Dan Oudshorn has just put up his promised post on Jesus’ and the legitimacy of destroying private property (for liberating ends), and so I will continue with the response I began earlier. (Due to the awkwardness of blogging, I will refer to Dan in the third person in the main body of the post, though hopefully no one will infer pretentiousness of me because of that.)
Dan did not interact with my response to his argument from the temple action given in my previous post, so I won’t add anything with regards to that argument at this point. However, he also adds two further arguments from the Gospel narratives:
1) Jesus’ apparent tacit approval of the destruction of a homeowner’s roof in the story where he healed the paralytic let down through that roof (cf. Luke 5:17-26 and par.), and
2) Jesus’ actions in the story of the exorcism of “Legion”, where he permits the demons to possess a large herd of swine who subsequently run off a cliff, falling to their deaths, at the economic expense of their owners.
As with Dan’s first argument, I don’t think these will work for the purposes he is using them. The first of the new arguments depends on (a) assuming Jesus’ silence about the roof’s destruction means he approved of it, rather than him just focusing on a more important matter, and (b) that what the men did could actually be classified as destruction at all. In Luke’s telling of the story, he mentions that the roof they let the man through had “tiles”, which suggests to me that all that would be required for them to achieve their ends would be the moving of a tile (or tiles). This would make their action no more destructive than opening a closed window, it seems to me.
The second new argument is more interesting, and perhaps useful, but I think also ultimately unsuccessful. Of all the places in the Gospels, the immediate context of this story more emphatically emphasizes the unique divine authority of Jesus (the immediately preceding story is that of Jesus’ calming the waves, with clear allusions to OT motifs of God’s mastery over the chaotic abyss). It would seem difficult, in that context, not to interpret Jesus’ obvious and complete authority over the demons (which they themselves explicitly confess) in the same light: Jesus is being acclaimed in this story as uniquely authoritative. Thus, as D.A. Carson points out in his commentary on the parallel passage in Matthew: “[T]he context offers some hints. He who is master of nature (vv. 23-27) is also its ultimate owner (vv. 28-34; cf. Ps 50:10).” [Carson, EBC on Matthew, s.v. 8:34-34) This understanding of Jesus’ action would thus be parallel to my argument in response to Dan’s reading of the temple action: in this narrative Jesus’ unique authority over the world is highlighted, and thus his unique right to do these actions.
This means that, given the arguments provided so far, we (as disciples of Jesus) still don’t have an adequate reason to override the general command given in scripture prohibiting theft, and enjoining respect for the property rights of others. Dan mentions future posts on this theme in relation to the corpus of Paul and John, and I will hopefully be able to address those when they come.
But isn’t appealing to the Lukan variant in the synoptic account cherry-picking in the other direction, Andrew? How do you account for the synoptic variant in Mark that says the men dug through the roof, which is a text that can support the more property-destructive perspective? Would this be a case where the perspicuity of scripture allows for this matter to be skimmed?
Maybe you’re just holding this argument in reserve for later but why haven’t you mentioned the golden rule yet? I would think that on the basis of the golden rule alone destroying someone else’s property to make an ideological point or theological point would cover this.
I can see someone looking at your arguments about the uniqueness of Jesus’ authority and power and pointing out that it can and has historically turned into a might-makes-right argument for whomever was implementing God’s will. Particularly, how about the history of Reformers destroying icons and things like that? Should we look back on what they did and say that they were exercising a kind of kingly authority to destroy idols that wasn’t warranted? It appears that we’ve got a problem of Christians invoking dealing with idolatry as a foundation for property destruction over the years already. Just wondering about why Jesus’ actual teaching doesn’t seem to have shown up just yet, though I’m admittedly distracted by a few real world concerns lately.
I’ll just make one brief comment in reply for the moment: the ESV doesn’t have “dug”, but “removed”. So, obviously there’s a translational issue here.
Well Eugene Lemcio (who I studied with briefly at my SPU days) said that dug was the meaning in Mark and said that it’s a not insignificant difference between Mark and Luke’s account about how the roof was dealt with. Now I’m rusty on the details since I studied with Lemcio fifteen years ago but my secondary point is that people who want to go with Christian justification of property damage may anchor a lot on the ????????????? in Mark. I’m just wondering if hinging that much on the word is moot if we take Jesus’ explicit teaching to his disciples seriously rather than attempt to rebutt the case studies of Jesus’ own behavior.
