anarchy, pacifism and the theology of Captain America
July 13th, 2011 § 18 Comments
recently, a brief exchange on Showbread’s formspring account over our love for Captain America and how it does or does not conflict with our strong belief in Christian non-violence. It began like this:
“Why is Captain America cool? What makes him so unique?”
His moral character. He’s the patriarch of the marvel universe, all the heroes admire him and all the villains fear him. -Josh
Captain America also has a perfect physicality by way of a serum, spent decades in a block of ice and returned from the dead with the help of a ray gun that displaced him in the space-time continuum.
I understand that for a anti-patriotic, pacifistic, anarchist type Christian to have Captain America as a favorite comic book character is a bit odd… But at the end of the day he’s just that: a comic book character. It’s not real. It’s pretty out-there science fiction and fantasy. I wouldn’t get too tied up in it. -Josh
I assumed this person was a fellow pacifist challenging us to align our love for a violent, patriotic superhero with our strong disdain for patriotism and violence. As it happens, this fellow was actually a staunch supporter of what they called “physical justice,” as is evidenced by their lengthy follow-up question:
“Josh, the point is that you cannot separate morality from fiction. No Xtian could accept the premise of a fictional world where rape or murder is considered a moral virtue. Thus, if violence itself is immoral in reality, it cannot be moral in fiction.To do so would be no different than justifying ANY sin in a fictional world. Can a Xtian justify pornographic material in the context of fiction? Of course not! That would be completely inconsistent, just like your position. Please think this through. This proves that violence itself is not always wicked. We identify with superheroes because we KNOW that physical justice and self-defense is righteous. You affirm this every time you root for the ‘good guy’. Be consistent.. God himself affirms this, he sets up guidelines for holy violence (death penalty-Gen.9). Angels with swords drive out man from the garden. Paul calls civil rulers ‘God’s ministers’ of justice.Warfare takes place in Heaven in the book of Revelation. How do you justify these things if all violence is ‘immoral’? Trading pacifism for the evils of militarism is one extreme to another. God teaches a balance. The biblical examples cannot be “metaphors” for the same reason that fictional stories cant.”
this is an interesting conversation, so i decided to extend it to my website here. i tend to be a bit long-winded in these types of debates, so I’m going to to do my best to keep things concise as i make several points about the conflict in question.
1) The “Marvel Universe” VS. the Actual Universe
The point is being made that sin—whether depicted fictionally or actually taking place in real life—is always sin, i.e. a rape cannot be despicable in real life and commendable in a movie. Christian morality is absolute, thus our convictions extend from reality to fiction. Two points need to be made in order to understand how this has to do with my personal affection for Captain America. First, there is, sometimes, a limit to how much literal morality a fictional world can withstand. For example, the film District 9. As a Christian, I believe that for all Christians, violent self-defense is contrary to Jesus’ teachings, even within the confines of government. But what if one is defending themselves against a giant alien “Prawn?” Is the Prawn more like a human or more like an animal? It would be acceptable to use violent self-defense against an animal, but not a human. This is a question we cannot answer because a Prawn is not real and there is no “spiritual data” we can gather to asses such a predicament. They exist only in a singular movie universe and are not real. Therefore, if a Christian believed it permissible for fictional characters to violently defend themselves against a fictional creature, there is no real dilemma. The entire debate, while entertaining, is completely irrelevant.
Now, in the case of Captain America and my affection for the character it is worth mentioning that in my personal history of reading the book (beginning with Ed Brubaker’s run in 2005) Captain America (Steve Rogers) has almost exclusively battled super-powered villains with other-worldly/mutant abilities, giant robots, space aliens, genetically enhanced super-nazis and even Norse Gods. The “Is a Prawn more human or more animal” conundrum easily negates any moral conflict in each of these situations. No theological thought has been put into whether or not it is ethical to destroy a robot body if there is a human presence of some kind within the robotic shell. No one has shed any blood or even ink over the idea of killing a shape-shifting Skrull alien. No one loses sleep over the consequences of going to war with a race of Norse Gods. In each and every scenario, something is so outlandishly unreal that no real dilemma is worth debating. I believe all physical violence is wrong for Christians, but what about physical violence against cloned, half-robot, super-nazis? I don’t know because they aren’t (and most likely, will never be) a real issue because they will never be real themselves.
