On her blog, Rachel Held Evans has just issued a challenge to Christian men, to respond to John Piper’s recent pontifications on God’s having given Christianity “a masculine feel.” I suppose it will come as no surprise to most of my readers that I take neither a conventional “egalitarian” nor “complementarian” approach to the issue.

Rachel is absolutely right to call Piper out on this. My own first reaction to the suggestion of a “masculine Christianity” is basically one of “eeewww!” To be fair, what Piper actually suggests might characterize such a faith doesn’t sound so far off:

“When I say masculine Christianity or masculine ministry or Christianity with a masculine feel, here’s what I mean: Theology and church and mission are marked by an overarching godly male leadership in the spirit of Christ with an ethos of tender-hearted strength, contrite courage, risk-taking decisiveness, and readiness to sacrifice for the sake of leading and protecting and providing for the community. All of which is possible only through the death and resurrection of Jesus.”

Interestingly, I rather suspect that if we were to remove the word “male” modifying “leadership” in that paragraph, few readers would find much objectionable in Piper’s description of leadership. This is an important thing to consider. I submit the problem is fundamentally that we have badly misunderstood both gender and leadership as Jesus (and even Paul) taught them, and hence are objecting to all the wrong things. Seriously, what is particularly masculine about “tender-hearted strength, contrite courage, risk-taking decisiveness, and readiness to sacrifice?” I personally know men and women who do, and others who most decidedly do not, exhibit all those characteristics.

Frankly, I’m getting more than a little fed up with the repeated drumbeat of observing “male” or “female” characteristics in God, or in ourselves for that matter. I’m a daddy, it has always given me great joy to embrace and kiss and hold my kids. I could never breastfeed them, obviously, but when our youngest couldn’t nurse, I fed him–and wept many tears over him–while my wife pumped what I would then feed him. Was I getting in touch with “my feminine side” as I did this? Hell no! I was lovingly caring for my son and my wife! I resent the implication that tenderness is uniquely feminine, or the converse that strength is uniquely masculine.

Egalitarians have, in my opinion, been far too acquiescent to these sloppy definitions of gender. Each time one calls out the Pipers and the Driscolls of the church by pointing out “feminine” traits in God, they are tacitly granting these harmful distinctions in gender character (but see my parenthetical comment at the end).

The second key issue I take with this debate is with our definition of leadership in the church. Conservative church leaders insist that pastors, and particularly the “senior pastor,” must be male. Egalitarians object that women are also gifted in the same qualities and should be able to participate in these offices. Neither considers the possibility that the authoritarian structure that is the modern pastorate might itself be unbiblical!

I can think of no better illustration of my point than a passage that is often held up as a prime exhibit of the apostle Paul’s presumed mysogynism…1 Cor. 11:2-16. The common reading of this passage sees all the language that can be interpreted to demean or control women. I’m not going to get into that here. What I want to point out, is verse 5, completely ignored by most it seems, in which Paul doesn’t even question the reality that women are praying and prophesying! One can argue, as I’ve heard before, that prayer is private, but there’s no such thing as private prophecy. Add the record of Philip’s four prophetess daughters (Acts 21:9), and the story of Priscilla and Aquilla (a husband-wife team who schooled Apollos in theology…and Priscilla’s name comes first every time!), and it’s pretty clear that the New Testament church heard plenty from women as well as men.

What we do not find in the New Testament record, is individual church leaders invested with unaccountable, unquestionable authority.  In contrast, throughout Jesus’ ministry we find repeated efforts on Jesus’ part, to disabuse his apostles of the notion they should rule each other or anybody else. In fact, most references throughout Acts and the Epistles to pastors, teachers, apostles, deacons, prophets, or any other function in the church are in the plural.  1 Cor. 12:7 (to each one) and 1 Cor 14:26 (each one contributes) are only two examples of many showing us that the body ought to hear from each other, not merely from a limited cabal of ordained leadership.

So my appeal is that we not correct error with error. The autocratic style of leadership exhibited by male church leaders will not be fixed by simply adding women to the ranks of the autocracy. It will only be repaired when we rediscover the real meaning of Ephesians 5:21 and we all submit ourselves to one another out of reverence for Christ.

One final parenthetical comment.  I remain troubled by the trend among some, while rightly objecting to the male-centric theology that has inhabited the church for too long, to refer to God in female terminology.  This is not least because it seems to me to tilt toward ancient idolatries of goddess worship.  Atheist wags have said in the past that “man created god(s) in his image,” and the gods so created were a pretty disgusting bunch.  No less the goddesses, many of whom demanded various perversions such as human sacrifice, temple prostitution, and other sexual and fertility rites that have been rightly blasted by the prophets throughout the ages.  Feminized idolatry is no less reprehensible than the male version.

Though I am by no means a verbal-inspiration fundamentalist, I do think that God has consistently revealed his character throughout the ages (and in many different cultures) using masculine terminology.  As I pointed out above, the perversion of the concepts of masculine and feminine within our theology and our culture do not change this.  Certainly, whatever the use of male terminology with reference to God may mean, it does NOT carry a sexual component, and any claim to the contrary is blasphemous.  But replacing it with female terminology is, in my view, one of many forms of remaking God in the image of modern humanity instead of the older and more benighted version.  Biblical Christianity deserves better.

(The following is a lesson I taught for our Advent series at my church Dec. 18th)

When Jesus announced the beginning of his ministry, the first prophetic reference he made was to the book of Isaiah:

The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me,
because the LORD has anointed me
to bring good news to the poor;
he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim liberty to the captives,
and the opening of the prison to those who are bound;
to proclaim the year of the LORD’s favor,
and the day of vengeance of our God;
to comfort all who mourn;
to grant to those who mourn in Zion—
to give them a beautiful headdress instead of ashes,
the oil of gladness instead of mourning,
the garment of praise instead of a faint spirit;
that they may be called oaks of righteousness,
the planting of the LORD, that he may be glorified.
They shall build up the ancient ruins;
they shall raise up the former devastations;
they shall repair the ruined cities,
the devastations of many generations.
Strangers shall stand and tend your flocks;
foreigners shall be your plowmen and vinedressers;
but you shall be called the priests of the LORD;
they shall speak of you as the ministers of our God;
you shall eat the wealth of the nations,
and in their glory you shall boast.
Instead of your shame there shall be a double portion;
instead of dishonor they shall rejoice in their lot;
therefore in their land they shall possess a double portion;
they shall have everlasting joy.

