Category: Book Reviews

Evil and the Justice of God – The Question

Posted on

In N.T. Wright’s Evil and the Justice of God one finds a lot about about how God deals with evil and not so much about what most people define as the problem of evil. Basically Wright claims that we can never really answer the question as to why evil exists (or even why God allows evil) so we should focus instead on what God is doing (or will do) to deal with evil. It is not a typical approach and does little to satisfy most people’s concerns. Honestly I think that most people really would rather know why God allows evil to begin with before they are ready to accept that God is working to overcome evil. Wright says to want to understand why evil exists (to solve the problem of evil) is to belittle evil and want to use human means to overcome it (progress). He sees that as a dangerous and immature response influenced by modernism and not scripture. He then proceeds to tell us that we have to believe that evil exists and that God is working to overcome it. He writes, “what the Gospels offer is not a philosophical explanation of evil, what it is or why it’s there, nor a set of suggestions for how we might adjust our lifestyles so that evil will mysteriously disappear from the world, but the story of an event in which the living God deals with it.”

So my question is – why can’t we believe that God (not humans) is working to overcome evil and still ask why it exists? Wright’s approach has a bit too much “just deal with it and move on” to satisfy the spiritual questioning of many readers. Telling someone that their need to understand why their child died of cancer is immature and based on an inappropriate allegiance to Modern philosophy is not what is needed no matter how good your subsequent theology. I did have to laugh at points in the book at how stereotypically “male” his approach was. The old thing about men wanting to solve problems while women want to be emotionally understood and comforted. Not that solutions are bad or unneeded, they just often miss the point of the whole discussion. But maybe it’s just personality and depends on the reader and what they are looking for. I guess I was hoping for a holistic approach that doesn’t dichotomize between the theology and spirituality.

Once I got past my frustration with the basic premise of the book, I appreciated Wright’s take on how God is dealing with evil. I especially liked his insistence that since evil exists in this world, then God will work to overcome evil in this world. Since God is the creator it matters that “the existing creation be set to rights rather than scrapping it and doing something else instead.” Our hope is not in escaping it all when we die, but in God’s kingdom actually coming on earth. As to Wright’s ideas for how that happens, I’ll save that for another post.

Read more

Evil and the Justice of God – Responding to Evil

Posted on

In continuing to read N.T. Wright’s Evil and the Justice of God, I am intrigued by his rationale for why he dislikes the modern notion of progress. In his view, the concept of progress that sees the world as basically a good place with its problems eventually to be eradicated through technology, education, development, and Westernization has lead to the three major issues with the problem of evil in out day.

1. We ignore evil when it doesn’t hit us in the face. For example, we know Al-Qaeda was a threat, but didn’t take it seriously until it was too late. This of course raises the question as to how our ignoring the issues of third world debt and global warming will eventually play out.

2. We are surprised by evil when it does hit us in the face. We expect places to be safe and people to be good. We have removed death from our homes to the hospitals. So when evil, harm, and death appear it takes us by surprise and we do not have the means to understand it when it intrudes in our life.

3. As a result, when evil appears we react in immature and dangerous ways. We either

a. Project evil on to others and blame them for our woes. It’s always then someone else’s fault – it’s society’s fault, it’s the government’s fault, and I am an innocent victim. Society’s ills are caused by terrorists, illegal immigrants, drug dealers, and criminals.

or we

b. Project evil on to ourselves and blame ourselves. The terrorists are terrorists because of what we allowed to happen in their countries, illegal immigrants are fleeing the effects of our foreign policy…

Wright acknowledges the elements of truth is both extreme views, but asserts that it should not be an either/or. Wright recommends that we take to heart the view of Alexander Solzhenitsyn that the line between good and evil is never between “us” and “them.” The line between good and evil runs through each of us.

I generally like his criticism of the current way of viewing evil. I see how I have leaned to far into both of the “immature” responses at various points in my life. But I find myself wondering if being surprised by evil is really such a bad thing.