So, while I affirm that sin is always sin (even when fictional), when the “realness” of the fictional world in question is strained to a point, certain “gray areas” introduce themselves, i.e. can a pacifist root for an autobot against a deception when they do physical battle?
My second point is this: When/if Captain America uses physical violence against someone other than aliens or robots, even though it isn’t real, I do not believe that this is an ethical or “Christian” act. This is not something I had in mind when I mentioned his “moral character”. I would list this as a violation of his moral character, a sin, a mistake, etc. Captain America is written as a flawed, imperfect human being, and whether his authors agree with me or not, i believe the use of violence against semi-real human opponents is flawed and imperfect. This won’t cause me to put his book down, but it won’t make me believe in violence either. I think I should once again insist at this point that HE’S ALSO NOT REAL.
2) The supposed “Biblical case” for just violence.
There has been a certain amount of debate between Christian pacifists and those who disagree with them for hundreds of years, so I don’t expect to settle the issue right this moment over the internet. I think there’s a pretty strong historical case for believing that the first century church was entirely non-violent and this only began to change drastically around the time of Constantine. For the sake of space I’ll respond only to the biblical cases made by the person via formspring.
1) “God sets up angels with flaming swords to guard the garden and instates the death penalty in the book of genesis.” In the case of the angels with the flaming swords, I’m not sure there’s any case for “righteous violence” at all. We are never told what, if anything, the angels did with “flaming swords.” We have no idea how literal or symbolic the description is, and even if we assume that it is indeed literal and that the angels did indeed decapitate humans with flaming swords, how on earth can this apply to us? Surely we can’t argue that if God tasked two angels with violent guard via flaming swords we all have a permission slip to ignore the sermon on the mount?
Using Genesis (or any of the Torah) to argue in favor of the death penalty is very problematic. The Torah demands the death penalty for adultery, lying about virginity, blasphemy, violating the sabbath, cursing your parents or even being a rebellious drunkard of a son. Jesus insisted that anyone who divorces and remarries commits adultery (Luke 16:18) and yet I’ve never heard of anyone quoting Leviticus 20:10 in order to have them put to death for it. Why is it then that so many Christians insist that the Old Testament condones capital punishment, but only for the crimes we feel like punishing, not Old Testament crimes? In John 8 when Jesus was given the opportunity to comment on (and even carry out) the Old Testament death penalty he, amazingly, said “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”
2) “Paul condones a violent civil government in Romans 11 and 13.” This is a popular passage used against Christian anarchists. It’s interesting to note that many Christians seem to assume that Paul only had America in mind when he wrote that the governments had permission to “wield the sword.” If we are to take this passage the way many Christians insist on taking it, then we must remember that Saddam’s Iraq and Hitler’s Germany were both appointed by God to wield the sword and that when we fought against them we are “rebelling against what God has instituted” and where therefore “bringing judgment on ourselves.” It’s also interesting that Paul wrote these passages at a time when emperor Nero was violently oppressing Christians. Did Paul intend for the church to rally behind their governments and confess that when they were fed to the lions that they were justly “wielding the sword”? Rather than completely derail the discussion here, I’d just like to direct anyone still reading to the works of Jaques Ellul, Walter Wink, Alexandre Christoyannopoulos, Shane Claiborne, John Howard Yoder and Greg Boyd to name a few, for more on this.
3) “The book of Revelation contains violent warfare.” Revelation is one of the most mysterious, cryptic and debated books in the entire bible. To argue that it supports your case for violence is to argue that your interpretation of Revelation is correct, and within orthodox evangelical Christianity, there has been tremendous ongoing debate on the meaning of the entire book for ages. Even the doctrine of “The Rapture” is relatively new in the church. There are many folks who insist that the book of Revelation is, in many ways, as Greg Boyd said to us last Saturday, “a pacifist war scroll.” John’s use of apocalyptic literature, the cultural climate that he wrote within and the nature of his exile are all important things to consider when reading Revelation. I, like many others, would argue that the largely accepted “violent” reading of Revelation is completely mistaken.
