Brian McLaren and the Emergent Conversation
Well, finally I have the time to think through some of my thoughts on the meeting from Monday. I have made some images that mimic some that McLaren used in his discussion, so to save room, I'm posting the bulk of this entry in the extended section that you can read by clicking the link below. But first a few disclaimers on the images... 1) they only represent what I thought he was saying 2) they probably don't match his images exactly, 3) they aren't to scale and the proximity of named denominations in the first couple is random doesn't mean anything, and 4) they remind me of the Kraftwerk website!
McLaren met with the Baltimore Emergent Cohort at the Bare Bones Grill in Ellicot City. There were roughly 40 people there, which I think is a little larger than the normal group, which is expected with a famous guest in attendance. After all, it was my first time there too!
So, Tim, the point man for the group said we would take a question answer format, and the first question somebody asked McLaren was to explain how he envisioned the emergent conversation. McLaren used something like the following images to illustrate his ideas.
Illustration #1
McLaren explained that sometimes religious concepts have produced wedges in a pie of believers that is surrounded by a world of unbelievers. But emergent seeks to exist at the edges, between all of the pie wedges and the unbelieving world around them.
Illustration #2
McLaren then described the church as divided into quadrants (really more like a multi-pointed star, but we'll stick to four areas for now). When people become comfortable, devoted, and committed to their brand of church, they gravitate to the outside, as far from the other brands as possible.
But emergent challenges people to move closer to the center and build closer connections between varieties of the faith.
Illustration #3
Finally, McLaren said ideas have a life that can be graphed on axis of innovation (x) and popularity (y). Ideas are first innovative but not popular. They progress until they reach a peak of popularity, but they are no longer as fresh. Then, they slide into being neither popular nor ground breaking. He says emergent wants to stay in the "A" range on the graph above.
Next someone asked about his next project (book). He said he was captured by the idea of the Kingdom of God and he was working on a project that examined the sermon on the mount within the context of the politics of that time. He then made a case for viewing Christ's statements in the sermon as much more radical than we can understand with out knowledge of the political climate.
The rest of the night was largely spent discussing the need to end the western cultural and economic colonization of the "Global South and East." I'm not going to go into detail about all that was said to this end, because I would guess that most of us are already plugged into these ideas.
But, I will type a little about my own inner conflict about issues of being a western Christian in a world that is rejecting western colonialism.
My heart really breaks when I think of both the US and Christian colonization of peoples and lands throughout its history. As a historian who has spent a great amount of time reading about US expansion, slavery, the reconstruction south, the Indian wars, the Span-Am War, US involvement in Haiti, Nicaragua, Panama, and Hawaii, and the cold war, I feel like I am intimately familiar with the power the US has often cruelly extracted everywhere, and the western missionaries who sometimes viewed this power as an opportunity rather than an atrocity.
Additionally, I think, as Christians, we have an obligation to work against the continuation of injustice in the world everywhere. It would be sinful not to. But at the same time, I think it's dangerous to make justice our God.
Before I continue, I need to lay down a ground rule... if you find yourself wanting to call me and tell me that social and economic justice (earthly healing) and religious enlightenment (spiritual healing) are not mutually exclusive, stop reading, close your eyes, and listen to my mental vibes saying "I know and I agree."
McLaren and others I have read seem to be interested in "your kingdom come... on earth as it is in heaven" (this is my perception--I'm not putting words in McLaren's mouth!) But I'm not sure that God intended for His kingdom to be realized until He returns, and I'm not sure social/economic justice are connected to spiritual recognition of Christ in the way many people imagine.
Have you ever wondered why God chose to redeem our spirits when we accept Him as our Lord and savior, but He chose to allow us to suffer the rest of our earthly lives trapped in our unredeemed flesh? I believe it is because the nexus of our grace filled spirits and our broken lives are the greatest testament to our need for Him. So Paul asks, "should we continue sinning so grace can abound?" The answer is of course not, but still, Paul encourages us not to continue living under the law but to rejoice that we have grace that sets us free from our sin (even though we will continue to sin until the resurrection of our bodies).
