In a foreordained universe, where every act is according to God’s plan, why does he become angry when His actors fulfill their roles?
Again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying “Go and take a census of Israel and Judah.” (2 Sam 24:1)
We ask why God would be angry with Israel since they were acting according to His will and then, why would he cause David to sin (via the census) and bring further wrath upon the people?
As an additional help to reading my recent post on John 3:16, Pizzaman contributes this dictionary as an aid to understanding Calvinist usage of terms. Hope it helps 🙂
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (NIV)
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (KJV)
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. (NASB)
Perhaps the best known all Bible verses, John 3:16 is a “twenty-six-word parade of hope: beginning with God, ending with life, and urging us to do the same.” (Lucado) It is a safe bet to say that a majority of Christians have memorized this verse and though not many would correctly place it in the context of a conversation with Nicodemus, most would be able to apply the first rule of hermeneutics to it; the plain reading of a passage is usually the best. Theologically, Arminians will point to the passage containing this verse ( 3:16-18 ) as one of many supporting a universal atonement while Calvinists will draw a finer point to the verse saying that Jesus was simply teaching only that atonement was not racially specific, that it would include both Jews and Gentiles (i.e. the World).
I recently read an exegetical study of this passage that was presented as the authoritative, final word (implied by the author and insisted upon by the blog poster who archived it) in the Calvinist/Arminian appropriation debate over the passage. Logically, a reader’s approach where there seem to be two clear-cut sides to a debate is to assume that if one side is right, the other must be wrong. Perhaps (as Blomberg, Klein, & Hubbard point out), given a specific text, the reader must consider the possibility that the verse has only a single meaning or whether it may accommodate several possible meanings on multiple levels. While going to the Greek is a necessary step in studying a New Testament verse, there is much more to consider when settling on the meaning of a passage. Responsible hermeneutics stands against the tendency to “proof-text” and pull verses out of their context and overall meaning in order to support or refute a specific doctrine.
The verse we are studying comes from the widely beloved Gospel of John, the book in the quartet of canonical gospels that stands apart from the Synoptics. Though there is no explicit claim of authorship within the book itself, it is generally accepted to have been written by the apostle John, “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” Dating for the letter ranges from early second century ( 110-125 ) to mid to late first century (50 – 95), the exact choice of which does not affect the interpretation of our passage. What is important to note in examining the time in which the gospel is written is that an accurate interpretation is reliant upon an understanding of Judaism in the first century as it forms a thread throughout the book.
An outline of the book most often divides it into two larger parts: The Book of Signs (miracles) chapters 1 – 12 and The Book of Glory 13 – 20 with an epilogue in chapter 21. The subsections within the Book of Signs shows Jesus interacting with the institutions of Judaism and showing how His coming replaces a Jewish symbol with something infinitely greater (water->living water; manna->living bread, etc.). We find the verse under study in the Book of Signs in the third ‘sign, following the miracle at Cana where the Lord changes water into wine and the cleansing and the replacement of the Temple for worship. In the third sign, the Lord is approached by the Pharisee Nicodemus. Here, Jesus will reveal that his “glorification on the cross will be the turning point in which Judaism discovers its dissolution and renewal.” (Burge)
The near context of 3:16 is the encounter between Jesus and Nicodemus. In order to properly understand this verse, it is especially critical to place it in the near context and not to approach it as a discrete sentence. The context passage we will look at is 3:1-21 with the introductory verses of 2:23-25 included.
Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many people saw the miraculous signs he was doing and believed in his name. But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all men. He did not need man’s testimony about man, for he knew what was in a man.
3 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him.”
In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.”
“How can a man be born when he is old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!”
Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”
“How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.
“You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.” (John 2:23 – 3:21 NIV)
The tail of Chapter Two follows the Lord’s clearing of the Temple and it leaves us with the editorial note on His knowledge of the corruption in the hearts of all men ( Gk. anthropos ). John introduces Nicodemus by linking his inner heart to that of all men mentioned previously ( “Now there was a man of the Pharisees” Gk. anthropos ) despite the recognition of his earthly authority that follows. He comes from the darkness to meet and interview Jesus and begins with an assessment of the stature of the Lord. Interestingly, Jesus responds with an answer to a question that was not asked, telling the Pharisee that one must be born again before gaining entry to the kingdom of heaven. A back and forth ensues with Nicodemus asking first how it is possible and then how can it be done until Jesus answers, a bit short perhaps, “you are a very prominent teacher of the very favored people of Israel and you don’t understand this?” [ Both Israel and teacher are preceded by the definite article lending this emphasis.]
The passage shifts to discourse on the part of Jesus starting in verse 10, with Nicodemus as His audience. Jesus says to him that if he, of all people, cannot see that the new birth was built on OT teaching, how would he be able to understand greater things. Verse 11 is often seen by commentators as a comment introduced by the author repeating a statement commonly spoken in the synagogue of the day repeating the Lord’s sentiment of verse 10. The Lord expresses the doctrinal challenges of Judaism through Nicodemus; if he were unable to understand matters that had been illustrated by material experience, he (and his fellow Jews) would be unable to grasp that which had no earthly analogy (Tenney).