3) Our intrinsic nature is to root for the good guy.
This is true and I believe it comes from God. But I believe it is also that in our fallen nature we naturally—and sinfully—crave violent retribution rather than forgiveness and peace. Part of us that bears the fingerprint of our creator craves justice and for good to triumph over evil. Another part of us that is defiled by our sin nature craves violence and revenge.
and finally, 3) The sermon on the mount
A lot of effort has been spent to try and make Jesus mean something else when he taught:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matthew 5: 38-48)
The New Testament is very clear in forbidding violence, retaliation and revenge. Yet when we read these things we search, in desperation, to find a way to excuse them away. How can anyone do this? How can someone love their enemies so much that they won’t kill them? How can someone love peace and humanity so dearly? Surely this is not what is expected of us, it’s too hard! And yet we find the bible explicitly commanding we do just that.
What a terrifying and beautiful idea.
Captain America: The First Avenger hits theaters July 22nd.
why won’t people be quiet at the movies?
June 7th, 2011 § 15 Comments
i really like going to the movies. the first feature film i caught on the big screen was The great Mouse Detective back in 86. i was hooked.
but why in the world won’t people be quiet when they’re at the movies? i can’t think of many things that make me angry. i laughed when we got robbed, i laugh when someone knocks my dinner on the ground, i laugh when i lock the keys in the car, but when i have to leave a movie theater because it sounds like a noisy cafeteria full of high school students… well, i laugh at that eventually, but on the inside i’m livid.
abi and i had to leave a midnight screening of the new x-men movie because the majority of the audience thought we were at some kind of frat party. this happens somewhat often. Freddy Vs. Jason, The Grudge 2, A Nightmare On Elm Street (2010) and The Unborn were all flicks, all in different theaters in different cities and even in different states that i had to step out of because of the collective commotion. i learned a long time ago that opening night for horror movies usually attracts a loud bunch, so i’ve taken to seeing the earliest matinee possible on mondays to avoid the inevitable. all of those aforementioned movies were times when i went out on a limb to assume things might be better. but now x-men? typically, midnight showings of nerdy movies attract a very respectful audience. i’m beginning to give up on movie theaters altogether. (i should point out that in all cases i was very courteous and kind when confronting the management and they all happily offered a free pass to another showing.)
i think the following two rules should be ruthlessly enforced at all movie theaters at all times.
if you speak outloud in such a way that anyone around you can hear your voice at any time during the movie, you will be immediately ejected from the theater with no refund.
if your phone makes a sound or even lights up at any time during the movie, you will be immediately ejected from the theater with no refund.
if you go to the movies this summer, please be quiet.
book of the week
May 30th, 2011 § 1 Comment
DOES GOD HAVE A FUTURE? by Christopher A. Hall and John Sanders
Chris Hall believes that the bible teaches God exercises “meticulous providence” (God controls/causes every single thing—good and bad—that happens). Chris’s good friend John Sanders disagrees: he believes that the bible teaches God exercises “general providence” (God is in overall control but allows creatures to have free-will, thus the evil in the world is a result of creatures, not God). Chris’s conclusions lead him to “classic theism” and John takes his all the way to “open theism.”
In Does God Have A Future? the two friends decide to debate their positions through a series of e-mail exchanges. Being able to read their correspondence is extremely beneficial for folks on both sides of the conversations—we not only learn much about each school of thought, but we observe what should be a model for working out theological differences. These guys being pals, they remain, for the most part, steadfast in their ways of thinking while maintaining respect for one another, kindness, humility and even a good sense of humor.
When theologians disagree (especially about things like God’s providence and foreknowledge) you often end up with name-calling, anger, pride and a sort of sad intellectual arm wrestle, no one really hears anyone or anything. Turns out folks can disagree and carry on a productive conversation. Who knew?
will you be offended? both positions are given even and adequate representation, the book takes no sides. if you’re like me, you’ll think John “won” the debate while many others will feel Chris made a much better case.
