Often, the Book of Revelation is presented as being about these weird visions of violence and vengeance–where God models retaliation and hatred for enemies.
My article, How does Revelation speak today? (published in The Mennonite, September 2, 2008), presents the book of Revelation as being a “revelation” of Jesus’ persevering love as the model for Christians–in contrast to views of Revelation that see it being about vengeance and violence.
In Revelation six, we get the first of several extended visions in the book that portray a series of plagues that wreak death and destruction on earth. Then, in Revelation seven we get another vision of the people of God (from all tribes and nations) worshiping God and the Lamb–these are the ones who trust in God instead of the Beast. I believe that these two visions portray important elements in life in the past and present, not only life in the future. John the Seer means for us to recognize that we must choose which vision more accurately presents the deepest reality. Should we worship (that is, live our lives in trust in the Lamb’s way of peace) or should we join with the forces of violence since they determine reality? In my sermon, “Trusting God in the Real World,” I juxtapose the two visions and argue that the vision of celebration should determine how we understand the world–and inspire us to practice justice- and peace-making in service to the victorious Lamb.
The seventh chapter of my running, preliminary commentary on the book of Romans is here
I believe that we should understand the Apostle Paul to be presenting a radical message that combines pacifism with resistance to the Roman Empire. What follows is a paper presented August 13, 2008, at a conference, “On Being a Peace Church in a Constantinian World” at Messiah College. This paper utilizes the thought of John Howard Yoder to make a case for this kind of reading of Paul.
Against Empire: A Yoderian Reading of Romans—8/13/08—Ted Grimsrud
John Howard Yoder, the Mennonite theologian and advocate for Christian pacifism, as much as anybody in the last half of the 20th century, popularized the critique of Constantinianism, which he understood as a Christian problem. For Yoder, “Constantinianism” refers to a way of looking at social life. Constantinians believe that the exercise of power is necessarily violent, that God’s will is funneled through the actions of the heads of state, that Christians should work within the structures of their legitimately violent nation-states and take up arms when called upon to do so, and that history is best read through the eyes of people in power.
Most people who have read the Gospels agree that Jesus stands in tension with Constantinianism. I remember in grad school, my teacher Robert Bellah stating that John Yoder had convinced him that Jesus indeed was a pacifist. However, once Christians began to take responsibility for society in the fourth century (and it was a good thing that they did, according to Bellah), they simply had to look elsewhere than to Jesus for their ethical guidance.
For most Christians in the past 2,000 years, the Apostle Paul has been a key bridge who prepared the way for the Constantinian shift in the 4th century. Thus, it is no accident that after Constantine, Paul’s writings become central for Christian theology (much more so than the Gospels). For Yoder, though, it is misreading Paul to see him presenting something other than a reinforcing of Jesus’ message.
My interest today is to look at Yoder’s non-Constantinian reading of Paul. I will suggest that indeed Paul’s theology provides us powerful resources that might help us walk faithfully with Jesus today as peace churches in a world still all too Constantinian. Yoder devotes his book The Politics of Jesus to explaining what Jesus’ life and teaching have to say to Empire. He outlines a way of reading the entire Bible in light of Jesus, including paying close attention to the writings of Paul, seeing Paul’s thought as resting in full continuity with Jesus.
Continue reading
The story of the death of Jesus continues to be central for Christian theology and spirituality–for better and for worse. One aspect of the story that is not often discussed, though, is how Jesus approach to his death serves as a model for the lives of those who would walk with him. That is, even in his death, Jesus affirmed and modeled life.
My article, “The way Jesus died is an example of the way Jesus lived,” published in Gospel Herald, April 4, 1995, reflects on this theme.
Biblical eschatology, I propose, is best understood if the think of “end” (eschatos) more in terms of purpose in the here and now and less in terms of the future outcome of history. If we do think of eschatology in this way, we will be more likely to find present-day peaceable ethical significance of biblical teaching than if we think this world is inevitably heading for destruction.
I argue for this view of eschatology in my article, “The end of the world: why we are here,” first published in The Mennonite, August 6, 2002.
Many people, we could call them the “cultured despisers,” reject the Old Testament as a “bloody book.” Many others, probably more, affirm the Old Testament as a “bloody book” and all too often use that “bloodiness” as a justification for their own.
This article, “Mercy not retribution,” argues for a reading of the Old Testament that recognizes the centrality of God’s mercy in the story–and sees that mercy as the biblical basis for Jesus’ own peaceable message.
It was originally published in The Mennonite, September 6, 2005.
The book of Revelation, though having the reputation of being a book of violence, actually is more accurately read as a book supporting nonviolent resistance to empires and their servants.
This article, “How should 20th-century Christians read the book of Revelation?”, was originally published in Gospel Herald, January 21, 1992, shortly after the 1991 U.S. war on Iraq.
The Sunday after September 11, 2001, I was asked to preach a sermon in response to the events of that tragic day. Here is an article based on that sermon, called “Grief and critique,” that was published in The Mennonite, October 2, 2001.
The sixth chapter of my running, preliminary commentary on the book of Romans is here.
These are some of the key points I discuss in the commentary,
1. Paul makes clear that his point about “grace abounding all the more” due to the “increase” of sin when “law came in” (5:20-21) has an ethical agenda at its heart. His thought is not that the abundance of God’s grace has to do with “going to heaven after we die,” but that it has to do with the empowerment of believers to live faithful lives in the present.
2. Paul sees a direct link between, on the one hand, Jesus’ own faithful life leading to the cross leading to vindication through resurrection and, on the other hand, the fate of those who seek to walk with Jesus. Paul’s central concern in these verses is to exhort his readers to share in Jesus’ way of life – the only authentic outcome for those who indeed do trust in God’s mercy.
3. The way to life is to give up trusting in idols. Easier said than done! This is why Paul places such an emphasis on the epoch transforming effect of God raising Jesus from the dead – and the believers’ identification with this work of God. We can be freed when we trust in God’s power of love.
4. Because Jesus himself was raised from the dead, his way of living free from the Powers, free from idolatry, free from the dominance of sin becomes the norm for all who would worship the true God. And Jesus’ way of living also is revealed as possible. Hence, Paul can exhort his readers to “not let sin exercise dominion in your mortal bodies” (6:12).
5. When we respond to God’s mercy with faithfulness, “sin will have no dominion” over us (6:14). When we respond thus, we are “under grace” not “under law” – just like Abraham. Paul’s point here is not a chronological one, that in Old Testament times God wanted people to be “under law” and now, with the advent of Christianity, God wants people to be “under grace.” Romans four has made it clear (as do Jesus and the prophets) that God has always wanted people to be “under grace.”
6. Paul argues that we all are “slaves” to something – either to sin or to obedience. One kind of slavery fosters a narrowing down where we become like the lifeless things we are giving our allegiance to. The other kind of slavery is actually freedom.
7. Being in bondage to the Powers keeps one from living according to justice. The way to true life involves a complete upturning of the dynamics of slavery/freedom Paul has identified as leading to death. The person moving toward “sanctification” is a person who as a “slave of God” becomes “free in regard to sin” (6:22).
8. Paul seeks to challenge the imaginations of his readers. What seems in the present and to superficial sight (dimmed by the dynamics of idolatry, Romans one) as attractive about enslavement to the Powers and unattractive about enslavement to God is a false impression. Genuine life results only from freedom from idolatry and trust in the only true God, the God of Jesus Christ.
Peace Theology 