flying.farther

Response to Just War Against Terror: The Burden of American Power in a Violent World

Jean Bethke Elshtain, in Just War Against Terror: The Burden of American Power in a Violent World, writes for the justification of a just war against terror as not only necessary, but also that the war on terror is the responsibility of the only great super power left and the country upon which the stability of the international community rests on – America. She argues that the current order, and all its advances, is at stake, but the prosecution of the war is hamstrung by the fad of opposition in academia and a pulpit that tends toward “self-flagellation” (117). She cites Tillich and Niebuhr to justify a violent response to “Islamic fundamentalism.” In her mind, it is the duty of the state to maintain the citizen’s security (and presumably their wealth) and it is the state that should react violently with those whom attack us.

There is a great deal that I disagree with within this book and its overall position. The following are some of my criticisms and where some of the more foundational disagreements between Elshtain and I occur.

Semi-whiggish historiography (pg. 28)
Elshtain’s construction of history is uncomfortably close to what is called in the historical field whiggery, whiggishness, or whiggish historiography. Certainly Elshtain’s history is not a full blown whiggery, after all her subject is America and not England, but the over all perspective and methodology is strikingly similar – an elitist view of the past with a somewhat triumphal idea of the present and connecting the two events is a distinct impression of destiny and inevitability. In most of Elshtain’s historical narratives one can find a whiff of whiggery, but in her understanding of the collapse of American slavery, whiggery seems explicit: “Lincoln could not have made such a claim if he had lacked the principles from which to challenge the abhorrent practice he condemned. Slavery was not a founding American principle. It was a repulsive practice that clashed with our principles and was therefore doomed” (28).

The Definition of Terror and its Application (pg. 18, 19, 152)
Elshtain seems to define terrorism rather objectively as “violence that targets noncombatants, is random and unpredictable, and aims to sow overwhelming fear in a population” (152). By and large, this definition of terrorism seems objective and that it could potentially cut both ways. However, Elshtain never allows for the term “terrorism” to be applied to American force; America as terrorist is never given a thought. She never seems to move from her perspective to see business end of American force, which leads to the next two points.

Japanese Militarism and Democratic American Force (pg. 54)
Elshtain seems to have a false understanding about democracy and militaristic force. She characterizes imperial Japan as militaristic (and I think rightly so, or at least in the 1930s and 40s), but credits the passivity of Japan to democratic government established post WW II. Here again Elshtain commits another historiographic blunder of equating the reduction of arms and perceived peaceful trade with governmental change. Certainly such a change concerning militarism can exist through governmental change, however, to make it appear that it was the governmental change, and not the depletion of resources and the utter devastation inflicted upon Japan by the Americans that flattened not only the economy, but also the Japanese spirit, is simply wrong – very wrong. Not only does she exclude the other more vital factors, but she again draws connections of inevitability that no historian would be comfortable with if judged by historical peers.

Simply put, Elshtain’s assumption that democracy demilitarizes a population is flat wrong. Her anecdotal proof is easily rejected and exposes her bias that America could not be militaristic. Perhaps she has not looked at the government’s budget, where over half is spent on the military?

American Weapons Cannot be Just (pg. 65, 67)
Just war theory is entirely dependent on the fact that we can discriminate between civilian and foe. However, truth be told, we cannot not actually discriminate through our technological, falsely advertised weapons. The weapons that the government buys from defense contractors come in over budget, late and with normally far less abilities than promised. Couple the false advertisement of what our actual capabilities are with our extreme reliance on technology and the conception of fighting a war from miles away with drones, our abilities to discern the right target become suspect at best. Just war theory was developed with the idea of conventional battles in mind and fought with arrows and swords – not with using video feeds to determine a suspect target and with a push of a button an entire building is flattened with whomever is inside, be it a hidden arms factory or a school.

