Daily Archives: June 2, 2009

The American Patriot’s Bible

Posted by on June 2, 2009 27 comments

Have you  seen this? Have you heard about this? Among crazy evangelical Bibles, this one definitely takes the prize for being the most utterly terrible. Thankfully, Greg Boyd has thoroughly spanked this idolatrous piece of trash in a recent two-part review. Here’s one snippet:

But the Revolutionary War is not by any means the only nationalistic violence celebrated in the Patriot’s Bible. To the contrary, the glory of nationalistic violence permeates this Bible. For example, every book of the Bible opens with a montage of national monuments, symbols, stars and stripes, etc… which include, with few exceptions, images of armed soldiers, bombers and battleships. Most stunningly, each Gospel opens with a scene that includes soldiers struggling to raise a flag under the words “In God We Trust.” All the subsequent books of the New Testament open with a montage that includes a flag waving behind the Statue of Liberty on one side and armed marching troops on the other. It’s quite breathtaking—and I don’t mean this in a good way.

patriots_bible.jpg

Similarly, a very high percentage of the commentaries sprinkled throughout this Bible exalt American wars and their heroes. To give but one example, a comment in 2 Samuel about how “the mighty have fallen in the midst of battle” (2 Sam. 1:25) elicits a half page commentary entitled “Duty-Honor-Country.” In it the commentators review a famous speech given by General Douglas MacArthur in which he claims that “[t]he solider, above all other men, is required to practice the greatest act of religious training – sacrifice.” In facing danger, MacArthur adds, the soldier “discloses those divine attributes which his Maker gave when He created man in His own image.”

The soldier on the field, prepared to die and kill for his country, apparently exemplifies the greatest act of religion and the best expression of what it is to be made in the image of God!

(I have to assume MacArthur and the commentators of the Patriot’s Bible only intend to refer to American soldiers, though it remains unclear how they could justify such a selective application of the imago dei). The commentary becomes even more amazing as it recounts MacArthur’s statement that “…the solider who is called upon to offer and to give his life for his country is the noblest development of mankind.” The contributors clearly agree with this theology, for they comment that, “as long as other Americans serve their country courageously and honorably, [MacAthur’s] words will live on” (p.341).

Without in any way detracting from the courage of soldiers who lay down their lives for their country, I find myself utterly confounded as to how Christian commentators can agree that a military combatant is “the noblest development of mankind.” Since Christ is the perfect illustration of what it means to be “in the image of God,” and since he is our Lord and the one we are called to imitate, shouldn’t he be the criteria for what constitutes “the noblest development of mankind?” Yet, he refused to buy into the Jewish nationalism of his day (despite the fact that Israel, unlike America, actually had been sanctioned by God in the Old Testament). And he laid down his life for his enemies rather than engage in violence against them (Mt 26:53) or allow his disciples to do so. (Jn 18:10-11, 36).

People who obey the New Testament and follow this example, I submit, should be viewed by Christians as most clearly reflecting the image of God and as constituting “the noblest development of mankind.”

Reactions

Posted by on June 2, 2009 39 comments

The whole George Tiller incident continues to dominate the newswires around the interwebs. Bobby likens the issue to the question of whether it was justifiable to assassinate Hitler, finding himself, admittedly in a quandary because there is an instinctive desire to support Hitler’s assassination in a way that doesn’t quite feel right for abortionists. Davey also responds, asking if there is not room, along with Barth for a “practical pacifist” position that, on the basis of Romans 13 defers the use of violence to the state in the righting of wrongs. There are several similar comments in my own thread as well.

These responses all seem to, in some way or other, come home to roost on the issue of the immorality of vengeance and the importance of legitimate authority (i.e. the state) in the dispensing of just violence. This seems to go wide of the target in this instance for two reasons.

First, I seriously doubt that Roeder was attempting to take vengeance on Tiller in any normal sense of the term. By all accounts Roeder was stridently pro-life, had protested regularly at Tiller’s clinic, and truly believed that what he was doing was saving innocent lives. In short, he was not acting out of a desire for revenge, but out of a desire to protect the innocent. And there’s a good case to be made that he did just that. Tiller is one of only three late-term abortion clinics in the country and he performed the latest term abortions in all of history. Killing him certainly did prevent some abortions from happening. If abortion is murder (and I think it generally is), Roeder saved innocent lives. Thus, if we affirm that lethal violence in defense of the innocent is morally justifiable, it would seem that we have to defend Roeder’s actions.

Second, and related to the first point, I see no reason to assume that, if lethal violence in defense of innocent life is moral, it should only be the state that carry out this violence. Again, if a guy was shooting up an office building, and someone stopped him by throwing him out a window, no one would say what he did was wrong because he wasn’t a police officer. Indeed, for the non-pacifist, it is morally incumbent on us to utilize violence to save innocent lives. To fail to do so would be a sin of omission. As such, I don’t think the appeal to governmental authority dissolves the problem here. If we have an ethic that allows for the use of lethal violence in defense of the innocent, I don’t see a way for us to avoid affirming Roeder’s actions, or at least mitigating the manufactured moral outrage that is coming from key pro-life groups.

Switch to our mobile site