“I refuse to join any club that would
have me as a member!” -Groucho Marx
“Why do we have to
resort to non-violence? Can't we just kick their asses?” -Turanga
Leela
Want to play a fun 4th of July facebook
game? See how many passive/aggressive status updates your friends
with pacifistic inclinations post. The 4th of July is one
of the few days of the year that “liberal” Christians feel
compelled to celebrate by offering up a flurry of blog posts against
the founding of America and the role of violence in American culture.
This libation concludes with these “liberal” Christians sacred
blog posts being ceremonially dismissed without comment by their
conservative peers. This lack of communication and mutual
understanding bothers me a lot, and it is the reason I have chosen to
write.
I personally harbor deep ambivalence towards the 4th
of July. This ambivalence arises from two deep but contradictory
loves of mine. The first love is the joy I have found in my struggle
to follow the peaceable way of Jesus, Yin to my Jesus Yang is the
sheer visceral ecstasy I derive from blowing s*** up. Though upon
further reflection you shouldn't find these twin desires that
contradictory. Pacifism can fit well in certain forms of anarchy, and
I was home-schooled until college, which is an inherently anarchic
practice.
I'd like to begin by explaining in a very brief fashion the events in my life
that have led me to find the teachings of the Christian Pacifists so
compelling. For the last three years, as an addendum to my Seminary
education, I've been paying attention to theologians in the
Anabaptist Peace church tradition. I've been doing this because I was
initially enthralled by the weirdness of their beliefs but slowly but
surely I have come to believe that they are awfully right about an
awful lot of things. Some have even accused me of being a pacifist,
and for all I know those accusers may end up being right.
Unfortunately, I also really enjoy blowing S*** up. If I am at all
ambivalent about the role that military violence has played in the
founding and sustaining of the nation of my birth, how then can I
wholeheartedly celebrate it by blowing S*** up?
What follows
is a bit of my story, Some biblical and theological propositions
which will be followed by an awful lot of apprehensions. I'm trying
to do everything that I can to make sure that nobody enjoys reading
this.
The story of my introduction to the peaceable way of
Jesus happened innocently enough. I was in my second year of seminary
and my hermeneutics professor mentioned offhandedly one day that he
enjoyed reading the works of Stanley Hauerwas, and anyone who was
interested in the pacifistic stream of Christianity should give his
works, and those of his mentor, John Howard Yoder a gander. So I
picked up a little book called, “Living Gently in a Violent World.”
Co-written with Jean Vanier. This book actually has little to do with
pacifism or war ethics, it was about how Christians should
incorporate those who are mentally handicapped into their lives and
the life of the church. Yet even with this thesis in mind it was
clear from Dr. Hauerwas's two essays that the pacifistic strain was
dominant in his thought and I found it interesting. It led him to
some interesting conclusions about how to live and act in the world
as Christians and how we are to respond to those who require much
gentleness. So I kept reading. I read Resident Aliens by Hauerwas and
Will Willimon, then I read the Politics of Jesus by John Howard
Yoder, and as I was working my way through more and more works on the
peaceable call of Jesus my whole life fell apart.
During this
year a very dear friend of mine confessed to me that they had been
victimized by someone whom I held in high regard as a Christian
minister and a wise human being. My whole life was flipped upside
down in an instant, I had no reason to doubt their testimony and
quickly began to reevaluate the most intimate relationship I had ever
had with a Christian mentor. I spent every spare moment that semester
on the telephone with members of this church who were confronted with
a horrendous evil. Nothing in my Christian discipleship up to this
point had prepared me to deal with the depravity of sin and the
depths of pain that God's creatures experience.
I was seriously
considering dropping my faith altogether. As I watched someone whom I
respected throw his ministry away and wholeheartedly serve the devil
through his actions, I began to lose hope that it could even be
possible for me to sustain my commitment to Christ in the midst of
the pressures of this world. Yet all through this period of doubt I
continued to read through pacifists as they talked about Jesus' words
and witness. This is the first time in my life that I could
legitimately say that I had an enemy. And I wanted him to die a long
terrible death. As a matter of fact I still do, My LORD Himself said
that it would be better for men such as this to have a millstone
strung about their neck and be cast into the sea. The LORD has stores
of fury reserved for those who would harm the “least of these.” I
will say no more of this story out of deference to the victims.
Now
that I had an enemy, all of the pacifists discussions of Christ's
command to “love your enemies,” came into sharp relief. I
couldn't ignore them because I disagreed so strongly with their
interpretation of the demands of my LORD. Such love is not possible.
But the more I read the more I began to see that they were
articulating a way of life that made such a practice possible. I
learned how deep and rich our LORD's teachings about forgiveness
truly are. The pacifists articulated to me a new way of life that has
been made possible by the death, resurrection and forgiveness of
Christ. When His life is the basis for my life there is no limit to
the transformative power that the gospel of Christ's integrated word
and work can wreak on a person's life. I do not know how to extricate
this transformative power from the pacifistic ethic that Yoder and
Hauerwas have articulated. And at this point I see no need to
extricate it. At this point in my life I still do not love my enemy.
I frequently pray for his death. But I am learning to trust my LORD's
assurance that vengeance belongs to God, and this has enabled me to
move on and seek healing for myself and for my friends.