A Poor Understanding of Kingdom Theology (pg. 30, 47, 99)
Elshtain continually points out that just war is a highly complex idea, as is the circumstances to which we are reacting, however, she seems to act as if opposing arguments and their underlying theological basis are simplistic, or at least her depiction of the opposing arguments are simplistic. She quite simply has a poor understanding of the complexities in Kingdom theology. She asserts that the Kingdom is entirely and solely eschatological and the ethic that Jesus preached is for the eschaton. She never once recognizes that Kingdom theology, by every current and respected theologian that I have heard, is a carefully nuanced theology to reflect the complexity that the Kingdom is both here and not here.

A Poor sense of Justice and Peace (pg. 23, 55, 56, 63, 100, 130)
As Elshtain has a simplistic idea of Kingdom theology, she likewise generally has a simplistic sense of justice and peace. She does, to her credit, mention varying types of justice, however, she lacks extending this complexity to an understanding of peace. Peace must include justice, otherwise there cannot be peace. Justice, similarly, cannot be sought without peace, but she does not mention the interconnectivity of peace and justice, in fact she at times sees them as antagonistic. She sees peace at times in opposition to justice and as such simplistically characterizes pacifism against justice. Without nuancing peace and therefore simplistically characterizing pacifism as passive, instead of what it is as nonviolent action, does injustice to a position that emphatically disagrees with her.

A Poor understanding of Community and Social Space (pg. 30)
Elshtain also has a poor understanding of community and social space. She claims that the “Christian community is not territorial, that is, it is not tied to a specific place and space” (30). This is emphatically not true. Christianity forms a political, social body and that body is not only tied to space and time, but also to the community in which it lives. Christian communities cannot simply pick up and leave – that is instead the American way of life. Whenever a community within another community simply leaves, relationships are broken for the Christian life is not an individualistic, inner spiritual life, but instead the character of the Christian life is an organic, social body that helps the community in which it lives. Relationships are established and thus Christianity is inherently territorial.

Myth of the Nation-State as Savior (pg. 46, 161)
I outright reject Elshtain’s assumption that the Nation-State is the savior that supplies our safety. This is an Enlightenment narrative that justifies the existence of the Nation-State and the use of force. Certainly life would be hectic and different than as it is now, but life and civil society existed long before Hobbe’s social contract and to say that life and civil society would cease to exist if not for the state is simply wrong. For more on a critique of this, see Theopolitical Imagination by William Cavanaugh.

A Couple Last Words
The Niebuhr and Tillich arguments are worn out, that is to say that she is arguing a moot point because theology has accepted the Niebuhrian argument for a fallen humanity. Her argument against the “humanists” is precisely that, an argument against humanists who hold to an anthropology of decades ago, that or she mischaracterizes the pacifists, which she has admittedly done in the book.

The arguments for bringing Saddam to justice would work far better for bringing Pinochet to justice, but instead we supplied Pinochet. While Saddam clearly did some evil acts, the justification for intervention in one place and ignoring others (Chile, Darfur, etc.), merely on the basis of murder, genocide and human rights violations, seems to discredit much of the argument for invading Iraq.

Lastly, how come the neighbor for Elshtain is always only the victim? Justice and peace is about righting relationships – rehabilitating the oppressor and bringing the oppressed out of their hurting circumstances – not about simply killing off the victimizer until there is no one left or they are punitively smashed into submission.

This is for Halden’s Pacifism Series.

I do not want to repeat what others have said in the series, so I do not plan to make an argument for my pacifism, rather, I want to mention a couple of the deciding factors the led to my shift and will also provide a critical reader more concepts to investigate. My pacifism grew out of two movements in my life – one that seems as clear as lightening and the other born out of a slower theological growth.

First, my social location. I was born into conservative Protestantism (which was sometimes evangelical, sometimes fundamentalist and even at times Pentecostal…ish), the Republican party and a family that was more than just a little pro military. One grandfather came back from Korea with sniper pins (or something to that effect), and more in the other family were in World War 2 with stories of sacrifice and danger. To bring the situation more up to date, I have been in discussions where family has said coercive, militaristic force is mandatory for keeping the peace, even on one’s own citizens; that anything goes to maintain the status quo and the perception of safety. None of this I suspect is new to anyone in America, or anywhere for that matter, but it seems socially locating one’s self is necessary for this autobiographical statement. Lastly, I suppose I am a “free church” pacifist which some might find weird in light of what I will soon say.

