I have posted elsewhere how complicated the conservative-liberal debate can be, and I have often found myself in opposition to the so-called conservative branch of the church. Indeed, having spent a good many years interacting with such folks, I have had ample opportunity to find weaknesses and unbalanced tendencies among such individuals. More so, a reasonable portion of my time in recent years has been given to a critique of and (often an) opposition to the more predictable elements of the evangelical faith. Clearly, there are blind spots and faulty assumptions among many groups that are traditional in orientation, and there are many things within this segment of the church that I oppose and have no intention of embracing. This, in part, explains my liking for certain emergent trends.
All that being said, I have to be honest and say that many things that take place within the emergent movement are themselves becoming predictable. Indeed, it sometimes irritates me how one-sided and, sometimes, “liberal-sounding” the emergent movement can be. It’s almost like there is a new dogmaticism that has surfaced, a new kind of certainty, and–yes–even a new type of hubris. This manifests itself in many ways, but I would like to point out one thing that comes to mind.
Recently, there has been a predictable response to Saddam Hussein’s death. Thus, we are told that we should be appalled and embarrassed by his execution. For instance:
Brian McLaren writes, “Taking the human life of a person in the name of human life brings no sense of justice or satisfaction to me. Rather, it brings the opposite. … Whether executions are justified or not, I feel dirty and ashamed whenever I hear of an execution, and Saddam’s was no different. I hope I don't ever stop feeling that way.”
– I love Brian in many ways, but I have to say that I disagree here. I hope I never stop feeling that sometimes, when the crimes are great and the evidence is clear, the taking of a human life is one way that God meets out justice. Must we be careful when it comes to such things? Yes. Are we to be arrogant in the process? Never! But this does not mean that those who accept the death penalty are somehow sub-Christian, We can disagree about such matters, but the rhetoric that places death penalty advocates into a less spiritual category is inappropriate.
Jim Wallis says: “If we truly believe that all human life is created in God's image, then no matter how distorted that life may become, we do not have the right to take it.”
– This is hogwash. It is precisely because we believe in the sanctity of life that we enforce such penalties. Divine image bearers by the thousands were tortured and killed by Hussein. This does not prove that the death penalty is warranted, but it is a legitimate view to hold.
Personally, I am well aware that I might be wrong about this matter, and I hope that I remain open to correction and change. But, or so it would seem, some within the emergent movement (though not necessarily those I’ve quoted from) don’t seem very open to contrary opinions. While I am aware of a number of exceptions, there does seem to be a tendency to accept certain predictable responses in a number of areas.
Hussein was an evil man, who performed heinous acts. Though I am often a scum myself, this does not mean that I can sit idly by and take a wimpy approach to such atrocities. I wonder, in fact, what some of the looser emergent types would do if a burglar broke into their house. If, God forbid, their families were in danger, would they try to negotiate with evil even if it cost them the lives of their loved ones? Of course negotiation and dialogue can be (and often are) wonderful tools for resolving differences. But, and this is the point, sometimes they are not!
While I realize that some will disagree and may take a different interpretation, the fact remains that there are indeed passages of Scripture that at least allow for the death penalty. The typical interpretation may be wrong, but it doesn’t become wrong simply by stating it as such. It becomes wrong if and only if a better interpretation can be provided. Paul, for instance, spoke in terms of ancient governments, imperfect and sometimes perverse as they could be, “bearing the sword,” which appears to be a depiction of the death penalty. Indeed, it may even be an avenue by which God’s wrath is inflicted. Just like human beings can be “the hands of God” in the expression of love, so it may be that they can (via government) be an expression of his will to oppose evil. My point, though, is not to overly defend this view but simply to say that it is not automatically irrational, inappropriate, and unchristian.
Has the traditional church done some stupid thing? Absolutely!! Might their position here be wrong? Sure. But let’s not delude ourselves into thinking that everything the “modern” church did/does is incorrect and not worthy of consideration, and let’s not neglect the better aspects of what God did/does through even these (in my view) often faulty segments of Christendom. Indeed, to do so, to take this approach, would be to border on the very pride that the emergent church has (rightly) reacted against. “Lord help us all (especially me!) to be open to your truth, whatever it is and wherever it appears. Don’t allow us to fall into a state of ecclesiastical predictability. And Lord, help us to have the guts to do whatever it is that is right.”
P.S. (Sort of) Sorry if I appear a bit frustrated here, but I felt like I had to get this “out of my system.”
