The Slippery Slope of Vengeance

Flickr

Reaching In Pollsmoor Prison Restorative Justice Programme

The gift of forgiveness

The question which I will attempt to ask within the scope of this paper, then methodically work through until in typical post-modern fashion come to the conclusion of having more questions is, "How should we understand the gift of forgiveness in a society which prides itself on human progress?" The other basis for my paper is the assumption that I am speaking as an American and as a Christian. Also, for argument's sake, I will define human progress as basing itself on the assumption that we as American Christians can develop ways to overcome the presupposed evil in the world by sheer intent. To will ourselves or even project ourselves into this world of human progress means developing new ways to advance as a species, but the problem with this modern worldview is that those people who don't, won't, or can't advance quickly enough, will be marginalized on the periphery in this world of progress. This exclusive world will grow simultaneously in violence, since humans have at their core the innate desire for participation as social creatures and being excluded will diminish hope. Although the language I am using may appear to be some quasi-socialist perspective, let me assuage any fears that what I am talking about is the gift of forgiveness with the hope of reconciliation, not a new or even old political praxis.

How can we advance when so many people don't have the will to overcome and rise above their present circumstances? They will in essence be left behind and in order to rationalize their being left behind, they will be classified as deserving of what they get. What if they did not deserve what they got, but simply decided that this world of human progress was not a world which put God in the forefront, but made God into a golden calf which could be controlled, so that God advanced along with us? We as Christians would then have to define this world as the culmination of an idolatrous world, since idolatry is creating god in the image of that which can be controlled and in the world of human progress, god is technology.

Working off the old, but continually moving into the new, This myth is perpetuated by many well meaning Christians in the U.S. who preach, teach, and hold to the fact that each person should and can muster the inner resolve to simply rise above their circumstances. To rise above one's circumstances means that we need to assimilate into the American ideal, which in the end is vastly different than the Christian ideal anyway.

Not enough emphasis is placed upon the deep emotional aspects of receiving and giving forgiveness. "To forgive contains an explicit condemnation of the wrong done, but also an offer toward reconciliation through this gift of forgiveness." (Miroslav Volf, Free of Charge) When one offers forgiveness to another, the person who offers the gift is recognizing a wrong done against them by the mere fact of offering forgiveness, but in the same breath drawing the other person toward themselves. Forgiveness should hold within its grasp a direct human connection not only for the deeply emotional movement toward vengeance, but the fact that this movement toward vengeance will destroy our own connection with God, humans, and ourselves. Vengeance must be recognized within the scope of forgiveness, since oppositional logic would tell us that we understand ourselves in relation to and opposed to other objects. We as Christians understand forgiveness through the perspective of my knowledge of the vengeance sometimes explicitly and at other times very implicitly from deep within myself.

Forgiveness offers the possible initial movement toward reconciliation, but violence offers the continued perpetuation of the initial offense. This perpetuation though will usually be exhibited as harsher than the original offense. We as humans tend to be one dimensional and over or under perform vengeance. Vengeance may also trigger a conflict spiral, whereby, the initial action causes a psychological response in the victim, which causes an action, since humans are not neutral beings, which causes a psychological response in the initial offender (now victim); repeat cycle. This cycle will usually end through one party overwhelming the other, which can sometimes cause death, or parties are forcibly separated and these two scenarios clearly reflect part of the problem with our society today. The movement of forgiveness does not have to be immediate either, but through the actions of another person who will walk through this process, one of the parties involved in a conflict can possibly voluntarily separate themselves for a time, until a person has the space and time to process their thoughts.

From numerous studies done after state executions, many people say that the death of the offender did not heal the pain of their loss, as they may have expected. There is no punishment which can be outwardly inflicted on another person to heal the pain of the loss felt from within. Neither should the outward act of forgiveness be viewed as a complete healing, since scars will always leave residual marks upon human beings, until that future moment when we are transformed through the resurrection. Until then, we must pursue forgiveness since the offer of forgiveness will soften the natural defensive posture of the offender. This defensive posture may be dismantled through the heard expression of pain felt by the victim or victim's family through the action(s) of the offender. Since we as Christians affirm that the cross of Jesus drew us into God's very self, we can as church, as body of Christ offer this gift of forgiveness to other people. As a matter of fact it is imperative that we do offer this forgiveness to other's. We are still entrenched in Western Civilization though, and the abstractness of sin, causes the abstractness of forgiveness, as not related to our lives and communities. As Jurgen Moltmann has poignantly expressed in The Crucified God, "The fullness of God and the fullness of humanity was drawn together on the cross, where Jesus prayed, 'Father forgive them, for they don't know what their doing.'"

This statement explicitly decried certain actions being performed by humans, but by saying, "Father, forgive them", this ties together the condemnation of the wrong with the offer of forgiveness.