I understand the need not to be naive or innocent in regard to evil. I fully admit that evil exists and that it is a seriously problem. But I think that becoming callous to evil is just as dangerous as not expecting evil to happen to you and then being surprised. So perhaps surprised isn’t the word I am looking for. Offended might be a better choice. Offended that evil occurs and hurts people. In taking offense at evil, one still cares but is not so overwhelmed by evil that one is too paralyzed to respond. Accepting that evil exists should never cause us to forget that this is not the way the world is meant to be.

Read more

Nostalgia for Childhood Gender Bias

Posted on

…but wait, how can you be nostalgic for something that never went away?

So here we go again. Rampant sexism, this time aimed at kids. And if the other anti-sexism voices that have spoken out about this are any indication – bring on the hate comments, the name calling, and the attempted censorship of the female voice.

And yes I’m talking about the recent American release of The Dangerous Book for Boys. (read about it here) Amazon describes the book as –

Equal parts droll and gorgeous nostalgia book and heartfelt plea for a renewed sense of adventure in the lives of boys and men, Conn and Hal Iggulden’s The Dangerous Book for Boys became a mammoth bestseller in the United Kingdom in 2006. Adapted, in moderation, for American customs in this edition (cricket is gone, rugby remains; conkers are out, Navajo Code Talkers in), The Dangerous Book is a guide book for dads as well as their sons, as a reminder of lore and technique that have not yet been completely lost to the digital age. Recall the adventures of Scott of the Antarctic and the Battle of the Somme, relearn how to palm a coin, tan a skin, and, most charmingly, wrap a package in brown paper and string. The book’s ambitions are both modest and winningly optimistic: you get the sense that by learning how to place a splint or write in invisible ink, a boy might be prepared for anything, even girls (which warrant a small but wise chapter of their own).

There’s the part of my that likes the concept of the book. Getting kids off their butts, getting them outside and active, and discovering the world around them. These are things I enjoyed as a kid. Learning how to build stuff, writing in code, playing spy games in the neighborhood, collecting all the discarded Christmas trees and making a huge fort at the local park, building fires, learning to identity trees and flowers, studying ancient history… These are all good, fun things. And I agree that often safety and fear of being sued have led to many fun activities (paper airplanes, field trips, snowball fights…) being banned. I think we should all learn about where our food comes from, survival skills, and historical perspectives. There are basic skills that just aren’t taught these days (as cramming useless facts for standardized tests takes up more and more time). This book has some good stuff in it.

But

Here’s where women and moms are being muzzled. The premise of the book is that this is fun stuff for boys and dads, of course moms won’t like it. So any criticism from women is met with a role of the eyes and a “see I told you so” aside. Pretty nifty marketing plan there. (see the promo video here). So at the risk of being dismissed before I even open my mouth, let me say I have issues with this as well.

No matter how you slice it its sexist. Beyond being marketed as a book for boys, the authors say that the book exists “to celebrate boys, because nobody has been doing it for a long while.” Why does this have to be about gender? Why is learning about history, nature, sports, and building things something just for boys? And when have boys failed to be celebrated? Is this anti-feminist backlash or just savvy marketing that capitalized on that backlash? I sick of reading on blogs that girls aren’t into this stuff anyway and that its so refreshing to be “beyond” feminism and PC”. Give me a break. Do we have to have the “all guys are like this and all girls are like this” lie once again? Must girls continue to feel like unwanted guests at the party and second class citizens? Do we really have to re-interpreted messages like this for our kids (yes Emma, I know it just addresses boys, but really you can try it too)?

So its a how-to book I find fascinating, but it supports gender biases I am trying to change. And the word out there is shut up and just enjoy it for what it is. Sorry, but if everyone does that things will never change.

Read more

Evil and the Justice of God – Progress

Posted on

Do I believe in progress? That question has been on my mind the last few days. I recently started reading N.T. Wright’s Evil and the Justice of God and was forced to ask myself that question before I finished the first chapter.