The first shift I can see clearly in my mind. It was a sunny day in Portland, Oregon at my undergrad school and just past noon. I was sitting on the beat up, orange couch, alone in the shade of my room and reading a small book I had somehow came across – The Wisdom of Tolstoy. There is a specific instance in the book that Tolstoy chronicles a Rabbi stating, something to the effect of, “There is a lot in your New Testament about nonviolence, but you don’t listen.” It was this statement in combination with Tolstoy’s message on the Sermon on the Mount that struck my mind dumb for the next half hour. It was here I realized that taking the text seriously very well might mean non-violence and non-violence is possible. Sure friends of mine were reading Hauerwas and Yoder, but that did not have the effect on me that other people felt, well, not by then it hadn’t. For me, it was Tolstoy. Call him the gateway drug to pacifism.

However, I do not think Tolstoy would have had the effect he did without a simultaneous rising of communal ecclesiology in my theology. I suppose it wasn’t a full on community ecclesiology then, more like an inchoate communality, but I had just written a paper on individualism and community in the church, arguing for the dumping of a mechanistic, individualistic anthropology in favor of the communal, organic body of Christ. As time has progressed and my ecclesiology found root within Christological/Eschatological Kingdom theology, so my pacifism strengthened. By identifying far more within the body of Christ – an extension of the kingdom here but not yet here – than any nation-state, my politics have taken a different turn in thought (which is partly why I hope to do a PhD in the subject of political theology – a response by myself to evils in the world is mandatory, but how ought the church engage?). Also, William Cavanaugh has been very helpful here; through re-examining history, his writings helped me, who was blind to the intrinsic coercive nature of the nation-state, to see where peace and coercion really lay.

It seems as one’s ecclesiology strengthens, particularly when it focuses on relationships, pacifism becomes the option. Doing violence to another human being just doesn’t exist, for it is the church who takes in the hurting and criticizes the powerful. The economy of God functions radically different and that is our first allegiance. America is cool and all, but despite what it might think, it isn’t God or the church.

A week or so back I read through The War on Terrorism and the Terror of God by Lee Griffith. I highly recommend the book for anyone thinking about violence, theology and the state or pacifism. The following quotes from the book are only a few of the many insightful points that Griffith over the course of the book. So go get the book and read it.

In nations in which the majority of believers are Christian, the church must bear the responsibility for the ease with which the name of God has been co-opted into the service of carnage. - xii

Meanwhile, the shelling of Muslim neighborhoods by the New Jersey did not differentiate between soldiers and civilians. While there were doubtless members of militia groups residing in these neighborhoods, the bombs could not set them apart from the children or the grandparents or the other women and men who were clearly noncombatants. If the defining feature of terrorism is the civilian identity of those who are targeted, then the “terrorists” in Beirut were not those who bombed military barracks but those who lobbed car-sized bombs into city neighborhoods. - 5

While the source of the dreams is unclear, in Lebanon, the violence can be traced to its sources. When we follow the trail and trace the violence back, we do not find God. We find a mad confluence of godlets. We find principalities and power, imperial nation states and barely organized guerilla fronts, all self-exalted, all petty, and all appealing to as much inhumanity as humans can muster. It is called Liberation and martyrdom. it is called defense and justice. Call it what you will. It is Terrorism. - 6

Nonetheless, the lack of definitional agreement [on what a terrorist and terrorism is] among terrorism experts is pronounced. - 7

…it was Edmund Burke who bequeathed us the definition of “terrorists” as those who are lacking sufficient awe for Father State. Terrorists see the wounds of the state and, rather than exercising caution, they practice subversion. Terrorists approach the state without piety or trembling. - 12

The crux of the extent to which Christians should fulfill their responsibilities as provisional citizens of various localities came with two defining issues: whether Christians could honor the divinity of the emperor, and whether Christians could wield weapons of war. “No” was the resounding answer on both counts during the first three centuries of church history, with very few exceptions to prove the rule. - 24

