What Would Jesus Say to the NRA? by Shane Claiborne
I personally am not a religious person. I believe in the life force that is this universe, not a human personified deity residing in the sky. I was raised Catholic but I have rejected a good deal of the churches teachings.
However, Shane Claiborne is one of the few Christians I truly admire. I also believe he's one of the few who is actually living and breathing Christs teachings. So much so that he hangs out with the prostitutes and drug addicts, and convicts of Philadelphia and is the leader of The Simple Way. His is a message of unconditional love. Especially for those who hurt us the most. I read his book Jesus For President and it was a very good book. This is an article he wrote.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shane-claiborne/what-would-jesus-say-to-the-nra_b_2360543.html
What does the birth of the baby Jesus 2,000 years ago have to offer the violent, troubled world we live in? Or what would Jesus say to the NRA?
I want to suggest: a lot. A whole lot.
Jesus entered the world from a posture of absolute vulnerability -- as an unarmed, innocent child during a time of tremendous violence. The Bible speaks of a terrible massacre as Jesus was born, an unspeakable act of violence as King Herod slaughters children throughout the land hoping to kill Jesus (which the church remembers annually as the massacre of the Holy Innocents).
Perhaps the original Christmas was marked more with agony and grief like that in Connecticut than with the glitz and glamour of the shopping malls and Christmas parades. For just as Mary and Joseph celebrated their newborn baby, there were plenty of other moms and dads in utter agony because their kids had just been killed.
From his birth in the manger as a homeless refugee until his brutal execution on the Roman cross, Jesus was very familiar with violence. Emmanuel means "God with us." Jesus' coming to earth is all about a God who leaves the comfort of heaven to join the suffering on earth. The fact that Christians throughout the world regularly identify with a victim of violence -- and a nonviolent, grace-filled, forgiving victim -- is perhaps one of the most fundamentally life-altering and world-changing assumptions of the Christian faith. Or it should be.
So what does that have to do with the NRA? Underneath the rhetoric of the gun-control debate this Christmas is a nagging question: Are more guns the solution to our gun problem?
Everything in Jesus' world, just as in ours, contends that we must use violence to protect the innocent from violence, which is the very thing Jesus came to help us un-learn through his nonviolent life and death on the cross. Surely, we think, if God were to come to earth, he should at least come with a bodyguard -- if not an entire entourage of armed soldiers and secret service folk. But Jesus comes unarmed. Surely, we think, if God were about to be killed he would bust out a can of butt-kicking wrath; but Jesus looks into the eyes of those about to kill him and says, "Father forgive them." The Bible goes so far to say that the wisdom of God makes no sense to the logic of this world, in fact it may even seem like "foolishness" (or at least utopian idealism).
When soldiers come to arrest and execute Jesus, one of his closest friends defensively picks up a sword to protect him. Jesus' response is stunning: He scolds his own disciple and heals the wounded persecutor. It was a tough and very counter-intuitive lesson: "The one who picks up the sword dies by the sword ... there is another way."
That lesson that Jesus taught his disciple is as relevant to us, and the NRA, as it was the early movement of Christians in the first century. Violence will not rid the world of violence. You do not use swords to get rid of swords or guns to get rid of guns. There is another way.
Many Christians have begun to speak of Jesus as an interruption to the "myth of redemptive violence," the assumption that we can use violence to get rid of violence or that we can destroy a life to save a life. The myth of redemptive violence has many ugly faces. It teaches us that we can kill those who kill to show that killing is wrong. It teaches us to live by the law of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" a law that Jesus firmly spun on its head, saying, "You've heard it said 'an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth ... but I tell you..." There is another way. Killing to show that killing is wrong is like trying to teach holiness by fornication. The cure is as bad as the disease.
At one point Jesus even weeps over the violent world he lived in, lamenting that "they did not know the things that would lead to peace." The fact that Jesus carried a cross rather than a sword has something relevant and redemptive to offer our violent-possessed world. After all, the Bible has a lot to say about loving enemies, and "Thou shalt not kill," but doesn't even mention the right to bear arms.
