I read an interesting quote from James Taranto today, certainly no fan of pacifism, in the Journal’s Best of the Web:
Unless you are a citizen of a determinedly neutral nation like Sweden, patriotism and pacifism are almost impossible to reconcile. An attachment to one's own country entails the temptation to side with it, and against its enemies, in case of war.
I think that is an interesting statement. Patriotism requires one to esteem your nation to the exclusion of all others. This estimation, in America couched in terms of “American exceptionalism”, is what drives Americans to send their young men to war to kill and die in the service of America. That has rarely been in the direct defense of our homeland, more often it is in defense of American ideals in far away lands. The thought process is that our nation is the greatest on earth and our cause is always just so that cause is worth killing and dying for. Based on a secular America-centric worldview, patriotism is logical and pacifism is unthinkable.
What about what we read in the Bible? Other than some paper thin attempts to make a case for taking up arms (appealing to the Old Testament civil laws of Israel, referencing the centurion, Jesus telling His disciples to take a sword with them), the New Testament is pretty clear and pronounced in its prohibition of violence from followers of Christ. The reason is not some fuzzy headed notion of “give peace a chance” but instead a submission to the sovereignty of God. Vengeance is reserved for Jesus Christ. Period. Yes that means for monsters like Adolph Hitler and Joseph Staling and Ted Bundy. Hitler got off easy by killing himself in the waning days of World War II but his true punishment is yet to come. We are OK with that but our notions of patriotic fervor run into a misunderstanding of sin.
Here is the problem. Our idea of justice is skewed by our own sin. Let me give you an example. The fate of Adolph Hitler is the same fate as your nice middle class unbelieving neighbor. We see right and wrong all too often through a red, white and blue lens and this leads us to judge right and wrong…wrongly. I am certainly not saying that Adolph Hitler got a bum rap but I am saying that denying Christ gets you the same hell as mass murder.
I maintain that the idea of red-blooded American patriotism that requires a willingness to shed blood is incompatible with life as a follower of Jesus Christ. We are called to be willing to suffer persecution, to endure ridicule, to be willing to even lay down our lives, all for the sake of the Gospel. How in the world can we reconcile that life of humility and sacrifice with charging off to war under the flag of America to kill someone, probably an unbeliever, who is fighting under a different flag? We can’t but when those competing priorities compete in the church in America, the way of the flag beats the way of the cross 99 times out of 100.
We hear lots of talk from preachers about how the earth is not our home, about how we are citizens of a different country, all delivered from a pulpit with an American flag waving alongside. It is high time that our actions match our rhetoric. We should see being born in America not as some sort of super blessing that we are willing to kill for but an opportunity to preach the Gospel to the lost and especially to the religious lost that fill our borders.
I agree with James Taranto. Patriotism and pacifism (or more accurately non-resistance) are incompatible. Jesus chose the path of non-resistance in the face of those who wished to make Him a conquering King. We should choose the same path.
12 comments:
Arthur
Do you see a difference between committing vengeance on the unjust and defending those who cannot defend themselves? If so, in which category would you place the Hitler scenario? Also, if you are willing to make a distinction between these two motives, would they be treated any differently from each other from a Christian's perspective or do you feel that neither is an acceptable motive?
This is a question that I have struggled with for a long time and I look forward to hearing your thoughts on it.
Thanks
Dan
If the apostolic understanding was that no Christians were to serve in war, it certainly was one of the first teachings to be left behind. Historically speaking anyway.
Of the early church fathers that I've read, the only arguments against Christians in the army are due to military obligations through idolatry instead of the combat itself.
Dan,
I don't see any wiggle room on the idea of vengeance on behalf of the defenseless. If I did, that would justify shooting abortionists. We are to overcome evil with good and evil means for a good cause is not something I see being compatible. The biggest problem is that as a sinner I can justify lots of stuff. Someone breaks into my house to steal my stuff? Shoot 'em! I can justify that. The better solution is to let God handle the vengeance business.
Jason,
I am not sure about the pre-Constantine fathers, if this was an issue for them or not. I am saying that Scripture itself leaves no room for military service. I can't see how you can make a Biblical case for killing someone else because a secular nation's leaders say so. Especially when you start to parse different nations. Was it OK to be a colonial soldier fighting against King George when we are told to submit to human authorities placed over us? What about the soldier in the british army on the other side? Was one right and the other not? How do we draw the line? people in other nations don't see our military the same way we do. How does one decide that it is OK to serve in the military of nation A but not nation B? Or is it always OK?
