Whilst I’m all too aware that I say little on OST to endear myself to the majority of contributors, I do respect the various opinions expressed and would thus be interested to learn of any such views stimulated by this thread.
It’s been bugging me ever since the War on Terror began, and the incarceration of individuals at Guantanomo Bay etc. for what basically amounts to treason. My problem is, where does religious allegiance end and national loyalty begin? Even the Bible overrides nationalism with the admonition to ‘obey God rather than man’. Thus, however misguided we may feel Islamist fighters to be, are we correct in condemning them as traitors when the are following a spiritual conviction? Does true national allegiance even exist, since it is inevitably rescinded in the face of opposition to a a specific religious viewpoint? I’m not sure what the right answer is, so anyone have any ideas?
Haram
Spiritual commitment has to be taken in the round. A traitor would have to be a citizen letting down and undermining the country; treason is an attack on the continuation of the state and its authorities. Muslims should be good citizens in no-Muslim countries, and Surah al-Maidah (5) verse 32 of the Qur’an makes it clear that people cannot be killed. Jihad is defensive and usually personal, collective if it is under threat.
For any religion, commitment must be in the round and must go with a critical (examining) spirit. Those who kill others in the pursuit of religious goals have lost balance.
http://www.pluralist.co.uk
The radical political commitment of faith
Your comments always endear themselves to me, Ivan, not least those I disagree with (which was not the case with this post). As ever, a resolution to take a sabbatical from this site is broken by a comment which got the juices working.
From one angle, your comment needs some clarification, as you are comparing the respective merits of claims made by Christians (to obey God rather than man), Muslims of a certain persuasion (to become suicide bombers/martyrs), and members of nation states (to be loyal patriots), to what they would each regard as obligations which override all others. I would not want to bracket Christians and Muslims, by saying that each has an equally valid right to break national laws by appealing to religious conviction. I would want to look carefully in each case at the claims they were making to give priority/privilege to one set of obligations above the other. I would also want to scratch a little deeper and look at the kind of world-view they were offering on the basis of which courses of action were being sought or offered, to compare each with the other, and make some kind of evaluation of the merits of each: not according to personal, subjective criteria, but to principles which each would probably agree to be governed by: such as respect for human dignity, respect for life, justice, and compassion.
But what really stirred my response here were thoughts about the nature of the Christian ‘gospel’, and especially those highlighted by the narrative/historical approach, which have greater potential for engagement with claims on our allegiance from nation states than versions of the gospel with which we may have become more familiar.
In a nutshell, it’s like this. If the starting point of the gospel is that Jesus came purely with a solution to a dilemma which was at source internal and personal, namely the condition of sin, to which a personal and individual remedy is offered, namely forgiveness and inner freedom, (to abbreviate drastically), provided we exercise personal faith in him and his atoning work on the cross, then it doesn’t matter all that much what is happening in the public, political or national realm. We are just changed and redeemed people for whom the death of Christ is an internal matter - hugely significant as that is for us personally.
On the other hand, if the starting point of the gospel is, as narrative/historical versions have been emphasising, that Jesus has been made ‘Lord’ of the whole earth, and is summoning us to loyalty and obedience to himself, then an augmented set of consequences follow. Certainly we enter the good of his atoning work as already described, along with a whole ‘package’ of eschatological realities and benefits which become ours to prepare us for a life lived now and a future which is yet to come. (Gift of the Spirit, new identity, membership of his family, empowerment for living, empowerment for mission and so on).
But there is much else which is fundamental to our identity being formed around this latter version of the ‘gospel’ which is different from the former version. The latter is the summons of Isaiah, to be God’s heralds and proclaim his ‘reign’ (Isaiah 52:7). This was something which was not thought to have happened before the events surrounding Jesus, but was believed by some Jews to have happened in the light of those events (though not by those Jews who disbelieved - who continued to wait for the ‘reign’ of God and prayed for its coming).
With the former version of the gospel, we obtain benefits from Jesus’s atonement, and in a separate category we have obedience to him, and struggle to relate the two.
With the latter version, obedience and loyalty are the prerequisites of the benefits.
So when Jesus was questioned by the Herodians, (urged on by the Pharisees), about paying taxes to Caesar, Jesus’s answer (Matthew 22:21) may not have been primarily an exhortation to a wise exercise of our responsibilities to human as well as divine government, but an exposure of the deep compromises in their loyalty to God through their relationship with Rome, which was self-serving and had nothing to do with the covenant commitments enjoined by the Torah.
When Paul outlined the ‘gospel’ in Romans, he spoke of ‘the obedience that comes from faith’ (Romans 1:5). In other words, to receive the benefits of the gospel (by faith), it was necessary to give allegiance to the one from whom the benefits came (by obedience).
This leads to Romans 13, where instead of giving timeless principles concerning the relationship of the church to national governments, it is likely that Paul had in view the reality, to the church, that in Jesus an alternative set of allegiances and counter-cultural way of living had been set up which so overrode those of Rome that a corrective had to be given. To say ‘Jesus is Lord’ was indeed a political statement which ran in the face of saying that ‘Caesar is Lord’. But that did not mean that human government was now irrelevant and to be ignored, or opposed on principle. Jesus did not advocate armed resistance to Rome, but compliance (and sometimes passive resistance); ignoring this led Israel to disaster, but obedience to him led to salvation from catastrophe for a reconstituted people of God.