So let's imagine. What would Jesus say to our nation, where these are things are true:
- 10,000 people die from gun-related homicides each year, that's one Sandy Hook massacre a day, every day
- There are nearly 90 guns for every 100 people
- There are more than 51,000 licensed gunshops (and 30,000 supermarkets)
- Guns that can shoot 100 rounds a minute, and are only designed to kill, are still legal
- Other than auto accidents, gun violence is the leading cause of death of young people (under 20)
- $20,000 a second is spent on war
There is a reason we talk about "Peace on Earth" so much around Christmas. There is a reason why we talk about Jesus as the "Prince of Peace." He consistently taught that we can disarm violence without mirroring it, and that we can rid the world of evil without becoming the evil we abhor. So let us recommit ourselves to Peace this Christmas season and new year -- in honor of Jesus, and in honor of the holy innocents.
I'm not really sure what to say about someone who thinks that way. If you reject part of the Bible, then how can you accept any of the Bible to be truth? Jesus himself did not write any part of the Bible whatsoever. All of the books about him were written about him. So who is to say if anything is true? If that's truly how you feel.
Quoting mehamil1:It may have been about Jesus, but he didn't say it. He didn't teach it. It was written by a guy in exile, watching his city burn by emperor Nero who then blamed it on Christians. That is the context of that book. Written LONG after Jesus died. I personally think it was written by someone who was high on something. That is just me. I don't mean to be disrespectful, it's a bunch of ramblings by a pissed off guy. I think that book has been taken out of context and used to justify some pretty horrible actions.
I don't know what Shane's understanding of the Bible is. I don't know what his education is. I only know that he is one of the few Christians who is doing his best to live as Jesus lived. To practice what Jesus said to practice. I have a disdain for Christians and Christianity in general. But Shane, he gives me hope. He does a lot of good work in the community that he lives in. He goes to war zones (like Iraq) to be with the people who are dying. He recently just came back from Afghanistan. I read his book Jesus for President and he really opened my eyes.
And it's faux pas.
Quoting kailu1835:Considering that the entire book of Revelation was ABOUT Jesus, any Christian who ignores the book of Revelation shouldn't be spouting nonesense about the Bible. And much of what he spouts is nonesense. I looked him up too. His basic theology was taken from the very surface of the Scriptures, and he doesn't appear to have done any real digging into the scriptures. That, in and of itself, is a problem, because the Bible is not a surface text that one can just read and immediately understand. Cultural context must be understood, as well as translation issues, cross referencing with other scriptures, etc etc. Not to mention a big fo pah (how ever that's spelled), he doesn't think that you should tell people that they have sinned, and need to repent, and calls it "forcing a person".
Basically, he is a "feel-good" minister, and not one that will make any real difference to a person's spirituality, and ability to know God.
Quoting mehamil1:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shane_Claiborne
Claiborne grew up in east Tennessee.[4] His dad, who was a Vietnam War veteran, died when Shane was 9 years old. A graduate of Eastern University, where he studiedsociology and youth ministry, Claiborne did his final academic work for Eastern University at Wheaton College in Illinois. While at Wheaton, Claiborne did an internship at Willow Creek Community Church. He has done some graduate work at Princeton Theological Seminary, but took a leave of absence, and now is a part of The Alternative Seminary in Philadelphia.
And yet again, he is a RED LETTER Christian. The Book of Revelations was not a revelation to Jesus. So I don't think he takes that as seriously as he does the words and actions of Jesus.
Quoting kailu1835:Out of curiosity, what are his credentials? As in, what makes him so big and powerful that he can determine what is or isn't bad theology?
He needs to get a clue. The Bible talks about Jesus' second coming, and a great and terrible battle (ie war) that he will be waging against all of evil. It could be metaphor, it could be literal, but the point is, he never said that war was wrong, in fact his father commanded his people to do so, many times. He is not a pacifist.
Quoting mehamil1:Oh look, he addresses this very subject you brought up. It's called bad theology.
