Many branches of the Christian tree are pacifistic, like the Quakers; so likewise some of the wider offshoots. We have some comments here on a 16-page tract titled Christ and Protest by Harry Tennant (whose qualifications are not stated) of the Christadelphian movement.
- Tennant notes that the Apostles brought their message into a pagan world, but this "did not cause the apostles to alter any teaching first given by Christ; they never tried to 'adapt' his teaching to make it more 'appropriate' to the prevailing circumstances."
Tennant does not define "adapt" or "appropriate" but as stated his point is clearly in error. The teachings of Jesus are alluded to in a variety of ways that show they have been "adapted" for circumstances unknown in rural Galilee. It is not clear whether Tennant would include such adaptation under his rubric, but nevertheless, as stated, his point is in error.
- In opposition to social protest, Tennant points out that slaves in the NT "were not told to agitate for their freedom, whether or not their masters were good. Believing masters were not told to release their slaves. Nor were those who were neither masters nor slaves told to urge the abolition of slavery."
With these comments Tennant shows he does not have understanding of the social world of the NT:
- Slavery as an institution was far different than slavery known from closer to modern times. See link below.
- As Malina and Neyrey note in Portraits of Paul, ancient society was far more into "knowing your place" and not getting out of it. One who was meant to be a slave, would be a slave -- what kept the NT from advocating abolition directly was not forbiddance of protest, but the ancient perception that where one was born was where one stayed.
On the other hand, this exemplifies a flaw found throughout Tennant's argument: the NT message in fact was highly subversive where institutions like slavery and the Roman household codes were concerned. The instructions Paul gives (as Miller ably shows) worked within the institution of slavery in a way that "corrupted" and subverted it, and would lead to no other result than its destruction if followed through upon.
Here is an analogy: Who was the far better "protestor" -- Martin Luther King, or Malcolm X? The latter worked through violence at his earliest stages. The former worked through non-violent civil protest. Who was more effective? (Who has a holiday named after him today? Which of the two changed his mind to be more like the other??)
King was closer in technique to the Bible: his way was radically and subtly subversive -- and got much more accomplished in the long run. Tennant is correct to say that we should avoid resentment and anger -- but that is the way of a Malcolm X.
- Tennant errs in placing the "Zealot" movement in Jesus' day.
- It is said, "There is not one instance in the whole of the four Gospel records where Jesus came into conflict with the Roman authorities" other than his trial. There are a few reasons for this, and none have to do with any indication against social protest:
- With only 3000 (well-armed) Roman soldiers in the Empire, and most matters handled by local authorities, per Roman custom (yet with more Romans ready to drop in at the drop of a hat)...
- ...and with the Roman yoke respecting the Jews' religious sensitivities, the most important aspect of their lives...
- ...and last, with the above-mentioned ancient idea of one's place in the world....
...there wasn't much room for such protest to get a foothold.
- Tennant creates a false dichotomy between the religious and political systems in Jesus' day, noting that things like the Temple cleansing were "directed at abuses within the religious system..." This is true, but incomplete. In the ancient world the religious and political systems were virtually intertwined. The Sadducees were the powers in both spheres, and they freely mixed the two.
One could not protest the religious system without making what was in reality as well a political statement. Malina and Rohrbaugh (Social-Science commentary, 138) note:
Religion likewise had no separate, institutional exercise in the modern sense. It was rather an overarching system of meaning that unified political and kinship systems (including their economic aspects) into an ideological whole...the Temple was never a religious institution somehow separate from political institutions. Religion was the meaning one gave to the way the two fundamental systems, politics and kinship, were put into practice.
- Tennant claims the Bible-believer "discounts his earthly citizenship" and notes Paul's comments (Phil. 3:20) that our citizenship is in heaven. However, in so saying, Paul does not indicate a total abandonment of earthly citizenship; had he done so he would never have appealed to his Roman citizenship before being flogged. Tennant displays the same fundamental misunderstanding of the Christian and authority we discussed here.
Tennant summarizes thusly: For the believer, he says, "protest, agitation, and subversion were out of the question."
This is untrue as stated. Violent protest, agitation, and subversion are out of the question; subtle forms are not -- and the teachings of the NT, from Jesus to Paul, are filled with words that subtly undermined the prevailing values and mores of the NT era. Tennant's case is simply anachronistic.
-JPH