Warning: Major spoilers. Do not read if you have any desire to ever watch the show.
After viewing the show I had been waiting for ever since theories began circulating about a remake of the classic Prisoner series, I scoured the web to gauge what sorts of impressions, thoughts, and perspectives it was creating among the viewing audience. Was this show communicating and interacting with others in much the same way it did with me? Apparently not. Like many others with an interest in the show, I am a die-hard fan of the original. However, I seem to have parted ways with most of its critical viewing audience. I find myself in a familiar situation where the one show I thought was so brilliant and incredible is the one show that gets panned, dismissed, or glossed over. For instance, it seems to me that The Matrix: Reloaded is ostensibly superior to either of the other films in the trilogy, followed by Revolutions. And I think the reason is the same as it was for Reloaded: people don’t understand or just don’t get it. In The Prisoner (2009), what people expected or wanted isn’t want they got. But that is very, very good indeed. This post will focus on just one aspect that has really delivered something that blows (or should have blown) the mind: subversion of American (U.S.) political and economic perspective.
Brian Wilson was a genius. He wanted to create the definitive American music. In the process, he became a prisoner of his own making. He went insane. But after confronting himself and destroying the Village, he escaped and found his way back to the real world where he was finally able to complete his creation. He called it Smile. And it was good. So what was the definitive AMERICAN music doing playing throughout many pivotal parts of the remake of a BRITISH television series (anyone notice the cover of a Pet Sounds vinyl in Michael’s apartment)? And why place the conscious reality in the heart of NEW YORK instead of LONDON? Perhaps you caught the subtle references to terrorism and suicide bombing, or maybe that symbol of American freedom, those twin towers, gleaming in their memorial to the happy
and content
life of its residents in the mental/subconscious realm whilst standing as bastions of protection
and healing
in the other? This is not the original Prisoner, no matter the atavisms. Though the theme is the same as it was before (tyranny), this show is making a political statement that speaks to us, now, in a way the original cannot. The original was making statements about Socialism, which was the major European threat of that era. Today, now, there is a new threat posed by the American front–Fascism–and the remake has engaged it with every bit of vigor as the original did its own. It seems people were expecting another kind of McGoohan to come along and Caviezel was certainly not that. But the kind of answer presented this time is not the same as the original. This is an American answer, spurred on by an American dilemma. A McGoohan would not have fit the coat, badge, and shoes.
In the first series, evil was wrought and sustained by subordinating personal freedom and liberty to the interests, decisions, and control of the state. In the end, Six’s resistance and will found its completion, and the answer to the tyrant and its evil, in the destruction of the absolute power and influence of the state and by restoring autonomy to all. In the second series, evil is wrought and sustained by subordinating personal freedom and liberty to the interests, decisions, and control of an autocratic corporation. In this case, the answer is the nobility
and high moral
vision of the one who controls, coerces, and subjugates the citizens through the power of the corporation. In the end, Six does not destroy the tyrant, but steps into its shoes to remake society, regardless of its will, without its choice or consent, and no matter the cost, according to his own high moral
and noble
vision. He has not, like McGoohan, destroyed the number. Has has merely replaced the old number with a different sort of number. In the first Prisoner, Six’s resignation was detrimental to the tyrant because it meant he was refusing to allow the state to make his decisions for him. In the second, Six’s resignation was detrimental to the tyrant because it meant he was refusing to allow a corporation to have autocratic power to decide and do for people what it believes is best for them. But this very different Six is able to become the head of the corporation (thus reversing his opposition and annulling his resignation) because he believes that right makes might—and he believes he is right. Like his former ambulatory companion, we can only shed a tear at the horror of what Six is about to become because we—not just Americans but even those outside America—are seeing and experiencing it vividly. We have watched as the rights, liberties, prosperity, and security of the people becomes destroyed by our government1 and by the whim of rich and powerful corporate gods like Wall Street and the Federal Reserve2. America is in pain and that pain will continue for a long, long time to come, destroying both people within and without the country as well as the companies that feed off them, until we reject Fascism and throw down the new #2, the creation of BOTH Republican and Democratic parties.