Quoting kailu1835:People who pose these types of arguments obviously haven't read the entire Bible, or truly understand Biblical History. God put forth the law stating that if you killed someone, the relatives of that person could kill you, provided you hadn't found sanctuary. Jesus also participated in violence, when people were selling animals in the temple
It has to do with timing. You have to remember also that Jesus came to get people to turn to him to become Christians. Killing people would have done, what, exactly? But healing the sick, taking care of the weak, of course that is going to accomplish his goal much easier. And he healed the man that was his arresting officer so to speak, because it was pointless to harm him. It was already predestined when Jesus was to die, and this was it. Why kill anyone, or maim anyone? It was his time, and he knew it, and was on board with the plan.
And Jesus said himself that he came as a sword.
Quoting mehamil1:I have a hard time believing that a man who was a double edged sword would heal the wound of one of the men who came to take him to be executed. I have a hard time believing that a man who came as a weapon would heal the sick and feed the hungry. Who would speak out against the might of Rome. To tell people to walk away from those who hurt you, not fight back. To give your shirt to the person who just stole your coat. To give away all your things to the poor. Who told people that if you have too much of something, to give it away.
That to me, looks like a pacifist. Not a sword.
Quoting kailu1835:Owning a gun does not stop you from loving your fellow man. Jesus didn't come to promote peace. He came as a two edged sword. This is what I mean by saying that people who present this argument don't truly know what Jesus taught. You can't make a valid argument about what Jesus would say or do if you don't even know yourself. (general you)
Quoting mehamil1:As a Christian I thought you are commanded to follow Gods law. Which is to love unconditionally. Are you saying the constitution is more important that the teachings of Christ? Didn't Jesus say that you cannot serve two masters? God in one instance, government/caesar the other? Sure, render unto caesar what is caesar, but what do you render unto God in this instance? Didn't Jesus say to be in this world but not of it? Sure, the Constitution says a lot, but what did Jesus say? Doesn't the peace that Jesus promoted and died for trump the US constitution?
Quoting kailu1835:Yeah, yeah, I watched the video, and this is an entirely different context from what I said. The context in which I brought it up is that people argue that Jesus would be against guns, but he obviously wasn't and isn't against violence, especially considering the war he plans to wage. I didn't use that example as a reason for why we should wipe out a race. But I think you knew that, so go ahead and insert a giant eye roll here.
ETA: Not to mention that Jesus never meddled in legal affairs. He never said what law was right or what law was wrong. He was above all that, but he DID state that you should follow the law. Our constitutional law is the highest law in our land. Beyond our 2nd Amendment right, the law states that the President is to UPHOLD our Constitution, and states the very specific way in which an amendment can be made.
Quoting mehamil1:Last comment, I promise. Did you know that Hitler used that excuse you just used? Jesus drove out the money changers and he promised to exterminate the Jews. He stood at a podium with a bible in his hand and said that just as Jesus drove out the Jews from the temple, he would exterminate the Jews from existence.
It really needs to stop. It's an excuse. And a poor one at that.
Quoting kailu1835:People who pose these types of arguments obviously haven't read the entire Bible, or truly understand Biblical History. God put forth the law stating that if you killed someone, the relatives of that person could kill you, provided you hadn't found sanctuary. Jesus also participated in violence, when people were selling animals in the temple.
The 4 Gospels were his words and deeds. I would think that would be all that matters. Sure, the rest would give a more clearer picture, but the meat of it is the gospels.
I have read revelation. I don't like it. I think it's bullshit, bogus, made up. Purposely allegorical because the author was living in exile and was pissed off about that. I do not consider the book of Revelations to be of any real value. That's just me. I was raised Catholic. We didn't spend a lot of time on that book. It was more like, eh. I get that you value it, I understand that. However, I do not. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.
As for the sword comment, I was taught that he meant that for things like skinning animals, defending against wild animals. Not so much a sword for fighting but the usefulness that a large knife would have had in that place and time. Jesus said -
"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.' Matthew 22:51. I'm not trying to pick and choose here. But if that's what he said about swords, actual swords used to kill people, then I don't think he supported violence at all.
