Some of my faith opinions are still in flux. In other words there is some circumstantial data that is in harmony with my “fringe” opinions, but my conclusions are, to some degree, a willing “leap of faith”. This is true for just a few of my beliefs.

Nevertheless, all opinions are a mixture of bias and knowledge.

Also, there is so much to my belief, that I will not be able to include everything; otherwise it would be a very long and boring autobiography.

These are the questions that I will address.

• A. Why do I believe in a Creator of the universe?
• B. Why do I believe that Jesus is the Messiah and the actively creative power of this Creator?
• C. Why do I believe that this Creator is the inspiration behind the scriptures?
• D. And, why do I believe that the Church is the body and Bride of Jesus the Creator?

I have focused the question by the modifications above. I think that our answers become more apparent, when our questions become less ambiguous.

ANSWER FOR ITEM “A”

The issue of “Does God Exist?” was a problematic one, in my early adult life, i.e. Age 18 to Age 21. There were some ancillary issues (which are of a personal nature that I won’t include here) that affected my ability to accept “belief.” I have used the term “belief” and not “belief in God”, with intent, which you will see as this answer develops in a later post.

Things that I began to observe in the world, appeared to be out-of-step with what I had been taught by my parents, bible teachers, preachers, etc. And it finally culminated in my 1st freshmen year at Oklahoma Christian College, in the fall and spring of 1983-84. I was in a class that challenged me on my “Belief in God.”
“Genesis”, which was taught by a respected Bible professor and PHD at OC, ironically, challenged my belief in God. Very quickly into the course, the 2nd week, as I recall, we got to Genesis 3. This is the fall of Adam and Eve.

I raised my hand and asked the professor the question, “Did God create the devil?” I thought it was a valid question. Incidentally, I still think it is valid, but I now have the answer that is sufficient to me. (I will give my answer to this at a later date. I believe that this answer is a part of Matt’s “etc.” from his question quoted above.)

We had studied the “creation” episode in the preceding week. But, in Genesis 3:1, we were looking “eye-to-eye” with a talking serpent. The professor gave only a very cursory answer, that I will paraphrase from recollection; ‘Yes, God created all things…, but I don’t have time to go off on “a wild goose-chase.”’

It was my opinion, at that moment, that he had perceived my question as an insolent attempt to divert the focus of his lecture.

And, now that I am 23 years removed from my passions of that morning, I must admit that I was, indeed, a very cheeky college student. And, that I may have, in-fact, been acting mischievous by asking the question to him, in the fashion that I did.
What self-respecting college student wouldn’t take an opportunity to ask an “honest and legitimate” question, which has as an added benefit of pinning the shoulders of an “Ivory Tower” professor to the floor?

I could even feign an indignant offense and by doing so, take the desired excuse for abandoning my faith.

After all there was a “fun” social function coming up in a couple of weeks with a sister club. Hey, if Dr. Blah,Blah can’t answer a simple question about the origin of the devil, then the answer is obvious, right? God, doesn’t exist? And “Come on guys, let’ parrrrrrty!”

It was a very useful Ad Hominem and it opened up my social calendar quite well.

I subsequently dropped out of college that semester, so that I could fully devote myself to hedonism, which had become my new religion.

However, I had not truly abandoned all my knowledge of the bible, which was something that always caused an irritation to my moral conscience, even as I went about my apostate ways.

I won’t go into the dark period of half-life. But, suffice it to say that I awakened one day.

I think it happened when I found my bible in the trunk of my car. There was a lot of symbolism in this storage of what had been a High School graduation gift from the congregation where I’d grown up. The symbolism did not go unnoticed by me. It was a cold shower and demanded that I take a decision on where I was headed. I should either throw away this moldy old book and get on with my life, such as it was, or I should take some serious time restoring the book to a readable condition.

I decided to go the restoration route. The bible had slipped into the lowest part of the trunk, in the fender well. There it got wet from water that seeped up from the drain plug that was in that low area. Each and every page had fused to its neighboring pages. So, the effort to get the pages open was quite time consuming.

But, the pragmatic answer of just disposing of the book and getting a new one, begged the question; Why get a new one? If I don’t care enough about this one that was a gift. I managed to open the bible and I keep it on a prominent bookcase in my living room. It is still misshapen and most of the pages are discolored by mold and water stains. But, it still has the power of life for a seeking heart. And it reminds me of where I have been.

Following my apostasy, a phase that lasted two years, I went back to college and enrolled in a course that had the opposite affect. This course too, was a profound irony.

Author: Thomas Merton
Orbis Books, Maryknoll, NY, pp.165

An Excerpt from the Jacket:

“In this long-withheld manuscript, Thomas Merton identifies the readiness of many nations – led by our own – to prepare for and threaten mass murder as the most urgent moral crisis of our time. Ringing across four decades, his profound warning is more timely than tomorrow’s headlines.” Daniel Ellsberg

An Excerpt from the Book:

(Click here to read the Forward to the book)

This then in conclusion: the Christian is bound to work for peace by working against global dissolution and anarchy. Due to nationalist and revolutionary ideologies (for Communism is in fact exploiting the intense nationalism of backward peoples), a worldwide spirit of confusion and disorder is breaking up the unity and the order of civilized society.