For I the LORD love justice;
I hate robbery and wrong;
I will faithfully give them their recompense,
and I will make an everlasting covenant with them.
Their offspring shall be known among the nations,
and their descendants in the midst of the peoples;
all who see them shall acknowledge them,
that they are an offspring the LORD has blessed. (Isaiah 61:1-9)

So reads the prophecy in Isaiah.  Now take a look at how Jesus quoted it:

And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read.  And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written,

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives
and recovering of sight to the blind,
to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. And he began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” (Luke 4:16-21)

Jesus Proclaimed Who He Was

The first important thing to recognize is that by appropriating this passage from Isaiah, Jesus was making an unmistakable declaration.  The word translated “anointed” in the Isaiah passage is the Hebrew מָשַׁח֩, which I’ve seen transliterated as either “masah” or “mashach” (sorry, I have to depend on others for the Hebrew as I’ve never studied it).  The Greek word for “anointed,” in both the Septuagint Old Testament and the Greek New Testament, is ἔχρισέν, “echrisen.”  It doesn’t take much squinting to see (correctly) that we get our English words “Messiah” and “Christ” from those two words.  It’s a simple realization, perhaps, but when Jesus states in Luke 4:21 that “today this Scripture has been fulfilled,” he is making an unequivocal claim to being Israel’s Messiah…the Anointed King.  This is not just a label that others laid on Jesus…according to the gospel of Luke it’s a title he claimed for himself from the beginning of his ministry.

Jesus Also Proclaimed Who He Wasn’t

Things get interesting when we compare the Luke and Isaiah passages.  Take a look at them side by side, and at first one would think Jesus was simply quoting Isaiah 61:1-2 with the bits slightly rearranged…but then we notice a glaring “omission.”  He completely left out “the day of vengeance of our God.”  As if that wasn’t “bad” enough, read the rest of the story in Luke 4:22-30.  Jesus’ claim of Messiahship was warmly received at first (v. 23), but then Jesus went on to foretell that his hometown folks were going to be unhappy with him for not doing more for them.  He even had the gall to point out two specific instances in which Gentiles received miraculous intervention from God to the direct exclusion of needy Israelites (v. 25-27).

An uncomfortable element of Jesus’ message was also unmistakeable:  The Messiah you are looking for is not the Messiah you’re getting.  The Messianic passage in Isaiah 61 looks like a restoration of the kingdom of Israel, complete with God’s vengeance (v. 2), the restoration of destroyed ruins (v. 4), foreigners serving Israel (v. 5), Israel serving God as priests (v. 6), and the world finally acknowledging Israel’s greatness (v. 9).  But not only did Jesus leave out all of that, he explicitly told of Gentiles getting blessings that his hearers would have expected to be reserved for Jews.  No wonder the crowd tried, for the first of many times, to kill him!  Jesus was spoiling all their restorationist, exclusionary dreams!

Jesus Announced His Purpose

In selecting from the first two verses of Isaiah 61, Jesus gave his hearers a master plan of the work he was sent to do:

• Preach good news (Greek “evangelize”) to the poor
• Proclaim liberty to the captives
• Proclaim sight to the blind (Septuagint; Hebrew scripture “release from bondage”)
• Liberation of the oppressed
• Proclaim the “Year of the LORD’s favor”

Although the order varies between Luke’s account and Isaiah’s original, the combination of these elements occurs in both places, and we can see in these elements a powerful theme.  If Isaiah and Jesus had only mentioned liberty to captives and those who are oppressed, and maybe even the release from bondage part, then the notion of God’s Anointed One coming to throw off Roman rule and lead Israel to political greatness, might even make sense.  But taking all five of Jesus’ bullet points, and particularly the “Year of the LORD’s favor” reveals a decidedly different focus.  Though he was not blowing a trumpet, Jesus was announcing that God’s Jubilee had finally arrived.

Jubilee and God’s Economics

Jubilee is a concept we don’t think about too much.  We Christians like to talk a lot about the parts of the Jewish Law that provided for atonement (though we usually get those wrong too in my opinion), and we occasionally look at the more arcane bits about sexuality or ritual purity, but the economics of ancient Jewish law aren’t often examined.  They should be.  The two key passages for understanding Jubilee economics are Leviticus 25 and Deuteronomy 15.  Let’s have a look, starting with Lev. 25:1-7.  In this section we learn that God declared a seventh-year “Sabbath year” in which the land and the vines are to be given rest and neither cultivated nor harvested.  The practical implications of this are teased out in Lev. 25:18-22, in which God promises a bumper crop in the sixth year, enough to sustain the people through the seventh year and up till the harvest of the eighth year.

Deuteronomy 15:1-11 adds to the provisions for the Sabbath year:  “At the end of every seventh year you shall grant a release” (sound familiar?).  The release described in Deuteronomy is a cancellation of monetary debts, particularly any loan to “a brother who becomes poor.”  Deut. 15:12-18 further provides that in the the Sabbath year any Hebrew debtor slave must be released (in other words, it was not so much slavery but rather indentured servitude which was permitted for economic reasons).  “Good news to the poor” indeed!

Back to Leviticus 25:8-17.  Here we have the introduction of the Year of Jubilee itself.  The “sabbath of sabbaths” is to follow on the fiftieth year…a special year of Jubilee in which even land must return to its family owners.  Not all real estate, as Lev. 25:29-31 states that a house in a walled city is not subject to Jubilee release; however the means of production (that is, agricultural land) and homes in rural areas were to return to their familial owners.  As Lev. 25:15-17 makes clear, it is not productive land, but rather potential crop-years, that may be sold in the rural areas.