Wright claims that our conception of evil and inability to process it is due in part to our having bought into the Modern myth of progress. He writes –

The heady combination of technological achievement, medical advances, Romantic pantheism, Hegalian progressive Idealism and social Darwinism created a climate of thought in which, to this day, a great many people – not least in public life – have lived and moved. In this climate, the fact that we live “in this day and age” means that certain things are now to be expected; we envision a steady march toward freedom and justice, conceived often in terms of the slow but sure triumph of Western-style liberal democracy and soft soft versions of socialism. Not to put too fine a point on it, when people say that certain things are unacceptable “now that we’re living in the twenty-first century,” they are appealing to an assumed doctrine of progress – and of progress, what’s more, in a particular direction. We are taught, often by the tone of voice of the media and the politicians rather than by explicit argument, to bow down before this progress. It is unstoppable. Who wants to be left behind, to be behind the times, to be yesterday’s people? The colloquial phrase, “That’s so last-year” has become the ultimate putdown: “progress” (by which we often simply mean a variation in fashion) has become the single most important measuring rod in society and culture.

Wright is surprised that this belief in progress has survived Auschwitz and that some people still think the world is basically a good place. He welcome the postmodernism because it deconstructs the “dangerous ideology of ‘progress'” and “encourages a cynical approach: nothing will get better and there’s nothing you can do about it.”

I’m having a hard time with this. I don’t buy into the fairy tale version of progress or think that science will solve all the ills of the world (which is why I was always amused by the gravity stones at Wheaton and other colleges). But cynical though I am, I don’t buy into Wright’s portrayal of postmodernism that preaches that the world will never get better either. Since I have barely started the book, I have no idea where Wright is going with this but I’m uneasy with his distinctions so far.

How can there be redemptive history without some sort of progress? I don’t place my trust in government systems or technology as the key to a Utopian dream. I’m not part the postmil camp that thinks things are getting better and better all the time. But I’m also not premil “we’re all going to hell in a handbasket” either. God seems to have a purpose in history, a story that is unfolding, a redemption that is taking place. Within the Judeo/Christian worldview we generally hold to a linear view of history. We are moving forward in history and there are eschatologies to be had. We have goals to achieve and a Kingdom to spread. If we are working at all towards such things I would say progress is occurring.

What good is there to work for the good or to fight injustice if things can never get better? I’m not interested in letting evil triumph or living in some world where the Force has achieved perfect balance. I want to see the Kingdom on earth as it is in Heaven. And I think that after 2000 years of practice, we should expect that some things should have changed by now. So if Christ and Paul were preaching it then, the church should be doing it by now. I have no problem in seeing redemptive trajectory at work in scripture and then applying that same concept to history. If the point is to bring Christ’s message to the world, I would hope that doing so not only is possible, but is actually happening.

Maybe I am misunderstanding terms here. Perhaps Wright is referring only to trust in political systems and science as an obstacle for our understanding evil. I need to read more and figure out where he is headed with this.

Read more

Colossians Remixed 8

Posted on

This is the concluding post in my series of responses to the questions I posted as part of last month’s book discussion on Colossians Remixed by Brian Walsh and Sylvia Keesmaat over at the Emerging Women blog. (read my other responses – here).

Question #8 –

“We can argue until we are blue in the face that Colossians is good news for an oppressed and marginalized community at the heart of the Roman empire, but unless this good news is for those truly at the margins – slaves, children, and women- it is nothing but a noisy gong and a clanging cymbal.” (p201). But the household codes in Colossians 3:18 -4:1 have more often been interpreted as justification for oppression of those groups instead of good news. The authors address this issue through a fantastic expanded account of Onesimus (the slave) and Nympha (who had a house church) – the whole book is worth just this story imho. The authors propose that the household codes can be interpreted as (1) Just an affirmation of the imperial view of the household, the Aristotelian hierarchy of man over women and all that (not likely if this letter is about subverting empire and not being captive to the philosophies of men). (2) A loving patriarchy when the wives and slaves choose to submit and husband (amazingly enough) love and not beat their wives (wow – that seems full of hope). or (3) Paul is challenging the status quo by promoting the freedom and full rights of women and slaves. He couldn’t of course say so directly because to commit that to writing would lead to serious persecution from the empire for such revolutionary practices. But the language he uses connotes the themes of inheritance and jubilee. Remember that Colossians was delivered and read with Philemon (about treating a slave as an equal), the subversion is evident. Are we willing to challenge systems that oppress others if it means questioning the philosophies and assumptions of empire (ending global slavery, grant equal rights to women, not treating children as commodities)?

