Tag Archives: biblical interpretation

Would Jesus punch a Nazi?

When I was in high school, my mom gave me a black and white “What Would Jesus Do?” bracelet that I would wear to class everyday. She wanted me to be reminded whenever I came across an ethical dilemma (important, especially being that the campus’ population was predominantly white , and in particular, being the only African American in honors courses wasn’t the best of times, let me tell you), all I would have to do is look at my wrist and ask myself, “What would Jesus Do?” The question of “What Would Jesus Do?” would once more make itself relevant years later when I was in seminary. In our Christian ethics classes, we would explore questions of faith, weekly case studies, and various approaches to Christian ethics. As a learning community, we made our way through Thomas Aquinas, situational ethics, virtue theory, and deontology (the study of duty). What would Jesus do in a post-truth world where the Alt-Right is seeking world domination? And more importantly, what would the LORD of all creation have us to do while living in the midst of a fascist regime? The question of WWJD is not only a question of ethics but also one of theological speculation. I side with liberationist theologians: God is as God does. God is a God of freedom and justice, and leads the way for the poor to experience redemption for the sake of all peoples. A god who would do nothing to resist tyranny can be seen either as apathetic or as complicit in suffering of victims.

The question of punching Nazis is the case study of 2017. It all started during Orange Julius’ installation that a reporter from CNN gave white supremacist Richard Spencer a platform on national television to spread his hateful views; subsequently, someone from the black bloc group of resisters punched Mr. Spencer from behind. The internet was filled with think pieces after this event, everything from rejoice to remorse. So, the question I say that Christians seeking out spaces of resistance must ask today is, “Would Jesus Punch a Nazi?”

Eclectically liberal continental philosopher Slavoj Zizek answered the question in a definite, “No!”

Quartz: So, is it OK to punch a Nazi?
Žižek: No! If there is violence needed, I’m more for Gandhian, passive violence.

That was his answer from a Quartz interview on January 27th, 2017. Zizek goes on to continue to praise Gandhi’s “passive violence” as something in the abstract and to be emulated in all contexts. What Zizek neglects to do in his appropriation of Gandhi’s approach to nonviolence is that Gandhi did not believe that peace was for everyone, particularly the dark skinned Black peoples of subsaharan Africa whom he considered to be savages. And speaking as a survivor, one should definitely not overlook his views on rape victims and probable CSA.

When we talk about violence, and by extension anger, it is very important that we speak of these concepts not in the abstract and universal, but in the particular and contextual. Whenever one discusses violence as if it is without context, there is an accentuation of that violence. Whether it is philosophers like Zizek or theologians like say, a Stanley Hauerwas for instance, the central problems that human beings face are ones of violence, war, and fragmentation. The very fact that there are divisions and people choose to live within these divisions are depicted as acts of violence. If non-unity is something of a determining factor of human existence, that means that war and bloodshed has the final say over human life. This is why Zizek, who has been caught red-handed plagiarizing White Supremacist propaganda, can argue with a straight face that critical race theorists are “reverse racist” because they rely on racial violence as part of their narrative. Zizek’s argument, as Amaryah Shaye contends, enables white progressives to outright dismiss the perspectives, thoughts, and words from marginalized populations. Zizek’s proposals are part of pushback against what is oftentimes called “identity politics,” the praxis of oppressed people groups to reclaim their stories and very lives from their oppressors. Part of this reclamation project may indeed involve some anger, anger at the state of subjugation faced by Blacks, women, People of color and sexual minorities; outrage at the negative stereotypes and tropes that are repeatedly used to justify oppression; last but not least, the fury at the institutions and systems that hold us in bondage.

When one asks, “What would Jesus do?” “Would Jesus punch a Nazi?,” one is ultimately asking a question of identity. “Who is Jesus?” “Who am I?” Christians profess Jesus as King of Kings, and LORD of LORDS, and as such, Our Liberator is free to choose his own action and way. Therefore, I could not answer this question with any amount of certainty. I think the idea that we can place Jesus in any situation today, and then claim to know what he would do is the height of arrogance. The picture I shared above (Jesus walking with a Nazi and carrying his gun) is a case in point. Not only is Jesus’ commandment for his followers to go the second mile with a soldier taken out of context, it’s an embarrassing anachronism that reeks of fundamentalist emotionalism. Emergent Christians with bad histories of defending abusive members of clergy comparing modern-day Nazis to the woman at the well (a woman marginalized for her sexual history) are actually the ones who should be considered “the worst.” Steve Bannon and Richard Spencer choose to embrace an ideology of genocide and white racial supremacy. The history of White Supremacy cannot be solved by foolish comparisons and false analogies. It must be confronted with the truth.

