The relationship between politics and religion is erosive at best. Some would argue that with an absence of religion, politics would be progressive. Others would argue that with an absence of politics, religion would be perfection. If this is the argument, wouldn't the desired outcome of those progressive actions be perfection? Does religion have the upper-hand?
In light of recent political issues (mainly the idea of diplomacy with adversaries), I thought it would be interesting to pose the following questions:
Would Jesus Sit Down With Satan? Would Jesus Negotiate With Evil?
This is not suggesting that Jesus would be or was a politician. It does not suggest that our adversaries are Satan. But, it does provide a foundation for which we can talk about the idea of diplomacy and how it should be used.
Enter the idea of good and evil.
First, let's hypothetically say that the entities of good and evil exist (personally, for which I agree). We all, being human in nature, have tendencies to commit deeds/acts (both large and small) of both good and evil. Politicians and government agencies are no better than you or I. All have the same temptations to follow both the good and evil aspects of this world. Perfection, besides the human form of Christ, does not exist.
Second, good and evil can be difficult to classify. Both do not conform neatly in their own box because of people's interpretations. However, I believe that good and evil do not arise from themselves, rather both stem from intention. Intention, in this case, being a pre-cognitive thought process that filters the idea of "right" and "wrong" choices. With good (morally speaking) comes "right" choices. With evil (morally speaking) comes "wrong" choices. I think we can all agree that some people make more right/wrong choices than others. This does not necessarily make that person good or evil, but it does signify a spiritual battle between the two.
God sent his only begotten Son to us so that we could physically see that He was the epitome of love. God wanted to show Grace and Mercy to His children through the perfect, sinless life of Christ. With Jesus, we see a Man who could have set the world on fire. He could have chosen to abuse His spiritual gifts and leave no doubts that He was from our Creator. Instead, He used timely lessons of right and wrong, taught us how to place our faith in God, and pledge our obedience to Him for the long-haul. Jesus taught us how to live through temptations and how to use our intentions appropriately and justly. He came so that we may follow Him.
Jesus didn't come to negotiate with evil. He didn't come to barter and appease Satan. He didn't come to give into adversaries. He didn't need to. Doing so would give into the temptations of evil. It would give evil the victory. It would show weakness and unaccountability. He simply wanted us to follow Him because He was the Son of a loving God that wanted us to know Him. If we didn't follow, He didn't negotiate. It was our free will not too. It was our choice to deny true freedom.
Several times throughout Scripture Jesus is tempted by Satan. What do we see from this? We see that He was like us. He was tempted, but He showed obedience. He was challenged by evil to give into its ways, but he showed obedience. He showed no mercy for evil and no bite for the bait. In many ways, the dialogue between Jesus and Satan is a battle of inner temptations; a decision to put good over evil. Much like you and I have to do on a daily basis. In Mark chapter 4, Jesus is tempted by the devil to test God. The devil makes an offer for his soul. Evil negotiates. It tempts. It provokes. Good is being obedient to what is right. Jesus did not give in.
In conclusion, the answer to both of these questions (to me personally) is...No. Jesus didn't need to do either. Bartering for the freedom of humanity would have been the end. He never gave into evil. He recognized temptation and stood for everything good.
Shouldn't we do the same?
Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil.
~1 Thess 5:21-22~
14 comments:
subtle...
If you're comparing this little parable to negotiating with Iran and Hamas, I'm not sure the "Good vs. Evil" description fits as well as you seem to hope.
I do agree with you on the point that we should never back down from our thoroughly examined principles of right and wrong in the face of bigoted, hateful, or misinformed elements.
If you are comparing Jesus to the U.S. (and Israel) and Satan to Iran and Hamas, I do not feel your metaphor fits.
Would Jesus authorize deadly air strikes or an invasion/occupation of Iran if there was even a minuscule chance the destruction of human life could be avoided through negotiations. Understanding is the key to peace. And isn't peace one of the highest goals we (the human race) should continually be striving to achieve?
