Christianity's Non-Violence Unaccepted By All Nations

Dr. Crossan:
I think you are of course right in stating that no nation-state can be Christian. Augustine made the same point in "City of God." My wife and I discussed this very point after I finished reading "Beneath the Stones, Behind the Texts." While I don't agree with much of that book (while no literalist I do believe in the physical resurrection of Christ and that the Gospels pretty much have the story right), the points you made concerning the Kingdom of God vs the Kingdom of Rome were dead on target. The power of the apostles' preaching, as you rightly point out, came not only from the resurrection and their own signs, but from the community they led (as in Acts 6). I think much of the lost power of the church in the comfortable West of today is that, while we still have the resurrection to point to, we no longer have the community life that stands out from the world. So thank you very much for those insights (and "preach it, brother!").
I wonder what will happen if/when our empire crumbles, as it inevitably must barring the second coming happening first--will our faith go with it? Would we react like Augustine, or like those he had to write his book for? Some of my co-religionists are more conservative than Christian I think.
One more thing on the idea of a Christian nation. Dietrich Bonhoeffer once wondered what would happen if a nation being invaded were to meet the aggressors with an army of people praying rather than an army of soldiers fighting. Would that be the reaction of a truly Christian nation? Did Jesus really command pacifism? Being a career soldier myself, I wonder about these things often.

Thanks for some great insights!

I was wondering to what extent Seyla Benhabib's reflections on Hannah Arendt’s political thought might be helpful to refine the discussion here. Benhabib adopts Max Weber’s modernist definition of the state as “the legitimate monopoly over the use of violence within recognized and bounded territory”’. "Modern statehood", she holds, "is based on the coupling together of the principles of territoriality, administrative and military monopoly, including the use of violence, and the legitimacy to do so."

Hannah Arendt defines nation, state and nationalism as follows, and argues that the identification of nation and state created a massive crisis:
- Nation is understood as “a people connected by past labour and a shared history constitutive of a ‘closed society to which one belongs by right of birth’”;
- State is defined by her as an "open society, ruling over a territory where its power protects and makes the law”;
- Nationalism, Arendt holds, emerged in the 19th century with the “conquest of the state through the nation,” ie with the creation of the nation-state – an identification which “generated a tension between the territorial state’s function as guarantor of the rights of citizens and the rights of nationals.”
Arendt, in her post-Origins of Totalitarianism thought, criticizes the modern European nation-state as a “contradiction between the organizational principles of ‘nation’ and ‘state’, which manifests “as a crisis of the legal institutions of the state once the state had been conquered and instrumentalized by the nation.”

Not a Christian nation state, but certainly an official religion within a nation.

I’d like to enlarge Dr Crossan’s opening remark that “[the US] is not a Christian nation because no nation-state can be Christian.”

He misses a crucial historical point: to wit
while there cannot be a Christian nation-state, there certainly CAN be a national Christian church within a nation state the majority of whose citizens are Christians.

Examples are the Church of England in England, the Greek Orthodox Church in Greece, Russian Orthodox in Russia (indeed Byzantium was characterized by a national church). For the first few decades of the Republic of Ireland the Roman Catholic Church held a special position, as it did in Spain & Portugal. Poles have a “special relationship” with Roman Catholicism (Poland is 95% Catholic). Western Ukraine as well as Armenia also have a national Catholic religion (although both acknowledge the Roman pope as head of their churches). All of the former are nation states with an “official” religion.

In contrast, whilst the US was founded by devout Christians, it refrained from endowing an ‘established’ church, similar to the Church of England. On the contrary the most devout American Christians were dissenters.

Professor Crossan,

Danke Schoen!! My faith in your NT analyses has been restored but your comment "I derive my own understanding from two magnificent parabolic scenes during the execution of Jesus" would have been better understood by "pew peasants" like myself from "I derive my understanding from two magnificent but embellished scenes from the execution of Jesus". ( A new book, Crossan for "Pew Peasants"?????)

I use your historical Jesus analyses quite frequently on conservative Catholic blog comment pages since said analyses agrees so perfectly with common sense and reality which unfortunately is not a forte of orthodox Catholics. On some of these blogs, I am no longer allowed to even mention your name. :))

I do have one question if you have time. In your book, Who is Jesus, you note, "Jesus, we must remember was not a literate, upper class scribe, but an illiterate peasant". In your book, The Historical Jesus, however, you conclude that Jesus could read (Luke 4:16-19) 22+. Prophet's Own Country: (1) Gos. Thom. 31 & P. Oxy. 1.31; (2) Mark 6:1-6a = Matt 13:53-58; (3) Luke 4:16-24; (4) John 4:44. I believe you describe Jesus' illiteracy somewhere The Historical Jesus but it does not appear in the discussion of the references noted above and I can no longer find the discussion. My paper-back copy does not have a subject index.