Rethink Afghanistan: Christianity and the Global War on Terror
featuring Jake Diliberto and Glen Stassen
Thursday, Oct 22, 7:00-9:00 PM, Fuller Theological Seminary, Travis Auditorium
In light of the recent escalation of the US presence in Afghanistan, and the 8th year anniversary of the invasion of Afghanistan, the conversation has often evaded Christians. What are we supposed to think about the global war in light of our faith?
Jake is a Fuller student, and a decorated marine veteran of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Africa. His is a unique story of transformation from a maker of violence to a just-peace peacemaker. He now questions US military policy and the US presence in the Middle East. Jake has testified before congress, and is the founder of Veterans for Rethink Afghanistan,
an organization which has mobilized 20 million peace
activists. Come to hear his story, and why we need to rethink Afghanistan.
Peace and Justice Advocates will show a portion of the poignant documentary created by Rethink Afghanistan. Fuller’s Christian Ethics Professor Dr. Glen Stassen will offer a theological and ethical reflection on the situation.
It is always exciting to stand among a group of Christians who are seriously seeking a way to achieve a good end through nonviolent means instead of supporting violence as a means to that end or even simply accepting it as a necessary evil. More often than not, I stand alone. Even Anabaptists and Mennonites like myself (we who are the historical Peace Church of Protestantism) are divided on the issue. There are large numbers of Anabaptists who have chosen to follow Luther’s two kingdom
dichotomy in which YHWH has willed two different kingdoms to exist side-by-side (the church and the world), providentially ordaining that one should operate one way (do no violence or evil = the church) and one the other (do violence and what would be considered evil of a Christian in order to maintain justice and peace = the world).
On the other hand, even among a group of Christians seeking an end to war and violence like the one meeting this Thursday in Pasadena, there will be some who are there for reasons that I do not share, like, for instance, because they are leftist, liberal Democrats who are pushing their political party’s propaganda and/or agenda, or because they have false notions of social, religious, and political realities, or even, perhaps, because they are stirred more by emotions, guilt, and even false guilt, than they are by reason. Last time I attended one of these meetings, it seemed to me that frightening statistics concerning the escalation in major international terrorist attacks were being fallaciously shoehorned into a polemic against the U.S.’s support and use of torture instead of acknowledging the many other things that have contributed significantly to the dumbfounding rise in terrorist violence that we have seen in the West over the past decade. Hopefully, those attending the meeting this time around will be more willing to struggle with the truths of the matter and not what those in the group wish those truths would be.
The separation of personal from social salvation made it possible for Bible-believing slave traders to conduct daily devotions on ships carrying human cargo like cattle.
Dale Brown, Biblical Pacifism: A Peace Church Perspective, p. 141
As a Mennonite, I really resonate with the message of this quote. It reminds me that the gospel message can be narrowed down into something that is only inner, personal, and individual, at which point it tends to focus on a kind of salvation from or out of the world, forgetting that the gospel is also about salvation within or for the world. We reclaim this aspect of the gospel when we remember that Yeshua’s salvation was social just as much as it was personal. That he didn’t come only to save us from our sins, from our guilt, or from the influence of sin in our lives, but to free those who were captives to physical and social ills or evils, to bring healing and restoration to heart, mind, and body, and to challenge and overthrow authorities, powers, and structures through self-sacrifice, peace, love, mercy, and by returning evil with good. The Christ who died on a cross for our sins is the same Christ who said the greatest among us will be the servant of all, who told us to give what we had to the poor, who said whatever we did (or by contrast did not do) to the very least of those among us is what we did (or did not do) to him, who reached out to bring healing, restoration, and redemption to those on the boundaries of or even outside the accepted order: women, children, immigrants, untouchables, national and ethnic enemies. YHWH is at work reconciling not just ourselves, but all creation, to himself through Yeshua.
And it was ordained that a man should salute his fellow with [the use of] the Name [of God]; for it is written, And, Behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem, and said unto the reapers, The Lord be with you.
