THE QUESTION OF THE U.N.
N T Wright on the United Nations:
"the USA and Britain could never act as a credible police force in the world, especially in the Middle East;
(ii) imposing the will of the West, by brute force, on another part of the world, simply invokes a might-is-right philosophy which we will strongly object to as soon as India or China attains superpower status and decides to effect regime change in London or Washington;
[…]
All this has happened, and I conclude that this war always was unjust, and that if we wanted to prevent Saddam tyrannizing his own people (why stop there? There are plenty of other brutal tyrants in the world) the best and only way was through . . . the United Nations. YES, I KNOW – this, quickly, to those who at once pour scorn on the very mention of it – the United Nations has been a laughing-stock and, despite many successes (some unsung), has had many failures and muddles. But part of this is because America has had a strong vested interest in keeping the UN weak (just like America doesn’t like the idea of an international court of justice, or the Kyoto protocol, etc.).
We badly need a credible international police force; we don’t have one at the moment; USA plus Britain can’t function as such; we should be working flat out either at enabling the UN to act in that way or at creating a body that can."
I agree with NT Wright that the War for Iraq was a political mistake but he is mistaken in thinking that the error lies in George W. Bush or Tony Blair not following the guidelines of the Augustinian Just War theory; rather, the Operation Iraqi Freedom was a blunder largely because the unfaithfulness of the Bush administration to the U.S. Constitution (specifically Article I, Section 8, Clause 11-the Power to declare war by CONGRESS!) and Bush presidency’s insubORDinate behavior (that is, their refusal to subject themselves to the demands of God’s Word) towards the command in Romans 13 to be subORDinate to the authorities, which is in this case, the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate according to the Constitution. Even the proposal of a United Nations’ created international police force by Wright runs contrary to the principles that the United Nations was founded upon.
Chapter 1, Article 1, section 1 of the UN Charter clearly states that the United Nations desires to MAINTAIN international peace and security as well as to develop friendly relationships, and achieve international cooperation; but it goes on to recognize in Article 2, section 1 that each state is EQUALLY SOVEREIGN and in section 4 of that same article that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” In other words, the establishment of a police force that uses both actual and veiled forms of violence, is contrary to the UN Charter and violates the rights of individual member states.
In addition, Wright overlooks the unequal power relationships created by the existence of the U.N. Security Council as it stands right now. The notion that it is necessary to keep the same five particular countries which must remain on the council with veto powers or the peculiar statuses of the Vatican and Palestine having Permanent Observers to the UN. The nature of these relationships along with the good number of intergovernmental agencies such as the African Union and the European community must be dealt with before there is any talk of an international police force; are regional considerations and differences, for example, going to be respected? Lastly, if it is a possible to create a police force through the United Nations as it exists, what authority will the force be accountable to? The International Court of Justice? The International Criminal Court? Or maybe individual states?
Rather than trying to find a solution based on an unwarranted fear of chaos, I propose that the Church follow a model that first recognized the Mastery of Jesus the Messiah over the universe. Christians do have their own charter, the new Law given to us as a gift by Christ, from which we read about in Scripture called the Sermon on the Mount. We must subORDinate our lives to the law of Christ and then subsequently, the laws of the land. There is a Christian organization dedicated to making peace, and not just keeping the peace as the U.N. is called to do. The Matthew 5:21-26 Project is a group of Evangelicals and Pentecostals whose aim it is to recognize the Lordship of Jesus the Messiah by making him LORD over everything in their lives, including their relationships with strangers and “enemies.” They serve as an example of a peaceful witness dedicated to the limitation of governments to wield arms and the promotion of nuclear weapons reductions. An international police force will not be necessary because God has ordained the Church to serve as a nonviolent radical remnant beholden to the Crucified, Risen, and Returning LORD and the order that God prefers in the empire of God.
Vicit agnus noster; eum sequamur
Our Lamb has conquered; him let us follow.
Works Cited
Yoder, John Howard. The Politics of Jesus : Vicit Agnus Noster. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.Carlisle, U.K.: Eerdmans ; Paternoster Press, 1994.
The Gift of Powerlessness, Part 1
The Gift of Powerlessness, Part 2
DISCLAIMER #1 (NICHOLAS THOMAS WRIGHT)- There are many persons in the blogosphere who make it their business to criticize the work of NT Wright and the New Perspective on Paul based on hermeneutical and theological differences. Usually, it comes from the corners of the evangelical community that lean Reformed. This post is no such thing. I refuse to put Martin Luther, Jean Calvin, and for that matter, Karl Barth on a pedestal. Far from it; it is the author’s wish to push great men like these from their thrones in the royal court of theology and see Jesus the Messiah at the center of all theological reflection. That would include ethics, politics, race relations, sexual issues, and economics.