Jubilee and the Sabbath years were not merely occasional interruptions on the calendar, as the latter part of the chapter makes abundantly clear.  In Lev. 25:35-42, Israelites are commanded to care for their poor brethren.  Though there are a variety of provisions, the most stunning is v. 36-37:  Take no interest from him or profit, but fear your God, that your brother may live beside you.  You shall not lend him your money at interest, nor give him your food for profit (see also Deut. 23:19 and Exod. 22:25).  In powerful counterpoint to the economics by which we live, in God’s economy the poor are not an acceptable profit center.  Period!

It is of course a cause of some concern to many readers, and was deeply abused in our own country, that the Levitical law does provide for slavery of non-Hebrews.  A closer examination of these provisions is still worthwhile.  Lev. 25:42 explains why Hebrews could not be enslaved:  because God himself had already bought them (or redeemed them, see Deut. 15:15) from Egypt.  And this is where Jesus’ extending the “good news” of Jubilee to the Gentiles comes into play:  Now that God through Jesus has redeemed all of humanity, there are no longer any “strangers and aliens” available to be enslaved.  In Jesus, all of humanity has been purchased by God and is no longer for sale to anyone else!

Tragically, most of the provisions of God’s law of Jubilee may never have been practiced.  We certainly have no record in any Biblical account of a year of release–Sabbath or Jubilee–ever happening.  A few rabbinical websites I’ve been able to find do describe the way of counting the Jubilee year and imply that some elements may in fact have been practiced, though as this site explains, rabbis and Talmudic scholars seem to agree that the land provisions of Jubilee only apply in the land of Israel proper, and that none of it now applies since the majority of Jews do not live in Israel.  We do know that there was at least some historical awareness of the prohibition of interest, since more than once the people of Israel are criticized by the prophets for charging interest of their brethren (see Neh. 5:10, Prov. 28:8, Ezek. 18:8-13 and Ezek. 22:12).

Part of why much of this law may never have been practiced is a harsh reality:  actually doing Jubilee is not practical…in fact, absent God’s provision it’s economic suicide.  That’s why the promise of provision in Lev. 25:18-22 is so crucial.  Jubilee is impossible except by depending upon God to keep his word.  And it’s much harder for most of us to “have faith” in God when it comes to our homes and our stomachs than it is for something as amorphous as our “souls.”  ‘Twas ever thus, I suspect.

Recognizing Jesus’ Jubilee Kingdom

Any good Evangelical can tell you that the Law has been fulfilled in Jesus the Anointed One (Messiah/Christ).  What we are far less likely to recognize is that the Kingdom Jesus declared is not devoid of laws.  These laws aren’t the way we are “saved” (though that question isn’t as relevant as it is often preached), but there is nonetheless a character and conduct expected of Jesus’ subjects, quite different from that of the world in which we live.  In his declaration of Jubilee, I believe Jesus aligned himself and his followers firmly with the testimony of Moses and the prophets for thousands of years before:  there is a radical, decidedly material, economic component to living in his Kingdom.

I can’t describe with certainty what this economic component ought to look like.  That’s something that needs to be worked out with prayer and much dialog within the local body of believers.  But I think we can glean some universal truths that must be part of Jesus’ economy:

1. God’s people are to see the poor as the objects of God’s particular concern and love, and to use our abundance to help them.  There is nothing wrong with business in God’s economy, but Jubilee Christians may not conduct business whose profit is derived from the poverty of others.  (for more on this you may want to check out my post Would Jesus Occupy Wall Street?)
2. Most of us are no longer farmers, so it’s harder to think what the sabbath of the land might look like.  I do think it suggests a balance to the notion popular among some, that when God granted humanity “dominion” over the earth, he gave us a blank check to exploit it for all it’s worth.  Rather, trusting in God to provide our needs, we should be gentle in our use and stewardship of the natural resources with which we’ve been entrusted, and learn to let those resources have a rest from time to time.
3. We do not live in a place with hereditary land ownership as Israel did.  But within the seven-year debt forgiveness cycle and the fifty-year land return cycle, I see a general principle that the aggregation of wealth must have limits.  Both the poor and the rich need some sort of periodic reset button to prevent the permanent marginalization of some and the permanent aggrandizement of others.
4. Bondage comes in many forms.  We Christians like to concentrate on spiritual bondage, and it’s a real thing…not for one moment do I mean to minimize it.  But there’s still real physical slavery in this world (check out this post and the links on it for just a few examples), and we ought to be doing everything in our power to fight it.  There are also many who are in bondage precisely because of their economic poverty.  We need to look closely at how our lifestyles may add to (or at least enable) that bondage, and what we can do to proclaim liberty to the captives, whatever form their captivity may take.

Luke 19:1-9 gives us an interesting insight into what Jubilee can look like.  This is the story of when Jesus went to the home of wealthy tax collector Zaccheus.  Ol’ Zach must have really gotten smitten by the notion of Jesus kingdom, as his response to Jesus was to give away half of everything he owned, and to pay quadruple damages to anyone he’d ever wronged.  That, my friends, is Jubilee in action!

Jubilee is as radical an idea today as it was in Moses’ time, and in Jesus’.  Spiritual, yes in some ways, but with a nuts-and-bolts practical application that we cannot ignore.  God has always had a different economy than the world’s.  God’s people have rarely, if ever, trusted him enough to follow it.  But just maybe, this is part of what Jesus meant when he said:

Seek first the Kingdom of God, and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.  (Matt. 6:33)

May we welcome the advent of Jesus Christ not just with Christmas bells, but with the ram’s horn of Jubilee!  The Kingdom of God is at hand!

“The poor you will always have with you…”  So said Jesus according to the accounts of three of the four Gospel writers (Matt. 26:11, Mark 14:7, and John 12:8).  He said it in the context of someone objecting to a woman pouring perfume on his feet, when the value could have been given to the poor.  (aside…Matthew says the disciples objected and doesn’t identify the woman; Mark identifies neither; John identifies the woman as Mary, sister of Lazarus & Martha, and the objector as Judas Iscariot).

