The right to privacy…

I have begun my annual re-watch of the wonder of the universe that is ‘The West Wing.’  There are only a few TV shows that really capture my imagination, but this one is so intelligent and meaty and makes you want to learn more and do more that it is (in my opinion) worth the time spent watching.

If you have never watched this phenomenon then, firstly, shame on you and, secondly, get thee onto Amazon and buy the whole series. (and be careful of season 2 episode 22, ‘Two Cathedrals,’ as it will spoil you, and no TV will ever live up to it again)

A week or so ago I hit Episode 9 of season 1, called ‘The Short List,’ first broadcast in 1999.  It is oddly prophetic:

The last few months’ news has been flooded by issues surrounding privacy, from Wikileaks to Phone Hacking and now Superinjunctions, and the arguments rage on.

Yesterdays Guardian Editorial [i] asked a serious question: Who, even a week ago, could have predicted a constitutional crisis between parliament and courts provoked by a footballer who played away?

There is discussion regarding article 12 of the human rights act which states that, ‘No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks,’ and how article 8 of the same act (Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law)  can be enforced in a digital age.

Polly Toynbee in her EXCELLENT ‘Comment is Free’ article yesterday [ii] explores the relationship between the media and the law, making the statement that, “The Human Rights Act, with its occasionally contradictory right to free speech and right to privacy, was drafted with strong press involvement, ensuring the privacy clause was precisely in line with the press code that is written by editors and ratified by the Press Complaints Commission. If the PCC were not a spineless industry body that turned a blind eye to practices like phone-hacking, privacy would be protected, since its own code says: "Everyone has a right to his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence including digital communications."”

Last night Mr Justice Eady refused to overturn said Injunction, even though the person who had taken the injunction out had been named in virtually every media outlet known to man.  Why? Because the “Press Complaints Commission's code guarantees exactly the same rights to privacy as the European convention and the HRA, unless there is a clear public interest in intrusion. The "public interest" includes the exposure of crime or misdemeanours. It's not obvious that an errant footballer clears that hurdle.” [iii]

The legal wranglings surrounding this issue absolutely fascinate me, and the potential ramifications there may be for social media useage and the policing of these methods of connection and communication concern me – especially the instant method of output that is Twitter.  In fact, Dan Gilmore in his article here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/24/twitter-ryan-giggs-social-media even suggests that there may need to be a ‘delay’ imposed on Twitter Feeds, scanning output for potentially libellous or illegal information sharing.  This article has, incidentally, been ridiculed widely across – you’ve guessed it – Twitter.

But, whilst I am fascinated very much by the above mentioned issues, I think the thing that fascinates me and concerns me the most is - what fuels our NEED to share this kind of information, or indeed KNOW this kind of information in the first place? The Legal brains will fight out the boundaries surrounding breaches of human rights and the legalities of information sharing, but the core societal issues go much deeper.

(n.b. It goes without saying that there are important distinctions, both legally and morally, between what is ‘in the public interest’ and what is Gossip/Salacious Rumour Mongering, and the WikiLeaks scandal served to perfectly highlight the treacherous ground that lies ‘tween the two.)

I guess my question is, ‘Why are we so very interested?’

My Twitter Feed and Facebook News Feed have been saturated over the last few days with comments, jokes and opinions about said Footballer, most of which (in my opinion) would NEVER be said to his face if the commenters happened to know him or any of the parties involved.  There have been comments that ranged from the frivolous to the downright mean and bitchy, and all from people that – again, in my opinion - should know to behave better than that.

It is no great revelation or social commentary to say that we live in a world of Celebrity.  ‘Reality’ Television has taken over our screens – thankfully the debacle that was ‘Big Brother’ has left us, but the space that was occupied by that show seems to have been filled with a myriad of others.  (It reminds me of the passage in Matthew 12 when Jesus is talking about an Evil Spirit that leaves and then returns bringing 7 more with it! Ha!)

A cursory ‘Googling’ of the phrase ‘What percentage of TV is reality TV’ brought up figures from various sources citing that approx 40% of our TV is now ‘reality’ based.

I acknowledge that a part of our current overwhelming obsession with celebrity may be fuelled by ‘information overload.’ I mean, even if you are the most disinterested person in the world when it comes to the lives and affairs of Celebrities or Pseudo Celebrities you cannot fail to be exposed to the goings on of this shady and nefarious world – my earlier comment regarding my Twitter Feed and Facebook exposure serves to highlight this.