It is true that we live in an epoch of revolution, and that the break-up and re-formation of society is inevitable. But the Christian must see that his mission is not to contribute to the blind destructive forces of annihilation which tend to destroy civilization and mankind together. He must seek to build rather than to destroy. He most orient his efforts towards world unity and not towards world division. Anyone who promotes policies of hatred and of war is working for the division and destruction of civilized mankind.

We have to be convinced that there are certain violences which the moral law absolutely forbids to all men, such as the use of torture, the killing of hostages, genocide (or the mass extermination of racial, national or other groups for no reason than that they belong to an “undesirable” category). The destruction of civilian centers by nuclear annihilation is genocide.

We have to become aware of the poisonous effect of the mass media that keep violence, cruelty and sadism constantly present to the minds of unformed and irresponsible people. We have to recognize the danger to the whole world in the fact that today the economic life of the more highly developed nations is in large part centered on the production of weapons, missiles and other engines of destruction.

We have to consider that hate propaganda, and the consistent heckling of one government by another, has always inevitably led to violent conflect. We have to recognize the implications of voting for extremist politicians who promote policies of hate. We must consider the dire effect of fanaticism and witch-hunting within our own nation. We must never forget that our most ordinary decisions may have terrible consequences.

It is no longer reasonable or right to leave all decisions to a largely anonymous power elite that is driving us all, in our passivity, towards ruin. We have to make ourselves heard.

Every individual Christian has a grave responsibility to protest clearly and forcibly against trends that lead inevitably to crimes which the Church deplores and condemns. Ambiguity, hesitation and compromise are no longer permissible. We must find some new and constructive way of settling international disputes.

It is clearly the mind of the Church that every possible effort must be made for the abolition of war, even though the theory of the “just war” and the right of legitimate self-defense remain intact. But appeal to this right must not blind us to the much higher and more urgent duty of working with all our power for peace.

This may be extraordinarily difficult. Obviously war cannot be abolished by mere wishing.

We have still time to do something about it, but the time is rapidly running out.

Table of Contents:

1. Preamble: Peace – A religious responsibility

2. Can we choose peace?

3. The dance of death

4. The Christian as peacemaker

5. War in Origen and St. Augustine

6. The legacy of Machiavelli

7. Justice in modern war

8. Religious problems of the cold war

9. Theologians an defense

10. Working for peace

11. Beyond east and west

12. Moral passivity and demonic activism

13. The scientists and nuclear war

14. Red or dead? The anatomy of a cliche

15. Christian perspectives in world crisis

16. Christian conscience and national defense

17. The Christian choice

This book has my highest reccomendations. It has helped seal my understanding of the issue of the Christian perspective on warfare once and for all.

Concerning the term “post -Christian” Merton writes this:

“Whether we like to admit it or not, we are living in a post- Christian world, that is to say a world in which Christian ideals and attitudes are relegated more and more to the minority. It is frightening to realize that the facade of Christianity which still generally survives has perhaps little or nothing behind it, and what was once called “Christian society” is more purely and simply a materialistic neopaganism with a Christian veneer… Not only non-Christians but even Christians themselves tend to dismiss the Gospel ethic on nonviolence and love as “sentimental”. “

Merton’s book was written in 1961 at the onset of the “Cold War” and the Vietnam conflict. Not only was it very prophetic for that time as well as this, but it recognizes the rise of the hardline neopagan pseudo- Christianity that holds sway in today’s toxic political discourse. If one were to substitute the word “terrorist” each time Merton wrote the word “Communist” he would be speaking directly to us today about the “War on Terror”.

For instance:

“At one extreme we have the “hard” and “realistic” view. It excludes all other considerations and concentrates on one inescapable fact: the “terrorist” threat to western society. It considers that negotiation with “terrorism” is for all practical purposes futile. It is thoroughly convinced that only the strongest pressure will be of any use in stopping “terrorism” and the victory over “terrorism” by any available means takes precedence over everything else. Hence this “hard” position is in fact favorable to nuclear war and makes no distinction between preemption and retaliation, except perhaps to favor preeemption as more likely to succeed…
…they tend to regard anyone who strongly favors peace and disarmament as a “terrorist” dupe or fellow traveller, simply because of the worldwide propaganda given to the “terrorist strategy for peace”.

The simplicity and ruthlessness of this view makes an immediate appeal to a very large proportion of the American middle class. It is simple. It is clear. It promises results. It has the advantage above all of permitting disturbed and frustrated people to discharge their anxieties upon a hated enemy and thereby achieve a sense of meaning and satifaction in their own lives. But unfortunately this kind of satisfaction leads to moral blindness and to the stultification of conscience. The fact that this “solution” at the same time favors nuclear war, and considers it fully morally justified by its “good cause” and also appeals to certain types of Christians, shows that it is a SERIOUS danger. To be succinct, it produces a state of invincible moral ignorance. It consecrates policies that have very dubius justice, blurring the ethical clarity of Christian thought, making base emotions and hatreds with the specious appearance of christian zeal.”

This book is the most refined, comprehensive and persuasive tesament on this subject i have ever read.