Jesus draws an illustration from the Jewish Scriptures to make His meaning explicit . He refers back to a story recorded in Numbers 21 in which Moses is instructed in the way by which men and women could be saved from their venomous snake bites (death being the penalty for the rebellion against God). He is told to hoist a bronze snake upon a standard so that anyone who looks upon it might live. It was no doubt a startling image for Nicodemus, the serpent being the image of sin under judgement. In the same way, Jesus explains, the Son of Man must be lifted up so that everyone who believes in him may be saved. This is an important statement that the reader must not dismiss too quickly in order to get to 3:16 because the two are intertwined. Note the points of comparison that we must be aware of:
A principle of hermeneutics that must not be violated when exegeting a typological passage is that we are not free to use our ingenuity to read into the text comparisons between the type and antitype upon which the text is silent. James White publishes just such a bit of wishful thinking when his eisigesis of the type-comparison reads in a particularity needed to support his Calvinist theology. Specifically, he attempts to link a limited efficaciousness of the bronze serpent to the people of Israel and the proposed limited atonement offered through Jesus. He says [the serpent was] “only a means of deliverance for a limited population” reading into the text something that is both physically true but not theologically applicable. Does the text indicate that others outside the community are suffering from the snake venom? Are outsiders even present at the moment of redemption (the serprent being raised) to gaze upon it only to die? The answer to both is that we do not know but the text does not indicate in the affirmative.
At verse 16 we encounter an aspect of the original text that requires us to make a decision. Lacking quotation marks, orthographical marks, or an editorial break by the Evangelist, the words in many bibles continue in red leading the reader to assume that they are the words of the Lord. Many commentators disagree with the identification of the speaker indicating that the words in 16-21 are a commentary included by John to amplify the teaching of Jesus in the preceding verses. Carson points to the unique verbiage used in this pericope as being specific to John as one way of identifying authorship with Burge pointing to the tense of the immediate verse (16) as pointing to the already occurred death of Christ as further evidence of this break.
I will separate a closer examination of verse 16 for another section so I close out the textual context by looking at the Evangelist’s words in 17-21. Starting with ‘For’ (gar) in verse 17, he comments on the preceding verse extending the mission of the Christ in saving the world. Those who believe in the Savior will be saved while those who elect not to believe stand condemned in their sin. Their judgement due to their innate depravity is the default end; only by salvation can this terminus be changed. This is the emphatic conclusion that John concludes the passage with. Interestingly, Nicodemus offers no counter or conclusion of his own.
Verse 3:16 in the original text reads as follows:
Outwj gar hgaphsen o` qeoj ton kosmon( wste ton uion ton monogenh/ edwken( ina paj o`pisteuwn eij auton mh. apolhtai allV ech| zwhn aiwnionÅ
Translated directly, it reads as:
The first phrase ‘For God so loved the world’ leads to the first interpretive question; why is the verse not translated “God thus loved the world?” This might be expected given that the conjunction ‘for’ references the preceding verses and an example of God’s love that foreshadowed the Savior’s sacrificial act and the succeeding phrase which describes the uniqueness of the gift that fulfills it. In his exegetical paper, White dismisses any emphasis to God’s love opting for the straight translation of ‘in this way’ so we must ask if there is support for reading the adverb with emphasis or simply causation. Houtos in this context takes the form of an emphatic adverb (Lowe-Nida – 78.4) denoting a high degree. With God the author of the love and the resulting action being that He sacrifices His Son on the behalf of those He loves, contextually the English ‘so’ is the appropriate translation. Carson (The Gospel According to John) provides this grammatical structure in support of this reading, “houtos plus hoste plus the indicative instead of the infinitive emphasizes the intensity of the love.”
The second word of interest is ‘world’ or kosmos in the Greek. Some will attempt to apply a particularity to this word (e.g. world means only ‘the elect’) that is not justified by the context. An example of this attempted textual sleight of hand is written in The Five Points of Calvinism by Palmer where he says:
The answer to this objection [i.e. Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world] is that often, the Bible uses the words world and all in a restricted, limited sense.
Palmer attempts to support this assertion by comparing verses such as John 4:42 (Jesus is the savior of the world) and John 1:29 (He takes away the sin of the world) with Luke 2:1,2. In this verse Caesar Augustus calls for a census of all of the Roman world to which Palmer (who, we should note conveniently does not quote the verse and leaves out the qualifier Roman) points out that all is not all. “For the Japanese, Chinese, and Anglo-Saxons did not enroll themselves.” Remember, context is important in interpretation and when we jump from the Johannine to the Lukan corpus we must make one shift but secondly, it is absolutely clear that the Doctor used world in a geographic sense in this verse, far different than the Johannine verses he compares it to. Despite any inferred megalomania on the part of the Caesar, it is clear that context clearly defines the usage and removes it from the theological discussion.