But, aside from the fuel that media so willingly provides to stoke the fire of the obsession with the ‘other’, I would contend that there is still an underlying pathology which needs addressing, of which recent events are merely the symptom.

When did life become so boring and dull that the ‘other’ became such an object of fascination? 

When did we become so couch bound and dis-attached from the sheer heady reality of the fact that WE are living and breathing and are invited into this huge adventure that is called life? 

When did we begin to substitute living for the mind-numbing occupation of merely watching others live?

Henry David Thoreau made the wonderful and profound statement, ‘As if you could ‘kill time’ without injuring eternity.’  

I wonder what would happen if all the hours spent watching other people live were actually lived?  What would that look like?  What books would we read, what people would we meet, what adventures would we go on, what mistakes would we make, what things would we learn?

Mark Twain is said to have made the comment, ‘Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the things you did.’  I worry that there will be an entire raft of people who, when asked twenty years from now, ‘what did you do,’ will be able to speak eloquently about what they have learned about the lives and activity of others, but have very little to say about the life they have lived themselves.

In fact, I think that maybe the debate that needs to happen, once all of the Legal Wrangling is done with is this:

The Right to Privacy

vs

The Need for People to Get Their Own Lives

Because, just maybe, when we stop viewing the lives of others as more interesting than our own and actually LIVE to the full ourselves, the need to intrude into the private lives of others will no longer be an issue.

Repeat after me:

‘Real life is better than Reality T.V.’

‘Real life is better than Reality T.V.’

‘Real life is better than Reality T.V.’

‘Real life is better than Reality T.V.’

‘Real life is better than Reality T.V.’

---

[i] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/24/privacy-high-politics-low-gossip

[ii] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/24/rightwing-media-makes-political-personal

[iii] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/24/privacy-high-politics-low-gossip

The Rapture that never was...

Well…Harold Camping got it wrong.  Jesus didn’t come back yesterday.

Shocker.

I decided not to blog in the run-up to the proposed Rapture date, as there was so much flying around that anything I had to say would have gotten lost in the maelstrom. But I have to admit that the Pre-Rapture Ramp-Up gave me much joy as some excellent Twitter funny-people kept me amused with various Rapture Prank Suggestions, End of the World Confessions and handy hints on how to survive the coming events…

Peas & Cougars came up with a great flowchart:

Ship of Fools (www.shipoffools.com) were all over it:

@shipoffoolscom: On Saturday, take your old clothes and shoes and leave them arranged on sidewalks and lawns around town. #Raptureprank

@shipoffoolscom: "He will come again to judge the living and the dead." Will you be able to say the creed with a straight face this Sunday? #rapturefail

@shipoffoolscom: Donating their clothes to the poor as they awaited the Big Moment now seemed just a tad hasty:

(apologies for the naked old ladies - it was just too good not to post!)

Check out this website for some proper ‘crazy’ from some dedicated Christian Pet Owners: http://eternal-earthbound-pets.com/

The ever funny Emma Kennedy suggested:

If I was a man who looked vaguely like Jesus, I'd totally dress up tomorrow, knock on people's doors and say "I'm here. Get your things"

And, I emailed a friend who is currently in Jerusalem to ask what the ‘crazy count’ was out there, suggesting that he was in the right place as it’s purported that Jesus will hit Jerusalem first upon His return.

He replied:

Automated out-of-office message:

Khristo has been raptured. All the best if you've been left behind. Bye!

Ha!

It was all very jolly and we were all getting a kick out of the silly people who believed Jesus was going to come back based on the suggestions of a seemingly addled old chap who had a record of getting these things wrong, rather spectacularly.  I mean, there’s no real room for being ‘half-right’ on this one is there – either the Trumpet Sounds and Jesus rocks up, or He doesn’t.

But then, as it became apparent that maybe the Old Chap had somewhat ‘mis-calculated’ the return of our Saviour, the articles about those people who HAD chosen to believe Camping’s assertions started to flow.

And, rather than making me chuckle, they made me rather sad.

Not just because skeptics and A-Thiests had been having a field day with ‘those crazy Christians and their stupid ideas’. 