I feel like the scriptures support a similar interpretation on social and economic issues. God chooses to heal peoples and reconcile us to each other through His son and the church, but He often allows our lives to continue in misery and suffering, despite our faith in Him. He could take away the sufferings of the church, but instead He has deemed it better to wait and to put an end to our suffering when He redeems the world and establishes His New Jerusalem. Like Paul's word on sin and grace, the scripture tells us that we should not become complacent about suffering (whatever you have done to the least of these...), but suffering will continue (you will always have the poor, etc.), and we should not be defeated by suffering but rejoice that we are set free from our suffering (rejoice when you face trials of many kinds) even when our lives are filled with pain.
Why does He allow suffering to persist? Because the nexus between our grace filled churches and the broken world is the greatest testament our need for Him. With this in mind, our faith must transcend our suffering, and while we SHOULD persistently act to root out all kinds of evil, too much attention to social justice, ending poverty, and alleviating pain can offer dangers that are the church-level equivalent to the dangers of legalism in our individual lives--not plainly wrong, but deceptively entangling, apt to produce rather than uproot sin, and threatening to God's central role in the redemption of the church and the world.
Now remember the ground rules!
Our job is to responsibly strike the balance between helping people overcome pain and injustice, and making them realize that their suffering cannot defeat them, and is a badge of honor in God's coming Kingdom.
One last provocative statement that does standout to me and that I agree with was that McLaren rhetorically asked, "what if after 911, America had stood up in the midst of global sympathy and said, rather than escalating a cycle of violence, we're going to invest our efforts into dealing with the global problems that cause people to act out so desperately."
Tell me your thoughts and let's discuss.
On the night of September 11, I saw the handwriting on the wall and I was so sad. I had this crazy rant in the middle of the living room at Orient St. saying EXACTLY the same thing you quote McLaren saying about it(content-wise), but not as well probably. Most of the world was feeling loving toward the US at that time (even French people were on TV crying about the WTC and saying that they were praying for us). What if the United States could find it in herself to lead the world to respond with love? The first Gulf war gave birth to Bin Laden's hatred of us; was there a path of extending remarkably generous grace that could disarm hate? Or further, even if the terrorists continue hating and killing us, aren't we called radically to love our enemies (THE TERRORISTS, not just to love innocent people in their countries)? I know this is foolishness in the world; I've had a number of conversations about whether the leader of secular state could in good conscience take this path, but I really wanted our country to take the road of Matt 5:38-48.
When I first read this post, I was gearing up to try to write this eloquent response of what I think about the juxtaposition that Miles constructs above. But then I paused and I became really sad, to the point of tears, for two reasons.
1. The first reason is that I felt really yucky about engaging in my response. I love and respect Miles so much and it felt like pushing a divide in my relationship with him to engage in dialogue where I take a contrary opinion. I felt myself being one of those dots that migrated to the outside of my box (see pic above) to move away from the conversation in the middle because I felt like the middle was a painful place for me. (I also felt this way the last time that I did indulge in a debate with him on a theological post from a while back.) I hate that I feel this way because in my mind, I really value dialogue and I think that having respectful conversations with people who believe differently than I do can help me to understand God better. But my head gets overruled by my heart. I just don't have it in me. It makes me feel too bad to get into it.
2. The second reason that I felt sick and sad is that I was about to get on my soapbox about our Lord's heart for the poor and marginalized and the fact that we can't "love God" or "Love our neighbor" unless we are passionate about the same, when I was powerfully convicted by how little my life matches up to what I say I believe. I know God loves me passionately anyway, but my heart breaks at how little my actions respond to the love I have been given, how dramatically my life strays from the values I profess. I have no right to respond with empty rhetoric.
I would love to hear what Marshall has to say about this (my thoughts and Miles's post).
E, don't give up! I don't think we're that far apart in what we think, I just think I struggle with pride and confidence that spoils the good things that I should be doing because I think I can do them myself instead of depending on the Lord. I'd be crushed to think you were too depressed about what I said to tell me where I'm wrong!!!!
