As I continue to work my way through Volf’s “Exclusion and Embrace” I am struck by both the clarity and complexity of the challenge he tries to resolve. Clear in so much as Christ has demonstrated a simple challenging way for us to follow…the cross, where he embraced all of us, sin and all, and excluded only the powers of darkness and, I suppose, those that cling to darkness as if it were light. Complex in so much as the practical outworking of the crucified life in our lives is complicated by the complexity of society today.
I suspect that in many regards, I am over complicating things. So often complexity is a foil we create to avoid facing simple, but painful demands on our lives. Yet the problem is not just a matter of me individually, but rather me within my community (in the broad sense of the term). Is it enough to just “take up my cross” within the context of my little corner of things? No. We are called to “go” and make disciples and announce the Good News that Jesus is Lord along with all its many wonderful implications.
Which brings me back to my wrestling with the various frameworks now being used todeal with the problems of the world such as family, church, community, nation state, etc. Most would agree that Jesus taught the fundamentals of non-violence (eg. Turn the other cheek, love your enemy). But did He mean to apply it universally, from the individual up to the nation-state. If not, where is the line drawn?
How does Paul’s admonition to the Romans about the state wielding the sword fit in? Does it matter that Paul was writing early in the history of the church. The Romans brought peace, but not in the way that Jesus brought peace. As Christ’s ambassadors are we not called to help extend His kingdom using His kingdom principles?
Which brings me back to the use of “non-violence” in socio-political situations. I’ve never looked into it in any depth but I found the
Nobel acceptance speech Martin Luther King Jr. gave to be a fascinating read. He succinctly describes the problem of modern man as a “poverty of spirit” where the “internal life” has been lost in the “external life” or, quoting Thoreau “improved means to an unimproved end.” He then goes on to describe the principals of non-violence and then points out one of the greatest challenges of its proponents:
Nonviolence has also meant that my people in the agonizing struggles of recent years have taken suffering upon themselves instead of inflicting it on others. It has meant, as I said, that we are no longer afraid and cowed. But in some substantial degree it has meant that we do not want to instill fear in others or into the society of which we are a part. The movement does not seek to liberate Negroes at the expense of the humiliation and enslavement of whites. It seeks no victory over anyone. It seeks to liberate American society and to share in the self-liberation of all the people.
On a related note, I thought the
NYT article on pregnancy counseling centers did a good job of highlighting a non-violent, even non-political way to address a pressing social issue.