DISCLAIMER #2 (THE UNITED NATIONS)- There are a few Christian communities that have given society the impression that all Christians possess an irrational fear of the United Nations or any form of international cooperation. In fact, the producers of such stellar Christian movies such as MEGGIDO and the writers of the LEFT BEHIND series even go so far as to intimate that the UN or an organization as such will be an instrument of the Anti-Messiah. I do not interpret the book of Revelation in such a manner, and will I am fully aware of the tradition behind the pre-millenial dispensationalist reading of that text, there seems to be too many holes regarding that interpretation. I do affirm the physical, bodily return of Jesus the Messiah; I just do not share the same reasoning for believing in his return as pre-mils or Wright. This blog post is not going to be a fear-mongering, UN-bashing polemic.
Showing posts with label libertarianism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label libertarianism. Show all posts
May 29, 2009
The Gift of Meekness: A Counter to N.T. Wright's Case For A Stronger United Nations, PART 2
THE QUESTION OF POWER
N T Wright says of the powers that be:
"The problem, of course, is that human authorities themselves are then tempted to become part of the problem to which they are supposed to be an anticipation of the solution, and then you get the double chaos of tyranny – a chaos held in place by an essentially chaotic, because unjust, rule. Because one of the God-given tasks of authorities in the present time is to protect the weak and vulnerable from oppression, I believe that police action is often necessary, involving physical restraint and sometimes actual violence to prevent wicked and powerful people getting away with their intended ill-treatment of the weak, poor and vulnerable."
N T Wright is correct; police action is necessary; humans need to be restrained at some point because we are all fallen sinners. Police action, however, should never be confused with war-making or empire-building. Normally, Christians use Romans 13:1-7 as their text when arguing the state’s right to go to war, but the passage is primarily about the policing affairs of the nation-state. The activity of police forces are held accountable to higher authorities. Yoder argues that it is fallacious to place the doctrine of just war under the umbrella of police authority. While violence from a police officer is (ideally) applied to an individual who breaks the law, the imperative for justifiable wars does not seem to be located in this text. The sword, or the machaira, was really a dagger used by the Roman military that served as a symbol of judicial authority, not executive (Yoder, 203). An honest reading of Romans 13 should lead us to conclude that the Christian concept of Just War theory (which excludes Jesus’ peace-making mission) simply cannot be found in the text, rather the doctrine of Just War is read into the meaning of this passage.
Also, I feel uncomfortable with Wright’s vision of power where god is invisibly working behind the scenes as that g-d secretly and unambiguously endorses the heroes over the villains while Jesus functions as some superhero in the mold of Captain America who will come back to save the day just as the world is about to drown in chaos. In the realm of international politics, where EVERY state is driven by self-interest, any nation can be considered the “good” guy at any point in history as well as any country can earn the label of the “bad” guy just as well. Wright still understands the power of God as the ability to control, to micro-manage the human situation at any given point in history, joining the good guys in their cause eventually at the end. While Wright is honestly trying to deal with the problem of empires abusing their power, he falls into the trap of promoting a soft form of triumphalism. Rather than viewing Christian victory as something where the divine assures us of our triumph because of the effectiveness of some method or strategy on our part; rather true Christian victory comes from joining in the faithfulness of Jesus the Messiah. If I may refer to Yoder once more:
"The triumph of the right is assured not by the might that comes to the aid of the right, which is of course the justification of the use of violence and other kinds of power in every human conflict. The triumph of the right, although it is assured, is sure because of the power of the resurrection and not because of any calculation of causes and effects, nor because of the inherently greater strength of the good guys. The relationship between obedience of God’s people and the triumph of God’s cause is not a relationship of cause and effect but one of cross and resurrection." (232)
Absent from Wright’s political theology expressed in his criticism of the U.S. and U.K.’s bilateral war in Iraq is what Luther called a “theologia crucis,” or a theology of the cross. Luther says that in Thesis 20, “He [sic] deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross.” And in Thesis 21, he continues to say about theologians of glory, “A theologian of glory calls suffering evil while he [sic] calls works good. In fact, he [sic] works to avoid suffering.” One cannot divorce a theology of the cross from the Resurrection and Return of Jesus that easily in a Christian political theology. These three events constitute one salvific episode; to uplift one at the expense of the other is to neglect certain parts of the implications of God’s liberating and reconciling activity in the world. In particular, there is a tendency on both the right and the left to try to leave out as many references to the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth as possible. My fear is that Christian communities [that is, the many forms of Christianity whether they are Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, Mennonite, etc.] will start to adopt theologies of glory while neglecting those human beings on the margins of society, suffering and dying much like our Savior who has joined them in their oppressed state. In part three, we will examine what this means for a Christian view of international peacemaking missions.
