Religious terror and the prophetic voice of reason: unmasking our myths of righteousness.

Abstract

In a post 9/11 world where large-scale violence against civilian populations is ever more being justified through fundamentalist interpretations of Sacred Scripture, it is a moral imperative that religious communities establish a basis for some kind of objective criteria to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate interpretations of their sacred texts. While there has been much focus in the United States on the issue of Islamic extremism, the fact remains that Christian fundamentalism is a growing phenomenon behind US military aggression. However, Christian fundamentalism is not only an inadequate response to Islamic extremism, but more importantly it is dangerous because both ideologies share a presumption of their own righteousness and each divinely sanctions its acts of aggression toward the other. As an interpretive starting point, historical criticism becomes a much needed "prophetic voice of reason," whereby inspired texts are examined honestly and in light of the historical limitations they contain. A critical examination of biblical tradition, for example, will demonstrate that violence and cruelty are not tangential to biblical narratives, but intrinsic to them. Therefore, it is argued that the criteria to determine what is ethically demanded by the biblical texts must be sought in the future world toward which biblical narratives point, but in which they themselves do not fully participate. Only in this way can communities of faith begin to unmask the myth of their own righteousness and with it, the ambiguity that allows for the perpetration of untold violence and evil in the name of religion.

**********

Ranking among some of the most well known statues in the world is the figure of the Roman goddess Themis, the goddess of all that is just and lawful, and the embodiment of "social conscience" (van der Horst: 856). Having evolved into the more commonly recognized personification of Justice, she now adorns many courthouses and legal institutions throughout the modern world. Frequently, she is depicted, arms outstretched, holding scales in the balance; a testament to her unwavering impartiality. And although revered for her clear-sightedness, in recent centuries "Lady Justice" has nevertheless been increasingly depicted as blindfolded; that is, immune from coercion and outside influence.

We might readily agree that Lady Justice is an apt personification of our most lofty ideologies in a world where one would hope that justice is sought after and embraced. In a post 9/11 United States however, it now seems that issues of justice concerning human rights and civil liberties are being sacrificed on the altar of national security, while American citizens have been seduced into acquiescence sometimes through fear and a manipulation of the facts, and sometimes through the explicit suggestion that God is on our side. Indeed, the phrase, "God bless America!" endlessly reverberating through our hallowed corridors, seems to carry with it a silent footnote, which if verbalized would conclude," ... and to hell with the rest of the world."

Thus, it would seem that yet another myth--that of an ancient serpent in a primeval garden--betrays a deeper, more universal truth of the human condition: that all too often Lady Justice is, in fact, subject to coercion and manipulation and that her scales are not balanced, but slighted in service of our national and religious myths of righteousness. And, more insidiously still, such injustices are all too often not effectively challenged because like the serpent of Eden, our established judicial systems are prone to deception not by outright lying, but by spawning ambiguity, and thus obfuscating the truth (cf. Exod 3). As our myths have always cautioned: evil thrives on ambiguity.

Religion: Victim of Terrorism, or Perpetrator?

Where then does the truth lie? In whose narrative? Whose version of history? Whose mythology? In a world in which religion has become so manifestly sourced as an instrument of terror, oppression and nationalism, it would seem more than ever an imperative on the part of all people of faith to stay the hand of so-called religious ideologies that promote and execute untold violence on the human community in the name of God. Yet, people of faith have only the stories, poems and myths of their sacred texts with which to resist the artillery of war and terrorism. Tragically, in a world where those same sacred texts are being hijacked in support of unjustifiable violence, any effective response in favor of peace must itself be theological, that is, it must take seriously the presumption of faith, so as to challenge and transform our religious traditions from within, not simply criticize or dismiss them from without.