This is of course one of the most controversial parts of the book (bring up equality for women and you’re bound to find controversy). The idea that Paul was intending a certain meaning through his use of allusions to inheritance and jubilee that he couldn’t say outright challenges the assumptions of many contemporary Bible readers. The average reader is so used to assuming that their 21st century cultural lenses and vague familiarity with English versions of the Bible is all they need to fully grasp the Biblical text. Try to suggest that there may be elements there that a 1st century reader would hear, but which require a tad more complex reading from the reader today and one is met with cries of “the Gospel is simple enough for a child to understand, how dare you assume the masses need education and intellect to understand God’s word!” (a claim that I have issues with, but which is believed as gospel truth by many).

But assuming that the household codes listed here and the language that surrounds them really does claim a revolutionary inclusion of all, then what does that mean for us now? Perhaps to forget these passages as confining the church to rules and philosophies that don’t even make sense in our culture today and instead see them as messages of hope that can alter our world for good. To recall the language of jubilee and shalom they connote and actually put that into practice. To live in this subversive and revolutionary way.

I always laugh when I hear Christians tell me that I’m just being influenced by the world when I stand up for women’s rights. In what universe do they live in where women actually have equal rights in the dominant culture? Where do women actually receive equal pay and benefits? Where do women not have to live in fear of being raped or trafficked into sexual slavery? Where are women appreciated as people instead of sex objects? Where do women get the same publishing and speaking opportunities as men? I’m not giving into the world – I’m trying to subvert the world by promoting women’s equality. It’s the church that has sold itself to the lies of hierarchy and inequality.

And it gets worse when slavery is brought up. The fact that our clothes, our food, our junk is made at best by underpaid workers in sweatshops and at worst by abused slaves doesn’t seem to bother most people. It keeps our stuff cheap and helps our economy. To care about those people would just be hurting ourselves and our country. Phrases like “you can’t change the laws of economics” or “those jobs are better than what they had before” get thrown around as poor excuses for not giving a damn. (and don’t even get me started on the people who say that if those poor people would just live morally, then they would have better options available to them). When it’s our greed that brought about most of the conditions for slavery worldwide and it is our greed that sustains it, it is up to us to fix the mess we created.

Guess what. This might take sacrifice. To live for Christ and the values of the Kingdom just might mean having to deal with some hardships. Maybe we can stop seeing “carrying the cross” as not getting to pray in school or not having our candidate win and start having to actually identify with Christ by caring for those he cared about. By being willing to pay workers a fair wage, to not support the (cheap readily available) products that were made by slave using companies, to stand against sexism even when the church openly supports it (and labels you a liberal feminist). These are lessons, I’m still learning. To get over my sense of entitlement and wanting to be liked by everyone in order to actually live for Christ.

Read more

Colossians Remixed 7

Posted on

This post is part of my ongoing response to the questions I posted as part of this month’s book discussion on Colossians Remixed by Brian Walsh and Sylvia Keesmaat over at the Emerging Women blog. (read my other responses – here).

Question #7 –

If Christians are not to be at home in an empire characterized by sexual sin, greed, and violence, the authors ask what should the Kingdom look like? They proposed a life lived where the peace of the victim of an empire is spread, where community is lived, gratitude is practiced, and worship proclaims that Christ not Caesar is Lord of our lives. Practical suggestions the authors give include – pledging our allegiance to Christ not to the empire; investing as much each year in the hurtings present needs as we do in our future retirement; paying attention to where our food comes from and what’s in it; setting up food co-ops where you can get food produced as locally as possible, in environmentally responsible ways, and that seeks to do justice to the producer of the food; be ecologically responsible by reducing our use of cars and start walking. biking, or using (or lobbying for) public transit; be good stewards of the ecosystem and stop dumping diapers (for babies or women) into the landfills (and hence streams and rivers). How do you react to those suggestions? What else could you add?