Theological
propositions
What follows is an articulation of
many of the theological beliefs that are currently a significant part
of my worldview. I do not include nearly enough Scriptural references
and I apologize for that, but I had to write quickly and I am willing
to back all of these up with Bible if you press me on them. But also
keep in mind that this is the theological synthesis of my thinking on
the message of the entire Bible as it moves from Creation to New
Creation through the Cross and resurrection of Jesus. It is not a mere allocation of pragmatic prooftexts. My propositions are not thorough there are significant gaps, but I believe my propositions are emblematic of the message of the entire Bible.
This is the
result of the last several years of prayer, Scriptural study and life
experience. Feel free to see this as what I believe, rather than what
Scripture says. Many of these points are debatable. However, if I
didn't think I was right I would remain silent. I am willing to
examine everything that I have written down here today, and I ask
that you would do me the same courtesy and critically examine areas
where you disagree with me and why you disagree with me.
Please
also note when I write the words, “I believe the Bible says” that
is shorthand for “I believe the particular author of that
particular Divinely Inspired Biblical book wrote.” I believe that
the Bible is the authoritative revelation of God given to his people,
and that it displays a multiplicity of voices who speak with a
symphonic unity, rather through a monotone uniformity. (And Yes Jesus
is the authoritative revelation of the person and character of God,
but He is known primarily, though not exclusively, through the pages
of Scripture. Expect much more writing on that point in the future)
The Old Testament
I believe that God's original intent
for His creation is that it would exist in a harmonious unity amongst
different creatures and environments. One of the many themes of
Genesis 1 that makes it unique amongst the other narratives of
creation that were vying for dominance in the Ancient Near East is
the utter absence of violence in the creation of the cosmos. The
theme of all creation stories is how order has begun to displace
chaos in our world, but all of the other religions believed that
order only truly triumphed through violence and bloodshed. You have
gods defeating other gods and tearing their corpses in half to make
the sky and the earth. Genesis 1 provides a stark contrast, God just
shows up and starts speaking. Through His speaking he calls order
into being from out of the nothingness of chaos and he creates this
environment that is balanced and stable and suitable for human and
animal habitation.
I believe that when the Bible chooses to
depict through narrative the horrendous consequences of sin, violence
is the image of choice. After humanity's corruption and descent into
sin, The narrator of Genesis demonstrates a rapid degeneration into
depravity. And the two key images of depravity that he uses are the
human usurpation of God's kingly role, and the human exercise of
violence. A dispute between Cain and Abel ends in the worlds first
murder. And when the author of Genesis begins to describe God's
rationale for flooding the world, this is his summary of the Earth's
condition, “Now
the earth was corrupt in God's sight, and the earth was filled with
violence. And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all
flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. And God said to Noah, "I
have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled
with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the
earth.” Gen 6:11-13
I understand (And this
paragraph is speculative on my part) this in part to mean that there
was no judicial structures put in place to limit the spread of
violence. I believe the world was overrun with a number of human
families in close proximity locked into a never-ending cycle of
tribal vendettas against one another. Had God not intervened on
behalf of the Earth and the Animals, humans would have destroyed one
another.
I believe that God's covenant with Noah is a covenant
with all humanity saying that God has hung his bow up in the sky. He
shall never again resort to the nuclear option when dealing with
human sinfulness on this Earth. God instead chooses to install
capital punishment as a means of limiting the spread of violence on
the Earth, while patiently suffering the continued effects of his
sinful creatures as they act in ways that countermand hes desires for
creation. This finds expression further in the Torah in the law of an
eye for an eye. This is not permission to poke your brothers eye out,
but a restraint upon the extent to which you can exact vengeance upon
wrongdoers. If your son had his eye poked out in a dispute with a
neighbor, the dictates of an honor/shame culture meant that this
offense could bring so much shame to your family that you would be
honor bound to avenge the shame by further maiming or even killing
the man who blinded your son. This act of vengeance was a way of
maintaining a family's honor and strength in the eyes of others.
(Additional note, because capital punishment is a means of limiting
violence, it is fair and biblical to reexamine capital punishment
today with the question of what does it restrain, I won't speak
further on capital punishment, but considering we are the people who
worship as God an innocent man who was unjustly murdered by the
state, we should be a little bit wary of Capital punishment).
I
believe that God's next move in the plan of redemption was to call
Abram to leave his nation, his culture and his family in order that
he might become the father of God's nation. A peculiar people
consecrated to the worship of the only true God. This people would
live by patient faith in the promises of God in order that they might
learn that their existence derives not from their physical strength
or their intellectual cunning but through the grace of God.
In
the stories of the patriarchs, God ensures the continued existence of
Abraham after all earthly hope has departed from him, God rejects the
strength of Esau, He breaks the cunning trickery of Jacob, and He
humbles the privileged Joseph in order that they all might learn more
truly who their God is and how they should appropriately love, honor
and represent Him in the world.