If we have so many various testimonies of the healing aspects of forgiveness and reconciliation within the lives,communities, societies, and even once in a while a nations, then why is forgiveness not being expressed as the central theme of Christianity? One of my favorite stories of forgiveness is Corrie Ten Boom, who was approached after a speaking engagement in Germany in 1947 by a former guard from the Ravensbruck concentration camp, where members of her family were executed for hiding Jews. She said, "For a long moment, we grasped each other's hands, the former guard and the former prisoner." "I had never known God's love so intensely as I did then." I still can not read this without a deep felt need for God's love to penetrate the coldest, darkest areas in our lives and societies. Although, we live in a highly individualized culture, so God's love will be manifest itself personally and individually, but God forbid that love stay individualized. The coldest, darkest areas are held by the most utmost secrecy, as if no one can see what is taking place. Once the secrecy is brought into the illumination of God, it may be healed. Jesus traveled and made visible that which was previously invisible. Jesus constantly demonstrated how power was affecting people and holding people in bondage.

I think that at the heart (core) of forgiveness is the relinquishing of what really belongs to God, which is the power of vengeance and we as humans think we can handle or control vengeance. We seem to tend to believe ourselves to be rational enough in our post-Enlightenment minds to handle this type of power, but the power of vengeance contains deep emotional impacts, of which even the most reasonable people can not suppress. These felt emotions within the scope of being offended is so important to move toward the process of healing. Without the emotion, one is unable to process the severity of the offense. An act of violence against a person or loved one should illicit a response of disbelief and shock at the trauma involved, including a full range of emotional responses. The dominant problem is not the reaction toward the offense, but that there are limited outlets toward condemning the offense by the person offended. Somehow we as Christians have outsourced this job the criminal justice system, at least in terms of violent or property offenses. We have subsequently through many years of neglect allowed this important job to be conducted by people who should not be engaged in the difficult work of reconciliation. The Criminal Justice System is not based in the U.S. on restorative justice, but punitive justice and to a great degree ignores the victim, in favor of the offender.

Restorative Justice though draws the victim and offender back together, since the actions of sin had previously separated them. This is the goal of Christianity and this act brings glory to God, since it demonstrates love, not through ignoring the offense, which is deeply unloving, especially to a victim, but expresses the pain and grief caused by these actions. This also is not universal policy, since there are numerous factors which should be stipulated and agreed upon by the parties involved. If one party is unwilling (especially the offender) to acknowledge the offense, then restorative justice could cause further harm to the victim. Many times though, the problem in our society stems from people feeling that lying will benefit them the best. We as a society have created this phenomenon, through implicitly teaching that one person should pay for their offense by themselves. If a person or society sees no intrinsic value in confession, then confession is not a value which is pursued.

The church is based upon the aspect that the gospel is explicitly social in that as we have been forgiven, reconciled, and participate in God's gracious action toward us, then as Jesus commands, we 'freely' offer these gifts to other people. If we are not offering forgiveness to other people, then maybe it's because we ourselves do not truly believe that we are forgiven. To know God's forgiveness is to see forgiveness exhibited in the lives of people. If we do not see forgiveness demonstrated in social action and therefore social responses, how are we to know we ourselves are forgiven? When I offend and my brother or sister offers the gift of forgiveness through deep empathetic concern that our relationship may be strained, I must respond to them over the possibility that I have in some way contributed to this offense. It does not mean that every offense is only one person's fault, but through the act of dialogue, I can realize that I may be ignorant to my actions. If done in ignorance, I have gained knowledge, if done knowingly, then I must begin the process of confession that my sheer willfulness to offend is causing harm to others. Of course the second scenario is more difficult to address, but forgiveness is still offered and until the movement away from sheer intent is recognized, usually reconciliation is impossible, since at the core of reconciliation is trust.

In order to understand how one arrived at having to offer forgiveness, we must begin to understand the process toward offense. Therefore, the offer of forgiveness is implicitly tied together with the movement toward re-engaging with another in the hope of reconciliation. This action of forgiveness should allow both parties the mutually satisfying solution of unpacking the issues of offense. The one who originally causes an offense toward another person or even toward a community of people has explicitly violated various forms of established boundaries, set in place by social norms to prevent these violations.

The following excerpt from the gospel of Luke begins to unpack the premise that sin is manifest in our actions toward God and toward other people. No sins exist in a vacuum, whereby they don't directly or indirectly affect our relationship with people. For too long has sin either been compartmentalized into being defined as abstract or as only relating to the issues which the person defining is not controlled. The way which I perceive Jesus defining sin is not through these definitions, but as manifest in our social institutions and within our wills. Sin could then be succinctly defined as a continued movement toward self aggrandizement without care for another.