The American national mythos is messianic; it seeks to tell a story of freedom spread through self-sacrifice, not victories won through the spread of terror. To sustain the myth, Americans need to rewrite history just as surely as did Stalin to sustain his own version of communist orthodoxy. - 38

While technological developments foster claims (albeit false claims) that ours is an age of greater intimacy in the form of a “shrinking globe,” a “world wide web,” and a “global community,” there is no technological drive towards greater intimacy between combatants where all hell breaks loose in the global neighborhood. - 51

Violence is a form of proselytism which preaches that there is no God. The preachments of violence are more effective than televangelists, more zealous in winning converts than those who sell religion door to door. - 68

When doing battle with the demonic, one can never be too prepared or too strong. This also means that one should never allow oneself to feel secure. - 84

If one may not speak with the demons (for to do so would risk contaminating oneself and conferring legitimacy on evil) and if the demons will not change their ways (and how could demons be anything other than demonic?), then warfare is foreordained as the only possible form of engagement. - 86

These are the two sides of the prophetic mission: to announce judgment on the present order and to weep at the consequences the judgment portends. This biblical pattern is so pronounced that it seems fair to suggest that if either side of the mission is lacking, then the word that is being offered is not prophetic. - 119

Religiously oriented, this perennial (if not tedious) sense of new beginnings has become a prerequisite for involvement in U.S. politics. The Reagan campaign of 1984 gave best expression to the theme, simple but pregnant: “It’s morning in America.” - 143

Woven into the very fabric of U.S. origins, terrorism emerged in two forms: (a) in the violent confrontations between cultures on the frontier, and (b) in violent confrontations between the growing consciousness of rural interest and the power elites of the cities. - 145

Revelation is more a book about terror defeated rather than terror inflicted, which is why worship and liturgy are such a central feature of the book. - 205

Rather that being a time of hot persecution, it was a time when the Empire experienced relative calm, when wealth abounded, when the terror of the powerful seemed like no terror - in short, a time like ours. And so, John depicted the Empire not only as a “Beast” with fangs bared in preparation for violence, but also as a “Whore” who seduced victims onto the path of imperial Rome with no need for violent persecutions. - 206

And so in the name of making no concessions to terrorism, governments make the greatest concession of all, meeting terror with terror. - 221

In order to witness to the defeat of terror, churches and other faith communities must also be zones that are free from terror. Rather than peddling fears and threats of damnation, the church is called to witness to the one and only sufficient antidote to terror - the resurrection of Jesus. - 251

To the point of tedium, “God bless America” was the slogan proclaimed by every car wash and burger joint across the country. I saw not a single sign on a commercial enterprise beseeching god to watch over the people of Afghanistan. - 276

I am excited to hear that at my undergrad, Multnomah Bible College, Dr. John Perkins is giving lectures. Coming to Union last semester was dramatically different to say the least (though it was something I was looking for) and in that difference I found myself reading and listening to critiques, some solid and others flimsy. Here following is part one of three responsorial writings to three books I read for Social Ethics as Social Criticism dealing with race, as I presume some of Multnomah is going through too.

Part 1 – Risks of Faith: The Emergence of a Black Theology of Liberation, 1968-1998, by James H. Cone (Boston: Beacon Press, 1999).

James Cone’s book Risks of Faith, I have to admit, was convicting. I come from the evangelical tradition and a fundamentalist home. While I left the literalist roots, the evangelical doctrine continues to hold some sway. During my time in undergrad, under the influence of authors and friends, I came to hold a quasi-Mennonite stance. Also Kingdom theology, championed by Moltmann, Pannenberg and others, has largely shaped me, and fits well (in my mind) within the Anabaptist tradition. Kingdom theology leads to Kingdom ethics; thus when I think ethics, I think to care for the poor and the widow.