N T Wright says of the powers that be:
"The problem, of course, is that human authorities themselves are then tempted to become part of the problem to which they are supposed to be an anticipation of the solution, and then you get the double chaos of tyranny – a chaos held in place by an essentially chaotic, because unjust, rule. Because one of the God-given tasks of authorities in the present time is to protect the weak and vulnerable from oppression, I believe that police action is often necessary, involving physical restraint and sometimes actual violence to prevent wicked and powerful people getting away with their intended ill-treatment of the weak, poor and vulnerable."
N T Wright is correct; police action is necessary; humans need to be restrained at some point because we are all fallen sinners. Police action, however, should never be confused with war-making or empire-building. Normally, Christians use Romans 13:1-7 as their text when arguing the state’s right to go to war, but the passage is primarily about the policing affairs of the nation-state. The activity of police forces are held accountable to higher authorities. Yoder argues that it is fallacious to place the doctrine of just war under the umbrella of police authority. While violence from a police officer is (ideally) applied to an individual who breaks the law, the imperative for justifiable wars does not seem to be located in this text. The sword, or the machaira, was really a dagger used by the Roman military that served as a symbol of judicial authority, not executive (Yoder, 203). An honest reading of Romans 13 should lead us to conclude that the Christian concept of Just War theory (which excludes Jesus’ peace-making mission) simply cannot be found in the text, rather the doctrine of Just War is read into the meaning of this passage.
Also, I feel uncomfortable with Wright’s vision of power where god is invisibly working behind the scenes as that g-d secretly and unambiguously endorses the heroes over the villains while Jesus functions as some superhero in the mold of Captain America who will come back to save the day just as the world is about to drown in chaos. In the realm of international politics, where EVERY state is driven by self-interest, any nation can be considered the “good” guy at any point in history as well as any country can earn the label of the “bad” guy just as well. Wright still understands the power of God as the ability to control, to micro-manage the human situation at any given point in history, joining the good guys in their cause eventually at the end. While Wright is honestly trying to deal with the problem of empires abusing their power, he falls into the trap of promoting a soft form of triumphalism. Rather than viewing Christian victory as something where the divine assures us of our triumph because of the effectiveness of some method or strategy on our part; rather true Christian victory comes from joining in the faithfulness of Jesus the Messiah. If I may refer to Yoder once more:
"The triumph of the right is assured not by the might that comes to the aid of the right, which is of course the justification of the use of violence and other kinds of power in every human conflict. The triumph of the right, although it is assured, is sure because of the power of the resurrection and not because of any calculation of causes and effects, nor because of the inherently greater strength of the good guys. The relationship between obedience of God’s people and the triumph of God’s cause is not a relationship of cause and effect but one of cross and resurrection." (232)
Absent from Wright’s political theology expressed in his criticism of the U.S. and U.K.’s bilateral war in Iraq is what Luther called a “theologia crucis,” or a theology of the cross. Luther says that in Thesis 20, “He [sic] deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross.” And in Thesis 21, he continues to say about theologians of glory, “A theologian of glory calls suffering evil while he [sic] calls works good. In fact, he [sic] works to avoid suffering.” One cannot divorce a theology of the cross from the Resurrection and Return of Jesus that easily in a Christian political theology. These three events constitute one salvific episode; to uplift one at the expense of the other is to neglect certain parts of the implications of God’s liberating and reconciling activity in the world. In particular, there is a tendency on both the right and the left to try to leave out as many references to the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth as possible. My fear is that Christian communities [that is, the many forms of Christianity whether they are Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, Mennonite, etc.] will start to adopt theologies of glory while neglecting those human beings on the margins of society, suffering and dying much like our Savior who has joined them in their oppressed state. In part three, we will examine what this means for a Christian view of international peacemaking missions.
May 28, 2009
The Gift of Meekness: A Counter to N.T. Wright's Case For A Stronger United Nations, PART 1
NT Wright on a stronger United Nations
THE QUESTION OF ADOLF HITLER
Usually, whenever I find myself discussing issues of war and peace with other Christians, they always ask the exact same question: What if there is another Adolf Hitler [insert the name of a Two-Thirds world dictator here if you like]? From the very start, these Christians who are advocates usually of some form of Just War theory are asking the wrong question. That is the problem with Christians today! In order to make their case for the destruction of human life, they start out with inquiries based on fear of what happened in the past the Shoah or the Holocaust during World War II in most circles. As Christians, we participate in the life of Jesus the Messiah; therefore, he should be the beginning and end of all ethical questions and not Adolf Hitler or Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong IL. We should be asking, “What has Jesus done? What is Jesus doing? What will Jesus do?” NT Wright is one of those Christians that I was referring to earlier, the ones not asking the correct questions to begin conversations of ethical discourse. Rather than phrasing the question in a way that is Christ-centered, Wright, for example begins his case for a strong United Nations with typical Just War logic. Let us examine his case.