My friend Pierre wrote an excellent piece for the Christian Century a month ago, Alternative Facts in Bonhoeffer’s Germany. In our post-truth world, as with the Third Reich it’s “not just little white lies but are constructed with the aim of shaping public opinion. It first requires an antithesis to a particular idea or person(s)” as Keys pointed out. The metanarrative of Aryan Supremacy ruled over logic and humility in post-World War I Germany. The Emergent Church in the 21st century U.S. American context, although having separated itself from White evangelicalism, still to this day centers itself on the narrative of a more liberal, passively violent White supremacy. The teachings of a blatant xenophobe and racist like Zizek or a non-violent theologian with a history of sexual assault, say John Howard Yoder, are viewed as more important and objective than the work of People of Color. It’s the little white lie that White Men’s work is more valueable and trustworthy than those from women and people from the margins that sustains white supremacy. It’s the little white lie that sexual violence, anti-Black violent rhetoric, Islamophobia, and domestic violence should be dismissed as little more than just “passive” or “symbolic” violence rather than the real violence of Ghandi’s child sexual abuse or so-called pacifists tepidly defending rape culture.

For these morally confused times with life under immoral leaders with their immoral budgets and wall building, Christians ought to opt to join with those people who are suffering, to live with those being crucified today, because that is where the Spirit of God is present. Living today under Orange Mussolini also means a more honest assessment of biblical literature. My friend Jason has already point out the reasons why Jesus would instruct his followers to go the Second Mile, the fact that Jesus lived in a more shame-based culture with the goal of shaming Roman soldiers and their commanders. The Messiah is able to inspire liberation by instructing the Church of the Poor on how to creatively resist without embracing the logic of their oppressors.

Reading Scripture in context is the best way forward for Christ followers. Conservative, mainline, and emergent Christians have a duty to preach and teach Scripture responsibly. There is desperation on the part of those persons who seek to solely make this ancient text relevant for today. It is a selfish approach, and centers us rather than Christ the Shepherd and his Sheep, the poor and marginalized. The Bible does mention people who shared the ideology of genocide, persons like the corrupt aristocrat of biblical lore, Haman the Agagite. He plotted the destruction of the Jews who were already living in exile in Persia. He is mentioned in the story of Esther, which, I have observed, is about the complete reversal of fortune through divine intervention and the power of prayer (both praying and acting on behalf of the oppressed). Esther heard the cries of the people on the margins, prayed with them, and worked with them to foil the plans Haman had for their extermination.

So the question remains, “Would Jesus punch a Nazi?” It’s a mystery, it really is. It’s beyond our comprehension because God’s ways are not our ways. I could only point to Jesus’ actions and words that are attested to in the Gospels.(1) The purpose of Jesus’ mission was summed up in John 10:10 (KJV): “I am come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.” If Jesus came to earth so that we may have life abundant, then Nazism, the group of people and set of ideals which seeks to destroy and steal life is the complete anti-thesis of Christ and his mission. Nazis are “free” to express their opinions, but they are not free to their own facts, and we as resisters have been given the freedom to resist their hatred; also, Nazis are not entitled to building their platforms or enriching themselves for spreading white supremacist propaganda. The Spirit of Jesus, however, calls for us to creatively resist oppressors and to leave no room(2) for the devil (Ephesians 4:27).

 

(1) Just for fun, I took a poll on twitter with the question, “Would Jesus punch a Nazi?”: see the final tally: here.

(2) Editor’s note: I assume some readers will be lead (and mistaken) to believe that the author’s position is to unfriend and block friends and family members who are supporters of Orange Mussolini. This could not be further from the truth.  I am just going to speak from my personal experience. Just as being a responsible Christian reader of Scripture calls for great care and nuance in understanding historical context, being a responsible person and friend calls for understanding the complexities of political choices. It would be rather unwise to label every Hillary supporter a “neoliberal” or “warhawk” because of a few choices of their own candidate ;just like it would be unwise to call every Bernie supporter a xenophobic brocialist because of the voting record of their candidate.  Political allegiances fluctuate and they can change, political parties come and go.  Political candidacies aren’t worth losing friends, and I speak from experience, having had folks from both sides of the spectrum turn on me because of my views.  But that is my choice, others can feel free to choose differently. If you’re friends with a Nazi or want to by a book by a Nazi, I say this: drop them like yesterday’s news, and don’t buy.

