A Little Zionism for the FacePalm

I hear so much pro-Israel talk, though it has abated somewhat lately.  The very missions minded folks tend to be more in this genre, connecting it with mission theology.  However, they take it too far.  What was meant to be a prophecy to be fulfilled in Jesus Christ is now used to defend the actions of the State of Israel, most certainly a brutal secular nation.

24 And all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and those who came after him, also proclaimed these days. 25 You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed.’ 26 God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness.”

 It is clear that Peter is speaking of the fact that through the line of Abraham the whole earth would be blessed and the specific channel for that blessing was through Christ.  The blessing was not from Israel, but as you can see, came out of Israel and then was turned around to try to bless them first.  As history will show, most of the very early Christians were Jews, but as the Jews did with the prophets, and with every other blessing God had provided them, they turned it away, persecuting the messengers God had sent until they killed God himself.  40 years later, the very symbol of their religion, the temple was leveled, and the people dispersed into the world where they have been often persecuted since then.  Is persecution of the Jews okay, absolutely not, I'm just saying what happened.  Through the lense of scripture, and with a proper understanding of history, it is clear what the Abrahamic blessing meant. 

But clarity has never prevented all misunderstanding.
WiredForStereo

Movie Review: Gran Torino

If you see one R rated movie in your lifetime, see The Passion of the Christ. If you see another one, see Gran Torino. In my point of view, this is likely one of the greatest movies of all time. It so much captures my worldview regarding violence, even though it is shown through a quite imperfect man.

Spoilers ahead, I'm spillin' the beans.

The story is about Walt, a very old very grumpy Korea veteran who lives in a neighborhood in Detroit now largely populated by Hmong. He shows a boy what manhood is like, and sacrifices himself for the boy and his sister and the whole neighborhood.

I've been watching some Clint Eastwood movies lately, and I couldn't help but notice that this one follows a kind of form that some of them follow. First you have an unlikely hero or antihero who wittingly or unwittingly helps some people, there is little real action for much of the movie, but some openers to get the story going. One of the people being helped is in some way brutalized by the bad guys which leads up to the climax. And then there is the final shootout followed by the denouement. It reminded me a bit of Pale Rider or Unforgiven except for the way the shootout goes.

This movie speaks to me in the way that it portrays the occurrence of redemptive violence. So many movies are based on revenge, kill the bad guy, get the girl, you win. But life, especially if you are a true believer in Christ does not work that way. This movie demonstrates that violence doesn't solve much, in fact, the only time Walt retaliates, it results in the rape and beating of Sue, the girl who introduces him to her Hmong family. So instead of mounting some sort of war against the Asian gangbangers, he instead implicates them all in his own murder by allowing himself to be gunned down as the only way of ridding the neighborhood of an inescapable negative influence. He says the only way Thao and Sue will ever make it is if the gangbangers are gone for good. As he demonstrates, the only way to successfully achieve that was to sacrifice himself. Really what it promotes is active non-violence, which is where I'm at.

One thing truly demonstrated in this movie is love. At the beginning of the movie, Walt is the grumpiest old man you can imagine, but when he, in a probably selfish move, saves Thao, the neighborhood lavishes love on him until he just can't resist it any more. This leads him to take Thao under his wing and ultimately leads him to sacrifice himself for the neighborhood. No, it's not as pure as Jesus, but it's almost as good as a human can pull off.

You might not expect it, but this movie is funny. In fact, I remember wishing that what they call comedies nowadays were this funny. Walt is hilarious. He spews racial epithets with impunity, he really doesn't care what anyone thinks. He calls the Hmong gooks to their faces, but they don't care, they welcome him anyway. I wish we as a country could let go of race and treat it as a source of humor not hate like Walt does with his barber and construction worker friend. "How ya doin' ya slimy mick bastard?" He didn't actually say that I don't think, but it was something like that. I'm a honky, he's a cracker, he's a wop, she's a beaner. So what. Race is a thing we have to deal with, and it won't be dealt with by ignoring it. Problems never go away that way.