1. N T Wright says about the doctrine of just war:
"The doctrine of ‘just war’ was developed in order to emphasize that, though war is always an evil, sometimes it is the lesser of two evils.
Doing justice, in whatever form, is always about anticipating in the present God’s eventual design to put the whole world to rights, to gather up all things in heaven and on earth into Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1.10). Though God will eventually do this completely and fully, he does not want the creation to lapse into complete chaos in the present age, and so calls into being structures of human government and authority to bring about a measure of order, some kind of anticipation of his eventual putting-to-rights of all things."
Granted, Wright has to simplify his definition of what the doctrine of just war is for a general audience rather than a particularly Christian one, but he is defending the traditional Christian case for just wars. Now, the first problem is that he suggests that “doing justice, in whatever form” is done in the anticipation of God’s act of justifying the entire creation. I question the idea that we can be just in “whatever form.” From a Christian standpoint, we have a peculiar way of examining what is or is not just and that is the Justifier (Romans 5). There are many forms of justice; among them are: social justice, racial justice, gender justice, environmental justice, retributive justice, restorative justice, and transformative justice. The question we have to ask ourselves is: does God’s justice include all of these, only one of these, or just a few of these forms of justice. Christian concepts of any form of justice begin with God’s image, or Jesus the Messiah.
Rather than beginning questions of justice with inquiries such as, ‘Why does this or that injustice exist?’ and then subsequently answer that question with an answer that may or may not be biblical, one should start with, “How did/is Christ, God’s righteousness revealed, manage/ managing this event?” Secondly, Wright is presenting a God of LAW and ORDER who soothes the bourgeois classes’ fears of THEIR society going into utter chaos. Chaos is seen as a problem, as something that must be confronted and controlled. Does Wright ever bother to ask if chaos is God’s instrument to fashion the world, by allowing various free agents with free will living within the order that God sustains so that God can have a loving, covenantal relationship with that creation? John Howard Yoder had quite different Christian understanding by which God brings the state and political institutions into order:
"to put them in order, sovereignly to tell them where they belong, what is their place. It is not as if there was a time when there was no government and then God made government through a new creative invention; there has been hierarchy and authority and power since human society existed. […] Nor is it that by ordering this realm God specifically, morally approves of what a government does. […] God does not take responsibility for the existence of the rebellious ‘powers that be or for their shape or identity; they already are. What the text says is that God orders them, brings them into line, providentially and permissively lines them up with divine purposes." (Yoder, 203)
According to Yoder, God does not endorse or support any one form of government over the centuries; rather, God allows humans with free will to choose their preference of governance, and then God responds by sending witnesses to these powers in their place. The one rule that God accepts is the reign of the Messiah; the Church universal, which claims to adhere to Solo Christo), must subORDinate themselves under God’s chosen priest-king who both initiates and reigns in the nonviolent empire of God. All other forms of government are temporary, provisional, and fallen, and always in need of reform. No human empire or emperor has the divine right to impose their will upon the Earth. That authority is reserved solely for the Triune God; whether or not God has chosen to utilize domination as the means of accomplishing God’s will is a question to be answered in part 2.
THE QUESTION OF ADOLF HITLER
Usually, whenever I find myself discussing issues of war and peace with other Christians, they always ask the exact same question: What if there is another Adolf Hitler [insert the name of a Two-Thirds world dictator here if you like]? From the very start, these Christians who are advocates usually of some form of Just War theory are asking the wrong question. That is the problem with Christians today! In order to make their case for the destruction of human life, they start out with inquiries based on fear of what happened in the past the Shoah or the Holocaust during World War II in most circles. As Christians, we participate in the life of Jesus the Messiah; therefore, he should be the beginning and end of all ethical questions and not Adolf Hitler or Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong IL. We should be asking, “What has Jesus done? What is Jesus doing? What will Jesus do?” NT Wright is one of those Christians that I was referring to earlier, the ones not asking the correct questions to begin conversations of ethical discourse. Rather than phrasing the question in a way that is Christ-centered, Wright, for example begins his case for a strong United Nations with typical Just War logic. Let us examine his case.
1. N T Wright says about the doctrine of just war:
"The doctrine of ‘just war’ was developed in order to emphasize that, though war is always an evil, sometimes it is the lesser of two evils.
Doing justice, in whatever form, is always about anticipating in the present God’s eventual design to put the whole world to rights, to gather up all things in heaven and on earth into Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1.10). Though God will eventually do this completely and fully, he does not want the creation to lapse into complete chaos in the present age, and so calls into being structures of human government and authority to bring about a measure of order, some kind of anticipation of his eventual putting-to-rights of all things."