In reply to "Concerned the Christian," there is no inconsistrency in what I posted on that "Christian America?" subject. I opened by referring to "two magnificent parabolic scenes" - one about Jesus and Pilate in John, the other about Jesus and Barabbas in Mark. A parable, as you know, is a fictional story with a theological punch. I think of it as fiction with an attitude. In the New Testament there are parables by Jesus and also parables about Jesus. When Jesus wanted to say something important about the Kingdom of God he often went to fictional parable -pardon that redundancy. Likewise, when the evangelists wanted to say something important about the character of Jesus, they often went to fictional parable - again a redundancy. That is what Greco-Roman authors understood as the poetic license of "speech-in-character" or even "scene-in-character," that is, fictional material to express factual truth. And that, for example, is why there are so many and diverse dying words of Jesus - they never happened but were true to Jesus' character as each evangelist saw it. With best wishes, Consistent the Christian (JDC)

I am very surprised that Professor Crossan cited John 18:38 as a quote from Jesus since in his book The Historical Jesus, he concluded that this was not said Jesus but was a later addition by John, i.e. 180 negative. Pilate's Question:(1a) Gos. Pet. pre-1:1 from later 3:6,9 (Son of God) & 3:7; 4:11 (King of Israel), (1b) Mark 15:1-5 = Matt 27:1-2,11-14 = Luke 23:1-5, (1c) John 18:28-38;19:4-16;

Ditto for Mark 15:17 i.e. 131 negative. Mocking of Jesus: (1a) Gos. Pet. 3:6-9; (1b) Mark 15:16-20a = Matt 27:27-31a; (1c) John 19:1-3; (2a) Barn. 5:14; (2b) Barn. 7:7-11.

This lack of consistency by Professor Crossan is very disturbing since he is widely cited in journals and books.

"To the “politically conservative Christians” of this question I ask where they stand on personal and individual, national and international violence. Are they with Jesus or with Pilate?"

I remember in the early days of the Iraq invasion watching one of the most famous christian conservatives on his TV program, guessing where the troops next move should be during the battle. He actually said that the troops should finish off Iraq and then move straight to Syria. Another conservative was giving a sermon "in a church" on TV, when he suddenly turned political and started attacking palestinians and advocating violence against them.

Mr Crossan: I can assure you that the conservatives in this country would welcome any blood to be spilled for whatever cause, right or wrong, just to get them where they want. I think you are giving them the benefit of the doubt, by assuming that thay may actually follow Jesus. But then again, why do you assume that Jesus came to bring peace on earth? Didn't he say:

"I have come to set the world on fire, and I wish it were already burning! I have a terrible baptism of suffering ahead of me, and I am under a heavy burden until it is accomplished. Do you think I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I have come to divide people against each other!" (Luke 12:49-51)

May be the question should be "Will the conservatives continue to preach violance or should they let go their blind faith and wise up a bit"?

This is always a confusing subject. I suggest a distinction has to be drawn between the idea of "nation" (a collection of people, a demographic) and "government" or "state" (as defined by the U.S. Constitution). Technically the U.S. is a "christian nation" in that the majority of its citizens say they are "christian" when polled.

Of course the Constitution intentionally and clearly draws a distinction between any and all religions and the government, separates the two entities and by law prohibits the recognition of any religion above any other religion.

So, while most Americans say they are Christian, The United States of America is not a christian state.

Mr. Crossan, I find your response absurd.

Have a warm and peaceful holiday!

According to the Bible in Acts 11:26 "And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And THE DISCIPLES WERE CALLED CHRISTIANS FIRST IN ANTIOCH. (KJV) Does the fact that what transpired in Antioch make Antioch a Christian nation, I say it doesn't. Christianity was spread through out the majority of this world commencing with the Apostles (who were true Christians) by the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. None of those nations claim they were Christian nations, America is no different there are Christians here but it doesn't make this a Christian nation. This country is secular, democratic, capitalistic and many other things nation. Here is the clincher according to scripture the real Christian nation is known as KINGDOM OF GOD which IS NOT OF THIS WORLD (JN: 18:36) also THE CHURCH (not denominations or sects) This Kingdom is made up of all races of people who are converted through the power of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Romans 1:16 "For I am not ashamed of THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST: for it IS THE POWER OF GOD UNTO SALVATION TO EVERYONE that believeth; to the jew first, and also to the Greek.

Most people in this country are misunderstanding or not getting the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles concerning this and many other topics. The reason in my own experince is because most people in the "Christian" world have never really experienced TRUE BIBLICAL conversion,its the Holy Spirit that is the manifestor of Jesus Christ through the Christian.

Finally, I love what Jesus said that the whole law is fulfilled in namely loving the Lord our God with all our heart, soul and mind and our neighbor as our self. Love is true Christianity.