White’s paper attempts to maneuver the reader into the same territory staked out by Palmer. He states, “The wide range of uses of kosmos (world) in the Johannine corpus is well known.” The noun kosmos appears in the NT 186 times, with 78 occurrences in John’s gospel, 24 in his epistles, and 3 in Revelation. Verbrugge (The NIV Theological Dictionary of New Testament Words) and Kittel (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament) agree that there are nuances to the word but in each case, they are all encompassing. It can mean (a) the universe or the world as the sum of all created things, (b) the sphere or place of human life, or (c) the whole of humanity. Each of these is linked by the thread of being a way of stating the totality of a created thing without a hint of particularism.
In John, the author’s use of kosmos is consistent in meaning the entire realm of humanity that stands in opposition to God while the context defines the different aspects of this totality to which it speaks. In 3:16 we must examine the kosmos in light of it being the object of God’s love. It is the very reason that God’s emphatic love is so astounding; even though the entirety of world is so utterly depraved, God loves it as His created order. Continuing, we must examine the word in terms of the immediate context which includes verse 3:17. If there were a particularity to kosmos in 3:16 how would the same word be interpreted in verse 17? Does the Lord come into a world (Jn 1:9) in which some are not condemned prior to His work upon the cross? No, the Son of Man came into a world already lost and condemned so that He might offer salvation to those who would believe. That is why Jesus is called the ‘Savior of the World’ (Jn 4:42). That some will not be saved is made clear in verses 18-21 but this does not modify God’s mission in sending the Son.
Though the world is thoroughly corrupted and stands under His judgment, the Creator loves His creation with such intensity that He gives it the most gracious gift possible, His only Son ( hoste ton huion monogene edoken.) There is little disagreement regarding the greatness of the Son in whom we are to place our faith but we do see an emphasis in this clause on the greatness of the gift. John places the object before the verb ( ton huion before edoken ) emphasizing the unique, love-driven aspects of this gift. This gift, the one and only/only begotten Son ( monogenes ) is the ultimate act of grace, giving something of such uniqueness and value to a creation so utterly undeserving.
The result clause of the verse demonstrates the gift of grace that affords the salvation to all who will believe in the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. The Greek phrase hina pas ho pisteuon is translated that whoever believes, a smoothing of the more wooden direct translation [in order] that all the one’s believing. The participle pisteuon form of the verb to believe (pisteuo) tells us something about the all/everyone who (pas) which precedes it, they are the ones who are believing. Many times, in order to read a specific theological system into this verse, the emphasis is placed on what it does not say (e.g. White’s exclamation that this phrase does not in any way introduce some kind of denial of particularity to the action.) This eisigesis is unnecessary since the full dimension of the Savior’s work is restated again in verses 18-21. Jesus’ ultimate purpose is the salvation of those in the world who believe in him (eis auton). Who is encompassed in this circle of possibility? All those men and women who exist in this world but who, by their depraved nature, habitually turn toward darkness by default.
The final clause provides the promise given to those who believe in the Savior, they shall not perish but have eternal life ( me apoletai all eche zoen aiwnion.) The Greek word appolymai provides a starkly contrasting word to the idea of life eternal ( zoen aionion ) in that it describes something that is lost, destroyed, or has disappeared through violent ends. The believer will experience the opposite; they will posses or hold on to (eche) the new, eternal life to replace the old finite one.
The Calvinist will read this passage through the lens of humankind’s inability to believe. The theological construct posits that due to their thoroughly depraved nature, man cannot take advantage of this offer as he will not, of his own volition or will, believe in the redemptive work of the savior. The Calvinist may occasionally agree that the offer of eternal life is to all is implicit in this verse but turn right around and say that it is impossible to redeem outside of the abilities provided to the elect. In other words, man has no way on his own to take advantage of this promise. This verse ( and others of similar dimension: 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned; 6:37 whoever comes to me I will never drive away; Rev 22:17 whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.) causes the Calvinist to apply unwarranted definitions to the terms all, whoever, everyone, world, et al. in which they find that each means only a specific group, an interpretation unsupported by the context.
There is further a disturbing practice amongst Calvinist interpreters to reach for the negative space in a passage in their search for theological support. White’s paper on this verse (which prompted this study) is wrought with highlights of what is not written in the text rather than what is. For example, he examines the clause ‘whoever believes’ and tells us that these words [do] “not in any way introduce some kind of denial of particularity to the action.” Granted, this may be true but is the conclusion warranted by either the author or the context? Does John go on to define whoever as those elected prior to the creation to receive eternal life? I do not believe the answer to either of these questions is in the affirmative. Attempts to limit the scope of this passage and others of similar dimension to a select few require eisigesis driven by theology rather than careful exegesis driven by the text alone, which should then in turn, be reflect in our theology. A sober example of reading one’s theology into this passage is given by John Owen as he restates the passage in his own words:
God so loved his elect throughout the world, that he gave his Son with this intention, that by him believers might be saved. (Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ)
Besides the fact that this interpretation is in no way supported by the Greek text, it runs directly counter to God’s repeated command not to add or subtract from His word (Dt 4:2).
