Jesus, Foucault, and the War on Terror
Jesus famously said that those who live by the sword shall die by the sword and then was killed (figuratively, as it was the symbol of capital punishment, as one reads in Romans 13) by the sword. Jesus took on himself the end for those who live a life of revolution against an enemy too powerful to be overthrown.
Foucault said that power is knowledge, believing that bound up in our truth claims is the influence of those in power. This gets worked out in the Christian tradition, as well, when Emperors become Christians. All of the sudden, you have to rework some things you believe. I don't think this is a bad thing; I think it's necessary. So, faithful Christians developed the just-war theory when Christian emperors started fighting and leading wars. The power of the ruler influenced the praxis of the Christian.
This got me thinking: Can there only be a war on terror defensible for the Christian because those (more or less) in the right (in my opinion) are stronger than those (more or less) in the wrong? In other words, how does the power of the secular frame the discussion of terror? If the power structures were reversed and the radicals had the power (as they do in some countries), then would Jesus' words make more sense? Is the reason that weapons of mass destruction have been so important in the discussion (whether with Iraq or Iran) is because this is the war that the powerful knows how to fight? If the war on terror is going to be a long war, would it be wise to find some new ways to fight, perhaps ways that will prove useful if there are changes in power? What would Jesus say to a church in a powerless country?
Foucault said that power is knowledge, believing that bound up in our truth claims is the influence of those in power. This gets worked out in the Christian tradition, as well, when Emperors become Christians. All of the sudden, you have to rework some things you believe. I don't think this is a bad thing; I think it's necessary. So, faithful Christians developed the just-war theory when Christian emperors started fighting and leading wars. The power of the ruler influenced the praxis of the Christian.
This got me thinking: Can there only be a war on terror defensible for the Christian because those (more or less) in the right (in my opinion) are stronger than those (more or less) in the wrong? In other words, how does the power of the secular frame the discussion of terror? If the power structures were reversed and the radicals had the power (as they do in some countries), then would Jesus' words make more sense? Is the reason that weapons of mass destruction have been so important in the discussion (whether with Iraq or Iran) is because this is the war that the powerful knows how to fight? If the war on terror is going to be a long war, would it be wise to find some new ways to fight, perhaps ways that will prove useful if there are changes in power? What would Jesus say to a church in a powerless country?
posted by Aaron Perry at
5:02 PM
2 Comments:
Weren't Jesus words spoken to people who were powerless? The Jews were oppressed by Rome when he made those statements? They would seem just as true for us today if we were in that same situation althought we probably don't want to admit that as a possiblity.
Rob
we are moving to Hillsong to attend Hillsong college. All info is in my "announcing" post.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home