Lyrics:

When I die don’t cry for me
In my fathers arms I’ll be
The wounds this world left on my soul
Will all be healed and I’ll be whole

Sun and moon will be replaced
With the light of Jesus’ face
And I will not be ashamed
For my savior knows my name

It don’t matter where you bury me
I’ll be home and I’ll be free
It don’t matter where I lay
All my tears be washed away

Gold and silver blind the eye
Temporary riches lie
Come and eat from heaven’s store
Come and drink and thirst no more

So weep not for me my friend
When my time below does end
For my life belongs to him
Who will raise the dead again

Dr. Rodney Plunket

Since this past Friday was our nation’s Independence Day, our national birthday, it seems to me particularly appropriate for us to come together and ask, “How should we, as Christians love our country; how should a people of The Book love America according to the teachings of that Book?” I have chosen three examples from the Bible which I think are relevant in teaching us how to love America. Let’s go to The Book.

Please open your Bible to Isaiah (Isa) 1.

Is. 1:1 The vision of Isaiah son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.

2 Hear, O heavens, and listen, O earth;

for the Lord has spoken:

I reared children and brought them up,

but they have rebelled against me.

3 The ox knows its owner,

and the donkey its master’s crib;

but Israel does not know,

my people do not understand.

Is. 1:4 Ah, sinful nation,

people laden with iniquity,

offspring who do evil,

children who deal corruptly,

who have forsaken the Lord,

who have despised the Holy One of Israel,

who are utterly estranged!

Is. 1:5 Why do you seek further beatings?

Why do you continue to rebel?

The whole head is sick,

and the whole heart faint.

6 From the sole of the foot even to the head,

there is no soundness in it,

but bruises and sores

and bleeding wounds;

they have not been drained, or bound up,

or softened with oil.

Is. 1:7 Your country lies desolate,

your cities are burned with fire;

in your very presence

aliens devour your land;

it is desolate, as overthrown by foreigners.

8 And daughter Zion is left

like a booth in a vineyard,

like a shelter in a cucumber field,

like a besieged city.

9 If the Lord of hosts

had not left us a few survivors,

we would have been like Sodom,

and become like Gomorrah.

Is. 1:10 Hear the word of the Lord,

you rulers of Sodom!

Listen to the teaching of our God,

you people of Gomorrah!

11 What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices?

says the Lord;

I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams

and the fat of fed beasts;

I do not delight in the blood of bulls,

or of lambs, or of goats.

Is. 1:12 When you come to appear before me,

who asked this from your hand?

Trample my courts no more;

13 bringing offerings is futile;

incense is an abomination to me.

New moon and sabbath and calling of convocation—

I cannot endure solemn assemblies with iniquity.

14 Your new moons and your appointed festivals

my soul hates;

they have become a burden to me,

I am weary of bearing them.

15 When you stretch out your hands,

I will hide my eyes from you;

even though you make many prayers,

I will not listen;

your hands are full of blood.

16 Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean;

remove the evil of your doings

from before my eyes;

cease to do evil,

17 learn to do good;

seek justice,

I want to stop right here for just a moment. The prophet is speaking for God, and he is speaking words that clearly convey God’s white-hot anger due to the evil of the people and the leaders of the nation of Judah. But what exactly are they doing? Up to now we have had no explicit examples of what behaviors they are to change to become pleasing to God. In the next few lines God we hear of the changes that need to come. In the next few lines God expresses what the people are to start doing that they have not been doing. Hear what they are to change. Please look with me at the reminder of verse (v) 17 and then listen to the word of God in verses 18-20.

rescue the oppressed,

defend the orphan,

plead for the widow.

Is. 1:18 Come now, let us argue it out,

says the Lord:

though your sins are like scarlet,

they shall be like snow;

though they are red like crimson,

they shall become like wool.

19 If you are willing and obedient,

you shall eat the good of the land;

20 but if you refuse and rebel,

you shall be devoured by the sword;

for the mouth of the Lord has spoken (NRSV).

God is, through the prophet Isaiah, calling the nation, which God loves, to repent and change. The people are evil. Their “hands are full of blood” (v 15). Who is it that they are abusing? Whose blood have they shed? Verse 17 lets us know the answer to that question. The people against whom the nation of Judah has sinned are the people who have fallen from or been kicked off of “the power ladder.” It is the “oppressed,” “the orphan,” and “the widow.” Those were the groups that had no political power and no financial influence. They were, therefore, “easy pickings” for those who did have political power and/or wealth. They were the ones who were abused. They were the ones who suffered one injustice after another. They were the ones who lost their lives at the hands of their own fellow Jews. And God was so angry that God was ready to destroy the nation of Judah. God was ready to do that because God could stand this sin no longer.

Now please look with me at Isa 3:13-15.

Is. 3:13 The Lord rises to argue his case;

he stands to judge the peoples.

14 The Lord enters into judgment

with the elders and princes of his people:

It is you who have devoured the vineyard;

the spoil of the poor is in your houses.

15 What do you mean by crushing my people,

by grinding the face of the poor? says the Lord God of hosts (NRSV).

