...buuuuuuuut:
Suzan Johnson Cook to Resign as Religious Freedom Ambassador: Washington Post, October 16, 2013
Suzan Johnson Cook to Resign as Religious Freedom Ambassador: Washington Post, October 16, 2013
Saturday, October 26, 2013
Friday, September 20, 2013
An Open Letter to Suzan Johnson-Cook, U.S. Ambassador for International Religious Freedom
Suzan Johnson-Cook
Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom
September 20, 2013
Madam Ambassador,
After two and a half years of constant, nihilistic,
ever-worsening bloodshed in Syria, I’ve become somewhat desensitized to bad
news. There’s a massacre in Hatla? Can’t have been worse than the Baniyas
massacre – or the Houla massacre or the Daraya massacre or the Aleppo
massacre. Maalula, a city continuously inhabited
by Christians since the time of St. Paul, whose people still speak Aramaic, is
religiously cleansed by al Qaeda? It was
bound to happen sometime.
Every once in a while though, a particularly horrible Syria story
breaks through the fog and socks me right in the gut, sending me back into the
tailspin of despair I felt when I had to leave all my friends in Damascus
behind, and the first time a car bomb went off in the neighborhood I used to live
in, and the first time a Syrian friend of mine had to flee their home, and the first
time I heard Hamza Ali Al-Khateeb’s name.
This week, you were that story.
At a meeting of NGOs in New York, a representative from the
American Jewish Committee asked you, “What is the U.S. doing to protect
minority religious groups in Syria and how is this being factored into
potential U.S. military operations?”
You – the U.S.’s ambassador for international religious
freedom, whose ONLY job is to try to blunt the horror of religious persecution
and cleansing in our tortured world – said:
“Syria is very much in
the news right now, and right now we’re not free to comment on what’s happening
in Syria. Right now we will refer that
to the White House and we respect our marching orders from the White House to
comment on that. But thank you for the question.”
For the love of God, Ambassador.
I won’t recite to you the whole list of scores of documented
vicious attacks on religious minorities in Syria – the systematic kidnappings
of Druze in Suweida, the religious cleansing of Christians from Homs, Qusayr, al-Thawra,
Raqqa, Maalula and much of the northeast, the burning of Shia mosques, the huge
car bombings in Christian and Alawite neighborhoods in Damascus. I have to assume you know all this
already. Don’t tell me you don’t – you’ll
just make me more depressed.
At any rate, I don’t expect you to take it from me.
Take it from these people:
Simon
Adams, executive director of the Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect:
“Growing numbers of foreign Sunni
extremist fighters are battling not just to rid Syria of Mr. Assad, but to
religiously cleanse it.”
The
Most Reverend Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury: “It’s absolutely
clear that Christians in Syria are being persecuted.”
Neil
Hicks, International Policy Advisor, Human Rights First: “What
has happened in Iraq and Syria is de facto ethnic cleansing of Christians.”
Bishop
Nicholas Samra, head of the Melkite Catholic Church in the United States: “We’re
seeing what looks like an extermination of Christianity [in Syria].”
Nina
Shea, Commissioner, U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom: “Syrian Christians are being deliberately
targeted in a religious purification campaign.”
Ambassador Peter W. Galbraith: “The next genocide in the world will likely be against the Alawites in Syria.”
If you have nothing to say, you are increasingly isolated in
that regard. You aren’t totally alone,
of course. The entire presidential
administration you’re a part of seems to inhabit a bizzaro world where the evil
regime and the moderates are the only players in Syria, where the religious tensions
that have defined every Middle Eastern land for 1,400 years are a non-issue.
But you aren’t them.
You are the religious freedom ambassador, and I can only assume you
agreed to take this job because, on some level, religious freedom matters to
you.
If the White House won’t let you, the religious freedom
ambassador, speak about the single most egregious, most urgent crisis of
religious persecution in the world today, then they aren’t letting you do your
job. And if you continue to pretend you
ARE doing your job, you are letting them use you.
I say this without malice, and without anger: please resign.
