The Key to Understanding Luke 4:18-19: "release the oppressed."

First, a few questions.  For the children of Israel in Egypt, who was the oppressor, who were the oppressed, what was the system of oppression, what was the damage done to the oppressed?  During the time of the NT gospels, who was the oppressor, who were the oppressed, what was the system of oppression, what was the damage done to the oppressed?  In the modern U. S., (2015), who are the oppressors, who are the oppressed, what is the system of oppression, what damage is being done to the oppressed?

As Jesus was reading from Isaiah 61 (Luke 4:18-19), he inserted a phrase from Isaiah 58:6 "to release the oppressed."  This idea must have been extremely important to Jesus for him to have added it to Isaiah 61.

But most white Americans are quite ignorant about oppression---biblically, historically and sociologically.  During my 89 years, I have never heard a sermon on the extensive biblical teaching on oppression.  There is almost no theological literature by white American theologians on oppression.  Most Bible dictionaries either omit oppression altogether or lightly touch it, even though there are 555 references to oppression in the OT.

"To release the oppressed" in America, white Christians and churches must first identify and then repent from what they are doing, then engage in restitution, then repair the damage oppression has done to individuals, families, communities and cultures.

Biblically, oppression not only smashes the body, but it also crushes the spirit.   Please extensively meditate on Exodus 6:9 which concisely describes the damage oppression did to the people of Israel.  I think the same damage is being done today in America.  Their spirits were so badly broken by oppression that they could not even hear or believe God when he said he would free them from slavery.  Today, we might label this mass PTSD, or cultural PTSS.  Oppression damage creates individual, family and cultural dysfunction.  Damage precedes dysfunction.

What is the biblical answer to oppression?  It is found in 4:19: "the year of the Lord's favor."  This refers to the OT Sabbath Year, the Jubilee Year when slaves were freed every seven years, when debts were canceled every seven years, when land was returned every 50 years.  How radical is your understanding of justice?  Bandaid justice will not suffice.  Only a kingdom of God justice, a liberating justice will do.  A shallow understanding of oppression leads to a shallow practice of justice; far too common in modern America.  In America, we really don't end systems of oppression, though we think we do; we merely redesign them.

Who in the Bible actually did release the oppressed?  Pharaoh finally released the Egyptian slaves, but relunctantly, after judgment, after God slayed the first-born.

Not even Jesus succeeded in releasing the oppressed in Israel.  He tried hard to convince the Jewish religio-politico-economic elite to repent---"Woe to the rich" Luke 6:24;  "Woe to the scribes and Pharisees"  Mt. 23 and Luke 11; and he cleansed the temple and called it a den of robbers.  All to no avail; they refused to repent and end the oppression.  James, in chapter 2, scorched the church for being pro-rich, pro-oppression, and anti poor.  Most of the modern American white church has repeated the James 2 church error, either sitting idly by or participating in Indian genocide, slavery, segregation, taking half of Mexico's land.  For the past 30 years doing little to stop mass incarceration.

Luke 4:18-19 guides the Spirit-filled church on how to release the oppressed by implementing Sabbath Year/Jubilee Year justice.  Why has the American church chosen to neglect this part of the gospel?

Nineveh, the great city, did repent; Zaccheus, the tax collector did repent and restitute.  But for the most part people, even most American Christians prefer to enjoy the fruit of ethnocentrism and oppression---superiority and wealth---so much that they refuse to repent and release the oppressed poor.

World Bank, Bread for the World, and many other NGO's are committed to ending extreme poverty by 2030.  Will the church commit itself to ending extreme oppression by 2030?

Pope Francis, the kingdom of God, and . . . .

Pope Francis, the kingdom of God, and the failure of the American church to preach and practice the kingdom of God/Jubilee justice gospel.

As he spoke to the nation, Pope Francis presented a brilliant biblical blend of the pastoral and prophetic, a call to do justice in love.  Matthew 25, one of pastor Francis' favorite biblical passages, draws a stark line between acts of love and justice, and the neglect of justice and the love of God.  One path leads to heaven; the leads to judgment.

America stands at a fork in the road.  God has spoken through Pastor Francis.  Now will all the American church speak and act much more biblically than in the past?  If not, can judgment be far away?

Insiders say that when Francis became Pope, he became a different person, a transformed person, an empowered  person.  My interpretation: the Holy Spirit anointed pastor Francis for his special mission/ministry.  Believers and non-believers alike recognize something special in Pastor Francis.

It has been great to have Francis in our nation preaching the justice gospel; also practicing, at least symbolically, the priority of taking the gospel to the poor and oppressed.  But it will be 100 times more important for every pulpit in American, every church in America, every Protestant and Catholic, to follow up Francis with a series of sermons on oppression an the OT, a series on oppression in the NT, a series on justice in the OT, a series on justice in the NT; a sermon on the relationship of the Spirit and the kingdom based on Acts 1:1-8; the combined gospel, the kingdom and Jesus, based on Acts 8:12; 28:23 & 31;  the Messianic passage from Isaiah beginning with 9:6-7; the tie between Luke 4:18-30 and Mt. 25:31ff.

