Rich Tosches, Meet God.
Perusing The Independent this weekend, I came across a column by Rich Tosches: Who fired that gun?
Interesting, to say the least.
Here is my response -
Dear Editor,
I am writing in response to Rich Tosches’s column about the well-armed security guard, Jeanne Assam, at New Life Church. Ms. Assam “prayed for the Holy Spirit to guide” her and so, apparently, God came through and she shot Matthew Murray on December 9th, saving untold numbers of lives.
Mr. Tosches wondered, “When did it become OK to say God helped you gun someone down?”
With all due respect, Mr. Tosches, you must not have been paying attention during Catechism. Or World History class.
Ms. Assam’s version of God may not seem like the familiar and reassuring deity you pray to each night, but He’s the same nonetheless.
As a self-professed “old kind of” Christian, you belong to a religion whose very foundation is built upon violence supposedly brought forth from God against those who would destroy Christianity. Centuries ago, soldiers believed their hands were guided by the Holy Spirit as well. Those very hands gripped swords that beheaded Muslims, Jews, and other heretics. In this country alone, women were burned at the stake, slavery was endured, and scientists demonized – all in the name of the Christian God.
Don’t get me wrong, Christians have come a long way, baby. But this idea that Christianity is, at its core, a peaceful religion is not true.
Peaceful religions exist. But the three most powerful and popular religions of our time – Christianity, Judaism, and Islam – have holy books that celebrate violence. The literal translation of the sixth commandment is You Shall Not Murder. In certain instances, however, killing is not only condoned by God, it’s required. And anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the Inquisition, the Crusades, and witch burning frenzies must chuckle when you proclaim that Jesus wouldn’t aim.
Perhaps he wouldn’t, but religious folks have, for centuries, killed on his behalf. And, they have been convinced, with his help and approval.
Express outrage over such expressions of faith. Yes, cringe when people imply that God wants them to kill. Point out the inconsistencies of an “all-powerful” God who would help an armed security guard instead of protecting innocent children shot down by a lunatic.
What kind of Savior would help knock other people out, indeed? These modern day questions, I’m sure, were also shouted in horror back in the 1200s. What have we learned? Such notions sound barbaric and we should, in the 21st century, be a bit more evolved than that.
Be whatever kind of Christian you want, Mr. Tosches, but don't ignore that these violent reactions to dangerous people, both real and imagined, lie in the foundation of your faith. It’s the oldest part of Christianity there is.
posted by kate @ 9:09 PM
3 comments
3 Comments:
As a self-professed “old kind of” Christian, you belong to a religion whose very foundation is built upon violence supposedly brought forth from God against those who would destroy Christianity.
Actually, that's not exactly true, at least about the foundations of Christianity. Primitive Christianity did not celebrate, glorify or embrace violence. Many of the first followers of Yeshua and his teachings shunned violence in all forms, refusing to pick up swords to defend themselves from persecution. There's a reason that early Christians seemed to be so readily available for Lion Kibble.
What the Church became, however, under the leadership and control of Peter and, more importantly, Paul, is another thing entirely. While it's tempting to blame Paul, The Missionary With A Sword, entirely, it's also most likely inaccurate and overly simplified. It's not even clear exactly how much of the writings that were attributed to him and precipitated such a huge switch in Christian theology were actually written by him.
Paul did have a very adversarial relationship with the doctrines of primitive Christianity, however, and a poor relationship with both Peter and the brother of Jesus, James, both of whom were intimately involved with Jesus whereas Paul was not. Because of this, Paul does serve as a clear point of demarcation between those who may have actually met Jesus and followed his specific teachings and those who wanted to take the teachings of Jesus to others, at the point of a sword if necessary. The mythology around Paul, what he believed and how he changed the course of Christianity is probably one of the better examples of the ongoing battle between the sacred and the profane, between the divinity that mankind strives for and the day-to-day human existence one must struggle with. Again, it's oversimplifying, but there's an argument that under Christ, Christianity was a religion of God, but under Paul, it became a religion of Man.
So it all kind of depends on exactly how old a Christian Tosches claims to be. If he's embracing primitive Christianity in some form, he has a point. If he's just a slightly earlier Pauline Christian, well, he still has a point, just not the one he may think he has.
You, however, are mistaken. At it's core, Christianity is indeed a religion of peace. Like all religions, however, that core is surrounded by a hard outer candy shell made of the simple fuckwittery of men.
I agree with you, to a point. Jesus was a peace-loving man and, from my view, a devout Jew. Paul (Saul) has been characterized as a self-hating Jew who was really the one to break away from Judaism completely and truly form the new church.
But there are too many instances in the Torah, Bible, and Koran that call for violence against those who don't believe or behave a certain way. To react in horror when a follower of any of the three evokes God when killing someone simply shows a bit of ignorance for the history of the religion.
Ms. Assam isn't an aberration. She's in keeping with her own tradition - the legacy of so many acts of violence - when taking down a member of the oppostion. To pretend otherwise just isn't historically accurate.
Whether God approves or not isn't for me to say. I long ago decided that either the Bible is completely accurate and the word of God, or it's just a collection of stories. We can't pick and choose just because it's convenient.
The Torah (Old Testament, foreward of the Koran, whatever you prefer to call it) calls for death as punishment when kids don't observe the Sabbath. If that's God's word, then the fuckwittery of men is simply an extension of the divine. If it's not, then the whole of the Bible (the foundation, if you will) is suspect.
But it's still the foundation.
Torches has a point in being alarmed at religious-rationalized violence, despite its existence throughout history. It's just not right to say 'God helped me do it' no matter what (if for any reason, it goes against the free-will thing - Christians can't have their cake and eat it too!)
However, your letter does have a point he definitely should've acknowledged.
Post a Comment
<< Home