As the political landscape of America continues to unfold around us, some classmates and I were left wondering how different Christian communities could envision and justify such different ways of being in the world? How can one Christian community teach that diversity and welcoming all is important while others insist that exclusion and purity are the heart of the gospel? How can we claim the same source and live out our faith individually and communally so differently?
If you have some extra time this week, check out this article by Robert Warrior, “Canaanites, Cowboys, and Indians.”
Warrior argues that Christians (and Jews) must confront the narrative in Exodus where Israelites who were enslaved and rescued become conquerors and oppressors themselves. “It is those who know these texts who must speak the truth about what they contain. It is to those who believe in these texts that the barbarism belongs. It is those who act on the basis of these texts who must take responsibility for the terror and violence they can and have engendered.” Look for example, at Deuteronomy 7:1-2 and Deuteronomy 28: 1-14. These writings suggest there are only two ways of being: either conquered or the conquerors. The Israelites who had been rescued out of Egypt in the narrative, now become the conquerors. The stories of the conquered, in battle and through assimilation, are lost. Further this conquering is divinely ordained as long as people stay in good relationship with God. To say it another way, as long as people can justify/convince themselves they are in good relationship with God they are divinely ordained to do whatever they want to people who they decide aren’t.
The Judeo-Christian narrative holds space and even glorifies the oppressed who become conquerors. And this narrative has been replayed throughout history. So maybe we shouldn’t be surprised that today some Christians believe the essence of following God is being “saved” and then becoming conquerors.
Is there another way presented in scriptures… a way of reconciliation, compromise, and mutual benefit? For me, that is what the ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus was all about. Jesus invited folks with different stories, backgrounds, and social and political clout to become a community that shared resources with one another and people outside of the community. There was no longer conquered or conqueror, they were all joined together as one, not erasing their differences, but exploring, appreciating and embracing one another:
“There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” ~Galations 3:28
The disciples and the early church had a hard time with this other way, that didn’t involved oppressing or being oppressed. They wanted Jesus to overthrow the Roman government and be a new king of Israel (John 6:16), fought over who would have power in Jesus’s community (Mark 10:35-40), and tried to separate themselves into like-minded groups (1 Corinthians 10:10-17).
Huh… not so different than today. “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.” ~ Ecclesiastes 1:9
Addendum: Immediately after posting this, I was asked to read the following excerpt from Bruce Feiler’s book America’s Prophet: Moses and the American Story (p.92-93). America was founded on the narrative of the oppressed becoming the oppressors. Is there any surprise American Christians have a hard time seeing that narrow way of reconciliation, compromise, and mutual benefit?
“In 1973 political scientist Donald Lutz undertook a comprehensive survey of American political rhetoric during the founding era. He set out with Charles Hyneman to read everything published in America between 1760 and 1805. The effort took ten years and covered 15,000 items, including 2,200 for which they recorded every reference cited. Their goal was to settle long-simmering disputes in the political-science community over the sources of the Revolution by objectively evaluating the influence of Enlightenment writers such as Montesquieu, Locke, Hume, and Hobbes, as well as ancient writers such as Plutarch and Cicero. The first sentence of their conclusion reads: ‘If we ask what book was more frequently cited by Americans during the founding era, the answer somewhat surprisingly is: the Book of Deuteronomy.’ Thirty-four percent of all references were to the Bible, compared with 22 percent for the Enlightenment and 9 percent for the classics. The Bible was cited four times as often as Montesquieu, then times as often as Locke, and thirty times as often as Hobbes.
“But why Deuteronomy specifically? . . . Deuteronomy is Moses’ closing argument. The focus of the book is a series of speeches Moses gives to the Israelites near the end of his life. In them, he reiterates the blessings that await the people when they conquer the Promised Land yet reminds them of the obligations that come with that bounty. Deuteronomy resonated so deeply in early America because while Moses celebrates the liberation of Exodus in its pages, he also tries to reassert control over a population intoxicated by its newfound freedoms. The Moses story, in other words, can play two ways: Yes, it urges antiauthoritarian actions by celebrating the confrontation with Pharaoh, but it also promotes a new authoritative order through the imposition of divine law.”
Love Adventure 
Leave a comment