And they answered him, The Lord bless thee.
(Ruth 2:4) And it is written, The Lord is with thee, thou mighty man of valour.
(Judges 6:12)
m. Berakoth 9:5, scripture references added
Later Jewish tradition holds that the name of YHWH is ineffable and therefore offers various other substitutes in its place such as Adonai (meaning My Lord
) or Ha Shem (literally meaning The Name
). In fact, the very texts that underly the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament do not give us the correct pronunciation, substituting instead the vowels for words like Adonai or Elohim (which can make things complicated and difficult for translations that refuse to use the Tetragrammaton). All this, however, is a very late concept and practice in ancient Israel. Throughout most of their history, Israelites were quite open and willing to speak the actual name of YHWH as this quote from the Mishnah attests. In fact, when we read the actual Hebrew texts, we see that the name itself was spoken quite frequently. The psalms themselves, which were used liturgically by the priests and people in the Temple and synagogues, made use of the name extensively. What the actual pronunciation of the name is, however, may be lost to us. A general consensus of scholarship makes the name to be pronounced Yahweh.
However, this is mere conjecture based primarily on an assumption of the linguistic root of the name and its supposed form for which we have no evidence.
And it is written, It is time to work for the Lord: they have made void thy Law (Psa 119:126). R. Nathan says: They have made void thy Law because it was a time to work for the Lord.
m. Berakoth 9:5, scripture references added
This is a fun quote because it puts things into better perspective. Some people can focus almost entirely on the problem of breaking Torah or can make the avoidance of breaking Torah a primary concern. But this was only one concern of ancient Israelites. Sometimes, it was necessary to break Torah in order to do what YHWH wanted or required! For instance, an incredible event occurs in the Chronicler’s history of Israel in which the people return to YHWH with their whole hearts after having turned away for so long. They threw down the altars, cleansed their city of idolatry and evil, then determined to re-instigate the ceremony of Passover, which had not been kept in a long time. Unfortunately, they are unable to keep it on the day (or its alternate) commanded by Torah. Additionally, they are forced to break other portions of Torah related to cleanliness and purification. Great multitudes, including four of the twelve tribes, take the Passover defiled in disobedience to the direct commandments of YHWH. Despite doing the rituals defiled and unclean and on a day forbidden to its practice, YHWH forgave Israel, returned to her, and blessed her. Instead of celebrating for one week, the people extended Passover to two weeks and it became one of the most celebrated Passovers in Israel’s history. (See 2 Chronicles 30:17-20, 23, 26-27)
The tension between keeping Torah because that’s what YHWH wanted or required and breaking Torah in order to meed the wants or requirements of YHWH is something the Jews struggled with throughout their history. To give a realistic example of this tension: what do you do if you have been commanded by YHWH to keep the Sabbath by doing no work, it is the Sabbath, you are worshiping in the Temple, and hordes of gentiles come swarming down over Jerusalem ready to slaughter everyone? If you fight, then you break the Sabbath that YHWH commanded you to keep. If you don’t fight, then you are slaughtered, the holy Temple that YHWH commanded to keep clean and holy is defiled and becomes an abomination, and the daily sacrifices that were commanded by YHWH to be kept by you are no longer offered. It’s not an easy question to answer. Various Israelites themselves came up with different answers throughout their history.
The answer Yeshua gave is that the Sabbath was made for humanity–humanity wasn’t made for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27), meaning the Sabbath is supposed to serve humanity, not the other way around. If the Sabbath ceases to serve humanity, then there is nothing wrong with breaking it. Indeed, it is better to break it! It might even be a sin to NOT break Sabbath! If Sabbath cease to serve humanity, to then turn around and serve the Sabbath would be to make it into an idol. So it is with the rest of Torah. Torah is not absolute and universal. It is not meant to be kept regardless of anything. On the contrary, it was Israel’s relationship with YHWH that made Torah significant. Destroy or change that relationship and Torah ceases to be much of anything.
