Faith in the Military?
My roomate Jake made me aware of this article published on the website of his alma matter, Olivet Nazarene University. The title of the article is "Faith in the Military," which is meant to mean "A Christian's faith in the midst of the military," but I found it to be an ironic double-entendre about having faith in the military itself.
Steve Foster ’89 often works 18-hour days. He sleeps in common barracks, hundreds of miles away from his wife and two young children. Soon, he will ship out to Iraq as a chaplain, a dramatic change from the life he left behind, living in the suburbs of St. Louis and pastoring a middle-class church. Like other Olivet alumni serving in the military, Foster sees his current position as one of ministry.Navigating Foster's comments is an exercise requiring nuance. It is entirely possible to minister to those in the military and be called by God to do so. The military is indeed a place of many broken hearts and families and Jesus Christ must be in the midst of that suffering. We would do well to meet Him and those hurting soliders there. That being said, I am left wondering what Foster means by "service to country." If by this he means that he is Christ's ambassador humbling serving those who are in the military by bringing them the gospel, then that is the kind of service "our country" needs. If however he means (and I'm afraid this is the case) that by being a chaplain he is somehow serving the goals of "our country" then I must protest!
“My service to country is a direct result of service to Christ,” he says in the quiet, strong tone of an enlisted man. “The Heavenly Father has broken my heart repeatedly for soldiers and their families. That brokenness is why I serve both God and country.”
Serving the goals of the military is nothing short of pursing an anti-gospel, of giving aid to the enemy of the Kingdom of God. The military does not have a chaplain program so that soliders may grow in discipleship. It exists instead so they might learn to kill more efficently without the crushing weight of the guilt which comes from taking the life of one of God's beloved children. Chaplains are meant by the military to be "supernatural morale boosters," whose job it is to soothe the fractured psyche of children of God who have been (re)created as agents of destruction ready to obey the State.
The article continues...
Dr. Stan Tuttle, an Olivet professor of education, had a similar motivation when he gave up 11 weeks of his summer to train soldiers in Kuwait. Unlike Foster, Tuttle’s “official” job wasn’t to minister. But living side by side with the soldiers, his faith often came into play.I find it interesting that there is no mention of these soliders being encouraged to pray for the people they are preparing to kill (although this does happen more often that we might think, it seems rarely to be at the encouragement of chaplains, but rather springs naturally from soliders who recognize the humanity of their enemies). I am not saying Christians cannot serve God in the midst of the military but it seems to me that the options are very very few.
What stood out to Tuttle was the selflessness of the men and women who faced imminent danger on a daily basis. “Instead of asking for prayers for themselves or their units, they’d ask for prayers for family members and neighbors. It was the attitude of service — the attitude of other — that was very present in these men and women who were soon to be in harm’s way.”
A medic embodies the life and spirit of Christ in that regardless of what "side" someone is on the battlefield medic exisits within the battle simply to rescue, to heal to bring life where there is only death. This job strikes me as one of the most Christlike professions one could pursue.
The chaplain is also a role the Christian can take in the military, bringing counsel and gospel into the midst of violence and destruction and the systematic conversion of children of God into objects trained to kill. The chaplain can bring the gospel, and by this I mean the FULL gospel, not simply a private one that never conflitcs with the solider's job.
Unfortuneately I think that the Christian serving during wartime as a Chaplain will find they are quickly dismissed if they preach a full gospel. The chaplain who edits the gospel so that children of God may find a smooth fit between discipleship and killing other children of God will probably be very "sucessful" and left alone by the military as they are fulfilling their duty to the State.
[UPDATE: Through our discussion the above paragraph has come into light as pretty much false. Chaplains are aparently very hard to get rid of and preaching peace and nonviolence would not be enough to get you fired.]
The rest of the article continues much as the first, being a Christian in the military mostly means that God helps you get through Ranger training as well as remembering to do the "right thing," but from the tone of the article it seems that refusing to kill other children of God is not one of those decisions we Christians have to worry about, because we have faith in the military.