I will weigh in later with comments on this very interesting dialogue, but first I would like to ask Miles to PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE change your template. The type is painfully small to read, the white on black is tough, and the pattern on the sides makes it hard to keep focus on the words. I want to be able to read and think about what you're saying at the same time, and this format makes me only able to read and try to keep my vision focused. Thanks for hearing the cry of a devoted reader!
Marshall!!! Thanks for the site feedback! I've been begging people to comment on the design so i would know how it is working, but nobody ever has (except when burly said he liked the colors which was helpful too)! Thanks--I will not stop until you are satisfied, my friend!!!!
Miles: McLaren and others I have read seem to be interested in "your kingdom come... on earth as it is in heaven" (this is my perception--I'm not putting words in McLaren's mouth!) But I'm not sure that God intended for His kingdom to be realized until He returns, and I'm not sure social/economic justice are connected to spiritual recognition of Christ in the way many people imagine.
Marsh: Hmmm…. Let me hear you out and we can continue. OK, I have finished reading and I will disagree with you here. In thinking about the rest of the Lord’s prayer, Jesus didn’t seem to be asking us to pray for other things that God didn’t want to do until sometime later (give us this day our daily bread, forgive us, lead us not into temptation). And while God’s kingdom will not be realized in its fullness until He comes back, He does ask us to seek and desire that the earth reflect His kingdom more and more NOW, not just someday (i.e. it is not primarily and eschatological prayer). [I realize this might not be what you are saying.]
The reason justice-ites are so concerned with tying spiritual recognition of Christ to social/economic issues is that in many ways the Church has become one of two things – a corpse or a ghost. A corpse is a body with no soul, which is what mainline Christianity concerned only with “feeding the poor” can easily become. A ghost is a soul with no body (no action), which is what evangelical Christianity concerned with only saving the lost can easily become. *thanks to Alec Hill, IVCF National President, for this excellent clarification/analogy. In the West, we have so divorced economic and social justice from basic morality, there is a need to strongly call the Church back to this, and to perhaps overemphasize it in order to get equal air time with issues like quiet times, saving the family from the gays, stopping abortion, whether or not to sing hymns or praise choruses, how to have financial peace in a Godly way, and on and on (forgive my cynical side coming out here; I do think that family is important, as is protection for the unborn children; I just think that those hot-button issues continue to shove social and economic issues to the side).
In IV ministry, I have learned that if I want my students to care about reaching out to the lost or others unlike them, I have to overemphasize and constantly prioritize it, because it is not an issue that they care to seriously face or engage. By devoting 60% of my voice to that, I ensure that they give 30% of themselves to it. Does that make sense?
Now on to suffering: I agree with Miles here – our suffering brings God glory and enables Him to show us His glory.
But I am not sure that God is sitting benignly by and just letting suffering continue because He thinks it’s just better to wait (not sure that this is what you were actually saying). He allows suffering because it produces what He most wants from us – dependence on Him. That is what Adam and Eve chose against in the Garden, choosing to know for themselves the difference between good and evil. This is independence. The healing that God has wrought through Christ can only be realized by Believers who are living lives dependent on Christ’s life in them/through them. God does not take over our bodies and make us robots (I know you know this), and thus we continue to suffer because the bent-ness of our flesh (our untransformed mind, will, and emotions) towards doing things our way. Maybe you would agree 100% with this and I’ve wasted some typing time here.
Yes, I agree with you that suffering is a testament to our need (although we reject that need over and over and try to fill our suffering with stuff). We should act to root out evil, but we should do so only as Christ roots out evil through us (I no longer live but Christ lives in me, Gal 2:20). You are right in saying that if we just root out evil because we think that “this is what we should do and we need to be obedient, justice-seeking Christians, by golly”, it can easily be our flesh and not the Spirit speaking and doing the work. Doing good is not necessarily always of the Spirit, and in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15, we learn that the only judgment that Christians will face is the judgment of our works, because Jesus took the judgment of our sin on the cross. And how will those works be judged? They will be judged on the basis of whether we did them in dependence on Jesus or out of self-motives like guilt, fear, pity, self-rigteousness, etc. And so many of my works for Jesus, though He redeemed them and made them good and used them for His glory, will be judged as flesh and independence (which makes me very sad). So, yes, I think a striving after justice, as with any aspect of following Christ, can become legalistic sin and can replace God and Christ and the Spirit as our source of life and leading.