Anyhow, I have run across this verse abused by conservative Christians, who were objecting to liberal Christians’ attempts to actually fight poverty, particularly using political means.  The argument seems to go something to the effect that if Jesus said we’d never get rid of the poor, it’s foolish for the liberals to try.  Of course that’s specious; Jesus finished that very sentence by saying “and whenever you want, you can do good for them.”

But I just discovered something that I had never noticed before.  Jesus wasn’t just making a random commentary about life when he said “the poor you will always have with you.”  I didn’t realize this, but he was quite probably referring to the Law of Moses…specifically Deut. 15:11:

For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’

Whoa, what’s that?  Because there will always be poor, God always expects his people to be generous to the poor!  Not because we can ever “cure” poverty, though the reset-buttons of the Sabbath Year and Jubilee would certainly reduce the generational effect of poverty (see Deut. 15:1 and Lev. 25).  But no, the reason we are to treat the poor with kindness is in verse 10:

You shall give to him freely, and your heart shall not be grudging when you give to him, because for this the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake.

Hmm…how’s that for an economic stimulus plan?

I have just finished Lee C. Camp’s book Who Is My Enemy?   This is a book every American Christian should read–full stop.  It is also a book everyone who’s frustrated with the public political stance of American Christians should read.  And it’s also a book anyone wrestling with the questions of war and peace with regard to the church and/or teachings of Jesus Christ should read.  And it’s also … oh, forget it, just go buy and read the book already! (and no, I get no remuneration for this…I bought my copy on Amazon!)

Camp wrote this book out of a journey he undertook to attempt to see America through Muslim eyes, as well as to get to know Muslims first-hand, as he contemplated Americans’ fear of Islam in the post-9/11 world.  Along the way, he learned a lot about his own faith as well.

I have had conversations with more than one Evangelical Christian about Islam.  I’m sad to report that most of those discussions seem to get mired down in the notion that Islam is essentially a violent religion bent upon the destruction of any and all who do not convert to the Muslim religion and subject their nations to the Islamic “Shariah” law.  Most of those friends, frankly, discount my own personal experiences with any Muslim who might have ever treated me with anything like respect or even love…they are convinced that any such person was either deceiving me in order to eventually convert me, or else he wasn’t really a committed Muslim.  Maybe my faith is weak, but I don’t know how many of this particular subset of my friends would even hear Lee’s message.  But for the rest, I believe he’s drawn out some important insights.

Camp makes a compelling historical case that when Christians claim Islam is a violent religion, they’re suffering a serious case of collective amnesia regarding Christianity’s own history.  We all know that the “Christian” Europeans launched the Crusades during the medieval era; I did not know that not only Muslim history, but also written records from the crusaders themselves, document at least one instance of the crusaders actually boiling Muslim adults, roasting their children and eating them.  Camp recounts records from the crusaders’ own accounts as well as those of Arab historians, of whole towns slaughtered, mosques filled with people burned alive, and similar accounts of wanton slaughter that frankly horrified the Muslims who survived.

But then, in answer to the claim that Christians became more enlightened since the Middle Ages, Camp also relates the history of the colonial and early American slaughter of Native American people, including one event where hundreds of Indians were massacred over a period of weeks on the provocation of one settler being murdered.  In the 17th century, the Christian Puritans who came to America well-trained in Calvinist Christianity, stated following their wanton slaughter “Thus was God pleased to smite our enemies, and to give us their Land for an Inheritance.”

He carries the tale to the twentieth century, and the U.S. invasion of the Philippines under Theodore Roosevelt’s presidency, where civilians “stood along the side of the road, took off their hats, touched their foreheads with their hands.  ‘Buenos Dias, Senors’ (means good morning),’ and then the soldier boys proceeded to kill the residents and destroy the village.”  Even the most-justified (in American eyes) war in our history, World War II, had a dark side we rarely discuss:  the British and American firebombings of Hamburg and other German cities where the civilian residential areas were deliberately targeted in a strategy designed “to destroy the morale of the enemy civilian population, and in particular, of the industrial workers” (attributed by Camp to Sir Charles Webster and Noble Frankland, British historians of the war).  The same rationale, it may be said, also was used in our firebombings and ultimately nuclear attacks on Japan, justified by many in the American Christian world.

All this is not–and Camp makes this clear–an attempt to justify Muslim violence by positing some sort of “moral equivalency…” a “sure, they’re bad, but so are we” argument. Camp is rather confronting those who claim that Christians are peaceful and Muslims are violent, with the harsh evidence of violence in our own ranks.  As he says:  “I intend no rationalizing or excusing or justifying on anyone’s part.  My concern instead is that we practice honest self-examination rather than the dishonest procedure of comparing an idealized form of our faith tradition with the messy historical record of Muslims.”

This then is where Camp’s work becomes more theological.  Though not a proponent of Augustine’s criteria for “Just War,” he calls to mind a significant part of Augustine’s teaching that I most emphatically have not heard taught in American churches.  Augustine promoted several criteria for Jus ad Bellum, justice in deciding to go to war (this comes from pp.71-72 of the paperback edition of the book).  These are the well-known criteria that

• War is declared by a legitimate governing authority
• War must be engaged for just cause, such as self-defense, defense of innocents, restoration of order;
• War must be undertaken for right objective intentions…peace and justice as opposed to territory or resources;
• War must also be undertaken with right subjective intentions…justice and mercy not hatred and vengeance.

There is also the notion of due process in war:

• It must be undertaken as a true last resort after other options have been exhausted;
• The enemy must always be allowed to sue for peace on the grounds for which the war was started; the demand of an unconditional surrender is ipso facto unjust;
• The cause must be winnable
• Force must be proportional to the cause and the harm being prevented (this of course runs counter to the “Powell Doctrine”)
• Treaties & international law must be respected;
• Enemy combatants must be treated justly if captured.

