proud to be un-american
as i’m in the process of re-constructing my “jesus for president” blog post after my computer met its tragic end, i wanted to jot down a few thoughts that don’t involve as much dissection and effort as the content of my extended post is turning out to. it’s promising to be quite the epic post - if i ever finish it.
as i’m reading”jesus for president“, i’m still working out how i feel about certain issues that are covered in the book. ryan stopped reading it part-way through because he thought it was too self-serving and i had another friend who warned me that it would make me a pacifist. in absence of the ability to construct super-deep thoughts on the subject right now, i decided to quote a portion of the book where one of the authors (shane claiborne) responds to an experience he had while working in baghdad. he’d been interviewed on CNN and been asked if - by being there and working on humanitarian aid missions while opposing the war - he and his group were traitors. he composed this response:
“Traitor?”
If this bloody, counterfeit liberation is American… I am proud to be Un-American.
If depleted uranium is American… I am proud to be Un-American.
If US sanctions are American… I am proud to be Un-American.
If the imposed “peace” of Pax Americana is American… I am proud to be Un-American.
BUT
If grace, humility, and nonviolence are American… I am proud to be American.
If global democracy is American… I am proud to be American.
If sharing to create a safe, sustainable world is American… I am proud to be American.
If loving our enemies is American… I am proud to be American.
REGARDLESS-
I would die for the people of New York but I will not kill for them… my Kingdom is not of this world.
I would die for the people of Baghdad but I will not kill for them… my Kingdom is not of this world.
I will stand in the way of terror and war… my Kingdom is not of this world.
I will pledge an allegiance deeper than nationalism, to my God and to my Family… my Kingdom is not of this world.
I will use my life to shout, “Another world is possible”… for my Kingdom is from another Place.
“My Kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight… but now my Kingdom is from another place.” –Jesus, John 18:36
so … thoughts? if christianity is peaceful resistance - and gives an alternative - to a world that resorts too quickly to violence - and therefore infringes on the idea that we are all precious and created in god’s image - could we all stand to be a little more “un-american”? one thing’s for sure, i think: we could probably all benefit from divorcing our concept of nationality from our concept of religion.
May 16 2009 10:00 pm | military and politics and religion and san francisco and the city
May 18th, 2009 at 8:17 am
The relationship between nationalism and religion aside, I have to point out that the quote you posted is chock-full of question-begging. It is perfectly acceptable to oppose some or all wars fought by any nation at any time. But to tie that kind of argument to Christianity– to essentially say, without saying, that it is an intrinsic responsibility of Christians to oppose this or that war– is the same kind of mistake that the author seems to be rightly arguing against.
To make it relevant to today’s politics: if I were to say “the only Christian thing to do is to support the Iraq war”, I would be wrong, as that is different than saying “I believe that being a Christian and supporting the Iraq war are compatible, and here is why”. But on the same token, simply stating that it is *un*Christian to support the Iraq war commits the same fallacious mistake.
Regarding the phraseology of the post: I feel like the author is deliberately inflaming people with whom he disagrees. While I recognize that this is sometimes a helpful rhetorical tactic, I think in this instance it is remarkably *un*helpful to approach the issue from the angle of what is “American” versus what is “un-American”. By more rationally applying his beliefs to current issues– and by being far, far more respectful to his opponents– he could sway far, far more minds and contribute, rather than detract from, modern debate.
May 19th, 2009 at 6:38 am
shane’s contention is that (to paint it broadly) christians should be opposed to all wars, to all violence. throughout the book he does make the case that it is the responsibility of christians to peacefully oppose wars and violence as we’re called to perpetuate the love of god. perhaps this quote was too small a section of his beliefs to give the scope of his intent, arguments and conclusions.
in spite of his rather “radical” personal stance and explanations for some of his beliefs, from the book i don’t get the impression that he’s saying “all christians: acknowledge the error of your ways and adopt a stance of non-violence now!” he’s making the case for the consciousness with which we should live our lives that makes us separate-yet-relevant to the culture. his conclusion (on this topic) seems to be that christians should be pacifists, but more than that, the book is a call to getting back to the basics of jesus and the early church and examine how we are truly to live in a community of love while also dealing with every-day issues and problems.
he wrote a blog on it himself which can be found here.
May 22nd, 2009 at 10:36 am
I would certainly disagree with his theological position. I would love to debate his theological position. The above quotes assume a pacifist theological position as their underlying presupposition.
I think its unhelpful, however, to seemingly assume a kind of subtle self-righteousness (I certainly don’t think *you* do this, but based on the above quotes, it strikes me that *Shane* does) by making high-level arguments based on prior assumptions that most of the audience he seems to be attempting to sway may or may not share.
Perhaps though, this is merely a function of my own ignorance of this theological beliefs. Perhaps we could look into them and discuss Christian pacificsm in a future dialog?
May 22nd, 2009 at 5:23 pm
i would love to do that - maybe some sort of back-and-forth blog series!
shane definitely comes at things from a pre-supposed position of pacifism. in the book, he explains it quite a bit, but is definitely explaining his conclusion, not arguing points in order to determine the conclusion - which is more where i’m at. i definitely am moved by some of the issues he brings up - a gospel of peace, a god of love, a call to minister to those in our community, etc - yet i don’t think that christianity and, say, military service are irreconcilable. as with most things it’s not black and white - shocker! to fall back on my brian mclaren theology, i’ve chosen to accept the cognitive dissidence that these viewpoints lead toward.
we should totally work on some basic opinions/questions/suppositions on this issue because i feel myself needing a better explanation than the ones i’ve been given so far in my life.
and it’s ok, i may be a little self-righteous myself - my blog has been called elitist by some … but i’ll take that as a compliment