Then every church will be prepared to heed Francis'admonition: "Leave the security of the sanctuary and enter into the suffering of the streets."  Or John Perkins: "Every church should start or support and Christian Community Development ministry among the oppressed poor."

According to Mt. 3:2 and Mark 1:15, a different version is found in Luke 4:18-30, Jesus began his public ministry with these important words:  "Repent, for the kingdom of God is here!" (Noble paraphrase).   In dozens of informal surveys of hundreds of persons from 1995 to 2010, I have not found a clear and compelling understanding of the kingdom of God.  Why this almost total ignorance about the kingdom in the American church?  The  American church has not repented for the social evils of ethnocentrism and oppression; instead it has rationalized social evil as necessary and renamed it as something good; ethnocentrism becomes American exceptionalism, oppression becomes Manifest Destiny.  Without repentance, one cannot enter nor understand the kingdom of God.

What is biblical repentance?  It is a paradigm shift, a radical change in both attitude and action, a turning around and a going in a new direction; a turning from sin and a doing of right.  Biblical repentance must include restitution and repair of individuals, families, and communities damaged by oppression.  If repentance does does not end with doing justice, it is flawed.

Most American Christians are too self-righteous, too nationalistic to repent.  In terms of Haiti, President Clinton did repent; for the full story, read Haiti: After the Earthquake, page 150.  Clinton shipped too much food to Haiti thereby undermining Haitian  farmers, driving some rice farmers out of business.

The agenda of the kingdom of God is justice---justice that releases the oppressed and repairs the damage done.  The dynamic of the kingdom of  God is the Holy Spirit---the power, wisdom and truth needed to identify social evil and then implement Jubilee justice.

American church: repent, restitute and repair; incarnate the kingdom.

Do We Need the Justice of the New Testament Desperately?

Back in New Testament times, there was a small rich elite that ran Palestine composed of Herodians, high priests, and a lay aristocracy, one to two percent of the population.  Another 5 percent served the rich elite.  Rural peasants---small landowners, tenants, day laborers and slaves---made up around 75 percent of the Palestinian population; the majority were poor or near poor.  Things were going from bad to worse as a predatory financial/economic system was pushing farmers off their land.  Justice was broken; oppression was running wild; some of the worst oppressors were the religious rich.  For more documentation, google Matthew: A Log Cabin Publican? Good News for Sex Workers.

Rich elites seem to prosper in either dictatorships or democracies (aristocracies/plutocracies.

Nicholas Wolterstorff, brilliant Reformed philosopher/theologian, declares that English translators and theologians have "dejusticized" the English translations of the New Testament, have separated justice and love.  This also means that few English readers of the New Testament tie the kingdom of God and liberating justice together; most, therefore, neglect justice and the love of God (Mt. 6:33; Luke 11).  Therefore, they do not grasp Graham Cray' assertion: "The agenda of the kingdom of God is justice; the dynamic of the kingdom of God is the Holy Spirit."

Steven Voth, a professional Bible translator (chapter 14, The Challenge of Bible Translation), documents Wolterstorff's claim that English New Testaments have been dejusticized.  Voth made a statistical comparison of different language translations of the New Testament.  The KJV NT has zero references to justice; the NIV, only 16 references to justice; whereas a typical Spanish, French or Latin translation of the NT has around 100 references to justice.

Wolterstorff says there are around 300 dik-stems in the Greek NT; the fundamental meanings of dik are just, justice or adik injustice/oppression.

In Matthew 25:31-46. the whole meaning of the passage hangs on were you just or unjust in your treatment of others; the final judgment is based on the doing of justice or the neglect of justice.  "Luke contains the same number of dik-words as Matthew (28) but the additional 25 uses in Acts make Luke the New Testament author second only to Paul (114 uses plus 25 in the pastoral letters).  In Luke-Acts, 19 of the 53 uses involve words signifying oppression/injustice."

The Christian Reformed Church's Committee to Study Restorative Justice states:

"[American] Justice is broken. . . . we need a concept of justice that corrects and restores what is broken [as a result of oppression]. . . .  Confusion sometimes occurs because the single word justice is used for both justice in the sense of being right and justice in the sense of setting right.  The Bible is concerned, for the most part, with setting right.  It does not so much describe justice as prescribe it. . . . .Paul has in mind a setting right of what is wrong.  This, of course, is God's setting right, but there is also in Scripture a call for a human setting right [a liberating justice]."