Well, I don’t have the requisite Greek to be able to adjudicate this, but a couple more comments:
1) If you are correct that the meaning is “dig through”, then most commentaries suggest that the idea is there was a clay overlay on top of tiles of some kind in Palestinian houses. Thus, really, I still don’t think anything was being meaningfully destroyed. If someone dug up some of the soil in your garden and put it in a pile one foot away from where they dug it, is it meaningfully destroyed? Clay could easily be recompacted and sealed.
2) The story is very silent for the purposes towards which Dan is putting it. We don’t know that the men in question didn’t repair the roof after apologizing, that Jesus didn’t suggest such a thing, or anything like that. All we know is that the Gospel writers didn’t think, if such a conversation happened, that it was important to mention it at this point. Of course, one would have to have some reason to believe that it did happen beyond the silence as well, but I think the general prohibition against stealing and support for property rights clearly taught in the OT is sufficient reason, since Jesus was clearly a pious law-abiding Jew. And if Dan is right about the general conclusions he makes when it comes to the death dealing, I don`t think he`d want to argue that it`s okay for people to destroy other`s property just whenever they think it might be convenient, and it is clearly not evident that the person who owned the house in this story was using said house to deal out death. In fact, the evidence we have is quite to the contrary: whoever he was, he was hospitable to Jesus and many crowds of people who wanted to see him.
3) Even with these matters aside, we still have the argument I gave for the other two arguments: by any reasonably orthodox account, Jesus has unique property rights, being God and the Son of the Most High. For that reason alone I think we need something other than an action of Jesus to justify ethical conclusions for what we can do with other people`s things.
As for your point about Jesus` teaching: the reason I didn`t bring it up is because I think Dan has an obvious response, which means the argument isn`t that useful. It just presupposes Dan is wrong, essentially. The burden of Dan’s argument has been to establish there are exceptions to the general respect we should have for other’s property.
I just want to say that if I found some guys digging up my tomato garden and piling the dirt on the lawn, I would no accept “you can just put it back” as an explanation of why nothing is being destroyed. A large part of the importance of property is psychological – if something is *yours* you generally don’t like other people modifying it without consent – no matter whether it can just be put back or not.
Now what about the situation with nation states waging war? Clearly property destruction is occurring there. I know that the stock just war theory response is that governments are invested with that power by God (cf: Romans 13). What about wars of revolution? The ruler of the 13 colonies was undisputedly King George III. Clearly if just war supporters are going to suggest that the founding of the United States was not an inherently sinful act there must be some cases where property destruction of a serious nature is allowable by people not acting on behalf of recognized governments.
Well, there’s a difference with a plant being uprooted. That would likely kill it. On the other hand, this man had clearly permitted massive crowds to come to his house, and this would come with the likelihood that “accidents” would happen.
On the case of revolution, I actually don’t think it can be supported by just war criteria.
I’m afraid I’m not convinced you take the significance of ????????????? seriously enough. The other place the word get used is in Galatians 4:15 where Paul writes that the Galatians would have gladly dug out their own eyes and given them to him. When I said I wasn’t sure so much of an argument on Dan’s side should be hung upon a single word that’s not to say that single word doesn’t present a case at all. When the use of ????????????? in biblical literature refers to tearing your own eyes out and tearing the roof off of a house I’d say the range of meaning is probably not down at the level of pulling up a few daisies. I’m not saying invoking Mark 2 wins Dan’s case for him but I do think we should grant that the case is not so weak that you can say that a few roof tiles were removed to let a guy through the ceiling.
I think the hospitality argument you come up with is the more compelling counterargument. We might go so far as to speculate that the paralytic, having been the catalyst for destroying a guy’s roof, after being healed may have gone with his friends to fix the guy’s house. That’s a small price to pay helping out a neighbor in exchange for being healed by Jesus and since we’re already getting pretty speculative about texts we might as well go there.
