Nonviolence: 25 lessons from the history of a dangerous idea

Mark Kurlansky’s magnum opus Nonviolence: Twenty-Five Lessons from the History of a Dangerous Idea has been on my reading list for two years now, but Barnes and Noble has continually thwarted me. In other news, I applied for my first real library card the other day.  Put those two things together, and I finally got to cram my head full of information on the history of this outrageously successful idea.

The book encompasses a wide range of world histories and religious text, but the bulk of it is focused on EuroChristian and American history (highlighting the constant internal battle of violence vs. nonviolence).  It is said the victors tell (or revise) the story of history, and since the victors are generally the ones with lots of guns, the outrageous success of nonviolence whenever it is tried (almost without failure) is easily put aside.  If you are interested in the history of an idea that is generally labeled dangerous, unpatriotic, foolish, and unmanly, I highly recommend this book.

And if you’ve ever heard about how Christianity was 100% nonviolent and opposed to all things warfare in its early days, and you wonder how we got here from there, this book is an excellent case study.

The Twenty Five Lessons

*Kurlansky’s own words in italics

1.  There is no proactive word for nonviolence.  Not in any language or culture or religion.  The idea is untried enough that there has not been a need for a positive word that is not the mere negation of another that is often used (-violence).

2.  Nations that build military forces as deterrents will eventually use them.

3.  Practitioners of nonviolence are seen as enemies of the state.

4.  Once a state takes over a religion, the religion loses its nonviolent teachings.

5.  A rebel can be defanged and co-opted by making him a saint after he is dead.  Ghandi was a nice old idealist.  Jesus was interested in saving souls.  King was a good guy for a time back when America still had racism.  Martin of Tours, sainted because of this soldiers unwillingness to fight anymore, is made into a patron saint for the US Army.  If someone were to come along who would not compromise, a rebel who insisted on taking the only moral path, rejecting violence in all its forms, such a person would seem so menacing that he would be killed, and after his death he would be canonized or deified, because a saint is less dangerous than a rebel.

6.  Somewhere behind every war there are always a few founding lies.  Historically, the most typical lies have included that the war is “defensive” or for “freedom/liberty.”  The enemy is enshrowded with rumors and conspiracies; he thinks of nothing but evil and will not stop without a violent intervention.  The enemy leaders don’t think like civilized people do.  We had no fault in the matter, of course.  But whatever it is, there are always lies.

7.  A propaganda machine promoting hatred always has a war waiting in the wings. When you see allusions to the past with vague and grandiose descriptors like “evil” or “madman,” you will soon be committed to war.

8.  People who go to war start to resemble their enemy.  It’s no secret that one wrong turn tends to justify another in our minds.  No where is this truer than when your purpose in a war zone is to break and hurt.

9.  A conflict between a violent and a nonviolent force is a moral argument.  If the violent side can provoke the nonviolent side into violence, the violent side has won. There are lots of stories in history where a nonviolent movement became fed up and took a violent turn.  They all die out remarkably fast at that point.

10.  The problem lies not in the nature of man but in the nature of power. It’s been observed that all men with power want one thing more than all else: more power.  And once power is gained by a person or a state, anything will be prepared for, done, and justified to defend that status.

11.  The longer a war lasts, the less popular it becomes. People tire of violence and become disappointed with how different and fruitless it is compared with the promises the people buy before a war.

12.  The state imagines it is impotent without a military because it cannot conceive of power without force. We are capable of some beautifully brave and powerful things, but we are so trained to think of real power as force, a strong power over people to have our way.  The state is particularly prone to this impairment.

13.  It is often not the largest but the best organized and most articulate group that prevails. In America’s memory has generally forgotten that nonviolent religious sects far outnumbered those calling for independence from Britain without violence.  But the nonviolent sects were quite silent, hence they lost the fight for violence and were forgotten by history.

14.  All debate momentarily ends with an “enforced silence” once the first shots are fired.  A great violent tragedy or first skirmish effectively marginalizes any voice calling for peace without violence.

15.  A shooting war is not necessary to overthrow an established power but is used to consolidate the revolution itself.  If a revolution can be made to include a war, the post-revolutionary power will have no problem framing violence as necessary for peace in the minds of the general public.  It is no coincidence that countries birthed without violent  revolution tend to put much less emphasis on militaries.

16.  Violence does not resolve.  It always leads to more violence.  Wars create “peace,” which is merely a veneer for an armistice lasting a few years until unresolved tensions mutate into new alliances and wars in different (usually, not always) regions.

17.  Warfare produces peace activists.  A group of veterans is a likely place to find peace activists.

18.  People motivated by fear do not act well.

19.  While it is perfectly feasible to convince a people faced with brutal repression to rise up in suicidal attack on their oppressor, it is almost impossible to convince them to meet deadly violence with nonviolent resistance. This is a significant reason why a brilliantly successful strategy of nonviolence is so rarely tried.

20.  Wars do not have to be sold to the general public if they can be carried out by an all-volunteer professional military.

21.  Once you start the business of killing, you just get “deeper and deeper,” without limits.

22.  Violence always comes with a supposedly rational explanation- which is only dismissed as irrational if the violence fails.