When God established His people
as a nation, he put numerous legal restrictions upon them that were
designed to ensure that these peculiar character traits would be
present throughout the entire nation. In Deuteronomy 18 we see that
Israel was not allowed to have a king in the same fashion as the
other nations. Israel's King was not permitted to amass a large army
in order that they might be forced to believe the truth that “Some
trust in chariots, and some in horses, but we trust in the name of
THE LORD our God.”--Ps 20:7. Israel's king was also not allowed to
gather multiple wives into his harem. This was less about sexual
ethics than it was about political ethics. Royal marriages bound
nations together. If Solomon were to marry the daughter of the
Pharaoh in Egypt, that would make Egypt and Israel family. And when
your father-in-law decides to go to war to maintain his empire, what
should a good dutiful son-in-law do?
I believe that King David
was a bloodthirsty warrior whose life was characterized by a sinful
behavior that he should have repented of. I believe that David is an
example of the way that God providentially uses men who do not fully
obey His will as a means of accomplishing His purposes in this
world.
In New Testament, the Apostle Paul calls David, “A man
after God's own heart.” I believe the primary meaning of this is
that for all of David's character faults he was a faithful and
committed monotheist for his entire life. In 1 Kings, Solomon was
warned that his foreign wives would, “turn his heart away from
following the LORD.” David's heart never turned to other gods, he
simply disobeyed the commands of the only true God whom he worshiped.
I believe it is significant that when David sought to build a temple
for God, he was rejected from that role on the grounds that, “you
are a man of war and you have shed blood.”--1 Chron 28:3. It is
also significant that The last recorded words of King David are
vindictive and do not evidence a biblical trust that vengeance
belongs to the LORD.
“And
there is also with you Shimei the son of Gera, the Benjaminite from
Bahurim, who cursed me with a grievous curse on the day when I went
to Mahanaim. But when he came down to meet me at the
Jordan,
I swore to him by the LORD, saying, 'I will not put you to death with
the sword.' Now
therefore do not hold him guiltless, for you are a wise man. You will
know what you ought to do to him, and you shall bring his gray head
down with blood to Sheol." 1 Kings 2:8-9.
What makes these words ironic is
that David's initial kingly career was built upon His belief that
Vengeance belongs to God. That is why he refused to lay a hand upon
Saul but instead waited for God to give him the Kingdom of Israel in
his own good time. If you are as cynical as I am you might believe
that David was an incredibly skilled political animal who knew that
if he struck down Saul's kingship, that would legitimate attempts by
other men to end his own royal dynasty by means of assassination. By
waiting for God to give Him the kingdom, David secured his reign with
God's divine sanction. Something that he would not be able to
maintain in the eyes of others if he had violently seized the throne
for himself.
I believe that there was much good that was
accomplished by King David. He was used mightily by God. And I intend
at a much later date to do some detailed exegesis of the narratives
of 1 and 2 Samuel. But I believe that that the reputation of David
has been whitewashed by a naive reading of Old Testament narrative.
The Evangelical community will be better served by some healthy and
realistic Davidic iconoclasm before he can truly be appreciated as
the complicated but sincere worshiper of God that he was.
By
a naïve understanding of Old Testament Narrative I refer to our
habit of trying to differentiate the good guys from the bad guys, and
once we have determined who the good guys are, we respect them as
complicated men and excuse their sordid behavior as something that
was necessary at the time. In the Bible the only true Hero is the God
of Israel, and He gave Israel the Torah as the authoritative
revelation of Himself and the pattern of life that all faithful Jews
are to follow. The Torah does a good job of dividing up the world
into black and white, right and wrong, holy and unholy. The Old
Testament narratives introduce us faithful Torah followers into the
world where shades of gray dominate in order that we might learn
wisdom. The authors of the Old Testament treat their readers like
adults and they presume that their readers know what God has said in
the Torah. That should give them everything they need to make the
appropriate moral judgments on the actions that take place in the OT
narratives.
New Testament
Reflections
I believe that the message of Jesus
was as much social and political as it was spiritual. Forgiveness of
sins is not just the establishment of a peaceable relationship
between God and individual Christians, it is the lifeblood of the
Christian community and the greatest gift that Christianity is
obligated to extend to the rest of the world.
I believe that
the ministry of Jesus in part restored the dignity and humanity to
people who were living under religious and political oppression. The
Land of Israel was ruled over by a pagan empire, this would have
created a significant theological crisis in the eyes of the Jews. For
the supremacy of nations was a strong indication of the supremacy of
one religion over another. The Romans would have taken their
dominance of Israel as an indication that Rome's gods were superior
to the Only True God. And they had empirical data to back up their
claim. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus taught His people how to live
lives that that were faithful to their God in the midst of this
crisis situation. When Jesus taught that the meek will inherit the
land, he was saying that only those who are willing to wait on their
God to deliver to them His promises, rather than seize them by force
will truly receive God's promises. Jesus taught His people how to
resist the dehumanizing practices of their oppressive nation, and to
open up their hearts to be willing to love their enemies as God loves
them.