Labels: Military, Non-Violence, Politics
posted by Charlie at 2:35 PM
48 Comments:
Bring it brother! (Check out my "Kaz" link--this one's extra appropriate.)
I'm an Army Officer and former Olivet student who served in Iraq. I think this is an important, and fascinating conversation for modern Christians.
So, a serious question to continue the discussion. How do you feel about police chaplains? They also minister to officers of the state trained to kill.
D,
To tell you the truth I haven't thought of it much, but like any chaplain I think that there are dangers associated with the job because you are supposed to serve God but get paid by the military, police force, corporation, etc. I think that the police are somewhat different in that (at least hopefully) their job is first and foremost to keep peace and serve the people, and that does not necessitate killing.
Ministering to people trained to kill is not bad, I don't mean to imply that at all. What I do mean to say is that ministry to those trained to kill in a way that justifies their killing, or gives theolgical justification for that killing, or worst of all never addresses the killing is wrong.
We need to love and minister to soliders. We also need to be clear that the gospel of Jesus Christ does not support or condone killing other children of God in the name of your country. I woulde argue that disciples must never kill, but "not killing in the name of your country" is a place I'm willing to start.
Or police officers for that matter?
Well, to be fair, I spent a LOT of time talking with our chaplain (another midwestern evangelical) about the nature of just war and whether OIF met that criteria. A major part of the Chaplain's job is TO address the morality and theological implications of killing other humans. And I've NEVER met a chaplain who would betray their own convictions on the subject "just to make someone feel better about their job." No pastor/chaplain who would do that for ANYONE is worth their salt, though I think you'd have a hard time finding a pastor who would turn down the tithe check from a tobacco executive.
Something important to understand about Chaplains: they only "answer" to the commander in the most administrative of matters. Chaplains are usually assigned by their church, usually voluntarily (though not with Catholics, which is really interesting. Their check goes to the Church and priests are paid their normal stipend by the church.) and it's almost impossible to fire one. If one said something the commander didn't like to the soldiers, that would generally be tough shit. You certainly couldn't punish one for something they said that wasn't, y'know, treason, or disclosure of classified information. Mostly chaplains answer to God and their fellows. They aren't pussies. They call it like it is, but also, I've never met a Chaplain who didn't believe in Just War and I think that's not terribly surprising.
And just so you know, when the chaplain and I discussed OIF and just war, he admitted openly that it didn't meet the criteria. I said, "so what do we do?" He said, "Well, we've had a long talk about this in the Chaplain Corps. We've decided we'll do our duty, inform our commanders at all levels that OIF doesn't meet just war doctrine, and then we'll deploy and support our flock, just like we always do. As for soldiers like you who are concerned about the unjustness of the war, well I'll support you in whatever you do, but you'll have to decide for yourself where your convictions lead you." My job was almost entirely defensive, so I had a pretty easy time with my decision compared to others. I spent most of the war coordinating incoming humanitarian aid and evacuating kids who needed surgery.
Your generalization of chaplains in this blog post doesn't really honor the level of sensitivity and conscience displayed by the chaplains that I lived with during the war.
You're fooling yourself if you think that police work does not necessitate killing. Ever American police officer carries a lethal weapon and not a single police department in America trains their officers to "wound" with that weapon. They always shoot to kill.
Police officers carry weapons. Lethal weapons. The majority of their technical training is in the use of lethal (and nonlethal) violence to subdue citizens who have become threats to their fellows.
Soldiers carry weapons. Lethal weapons. The majority of their technical training is in the use of lethal (and nonlethal) violence to subdue citizens (usually of other countries) who have become threats to American citizens. (and our allies) The only real difference in the jobs is that the level of threat addressed by soldiers is much more serious, and nonlethal violence is rarely an option, though DARPA is working on that one, too. (google the pain ray) This is the nature of just war doctrine. Violence is justified when others are in the process of doing harm or clearly mean to do harm to those you are sworn to protect.