(Photo Description: the scene is a dusky road in ancient Palestine, a white Nordic looking male which is the author’s vision of Jesus is clothed in a white robe and carrying a rifle. The man is turned to his left, gesturing his hands in conversation with a German soldier from the Third Reich, whose uniform is black  with a red  band with a swatzika on it. Image was shared on facebook , but the artist is Michael Belk whose work is found here )

Biblical.

Biblical judges

Biblical judges (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

One of the adjectives liberal and conservative Christians like to throw around is the adj. “Biblical,” as in “my view of how the church should be is more biblical than yours.” Whenever you hear or read the term “biblical,” always rest assured you have entered smack dab into the middle of a pissing contest. No, what you mean by biblical is that some doctrine or belief that you hold near and dear to your heart [believers’ baptism by immersion in MY case] is re-affirmed by YOU and YOUR Community’s specific reading of Scripture. To be biblical is for someone’s reading of the Good Book that endorses what you have always believed, and the way you have always believed it: BIBLICAL. This particular way of understanding “biblical” tells us much more about ourselves than the Bible itself.

The word “biblical” works the same way as many Christians use “inerrancy.” Church history shows that inerrantists who use a definition outside of the Scriptures inerrantly displaying God’s salvation through Jesus (as persons like John Calvin and modern-day Nazarenes affirm), wind up making THEIR interpretation of Scripture inerrant. I think it is more of this form of Chicago Statement absolutism that drives persons to reject inerrancy more than anything else.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Solidarity Over Charity: Social Justice Christianity 101

English: "Social Justice," founded b...

English: “Social Justice,” founded by Father Coughlin, sold on important street corners and intersections. New York City Medium: 1 negative: nitrate; 2 1/4 × 2 1/4 inches or smaller. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

THIS IS MY CONTRIBUTION TO THE DESPISED ONES SYNCHROBLOG: solidarity, social justice, and the American Dream!

Perhaps one of the hot topics last week was the issue of Christianity and social justice. Its an underlying issue on when it comes to the definition of what it means to be an evangelical. Aside from Rachel Held Evans and her critics, evangelical Christian Professor Roger Olson posted his beliefs the other day, defining why he is an evangelical: Why and How I am a Confessing Evangelical: A Response to Al Mohler. Mohler is a leader in the Southern Baptist Convention, to give this some context, and some SBC leaders (not all), have a habit of playing gatekeepers of who is in and who is out, while ignoring the importance of nuance and context. At the same time, I agree with some thinkers like Denny Burke, that it is important to set boundaries. Unlike C.S. Lewis, I do not believe in “secret Christians” where we can look at our neighbors and friends who haven’t believed on Jesus and call what they do Christianity. I think that is a disservice to our neighbors first and foremost, and for anyone who does hold that view, I see it as a colonizing gaze imposing ourselves on that person’s practices. It may seem like a compliment, but it is condescending at best, imperialist at worst.

My purpose today is to start a conversation about what Social Justice Christianity is for BOTH those who are unfamiliar as well as those who THINK they know but really don’t and resort to all sorts of false assumptions. For starters, I have qualms with the terms social justice, it does have it’s use, but it has become a catch all phrase for anyone who wants to take up a cause. It’s too general and abstract of a term, and so I like to turn to particularity (as I normally do), and prefer the term Christian Justice, since this is the position where I stand. Under the umbrella of Christian Justice, I am also committed to economic,racial, and gender justice. I do not have the usual liberal progressive conversion story where one is raised as a white evangelical/fundamentalist, goes to college or some trip, and then has an experience where they start on the road to Social Justice Christianity/Justice-Oriented Christianity. No, from a young age, I believe 3 or 4, it was in the living with my brother that we learned from our mother the Sermon on the Mount, as well as Jesus’ command which he said was the greatest of all the of the commandments, as well as the summary of the entire Law (the 10 Commandments and the first 5 books of the Bible).

The Great Commandment is this:

“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”– Matthew 22:37-40 NIV

I was baptized in a black Southern Baptist Church that did not have anything to say about social issues, so it was primarily from home that I learned about the Resurrection of Christ, the Second Coming, and Jesus’ ministry to the poor and oppressed. No where in Scripture or in Jesus’ life does it require Christians to be beholden to ancient Creeds. In fact, the one creed we are obligated to follow first and foremost is the Great Commandment, which flows from the Jewish Shema, which is found in Deuteronomy 6:4-5

“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.”

