De Ira Dei, or The Psalms and The Quick and the Dead

It seems to me that vengence is a subject most Christians tend to tiptoe around. And by most Christians, I suppose I mean myself. I think there is a tendency to make Christian pacifistic in philosophy, instead of merely quasi-pacifistic in action.

Definition time. Philosophically, pacifism means to me that violence is inherently evil and wrong and the best way to live life is one in which the millitary mindset perpetuated by society is completely avoided. In this sense, pacifism doesn't merely demand that I respond to an armed robber with calm, measured submission ("here's my wallet, here's my neclace, I'm not going to give you any trouble.") It means that I am in no way to cheer when a policeman comes up behind him, clubs the mugger on the head, and drags him off to jail.

Now from a Christian standpoint, turning the other cheek is a moral commandment, so a default reaction of pulling out a gat and blowing the mugger's head off seems a bit uncharitable, to say the least. But a true and pure pacifism is neither human nor divine, at least in a world that truly is Fallen.

The first proof verses are obvious. Two that immediately spring to mind: "Put on the full armor of God." "Stand firm against evil." Andrew Rillstone once made a very valid point -- no pacifist would ever talk positively about "the ICBM of the Word, whose blast is more powerful than a hydrogen bomb, piercing to the soul." But anyone who has read the Psalms knows that the poetry of just violence is a deep vein running throughout scriptures.

The wicked are estranged from the woumb;
They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.
Their poison [is] like the poison of a serpent;
[They are] like the deaf cobra [that] stops its earm
Which will not heed the voice of charmers,
Charming ever so skillfully.
Break their teeth in their mouth,
O God!
Break out the fangs of the young lions,
O Lord!
Let them flow away as waters [which] run continually;
[When] he bends [his bow,]
Let his arrows be as if cut in pieces.
[Let them be] like a snail which melts away as it goes,
[Like] a stillborn child of a woman, that they may not see the sun.

Psalms 58:3-8

The language is rather evocative of an action movie. "These men are evil, and make the world unsafe. They need to be taken out." In fact, violence is one of the things Hollywood tends to frequently offer quite good commentaries on (I suppose they've had lots of practice.)

Last night, I watched The Quick and the Dead. Cort (played by Russell Crowe) had gone from being an outlaw and priest-murderer to a preacher and pacifist. At the end of the movie, predictably, he finally decides to shoot all the henchmen of the evil John Herod, and allow Sharon Stone's character to gun down Herod in vengence for the murder of her father, the Marshal. Along the way, of course, the movie takes lots of opportunities to show just how evil Herod was, and how deserving of death. But the interesting moment comes after the final gun battle. Cort, flushed with the excitement of battle, screams out "justice has returned," and the town (or at least all that Stone hadn't blown up) celebrates.

The movie could have been a mere vengance story, as was the case in the more artistic For a Few Dollars More. But instead, it was a Hollywood movie, and in this case an atttempt to follow the Western genre conventions and please audiences actually resulted in hitting on a truth.

Celebrations of vengence are good. Yet Cort knew that he was as guilty of bloodshed as any of the men he fought. Therefore, his final line of the movie called upon something higher than any man, something that is a fundamental aspect of God -- Justice.

Should we take a gun in our hands and stand against evil? As Christians, the answer is an emphatic no, that our weapons are far different. But at the same time, we should rejoice in the fact that in a world where rapes, murder, and a million other crimes are really, truly present, the God of mercy is also an avenging God of justice and an avenger. And, in the here and now, we must remember that God did apoint governments to protect the (relatively) innocent and punish the (legally) guilty. So every time we are praying the Lord's Prayer, one of the things we are praying for when we say "Thy kingdom come" is vengance and retribution against evil.

To All Who Have Ever Claimed To Have Shopped At A Christian Bookstore, or 'Identified Myself With Christ' Through a T-Shirt

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows' houses, and for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you will receive greater condemnation.

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves. ...

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.

You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence.

You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also.

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness.

So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous,

and say, 'If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.'

So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.

Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers.

You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?

Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city,

so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
Matthew 23:14-15 and 24-36, NASB

Now I want to get one thing straight, first. I don't think that these verses apply to everyone who wears a Christian t-shirt or listens only to Christian music or shops only at Christian bookstores. But I think that the very same thing that Jesus was raging against exists today -- in the form of our current evangelical "Christian" culture.

I think the most telling thing is what we are encouraged to shout against. All through my childhood, I have been told (correctly) all about how bad sins are. As I should have been. But, at least through many youth group meetings and such, I've been told what the solutions are. Stand against sin. Let the world know where they are wrong. Remember, Jesus shouted, and made whips, and didn't put up with sin. I think the most extreme example is that some people couldn't really offer a full-throated condemnation of abortion-clinic bombers. So what if they murdered -- look at how many lives their actions are saving! It's a hard conundrum.

Bullshit.

If you actually look carefully at the New Testament, you will see a lot of anger-filled rhetoric. I reprinted a good excerpt of Jesus' verbal lashing of Pharisees above. You will see not only violent words, but violent deeds. Jesus did, indeed, attack the commercial men who had set up shop in the middle of the Temple in order to sell the newest book *ahem, sorry* I mean newest passionate praise song *blast! never could get those bloody details right* cleanest animals to offer as sacrifices as the "best way to please God."