All in all, this is one of the most impactful movies I have ever seen because if it's negative portrayal of redemptive violence. Even in the small cruddy theater I saw it in, there was substantial applause when the film ended. The only complaint I had was the acting was a little thin from some of the Hmong leads, but that was because only one of them had ever acted before. And I guess you could say with all the frowning and stern looks Eastwood gives in all his movies, the look has almost stuck. It's kind of hard to make him look any more pissed than usual, but the general nastiness and pissed offedness of the character does a pretty good job.

Entertainment wise, The Dark Knight was the best movie last year, but with how I perceive the message that I'd like to present, I put Gran Torino in first place. I hope one day Israel figures out that violence doesn't work. I give this movie 9/10 and it would have been 10 save for the acting. This will be a movie that I get on Blu-Ray or whatever technology is in, and it will be a movie my children will watch with me. Yes the swearing is excessive, but that's reality for you and it is easily forgettable. Watch it. I think it would be a fitting end if ol' Clint quit making movies.

WiredForStereo

Zionism and The Way

Strap yourselves in, here goes another “ism.”

Around the world, the American church, and indeed America is seen as very pro Israel. This is called Zionism, and there is a primary verse Zionists use to defend their position. Genesis 12:3 “I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse;” To take advantage of this verse, you must interpret in a certain way. That way is to say that when God said “you” he really meant “them.” If you’ve read anything I have written on eschatology, this is something I bring up all the time. If the verse says something, and we have no reason to think it is using some sort of metaphorical or prophetical language, then there’s no reason why it cannot be taken literally. That’s the literal interpretation of the Bible that everyone loves so much. However, as with many hard and fast rules in theology, it seems it can be broken whenever the need suits. That’s how we got dispensationalism, and that’s why I don’t like “isms.” Truth is often trampled to support a position.

This verse is simple and straightforward. Throughout the whole thing, the whole promise, God is speaking directly to Abraham, person to person, “Man to man.” Speaking directly to Abraham, God says, “I will do this stuff to you and for you” there are no promises to the rest of anybody other than there will be a lot of them.

We must not forget the rest of this often used verse. “and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." Don’t you see it? If you say that God is telling Abraham that he will bless those who bless the Jews, then you are contradicting the second half of the verse, because God says that all will be blessed through Abraham. That’s the Christian part of the promise, because certainly not every nation was blessed through the nation of Israel, other than through Christ.

Even if we take this verse to mean what most take it to mean, we still have one more snag. In Romans, Paul makes it abundantly clear that foremost, there is no difference between Jew and Gentile, and secondly, Christians are co-inheritors of the same blessings, a recapitulation of the promises made to Abraham. Therefore, instead of being pro Israel, you should be pro-Christian. Israel was judged by Jesus when he returned to heaven and was seated at the right hand of God. Their nation was dismantled, people evicted, their temple destroyed, their land taken, and their national promises delivered to individual hearts. God judged the nation of Israel, and found that they had been in direct opposition to his plan. And the results are undeniable. Not 40 years after Jesus ascended into heaven, Israel was no more. And in my view, YHWH’s Israel still doesn’t exist, and never will.

So some read this and say “So you are anti-Israel?” Absolutely not, just as I am not anti any other country. That’s just another “ism.” How can I be against a country without being against every individual person therein. What if all the people in there are Jews or Black or Chinese, that would make me a racist. No, I am a full believer in what Paul said and what Jesus lived, in Christ, there are no Jews or Greeks, slaves or free persons, men or women. Again with the literal interpretation of the Bible, it says what it means. God sees no race, no sex, no age, only the heart, the thing that is on the inside. God does not bless the outside, but what is done on the outside.

It seems to me that Americans want to find every reason to defend their prosperity. So we cook up reasons, “God is blessing me because I give money to the church, God is blessing me because our country is good to Israel, God is blessing me because I am white, God is blessing me because my kids are home schooled, God is blessing me because I am a Republican, God blesses our country because it was founded by Christians.”

Those who say America is blessed are looking through colored glasses. America has done more evil in the world in the last hundred years than is even fathomable. Why won’t people understand that the United States of America is just another country who goes to war and strong-arms weaker countries to protect its interests and the interests of its wealthy. If you think America is blessed, then you were not in Iran when the US overthrew a democratically elected prime minister and started this forest fire we now call “The War on Terror.” If you think America is blessed, then you were not in Hawaii when a peaceful queen was ejected from her throne by businessmen willing to do anything to keep their fruit profits. If you still think America is blessed, than you weren’t in Israel when Western empowered Jews forcibly and violently evicted countless thousands of Palestinians from their homeland of a thousand years. The United States of America is not blessed, it is powerful. Possession of blessing and possession of power are not the same things, though if you are deluded just enough, you might think you have one when you really have the other.