In modern day America, justice is broken and ethnocentrism and oppression are running wild.  Not only is America refusing to repent and repair over its sins, its social evil, it has renamed and rationalized them.  We have sanitized our national evils by calling them American exceptionalism, westward expansion, Manifest Destiny, Christian nation, the American Dream, White, Anglo-Saxon Protestant.  Out of our ignorance and arrogance, we built an Arch to celebrate our sin of Indian genocide.  Lewis and Clark are celebrated as heroes, not as genocide spies

When a nation doesn't repent of its sins, it repeats them over and over again---in Hawaii, in the Philippines, in Tokyo Bay.  Could our invasion of Tokyo Bay been one of the factors that, long term, led to Pearl Harbor?  We don't repent because we reap the fruit of oppression.  The DeWolf slave trading clan said they were in it for the MONEY.  Jefferson and Jackson wanted free Indian land.  Washington and Jefferson wanted free black labor.

When faced with a choice to repent or celebrate, we celebrate our sins, our social evils; we sin and celebrate.  Seldom do our pastors pray the Daniel 9 prayer for America.  After all, a self-righteous people sees no need to repent and repair.

Ethnic History and a Theology of Reconciliation

This review essay is based on the following books:

  Miroslav Volf.  Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation, 1996.  Ronald Takaki.  A Different Mirror: A History of Multicultural America, 1993.  Stephan and Abigal Thernstorm.  America in Black and White, 1997.  Andrew Sung Park.  The Wounded Heart of God: The Asian Concept of Han and the Christian Doctrine of Sin, 1993.  Andrew Sung Park.  Racial Conflict and Healing, 1996.  

Miroslav Volf  was a professor of theology at Fuller Theological Seminary who now teaches at Yale.  A native Croatian, he writes out of his own experience of teaching in Croatia during the civil war in former Yugoslavia.  In a time of ethnic conflict, even ethnic cleansing which is a type of genocide, we need a word of forgiveness and reconciliation.  Is such a thing possible in the midst of bitterness, hatred and violence?  Volf says YES!---that exclusion or ethnocentrism can be replaced by the embrace of reconciliation.

Sometimes people who have experienced suffering and oppression can speak a clear and powerful word that can clarify for the rest of us what an appropriate Christian response should be.  Volf does so with both personal passion and theological sophistication.  Little theology of this kind exists so Volf's contribution is welcome indeed.  In the Preface, Volf describes his dilemma:

"After I finished my lecture Professor Jurgen Moltman stood up and asked one of his typical questions, both concrete and penetrating: 'But can you embrace a cetnik?'  It was the winter of 1993.  For months now the notorious Serbian fighters called 'cetnik' had been sowing desolation in my native country, herding people into concentration camps, raping women, burning down churches, and destroying cities.  I had just argued that we ought to embrace our enemies as God embraced us in Christ.  Can I embrace a cetnik---the ultimate other, so to speak, the evil other? . . .

"My thought was pulled in two different directions by the blood of the innocent crying out to God and by the blood of God's Lamb offered for the guilty.  How does remain loyal to both the demand of the oppressed for justice and to the gift of forgiveness that the Crucified offered to the perpetrators?"

How can we celebrate our ethnicity without degenerating into ethnic superiority (ethnocentrism) or exclusion?  What is the relationship between our ethnic identity and our Christian identity?  Can we maintain both?  Must one be given priority?  Can I hold strong to my own ethnic heritage and still respect a different ethnic heritage?  For Volf, answers center in the cross.

The cross is an example of self-giving love, not only for all sinners but also for all enemies.  The cross involved suffering, sacrifice and pain; no cheap forgiveness or cheap reconciliation here.  We are offered the grace of God, forgiveness, reconciliation.  Can we, will we, offer the same to our enemies?  Volf says, "I immediately continue to argue, however, that the embrace itself---full reconciliation---cannot take place until the truth has been said and justice done."

Exclusion or embrace?  Only through Christ can "we distance ourselves from ourselves and our cultures in order to create space for the other" person.  Does the emphasis on embrace sweep oppression under the rug?  Where does justice come in?  Whose perspective on justice?  We seem to want to define justice more by our own class and culture than by God's universal standards.  Must we struggle against injustice before a full agreement on what justice is can be agreed upon?  Must we understand oppression before we can understand justice?

The above questions are not idle speculations to Volf.  He struggles with them at length and in depth.  These are not tangential issues; they go to the heart of the Christian faith.  See the end of this article for a list of quotations from Volf.

Next, A Different Mirror by Takaki.  In my opinion, Ronald Takaki, a Japanese American, is the foremost historian of ethnicity in America today.  He has a doctorate in American history and he has been a professor in Ethnic Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, for more than two decades. His first two books dealt with Afro American studies; two other books covered Asian Americans.  This book is a broad survey of ethnic history in America.