Another attempt at constraint is found in the oft-repeated Calvinist response that non-Calvinists are mis-characterizing or misunderstanding God’s love. Again we reach to the negative; by leaning on the Lord’s words in Isaiah 55:9 ” As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.” for support, the Calvinist is prompted to say that we cannot understand God’s love in human terms. This of course is the foundation for their definition of love in supralapsarian terms; God shows His love in His way by creating some for redemption and others for destruction and we are not to attempt to understand how this demonstrates His love, simply accept it. To the contrary though, the Genesis account shows us that the image of the creator was sullied by original sin, our innate sense of love was not removed. I believe that it is from the creator that we reserve the ability to love others contrary to our self-serving nature which would naturally see others as competition.
For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.
So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them.
2 Co 5:14-19
That God desires all (meaning all and not some nor a few select) men to be saved is clearly stated throughout the Bible. If John is unsatisfactory, we can turn to Paul who says “This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved to come to a knowledge of the truth.” (1 Tim 2:3-4) or Peter who turns the phrase “He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” (2 Pet 3:9). Had the Lord intended to convey the meaning of some men or a very narrow spectrum of humankind, was it not possible for the Spirit to clearly convey this to the authors? Spurgeon himself comments on those manhandle the text in an attempt to extract a theological truth that is absent. He says “‘All men,’ they say–that is, some men; as if the Holy Ghost could not have said some men if had meant some. All men, say they; that is some of all sorts of men; as if the Lord could not have said ‘All sorts of men’ if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written ‘all men,’ and unquestionably he means all men.” (Spurgeon, his sermon “A Critical Text – C.H. Spurgeon on 1 Timothy 2:2-4)
Many times in the discussion of Christians and their attitudes toward war, nonresistance and pacifism get tumbled together as a single doctrine without distinction. In fact, nonresistance has numerous facets which make it unique from the doctrines of pacifism. Nonresistance appears to take a broader view of one’s responsibility as a citizen of a country and of the kingdom when it states that Christians should strive to avoid conflict as a daily practice but may, in times of war, serve their fellow citizens through military service in a noncombatant role. Matthew 5:39 gives the doctrine its name;
But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
This verse can lead a reader astray into thinking that the Lord has called His followers into a passivity in the face of evil but there is much nuance that confers a more positive and active sense to the command. The Christian’s initial order of business upon regeneration is to begin the process of separating him/herself from the world and its ways, including the common use of force to accomplish the objectives of living. The Christian also begins to develop an awareness that they are citizens now of a different kingdom of a higher order while being sojourners in the world. Behavioral expectations come from the former to be practiced in the latter.
Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.”
While we sojourn here in this world, the Lord does not however command us to disengage from it. On the contrary, we are obligated to use spiritual means to bring blessing and do good for others (Rom 12:17-21). This said, the most crucial component of the new thinking of a regenerate person is to be directed toward the recognition of a new citizenship and the outward display of that privilege. Through the differences that are to be noted in Christian behavior, an evangelistic awareness is created among non-Christians, attracting some back to the Cross. They are at the center of God’s will and demonstrate their full faith in such. Some may have to pay with their lives for the privilege of following the Lord while others may be rescued by supernatural means. In either case, the testimony that remains will bear witness to greatness of God.
The distinction between nonresistance and pacifism comes in the interpretation of a couple of points. The first is the separation of the Church from the state. The commands of the Bible are written to the regenerate believers who, through their belief, obligate themselves to following and applying these commands. The pacifist will say that because violence is prohibited for the Christian, it is therefore prohibited for the government as well. Second, while Christians are citizens of God’s kingdom and look forward to eschatological restoration of that kingdom again on earth, they retain a responsibility to the state in which they live. The citizen must meet their obligations to support the state (Rom 12:1-7) (except as armed combatants) trusting that the end of the age will come at its appropriate time and usher in the new. This important distinction allows the nonresistant Christian to serve their government in non-combative roles for the common good.
The unbelieving world gives no credence to the doctrine of nonresistance because it is so contrary to the thinking and practice of the unregenerate. It appears that many fellow Christians also share this disdain of Christians who seek to follow the path of nonresistance. Those against the doctrine posit three objections against it. First, they point to Israel as a warring state as recorded in the Word of God. It is to be noted that Israel was a state of the world and an unregenerate people following a different set of commandments. Second, there appears to be a contradiction between the commands of Christ and his call to nonresistance. Critics point to passages such as Matthew 10:34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Careful exegesis shows that this passage focuses on spiritual division and not war; the same practice usually clears up the confusion surrounding other passages (Luke 22:35-38, 22:50). Finally, there is difficulty in defining the correct relationship of believers to civil government. This is perhaps the most challenging argument against the practice, sometimes leading to charges of hypocrisy. Romans 13:1-7 can be referenced as defining the proper relationship.
To complete our examination of James Cone’s book Black Theology and Black Power and the affect that these theological suppositions may have had on Jeremiah Wright we will look into some perspectives that he offers in support of the way he recommends that blacks in America (in 1969) interact with the White church, the Black church, and ultimately, with the culture as a whole. What one finds most difficult to understand about the way Pastor Wright continues to apply this theology is that he sees no change has occurred over the ensuing four decades that have passed since the publication and codification of these ideas. White America and relationships between whites and blacks have been perpetually locked in the turbulence of the sixties, there must still be endemic racism (institutional racism per Carmichael), blacks are still attempting to throw off the heel of the oppressor, etc. Your own perspective on these matters will greatly affect then the way that you reacted to hearing the sermonic sound bites that hit the news several weeks ago.
