Category Archives: Violence

Leaving Meshech, abandoning Kedar

dronesBombs going off in Boston. Stabbings at a college in Texas. Bullets ending the lives of children in Connecticut. Unmanned aircraft dropping bombs on unsuspecting Afghans.

Heads of state threatening to unleash nuclear war. Terrorists calling for murder on a grand scale. Nations attacking others over land disputes that go back hundreds and even thousands of years.

Holy men calling for jihad. Christian leaders calling for the death of other human beings. Men taking up swords and guns in the name of the holy God.

“Woe to me that I dwell in Meshech, that I live among the tents of Kedar! Too long have I lived among those who hate peace. I am a man of peace; but when I speak, they are for war.” (Psalms 120:5–7)

The first psalm in the Psalms of Ascent states the problem well: we are living in Meshech or in Kedar, far from God’s holy city. The third psalm in the group reminds us of where we want to be:

“I rejoiced with those who said to me, “Let us go to the house of the LORD.”” (Psalms 122:1)

We don’t want to live in Meshech any more. We’re sick of Kedar. We long to go to the presence of the Lord.

Then let our songs abound,
and every tear be dry;
we’re marching through Emmanuel’s ground,
we’re marching through Emmanuel’s ground,
to fairer worlds on high,
to fairer worlds on high.

We’re marching to Zion,
Beautiful, beautiful Zion;
We’re marching upward to Zion,
The beautiful city of God.

Sleight of mouth

When I was a kid, I really enjoyed magicians. Even though I knew it was a trick, I still became a part of the illusion.

Sleight of hand, or prestidigitation for those who like using big words, is usually a big part of any magician’s act. A lot of it depends on getting people to look at the wrong thing, on distracting your audience with a diversion while you are doing something else.

I think that we need to create a new term: sleight of mouth. To really catch what’s important, we often have to look at what people don’t say, rather than what they do.

One place where I think this is true is war. There is a natural fog of war that clouds the information process; even those involved don’t know everything that’s going on. There’s also a manmade fog of war, where those involved practice sleight of mouth, saying only what they want people to hear.

One of my language teachers in Argentina was able to illustrate this for me. She was living in Los Angeles during the 1982 Malvinas (Falklands) War between Argentina and Great Britain. She said that she heard news from three sources: the United States (which she could hear for herself), Argentina (which she heard from friends there), and Germany (thanks to a neighbor). The U.S. news consistently presented the news from the viewpoint of Great Britain. The Argentine news was slanted toward Argentina, so much so that when Argentina surrendered, her friends wouldn’t believe her when she called them. (“How can that be? We’re winning.”) In the end, it was the German news that seemed to be the most objective.

What makes me wonder is why it’s so hard to find out civilian death totals from Iraq and Afghanistan. I can understand the difficulty in knowing how many enemy fighters have been killed, but it seems like our government could present a clearer picture of how many bystanders have been killed. Actually, we know that they can: the Wikileaks documents confirmed the numbers that non-government sites have reported.

So why doesn’t our government talk about this? Sleight of mouth. Nobody wants people thinking about the tens of thousands of people who have died. Let’s focus on the three thousand or so that died 9/11 or the four thousand or so U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq. Talking about the deaths of over one hundred thousand civilians might dampen the enthusiasm for the war. Let’s talk about something else.

We should mourn those one hundred thousand as strongly as we do the ones who died 10 years ago in the terrorist attacks. That needs to be said time and again. Let’s not be children who are deceived by a magician’s tricks. Let’s not just look where they tell us to look. Let’s look at the whole picture.

There’s a reason why we keep saying we want to “fight them over there.” Because if those one hundred thousand dead were American citizens, this country would look at things in a whole different light.

Maybe the early Christians got it wrong

Photo by Ove Tøpfer; from Stock Xchange

I just don’t see it. I’ve read through the New Testament multiple times, and I just don’t see it. I don’t see any evidence of Christians using power, power as the world defines it, to shape their world. Yes, they used the power of the Spirit, the power of words, the power of prayer, etc. But where are the examples of the use of physical force, for example to advance the Kingdom or even to protect Kingdom followers? Where is the political maneuvering to achieve their goals?

“Well, there just weren’t enough of them.” Are you kidding me? If you haven’t done so, read the last post. God prefers to work with the minority.

“Well, maybe they did that, and we just don’t have record of it.” That’s possible, although it seems strange that something that has become such a central part of Christians’ lives today could have been so unimportant then that it wasn’t recorded.

Or am I missing the examples? I read Acts 12 and try to imagine how it would have played out today. James is arrested and killed. Peter is arrested. And the church is just praying and “singing Kumbayah” while Peter is in prison. That’s ridiculous. Storm the prison. Kill the guards. Free the Christians who are held unjustly. Set an example so that Christians in the 21st century will know what God expects of them.

Instead, they depended on God. Wimps. Weaklings. These are the people that one prominent brotherhood speaker says he has no use for. Pick up a sword and fight, you cowards. If God could use Samson and Gideon to win battles against extraordinary odds, He can help you defeat the evil Herod.

Or do you mean to tell me that with thousands of Christians in Jerusalem, they couldn’t take over the Sanhedrin? Or form a rival Sanhedrin to make just decisions? If they’d done that, rather than focus on prayer and the Word, we’d have the examples we need to know how to conduct ourselves.

What am I missing here? Some of you know the writings of the early church better than I. Maybe the church in the second and third century began to use the tools of the world in a way I’m not aware of.

Or do we seriously think that our lives should be so focused on power issues like war and politics when those things are absent from the early church? Does pragmatism trump spirituality?

Maybe you can convince me.

To kill Christian enemies

Since yesterday’s case study was so much fun, I thought I’d expand on it. Let’s imagine that we are in the midst of a new civil war here in the United States, like what I described yesterday. A Christian soldier learns through intelligence that a large group of enemy soldiers will be meeting for a Christian worship service at a site that is poorly defended. Not a church building, mind you, because everyone knows that killing people is okay, but damaging important buildings is a no-no.

The soldier has the opportunity and means to call in an air strike that will kill all those participating in the worship service. They, like he, are soldiers, military targets. Fellow Christians, but fighting for the other side.

Is there any reason why this soldier wouldn’t call in the strike and kill those gathered for worship?

A House Divided

In the last post, we explored a bit the concept of the Kingdom of God as an actual nation. I want to continue to discuss this idea. In a recent post, Patrick Mead discussed some of the implications of rebellion and Christians taking part in such. He wrote: “I cannot imagine a situation in which it would be right for me to call upon my congregation to take up arms and fire upon our own soldiers or policemen.

As some who commented on the last post pointed out, this same reasoning needs to be applied to our Christian nation. Isn’t it even more inconceivable that members of the same family, the same body, the same holy nation should take up arms against one another? “By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another…” unless you find it necessary to shoot one another. Really? Is that what we really believe?

If we understand the fact that we Christians form a single nation, the idea of us taking up arms against one another becomes unthinkable. A house divided against itself cannot stand. We cannot demonstrate love for one another while attempting to kill one another.

Our highest allegiance must be to our true citizenship, to the heavenly nation that we form a part of. The world will never see that as long as we place earthly nationalism above heavenly loyalty. Christians must refuse to place themselves in a situation where they could be called upon to attack fellow Christians.