Here God is declaring anger toward the leaders of the nation of Judah. The phrase “elders and princes of his people” in v 14 makes that clear. What have these lead­ers done? They “have devoured the vineyard.” The phrase “the vineyard” is used in the Book of Isaiah to refer to the nation of God’s people, i.e., Judah (see Isa 5:1-7). How have the leaders of God’s people “devoured the vineyard”? The lines that follow that phrase answer that question. They have taken “spoil” from “the poor” and have made that spoil their own. In other words, they have treated the poor of their own nation as enemies. They have, as it were, gone to war against them and have taken what they have as the victors in ancient warfare took home the wealth of those whom they defeated. Again, the prophet cries out, on behalf of God, against the way the people without power are treated. In Isa 1 the terms that are used are “the oppressed,” “the orphans,” and “the widows.” Here the term that is used describes the category that these same types of people fell into. They were poor. They did not have the influence or the power to protect themselves. The leaders of God’s people were to guarantee that justice was granted to these people, but instead they were the very ones who oppressed them.

If we love America according to the teachings of the Bible, if we love America by The Book, we will love our nation like God loved the nation of Judah as revealed by the words of God’s prophets. We will love America by being the voice of those without power or influence. We will love America by crying out for those who often have no one of influence who will listen to them.

Isaiah is just one of the prophets whose message is dominated by cries for God’s people to have soft hearts toward the poor and disenfranchised. And we should note that many of the prophets were men of influence. Some scholars think that Isaiah was a priest, and Jeremiah and Ezekiel certainly were. These men were not without influence; they were from the upper classes; but God took hold of them and made them spokesmen for the lower classes.

It is, I think, not difficult to see a parallel between God’s use of the prophets and the way God can use the members of the Broadway church of Christ. May we be prophetic voices. May we cry out for the people whom often are completely factored out of all the political equations. And may whatever political influence we have be used to focus attention upon the needs of America’s poor and disenfranchised. That is one way to love America by The Book.

The next two lessons that I hear from the Bible on how to love America are found in the New Testament. Please look with me at 1 Timothy 2:1-2 (1Tim) and follow along as I read.

1Tim 2:1 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for everyone, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and dignity.

Now please turn to 1 Peter (1Pet) 2:13-17.

1Pet 2:13 For the Lord’s sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, 14 or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. 15 For it is God’s will that by doing right you should silence the ignorance of the foolish. 16 As servants of God, live as free people, yet do not use your freedom as a pretext for evil. 17 Honor everyone. Love the family of believers. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

As many of you will know, the kings and emperors of the ancient world were often unbelievably heinous persons. Their evil often expressed itself in sick and perverted ways. But the New Testament is very clear. The Christians of that day were to pray for them and to honor them.

I confess that I struggle with this teaching. I find political leaders very easy to criticize, and I get so caught up in criticizing them that I do not honor them in anyway at all. I believe that I am supposed to pray for my leaders from an attitude which honors them. And I am trying to learn how to be a prophetic voice of critique while, at the same time, being a person who honors and prays blessing upon our nation’s leaders.

I have been around this church long enough to know that we have many members who have an easier time praying positive prayers of blessing for and honoring leaders who are Republicans than they do upon Democrats. We have a smaller number of members who have the exact opposite problem. My problem may be more severe. You see, I have just as much trouble with Republicans as I do Democrats. So I ask you, please commit with me today to love America by The Book by honoring leaders with whom we agree and with whom we do not agree and by praying for all of our leaders with an attitude of honor in our hearts as we pray. Please join me in prayer now. [I led a prayer for President George W. Bush, his cabinet, and other leaders at this point in the sermon].

For the third lesson concerning loving America by The Book, I want to note briefly a passage in the Book of Acts and a passage in the Book of Revelation. In Acts 17, we read of Paul’s sermon in the city of Athens. In that sermon Paul makes use of an idol that he saw as walked through the city. Listen to what he says:

Acts 17:23 For as I went through the city and looked carefully at the objects of your worship, I found among them an altar with the inscription, ‘To an unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you.

Remember that Paul was a Jew. Jews were commanded not to make any idols. Yet Paul the Jew connects an idol in Athens to the living God of the Bible. That is radical.

In Revelation 13 we have the story of the Red Dragon. That story makes clear use of a pagan myth known all over the world of Paul’s day. I doubt that any of the original readers of the Book of Revelation had not already heard the pagan version of this myth. Yet the inspired apostle John takes this myth and uses it to convey a message of Jesus, a message concerning the incredible power of the living God.

If we are going to love America by The Book, we must do what Paul and John did. We must embrace America’s secular culture enough to be able to find ways to proclaim Jesus, ways that are built into that culture. If we use means to connect with our culture that simply do not connect, then we will be irrelevant and fruitless. God will find others to spread the Good News. God will not use us.

Surely we all want to be instruments of righteousness in the hands of God. Let’s learn from Paul and John. Let’s make sure that we find ways to spread Christian faith to our culture.

Let’s love America by The Book. Let’s love America like the prophets did by being God’s voices for those without power and influence. Let’s love America as Paul and Peter teach us to do by honoring our leaders and praying for them from a stance of honor. Let’s love America like Paul loved Athens and John loved the people of Asia Minor by embracing our secular culture enough to find the best way to connect the Bible’s Good News to that culture.