I didn’t say the word was equivalent to pulling up some daises. It seems from the commentaries that I read, that if we assume this was not a rich man’s house, it had a clay surface (underneath some brush) a few inches thick over the wood beams. My point was just that it was made out of clay (not concrete, which can’t be just read compacted and sealed), and fairly easily could be put back the way it was in the first place. On the other hand, they certainly would not have torn his whole roof off, as your rhetoric seems to suggest. They could have made a hole (and probably did) small enough to lower a man through (1.5′ x 1.5′, let’s say).
Also, now that I think of it, there might be a way to retain both sense of the word:
The houses we are suggesting the text is talking about made this clay roof out of “tiles” that were set and then put on the roof. If someone used an implement, or even their hands, along the edges of the tiles to break the seal between the tiles and lift a tile off, that would both be digging and removing tiles. FWIW.
This discussion does seem almost silly in its pedentry, but I don’t think that’s my fault here
Actually discussing the Greek is pedantic and silly? I thought we were Presbyterians here? Oh … wait … maybe Presbyterians ARE pedantic and silly.
Andrew,
Stated briefly, the fundamental problem with your argument is that every action of Jesus is open to being seen as a reflection of his unique status (he did this as King, that as Messiah, the other as Son of God…). Consequently, we are left picking and choosing the actions of Jesus we choose to imitate and the actions of Jesus we choose not to imitate (or, more realistically, we simply permit previously established ideologies to tell us what to pick and choose). Hence, your reading simply reflects a strongly reformed ideological overcoding of the biblical texts, rather than an engagement with what the texts actually do and do not say (your appeal to the authority of magistrates is probably the strongest and most anti-NT example of this). Your problem, in my opinion, is that you read too much like a theologian and not enough like an historical or literary critic.
However, I don’t think that any amount of online argument is going to convince you of this (which is why I write hastily). People who are accustomed to being smarter than other people, aren’t usually transformed via this type of dialogue. Instead, I reckon a movement into lived encounters or some greater expression of solidarity with the poor and marginalized (the crucified people of today) may be a useful line of exploration. Unless, of course, we want to see Jesus’ solidarity with the poor as a part of his unique messianic task to restore Israel (and, therefore, not something we should imitate since we aren’t messiahs)!
Grace and peace to you.
I wasn’t trying to judge you in any way here. I was more musing about how I felt about my own comments.
Dan,
I appreciate your reply. My response in terms of the substantive issue:
1) Surely any Christian theology worth its name has to make room for the unique role of Jesus, and probably his unique authority. Do you disagree? If you agree, then the issue you charge against me will have to be resolved by every Christian political theology, as far as I can see. However,
2) I don’t agree that my view leaves us to “pick and choose”. We know we ought to imitate Jesus when he gives us explicit direction to do so. So, for example, he charges us to not resist an evil person, and he himself did this in his own life. Or, as another example, we see Jesus’ answer to the question of “who is my neighbour?” (those who are in need and whom we encounter anywhere) along with his command to love our neighbours, and recognize we have to do what he said. Now, I can also accept that Jesus implicitly instructs us to do things, though this gets us into murkier territory that I think has to be hashed out in discussions like this.
3) Further, I don’t believe I’m being arbitrary here, for two reasons which I’ve already stated: 1) Jesus (ISTM) is clearly given unique authority in the gospels, and 2) prima facie, the bible is against stealing and destroying others’ property. Taking the second premise, we should assume the gospel writers agreed with this basic premise, and look for some sort of explanation as to why events in the gospels do not contradict such a law. Of course, it is possible that the gospels writers sought to revise the commandment against theft, but I think their Jewish context would at least put the burden of proof on the person arguing that they were (especially if it is supposedly being done in such a subtle way as you are suggesting). Taking the first premise here, I think we get a fairly easy solution. I’m not inventing (I don’t believe) the premise of Jesus’ unique authority to explain away your arguments; that premise is already provided for me, and my understanding of the Christian movement as a whole suggests I should look for something like it in the cases you gave.
I also am not clear on how my discussion of the magistrate is anti-NT and distinctively Reformed.
As for the usefulness of this discussion:
Perhaps you are right, and a move amongst the poor would change my views on this subject. All I can say from where I am now is, I know people besides you who have moved in amongst the poor who do not agree with your reading of scripture or your politics. This in turn leads me to wonder if, perhaps, it is not your experience with the poor per se that has led you to this conclusion, but the books and articles you keep company with. And if that is indeed the real source of your convictions, then I believe I can read scripture with respect for its original intent just as well as any post-structuralist-post-Marxist-liberation-theologian.
