Confessing Christ in a World of Violence

[Stew225]

Our world is wracked with violence and war. But Jesus said: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God" (Matt. 5:9). Innocent people, at home and abroad, are increasingly threatened by terrorist attacks. But Jesus said: "Love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you" (Matt. 5:44). These words, which have never been easy, seem all the more difficult today.

Nevertheless, a time comes when silence is betrayal. How many churches have heard sermons on these texts since the terrorist atrocities of September 11? Where is the serious debate about what it means to confess Christ in a world of violence? Does Christian "realism" mean resigning ourselves to an endless future of "pre-emptive wars"? Does it mean turning a blind eye to torture and massive civilian casualties? Does it mean acting out of fear and resentment rather than intelligence and restraint?

Faithfully confessing Christ is the church's task, and never more so than when its confession is co-opted by militarism and nationalism.

- A "theology of war," emanating from the highest circles of American government, is seeping into our churches as well.

We reject the false teaching that America is a "Christian nation," representing only virtue, while its adversaries are nothing but vicious. We reject the belief that America has nothing to repent of, even as we reject that it represents most of the world's evil. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23).

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=action.election&item=confession_signers

<end of snip>


Now they're talkin my kind of talk! In my opinion, Jesus had balls, ergo he didn't have to bully people into his way of life.

[Selwynn]

1. Sojourner's is a wonderful site/mag

[indigobusiness]

2. If it were easy, it wouldn't be worth much

"Love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you" (Matt. 5:44). These words, which have never been easy, seem all the more difficult today.

Nevertheless, a time comes when silence is betrayal. How many churches have heard sermons on these texts since the terrorist atrocities of September 11? Where is the serious debate about what it means to confess Christ in a world of violence? Does Christian "realism" mean resigning ourselves to an endless future of "pre-emptive wars"? Does it mean turning a blind eye to torture and massive civilian casualties? Does it mean acting out of fear and resentment rather than intelligence and restraint?
--------

It means striving to realize that everyone is just trying to makes sense of things on their own terms, viewed through their own lens. And, despite all the differences, all people of integrity fundamentally wish to be happy and at peace.

[xchrom]

5. hmmmm?

''Where is the serious debate about what it means to confess Christ in a world of violence?''
that's the question isn't it?

[indigobusiness]

9. So, I didn't contribute...or wasn't serious enough...what?

hmmmm

btw what does confessing Christ mean to you?

[Malva Zebrina]

3. Looks to me like there is going to be a war between the "real" Christians

and the "fake" Christians. Each believes they are the "real Christians". The irony is that they are all "Christians" strictly speaking.

I have often wondered why it was allowed to get this far by the more liberal sects of Christians with practically no dissent at all, based on Christian ethics and morals. I would have thought that they would have objected vehemently--but that did not happen.

Historically, in fascist regimes, this has been the case, with a Christian church supporting the regime, and being vested with the state authority to be the "official" religion.

I suspect the faith based charities initiative may have had something to do with it. But then, I am a natural born skeptic, I admit. I may be wrong, but I cannot find any reason why all Christians , in spite of the treatises against the war put out by virtually every leader of every Christian sect, save the Southern Baptist Convention, has had no clout at all and has been relatively silent . Baffling to me.

It may be the abortion issue.

As if the thousands who have died because of an evil man, who professes to be a Christian, and who absolutely cannot be challenged on that assertion, is pushed to the back burner, and the evil, slutty women in this country who desire control over their own bodies and families and lives, are the ones who need to be reigned in and persecuted and punished and even in some scenarios of some Christians, arrested for murder, according to thier beliefs.

[blondeatlast]

7. Let me take a stab at explaining why "liberal" Christians didn't

"vehemently" object, or at least you don't think they did.

First and foremost, "liberal" Christians remember that Jesus asked them to practice their faith in private. We are asked to seek peace and justice, but not asked to do it in His name, only with our faith in mind; something that the wing-nut Christians leaders conveniently forget. Therefore it's hypocritical of us to attack them IN HIS NAME.

You'll notice that lately (although I have been guilty of this before) I attack them (the wing-nutso leaders) in a more "secular" manner on this board. I have long since stopped saying "as a Christian," both out of convenience and my deep belief that my faith dictates I do this out of my own sense of fairness and justice, not in His name.

Remember, Jesus walked and found fellowship among the "seedier" elements of society; the "sluts," the homeless, the sinners.

He would have felt far more at home with you and I, Marianne, than he would with Jerry Falwell or Commander Bunnypants.

[Malva Zebrina]

10. I respect your view and your faith, but

the fact remains they, the "real" Christians, have been relatively silent for almost four years.

Whatever happens now, is too little too late, from the more liberal sects, if the goal is to prove that Bush is not a "real" Christian and is not following the teachings of Jesus.

Indeed it has been going on in this country for centuries since the Pilgrims landed.

Actually that is a weak postion,because NO ONE can say Bush is not a Christian.

Can you honestly say he is not? On what grounds I would wonder. And on what authority?

That he did not follow your sect of Christianity? That he is not sincerely following his faith as he sees it? On what evidence? There are hundreds of sects of Christianity currently in use.

and they are ALL Christians.

There is nothing else to call them--they are professed followers of the man Jesus, no matter how much each differs from the other in thier interpretation of the Bible.

During the pre-civil war, numerous and most southern ministers preached about how slavery was advocated in the bible therefore slavery was sanctioned by Jesus and his father and it was backed up by biblical quotes. They believed that. They were Christians following the bible as they interpreted it.

Suffice to say that this bible can be made to fit any agenda it pleases.

Who is to say that their interpretation was wrong? and a great bloody war was fought over that with enormous loss of life over the issue of slavery.