For more on that, I would highly recommend Scot McKnight’s The Jesus Creed: Loving God, Loving Others.

For Christians, our Rabbi and Messiah Jesus of Nazareth added the Shema with a passage from Leviticus 19:18, “‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord” to teach us what the Law was all about. If Jesus is the Savior and Messiah of our religion as Christianity teaches, he is the final authority, and not those who pretend to speak of some religious orthodoxy. The Great Commandment comes first, and all else comes second, and when other things (yes, even creeds and practices), fall short of the Great Commandment, then they must be confronted and even dispersed with. Some Christians claim that our actions mean nothing, and hold to their Enlightenment view of truth as being propositional in nature, but they still fall short, because Jesus said He is the truth in the face of his oppressor, Pontius Pilate.

Now as for the creeds and formulas of the early Church prior to the Catholic and Protestant Reformations, I do affirm many of them, in so far as they affirm the Great Commandment and the One who taught it, Christ Jesus. Justice-oriented Christianity has a startling message: that God who is Invisible, took up a body (the Incarnation) and has a unique concern for the arrangement of human bodies (politics + economics). This Divinity is not the laizze-fairre pagan construct of Adam Smith who relied more on Greek philosophy than Christian theology; this very God is YHWH of the Old Testament, the God of Resurrection and Life. If we can make a claim about what Scripture says about God, it is this: that there is no passage that indicates that God is apathetic to social arrangements of humanity. There are a litany of verses that proclaim God’s love for the poor, the widows, and the foreigners, more than any of the “problematic” violent passages, more than anything about sexuality or ethnicity.

One of the most prominent words in the New Testament is “household,” and for our 21st century, Western ears and eyes, we can only think of a house, with a nuclear family of husband and wife, and children. Not so fast my friends. The Greek term that is translated to “household” is oikonomia, and with that comes notions of managing social arrangements. In the case of Christianity, the primary director of God’s household is the Resurrected Lord, Jesus Christ. In Christ, God has shown us that God has intimate knowledge and experience in being a member of oppressed peoples. Suffering is not beneath God, it is not some act of charity made from the standpoint of distance. This is solidarity, oneness with the victims of history. Let me repeat: this is not sympathy, this is NOT charity: this is compassion, with acts of solidarity. Having solidarity with and listening to the poor are things that US Christians have a hard time learning because we have been taught in church only about “CHARITY,” with charity being an act on our part, an act of privilege more precisely. I can use as an example the negative reactions to my posts on Hope For Haiti and solidarity So, I would argue that a Justice-Oriented Christianity is one that teaches the supremacy of SOLIDARITY over and against charity.

The emphasis on solidarity should lead reasonably to the other marker of Justice-Oriented Christianity, a celebration of difference over commitments to sameness. By being committed to solidarity, Justice-oriented Christians recognize the different positions and contexts they find themselves. Joerg Reiger, one of my favorite writers, likes to say that “context is what hurts.” Liberal and conservative (primarily white) Christians like to proclaim their pride in being “colorblind.” Colorblindness is a problematic method to begin with, because those who talk about color-blindness, are the ones who ALWAYS dismiss the experiences of People of Color. If a POC protests or suggests that what a person does or says is racially problematic, or tries to articulate the notion that race is A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT rather than any biological truth, “The Colorblind” in every instance (generally) will call POC “angry” as if “angry” is an insult to begin with. Colorblindness is a popular defense for racist practices and actions that both members of the left and right love to employ.

Fortunately, for Justice-Oriented Christians, we worship the Triune God who delights in difference. Dogs are born naturally color-blind but they can still discriminate abour which persons to bark at based on whoever has a darker hue. The Creator, however, made all of humanity in God’s infinite image. Everyone is created of immeasureable value, and this sacred worth can not be measured on a scale of “cultural hierarchies” or social classifications (especially race and class). Christian antiracism begins and ends with the Imago Dei, the very antithesis of racist masks such as colorblindness.

In sum, I have taken a different approach to making a case for Christian Justice. Rather than the typical white liberal/progressive talking point of discussing Jesus’ teachings, I point to the centrality of the Incarnation and Resurrection (Jesus’s sovereignty) that are complimented by what Christ taught. I hope to comeback to a discussion of the ancient creeds later this summer, and their relation to Christian justice. But, for now, the two markers of Justice-Oriented Christianity : celebration of difference and solidarity, reflect the paradox of the Church: joy and suffering, the Resurrection and the Cross.
 

Enhanced by Zemanta