Granted, Wright has to simplify his definition of what the doctrine of just war is for a general audience rather than a particularly Christian one, but he is defending the traditional Christian case for just wars. Now, the first problem is that he suggests that “doing justice, in whatever form” is done in the anticipation of God’s act of justifying the entire creation. I question the idea that we can be just in “whatever form.” From a Christian standpoint, we have a peculiar way of examining what is or is not just and that is the Justifier (Romans 5). There are many forms of justice; among them are: social justice, racial justice, gender justice, environmental justice, retributive justice, restorative justice, and transformative justice. The question we have to ask ourselves is: does God’s justice include all of these, only one of these, or just a few of these forms of justice. Christian concepts of any form of justice begin with God’s image, or Jesus the Messiah.
Rather than beginning questions of justice with inquiries such as, ‘Why does this or that injustice exist?’ and then subsequently answer that question with an answer that may or may not be biblical, one should start with, “How did/is Christ, God’s righteousness revealed, manage/ managing this event?” Secondly, Wright is presenting a God of LAW and ORDER who soothes the bourgeois classes’ fears of THEIR society going into utter chaos. Chaos is seen as a problem, as something that must be confronted and controlled. Does Wright ever bother to ask if chaos is God’s instrument to fashion the world, by allowing various free agents with free will living within the order that God sustains so that God can have a loving, covenantal relationship with that creation? John Howard Yoder had quite different Christian understanding by which God brings the state and political institutions into order:
"to put them in order, sovereignly to tell them where they belong, what is their place. It is not as if there was a time when there was no government and then God made government through a new creative invention; there has been hierarchy and authority and power since human society existed. […] Nor is it that by ordering this realm God specifically, morally approves of what a government does. […] God does not take responsibility for the existence of the rebellious ‘powers that be or for their shape or identity; they already are. What the text says is that God orders them, brings them into line, providentially and permissively lines them up with divine purposes." (Yoder, 203)
According to Yoder, God does not endorse or support any one form of government over the centuries; rather, God allows humans with free will to choose their preference of governance, and then God responds by sending witnesses to these powers in their place. The one rule that God accepts is the reign of the Messiah; the Church universal, which claims to adhere to Solo Christo), must subORDinate themselves under God’s chosen priest-king who both initiates and reigns in the nonviolent empire of God. All other forms of government are temporary, provisional, and fallen, and always in need of reform. No human empire or emperor has the divine right to impose their will upon the Earth. That authority is reserved solely for the Triune God; whether or not God has chosen to utilize domination as the means of accomplishing God’s will is a question to be answered in part 2.
Apr 10, 2009
Free Will Theology after the Reformation
I know that the past few weeks I have been posting on Calvinism and hip hop, or the points of dissent I have with Reformed Theology, so here is an article Steven M. Studebaker of McMaster Divinity School wrote on the Reformation, Arminianism and the Free Will theology movements in Christian theology.
STEVEN M. STUDEBAKER's THE MODE OF DIVINE KNOWLEDGE IN REFORMATION ARMINIANISM AND OPEN THEISM
P.S., the picture at the top of this post was created by my friend T.C. Moore, aptly describing the debate between theological determinists and free will theologians.
Mar 15, 2009
Limited Government, part 3: The Old Testament view
Up until now, I have been primarily dependent upon a particular interpretation of the New Testament and Christian theological resources. The reason for this is because I believe the strongest and most explicit religious case AGAINST any brand of socialism or form of strong interventionist federal government or executive branch rest in a majority of the Old Testament texts.
The Law
One of the most spiritually edifying and enjoyable courses I have taken at Brite Divinity School was The Jewish and Black Interpretation of Exodus. It was both a biblical studies and social ethics course co-taught by two of my favorite professors. For one of our assignments, we had to discuss the moral implications of the Exodus. My interpretation was actually pretty anti-imperial, if not in fact post-colonial in my comparison of Moses and Pharaoh. I contended that just as Pharaoh the oppressor, declared himself a god, so did Jesus himself warn us that not everyone who comes in the name of the LORD does not come from him (Matthew 24). I included with Pharaoh and the false prophets who claimed to be from God the European colonizers who arrived in Africa to redeem the pagans from the idolatry. The story of Moses (at one point an Egyptian prince) and the story of Pharaoh has political implications. The Exodus narrative can be seen as one where a man who fully relies on the power of the Almighty alone overcomes a false man-god who has the most complex scheme of tyranny to date.