But if you really do look carefully, you will realize that such rhetoric is never offered against those who are outside the Church. Check your sources. See if I'm wrong.

Now I'm not saying that we shouldn't call a sin a sin. We obviously must do that. I'm not saying even that the role of the Church isn't to stand against immorality -- it definitely is. In that same passage (in a verse I convienently cut), Jesus advises Jews to follow the pharisees. "Therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them." (Matt. 23:3, NASB) Morality is central to Christianity. That is indubitable. Jesus was merely attacking a worse evil than mere immorality -- religious hypocracy, of the type that associates religious devotion strictly with showy external appearances.

So, what does this have to do with me, today? I'm just a normal, everyday Christian who has a good, supportive group of Christian friends and tries to avoid too many secular influences. I would argue - everything.

The Christian life is a life of tension. There is a reason Paul talks about the armor of God -- it is because the good Christian, in interacting with the world, will continually get the crap beaten out of him. If there is one word that doesn't describe the Christian life, that word is "safe." We aren't to flirt with temptation, it is true, we are to flee it. But not by making an artificial "Christian" world.

Are we really fleeing temptation by listening to only "Christian" music. Music that is "safe," as opposed to those evil worldly songs that have caused our country to loose its moral compas and spiral down just like Israel of old, as we so love to rant about. By bands like, for instance, The Crucified, with songs written by people such as young Mark Solomon, when he was constantly immersing himself in the sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll atmosphere. Not like Stavesacre, the later, repentant, non-Christian-labeled project with the same frontman that frequently and deeply deals with God's forgiveness and patience. Bands by Amy Grant, the teen idol and pop emulator. But we were kind of suspicious about this Rich Mullins guy -- I mean, he smoked and had long hair and answered questions of how he got into the CCM ministry with "in another life I murdered a church organist. Now I'm having to pay my penace." Not safe at all.

Or for another example: are we really "boldly proclaiming the Gospel" by wearing "Christian" t-shirts that proclaim our membership to the "Jesus club." Are we really fulfilling God's call to be able to give a defense to the joy that is within us because we wear a shirt that says "No Jesus, no peace. Know Jesus, know peace"? Or are we just associating ourself with a "Christian" culture, and feeling a bit good about how holy we are because of our willingness to be "identified with Christ." Is the distaste atheists feel for Christian shirts really because they are sinners and our shirts convict them and point them towards the "rock of offense" that is Christ? Or is it the exact same distaste that they feel for the "Original Gangsta" t-shirts -- distaste for people who want to emphasize how much you are not a member of their little community?

My point here is not to start an argument about details. My point is that, whenever we try to define what Christianity is through external labels that are only tenuously related to Christ (such as "Christian" music, "Christian" t-shirts, "Christian" books and Christian bookstore chains, what we will end up creating is whitewashed tombs. Things that we think are Christianity, but that are completely free of substance. We may be Christians, but I don't see our t-shirts or branches of secular CD corporations as being in the least bit Christian. And for those who made me feel guilty for years every time I looked in my closet, saw that everything was in the laundry except my Christian and Abercrombie t-shirts, and chose the Abercrombie shirt as it seemed to least mar my witness to the world, I'm beginning to feel that these words may be for you.

And Now for Something Completely Different: A Review of the Upcoming Film of Pride and Prejudice

If the upcoming film is actually represented by the trailer...

Mrs. Bennet: I am evil Puritan..er..Victorian woman and symbol of everything that this society is, despite the fact that in the book everyone seemed to make fun of me.

Mr. Bennet: I seem to have lost myself. I should make a joke about this, but a sense of humor would undermine the "biting social commentary" of this movie. Ahh, well, at least they forgot to take all of the good books out of my study.

Jane: I am just as silly as my younger sisters! There is no difference between us! We even speak in Choruses!

Malory: Hey! I thought I had copyrighted that effect!

Elizabeth: I would mock this lazy postmodern referentiality, but I also seem to have lost my sense of humor. I can just scowl at society, which shows that I am slightly more intelligent than the other characters, but not enough to take them lightly. Oh, wait, I'm supposed to be a "modern girl." I'd better fall in love in the silliest and giddiest way possible. Because, of course, it is anathema for a modern girl to think.

Darcy: I survived the bloodbath. Mostly. Darcy I remai-- wait! Time for a bit of snogging. Sorry, folks. I'll be back in character in a few minutes.

Sweeping, Romantic Movie Music: Aren't you feeling all warm and squishy inside? See, it's just like The Notebook!

British Countryside: Look at me!

Audience: England is pretty. I mean, really pretty. Here's 10 dollars.

On the Internet and Ecumenicalism

The Church broke into 2 during the great schism, but nevertheless managed to maintain a rough sense of unity. Neither the Eastern Orthodox nor the Roman Catholic particularly approved of the views of their brethren to the West/East, but I've seen a good deal of evidence that they commonly saw each other as Christian.

