9. (1) Historic Christian texts on and actual practice of nonresistance,
and Jesus' Commands, OR
(2) When Jesus said Love Your Enemies, did he mean Osama and Saddam?

Note: One's principles for interpreting the Bible shape the significance of this issue. Most of the problems related to this topic apply most strongly only to those readers who endorse a traditional Christian doctrine of Jesus literally as God's fully divine and authoritative messiah, which in turn relies on a pre-Nag Hammadi canon as God's perfect, infallible, fully revealed truth. Those who have any broader view of Christian scripture and doctrine may still find this discussion interesting or useful for discussion.

Before September Eleven, most who wear the label “Christian,” of whatever sectarian, denominational or generic orientation, who attend services of worship to Jesus and express devotion to him, who claim to adore and believe in and obey what he taught, did at least verbalize agreement with some of his definitive teachings, such as:

The nondenominational Christian church in which I grew up claimed to believe the Bible literally. They did try to interpret most texts on that basis, long as it didn’t interfere with local social and political biases and prejudices (inherent in any cultural phenomenon, community, or movement). For this topic and these passages in particular, though, most sermons I heard, and most sources I studied, performed incredible rhetorical contortions to explain why Jesus does not mean what the gospels actually report him saying. Ironic: “Yes, we believe the Bible literally! But here, where he talks about principles absolutely central to the traditional gospel message, we do NOT believe Jesus literally! 'Love your enemies'? Are you CRAZY?”

A hypothetical for Christians who support George W. Bush on the grounds of his theology: Would you support Jesus as President? Would you tolerate Jesus daring to govern by his own words, as literally as he lived and died by them a couple of millennia ago?

Think about the implications. Do you ever expect to hear George Bush, or any other politician, or for that matter, most self-described Christians, say, "I want to tell the world that I love Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and I desire the best in life for them. I pray for them daily. We will not treat them as they have treated others; we will treat them with dignity and love, as the Bible commands, as even Jesus tells us to do. I want Osama and Saddam to know: America is a Christian nation, and therefore America loves you"?

What do you suppose good American Christians would say to such a declaration?

Evidently some of those sincere Christians actually see the United States' political and civil structure as far more important than some of Jesus' most definitive, and surely most demanding, teachings. At this point, even some conservative Christians may begin wondering if maybe Thomas Jefferson had the right idea: get the scissors and help that Bible make a little more sense, because some of the stuff in there is just—"Well, c'mon, I should love Saddam Hussein? That's just plain stupid. Seriously, do you expect Jesus to love and forgive those who betrayed, tortured, and crucified him?"

"Oh, uhhh, wait—maybe I'll get back to you on this."

I've heard far more self-professed "Christians" try to justify why Jesus does NOT mean what he says, rather than trying to live up to Jesus' teaching and example. Many people who otherwise venerate and diligently try to live by Jesus' words and example outright dismiss (or try to avoid) this point. I find this disconnect far too normative among "Christians" especially in the more conservative and especially the literalist traditions. Even some with a more progressive viewpoint find this teaching tough to discuss frankly, and tougher to practice day by day.

For those who affirm the New Testament as the perfect and literal Word of God, and Jesus' teachings and example as divine, infallible, and absolute:
Do you love the 19 hijackers?
Do you love Saddam?
Do you love Osama?
Do you forgive them unconditionally?

And if you answer "yes" to those questions, try to imagine Jesus saying, "Father, forgive them—and now retaliate like hell on those you forgive."

The literalist hermeneutic leads to all kinds of problems, mostly theological, with some very practical ramifications (that's probably why, in my experience, I find most conservative Christians preferring not to delve into these things: it exposes severe flaws in their premises and assumptions, and hence their concept of faith itself). This one issue in particular represents perhaps the most lethal.

Supplementary discussion, click here.

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” Theodore Roosevelt “History, we don’t know. We’ll all be dead.” George W. Bush   Intro   Election 2004 Introduction 1   I Yam What I Yam 2a People Die for Mr. Bush's Mistakes. He Laughs It Off 2b Supplement: Mr. Bush Laughs It Off 3a   Mr. Bush's Religious Rhetoric: The Uncaped Crusader 3b   Mr. Bush's Religious Rhetoric: Ripping Off Jesus 4   WMDWMDWMDWMDWMD—Oh, Never Mind, Forget I Ever Said WMD 5   President Bush: Saddam Tried to Kill My Dad 6   President Bush's Real World Patriot Games 7   In Mr. Bush's Own Words: "Major League Asshole" 8a   Responsibilty? Accountability? The Buck Stops Somewhere Else 8b Supplement: Responsibilty and Dodge Ball 9a   Forgive Osama? Love Saddam? You CRAZY, Jesus? 9b   Supplement: Christian Nonresistance 10   Democracy? Not on This Watch. Undo the Presidential Records Act 11   The Arsonist Owns the Fire Truck 12   Environment 13   Mr. Bush's Taunt: "Bring It On!" 14   Conclusions 15   Update 5/5/04     Please sign my Election Site Dreambook (and visit my other sites as well). And read others' comments.