The Mishnaic Musings are a periodic series of posts where I reflect on one thing or another in the compendium of the Oral Law (the Mishnah) as I read through it for the first time. Quoted portions are taken from Hebert Danby’s eminent single-volume edition, The Mishnah, published by Oxford University Press.
He [a man] may not enter into the Temple Mount with his staff or his sandal or his wallet, or with the dust upon his feet, nor may he make of it a short by-path; still less may he spit there.
m. Berakoth 9:5
Those familiar with the gospel texts of the New Testament should have heard an echo of one of Yeshua’s statements to his disciples in this quote. I have explored the parallels between Yeshua’s statement and the old Temple Mount traditions in a series of posts entitled Shake The Dust Off Your Feet Part I, Part II, and Part III.
At the close of every Benediction in the Temple they used to say, For everlasting
; but after the heretics [Sadducees] had taught corruptly and said that there is but one world, it was ordained that they should say, From everlasting to everlasting.
m. Berakoth 9:5
We are, of course, getting this information from a source with its own biases, agendas, and perspectives. It may be the case that certain groups or sects wanted to change the closing of the Benediction to from everlasting to everlasting
and even taught those who followed their particular traditions to do so, but this doesn’t mean it was actually done that way officially in the Temple. It may have been the case that whoever closed the Benediction did so according to their particular tradition. But it is certainly interesting to discover where this particular saying had its impetus.
The Mishnaic Musings are a periodic series of posts where I reflect on one thing or another in the compendium of the Oral Law (the Mishnah) as I read through it for the first time. Quoted portions are taken from Hebert Danby’s eminent single-volume edition, The Mishnah, published by Oxford University Press.
Man is bound to bless [God] for the evil even as he blesses [God] for the good, for it is written, And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy might (Deut 6:5). With all thy heart—with both thine impulses, thy good impulse and thine evil impulse; and with all thy soul—even if he take away thy soul; and with all thy might—with all thy wealth.
m. Berakoth 9:5
The first part reminds me of Job’s response to his wife:
Shall we receive the good at the hand of God, and not receive the bad?
Job 2:10b, NRSV
This is a question that demands an answer. And here is mine. If God is a good and just God according to any definition of good and just that we could comprehend and count on, then yes. If, however, God is capricious, if his goodness is beyond our comprehension or his justice cannot be counted on or measured by any human definition, then no. In drawing this conclusion, I stand in direct conflict with the message of the scroll of Job, which outlines the second situation and replies to the question in the affirmative. For more on this, see Rejecting Job Part 1 and Part 2.
The second part of the quote represents a classic interpretation that would surface again and again in Jewish understanding for many centuries to come. It was made particularly famous by the school of Rabbi Akiva, whose unique understandings would eventually come to dominate Jewish perspective. Akiva stressed suffering and evils against God’s people as something that was part of the plan of God. He actually rejoiced in receiving suffering and evil from the world. When asked why, he turned to this verse and this interpretation. The word translated soul
is more accurately translated life.
Akiva believed that loving the Lord your God with all your life had its ultimate fulfillment in a willingness to give one’s entire life up to destruction because of obedience to God. For Akiva, this present world was of little importance—he set his heart, eyes, and mind on the world to come—and so he was more than willing to have his soul
taken from this world so that he could fulfill this great commandment.
Anabaptists stand near to this tradition in their radical love ethic. Our understanding of Christianity is that of Nachfolge Christi–following after Christ
with one’s entire life, even to the point of death. And, indeed, because Anabaptists knew that the way of Christ was in drastic opposition to the way of the world, they knew their following of Christ would cause them to come into sharp conflict with the world, thus resulting in their suffering, persecution, and even death. Anabaptists, however, embraced this suffering, persecution, and death because it proved that they were following Christ—for Christ himself suffered, was persecuted, and received death at the hands of the world. This all stemmed from the radical Anabaptist belief that true Christianity was not merely an inward acceptance or experience of grace and faith as Luther believed it, but also an outward expression of a fully committed life in all its aspects to the way of Christ. Anabaptists looked for and demanded the fruits of the Spirit in outward living to such an extent and with such consistency that Lutherans, Catholics, and Calvinists began hunting down and persecuting non-Anabaptists as of they were Anabaptists simply because such believers’ outward lives were irreproachable!