In Luke 1:1-4, Jesus' language involving sin or "offenses" is fierce, due to his complete understanding that people do what they see, therefore, people will follow the leadership either into the kingdom of God or into practices which diminish a person's unique ability for the sake of building up the leadership. If we thought outside of the scope of our world, then it would not matter what another does, since we would be able to act outside of another's actions. We thoroughly know that life is not like that, nor did God intend life to created from nothing. The only time anything was created out of nothing was the original act of creation, but ever since, creation can only utilize the created world to re-create. This means that life can not exist outside of our space/time continuum, nor is it intended to. It places humans as directly inter-connected to each other and to our world. As illustrated above, forgiveness is the means to reconciliation and reconciliation is God's means to rebuilding our world.

Luke 1:1-4: "Things that cause people to sin (offenses) are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come. It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. So watch yourselves. If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents forgive him. If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, I repent, forgive him."

The Illusion of Caring

The Illusion of Caring

My wife and I have recently rented the entire DVD collection of Roots from Netflix and last night we watched the first episode. I want to unpack a premise which I have titled, "The Illusion of Caring", because I think that there is an overwhelming sense of urgency within the spectrum of Christian traditions to move into the the practical implications of this phrase. One example that I will use to describe this allusion of caring will be from the above mentioned mini-series, Roots, in order to demonstrate that individuals alone can not shoulder the burden of changing how Christians are called to care for those in need. I will attempt to show that Christians who desire to show some degree of care for the oppressed, must be part of a larger community of people who are also committed to this venture. Humans in isolation who can garner the strength to stand against these awful institutions of oppression will in essence manifest this "Allusion of caring", but human beings tend to be one dimensional creatures and this poses the threat of being re-made into the image of the exact institution which supports the oppression.

Part 1:
In the first episode of Roots, the Captain of the slave ship, The Lord Ligonier claimed Christianity and is initially outspoken in his system of belief in God. He is portrayed in this movie as having a facade of care in the initial stages of learning that he is being appointed to make his first voyage to kidnap and transport 170 African slaves back to the America's. The viewer is made to think that the Captain is deeply perplexed concerning participating in this endeavor, because while taking inventory for the ship, he does not want to use a device which controls the slaves through a thumb press, which looks like a screw attached to a wooden device which will hold the thumb in a pressurized location. Apparently this thumb press is inhumane in controlling the slaves on the ship, as opposed to the absolute horror of transporting human beings involuntarily from one nation to another. The Captain appears often perplexed and demonstrates this allusion of caring as he reflects on his voyage (head tilted to the side, gazing upwardly, with vexed look) and engages in debate with the second in command on the ship as to the moral principles associated with the slave trade. Apparently if Christians tilt their head to the side and look concerned, God looks favorably upon this allusion that we give a ....! The second in command on The Lord Ligonier has already participated in 18 slave trips to Africa and is well versed on the techniques for capturing, transporting, and selling the slaves. His influence over the Captain is very clear in his interactions during this voyage.

Alongside my viewing of Roots, I am also reading a book entitled; Recovering the Scandal of the Cross (for a third time) by Dr. Joel Green (Fuller Theological Seminary). The framework for this book unpacks the premise that the cross should be scandalous to our way of thinking and knowing God. The Christian tradition over the past thousand years has interpreted the crucifixion of Jesus through the lens that the cross simply "pays for the penalty for our sins and appeases the wrath of God". This understanding of Jesus' crucifixion is known as, 'Penal Substitutionary Atonement' and was developed in the 11th century has not changed that much into the 21st century according to Green. Penal Substitution basically says that Jesus stood in the place of humans and took upon himself God's wrath for the sin of humanity, which in essence appeased an angry God and therefore, allowed humans to once again know God, since his wrath was subdued. (My words) In essence, although the penal substitution model attempted to make sense of the social norms in the 11th century, it does not due justice to the historical reality that Jesus died a death as a Roman agitator and the only way Jesus would be thought of as an agitator would have been to challenge the Roman imperial policies of his day. The reason that I am speaking about any of this is because it fits with how we view our lack of action in relation to social issues. The crux of the crucifixion of Jesus fits with Jesus' direct interaction with the practices of Israel and Jesus' own statements of kingship over against the kingship of Caesar. If Jesus stood against the powers which were attempting to destroy humans for the sake of the elite, then what would this mean in relation to the churches ministry? Simply placing an atonement theory in place of truly understanding the dynamics behind the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus does not due justice to God's mission in the world. I am attempting to relate the Christian traditions use of atonement theories to the Christian traditions support of unjust practices such as the slave trade.