I was so focused on the poor and the widow, I neglected other aspects of theology; I was too simplistic. It felt like Cone specifically talked to me when he addressed hope theology: “white American theologians have been virtually silent on black liberation, preferring instead to do theology in the light of a modern liberalism that assumes that black people want to integrate into the white way of life” (27). I was and am fully aware that the poor are stuck at the bottom in a system of power structures; nevertheless, for all intents and purposes, I saw it as merely economic injustice – not also racial. Kingdom theology can cohere with Liberation theology, and to some degree it had for me, but I lacked the color dimension.

However, the book was far from done with me. As pitiful an excuse as it may sound, I felt that I was not allowed previously into the discussion. Whether it is culture, my up bringing, or whatever, I felt that since I was not black, I had no right to speak. I’ve been silent. Cone, however, has called me out. I felt invited into the discussion of racism, particularly in the chapter “White Theology Revisited.” My theology should reflect the richness of all the Christian traditions. I can and should include black theology right along side Yoder, Grenz, and Hauerwas. If I aim to teach theology at a college somewhere and one of the first classes I want to do will incorporate the non-white, non-male, and non-heterosexual theologies – essentially, liberationists. I especially see the need to do this at the Bible College I went to, not to be the token class that covers recent movements (for they already have one that briefly glosses over black theology and feminism), but to interact with the traditions that the evangelical world has marginalized. I want to balance out the white theology and incorporate the other voices.

I do have a concern though: violence. I first want to preface that I have come to hold some sort of loose pacifism, or better described as, peace ethic. My value of peace and non-violence stems from Kingdom ethics – the Kingdom is here but not here, however, as Christians we should endeavor to spread the Kingdom through Kingdom acts (i.e. non-violence). Also, the Kingdom liberates people and contradicts earthly power structures. Cone allows for violence, but I do not…I think. I understand that the oppressed should not work within the oppressor’s paradigm, yet at the same time, I believe the Kingdom not only liberates, but addresses the world and its evil in entirely different ways than the world acts. For now I disagree with Cone on the tactics of liberation, not because I am white and worried about the status quo, rather because I think the Kingdom ethics include non-violence and liberation together.

This is the first of three reposts from myspace.

Part 1

This post has been percolating inside me for a long time. Again this was written for ethics class. The entire paper is a response to a civil disobedience chapter, but I’ve only really posted the part I’ve been thinking about for so long - the church, the nation state. However, at the end, because of my take on the church, I do assert my position on civil disobedience.

The History and Nature of the Modern Nation-State

The nation-state as recognized today finds its roots in sixteenth and seventeenth-century Europe. William Cavanaugh, in Theopolitical Imagination, rightly asserts a view of government that is far different than the common stereotype. The centralized nation-state did not evolve out of necessity to halt the wars of religion, as if a referee between feuding Protestants and Catholics. Rather, the centralized government went beyond inept feudal lords and petty aristocracies and came into its own as an alternate power to religious rule. Nations began to retain the ultimate allegiance instead of religious affiliations; national governments became power structures in and of themselves vying for their subjects primary loyalty.

Clearly there was conflict between the religious powers and political leaders (i.e. Henry II and the Roman Catholic Church through Archbishop Thomas Becket) before the usurpation by political structures; however, governments during the post-reformation age won the battle for control. This is all to say, the governments now are far different from past forms (particularly the feudal system). Nations are in direct contrast to the body of Christ and require a loyalty (nationalism) above religious affiliation (i.e. JFK and his political maneuvering around the fear of subordinating the United States to papal authority).

Now, it is true there are similarities between the Roman government during the birth of Christianity and today. There was a total allegiance required by the emperor (to be viewed the son of a god among other thins, i.e. Julius Caesar was voted divine, thus giving his adopted heir Augustus the title son of god see the works of N.T. Wright), but for some legalized religious, like Judaism, some exemptions were made as long as the peace was kept. When Jesus claimed divine sonship, it is politically charged and in direct opposition to Roman authority (again, see the works of N.T. Wright). At the dawn of Christianity, the faith found itself in direct opposition to the greatest power in the world a centralized government that commanded supreme loyalty.