23.  Violence is a virus that infects and takes over. Seeing the continual failure of violence to establish peace has not lead to less violence; it has lead to more.  In the past 6,000 year, there have been approximately 50 years untainted by war, and the trend is growing.

24.  The miracle is that despite all of society’s promotion of warfare, most soldiers find warfare to be a wrenching departure from their own moral values.

25.  The hard work of beginning a movement to end war has already been done.

On the immorality of total pacifism and the superiority of active and creative nonviolence, one unmanly, foolish activist once said:

“The kind of pacifism that does not actively combat the war preparations of the governments is powerless and will always stay powerless.  Would that the conscience and common sense of the people awaken!”

-Albert Einstein

It reminds me of prophets that dreaming of a day when a just people would beat their swords into plowshares as we realized that redemptive violence becomes an illusory myth in time, that a people who lives by the sword will die by the sword, and that it is far more disarming to love enemies than it is to mirror them!

the Fort Hood tragedy

On November 5, Major Malik Nadal Hasan opened fire at Fort Hood at 1:30pm and killed 13 servicemen, wounding 38 others.  It was a shocking tragedy.  After the initial moment of shock wore off, my first thought was that this would be called either “homicide” or “terrorism,” and the decision lay entirely in what we discovered the religion of the assailant to be.

Malik Nadal Hasan

Once again as a nation, we are thrown into this question of what we are to think of Islam.  Eboo Patel, a Muslim leader deeply engaged in interfaith dialogue, tells his story here as he learned of the attack midway through a conference for Muslim/Jewish dialogue.  Patel tells of the immediate fear the Muslim community faces in light of such an attack, as recent history teaches such an event incurs violent backlash against Muslims in America.  Patel tells of the Muslim organizations denouncing this jihad as in direct opposition to the teachings of the Qur’an, even as he knows these denouncements will go unnoticed.

Before the sun set, we learned his name was Hasan, knew he was Muslim, and saw the anger against Muslims pour in over facebook and media et al.  The event, the murder, was without excuse.  Hasan’s actions were despicable, let me be clear, and it would have been better if he had never been born.  But there is so much to learn about ourselves amidst such a tradgedy.

First, evil people are the Other in our eyes:

Hasan was a member of a military, very well educated, murdering with a legally purchased weapon, and a Muslim.  Which of those four facts are we quickest to jump to as explanation for the unexplainable?  The one most different from ourselves.

Second, we will close off our ability to see through the eyes of the other:

If Hasan had been a “Smith,” and had in fact been a Christian, would we have seen headlines about a “Christian terrorist” attacking our troops?  When George Tiller, an abortion provider in Kansas, was murdered by a Christian this summer, did we say “Surprise, surprise… the attacker was a Christian”?  Would we protest they misunderstood our religion if Mideast militants looked at our armies and said “Surprise, surprise… Christians crusading again”?  We are outraged that Hasan considered himself a radical Muslim first, and an American second.  Yet how many of us would show concern if a Christian or Jew said the same?  How many Christians want to be stereotyped in with the Westboro Baptist crowd (who protest soldiers funerals with “God hates America, fags, fill-in-the-blank”), and yet we nevertheless jump at the chance to compare our best to the Other’s worst?

Third, my enemies are always men like me:

As Islam has said throughout the ages, and I agree, to take one life is like taking all lives.  The taking of life is never a good action.  Taking life is a great way to solve problems quickly… at least in the short run of things.  In every war, skirmish, in every argument, there are two sides.  There are the good guys (the defense) and the bad guys, who see themselves as good guys too (the preemptive defense, if you will).  We are all on the side of righteousness in our own eyes.  No man thinks himself a murderer.  Every shot we take is “just.”  God is always on my side, guiding my leaders, supporting my cause.

Fourth, sin goes back to a moment in a garden long ago:

Under the right circumstances, I could be convinced that killing was the only option, that it was an excusable thing to do.  It is the way that we have evolved; we lie and cheat and kill because it seems good for our survival.  The fact that violence inevitably leads to more violence, not peace, is lost in the chaos.  In truth, I want to believe that “bad people” are very different from myself, that they have no excuse and cannot be reasoned with, that they are very different from me, and that God thinks they suck too.  We are all so alike.

—-

Let us learn and befriend the Other with respect and love.  Let us not give into the temptation to dehumanize, stereotype, give up on, hate, or justify any of the aforementioned against the other.  We must confront religious ignorance and bigotry, and not give into the type of fear of the Other that a Fort Hood, or even a 9/11, can create about the Other.  Instead, let us talk to the Other, read their stories, read their religious texts, try to understand them, and in so doing, see the reflection of ourselves and of the Divine.

blessed are the peacemakers

Jon Stewart interviews an Israeli and a Palestinian on their efforts to bring more peace to the region.  Anna Balzer and Mustafa Barghouti discuss their efforts modeled on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s doctrine of non-violent revolution.  They discuss occupation, homeland insecurity, and the political and religious resistance to dialogue.   And Joe Wilson interrupts…

Part 2 here

Thoughts on violence from the WWII priest who blessed the atomic bombs

This i shameless plagiarize from a like-minded brother.  Provocative thoughts on war and hell and violence and non-violence, from a Catholic priest on Tinian who blessed epic violence and now offers his thoughts.  I wish i had seen this in time to post on the recent Hiroshima anniversary, as this man has much more to contribute than i did.   Read before commenting…

—-

This is from Father George Zabelka who in 1945 blessed the dropping of bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Before you begin reading, read this: If you do not read every word of this note- Do. Not. Comment. No skimmers deciding what I need to know before hearing me out. Period.