Takaki asserts that we need to know more about our ethnic past in order to prepare for our increasingly ethnic future.  In the 1990s, "one-third of the American people do not trace their ancestry their origins to Europe."  By 2056, the majority of Americans will trace their ancestry to non-European origins.  Some America scholars such as Allan Bloom. E. D. Hirsch and Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., are worried about the loss of "civilized values," that we are becoming an ethnic "tower of Babel," or that we are experiencing a "disuniting of America."

Instead, Takaki sees this increasing ethnic diversity as an asset, an opportunity; a "multicultural curriculum enables us to reach toward a more comprehensive understanding of American history."

We could, of course, degenerate into increasing ethnic conflict as is happening in many areas of the world.  Religio-ethnic conflict has been a tragic part of too much of European history.  If Euro Americans (WASP"s) insist on maintaining their superior position, glorifying Western civilization and values and denigrating other cultures and values, then unending ethnic conflict will be our destiny also.  But if Euro Americans, and especially Euro Christians, will humble themselves and sit at the feet of an ethnic scholar such as Takaki,  repent, and then see other ethnic heritages as of equal value, then we can build a new American culture that will be much better than our often tragic past of Indian genocide and African enslavement.

Though brimming with a broad and sophisticated scholarship, Takaki writes with an easy reading prose punctuated with interesting stories, poems and songs.  The reader is caught up in the human dimension of ethnic history, not just the tragic side.  Multiculturalism can be seen as a threat or an asset.  I believe that the reader will conclude after reading this rich tapestry of American history that our future as a nation will be bright if we see our ethnic diversity as an asset.

On the negative side,one of the most important insights to be gleaned from A Different Mirror is the way the British treated the Irish and how this pattern of ethnocentrism was transplanted to America.  Before the British colonists landed on American shores, the British had conquered and colonized Ireland.  They developed an ethnocentric vocabulary of dehumanization which called the Irish savages and brutes; this type of language and attitude legitimated the acts of violence that followed, including violence and depopulation of the land so the British could settle it.  Takaki says the British colonists saw Indians as similar to the Irish; so the colonists repeated the same ethnocentrism and oppression against the Indians.  It is almost as if the brutal treatment of the Irish was a dress rehearsal for the later treatment of American Indians and African slaves.

Though I was already fairly widely read in ethnic history, I gained many new insights as I read A Different Mirror.  I highly recommend it as a must read.

Next America in Black and White by the Thernstorms.  This is a large book (545 pages of text and 124 pages of notes) crammed with historical information, social data and public policy analysis.  The historical section (from the rigid segregation Jim Crow era of the South up to 1960) is probably the best part of the book.  The third section dealing with public policy and the changing racial climate is the more debatable and controversial section.

At its best, this book approaches a masterpiece; at its worst, it become a bit of ideological propaganda, arguing against almost any and all government action to improve race/ethnic relations.  It is a tricky book to read for the average reader because the text flows easily from historical and social fact to ideological interpretation.  At times, only an expert will be able to sort out fact from ideology.  So, in one sense, this book is a must read, but, in another sense, it is a dangerous read.

Glenn Loury, an Afro American scholar, complains that on the racism issue the Therstorms miss the point when they say the worst of racism is over.  Loury asserts that the ethnocentrism problem is worse than the Thernstorms admit, and he is particularly incensed at their assertion that "black failure" is now the heart of the problem.  To read Loury's ten page review, see the November, 1997 issue of The Atlantic Monthly.

Next, The Wounded Heart of God: The Asian Concept of Han and the Christian Doctrine of Sin by Andrew Sung Park.  Few theologians have been close enough to oppression to feel the pain of it and thus be driven to wrestle with it theologically.  Therefore a serious discussion of oppression is missing from most theology.  Listen to the personal comments by Park, a Korean American theologian:

"Among our family members, my mother has suffered the most: patriarchal suppression and repression, the wars, and the hardship of a preacher's wife.  Her life was a series of tragedies and human anguish.  She was born in han and died in han [suffering/oppression].  She is the reason I write about han, so that fewer people might suffer as she did.

"The deep pain of human agony has been a primary concern of my theological reflection.  This issue of han has been more significant in my life than the problem of sin.  Accordingly my theological theme has been how to resolve the human suffering which wounds the heart of God."

Park see the doctrine of justice for the oppressed as important as the doctrine of justification by faith is for the sinner.  In fact, he is highly critical of a one-sided emphasis on justification by faith alone.  He sees this as overly individualistic.  Full salvation must include justice for the oppressed.  Love and justice for the oppressed must be put along side justification by faith and grace.

In his next book, Racial Conflict and Healing, Park calls for a theology of society.  Right on, but from my perspective Park could have strengthened his theological discussions by going directly to the Scriptures and doing his own analysis of oppression as well as his own analysis of what the Scriptures teach about ethnos and ethnocentrism.