Thanks for your time, and your respect.
But I’m not a post-structuralist-post-Marxist-liberation-theologian. By training, I am a biblical scholar. However, I’ll let you in on the secret — the real source of my convictions is the desire to see all people share in abundant life, instead of permitting a few to hoard that at the cost of the many. Hence, I try to read the Bible in the service of the God of Life, instead of reading the bible in death-dealing ways. This, if I may be frank, you do not do as well as me and your distance from the the marginalized is probably part of the problem because you are unaware of the ways in which your reading is death-dealing (as your remarks about magistrates makes clear).
Anyway, that said, I agree that Jesus has a unique status within the Bible, but I don’t think that precludes us from imitating Jesus in any way whatsoever, especially since we now claim to possess/be possessed by the Spirit of Jesus. This is simply the process of discipleship (or theosis, if you don’t mind that term). Here, a singular focus on what Jesus explicitly said to do or not do, strikes me as a childish imitation of discipleship and even a form of legalism that prioritizes the word over its embodiment. So, yeah, murkier territory but that’s just fine with me. We should embrace the murkiness, not fear it.
As for the Jewish context, it seems to me that the Jewish Scriptures always prioritized a person’s right to live over another person’s right to possess private property (although I lack the space or time to make a case for that here). This tradition continues with Jesus and Paul and in much of the early Church. Really, I think that the sacred nature that private property appears to have in your thinking has much more to do with modernity wherein the establishment of one’s right to private property becomes the foundation of our republics and their constitutions (cf. Hardt and Negri’s great analysis of this in Commonwealth). This ongoing sacred status of private property is one of the deepest ideological currents in our time and so it is no surprise to see many Christians so affronted when it is challenged. Regardless, I believe that this is what our commitment to the God of Life, and the Lord Jesus Christ, requires of us.
Grace and peace.
A couple brief thoughts:
1) “Anyway, that said, I agree that Jesus has a unique status within the Bible, but I don’t think that precludes us from imitating Jesus in any way whatsoever,”
And yet, you also say that Jesus preached a coming divine violence, and the Apocalypse of John (and also the Gospels, I believe) clearly asserts that Jesus will participate in that violence. Somehow, then, you will have to explain why that is an exception to your rule. (Perhaps it will be through disputing my premise here…)
2) “As for the Jewish context, it seems to me that the Jewish Scriptures always prioritized a person’s right to live over another person’s right to possess private property (although I lack the space or time to make a case for that here). ”
Well, as with you, there are many places I could go, but I wonder how you would understand the following:
Pro 30:8 Remove far from me falsehood and lying; give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with the food that is needful for me,
Pro 30:9 lest I be full and deny you and say, “Who is the LORD?” or lest I be poor and steal and profane the name of my God.
Pro 6:30 People do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy his appetite when he is hungry,
Pro 6:31 but if he is caught, he will pay sevenfold; he will give all the goods of his house.
These seem to suggest that, while a thief who steals out of hunger is pitied by society, such an act is still sinful in God’s eyes and will usually be punished by society. Perhaps I’m misreading them. I’m very open to correction here.
I also want to note again how I was reasoning with regards to Jesus’ unique authority.
My point was never: Jesus has unique authority, so we may not imitate him. That’s obviously invalid logically and false biblically. My point was that your reading of the meaning of Jesus’ actions as legitimating the destruction of property seems to contradict the general command against theft in scripture (given in the OT and the NT, and reiterated by Jesus himself in some places), and that Jesus’ unique authority provides a way to naturally harmonize the actions with the general command against theft within a Jewish worldview.
But Andrew, by appealing to Jesus’ authority as an annointed king you’re making an appeal that is to an aspect of His authority that is NOT unique since you mentioned in earlier conversation that kings were tasked with destroying idols. Clearly property destruction is mandated if the property in question are idols. The objection to property destruction can’t be based on the wrongness of theft or destruction if kings are allowed to destroy the idols that frequently belonged to other people. Even reforming kings may not have destroyed high places because those high places were on local estates.