“These are good words by the way. If the length of this troubles you, I feel sorry for you. Hopefully you’re not the kind that reads John 3:16 once a week instead of reading through entire sections of scripture. You should learn to read. Take the time to look over this and let a brother in Christ (Zabelka) convict you.”- Cody Sandidge

The destruction of civilians in war was always forbidden by the Church, and if a soldier came to me and asked if he could put a bullet through a child’s head, I would have told him, absolutely not. That would be mortally sinful. But in 1945 Tinian Island was the largest airfield in the world. Three planes a minute could take off from it around the clock. Many of these planes went to Japan with the express purpose of killing not one child or one civilian but of slaughtering hundreds and thousands and tens of thousands of children and civilians – and I said nothing. As a Catholic chaplain I watched as the Boxcar, piloted by a good Irish Catholic pilot, dropped the bomb on Urakami Cathedral in Nagasaki, the center of Catholicism in Japan.

I never preached a single sermon against killing civilians to the men who were doing it. I was brainwashed! It never entered my mind to protest publicly the consequences of these massive air raids. I was told it was necessary – told openly by the military and told implicitly by my Church’s leadership. (To the best of my knowledge no American cardinals or bishops were opposing these mass air raids. Silence in such matters is a stamp of approval.) I worked with Martin Luther King, Jr., during the Civil Rights struggle in Flint, Michigan. His example and his words of nonviolent action, choosing love instead of hate, truth instead of lies, and nonviolence instead of violence stirred me deeply. This brought me face to face with pacifism – active nonviolent resistance to evil. I recall his words after he was jailed in Montgomery, and this blew my mind. He said, “Blood may flow in the streets of Montgomery before we gain our freedom, but it must be our blood that flows, and not that of the white man. We must not harm a single hair on the head of our white brothers.” I struggled. I argued. But yes, there it was in the Sermon on the Mount, very clear: “Love your enemies. Return good for evil.” I went through a crisis of faith. Either accept what Christ said, as unpassable and silly as it may seem, or deny him completely.

For the last 1700 years the Church has not only been making war respectable: it has been inducing people to believe it is an honorable profession, an honorable Christian profession. This is not true. We have been brainwashed. This is a lie. War is now, always has been, and always will be bad, bad news. I was there. I saw real war. Those who have seen real war will bear me out. I assure you, it is not of Christ. It is not Christ’s way. There is no way to conduct real war in conformity with the teachings of Jesus. There is no way to train people for real war in conformity with the teachings of Jesus. The morality of the balance of terrorism is a morality that Christ never taught. The ethics of mass butchery cannot be found in the teachings of Jesus. In Just War ethics, Jesus Christ, who is supposed to be all in the Christian life, is irrelevant. He might as well never have existed. In Just War ethics, no appeal is made to him or his teaching, because no appeal can be made to him or his teaching, for neither he nor his teaching gives standards for Christians to follow in order to determine what level of slaughter is acceptable.

So the world is watching today. Ethical hairsplitting over the morality of various types of instruments and structures of mass slaughter is not what the world needs from the Church, although it is what the world has come to expect from the followers of Christ. What the world needs is a grouping of Christians that will stand up and pay up with Jesus Christ. What the world needs is Christians who, in language that the simplest soul could understand, will proclaim: the follower of Christ cannot participate in mass slaughter. He or she must love as Christ loved, live as Christ lived, and, if necessary, die as Christ died, loving ones enemies.

For the 300 years immediately following Jesus’ resurrection, the Church universally saw Christ and his teaching as nonviolent. Remember that the Church taught this ethic in the face of at least three serious attempts by the state to liquidate her. It was subject to horrendous and ongoing torture and death. If ever there was an occasion for justified retaliation and defensive slaughter, whether in form of a just war or a just revolution, this was it. The economic and political elite of the Roman state and their military had turned the citizens of the state against Christians and were embarked on a murderous public policy of exterminating the Christian community. Yet the Church, in the face of the heinous crimes committed against her members, insisted without reservation that when Christ disarmed Peter he disarmed all Christians.

Christians continued to believe that Christ was, to use the words of an ancient liturgy, their fortress, their refuge, and their strength, and that if Christ was all they needed for security and defense, then Christ was all they should have. Indeed, this was a new security ethic. Christians understood that if they would only follow Christ and his teaching, they couldn’t fail. When opportunities were given for Christians to appease the state by joining the fighting Roman army, these opportunities were rejected, because the early Church saw a complete and an obvious incompatibility between loving as Christ loved and killing. It was Christ, not Mars, who gave security and peace.

Today the world is on the brink of ruin because the Church refuses to be the Church, because we Christians have been deceiving ourselves and the non-Christian world about the truth of Christ. There is no way to follow Christ, to love as Christ loved, and simultaneously to kill other people. It is a lie to say that the spirit that moves the trigger of a flamethrower is the Holy Spirit. It is a lie to say that learning to kill is learning to be Christ-like. It is a lie to say that learning
to drive a bayonet into the heart of another is motivated from having put on the mind of Christ. Militarized Christianity is a lie. It is radically out of conformity with the teaching, life, and spirit of Jesus.