I suspect that today, especially in the western world, in the twilight of modernism and the murky dawn of postmodernism, believers in Jesus have a far more privatised form of faith than was being preached in the 1st century. It’s not just that this privatisation tends to insulate us from the public world which we all inhabit, which includes the world of events taking place around us nationally and internationally, but that the privatisation rests on a dramatic compromise of a relationship to God which was meant to include things like obedience, loyalty, allegiance, priority.
Some would look at the so-called Islamic suicide-bombers and say that to sever faith from obedience in relating to God was a good thing; after all, look at what they do in the name of obedience to their God. Thank goodness we are not fanatical, and don’t delude ourselves by believing that to know Jesus as Lord means obeying him in an on-going relationship of loyalty and trust. Maybe I’ll have that sabbatical from the site now.
Fanatical
You mean like Pat Robertson on his 700 Club vehicle and clone “CBN News” saying that “we should take him out” regarding the Venezuelan president? He did not mean take him out to dinner.
There is nothing that prevents fantaticism. If some get the idea into their heads that they should help God along to get to the final rapture via a bit of ugly disturbance, Christian bombers are just as likely. Islam has texts, just as Christians do, that should prevent such behaviour, but all fundies are selective in their texts depending on priorities and grievances.
As for the substance of the piece, there is a mixture of theological after the event insight into what Jesus was doing, from a post-resurrection faith persepctive, and a historical Jesus. But if the historical Jesus is more thorough, in other words in his own end-time beliefs and purely Jewish outlook, then many of the questions and statements that follow on do not apply. There is no historical basis that Jesus died on the cross to save sin and “atoning work” - this is an afterthought - and so is the other.
As for the coin, I think this is a statement that says give what is to Caesar Caesar’s, and give what is to God God’s - and anyone hearing would have known from that the meaning that God comes far far higher in importance than what is granted to Caesar. It is not a statement of loyalty or passivity to the state, but about the comparative majesty and supremacy of God, whom Jesus thought was about to get rid of Caesar anyway (so whatever he gets won’t last) and the known world of oppression and sinfulness at the end of time - the fulfilment of the promise of Israel and the coming in of the close by kingdom of heaven into earth.
http://www.pluralist.co.uk
I just happened to be passing
I just happened to be passing and noticed your response to mine, Pluralist (the radical political commitment of faith etc). My concluding remark was tongue in cheek, but may have seemed confusing. Your views on the death and resurrection of Jesus are based on faith and your own interpretation of history. I feel my interpretation rests on more solid ground than yours. As regards the Jesus’s comments on paying taxes to Caesar - your view is the traditional ‘timeless truth’ interpretation - and is of course valid. I was looking at the context of the remark - in which the Herodians had ‘given’ (in terms of politico/religious arrangements and quid pro quo) far more than their loyalty to Jahweh and the Torah warranted. Jesus’s remarks didn’t just cleverly get himself out of a sticky situation and create truth for all time; he was sticking the knife in! Thanks for your response - I enjoy reading your stuff, though I can’t get the hang of your religious views.
The meaning of Jesus' death
Pluralist, like Peter I enjoy your contributions but would also take issue with your rather cavalier remarks about the historical Jesus and the significance of his death.
The question is: what constitutes a ‘purely Jewish outlook’? There was certainly a strand within second temple Judaism that could attribute some form of redemptive function to the suffering of a righteous group or individual. It emerges quite sharply in the Maccabean literature. Why should not Jesus have developed a sense of his own calling - during a period when Israel was oppressed by Rome and facing national catastrophe - that drew upon these prophetic and apocalyptic traditions? For apologetic reasons the church has often emphasized the uniqueness of Jesus’ sense of vocation and identity, but I think we are beginning to understand now that the Jesus who interpreted his death in advance through word and symbolism is more at home in the world of first century Judaism than we realized.
You could also have a look at the section from N.T. Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God that looks at the reasons for Jesus’ crucifixion. There is a synopsis here.
Afterthought
Of course the afterthought on Jesus saving sin did not come from anywhere it fancied - it was legitimated by having biblical root. Nevertheless some form of redemptive function was turned into a complete theology by Paul especially. But the consequences of Jesus himself arranging his death in pursuit of this are quite strong.
There is a good argument that he did arrange something, in the sense of the use of Judas, turned into a story of betrayal. The Last Supper is not Jesus suspecting what Judas will do and go and do it, but it effectively being revealed to the rest of the company. Or by being there, the temperature is already quite high in terms of danger.
I still think this is linked to relationship with God and bringing in that Kingdom, and in that context there would be a redemptive function rather than some theology of it afterwards.
But, anyway, it is all ideas on ideas, a religious culture on another. There are the various strands, and Jesus certainly acted in context. He knew his scriptures, and will have been a flat earther Genesis - Moses and the traditions! The question for me is transferability to where we are now and how we think now - and I mean less in the way of Christian sectarianism that believes strange things and/ or trots out cliches, but how to relate plural, post-Enlightenment thinking to all these ancient worldviews when “doing” religion (or being religious).
http://www.pluralist.co.uk