Quoting kailu1835:If you've only read the 4 gospels, then you have come away with a VERY narrow version of him. It is the most information you have about his life, but it is not the only information we have about him. There are hundreds of prophecies that tell what he will do, both in the Old Testament, and in the New Testament. He appears to people in more than just the 4 gospels. Read Revelation. The whole book is about him. Also, even in the gospels you can find evidence of what he thought about weapons and fighting. He told the disciples to go buy a sword. He also said that if his kingdom were of our world, that his soldiers would be fighting to keep him from being taken by the Jews. And in Revelation, he comes to kill all who oppose him until his robes are dipped in blood that runs in the streets
Quoting mehamil1:I am genuinely curious here, not being snarky. I have read all four gospels. I don't remember Jesus talking about fighting a war. At least not in any literal sense. Where does he say he's going to fight a war? He always came off to me as saying the only way to defeat evil is with love. With light. Stop evil in its tracks with unconditional love.
Quoting kailu1835:Yeah, yeah, I watched the video, and this is an entirely different context from what I said. The context in which I brought it up is that people argue that Jesus would be against guns, but he obviously wasn't and isn't against violence, especially considering the war he plans to wage. I didn't use that example as a reason for why we should wipe out a race. But I think you knew that, so go ahead and insert a giant eye roll here.
Quoting mehamil1:Last comment, I promise. Did you know that Hitler used that excuse you just used? Jesus drove out the money changers and he promised to exterminate the Jews. He stood at a podium with a bible in his hand and said that just as Jesus drove out the Jews from the temple, he would exterminate the Jews from existence.
It really needs to stop. It's an excuse. And a poor one at that.
Quoting kailu1835:People who pose these types of arguments obviously haven't read the entire Bible, or truly understand Biblical History. God put forth the law stating that if you killed someone, the relatives of that person could kill you, provided you hadn't found sanctuary. Jesus also participated in violence, when people were selling animals in the temple.
I think that with such a purposefully narrow vision of who Christ was, there really isn't any point to further discussion. Without ALL of the facts of who he was, what he was meant to do, both in his lifetime and after his resurrection, noone can have a knowledgable discussion about these things.
Quoting mehamil1:The 4 Gospels were his words and deeds. I would think that would be all that matters. Sure, the rest would give a more clearer picture, but the meat of it is the gospels.
I have read revelation. I don't like it. I think it's bullshit, bogus, made up. Purposely allegorical because the author was living in exile and was pissed off about that. I do not consider the book of Revelations to be of any real value. That's just me. I was raised Catholic. We didn't spend a lot of time on that book. It was more like, eh. I get that you value it, I understand that. However, I do not. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.
As for the sword comment, I was taught that he meant that for things like skinning animals, defending against wild animals. Not so much a sword for fighting but the usefulness that a large knife would have had in that place and time. Jesus said -
"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.' Matthew 22:51. I'm not trying to pick and choose here. But if that's what he said about swords, actual swords used to kill people, then I don't think he supported violence at all.
Quoting kailu1835:If you've only read the 4 gospels, then you have come away with a VERY narrow version of him. It is the most information you have about his life, but it is not the only information we have about him. There are hundreds of prophecies that tell what he will do, both in the Old Testament, and in the New Testament. He appears to people in more than just the 4 gospels. Read Revelation. The whole book is about him. Also, even in the gospels you can find evidence of what he thought about weapons and fighting. He told the disciples to go buy a sword. He also said that if his kingdom were of our world, that his soldiers would be fighting to keep him from being taken by the Jews. And in Revelation, he comes to kill all who oppose him until his robes are dipped in blood that runs in the streets
Quoting mehamil1:I am genuinely curious here, not being snarky. I have read all four gospels. I don't remember Jesus talking about fighting a war. At least not in any literal sense. Where does he say he's going to fight a war? He always came off to me as saying the only way to defeat evil is with love. With light. Stop evil in its tracks with unconditional love.