Now, brothers and sisters, on the anniversary of this terrible atrocity carried out by Christians, I must be the first to say that I made a terrible mistake. I was had by the father of lies. I participated in the big ecumenical lie of the Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox churches. I wore the uniform. I was part of the system. When I said Mass over there I put on those beautiful vestments over my uniform. (When Father Dave Becker left the Trident submarine base in 1982 and resigned as Catholic chaplain there, he said, “Every time I went to Mass in my uniform and put the vestments on over my uniform, I couldn’t help but think of the words of Christ applying to me: Beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing.”)

As an Air Force chaplain I painted a machine gun in the loving hands of the nonviolent Jesus, and then handed this perverse picture to the world as truth. I sang “Praise the Lord” and passed the ammunition. As Catholic chaplain for the 509th Composite Group, I was the final channel that communicated this fraudulent image of Christ to the crews of the Enola Gay and the Boxcar.

All I can say today is that I was wrong. Christ would not be the instrument to unleash such horror on his people. Therefore no follower of Christ can legitimately unleash the horror of war on God’s people. Excuses and self-justifying explanations are without merit. All I can say is: I was wrong! But, if this is all I can say, this I must do, feeble as it is. For to do otherwise would be to bypass the first and absolutely essential step in the process of repentance and reconciliation: admission of error, admission of guilt. There is no way to conduct real war in conformity with the teachings of Jesus. I was there, and I was wrong.

Yes, war is Hell, and Christ did not come to justify the creation of Hell on earth by his disciples. The justification of war may be compatible with some religions and philosophies, but it is not compatible with the nonviolent teaching of Jesus. I was wrong. And to those of whatever nationality or religion who have been hurt because I fell under the influence of the father of lies, I say with my whole heart and soul I am sorry. I beg forgiveness. I asked forgiveness from the Hibakushas (the Japanese survivors of the atomic bombings) in Japan last year, in a pilgrimage that I made with a group from Tokyo to Hiroshima. I fell on my face there at the peace shrine after offering flowers, and I prayed for forgiveness – for myself, for my country, for my Church. Both Nagasaki and Hiroshima. This year in Toronto, I again asked forgiveness from the Hibakushas present. I asked forgiveness, and they asked
forgiveness for Pearl Harbor and some of the horrible deeds of the Japanese military, and there were some, and I knew of them. We embraced. We cried. Tears flowed. That is the first step of reconciliation – admission of guilt and forgiveness. Pray to God that others will find this way to peace.

All religions have taught brotherhood. All people want peace. It is only the governments and war departments that promote war and slaughter. So today again I call upon people to make their voices heard. We can no longer just leave this to our leaders, both political and religious. They will move when we make them move. They represent us. Let us tell them that they must think and act for the safety and security of all the people in our world, not just for the safety and security of one country. All countries are interdependent. We all need one another. It is no longer possible for individual countries to think only of themselves. We can all live together as brothers and sisters or we are doomed to die together as fools in a world holocaust.

Each one of us becomes responsible for the crime of war by cooperating in its preparation and in its execution. This includes the military. This includes the making of weapons. And it includes paying for the weapons. There’s no question about that. We’ve got to realize we all become responsible. Silence, doing nothing, can be one of the greatest sins.

The bombing of Nagasaki means even more to me than the bombing of Hiroshima. By August 9, 1945, we knew what that bomb would do, but we still dropped it. We knew that agonies and sufferings would ensue, and we also knew – at least our leaders knew – that it was not necessary. The Japanese were already defeated. They were already suing for peace. But we insisted on unconditional surrender, and this is even against the Just War theory. Once the enemy is defeated, once the enemy is not able to hurt you, you must make peace.

Militarized Christianity is a lie. It is radically out of conformity with the teaching, life, and spirit of Jesus. As a Catholic chaplain I watched as the Boxcar, piloted by a good Irish Catholic pilot, dropped the bomb on Urakami Cathedral in Nagasaki, the center of Catholicism in Japan. I knew that St. Francis Xavier, centuries before, had brought the Catholic faith to Japan. I knew that schools, churches, and religious orders were annihilated. And yet I said nothing. Thank God that I’m able to stand here today and speak out against war, all war. The prophets of the Old Testament spoke out against all false gods of gold, silver, and metal. Today we are worshiping the gods of metal, the bomb. We are putting our trust in physical power, militarism, and nationalism. The bomb, not God, is our security and our strength. The prophets of the Old Testament said simply: Do not put your trust in chariots and weapons, but put your trust in God. Their message was simple, and so is mine.