With respect,
Joel Veldkamp
With respect,
Joel Veldkamp
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Six of the Many, Many Ways That Bombing Syria is a Horrible Idea
1. What the Rebels Will Do If They Win
"Most militias are drawn from the poorer, rural districts of Syria. Most wealth is concentrated in the city centers that remain integral (such as Damascus, Lattakia, Tartus, Baniyas, Hama, etc.), which have survived largely unscathed in this conflict... If the militias take these cities, there will be widespread looting and lawlessness which will threaten many more civilians who have managed to escape the worst until now. It would be preferable to avoid a Somalia-like scenario in the remaining cities and provinces. The potential for ethnic cleansing and revenge killings is high."
- Professor Joshua Landis, University of Oklahoma
2. What the Rebels WON'T Do If They Win
"The opposition is incapable of providing government services. Millions of Syrians still depend on the government for their livelihoods, basic services, and infrastructure. Destroying these state services with no capacity to replace them would plunge ever larger numbers of Syrians into even darker circumstances and increase the outflow of refugees beyond its already high level. Syria can get worse."
- Professor Joshua Landis, University of Oklahoma
3. What the Regime Will Do If We Bomb
"Military interventions in favor of the rebel faction (as opposed to pro-government or neutral interventions) tend to increase government killings of civilians by about 40%."
- Erica Chenoweth, citing a 2012 study of military interventions from 1989 to 2005 by Reed Wood, Jason Kathman, and Stephen Gent. Hat/tip Matt Yglesias.
4. Cost/Benefit Analysis
"Should the United States government drop a bunch of high-powered explosives in order to kill and maim a bunch of Syrian individuals while destroying some of Syria's physical infrastructure in order to help other Syrian individuals? ...If the United States was able to spend the $1.1 billion we spent on the Libya operation on long-lasting insecticide treated bed nets we could have saved almost 590,000 lives from almost certain destruction. ...That's something to think about."
- Matt Yglesias, Slate
5. And Generally Speaking...
"Civil wars with outside involvement typically last longer, cause more fatalities, and are more difficult to resolve through negotiation."
- Cambridge Journal of International Organization, October 2011 (cited here)
6. This Was True Even Before We Got All Snippy With Egypt for Overthrowing an Islamist Government:
"For the first time, all of America’s ‘friends’ in the region are Sunni Muslims and all of its enemies are Shiites [or secularists]. Breaking all President Barack Obama’s rules of disengagement, the US is now fully engaged on the side of armed groups which include the most extreme Sunni Islamist movements in the Middle East."
- Robert Fisk, The Independent
In Short:
"Most militias are drawn from the poorer, rural districts of Syria. Most wealth is concentrated in the city centers that remain integral (such as Damascus, Lattakia, Tartus, Baniyas, Hama, etc.), which have survived largely unscathed in this conflict... If the militias take these cities, there will be widespread looting and lawlessness which will threaten many more civilians who have managed to escape the worst until now. It would be preferable to avoid a Somalia-like scenario in the remaining cities and provinces. The potential for ethnic cleansing and revenge killings is high."
- Professor Joshua Landis, University of Oklahoma
2. What the Rebels WON'T Do If They Win
"The opposition is incapable of providing government services. Millions of Syrians still depend on the government for their livelihoods, basic services, and infrastructure. Destroying these state services with no capacity to replace them would plunge ever larger numbers of Syrians into even darker circumstances and increase the outflow of refugees beyond its already high level. Syria can get worse."
- Professor Joshua Landis, University of Oklahoma
3. What the Regime Will Do If We Bomb
"Military interventions in favor of the rebel faction (as opposed to pro-government or neutral interventions) tend to increase government killings of civilians by about 40%."
- Erica Chenoweth, citing a 2012 study of military interventions from 1989 to 2005 by Reed Wood, Jason Kathman, and Stephen Gent. Hat/tip Matt Yglesias.
4. Cost/Benefit Analysis
"Should the United States government drop a bunch of high-powered explosives in order to kill and maim a bunch of Syrian individuals while destroying some of Syria's physical infrastructure in order to help other Syrian individuals? ...If the United States was able to spend the $1.1 billion we spent on the Libya operation on long-lasting insecticide treated bed nets we could have saved almost 590,000 lives from almost certain destruction. ...That's something to think about."
