So much about religion is criticized, especially Christianity, and rightfully so as the Christians have had their violent crusades and share of corruption. There are plenty of people out there who have been damaged by the church.
In these days we have a President whose foreign policy is guided by his faith. During the last presidential election, we saw television evangelists that made suggestions as to the equation: Christian = Bush. Even more so, they pronounced the converse equation: No Bush Vote = Non-Christian. When viewed in the context of the invasion of Iraq, this idea of faith and politics becomes problematic for many Christians, anti-Christians, and those in between.
However the world’s view of Christianity -- of Christian doctrine -- is skewed by television evangelists seeking power and notoriety. As is with any stereotype this is not always true. My Sunday School class subscribes to The Wired Word which uses current topics to discuss Biblical doctrine. Interestingly enough, the article never offers answers. It does, however, offer scriptures to study while looking at the different questions being posed. This week’s Wired Word was about the conflict in Israel and it offered questions about the bigger picture of war as a means to find peace. The Wired Word offered these questions for the class to discuss:
These questions were followed by discussion and scriptures and our class had an open dialogue. Open dialogue, of course, means that differing view points are acceptable and encouraged. My church is funny about that, always wanting folks to make their own decisions rather than blindly following dogma. Interestingly enough, most of the folks in my Sunday School class were not supporters of the War in Iraq or of Bush’s foreign policy. In fact, most of them were supporters of peace. I suspect the United States and the world see Christians as warmongers and haters of other cultures. That is not true nor should it be.
The Wired Word offered, among several others, Matthew 5:9, where Jesus gives his Sermon on the Mount. This scripture is part of the Beatitudes. Whenever I am thinking about world events and trying to define how a member of the Christian faith should react, I look to the Beatitudes as they seem to me to be a litmus test of how to live, think and believe.
The Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-11) are as follows:
It is number seven (Matthew 5:9) that I find most interesting when looking at the Middle East and terrorism. It seems to me that those seeking peace are labeled as hippies or weak-minded liberals who are trying to air condition Hell and destroy all things Christlike. Take note that there is no mentioning of war, security, or attainment power in the Beatitudes.
Are our country’s foreign policies indeed based on faith? Can we find where the Beatitudes play a role in how our country is governed and how we respond to global incidents? I cannot help but wonder if our presence in the Middle East, a part of the world fraught with war for centuries, is really based in faith or if it is part of a bigger plan to achieve and retain power?
As for me, I do practice Christianity, although one could argue I don’t do it well enough. That’s a road that one travels for life. I can say that I believe in peace and I am upset when religion, any religion, is used to start or continue a war. I do not believe that Jesus, the Prince of Peace, would be satisfied with our efforts to make war. With all the wars and strife and discrimination applied in his name, you would think that he was known as:
Jesus, the War Hammer; or perhaps
Jesus, The Meat Cleaver
In these days we have a President whose foreign policy is guided by his faith. During the last presidential election, we saw television evangelists that made suggestions as to the equation: Christian = Bush. Even more so, they pronounced the converse equation: No Bush Vote = Non-Christian. When viewed in the context of the invasion of Iraq, this idea of faith and politics becomes problematic for many Christians, anti-Christians, and those in between.
However the world’s view of Christianity -- of Christian doctrine -- is skewed by television evangelists seeking power and notoriety. As is with any stereotype this is not always true. My Sunday School class subscribes to The Wired Word which uses current topics to discuss Biblical doctrine. Interestingly enough, the article never offers answers. It does, however, offer scriptures to study while looking at the different questions being posed. This week’s Wired Word was about the conflict in Israel and it offered questions about the bigger picture of war as a means to find peace. The Wired Word offered these questions for the class to discuss:
- Under what circumstances are defensive battles an acceptable response?
- Under what circumstances, if any, are first-strike attacks acceptable?
- Is there such a thing as a “just war”?
- Christians, by definition, are followers of the Prince of Peace. What obligation does that lay upon us in times of national threat?
- What tools or methods for peacemaking are available through the Christian faith?
- Are peacemakers who are unable to end conflicts despite their best efforts therefore fools or failures?
These questions were followed by discussion and scriptures and our class had an open dialogue. Open dialogue, of course, means that differing view points are acceptable and encouraged. My church is funny about that, always wanting folks to make their own decisions rather than blindly following dogma. Interestingly enough, most of the folks in my Sunday School class were not supporters of the War in Iraq or of Bush’s foreign policy. In fact, most of them were supporters of peace. I suspect the United States and the world see Christians as warmongers and haters of other cultures. That is not true nor should it be.
The Wired Word offered, among several others, Matthew 5:9, where Jesus gives his Sermon on the Mount. This scripture is part of the Beatitudes. Whenever I am thinking about world events and trying to define how a member of the Christian faith should react, I look to the Beatitudes as they seem to me to be a litmus test of how to live, think and believe.
The Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-11) are as follows:
Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are they who mourn: for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are they who hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure of heart: for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs in the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
It is number seven (Matthew 5:9) that I find most interesting when looking at the Middle East and terrorism. It seems to me that those seeking peace are labeled as hippies or weak-minded liberals who are trying to air condition Hell and destroy all things Christlike. Take note that there is no mentioning of war, security, or attainment power in the Beatitudes.
Are our country’s foreign policies indeed based on faith? Can we find where the Beatitudes play a role in how our country is governed and how we respond to global incidents? I cannot help but wonder if our presence in the Middle East, a part of the world fraught with war for centuries, is really based in faith or if it is part of a bigger plan to achieve and retain power?
As for me, I do practice Christianity, although one could argue I don’t do it well enough. That’s a road that one travels for life. I can say that I believe in peace and I am upset when religion, any religion, is used to start or continue a war. I do not believe that Jesus, the Prince of Peace, would be satisfied with our efforts to make war. With all the wars and strife and discrimination applied in his name, you would think that he was known as:
Jesus, the War Hammer; or perhaps
Jesus, The Meat Cleaver
Posts
1 comment:
Fat Jack,
I went to post a response and it was way too long so I am going to blog on this on my blog. Check it out and let us discuss it further. In short, I appreciate your thoughts on this. I have some more to add to balance what you are saying.
Post a Comment