Next, a few quotations from Exclusion and Embrace:

"Europe colonized and oppressed, destroyed cultures and imposed its religion . . . in the name of its own absolute religion and superior civilization."

"" . . . truth and justice are unavailable outside of the will to embrace the other [enemy].  I immediately continue to argue, however, that the embrace itself---full reconciliation---cannot take place until the truth has been said and justice done."

"Our coziness with the surrounding culture has made us so blind to many of its evils that instead of calling them into question, we offer our own versions of them---in God's name and with good conscience."

"[When] Christian and cultural commitments merge . . . it can transmute what is in fact a murder into an act of piety."

"What we should turn away from seems clear:  it is captivity to our own culture, coupled so often with blind self-righteousness."

" . . .the struggle against oppression must be guided by a vision of reconciliation between oppressed and oppressors, . . . "

Review of Haiti: After the Earthquake

Paul Farmer, M.D., has written another masterful book on Haiti---Haiti: After the Earthquake, 2011.

A Haitian, Joia  S. Mukherjee, has written a preface entitled "Neg Mawon," Haiti's equivalent to our statue of liberty:

"Haiti was founded by a righteous revolution in 1804 and became the first black republic.  It was the first country to break the chains of slavery. . . . Tragically, this history of liberty and self-determination has drawn two centuries of political and economic ire [oppression] from powerful countries [U.S. is one of them] resulting in policies which have served to impoverish the people of Haiti.

"Fear by Thomas Jefferson for their successful [slave] uprising; extorted by France in 1825 for 150 million France [unjust forced reparations] . . . occupied by the U.S. military between 1915 and 1934, . . . . disrespected in their quest for democracy by an unrelenting series of dictators and coup-d'etats backed by Western [U.S.] countries: the free people of Haiti have been continually re-shackled [re-enslaved] politically and economically.

"Admist the rubble of the houses, buildings, and schools, and in front of the once grand National Palace stands Neg Mawon---the symbol of Haiti.

"When I arrived in Haiti on Thursday, January 14, 2010, I asked my friend who was driving---"Where is the free man?' . . . there, rising from the dust of the still trembling earth, stood the statue of Neg Mawon.  I was drawn by the image out of the car and as I stood, weeping, an old woman put her arm around me; she too was crying.  I said, "the free man is still standing."  And she replied, powerfully, "my dear, the free man will NEVER be broken."

This is a truly inspiring story, but it is only a half truth, a hollow shell, a delicious fantasy.  Free men need to live in a just society.  True freedom, complete requires justice.

Both Haiti and the United States have statues of liberty/freedom.  But neither country has a statue of justice.  Without Jubilee justice, countries bounce from one system of oppression to another.  In the U.S., from Indian genocide to African enslavement to segregation-sharecropping to mass incarceration to dominance by a rich, white, male elite.  In Haiti, from Indian genocide to African enslavement to debt slavery to dictatorships to dominance by a small rich elite.  Never justice, never justice with freedom.

Freedom and justice are Siamese twins; they must not be separated.  When will the American and Haitian churches combine freedom and justice as part of their gospel.  As Graham Cray asserts: The agenda of the kingdom of God is justice; the dynamic of the kingdom is the Holy Spirit.  But this important part of the gospel seems to be missing from Americanized and Haitianized Christianity

On January 12, 2010, an earthquake killed several hundred thousand Haitians, and destroyed or damaged much of the capital city Port-au-Prince.  Most of Haitian higher education was centered in Port-au-Prince; much of it was destroyed as well.  ". . . the nursing school had collapsed during class, killing students and faculty alike."  "A far greater aspect of the tragedy was the loss of thousands upon thousands of Haitians, students who died at schools and universities, . . . When the seminary fell, all the seminarians in Haiti died.  The loss of the national treasure of an entire generation of Haiti's best and brightest is a loss that cannot be measured.   The school system . . . must be the first priority"

Paul Farmer uses a medical term to describe the earthquake: "an acute-on-chronic event."  Or a natural disaster pile on top of centuries of socio-economic disaster---500 years of oppression first by the Spanish, then by the French (slavery and debt slavery), next by America (neocolonialism), now by a Haitian elite.  But when one listens to most American pundits talk about Haiti's problems, one would think the past never happened, a convenient historical amnesia.

Is there any hope?  Enter Didi Farmer, Paul Farmer's wife who is Haitian and an anthropologist.  She has written a chapter entitled "Mothers and Daughters of Haiti."  In this chapter, she compares Haiti with Rwanda; after the genocide/civil war in Rwanda, both Haiti and Rwanda were considered hopeless countries.  But Rwanda, thanks to the leadership of its women, it beginning a remarkable turn around.  Haiti has yet to educate and marshal the talent of its women.  Who will release and empower Haitian women?