Not just because people like Camping make it harder for those of us who DO believe that God, through Jesus, is reconciling all things to Himself and will one day bring about the fullness of New Creation and Heaven on Earth, to share the truth of this Jesus and Kingdom life without sounding like ‘those crazy Christians and their stupid ideas’.

But because there are real people involved. Real people who had spent months warning the world of the trials to come on the 21st May.  Real people who had given away earthly belongings, taken long journeys to be with loved ones, those who drained their savings, quit jobs and generally dismantled their lives as they knew them on the word of (to quote the ‘A’ Team) a Crazy Fool.

An article from AP had this quote in it:

"I had some skepticism but I was trying to push the skepticism away because I believe in God," said Keith Bauer — who hopped in his minivan in Maryland and drove his family 3,000 miles to California for the Rapture.

He started his day in the bright morning sun outside the gated Camping's Oakland headquarters of Family Radio International.

"I was hoping for it because I think heaven would be a lot better than this earth," said Bauer, a tractor-trailer driver who began the voyage west last week, figuring that if he "worked last week, I wouldn't have gotten paid anyway, if the Rapture did happen."

.

I think the saddest line in the article was Bauer saying: "I was hoping for it because I think heaven would be a lot better than this earth."

It made me sad because it sounds like he is a chap with a hard life, and it made me MAD because it reminded me of all the bad bad BAD Theology surrounding this life-in-all-its-fullness that Jesus calls us to, and how very small it makes the Cross when we make Jesus into nothing more than a 'Sky-Wizard' (to quote some of my A-Thiest friends).

Yes, Jesus will come again.

Yes, this world is not as God intended it to be.

Yes, Heaven will be the fullness of all God intends.

But...

We’re not called to ‘Evacuation Theology.’

We’re not called to preach a Gospel that’s only about ‘what happens when you die.’

We’re not called to offer people heavenly life-insurance policies.

In fact, if I can be so bold, I think that God’s not all that concerned with communicating with us about the After-Life, as Jesus seems to talk an awful lot about what life should look like NOW, in our present reality, and says that God offers us the opportunity to step into that Eternity in the HERE & NOW.  We don’t have to wait around, eternity begins the moment you step into the life that Jesus offers.

He commands us to pray, ‘Your Kingdom Come, Your Will be done ON EARTH as it is IN HEAVEN.’

The slogan of the organisation Christian Aid sums it up for me:

‘We believe in life BEFORE death.’

‘Turn or Burn’ never did it for me.

I don’t think it does it for a lot of people.

Scratch that.

MOST people.

But what does excite me is that there is an Adventure of Life that God calls me to in the here and now.  That I can join God in all He’s doing to bring about the Heaven-On-Earth reality of the reconciliation of all things that has been accomplished through Jesus. 

So, you can keep your Rapture Predictions.

I’m excited about the Adventure of NOW.

Jesus will take care of the rest.

Jesus is a Feminist...

Jesus is a feminist.

Jesus is for women, releases them into ministry, gave them spiritual authority in an age where they were considered less than human, and continues to do so today.  I do not understand why anyone would choose not to believe so, especially based on Scriptural evidence.  In fact, I would go as far as to say that to deny Jesus’ empowerment of women and His treatment of them as equals of men in terms of their ability to exercise spiritual authority, and to abuse scripture to back that opinion up, has the potential to be nothing more than sugar-coated misogyny.

Strong words. Why so belligerent Claire?

I know that God is passionate about both men and women becoming all they were created to be in Him, fulfilling all their creative potential and exercising the fullness of their gifting without hindrance or hesitation.  Nothing excites me more than seeing a man or woman of God walk unhindered into all God is calling them to join Him in.

However, along with many other women (and I know of many men who argue for egalitarianism on behalf of women too), I could talk about the conversations I frequently have with men who say that they have a 'complementarian' theological understanding of the roles of men & women.  They would not say that they have a Patriarchal view  – exclusively male leadership in the church, home, public life etc (basically unveiled biblically sanctioned misogyny) - but would still hold that men and women, whilst equal in value and ‘personhood’, are created to hold different roles and responsibilities, assigning leadership authority roles to men and more ‘supporting’ or ‘leadership but not with overall authority’ roles to women. A view which, honestly, I find as patronising as I do theologically unsound, as I am led to believe that in Christ ‘there is neither male nor female.’