So the bigger question is: do you believe that if someone is raping and torturing your friends and family (a fairly standard wartime scenario) and the only feasible way to stop them is with lethal force, do you think that it's just to use that force, or is it more just to allow the GREATER evil to occur through your inaction?
Luke 3:14
Then some soldiers asked him, "And what should we do?" He replied, "Don't extort money and don't accuse people falsely—be content with your pay."
I'll say what Augustine said: if Jesus wanted to forbid soldiering, he would have advised these fellows to quit, not to carry out their duties with integrity.
I've never met a chaplain who didn't address killing. I've never met a chaplain who didn't believe in just war doctrine. I can't imagine a chaplain who didn't wanting to sign up for the job. But if christian soldiers and chaplains don't believe in just war, they shouldn't be doing the job at all. If they DO believe in just war, shouldn't chaplains and Christian soldiers be deeply concerned with killing in a way that is justified, theologically and otherwise?
I think there's a good logical basis for Christian pacifism and I'm totally sympathetic to Christians who are convicted in this way, But I also believe, along with Augustine, that there's pretty good theological basis, not the least of which is the verse mentioned above, for the just use of lethal force as a last resort to keep the peace and protect the helpless.
D,
Whew… that was a ton to digest.
“A major part of the Chaplain's job is TO address the morality and theological implications of killing other humans. And I've NEVER met a chaplain who would betray their own convictions on the subject "just to make someone feel better about their job."
Have you ever met a Chaplain who encouraged a soldier to disobey orders?
"No pastor/chaplain who would [just to make someone feel better about their job] for ANYONE is worth their salt, though I think you'd have a hard time finding a pastor who would turn down the tithe check from a tobacco executive."
I think you’re right. You mentioned that Chaplains answer to commanders in only administrative matters. I didn't know that, or how hard it is to fire one apart from treason, etc. Would encouraging soliders to disobey orders be considered treason?
Your generalization of chaplains in this blog post doesn't really honor the level of sensitivity and conscience displayed by the chaplains that I lived with during the war.
I admit that my musings are just that, generalizations. I'm glad to hear that at least some chaplains stand up for a strong Just War theory rather than giving into Realpolitik. I've met (and lived with) some really amazing military chaplains who are not going into the service to be the tool of a war machine, but to minister to soldiers and be frank about what the incompatibility with a life of discipleship and killing. What I mean to say in the blog, is that that way of being a chaplain is the way Christians should be chaplains in the military. If you're experience is that your chaplains were just that, then good. I'm not dishonoring them. If you read me as saying that all chaplains are bad and justify everything the military is doing then I've been misunderstood.
You're fooling yourself if you think that police work does not necessitate killing. Every American police officer carries a lethal weapon and not a single police department in America trains their officers to "wound" with that weapon. They always shoot to kill.
That does not mean that they must kill. I strongly believe that a job of a Christian in the police force DOES NOT necessitate killing, whether or not they have been trained to do so. Not all police officers carry guns. Some choose not to.
Soldiers carry weapons. Lethal weapons. The majority of their technical training is in the use of lethal (and nonlethal) violence to subdue citizens (usually of other countries) who have become threats to American citizens. (and our allies)
Just as an aside, I don't think the military is used to "protect" American citzens from "threats" as much as people say it does. To say that the military uses violence to subde people who do not comply with American interests might be more accurate.
So the bigger question is: do you believe that if someone is raping and torturing your friends and family (a fairly standard wartime scenario) and the only feasible way to stop them is with lethal force, do you think that it's just to use that force, or is it more just to allow the GREATER evil to occur through your inaction?
No that is not the bigger question. The bigger question is, do you have enough faith that God will avenge evildoers, and that even here and now on this earth that God might intervene to save others?
The bigger question is, what would it look like for Christians to rely on God for justice instead of standing Armies?