I believe that Jesus was a particular kind of Messiah
who stood in stark contrast to a host of other men who attempted to
act as God's Messiah and establish His kingdom in Israel. All of the
other would-be Messiahs employed violence as the means of seizing
control of the land they believed that God had promised to give to
His people. I believe this is part of the reason that Jesus asked so
many people that he healed to be very secretive about who they
thought He was and what He had done for them. When Jesus did reveal
Himself to His disciples he chose a secluded place outside of the
bounds of Israel, and he only did so after His disciples had a long
exposure to His character and his actions. Jesus purified the land of
Israel not by violent action, but by healing diseases, casting out
demons and extending God's forgiveness to sinners. This is a lesson
that his disciples never fully understood until after he was
crucified and resurrected. As soon as Jesus revealed His messianic
vocation to His disciples He began to speak of His coming
crucifixion, and Peter rebuked him for speaking in such a fashion
because crucifixion is not what happens to God's Messiah. Messiahs
win. Even in the garden when Jesus is arrested, Peter seizes a sword
and begins to fight back against the soldiers. It is here that Jesus
again dissolves the violent situation by healing one of his enemies
and telling Peter to put down his sword, because all who live by the
sword die by the sword. The location of this passage within the
narrative of Jesus is highly significant. Do not dismiss it.
I
believe that Jesus was inevitably going to be killed, he witnessed to
the costly Word and activity of God through his unflinching
opposition to the powers that rule the world without reference to the
love and power of God. I believe that Jesus was murdered by religious
conservatives, Jewish nationalists, and political pragmatists who
were willing to suffer the death of an innocent man to preserve the
unity of their political reality regardless of whether that political
reality was pleasing to God or not. I believe that this is also what
the apostles believed as evidenced by their prayer in Acts 4.
I
believe that the New Testament church was a new political reality
brought into being by the crucifixion and resurrection of God. Up to
this point in honor/shame cultures, groups identified themselves in
part by the groups that they excluded from their fellowship for
ethnic, political, religious or moral reasons. The church worships
the crucified messiah. Crucifixion in the New Testament was the most
shameful way that a person could die. Crucifixion was concrete proof
that God was not with that person. When God raised Jesus from the
dead, he was honoring someone who was the outcast of all humanity.
This means that the community that is built upon the ministry of the
crucified and raised messiah has room for everyone. There is nothing
that you can do that is so shameful that God will reject you if you
truly want to be with Him and follow Him. There is a definite pattern
to the Christian way of life and a definite direction in which the
Community seeks to ethically follow their LORD. But there are no
impermeable walls that would restrict ANYONE from entering the
community and following Jesus. God's love extends to the worst of the
worst and He can transform even the worst of the worst. God has the
power to transform a dead body into a living person. Surely he can
birth life anew in your heart. This is why forgiveness lies at the
heart of Christianity and it is the very lifeblood of the
community.
I believe that Peace with God and within the
Christian community was a major concern of the Apostle Paul. This is
evidenced most clearly in his mission as the Apostle to the Gentiles
who believed that the power of the gospel was most clearly proclaimed
through Jews and Gentiles publicly coming to the same communion table
and declaring one another to be brothers. These are two cultural
religious and ethnic groups who hated one another and have been busy
hating one another for generations. But the Gospel of Jesus Christ
brought people from these two cultures into the same political body,
and they learned to call one another brother, and to love one
another. Paul's vision of ministry demonstrated a church of
Christians whose commitment to their Savior and messiah runs deeper
than their national identity, their cultural class, and their gender
identity. (Gal 3:28)
I believe that the book of Revelation is
an apocalyptic work that colorfully articulates the inherent conflict
between the World and the Church of Jesus Christ. I believe that any
political body that does not swear full allegiance to the Messiah
Jesus' Christ's aims, AND the means of achieving those aims, then
they have in part built their society upon a lie and display tacit
allegiance to the father of lies, the Devil. The book of Revelation
is chiefly concerned with demonstrating the conflict between the
Church and the Roman Empire. I believe that at this point in time the
Roman Empire was an example of a political body that had considerably
given itself over to the power of the devil. John's aim throughout
the book is to peel back the curtain so to speak behind the day to
day events so that Christians could see the inner workings of the
Roman Empire and understand the dark spiritual influences that were
directing her. Not all political bodies give themselves over to the
power of the devil to the extent that Rome has done, but no political
body is exempt from this diabolical influence. I refuse to call
America Rome or Babylon in an uncritical fashion, but this does not
make my nation exempt for the criticism that is presented in the book
of Revelation. Also keep in mind that all man are mired in sin and
cannot be extricated outside of the power of Jesus Christ, and even
when one has been saved, it is the work of a lifetime and then some
to “un-learn” sin and to learn in instead the love of God and
Love of neighbor.
John's commendation to the church is
similar to our LORD's promise that the meek will inherit the Earth.
Those who patiently wait on the LORD and endure suffering without
giving up on their faith and believing the lie that they have been
abandoned by God will inherit the land. In John's terminology, by
their witness and martyrdom they will conquer the world. That
being said, martyrdom is a gift that our LORD gives to His people,
never a position to be sought. Such a belief would be masochism and
has no place in the life affirming religion of Christianity.
Christians just believe that life is a gift from God, and true and
faithful worship of the Life giving God is more important than life
itself. It is a constant struggle but as Christians, we refuse to
confuse the gifts our God gives with our God Himself. And sometimes
it requires us giving up our lives in order that we might learn to be
more attached to our God than ourselves.