We are going to sing “God Bless America” now. Please pray this song. Please pray that God will bless in God’s way our nation.

If you have a spiritual need that we can address, please come now as we stand and sing.

SOURCE: http://broadway-church.org/home/sermons/2003/0706.html

Broadway Church of Christ, Lubbock, Texas

source

‘Radah’

In Gen 1:26-28, God uses the word ‘radah’, a Hebrew word that is often translated as ‘have dominion over’? But we Western Christians (and Jews?) have misunderstood its meaning. It is a word that is used only a dozen times in the Old Testament, and thus is rather special in its meaning.

We have taken it to mean ‘dominate over’ just as a mediaeval ruler or potentate would dominate over his subjects, using them for his own ends, his own pleasure, his own prestige, his own wars, etc. But an examination of ‘radah’ shows that this is NOT the type of ‘dominion’ that we are called upon to have over the creation. For example, ‘radah’ is used in Ezek 34:4, which shows the wrong type of ‘radah’. The use of ‘radah’ there shows that God condemns such an attitude:

“Woe to the shepherds of Israel, who only take care of themselves! Should not shepherds take care of the flock? You eat the curds, clothe yourselves with the wool and slaughter the choice animals, but you do not take care of the flock. You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. You have ruled [radah] them harshly and brutally.” (2-5).

Whilst we might argue precisely how this applies, I am here referring to it at a higher level, namely that it shows the heart of God, whose image we are made in. And that image is tied up with our ‘radah’ of the creation.

Our ‘radah’, of the creation, is not to be with harshness and cruelty and selfishness. Our ‘radah’ is to be, not for our own sake, but for the sake of the one ruled, that is, for the sake of the creation. We should heal those parts of creation that are sick, bind up those parts that are injured, bring back those parts that are straying, search for those parts that have become lost, as it were.

So we ‘radah’ creation to represent God to it, to develop and refine and beautify it for its own sake, rather than for ours. (cf. the notion of Love: giving for the other. God is Love.)

Note: This Creation Mandate has never been rescinded. It is still in force for us, even in this gospel period.

The Creation Matters to God

In Genesis 1:26-28, God gives humankind ‘dominion’ over his Creation. Many have seemed to assume this justifies our ‘domination’ of Creation. The ‘domination’ we have exercised has had the following characteristics:

• We have treated the Creation as though it were ours for the taking and use.
• In particular, we have treated is as mere raw materials to satisfy our desires, and our economic-technical systems.
• This has often - in all cultures - led to cruelty in our dealing with animals.
• Even when we have not been brutal, we have usually treated the natural Creation as a mere backdrop to the human drama, of salvation (if Christians) or of progress (if materialists).
• Thus we have not usually allowed that Creation has any meaning in its own right.
• The above points have been exacerbated in some Christians who have assumed that the physical Creation is under a curse and will be done away with, so it does not much matter, in eternal terms.

Here is an exposition of passages of Scripture that show that the Creation is important to God, and should also be important to us. Ecological damage is an evil in God’s eyes. And the creation will be redeemed just as humanity will be. A similar message, though in a different style, can be found in a wider discussion of why Christians in particular should be ‘green’.

Gen 1:26-28, Gen 2:15: The purpose, role of humanity

The purpose, role of humanity: to cultivate, guard, steward, manage - for the sake of God and of the creation itself. See next.

(NB. Westminster confession: Chief end of Man: to glorify God and enjoy him forever: no: to steward the Creation.) (Link also with: we are God’s representatives, ambassadors, sons, trusted servants: to show him forth, be like him, have his attitudes. Also God is Love)

Gen 1:26-28, ‘Radah’

What is ‘radah’, the Hebrew word used in Gen 1:26,28 that is often translated as ‘have dominion over’? It is a word that is used only a dozen times in the Old Testament, and thus is rather special in its meaning.

We have taken it to mean ‘dominate over’ just as a mediaeval ruler or potentate would dominate over his subjects, using them for his own ends, his own pleasure, his own prestige, his own wars, etc. But an examination of ‘radah’ shows that this is NOT the type of ‘dominion’ that we are called upon to have over the creation. For example, ‘radah’ is used in Ezek 34:4, which shows the wrong type of ‘radah’. The use of ‘radah’ there shows that God condemns such an attitude:

“Woe to the shepherds of Israel, who only take care of themselves! Should not shepherds take care of the flock? You eat the curds, clothe yourselves with the wool and slaughter the choice animals, but you do not take care of the flock. You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. You have ruled [radah] them harshly and brutally.” (2-5).

Whilst we might argue precisely how this applies, I am here referring to it at a higher level, namely that it shows the heart of God, whose image we are made in. And that image is tied up with our ‘radah’ of the creation.

Our ‘radah’, of the creation, is not to be with harshness and cruelty and selfishness. Our ‘radah’ is to be, not for our own sake, but for the sake of the one ruled, that is, for the sake of the creation. We should heal those parts of creation that are sick, bind up those parts that are injured, bring back those parts that are straying, search for those parts that have become lost, as it were.

So we ‘radah’ creation to represent God to it, to develop and refine and beautify it for its own sake, rather than for ours. (cf. the notion of Love: giving for the other. God is Love.)

