Support the Café

Search our Site

The “Armor of Light”?

The “Armor of Light”?

The “Armor of Light”?

The way I feel about Paul’s directive to “put on the armor of light”  is similar to how I feel about calling those who participated in the January 6 insurrection of the U.S. Capitol “terrorists.” In the days and weeks following the Jan. 6 insurrection, leaders in various BIPOC communities across the country called for those who opposed the insurrection to not use the label “terrorist” when describing the insurrectionists. At the time, many liberals and progressives wanted to label them terrorists because doing so seemed like a helpful way to delegitimize far-right extremism in a country whose security is system laser-focused on uprooting terrorism. January 6 was the largest and most visible moment such a label could clearly be used against white American men, who are so often able to avoid being so stigmatized, despite their violent acts. Calling them “terrorist” seemed like a productive way of delegitimizing their cause and forcing the political right to grapple with the reality of what they had produced. 

But many BIPOC leaders across the country advised against it, and their reasoning was simple: the more we use the term “terrorist,” no matter whom we are labeling as such, the more it will come back to harm black and brown folx in the end. Because in the end, that term always gets weaponized and used against black and brown folx across the globe, and not only within the United States. So  a short-term gain labeling the white men who participated in the insurrection as “terrorist,” would inevitably be a long-term loss for communities of color, both domestically and internationally. 

That’s exactly how I feel about the militaristic language Paul uses in writing to the Romans. Yes, he is encouraging the believers in Rome to hold true to the faith during trying times. He is telling them that they need to stay strong, for the time is coming when they will see the Lord. He is telling them to amend their lives and repent and come to Jesus. Yet, even though the militaristic language might convey what he is trying to say in the short-term, what about the long-term effects of using such language?

We’ve seen how this language and theology plays out in the long term over the course of the past two thousand years. Far too often, Christian soldiers have taken these metaphors literally, and used them to validate their use of violence, force, and the abuse of power. From the medieval European Crusades to the American imperial project of Manifest Destiny, we’ve colonized and captured and laid waste other civilizations, thinking of ourselves as Christian soldiers who have the responsibility of “civilizing” and bringing our way of life to other parts of the world. That last point rings especially hollow in the wake of this week’s news out of Afghanistan.

Instead, though I find Paul’s language misses the mark of what our Christian vocation is truly about, I turn to the Gospels and find hope in Jesus’ message. This Sunday’s message makes it clear that the life lived while following Jesus is not one of militaristic force and power, but rather one that is freely given, and freely accepted. Yes, there are many who will be turned off and choose to go another way. Jesus does not concern himself with that; he proclaims the truth, and leaves us to decide for ourselves, without any threat of coercion or force. As we continue to share the Good News of the Gospel in our own lives with others, let us remember, and strive to emulate, the way that Jesus lays out for us.




Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

1 Comment
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Grant W Barber

My understanding is that Paul is sitting in prison writing this. He is guarded by a soldier. He takes the military symbols and tools of the oppressor and subverts them. Paul does not always land this squarely in Jesus’ teachings that take apart the world’s power structure, but this is a pretty good example. All the accoutrements of soldier are reassigned tools for being a person of faith…sandals of peace is the clearest (I could imagine how ‘righteousness’ could be still be cast as wielding power, for example). I am more familiar with misuse of scripture to justify violence w/2 other scriptures: I come not to bring peace, but a sword, and the cleansing of the Temple. It might be out there–historical references of kings, soldiers in various historical eras that don’t get the intent of Paul correctly. I’m just not familiar with them. If one takes the power of subversion–pearl of great price; faithful slaves who serve a master; Philistines as dogs under the table–then the leap here is not so great as well.

Support the Café
Past Posts

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café