To this end there must be a basis for establishing some kind of objective criteria to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate interpretations of sacred texts. On what basis do we identify those interpretations which are central and universally true to a religious tradition and those which, by contrast, represent cultural trappings and historical limitations that do not embody the core values of that same tradition? It is in response to this question that speaking faithfully and "prophetically" in our present historical context demands that one speak with the discerning lens of reason. In other words, fidelity to one's faith tradition necessarily implies fidelity to the voice of reason in discerning divine imperatives for our own time. Among the three great monotheistic faiths, the role of a prophet is to serve as a mouthpiece for the divine, as one who perceives the political, social, historical, cultural, and religious currents of the times, and in doing so is able to speak an insightful, cautionary, or liberating message to one's contemporaries. Therefore, if fundamentalist ideologies continue to usurp religion in service of dangerously nationalistic and politicized agendas, the only plausible response is to take up the use of reason to bring to light the historical limitations of our sacred texts in service of the advancement of peace, justice and compassion in the world today.

While faith by definition is "non-rational" (i.e., meta-rational), this does not imply that it must be "irrational" (i.e., contrary to reason). The recognition that reason, like all human faculties, is itself limited, does not necessitate that we abandon it altogether--especially where it may be helpful in discerning the truth and meaning of a particular faith tradition. A brief examination of a hermeneutic shared between radical Islam and fundamentalist Christianity demonstrates that an uncritical use of their respective scriptures have led both factions to a dangerously politicized faith. The result has been a distorted and unjustified conviction that God has taken sides, and moreover that God condones and sanctifies acts of violence against the "other"--a phenomenon which we will refer to here as a "myth of righteousness."

While there is no denying the role of religion in Islamic terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda, what is often less critically examined in the United States is that many fundamentalist factions within Christianity have established their own "myth of righteousness" by making an idol of their Scriptures, dangerously unmitigated by the prophetic voice of reason. Certainly there are many legitimate approaches to the interpretation of Scripture; yet any method that is not cognizant of the Bible's own historical development lacks the necessary criteria to properly contextualize and interpret its meaning. So, for example, a significant majority of fundamentalist Christians have galvanized behind the current U.S. administration in strong support of its military action in Iraq and does not appear to see this support as inconsistent with the gospel's unequivocal demand for peace, social justice, and above all compassion for the "other." More recently, this same faction in the U.S. has demonstrated

an unqualified support of Israel's military response to Hezbollah's assaults, not for intelligible political reasons, but because of a faith conviction that this escalation in violence may signal the onset of the "rapture." But for all its support of Israel, does this Christian perspective not carry with it an implicit anti-Semitism or at least the perpetuation of a new kind of supersessionism, whereby fundamentalist Christian circles relegate an entire nation to the status of pawns in a divine plan to ultimately save righteous Christians? In short, Israel is being neither challenged nor supported for Israel's sake, but because of a Christian fundamentalist soteriological agenda. And where in all of this pseudo-exegesis might one find compassion for the plight of entire populations of Muslim citizens who are caught up in untold devastation and warfare? This disconcerting escalation of violence in the middle east gives a particular urgency to Eugene Peterson's observations:

   Religion is the most dangerous energy source known to humankind.
   The moment a person (or government or religion
   or organization) is convinced that God is either ordering or
   sanctioning a cause or project, anything goes. The history,
   worldwide, of religion-fueled hate, killing, and oppression is
   staggering.... [Yet, t]he biblical prophets continue to be the
   most powerful and effective voices ever heard on this earth for
   keeping religion honest, humble, and compassionate.... Prophets
   see through hypocrisy, especially hypocrisy that assumes a
   religious pose [Peterson: 164; cf. Wallis: 141, 87-171].

In a post 9/11 world, the classical question of theodicy has been overshadowed by the fact that religion is not only being called upon to explain evil in the world, but more so to justify its perpetuation. We are thus ethically required to question whether religion is the victim or perpetrator of evil in the global terrorism crisis. While this is not at all a novel development in Western civilization, in the context of the real and present danger posed by a growing Islamic extremism, the fact that Christian fundamentalist agendas have had a measurable impact on U.S. politics has not been given sufficient attention. This is regrettable because a Christian fundamentalist response to Islamic radicalism is not only inadequate, it is dangerous, since it shares with the Islamic extremists the presumption of its righteousness and the divine sanctioning of its own acts of aggression.