I like all of their suggestions. I care about those things. And yet I don’t always live that out. I’ve blogged on that issue before (here). Sometimes, I don’t know what exactly to do to change things. If I care about stuff like this and still have issues living it out, how can I ever hope to encourage others to live justly?

Plus most of the time I just really don’t know what to say. When my friends and family start going off on things that really contradict my values and understanding of the Kingdom I generally just don’t say anything. I’m torn. I want to share what I am passionate about, but I don’t want to do it in an argumentative way or in a way that invalidates the things they are passionate about. So I don’t say anything and let them assume I completely agree with them.

For example. Easter. We didn’t do the whole egg thing this year. I didn’t want to stuff plastic eggs with cheap crap made in Asian sweat shops nor with unhealthy unneeded candy made by child slaves. I also didn’t want to waste food by dying eggs nor spend money on cheap eggs that support environmentally and ethically harmfully practices. But all my friends were talking about those things. Who has the best price on eggs? On candy? When can we get together to dye eggs? I don’t know what to do in those situations. Do I explain my choices, do I question their choices, and do I endure the “OMG what a religious freak who won’t let her child enjoy life” accusations? (which I of course said about the families who banned the Easter bunny because it detracts from the real meaning of Easter. And shudder that I am coming to the same lifestyle conclusions as the fundamentalists but for completely different reasons)

So this isn’t really a real answer here. Just to say that I find it really easy to write about stuff like this on my blog, but find it a lot harder to consistently put it into practice or to share it with the people I interact with everyday.

Read more

Colossians Remixed 6

Posted on

This post is part of my ongoing response to the questions I posted as part of this month’s book discussion on Colossians Remixed by Brian Walsh and Sylvia Keesmaat over at the Emerging Women blog. (read my other responses – here).

Question #6 –

What is your reaction to this quote? “Does the child who sits in front of a television set for three to four hours a day, shops at the mall with her parents, goes to school and recites the Pledge of allegiance, plays computer games, listens to her president encouraging everyone to go out shopping in order to defeat terrorism, wears clothes from the Gap, and plays with the toys created out of the imagination of Disney and Hollywood, ever actually choose the American way of life? … Was there a moment of conversion in her life when the American dream became her dream? No. She imbibed the monocultural consumerist dream in the fast food she ate, the polluted air she breathed and the visual culture she inhabited. And so she was converted, made into a cult member, before she knew what was happening.” (p171).

So I read this quote the other evening. Emma was sitting on her Elmo chair wearing her “Future Jedi Knight” t-shirt and watching Dora the Explorer. We had spent the afternoon at playgroup at the mall. Oh, and we had gone through a fast food drive through for lunch on the way to the mall. My initial response – “oh crap, I’m a horrible mother/person. I need to feel guilty.”

But I don’t. Well, not completely.

I’m a fan of moderation. As I’ve mentioned recently in other posts, I don’t think most (if any) things are evil in and of themselves. Kinda Shakespearean “there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so” sort of thing. So while I think there are serious things wrong with the world we live in, I don’t see the best response to be withdraw from that world.

For example I see the abuse of alcohol as a bad thing, but I don’t think that means that all people should always avoid alcohol. I see being consumed by greed and the desire to acquire stuff as well as an ignorance of the global implications of our purchases as bad things, but I don’t think it means that all shopping must end. I see a world where children lose the ability to be imaginative and creative as a bad thing, but don’t think imaginative stories/movies (even if they have an agenda) should be condemned and avoided. (As for the fast food thing. That’s just pretty much evil and harmful to our bodies, our families, and the environment. I have no excuse there).

I’m a fan of engagement over withdraw. To explore with my child the world around her. To not mindlessly accept and consume, not reject for the sake of rejection. To teach her to value people over stuff. To encourage her imagination. Will this affect our habits? – it should if we are in any way different from the empire around us. Just being aware that our shopping habits affects families and children around the world changes a lot.