We must all become prophets. I really mean that. We must all do something for peace. We must stop this insanity of worshiping the gods of metal. We must take a stand against evil and idolatry. This is our destiny at the most critical time of human history. But it’s also the greatest opportunity ever offered to any group of people in the history of our world – to save our world from complete annihilation.

the tad delay lexicon: the words i use that bring lots of confusion on the blog

My wife and I were discussing some of the misunderstandings people take with my blog. She pointed out that a lot of people may think they disagree with me on something, when really they just misunderstand the terminology I use. It’s true. I try to use terms as they are used in academia or good media, but that very often that is greatly different common parlance. So, in hopes of clearing up some confusion, here’s come explaination and where I stand. And although this is a hefty post already, if there is a word I use a lot that might need some clarification, let me know. Here is the Tad Delay lexicon for now:

Atonement

Atonement refers to how exactly the Christ made our peace with God, and is literally a running together of three English words (at-one-ment). It was created by early English translators when no appropriate word could be found for the mystery of what the Incarnation was all about. The most common understanding of atonement in Evangelicalism today is the Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) view, ubiquitous to the point that few Evangelicals have heard anything else. Other versions I may refer to are the Christus Victor, Moral Influence, or Ransom theories. There are many more theories on how Christ’s death saves us- 30-50 theories that I am aware of, though most can be grouped under one of four 4-6 main theories. It is my view that arguments on atonement are esoteric and internecine, and though they can have important implications, differing views of atonement are not worth breaking fellowship over (as is a growing trend in Evangelicalism today). It is important to keep in mind that Scripture does not give us a simple atonement theory to rule them all and one theory to bind them, so we should approach this heated topic with faith and intellect, but still lightly.

Atonement’s most popular theory: Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA)

PSA can be summed up as the view that in order for God to be forgiving and just, He required a perfect sacrifice to transmitigate our punishment though sacrificial death. In this view, rather than forgiving sin totally (PSA says this would be unjust or imperfect), our sin is rather transferred to Jesus, and his one sinless sacrifice creates an unbalance such that all people can be forgiven (with the caveat that they ask or “accept” this offering). Though based loosely on a metaphor of sacrifice writers used in Romans 3 and Hebrews, this view is not taught plainly in Scripture as the singular way that Christ is meant to save us. The PSA theory has its roots much more largely in the work of St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 12^th century and the reformers of the 16^th century. As it was built up by the reformers, it is no wonder that most Protestants have heard no other view, as their sect was birthed in this view (it seems only natural to mistakenly assume this has been the normal view of Christ since the earliest church). It my perspective that this is not an accurate or helpful view of God at all, and limits God to being unable to simple forgive because of justice laws that he must submit himself to (and why not worship the justice laws if even God has to submit himself to them?). I certainly view atonement as substitutionary in some sense, but much more in the metaphorical sense I feel scripture communicates it as and less in the technical vein of believing Christ literally took our sins (as if sins are items able to be taken) because God was unable to forgive without a sacrifice. Taking such a hard-line and clear-cut view of atonement is liberal and unorthodox in the worst sense of the words, and absolutely belittling of God.

Conservatives and Liberals

Here we go. Conservative and liberal in politics means something different from when used in religion, which again means something different from use as social groupings. I’m very interested in politics, but I’m much more interested in sociology. Hence, when I speak of conservatives and liberals I am thinking of them as social groups first and foremost, and political or theological theories secondly. As we all know (and yes, I know this is far oversimplified) conservatives hold a time in the past as ideal, while liberals assume that ideals are not yet reached but should be driven towards. I think of it as the difference between Plato (past ideals) and Aristotle (futurist ideals), a classic philosophical smack-down between two brilliant thinkers who really had much more to agree upon than we like to think (much like our political debates today).

Conservatives and Liberals in Politics

Politically, I don’t care much for either label, and here’s why: given similar sets of information, the two sides will nearly always agree so far as I can tell. Liberals and conservatives can each look to each other’s founding idealists and say “I agree with that!” Modern ideologues can find immense common ground and shared perspective, which lends to the idea that we find our differences more in Republican or Democratic parties (which are very different in legislative direction) than in the ideals of founders of systems). This is not to say that the ideological systems have no real differences (they certainly do), but since my interest in politics is far more concerned with social movements than legislation, I just don’t care much for choosing a side to base political theory around. While I’m not a Democrat, I’ve come to view the Republican party with great suspicion recently. The Republican party (*at the national level*) is growing in the South, and only in the South. It is taking it’s shape as a regional party, and it’s pundits are leading the charge into garnering votes with half-truths and whole-lies in severely xenophobic and slanderous fashion as they cater to a demographic which seems surprisingly happy to lend its belief and vote to unfounded emotive rhetoric sans any real rationale to back propaganda. In addition, many of the things the Republican party has come to stand for are severely anti-Christian; a rush to war, defense of torture, resisting legislation lowering abortions in favor of appealing to an unreachable goal of repealing Roe v. Wade, a favor for the rich, a fierce loyalty to laissez-faire, a manipulation of patriotism for the party’s own ends, and most disturbing of all a claiming of God as its cheerleader. These things appall me in ways that, quite honestly, the Democrat party has not come close to. I’m a reserved, but still very hopeful fan of our current President, and I view him as very centrist in the conservative-liberal spectrum (although that is quite different from the Republican-Democrat spectrum, as there is less emphasis on political conservatism in the current Republican party). I am very happy he is a Christian and not a christianist, and represents very Biblical values on a range of issues unlike so many politicians we have seen as of late. Much confusion over the liberal and conservative terms comes from the fluidic way we use the terms. For example, though President Bush was far from ideologically conservative, we still call him that. Or consider how a judge who sticks very close to the law may seem liberal to some just because the judgments see far from what a Christianist may have desired. It is true that I find very little ideological common ground with national-level Republican ideals as the party stands now, although I will find a massive amount of common ground with a political conservative (or a political liberal for that matter).