Quoting kailu1835:Yeah, yeah, I watched the video, and this is an entirely different context from what I said. The context in which I brought it up is that people argue that Jesus would be against guns, but he obviously wasn't and isn't against violence, especially considering the war he plans to wage. I didn't use that example as a reason for why we should wipe out a race. But I think you knew that, so go ahead and insert a giant eye roll here.
Quoting mehamil1:Last comment, I promise. Did you know that Hitler used that excuse you just used? Jesus drove out the money changers and he promised to exterminate the Jews. He stood at a podium with a bible in his hand and said that just as Jesus drove out the Jews from the temple, he would exterminate the Jews from existence.
It really needs to stop. It's an excuse. And a poor one at that.
Quoting kailu1835:People who pose these types of arguments obviously haven't read the entire Bible, or truly understand Biblical History. God put forth the law stating that if you killed someone, the relatives of that person could kill you, provided you hadn't found sanctuary. Jesus also participated in violence, when people were selling animals in the temple.
I do not accept to be any kind of truth outside of philosophy. I am not a religious person. In a nut shell, what I believe is that we are the Universe experiencing itself in human form. That is to say, we are composed of atoms. Those atoms were born in the deaths of stars billions upon billions of years ago. Now, those atoms have formed into us. So we are, in essence, atoms contemplating themselves. The Universe in human form. Everything is connected at the molecular/atomic/quantum level. - that's just me. This whole religion thing is the height of our human arrogance. To think that we are some how special in a Universe as large as this one, that it was made for us? No. I don't believe that.
I realize that Jesus did not write any of it. Another reason why I don't take that book seriously beyond the scope of general philosophy and some literature written by ancient humans. I value it in that way. Same as I value any kind of written works from thousands and thousands of years ago. The Epic of Gilgamesh, which predates the bible by like 1000 years, reads a whole lot like the stories in the Old Testament. Which makes sense. Those stories probably bounced around that area for a really long time, Just waiting to be written down once written language was invented by the Sumerians.
Who knows what is or isn't true? I don't. We're human. Those ancient books were written by humans. How many mistakes did they make? Too many. I can't take it seriously.
Quoting kailu1835:I'm not really sure what to say about someone who thinks that way. If you reject part of the Bible, then how can you accept any of the Bible to be truth? Jesus himself did not write any part of the Bible whatsoever. All of the books about him were written about him. So who is to say if anything is true? If that's truly how you feel.
Quoting mehamil1:It may have been about Jesus, but he didn't say it. He didn't teach it. It was written by a guy in exile, watching his city burn by emperor Nero who then blamed it on Christians. That is the context of that book. Written LONG after Jesus died. I personally think it was written by someone who was high on something. That is just me. I don't mean to be disrespectful, it's a bunch of ramblings by a pissed off guy. I think that book has been taken out of context and used to justify some pretty horrible actions.
I don't know what Shane's understanding of the Bible is. I don't know what his education is. I only know that he is one of the few Christians who is doing his best to live as Jesus lived. To practice what Jesus said to practice. I have a disdain for Christians and Christianity in general. But Shane, he gives me hope. He does a lot of good work in the community that he lives in. He goes to war zones (like Iraq) to be with the people who are dying. He recently just came back from Afghanistan. I read his book Jesus for President and he really opened my eyes.
And it's faux pas.
Quoting kailu1835:Considering that the entire book of Revelation was ABOUT Jesus, any Christian who ignores the book of Revelation shouldn't be spouting nonesense about the Bible. And much of what he spouts is nonesense. I looked him up too. His basic theology was taken from the very surface of the Scriptures, and he doesn't appear to have done any real digging into the scriptures. That, in and of itself, is a problem, because the Bible is not a surface text that one can just read and immediately understand. Cultural context must be understood, as well as translation issues, cross referencing with other scriptures, etc etc. Not to mention a big fo pah (how ever that's spelled), he doesn't think that you should tell people that they have sinned, and need to repent, and calls it "forcing a person".
Basically, he is a "feel-good" minister, and not one that will make any real difference to a person's spirituality, and ability to know God.
How can we when you yourself said that all of this was written long after he died? Who knows what really happened.
And I wasn't being narrow on purpose.