Or, I could highlight a church that I used to do some partnership work with who were quite happy for me to teach the young people, and invited me to speak at women’s events, but would not ask me to speak to the gathered community when men were present because I was a woman, and so was not to teach them.

Or I could mention a meeting I went to a few years ago of church leaders (all male except for me) in my local community at which, during the introductions stage, I introduced myself as being on the Staff of Christ Church and a Pastor, and one of the men in the room was helpful enough to point out to everyone that I ‘do the youth work’ in order to distinguish me from the other ‘kosher’ ministers in the room (presumably due to their penises).

But, it just so happens that a male friend bought me a book last week that he thought I’d like, and I did, called ‘The Liberating Truth, How Jesus Empowers women,’ by Danielle Strickland, which was published in mid-April this year. I read it in a couple of hours – it’s relatively short and pithy and written in a somewhat ‘Pop-Theology’ style, but is incredibly weighty in the conclusions it reaches, which are soundly backed up with scripture and historical analysis, and are conclusions that I wholeheartedly agree with and have since I became a Jesus-Follower.

In the many years since I began following the Jesus Way I have read many books, by both men and women, on the issues of Women and the Bible, and have pored over many theological articles that wrestle with the implications for women of certain passages of scripture. 

So, why respond to this book so passionately? Well, whilst it doesn’t say anything that I or we haven’t read before, Danielle Strickland is a pretty feisty woman of God with a wide audience to which she communicates, and I have a feeling that the publication of this particular book is going to stir up a whole new raft of girls and women who are simply not prepared to accept the kinds of reading and application of scripture that suggest that women are called and permitted to be anything other than full partners in every aspect of Kingdom Life.

Even apart from His response to women in crisis (the woman at the well, the men caught throwing stones, the woman suffering from bleeding) Jesus had women in His close circle of friends, none amongst ‘the twelve’ admittedly, but mentioned in the same breath as them in a description in Luke 8, and hailed in many places as the only ones who stuck with him through the hardest parts of those last days. They were His disciples, learning from Him and ministering alongside Him.  Women were the first to meet the Risen Jesus, and many would argue that, given the fact that she met the Risen Jesus and was commissioned by Him to go and tell others about the truth of the resurrection, Mary is the first Apostle – and at least one other woman, Junia in Romans 16:7, is described as an Apostle in scripture.

Mary & Martha are particular examples in Jesus' close circle and when we read one of their most famous moments with Jesus, as recorded in the scriptures, we see a vivid example of the way Jesus chose to engage with women – in no way did He think of women’s roles in the typical and culturally restricted ways.  In her book, Strickland explores this dynamic - as Martha takes on the typically feminine role of serving and hurrying round, whereas Mary takes on a role that many people would view as the ‘doe-eyed-gazing-at-Jesus’ role.  Far from it.  In this encounter, Mary is taking on the traditionally male role – ‘sitting at the feet’ of someone (as is evident in other places in the New Testament – see Paul and Gamaliel for example) was to say that you were their student, was to learn from them and imitate them.  And Mary does this in a cultural setting in which women were forbidden from intellectual pursuits. What does Jesus do?  Tell her to remember her place?  No, He tells her that, not only does He regard her as actually ‘having a choice’, that she has made the right choice.

There is no room in this blog post (which is already far too long) to explore many of the the most often used passages of scripture in the debate about Women and Ministry (particularly over issues of authority, ‘headship’ and teaching) – passages in Timothy, Titus, Ephesians and more.

What I will say is that there is plenty of concrete, sound theological study showing a contextual and historic understanding of these passages that throws an entirely different and just as potentially ‘orthodox’ light on their meanings, and does not leave women out in the dark.

Briefly – one such passage is found in Timothy which talks about women not having authority – ‘authentein’ – over men. This is a letter which, as some signs in it suggest, was written to Timothy whilst he was in Ephesus.  Ephesus was the headquarters of the radical feminist cult of Artemis where women ruled the show, and theologian Catherine Kroeger has suggested that the word ‘authentein’ has its origins in sexual and murderous cultic practices linked to the Temple Cults, and therefore if the word assumed by many to merely mean ‘authority’ does indeed refer to sexual cultic behaviour in this passage, it gives us quite a different interpretation of the passage indeed, and does not allude to the type of 'authority' that we might first read it as doing.

