Apocalypse Now?

Okay, friends and neighbors; I’m going to get very specific here, and I probably will upset some people (“What’s new?” you ask.) But I don’t think they will be any more upset than I am over the recent irresponsible misapplication of scripture by Rev. Robert Jeffress, one of President Trump’s key evangelical Christian advisers (and I use the word, Christian, in the nominative case, and not necessarily as descriptive of the faith as lived and taught by Jesus of Nazareth.)

In the first place, Rev. Jeffress uses Romans 12 to justify his ill-conceived counsel to the President. That epistle was a letter “written to line out a survival strategy for a minority faith in the cosmopolitan capital of a first century super power.  Paul was counseling some early Jesus-followers on how to deal with Caesar’s … saber-rattling, not counseling them on how to endorse it”[1] or take it out. And to rip the text out of that context and plop it, indiscriminately into a context twenty centuries removed from, and 180 degrees in opposition to its origin is the grossest kind of irresponsible eisegesis![2] 

Just read the text. Just read the text!!!

Yes, there is that phrase, “hate what is evil” in verse 9—stirred into a verbal combination of some of the strongest exhortations to love found anywhere in Scripture!

“Hate what is evil” is about midway through a text that begins by calling its readers to present their bodies as living sacrifices, holy and acceptable to God (vs. 1). Read it again: “sacrifice.” A few lines later the writer calls his readers not to think of themselves  more highly than they ought to think.

Then there follows a treatise on using the gifts of ministry given to the readers by the Holy Spirit—gifts the same writer, in another epistle, says are given for the purpose of building up the Body (the church). And none of the gifts named and described can be construed, even obliquely, to be used effectively in “taking out” an enemy.

Indeed, only a few lines further, we find this counsel (vss 14-21, underlining mine):

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. ¹⁵Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. ¹⁶Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly; do not claim to be wiser than you are. ¹⁷Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. ¹⁸If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. ¹⁹beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” ²⁰No, “if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads.” ²¹Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

I searched Google, and can’t find Rev. Jeffress’ specific application of Romans 12; but I can’t find anything in that text that even remotely would lead one to conclude that God had authorized anyone to “take out” an enemy or a threat. “…if your enemies are hungry, feed them…” 

Having been affiliated with the same fellowship as Rev. Jeffress, I anticipate that he will explain away this entire chapter by saying the writer is describing behavior limited to within the fellowship of the church, and his exhortation is not binding toward those outside the church. That perspective is, indeed, a presupposition with which the Southern Baptists bring to Scripture (that at least was the case when I was affiliated with them; however, my affiliation ended in the late 1960s). I do not find that restriction anywhere as a blanket pronouncement upon Christian ethics and relationships.

What I do find in this text is a call to love—including love of one’s enemies. In that exhortation, the writer is word-for-word consistent with the exhortations of Jesus of Nazareth.

There are other texts of Scripture that are used in some Christian moral and ethical conventions to rationalize Just War. I do not concur with those interpretations, and, in my estimation, neither Rev. Jeffress nor anyone else will find such justification in any biblical text. It’s all a part of the historic struggle among people of faith regarding how to balance a commitment to family and country with a commitment to live out Jesus’ ethic of love and unity.

Justify preemptive military action or assassination if you must; but, I sincerely believe you’ll have to look outside Christian Scriptures to do so. If the same Christ or the same Christian writer, or the same God who inspires it all can counsel, “Love your enemies” in one breath and then counsel, “Take out Kim Jong Un” in the next breath, then we’re dealing with schizophrenia, not faith.

That’s the way it looks through the Flawed Glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

---

[1] Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/irreverin/2017/08/5060/#XZvmqkFJa5Lo8wIL.99.

[2] From Wikipedia: “…the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas…”

To Watch or Not to Watch

Today I watched the Inauguration of President Donald J Trump. Some of my friends felt I should have boycotted the event, instead of honoring him by watching.

I saw it through different eyes. I saw it as honoring, not President Trump, but our Democracy, and honoring what President Ronald Reagan called the “common and miraculous” peaceful transfer of power that has been the hallmark of our Democracy since 1797.

I didn’t vote for President Trump, nor do I even respect him as a human being. But, like it or not—like him or not—he is the President of the United States. He is my President. His past suggests that he will not represent me or my views or my interests; but, I live in Arkansas, so it’s been a long time since I felt represented. Nevertheless, he is the President—the only President—of the United States.

Nor have I participated in or supported or encouraged any of the protests which have come to my attention—although I fully respect the right of peaceful protest. Indeed, there are situations in which I believe public protest is an effective strategy, the civil rights marches being one example. There, the purpose was to raise awareness and to rally pubic support against a gross injustice—to change public opinion and public policy.

The protests (I read that several hundred were being planned) today were simply that: a protest. No concrete or tangible effect or result was proposed or suggested. “My candidate lost, and I don’t like it.”

I don’t like it, either.

I fully expect that I will disagree with the overwhelming majority of what President Trump says and does; but I will oppose those things in ways I feel are more effective; although, letters to congressional representatives or Senators, in spite of the fact that they are the most accessible method of protest, generally have not been ineffective. Again, I live in Arkansas, and letters to Senator Tom Cotton are like letters to a brick wall (his responses give no evidence whatsoever that he or some staff member even reads my letters), and Letters to Senator John Boozman don’t even get a response. Still, I write.

I participate in several advocacy and interest groups, through which the power of numbers gives me a sense that I may be making a difference.

I also use blogs and letters to the editor. While I never use the pulpit for partisan political advocacy, the people in the church I serve know of my political persuasions, and I am strong in advocating biblical values that do impact political ideologies.

I appreciated Senator Roy Blunt’s (R – Missouri) comments in his opening remarks as Master of Ceremonies. It was he who reminded Americans of President Reagan’s words, which I quoted above, viz., the “common and miraculous” peaceful transfer of power that is the hallmark of our Democracy.

Democracy thrives on vigorous debate. Yes, each of should be actively involved in efforts to influence the outcomes of the political process. It just seems to me that that 220-year-old hallmark should take precedence on this one day—this one day—over our partisanism.

That's the way it looks through the flawed glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,
Jim