Conservatives and Liberals in Theology

Theologically, conservatives and liberals are much more different. Conservative theologians tend to want to talk a lot of Bible; liberal theologians want to talk a lot of “how did we get the Bible?” Conservative Christians view liberal Christians as not caring for Scripture and the Gospel, while liberal Christians view conservatives as not caring about scholarship or action. There is truth in each claim. It is true that the average conservative pastor will know his Bible very well. It is also true that the average liberal pastor will be much more aware of the history and scholarship and problems behind those pages which the conservative tends to ignore. The modern conservative Christian movement arose (contrary to the myth that they conserve ideals of the early church) largely tied to the rise of fundamentalism in reaction to Darwinism, new political philosophies, and late 19^th and early 20^th century scholarship that was demolishing many conservatives faith. It is my opinion that what theological conservatives are very often conserving an ideal from 20^th century American Christianity (or 16^th century Protestant theology), which in the grand scheme of Christian theology is very often quite liberal in the sense of being new and unfounded in earlier Christian theology. Hence, people who view themselves as theologically conservative often take, unbeknownst to themselves, very progressive (or regressive, but nonetheless new in the grand scheme) positions. I think of myself as theologically post-liberal/conservative, that is, while I think there has been and will continue to be much to learn from both sides (I have been enriched by thinkers from both), we need to move beyond our reductionistic and modernist tendencies to pick sides and only learn from people who already believe like us.

Evangelical

Evangelical refers to a cultural group. It is not the same as little “e” evangelicals, who wish to spread their picture of reality to others. All Evangelicals are evangelical, but not all evangelicals are Evangelical. I’m an evangelical, but I’m not much of an Evangelical anymore. Big “E” Evangelicalism refers to people who are often fundamentalists, and as such tend to be fairly exclusive in doctrine. In a statistically significant bloc, Evangelicals tend to vote for Republicans, have similar views on social, economic, religious issues, listen to similar bands and political pundits, use similar verbiage, etc. Evangelicalism is a subset of Protestantism, which in turn is one sect of Christianity. Evangelicals as a whole tend to be unaware of church history and the emergence of doctrines, but highly (probably more than any other subset of Christianity) educated in the Bible.

Emergent Village, or big “E” Emergent.

Emergent Village, is a 501c3 non-profit group that networks emergent (little “e”) Christians, promotes conferences, and publishes books and audio for the furthering of the kingdom of God. Material produced by EV tends to be highly philosophically, culturally, Scripturally, and historically educated, which produces a feeling of suspect with Christians less so schooled. Emergent Village is a group that pushes a particular voice, and has helped many Christians along in their faith (myself included). That said, they do not speak for the broader emerging church, they do not speak for emergent Christians, and they do not speak for me. I have had the privilege of meeting and speaking with several of the founding members of EV, and I can tell you that they are Godly men with heart to see the kingdom of God come to earth. But unless you think the Acts 29 Network speaks authoritatively for all Calvinists or that the Family Research Counsel speaks for all Evangelicals, please understand that EV speaks for themselves, and does not try to do otherwise. Again, they do not speak for me.

emergent (little “e”), emerging, and Emergence

Confusing and hopeless, I know- I think so too. Actually, I think the whole debate over “are we emergent, Emergent, emerging, etc.?” is as internecine and ridiculous as it comes within the emerging Church today. Are we so self-absorbed within our emerging ghetto that we have to create new denominations over subtle nuances? But nevertheless, people do use the terms to mean different things, so let me try to explain. Little “e” emergent comes from an adjective borrowed from ecology, where new plants on the forest floor often emerge under straining conditions (such as the burning of a forest which becomes vital for new life). It is said that if you want to measure a forest’s vitality, you look not at the centuries old trees, but at the small saplings unnoticed underneath. The emergent conversation is approximately 30 years old, and though starting in Europe, has spread globally. Those insisting on the term “emerging” are generally Evangelicals none too interested in revisiting any doctrine but desiring to change the way they do church. Those preferring “emergent” tend to want to revisit doctrine and practice, and while emergents are often characterized as caring little for truth or orthodox doctrine, this view usually comes from (if not simple hearsay) a misunderstanding of church history and the history of beliefs. For example, since very few emergents are Calvinists, if you assume John Calvin was simply reclaiming the beliefs of the early church, you will see emergents as revisionists playing fast and loose with their theology. The “Great Emergence” is a term I borrow from Phyllis Tickle, and refers to a natural socio/theological shift that has been occurring on a 400 to 500 year interval in the Judeo-Christian tradition for at least 3000 years now. Though Emergent Village has taken a liking to Phyllis Tickle’s work, nobody is claiming that Emergent Village (the 501c3) is the next Protestant Reformation. The misunderstanding comes from the greatly frustrating fact that some variant of “emerge” is being used to describe, albeit related, a multitude of distinct groups, conversations, people, and movements.