I believe Clement wrote supporting obedience to Christians in the military, but that's a bit of a rabbit trail.
With regards to when to fight, I suppose the justification lies with what you consider the biblical role of government. I'll try to provide a concise argument.
1. It is the government's responsibility to promote good & punish evil (Romans 13:1-5, 1 Peter 2:13-17).
2. The government is justified in taking life or imprisoning evil doers (Luke 23:41, etc.) should they determine it to be the best course of action re: item 1.
3. If a government deems that war is the best avenue to achieve item 1, it is justified and disobeying such law is a violation of Biblical directives (with allowances made for items directly contrary to God's revealed commands).
So there's Augustine for you. There are other incidentals, such as Paul's positive use of a soldiers in metaphor & Jesus' instructions for soldiers omitting desertion or pacifism. And then the overwhelming (without hyperbole) amount of language (both pre & post Constantinian) allowing for war by the early church fathers. Again, the issue never seems to be with killing, but rather with idolatry and sinful acquisition of the "spoils of war".
Arthur,
In "Myth of a Christian Nation", Gregory Boyd makes an excellent point regarding nationalism. He discusses the kingdom of God, vs. the kingdom of the sword. In the kingdom of the sword, might is right, and I will ultimately kill to protect what I think is right. The problem with this is simple: violence begets violence. There will always be someone lurking and threatening to overthrow me. Think about Babylon and Assyria, two very powerful nations who were ultimately defeated. In the Kingdom of God, we win our victory through love. When you have won a victory through love you have won the ultimate victory, and there is no one to contest you at that point. The victory of the Kingdom of God over the kingdom of Satan will be obtained through love, and thus violence has no place.
Now, does this mean that America was wrong in coming to the defense of Europe in defeating Hitler? I say no. God still orders the nations to do His bidding, and America as a secular nation is no exception. My point, and yours as well, I think, is that I can not play a part in that war, for the reasons you outlined. Let the kingdoms of this world fuss and fight. I am going to serve my God, love all mankind and thus see the establishment of the Kingdom of God in the earth.
Mark,
I think that is right on the money. I would certainly agree, stepping back theologically from the issue, that America was justified and right in stepping in to defeat Hitler (espcially since we were involved in the prior war that led to his rise to power). That justification on the part of America as a secular nation-state hs nothing to do with the role of Christians in that fight. There certainly were Christians in the German and Italian armies fighting on the side of oppression, that doesn't seem like something anyone would approve of. The role of Christians, in America or anywhere else, in time of war is not to put down our Bibles and pick up our rifles, it is to minister to the needs of others, do acts of mercy and above all preach the Gospel of the Prince of Peace. Our mission may look different but it is essentially the same whether we are in a time of peace or war, whether in good economic times or bad, in a free nation or under a repressive regime. Warfare and the taking of lives is inherently an evil, even when done for a "good cause" as the women and children killed in bombing raids on Germany and Japan would atttest and it is never appropriate for a Christian to seek overcome evil, even heinous evil like Nazism, with evil.
Jason,
Is there not a difference between Biblical teaching onthe legitimate role of secular government, which in the time of the Scriptural teaching was the repressive state of Rome and Biblical teaching for the behavior of Christians? Jesus and Paul were certainly not suggesting that Christians should join up with the Roman legions but that was precisely the government ruling during that time, a government far more corrupt than King George and as callous regarding human life as Nazi Germany. The Romans 13 teaching on government must be read taking into account the verses immediately preceeding them in Romans 12 where we are called to never seek to take vengeance and to live peaceably with all. It is hard to use Romans 13 to justify Christians killing others on behalf of the nation they happened to be born in when Paul calls on us to overcome evil with good by feeding our hungry enemy. I don't think Paul's point was to make sure our enemy was well fed before we shot him.
Scripture teaches that the sword is a legitimate function of government but does not allow for Christians to be involved in the killing of another by command of the ruler of a state. The point of Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 is submission to authority (i.e. not seeking to overthrow unjust rulers), not that if Caesar (or Obama) says go kill that man who is an enemy of the state that we should do so. Far better that I, with my salvation secure in Christ, should suffer imprisonment, persecution or even death than I should take the life of another in a cause that is not Christ's.