The Significance of Historical Criticism in the Politics of Terrorism

Outside of fundamentalist circles, much of Judaism and Christianity have undergone significant historical-critical examinations of their scriptures, which have allowed for more accurate interpretations of the sacred texts by historically contextualizing their cultural trappings and thus bringing into relief the universal truth claims that they embody. This is not so in Islam's reading of the Koran. Ishrad Manji, in her book, The Trouble with Islam, accurately observes that while most Christians and Jews are aware of, and even celebrate intellectual and exegetical diversity within their traditions, she concludes by contrast that "Muslims treat the Koran as a document to imitate rather than interpret, suffocating our capacity to think for ourselves" (Manji: 30).

But Manji is not alone in this critique. Dr. Shmuel Bar, a senior research fellow at the Institute for Policy and Strategy at the Interdisciplinary Center in Israel explains why "Arab" Sunni Islam has never undergone a widely accepted reform. Up until the tenth century, Islamic scholars were given some license to draw conclusions based not only on continuity with past teachings and legal precedents, but also on novel insights gleaned from their own study of the sacred texts; a practice known in Arabic as ijtihad ("independent investigation" [Gatje: 21]). Bar notes however, that since the tenth century, ijtihad was no longer permitted in most of the Sunni world, and thus "Islam has lacked a widely accepted mechanism for relegating a tenet or text to ideological obsolescence" (Bar). While ijtihad is still practiced among Sufis and within many non-Arab Muslim contexts, these factions remain marginal to extremist ideologies emerging from the Arab center of Islam. Moreover, Bar warns that in the information age and amidst increasing globalization, it is the more extreme forms of Islam that are intensifying in these distant regions under the influence of Wahhabi missionaries, rather than being diluted by more moderate views. This dynamic within Islam makes it difficult for less radical Muslims to challenge extremists within their own faith, as there is no intrinsic method for legitimizing such a challenge. Muslim radicals therefore feel emboldened to accuse more moderate Muslims as lapsed or wayward, while the reverse becomes more difficult to defend.

Like much of Islam, Christian fundamentalism by its nature does not admit of a mitigating mechanism when interpreting the Bible. On this critical point, it differs dangerously from the majority of Christian scholarship noted by Manji. However, in a post-critical world of biblical interpretation the Bible, despite its sacred character (indeed, precisely because of it!), can no longer be looked upon as a static deposit of truth, devoid of human and cultural limitations. Biblical truth, rather, must be sought with the help of the historical critical methodologies which are able to uncover the historical context of the sacred texts (i.e., the original intention and purpose, audience, language, meaning and theology, etc.). Despite fundamentalist attitudes ranging from a deep suspicion to outright rejection of historical-criticism of the Bible, the fact remains that in the modern world it cannot be responsibly interpreted in a manner which either ignores or ultimately contradicts these methodologies. Indeed, only with historical-criticism as our interpretive starting point are we able to take seriously these texts as "inspired" within a historical context, and thus avoid the distortion which results from what might appear to be a simple or plain reading of the text. Their distance in time, language, culture, geography, and world-view make such straightforward readings of the biblical books impossible.

If indeed we are to imitate the prophets of ancient Israel in witnessing against such injustices, it would seem that the task of the modern prophet is to name what has become the most subtle and insidious of idols within Christian fundamentalism: the Bible itself. Although Islam refers to both Jews and Christians as "People of the Book," among the three great monotheistic faiths there remains a significant distinction within Christianity. Namely, that the core and center of Christianity is not a holy "Book." Nor is it a symbol, a ritual or any particular form of religious practice. Rather, standing at the center of Christianity is the human person--specifically, the historical person, Jesus of Nazareth. Quite apart from the Christian predication of Jesus as the "Christ," which in itself cannot be demonstrated apart from a subjective faith claim, the theological implications of this claim are nevertheless undeniable: God has been revealed par excellence in a human person, not a sacred text. The Bible thus can never be mistaken to supplant that revelation, but must always remain a testament to that more central "embodied" truth. This is a point of great significance to our subject and thus one to which we will return later.