***Rant*** I'm
really irritated by some Christian music songs that believe suffering
is a shortcut to spiritual maturity. While it is true that suffering
often provides the opportunity for us to learn who we truly are and
how much we need God, how we respond to those opportunities are not
guaranteed. I suspect that a certain American obsession with
efficiency and proficiency leads us to inadvertently make some
abominable assertions. Some of our music leads us to pray for
suffering in order that we might level-up more quickly. That is
masochism and it is a refusal to discern how we ought to faithfully
live in the place that God has seen fit to place us. Suffering meets
us all in God's own time, and it should never be sought. There are
plenty of Christian brothers and sisters suffering throughout the
world. We can fulfill our proper Christian duty by taking advantage
of our privileged position and working hard to ensure that they are
able to carry the cross of our LORD well in their difficult
situations. Never forget, they are our brothers and sisters and their
witness for Christ is our witness for Christ. And your witness for
Christ in America is their witness for Christ. Follow the admonition
of our LORD in Matthew 25 and honor those who are ill-treated for His
Names sake.
I believe that vengeance belongs to God and that
he will repay. This is an Old Testament axiom that is picked up by
the Apostle Paul and demonstrated viscerally in the book of
Revelation. I believe that the apocalypse is an apocalypse. It will
be characterized by the sudden violent intervention of God to save
His people from utter destruction and fully vindicate their foolish
faith in God and to give them the full realization of His promises.
I believe that forgiveness is the lifeblood of the church. I
believe that forgiveness is a necessary component of any meaningful
Christian relationship. I'm willing to say that if you have never
forgiven another Christian then you have NEVER experienced Christian
community. We grow together when we learn to receive God's
forgiveness from our brothers and sisters and when we emulate our
LORD by graciously offering His forgiveness to our errant brothers.
If we aren't sinning against one another its because we aren't
getting close enough to truly see and be seen by one another. And I
believe it is only through the perpetual experience of forgiveness
within the Christian community that we will ever even begin to unlearn
sin and learn love and grace instead.
Historical
Judgments
Since
this is the 4th
of July I am honor bound to comment on the American Revolution. What
follows are my own personal moral reflections as a Christian upon the
founding of America.
I believe that the American revolution
was an unbiblical revolt against our proper political authority. I
believe that our willingness to spill blood over issues of taxation
and representation is a heinous sin. This means that I believe that
we murdered thousands of British troops so that we could be more free
to philosophize and enjoy our wealth. Not an easy pill to swallow,
but that is what my convictions lead me to conclude. I shall
henceforth refer to American aggression as bloodshed and not war,
because I do not believe that an unjust war can rightly be called a
war.
I believe that one of the conditions that made our
willingness to shed blood easier was the unbiblical fusion of an Old
Testament theology with the political vision of many American
settlers. I do not fault the early Americans for drawing analogies
between Israel and their situation as settlers in a new land in the
wilderness. Considering many of them were leaving situations of
political and religious oppression I do not fault them for gaining
much comfort and solace in the book of Exodus and the rest of the Old
Testament. I am quite confident I would have done the same thing in
their position, and I believe I would have done so with God's
blessing. I fault them for blurring the theological lines when they
declared, not, “our situation is like Ancient Israel,” but rather
instead proclaimed, “We are the New Israel.”
I believe
that the chief taxes that Americans were struggling against were
taxes put in place to offset the financial burden placed upon the
British Empire as a result of their efforts to defend the colonies during the
French and Indian war. That America would rage against the taxes that
were bankrolling many of their privileges is a grave ingratitude for
which we are culpable before God.
I believe that Britain did
a supremely poor job of communicating the rationale for their new
taxes. I work as the on site manager for a warehouse. All of my
supervisors telecommute and nearly all of our communication occurs
over text messages and e-mail. Many of our biggest management issues
have arisen from communication blunders that are exacerbated by our finite scope of vision. I cannot imagine
being the political governor of a colony on the other side of the
ocean where the fastest means of communication is a boat sailing
across the Atlantic. I understand the American desire for colonial
representation, It was a good and just desire. It grieves me when I listen to the manner in which Britain sold
their taxes to the colonies. Such decisions bordered on political incompetence and I am not surprised that the Molasses, Sugar and Stamp taxes fed the
flames of revolution. However, that is no excuse for American
bloodshed.
I believe that, in spite of the sinful, violent beginnings of our nation, the ideals that animated the government that we established come from a rich well of Christian and Political reflection. There appears to me to be a sincere desire to ensure that America does not become a nation that would treat it's subjects the way they were treated by Britain. The government that was established was built upon wisdom and prudence and is a commendable human achievement that I believe pleased God. This does not excuse American bloodshed, but the established government should not be condemned on the basis of the American revolution. God has been merciful to us by permitting such a government to arise. This may not be the best government in the world, but the ideals that animated it are worth retaining as Christians.
We need to humbly relearn our
history. We need to look past the myths that animate our lives as
Americans to understand the nitty-gritty sins and vices that have
played a role in us gaining the place we now hold in the world. We
need to learn to repent and tell the truth about who we are and what
have done in the hopes that we might truly find ourselves useful in
the hands of our LORD. We should be especially mindful of the ways in which the ideals of freedom and justice upon which America was founded are not shared equally by all American citizens. If whole communities in America are deprived of legitimate and realistic access to these ideals, then we are not done realizing the American vision.