Note: This Creation Mandate has never been rescinded. It is still in force for us, even in this gospel period.

Psa 97:1, Psa 98:7-8, Psa 96:10-13. Creation delights in God.

Various psalms like those mentioned expect various parts of creation to delight in God and in his justice. The seas are to roar, trees to clap their hands, etc.

While these passages are picturesque, they do express a truth: that creation rejoices in God and God’s ways. Each thing ‘rejoices’ in the way appropriate to it; e.g. a tree would ‘rejoice’ in the way that a tree can, and so on. Each thing rejoices because God’s ways bring health, bounty, true prosperity, shalom.

All creation, including human and non-human together, find that God’s ways are good, and to be shouted about.

Romans 8:19. Creation and God’s ‘Sons’

Romans 8:19 says that all creation waits with eager longing, groans, until God reveals his sons.

The Greek word for ’sons’ is not that used for ‘children’ or ‘make offspring’, but is ‘hios’: those who are like the father in attitude, will, decision-making tendencies, etc. The father of those times would, when he reckoned his male child had come to this state of maturity, take his son to the public place and announce “This is my son”. Meaning “I trust him to choose, behave, decide like me, and will stand all his promises he makes.”

God has sons, those who come to the maturity in Christ in such a way that we have the attitude, will, decision-making tendencies that God himself has. God is Love; his sons will be love, rather than selfishness. This links with the type of ‘radah’ that we should display.

Now, this makes sense of Romans 8:19. As we saw above, God’s creation ‘rejoices’ in God’s ways, when it is treated as God would. So, in this period in which creation suffers the harm caused by selfish humanity who exercise wrong type of ‘radah’ over it, it is eagerly longing for those human beings who will truly be God’s sons (hios) and behave towards it like God would.

So, when God’s sons are revealed (or appear on the scene), the creation rejoices. Because they are like God, and will treat it like God does. Or like God would. (This links too with our role and purpose, and the idea of being God’s ambassadors and representatives.)

‘Tsedeq’

Now, what is this way in which God would treat the creation? The clearest understanding of it is the Hebrew word ‘tsedeq’, which is translated both justice and righteousness. Paul Marshall has defined ‘tsedeq’ as ‘Maintaining right relationships among all things in the created order.’ (For fuller discussion of this, see tsedeq.html.)

Note that it is relational rather than individualistic or state-centred in meaning. Note also that it goes beyond legal frameworks. Note that, though translated ‘righteousness’, ‘tsedeq’ is not goodness; though translated ‘justice’ it is not legal judgement or retribution. Both are tsedeq. The meanings we normally apply to ‘justice’ and ‘righteousness’ are distortions, arising from what happens when we start with the presupposition that the Creation is of no value. If it is with all creation, then all creation is important. Let’s see if that is so.

Jer 12:4. Ecological results of our sin.

This verse clearly shows that ecological harm comes from sin and evil in human society. It links ecology with righteousness. We tend to think that God is only interested in righteousness, and does not want us to be too concerned about ecology. But in fact they are closely intertwined.

The Lord’s care specifically for non-human creation

But does God really love and value his creation? All we have above so far is a deduction that he does; are there any scriptures that show clearly that he does love and value his creation?

• Jonah 4:11 The Lord can concern specifically for animals
• Psa 145:9 The Lord has compassion on all he made
• Psa 36:6 Men and animals are in your care
• Lev 25:7 God has care for wild as well as domestic animals
• Lev 26:34 The land itself enjoys rest
• Lev 26:43 .. even without people
• Prov 12:10 We are to look after animals

Job 38. God has purposes beyond humanity.

But maybe God only values his creation because it provides food and resources for humanity? And, without humanity, it has no meaning? While it is certainly true that humanity is the pinnacle of God’s creation and that without humanity creation was only ‘good’ and not ‘very good’, God’s words in Job 38 and 39 show that God has purposes in his creation that do not centre on humanity. These two chapters are saying, in effect: “There are wild things, Job, that are important to me, even though they are not useful to humankind and even a threat to humankind.”

Rev 11:18. “Destroy those who destroy the earth.”

In Rev 11:18 we find an interesting plea by the angels to God in his role as final judge. They say “the time has come to destroy those who destroy the earth.”

And who is destroying the earth today? We are, those of us for whom manufacturers used to create refrigerators filled with CFCs, those of us for whom electric power is created that brings global warming, those of us who use our cars without thinking and when we could walk or cycle, and thus produce greenhouse gases, those of us who demand cheap food from all over the world and thus indirectly the destruction of rainforests and local communities, those of us who demand low taxes so that Government does not properly clean our waste, and the seas become polluted, those of us who … are, by our expectations, habits, demands, are forcing others to destroy the earth.

Heb 1:1-3, John 3:16, Eph 1:10, Col 1:20. Salvation goes beyond humanity.

We tend to think that the end state is concerned with Christ and humanity (e.g. Christ and his Bride, the mass of saved humanity). But Hebrews 1:1-3 says that Christ will inherit ‘all things’, not just humanity. Note also the integration of these ‘all things’ with humanity and forgiveness in these verses.