- Matt Yglesias, Slate
5. And Generally Speaking...
"Civil wars with outside involvement typically last longer, cause more fatalities, and are more difficult to resolve through negotiation."
- Cambridge Journal of International Organization, October 2011 (cited here)
6. This Was True Even Before We Got All Snippy With Egypt for Overthrowing an Islamist Government:
"For the first time, all of America’s ‘friends’ in the region are Sunni Muslims and all of its enemies are Shiites [or secularists]. Breaking all President Barack Obama’s rules of disengagement, the US is now fully engaged on the side of armed groups which include the most extreme Sunni Islamist movements in the Middle East."
- Robert Fisk, The Independent
In Short:
There's still time. Make your voice heard!
Sunday, August 25, 2013
Pharaoh's Protection
I speak only for myself in this post.
Oh my. It has been a terrible week in the Middle East, beloved. Egypt's worst political violence since people started using the term "political violence." The worst anti-Christian pogroms in Egypt in over a century. The deadliest single day in Syria's civil war so far, in the form of a chemical weapons attack that killed hundreds - the worst chemical attack since Saddam Hussein's genocide against the Kurds in the 1980s. A suicide bombing at a Sunni mosque in Lebanon that killed 27.
There's so much to say, and so many people talking, to so little avail, that I'll let most of it pass, except for this comment: The U.S. is going to start bombing Syria in the next few weeks. Expect it.
The likely result will be the victory of the rebel forces, the end of Christianity, Alawite Islam and the Druze religion in Syria, and all-out civil war in Lebanon and Jordan, as both of these tiny states buckle under a refugee influx in the millions.
All that will have to wait. What I want to focus on in this post is Egypt.
Today, the U.S.-funded Egyptian military is back in power, and, as the New York Times puts it, "In the more than seven weeks since [President Mohammed] Morsi’s ouster, security forces have carried out at least three mass shootings at pro-Morsi street protests, killed more than a thousand Morsi supporters and arrested at least as many." Mohammed El-Baradei, the civilian vice president who resigned in protest when the massacres began, is now under investigation by the military government for “betraying the public trust.”
The Muslim Brotherhood scapegoated Egypt's Christians for the killings, and unleashed a countrywide wave of violence against them, torching scores of churches, Christian homes and businesses. During these attacks, Human Rights Watch found, the military's "security forces were largely absent or failed to intervene even when they had been informed of ongoing attacks."
And Egyptian Christians were out protesting again in Washington DC on Thursday - holding up hagiographic portraits of the new military dictator (Gen. Abdul-Fattah el-Sisi), writing his name on their faces, calling him "our hero" and "the eagle of our flag."
(Source.)
Then, on Friday, a Coptic Christian youth organization I follow on Facebook, the Maspero Youth Union, shared this photo:
Point of interest: the "Maspero Youth Union" is named after Maspero Square, where the Egyptian military murdered 24 Christian protestors less than two years ago.
This group is now asking people to report Facebook friends who use logos showing support for the victims of another military massacre, to military intelligence.
I have Egyptian friends who use those logos on their Facebook profiles. I disagree heartily with them on politics, but they are not terrorists.
GUYS - aside from the horrifying moral implications, do you really think the Egyptian military, which has proven itself only too willing to shoot Christians dead in the street if it suits their purposes, is on your side?
They are not. Their main interest in church burnings is using them as political propaganda, not in stopping them. And if the Brotherhood ever ceases to be a threat, they will be only too happy to use church attacks as a safety valve for Islamist violence, as Mubarak did. (The military just released Mubarak from prison, by the way. No big deal.)
I am 100% anti-Muslim Brotherhood. If I lived in Egypt, I would have been out protesting against the Brotherhood regime on June 30. But removing them from power does not require a return to military dictatorship. And the point of being a Christian is knowing that we don't have to rely on wicked, violent men for protection.
I know this is easy for me to say. My life isn't in danger. And this is a lesson American Christians need to learn, too. Our political leaders, with the support of most of us - including me - invaded two countries and killed a million people in the last decade to keep us "safe."
Take it from me - it's not worth it.