Epistemological propositions
Up
to this point I have offered Biblical interpretation with some
ethical reflection mixed in there. This is what I believe Scripture
teaches. I also believe that we now need to learn and reflect upon
how to wisely integrate these Scriptural ideals into our concrete way
of living in the world. In case you have any doubts I find myself
identifying quite strongly with the Anabaptist, pacifist steams of
Christianity. From here I will not advocate a political position but
I will elaborate a number of thoughts on how pacifists and Just War
theorists and more radical advocates of the judicious or injdudicious
use of military force can have a profitable conversation.
How
do we speak to others with whom we disagree? If
one such as I were to become convinced that all exercises of military
force are sinful, something I do not at this point believe, how do I
proceed in dialoguing with those who think otherwise? What about
those friends of mine who wear the uniform of my country's military?
For in all honesty many of them have committed their lives to a
significant cause and have endured far more suffering for their
convictions than I have. I find it very difficult to take myself
seriously considering my vantage point. I honestly do not blame
anyone who writes me off as an unrealistic, over-educated, Hippy,
liberal, ivory tower elitist whose big ugly face is as dumb as a
butt.
The issue
at the end of the day is an issue of character. What sort of person
must I be if I am to find myself qualified to speak authoritatively
on issues such as these? I will be the first to admit that I have very little business saying anything to anyone in this area. I've just read a lot
of books and learned how unforgiving I can be. All that my pacifism
really means for me today is that I stand under perpetual judgment
for my willing refusal to live in peace with my neighbors. Pacifism
has given me words to name and confess my tendency to bully my peers
and attempt to dominate the people I supervise in my
workplace.
Pacifists
We need to be extremely diligent
to ensure that our lofty ideas about peace and justice are working
themselves deeper and deeper into the concrete actions of our daily
lives. If this is not occurring then were are nothing but damnable
hypocrites. Our convictions do not mean anything until we demonstrate
a sober willingness to suffer for them. The world has to see us bleed
for our beliefs if it is ever going to take us seriously. The reason
I don't re-post compelling blog articles others have written is
because I believe it is bit passive aggressive and disingenuous to
post somebody else's thoughts while still being able to casually
distance myself from a position I fully agree with simply because I
did not personally write it. Feel free to disagree with me here,
those posts do some good but more than anything else the world needs
your own words to be spoken in this issue. Our communities need us to
personally communicate the deep convictions of our hearts and the
process it took for us to arrive at those convictions. May we never
forget the process we underwent before we arrived here. We do a lot
of damage when we are quick to articulate our conclusions in these
matters with no respect for the amount of time it took for us to
reach those conclusions. Without patience with those whom we disagree
with we cannot help but become judgmental bullies. I know I have been
just such a person. People need to see us sweat and weep and
bleed. Otherwise our words are empty. We have to put our own
reputations on the line and make ourselves vulnerable to others as
best as we can.
I am informed particularly by the Mennonites on
this point. The Mennonites as a general rule do not wright systematic
theologies. They do not spell out in intricate intellectual detail their
beliefs about God. Instead they write books about Ethics. That is, they
believe that our concrete action in this world is more important than
our presumed beliefs about the God we worship. Ultimately, if our
actions do not cohere with our stated beliefs, that is because we do not
actually believe what we claim to believe.
We
need to take seriously the
well-reasoned objections to our position. We need to listen and
listen well to the long tradition of Christian Just-War thinking. I
see too much talk on the internet from people who have discovered
pacifism and pit their well-reasoned, nuanced understanding of
Scripture against the worst, most flagrant straw-man
characterizations of Just-War theory. We cannot afford to be
ignorant of the other side of the argument and we need to take their
position seriously and listen with respect. This may require us to
become educated in the tradition and then educate those we argue
against on the position they claim to adopt. This may make your
opponents more adamant advocates of Just-War theory, but it is the
only way to ensure honest communication occurs between both sides.
I'm not convinced by the arguments for Just-War theory that I have
heard, but it is an intellectually serious and morally respectable
position in it's best iterations. We only hurt our own position when
we refuse to learn the best contributions of those we argue
with.
One of the
frustrating things I discover when I find myself in discussions among
people who all share the same assumptions about Christianity and
violence is that the bigger the crowd gets, the lower the level of
compassion, understanding and empathy for those who disagree with you
becomes. Which is kind of ironic because this strong position against
violence comes from the Dominical statements of Jesus about loving
our enemies and doing good to those who persecute us. I will grant
that when your ideological “enemies” are fellow Christians, it is
easy for patience to grow short when people appear to be
rationalizing away their refusal to even listen to Jesus in the
Sermon on the Mount. But I would love to see more patience and
understanding among those who have become enthralled by His peaceable
way of life.
We would also be wise to learn a nuanced
appreciation for our homeland. I know many Christians who are very
quick to distance themselves from the nation and culture of their
birth without considering the ways in which this place has formed us
and remains personally and emotionally significant to our lives.
Convictions such as mine will put you at odds with American culture,
but my convictions are born at least in part out of a desire to serve
and be faithful to my LORD. And I know Jesus Loves America and
Americans. I need to learn a nuanced respect for the land that gave
birth to me and the many things I ought to be more grateful for, even
as I strive to un-learn the sinful patterns of life that are peculiar
to citizens of America.