Cone begins this way, ” Just as black revolution means the death of America as it has been, so it requires the death of the Church in its familiar patterns…We need a theology for the oppressed black people of America aimed at the destruction of racism in the society. Black theologians can no longer be tied to the irrelevancies of white American “Christianity.”” This theology lays its roots in black suffering; Cone insists that Black theology must see the reality of black suffering in the form of suffering and humiliation. The task of Black Theology is “to analyze the black man’s condition in the light of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ with the purpose of creating a new understanding of black dignity among black people, and providing the necessary soul in that people, to destroy white racism.” It is, at heart, a way of restoring the humanity destroyed by oppression.
Following the path alighted by reformers before him, Cone presses on to the issue of religious authority answering the question of whether or not there is a ‘black’ theology. He is quick to point out that all theological authority is rooted in Scripture as Luther had before him so ultimately, the validity of his theology must be measure against the Word of God rather than the structures of man. Black theology, fomented in and by oppression, is formed only of doctrines of God, man, Christ, and Scripture that do not contradict demands for freedom now. It would be difficult to contradict this demand in light of God’s consistent demand for justice throughout the Scriptures. The crucible of oppression plays such a key role because it was through this hell that blacks came to know the Savior and through it, know that He identifies with them in their condition.
Black freedom that breaks the bonds of oppression necessarily requires the creation of new values likely to be alien and threatening to white society. This evaluation is stated by Cone to be based on the fact that “white American “Christian” values are based on racism.” This new value system is to be oriented singularly toward bringing alive the spirit of self-determination in the consciousness of black people. The newly enlightened will no longer be dependent on the white oppressor for their notions of truth, reality, or the proper approach to the relief of their oppression. This harkens back to the pre-Civil War black church which, in its independence from the white Church, was creative in its approach to spawning the idea of freedom among its members.
In conclusion, Cone closes with this:
Black Theology believes that we are on the threshold of a new order–the order of a new black community. The Black Power movement is a transition in the black community from nonbeing to being. In the old order, black people were not allowed to be human; we were what white America permitted us to be–no-things. We took on false identities which destroyed our real selves, our beautiful black selves. The new order (partially realized now, but not fully consummated) is an order which affirms black self-identity.
I continue with an examination of James Cone’s seminal book Black Theology and Black Power, oft cited as a formative factor in the vitriolic preaching of Jeremiah Wright. [ Part 1 here and Part 2 here] Liberation theology takes many forms, many dependent on the particular geography and culture in which it foments. Particular to Reverend Wright’s brand of theological discourse is the Black experience in America and its effect on the psyche of both black and white Americans.
The Black church found its roots in the same oppression that gave rise to the ideals of Black power, enslavement. Initiated by the white oppressive slave owner as one more way to deny the African heritage of the men and women dehumanized by him, the black church nonetheless found that it must develop from within its own theological perspective. The black church was unwilling to accept the notion that Christianity was concerned only with the freedom of a man’s soul but not his body. Furthermore, Cone reminds us, the black churchman did not readily accept the prevailing myth that God had ordained slavery for them.
The Black church was born carrying these twin concerns in its DNA and an attitude of accepting Christian tenets while rejecting the place that the white church offered. The independent Black church became the first institution free from White power and at liberty to focus on the concerns of freedom and equality for Black humanity. Cone quotes Mays and Nicholson; ” Relatively early the church, and particularly the independent Negro church, furnished the one and only organized field in which the slaves suppressed emotions could be released, and the opportunities for him to develop his own leadership.” As with all institutions organized by fallen humans, the rhetoric heated to the point that outright rebellion against the oppressive forces could be heard from the pulpit. Early responses to this cry included Nat Turner’s revolt which returned a measure of violence against the slave owners.
Early theological reflection in the Black church surprisingly did not lead most black preachers to decide that God was against slavery. The oppression and violence were counter to the character of God to be sure but they struggled to understand (in a Job-like manner) why He allowed such misery to be visited upon people He loved. While some church leaders were able to sustain a patience for God’s passivity towards their misery and the evil practiced by their white brothers, others could not. Many black churchmen came to the theological conclusion that God’s character demanded a more active response linked to His absolute abhorrence of slavery. Taking this expectation contrasted to His supposed silence, some in the Black church began to speculate on the very existence of God, wondering as Daniel Payne of the A.M.E. church did, “Is there no God?”
The post-emancipation Black church displayed gradual changes in its theological underpinnings. While rejoicing in the freedom granted from slavery, black men and women faced new challenges in segregation and a more subtle dehumanization in Jim Crow. Blacks were certainly free from the bondage they had suffered but their freedom continued to be tempered by the fact that the White population at large failed to see them as fully human, denying the image of God within them. The former slaves lost their chains but had new bonds tied to them in the form of continued racist attitudes that led the black theologian to turn his focus from explorations of freedom to return to the White church’s theology of a better life ahead in the next world. No longer in rebellion, the Black church succumbed to the question, ‘what must be change about ourselves in order to be liked by our oppressors, thus making the evil stop?’ Cone points to this era saying “The black minister thus became a most devoted “Uncle Tom,” the transmitter of white wishes, the admonisher of obedience to the caste system.”