"Pharaoh's protection will be to your shame." - Isaiah 30:3
"The LORD will fight for you. You need only be still." - Exodus 14:14
Oh my. It has been a terrible week in the Middle East, beloved. Egypt's worst political violence since people started using the term "political violence." The worst anti-Christian pogroms in Egypt in over a century. The deadliest single day in Syria's civil war so far, in the form of a chemical weapons attack that killed hundreds - the worst chemical attack since Saddam Hussein's genocide against the Kurds in the 1980s. A suicide bombing at a Sunni mosque in Lebanon that killed 27.
There's so much to say, and so many people talking, to so little avail, that I'll let most of it pass, except for this comment: The U.S. is going to start bombing Syria in the next few weeks. Expect it.
The likely result will be the victory of the rebel forces, the end of Christianity, Alawite Islam and the Druze religion in Syria, and all-out civil war in Lebanon and Jordan, as both of these tiny states buckle under a refugee influx in the millions.
All that will have to wait. What I want to focus on in this post is Egypt.
Almost two years ago, I joined hundreds of
Egyptian Christians in a rally at the White House after the U.S.-funded
Egyptian military massacred 24 Christians in Cairo.
Today, the U.S.-funded Egyptian military is back in power, and, as the New York Times puts it, "In the more than seven weeks since [President Mohammed] Morsi’s ouster, security forces have carried out at least three mass shootings at pro-Morsi street protests, killed more than a thousand Morsi supporters and arrested at least as many." Mohammed El-Baradei, the civilian vice president who resigned in protest when the massacres began, is now under investigation by the military government for “betraying the public trust.”
The Muslim Brotherhood scapegoated Egypt's Christians for the killings, and unleashed a countrywide wave of violence against them, torching scores of churches, Christian homes and businesses. During these attacks, Human Rights Watch found, the military's "security forces were largely absent or failed to intervene even when they had been informed of ongoing attacks."
And Egyptian Christians were out protesting again in Washington DC on Thursday - holding up hagiographic portraits of the new military dictator (Gen. Abdul-Fattah el-Sisi), writing his name on their faces, calling him "our hero" and "the eagle of our flag."
 |
| "C C"=Sisi. Get it? |
Then, on Friday, a Coptic Christian youth organization I follow on Facebook, the Maspero Youth Union, shared this photo:
Point of interest: the "Maspero Youth Union" is named after Maspero Square, where the Egyptian military murdered 24 Christian protestors less than two years ago.
This group is now asking people to report Facebook friends who use logos showing support for the victims of another military massacre, to military intelligence.
I have Egyptian friends who use those logos on their Facebook profiles. I disagree heartily with them on politics, but they are not terrorists.
GUYS - aside from the horrifying moral implications, do you really think the Egyptian military, which has proven itself only too willing to shoot Christians dead in the street if it suits their purposes, is on your side?
They are not. Their main interest in church burnings is using them as political propaganda, not in stopping them. And if the Brotherhood ever ceases to be a threat, they will be only too happy to use church attacks as a safety valve for Islamist violence, as Mubarak did. (The military just released Mubarak from prison, by the way. No big deal.)
I am 100% anti-Muslim Brotherhood. If I lived in Egypt, I would have been out protesting against the Brotherhood regime on June 30. But removing them from power does not require a return to military dictatorship. And the point of being a Christian is knowing that we don't have to rely on wicked, violent men for protection.
I know this is easy for me to say. My life isn't in danger. And this is a lesson American Christians need to learn, too. Our political leaders, with the support of most of us - including me - invaded two countries and killed a million people in the last decade to keep us "safe."
Take it from me - it's not worth it.
"Pharaoh's protection will be to your shame." - Isaiah 30:3
"The LORD will fight for you. You need only be still." - Exodus 14:14
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
For the Damascus Countryside
I can’t take it anymore.
I can’t read any more reports
Speculating endlessly, “Who?” and “Why?”