The main reason that I find myself
fascinated by pacifists is because they seem to be more determined to
follow Jesus at personal cost to themselves than anybody else I know.
More than anything I want my life to look like the sort of life that
they articulate in the best of their works It may be easy for me to
be a blogging pacifist in the hippy-dippy Pacific Northwest but it
still puts me outside the norm.
Just Warriors
Please
work diligently to maintain the distinction between becoming a
soldier and being called as a Christian to suffer a martyrs death. We
need to work extremely hard to keep the two categories distinct in
our minds and in the way we speak and act. Whenever you pick up a gun
with the intent to end the life of another human being, you
disqualify yourself from Christian martyrdom. Martyrs take their cues
from Jesus who, “was
oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a
lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its
shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth. like
a lamb who was led to the slaughter, he was silent before his
shearers.”--Isaiah 53:7 That is not to say that we pacifists are
silent, oh no the internet is a testament to the fact that we are
loud and obnoxious. What I am getting at is the difference between
soberly entering the arena of combat and recognizing that it may
claim your life and the even more impressive act of voluntarily
laying down your life for your enemies while at the same time
refusing to fight back.
Those who give their life in combat are
engaging in morally serious and emotionally compelling work. But we
need to be extremely careful that we do not co-opt the language of
Scripture and attribute more significance to their noble gifts than
is proper. Martyrs are worthy of veneration, soldiers as soldiers are
not. Solders do not “lay down their lives for their friends,”
Jesus told Peter to put his sword away. Their self-sacrifice is
commendable and ought to be highly honored in the Christian church.
Those who have been in combat have access to stores of wisdom that I
cannot ever hope to attain, but even this is not the same thing as
Christian Martyrdom.
This is an incredibly difficult distinction
to make on another level because we in the American Church have in a
sense been cut off form the church of martyrs. We do not have many
stories to tell of men who have lain down their lives as a result of
their great love for God and their enemies. But we personally know
many men and women who have put their bodies on the learn in service
to their country.
May I
also say a few words on the issue of dissent? I have heard the
thought bandied about that soldiers died for my right to speak
freely. What is often implicit in that claim is the conclusion that I
should therefore shut up if I am going to say anything negative about
the necessity of that sacrifice or the sort of freedom that such a
sacrifice actually produces. The belief that because people died for
my right to dissent I should therefore refrain from dissenting
against them is ridiculous. If that is the case you aren't dying for
that right at all if you simultaneously make it so socially unconscionable to actually exercise your right to dissent. And it's not that whatever sacrifices have been given for the sake
of freedom aren't on some level noble and commendable, but this is an
act of rhetorical bullying that intends to shut down a dialogue
rather than have a discussion. And such sacrifices are not the only source of my freedom of speech. My LORD has provided His people with the freedom to say
what must be said on His behalf because He has made it possible for
us to live without fear in the face of a world opposed to His
rule.
Just Warriors, please remember that people
like me attend your churches. Would you please does us a solid and
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD! please stop singing “Battle Hymn of the
Republic” during the corporate worship of the Church of Jesus Christ. The Beautiful, Revolutionary Peaceable Gospel of Jesus Christ
IS NOT, “Writ in burnish'd rows of steel.” The fusion of the
exercise of American military force with the apocalyptic judgments of
Revelation is Blasphemy. Revelation details the coming day when God's
perfect justice will cleanse the Earth. America can never claim to
execute perfect justice. We must be content as Just Warriors to offer
our humble and meager attempts to thwart evil up to God, while at the
same time praying that God would be exceedingly merciful to us and
permit more good than evil to be brought about by our use of
force.
Common objections to an ethic of Christian Pacifism
There are three common objections that Just
Warriors invoke to shut-down the pacifist argument. I'll make note of
them in brief here.
First there is the
home-invasion-rape-scenario. The scenario goes like this, What would
I do if I found myself awake in the middle of the night in my house
with a gun in my hand looking at a violent intruder that I somehow
know is going to rape my wife and children if I do not kill him on
the spot. Given such a scenario how can I possibly be a pacifist? I
would retort that this is an unfair scenario that arbitrarily
restricts my choices to an either/or decision of justifiable homicide
or complicity in the sexual assault of my loved ones. You do realize
that pacifists are allowed to shoot people in the knees right? But
more importantly we pacifists reject such narrow divisions of
possibility. We believe that each such scenario like this must be
discerned on a case by case basis. Perhaps the LORD will send an
angel to miraculously intervene on my behalf, perhaps a Christian
extension of forgiveness can melt the intruders heart and cause him
to surrender. Please read Amy Laura-Hall and Kara Slade's amazing
essay in the collection, “A faith not worth fighting for” edited
by Tripp York.
Another Trump card is the question of what would we pacifists do when we are confronted with an evil dictator like Hitler?