(So, if we mess up the creation, with pollution or by driving species to extinction, as we do, then we are damaging Christ’s inheritance. We claim to love him; do we? Or are we carelessly letting his inheritance be less than it would otherwise be?)

Notice also that that famous verse John 3:16, tells us that God so loved the world; that is, the creation, not just humanity. It specifically does not say “God so loved humankind that he gave his Son…”.

In Col 1:20 and Eph 1:10 we find similar sentiments: The whole universe is to be reconciled with God, summed up in Christ, not just humanity.

Rom 8: Creation will one day be set free from its bondage to decay.

But is not the creation to be burned up at Christ’s second coming? Not if Romans 8 is true. Rather, it will be set free from the tendency to decay. It will share the glorious freedom of the sons of God.

Notice Matt 24:37-41. When Christ comes again, “One will be taken and the other left.” Who will be left? We assume that the righeous ones will be taken from this earth, to escape it, and the wicked ones will be left, and destroyed. But look a few verses back; Jesus very explicitly compared the future division of humanity with that in the days of Noah. There it was the wicked who were taken away; the righteous were the ones who were left.

The problem is that for centuries we have assumed that the creation is unimportant to God, and will be destroyed; that idea has more to do with pagan Greek thinking than with what is revealed in Scripture. In fact, the earth will survive (though renewed and resurrected just as we will be).

This post is a continuation of:

The Meaning of Life, All of Creation and Worship

Here is another brilliant article that I found at Nonviolence.org

Its sad to me that one of the greatest if not THE greatest proponents of non- violence in history was Jesus Christ and yet the modern voice of Christian non- violence is seriously marginalized and squelched by the more popular positions of “Christian” militarism. I have had a lot to say about both Christian non- violence and “Christian” militarism on this blog. If you are interested… just look around and you will find it.

Meanwhile, enjoy the article:

Here is a brilliant article that I found at Nonviolence.org

Its sad to me that one of the greatest if not THE greatest proponents of non- violence in history was Jesus Christ and yet the modern voice of Christian non- violence is seriously marginalized and squelched by the more popular positions of “Christian” militarism. I have had a lot to say about both Christian non- violence and “Christian” militarism on this blog. If you are interested… just look around and you will find it.

Meanwhile, enjoy the article:

Philosophy of Nonviolence: Yes, But What About Hitler?
Part Four. By David McReynolds

At some point all pacifists face this classic question, stated in many different ways. “Yes, but what about Hitler” can also be “Yes, but what about Arafat … Netanyahu … Criminals … Fascists … Racists … Serbs … Croatians … Muslims”.

At first glance nothing is stranger than the notion that a people without weapons could take defeat an occupying force (India), or an oppressive and unjust racial structure (the U.S.). But then some dismiss these triumphs by saying the same tactics wouldn’t work against Hitler - that “nonviolence really needs a humane, Christian, decent, democratic opponent … such as the white Southerner or the British … or it won’t work”.

Part of the problem here is myth. There was very little “nice” about the British. I will come back to that in a moment. But first there is a “terrible truth” we all have to face, whether we are pacifists or the most dedicated of violent terrorists - not all battles can be won. There are times when nothing will work. (This does not mean we shouldn’t try - we never know when the tide of history is about the change). Racism was not less evil in Montgomery, Alabama, in 1955 when the Montgomery Bus Boycott began than in 1915. Nor was this the first resistance. Blacks had risked their lives and lost their lives during their entire “American experience”.
SOMETIMES NOTHING WILL SUCCEED

In South Africa, decades ago there had been nonviolent campaigns led by Gandhi’s son, Manilal - they failed. So far - let’s be blunt - we have failed in this country at the task of “turning America around”. In some ways our job is harder than Gandhi’s - the Indians knew they were militarily weak compared to the British and were willing to examine alternatives, while Americans think they are strong because of the weapons they possess - and are reluctant to consider alternatives.

But back to the British and those “nice Christian Southerners”. The British were imperial rulers, repressive, violent when necessary, and if there were paradoxes to their rule in India, they were less from some decency inherent in British Imperialism than from self interest. The tropical climate of India did not attract large numbers of English. To rule the vastness of India, the colonizers relied on “natives” trained to manage the courts, police, transportation, postal services, etc. From a Marxist point of view there were contradictions built in. The British trained the Indians in the skills of running India. But the result was to create precisely that educated elite which led the independence movement.

Gandhi studied for the law in London, went on to South Africa, one of the many lawyers, and civil servants the British had trained to run their Empire. There was nothing about the English that was uniquely nicer than the Germans. Germany was the most civilized nation in Europe in the 1930’s. Hitler was a monster, yes, but not an alien. Second, because the Holocaust was documented, and happened in the midst of Europe (and because “our side” won) we know a great deal about it - and may think it was unique. Unhappily it was not. Records of the slave trade suggest far higher numbers of Africans died during that trade, and the evidence of Belgian rule in the Congo is shocking - in a short period after the Belgians took over in the last century, they killed several million more Africans than the Germans did the Jews. Evil in human affairs is universal, the Nazis had no monopoly on it.
EVIL IN HUMAN AFFAIRS