The bigger question is, what is more important to you, being "effective" no matter what the means are, or being "faithful" no matter what the ends are. Dan Bell has a great book out addressing just what it means to be faithful and "allow" suffering to happen. Liberation Theology After the End of History: The Refusal to Cease Suffering.
As for your hypotheical situation, you seem to be trying to extrapolate the responses of a very local concrete situation to justify wars between States. And if your answer to this question is "yes, kill the rapist." Then I'd ask you this. If your wife was threatening the life of a stranger would you shoot your wife? If you buy into this universal duty to kill wrongdoers, then you have to shoot your wife. If you do not shoot her you recognize that killing is not about principles of justice but about (dis)ordered love.
Luke 3:14
I'll say what Augustine said: if Jesus wanted to forbid soldiering, he would have advised these fellows to quit, not to carry out their duties with integrity.
Perhaps it is okay for someone to be a solider, but it is not faithful immitation of Jesus to kill another child of God. So there's a tension. How can you be a soldier and not kill? That's a question I think every Christian solider needs to be asking themselves, one you apparently have already wrestled with. Your own service in the military is a legitimate way of being redemptive in the midst of an evil system. Building a theology of killing around what Jesus didn't say is no way to build a theology.
I've never met a chaplain who didn't address killing... But if christian soldiers and chaplains don't believe in just war, they shouldn't be doing the job at all. If they DO believe in just war, shouldn't chaplains and Christian soldiers be deeply concerned with killing in a way that is justified, theologically and otherwise?
If chaplains are addressing thelogically the issue of killing, then that's a start. Having not served in the military myself I don't know from first-hand experience what they do and don't do. All of my knowledge of chaplains comes from accounts of those in the military, so I might not see the bigger picture. Some chaplains, like George Zabelka, didn't address what was going on and simply said prayers of blessing before his Atomic Bomb squads of WWII flew away. I think it is a great idea for Christian pacifists to be chaplains. Why should we only send people pre-disposed to Just War theory into warzones?
...I also believe, along with Augustine, that there's pretty good theological basis, not the least of which is the verse mentioned above, for the just use of lethal force as a last resort to keep the peace and protect the helpless.
Which I think is best done locally and trusting in God, rather than globally via State militaries.
Here is a speech given by father George Zebelka...
Blessing the Bombs
Just so you know ... Luke 3:14 is JOHN THE BAPTIST answering the crowds. Not Jesus.
Wow, if that's not an obvious reason to read verses in context, I don't know what is.
So, unless John the Baptist is the founder and finisher of your faith, maybe everyone should take a look at what our radical and controversial Savior, Jesus of Nazareth, said about such things. I'd suggest starting with the Sermon on the Mount.
Chuck,
I'm enjoying this conversation. It's something I've given a lot of thought to, but there aren't many willing to discuss it.
-Have you ever met a Chaplain who encouraged a soldier to disobey orders?
If I had told my chaplain that I felt I couldn't do my job in an unjust war, I think he would have encouraged me to disobey orders and go to jail. Not many soldiers are likely to have that kind of conversation with the Chaplain, though. I think the more likely scenario is that the Chaplain would assist a soldier, so motivated, to apply for conscientious objector status. We had a couple of soldiers start that process in 3ID and everyone I met was very supportive, top to bottom. Those folks usually get transferred to a new specialty, like chaplain's assistant or medic. The problem in my case is that I didn't and don't think that all war is unjust. I just thought OIF was unjust. There's no special status for that. Soldiers don't get to pick which legal orders they want to follow and which they don't.
-I think you’re right. You mentioned that Chaplains answer to commanders in only administrative matters. I didn't know that, or how hard it is to fire one apart from treason, etc. Would encouraging soldiers to disobey orders be considered treason?
I think not. Treason involves supporting the enemy and this isn't that.