The above are just a few of the deep insights one can find in Haiti: After the Earthquake.

The Wars of America: Christian Views

In 1981, eight professional Christian historians wrote The Wars of America: Christian Views, a scholarly book, a readable book, that will enlighten and shake up your  understanding of American history.

It is not easy to apply biblical principles such as oppression, justice and shalom to modern society.  They easily get tangled with existing ideologies or co-opted by politicians.  Nowhere is this more difficult than in the area of war.  Do American Christians support wars, fight in wars, for the right reasons?  Were these wars justified in terms of biblical principles?

Fortunately, eight professional Christian historians have volunteered to teach us.  Each historian is an expert on the war they describe, analyze and evaluate.  Seven of the eight subscribe to the just war theory; only one is a pacifist.  None believe that wars should be fought as crusades.

"In general, Christians have advanced three attitudes about war and peace: pacifism, the just war, and the crusade.  The early church . . . was pacifist. . . . After the fourth century, when the church became closely associated with the state [Constantine], Christians took over theory extant in Roman culture, the just war [Augustine]. . . . The third position . . . the crusade, emerged in the Middle Ages.  A crusade was to be fought under the authority of the church [or later the state when fighting for a 'righteous' cause]."

"The way in which a nation wages war reveals a great deal about its basic values. . . . To examine a nation's experience of war, and its response to it, is to learn something fundamental about a nation's values and its social order."  Jefferson was appalled by Europe's tendency toward "eternal war" and wanted the U.S. to be a nation of "peace and fraternity with mankind."  Sadly, it didn't turn out that way.

George Marsden on The American Revolution

"Christians have often been in the forefront in turning their 'just wars' into crusades.  These modern crusades, however, have not been ones in which the church dominates the world; rather the nation has set the agenda and Christians have supplied the flags and crosses.  The American Revolution is a pivotal instance for understanding how modern nations have transformed supposed 'just wars' into secular crusades.  It is pivotal for considering other wars of America, since the patterns of nationalism and civil religion established at the time of the Revolution became important elements of the mythology that determined American's behavior on subsequent wars."

Marsden, respected historian of American religious history, continues:

"One of the aspects of the revolutionaries' stance that is most puzzling is how they came apparently to believe that theirs was one of those extreme and exceptional instances when revolution, . . . was justified. . . . their claim that they faced a case of extreme tyranny seems extravagant. . . . the rebelling colonists nonetheless appeared to have been dead wrong in concluding that without armed rebellion absolute tyranny was inevitable."

The Introduction by Ronald Wells

Unless war is fought according to just war principles, it is oppression on a massive scale, often motivated by ethnocentrism and/or nationalism.  But the public propaganda covers the ethnocentrism and oppression by declaring our cause is righteous and the enemy's cause is evil.  The false prophets did much the same in the OT by declaring 'shalom, shalom,' in the midst of massive idolatry and oppression.  The fundamental question raised in this book is whether Christians made their decisions regarding war based on biblical principles or whether they gullibly followed national national leaders into war, accepting their values and reasoning.

Thomas Jefferson asserted that these United States would not be like the nations of Europe which he called "nations of eternal war."  But history shows that we also became a nation of war.  Why is this so?  We believed that we were a unique, chosen nation with a God-given destiny.  As a free and just democracy, we would be God's light to other nations

"The spiritual pride of the United States consisted in acting innocently upon the pretense of its special calling despite the fact that it was almost constantly at war, either with Indians at home or with other nations or peoples on this continent or abroad."

We have not consistently practiced what we preached---or did we?  Tocqueville, the perceptive French observer of America in the early 1800s, personally witnessed the brutal removal of the Choctaw Indians from Mississippi.  He noted the American rationalization of this oppression and wryly commented: "It is impossible to destroy men with more respect for the laws of America."  (Democracy in America)

George Marsden's chapter titled "An American Revolution: Partisanship, Just Wars, and Crusades."

At the time of the American Revolution, there was great fear [exaggerated fear] of being dominated by political and/or religious tyranny.  One of the reason freedom/liberty was so highly prized was that it was achieved only by hard fought victories in Europe.  The colonists did not want to be returned to either religious or political tyranny.  Small steps in that direction were perceived to be giant steps.  Fear distorted their perceptions of reality.

As an historian, Marsden is quite certain that the level of tyranny did not justify a violent revolution---a civil war.  Contrary to what is commonly believed, the American Revolution was not necessary, not justified.  But most American Christians at the time were convinced that the revolution was justified and so many even turned it into a righteous crusade.  The cynic in me, Lowell Noble, believes that an American rich, white, male elite wanted to replace the British elite.

More of Noble's ideas; none of the eight Christian historians have gone as far as I have in their critique of America though Marsden comes close, I believe.  Was the American government ever a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people?"  Probably not, in spite of Lincoln's eloquent expression.  Our revered founding fathers, many of whom were slave owners, never abolished slavery.  Slave owners are tyrants, are they  not?