All that being said, I have to be honest and say that many things that take place within the emergent movement are themselves becoming predictable. Indeed, it sometimes irritates me how one-sided and, sometimes, “liberal-sounding” the emergent movement can be. It’s almost like there is a new dogmaticism that has surfaced, a new kind of certainty, and–yes–even a new type of hubris. This manifests itself in many ways, but I would like to point out one thing that comes to mind.
Recently, there has been a predictable response to Saddam Hussein’s death. Thus, we are told that we should be appalled and embarrassed by his execution. For instance:
Brian McLaren writes, “Taking the human life of a person in the name of human life brings no sense of justice or satisfaction to me. Rather, it brings the opposite. … Whether executions are justified or not, I feel dirty and ashamed whenever I hear of an execution, and Saddam’s was no different. I hope I don't ever stop feeling that way.”
– I love Brian in many ways, but I have to say that I disagree here. I hope I never stop feeling that sometimes, when the crimes are great and the evidence is clear, the taking of a human life is one way that God meets out justice. Must we be careful when it comes to such things? Yes. Are we to be arrogant in the process? Never! But this does not mean that those who accept the death penalty are somehow sub-Christian, We can disagree about such matters, but the rhetoric that places death penalty advocates into a less spiritual category is inappropriate.
Jim Wallis says: “If we truly believe that all human life is created in God's image, then no matter how distorted that life may become, we do not have the right to take it.”
– This is hogwash. It is precisely because we believe in the sanctity of life that we enforce such penalties. Divine image bearers by the thousands were tortured and killed by Hussein. This does not prove that the death penalty is warranted, but it is a legitimate view to hold.
Personally, I am well aware that I might be wrong about this matter, and I hope that I remain open to correction and change. But, or so it would seem, some within the emergent movement (though not necessarily those I’ve quoted from) don’t seem very open to contrary opinions. While I am aware of a number of exceptions, there does seem to be a tendency to accept certain predictable responses in a number of areas.
Hussein was an evil man, who performed heinous acts. Though I am often a scum myself, this does not mean that I can sit idly by and take a wimpy approach to such atrocities. I wonder, in fact, what some of the looser emergent types would do if a burglar broke into their house. If, God forbid, their families were in danger, would they try to negotiate with evil even if it cost them the lives of their loved ones? Of course negotiation and dialogue can be (and often are) wonderful tools for resolving differences. But, and this is the point, sometimes they are not!
While I realize that some will disagree and may take a different interpretation, the fact remains that there are indeed passages of Scripture that at least allow for the death penalty. The typical interpretation may be wrong, but it doesn’t become wrong simply by stating it as such. It becomes wrong if and only if a better interpretation can be provided. Paul, for instance, spoke in terms of ancient governments, imperfect and sometimes perverse as they could be, “bearing the sword,” which appears to be a depiction of the death penalty. Indeed, it may even be an avenue by which God’s wrath is inflicted. Just like human beings can be “the hands of God” in the expression of love, so it may be that they can (via government) be an expression of his will to oppose evil. My point, though, is not to overly defend this view but simply to say that it is not automatically irrational, inappropriate, and unchristian.
Has the traditional church done some stupid thing? Absolutely!! Might their position here be wrong? Sure. But let’s not delude ourselves into thinking that everything the “modern” church did/does is incorrect and not worthy of consideration, and let’s not neglect the better aspects of what God did/does through even these (in my view) often faulty segments of Christendom. Indeed, to do so, to take this approach, would be to border on the very pride that the emergent church has (rightly) reacted against. “Lord help us all (especially me!) to be open to your truth, whatever it is and wherever it appears. Don’t allow us to fall into a state of ecclesiastical predictability. And Lord, help us to have the guts to do whatever it is that is right.”
P.S. (Sort of) Sorry if I appear a bit frustrated here, but I felt like I had to get this “out of my system.”
2 comments:
Great post. I struggle with this issue primarily on a personal basis. I don't think I could pull the trigger, inject the poison, or press the button so I struggle with being for the death penalty. I also do not like how it is used in America. And, I agree with the concern of Christians who wonder out loud about ending a life without continuing to pray and trust for that individual's salvation. Nevertheless, I appreciate your honesty and the appreciation of the reality of an all too often lock-step approach to issues by any movement, no matter how many other positive things the movement does.
Thanks, Bryan! I appreciate your comments. :-)
Post a Comment