God’s love for Osama (updated)
May 27th, 2011 § 28 Comments
i was on tour a few weeks back when word got out that Osama Bin Laden had, supposedly, been shot and killed by US troops. Immediately, we were bombarded by a country in dark celebration. Our (Showbread’s) immediate thought was that someone whom Jesus had cherished (a human being) had been killed and that his loved ones were in need of prayer. But when you make an effort to lift the heavy cross of enemy-love that Jesus commands his followers to lift, it seems there are still many prepared to throw a few stones.
(for the story behind the painting featured here, check out this post from Greg Boyd’s old blog)
This is one of the reasons I have decided to forsake all others and follow Jesus: his ways, 2,000 years later, are still too radical for the world to accept… even the ones who claim to be his followers.
The following days and weeks were very trying for me personally. I became tremendously discouraged by the church as it ignored the scandalous gospel of love in order to wave a flag of celebration over the corpse of a man for whom our savior gave his life. Simultaneously, I was being challenged and uplifted by the surprising amount of those willing to stand up and confess, “Jesus died for Osama Bin Laden.”
Most of us would like to think that the god of hate and vengeance is sole-property of Westboro Baptist, but I’m afraid he thrives in the heartbeat of our own Roman Empire america. The call of the true God—the God who IS love—continues to ring out: to be a distinct and peculiar people, ready to love, bless and do good to our enemies, to put down our swords or beat them into plowshares, to turn the other cheek and to accept a terrifying offer to deny ourselves and to love the way he has loved us. While the empire wields the sword, the church loves and blesses.
I’m reminded of the story of Stephen, the first Christian martyr, in Acts 7. When blood-thirsty religious fanatics surround Stephen and begin to kill him because he professed faith in Jesus, Stephen prays for them. Verse 60 tells us: “Then he fell on his knees and cried out, ‘Lord, do not hold this sin against them.’ When he had said this, he fell asleep.” A prayer not unlike the one our savior prayed for his executioners during the execution itself. How far removed from his heart we have made ourselves when we stand and cheer for murder. Jesus himself prays forgiveness over unrepentant sinners as they are literally in the act of murder itself. This incredible spirit of grace and mercy makes its way into the hearts of the first Christians as Stephen echos his master’s prayer. The american church has much to learn when it lifts its arms to cheer for the death of its enemies rather than lifting its arms to pray for them.
It’s no secret that along with a myriad of pivotal figures in the faith, Showbread advocates what some folks call Christian non-violence, biblical pacifism or what Walter Wink calls “the third way of Jesus.” We believe that the New Testament is absolutely conclusive in its call to utterly reject all violence and retaliation. For more on non-violence as a theological concept here are a few excellent books on the subject: Greg Boyd’s “Myth Of A Christian Nation” and “Myth Of A Christian Religion“, Walter Wink’s “The Powers That Be“, Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw’s “Jesus For President“, John Howard Yoder’s “The Politics Of Jesus” and “What Would You Do?”, Jaques Ellul’s “Anarchy And Christianity“
UPDATE (5/27/11)
after this post was made late last night, I received several e-mails and comments from folks confused by my decision to include criticism of the generally accepted story behind September 11th. I have decided to revise that portion of this post with a few considerations. The focus of the post lies completely in the above text, the originally included after thoughts on 9/11 were included as just that: afterthoughts. why include them at all? in hopes that followers of Jesus would ask questions, especially when this means questioning the empire. my intention was genuinely NOT to endorse a certain conspiracy theory or to endorse public opinion, but to ask questions about where our bogeymen come from in the first place, and to create an atmosphere where Jesus-followers can ask these questions without name-calling and senseless accusations, after all, questioning the empire is NOT questioning Jesus, rather, questioning the empire and following Jesus often go hand in hand. some folks called on “respect for authority” as a new testament teaching to discourage the entertaining of conspiracy theories, but i think we would do well to remember 1st century Christians as a rag-tag group who believed in submission to authority, but were often locked up in prison for subverting the very authority they “submitted” to.
if anyone feels so inclined to investigate either side of the debate surrounding 9/11, here are two documentaries that deal with the issue as a conspiracy: “Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup” and “In Plane Sight.” And, in the interest of fairness, here is a debate between the producers of Loose Change and the editors of a book that attempts to debunk their documentary and a complete documentary that attempts to do the same: “Screw Loose Change.”