But interestingly, Augustine also provided some other guidelines for Jus in bello, the just conduct of the war:

• Immunity of the innocent; noncombatants must not be targeted;
• Weapons must discriminate between the innocent and the combatant (this is often taken to state that land mines, which are completely agnostic to their targets, are unjust);
• Methods must be only what is necessary to achieve the objective;
• Human dignity must be respected; torture, slander, rape, poisoning of wells, are forbidden, and keeping truces and giving quarter are required.

The point that Camp makes in all this is that American Christians tend to claim Augustine’s “Just War” mantle in determining that the decision to wage war is just (although even there, our voice is rarely heard in a critical manner), but then Augustine’s further guidance is left entirely by the wayside in the pursuit of a war once engaged.  Here, the history Camp has recounted in previous chapters comes back to devastating effect, as time after time, the American position has been to win the war at all costs because we have adjudged the cause to be just, but with little regard to the justice of the means.  “This is not merely an argument about pacifism.”  Camp writes.  “This is about the fact that the church ignores JWT [Just War Theory] too.  This is about the move toward ‘total war,” in which we are told we must wage merciless war on behalf of the good news of democracy and free-market economies and political liberalism so we might be free to worship the Lord who in Jesus taught us to love our enemies.” (p. 96)

But here, then, is where Camp gets to the meat of his discovery.  The Christian theory of Just War is far more similar to the teachings of Mohammad in the Qur’an, than it is to the teachings of Jesus in the Bible. Islam also has a rich “Just War” tradition in both scripture and history…although certainly it has been violated in history just as the Christian tradition has.  But nobody who has read the texts can argue that Mohammad did not condone warfare in some form, while that argument is quite compelling not only for Jesus himself, but for at least the first two hundred years of Christianity.

Camp unpacks an association I thought I had seen before, but had yet to put into words, when he actually associates Christian warmaking as a logical extension of the Christian doctrine of penal-substitutionary atonement.  He explains it through the eyes of a Muslim theologian with whom he met (and this is Camp’s explanation, not that theologians exact words):  “The Christian myth gets to ‘redemption’ through a crucifixion, a violent, abusive act; ‘justice’ demands such punishment; and redemption requires the shedding of blood in exchange for the sins and hostilities committed.  This myth…ironically depicts the cross in such a fashion that it becomes easily co-opted by Crusaders of any and all sorts.”  (p. 114)

He then takes a clear-eyed look at the Muslim denial that Jesus ever died.  Camp is no synchretist.  His chapter “Good Friday” is absolutely clear in the centrality of Jesus’ death and resurrection to Christian doctrine and practice.  But he shows the truth of the cross as the counter-worldly way in which God chose to deal with evil…not by killing those infected by evil but by dying to give them life…so that resorting to the violent way of the world is actually to deny the way of the very Lord we claim to serve.  “Thus, we come to this ironic observation, that while the Muslim may deny the historical fact of the crucified Jesus, we Christians have often denied the ethical relevance of the crucified Jesus.”  And later, “…when the crucified Jesus becomes yet one more ‘doctrine’ merely to be believed, stripped of its narrative force, stripped of its ethical significance for the disciple of that Jesus…when the cross becomes an emblem, or the Scriptures that testify to this Jesus become the morale booster to go off and kill the enemy whom Jesus commanded us to love, then the Christian has denied the crucified Jesus every bit as much as the Muslim has, but less honorably so.”

The Muslim denies with his words,

because of what the Qur’an says;

the Christian denies with his deeds,

despite what the Bible says.

Camp’s concluding paragraphs are powerful.  “Wherever we Christians come out upon the question of ‘pacifism’ or ‘just war,’ we all will need immense courage to speak up and speak out:  against nationalism and militarism, against fearmongering and hatred of enemies, against praying for ‘our troops’ instead of praying for peace….[We need] to stop counting the United States, for all the many things about this country we may savor and know to be genuinely good, as the savior of the world, for the world already has a Savior…”

“Freedom is the gift of God and is enabled by cross and resurrection, not by the United States’ Constitution, or Declaration of Independence, or well-intentioned and honorable soldiers.  It is Jesus who gives us freedom…”

I hope I’ve whetted your appetite.  This is an important book!

This evening, the U.S. House of Representatives is voting on a resolution reaffirming “In God We Trust” as the motto of the United States.  I’m sure the purpose of such a resolution, which changes nothing and has no force of law, is mainly to get an election-year vote on the books reaffirming the difference between “God’s Own Party” and the godless Democrats.  But with full apologies to Seth, Amy, and all the good folks at SNL, I just have to say: REALLY???

These Congressmen are the guys who go on about our duty to build up a strong defense.  The bill’s author J. Randy Forbes (R-VA) is committed Baptist who is also the author of the “Strong Defense, Strong America” initiative, in which he argues against any further cuts to the U.S. Military because “a strong defense means a strong America.”  REALLY?  Maybe Randy and his colleagues haven’t read Isaiah 31:1, where the God they say we trust said “Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help and rely on horses, who trust in chariots because they are many and in horsemen because they are very strong, but do not look to the Holy One of Israel or consult the LORD!”  REALLY!  Of course, we know you can’t trust in horses and chariots; that’s why we have F-14 fighters and M1A1 tanks and carriers and nukes and cruise missiles!  REALLY!!!

The resolution to be voted today states that “in times of national challenge or tragedy, the people of the United States have turned to God as their source for sustenance, protection, wisdom, strength, and direction.”  REALLY???  That must be why we sent our armies to kick the crap out of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein…because we were turning to God for protection.  REALLY!  And that must be why we spent billions of dollars bailing out banks that were “too big to fail,” because we were turning to God for our sustenance!  REALLY!!

In the resolution, Congress “supports and encourages the public display of the national motto in all public buildings, public schools, and other government institutions.”  REALLY?  I’m sure that must include displaying it at the Department of the Treasury, because nothing says “lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth” like a big bold copy of “In God We Trust” on the Treasury walls!  REALLY!!!

And of course let’s not gloss over that part about supporting “public display.”  Because that guy who these congressmen believe is the son of the God they trust, can’t possibly have meant it when he said “when you pray, don’t be like those guys who stand on the street corners where they can be seen by men.”  No, REALLY!

