

16 And I saw something else under the sun:
In the place of judgment—wickedness was there,
in the place of justice—wickedness was there.

17 I thought in my heart,
"God will bring to judgment
both the righteous and the wicked,
for there will be a time for every activity,
a time for every deed."

This shows that even in the place of rule, the government, there is evil. In justice and in judgment, wickedness was there. Everything that has a season will be judged still. A time for the killing and a time for its judgment. A time for healing and a time for its judgment.

18 I also thought, "As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. 19 Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. 21 Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?"

These seasons show how we act like animals? Does an animal kill or does an animal heal? Does the animal war or does the animal live in peace? This passage also shows how this text isn't to be taken straight and Solomon is expressing doubt in Man's soul after death.

I guess to finish this off would be the same way Solomon finished the Ecclesiastes with Chapter 12:

13 Now all has been heard;
here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments,
for this is the whole duty of man.

14 For God will bring every deed into judgment,
including every hidden thing,
whether it is good or evil.

The absurdity of a Just War Doctrine

History of Just War

The first Christian to speak of the absurdity of a just war doctrine was Origen. He even appealed to Paul's teaching to support his own argument against a just war philosophy espoused by the Roman Empire. This philosophy was not one created within the Church but by a Roman thinker named Cicero before the time of Christ.

The three tenets of Cicero's philosophy were:

1. There must be a just cause (eg. to stop an invasion).
2. There must be a formal declaration of war by the king or emperor (to give the other side a chance to put things right).
3. War must be conducted justly (eg. unarmed civilians should not be attacked).

After the conversion of Constantine's Rome to Christianity (311 C.E.), the historically pacifist Christian Church was corrupted, now being the public majority. After that time, Ambrose adopted Cicero's structure and inserted it into the Christian state's doctrine. A student of Ambrose was the well-known Augustine who expounded on the doctrine, making exceptions for conscientious objectors (basically those devoted to the Faith in service - Bishops, Fathers, Monks, etc.). It is from Augustine that the Church has drawn on for the doctrine of Just War.

The Modern Just War

The doctrine of "just war" begins with the understanding that war is wrong, and peace is desirable. The problem is in defining just war. Its purpose is to preserve peace through war. But this means it's preserving peace under the current nation's ruler(s), not under a new outside ruler. It's a fallacy that our version of peace would be better than an invading force's version of peace. And as the Bible, Apostles and martyrs attest, we should live lives in submission to tyrannical rule to the same level we would under democracy. When Paul tells the slaves of Colossians to obey their masters, these are literal slaves in bondage. When Paul writes to the Romans to submit to the authorities, the is the Emperor who has Apostles crucified.

The modern definition of just war usually includes the following list of requirements:

1. War must be undertaken by a lawful authority
2. There must be a just cause
3. War must be a last resort after all peaceful means of settlement have failed
4. More good than evil is likely to result from war
5. The war must have a reasonable chance of success for justice
6. There must be right intention (eg. to establish justice, not take revenge)
7. Targets must be military in nature
8. The war must must be carried out in a moral manner, respecting international agreements

Supporters of just war point to Romans 13 to vindicate the theory citing Paul's comments that the ruler "does not bear the sword for nothing." We must realize that Paul is not advocating for Christian involvement in these activities. The misconception may arise from the fact that Romans 13 is not a standalone letter but is a continuation of Romans 12 (the chapters and verses were entered long after the original writing) where Paul plainly tells the believer to "not repay anyone evil for evil" and to "not take revenge" as we "leave room for God's wrath." He goes on to say we should "not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" by feeding our hungry enemy, giving drink to our thirsty adversary. This is in direct conflict with his later comments about how the authorities act. Paul tells the believer to leave room for God's wrath and then explains the ruler is "an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."

Lest anyone should mistake my words, and find a pretense of wrongdoing, as if his wickedness were profitable to the world, or at least might be so, we have to say, that although God, who preserves the free-will of each individual, may make use of the evil of the wicked for the administration of the world, so disposing them as to conduce to the benefit of the whole; yet, notwithstanding, such an individual is deserving of censure, and as such has been appointed for a use, which is a subject of loathing to each separate individual, although of advantage to the entire city, while he himself was engaged in an abominable task, in which no one possessed of moderate understanding would wish to be engaged. Paul also, the apostle of Jesus, teaches us that even the very wicked will contribute to the good of the whole, while in themselves they will be amongst the vile, but that the most virtuous men, too, will be of the greatest advantage to the world, and will therefore on that account occupy the noblest position.... No one may take occasion from what has been said on this subject to commit sin, on the pretext that he will thus be useful to the world. ~Origen (4.70)

The Use of Just War

I think the strongest secular critique of the Just War doctrine is the fact that not one war has ever met its strict demands. They say "hindsight is 20/20" so when you look back at the history of warfare, it's easy to see that a just war is impossible to wage. It is from this vantage point of history that makes Augustine's apology of just war seem sarcastic. It seems judgmental in nature.