I tend to agree with Dominic Crossan that a nation-state cannot be Christian, because Christianity as established by its founder, Jesus Christ, is incompatible with the nature of nation-states. Nation-states are entities that seek geopolitical and economic advantage, engage in warfare, and establish internal and external institutions that seek "success" and "survival" rather than expressing steadfast love toward neighbor as well as toward the living God.

Nation-states can, however, be oriented more or less toward justice and mercy, or toward violence and oppression. Within a nation-state, professed Christians can stand "for Christ" or "for Pilate."

Among those who call themselves "Christians," both orientations can be seen. Will the real Christians please stand up?

My goodness, so Jesus was so perfect!

Yeah, and don't forget what he did to the poor little bird when he was a kid, and what about the violence he showed in driving out the merchants from the temple.

I really cannot see where Jesus was so pacificist, unless that was one of the attributes claimed for him during the Great Apostasy at Constantnople. I, for one, do not embrace the stupidity of pacifism and just let some dingaling kill you and your family. That was practiced in 1991 at a Buddhaist Temple in Phoenix. Nine priests and nuns merely sat, allowing three killers to shoot them. It was worse than shooting fish in a barrel.

Non-violence has its place, but not in defense of a country. Somewhere along the line the entire matter of "Christianity," and other religions have gotten off track.

Maybe all should be eliminated. The concept is strictly a stone age development anyway.

I agree that we are not a "Christian nation" any more. But, please do not belittle the sacrifice that He made on that cross for "pacifists" and "non-pacifists" alike. Jesus is the Son of God Who, once believed upon, is the only one who will save every single person from eternity in hell. That is the bottom line of what Jesus is. His name is already above all names. I think you and several of your responders have missed the point of why Jesus came.

I have to jump in here because it appears that the Dr's excellent comments have become a springboard for people bashing those who believe that this nation was founded on principle's found in the Bible.

I do agree that the founding father's used much more than the Bible to develop the awesome govermental structure that we enjoy today, but to believe that it was not very instrumental is a wrong assertion.

The Dr's comment that touched the strongest chord with me is the fact that just as we shouldn't have America defined as a Christian nation, we likewise shouldn't be anti-christian. I believe it is in many cases that anti-christian sentiment amongst those who opine about the nation not being a christian nation that invalidates their stance as much as the assertion that America is a Christian nation invalidates the argument of those on the right.

And even more troubling is the convergence of the newer Protestant sects and bloodlust for foreign military adventures against pretty much anybody and everybody. The Crusades are back!

I'm surprised when I hear some Americans claim that we are a Christian nation. I agree with Dr. Crossan that nations or states cannot be religious (Christian, Muslim, Jewish etc...) by definition. Additionally, where would our Founding Fathers have been without the backdrop of the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment? Our founders owe a debt of gratitude to many, not merely their Judeo-Christian roots. The idea of our being a Christian nation seems more like revisionist history, much the same as the modern era claims of some to the inerrancy of the Bible and the emergence of Christian fundamentalism. Personally, I see these developments as rooted in modern era attempts to latch on to anything that might relieve us of the ambiguities confronted in the problems and challenges posed by the industrial and post-industrial revolutions. Taken together these ideas have become for many a “new mythology”. It is unfortunately, a mythology uniquely ill-suited to the task of moving us from where we are to where we need to go.

I’ve always been curious why Jesus did not join the rebellion against the Roman occupation of Jerusalem? If Jesus had intended to establish a Christian nation, surely he would have joined and led a successful overthrow of the Roman oppressors. But he did not. And I think there is a great deal of information for us as Christians in not only what Jesus did, but in what he chose not to do. As a Christian I cannot fathom Jesus standing here, in the 21st century, shoulder to shoulder with those present day Christian advocates of preemptive war, ever larger military spending, development of a new generation of nuclear weapons, the death penalty etc… These all seem to my mind to stand in total opposition of how Jesus chose to both live and die.

The more basic reason why America is not a "Christian" nation is because there is no such person on earth as a "Christian." The original sect consisted of a group of Hebrews challenging orthodox Judaism and the wealthy Hebrews and priests of the Jerusalem Temple. In order to be a member of the sect, according to the New Testament, it was necessary to dispose of all excess possessions and share what was left with the community. The sect was communalistic and socialistic, with strong elements of what was to become known as the democratic form of communism at the base of their philosophy. There is not a person on this earth today who follows the majority of the basic precepts attributed to "Jesus" (Joshua). If there were, that person would be labeled a "communist," not a "Christian."
America today is a nation based politically and economically on capitalism modified under a variety of programs (e.g., Social Security) that are right out of the Communist Manifesto of Marx and Engels, who were far more "Christian" than anyone alive today. But socially America is an oligarchy dominated by an aristrocracy of wealth, with all "Christian" churches supporting that state of affairs. You can read the vitriolic attacks of the authors of the New Testament scriptures on the rich and imagine what they would say if they could come back to life and see what the "Christians" of today preach and support.