I already know the answers I will hear –
Who: The regime, the rebels, the Zionists, the Islamic extremists, the enemies of the Syrian people
Why: Counterinsurgency, fighting terrorism, fighting for freedom, false flag
All lies, meant to disguise the truth
That Who is our Fellow Man
And Why is to appease the God of Death
The God on whom all governments and rebel groups rely
From whom they draw all their power and authority
To whom they pray for deliverance
From the consequences of their crimes
And the God of Death is only too happy to oblige
But the God of Death demands sacrifice
And demands the right to choose the victims
Soldiers, freedom fighters, little girls in pajamas, babies, nursing mothers
Gasping, burning, screaming, shaking, shaking, shaking and then becoming still
And perhaps the supplicants cringe at the demand
But in the end, they make the hard choice, and the tough call
Because that’s what it means to be a leader
To do what it takes to defeat your enemies
But "the last enemy to be defeated is Death."
I can’t read any more reports
Speculating endlessly, “Who?” and “Why?”
I already know the answers I will hear –
Who: The regime, the rebels, the Zionists, the Islamic extremists, the enemies of the Syrian people
Why: Counterinsurgency, fighting terrorism, fighting for freedom, false flag
All lies, meant to disguise the truth
That Who is our Fellow Man
And Why is to appease the God of Death
The God on whom all governments and rebel groups rely
From whom they draw all their power and authority
To whom they pray for deliverance
From the consequences of their crimes
And the God of Death is only too happy to oblige
But the God of Death demands sacrifice
And demands the right to choose the victims
Soldiers, freedom fighters, little girls in pajamas, babies, nursing mothers
Gasping, burning, screaming, shaking, shaking, shaking and then becoming still
And perhaps the supplicants cringe at the demand
But in the end, they make the hard choice, and the tough call
Because that’s what it means to be a leader
To do what it takes to defeat your enemies
But "the last enemy to be defeated is Death."
Monday, August 12, 2013
More Adventures in Muslim Apologetics
Courtesy of one of my Muslim Facebook acquaintances, I present to you a 20-minute-long video “proving” that the Jewish Bible predicts the coming of the prophet Muhammad – “by name!”
Too long, didn’t watch? The entire case is built around Song of Songs 5:16:
“His mouth is sweetness itself;
he is altogether lovely.
“This is my beloved, this is my friend,
daughters of Jerusalem.”
According to the video, the word “lovely” in the original Hebrew is actually “Muhammad.” Therefore, the Bible predicted Muhammad’s coming! Or, at least, the coming of someone who would be “altogether Muhammad.”
(If you’re wondering what the other 18 minutes of the video are, it’s mostly accusations of Christians and Jews hiding the “real” Bible. How clumsy of them to forget to remove clear prediction of Muhammad’s coming.)
In Arabic, the name “Muhammad” simply means “praiseworthy.” Given Hebrew and Arabic’s similar linguistic roots, it’s not surprising that there’s a Hebrew word – “mahammad” – with a similar meaning. (“Lovely, desired, charming.”)
It’s actually interesting that this common adjective doesn’t occur more often in the Jewish Bible.
I now have a mental picture of God looking into the future, and seeing Muslim evangelists scouring the Jewish Bible for any occurrence of the common adjective “praiseworthy,” and deciding that the one – the only – place that word will occur in scripture is in a passionate dialogue about sex between two people anticipating their wedding night.
Your move, apologists.
Too long, didn’t watch? The entire case is built around Song of Songs 5:16:
“His mouth is sweetness itself;
he is altogether lovely.
“This is my beloved, this is my friend,
daughters of Jerusalem.”
According to the video, the word “lovely” in the original Hebrew is actually “Muhammad.” Therefore, the Bible predicted Muhammad’s coming! Or, at least, the coming of someone who would be “altogether Muhammad.”
(If you’re wondering what the other 18 minutes of the video are, it’s mostly accusations of Christians and Jews hiding the “real” Bible. How clumsy of them to forget to remove clear prediction of Muhammad’s coming.)
In Arabic, the name “Muhammad” simply means “praiseworthy.” Given Hebrew and Arabic’s similar linguistic roots, it’s not surprising that there’s a Hebrew word – “mahammad” – with a similar meaning. (“Lovely, desired, charming.”)
It’s actually interesting that this common adjective doesn’t occur more often in the Jewish Bible.