Right before the judge Samuel dismissed the people from Saul’s ordination as king, he read them the regulations regarding (read: warnings against) the kingship. Deuteronomy 17:14-20 tells the Israelites not to go back to the ways of Egypt, the days where they were under the oppressive reign of Pharaoh. Constantly throughout the Law, they are warned against wanting to be like the other nations, who have monarchs who claim to be divine. The king of Israel is actually supposed to be submissive the authority of divine law; for a similar idea, the president of the United States of America are not above the U.S. Constitution. Long ago, God had approved of the rule of law, which had a judicial system, a select few representatives of the people (priests, in this case, for God) and a very limited executive. There are very close parallels in OT vision of public policy and the ideals of America’s founders, but not exact.
A short word on my interpretation of the book of Judges. The phrase, “and in those days, there was not a king" appears several times. I do not interpret that as a cry for a Davidic king, but rather, King YHWH Godself. It makes sense in light of the anti-kingship parable given in Judges 9 and the fall of Gideon’s son, Abimelech, whose name means, my father is king (a play on words). Gideon became arrogant, and his character was passed on to his son, who became even more boisterous and died and tragic death.
The Writings
On the surface, the days of King Solomon are filled with glory and joy and peace and prosperity. OT scholar Walter Brueggeman would offer a different suggestion. The question we should be asking is exactly, “who is doing the prospering?” and “at whose expense?” Maybe because we are so caught up in the glory of empire and the past histories of such royalty such as Queen Elizabeth and King Louis XVI that we both not try to understand the more ambivalent stance that the Bible’s historians take towards Solomon’s kingship. 1st Kings 4:20-28 describes how Solomon broke the law and had manual labor and gathered up war chariots for himself, and levied heavy taxes on the people, all contrary to the law! But yet, the text says, from East to West, each person lived safely under her/his own vine and fig tree. At this point, it is crucial to note Brueggeman’s contention about this passage, and later, how the prophets use the vine/fig tree blessing tradition: “[We] cannot know if 1st Kings 4:20-28 is a serious statement of state policy or if it is heavy handed propaganda, or if it is a subtle, critical irony. What is clear is that by such shrewd manipulation, the propaganda of the state promises the very thing it cannot give because it is in principle opposed to it. And the remainder of the Solomonic narrative makes the point: it cannot secure personal vines and fig trees for its citizenry because it is fundamentally devoted to rapacious use of those very products” (Brueggemann and Miller 1994) . In other words, the text given to us in 1st Kings 4 does not give us the whole story; we need knowledge of the Torah, specifically the warnings against Ancient Near Eastern Empire building in Deuteronomy and Judges, in order to comprehend the implication of Solomon’s actions as well as God’s rebuke of him in 1st Kings 11.
The Prophets
The formula of “every person under her/his own vine and under his/her own fig tree” appears also in Isaiah 36:16, Micah 4:4, and Zechariah 3:10. The first of these instances, in Isaiah, it is used as the rhetoric of Sennecharib, the emperor of Assyria. He tells the Israelites and Judeans to not listen to King Hezekiah, therefore, not the prophecies of Isaiah via YHWH. Sennecharib is promising a false peace where the God of Israel is placed at the margins of their life; this is a bogus promise that no true Torah-believing Judean or Israelite could take seriously. Zechariah 3:10 offers a messianic vision of the world where a priestly savior-figure takes away all of the guilt of Israel from the world and leads them into a land where each person not only has their own vine and fig tree, but that they also invite their neighbors to join them. It is a vision of justice and hospitality that excludes any notion of a monarch. Micah promises that no one will have any fear under their vine and fig tree. The messages of Zechariah, Micah, Isaiah, and the Chronicler (especially 1st Samuel 10:17-19), when read together, provide us with a vision of God’s dominion, which looks nothing like the statist policies of social democracies, communist or fascist regimes for that matter. The norms of God’s dominion are self-government, hospitality, justice, and peaceableness where expansion of the LORD’s empire results in an endless peace, with justice and righteousness at its very foundation (Isaiah 9:7)
Works Cited
Brueggemann, Walter and Patrick D. Miller. 1994. A social reading of the old testament : Prophetic approaches to israel's communal life. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
The Law
One of the most spiritually edifying and enjoyable courses I have taken at Brite Divinity School was The Jewish and Black Interpretation of Exodus. It was both a biblical studies and social ethics course co-taught by two of my favorite professors. For one of our assignments, we had to discuss the moral implications of the Exodus. My interpretation was actually pretty anti-imperial, if not in fact post-colonial in my comparison of Moses and Pharaoh. I contended that just as Pharaoh the oppressor, declared himself a god, so did Jesus himself warn us that not everyone who comes in the name of the LORD does not come from him (Matthew 24). I included with Pharaoh and the false prophets who claimed to be from God the European colonizers who arrived in Africa to redeem the pagans from the idolatry. The story of Moses (at one point an Egyptian prince) and the story of Pharaoh has political implications. The Exodus narrative can be seen as one where a man who fully relies on the power of the Almighty alone overcomes a false man-god who has the most complex scheme of tyranny to date.