Jesus is a feminist. 

I really don’t understand why people have a problem with that.

I have male friends who, whilst loving women dearly, still hold on to a theological view of my place in the Kingdom that I personally find very restrictive and unhelpful.  I do not understand that

.

I don’t understand why, if you love Jesus and you love People and there is a theologically sound understanding of scripture available that regards women as equal in both personhood and ability to exercise gifting but does not abandon orthodox doctrines, you would choose to stick with a system that boxes women in.

I just don’t understand it.

Now I become myself...

Amongst the many books that I have on the go at the moment is Parker J Palmers wonderful book, 'Let Your Life Speak', (which I am re-reading for the 'n'th time) all about Vocation and Discernment.  In the second chapter are a few lines from a poem by May Sarton that I had never read in its entirety until yesterday...which is very shoddy of me as it is one of the most beautiful, moving and inspiring peices that I think I have ever read.


And so, I share it...


'Now I become myself'


Now I become myself. It's taken
Time, many years and places;
I have been dissolved and shaken,
Worn other people's faces,
Run madly, as if Time were there,
Terribly old, crying a warning,
"Hurry, you will be dead before--"
(What? Before you reach the morning?
Or the end of the poem is clear?
Or love safe in the walled city?)
Now to stand still, to be here,
Feel my own weight and density!
The black shadow on the paper
Is my hand; the shadow of a word
As thought shapes the shaper
Falls heavy on the page, is heard.
All fuses now, falls into place
From wish to action, word to silence,
My work, my love, my time, my face
Gathered into one intense
Gesture of growing like a plant.
As slowly as the ripening fruit
Fertile, detached, and always spent,
Falls but does not exhaust the root,
So all the poem is, can give,
Grows in me to become the song,
Made so and rooted by love.
Now there is time and Time is young.
O, in this single hour I live
All of myself and do not move.
I, the pursued, who madly ran,
Stand still, stand still, and stop the sun!
May Sarton

The ability to ask questions and keep on learning...

Asking questions is one of my main ways of entering the world.
It irritates some and delights others.

I tend to thrive when exploring subjects that, upon the question 'but WHY' being asked, throw themselves wide open to exploration and discovery.  This is why, I have concluded, I was rubbish at Chemistry at School - which, when you are learning a set of 'rules' in order to pass an exam, does not lend itself to the 'WHY' question in many existential ways.

At the start of February I had the joy of doing what I love, and get to do on a fairly frequent basis, which is joining a group of students, both Christian and of Other Faiths or 'No' Faith, to talk and ponder and explore the vastness of God.  The main questions that were coming up were questions about the nature of God and the nature of what it means to be in relationship with God.

Now, I have a fairly strong grasp on what I 'believe', for the most part - I am an evangelical after all (!) and it is somewhat expected to have 'answers' in order that you do not stray into the wilderness of 'woolly liberal thinking'. Ha! And so, as someone who loves to study and question amidst this world of needing clarification, I have amassed quite 'well formed and neat' answers for many questions about the Word of God and the nature of the Kingdom, and how that plays out in the here & now.

However there come moments for me, as I suspect there do for all of us, when a question is asked that blows wide open your well constructed and thought through framework for understanding something that you previously thought you had a handle on.

Meeting with these young people and asking questions of each other, of Scripture, and of God, I realised that I didn't really know why I thought what I thought about ideas of Hell and Judgement.  I knew where my 'arguments' came from, the things I had studied, the conversations I had previously had about them, the various schools of theological thought and dogma behind them, and the fact that these well thought through answers satisfied the evangelical blood-lust of the fact that 'we are right and they are wrong'. But, I didn't really know anymore why I'd chosen to hold on to those particular reasonings above any others, and my well thought through answers didn't seem to hold much water any more, as I held them up to the light of scripture they became even more weak and vapid.

This meant a period of reflection and study and questioning with friends.  A healthy and accountable pursuit whenever confronted with a shifting perspective.

And then a certain 'Rob Bell' brought out a book called 'Love Wins - Heaven, Hell and the Fate of everyone who ever lived', which has caused all kinds of controversy in the Conservative Evangelical world (although, in my opinion, it's really not very controversial at all - many people have been saying the same things in different and similar ways for eons).