Fundamentalism

Christian Fundamentalism is a specific historical term that arose out of ideological battles with liberal Christian scholars in the late 19^th and early 20^th century. **It is a specific word with a specific, lexical definition, and though I don’t hide my disdaine for fundamentalism, my using of the term does not mean “unthinking, more conserative than me, etc.” It has a particular meaning.** Through a series of councils, fundamentalists (called so because of the emphasis put on this list) declared that for one to be a true Christian, one had to hold to these fundamentals of the faith:

1. The Inerrancy of the Bible

2. The Virgin Birth and the Deity of Christ

3. Penal Substitutionary Atonement of our sins via Christ

4. Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ after his crucifixion

5. The Second coming of Christ (generally including a rapture, tribulation, millennial reign, and then disembarking earth to go to a Heaven)

When I use the term fundamentalist I reference a social group still very much alive today, particularly within Evangelicalism. A Muslim or Jewish fundamentalist would have a differing list of core beliefs, but very similar undergirding ideology and perspective on the world. The term itself is in no way derogatory in itself, although it is true that I view fundamentalism as stemming largely from a unhealthy psychological worldview as well as a lack of education of one’s faith (due to perspectives considered essential which, in history, took time to develop, were not present in the early church, and have never been present in Scripture). I find Christian, Jewish, and Muslim fundamentalism to be a very dangerous thing, with a universal psyche element that seeks to purify a system by forcibly (and violently) removing those who will not become clones of the fundamentalist. Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism are not subsets of each other, but are highly related. Since in practice fundamentalism is one part belief and one part worldview, I would not fit the definition of Christian fundamentalist even if I held all 5 tenants to be true. On top of this, I cannot with integrity say I belief in several of those fundamentals, and have questions about one or two others. Therefore, a fundamentalist Christian will not view me as a Christian at all, and likely a false teacher.

Inerrant

When used in reference to Scripture, inerrant means literally without error. Though thousands of errors are known to exist in modern Bibles, an inerrantist presumes the earliest manuscripts were without error. Even if this could be known, there is still the problem that many of the books were not written down by the prophets who authored the content, as much of the Old Testament was not finally written down until it had passed through hundreds of years of oral tradition (in other words, those original manuscripts did not always exist at all). I have not been able to learn what an inerrantist believes in this case or if this fact is even acknowledged. Inerrancy seems universally tied to a Verbal Plenary view of inspiration, neither of which are claimed by a single book of the Bible, but each of which nonetheless have fierce adherents who see it as disrespectful to the Bible if you find an error in it. Believers in inerrancy often claim even such things as the six days of creation were literally a six day creation period, although other inerrantists will allow for a high level of allegory. The idea of Biblical inerrancy is something I find to be neither intellectually honest nor Biblical.

Infallible

This is a view of Scripture that used as a softer version of inspiration without total inerrancy. It is a view I generally sit pretty well with. Infallibility assumes that, while the Bible contains errors, it is nevertheless inspired by God and will not teach falsely. I still think it can be weak in its explanation. For one, Jesus clearly sets up examples where he points to Jewish beliefs that come, not from the Pharisees, but from the Scriptures themselves (“You have heard it said…”) and then offers a new and contradictory teaching instead of a reinterpretation (“But I tell you that…). In another example, regardless of the charge of misinterpretation, it is still true that reading the Bible leads to all sorts of differing beliefs, most of which will be false. I also have questions about portions of Scripture that seem simultaneously out of line with God’s character as generally presented, and also a propping up of a nation interest typical of ancient tribal mythologies (i.e. God telling Israelites to slaughter enemies). It is my opinion that an infallible view of Scripture, rather than total inerrancy, is required of a mature believer educated in the disturbing realities of a very good Book.

Kingdom of God

The Kingdom of God is anywhere God’s reign is spreading in a life or in the world at large. The prophets and poets have always pointed toward a day when this will be the case for all creation. Many assume that when you see the term Kingdom of God in Scripture, it means “Heaven, after I die” or “the church;” this is a profound and massively detrimental view of the Kingdom, and a misunderstanding of the core of Christ’s message. If you miss this point, you cannot understand the driving message of Christ.

Non-violence

Non-violence is an active alternative to non-resistant pacifism and sinful violence. I believe the way exulted by Jesus was always resisting the sinful and violent (meaning forceful, regardless of bloodshed) ways of the world. Anything bathed in violence is not of God, as taught by the Christ. Anything bathed in uncaring pacifism is also not of God. We are to be agents unsettled by injustice, and we are called to care deeply about fixing the world; but not through participating in the very systems of destructive sin that the world seeks to rectify itself with. So in the tradition of great thinkers like Martin Luther King Jr., Mohandas Ghandi, and the man they founded their thoughts on, Jesus Christ, we are not to lend ourselves to violence. Violence can mean bloodshed, but I use it more in the way of the philosophers, meaning any time were an outcome is forced or a detractor is harmed. Even shutting out a different viewpoint forcefully is a form of violence, and violence is a short path to heresy. I believe a follower of Christ must never put himself in a situation where he may be commanded by men to do violence, and should resist, if at all possible, using violence to solve a problem. There will always be great numbers of people in the world willing to solve problems with violence, but followers of Christ are specifically called to not be among that number.

