From an interview with Brian McClaren
Church Marketing Sucks: A Conversation with Brian McLaren
Right at the heart of Jesus’ teaching is this radical idea that the kingdom of God doesn’t come through human force. We’re always tempted to use human force. In order to see the kingdom of God come without human force, we have to be willing to suffer. But with force we have to see others suffer.
The suffering of others is rarely discussed, if EVER, by these dear Christians of the Religious Right, and this is desdpicable. How do they MISS this clear message of the gospel? They read a very different gospel, and worship a very different God. Meanwhile, “Christ stands at the door and knocks”.
It’s taking a long time for followers of Jesus to believe he’s right about the kingdom of God. I’m not saying there’s no place for armies and weapons, I suppose there is in our world. I think I might have said in the book, Psalm 20 says that some trust in horses, some trust in chariots, but we trust in the name of the Lord our God. But when you have a lot of horses and chariots as we do, it’s easy to trust in them.
Psalm 20 provides a clarity of vision into the minds of the Bush administration. They “trust in chariots” (the modern variety, and also , not-so-modern)
So, I see that McLaren admits soldiers and war are admittedly part of our world. I agree they are a regrettable necessity. I wonder if anyone will say under what circumstances they might be used righteously? Someday the lion will lie down with the lamb. But only when Jesus is visibly and physically ruling the earth and when Satan is restrained from influencing the fickle hearts of men and women.
Also, while recognizing the abuse of military power in the name of Christianity, I see a fundamental:-) difference in the way Christians and Muslims view force in advancing their religions. Don’t you?
Having said that, I am not unhappy about using war and battle terminology in advancing the kingdom of God. I think it largely applies to the spiritual battle with evil spirits rather than flesh and blood, though. (Eph.6). We shouldn’t confuse our battle against spiritual forces with some mandate to further Christianity by military force.
What will we do with these words of Jesus: “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth. I did come to bring peace, but a sword.” Matt. 10:34. Also, “From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force.” Matt. 11:12.
My point being that we are not here to please all, but construct a strong unity among the faithful who will believe the hard truth. I’m hoping to convert Muslims, Buddhists,etc., but not just incorporate them regardless of what they think.
Elijah,
“while recognizing the abuse of military power in the name of Christianity, I see a fundamental:-) difference in the way Christians and Muslims view force in advancing their religions. Don’t you?”
Actually, not much. They kill 3300, we kill (who knows how many more innocent civilians) The end result: a massive, dispropotiante REACTION. Especially given the fact that Jesus said we are to LOVE our enemies and not return evil and for evil.
Obviously Jesus means something other than a violent use of force against enemies when I said “I do not come to bring peace but a sword”, since at his coming, it was said “On earth peace, goodwill toward all”.
Who said anything about “incorporating” them? Many peaceful Christians advocate a willful, but peaceful, RESISTANCE and opposition and actions to cut such evil off by cooperating to end their means and methods of support. But it IS rather clear that Jesus said “Love Your Enemies” and scores of other things like it. “The violent take it by force” seems to me to be a condemnation of “the violent”. Jesus was faced all the time with Zealots who advocated violent overthrow of the tyranny of Rome.
The only “incorporating” going on is the Church in this country “incorporating” the ways of the world, which is violence to meet violence, instead of the actual Jesus, who announced a Kingdom that calls for justice, for love of enemy.
“The hard truth” is simply a guise for accomodating to the “wisdom of the world” and to cooperate with the principalities and powers.
Dale
It was stated, “Psalm 20 provides a clarity of vision into the minds of the Bush administration. They “trust in chariots” (the modern variety, and also , not-so-modern)”
If you want the United States to act according to the teaching of Christ then we would have to be a “Christian Nation.” You can’t fight to keep God out of gov and expect gov to act according to God’s teachings at the same time.
Billy
Billy,
I don’t advocate “Christian Nation” because I don’t believe that’s what it is, but some of the BASIC issues of justice, and profit motivations which the Bush administration has dramatically dialed up during their 4+ years (yes, all have done this, but Bush’s crew has done this almost unashamedly)….these are outright corruptions of democracy. There are SOME Peace issues that are absolutely functional and “sane”, as in avoiding outright arrogance and power-driven relating to the world. It just will NOT WORK in the long run. The “trust in horses and chariots” IS a criticsm leveled BY THE PROPHET at the government. It IS a warning.
Plus, I don’t divide the world into categories. War based on false premises (not even getting to the point where we talk about the legitmacy of ANY war in today’s world) is not an issue of concern only to Chrisatians. It is about world security. And arrogance and hubris such as shown by Bush and Cheney and Wolfy and Rummy is DANGEROUS for everybody on the planet, and they also back every corporate desire to “rid the world” of regulatory watches on the system of checks and balances against corporate greed. This is a justice issue (and yes, Christian have a particular take on this, but there IS a common humanity which needs spokespersons and advocates; some basic rights NOT to be exploited by the rich). In my Bible, there is a preferential option in favor of the poor. Jesus said that we are to do “unto the least of these”, or we don’t even know him. This has social and political implications.
Dale