Quoting kailu1835:I think that with such a purposefully narrow vision of who Christ was, there really isn't any point to further discussion. Without ALL of the facts of who he was, what he was meant to do, both in his lifetime and after his resurrection, noone can have a knowledgable discussion about these things.
Quoting mehamil1:The 4 Gospels were his words and deeds. I would think that would be all that matters. Sure, the rest would give a more clearer picture, but the meat of it is the gospels.
I have read revelation. I don't like it. I think it's bullshit, bogus, made up. Purposely allegorical because the author was living in exile and was pissed off about that. I do not consider the book of Revelations to be of any real value. That's just me. I was raised Catholic. We didn't spend a lot of time on that book. It was more like, eh. I get that you value it, I understand that. However, I do not. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.
As for the sword comment, I was taught that he meant that for things like skinning animals, defending against wild animals. Not so much a sword for fighting but the usefulness that a large knife would have had in that place and time. Jesus said -
"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.' Matthew 22:51. I'm not trying to pick and choose here. But if that's what he said about swords, actual swords used to kill people, then I don't think he supported violence at all.
Quoting kailu1835:If you've only read the 4 gospels, then you have come away with a VERY narrow version of him. It is the most information you have about his life, but it is not the only information we have about him. There are hundreds of prophecies that tell what he will do, both in the Old Testament, and in the New Testament. He appears to people in more than just the 4 gospels. Read Revelation. The whole book is about him. Also, even in the gospels you can find evidence of what he thought about weapons and fighting. He told the disciples to go buy a sword. He also said that if his kingdom were of our world, that his soldiers would be fighting to keep him from being taken by the Jews. And in Revelation, he comes to kill all who oppose him until his robes are dipped in blood that runs in the streets
Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude by using the term narrow. What I meant is that you have consciously decided to base your knowledge of Jesus on what is written in the Gospels. That's what I meant by narrow vision. It's like if someone were to learn about me, find out about my work on a nonprofit horse rescue/drill team, and base my entire life on those 5 years that I was with team. It's no different, because the gospels only encompass a few short years. He was alive as a human a lot longer than that, and it has been centuries since his resurrection.
Quoting mehamil1:How can we when you yourself said that all of this was written long after he died? Who knows what really happened.
And I wasn't being narrow on purpose.
Quoting kailu1835:I think that with such a purposefully narrow vision of who Christ was, there really isn't any point to further discussion. Without ALL of the facts of who he was, what he was meant to do, both in his lifetime and after his resurrection, noone can have a knowledgable discussion about these things.
Quoting mehamil1:The 4 Gospels were his words and deeds. I would think that would be all that matters. Sure, the rest would give a more clearer picture, but the meat of it is the gospels.
I have read revelation. I don't like it. I think it's bullshit, bogus, made up. Purposely allegorical because the author was living in exile and was pissed off about that. I do not consider the book of Revelations to be of any real value. That's just me. I was raised Catholic. We didn't spend a lot of time on that book. It was more like, eh. I get that you value it, I understand that. However, I do not. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.
As for the sword comment, I was taught that he meant that for things like skinning animals, defending against wild animals. Not so much a sword for fighting but the usefulness that a large knife would have had in that place and time. Jesus said -
"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.' Matthew 22:51. I'm not trying to pick and choose here. But if that's what he said about swords, actual swords used to kill people, then I don't think he supported violence at all.
Quoting kailu1835:If you've only read the 4 gospels, then you have come away with a VERY narrow version of him. It is the most information you have about his life, but it is not the only information we have about him. There are hundreds of prophecies that tell what he will do, both in the Old Testament, and in the New Testament. He appears to people in more than just the 4 gospels. Read Revelation. The whole book is about him. Also, even in the gospels you can find evidence of what he thought about weapons and fighting. He told the disciples to go buy a sword. He also said that if his kingdom were of our world, that his soldiers would be fighting to keep him from being taken by the Jews. And in Revelation, he comes to kill all who oppose him until his robes are dipped in blood that runs in the streets
Who would you save?
- mehamil1
on Dec. 28, 2012 at 4:06 PM