Today in America, nationalism and allegiance is assumed; to favor an organization that spans international boundaries over the powers of Washington D.C. is unpatriotic and seen by some as treason. I anticipate a critique that questions my assertion, that in fact, it is not as I say and I am at least seditious and ungrateful, if not traitorous. My response is this: America demands a patriotic allegiance that mirrors other forms of religious creeds and liturgy. Governments are power structures that demand much and in fact follow after religious belief systems, both in idea and action. For example, The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.

Wikipedia says this:
The Tomb Guards, the 3rd United States Infantry (The Old Guard), make personal sacrifices to have the honor of serving. They work on a team rotation of 24 hours on, 24 hours off, 24 on, 24 off, 24 on, and 96 hours off. An average guard takes 8 hours to prepare his uniform (which is solid wool–regardless of the time of year) for the next day’s work. In addition to preparing the uniform, guards also complete physical training, Tomb Guard training, cut their hair before the next work day, and shave twice per day. A special Army decoration, the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier Guard Identification Badge is authorized for permanent award to a Tomb Guard only after a period of nine months of duty as well as a passing a detailed test of 100 questions (from a pool of more than 300).

The first thing that came to my mind was the Hebraic Nazarite vow a promise to be solely Gods for a holy purpose and included rituals and promises (i.e. no cutting of the hair). In reality, the guards of the tomb answer to a promise, a promise that the website itself calls it a creed.

For my interaction with the government, in this case civil disobedience, I think to properly understand the relationship requires a right understanding of both parties. I choose explicitly the person of Christ, his work, and the church universal (the body of Christ) over a quasi-religious nationalism. It seems that many Christians might affirm Christ first, but seem to misunderstand the implications and ethics that Christianity demands. This is not to say I do not enjoy the perks or support America at times, but first and foremost for me is the supreme commandment to love God and others, all others all troops, social classes, ethnicities. The commandment includes extremes and enemies; in point of fact, both America and Al-Qaeda.

My view of civil disobedience is seen within this context; I disobey a structure that attempts to assert unwelcome, counter-Christian control. However, this is not to say that I am necessarily an anarchist, per se. The Bible clearly teaches an obedience to law and order (Romans 13), yet at the same time also portrays the people of God as ultimately loyal to God (i.e. Daniel 6, Acts 4, etc.). With this in mind, where the government diverges from Kingdom of God (of which the Church represents currently), so to I depart from the government.

The Kingdom of God has broken (Christs work), is breaking (the Church as the body of Christ), and will continue to break into this world (both ecclesially and eschatologically), culminating in the redemption of creation and the establishment of complete, divine rule. To merely object to evils vocally is impotent and does little to further the Kingdom; to speak against torture (an un-love of others) require speech and action to announce Christ and his Kingdom, though Christs ethic, to the world. Thus, the church protests compromising governments (i.e. acts of injustice) and reaps the consequences, to the point of dying like a lamb.

To state my view plainly: I resist through direct disobedience. I resist nonviolently. Fighting fire with fire is unacceptable; reacting to violence with violence is not love. Also, I resist communally. I do not resist through a national response, but through a church response (see William Cavanaughs Torture and Eucharist). I, myself individually, do not resist, but it is the body of Christ that together resists.

An explanatory note: the top portion of the post about Kingdom ethics might’ve been too academic in the vocabulary or lecture oriented for some to read. I got to talking with a friend of mine and conversationally lined it all out. So hopefully this will bring some more clarity for those who care to know.

Part 2

Me: im telling you, the modern nation state usurps the church (not necessarily moralistic “christianity,” but i mean the body of Christ, the church - kingdom ethics)

Him: maybe you should speak plain English

Me: im speaking plenty good english. here, read this and then well go from there. (as a side note, these two questions and my answers are from a recent exam for my Hebrews through Revelation class. They seemed a good enough place to start.)

1. What is the thematic center of James? Show how James pursues the themes in the letter. Explain the significance of these themes in light of the life setting of the readers and his teaching regarding trials in 1:1-25.

The thematic center asserted in the notes is as follows: be a doer of the Word this is the true religion of a mature, wise, obedient brother. Most explicitly stated, the thematic core centers on taming the tongue, assisting the orphans and widows, and remaining pure. (Other key themes are: testing of faith; wisdom/maturity; character of God; and poverty/wealth.)