This is another trump card that is supposed to render all pacifists
mute and trembling before his military might. Please consider that we pacifists attempt to
look at the whole life, including the circumstances that led up to
the war. Rather than beginning with the declaration of war and then
deciding to make sure we follow our Just War check lists. We believe we are just as
culpable for the actions we took in the years and decades prior to
the outbreak of war that made such a war appear necessary and even
good. And God may hold us responsible for such actions, Lord knows
that on the cross Jesus forgave men who, “knew not what they were
doing.” We would begin our discussion of Hitler with some very
serious questions about what happened to the Christian church in
Germany decades before Hitler was even born. And we would also note
that the church endured the homicidal rage of several Roman Emperors
before we finally conquered the Roman Empire. The meek will inherit
the land.
One
of the common objections to a pacifistic interpretation of the
message of Jesus is that this interpretation produces an ethic that
is unworkable in the real world. I find it very interesting that the
segment of the Christian culture that insists that the world we live
in determines what we can and cannot believe in the Bible is also the
segment of our Christian culture where six-day creationism is taught
dogmatically in some circles. I don't mean to equate the two beliefs
or insist that they necessarily follow one or the other I'm simply pointing
to a larger idea about interpretation. In the example about 6 day
creationism many conservative Christians will insist that the
overwhelming consensus of the scientific world makes no difference to
how they read the Biblical text. That is, more liberal Christians can
justifiably say that your 6 day interpretation of Genesis 1 is
unworkable in the real world in which we live. Both texts are
difficult to understand and faithfully obey, but it should be our
goal as faithful interpreters of Scripture to work out a consistent
hermeneutic that understands the extent to which our current
understanding of world constrains our interpretation of the text, and
the extent to which our imagination needs to be stretched by the
demands of Scripture in order that we may become more faithful and
more biblical Christians.
I would also say that the recent
record of history, particular as it is evidenced by the Revolution of
the Candles that brought down the Berlin Wall, as well as Ghandhi's
and Martin Luther King Jr.'s non-violent campaigns did for the most
part achieve their political goals without exercising violence. Jesus
Christ is alive and well and the meek will inherit the land. Have
patience and do not give up.
Consider this anecdote in
closing. Stanley Hauerwas was once asked a question about Just War
theorists after a lecture that he gave about non-violence. He said
many kind things but he also had this scathing comment that has stuck
with me. “When Truman dropped the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, where in the hell were the Just-War proponents who should
have come out and condemned such actions as murder?” Pacifists are
taken to task all the time for their convictions. When your theory
really matters, why didn't anybody stand up and oppose such a blatant
disregard for proportionality and discrimination? Where do we see
Just-War advocates suffering for their positions and taking a costly
stance against flagrant use of violence in warfare? If you are truly
an advocate for the Just War tradition, you need to work hard to
demonstrate how exactly you believe that our practice of warfare has
been constrained by those convictions or at least to demonstrate
cases where it has not been constrained but it should have been.
Until you demonstrate this, your convictions are as empty as you
claim mine to be. They become nothing more than a cheap justification
for state-sponsored violence. (I should say, that I fully agree with
Hauerwas's comments here, considering how I spoke against hiding
behind authors and despising retweets earlier).
I hope you found this interesting, incisive and agitating. I commend you for working all the way through this blog post. It was not an easy haul I'm sure. I promise to buy you a cup of coffee if you want to personally discuss anything that I have written here. If you feel I have in any way been unfair please let me know. I do not mean to misrepresent anyone. If you believe I have spoken out of turn anywhere in this essay please let me know. My zeal to get this out on time has no doubt caused me overlook uncharitable and unkind prose. I have no business asking you to respect my intentions because this entire blog post is an articulation of what I in fact believe. If I have wronged you in any way please confront me on it. I will listen and repent if that is the required response.
I wish that you all may experience the peace of Christ that I so richly enjoy as a Child of the Heavenly Father.
Bibliography-
Zahnd, Brian “Farewell to Mars.” (If you are new to this discussion start here, it details an Evangelical pastors conversion from a more traditional conservative evangelical worldview to something similar to what I have articulated here.)
McClendon, James William “Ethics:
Systematic theology vol. 1” (this is an excellent introduction to
the way of doing theology and ethics that is characteristic of a more
Anabaptistic tradition. This is one of my all time favorite books and
it is among the most important and interesting that I have ever read.
I return to it often).
Hauerwas, Stanley
--Everything.
“Resident
Aliens” (co-written with Will Willimon)
“The Peaceable
Kingdom.”
“War and the American
Difference”
Bell,
Daniel M. Just War as Christian Discipleship. (Pacifist friends, I
adjure you to understand your opposition before daring to argue with
them).
Yoder, John
Howard,
“The Politics of Jesus”
“The Original
Revolution” (Specifically the essay, “The Original
Revolution.”)
--Everything else.
Nugent, John C.
“The Politics of YAHWEH.” (For those interested in a reading of
the Old Testament that harmonizes well with a pacifistic
interpretation of the New Testament)
York, Tripp
“A Faith not worth fighting for.”
“The
Purple Crown: The Politics of Martyrdom.”
Brimlow, Robert W. “What about
Hitler.”
Camp, Lee C. “Mere Discipleship”
Books on my shelf that intend to read,
if you promise to read them with me and talk about it they will get
done sooner.
Camp, Lee C. “Who is my enemy.”
Grossman, Dave “On Killing: The Psychological cost of learning to kill in war and society “
“War as a
force that gives us meaning.” Chris Hedges