And I see nothing wrong with enjoying life. I enjoy a well cooked meal. I enjoy a good glass of wine. I enjoy a good movie or book or TV show. I try not to be consumed by such things (although there are times in my life when I’ve leaned in that direction, especially when it comes to certain fiction genres. And please no LOST comments…). I see no problem with Emma enjoying Dora, or the children’s museum, or the Zoo. But if our enjoyment comes at the expense of others (dark chocolate made by trafficked children…) then there are issues.

Its the whole in but not of the world thing. At this point I see it as possible to live in this world counterculturally. That doesn’t mean a rejection of all that the world has to offer, just a need to engage thoughtfully with it and to constantly be self aware.

All that said, there is still some guilt. I know there are still things I need to change. Areas of my life where I knowing support the empire over Christ. I want to get past the guilt and find positive ways to live. It’s a fine balance between guilt induced through education and awareness and the healthy changes they can effect. But I’m trying to be aware. To not let my daughter be initiated mindlessly into the cult. To not promote values that I disagree with just because they are easy or expected. And to encourage her to subvert the empire when it needs correction. Do I have a clue most of the time as to what I am doing? No, but I’m going to keep on doing it.

Read more

Colossians Remixed 5

Posted on

This post is part of my ongoing response to the questions I posted as part of this month’s book discussion on Colossians Remixed by Brian Walsh and Sylvia Keesmaat over at the Emerging Women blog. (read my other responses – here).

Question #5 –

In Colossians 3:5-17 Paul tells us to put to death the things of our earthly nature (sexual immorality, greed). The authors write, “Why end a list of sexual sins with an economic sin? Because sexual sin is fundamentally a matter of covetousness, an insatiable, self-gratifying greed that has the control and consumption of the other person as its ultimate desire” (p160) and “In our culture, the unrestrained economic greed of global market capitalism pimps sexual promiscuity along with its entertainment products, communications systems, automobiles and running shoes. You see, if the empire is all about economic growth driven by a lifestyle of consumption, then all of life becomes a matter of consumption – including our sexual life. … There is no point in getting all morally absolute about sexual promiscuity if Christians are screwing around with the same consumeristic way of life as everyone else. This text gives us the language to identify what is going on here for what it is: idolatry.” (p162). How do you see sexual immorality as being greed and idolatry? What is the value of the alternatives?

I’ve always been uneasy with views of sex that paint it as evil in and of itself. The views that dichotomize body and soul. That disparage the physical world as evil. That are ashamed of our bodies.

Like it or not or intended or not those are the views that dominate the church’s approach to sex. There is something shameful about our bodies, they are finite, they wear down, they tempt us and are therefore evil. In a culture mesmerized with Platonic conceptions of reality the heresy of dualism finds an easy hold. Sex is evil because it is sex.

Christian women are taught to be ashamed of their bodies. To hide away their physical selves lest they “cause” their brother to stumble. Sex is the quintessential sin to be avoid at all costs. Do not think about it. Do not explore or attempt to understand your physical self. You will be ruined as a person for life if you slip up here. Take pride that you have stripped yourself bare of any desire to partake of that tainted act. But from your wedding night onward you had better be prepared to enjoy sex – creatively and proactively or else you will cause your husband to sin from neglect…

I remember the first time I asked (really asked) “why is sex outside of marriage wrong?” The answers I was given (because it is for pleasure and not procreation and because God says so) didn’t cut it for me. And I discovered that was a question you just didn’t ask. Ever. I wanted to affirm the conclusions but wanted better reasons and I just couldn’t seem to find them.

That’s why I liked the the take presented here. It explores the deeper reasons. It doesn’t turn sin into a concrete object or action that is performed, but sees it as an attitude of the heart that gets lived out in various ways. It allows for sex and the body to be celebrated in and of themselves, but still provides caution and care in their expression. And it gets past the hangup of seeing sexual sins as the only moral issue out there.

Idolatry is whatever causes us to turn away from the image of the invisible God and be consumed with other images. When the structures and mandates of empire usurp our worship. When the materialism of the marketplace captures our imagination. When other image-bearers become commodities for us to use. Then we have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator.