Refusing to negotiate with countries like Iran and Syria is downright childish. We should show the world that the US is committed to avoiding the use of military force whenever possible and willing to find peaceful solutions to complex problems.
Iran does not pose a serious threat to the US or Israel unless either of those two countries provoke her through a direct attack. The American public has been sold lies about the pure evil of Iran's leaders, military, and citizens, and about the "grave threat" Iran poses to the region and to US security.
Look at the geopolitical situation from Iran's perspective and you can easily see why they are nervous about the threat the US poses to the country.
This comment is mainly just to share my own opinion of your post, Ryan. I do not expect them to be posted as a dissenting view on your blog. Moderating comments for content are undemocratic and against the spirit of a free, discerning society.
"Moderating comments for content are undemocratic and against the spirit of a free, discerning society."
Little overboard with the ending there huh? Everything is undemocratic to you isn't it? Please do not associate the many undemocratic injustices in this world with moderating blog posts.
Besides, you're the only reader/poster who would have an issue with this.
Can we please keep this dialog civil and avoid personal attacks?
Ryan K., are you claiming that because of Iran's sin, the Christian Church is no longer mandated to love her?
That's not what I'm saying at all.
I do not understand why one wouldn't want the US government to make every single effort to avoid military force, especially in the case of Iran.
Jimmy Carter was recently asked why he didn't just bomb Iran back in the 70s to get our hostages back and avoid all of this tension in the present day. His response was simple and we should all remember it before we allow our leaders to attack before expending every diplomatic effort. "Bombing Iran would have cost the lives of 10,000 to 20,000 Iranian civilians and certainly we would have failed our overall mission to rescue those hostages. The Iranians would have executed our hostages in response."
By exhausting every diplomatic tool available to us and restoring American soft power we can save lives and avoid another unnecessary war.
And no, despite your claims I do not label everything as undemocratic, but I do think there's something that is cringe-worthy about moderating comments on a small-town blog like this. But alas, it's your blog and your right.
Christ told us to love our enemies. In what way does endorsing a war with Iran, and equating the people of Iran with Satan communicate love for them? How doe saying that we should treat a nation of people the same way we would treat Satan adhere to our command to love our enemies?
Scenario:
A man is on trial for conspiracy to committ murder against you and your family. He has testified that he despises everything about you, he wants you and your family dead and has verbally threatened to kill, he says that your influence is a plague, and that nothing will ever persuade him to conform to any of your proposals.
Do you:
#1: Allow the law process to appropriately defend your security by limiting his involvement with the outside world. Handcuff his hands so that he cannot harm you and yours. Ask for the maximum penalty so that his conspiracy does not become reality. While being sanctioned, ask for professional assistance to aide in his rehabilitation. This way, he realizes his wrongs and knows that he must change his ways before progress can be made.
Or
#2: Dismiss the process and negotiate with him by yourself. Sit down with him. Ask him what you can do for him, even though your interests are forefront. Maybe even a little bait and switch. Allow him to make his own decisions regarding your safety. Give him an inch and he'll likely take a foot. Once you give him the window to negotiate he knows that he can continue his agenda. It's kind of like the principal who lacks discipline, the kids recognize and act upon that.
In my opinion, negotiations are childish. They lack respectability and accountability. I remember when my 3rd grade teacher sat me down with this kid that I had an altercation with out on the playground. We discussed what we did wrong and ways that we could make it better. What happened? The very next day we were at it again. I know this is a simplistic analogy, but the foundations are the same. Negotiations may work short-term while you are face to face, but the playing field is always changing and the agenda always evolving.
I'm intrigued by the Carter quote. Intrigued because his foreign policy makes the Bush Administration's look brilliant. He rode the coat tails of the people before him and then made gastly mistakes all across the board when it came to his own policy ideas.
It's funny that the media is not talking about the North Korea nuclear issue. How our policies (the same ones people have been degrading) have caused the Koreans to agree to shut down nuclear capable plants and now they are willing to allow U.S. interests to be involved in their decision making on those issues. But, why report it. It doesn't work right?
