We all have a tendency to consume media and interact with people who make us feel comfortable and conform to our current patterns of thinking. Republicans watch Fox News and listen to Rush, Hannity, and Beck while Liberals watch MSNBC and listen to . . . well, no one since liberals don’t tend to do radio well. We like to be pushed and challenged, to an extent, but we usually prefer that to happen in extremely sanitized ways. We tend to write people off the moment they register on our “not-like-me radar.” Whether we admit it or not, our subconscious is on a constant quest to discern certain key words or phrases from those we are talking with or reading to know whether or not we should dismiss them or listen intently to them. What kind of language do they use? What key phrases do they refer to? Who do they reference and quote? We all have our circles of comfort.
What I like about Lee Camp is that he tends to bring all of us to places of discomfort – probably one of the reasons a lot of people don’t bother with him. Camp teaches at my alma mater, Lipscomb University, and is really one of their brightest and most audacious professors. Having studied under John Howard Yoder at Notre Dame, Camp is on a lifelong quest to embody the pacifist, non-violent principles articulated by his academic mentor. He says as much in his first book, Mere Discipleship. There, he brings to life issues that are most often left to academic ramblings. There, he teases out the practical implications of a Yoderan social politick in the life of the Christian.
Camp’s latest effort, Who is My Enemy?, is really a case study in following Jesus’ way of loving your enemy. He begins by sharing his experience of delivering a lecture at a seminar on conflict resolution at Lipscomb University which addressed the relationship between Christians and Muslims. Some of Camp’s comments, rightly or wrongly interepreted, set off a firestorm directed at Camp accusing him of everything from ignorance to cowardice. This experience drove Camp to learn more about Islam and wrestle with Christians’ relationship with Islam (and Muslims, specifically). The result is a jarring and, often, center-shaking work that all Christians should read – whether they think they’ll ever speak with a Muslim or not.
There is so much good in this book that I want to offer a few posts in which to share my reflections. For full disclosure, I’m a big fan of Lee Camp and believe that he provides a very important voice among Christians, even though many people would be extremely troubled by his teaching (more on this later). As a fellow Church of Christ-ite, he also represents my particular background underneath the Christian umbrella well. While there certainly will be those who question Camp’s philosophy and some of his conclusions, it is difficult to ignore someone who actively pursues those who are different to humbly and peacefully engage in dialogue and share Christian love. That may be what gives Camp’s words such power – a strong mixture of humility and Christian audacity.
Here’s a (not-too) brief first reflection . . .
One of the most compelling aspects of Camp’s book for me was rooted in an earlier work by William Cavanaugh in The Myth of Religious Violence. We have all been taught that religions are insatiably violent by nature – at least in dealing with those who think differently than they do. Their constant warring is largely to blame for many of our world’s problems. In the West we are taught that Western civilization has solved the riddle to these problems: make religion a private concern. That’s what has created our great nation of freedom. The Muslim states, so we are told, have never figured that part out.
The question Cavanaugh raises in this pointed critique of what many take as “common sense,” is what constitutes religion? How do we so easily assume that Islam is all tied up in the war-making rhetoric and actions of nations like Iran and Iraq, but Western nations like ours are freed of any religious integration? Cavanaugh’s theory here is that “religion” was a creation of modern Western civilization. Throughout history, there was no separation from religion and the rest of life. Although we’ve tried with all of our might, it’s awfully hard to claim that the Bible makes any such claims. Thus, the more we have attempted to make Christianity a “private religion” in our evolved Western state, the more we have neutered the Gospel as it was given to the first Christians. The earliest persecuted Christians didn’t seem to think they had been converted to some kind of private personal piety, how could this have become the “common sense” articulation of the Gospel today?
Camp summarizes Cavanugh and makes the following point: “the ‘myth of religious violence’ posits that the violence of religion is unacceptable, but the violence of the secular state is either ignored or seen as legitimate. The violence of religion is always necessarily irrational, but the violence of the state is seen as necessary for peacemaking. Once this assumption is swallowed, the violence of the state is justified, overlooked, ignored, or even celebrated by Western Christians, all while believing that the solution is for Islam to become more Western.” (113) The end result is that the church has often become nothing more than what Camp calls a “lapdog for the state” and “chaplain for America.”
I know this is a bit jumbled (and long), I’ll try to engage in a little more succinct matter late this week. I’ll end with this parable in which Camp further makes this point:
“A king went out to conquer, amassing great wealth and power. There came to him a people who asserted that some other was king, whom they called ‘Lord of Lords.’ The king replied: you may freely worship this one you call, ‘lord,’ you may freely build your buildings and write your books and seek your converts to this one you call, lord,’ while I am your public king. I shall make the laws, and you shall obey them. I shall tell you what enemies to kill, and you shall kill them. I shall give you a marketplace, and you shall seek to maximize your profits and keep all your profits, even at the expense of the poor, or the widow, or the stranger, and thence you shall pay taxes with which we shall wage war against all who threaten your freedom to worship your personal ‘lord.’
“And the people replied: We will gladly do as you say, O king. Indeed, we shall obey your laws. And we shall seek great profit and keep all for ourselves. And we will kill your enemies, for you, O king, have allowed us to pray to our houses of worship, in the privacy of our closets. Even more, O king, because you have allowed us to worship thus, we will denounce all those who do not exalt you, and we will proclaim that you have granted us the right to worship, and we shall profess that any who do not obey your laws or maximize profit or kill your enemies are no servants of the private Lord of Lords. We will hang your standard in our halls of worship, we will honor those who fight your wrars, and we will celebrate those who heedlessly maximize profit. Oh, grand us such liberty as this, O King!
The king was pleased, and his new subjects served him well and were happy and satisfied. (115-116)