The difference of course in Jesus' way of challenge and other counter revolutionaries that came before and after (Barabbas as being a good example) is that Jesus did not pick up the sword to overthrow by violence, but bore the violence of humanity into his own body. Therefore, the invitation by Jesus to "take up your cross and follow me" in Matthew 16:24, could have been interpreted by the faith community as being embodied in the counter revolutionary act aimed at subverting the system of oppression contained in the slave trade. The Captain not simply looks perplexed and strained at participating in this horrible industry, but engages with other Christians who offer a language more in line with the voice of God and he says no to the British Imperial Crown, i.e the systems of the world which Paul talks about and suffers the fate associated with counter worldly wisdom. His fate is that he loses his position as Captain, he no longer makes the money which procure for him a life of luxury, and people no longer heap upon him complements for the position he holds. In turn, he gains freedom to say and do those difficult tasks to which Jesus calls his followers. His position as Captain no longer matters, because the community of faith embraces him as having suffered along with his Lord and in a major way contributed to the release of those held in prisons (Luke 4). The paradox and scandal of the cross is that freedom is found in bearing the cross by becoming the exact image for another of the "good news" that yes, Jesus cares for how one is treated in society. The world continually proclaims very loudly that freedom is found by throwing off the boundaries, or throwing off any forms of authority, whereas it is not the boundaries and authorities which are the issue, but the domination systems associated with these boundaries and authorities. When one creates boundaries which are unable to be crossed at various moments. When authorities proclaim that they possess the truth and one must assimilate into their likeness in order to know the truth, this poses serious problems for truly understanding the dynamics behind systems of power.

As a Christian, I know that I am endowed with power by the Holy Spirit's direct action in the midst of the church, of which I participate through the communion of the saints of God. When this communion is broken through my participation with the communion of the systems of the world as described above in the slave industry, I must gain power through the direct demonization of another, since identification with those who suffer is usually non-existent. This poses a significant problem for Christians, since the call of Jesus is to "love God and love neighbor", this means we must somehow develop a way to address the problem of caring for those who are not as "blessed" as we are. How then should Christians trained in the ways of Western Civilization address caring for others? For the most part, we have followed the ways of the Enlightenment thinkers before us and tilted our heads to the side, looked concerned, and maybe even shed a tear or two at the suffering in the world. We then return to our vocations, our houses, and our isolated lives, afraid that real participation in the kingdom of God will cost too much.

Remember that Pentecost brought forth the Spirit of the living God, drawing people together from all tribes, tongues, and nations, forming a community of people who no longer were held by the bondage of property, but understood that all earth's abundance is truly a gift from God and the hoarding of property in lieu of the communion of the saints could cost Christians their lives (Annanias and Saphira). There is a degree of socialism within the structure of God's economy and only an economy of individualism would believe that each person provides for themselves. Individualism within the scope of the Captain of the slave ship contributed to his eventual demise, since he believed that he could be a Christian and participate in an evil industry. Roots does an incredible job in portraying how as the lone individual Christian on the ship, he slowly succumbs to the pressure of assimilating into the evil associated with being the Captain on a slave ship.

Although at any point the beautiful gift of grace would be available to this Captain, in my opinion his repentance, i.e. his turning away from this horrible industry would be needed to truly experience God's grace. I do believe that grace is always found in the midst of evil, but the continuing of participation with evil would in the end diminish the grace which we find in following Jesus. In order to truly follow Jesus, I must not make God into my image, but be recreated into the image of God, who brings the slave out of bondage, not into bondage.

We today have these same institutions and I continually struggle with our participation in them. Our world has created massive institutions, which make it very difficult to live outside of their powerful influence upon our lives. In Max Weber's, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, he very clearly examines how the individual vocations of Christians became their ministries from the Reformation onward and how this has affected the life of the church in Western culture. Without the community of faith standing alongside the the Captain of the slave ship, the power of the systems of the world will most likely ensnare him and all that he will be left with is an "illusion of caring."

What is our Common Good?

Back in June of this year, I attended a conference at Loyola University, Chicago, which was entitled: Globalization for the Common Good. This conference held many of the most intelligent minds in Higher Education, not only in the U.S., but on a global scale. There are two main points though which deserve some critique concerning not only the content of this conference, but a repackaged phenomenon which seems to be developing within the scope of Peace and Justice Studies in Academic Institutions. The first point deals with the formation of the paradigm or position, such as "The Common Good". The common trait of this theme of the "Common Good" which was a plumb line of this conference to an appeal for rational discourse, which seems to be reminiscent of the old claim to common sense. I remember eight white clergyman appealing to Martin Luther King, Jr. to hold to common sense and not create conflict in the Jim Crow South, but this Common Sense did not appeal to MLK, Jr., but was simply an appeal to the already existent power structure. (Letter from Birmingham Jail)

This type of discussion was developed by asking the question, whose rational discourse we should be appealing, since there was a recognition of power structures. The final verdict though was a rational discourse which in the end would acknowledge human beings as part of a global world, which directly affects the second point of a repackaged modern quest for the enlightened individual. What this means is that we as individuals need to not have any of the previous boundaries, which held us to our "tribal identities", but now we need to move beyond these human boundaries to understand the beauty of other cultures and languages.