I am being maligned, by both preachers and others, with the charge of being Anabaptist, even as all others who lead a true, pious Christian life are now almost everywhere given this name.
Caspar Schwenckfeld, Epistolar (1564), 1, 203, English translation by Harold Bender
There are those who in reality are not Anabaptists but have a pronounced averseness to the sensuality and frivolity of the world and therefore reprove sin and vice and are consequently called or misnamed Anabaptists by petulant persons.
Heinrich Bullinger (Reformation leader and fierce enemy of Anabaptism), Der Wiedertöufferen Ursprung (1561), fol. 170r., English translation by Harold Bender
But what made the love ethic of Anabaptism so radical was not just that it sought to extend love to God by obeying him with one’s entire life, both inward and outward, but also because it sought to extend love to all humanity–even one’s enemies. In a culture, world, and time in which the proper Christian response to one’s enemies was to either coerce them into Christian faith through force and violence or to slaughter them, Anabaptists were pledged to fulfill both great commandments (to love the Lord their God and to love their neighbor as themselves). In so doing, whether by living or dying, they were committed to loving the Lord their God with all their life.
The Mishnaic Musings are a periodic series of posts where I reflect on one thing or another in the compendium of the Oral Law (the Mishnah) as I read through it for the first time. Quoted portions are taken from Hebert Danby’s eminent single-volume edition, The Mishnah, published by Oxford University Press.
The shofar [blown in the Temple] at the New Year was [made from the horn] of the wild goat, straight, with its mouthpiece overlaid with gold. And at the sides [of them that blew the shofar] were two [that blew upon] trumpets. The shofar blew a long note and the trumpets a short note, since the duty of the day fell on the shofar.
m. Rosh Hashanah 3:3
This is peculiar because it suggests that the horn notes
on the first of Tishri were long.
Perhaps it only meant long relative to the sound of the trumpets, because the sort of sound decreed on that day in Leviticus and Numbers was a t’ruah. It was a short blast on the horn used as an alarm signal, not a long or prolonged sounding, which went by an entirely different name. The biblical texts refer to the New Year as the Day of T’ruah or a Rememberance by T’ruah (see Mishnaic Musings 7), which specifically means a day of short, alarm-like blasts. And it is fairly evident that what is in mind is not short trumpet blasts, but short ram’s horn blasts.
And it came to pass when Moses held up his hand that Israel prevailed, and when he let down his hand Amalek prevailed (Exod 17:11). But could the hands of Moses promote the battle or hinder the battle!–it is, rather, to teach thee that such time as the Israelites directed their thoughts on high and kept their hearts in subjection to their Father in heaven, they prevailed; otherwise they suffered defeat. After the like manner thou mayest say, Make thee a fiery serpent and set it upon a standard, and it shall come to pass that every one that is bitten when he seeth it shall live (Num 21:8). But could the serpent slay or the serpent keep alive!–it is, rather, to teach thee that such time as the Israelites directed their thoughts on high and kept their hearts in subjection to their Father in heaven, they were healed; otherwise they pined away.
m. Rosh Hashanah 3:8
I would be interested in studying these two events more closely to try and figure out what might actually be going on with the raising of Moses’ hands and the making of the serpent. The Rabbinic interpretation offered here in the Oral Law is pleasing from a theological perspective, but not entirely satisfactory. The quote itself would seem to suggest that there were those who actually believed something more was going on in terms of the serpent itself or the raising of Moses’ hands than merely a way for the people to turn their thoughts and hearts to heaven, which one would presume them to be doing anyway when they were in the midst of peril and had seen YHWH work wonders on their behalf already.
The Mishnaic Musings are a periodic series of posts where I reflect on one thing or another in the compendium of the Oral Law (the Mishnah) as I read through it for the first time. Quoted portions are taken from Hebert Danby’s eminent single-volume edition, The Mishnah, published by Oxford University Press.