Doesn’t it seem as though the kind of property destruction Dan would advocate is the kind of property destruction that could be considered actions against principalities and powers (i.e. idols) in particular cultures? To reserve that capacity for destroying idols to the magistrate on the basis of the precedent of kingly authority seems to ultimately undercut an objection to property destruction as a form of theft since the destruction of idols is the sanction of destroying things God’s people should not have owned to begin with.
There are points both of you make that I think are useful insights so let’s keep the conversation going but I just can’t help but wonder if there’s a little special pleading in both directions. How do I know that both Dan and Andrew aren’t overcoding their reading of the texts?
Now as someone who has lived in poverty over the last thirteen months none of this is abstract to me. My concern about the property destruction angle is that, yeah, that thing that gets destroyed may be considered oppressive but that thing that gets destroyed could, hypothetically, be where my JOB might be. Daniel and his friends did not destroy stuff while working in key capacities in a pagan empire. The scriptures seem ultimately more ambivalent than we want them to be about the nature of earthly empires. Yes, they are both wicked extensions of principalities and powers that oppose God as described in Revelation and are therefore to be subjected to the violence of God that ends injustice … BUT they are divinely appointed civil magistrates whose purpose is to see to it that justice is established for a time and a place. Sorry that I still feel so comfortable saying this but the special pleading going on on either side has me less than convinced. But at least the conversation is, always always, very interesting.
Wenatchee:
A few things. Firstly, I think OT kings had appropriate authority to destroy others’ idols because (a) Israel was a theocracy instituted directly by which, which had laws given by him that explicitly told them to destroy idolatry (including idolaters). There was no violation of any law there, because God delegated his authority to destroy idols, and in those cases “override” the general law against theft. And (b) God instituted Israel’s kingship directly, giving an even more solid ground for their actions.
On the other hand (secondly), I never argued against the destruction of private property absolutely. In fact, as you point out, I clearly made an argument that Israelite kings had an exception to that rule. My argument all along has been against private vigilante action against others’ private property, which I think was condemned by the command “thou shalt not steal”.
Perhaps I over-stated my argument when I suggested Jesus’ actions were based on his unique (that is, not just messianic, but rather divine) authority. Perhaps that isn’t necessary (though it does seem harder for me to imagine how the roof argument would fit into the idol-destruction theme). That would be worth discussing further, I suppose, if anyone wanted to.
Also, I of course am just as opposed to death-dealing principalities and powers as any good follower of Jesus; I recognize that there are structures in this world (animated by superhuman powers, even) that are systemically oppressive to the vulnerable. I just do not agree with Dan’s view of the way Jesus’ disciples ought to react to this oppression. I even agree with his overall desire of wanting everyone to have the abundant life, and for greed to be eradicated in the world. But I don’t think bombing condominium developments or Royal Banks is the way to bring that world about. On the contrary, I think such actions are more likely to bring increased oppression and/or chaos.
Poser wrote:
Dan O:
You make indefensible assumptions about Andrew–that he is somehow distant from and unable to identify with the poor or marginalized. But I don’t see that you have any particular advantage exegetically because you work with street people or whatever it is that you do. Your view that you are a “biblical scholar” at this early stage in your career seems to me a bit self-congratulatory. For in your view, you are so much better at biblical exegesis than Andrew, despite the two of you being peers–only because of your experience and training (which Andrew has also in Spades). That is an absurd and self-contradictory position.
The Bible should not be used in the service of anarchist’s agenda in the way that you are trying. It is wrong, and I don’t care how many books that you have read or degrees that you have behind your name. Any simple Christian can see it. It is Satan who comes to kill, steal and destroy. That you use the pigs and the roof just shows how you are grasping at straws. It reminds me of the Bible lesson in the Fiddler on the Roof; the Marxist Starsky intereprets the Bible for Tavia’s daughters (see at 1:07 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVp-vIzw_J0&feature=related ).
[Edit: corrected typos]
I love you, too, P. W. Or, at least, I are try to (if you don’t mind me borrowing your manner of speaking).
Well, I am the wealthy person who is in your limited intelligence “hoarding” at the cost of many. I don’t see how it is that you wish to “love” me, except to smash my windows, or perhaps the windows of the companies in which I own stock. Every time the violence to property is done, you steal from people like me–if only because our insurance rates must go up to cover the damage. So you love me by stealing from me or by damaging my property? I don’t consider that loving.