It seems as though this could become the new colonialism, through the dominant modern person moving into various cultures and ethnicity's, and instead of colonizing with weapons, we colonize with reason. This "Common Good" may not be common at all, it may be the good of those who are already in power and want access to various cultures, since ours no longer possesses any resources that have not already been hoarded.

There was also an overwhelming fear of what has been termed, "Tribal identities", which would of course eventually result in tribal conflicts. My perception of the conference speakers was that conflict was negative and if one engaged in conflict with another, the one engaging lacked the necessary reason to move beyond the conflict. In terms of Conflict Resolution, allowing conflict to have its place within the scope of the dialogue is essential for growth and actually suppression of the already existent conflict will produce further harm. Hence, peace is not known outside of conflict, since we only know one through the other. But, it is not the tribal identities which are the dominant problem or the subsequent conflicts that will result from these identities. The main problem is the system of domination which attempts to violently suppress the voice of those that sound different. Violence is not necessarily physical, but should be seen as emotional, spiritual, and social through the hoarding of resources.

Many conference speakers feared remaking God into this horrible "Tribal Deity", would force god to fight the other existent tribal deities with violence. Once again this is the repackaged premise of the Enlightenment's quest for an overarching scientific rationale which will eventually suppress conflicts through Leviathan. Leviathan is no longer the monolithic monster of military conquest, but the monolithic monster of reason and good thinking. In terms of tribal identities, we as Christians have to acknowledge the god of the incarnation found in Jesus, which at its very core is tribal. We claim that Israel's god made a covenant with her, to bring forth the redemption of the world through one tribe, that "all tribes" would be blessed. So, in the end, yes can we affirm the monotheistic faiths of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity as having a commonality and pursue the good in humanity, but we also understand that we as Christians affirm that the fullness of the revelation of God is found in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. As Jurgen Moltmann has said, "Jesus is not like God, but God is like Jesus." (The Crucified God) This good will also not be brought forth without suffering and not without death. This is probably where conference speakers would part company, because this does not sound very "Good". Christians must affirm that we as human beings suffering for and with other human beings and as a result of our participation with "the others", will our rational discourse then be afforded to us.

Many would ask, "Why would any of this be important"? Because without the tribal nature of god, it diminishes the unique attributes of human beings. Part of the unique attributes of humans will inevitably cause conflict, because of the pull of manipulation and control. This conflict though must be the process through which we understand one another, not a suppression of the conflict through the universalizing of god. Jesus bore the violence of humanity into his own self, without taking up violence and killing those to whom he himself died. Christians as body of Christ are not called to universalize, which will eventually cause Christians to not bear this violence, but only appeal to a "higher logic", or "rational discourse". Which in my opinion means the suppression of emotion, instead we desire the redirection of emotion toward the proclamation of the gospel. I fear the appeal to this repackaged Enlightenment model of "pure reason," will eventually contribute to the lack of growth, through suppression of any and all conflict as negative, thorugh demonizing those who we perceive as not being reasonable.

In conclusion, our Western culture in a typical post-Enlightenment fashion continues the process of objectifying the subjective. Instead of a word possessing various and nuanced meanings, words are used to make into an object something which should have been intended to be subjective. If we look at the term, The Common Good, it has become an object which overwhelms the our unique worlds, which have god given differences, which are supposed to be utilized to benefit humans. If a term then no longer acts within our world, but exists outside of the world in which we inhabit, it causes humans to demonize the subjective realities of people who do not possess the common good. If we also perceive of ourselves as subjective and in direct relationship with another, then I have to recognize that I too can be part of the problem as well as the solution. I can seek the common good, but I might not necessarily possess the common good, since my interests are very one dimensional. People are objectified in order to control their actions and they are formed into idols in the minds of the oppressor. We also have tendency to project our scorn and ridicule into an object. The problem with forming an object from a subjective movement is that the object does not allow for its voice to be heard. In order for me to truly understand the other, I must listen intently to their movements, but objects tend to not speak out against my projections and therefore solidifying my original convictions that I was truly correct in what I thought. We do not want to be found correct, but truthful in our story in how it engages another's story.

Question: Do or should people get what they deserve?

"Our Father who art in heaven

Hallowed be your name

Your Kingdom come, your will be done

On earth as it is in heaven

Give us this day our daily bread 

And forgive us our debts

As we forgive our debtors

Deliver us not into the time of trial

But deliver us from the evil one."  (Jesus in Matthew 6)

The beauty of this verse is that in the original Greek text, the word translated for the word debt is aphiemi, which precisely means a monetary debt. (Politics, page 62)  The reason that I included the Lord's Prayer is to give a practical demonstration that people are sometimes in debt because of their own choices and because humans are enslaved to the social system which needs to oppress in order to create wealth and Jesus is attempting to draw forgiveness together to create a mutual bond of relationship.

