Glocal Christianity

Patriot Jesus and the Constitution of God

Jesus delivers the US Constitution from on high.

HT to Thomas Just and Homebrewed Christianity.

Military Robots and War Ethics

With the increasing autonomy and numbers of robots in military conflicts these days, I think its time for Christians to start asking the ethical war questions: 

• What, for instance, are the implications for Just War doctrine?
• Can a robot make a moral decision? Can it judge proportionality?
• If not, how can increasing autonomy be ethically justified?

And then there are the nuts and bolts questions:

• Can a robot kill humans in self defence or must a human life be at risk?
• Can a robot exercise autonomy where collateral damage risks exist?

I hear echoes of Asimov.

Just War doctrine rests on a presumption that combatants are human. With the robotization of war now upon us, that presumption must now be abandoned. So what now? A new ethical mindfield is opening up.

For more on military robots and robot ethics see: 

Governing Lethal Behavior. A technical report on robot ethics by Ronald C. Arkin
Robot Ethics. An informative blog post on robot ethics
Robot Wars are a Reality. News article from the Guardian
Roboethics. Information on robot ethics conferences and workshops
Ethics of Autonomous Military Robots. A blog covering security and security technology.
The Ethics of Killer Robots. A blog covering nanotechnology and robotics.

To some who were confident of their own righteousness ...

Time for some pot stirring. Here's a reworking of Luke 18:9-14:

To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: "Two nations went up to the temple to pray, one a democracy and the other a dictatorship. The democracy stood up and prayed about itself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other nations—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this dictatorship. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'

"But the dictatorship stood at a distance. It would not even look up to heaven, but beat its breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'

"I tell you that this nation, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For every nation that exalts itself will be humbled, and every nation that humbles itself will be exalted."

Thoughts?

The Word on the Authorities

This evening I was scanning through what the Bible had to say on authorities. It makes for interesting reading.

First, the Romans 13 verses

Romans 13:1 - Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

Romans 13:5 - Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.

Romans 13:6 - This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing.

Next, everything else

Luke 12:11 - "When you are brought before synagogues, rulers and authorities, do not worry about how you will defend yourselves or what you will say,

John 7:26 - Here he is, speaking publicly, and they are not saying a word to him. Have the authorities really concluded that he is the Christ?

Acts 16:19 - When the owners of the slave girl realized that their hope of making money was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace to face the authorities.

Ephesians 3:10 - His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms,

Ephesians 6:12 - For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

Colossians 1:16 - For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

Colossians 2:15 - And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

Reflections

Now, is it just me or do you think Paul's relationship with the authorities was somewhat mixed? Did his submission to authorities extend to a rousing endorsement of authorities?

Iconoclastic Art

I have been thinking, people often talk of anabaptist ethics but what about anabaptist aesthetics?

Typically the anabaptists been known for iconoclasm. Not unlike the calvinists in that respect. But I think that's too much of a baby out with the bathwater approach. So over the years I have drawn much of my theology of beauty and art from Orthodox Christianity. More recently I have been thinking, what if I tried to integrate my thinking here a bit more? What if my aesthetics was more informed by anabaptist principles? When I think about that it occurs to me that one of the functions of anabaptist art should be to subvert idolatry, particularly political idolatry, in whatever way, shape or form it comes.

Am I Overstating The Problem?

Let's try a bit of word substitution.

If you belonged to the state, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the state, but I have chosen you out of the state. That is why the state hates you. (John 15:19)

They are not of the state, even as I am not of it. (John 17:16)

I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the state know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. (John 17:23)

Makes you think doesn't it? How much should the church expect of the state? How much should the state expect of the church? Who gets to decide? What are the implications of calling our nation or any nation a Christian nation?

We want respect, but on what basis?

This week an English bishop faught back against the intollerance being aimed at Christians by some public bodies. In an open letter he wrote,

“Yet in the minds of those charged with implementing such policies, ‘diversity’ apparently means every colour and creed except Christianity, the nominal religion of the white majority; and ‘equality’ seemingly excludes anyone, black or white, with a Christian belief in God”

I agree, we are seeing more of this, and Christian leaders should speak up.

But its what else he said that disturbs me, that I think is a mistake.