REALLY, these guys need to have a little review lesson on what the God they trust said.  ‘Cause I suspect the closest he ever came to describing them is Mark 7:6…”These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.”  REALLY!!!

I had a friend ask me today what my definition of a Christian is.  I resisted the question to some degree, as I remain extremely troubled by the obsession many have, with drawing lines to delineate who is “in” and “out” of fellowship, orthodoxy, or whatever.  I am not taking anything back that I said in my Word About Creeds.  Nevertheless, if I claim to want people to submit to the lordship of Jesus Christ, it follows that I must have some idea about what this concept means…at least as I use the terms.

I hope I’ve made it obvious in my writing that while I believe the Christian church–particularly the church in the United States where I live–has severely messed up its witness and faithfulness to Jesus, I am not saying therefore that the people I criticize are (necessarily) not Christians.  It will give some Christians grief to see me quote the Quran at this point, but it’s eloquent when it says:

Unto God ye will all return, and He will then inform you of that wherein ye differ. (Al-Ma’idah, 5:48)

In other words, I presume that *all* Christians (and others, for that matter) get some things right, some wrong, and that our merciful Father will sort it out some day if, in fact, the sorting matters to him.

I am also not saying that all those who meet the criteria I give below are going to heaven, and all who aren’t are going to hell.  The issue of salvation is an entirely separate question–and in fact the wrong question to be asking at this juncture.

But with these caveats, I offer the following four criteria that I believe sufficiently define one who follows Jesus:

1. Jesus’ Divinity.  The New Testament is quite clear that Jesus represented himself as divine, and any follower of Jesus must acknowledge him as such.  This is not the same thing as endorsing classical Trinitarianism…as I have previously written, I personally believe that the “co-equal person” argument in the doctrine of the Trinity fails to wrestle adequately with those scriptures in which Jesus clearly delineated himself as other than, and subordinate to the Father.  I use the term “wrestle” quite deliberately, as I believe there’s a tension in the scriptural characterization of Jesus that can’t be fully resolved.  The Trinity is one limited, inadequate attempt to resolve it; my own characterization of Jesus as divine but submissive to the Father is another.  Either is a genuine attempt to be faithful to the way Jesus characterized himself, and either, I suggest, fulfills this first criterion.
2. Jesus’ Humanity. Just as the scripture is plain about Jesus’ divinity, it is categorical that from the incarnation on, Jesus became honest-to-goodness human flesh.  He ate, he bled, he suffered, he partied.  The Gnostic denial of Jesus’ flesh is outside the pale.  The follower of Jesus recognizes his true humanity.  (note in this and #1, I’m avoiding the classic phrase “Fully God & Fully Man.”  I think that phrase is actually nonsensical and does nothing to advance either understanding or orthodoxy).
3. Jesus’ Death and Resurrection.  The incarnate, fleshly Jesus really, truly died and was really, truly raised to life by the Father.  The many theological implications of this fact are the subject of some dispute, and I certainly have an opinion on them.  But there are genuine Christians who have very different opinions than I on what Jesus’ death and resurrection accomplished.  They are still Christians, and so am I.
4. Jesus’ Lordship. This is the point at which the I most clearly depart from the idea that a “credo,” a list of “what I believe,” is of utmost importance.  If one “believes” that Jesus is Lord, that “belief” can only be expressed in submission, obedience, and discipleship.  The fact that Jesus is Lord means that all the other things and beings that pretend to the throne are NOT lord.  Nations, individuals, belief systems, political philosophies & parties, all are subordinated to the call and command of Jesus, or else he isn’t Lord, and no amount of “believing” otherwise can change that.

I hope you noticed that all four of these criteria start with the name of Jesus.  That’s no accident.  It is the name of Jesus, and his position in your life, that makes you a Christian, or not.  And frankly, those who are, and those who aren’t, are to be found in some unexpected places.

And he told them a parable, saying, “The farm of a certain rich man bore well.   And he talked it over with himself, saying, ‘What shall I do? I don’t have space to store my crops.’   And he said, ‘This is what I will do: I will take down my storehouses and build bigger, and there I will gather all my grain and my good things,   and I will say to myself, ‘Self, you have many good things laid by for many years. Take it easy, eat, drink, and enjoy it.’   But God said to him, ‘Fool! This night your life will be demanded from you. Then whose will be what you’ve prepared?’   Thus (is) the one who accumulates treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.” (Luke 12:16-21, Pioneers’ New Testament)

This parable is well known in Christian circles, but at least in the Sunday Schools I went to, the message is usually something to the effect that “you can’t take it with you” (well, when it’s not fear-mongering of the “where would you go if you died tonight” variety).  Less common is to examine the lessons Jesus offers us on the economics of the Kingdom of God.

Jesus’ story begins with the statement that the man’s farm “bore well.”  This concept will be blindingly obvious to anyone who’s ever depended on the land for their livelihood, but perhaps not to the rest of us.  Any farmer knows that no matter how skilled he is, no matter the technology he brings to bear on his agricultural efforts, and no matter how hard he and/or his employees work, there is an element of the outcome of any harvest that is simply out of his hands.  The godly farmer knows that “it is God who gives the increase,” while others ascribe their harvests (good or bad) to luck, the weather, or other forces…but all know that success or failure are not entirely their own doing.

The rest of us, particularly in the West and most particularly in the United States, seem to have lost this awareness.  Listen to any “self-made man,” or to any of the many apologists for the American capitalist system, and you would think that wealth is directly correlated to hard work and creativity.  Rarely do the financially-successful acknowledge the extent to which they owe their wealth to accidents of birth, environment, and external forces.  Rarer still is any admission that the poor they so easily disparage work as hard and as creatively as they.  Even here in the U.S., not many of us can realistically hope for a significant uptick in our financial status, but most of us are one unforseen disaster away from financial ruin.  Surely, we stand or fall in part through nothing but the mercy of God.