Because of two New Moons may the Sabbath be profaned: [the New Moon] of Nissan and [the New Moon] of Tishri, for on them messengers used to go forth to Syria, and by them the set feasts were determined. And while the Temple still stood the Sabbath might also be profaned because of any of the New Moons, to determine aright the time of the offerings.
m. Rosh Hashanah 1:4
The New Moon of Tishri is, of course, what the Rabbis referred to as Rosh Hashanah, the head of the year,
or what the biblical texts refer to as Yom T’ruah, the day of horn blasts (Num 29:7-11), and Zikron T’ruah, a remembrance by horn blasts (Lev 23:24-25). By fixing that day, it also enabled the date of the Festivals of Purgation and Booths to be determined. The New Moon of Nissan was significant because it determined when the Festival of Unleavened Bread and Passover occurred. Because the Sabbath injunction was to not do any work, there were various rules about what constituted work. One of these rules fixed the amount of journeying or walking one could do before they violated the Sabbath. Unfortunately, that distance was often less than had to be done for witnesses to communicate to the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem that they had seen the New Moon. However, because there was a biblical command to proclaim the holy convocations in their appointed seasons, Jewish sages and authorities who supported the extra Sabbath regulation believed they had a loophole which allowed those who enabled them to keep this commandment to travel as far as possible to do so:
For it is written, These are the set feasts of the Lord, even holy convocations which ye shall proclaim in their appointed season (Lev 23:4).
m. Rosh Hashanah 1:9
The Mishnaic Musings are a periodic series of posts where I reflect on one thing or another in the compendium of the Oral Law (the Mishnah) as I read through it for the first time. Quoted portions are taken from Hebert Danby’s eminent single-volume edition, The Mishnah, published by Oxford University Press.
While visiting Seattle, I recently attended a service of Calvary Fellowship Mountlake Terrace. It is always enlightening to attend the services of other Christian traditions and denominations to see the particular ways that different bodies of Christ identify and define themselves in distinction with or against others, to get a taste of their unique methods and means of expression, and to learn a little about what and how they think in terms of their faith and the world.
I’ve been to a few Calvarys
now so I kinda knew what was coming. For instance, I expected a strong, if not pivotal and definitive, view of eschatological Futurism. Their desire to see people accept Yeshua as their personal Lord and Savior is invigorated by an anticipation of Christ’s (soon Second) coming, a sort of end or historical resolution that will bring about what their faith proclaims. For Anabaptists, there is a present eschatology that embraces sacrifice and suffering on the part of the church and working to restore creation now more than a future one looking for the coming time when evil will be destroyed, the church redeemed, and things set right. Early Anabaptists definitely had an end times perspective, but it was their own end that they anticipated. Every time they met together, it was a very real possibility that it would be their last time doing so. They accepted the way of the cross (persecution, suffering, and death) as part of the present kingdom of God. Instead of eagerly anticipating and preparing for a future time when the world would be changed, Anabaptists saw themselves as being that change in the present among themselves and those who followed them in the way of Christ.
When worship
time began, it appeared that there would be another loud Calvary rock fest, which destroyed any possibility of participation on my part. But then things suddenly changed. We sang old hymns to a single, simple, acoustic guitar. It was wonderful. Thank you, Calvary Fellowship, for your willingness to diversify for the sake of others among you.
After worship,
there was an extended period of prayer led by a senior pastor of the church. During this, the pastor gave a very short, general prayer that threw me as a Mennonite into sharp distinction from that Christian body. When prayer time was over, I could not say amen when it was asked of all the people.
I can’t remember the specific words of the prayer, but it went something to the effect of asking God to keep the troops safe from harm, which was perfectly acceptable, and then added that God should be with the troops or help them as they fought for the freedoms that we enjoy. I was shocked and stunned by this prayer. While it could have meant quite a number of things, one thing that was not ambiguous about it was the fact that this pastor and congregation in union with him had just prayed that God would bring violence against our perceived or unperceived enemies. As a Mennonite, I was unable to grasp how a Christian could pray any such a thing. I quote here a few short declarations from two other Peace traditions (Brethren and Quaker) that explain the grotesque and unholy contradiction I perceived.