Finally, for the 4th or 5th time now I believe. A majority of the "small-town" blogs that I read have moderation. In fact, many of those who read and comment here have moderation as well. Now I know you hardly ever use your blog, but that shouldn't mean that you are unaware of what people can and cannot do. Moderation is a great tool and security feature that allows a personal blog to not become a forum unless the author's intention is to do so. I must have really burned you, but please...move on.
Joshua,
First, I never associated the people of Iran with Satan. I consider the Iranian government to have evil intentions and tendancies. My original post explains this.
Second, we have had this discussion before. This is not a Christian nation. We do not follow the Laws of God. The Constitution enables our government to defend and protect its citizens. Our Constitution does not, unfortunately, say love our neighbors.
I'm confused
"Iran's worldview has many evils about it. When we think of evil, we often associate it with the actions of Satan.
Using this as imagery (I know it is very broad), but would Jesus sit down with Satan? Would Jesus negotiate with evil?"
I believe that in this quote you associated Iran with Satan.
The example you provide of a man hell-bent on ruthless murder of myself and my family is not representative of Iranian desires or goals for the American government or citizens.
The man in question is non-deterable and poses an immediate threat to my hypothetical self and family. Iran on the other hand is deterable and does not pose an immediate threat to the United States or Israel. The Iranian government does not have "evil" tendencies or intentions. That's propaganda for you.
I'm aghast that you believe negotiations are childish. How will you ever get a raise? Will you just demand a price and then walk out if the superintendent wants to negotiate your salary? How will you buy a car? Most cars aren't sold at fixed price and I'm not sure it's smart to just pay sticker at the dealership. It sounds like a bad experience during 3rd grade scarred you for life. That teacher obviously did not adequately address the tension between you and your 8 year old classmate. You can't point to bad negotiations that did not address the causal issues and then generalize that all negotiations are bad. Most Israeli-Palestinian negotiations have failed because none have addressed the major issues. Each round of talks addresses superficial elements that are but drips in the bucket of contentious issues. Negotiations that actually confront the causal issues of tension are what works.
It's one thing to be principled, it's quite another to be mindlessly stubborn and refuse to ever give an inch on ANYTHING.
Negotiating with Iran is the right thing to do. You want to talk childish? These back and forth threats between our governments are a textbook example. I'm tired of this bully-on-the-playground "diplomacy." It's time to resurrect American soft power.
Just a quick thought. You as a Christian, allow your religious beliefs to guide your life and all that you do. You support prayer in school, the 10 commandments in courthouses, and many other institutions that chip away at the idea of separation of church and state. You advocate preemptive war to defend US interests. I find it paradoxical that you state, "Our Constitution does not, unfortunately, say love our neighbors." Either you believe it's unfortunate our Constitution is not more closely rooted in Jesus' teachings (making it very hard to wage preemptive war) or you think it's fortunate it doesn't so we can exercise the Bush doctrine. You can't have it both ways.
You've lectured me numerous times that the US was founded as and still is a Christian nation. I feel like you say it's a Christian nation when you want the 10 commandments outside of a courthouse and Christian prayers in public schools but say we're not bound my Christian laws when we preemptively go to war against our enemies.
Ryan,
Me too.
Joshua,
Not sure about the comment towards my quote. I already addressed my views for clarity above.
Josh,
I should have said negotiations with adversaries such as Iran. Of course negotiations work when both sides feel satisfied of their own interests. This, to me, does not seem feasible with this situation. Again, I bring up N. Korea's outcome. Using your own example, Jimmy Carter is a great example of why negotiations fail.
"How, after all, can you engage in a rational dialogue with a man like Ahmadinejad, who believes that Armageddon is near and that it is his duty to accelerate it? How can Israel negotiate with people who are certain their instructions come from heaven and so decree that Israel must not exist in Muslim lands? Equally, of course, how can one negotiate with fundamentalist Jews who claim that the West Bank is theirs forever by biblical mandate? Or with Fundamentalist Christians who believe that Israel's expansion is a biblical necessity rather than a strategic judgment?"
Andrew Sullivan
Post a Comment