AN EDICT OF WORMS cover art
May 19th, 2011 § 11 Comments
here’s the first look at the cover of An Edict Of Worms, the upcoming sequel to Josh’s second novel Nevada, with artwork by talented friend David Daugherty.
working at home.
May 14th, 2011 § 2 Comments
Showbread has the next couple of months off, so i’m back at the computer desk trucking through the first draft of An Edict Of Worms, the sequel to Nevada, which is fully outlined and moving along at a frightening pace. I’m excited. Peter and I are about to get to work on editing all the tour footage we just shot as well.
After months of touring and talking to folks about Jesus and openly expressing our ideas about nonviolence, i have a thought or two about what we experienced. more on that in the near future.
more on An Edict Of Worms in the near future as well.
heresy, Open Theism and the book of the week
April 10th, 2011 § 18 Comments
When I was young and first heard the term “Calvinist” I asked what it meant. “It means someone who believes everything is predestined” someone answered. I had never met an authentic Calvinist (that I knew of) until our early touring days when a young lady drove me to the post office and began describing her church to me. Somehow we began to discuss our beliefs and this young lady described exactly what being a Calvinist meant for her. It was a strange conversation to me.
“Wait… So you believe God predestines certain people to go to hell?”
“Yes I do.”
“Why would God do that?”
“It brings him glory.”
I’ve since learned that some Calvinists believe this and some do not. Some kind of do, and some kind of don’t. Either way, I didn’t understand this logic and that conversation was one of the reasons I developed an intense interest in theology. I read all about different Calvinist ideas and different Arminian ideas from both sides of each position and while I could never agree with any of the Calvinist view points, I wasn’t really sure I agreed with all of the Arminian ones either. Now, this article has nothing to do with proving or disproving calvinism or arminianism or any other theological opinion. It’s about open theism and why it makes people upset.
A year ago I read a book by Greg Boyd called Letters From a Skeptic when I came across an interesting idea. In the book, Greg’s father asks him why God would create someone predestined for hell, and Greg answers by saying that God doesn’t. The explanation that followed, however, fascinated me, as it articulated what I had come to believe (more of less) about scripture and the future myself. Turns out this notion is something called “Open Theism” or “The open view of God.” I began to study the school of thought more, not knowing at the time that this way of thinking was in any way controversial, but I learned quick.
When Showbread recommended books or sermons by Greg Boyd (ones that had nothing to do with open theism) we would get instant emails that said things like “don’t believe anything Boyd says, he’s an open theist.” One comment we received on a social networking outlet read “Openness theology is heresy, plain and simple.” Another individual posted “I guess when a vacuum is created by a lack of sound Biblical Theology it will fill up quickly with garbage.” On the iTunes page for podcasts from Rob Bell’s church, someone expressed their disapproval, warning people to stay away because Greg Boyd had been a guest speaker at some point, and he’s an Open Theist. There you have it, Open Theism is even worse than Rob Bell… it must be straight from the devil himself.
This was strange to me. I knew, of course, that backlash is never, in and of itself, a valid reason to suspect that a theological idea is actually heresy. After all, many folks think that non-violence is heretical and use Jesus as a banner for war. To oppose the military brings immediate Christian backlash, so backlash is no reason to suspect that something is actually amiss with an idea. I decided to read what the objectors had to say.
To this day, after reading many articles, essays and books that speak out against open theism, I have not read anything that I believe to be a convincing case against it. In my experience, I see folks paint a very nasty picture of something they call open theism, but isn’t actually open theism at all. Almost every argument I have ever read against Openess Theology is simply a straw man.
For instance, Moody’s Handbook of Theology states in the first line of its evaluation of open theism “Openness theology directly affects the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. By postulating that God does not know the future and makes mistakes, how are the prophetic portions of Scripture believable?”