This, of course, calls us to think about how we ought to respond if we do achieve success.  The farmer in Jesus’ parable responded in good American form:  enlarge the storehouse, diversify the investments, maybe arrange a tax shelter or two, and get ready to enjoy “the good life.”  I love what Rick Warren, author of The Purpose Driven ™ Life, had to say in a video I saw once (and sorry, I don’t have a link):  “If you write a book that starts ‘It’s not about you,’ and you make millions off of the sales, it might occur to you that the money isn’t FOR you.”  Rick had a point, and it’s Jesus’ point too.  If God does in fact give/enable wealth, he intends it to be used his way, not stored up for the party.

One of Jesus’ most compelling–and perhaps frightening–sayings is found at the end of the chapter, Luke 12:48.

Much is demanded from all to whom much is given. They will ask much more of the one to whom much is entrusted.

*          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *

Note: Biblical quotations are taken from The Pioneers’ New Testament, an original translation from Greek done by my Mom.  If any of you are interested in a different take from the average Bible translation, I encourage you to check it out at The Pioneers’ New Testament blog.

The other day, a Facebook friend of mine posted a big caption on his profile:  “JESUS Is With the 99%.”  Predictably, he got a bunch of “likes” from his liberal buddies, and just as predictably, he got some major pushback from his conservative friends.  The Christian camp has divided along the usual lines, with one side loudly shouting that Jesus would join the rowdy crowd occupying the parks of our major cities, and the other side decrying the suggestion that Jesus might be even a tiny bit “socialist.”  Sadly, if not entirely surprising, the proclamations on either end of the spectrum seem to reflect the political biases of the speaker with little, if any consideration for what Jesus actually said.

Whether or not Jesus would be with the whistle-blowing, bucket-thumping folks camped out in the parks is an interesting thought exercise, and one I’ll address in a bit.  Quite apart from this question, any reasonable reading of the gospels and the prophets should make it patently obvious that Jesus would absolutely NOT be defending the Wall Street bankers and financial elite against whom the protesters are shouting.

In this regard, the biases of conservative American Christians have gone unchallenged for far too long.  For the most part, I try to stay away from obviously partisan issues on this blog, but sooner or later we have got to face the fact that the Bible message is blunt and troubling:  when their interests collide, God sides with the poor and marginalized against the rich and comfortable.  When American Christians attempt to wrap a mantle of divine blessing around those in the upper strata of capitalism, they do violence to the clear message of scripture.  Let’s take a look at some examples:

Usury Even before they entered the promised land, God explicitly forbade his people from charging interest when they loaned money to each other.  Exodus 22:25 is the first such command, and in verses 26-27 it goes further to state that a cloak given in collateral for a loan must be returned at night so the debtor can stay warm.  One might be tempted to say this only applies to charging interest to a fellow-believer (Jew in those days) who is poor, but just before in verses 21-24, God forbids other sorts of oppression of the sojourner, the widow, and the orphan.  That context suggests to me that God might see anyone who is at economic disadvantage as “my people who are poor.”  Leviticus 25:35-37 and Deuteronomy 23:19 reinforce the prohibition against charging interest to “a brother,” although Deut. 23:20 explicitly permits charging interest of a foreigner.

Lest we think this is just an antiquated concept from the Mosaic law, take a look at Ezekiel 18:5-18.  Here, Ezekiel repeatedly refers to taking interest as an “abomination” worthy of death right up with robbery, adultery, and idolatry (see verses 8, 13, and 17).  These verses echo strongly the Levitical law both in forbidding usury and in criticizing those who fail to return collateral.  Nehemiah chapter 5 relates a similar account.

In stark contrast, the “financial services sector” embodied in Wall Street depends heavily upon the charging of interest…often exorbitant interest.  While mortgage rates are at historic lows (for those who can qualify, that is), credit card interest is another matter, ranging from 10-14% for normal usage, but jumping as high as 30% for delinquent accounts.  Factor in the myriad fees banks are now piling on top of their interest charges, and “usury” is not an unreasonable noun.  There was a time when we actually had anti-usury laws in the U.S.  More accurately, we still do in State law, but Federal law supersedes it for “National” banks.

What is more, the most usurious of rates and fees are most likely to fall on the poorest and least-educated of borrowers.  This is in part due to the fact that they are deemed the highest-risk and most likely to default, and the usual defense of usury on the part of lenders is that the rates are high to compensate lenders for the risk of losing their money to default.  I would counter that the recent rates of profit (and compensation packages) posted by the large banking institutions in this country suggest that whatever risk exposure they may have has been more than countered by the rates they charge, and of course mitigated even further by the taxpayer-funded bailout of the banking sector.

Likewise, the foreclosure of homes, cars, and other collateral clearly runs counter to the Biblical injunction to return a man’s cloak to him at night.  Again, one may respond that the lender is only carrying out the terms of a loan contract into which the borrower freely entered.  But is this true?  I actually read the terms of my home mortgage before I signed it…all 30 or 40 pages of fine print.  But how many, particularly among the less-educated, could understand those terms even if they did take the time to read them?  And how freely have they entered into a contract when they see the loan as the only thing between them and hunger or homelessness?

No, the Biblical injunction is that, at least where the poor are concerned, lending should be done not for the investment benefit of the lender, but for the moral and vital support of the borrower.  The world sees otherwise, to be sure.  God’s math is different, and no amount of free-enterprise posturing can defend Christians from the fact that we are complicit in an industry that blatantly disregards the law of God.

Interestingly, we could learn a thing or two from Islam in this regard.  When American Christians hear the word “Shariah,” they usually think of oppressed women, thieves getting their hands cut off, and all manner of capital offenses including converting from Islam.  It is indisputable that some countries do implement Shariah in this manner.  However, there’s another side to Shariah that, if Christian Americans knew about it, might scare them even more, and that’s laws guiding finance.  I encourage interested readers to check out this article on Shariah-compliant investment to learn more, and even Google “shariah investment” to see how it’s being implemented.  While some Christians might get lost in the legalism of the above article, the key elements are:

• Muslims must choose investments only in companies whose business activities do not violate the principles of Islam;
• Muslims may not invest in a company or fund that either charges interest or borrows money on interest;
• If a Muslim invests in a company (for capital growth or operating purposes), he may not do so on terms of a guaranteed return (i.e. interest), rather he must take what amounts to an equity position where he will share in the profit OR LOSS of that company.  In other words, a Muslim investor must have “skin in the game.”