I now have a mental picture of God looking into the future, and seeing Muslim evangelists scouring the Jewish Bible for any occurrence of the common adjective “praiseworthy,” and deciding that the one – the only – place that word will occur in scripture is in a passionate dialogue about sex between two people anticipating their wedding night.
Your move, apologists.
Sunday, July 14, 2013
The Politics of Jesus by John Howard Yoder, explained (at least to myself)
I just finished reading The Politics of Jesus by John Howard Yoder, the indispensable guide to Anabaptist Christian pacifism.
Yoder's central argument is that Jesus' life and teachings are a model for how Christians should act in everyday life.
As my housemate Jordan said when I tried to sum it up that way, that seems like a pretty obvious, even cliche statement. Most of us who grew up during the "WWJD?" fad would probably agree. Cliche it may be, but that doesn't make it untrue. Nor does it mean we've fully grasped the implications.
Christendom's "traditional" understanding is that Jesus' primary mission was to die for the sins of mankind, and conquer death through his resurrection. It's a nifty bonus that he was around long enough to teach us, do some miracles, and choose the apostles. His was a unique mission, and while Jesus' teachings and actions are very important as a model for us, we aren't called to literally follow him to the cross. The cross was a spiritual event. The Son of God had to die to make peace between God and mankind with his blood, something no one else could do. Jesus had to live a perfect life, otherwise his sacrifice wouldn't have counted, but it's not the life for everyone. When the Gospels say Jesus "set his face towards Jerusalem," it means he was preparing himself to die. Jesus yelled at Peter, "Get behind me, Satan!" for suggesting that he shouldn't let himself die, and ordered Peter to put away his sword in the garden of Gethsemane, because he knew he had to be the sacrifice, and Peter was trying to prevent that. Pilate, the Roman soldiers, and the Jewish religious leaders had no idea what they were really doing. They were essentially being used by God and Satan like puppets in a larger, unseen cosmic struggle. Jesus basically tricked them into killing him. He presumably could have allowed himself to be killed in the remote forests of Lebanon, and it would have been just as spiritually meaningful (with perhaps the drawback of fewer spectators.) Jesus had no political mission. He was a king, but his kingdom was not from this world.
Jesus' crucifixion, while of ultimate spiritual significance, had no political significance, and certainly isn't a model for how Christians should live their lives.
This is what I grew up believing, at least implicitly, and this is what, I think, most evangelicals and Catholics teach, at least implicitly.
John Howard Yoder rejects this interpretation.
For Yoder, not only is all of Jesus' life a model for Christians in politics, but the cross is its centerpiece. Jesus did come as a king, and all Christians are called to participate in his kingship. When Jesus began his ministry with a sermon in Nazareth, he read from Isaiah 61:
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor."
Then he said, "Today, this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."
According to Yoder, this was the announcement of a political program: Jesus wanted to reinstate the Jubilee, the ancient Jewish practice of annulling all debts, returning all property, and letting all the slaves go free every fifty years. This was a requirement of God's law, but not surprisingly, it was rarely applied.
Yoder views Jesus' entire ministry as a movement for the restoration of the jubilee. In occupied Judea, this call posed a direct challenge to the Roman authorities, the Herodian monarchy, and the religious leaders who collaborated with them.
Seen in this light, the crowds of tens of thousands of people following Jesus all across Galilee and Judea, repeatedly trying to make him king, following him into Jerusalem in a giant procession, where he proceeds to basically take over the temple, take on a rather different significance, no? Jesus "setting his face towards Jerusalem" meant he was embarking on a political mission.
Under this interpretation, Jesus didn't trick the Romans into killing him and thereby fulfilling God's sacrificial purpose. The Romans had no choice but to kill him. He posed a huge threat to their rule.
However, Jesus refused to marshal his followers into an armed challenge to Rome and the Sanhedrin. He combined his demands for political justice with the universal love of God, a love that ruled out killing his enemies, even in self-defense. Jesus orders Peter to put away his sword because killing is wrong, not because Peter's about to unwittingly screw up God's plan of redemption.
Rather than adopt Rome's tactics and use their own violence against them, Jesus confronts the powers for their corruption, oppression and injustice, and then lets himself die at their hands, rather than call on armies of angels to smite them down.
