Friday, 03 February 2012
-
Revelation and Pacifism: What to Do with the Horse and the Rider
By Nic Don at TheopoliticalDetractors of Christian nonviolence often point to one of the central images of Revelation as a counterpoint to the straightforward commands of Jesus to his followers to love even their enemies and do good to those who would harm them. In one of its most extreme permutations, we have Mark Driscoll saying,
“In Revelation, Jesus is a prize-fighter with a tattoo down His leg, a sword in His hand and the commitment to make someone bleed. That is the guy I can worship. I cannot worship the hippie, diaper, halo Christ because I cannot worship a guy I can beat up.”
But Revelation consistently relates depicts Christ’s beat-up form as normative, as it refers to him over and over as the lamb, the lamb that was slain. As Richard Hays has said, “A work that places the Lamb that was slaughtered at the center of its praise and worship can hardly be used to validate violence and coercion.” Revelation, taken as a whole, seems to depict a pacifist church seeing its members killed off by an oppressive tyrant, while singing hymns to a God who was himself tortured to death by an oppressive tyrant. The task of the church seems to be to wait and hope.
So what do we do with the sword and the rider? Even when we notice that the followers of the Lamb do not participate in any kind of battle but are simply to remain faithful, are we left with the idea that Jesus will do our dirty work for us? It’s not so clear.
Notice that it is specifically the “the Word of God” being depicted in chapter 19 as the rider, and that the sword is not held in his hand (contra Driscoll), but comes from his mouth. Notice also that the phrase sharp (double-edged) sword is the same one used elsewhere to refer specifically to scripture, which is also called the Word of God. It seems that the tyrant is overthrown not by steel but by truth, truth so powerful the author can only depict it in martial imagery.
As Willard Swartley summarizes,
Christian resistance – not returning evil for evil, but a willingness to suffer for the cause of Jesus Christ – echoes the central theology of other parts of the NT. What Revelation adds is the central figure of the slain Lamb. The paradoxical image of victory through suffering love forms the heart and soul of Revelation’s christology. Suffering love marks the authentic followers of the Lamb.
Swartley then cites with approval a passage from Walter Pilgrim,
The Apocalypse adopts a stance toward the state that is radically different from the two other New Testament traditions. Here we find an understanding of the political structures as demonic, historical embodiments of injustice and evil. In response, the church is encouraged toward an ethic of uncompromising resistance.
What do you think? Does Revelation depict a pacifist church, waiting and hoping for God’s action? Does Revelation depict a military Jesus, whipping up support for a grassroots militia? What is the central message of what is likely the most political book of the New Testament?
RecommendRelated Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: theopolitical
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 65 Views: 0 53742 Comments: 0 894 View all posts by theopolitical
Comments (8)
Most detractors of Christian nonviolence point to common sense, not the book of Revelation.
We value our peaceful civilization and understand that it is just to defend it from maniacs hell bent on mayhem, war and world domination.Mark Driscol's quote could have come from any of the soldiers who abused Jesus. Far from being militant, the church I see in Revelation is a church of martyrs; a church forced to practice the Sermon on the Mount under extreme duress; a church whose sole hope is in the return of their conquering Savior. As it says in 2 Thes, the enemy of God will be destroyed not by a militant church, but by the "splendor of His coming." Regardless, the horse/rider imagery depicts - as you say - God's divine Truth (Word) triumphing over all falsehood... everything that sets itself up against the knowledge of God.
In regards to the first comment, God's ways and "common sense" are often at odds.
DD
"Even when we notice that the followers of the Lamb do not participate in any kind of battle but are simply to remain faithful"
Well, remaining faithful is a battle. There is a war between good and evil -- the battle.
Sometimes there's a confusion between the mind of man and the mind of God: if men decide to go to war, that's one thing (maybe a just war, maybe not), but if God decides... well then we have to follow. The whole thing is up to God.
Pacifists don't leave enough room for God in the decision department... or maybe we should say, in the Management Department.
@IfIOnlyKnewThen@xanga - God created common sense and gave it to man as a gift. It's called wisdom or prudence, figures prominently in the Bible, and continues to be taught by the Church as one of the four cardinal virtues.
So if you think common sense is at odds with God that means you think God is at odds with himself. And we know that simply cannot be.
Thank you - I like what you do with this. That Driscoll quote has been disturbing to me since I first read it several years ago. It's nice to hear it challenged so intelligently.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - Ok, I'll take the bait just this one time. It wasn't common sense for Noah to build an Ark on dry ground when it had never rained on the earth. It wasn't common sense for Abraham to believe God's promise of an heir after his body (and Sarah's) were incapable of producing one. It wasn't common sense for the Isrealites to conquer Jerico by marching around it and blowing horns. It wasn't common sense for Israel's Messiah to be a suffering and dying servant. It wasn't common sense for Jesus to choose illiterate, uneducated men as His apostles to the world. It isn't common sense to bless those who curse you, or do good to those who harm you. It isn't common sense to allow someone to steal your coat, then give them your tunic also.
The Spirit often says "go there" even though it's dangerous, or "do that" even though I have no experience, or "give to him" even though I am short on money, or "speak to her" even though she doesn't know me, or "say yes" even though I don't want to. God's commands often defy what seems fair or wise or prudent, because human wisdom (that gift you speak of) has it's limits, based on what we can see or understand. With God we learn to see and act BY FAITH, which - yes - often defies common sense.
@IfIOnlyKnewThen@xanga - The problem with your explanation is that you are creating your own definition for common sense and then applying it to holy scripture.
I defined common sense using the Bible, and called it wisdom. We know from the Bible that wisdom begins with fear of the Lord.
So Noah and Abraham were demonstrating common sense because they feared the Lord and followed his instructions. Common sense doesn't mean a lack of faith or serve as a replacement for faith.
Concerning Jesus, you are trying to apply your own definition of common sense to God, Himself. Since God is the source of wisdom which is common sense, everything God does is wise.
So if Jesus, who was God, picks 12 simpletons to be his Apostles, that is an act of wisdom. And we human beings who fear the Lord begin our understanding of the Lord's actions from that standpoint: that God acts with wisdom.
Regarding doing things that are dangerous. Again, you are applying your own definition of common sense. There is nothing in the biblical definition of wisdom that precludes or excludes danger or risk.
This is a stellar article.