Our founding fathers were a rich, white, male, deistic elite who stole land from Indians and who took Indian lives, who stole labor and liberty from black slaves, who made the poor and women second-class citizens, who were exceptionally ethnocentric and exceptionally oppressive---direct violations of Luke 4:18-30.  Instead of a democracy, we got a plutocracy; the British tyrants were replaced by American tyrants.  Today, America has a government of corporations/Big Banks/ Wall Street, by corporations/Big Banks/Wall Street, and for corporations/Big Banks/Wall Street.  From dictatorial tyrants to democratic tyrants?

Now more from Marsden:

"Yet the American revolutionaries had taken a good cause, the virtues of which they had overestimated because of their partisanship and their political preconceptions, and they had vastly inflated its importance by sanctifying it with biblical imagery.  Thus the good cause . . . became an idol.

"Perhaps the most important outcome of this process was that in it a new religion was born.  This new religion is the now-famous American civil religion in which the state is an object of worship, but the imagery used to describe its sacredness is borrowed from Christianity.  Church and state in the Western world since the time of Constantine had been intimately connected.  Indeed it has been this close association of religion and politics that has been one of the greatest obstacles to a genuine Christian critique of the political order, specifically of its military virtues.  Now in the new American situation, even with the disestablishment of the church, the religious-political intimacy was maintained by applying sacred rhetoric to describe the status and mission of the secular government.  This civil religion . . . has continued to shape, and indeed to distort American visions of her own justice in subsequent wars."

Ralph Beebe, "The War of 1812."

We learned from Gorge Marsden that American civil religion was created to tie informally the cause of church and state together.  This sanctifying of the purposes of the state were used again and again to justify future wars---even wars of imperialism, aggression and oppression.  This same phenomenon occurred in 1812---an unnecessary war of materialism and imperialism.  This was an "In God is our trust" war:

"America was a new nation with an ironically ambivalent self-image that stressed its freedom from the old world's propensity for war, while at the same time the nation pursued a strongly materialistic 'success' ethic that caused its people to engage in pursuits that were certain to lead to conflict."

Jefferson strongly condemned the approaching war which seemed to be designed to secure the immense profits in reexport trade with Europe.  In the eyes of Britain, this violated our neutrality in the European wars.
With the British attack on the Chesapeake, previous reason and restraint were thrown to the wind.  Now it was a matter of "God and Country" for many American Christians.  Beebe concludes that the war of 1812 falls far short of just war standards.

Ronald Wells, "The Mexican-American War"

There was no justification for this tragic war; it was a war of American imperialism, ethnocentrism and oppression falsely justified under Manifest Destiny.  Abraham Lincoln was against the Mexican war.

"Over the years Mexicans had become increasingly aware that many Americans looked upon Mexicans as inferior beings.  This had frightening implications, for Americans had respect for neither the rights nor the culture of those whom they considered inferior.  They had been merciless in their treatment of the Indian and had reduced blacks to a brutal form of servitude.  Mexicans were perceptive enough to recognize that a similar fate threatened them should they fall under American domination."

Those clergy and churches that had already approved of the idea of Manifest Destiny supported this unjust war.

Ronald Rietveld, "The American Civil War."

Both the North and South thought they were fighting a just war, but Lincoln concluded the nation was under God's judgment.  The unity of the country was shattered largely over the issue of slavery, an issue our founding fathers had left unresolved.  This sand in our foundation, our failure to extend liberty and justice for all almost led to the collapse of the nation.  Not even the churches could avoid splitting over the issue of slavery.

For Southerners, slavery was righteous, blessed, a Christianizing force.
For Northerners, slavery was wrong, a curse, an evil, a sin in the sight of God and humans.

What did the North and South have in common; both were deeply racist.  The Civil War did not solve the racism problem; the values behind the system of oppression were not eliminated.  Therefore, a new system of oppression was quickly created---segregation and sharecropping.

Since freedom was not followed by justice, one could argue that the civil war dead died in vain.

Augustus Cerillo, Jr., "The Spanish-American War."

A contradiction: "pretentious views of the purity and innocence of our national motives, actions, and goals and the actual harsh consequences of the exercise of our power."  A war that began to liberate Cuba from the oppressive domination by Spain soon developed into "a war of American conquest."  The president who declared in his inaugural address: "We want no wars of conquest; we must avoid the temptation of territorial aggression," soon embarked on wars of conquest and territorial aggression.

"The US, so morally repulsed by Spain's treatment of her colonial subjects, was forced to suppress in brutal fashion a Filipino rebellion against American imperial rule."

We began to spread Manifest Destiny beyond our shores.  Much of this expansion was driven by economic motives and materialism---the perceived need for new markets abroad.