Jesus' living a perfect life and Jesus' self-sacrifice aren't separate things. They're the same thing. The only way to be a witness for justice and peace in 1st-century Judea would inevitably result in execution. So Jesus did it, and through his resurrection, proved that the power of this world and its violent men is meaningless.
Therefore, Jesus' call to his followers to "pick up your cross and follow me" is in part a political call. We are to struggle against the injustices of the world's fallen political systems, even if it costs us our lives - but we are not to do so by using the devil's methods. To the crowd he had fled from when they tried to make him king by force, Jesus says, "You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning." (John 6:15, 8:44) To his own followers, Jesus says, "But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven." (Matthew 5:44).
I hope I've explained Yoder's thesis well. (Obviously he has a lot more to say than this.) I'm not sure to what degree I accept it. On the one hand, I think it coheres very well. It makes more sense of Jesus' ministry than the traditional model. It unites the human and divine missions of Jesus into one. And it reaffirms the importance of human life and human history to God. If Yoder is right, the oppressive politics of Judea were not a sideshow to him when he lived with us. It follows that oppression is not a sideshow to him now.
But I have a lot of unresolved questions. Well, two, I guess:
1) Doesn't the Bible pretty clearly teach that Jesus eventually will come with angel armies to defeat the wicked? If so, there seems to still be a division between the ethics of God and the ethics of man.
2) What tactics are acceptable to God in our struggle for justice? May we try to reform state institutions that inherently depend on violence? May we work through political parties and elected officials? Or should we abandon state politics altogether, in favor of a community that tries to embody God's justice in a fallen world?
Yoder's argumentation style is different from every other theology book I've read. With some exceptions, he doesn't spend long pages poring over select passages and proving his interpretation of them. Instead, he takes the reader on a whirlwind tour of Jesus' ministry, placing almost every event and conversation into a political context. On the one hand, I appreciate the holistic-ness of this approach. On the other, I feel a little bit like I've been taken for a ride. I'm not sure whether I agree with him or not (though I want to); the book didn't give me time to examine any of the issues he raises in-depth. I suppose I could do it by myself, but I also work full-time, you guys.
So let me know: if you've read John Howard Yoder, what do you think of his work? If you haven't, what do you think of his ideas as I've laid them out here? And if you don't care to get that specific, what do you think about pacifism generally?
Yoder's central argument is that Jesus' life and teachings are a model for how Christians should act in everyday life.
As my housemate Jordan said when I tried to sum it up that way, that seems like a pretty obvious, even cliche statement. Most of us who grew up during the "WWJD?" fad would probably agree. Cliche it may be, but that doesn't make it untrue. Nor does it mean we've fully grasped the implications.
Christendom's "traditional" understanding is that Jesus' primary mission was to die for the sins of mankind, and conquer death through his resurrection. It's a nifty bonus that he was around long enough to teach us, do some miracles, and choose the apostles. His was a unique mission, and while Jesus' teachings and actions are very important as a model for us, we aren't called to literally follow him to the cross. The cross was a spiritual event. The Son of God had to die to make peace between God and mankind with his blood, something no one else could do. Jesus had to live a perfect life, otherwise his sacrifice wouldn't have counted, but it's not the life for everyone. When the Gospels say Jesus "set his face towards Jerusalem," it means he was preparing himself to die. Jesus yelled at Peter, "Get behind me, Satan!" for suggesting that he shouldn't let himself die, and ordered Peter to put away his sword in the garden of Gethsemane, because he knew he had to be the sacrifice, and Peter was trying to prevent that. Pilate, the Roman soldiers, and the Jewish religious leaders had no idea what they were really doing. They were essentially being used by God and Satan like puppets in a larger, unseen cosmic struggle. Jesus basically tricked them into killing him. He presumably could have allowed himself to be killed in the remote forests of Lebanon, and it would have been just as spiritually meaningful (with perhaps the drawback of fewer spectators.) Jesus had no political mission. He was a king, but his kingdom was not from this world.
Jesus' crucifixion, while of ultimate spiritual significance, had no political significance, and certainly isn't a model for how Christians should live their lives.
This is what I grew up believing, at least implicitly, and this is what, I think, most evangelicals and Catholics teach, at least implicitly.
