Jesus, ISIS and the Bible

[todaysdate]

By Thomas Schmidt

I find much of the recent conversation about possible responses by Jesus and Christians to the horrors of ISIS limited to one view of God among many that are presented in the Bible. Most of the discussion on that post was very interesting, but by only two people. They seemed to limit their view of the Bible to the presentation of God in the Bible as being vengeful, judging and against nonviolence. Both writers made very good points, but commentar Steve seems to be limited in his broader presentations to responding to SpokaneFAVS blogger Eric Blauer, thereby limiting the discussion.

It would be a very cogent discussion if the Bible were, like the Quran, written by one person over a relative brief time. But that is not our Christian or Hebrew Bible. For example, the Torah is an anthology, very mixed together, of four major cultures, with sections being developed or written over many centuries. It was assembled some time after the Babylonian exile. The first two, known for the past 200 years by scholars as the J and E documents (after YHWH for J, in Judea, and Elohim for E, in the Northern Kingdom) portray God as very forgiving and merciful, and rejecting blood sacrifices. J is a little less so than E. This vision of God was the more traditional and ancient. When the Northern Kingdom fell, many of their priests and leaders went down to Judea, which threatened the priestly class in that area, the tribe of Levites, descendants of Aaron in sole charge of the proceeds of sacrifices and the operation of the Jerusalem temple. A writer for this group tried to counter the influence of the newcomers by expounding a newer view of God as a wrathful and fearsome God of violence and retributive justice, one who is not light on punishment, and one who called for blood sacrifice. This writer, or small group of Aaronites, wanted to preserve their power and privileged status, controlling the market on sacrifice. Under their control, one could not get God’s forgiveness without first paying for and having a blood sacrifice. They wrote out almost all acts of mercy on God’s part, and wrote in many examples of his threatening violence. Take a look at the addition of Exodus 34:7b, a P document,  to Exodus 34:6-7a, a combined JE document.

Instead of adopting one version of the Torah over another, a group of scribes decided to include all in an anthology, mixing the three writings together. When one understands the context and history of the development of the Bible, we see that we cannot refer to one of the viewpoints as if it were the only one. I think that is the mistake of most of the comments so far written, which selectively pick out passages that support the writers inclination to violently put down terrorism. Unfortunately, that limits the possible responses, portraying theirs as called by God, and condemning the rest.

Personally, I believe that is what idolatry does, and is close to blasphemy, to the point of even declaring what is and is not the actual character of God. That is not for us to say. I prefer the merciful, forgiving God to the angry, wrathful view, but who knows. All I know is that, as a follower of nonviolence (I am not a pacifist, for I see myself as too weak and unintelligent), violence begets violence. And, please don’t denigrate pacifism as taking a do nothing stance that does not respond dynamically to the current desperate problems. That is insulting.

And that brings me to a second point. Nowhere do I see any of the self reflection necessary for the taking of any responsible moral position actually tempering the above responses. YES!! The actions of the IS are horrific, but they are not the only actions that have killed innocents and devastated cultures. Our state has far exceeded in numbers of innocents murdered than the victims of the IS. That cannot be denied, the figures are out there. By saying that I am not blaming the West, or the victims any more that I would blame IS. It is insulting to say that I am blaming the nation I love. Blame solves nothing. I strongly believe that we must see our own participation clearly and with humility. Our actions have contributed to the problems, and that must stop if there are to be any solutions. We ignore the evil of our responses only to face the resulting escalation of violent countermeasures. We become our own brand of terrorist, and thereby our own enemy. 

I do not know what to do here. I will respond with and call for nonviolent responses, but also cannot rule out a highly selective threat and even use of violence.  However, I do know that the responses are not limited to the either pacifist no response, as pacifism has been mis-portrayed in the discussion, or military violence. There are many more options, and I do believe we must stop assuming that our way of life and our economic institutions are the only acceptable alternatives. If God is merciful, just, forgiving and loving, I would much rather participate in a discussion of the many possible actions we could take with our immediate neighbors and our enemies than the limited pacifist versus militarist views of God would solicit.