I had a great conversation with someone this week concerning the question of whether people get what they deserve.  Since also writing the beginning section of this post, I heard an Easter Sunday Sermon on the absolute-ness of God's law which is interpreted to mea; when we do evil we will, "Get evil", but if we do good we should, "Get good."  This always begs the question what do people deserve?  If we look at the word deserve from the perspective of the universality of God, then we believe that people deserve God and they deserve God's love, God's trust, God's provision, and God's mercy.  We as humans are created in the image of God, should reflect these traits and characteristics of God's image. 

The Reformation and a strict hyper-Calvinistic viewpoint, has transformed total depravity into we deserve total depravity. Holding the tension between the theological doctrine of "Total Depravity" which attempts to explain human sinfulness, gets enmeshed with the fascination in America of individual choice and combines the two, making it seem as though we choose total depravity, instead of understanding it as something which we in some ways have ignorantly participated in, and God wants us to know we deserve life, peace, and wholeness.

The process to obtain life, peace, and wholeness, i.e. the kingdom of God, will always come at a heavy price, which is how we should see the cross of Christ. When Christians as the body of Christ, not as individuals, but as a community of faith are calling people, structures, systems, and evil what it is, then we should expect some resistance, which is why non-violence must be at the core of the mission, because once we are persecuted, it becomes very easy to pick up violence to defend our cause.  Non-violent resistance also allows humans to directly stand against oppressive systems, without directly destroying the system itself or the people within the system.  People need systems to live and it is not the boundaries of the system which are the problem, but how the implementation of the boundaries against certain groups which should be seen as the problem. This can be seen as one of the most tantamount historical issues within America and American Christianity, especially in reference to African slavery (a shutting a people group out of the God given benefits of the earth).  

This issue is at its core an issue of the domination system of power, in which people incorporate all the various forms of power within their system and do not allow others to possess any forms of power.  Once I have attained all the various forms of power, I am not static, but fluid and moving, therefore, I will implement these power forms in order to retain my power through suppression of another. Christians need to recognize these forms of power and how they develop.  For a Christian, morality is a form of power which has too many times been wielded like a sword over another, who is deemed immoral. That is never what the gospel is intended to do.

The person from the first conversation stated that when a human violates "laws", i.e. the American Criminal Laws or as he generalized them; "God's laws", that person reaps what they sow and get what they deserve.  Although I believe that reaping and sowing is what humans work toward; such as sowing goodness into our families, communities, nations, and hearts, I believe that from a Christian perspective I would vehemently say, "The gospel is good news and is specifically designed 'against' people getting what they deserve."  First, I would say that the word, "deserve" specifically needs a little unpacking.  At the core of a statement such as, "Everyone gets what they deserve", is strong group identification.  To make the previous statement implicitly means that I am identifying not as an individual, but within a group, because there is no other way for me to know whether I am one of the people who is deserving of what I get, unless my group claims to be on the side of rightness.  We also desperately need to see ourselves as always implementing our theology, so if we claim we all get what we deserve, and believe in the total sinfulness of humans as being what we deserve, then next step is to secure the label of "deserving depravity" and begin to implement it, i.e. the Prison Industrial Complex.

The theological implications of this type of system of Christianity as mentioned above is wrought full of karma and as I call it, Jeffersonian ethics, i.e. God helps those who help themselves, which really means that we are all simply Deists and God exists in a world which has nothing to do with our world, I can do it myself.  Karma seems to be something which helps people to put a framework around our daily lives.  If I  work hard, do good, and treat people well I will reap the benefits.  Although I do not think that we should not participate in the above mentioned activities, but these activities need to be situated around the, "life, peace, and wholeness" or the kingdom of God.  Common Sense will tell people that they should treat people well to get benefits or work hard to get benefits, but the problem is that within the structure of the kingdom the "benefits, benefit" all the wrong people.  The lazy, the poor, the tax collectors, and those wretched totally depraved people, who are depraved simply by being oppressed within the current system which has told them that they have gotten what they deserve, because it actually benefits those who hold power to tell make people feel inferior.

As I am currently reading John Howard Yoder's, The Politics of Jesus, he speaks at length about the bringing forth of this kingdom of God, which should be seen contained within the practices of the 1st Century.  Yoder talks at length that Jesus brought forth the Jubilee Year, whereby the debts were canceled and the slaves set free.  "Jesus was establishing a strict equation between the practice of jubilee and the grace of God." (Politics, page 62) This kingdom language needs to be something which becomes real to us, in that it means the rule or reign of God is brought near and God's reign always effects our economic practices. Yoder calls to remembrance that a problematic issue contained within the book of Jeremiah was that Israel participated in the oppression of the slaves and the poor.  The Israelite community had not released the people from their debts, even after the sabbatical year and when Jeremiah speaks against these unjust practices, King Josiah institutes God's law and releases people from their debts. After the slaves were released, the Israelite community reneged on the sabbatical year and re-enslaved them.  Why would Israel commit these actions?I personally believe that nothing causes people to fear more than economics, because people begin to fear for their survival, even if the justification for survival is completely absurd.  