Miles: Our job is to responsibly strike the balance between helping people overcome pain and injustice, and making them realize that their suffering cannot defeat them, and is a badge of honor in God's coming Kingdom.
Marsh: The problem with responsibly striking this balance that you speak of is that the scale is SO FAR tipped in the evangelical circles towards caring just for the soul and spirit. In order to restore the balance, it feels that one must overload the other side for a time (or remove some of the soulish weight). [I covered this above, too]
Elizabeth: 1. The first reason is that I felt really yucky about engaging in my response. I love and respect Miles so much and it felt like pushing a divide in my relationship with him to engage in dialogue where I take a contrary opinion. I felt myself being one of those dots that migrated to the outside of my box (see pic above) to move away from the conversation in the middle because I felt like the middle was a painful place for me.
Marsh: Was “the middle” painful for you because issues of justice and reconciliation were pushed aside in the name of getting along and common ground? I can hear you on this. I wonder why justice and reconciliation are not at that center place. We are called “ambassadors of reconciliation” (see 2 Corinthians 5:14-21, especially v. 20, and also Ephesians 2:14-17), proclaimers of both the horizontal and vertical dimensions of the cross. If the cross of Christ is the meeting ground of the center, then both dimensions of that cross should inform and instruct our beliefs and actions.
Elizabeth: 2. The second reason that I felt sick and sad is that I was about to get on my soapbox about our Lord's heart for the poor and marginalized and the fact that we can't "love God" or "Love our neighbor" unless we are passionate about the same, when I was powerfully convicted by how little my life matches up to what I say I believe. I know God loves me passionately anyway, but my heart breaks at how little my actions respond to the love I have been given, how dramatically my life strays from the values I profess. I have no right to respond with empty rhetoric.
Marsh: E - The Lord Jesus does not shame you into action. Rather “Christ’s love compels us” 2 Cor 5:14. There are many places where my “good theology” does not line up with my actions, and there is always someone living it out better than me. My job, then, is not to try harder and do better, or to whip myself into action, but to yield to the Lord in me, asking Him to lead me and live through me. Jesus Christ living in you loves the poor and marginalized, and He asks that you let Him show you how you, Elizabeth, are being called to let Him do that through you. I would say that your life is far from empty when it comes from doing justice and caring for the least, last, and lost – I have watched you and your housemates from orient over the years. Maybe right now your life doesn’t feel radical. That’s OK. There is a passion in you that is from Jesus, and He would ask you to seek His face and lead you and your husband, not out of guilt or shame, but in love and hope.
I don’t think that you and Miles are very far apart either. Those of us who are extremely passionate about justice and see its mark all over Scripture are very sensitive to those who would ignore or marginalize us (or seem to). So it would not be hard to read Miles’ post and think he is doing that. While I did take issue some with Miles, overall he is calling us to a spirit-led engagement of justice with God at the center, rather than justice being the center and us asking God to help us get it done. I think that Miles does a better job than I do of seeing many angles of an issue, whereas I just see one part and want to right the wrong. That is my blind spot. So the Lord has created me and you and Miles (and Mclaren) as a BODY, where maybe some of us are the adrenaline, passionate and ready to act and react, and others are the careful eyes and ears which take in the whole scene and give counsel as to the other factors in play. I hope that maybe I have bridged some things for you, E, because since you know my heart for the poor, you may be able to receive the places that I agree with Miles better than you originally received them in his post (not saying you don't love the poor, Miles, because I know that you know and understand God's heart in this area, and are concerned for it).
Dude, this is good stuff!
I LOVE the template ... I'm not playing around. I still think you need to throw an orange Dr. Pepper can in there somewhere, though. White on black is okay by me.
