Not yet... still working.

[This post is part 2 of a 3 part series. The first post "Don't Look yet... it's not finished" can be found here. Look for the third post shortly.]

A lot of a handgun's power lies in its potential use. The idea of of the handgun is usually enough to get most people to do what you want.

Can you imagine Jesus packing heat? Can you see him walking around Galilee with a side arm? I can't. I can't imagine him literally packing heat, and I can't imagine him metaphorically packing heat. I can't imagine him saying "Love me. Or else."

Rome was about packing heat though. Top to bottom, the entire empire was based on military power: the ability to fight, the ability to kill, the ability to take one's affairs into one's own hands—preferably by force.

A lot of Rome's power lay in it's potential action. The idea of Rome was pretty coercive, particularly among defeated and occupied countries bearing fresh scars and thus fresh reminders of the actual violence which lay behind the potential violence.

The civilized threat of violence in order to enact civil coercion and therefore civil security was the essence of civilization. Civilized and good people engaged in that comfortably familiar oxymoron—enforcing peace.

Of course soldiers enforced peace by brandishing swords—which were a lot like handguns. Soldiers with swords overtly brandished the idea of Rome. That was a pretty obvious way to enforce peace. But more prevalent than obvious swords were subtle things, things which upheld the legitimacy of Rome as the bearer of the idea of Rome. Things like banners, monuments, ornaments, emblems, uniforms, documents, seals, certificates, systems, methods, that kind of thing. Emblems upheld the legitimacy of Rome to be the bearer of potential violence for the sake of civilized peace. Emblems alluded to the idea of Rome which in turn alluded to actual violence. Said one more way, emblems alluded to Rome's right to allude the potential violence which in turn alluded to Rome's right to enact actual violence. The emblem was twice removed from actual violence, so it was all very civilized and acceptable.

What made it civilized and acceptable was precisely the fact that you didn't have to go around shooting a lot of people, you just had to subtly remind people that you could potentially shoot them. Metaphorical handguns are the same as real handguns in that a lot of their power lies in their potential use.

So, if you were a Roman citizen you were packing heat. You had access to the power of Rome. Solely by virtue of being a Roman citizen your hand was casually resting on the cold metal strapped to your hip, your thumb on the hammer and your index finger twitching. The idea of you drawing on the idea of Rome was a powerful idea.

If you weren't a Roman citizen you were't packing heat. You knew you weren't, and everybody else knew you weren't. That also was a powerful idea.

However, the emblem, as much as the sword, enforced peace. Coercing people with emblems and ornaments that are metaphorical handguns, despite its outward civilized nature, is still violent coercion. Using actual force to enlist compliance is pretty easy to spot. It's violence against personhood via the body, a body we can see, so we easily see the violence. Using the threat of force to enlist compliance is much harder to spot. It's violence against personhood via the spirit, a spirit we can't see, so we don't easily see that kind of violence.

But an attack on human spirit is just as violent as an attack on human bodies, maybe more so for its subtle and insidious nature. An attack on human spirit kills in slow motion through the quiet violence of neglect.

Can you imagine the subtly of social interaction required of a non-Roman citizen when conversing with a Roman citizen? Whatever words came out of the mouth of the Roman citizen, behind those words was the tacit statement made by his emblems, ornaments, systems and documents, "Remember, I can unleash swift and horrible violence on whom I chose for reasons I chose." How would those conversations go? How would they be skewed? How would the conversation be different if the Roman citizen chose to leave the emblems and ornaments at home, in effect, leave his handgun at home?

Then Jesus shows up, right smack in the middle of a culture marinated in the idea of packing heat. God comes present to his creation right in the middle of an Empire that expanded itself by attacking human bodies and sustained itself by attacking human spirits. And how does The One whose power extends over everything1 chose to live?

He refuses to pack heat.

His power extends over everything, but he will not use his legitimate power for the purpose of coercion. Not against the Romans on behalf of the Jews. Not against the religious elite on behalf of his Father. Not against the rich on behalf of the poor. He sometimes acted with passion, but he didn't gloweringly hover over anyone threatening annihilation. Jesus didn't once use his power to coerce anyone, ever.

God, in coming present to his creation in the person of Jesus, in living as self-pouring-out-love in a world of self-preserving-violent-coercion, stated definitively "I am not packing heat. I will not put one in the chamber, put the gun to your head and tell you to love me. As a matter of fact, I'm putting the gun down. Actually, you know what, I haven't even brought it with me."

The tone of the conversation changes considerably when the God of the Universe leaves his handgun at home.

1"his power extends over everything" taken from Colossians 2:10 The Message

Posted via email from The Broken Wing