Read more

Colossians Remixed 4

Posted on

This post is part of my ongoing response to the questions I posted as part of this month’s book discussion on Colossians Remixed by Brian Walsh and Sylvia Keesmaat over at the Emerging Women blog. (read my other responses – here).

Question #4 –

4. But wait a minute you cry! Aren’t Christians supposed to subject ourselves to the governing authorities and all that? The authors respond – “Rather than read [Romans 13] as providing carte blanche legitimation for any regime, regardless of how idolatrous and oppressive it might be, we suggest that Paul is actually limiting the authority of the state. The state is a servant of God for our good. it has no legitimacy or authority in and of itself, apart from subjection to the rule of God. and when the state clearly abrogates its responsibility to do good, when it acts against the will of God, then the Christian community has a responsibility to call it back to its rightful duty and even to engage in civil disobedience (see Acts 12:6-23). The state has no authority to do evil”. (p185)

I like the balance created here.

I have often heard the “subject yourself to the governing authorities” used as that sort of carte blanche. It is a line used to silence all opposition and dissent. Question the war, the Patriot Act, or No Child Left Behind and you are treated as if you are questioning the existence of God. And labeled a liberal (its hard to tell which is worse)

Then from another camp if I merely attempt to say that the government is in a good position to help make the world a better place and I’m told that I look to the government for my salvation. And that I’m a liberal.

So I like this response. That government thing – it’s there because of God. You know “for by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.” The government is just one more thing that can serve God for his glory. Can it be corrupted by power and swayed by greed? Of course and we have the empires to prove it.

But the responses that say “well even if it is doing God’s work we won’t let it or support it” and those that say “well even if it’s doing evil, we have to support it” just don’t make sense to me. To me the government can be used as a tool to advance God’s kingdom (and I so don’t mean this in a theocratic dictatorship sort of way) or it should be called out when it engages in practices contrary to kingdom values.

So to pledge one’s allegiance to the government (or to a party within that government) instead of God (or as it is subtly twisted – in the name of God) misses the point. Our purpose is to serve God and spread God’s love. If the government is on board with that great. If it is working against that mission, then it needs correction.

For another interesting take on this check out this post over at Theolog.

Read more

Subverting the Empire Today

Posted on

In my reflections on Colossians, I would be remiss to ignore the news coming out of Turkey this week. Apparently, knife-wielding attackers slit the throats of three people at a Christian publishing house in conservative eastern Turkey yesterday. The Zirve publishing house had previously been the target of nationalist protests for allegedly distributing Bibles and proselytising.
Read the full story here.

Followers of the way of Christ trying to subvert the empire in Turkey are persecuted by those who oppose them. Sounds strangely familiar. Its all good to talk about how the letter to the Colossians encouraged the believers to follow a different way of life than that promoted by Rome and hint at the danger of spreading that message, but how does one respond to the same thing today?

The first thing that comes to mind is to wonder if it is the same thing. I don’t know much at all about this publishing house, what their intentions are, and how exactly they live out their faith. I’ve known enough missionaries to closed countries to not be naive about some of the manipulative and underhand ways they work for converts. The process often has little to do with making the world a better place or spreading Kingdom values, and everything about getting notches on their belts and getting butts into heaven. And I’ve also known some amazing people who care about spreading God’s love everywhere who are in the same places. It is interesting to note that it is often the churches that are most vocal about supporting the American government (the whole we have to submit to governing authorities thing) that are the most insistent about subverting other governments by illegally sending missionaries into closed countries (and yes, I know that officially Turkey is secular, officially). What was this group doing? Were they just trying to impose some Western conception of Christianity onto a foreign culture (exchanging empire for empire)? Were they there to persuade others that Islam is absolutely wrong and Christianity absolutely right? Were they there to promote freedom of knowledge and access to the Bible to those who desired it?

I don’t know what to think. I am pained by the hatred of the terror and violence. But the history of Christianity is seeped in the tradition of imposing one version of empire onto another’s. I am supportive of tolerance and respect for other cultures, but then wonder how to spread the hope of Christ in a way that continues to be loving and respectful. Subversion and tolerance – is there a balance? Should there be?

Read more