He makes this as the point at which a decline in the Black church began as the forces of capitulation to white demands for continued obedience softened the pulpit message. This weakness in the Black preacher is partly justified by Cone as he points out that to continue to challenge the White power was to put his church and his people at risk; an explanation perhaps, but the lack of obedience to Christ that it involved was a sin. The Black church convinced itself that they were doing the right thing in advocating obedience to white oppression in order to experience heaven in a future age. Albeit for different reasons, the apostasy of the Black church mirrored that of the slavery supporting White church.
Cone moves quickly forward to the turning point brought to life with the ascension of Martin Luther King and the return to confrontation between Blacks and Whites in America. He saw in MLK a rapid refocus in the Black church on the social justice Gospel that threatened Whites in their evil and also lead to the leader’s death. The author’s thesis comes full circle at this point in the book as he demands that Black power (the demand that Whites recognize the full humanity of Blacks and treat them with full equality as men (and women)) be at the center of the Black church and it’s theology. The first order of the Black church must be to re-instill in Blacks the gospel message that they are made beautiful and strong in the image of their Creator and that anyone who attempts to destroy this message (i.e. the White church and White culture) runs counter to the will of God. Cone reiterates, “The existence of the Church is grounded exclusively in Christ. An in twentieth-century America, Christ means Black Power!” Responding to the call of the gospel requires, in his mind, a return to the rebellion of the pre-Civil War black church and complete identification with the rejected and downtrodden, as Christ the Lord did.
Black power takes a myriad of forms throughout society in politics, culture, and education. As a theologian, James Cone goes on to explain the nature of Black power in the Church. As we learn to expect, in his mind there is a Black church and a White church. As we saw earlier, the process of the slave liberating himself from the devastating dehumanization and forcing the oppressor to recognize his God given image is the heart of Black power. Mr Cone states bluntly, “I contend that such a spirit is not merely compatible with Christianity; in America in the latter twentieth century it is Christianity.” He extends the liberation vocabulary to the Church as a whole, saying that the Church is composed of those called by God to share in his liberating activity. There are three activities that mark the modern (NT) Church: preaching (kerygma), service (diakonia), and fellowship (koinonia). Each is a weapon against white racism from both the Black and White perspective. From the viewpoint of the formerly oppressed, the preaching of the gospel is a message of freedom. Freedom from racism – Christ has conquered it; Freedom from oppression – Christ has freed you; Freedom from dwelling in one’s current circumstances – the Christ has set you free. It is, Cone says, the message of Black Power.
The White church fails in its Gospel mission in the latter two aspects of being the Church, service and fellowship. It fails to render services of liberation to the previously enslaved or to be the manifestation of the new society. Cone points to the failure of the White church to reach out in reconciliation (contra his earlier proclamation that Black power meant having nothing to do with Whites and their church) or to engage in true, equality-based fellowship. He sees the failure of the White church to radically follow Christ in obedience as unique to them (again, contra to his exclamation that many blacks have failed to grasp their freedom from enslavement.) In fact, to finally warn blacks away from engagement with the White church, the Antichrist is identified as the white Christian body.
The Antichrist..as in one most evil.
Is there hope then for a change in the White church that might lead to reconciliation between the races? Cone responds in the affirmative and with cautious theological support. In order for this chasm to be bridged, the White church must be willing to turn to a radical obedience of Christ and die. Whites must be willing to die to self and old ideas of the superiority and righteousness. They must be willing to die to their own status and follow Christ into radical identification with the poor and the oppressed, so much so that they themselves feel crack of the oppressor’s whip on their own backs. The whites who want reconciliation must be willing to join the others proclaiming Black Power. He must be both the agent of and the object of liberation.
Black theology is actively integrated with life as opposed to the overly scholastic theology of the greater White church. It is an encompassing worldview that instructs the follower in how to interact with a fallen world that appears to actively work against the black man’s liberation. Cone sees (in 1969) that the White church refuses to participate in this reconciling era and in that refusal, little hope for the future of black-white relations.
By now, Pastor Jeremiah Wright and his thoughts about America and her people and culture are well known. Excerpts from sermons have been repeated over and over, both in context and by themselves. He has been interviewed and given an opportunity to explain how the more pejorative statements have been misinterpreted only to stand by them and claim any criticism of his words as “an attack on the Black church.” His most recent speech, opening a multi-day seminar, expanded his victimhood and in the the question and answer session that followed, he was given an opportunity to step back from ideas such as the government created AIDS epidemic but refused to do so. Such is the mind of Jeremiah Wright.
