And I made a claim then that's gotten a bit of conversation going among certain of my friends:
What that means, of course, is that the Empire is controlling how we read these texts, not our discipleship to Jesus. Our readings of the biblical text are determined more by self-interest -- whether that be personal or national -- than by self-denial. Jesus becomes aligned with Us vs. Them.I was asked to explain how this is true.
So let me make this point clear.
Imagine I go to a Christian blog or forum and there I see Christians debating whether or not killing is ever justified. We've all seen or participated in these debates, say, between pacifists and just war apologists. And while many of us have strong opinions about this topic, most simply feel torn. We see the good points being made by both sides. So the debates roll on.
Stop for a second and realize what this means.
Christians find these debates so banal and normal. We're okay -- since we never even blink -- debating whether it's okay to kill.
"Can Christians kill others?"
The question, for most of us, is so ho-hum, even if our response is so passionate. We never stop to ask whether or if even asking the question is to give up so much space to someone else.
That's how deeply Empire has scarred our theological imaginations. It's completely normal for Christians to debate killing people online, coolly listing out criteria about when killing is or is not acceptable.
Now imagine you stumble onto a different debate. Take yourself back to last week, and the riots in Baltimore. Imagine your Facebook feed. Imagine you've come across a Christian activist debating online about when it is or is not acceptable to use violence against property as a part of a protest against economic and political oppression. Using biblical texts like Jesus' temple action these activists are setting out criteria for when it is justifiable to destroy property as a part of a protest. These activists discuss things like "last resort" criteria just like the "last resort" criteria used for just war: Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical. It may be clear that the other side is using negotiations as a delaying tactic and will not make meaningful concessions.
Imagine, again, your Facebook feed. Imagine the indignation. More than likely, you're one of the ones who chimed in the conversation, "Hey, wait, it's never okay to destroy property!"
Ponder, here, the difference between those two debates. In the first, it seems so nonchalant that Christians debate whether killing people is okay. In the second, it seems so unbelievable that we would destroy property.
My point isn't that violence in the first case is wrong and in the second case it's allowed. (To put my cards on the table, I think violence is never redemptive, that it never serves the ends of justice and peace.) My point is that Christians don't find the first debate about killing people all that problematic, but -- in my limited experience -- seem to be all up-in-arms (!) over the destruction of property in the second case.
It's okay to list out all the criteria necessary to kill someone. No problem there.
It's not okay to destroy property -- in fact, it's "radical", "insane", "crazy", "immoral" (those are all adjectives I remember seeing after the Baltimore riots).
Again: No violence is ever justified. Not for Christians.
But realize how our notions of sanity, morality and justification are twisted. That's because -- as I said yesterday -- we've been so accustomed to making claims that defend the Empire. Violence toward property in a protest? That's the height of immorality and irresponsibility. It's anti-Christian to the core. But few (if any) Christians are shocked by a debate about killing human beings. We think killing is a legitimate debate to be had, worthy of reasoned conversation and consideration.
Killing people? That's an option on the table. Sure, we might insist there are certain criteria that must be met (such as in just war theory). But it's a Christian conversation we can have.
Think about that.
That's how twisted and determined our moral thinking is by Empire. Empire is, as I said yesterday, determining how we read these texts, not discipleship to Jesus.
Think about that.
____________________
This is what my friend Stan Hauerwas was getting at in his famous essay, "Why Gays as a Group are Morally Superior to Christians as a Group". That essay, if you've never read it, is worth the time. Sadly, though, it's only in print there. I can't find it online.