The book of James is written to the diaspora (the scattered). While it might seem common to people today for the church to spread out, the mentality of today is 2,000 years separated and lacks an Old Testament focus. It seems that the audience was frightened and confused over the scattering, and in light of the Old Testament, they had a genuine concern. The Old Testament stressed that the identity of the people of God (in this case Israel) is entirely wrapped up in the land; to disobey resulted in removal from the land while obedience was rewarded with blessing towards a fruitful land. A scattering of the church and suffering trials, viewed from the Old Testament lens, is negative and implies punishment from disobedience. The author of James writes to correct the presupposition; under the new covenant, the follower is not identified through geography, but through ethic.

The writer uses three subjects to display the new ethic: control of the tongue; caring for the orphans and widows; and keeping oneself pure. While suffering the trials and scattering (these tests of faith), Christians can grow into maturity by responding wellstaying pure. Retaining purity is continuing to be a vibrant image of God to the world and the church. This purity can find two specific applications: controlling the deceitful tongue and caring for the needy of the needy (the orphans and widows). To follow this ethic is to stay a doer of the Word (true religion) and where life is found. No longer does life retain a component of geography, but rather, life is an ethic.

2. What is the central message of Revelation? Support this by interacting with its five major themes.

The book of Revelations central message is: encouragement and exhortation to the seven churches to hope and worship in the present based on a vision of the future that displays the glories of Gods character, His judgment and victory over evil, and the culmination of his eternal Kingdom, rooted in the work of the Lamb who was slain and is exalted both now and forever. The five major themes are: redemption; Gods wrath and judgment; Gods sovereignty; worship; and the culmination of Gods kingdom.

The seven churches either are suffering for Christ or have lost their way. For those who suffer, the Kingdom hope is a terrific thing and for those who have fallen, the book serves as a warning to return. One day soon, God will come back in a powerful and wrathful way. Christ, who is in control, will establish, in finality, the Kingdom.

Through the redemptive work of Christ on the cross, the Kingdom is first introduced and now people may find themselves in the Book of Life. The sacrifice on the cross enables Christ to do the work that none can do (i.e. the only one who can open the scroll). God pours his wrath on the world, God demonstrates control and Christ returns to his bride the church, rescuing the church from the ultimate judgment, hell [(whatever the judgment really is - i've since changed some feelings on this)]. The first work and continued work of Christ, find a proper response displayed in Revelation - worship. Heaven and the new Earth is full of worship. God has ended the reign of sin and Satan, redeeming creation and establishing the Kingdom. This hope of the winner, a hope of a glorious end, is a remarkable breathe of fresh air. The troubles of today will fall by the wayside in comparison to the future. With this in mind, either come back to God who is in control of it all, or for the faithful, stay the course for the future for the troubles of today are temporary.

Me: first, did it make sense? as in, did you understand it?

Him: i got 1, that one i understand. i’m sketchier on 2

Me: alright, well simply enough, 1 is social, christianity - true christianity is social. we are gracious to others, ALL others, the worst of the worst both in action and word

Him: right, thats what i got from it

Me: the second, revelation is in a word: hope, we have this hope that in the end, God will finish bringing the kingdom. notice i said finish. the kingdom first, officially broke into this world through Jesus and his death

Him: right

Me: if you read luke/acts (it should be read as one really, it even says so) the kingdom of god is everywhere. jesus constantly says “the kingdom of heaven is like…” you see, many of the jews were looking for an earthly reign like king david had, the return to the monarchy, the kicking out of the romans, but jesus came and died