While Scripture will always remain the authoritative text for matters of faith, its meaning must always be grounded in its witness to the historical person, Jesus of Nazareth, now proclaimed by Christians as the Risen Christ. In this context of faith then, the Christian community can (must!) take a critical approach to its interpretation of the Bible, otherwise held as sacred and authoritative, because Christian faith is not rooted primarily in the Bible itself, but rather in the One to whom it is believed to testify (cf. Jn 5:39). Only with this interpretive perspective can the Bible itself continue to speak a life-giving message, and only in this context can one properly interpret the biblical texts for his or her own time. We take two examples to illustrate our point. First, the problem of the Holy War "ban" in the Hebrew Scriptures and second, the problem of anti-Judaism in the New Testament.

First, not unlike the Koranic call for jihad, there are a number of places throughout the Hebrew Scriptures where God commands Israel to fight a "Holy War," which culminates in the so-called "ban." Muslim moderates have valiantly attempted to emphasize the meaning of jihad that implies an (inner) "struggle" or "striving" against one's own passions of sinfulness. However, its normal rendering in English as "Holy War" conveys an equally viable meaning of the word in the Koran as an (outer) military struggle or war against infidels and apostates (Sura 2:216ff; cf. Harris: 111; Gatje: 212). Similarly, by divine command, the ban enjoined Israel to slaughter every man, woman and child, as well as the livestock of the enemy, and to give over their precious gems and metals to the treasury of the Temple. A poignant example may be taken from the book of Joshua:

   6 17 "The city [Jericho] and all that is in it shall be devoted to
   the LORD for destruction.... 18 As for you, keep away from the
   things devoted to destruction, so as not to covet and take any
   of the devoted things and make the camp of Israel an object
   for destruction, bringing trouble upon it. 19 But all silver and
   gold, and vessels of bronze and iron, are sacred to the LORD;
   they shall go into the treasury of the LORD." 20 So the people
   shouted, and the trumpets were blown. As soon as the people
   heard the sound of the trumpets, they raised a great shout, and
   the wall fell down flat; so the people charged straight ahead
   into the city and captured it. 21 Then they devoted to destruction
   by the edge of the sword all in the city, both men and
   women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys [NRSV,
   Josh 6:17-21 ; cf. Num 21:1-3; Deut 2:30-35; 3:3-7; 7: 1-2;
   10:28; 11:10-11].

The fact that the ban was conceived not so much as an act of revenge against an enemy, but as an act of consecration of war booty to God, does not lessen the horror of its impact on the modern reader of the Bible. For fundamentalist Christianity, such actions on God's behalf cannot finally be understood as merely a distant culture's reflection on their tribal God, but necessarily remains a dimension of God's inexplicable sovereignty and divine wrath against the enemies of Israel. But as such, it must inescapably remain also a testament to God's wrathful judgment against those who would stand in the way of his sovereign Will for Israel or, by extension, the Church in the modern world. In contrast to such brutal depictions of God, the French theologian Oliver Clement, rightly notes that

   History, including the history of Christianity, is littered with
   caricatures of God, like so many mental idols which have led
   people either to cruelty or atheism. But how, in modern times,
   after the growth of liberty and the critical spirit, could people
   have accepted a God who seemed to them worse than themselves,
   or at least inferior to the highest demands of a conscience
   secretly nourished by the Gospel? [Clement: 26].

This "critical spirit" of which Clement speaks is the very catalyst behind the historical, literary and theological insights that help to situate our understanding of the ban within the broader framework of Israel's prophetic tradition and the subsequent gospel demands for compassion and peace. The importance of these insights cannot be underestimated, for without them we are left with little means at our disposal to argue why--from a biblical standpoint--Jews and Christians should not engage in such acts of genocide today. The question is an ironic one: how can people of faith today offer convincing biblical interpretations against the moral atrocities which their own sacred and authoritative texts seem to condone in accord with a perceived divine directive? Does not a literal interpretation of the ban, as the culminating act of "holy war" in ancient Israel, give license to carry out such acts of genocide today and in some cases might it not even require them--all in the name of God?