I’m not sure how this would work in the case of a home mortgage.  I don’t have an Imam to whom I could ask this; perhaps someone reading can help me here, but if I understand these principles correctly, I’m guessing if a Muslim were to lend money to someone else (Muslim or not) to buy a house, he’d have to do so solely on the basis of shared equity…that is he’d share in the gain or loss in value of the property at resale.  Perhaps he could also charge rent to the homeowner in proportion to his ownership share in the house, and maybe work out a declining-balance calculation whereby ownership gradually transfers from the lender to the borrower.  However, I’m pretty sure the American model where the primary risk rests with the borrower who may lose his home and assets, and where only the lender is protected by tax-funded bailouts, is in violation of Muslim Shariah.  I think it’s in violation of Judaeo-Christian principles as well.

Infinite Accumulation A repeated refrain among Christians when they are faced with Biblical challenges to their wealth is to respond that God does not forbid or curse wealth itself, and this is true.  The patriarchs were rich.  The kings of Israel were rich and at least with David and Solomon, those riches are portrayed in the Bible as God’s blessing…however it’s important to remember that the prophet Samuel warned against the king and his cronies accruing wealth (see 1 Sam. 8:10-18).  Some of Jesus’ followers were rich, too.

But the law of Moses has some interesting provisions that would have prevented the permanent creation of a wealthy class such as we see throughout history.  I refer, of course, to the laws of sabbatical and Jubilee.    Take a look at Deuteronomy 15:1-11.  (I mean it.  Take a break from this article and go read the law.) God provided in his law that debts (except to foreigners) would be canceled every seven years.  He also provided that generous assistance to the poor was a non-negotiable requirement.

Now go read Leviticus 25–the whole chapter.  In addition to the Sabbatical year described above, in the fiftieth year, any non-urban real estate that had been acquired over the last 49 years reverted to its familial ownership (and property was to be valued pro-rata by the number of years till Jubilee).  Taking interest or profit from the poor is expressly forbidden (Lev. 25:36).  (as an aside, have you notice that conservative Christians who advocate lower taxes on the basis of the Mosaic tithe, seem to have collective amnesia about Jubilee?  Coincidence?  I doubt it…)

Fast forward to Jesus.  I have never encountered a Biblical scholar, conservative or liberal, who disputes that the “year of the LORD’s favor” Jesus announced in Luke 4:18-19, refers to the year of Jubilee.  They may try to spiritualize it, but they don’t deny the allusion.  Jesus himself said very little else about debt, though I can think of no reason “forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors” somehow excludes debts of the financial sort.  Of all the “you have heard it was said/but I say to you” statements Jesus made, however, I can think of none that justifies the infinite pursuit of acquisition –and indifference to the poor– that marks American society today.

WJOW? So…would Jesus occupy Wall Street?  Obviously I don’t know.  I suspect he would not be camping in the park and thumping drums with the protesters, but I rather think he’d show up there just the same.  He’d blast the corruption and greed of the bankers with every bit of the zeal he showed when he cleansed the temple (John 2:13-17)  or when he lambasted the Pharisees for their nitpicking on the edges of the law while neglecting justice (Luke 11:39-44).  I do think he might encourage the folks who are there to at least be nice to the poor schmucks who will have to clean up the mess, and encourage people to keep the place neat while they’re protesting (after all, he did have his disciples clean up after the crowd in John 6:12).

I do know this…he’d be more likely to be in the park than in the boardroom at Goldman Sachs.  If the Goldmans were ever to invite him in, he’d go, but if they listened to him, I think they’d wind up behaving rather like Zacchaeus in Luke 19:8.  If you ever see bankers giving half of what they own to the poor, and returning fourfold anything they’ve taken by unjust means, then you’ll know that Jesus has …finally… been to Wall Street.

I normally don’t embed videos on this blog, so for those of you who would rather read a sermon than listen to one (as I normally would), I apologize.  However this message by my friend Rod Cardoza is worth the half-hour it’ll take you to hear it:

Rod is the founder of The Abrahamic Alliance, a Silicon Valley-based ministry that seeks to build bridges between Christians, Muslims, and Jews.  When Rod speaks, as he does in this message, about Muslims who actually respect Christians who follow Jesus’ commands to love neighbors, he’s speaking from personal experience of having lived and worked among Muslims in several countries as well as here in the U.S.  I say this in response to the inevitable comments that Islam is necessarily a hateful religion that is bent on world domination through force…this is factually untrue of Muslims I have met, and many more Muslims Rod has met.

To be absolutely clear, I’m not a universalist who thinks everyone who’s faithful to their own religion is “just fine,” whatever that means.  I hope I’ve made it clear on this blog that I repudiate the usual Evangelical boundaries of “saved” and “unsaved,” but that does not mean I think it’s all good.  I firmly believe that we are called to introduce all people–including Muslims–to Jesus.  However, we first must learn both who Jesus is, and who Muslims are, and I’ll give you a hint:  what’s usually taught by American Christians is a pretty lousy representation of both.

There is a fascinating article in the Washington Post this morning on a new discovery that has the potential to shake up the world of physics.  It seems that an experiment at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, has everybody wondering if perhaps they’ve found evidence that a particle can travel faster than light.  This is important because if true, it means Einstein’s theory of General Relativity needs re-examination.

But this is a blog about faith.  Why am I highlighting this article?  For a quote that comes about a third of the way down:

”We’d be thrilled if it’s right because we love something that shakes the foundation of what we believe,” said famed Columbia University physicist Brian Greene.  “That’s what we live for.”

Wow!  What would happen to our search for God’s truth if we were so eager to understand God, that even if a foundational question were to present itself, instead of curling armadillo-like into our shells, we’d embrace the question and go back to our sources?  What would our churches look like if the one who asked such a question were to be welcomed rather than marginalized?