Christ says, Love your enemies.
War says, Hate them.
Christ says, Do them good.
War says, Do them harm.
Christ says, Pray for them.
War says, Slay them.
Christ says, I come not to destroy men’s lives but to save them.
War says, I come to destroy men’s lives, and for this purpose I want the most effectual weapons that can be invented.
Paul says, If thine enemy hunger, feed him.
War says, Starve him.
Paul says, If he thirst, give him drink.
War says, Destroy his wells, cut off his supplies of every kind.
Paul says, We wrestle not against flesh and blood.
War says, We do wrestle against flesh and blood. Crown them to the wall, and into the last ditch; utterly destroy them if they don’t submit.
Christ and War by Daniel Vaniman, 1900, taken from Biblical Pacifism: A Peace Church Perspective by Dale Brown, p. 28
Whoever can reconcile this, Resist not evil,
with Resist evil by force
; again, Give also thy other cheek
with Spoil them, make a prey of them, pursue them with fire and sword
; or Pray for those that persecute you
with Persecute them with fines, imprisonment, and death itself
; whoever can find a means to reconcile these things may be supposed also to have found a way to reconcile God with the Devil, Christ with Anti-Christ, light with darkness, and good with evil.
Robert Barclay, 1676, taken from Biblical Pacifism: A Peace Church Perspective by Dale Brown, p. xi
What was even more inconceivable to me as the service went on was how another pastor explained a core tenet of the church to be to love the world.
I could not comprehend how loving the world meant asking God to shed its blood. This is no definition of love I ever heard, let alone any definition given by scripture. Apparently, loving the world only meant sharing the gospel message with them hoping they would choose to believe it was something true and valuable, not sharing with them the reality of what the gospel is. Calvary Fellowship was adamant in doing good for the poor in material wealth, like feeding the homeless, which was commendable, but when it came to the poor in spirit, like those who would plot evil against us or others, it seemed to feel the best thing to do was support violence and death against them! Is Satan in league with the church of God? As a Mennonite, I have to seriously question the words and intent of anyone who would say in one breath, let us do good and love the world which does not know God
and in the next, let us pray for violence and destruction to come upon those who have turned away from him.
If a man cries out [to God] over what is past, his prayer is vain. Thus if his wife was with child and he said, May it be thy will that my wife shall bear a male,
this prayer is vain. If he was returning from a journey and heard a sound of lamentation in the city and said, May it be thy will that they [which make lamentation] be not of my house,
this prayer is in vain.
m. Berakoth 9:3
This seems to suggest a closed relationship between cause and effect in certain ancient Jewish perspectives. Certainly it was believed God could interfere to bring change, but perhaps some believed any such interference would only take place within the relationship between cause and effect that already existed. Perhaps a pulling and tugging of the strings to bring about a new design without actually destroying one string or creating another. If true, God would be bound to work within and by the rules of his own creation and nothing new could be inserted from outside. It is certainly attractive in a number of ways. It means, for instance, that anything we could know about God would be entirely based on the world in which we exist. No leaps of imagination or non-rational, existentialist propositions required. And yet, if so, it could also have a serious disadvantage in that it might make it difficult for one to comprehend what in the natural order was moved or purposed by God from what in the natural order wasn’t, because in both cases, the evidence one was measuring might be exactly the same. A miracle would cease to be a miracle in any sense other than that its natural order was not discernible.
It reminds me of a question I asked a good friend not too long ago about whether he believed creation was a one-time event after which nothing new was interjected or whether God did or could create something new and creation could be more than a one-time event. He favored the one-time creation, and would therefore probably agree with this quote. What say you, Mit the Destroyer?
The Mishnaic Musings are a periodic series of posts where I reflect on one thing or another in the compendium of the Oral Law (the Mishnah) as I read through it for the first time. Quoted portions are taken from Hebert Danby’s eminent single-volume edition, The Mishnah, published by Oxford University Press.