Certainly, historical criticism is not simply a bulwark protecting the believing community from an otherwise hostile or dangerous Bible. To the contrary, approaching the Bible with a "critical spirit" can provide insights into the cultural conditions and literary contexts in which violence, oppression--or in this case specifically the ban--are to be found, thus allowing the Bible itself to speak an ancient message more clearly to a modern community of faith. This honest confrontation with the Bible allows us to face its inherent violence without sanitizing it. Consequently, we are able to responsibly distinguish which narratives in the Bible should be understood as historically limited, and conversely, which biblical truths are timeless and universal, and therefore must continue to be normative for the believing community today.

When confronted with narratives about the ban, for example, a historical-critical analysis raises serious questions as to whether any of the bans boasted about in the Hebrew Scriptures were ever historically carried out in Israel--and to what extent. In his essay "'Heiliger Krieg' in Israel und Assyrien," M. Weippert demonstrated that other ancient Near Eastern nations such as Assyria, Babylon and the Hittites betray many of the same elements of "holy war" as that of Israel: warrior gods who summon their people to battle, the consultation of oracles in search of divine favors before going into battle, and the offering of oaths and sacrifices in preparation for war in hopes of victory, to name a few (Weippert: 483). But strikingly, a dearth of evidence to be found anywhere among Israel's rival nations would seem to indicate that the curse of the ban was a feature unique to Israel. The implication, according to Ludemann, is that in all likelihood the ban was rarely if ever practiced, and certainly was not an essential component of holy war in the ancient Near East. In fact, there would have been sufficient pragmatic reasons not to implement the ban. Primarily, the acquisition of slaves, cattle and other booty had economic and social benefits (Ludemann: 40, 43). It is likely, then, that the biblical references to the bans exemplify cases of embellished nationalism, touting the strength and power of Israel's warrior-God over against those of other nations.

But it is precisely this "attribution-to-the-divine" that makes 'holy war' itself a potentially dangerous and destructive ideology. To presume that God has worked on my behalf against another person or an entire society or culture whom I have subsequently demonized, or at least dehumanized in order to condone an act of genocide, gives rise to the sanctification not only of my political agenda but to the ideologies of hatred and intolerance that fuel it. To suggest that because God has acted this way in the past we are justified in engaging in the same kinds of action today, simply because there is a record of such action in the authoritative religious texts, further adds to the volatility of such a polemic.

A second example highlights the legacy of anti-Semitism that has resulted from an interpretation of the Gospels which has not been mitigated by a historical-critical appreciation of those texts. Specifically, we are able to discern a growing Jewish-Christian animosity behind the telling of the gospel passion narratives by placing a historically unjustified and undeserved blame for the death of Christ collectively on "the Jews." This accusation has tragically contributed to a history of Christian anti-Semitism over the course of centuries.

The passion narrative as it is told in the earliest Gospel, Mark (c. 65 CE), limits Jesus' antagonists to the Jewish "chief priests" who are responsible not only for demanding Jesus' death, but for manipulating the larger crowd to concur with this demand. It is significant that the Greek word for "crowd" (ochlos) is a general term which has no ethnic implications. In other words, the "crowd" in Mark's Gospel is not necessarily comprised only of Jews. Thus:

   15 10 [Pilate] realized that it was out of jealousy that the chief
   priests had handed him over. 11 But the chief priests stirred up
   the crowd [ochlon] to have him release Barabbas for them instead.
   12 pilate spoke to them again, "Then what do you wish
   me to do with the man you call the King of the Jews?" 13 They
   shouted back, "Crucify him!" 14 Pilate asked them, "Why,
   what evil has he done?" But they shouted all the more, "Crucify
   him!" 15 So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd [ochloi] released
   Barabbas for them; and after flogging Jesus, he handed
   him over to be crucified [Mark 15:10-15].

By comparison, roughly ten years later, at the time Matthew's Gospel was written, the passion narrative, which Matthew borrowed from Mark and edited for his own purposes, portrays significantly more blame for the Jews in several instances:

   20 Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowds
   [ochlous] to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus killed. 21 The
   governor again said to them, "Which of the two do you want me
   to release for you?" And they said, "Barabbas." 22 Pilate said
   to them, "Then what should I do with Jesus who is called the
   Messiah?" All of them said, "Let him be crucified!" 23 Then
   he asked, "Why, what evil has he done?" But they shouted
   all the more, "Let him be crucified!" 24 So when Pilate saw
   that he could do nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning,
   he took some water and washed his hands before the crowd
   [ochlou], saying, "I am innocent of this man's blood; see to
   it yourselves." 25 Then the people [laos] as a whole answered,
   "His blood be on us and on our children!" 26 So he released
   Barabbas for them; and after flogging Jesus, he handed him
   over to be crucified [Matt 27:20-26].