From a post-protestant evangelical Christian perspective, however, the strongest argument I have towards just war is sola scriptura. Martin Luther coined the phrase meaning "scripture alone." The scriptures do not at all lay out a doctrine of just warfare. In fact, the whole of just war theory is a secular construct and does not find its footing in scripture, but only in the tradition of Roman philosophy. If you noticed I did not make much effort to debate this topic with scripture, and it is because this whole doctrine does not come from scripture so there is very limited argument against it from scripture. What we do find is a call to radical discipleship by Christ Jesus, our Savior and Lord. This discipleship calls us to forsake all others (Matthew 10:37-39; 16:24-26; Luke 16:26-33) and give everything over to Him who is worthy of all worship. This means we obey his commands to love our enemies and to do good to those that hurt us (Matthew 5; Luke 6). This means we do not put national interests, family interests, individual interests over the interests of the Kingdom of God.

Lastly (and I do not want to sound hypocritical based on the last point just made), in this country we have what is called a "burden of proof." This means those who would espouse a just war must prove it is a right doctrine and that it is a practical theory. So far no one has given a sufficient argument for just war in the face of the evidence that warfare is inherently unjust by its very definition in the just war doctrine. Some might counter argue ( as the State of New Hampshire does in Article 10 of their State Constitution) that the doctrine of nonresistance is also impractical. They may be right, but in proving another theory wrong it does in no way validate an alternative theory (for surely there are many different theories, not just the two). The defense of nonresistance is a new argument, and its conclusions have no bearing on rightness of just war, or on its absurdity.

In Conclusion

The roots of Just War are in ancient Roman philosophy, not in Christian theology. It has seen no historical practice in war. Its failure to flow from Scripture and its impracticality in usage make it absurd.

Treating Judas Iscariot

I finally found a use for my iPod other than sitting in my bag looking trendy. I now take walks on my lunch break (I need the exercise and sun more than you know), so I can listen to Podcasts. I used to listen to radio preachers in the car on the way to work, or on a portable radio when I walked, but now I don't walk and don't drive to work. So I listen to Podcasts for Allister Begg, and R.C. Sproul.

Today I was listening to past episodes of Alistair Begg about Judas Iscariot. I had a few thoughts about this character I wanted to perhaps share.

There are usually only two readings of Judas: one vilifies the "traitor" making him into the most despicable character imaginable, and the other tries to exonerate him of his wrong, saying he was trying to do something right in bringing the Kingdom of God. Let's briefly look at the two pictures.

Ever since the early Church foundation, Judas was the bad guy. Many scholars say the manuscripts were even altered to make him out to be really terrible, even before the betrayal. It's easy to see why, he not only turned his back on Jesus, he sought out his death. The scriptures record he hung himself, and the Church has said the devil did this to him, partly because they think suicide is caused by Satan and partly because they don't want to make Judas look remorseful for what he did (even though he returned the 30 pieces of silver). He's the model of the antichrist, and rightly so for the antichrist comes from within, not from without. But in this way we distance ourselves from this man to not even give him any traits we might possess so we don't learn from him for life, only for theological reasons. Begg made a good effort to apply Judas traits to our own selfish ambitions and love for money, but he also vilified the character.

On the other hand, we hear that Judas was either secretly asked by Jesus to turn him over to fulfill scripture, leading to the other Disciples mistrusting him and casting him out. They say this is supported because Jesus doesn't seem surprised in the garden, and Judas kisses him emotionally. They suggest the two had a close relationship, even closer than the other Disciples. Others say he was just a zealot (Begg even suggests this in passing) who is impatient with Christ and wants to force his hand by stirring up the people during the Feast of Passover bringing a revolt. He is saddened when the people who profess love for the Messiah turn on him and choose Barabbas instead.

I feel we miss something by either of these two. Begg has come closest I've seen so far in bringing Judas' motives close to home. Judas was just like us, and we should be careful that we do not follow his steps. We should be very solemn to think that he is no better or worse than any of us. Judas was caught trying to serve two masters and opted for Mammon over the Lord. How many of us also try and split our allegiances? We would sell out our Savior for power, prestige, money, our country. We're living on the edge here, and it's not some extreme sport or extreme lifestyle. We're on the edge of eternal life and this fallen world. We're so close to letting our worldly concerns envelope our very existence.

We're defined by our vocations, our language, our nation. We should desire to be defined by our devotion to the Living God. Instead we find we are traitors, betrayers, murderers and thieves. O Lord, please save us.