I’ve never heard of any Open Theist that believes God does not know the future and makes mistakes. It seems that some detractors of Open Theism believe, personally, that this is inevitable where Open Theism leads, but the fact is that open theists do not. If i argued that Calvinists believe God is hateful, arbitrary, unjust and sadistic, I suspect a Calvinist would (rightly) refute the claim. Just because I believe an idea leads to a certain conclusion does not mean that it does.
The truth is that Open Theists believe that God is completely all-knowing (omniscient), incapable of mistakes, omnipotent and completely sovereign (in control). Open Theists simply believe that God’s omniscience and sovereignty function in a different way than, say, Calvinists or Armenians believe. These conclusions are based on scripture alone and not opinions or personal conflicts outside of the bible.
As I pointed out earlier, this particular post isn’t meant to be a specific defense of the Open View (you can read that type of thing here and here) or a specific response to Calvinism (you can read that type of thing here and here). The debate over how God deals with the future, free-will and the like has been going on for hundreds of years so it’s always a little confusing to me when folks think it will be settled here and now over the internet. Discussion and humble/respectful debate can be very stimulating, i personally enjoy it, but more often than not it seems to lead to folks (like myself) defending opinions as if they were Jesus himself. The fact of the matter, I must confess, is that if the Bible was absolutely definitive and conclusive about every single theological idea then there would not be quite as much debate and not quite as many ideas. Open Theists believe what they believe because they believe that’s what the bible teaches… the same goes with Calvinists and Arminians and Roman Catholics and Protestants and every little branch of every little school of thought. Sure, some folks base their ideas on opinions or upbringing or other non-bible factors, but lots of people in every little sect believe what they believe because they believe that’s what the bible teaches.
If one man believes the future is completely predestined and another believes the future is partly predestined and partly made up of possibilities, is one a Christian and the other not? If one woman believes that she chose to follow God and another woman believes God chose her to be his follower, will only one of them be allowed in heaven? Yes, some ideas can be dangerous. Some ideas are healthy, some are not. But who is arbiter of what is what? Who can settle several-hundred-year-old debates over complicated, mysterious, spirit-inspired texts? I don’t say all this to imply that we shouldn’t try or that we shouldn’t have beliefs or convictions, but as a reminder that we simply don’t have the final word on God.
Open Theism, by definition, is not heresy. It is yet another scriptural based belief of how God deals with things like the future and free-will. The hostility directed at Open Theists within the evangelical community simply astounds me, especially given the fact that no one seems to know exactly what it is they’re mad about. If an angry guy yelled in the face of an Open Theist “The bible teaches God is all-knowing and does not make mistakes!” I assume the Open Theists would wipe the spit from his face and say “…Yeah. I know. I agree.”
Take the time to learn about things you disagree with if you want to have an accurate reason for disagreeing. I’m not saying everyone should become an Open Theist (in the grand scheme of things, it actually doesn’t matter all that much) but I am saying that if you want to have an official position, get some facts first. If you want to know what an Open Theist actually believes, I’d recommend the book of the week.
GOD OF THE POSSIBLE by Greg Boyd
p.s. if you feel inclined to send me an angry letter, reread this, you may have missed the point.
p.p.s. only 3 months and 12 days ’till Captain America.
digital version of REMISSION #1 out now!
February 24th, 2011 § 2 Comments
Remission #1 is now avalailable as a digital download for $3.
Physical copies will be released this weekend exclusively on Showbread’s completely free Raw Rock Theology tour.
Patrick and I are extremely excited about how this book is turning out so far. Remission is a dark action/drama story, less fantasy than The Black Meat and more influenced by gritty superhero books like Frank Millar’s Batman stories and Brain Bendis’ Daredevil.
On another note, issue #2 of The Black Meat has (obviously) been severely delayed, but should finally gearing up for release soon. Issue #3 is already well underway so that the gap between the next two won’t be as colossal. Sorry for the wait, but trust me, it gets much weirder and much more interesting.
pre-order the new memoir
February 9th, 2011 § 1 Comment
you can now pre-order THE JOKE THAT WE PLAY ON THE WORLD from the webstore.