Two redactions are worth noting here. Firstly, the shift from "crowd" (ochlos) in v 24 to "people" (laos) in v 25 points to a subtle but important development. Unlike ochlos, the term laos connotes the particular position of Israel before God (i.e., the People of God). Thus, Pilate, whom the text completely absolves from guilt in v 24 (something not seen in Mark at all), anticipates an even more specific condemnation of the Jews as a people (laos) in the following verse when they are said to proclaim, "His blood be upon us and on our children!" Thus, the Gospel of Matthew renders the Jews guilty of Jesus' death by their own tongue, tragically paving the way for centuries of Christian anti-Semitism.

Indeed, it is demonstrable that with each subsequent gospel account, the blame of the Jews for Christ's death and the judgment upon them for bearing this responsibility grows ever greater--betraying the historical development of a growing animosity between Judaism and an increasingly gentile church. Thus, what has become directive in the tragic course of history between Jews and Christians is not the truth of what actually happened historically, but a polemically motivated account of the passion that has come down to us in the New Testament, now sanctified and given moral authority as the "Word of God." This is merely one poignant example of several anti-Judaic sentiments that can be cited in the New Testament.

It is clear, then, that examples of violence, cruelty and prejudice in the Bible--both Old and New Testaments--are not tangential to our biblical narratives, but intrinsic to them (Schneiders: 4). The Christian community must therefore seek a more nuanced interpretation of the Bible, so as to give authentic witness to the future promise of a just world, and so as not to allow the Bible to be misused otherwise. Herein lies the prophetic imperative of faith informed by reason: to understand not merely what the text says, but more so, what it means. And this necessarily requires that we look to the historical context in which the text was originally written if we are to interpret it and employ it properly in the modern world.

Unmasking Our Myths of Righteousness

By unmasking the history behind the biblical texts, historical-critical methods help to mitigate elements that might otherwise contribute to fundamentalist misreadings of the text. And herein lies the missing link in much of Islamic faith and in Christian fundamentalist practice. That which must become normative in our interpretation of the Scriptures is not simply the recorded narratives about how God is believed to have acted in the past, but more so the future direction toward which the universal values in those texts push us (Bieringer: 52-67). Such interpretive insights have already begun to have an impact on our reading of the Bible on a broad scale. For example, the fact that certain texts in the New Testament condoned slavery within the first-century church does not prevent Christians today from condemning it (cf. Col 3:22; 1 Pet 2:13-21). Clearly then, biblical revelation forces us to move beyond its own limitations toward a future realization of a world that is truly just and peaceful--that which the Gospels refer to as the "Reign of God." Ultimately then, the criteria to determine what is ethically demanded by the biblical texts must be sought in the future world toward which biblical narratives point, but which they themselves do not fully participate.

We conclude then, by proposing an alternative paradigm of Christian faith, which if taken seriously becomes an authentic corrective to the "myth of righteousness" ideology ///////// so prevalent in fundamentalist circles. This approach demands, as noted earlier, that we recognize Jesus as the center of Christianity, to whom the Bible testifies but does not supplant. Centered in Christ, then, we inquire as to how the Bible gives witness to Jesus' own "posture" toward violence. The cross becomes the chief witness and paradigm of his posture: arms outstretched, embracing the very evil that sought to destroy him. We might refer to this today as "passivism," though there is nothing really passive about it. The most central gospel proclamation of "Christ crucified" challenges us to confront evil not by retaliation or even resistance, but as did Christ--by absorption. For Jesus, this resulted in his own death, which victoriously rendered impotent the evil that was railing against him (Robinson: 40). For a nation, taking this same posture must at least imply a willingness to "absorb" the pain and horror of an event like September 11th by resisting revenge under the guise of "justice," and to do the hard work of national introspection so that we may not perpetuate a downward spiral of evil and violence, but strive for diplomacy, peace and the perusal of global justice.