This threw many of the questions I had been wrestling with into a wider light, and spawned many many blog posts throughout the Christian Blogosphere - some of which were interesting in terms of holding up my previously acquired set of 'answers' up to the light and learning from others' perspectives.

This morning I was looking at an old friends blog (who shall remain nameless) and read, for the first time, his brief initial analysis of Rob Bell's thoughts. I read down to the 'comments' section (because you know how Christians love a good argument), and found that one of the friends with whom I'd had one of the long conversations about my wrestling over these issues had alluded to our conversation in his comment (keeping me anonymous like the good friend he is) in order to illustrate that these issues need to be thought about and mulled over.

The response to his comment by another commenter made me literally laugh out loud, spitting my tea over my laptop.  The next commenter said: 'On a further issue, and leaving aside the fact that a weak view of hell generally relates to a weak view of God's sovereignty ( stemming from a desire that "it'll all turn out right in the end") it does concern me that an ordained Pastor has such a weak grasp of core doctrines that the questions of schoolchildren are enough to shake her biblical roots.'

Ha! In your face mister - I'm NOT ordained!

Leaving that aside, and my huge issues with his conclusions, and the fact that the commenter probably never expected that the subject of the comment would read his post or indeed Blog about it herself, I am saddened by the sentiment in the reply.

Not because I am personally offended by the comment - far from it, he does not know me, I do not know him, and I'm sure that we could sit down and have a nice cup of tea and a civilised discussion about the whole thing - but I am saddened at the general sentiment that in order to be 'Kosher' we need to have all of our answers sorted out all the time, with definitive text book points from which to 'win our side of the argument.' Or indeed that the process of holding our systems of thought up for further examination is an immature act.

I agree that, as a teacher of Gods people and a 'Shepherd of the flock', I do need to have a good grasp of what our commenter calls 'core doctrines', and indeed that it would be irresponsible of me to not have sound understanding of Gods word from which to encourage people to explore the amazing truths that are contained within it.

But, surely, there needs to be room for new learning, for new questions to be asked, to be open to the fact that our previous 'readings' may be one dimensional and lacking in deeper understandings that reveal the beating heart of God beneath them?  In my opinion this does not make me a liberal, it does not make me 'wishy washy' on my understanding of scripture, or indicate that I do not take the word of God seriously.  On the contrary I find that to wrestle with scripture, to go beyond the pat answers that have been handed down to us, is to treat Gods Word with UTMOST respect and seriousness, with the desire to really know Gods heart and treat His Word as what He desires us to - a Lamp to our Feet.  This is not abandoning Orthodoxy, merely searching for True Orthodoxy.

And so, yes, in response to you Mr Commenter, I am open to the 'Questions of Schoolchildren' shaking my 'biblical roots', because, quite frankly, they were exceptional questions that blew wide open my wrestling and shone a light into areas of my understanding that were formulaic. I do not believe that this makes me any less of a Pastor or Teacher or Leader. Quite the opposite.

I am not above or beyond learning from people who are younger than me in both age and experience - in fact, in my long experience of 'doing life' with teenagers on a daily basis, they have been some of my best teachers - and I resent, on behalf of all the insightful teenage theologians that I know, your belief that they have nothing of value to teach me.

I want to ask questions, I want to keep on learning, I want to move from shallow second hand understanding into the depths of the amazing heart of Scripture.

Do you?

Osama Bin Laden and the Myth of Redemptive Violence...

Barack Obama knocked it out of the ball park at the Correspondents Dinner 2 nights ago (see here for evidence  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9mzJhvC-8E), silencing his critics in an act of passive aggression so well crafted I was stunned, but I suspect that the major thought going through his head was, 'just you wait until tomorrow, just you WAIT.' 

I have a feeling that, in some deep dark childish part of himself, all Obama really wanted to do after making the announcement about Bin Laden was to turn to the gathered crowd and say, 'OK, who wants to see my Birth Certificate NOW then? Huh? I can't hear you?' *Obama drops microphone and walks off saying 'BOOM, have that'* 

I think that this Blog Title sounds like the most twisted Kids Book (a la 'Harry Potter') that ever existed.   But, today there is rejoicing in America, and other places, over the death of Americas Most Wanted Man.

I woke to the news of Osama Bin Ladens death with an incredible sense of sadness and grief. 

Why?