Right before the judge Samuel dismissed the people from Saul’s ordination as king, he read them the regulations regarding (read: warnings against) the kingship. Deuteronomy 17:14-20 tells the Israelites not to go back to the ways of Egypt, the days where they were under the oppressive reign of Pharaoh. Constantly throughout the Law, they are warned against wanting to be like the other nations, who have monarchs who claim to be divine. The king of Israel is actually supposed to be submissive the authority of divine law; for a similar idea, the president of the United States of America are not above the U.S. Constitution. Long ago, God had approved of the rule of law, which had a judicial system, a select few representatives of the people (priests, in this case, for God) and a very limited executive. There are very close parallels in OT vision of public policy and the ideals of America’s founders, but not exact.
A short word on my interpretation of the book of Judges. The phrase, “and in those days, there was not a king" appears several times. I do not interpret that as a cry for a Davidic king, but rather, King YHWH Godself. It makes sense in light of the anti-kingship parable given in Judges 9 and the fall of Gideon’s son, Abimelech, whose name means, my father is king (a play on words). Gideon became arrogant, and his character was passed on to his son, who became even more boisterous and died and tragic death.
The Writings
On the surface, the days of King Solomon are filled with glory and joy and peace and prosperity. OT scholar Walter Brueggeman would offer a different suggestion. The question we should be asking is exactly, “who is doing the prospering?” and “at whose expense?” Maybe because we are so caught up in the glory of empire and the past histories of such royalty such as Queen Elizabeth and King Louis XVI that we both not try to understand the more ambivalent stance that the Bible’s historians take towards Solomon’s kingship. 1st Kings 4:20-28 describes how Solomon broke the law and had manual labor and gathered up war chariots for himself, and levied heavy taxes on the people, all contrary to the law! But yet, the text says, from East to West, each person lived safely under her/his own vine and fig tree. At this point, it is crucial to note Brueggeman’s contention about this passage, and later, how the prophets use the vine/fig tree blessing tradition: “[We] cannot know if 1st Kings 4:20-28 is a serious statement of state policy or if it is heavy handed propaganda, or if it is a subtle, critical irony. What is clear is that by such shrewd manipulation, the propaganda of the state promises the very thing it cannot give because it is in principle opposed to it. And the remainder of the Solomonic narrative makes the point: it cannot secure personal vines and fig trees for its citizenry because it is fundamentally devoted to rapacious use of those very products” (Brueggemann and Miller 1994) . In other words, the text given to us in 1st Kings 4 does not give us the whole story; we need knowledge of the Torah, specifically the warnings against Ancient Near Eastern Empire building in Deuteronomy and Judges, in order to comprehend the implication of Solomon’s actions as well as God’s rebuke of him in 1st Kings 11.
The Prophets
The formula of “every person under her/his own vine and under his/her own fig tree” appears also in Isaiah 36:16, Micah 4:4, and Zechariah 3:10. The first of these instances, in Isaiah, it is used as the rhetoric of Sennecharib, the emperor of Assyria. He tells the Israelites and Judeans to not listen to King Hezekiah, therefore, not the prophecies of Isaiah via YHWH. Sennecharib is promising a false peace where the God of Israel is placed at the margins of their life; this is a bogus promise that no true Torah-believing Judean or Israelite could take seriously. Zechariah 3:10 offers a messianic vision of the world where a priestly savior-figure takes away all of the guilt of Israel from the world and leads them into a land where each person not only has their own vine and fig tree, but that they also invite their neighbors to join them. It is a vision of justice and hospitality that excludes any notion of a monarch. Micah promises that no one will have any fear under their vine and fig tree. The messages of Zechariah, Micah, Isaiah, and the Chronicler (especially 1st Samuel 10:17-19), when read together, provide us with a vision of God’s dominion, which looks nothing like the statist policies of social democracies, communist or fascist regimes for that matter. The norms of God’s dominion are self-government, hospitality, justice, and peaceableness where expansion of the LORD’s empire results in an endless peace, with justice and righteousness at its very foundation (Isaiah 9:7)
Works Cited
Brueggemann, Walter and Patrick D. Miller. 1994. A social reading of the old testament : Prophetic approaches to israel's communal life. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Feb 28, 2009
Outed As a Libertarian…..