I could ask Andrew or Keith to correct my manner of speaking. But your exegesis cannot be corrected so easily. Which do you suppose is the more ridiculous error? The Fiddler on the Roof makes comedy out of interpretations like yours. Even the milkman’s daughter can see how ridiculous it is.
Many winters ago, I was working overnight shifts at a homeless shelter for men in Toronto. One night around 3:30am, a big smelly (slightly drunk) fellow came in and, although the shelter was a “dry” space, we let him stay due to the cold weather. I grabbed a flashlight and led him up to one of the floors to help him find his bed in the dark (the floors were set up dorm-style, with around 50 beds per floor). After helping him get settled, I turned to go and, before I had time to stop him, this fellow grabbed me in a giant, stinky bear-hug and expressed his gratitude to us for taking him in. I laughed and quickly shrugged his arms off of me — I didn’t know who else was awake on the floor and some people were bound to ask questions if they saw me hugging a drunk dude in the dark! Noting my discomfort the fellow asked me:
“What’s the matter? Are you afraid of the love of God?”
I had a good laugh about that with my co-workers at the time, and it was only later that I realized this guy was actually really onto something with his comment. I think his drunken, smelly hug actually was an expression of the love of God which — amazing grace — can rise up from the poor and embrace even us privileged folks. It’s just that the fear I experienced at the time made it difficult for me to understand that.
So, P.W., let me encourage you to not be so afraid of loving and being loved. If it helps, N. T. Wright once asserted that “Do not be afraid!” or “Fear not!” is the command that is repeated more than any other in the Bible. Maybe it’s safer to focus on your self-described wealth, property, or insurance rates but, dang yo, there’s an exciting world of loving and being loved that’s waiting just outside your (unbroken) windows.
Grace and peace.
Dan,
As it seems you might be too busy to respond to my biblical questions, I’d like to make one comment about motivations:
You suggest that your views are motivated by a desire for all people to share in the abundant life, and yet a year or so ago you apparently did not have the views we have been discussing here about the destruction of property. Is it perhaps possible that the views you now have have not come because you are suddenly more in favour of everyone having the abundant life, but because you read Ward Churchill and Peter Gerderloos’ books? And, therefore, is it not at least possible that I disagree with you not because I am ignorant of the plight of the poor, nor because I desire that everyone have the abundant life less, but because I disagree with you tactically and exegetically about how we should help the poor?
Why would my answer to your second question matter to you??
(Also, something I forgot to mention earlier, but the obvious rejoinder to your citation of the command to not steal is that private property is, itself, quite often an act of theft — even if it is made legal by our laws [one should never mistake legality for morality]).
“Why would my answer to your second question matter to you??”
Well, because one of your original replies to me was this:
“Hence, I try to read the Bible in the service of the God of Life, instead of reading the bible in death-dealing ways. This, if I may be frank, you do not do as well as me and your distance from the the marginalized is probably part of the problem because you are unaware of the ways in which your reading is death-dealing (as your remarks about magistrates makes clear).”
I’m trying to point out that, perhaps, my distance from the marginalized is irrelevant here, as you were close to the marginalized a year ago and disagreed with your current philosophy (apparently). It was (again, apparently) reading two books by revolutionaries that changed your view, not getting closer to the poor. And so I guess I’m just suggesting: I can read books, scripture or otherwise, just as well as any university educated person, and that seems to be what makes the difference.
Thus my ultimate point here is to, I guess, undercut your original reason for suggesting this dialogue would not be worthwhile.
As for your other point: at this point, it seems to me that your argument overall contravenes Jesus’ command to render to Caesar (and, before you assume I’m naive here, I have read Wright’s anti-imperial reading of that text, and I still think it supports my point). In Jesus’ day Rome had done much to oppress vulnerable people, but Jesus did not suggest a tax revolt in response. (Paul’s comments in Rom 13 about taxation would also be applicable here.) As well, his command to give to those who want to (I assume, “wrongfully”) sue you would seem to be applicable here as well. (At least, from your pacifist point of view, which wants to read “love your enemies” as directly relevant to states, shouldn’t “give to those who take from you” also be relevant to would-be revolutionaries?).