Don't I think that he has committed unthinkable atrocities?  Yes, I do. 
Don't I think this is a day on which all those who lost loved ones in the tragedy of 9/11 can find some peace? Well, yes, but it depends what you mean by 'peace'.
Don't I think he deserved to be brought to Justice?  Yes, I do.
Don't I think that he has incited others to violence in a way that means the lack of his presence can only be good? Well, the jury's out on that one.

However, I am still sad.

I abhor a society in which a man can be conditioned to hate so much that he could think that committing such heinous acts of violence is ever a response that would change what he so hates about the west, but I also find it hard to see a society that respond to the death of even a man like Bin Laden with such joy.

And so, the Myth of Redemptive Violence is perpetuated.

The death of Bin Laden will not end this cycle.  In fact, it will only enforce it and make it stronger.  The US have already warned their embassies to be on high alert for retaliatory attacks.  What will follow these retailatory attacks I wonder? Possibly, thinking outside the box here (!), more attacks from America?

You killed us, so we kill you, and then you kill more of us, so we kill more of you, which makes you want to kill more of us, which results in us having to kill more of you...and on and on we go ad nauseum.

Surely there has to be a different way?

As a Christian I believe that there is.

Not for us the path of Passivity, where oppression and evil goes unchecked.
Not for us the path of Violence, where we become what we are fighting in a horrific cartoon of irony.
But, for us, the Third Way.

Amazing theologians such as Walter Wink and John Yoder, the acts of the Catholic Workers and organisation such as PlowShares, Voices in the Wilderness and CPT, have all explored what this could look like.

I paraphrase Walter Wink from his wonderful book, 'Jesus and Non Violence,':

Matthew 5:  38-48

Jesus says ‘you’ve heard it said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’  A law originally intended not to encourage vengeance, but to make sure someone only paid for the offence they’d done, and no more, intended to cut down on violence anyway.  Then Jesus says…’but I tell you, do not resist an evil person.’

The word resist here is a military word – anti-histeme.  Anti, against, histeme – to stand. 

Jesus is here in the midst of this occupied, oppressed people, and he’s saying, look, you have thousands of opportunities every day to pick up a sword and fight back.

Jesus says don't.  Don’t resist in a violent military way.  He then proceeds to give us several verses of resistance.  Not passivity, not violence, but active engagement in resistance.

Jesus teaches three examples.

EXAMPLE ONE:

If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

If someone slaps you on the cheek…

If you turn to him the other, you cant slap that without contorting yourself.

In that culture, there were two ways to hit. Slap or hit. A slap was something you gave to someone whom you thought was beneath you.  Remember that jewish hierarchy was very important, a master would slap a servant, a Roman would slap a Jew.  You would only hit someone you thought was your equal – it was the way that equals went at it.

So, what’s happening here?  Jesus is saying that if someone strikes you (which would be a slap in these circumstances) turn to him the other cheek also.

What does the person slapping have to do? He’s left in the awkward position of having to hit him.

The initial slap intimates that this guy is better than the person he's slapping, but the turning of the cheek?  What’s this saying?  'I know you slapped me, I know you think you’re better than me, but take your best shot, 'cos you and I are equals, and you will not treat me like that.'

In the simple act of turning the other cheek this guy is overthrowing and subverting everything that is going on here.  He gives the guy hitting him a choice – hit me again, but hit me as an equal, or walk away.

To the listening crowd, this is dynamite stuff!  The most provocative thing.  It’s genius.  Subvertive, powerful, yet generous.

This isn’t some 'nicey nice passage about being a nice Christian' – this is Jesus giving people practical tools to turn their world upside down.

Do you get what Jesus is doing here?

EXAMPLE 2:

If someone want to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak aswell.

The economic situation for the average person on the street in Roman Ruled Israel was noot good. Taxation was ridiculously high. How many of us would be in bad shape?  Lose our houses, see our businesses shutting down. This is the situation into which Jesus is teaching.  When He says ‘are not 2 sparrows sold for a penny’ he’s not making some nice comment, he’s saying 'look how bad the economy is'. 

Jesus lived and moved in the midst of an economy that was falling apart. 

Jewish people would have family lands.  Lands that had been handed down through generation to generation.  A vineyard, olive grove, wheat field.  In a lot of cases in this situation people were having to sell off their lands in order to survive - lands that had been in their families since the time of Joshua. 