It seems that this argument is predicated on the idea of a secular/sacred divide, a product of pagan philosophy that crept its way into the church.
The earliest writings we have stress the fact that Christians are just like their pagan neighbors save for worship & good conduct - Tertullian (before he went off the deep end) even expressly states that Christians fight (in war) with their neighbors and offers no condemnation for such actions. Eusebius details the Thundering Legion in 178, how they prayed before battle, etc.
Christians were members of the legion and Christians joined the legion, especially in Britain & Gaul. That's a historical truth. What is unhistorical is any suggesting there was opposition from Christians for service or killing when not tainted by hate, greed, idolatry, etc.. It's not found in the Scriptures (without the aid of eisegesis) nor is it found in church history without laying waste to context, anyway.
I believe the reason we see seemingly contrary writings from the early church is due to the fact that military service is a difficult one and the temptation to serve in an unrighteous manner is great. Early documents often make distinction between soldiers & "unrighteous soldiers".
I believe the early church understood and worked to walk the balance between combat & pacifism that is often lost on on the pacifist only & rah-rah nationalism war hawk crowds that make up modern Christianity.
There were periods of time when Roman decrees (emperor worship) made joining the military unthinkable, but when those laws were lifted (or were allowed to be ignored) service was given.
OK, that is interesting historical information but what does Scripture say? Our argument keeps coming back to the church fathers but that is not our source of authority, nor is historical precedent. I find the church fathers interesting but not authoritative and certainly not when their passing references or silence seem to contradict Scripture.
The idea that some wars are OK and others are not is a pretty slippery slope and one that is fraught with nationalistic pitfalls. When you say What is unhistorical is any suggesting there was opposition from Christians for service or killing when not tainted by hate, greed, idolatry, etc.. , have you considered that in World War 2 the motivation of many soldiers was indeed hate including dehumanizing enemy soldiers through propaganda that depicted Japanese soldiers as grotesque caricatures and using phrases like “Japs” and “Nips” to identify them. I would also say that for a great many Americans, including a great many Christians, the ideal of America is a form of idolatry. Yet we generally consider World War II to be a just war if there ever was one in spite of the firebombing of citizens, the use of atomic weapons on citizens and general mayhem that destroyed a whole continent. Which side was justifiable in the Civil War? Both sides depending on your perspective? What the American Revolution where men who claimed to be Christians refused to submit to the God ordained authority over them. What about the War of 1812? The Spanish American War? Korea? Vietnam? Are any of them “just wars”? Would the participation in those wars as a Christian be acceptable? We might see the liberation of Iraq as a noble and just war driven by laudable motives but for a Christian in Baghdad I wonder if they see it the same way? This examination of motivations makes it sound like Christian A is OK to engage in warfare but his buddy in the same unit, Christian B, might have the “wrong” motivation all in the same conflict.
From a practical standpoint, what about an older U.S. Christian who served in Word War 2. Most Western Christians would affirm the just nature of World War 2 but what if that same soldier served in World War I. Was that a "just war"? It served no national purpose, it accomplished nothing other than killing and maiming millions. Does "doing your duty" make a war just for a Christian? Perhaps a German Christian would say that an American Christian who was killing Germans because they were under the wrong flag in World War I was wrong to do so but the American Christian would say the same about the German Christian. This smakcs of situational ethics and what we are dealing with here at its core is the killing of another person simply because they were born in the wrong country and because your country has declared war on them. Do you see where this is dangerous? Not to mention that the teaching of Scripture is that we should overcome evil with good, leave vengeance to the Lord and feed our enemy and never are we taught to kill anyone.
Rather than finding ourselves in the position of arguing over "just war" theory and “if WW II was just, what about WW I”, the Scripturally safe position is one of complete and total non-resistance. That is keeping with overt Scriptural teaching (Romans 12:14-21) as well as the overall theme of “blessed are the peacemakers” and a Savior who died meekly on a cross. As a believer, I have every confidence that Jesus Christ will avenge any and all wrong doing and that as a sinner with a heart that is easily deceived I am the last person I trust to decide that Cause A is “just” and worthy of me killing others and Cause B is “not just”.
Post a Comment