This approach does not require that we place innocent people at risk of further attacks, or that we naively turn the other cheek on those who are ideologically poised to destroy us. Clearly, in a world in which terrorist organizations have developed the means to destroy thousands of innocent lives in a single strike, the use of defensive military force to diminish or thwart such attacks may at times be a legitimate and even necessary alternative to passivism. For while it would seem that passivism was Jesus' own personal response to violence, one might also argue that a nation's passivism in the face devastating assaults on innumerable innocent civilians is morally unacceptable. But this more fundamental posture of passivism with which Jesus confronted real injustice and evil should serve as a caution, safeguard, and primary foundation against any attempts by Christians to confuse the military actions of our nation with the biblical Will of God.

Where then are we to find justification for a Christian "myth of righteousness" when clearly the gospel confronts us with a God who is not foremost a divine warrior but rather crucified love? Regardless of which religious arguments might be employed in an attempt to justify the U.S. war in Iraq, for example, this is not the way of Christ. The terrible seduction to unite in the name of religious freedom, global justice, national security, allows our hearts to rest at ease while our minds go about the task of plotting, scheming, destroying under the guise of all that is good. The myth of a wrathful God who condones military violence can only be upheld in a pre-critical world of biblical exegesis. The hard fact remains: the gospel calls upon us to bless our enemies, not merely our compatriots. And thus, we can proclaim "God bless America" only if we have so radically identified God with our own national ideologies as to forget the most central gospel call to peace, justice and compassion--extending even to our own enemies. Indeed, behind the blind-fold of Lady Justice are the eyes of a primeval serpent, and sitting invisibly upon the scales she holds is the myth of our righteousness. This is the ambiguity--and the horror--of evil.

Works Cited

Bar, Shmuel. 2004. "The Religious Sources of Islamic Terrorism." Policy Review 125, (June/July): http://www.policyreview.org/jun04/bar.html.

Bieringer, Reimund. 1997. "The Normativity of the Future: The Authority of the Bible for Theology." Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 8: 52-67.

Clement, Olivier. 1995. The Roots of Christian Mysticism. Hyde Park, NY: New City Press.

Gatje, Helmut. 1976. The Qur'an and its Exegesis: Selected Texts with Classical and Modern Muslim Interpretations. Tr. Alford T. Welch. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Harris, Sam. 2005. The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Co.

van der Horst, P. W. 1999. "Themis," P. 856 in The Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, 2nd ed., edited by Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, & Pieter W. van der Horst. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

Ludemann, Gerd. 1996. The Unholy in Holy Scripture: The Dark Side of the Bible. Louisville, KY: Wesminster John Knox.

Manji, Ishrad. 2003. The Trouble with Islam: A Muslim's Call for Reform in Her Faith. Near York, NY: St. Martin's Press.

Peterson, Eugene H. 2002. The Message. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress.

Robinson, John A. T. 1952. The Body: A Study in Pauline Theology. Philadelphia, PA: Wesminster Press.

Schneiders, Sandra M. 1989. "Feminist Ideology Criticism and Biblical Hermeneutics." Biblical Theology Bulletiin 19: 3-10.

Wallis, Jim. 2005. God's Politics: Where the Right Gets it Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It. New York, NY: HarperSanFrancisco.

Weippert, Mantled. 1972. "'Heiliger Krieg' in Israel und Assyrien." Pp. 460-93 in Kritische Anmerkungen zu Gerhard yon Rods Konzept des "Heiligen Krieges im Alten Israel" Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 84.

Vincent Pizzuto, Ph.D. (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 2003), is Assistant Professor at the University of San Francisco, 2130 Fulton Street, San Francisco, CA 94117. E-mail: vapizzuto@ usfca.edu. He is the author of A Cosmic Leap of Faith: An Authorial, Structural, and Theological Investigation of the Cosmic Christology in Col 1:15-20, Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 41 (Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2006).