DISQUS

dcrowe · 1 year ago

I disagree with your assessment re: whether this was "violent" or not. This kind of act falls exactly into the category of the strike on the cheek referenced in the Sermon on the Mount. Walter Wink's analysis of the Sermon makes it clear that the purpose of the strike on the cheek is to insult, to demean, and to put in one's place. That's exactly what the shoe throwing is meant to do.

I'd also quibble with what you seem to be suggesting re: fashioning the whip. The whip was used on animals, not people, as several translations of the text and even the minutes of fourth-century councils attests. Please be clear about "the whip" scene. The KJV translation, from which the common perception arises, did violence to our faith by its poor translation of this text.

I agree totally with the anger and outrage expressed by this Iraqi, but let's not let our sympathy override the call to love without violence of any kind, in any degree.

mountainguy · 1 year ago

This reminds me a grandson of a General called Carlos Prats, who was tortured and assesinated under Pinochet´s regime. About 2 years ago Pinochet died, and Prat's grandson spat on his face at the funeral.

lsomers · 1 year ago

I wonder if this isn't about the same level of violence as Jesus' Temple Tantrum? As the cages broke and the pigeons went flying, the cattle, sheep etc., went running for the exits and the tables were overturned, did anyone get hurt? That, after all, is the defining issue of violence. On whom was Jesus using the "whip of cords", according to John's version, against? Certainly not the cattle, pigeons and sheep, they were the most innocent creatures there - the actual and true victims of this nasty business of sacrifice - which Scripture repeatedly attests was nether ordered nor desired by God - but kept the religious authorities in meat and money - along with their Roman overlords.

Methinks a shoe tossed at a warlord's head is fairly innocuous compared to the hundreds of thousands of deaths and the misery and suffering of millions more this man is responsible for. We are talking about a man whose moral values lived out are no better than Caesar's or Joe Stalin's or Pol Pot's or Mao Tse Tung. The man is a thug in a suit and with the power to slaughter without mercy or conscience.

BDRhodes · 1 year ago

Yes, but as Desmond Tutu says,

"There, but for the grace of God, goes I."

Micael · 1 year ago

The whip mentioned there was used to drive out animals (sheep and oxen, Jn 2:15) not men. Only madmen use whips to strike humans with (or Roman executors, but that was another kind of whip). Why would Jesus want anyone to get hurt when He doesn't even let Peter strike off a guys ear? Besides, according to Matthew, Jesus started to heal people directly after the Temple act. It would be ironic if He first stroke the people and then healed them (but if it was, as you say, people who was hurt in the chaos (although I donät think the Father would have allowed that) they were probably some of the people that were healed afterwards).

TomDuregger · 1 year ago

Isomers, You will have to study the Scriptures a little more, the sacrafices were indeed ordered and desired by God. Get our a Nave's Topical Bible and do some research on this topic. Or go to this link: http://www.biblegateway.com/topical/topical_sea...

Jesus exception to the moneychangers was the doing of mundane business inside the Temple Courts, etc.

joet · 1 year ago

I think ole Bush got off rather lightly.

Maria Kirby · 1 year ago

I agree. If it were up to me, he would have been impeached a long time ago. I'd be in support of war crimes tribunal even now.

hewhocutsdown · 1 year ago

Was there cause for such an action? Absolutely....but was it justified? I'd challenge that - loving enemies means loving enemies, not just the revolutionary-approved ones. ;)

As Micael mentioned, violence was not directed towards people, even people deserving of it. Like David with Saul before him, it becomes a prayer of "Stay my hand, Lord"

Ben · 1 year ago

I don't see how this act was in any way "violent," in the way that I understand the word; in fact I think it is an excellent example of creative non-violence.

But would it be an excellent example of Christian creative non-violence? I think a Christian protest would have to be even more creative. As preferable as throwing shoes are to throwing hand grenades, I understand Christians to be called to not simply be creatively non-violent but creatively loving and shalom-building. The best way to "shame" an enemy would not be to use a crude tactic like shoe-throwing but rather to love them in such a way that their own actions, in contrast, are themselves shaming -- a shame that leads to repentance (the "burning coals" of Romans 12:20).

A Christian protester wouldn't throw shoes. A Christian would, say, offer to shine the President's shoes. That's probably a lame example, but I think it gets closer to what Jesus had in mind when he talked about loving enemies.

BDRhodes · 1 year ago

Or try persistently to get an American soldier, mercenary, or politician to speak at the funeral of their dead child, if they're Iraqi. Or invite them over for dinner.

Lordy, I dunno if I could manage it. I guess that's where the whole "Holy Spirit" and "new creation" thing come in. :)

Maria Kirby · 1 year ago

How about shaking the dust off one's shoes?

smh00a · 1 year ago

I can see that opinions re: this story run the gamut, and I think that's OK. As I mentioned in my piece, it's very hard for those of us sitting in easy chairs in the West to understand or even comment on the journalist's action (though that is, perhaps foolishly, exactly what I did), because so much is different for us. In the same way that careful study of the socio-political climate in antiquity is important to our understanding of Bible stories, careful study is vital in interpreting this event through Western eyes. I'm not saying I got it right ... in fact, I may not have communicated clearly enough that I'm probably unqualified to opine.

My point is that in a situation like this, where we are asked to side with either the leader of the Free World or a hurting Iraqi journalist, I'm tempted to side with the journalist. Would I have done what he did? I can't say. I haven't lost anyone in bloody conflict or been kidnapped and tortured. I am certainly not promoting his actions or calling for mass "shoe-throwings," but I can sorta understand why he did it. Sorta.

[for those of you who haven't already, check out Brandon's piece on the incident. He raises some great points.]

Joel M. Lancaster · 11 months ago

Even if the shoe had hit Bush it would not have hurt him. Get real. Had the shoe been a bullet or other truly damaging object I would feel differently. However, I agree with the general message of the piece and think splitting hairs is a Western way of evading the harshness of the Iraqi reality. What else is the man to do? I don't remember Christ offerintg to shine the shoes of Pilate. I think we stretch the love of enemies too thin and forget that Christ came not to bring peace but a sword. Flipping tables is just as harmless as throwing a shoe, but both are pretty effective displays of just disgust. It is a right on act of the wisdom of the serpent coupled with the harmlessness of the dove.

Dean · 11 months ago

Really? Throwing your shoe at somebody isn't trying to cause harm? There is showing somebody the bottom of your shoe and then throwing it at them.

You seem to want to equate throwing a shoe with flipping the bird in our culture which is probably a close comparison. The problem is, one involves an object thrown through the air. Even if it wouldn't have "hurt him that much" I think it really is a stretch to say that it wasn't intending to cause harm.

I am of the school of thought that loving your enemy would mean not throwing your shoe in this case, even if your enemy is responsible for killing your entire family. Jesus says to give that man your tunic, not throw your shoes at him.