Obsession with Security - A Radical Peace View

[muscadine]

Excerpt from God or Nations: Radical Theology for the Religious Peace Movement by William Durland, published in 1989:

Russel Baker writes, "The United States' passion is security." Baker traveled across beautiful, autumnal America. He happened to pass through Beverly Hills, California, where sumptuous houses contain vast riches. "Every other house seemed to bear a large placard announcing the identity of its private security guard service, and most of these carried a supplemental placard which said 'Armed response.' Very little of this professional search for security was evident in the country 20 years ago and now it is a national pastime. The irony is that the more security we get the less secure we are. This is true whether we are talking about so-called 'national security,' or personal security against 'the criminal element.'"

Ultimate security, survival, which is another way of describing what is at the heart of our domestic and international defenses, is not part of the Christian value system. There are two distinct value bases for ethics. Secular living is primarily concered with one's own survival in one form or another. John L. MacKenzie, the Bible scholar, says that all rational ethics have as their primary motivation, survival. When survival is threatened, all other values simply fall by the wayside. Actions ordinarily characterized as murder, arson, rape, lying, robbery, which usually are impermissible, become desirable, even noble, when done to ensure survival.

In the Christian ethic, on the other hand, the single highest value is not survival. The single highest value for Christians is agape or service--service to suffering humanity.

Survival and service are two totally different, fundamental approaches to human motivation and human existence. Survival is not in the Christian value system, nor is the brand of security that attempts to bring us survival part of that value system. However, security is part of institutional Christianity today because Christians have been taught that an enemy is one who can negatively affect one's survival or self-interest, or restrict one's freedom of worship.

The survival ethic is a fraud. "Perhaps the most insidious thing about the rational ethic is that the very thing that it promises, the very thing which it will turn virtue and vice upside down for (namely, survival) is the very thing that it simply cannot come across with. Survival is the one thing that the rational ethic cannot guarantee. All that it can guarantee is that something will endure for a little longer but survival is impossible. The rational ethic for all its claims is a fraud."

The irony is: the more security we buy, the less secure we are. The more weapons we buy, the less secure we are.

The survival ethic is a type of demon, much more dangerous than any that are spoken of from the pulpits of our established churches. Because of this demon, we worship the idol of nation-state as the guarantor of corporate and individual survival. It is this demon that Jesus experienced in his temptations. We, as modern Christians, have opted for this demon over Jesus. In so doing we not only preach apostasy, we practice idolatry.

Where then is our alternative security? I believe it is in alternative community. It is one thing for an individual to take on great risks, great suffering, great persecution alone. Only Jesus did this. He was the only one to go to the Cross in the manner in which he did. His followers all disappeared. The community had not yet been formed. Only with the coming of the Holy Spirit, who came for all times, and is found in that of God in each of us, only then did community begin.

(emphasis added)
(crossposted to jesusliberation)

Comments

[queerbychoice.livejournal.com]

I'm really sick of it being considered "radical" and "progressive" to pretend that Christians are the only people who serve anything other than their own survival. It would be a whole lot more useful to advocate service to a greater cause than one's own survival without insulting the majority of the planet by insisting that the only possible cause available to serve other than one's own survival is a patriarchal puritanical god specific to one particular cultural tradition.

[legolastn.livejournal.com]

I took issue with a lot of what Durland had to say throughout the whole book. He's very anti-Catholic, for instance. I think because of his own negative personal experiences with the Church. Not that there isn't plenty in the RCC to criticize, but in the book I think he was sometimes unfair.

Specific to this passage, I take issue with claims such as:

It is one thing for an individual to take on great risks, great suffering, great persecution alone. Only Jesus did this. He was the only one to go to the Cross in the manner in which he did.

I think that's clearly false. And I think saying "Secular living is primarily concered with one's own survival in one form or another," with only Christianity standing against it, is also an inaccurate generalization.

But, I think especially the part I highlighted contains a certain truth. Yet I don't want to present his words in a whitewashed version, nor to be accused of such. So, it's presented here as a quote in context, warts and all.

[legolastn.livejournal.com]

I have to add that I find it somewhat amusing for you to chide Durland (I'm going to at least pretend for the moment you aren't generalizing to all Christians) for being insulting to non-Christians, then to turn around and resort to name-calling--labeling the Christian God as patriarchal and puritanical, which many Christians (probably including Durland) would find insulting. I think it's possible to take issue with his tone and perspective, without "stooping to his level."

[queerbychoice.livejournal.com]

The Christian god is, by definition, surely, the one in the Bible? Because if we can agree on that, I think it is very reasonable of me to point out that this god is consistently referred to with male pronouns rather than female ones, and that lots of puritanism is spread throughout the text of the Bible. To generalize about a particular character as described in a particular book in a way that can be supported with evidence from the book is valid. To generalize about all the different humans on earth who call themselves Christians because they agree with various different parts of that book but not necessarily all of it would be a lot less valid, but that is not what I was doing. To generalize about all of the different humans on earth who don't call themselves Christians becuase they don't agree with various parts of the book or have not read it in the first place is to generalize about an even wider variety of people and belief systems than the considerable variety of people and belief systems that are called Christian.

[legolastn.livejournal.com]

The Christian god is, by definition, surely, the one in the Bible?
Well, the vast majority of progressive Christians, and probably most radical, feminist, liberal, and even mainstream Christians would probably not put it exactly that way. Because it approaches treating the Bible as an idol - "God as Bible" - which is what many of those listed above see more conservative or fundamentalist sects of Christianity as doing, and disagree strongly with. Also, because it understands the relationships between Christianity, the Bible, and God/ Christ/ Spirit in a very Anglo/ Euro/ Western-centric way that is by no means universal.

What they might say is that the Bible is a collection of books that past church authorities accepted as being inspired by God's Spirit (while, rightly or wrongly, excluding others). And that most of these books in turn were gradually formed from stories being collected and edited. And that those stories were based on oral repetition, perhaps of memories, sometimes over several generations. And that those stories and memories were based on some insight into the divine-human relationship, which may have been experienced as self-disclosure by God. So, the Bible may give us insight into the nature of God and experiences of God, but the stories it contains are of necessity filtered through the culture which produced it.

So, most progressive/liberal Christians tend to define the Christian God primarily as the experienced God--Spirit/ living Christ/ Wisdom/ etc. And only secondarily use the Bible (and other sources) to gain insights from others who have experienced God in past cultures.

consistently referred to with male pronouns rather than female ones
Consistently, but some (especially those who follow the Wisdom/Sophia tradition) argue not wholly. Others point out some of the masculine images of God are subversive. And of course even many conservative Christians will agree that these are all cultural add-ons, and that God has no gender.

lots of puritanism is spread throughout the text of the Bible
And there are also plenty of texts speaking out against or hostile to puritanism.