The Roman Catholic Church of the late Middle Ages reached an impressive new high in corruption, and God allowed the printing press to shatter Christian fellowship in the West. Yes, Luther was significant, brilliant, and a man dedicated to serving God. But try to tell the Anabaptists that he was the first to realize that Reformation or separation from Rome was sorely needed. The difference was that Luther's apostles could print books faster than the Inquisition could burn them. (Not that it stopped the German National pastime of book-burning.)

Now, I am seeing an increasing number of signs that God is pulling his Church slowly back together -- largely using the printing press's greatest descendent, the internet. It seems to me that, the more I read serious and thought-out theological blogs and internet-available writings, the more I see people from divergent backgrounds -- Baptist, non-denominational, Methodist, Roman Catholic, Anglican, non-denominational Calvinist, etc. -- speaking together increasingly for unity. There seems a real sense that Christianity is something beyond the narrow post-Luther denominational confines we've built, and a common focus on extra-scriptural authority and Church unity.

The reasons are simple, I think, and I would offer my own interest in ecumenicalism (defined broadly) as a template. I grew up in Baptist and non-denominational churches. I was taught much about the Bible, but all from their particular viewpoints (and even those sometimes tended to clash, especially on the nature of baptism.) Yet I've always known that there are other denominations that, while I was assured were not as correct as my church, were indeed Christian. Often times, such denominations used wildly different language -- some didn't even use the phrase "accept the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal savior!" Calvinists focused on God's sovereignty, Methodists (when Christian) focused on God's Kingdom, and the work of His Church on Earth, but all came back to the Scriptures, and all were corrected by them.

Eventually, a two-fold pattern emerged. The most essential elements of the Church -- grace, faith in Christ, faith ought to produce works, the grace and justice of God expressed through Christ -- were found in multiple places. But at the same time, there were people who had radically different interpretations of some pretty hefty concepts, and who used Scriptures to back them up. How can you know that you are saved? I'd always been taught that it was a specific "believer's prayer," and then I was sure based on that historical occurrence. I met Calvinists (or hypercalvinists, or whatever the hell you want me to call them) who said that it wasn't that simple, that the indications of being a Christian was in works and love, even though all must proceed out of a faith in Christ. And they could outquote me in Scripture, but fundamentally I realized that my arguments weren't going to be settled by throwing Scriptures back and forth. On that unqualifiably significant issue, the Scriptures were just plain confusing. (Which, I suppose, is why they call it a paradox.)

Then came my consideration of G. K. Chesterton, the avowed Catholic author of a hundred years ago who had no problem resting on the received tradition of generations of theologians who had studied and prayed and sweated and labored to understand God's mysteries. Then came my increasing disgust with the nearly heretical and otherwise morally bankrupt nature of many popular Praise and Worship songs. Then came a number of discussions with Greek Orthodox priests, who revealed a tradition which seemed more correct than Roman Catholicism, and yet one which valued "Tradition" as approximately equal to "Scriptures." Then came my "High-Anglican" roommate, who was truly a Christian, yet saw the Church in a vastly different light. Then came my discovery of Michael Spencer, whose blog reflected his experiences as a minister in a multi-denomination ministry (as well as his disgust with the narrowness and increasing anti-Biblical nature of modern Evangelism.) And now I've seen a vast sprawl of blogs turning the focus back to Patrology (the study of the early Church, which after all had the authority to determine what the Scriptures themselves would be). A great recent example is the blog of Wyman Richardson, a blog dedicated largely to locating the modern Baptist tradition within the "one holy, apostolic, and catholic church."

This is a dark time for the Church, I will easily admit. Christians in America, arguably the world's cultural leader, are just as likely to have extramarital sex, get a divorce, and refuse to give to the poor as Christians elsewhere. And the rest of the world, excepting small pockets where Christians are kept devout by persecution, seems to be either following suit or abandoning Christianity altogether.

But there have been many dark times. I would give a description, but Chesterton put it better:

I suspect that we should find several occasions when Christendom was thus to all appearance hollowed out from within by doubt and indifference, so that only the old Christian shell stood as the pagan shell had stood so long. But the difference is that in every such case, the sons were fanatical for the faith where the fathers had been slack about it. This is obvious in the case of the transition from the Renaissance to the Counter-Reformation. It is obvious in the case of a transition from the eighteenth century to the many Catholic revivals of our own time . . . Just as some might have thought the Church simply a part of the Roman Empire, so others later might have thought the Church only a part of the Dark Ages. The Dark Ages ended as the Empire had ended; and the Church should have departed with them, if she had been also one of the shades of night. {The Everlasting Man, Garden City, NY: Doubleday Image, 1925, 250-252}

Luther's sola scriptura, taken too strictly, leads to an unhealthy focus on the individual's interpretation of scriptures and ignores the Scriptural mandate for the Church leadership to guide the Church in the way of truth. Through the medium of the internet, I see a growing rough consensus, from many different areas, calling for church unity and a role of Christ's body that doesn't mandate every Christian to create his theology in its entirety from scratch. May God bring His Church through her current dark times, and may He heal the horrid schisms that fragment the community of Christ's Body. And may He do so soon.