Americans need to pay attention to our own history. I am not trying to downgrade the Holocaust. I hope WRL Locals take note of April 22nd, Yom HaShoah, and arrange an observance in your community. No pacifist should be in the business of arguing “my pain is greater than your pain”. But we are charged to be honest about what we ourselves, or our nation, has been complicit in. The pain of 400 years of slavery is of the same level of evil as the Holocaust. In reading a New York Times Magazine piece about the Vietnam War (8.10.97), the figure accepted for Vietnamese deaths was 3.6 million. Their sole crime was defending their nation against a foreign invader - us. (As the Times noted, that many dead is equivalent, on the basis of the relative populations, to 27 million Americans). When someone says “pacifism is fine but it wouldn’t have worked against Hitler” they should consider that to the Vietnamese, Lyndon Johnson was Hitler, and to Black America Jim Crow was Hitler.

We will never know if nonviolence would have worked against Hitler (or if it might have worked against the Americans in Vietnam if the Vietnamese had chosen that method). The history of the Holocaust shows little resistance of any kind to Hitler from the Jews ( this is not surprising - they could not believe anything as terrible as the “final solution” was contemplated. Historically the Jews survived anti-Semitism by keeping a low profile). Some have said “The Jews were pacifists and look what it got them!” Sorry, they were passive - there is a world of difference. There is no way of knowing if active pacifism would have had any chance of working - we only know it was not tried. I remember the chilling deduction of Hannah Arendt in her book on Eichmann, in which she concluded it was the passive cooperation of the Jews of Europe with the Nazis which helped make the Holocaust possible. If you think about this for a moment it is, unhappily, true. To track down, arrest, transport and kill six million people who are resisting - even by not showing up when ordered, would, at the very least, have caused massive public disorder. (Nothing is easier than saying “I would have resisted” - a cheap sentiment expressed by people who weren’t there. Documents show some resistance, such as the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Violent or nonviolent, radicals honor resistance).
SOME ISOLATED VICTORIES AGAINST HITLER

But within Occupied Europe there were well documented victories for nonviolence. In Norway there was a successful teachers’ strike against being forced to teach Nazi ideology. In Denmark the opposition to the Nazis was led by the King, who said that if the Jews had to put on the “Yellow Star of David”, then he, the King, would be the first man in Denmark to put one on. When the Nazis moved to arrest the Danish Jews, members of the Gestapo leaked this news to the Danish authorities and in 48 hours virtually all the Jews in Denmark were gotten to safety in Sweden. In Bulgaria, which had no history of anti-Semitism, spontaneous civil resistance (including crowds sitting on train tracks) prevented the Nazis from shipping any Jews out of the country.
“THOSE NICE CHRISTIAN SOUTHERNERS”

Of all the places Americans thought resistance to Jim Crow would begin, Montgomery, Alabama, heart of the Confederacy , was the last. I remember a bus ride through the Deep South in 1951, coming back from my first trip to Europe (a pacifist youth conference in Denmark). Inspired by Bayard Rustin and the Journey of Reconciliation I took the Greyhound bus’s Southern route back from New York to Los Angeles. My challenges to Jim Crow were timid - I was alone and not very brave even in a crowd. But I had a good chance to see and feel what it was like to move through the Deep South in the early 1950’s. So much time has now passed - nearly a half century - that Alabama is as far removed from us as Nazi Germany. But the incredible mass opposition to racism began there, in the Deep South, where the greatest danger a civil rights worker faced was not from the Klan but from the Sheriff, where there was no appeal to law, where Blacks could not vote, where night was a time of terror, not rest. Don’t tell older Black Southerners about how safe nonviolence was then!

Nonviolence cannot win every struggle - there are defeats. This is no more reason to abandon nonviolence than the military would give up its weapons if it lost a battle. (Philosophic note: it every military struggle there is a winner and a loser, so half the time violence fails, and half the time it wins. But in nonviolent struggle the objective is not to have a victor but to change the situation itself - a radically different concept).
WHY DOES NONVIOLENCE WORK?

Having admitted our approach cannot win all battles, why does it work at all? Why did it work against the Nazis in Norway and Denmark, or against the power structure in the American South? Or against the British in India?

Let us concede that all human events have “plural explanations”. It takes nothing from the Vietnam Peace movement in our country to see that while our nonviolence was effective, so, too, was the pain of the body bags coming home as a result of the military struggle the Vietnamese waged against our troops. Let us concede that while the British in India weren’t terribly nice, Britain had a democratic society which permitted an anti-colonial politics to develop. Let us admit that the violence of Southern racists was limited by fear of federal intervention, due to strong Northern support for Martin Luther King Jr.

Looking farther back in history, to times before any “civil society”, there are two examples of movements which spread in the face of great oppression. Buddhism is a totally non- violent philosophy which, despite hardship and persecution, spread throughout Asia, finally subduing the Mongols, who had so savaged Europe and China. Christianity, which did not make an alliance with the State until three hundred years after the death of Jesus, became the dominant religious force in the West, triumphing over the total power of Roman Emperors.

Neither Christianity nor Buddhism was a philosophy of social change - that awaited the teachings of Gandhi in this century.

But the fact remains like a stubborn rock - both Western and Eastern civilization