“Those employed as public servants and charged with running our local services, be they schools, hospitals or councils, receive their public authority only under a system of governance which is constitutionally established from the ‘Queen in Parliament under God.’

“For public servants to use their authority to deny the legitimacy of the Christian faith, when they receive such authority only through the operation of that same faith, is not only unacceptable but an affront."

Here is the Constantinian error in all its glory. You may recall my post on The Anabaptist Tradition and the Politics of Jesus, where I voiced my discomfort with church/state alliances. Here I think the wiser course would be to argue for tollerance, not on the basis of constitutional privilege, but on the basis of equality and equity. 

Just War Theology as Constantinian Hangover

Over at the Forgotten Ways I recenly made the observation that just war theology is heavily intertwined with Constantinianism. I prefer a more subversive path. If I could indulge in rephrasing a popular saying, Christ calls us to be in the state but not of the state; to be a contrast community, not a codependant community. Am I being too provocative? Consider just when and how just war theology arose. Missional ecclesiology for me necessarily involves a rejection of the way of the sword in favour of the way of the cross.

For more on just war see:

Just War: just what most Christians practice?
The politics of resurrection
Abortion, politics and Christianity
Religious war
Is Jesus socially relevant?
Church works to develop new ideas of 'just war'

Just War: just what most Christians practice?

I have had my thinking stretched once again by John Howard Yoder, this time in terms of the just war tradition through reading one of his less well known books, "When War is Unjust: Being Honest in Just War Thinking". Here is a sample:

"Counter to the standard history, the just-war position is not the one which has been taken practically by most Christians since Constantine. Most Christians (baptized people) in most wars since pacifism was forsaken have died and killed in the light of thought patterns derived from the crusade or the national-interest pattern. Some have sought to cover and interpret this activity with the rhetoric of the just-war heritage; others have not bothered. The just-war tradition remains prominent as a consensus of the stated best insights of a spiritual and intellectual elite, who used that language as a tool for moral leverage on sovereigns for whom the language of the gospel carried no conviction. Thus just-war rhetoric and consistent pacifism are on the same side of most debates. When honest, both will reject most wars, most causes, and most strategies being prepared and implemented." (Yoder, 1996, P68-69)

I realize my thinking about the just war tradition has been too polarized. I have dismissed it too easily, partly because I have attributed too much to it. The deeper reality is, few Christians give war much serious ethical thought at all. They buy into the glorification of war, they never question the state, they elevate national security above other moral considerations. There is nothing just about that.

Many Christians claim to be within the just war tradition without having any idea of what that would imply if practiced seriously. They're kidding themselves. They're operating out of another mindset entirely. A crusader mentality that sees God behind their every war.

On the flip side it has become clearer to me that claims that the just war tradition is more pragmatic than the pacifist tradition are seriously over-exagerated. Both require a rejection of unqualified pragmatism.

Can we coexist?

Can we coexist? With the recent spate of terrorist attacks in India and the questioning, by some, of whether coexistance should even be a goal, I would like to invite you to declare your support for coexistance, for freedom of religion and irreligion.

The flip side is that is that, as part of this, I invite Christians to denounce Christian militancy, for Hindus to denounce Hindu militancy, for Muslims to denounce Islamic militancy, for Buddhists to renounce Buddhist militancy, for Jews to denounce Jewish militancy, for Atheists to denounce Atheist militancy ... you get the picture ... for it to be honest there needs to be an element of self criticism.

It is not necessary that we agree with one another, only that we renounce violence and aggression towards each other and hate and demonization of each other as valid options. I may disagree with your path, but I respect you right to choose it; I may disagree with your ideas, but I respect you as a person. That is the path of love. If you are a person of love I invite you to think seriously about this.

Also, if you are are blogger who is interested in interfaith dialogue, I would be interested in expressions of interest for joining an interfaith synchoblog network. Pagans, Atheists, Satanists, anyone is welcome who is committed to mutual respect and coexistance.

Mumbai Terrorist Attacks

Regular readers of this blog would be aware that I have been closely following the escalation of terrorist activity in India, and in particular the emergence of Hindu terrorism in response to Islamic and Marxist terrorism.