"America's efforts to expand trade and investment abroad were free from the constraints of the biblical norms of equity, justice, and preference for the poor.  By fusing the gospel, racism, and nationalism, evangelical leaders at home contributed to the inordinate amount of national pride that pervaded American thought by giving a sort of priestly blessing."

Richard Pierard, "World War II."

Was the "Day of Infamy"---the Japanese attack on Pear Harbor---preceded by 50 years of infamy by the US against Japan?  Did we extend the concept of Manifest Destiny too far into Asia thus threatening Japan?  Admiral Perry sailed his fleet into Japan and forced Japan to open itself up to the outside world; to the Japanese, this was an act of intimidation and humiliation.

Another troubling problem.  Hitler started bombing civilians and then we started doing the same, first in Germany and then in Japan.  We firebombed Dresden; then we dropped two atomic bombs on cities, on civilians.  There were military targets nearby.  Targeting civilians violates just war principles.

From the Afterword

"Given the prevailing ideology, Americans could not help but think that their wars were 'just,' precisely because their historic role in the world was 'just.'"

"To ask how Christians might have acted in particular wars is to ask how Christians in our day might act in future wars."

"[American] Christian participants, far from being more detached and somewhat immune from the dangers of partisanship, seem more often to be particularly prone to them---especially when they have the Bible in hand.  With supporting texts, not only are they likely to perceive their partisan self-interest is just, but they are likely to inflate their cause, seeing the conflict as a struggle between the absolute righteousness of God and Satanic aberration."

PS

The U.S. often in alliance with the French has waged continuous economic, political and sometimes military war with Haiti.

Nicholas Wolterstorff on Justice

In 2008, Nicholas Wolterstorff, esteemed Reformed philosopher/theologian, wrote Justice: rights and wrongs.  The following is my review and interpretation of his three chapters on the Bible and justice.  Wolterstorff distinguishes between what he calls primary justice and rectifying justice.  I understand primary justice to be an ideal, a standard, an unchanging substance, anchored in the character of God.  God is just and he loves justice.  Rectifying justice judges and correct the oppression of the vulnerable such as the widows, orphans, resident aliens and the poor.  Love and justice are inseparably intertwined.  Justice lifts the downtrodden.

Wolterstorff is basic and solid in his chapter on justice in the Old Testament, but he breaks extremely important new ground as he discusses the equally important teaching on justice in the New Testament.  He strongly contradicts the common theological interpretation that justice fades in the NT and is largely replaced by personal salvation and love.

Wolterstorff devotes a chapter to the "de-justicizing" of the NT.  According to Wolterstorff, one important reason for the de-justicizing of the NT in the English speaking world is the deeply flawed English translation of dikaios and dikaiosune, the Greek words usually translated as righteous and righteousness.  The dik-stem occurs around 300 times in the NT so justice should be seen all over the NT or at least justice/righteousness.

But in the KJV, the dominant English translation for centuries, justice is found zero times in the NT.  In the NIV, justice is found only 16 times, the whole Bible, 134 times.  In the Spanish NVI, justice occurs an astounding 426 times; in the Latin Vulgate, around 400 times; in the French NVS, 380 times; in the German Revised Martin Luther text, 306 times.  I interpret the above data and Wolterstorff's comments to reflect a catastrophic English translation failure of the biblical concept of justice, especially in the NT.  In the Romance languages---Spanish, French, Latin---, justice occurs around 100 times in the NT.

When dikaiosune is translated justice in the Sermon on the Mount, these verses read: "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after justice" "persecuted for the sake of justice"  "Seek first God's kingdom and his justice." I interpret Wolterstorff to believe that the dejusticizing of the NT, the separation of love and justice, the near removal of the word justice in the NT in favor of righteousness, to be one of the great heresies in the history of the church though Wolterstorff is much too judicious to actually say this.

Wolterstorff on Romans:  "For while Romans, as I interpret it, says more about justice than any other of the New Testament letters, it has also, ironically, served as the locus classicus for those who wish to de-justicize the New Testament."

To conclude, I would like to present a couple of quotations from Wolterstorff to indicate the quality of his insights:  "Those at the bottom are usually not there because it is their fault.  They are there because they are downtrodden.  Those at the top "trample the heads of the poor into the dust of the earth." (Amos 2:7)
When center and circumference are one's basic metaphors, the undoing of justice will be described as including the outsiders.  When up and down are one's basic metaphors, the undoing of injustice will be described as lifting up those at tyhe bottom. . . . The rectification of injustice requires not only lifting the low ones but casting down the high ones."

"The coming of justice requires the humbling of those who exalt themselves.  The arrogant must be cured of their arrogance; the rich and powerful must be cured of their attraction to wealth and power.  Only then is justice for all possible.