I know the kind of crap I’m gonna get for this, so let's have it.

WiredForStereo

Revenge Doesn't Work

There is a commercial for Glenn Beck's radio show on the local radio station, KFAY AM 1030, where he says that if there is any attack made on United States citizens or leaders, that a retaliatory attack or invasion should be made.

I would submit that this is not a Biblical assertion. Though such actions are consistent with certain forms of Mormon world views, and Mormon history and Joseph Smith writings will show that, but it is certainly not Biblical.

Now forget what I just said about Glenn. He is of no import in this conversation, but I paraphrase him only to expose the point. I believe this is an impressive flaw in conservatism, the tendency to military action. I speak especially of retaliatory military action, but also preemptive action as well.

Now I must qualify my statements by exposing my belief that Christianity is not meant to be a warlike religion, we can leave that to Islam. That is to say, nowhere in the writings about Jesus' life or indeed the rest of the New Testament, is there anything about war or starting a war, or a military action, or nation building, or any kind of offensive violent action whatsoever. In fact, Jesus told Peter that those who live by the sword die by the sword. But we must remember that Jesus also said that the company of the disciples, having two swords among them, was sufficiently armed.

I'll put it succinctly in the words of Rob Bell. "Revenge doesn't work."

Put in the context of scripture, 'Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord."' Romans 12:19 ESV. Paul continues: 'To the contrary, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.' As a nation who many call Christian, are we doing this? Certainly not under the official policy of a President who claims to be a born again Christian. We all remember the scene of the aftermath of 9/11 when the President stood at the site and said that we would find whoever did it.

The Bible speaks against vengeance and revenge and extols the virtue and basic psychological necessity of forgiveness, but what does it speak of self defense? As I mentioned before, in Luke 22, Jesus was satisfied that the disciples had two swords, yet a few verses later, Jesus chastises Peter for using one of those swords. I would submit that this was because Jesus' arrest was something that was supposed to happen, and Peter was acting on his human nature not on the prompting of the Spirit. For a little more insight, let's look into the Old Testament. Exodus 22:2-3. "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed. A thief must certainly make restitution, but if he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his theft.” What does this say? If some schmendrick breaks into your house at night, and you kill him, accidentally, you are innocent, but it seems to me that if it is daylight, you are expected not to kill him. Just whoop on him for a while I guess. So if we want to put up a missile defense shield, that's fine, but we really need to fix the base problem, and that is responding to aggression with aggression.

So what do we do when a foreign government or terrorist group attacks us? According to the Bible, we should feed them, perhaps set up some hospitals and schools. What kind of power for good could our country be? I don't know about you, but if some wealthy person had paid for my education, schooling, and food throughout my formative years, when I became an adult and set out on my own, I doubt I'd try to usurp that person. It's just hard to kick against that kind of good. But if I perceived that all my life, a wealthy person had done me and my family harm, while providing nothing for my wellbeing, I might grow up and wish to do harm to that person.

We've heard so many stories of forgiveness and charity in the most trying of circumstances, and those stories had wonderful happy endings, but how many happy stories have resulted from someone taking revenge, someone killing their rapist, or killing the man who killed their relative? What kind of peace and healing can come from that? That's the kind of thing that works in the movies, not in real life.

We are so surprised that Muslim extremists want to kill us all. Why is that? Our lack of knowledge of history feeds this monster. In the 40's, world governments installed Israel on top of a Palestinian society of Muslims, Jews, and Christians that had existed for a thousand years or more. In the 50's, the CIA deposed a democratically elected Prime Minister in Iran simply to regain control of oil supplies. This led to the Islamic Revolution in Iran in the late 70's and the extremist governments therein and neighboring that have given us such problems since then. It took many decades to create this problem, it will take only a few to fix it if we are dedicated to fixing it. Unfortunately, the status quo seems to be the only thing that holds firm. Violence begets violence. It will only get worse.

Fight the Power,
WiredForStereo