Are you crazy, Buehrle?
Marsh and Burly, I hope this is a good compromise between your tastes. Still a few glitches, but hopefully stylish and easy to read. I'll have to comments on the long post by marshall when I have more time later tonight.
We were both reading your blog, Miles, and were encouraged by your discussion, Miles, Elizabeth, and Marshall. We really like the idea that "love of our neighbor" should be a uniting part of Christianity, at the center of all denominations. In reading the sermon on the mount, Jesus is describing what the kingdom of God looks like - and at the end he exhorts us to be like the man who builds his house on the rock by putting his words into practice. Some preachers have interpreted the sermon on the mount as primarily a way for Jesus to beat us down, making us realize how we'll never live up to his standard, and cry out for mercy. I've (Mark) come to think (thanks to reading Dallas Willard and others) that maybe Jesus really meant for us to live this way...loving even our enemies and wanting the best for them, etc. Not that we won't stumble in this, but that our sincere desire is to be Jesus' disciple in these matters, and God gives us amazing grace throughout the whole process.
This is much better, Miles. Thank you.
Love the discussion... I think that the question that these comments bring to mind is another dilemma. We all know that we are to love our neighbor and that with that there is immense responsibility. Here goes it. (I hope this is even related to the discussion)
1. Suffering- I am a little confused about the usage of "suffering" in the posts. When I think of suffering I think of several different kinds. There is the suffering that followers of Christ are privileged to bear. You know... the bearing your cross type of suffering. This suffering draws us to Christ and deepens our dependence on Him.
The second type of suffering being the suffering that so many Africans with aids live and die with. I have come to believe that though we look at different "less fortunate" cultures and decide that they must be suffering. This is not necessarily true. Yes their bodies suffer. Their stomachs ache. I hate that, it breaks my heart. The reason why reaction to them has changed though is due to my realization that they are not the only ones with infirmity.
That brings me to the third type of suffering-
They are not the only ones whose lives are being destroyed. Their physical bodies are being destroyed but often they live richer lives than we do here in America.
I talked to a friend the other day who works for Young Life in India. While we in America pray for the Indian church and for the people starving and dealing with diseases there. They are busy praying for us! They understand that while we have the best medical care in the world we have a disease of the heart that is even more debilitating. They pray for our infirmities of the soul. Materialism, Addictions to pleasure, comfort, sex, and security.
I am less convinced that they are the ones "suffering". I wonder if whether I might rather have suffering that produces hunger than suffering that produces a heart that is numb, comfortable, and centered on self.
*** Please know this is not an excuse to be ok with physical suffering. It is not an excuse to walk past the man lying on the side of the road. ***
When I was in Romania I spoke with a man about the state of the church in Romania. I expressed my sympathy with the hardships they had to endure while under communist rule prior to 1989. His reply has stuck with me... "We were fortunate to go through those times. The believers who did not live through that time do not understand Jesus the way that we did back then. We were willing and often did die for our faith. We knew the cost of following Jesus in a way I cannot teach my children today."
So who is "suffering" and who is "rich"?
Please understand that I am in no way advocating turning a blind eye to people who are physically suffering in this world. While it was always Jesus' priority to heal the soul first, he did also give sight to the blind. My point is just that, the blind African may be wealthier and healthier than the porn addicted American with 20/20 vision.
How do you LOVE someone? How do you LOVE your neighbor?
1. This is one area it seems I disagree with McLaren and even might contradict myself. To love someone is to act in their best interest. This is hard because there are only a few things that you can confidently say are in a person's best interest. I think that one of the only things that we can say is in everyone’s best interest is to understand our condition and God’s posture towards us.
Is it in a person's best interest to be an evangelical Christian as we know it? I doubt it.
To be a republican? Definitely not.
To be an American? No again.
What is loving your neighbor then?
I think there is only one way to truly love your neighbor. By emulating the way that Christ moved into our world. He put on our clothes. He learned our language. He respected our stupid customs. He brought us into a relationship with God. He put our well being in front of his own comfort.