Well, news reports are now emerging of terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India, where people holding British and American passports have been targeted. Australians have been caught in the crossfire in the Taj Mahal Hotel. I have not yet heard who is responsible for the terrorist acts but it seems to be a significant development.

For more on the terrorist attacks in Mumbi read:

Mumbai terrorist attacks: gunmen go on rampage
Mumbai attacks: Aussie casualties could rise, warns PM

Religion in Australia

Sydney Anglican Media is asking, Is Government Set to Remap Religion In Australia? Apparently there are some concerns that the Australian government, under the auspices of the Australian Human Rights Commission, may be gearing up to enact anti-proselytism laws and ban criticism of other belief systems on the grounds of defending social harmony.

Rev Dr Andrew Cameron is quoted as saying, "The project could be a good thing if it brings to light any inappropriate limitations on the freedom of religion and belief ... or, it may be unhelpful if it recommends changes that damage the delicate balance of religion freedoms that have developed in Australian life. We don’t know yet. But this is an important enough project that some of us want to do our part to be actively involved as citizens."

I suspect we're going to find ourselves in the position of defending Islamic freedom in order to defend Christian freedom.

The Politics of Resurrection

I think its worth spending some more time contrasting the politics of pragmatism with the politics of resurrection, so here is a quote from John Howard Yoder in The Politics of Jesus:

The key to the obedience of God’s people is not their effectiveness but their patience. The triumph of the right is assured not by the might that comes to the aid of the right, which is of course the justification of the use of violence and the other kinds of power in every human conflict; the triumph of the right, although it is assured, is sure because of the power of the resurrection and not because of any calculation of causes and effects, nor because of the inherently greater strength of the good guys. The relationship between the obedience of God’s people and the triumph of God’s cause is not a relationship of cause and effect but one of cross and resurrection.

Brian McLaren suggests everything must change. Including politics. Yoder suggests that everything has changed. Already. That through the resurrection God has disarmed the rulers and authorities of their ultimate weapon, death. But we need to awaken to this. Politically as well as personally.

Abortion, Politics and Christianity

Is abortion the only political issue that should count for Christians as we decide who to vote for in elections? Should the church be a single issue community?

Beyond that, what does it mean to be pro-life? I am pro-life, but I ask, is there a broader way of looking at the issue, one that includes care for the lives of "born" children as well as "unborn" children?

Beyond that, is any politician God's annointed? Can't we not recognize that the political process is, like us, fallen. That even our favourite politicians are fallen, and so, can't we respect the right of other Christians to vote contrary to us? Should our voting decisions be interpreted as THE litmus test of orthodoxy or heresy? Or should we look deeper?

As for me, I am happy to listen to other Christians who disagree with me over the politics of national defense. But please, please, explain to me how you justify your stance in a way which does not marginalize the significance of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. And please, please explain to me, how "hawkish" political platforms which lead to photos like the one you see on your left are so much more "pro-life".

Postscript: I note that Janet at Secret Women's Business has also launched a post on abortion following the Forgotten Ways conversation, if you want to check that out too. Bloggers, any more want to join us in an impromptu syncroblog on the politics of abortion?

Missional Politics

There have been some thought provoking (and denunciation provoking) conversations going on at The Forgotten Ways over Obama and McCain, which have prompted the question, what would missional politics look like?

Here is my initial response:

I think it is important to first explore what we mean by the word “politics”.

Consider these definitions:
http://www.google.com.au/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENAU254&q=define%3A+politics&meta=

Politics can be narrowly defined as “the study of government of states and other political units”, or more broadly defined as “the process by which groups of people make decisions.” If you use the narrow definition it would be reasonable to interpret Jesus as apolitical. If you use the broader definition then Jesus starts looking VERY political. Me, i go for the broader definition, without excluding the narrower definition, so everything I say must be interpreted in the light of that.

I would say the church itself is a political entity, a body politic, and so missional politics has a lot to do with how churches engage with their world. How does the way the church socially organizes itself, internally and externally, bear witness to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus? Is political manipulation, for instance, a good witness to the power of the cross?

What are your thoughts? Is missional politics an oxymoron? Is it wrong to talk about this when it evokes so much passion?

For the original conversations at The Forgotten Ways see:

To choose or not to choose
“Obama or McCain? It’s a no-brainer!”