Pastor Wright’s words sound out of place here in the year 2008 since we are to exercise a fair amount of historical reflection and see exactly how much things have changed. The Black Power sentiments echo the demands of a pre Civil rights legislation era and the visions he projects of a corrupt nation run solely by the White Man harken back even further to a time in which those in power might have been rightfully called oppressors. The anger and hatred of America that colors the Reverend’s sermons demands that we stop for a moment to analyze the woes and struggles that have befallen him so that, even if we do not sympathize with him, we are able to have empathy. The trouble is, the more we look at his life, we find that he has led a rather idyllic life growing up unmolested and unable to recount a struggle in the inner city or the hatred of whites.
The media have correctly attributed Pastor Wright’s roots in Black Liberation Theology but have provided little context as to what this might mean. We could turn to Wikipedia as most Googlers will do but to gain a more in-depth foundation we can turn to one of the seminal works on the topic, Black Theology and Black Power by James M. Cone. Published in 1969, this book practically screams with the anger of the times as it looks at an America on the verge of monumental changes in race relations but with many of her citizens still clinging to old hierarchical notions and a history of attributing second class status to its people of color. It is a difficult book to read, not only because of the humility that non-black readers must bring to the words, but because buried in the paragraphs in the message that in order to restore the image of God within them, Blacks must fundamentally separate themselves from White Americans. Rather than integrate with the ‘oppressor’, they must segregate and do for each other.
It is not easy to come to this message as Cone never writes in one paragraph what he can take ten to do (similar to reading more modern works by Cornel West). He comes immediately to terms with a definition of Black Power which will lay the cornerstone of his theology to follow. He says that Black Power means “black people taking the dominant role in determining the black-white relationship in American society.” Cone warns against seeing black theology as antithetical to the Gospel insisting that it is, in fact, “Christ’s central message to twentieth-century America.” This, he asserts, comes from Jesus’ total identification with the poor and oppressed peoples against the ruling authorities.
Coined by Stokely Carmichael, Black Power is in essence a direct response to White racism which negatively created in the Black population an inconsistency in their image of themselves as men and women and the society’s insistence that they were nothing but ‘things’. This disconnection as it was culturally embedded and passed forward through succeeding generations of black citizens, regardless of their free status, creates the chasm that runs through Cone’s vision of Black-White relations (and possibility). Black Power holds to a position that sees the White vision of the Black man as never changing; he (the black man) will forever be but a thing in the eyes of the White (oppressor). The Black man must fight back against this with all of will and power and insist that the White man see him as he is, as a man. It is this key tenet that often draws the mistaken label of black racism. Advocates are careful to distinguish between racism ( the assumption of differences between racial groups and the inherent superiority of one over the other), the hatred of whites by blacks fueled by the previous years of oppression, slavery, and domination, and Black Power, which is the insistence that Blacks be restored in their fundamental humanity in the eyes of whites.
What makes Black Power and the theology that supports it so difficult for whites to accept is that it is anathematic to the pursuit of integration. Black power insists that there be no integration if the terms of such are defined by the dominant white culture and values. It insists instead on a restoration of the relationship defined by the Kingdom of God where all men of all races approach one another cognizant of the divine image within each and on equal footing. Though there is verbal assent to this concept, the challenge to see the inherent beauty and strength in Blackness is a challenge that Cone says whites are unwilling to meet. Only when whites are willing to see and treat the Black man for who and what he is as a man can there be a further discussion. The response to accusations that this is simply black racism and is therefore an inappropriate response to the endemic white racism that Cone sees is rebuffed by the statement “It is time for whites to realize that the oppressor is in no position whatever to define the proper response to enslavement.” This reasoned supposition is rooted in the fact that Whites in America cannot know the extent of black suffering, they can only speak from their perspective.
Finally, Black power draws no differentiation between the white liberal do-gooder who seeks to assuage his guilt by trying to integrate the black and white experience and George Wallaces of this older era. Cone states bluntly that all whites are responsible for white oppression. He makes this statement based on his furtherance of Carmichael’s notion of institutional racism wherein every aspect of society with which black men, women, and children must interact is wholly infected with white racism. Until the society changes, Cone states that Black Power is the only way in which a positive image can be restored in a people unfairly oppressed for a good part of their history.