We have seen within the context of Jeremiah and Isaiah how the practices of cult religion (Baal worship) directly affected the poor.  We also have a direct trace between the social/economic practices of the 1st Century and people's decisions.  It is difficult speaking with people who think that decisions are not created at all, but we pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps. Israel was commanded by God to teach the Shema (the community prayer), "Hear Oh Israel, the Lord is one..." to their children and children's children. Jeremiah 2 speaks directly about the people, "following after worthless idols and becoming worthless themselves", i.e. the people become ineffective in displaying God's love to each other and other nations.  God obviously places importance upon the communal aspects of life.  Even after everything Israel had done, God continually will NOT give them what God determined that they deserve. Jeremiah 31 is a beautiful illustration of God's provision for those who have, "gotten what they deserve."  God says he will, 'build them up, he will have compassion, he will not forget their pain, and he will bind the broken-hearted.' 

Along the same lines as, "Do people get what they deserve?" we also need to look at one of the major theological inquiries over the past four thousand years, "Is God angry or not concerning these practices?"  "Is God an angry God?" If we understand that the full manifestation of God is found within the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and we believe that God wants to bring forth life, peace, and wholeness, then we could say that God deeply cares for his world and how our practices directly and indirectly affect other people.  Jesus demonstrates that we all have an interdependence with one another and that our practices, whether "good or evil", will affect people.  This would be the point of karma that I agree with, yet we must never let karma be the final word.  I tend to see God as manifest in love, therefore, I would say that although God can be manifest in anger, God is usually angry at the certain evil practices that we as humans participate in, which in turn moulds us into the very image of evil itself.  So, God is not against humans, but against the evil which enslaves human beings.  I think we need to use language such as enslaving, because we can not participate with practices which enslave.  Evil is part of the human condition, but God is against this evil which enslaves people, rather than the people themselves.  

We also have a tendency to speak in absolutes, but this also is not an absolute, because once a human takes and manipulates evil to gain authority and power, then wields it over another through violence, I would not say that God has no concern about this individual's practices.  Jesus specifically on one occasion called converts of the Pharisees, "...twice the son of hell that you are." (Matthew 23.15)  The Pharisee has now taught the disciple to also oppress, causing repentance to be needed on both ends of the spectrum, which is a travesty of justice.

This was a blinding statement directed against the Pharisees practices, who manipulated and used their position as religious authorities to control their converts.  Being a disciple of a Pharisee or Rabbi in the 1st Century is something which a young man coveted and the Pharisees understood this knowledge very well.  The Pharisees would place heavy burdens upon the young converts, which was not reflected in their own practices.  Of course we do not see these practices reflected today within our own churches or traditions.  Jesus understood the social implications of placing expectations upon another person, which were almost impossible to fulfill.  When a person is subjected to an oppressive system, the person under oppression will usually not become "like" the oppressor, but will become even worse than the original oppressive regime.  "Victims need to repent of the fact that all too often they mimic the behavior of the oppressors, let themselves be shaped into the mirror image of the enemy...without repentance for these sins, the full human dignity of victims will not be restored and needed social change will not take place." (Volf, Exclusion and Embrace, page 117) We as human beings have a tendency to either over-react or under-react to systems of oppression.  I though would struggle with allowing a person who was attempting to justify the oppressive system say that the victims are as guilty as the oppressors, but within the cycle of oppression, Volf knows that they too will one day be more guilty than the ones they oppress.   

This conversation started with an attempt to understand if a person gets what they deserve.  I also believe that somehow through the process of simplification in order to understand our world, we have associated deserving with choice ,but if we as Christians affirm a deep rooted theology of evil, which affects people, structures, the world itself, then why do we attempt to shift blame away from the evil onto the human?  Scripture attempts to portray evil as something which ensnares by trickery and deceit.  People throughout the generations have been confronted with the problem of evil and although over the past millenium, evil has taken on a global form as technology has developed, placing all the responsibility upon the shoulders of any one person is a dangerous venture.  This will inevitably create a victim rage spiral whereby even the perpetuator of injustice could view themselves as victims, recreating the horrific climate of evil all over again.  Focusing upon the evil through the structures that it perpetuates will allow for freedom to emerge, not destroying the people and hopefully liberating them into the beauty of reconciliation. 