So, what’s Jesus saying?  

People were in incredible financial difficulty and many would find themselves being sued. If someone is suing you, they have the means to take you to court – you’re in a tight spot.  In Deuteronomy it says that if you owe someone something, and you cant pay them back, you can take your cloak or your shirt and give it to them as a pledge to say, ' know I owe you, but take this, and I’m going to figure out a way to pay you.'

Most people would have 2 garments that they'd wear – one against your skin, a tunic, and your overcloak.

Jesus says if someone is coming after you, and you have nothing left to give to them, if they sue you for your tunic, give them you cloak too.

You have 2 garments.  If he sues you and takes your tunic, and you then take off your cloak and offer that to him, what are you wearing?

Nothing.   

In Jewish culture nakedness wasn’t first and foremost the shame or humiliation of the person who was naked, it was the humiliation of the person who witnessed it.  This is why Noahs sons, when Noah gets drunk and naked are in such a bad way, because they witnessed it.

It’s the person who sees the nakedness who bears the shame. 

The picture Jesus paints here is of someone so oppressed by the financial situation that he is being sued for his tunic, standing there buck naked offering his cloak.  Which puts the shame and humiliation on who?

The guy suing him.

This guy has taken all his shame, all his humiliation, all his powerlessness against the system and has instantly, in holding out his cloak and saying, take this too, turned it around, flipped it over.

The guys standing there is now in this awkward position.  Am I such a hard hearted person that I would take the second garment?

Again, here’s the genius that the crowd listening to Jesus would have seen.  To oppressed, humiliated people, these teachings are dynamite.

This guy who’s being sued, he doesn’t do nothing, he doesn’t pick up a sword, he holds out his cloak, and in an instant reasserts his dignity, and most importantly offers the person who is suing him a chance.  A chance to reconsider, a chance to redeem himself, a chance to not be that guy who takes the cloak too.

Genius.

EXAMPLE 3:

If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him 2 miles.

Everywhere you went in Israel at that time were Roman Soldiers, and they had to carry their packs everywhere they went.  They would contain all they needed to live and work and would generally weigh about 60/80 lb.

This would be a common everyday sight.  Soldiers carrying their packs.

There were strict rules in the Roman Army about what you could do when you conquered a land and were oppressing a foreign people.  There was a strict protocol about what you could and couldn’t get your foreign subjects to do.

According to Roman military law one of the things that you could demand was that someone – in this case it would be a Jew – could carry your pack for a mile.  If they carried it more than a mile, it was considered cruel ('cos when you’re conquering the world and slaughtering lots of innocent people, whatever you do, don’t be cruel).

So, these specific rules were enforced by Generals & Commanding Officers.  If a Roman soldier stops you and forces you to go one mile, you would take the pack and walk a mile. 

What happens if the Jew goes more than one mile?  Well…this is where it gets interesting.  Let’s say he crossed the one mile mark, and carries on going and he’s now on the second mile. 

If you’re the soldier, what starts to happen?  Who do you not want to see you?  Your general or commanding officer, because you’re now breaking military protocol – you could get pay docked, time in military prison…you are now in the awkward position of having a shield, a sword, you're a powerful person, but you’re asking this Jew to do what?  To stop! 

The guy carrying the pack now has what?  The power.

Genius!  The people would have been going wild for what Jesus was saying.

Is this a power that is rooted in co-ersion and violence?  No, it’s a power that comes from generosity.  It’s like the ultimate judo move!  You now have a soldier who’s cruelly forced this Jew to carry a pack for a mile walking behind him saying, 'stop, stop, please stop!'

He has spun the whole thing, and in this act of generosity has reclaimed his humanity and now holds the power in this situation.

He’s not done nothing, and he’s not reacted with violence, he’s done the Jesus thing.

It’s mindblowing what Jesus is doing here.  The original audience wouldn’t have heard these teachings as high and lofty gestures about how to be a nice Christian – these were subversive practical ways to reclaim humanity in the face of oppression.

Jesus offers us a different way.

A Third Way.

In such a militarised world this Third Way may look naive to the bystander.  It may look weak and passive and impotent.

But, history tells us that it is not.

No, not for me the way of violence, not for me the way of passivity.

For me, I choose the way of Jesus.