(Next: Black Theology)
The church is the spiritual, social, and political body that gives its allegiance to God alone. As citizens of God’s kingdom, we trust in the power of God’s love for our defense. The church knows no geographical boundaries and needs no violence for its protection…As disciples of Christ, we do not prepare for war, or participate in war or military service. The same Spirit that empowered Jesus also empowers us to love enemies, to forgive rather than to seek revenge, to practice right relationships, to rely on the community of faith to settle disputes, and to resist evil without violence. “Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective”
The Anabaptist tradition within the larger Church is perhaps the most well-known body of pacifist believers, though the practice is not confined to these Christians. Pacifism, the refusal to engage in military action or violence in revenge or defense, is a radical practice. In the larger world of non-believers, Just War, and increasing violence, the refusal to visit violence on those labeled ‘enemies’ immediately sets one apart from the society norm and expectation. The radicalism extends to our physiological makeup; when we are about to become the victim of a violent act our body and mind naturally seek to act in self-preservation, even to point of exterminating the threat. The Christian who follows the path of pacifist action must strongly apply their allegiance to Christ alone at the expense of their citizenship in the state and more importantly, they must train their mind and body to submit to the suppression of its natural response to react to violence. Dr. Buschart records,
“Anabaptists were the most violently persecuted Christian movement of the sixteenth century, being pursued by both Roman Catholic and Protestant forces, in conjunction with civil authorities. Consequently, Anabaptists were were confronted by the demand to practice in the most radical ways this practice of nonresistance, and many practiced the principle to the point of suffering a martyr’s death.” Exploring Protestant Traditions
The source of the practice of Christian pacifism is deeply rooted in the Gospel. From the mountainside, Jesus said in contrasting the old and new ways “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist and evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Mt 5:38-39) Later in the garden he cautioned Peter “Put your sword back in its place, Jesus said to him, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.” (Mt 26:52). The Old Testament, often derided as being blood-soaked and hyper-violent, is not neglected either. Micah speaks eschatologically, pointing us forward to the era of the Christ when he says “They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Naiton will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.” (Micah 4:3)
Over and above the words of Jesus, the pacifist follower will point to the life of the Lord as being completely non-resistant and peace seeking in His lifestyle. With Christ as our center and our revelation, believers are to develop their ethics, morality, and behavior from His example and teaching. These will often run counter to the demands of the state but we are called to be theological thinkers, examining the decisions that we must make in the light of our higher priority membership in the kingdom of Christ. It is to this that our primary allegiance is required teach the pacifists.
The early Church is historically pacifist and there is scant, if any, evidence of early Christians engaging in warfare. There was a gradual acceptance of military service through the centuries with noted objectors – such as the Anabaptist movement – here and there through the records. In our modern era we see the pacifism practiced in Martin Luther King who confronted the violence he encountered with an equally vehement non-resistance. King worked from five principles which fit human bio-social understandings effectively into the notion of Christian pacifism:
John Howard Yoder has a prodigious body of work that is rooted in this ideal. He says that we cannot kill other people for whom Christ died. We are to live the first commandment of the Lord, to love Him with heart, mind, and soul and to love our neighbor in the same way. Violence toward them for any reason is seen as contrary to this command.
Despite its inherent attractiveness, pacifism is not without its critics. Some say it is unrealistic in today’s world or that Christ’s words were hyperbole and not meant to be directly applied in this case. Theologians examine the word of Jesus in the light of Paul’s later commands that we be good citizens of the state in Romans 13, going so far as to see this as allowing military service as a part of this obedience. Another argument against the pacifist system is that our own non-violent capitulation may expose us and our neighbors to a greater violence. In this position, our refusal to act does not demonstrate an effective love for neighbor by the absence of our protection. In other words, Justice cannot be restored without the Christian’s action and ethics.
“Again, Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” John 20:21
In the pantheon of evils that are a part of the human experience, war and the destruction and carnage that follow in its wake rank in the uppermost tier of wickedness. War has been a constant of human history and, despite the promise of the transforming power of Jesus Christ, we are warned (Matthew 24:6) that it will be with us until the eschaton. Given these twin dynamics of the horrific and the constant, the Christian worldview is forced to confront the issue and settle a position from which we determine our thoughts and actions in relation to the act of war. The Christian is under competing pressures that obtain from the Lordship of Christ and our membership in society. Shall we declare ourselves to be conscientious objectors when the country that supports the foundation of our religious liberty is under attack? Can we determine for certain that a war is just, and thus appropriate to engage in for the follower of Christ? These questions just begin to enunciate the concerns that a spirit led Christian must wrestle with in approaching the desires for peace and the reality of war.
There is a great body of work created by Christian thinkers to which we can turn to begin to develop our own thinking and what will follow in the coming weeks is a series of posts surveying the variety of positions. In general we will encounter four schools of thought: engaging in the Just War, offensively approaching a Preventative war, the Nonresistance role as a noncombatant, and ultimately Christian pacifism. A quick read of the last sentence tells us right away that Christianity has engaged the full range of philosophy toward war, from full participation to absolute prohibition. If asked, can you define your position such that it will not wither in the face of challenge?
The Bible of course is the ultimate resource from which we develop our beliefs and even a cursory knowledge of the text shows us that war has been a reality for God’s people since they became such. Early in the OT we encounter mentions of war and as God’s people coalesce around their movement into the Promised Land they are told that they are going to have to fight the current residents to take possession of the land and later, take up a defensive mindset in order to retain it. All this of course, at the behest of Yahweh who generals and guides the battle Himself. Is God therefore in support of war, despite the destruction and loss of life that follow? What of the words of Christ that even non-Christians can quote to ‘turn the other cheek’ toward the face of evil? Is God of two minds? Certainly not, but the complexity of thinking about war and how the Christian should think about the topic should be obvious by now. As difficult as it is however, the demands of the Gospel and our allegiance first and foremost to our Lord and His will should cause us to soberly and carefully determine the most correct position to take.
“War is a poor chisel to carve out tomorrow.” ~ Martin Luther King
LOVE | ACCEPT | FORGIVE 