Phenomenology

Phenomenology is a philosophical school interested in the way in which we construct our suppositions about reality, or about how multifaceted ideas or entities emerge with the confluence of independent yet interrelated memes. Though largely out of philosophical vogue today, it is still useful here, and I often use it interchangeably with little “e” emergence, as any idea emerges from a variety of sources to supplant a previous paradigm. For a religious example, we often assume that we believe something simply because “The Bible says it; I believe it; that settles it.” In reality, this is never the case, as the phenomena of a doctrine has arisen over much time, with many influences working independently yet interrelatedly, and has arrived in your psyche via particular vehicles. If any singular change were made to your history, the phenomenological construct by which you interpret a text (or the text itself, or the popular interpretation of that text) would be completely altered. Theologies always have an interesting phenomenological backdrop; though we beg to differ, theologies and beliefs are never simply handed to us by the gods.

Pro-life (or consistently pro-life)

This is one term out of the bunch which I use quite differently than the common media. I believe it is tradgic that so many pro-life (or anti-abortion) Christians are not pro-life across the board. I believe abortion is a serious tragedy. I also believe killing of any kind is sin: whether called capital punishment, terrorism, war on terrorism, or even hard-capitalism when it forces people into situations where killing is the easiest option (a la the 85% of abortions which are economically related). I feel that Christians should be pro-life, that is, regardless of how they view Roe v. Wade, we should be appalled, as Jesus said, with continuing the eye-for-eye, life-for-life practice of capital punishment. We should be appalled at when a political party resists legislation that would lower abortion rates (like easier health care or funding) just because we have a fiercer loyalty to capitalism (or a desire to garner voting blocs) than innocent lives. We should do as the early church universally did, and not participate in violence and a rush to war. We should not call abortion providers murders until we adopt every unwanted child, and if we have room left in our hearts to call people murderers afterwards, we should examine our hearts. We should be pro-life, but we should transcend the political niche and take a truly consistent ethic of being pro-life.

Religious Right/ Christianists

When I say Religious Right, I strictly mean socially conservative Christians who have aligned themselves with the Republican Party (though very often registered independent) and attempt to reform government towards a more (as they see it) Christ-like entity, in the same form as the early Puritans. With manipulative rhetoric, the various organizations of the Religious Right have convinced a large (though blessedly shrinking) percentage of the population that real-commander-in-chief (R) Jesus Christ would always vote Republican on [fill in whichever issue the party would you’re your support on today]. Christianist is a term I adopted from Andrew Sullivan to describe the kind of extremist Christians we are coming to see more of with the clash of religions and resurgence of marginalized fundamentalism. It is my view that christianists and much of the Religious Right’s work really is hurting the name of Christ and standing in the way of the Kingdom of God. Not only are the goals and political ideologies very often anti-Christ, so too are the means employed with a barrage of misinformation, slander, xenophobia, and the general promotion of mass-anger over concocted fears. I know most of them are well meaning, but don’t be surprised at my poking fun at the ridiculous religious right.

Religion and Christianity

Though we find it trendy and pithy to say otherwise, Christianity simply is a religion, as opposed to terms often offered in faux diametric opposition, such as “faith” or “relationship.” Christianity can be those things, but it is a religion too. So, when I say Christian, I use a broad latitude and refer to anyone claiming to be of the Christian faith. I find it fruitlessly internecine to argue about who is or is not a “real” Christian based on certain beliefs which differ from sect to sect. The Bible itself does not define the word Christian in such exacting terms, and so I try not to either (which in no way means I don’t think beliefs matter).

Third Way

A third way is a way between extremes. The world is full of dualities, and concordantly full of people, teams, political parties, etc., who will ask for you to see their conflict as an either/or. Do you want to be a liberal… or a conservative? Do you want to be a Christian… or a pagan? Do you want fight for the good guys… or let the bad guys win? These dualities are offered all the time. Some have somewhat correctly pointed out that I like to take a third way anytime there is a duality. While this is not strictly the case (I often take sides), and while this misunderstands what a third option is all about (not a mere moderation in the middle of two sides), it is true that I don’t like the “lesser of two evils.” I don’t think it’s very much like Jesus to take the lesser of two evils. When you are presented a duality of two poor options to take, do, or believe, I say find a third way altogether.

Verbal Plenary Inspiration

This is a technical doctrine that assumes Scripture was dictated word-for-word by God. It is one of many views on the inspiration of Scripture, although you wouldn’t know that from its popularity. “Verbal” refers to God speaking it; “Plenary” means the whole of the Bible; “Inspiration” means coming from God. It is the view that might say “Paul wrote Galatians, but it was if God was guiding the pen or giving him the words.” Though VPI has a few quite fierce proponents among educated Christians and some Orthodox Jews, it is generally considered an elementary view of Scripture that most people arrive at by default until further study is made. It is made further complicated by lack of original text sources, and the large degree of variation we see in the manuscripts we have. Though I view the Bible as an inspired work, I cannot with any personal integrity believe that it was written word for word from God. Most importantly (and a fact seldom acknowledged by VPI believers), the Bible never makes this type of claim for itself in the first place in any verse of any book.

—

is there anything else i needed to clear up?