Him: right

Me: he sacrificed to bring about the kingdom of heaven - the kingdom of God - which looks totally different than any human structure. you die to live, gracious to your enemy, etc. and then, stay with me a sec, the book of acts is narrative story. now as a genre narrative is not particularly normative (the way we ought to respond to situations). just because a guy put out a fleece, doesn’t mean it is something we should do, or was even right for him, however, the book of acts seems entirely normative and is a continuation of luke, luke has tons of jesus saying “the kingdom of heaven is like” and then acts is an inclusio, an inclusio is kinda like bookends, but more specific, ’cause the phrase is the same on both sides. the author repeats (which is significant) and in this case, at the beginning and end, luke tells us that this is the kingdom of God entering into the world. the kingdom of God is not geographic - its the people of God (in this case, the church) and the church belongs to a different kingdom than rome - it believes in someone other than the emperor (see that blog post i did). through this belief and allegiance the church takes on a totally different ethic. one that does not assert imaginary national boundaries. the church is international, the church doesn’t kill

Him: right

Me: the church is God’s kingdom into this world, the church is a glimpse into the kingdom to come. the kingdom is not fully here in the church–there is still sin and God hasn’t fully asserted s/he rule on creation. thats what revelation is all about. there will be an end where the kingdom will come in its fullest, “thy kingdom come, thy will be done” is a pray that is both in the now and for the future. Thus this is named kingdom ethics (or kingdom theology or hope theology) make sense? its a total paradigm shift, i know

Him: ok

Me: thats the skeleton, theres so much more to it, but thats the essentials
Me: so then, christianity - the church’s purpose is to further the kingdom. how do you do that by killing? how does that represent God? things like that

Him: well, if Bush really were such a good Christian as he’s touted himself to be, he would have made an announcement that says, “we forgive you, and we will not respond in kind” immediately after 9/11/2k1

Me: which is why im not for nationalism, it sets you up to do things contrary. this is why im in favor of a church response and talking about that, this is why im a pacifist (along with a few other reasons). a church response to 9/11 instead of a united states of america revenge response

Him: yeah

Me: as a christian, i don’t think i can respond christianly within the government, or even sometimes as an American. i don’t like killing other Christians. i don’t like killing those whom are my enemies. i am called to sacrifice instead of making them die so i can have my sense of freedom. i am called to sacrifice to death out of love which is totally contrary to the modern nation state who defends itself instead of leaving that to God.

And then we moved to Constantinianism for a bit. See here: Constantinianism

Me: so basically, the church isn’t the end all that it once was, so its said we’re operating in a post-christian society

Him: huh

Me: but even when the church was “the end all” it was the church as a structure, who knows how much of it was the body of Christ. it was the church that educated. this galileo crap is just nonsense. galileo didn’t get it for exploring the heavens. he just said the church was wrong about the sun standing still - called ‘em liars and that’ll do you in. anyways, the point is you had to go through the church to do anything. so the important thing is, that when the church ruled as it did, it wasn’t always sincere ’cause it wasn’t always Christian (see here - the medicis who bought their way into the papacy)

Him: crusades, for example :(

Me: so the combination of unorthodox power, not christian orthodox power that is (see here God’s kingdom - power through sacrifice), with the government of the time was a bad bad thing. so in a sense, we’re finally just actually speaking the truth as to who the church really is - who the body of christ really is - followers of Jesus. and so now, in feeling the separation, im going with the church. so this looks similar to the early church, where they were a minority and allegiance to christ over the emperor. son of god was a loaded term. so now if you went back and read of my post, i think it’d make more sense, since i think i’ve basically just outlined it again

Me: so yeah, thats why i won’t run for office, thats why i don’t vote. i choose not to vote to say who i find allegiance in. i don’t run from society though, i engage, i value engagement, but at the same time i want to make distinctions - i don’t and won’t follow the state’s version of liturgy. its a shame that the church is visibly represented by colorado springs and the 700 club

Him: or dan brown’s book

Me: thank god for people like the ones involved in “invisible children.” they’re totally putting a new light on the church, i saw it even here in Portland

Him: yeah and people are buying into it too >:o

Me: this lady who was totally into it, hell she was organizing all the showings and then the sleep in, said that this newer version, younger version of the church was impressive. i just wish it wasn’t us only writing letters to the president and congress, but the church moving to something. and it is, through missions agencies, but still we should be louder in our own way.

Me: anyways, thats my rant.