Other Christians and ministers in the north thought not, who at the same time, were saddled with the hanging of witches in the northeast, for heresy. Actually it was the Quakers in Britain who were fifty years ahead of Americans in declaring slavery an abomination.

Bush is, after all, a professed Christian, and no one has disputed that.

The fact is that they cannot.

I just find it interesting the way this has been played out on the stage of the Christian religion. I do hope someone takes note and records it all.

[sangh0]

14. "Real" Christians have not been silent

They just haven't been identifying themselves as Christians. When one objects to bush*'s policy on Iraq, one doesn't have to introduce the sentence "I oppose bush*'s occupation of Iraq because it's immoral" with the words "I am a Christian, and..."

Secondly, the point for the author of this piece is not that we should try to convince people that bush* is not a "real" Christian. The point is to convince people that bush*'s POLICIES are not in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

[blondeatlast]

15. I would never presume to say Bush wasn't a Christian.

And again, as followers of Christ, we can't tell "them" that what they are doing "isn't Christian."

Notice the very careful wording used in the article Stew225 cited; very careful not to question beliefs, but it stresses how this group, one I admire very much, believes.

As you say, it isn't my "idea" of Christianity; I take the Book of Matthew very much to heart, since it helps me deal with my political activism especially. this is the book that rails against the hypocrisy of the "public" prayers and labels them hypocrites.

Christian religions have caused as much pain, injustice, and suffering as they have cured in the world, but the same can be said of virtually every religion. In my eyes, Bush is as misguided a Christian as bin Laden is a Muslim. But notice I said "misguided," I would never presume to question either's faith.

Bunny would say I'm misguided, I'm sure. For instance I'm vehemently "pro-choice" (I hate the terminology on both sides). I've protested at execution sites, and of course, I oppose the war in Iraq.

Considering the wide swath between Bunnypants' and my beliefs, one of us is more wrong than the other, but neither of us is in any position to determine which.

We just have to follow the path we've chosen, and hope we are on the more or less correct one.

[indigobusiness]

11. Falwell, etc would be reduced to greasy spots on the floor

The false and insincere would not stand a chance.

Attack no one...it is the sin, not the sinner. Personalizing this sort of thing is sheer folly.

It seems Christianity of all stripe has sacrificed Christ in their self-destructive lust to be THE Christianity.

[blondeatlast]

4. SoJourner is a wonderful site for those of us who try to live

Christ's words.

It is difficult, but it is possible.

Thanks for sharing this, I haven't visited sojo lately. Going there now.

[faithnotgreed]

6. thanks for that.. just ordered a subscription

[Clark4Prez]

8. Amen.

Every time I drive past my local Baptist church, there is a large sign out front. It reads, "Pray for Our Troops."

While our troops are worthy of our prayers, Jesus commanded his followers to pray for our enemies and those that persecute us. Where are the signs that say, "Pray for our enemies" or "Pray for Bin Laden"? These are not easy words to say and much harder words to follow.

The path of Christ is not the easy one, it's not about hating the homos or the Arabs, because hate is easy, love, love is hard. Some of my freeper friends have asked me how I can be a Christian and be a Democrat, my answer to them is I am a Democrat because I am a Christian.

To me, it's black and white, and if Jesus walked the earth today and taught his followers that the rich should give their possessions to the poor and follow him (Matthew 19:21) or that it is easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into the Kingdom of God (Matthew 19:24), how would Rush or Hannity portray him? They probably would call him a wildeyed Socialist, a person that advocated the redristibution of wealth. How much scorn would Ann Coulter heap on his followers that lived together given to each according to his need (Acts 4:35)? Would she even hesitate to call them a bunch of Commies?

For the above reasons and many more, I could say that George W Bush is not a follower of Christ's teachings and is certainly not a proponent of them.

[indigobusiness]

13. Seems to me they should pray that God's will be done...

sort of boils it down

[shelley806]

16. I agree. Christ was a socialist, and George Bush is not a Christian.

I know this is not exactly what you've said, but it's the way I've always viewed Christianity, and the way that I was raised. I love your response: "I am a Democrat because I am a Christian." (It reminds me of a family story about a member when they were very young, looking up and saying, "Dad, I think God must be a Democrat!)

There is a long thread that I read part of and bookmarked for later;
it was when I first started using this site, around the debates.

"Is the Christian Left back?......Why yes, I think it is."

https://www.democrats.org/login/confirm_password.html?u=04937665&c=3de36e20

Reinhold Niebuhr. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The former was a theologian who saw the failures of the Depression and became a leader of Christian socialists in America. The latter was the greatest figure of the Civil Rights movement.

During the 20th century, from about 1930-1980, there was a strong religous left in our country, without which the New Deal, a great society, or much of the Civil Rights movement wouldn't have succeeded. Yet, the movement seemed to die when we elected one of its own...Jimmy Carter. It was then that we saw opposition and the "Rise of the Religious Right" that overtook it.

Fast-forward to 2004. We are in a war that almost every major Christian church was against. For the first time in years, we have a candidate opposed to the death penalty running for public office.

I found this article discussing the phenomenon. What do you think?

"What we're seeing in this campaign is a reinvigoration of the progressive religious voice," said John Podesta, president of the Washington-based Center for American Progress and a former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton.

http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/okeefe090204.html
____________________________________________________________________

That was the original post, and the replies are great. There was one post that listed a link to a site called The Liberal Christian, or Why Christ is a Liberal. It is an excellent site, and so full of truth about GWB, I was stunned. That has been one of the most difficult aspects of this administration for me to bear; the hypocrisy and lies. Not Christian at all. I'll see if I can find the link. Thanks; all of the comments I enjoyed!

[GreenPartyVoter]

12. A beautiful piece.