As I promised in my most recent post here on Black Trinitarian Theology, I would like to briefly explain my recent political conversion. In case you did not know, I am well read in Liberationist, Womanist, and Black theologies. It was less than two years ago that I was able with a professor at Brite to attend GoingGlobal: Interfaith Journeys on the Road to Liberation, An International Conference at Baylor University in Waco, Texas. During one particular session, one of the lecturers asked all the members of the audience to stand up if they were Marxist/and/or Socialist. There was only one person “maverick” enough to remain sitting, and that was me. In spite of all of the Marxist criticism of society I learned in high school and college, something inside of me just cannot see anything good about government coerced economic redistribution. During my undergrad days, it would seem like I would get into an argument with the small group of libertarians on campus from time to time. I had considered myself a third way, pro-life Democrat until recently, after seeing pro-life Democrat Senator Bob Casey Jr. throw his support behind then Senator Barack Obama last spring and then now hearing that supposedly moderate Bill Clinton supported the (un)Fairness Doctrine. My undergraduate days were filled with attempts to save the world, like participating in TCU Peace Action or Frogs for Fair trade. I do not regret these stances; I still believe in fair trade (free and fair) and I still oppose the concept of war. Yet, never had I given consideration to the non-interventionist case against warmongering, as the Founding Fathers preferred. I was able to listen to the audiobook of Congressman Dr. Ron Paul’s The Revolution. Although I disagree with Paul on a couple of other issues, my foundational stances (anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti-war) were much like his views.
Most importantly, however, I kept coming back to the stories of the Judges of the Hebrew Bible. Judges 9 has become my favorite parable in the Bible because it refers to the futility of a human monarch rule over a free nation. After the death of Moses and prior to the reign of King Saul, Israel was governed by a kritocracy, or simply, the rule of judges. Time and again in the book of Judges, bad things happen to Israel because every person does what they want due to the fact that there is no king (17:6; 21:25). Now some scholars choose to interpret these passages as implying the necessity of monarchy. However, I disagree and would argue that the author is making a theological point where YHWH, King of the universe continues to be displaced by the Israelites who prefer to live in idolatry. That would mean that I no longer have to view the anointing of King Saul as a positive event (as I once did as a Bible thumping third-grader), but rather as something that Samuel, and therefore the LORD, regrets doing (1st Samuel 10:17-19). Samuel, although ordaining Saul as Israel’s first monarch, is making some rather serious charges against Israel, the crime of apostasy. The Babylonian exile, in my understanding, is a punishment that is incurred because Israel’s constant rejection of the one true Sovereign of creation (see Ezekiel 1-2).
The message of the divine drama found in the book of Judges is unambiguous: government is necessary (hence the role of the judges) but only God has the divine right to exist as king. Many people on both sides of the aisle compare the president to Caesar; even though we may not like whoever is president of the country now, passages in Romans 12 & 13, along with 1st Peter 2:17 require that faithful Christ followers passively submit to all government authorities. I plan in an upcoming post to refute that argument by making a clear distinction between ancient Rome and 18 century early North America (after the American Revolution. For now, all I can say is that I am more committed to less intervention by any of the three branches of the federal government in favor of the Old Testament vision of universal self-governance where EVERY person will sit under her/his own fig tree and no one will be afraid, for the LORD would have spoken (Micah 4:4).
Most importantly, however, I kept coming back to the stories of the Judges of the Hebrew Bible. Judges 9 has become my favorite parable in the Bible because it refers to the futility of a human monarch rule over a free nation. After the death of Moses and prior to the reign of King Saul, Israel was governed by a kritocracy, or simply, the rule of judges. Time and again in the book of Judges, bad things happen to Israel because every person does what they want due to the fact that there is no king (17:6; 21:25). Now some scholars choose to interpret these passages as implying the necessity of monarchy. However, I disagree and would argue that the author is making a theological point where YHWH, King of the universe continues to be displaced by the Israelites who prefer to live in idolatry. That would mean that I no longer have to view the anointing of King Saul as a positive event (as I once did as a Bible thumping third-grader), but rather as something that Samuel, and therefore the LORD, regrets doing (1st Samuel 10:17-19). Samuel, although ordaining Saul as Israel’s first monarch, is making some rather serious charges against Israel, the crime of apostasy. The Babylonian exile, in my understanding, is a punishment that is incurred because Israel’s constant rejection of the one true Sovereign of creation (see Ezekiel 1-2).
The message of the divine drama found in the book of Judges is unambiguous: government is necessary (hence the role of the judges) but only God has the divine right to exist as king. Many people on both sides of the aisle compare the president to Caesar; even though we may not like whoever is president of the country now, passages in Romans 12 & 13, along with 1st Peter 2:17 require that faithful Christ followers passively submit to all government authorities. I plan in an upcoming post to refute that argument by making a clear distinction between ancient Rome and 18 century early North America (after the American Revolution. For now, all I can say is that I am more committed to less intervention by any of the three branches of the federal government in favor of the Old Testament vision of universal self-governance where EVERY person will sit under her/his own fig tree and no one will be afraid, for the LORD would have spoken (Micah 4:4).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)