Good points Andrew. If Jesus enjoins us to accept the wrongful seizure of our property by evil doers, than how can he be teaching us to vandalize the property of others? It would suggest rather that we learn to find our sufficiency in Christ rather than in violent protest. Jesus was not a zealot. If you want to find Poser’s philosophy, I suggest Bar Cochba, Judas the Galilean, Barabbas or Masada as being better examples of this anarchist agenda (see http://righteousinvestor.wordpress.com/2010/03/08/are-christian-anarchists-the-new-zealots/ )
Andrew,
Actually, my relationship with people who are marginalized is one that continues to deepen over the years and has changed me many times (as I hope it will continue to do many more times in the future). Further, that relationship is one that strongly impacts how I think about what I read. Here, I really think the methodology employed by the liberation theologians is pretty accurate. We read texts based upon our lived commitment to, and engagement with, the crucified. Now, you may say what you want about this methodology but, unless you test it yourself, you won’t really know if it is useful or not.
Additionally, I think you are putting undue stress upon the two guys you mention — really the person whose writings convinced me that anarchism was a faithful means of following Jesus was Peter Kropotkin (I’ve read several anarchists since then, but he remains my favourite to date). Again, the point is not that anarchism is the way. Rather, during my years of studying and trying to follow the Way of Jesus Christ, I had spent a lot of time looking at various political models and being universally frustrated with all of them (largely because the view from the margins provides a very different perspective on a lot of things). Only after I read Kropotkin did I find a political model that fit extraordinarily well with the Way of Jesus Christ.
As for Wright, well, despite his desire to be associated with counter-imperial readings (and despite his exegetical contributions), he’s actually quite conservative in where he goes with things — much more of a Niebuhrian than anything else.
P. W.,
I think you are painting yourself into a corner. If you use Jesus’ arguments about not resisting those who would seek to seize property to counter what I’m saying, your whole position is undercut as you, yourself, should not be resisting those who want to seize “your” property…
Dan O. You are the one who has departed from the path of wisdom. You advocate violence and then say that I am resisting those who do evil against me? Rather, it is the God-appointed authorities that protects me (Rom 13) and is going to put your a– in jail. Either that or you will end up dead, eventually more and more frustrated until you become another Michael Nothdurfter. Already you have become so unwise as to have put your hand on the firearm of a law enforcement officer during a protest. That sort of thing will get you killed.
I have in fact applied the non-resistance position to my own life; you have no idea what you are talking about. It is your position that is undercut. Jesus cannot advocate the violence that you are suggesting when he says rather to go the extra mile or to give your tunic also. Your agitation and zealotry is what contradicts both Jesus’ life and message.
“Near” not “on” (and only because I was pushed off balance from behind). No need to charge me with crimes I have not committed. Although, let’s be honest, that’s one of the difficulties of speaking with you — you continually engage in such blatantly false misreadings of the texts (whether my own writing or Jewett’s comments on insulae in Rome or whatever else) that it’s hard to not conclude that you are engaging in false misreadings deliberately (after all, you do have a fair amount of exegetical training… you should know better). Still, despite all the rhetoric, I want to love you, buddy.
It is a strange thing, this body of Christ, isn’t it? That, by the grace of God, it should include such contrary ding-dongs — myself and you and a multitude of others. Amazing grace, indeed.
(And, buddy, we’re all gonna end up dead one day. Yet, despite that, we will rise again… and I mean that with all the nuances implied by the Koine and the subversive apocalyptic context in which the Jewish belief in resurrection arose.)
xoxo
Near not on the gun. Ok. If you say so. It’s been several months since I read about that incident. So that would be a fault of memory not reading. But good grief, I try not to get that close to anyone’s sidearm. I would imagine that even you would not have gotten that close had you been following instructions.
I (me?) misread Jewett? Please explain?
Not meaning to bring up this particular discussion again, but I realized today that the story of the roof also highlights Jesus’ unique authority directly:
Mar 2:4-12:
And when they could not get near him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him, and when they had made an opening, they let down the bed on which the paralytic lay.
And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”
Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, “Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”
And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, “Why do you question these things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise, take up your bed and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”–he said to the paralytic–”I say to you, rise, pick up your bed, and go home.”
And he rose and immediately picked up his bed and went out before them all, so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, “We never saw anything like this!”