So can a secular nation do that? Of course not. I don’t even know that they should do it. A church can do that and certainly an individual can do that.
So what does a nation do? What does a secular nation do? I think that we do what we have done sometimes. When people are hungry we feed them. When people are sick we heal them. When people are under oppression we free them. So you say that we can invade a country to free its people from political oppression? Sure. If we have the right to invade Ethiopia’s poverty that they (or their leaders) have gotten themselves into, then certainly we have a right to invade Iraq’s poverty of freedom, poverty of education, and poverty of human rights. To not help is withhold the help that we have the ability to provide.
Side note: Don’t poverty and oppressive dictators have a lot in common? They restrict and control. They inhibit and prevent people from owning their lives and their decisions. I don’t understand how these two situations are all that different. They both are external hardships. They both present places where Christians can demonstrate love and our country can demonstrate goodwill towards the world.
But can you kill thousands of Iraqis and Americans for this purpose? Absolutely.
American Soldiers: To feed Ethiopians, Americans pay a price. Sure it’s relatively low price in taxes but nonetheless it’s a price. Military personnel in America have signed up to give their lives for their country and under the leadership of the country. Though hard to think about, their lives to be sacrificed for America’s purposes as our tax dollars are for Ethiopians to get rice. (not equal but the same)
Iraqis: I actually find this more regrettable. I don’t like Americans dying but at least they chose that path. Iraqi citizens in the way of a bomb are a tragedy. I still believe that years from now Iraqis will appreciate their new found freedom and see those casualties as necessary.
Doesn’t Jesus say to turn the other cheek?
Yes and No. Jesus says to turn the other cheek when someone strikes you. Does turning the cheek always mean peace and concession? I think that comes back to the love question. What did it mean to love Osama Bin Laden on 9/12? Are we to just turn the other cheek? Are we just to send our energies into peaceful demonstrations of love? Is it possible that loving this world is to confront it? Since when is letting someone continue in evil loving them? Yes turn the other cheek but do it in order to love the person not because Jesus demands us to be victims.
MLK in the civil rights movement did not decide to appease the culture with passivity. Those sit ins weren’t passive. Non-violent and passive are not synonyms. They were brutal in their resistance and their unwillingness to allow injustice to continue.
If we were into slapping Osama Bin Laden in the face we wouldn’t have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq. We would have bombed them indiscriminately. We would have killed civilians with the sole purpose of returning the pain that was inflicted upon us. We wouldn’t spend billions in reconstruction or in avoiding civilian casualties. We would just smack them back to return the favor. We definitely wouldn't send our sons and daughters to die guarding their polling stations.
Miles, I have to admit that I haven’t read or studied the past atrocities that the U.S. has committed all over the world. I really don’t know much about all these past issues and I also regret that my opinion is generally formed by the perspective that issues are presented to me in.
Essentially, my opinion is that there must be a position between passivity and red blooded imperialism. God has never been passive, nor has He been cruel. Not towards me nor towards any of his people.
His love for me often feels/looks ruthless and even cruel but its borne out of his love for me and his desire that I might experience ALL of the love and life that He gives.
p.s. sorry so long... i just got going
Lizabeth...
I think that picture is inaccurate. I think that the dots only drift to the outside when fear prevents discussion and debate. Even though all of our opinions are different, the ability to debate and discuss and still love each other brings us together stronger than before.
Its better described this way...
though politically and theologically you might be more distant
personally and relationally you are closer because you are able to acknowledge, discuss, and love in spite of those differences.
To be scared of an intellectual or political difference and so run from that fear does not resolve or bring that relationship into closer proximity. It drives the relationship further apart because not only is there an intellectual gap but a relational one as well. You and Miles dont have to agree on everything to have a dynamic relationship (you never have anyway).
You do have to continue coming to the table though.
What is your relationship worth anyway if it cant take a little political or theological dissonance?
Look on the bright side though.... All that is really important you both have in common. Not to mention you love each other!
Another thought... When are we farthest away from God? When we are mad at God or when we dont want to face that possible conflict and we get used to cold comfortable distance?