A Conflictual Resolution for Peace

In Christian circles over the past say hundred years, especially in the 20th Century with the vast amount of bloody wars fought, there has been a great amount of talk over the 'end of the age' or the 'final consummation of the kingdom of god', where God "sets the world to rights" as the Bishop of Durham, N.T. Wright has stated on numerous occasions.  This fascination with 'end of the age' in my opinion and the opinion of those who have written extensively about this powerful theological quandary hold that all conflicts will be set to rest and since we live in a world of constant violent conflicts, it can be easy to see why one would want an 'end' to those conflicts. Although no one can really know what this 'end' will look like or what shape or framework the full consummation of the kingdom of god will take, I am going out on a limb here to say that conflict; is not the problem, nor do I believe conflict will or should, 'end'.  

There are others that have thought about this the premise of the full consummation of the kingdom of god, but I can not remember reading or studying anything concerning conflict.  We must then unpack first the premise of what conflict is?

Conflict is defined as a "perceived divergence of interests".  If I have one interest or human need and I perceive another to have an interest or human need which overlaps my interests or needs, then most conflict would develop out of the idea that my interest (needs) and another's interests (needs) can not be mutually accessible.  Once again, though the key word is "perceived", which is developed out of a faulty sense that the world does not possess enough to satisfy both needs equally. Our perceptions would be that I can not access my interests along with the other's interests, but that our interests stand in stark opposition to one another, instead of us developing a method of collaboration.  This method of collaboration would develop by understanding a mutual interdependence that I have with the other person.  If I understand that my interests can only be fulfilled in relationship to another then it could turn the conflict toward a mutually satisfying solution.  Peace is present, but peace is not the absence of conflict, since growth is impossible without these conflicts as present above.

In this final dawning of a new age, we have always known that peace will reign, since God is a God of peace.  The kingdom of God is God's rule or God's reign, "on earth as it is in heaven" as we have prayed so many times in Matthew 6.  We know that God will "wipe away every tear", but if conflict is not negative, but the violence which is associated with the non resolution of conflict which causes these "tears", then why blame the conflict?  Part of the understanding of conflict resolution is also moving to a place of not blaming, but participating in mutual responsibility, where we realize that I must own my conflicts with another, because we as human beings possess connectedness.  Isn't our non-connectedness, what causes the selfishness associated with only pursuing my interests (needs) as discussed above?  If I am a Christian then I believe in the connectedness of human beings and would not pursue my interests outside of meeting my neighbors interests (needs).  If we as a church were pursuing this goal of conflict and meeting the interests (needs) of our neighbors, then we would say that the kingdom is near.

The final consummation might then look like the fullness of each and every one of us pursuing the interests (needs) of our neighbors.  We could bless and not curse; love and not hate; and when our interests "diverge", pursue a mutually beneficial solution.  Conflict is how the earth cleanses itself, from a nature perspective, through storms,  and although one may think that this is a dangerous statement due to various ethnic cleansing's and racial cleansing's which have been experienced by certain nations and certain groups, but once again it was not the conflict itself but the domination system and the non resolution of the conflict.  It was the domination and forceful overwhelming of my interests by another. It was the complete refusal to acknowledge mutual interdependence with one another, which allows a conflict to become intractable.  Racism contained within the history of the United States is an intractable conflict, because of how long it has dominated the landscape without acknowledging it significance upon the formation of life.  The kingdom of God is formative for life, so will the conflict associated with racism be done away or is it now, "Open for discussion?"  Is this an interesting premise?

One could also say that if God re-creates the earth, then conflict would not be needed, since we would all "think the same", that is like Christ.  What I think could be driving this premise is the fact that we do not love ourselves for who we are and our humanity.  I know that sounds harsh, but if we broke it down, do we simply want to be done away with our bodies?  Galatians 3:28, although used as a text to promote this type of thinking (of doing away with difference), actually affirms that the goodness of who we were created to is one in Christ, but not done away with in Christ.  What is wrong with me being an Italian/Portuguese man?  Once again, I love my humanity for the sake that God created my humanity. 

Do we want to exist in an ethereal world, where we do not feel anything any longer, do not exist any longer as the people to whom God created us to be, and we no longer have to think about and accept each others' differences.  We think that these exact differences are what cause the conflicts and we want to be done away with them.  I do believe that our processing through the schemas in our brains though will change.  Miroslav Volf, Professor of Systematic Theology at Yale has written a book entitled, "The End of Memory", which explores how our the memory of violence done against us must end for true reconciliation to happen, but I believe our memories will not end, but change.  The change will be contained in how we process our differences. Our brains process as associated memories and part of the wiping away of our tears, implies a change in our memory.  Our memories currently dictate how we relate to others and how we perceive ourselves, but in the 'new age', no longer will the memory from our pain dictate how we function, but our conflict's will be handled through mutual embrace of one another. Your difference is unique, beautiful, and completely acceptable and does not threaten my difference.  We can work together in a mutual interdependence doing what, I have no idea. 

Once again, is it the conflict or the violence and our misperception of conflict itself?  

Remember that Jesus conflicted with the disciples even up to the last possible moment on earth.