John Howard Yoder rejects this interpretation.
For Yoder, not only is all of Jesus' life a model for Christians in politics, but the cross is its centerpiece. Jesus did come as a king, and all Christians are called to participate in his kingship. When Jesus began his ministry with a sermon in Nazareth, he read from Isaiah 61:
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor."
Then he said, "Today, this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."
According to Yoder, this was the announcement of a political program: Jesus wanted to reinstate the Jubilee, the ancient Jewish practice of annulling all debts, returning all property, and letting all the slaves go free every fifty years. This was a requirement of God's law, but not surprisingly, it was rarely applied.
Yoder views Jesus' entire ministry as a movement for the restoration of the jubilee. In occupied Judea, this call posed a direct challenge to the Roman authorities, the Herodian monarchy, and the religious leaders who collaborated with them.
Seen in this light, the crowds of tens of thousands of people following Jesus all across Galilee and Judea, repeatedly trying to make him king, following him into Jerusalem in a giant procession, where he proceeds to basically take over the temple, take on a rather different significance, no? Jesus "setting his face towards Jerusalem" meant he was embarking on a political mission.
Under this interpretation, Jesus didn't trick the Romans into killing him and thereby fulfilling God's sacrificial purpose. The Romans had no choice but to kill him. He posed a huge threat to their rule.
However, Jesus refused to marshal his followers into an armed challenge to Rome and the Sanhedrin. He combined his demands for political justice with the universal love of God, a love that ruled out killing his enemies, even in self-defense. Jesus orders Peter to put away his sword because killing is wrong, not because Peter's about to unwittingly screw up God's plan of redemption.
Rather than adopt Rome's tactics and use their own violence against them, Jesus confronts the powers for their corruption, oppression and injustice, and then lets himself die at their hands, rather than call on armies of angels to smite them down.
Jesus' living a perfect life and Jesus' self-sacrifice aren't separate things. They're the same thing. The only way to be a witness for justice and peace in 1st-century Judea would inevitably result in execution. So Jesus did it, and through his resurrection, proved that the power of this world and its violent men is meaningless.
Therefore, Jesus' call to his followers to "pick up your cross and follow me" is in part a political call. We are to struggle against the injustices of the world's fallen political systems, even if it costs us our lives - but we are not to do so by using the devil's methods. To the crowd he had fled from when they tried to make him king by force, Jesus says, "You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning." (John 6:15, 8:44) To his own followers, Jesus says, "But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven." (Matthew 5:44).
I hope I've explained Yoder's thesis well. (Obviously he has a lot more to say than this.) I'm not sure to what degree I accept it. On the one hand, I think it coheres very well. It makes more sense of Jesus' ministry than the traditional model. It unites the human and divine missions of Jesus into one. And it reaffirms the importance of human life and human history to God. If Yoder is right, the oppressive politics of Judea were not a sideshow to him when he lived with us. It follows that oppression is not a sideshow to him now.
But I have a lot of unresolved questions. Well, two, I guess:
1) Doesn't the Bible pretty clearly teach that Jesus eventually will come with angel armies to defeat the wicked? If so, there seems to still be a division between the ethics of God and the ethics of man.
2) What tactics are acceptable to God in our struggle for justice? May we try to reform state institutions that inherently depend on violence? May we work through political parties and elected officials? Or should we abandon state politics altogether, in favor of a community that tries to embody God's justice in a fallen world?
Yoder's argumentation style is different from every other theology book I've read. With some exceptions, he doesn't spend long pages poring over select passages and proving his interpretation of them. Instead, he takes the reader on a whirlwind tour of Jesus' ministry, placing almost every event and conversation into a political context. On the one hand, I appreciate the holistic-ness of this approach. On the other, I feel a little bit like I've been taken for a ride. I'm not sure whether I agree with him or not (though I want to); the book didn't give me time to examine any of the issues he raises in-depth. I suppose I could do it by myself, but I also work full-time, you guys.
So let me know: if you've read John Howard Yoder, what do you think of his work? If you haven't, what do you think of his ideas as I've laid them out here? And if you don't care to get that specific, what do you think about pacifism generally?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