Do I get some reward for writing the longest comment at 2:30 in the morning?
No way to respond to everything here, but a few thoughts for any who are still monitoring the thread.
I would eagerly and energetically engage in a slow discussion of this kind with someone with whom I had little invested. A discussion like this sucks the energy from me if I'm having it with someone that I respect and like because it feels like it isolates me from them, like we are on different sides, competing to be right. I don't want to be in that competition. I'd just rather live my life silently. The more I write back and forth, the more amped up I get, and the more vulnerable I feel to feeling really disappointed in the person that I like. I think a lot of this conversation disability comes from my own sinful disposition. I know Miles wants a discussion, not to have everyone merely acquiesce to his position.
I think part of the problem is also the format of the discussion. In real life, one person doesn't spill out all of their thoughts at once, leaving the replies to merely disagree with points or agree with points. In real life, one comment leads to another and it feels less like point-counterpoint, so it's easier to feel more at ease about an exchange.
One thing that I cannot let go without a reply:
Is it me, or did Bill just make a backdoor analogy between non-violent marches/sit-ins and the invasion of Iraq?
I can see Dr. King now, with his machine gun, bombing the Alabama legislature, and giving the speech afterwards--
"I still believe that years from now Alabamans will appreciate the new found justice here and see those casualties as necessary. Are we to just turn the other cheek? Are we just to send our energies into peaceful demonstrations of love? Is it possible that loving this world is to confront it? Since when is letting someone continue in evil loving them? Yes turn the other cheek but do it in order to love the person not because Jesus demands us to be victims. Let's march on Washington and bring the bombs."
Passive and non-violent are not synonyms. But war and non-violent are not synonyms either. Regardless of how a person feels about the war in Iraq, a reasonable person must admit that the type of radical rebellion against tyranny and injustice of Dr. King and those who "fought" with him in a non-violent way should not be compared to the choices of war. Dr. King's first speech that he wasn't able to deliver (because he was taken down in violent protest to his ideas) was delivered by his wife from notes in his pockets. The topic: Why the US should not be engaged in a violent war that purported to be saving a foreign nation from an evil form of government.
I'm fully aware that there is a big difference between Dr. King and Jesus. I had to speak up against this analogy from a rational standpoint.
I'd be interested in the discussion if I could follow it. Can it be brought back to a single discussion thread? Miles, you own it, so it's up to you to decide, eh?
I wasnt trying to draw a direct parallel between Jesus, MLK, and George Bush going to war. I was trying to demonstrate that I think each of these three has found a middle ground. The idea that "turn the other cheek" is simply what Jesus would have us do is simplistic and wrong.
I was demonstrating that point with MLK. Though not drawing a parallel I was also trying to communicate that it is possible to view the US actions in Iraq as being one of those middle grounds. We are not carpet bombing Iraq. Nor are we acting in revenge.
My point simply...
"Turn the other cheek" theology and policy (in itself) is not Jesus (doesn't that sound blasphemous), nor is it the way righteous retribution has taken place in the past (MLK). So often Christians want to take one Jesus quote out of the entire Bible and craft a position around it.
By the way... There are many reasons that MLK did not show up in Washington with a machine gun. One of which was that his battle wasnt against a dictator or minority rule. His struggle was against a majority culture. If he had used violence his cause wouldve been lost. Those are not quite the same circumstances we face in Iraq. Therein lies the debate I guess.
Elizabeth... I am so with you on trying to have a discussion on blog. I love it and hate it. I could get on here and write 6 pages of stuff but thats no way to have back and forth discussion. Yeah I'm with you.
Thanks for all the comments. I finally got the time to catch up on the thread and I have to agree with Burly that we've gone a little adrift here; although the connections make sense, the direction has shifted. In a way, I would like to comment further, because there are things said here that I think are important and worth pulling out further, but Maybe it would be best to leave this conversation where it is and let it be a starting point for person-to-person dialogue elsewhere, although I think it is worth learning to conduct discussions in a forum like this, and I'm not ready to abandon touchy issues on the blog.
here here