-I admit that my musings are just that, generalizations. I'm glad to hear that at least some chaplains stand up for a strong Just War theory rather than giving into Realpolitik. I've met (and lived with) some really amazing military chaplains who are not going into the service to be the tool of a war machine, but to minister to soldiers and be frank about what the incompatibility with a life of discipleship and killing. What I mean to say in the blog, is that that way of being a chaplain is the way Christians should be chaplains in the military. If you're experience is that your chaplains were just that, then good. I'm not dishonoring them. If you read me as saying that all chaplains are bad and justify everything the military is doing then I've been misunderstood.
I think the experience with my chaplain is probably par for the course, insomuch as one is likely to find any pastor smart enough to have a conversation about just war theory. I'm challenging you on the more basic premise of whether or not a soldier can be a Christian. If they can, then Chaplains are right to encourage soldiers to do their job with integrity, as Jesus did, rather than encouraging them to quit.
-That does not mean that they must kill. I strongly believe that a job of a Christian in the police force DOES NOT necessitate killing, whether or not they have been trained to do so. Not all police officers carry guns. Some choose not to.
You're going to have to give me an example here, because I know a lot of cops and think I have a pretty good understanding of the nature of law enforcement. Most police department hiring processes are designed to eliminate folks who are unwilling to use lethal force in the execution of their duties. Most departments' name for police officers who don't carry guns is "clerk." There might be an outlier here and there, but I think they're about as common as butchers who don't use knives.
-Just as an aside, I don't think the military is used to "protect" American citzens from "threats" as much as people say it does. To say that the military uses violence to subde people who do not comply with American interests might be more accurate.
I'm not talking about politics and policy, which is what this comment falls under. I agree that Iraq was not a real threat and therefore the invasion was not self defense and therefore unjust. But soldiers don't get to set strategy any more than police officers get to write the law. Our job is to execute the legal orders of elected authority. Americans decide who fills those seats. We get to vote, but that's it. I can only speak for myself and the oath I took. My oath (and every other soldier's) is to "defend the constitution of the united states." That's our job description. That the policies we're sent to enact are actually necessary for that defense is a matter of long-winded debate. But it's a debate that soldiers don't and shouldn't participate in in a democracy. It's unusual in history but I think that it's probably a good idea.
-No that is not the bigger question. The bigger question is, do you have enough faith that God will avenge evildoers, and that even here and now on this earth that God might intervene to save others?
I'm not talking about avenging evildoers. It might be part of just war doctrine but that's not in my job description. I'm not a superhero.
I have faith that even here and now on this earth that God will intervene to save others, and I know (like anyone else who's read a history of the holocaust) that sometimes American soldiers are the means by which God accomplishes this intervention. Not always, but sometimes. I have faith that God saves lives, but that doesn't mean that I don't go to the doctor or that buying health insurance means I'm lacking faith.
-The bigger question is, what would it look like for Christians to rely on God for justice instead of standing Armies?
I think it would look a lot like what it looks like when a people rely on God only for healing instead of doctors and public health programs. Africa, in other words.
-The bigger question is, what is more important to you, being "effective" no matter what the means are, or being "faithful" no matter what the ends are. Dan Bell has a great book out addressing just what it means to be faithful and "allow" suffering to happen. Liberation Theology After the End of History: The Refusal to Cease Suffering.
I don't think that those two goals are mutually exclusive, but I will say that I'm no fan of spiritual masturbation. I have a low opinion of those who take actions (or remain inactive) in order to make themselves feel better while having no real positive impact on the lives of their neighbors. My actions, my life, my career goals are an extension of my faith. And I've never felt the need to compromise my faith to accomplish them.
-As for your hypotheical situation, you seem to be trying to extrapolate the responses of a very local concrete situation to justify wars between States. And if your answer to this question is "yes, kill the rapist." Then I'd ask you this. If your wife was threatening the life of a stranger would you shoot your wife? If you buy into this universal duty to kill wrongdoers, then you have to shoot your wife. If you do not shoot her you recognize that killing is not about principles of justice but about (dis)ordered love.
It's not hypothetical. I have Iraqi friends whose friends and family members were, in fact, tortured and raped to death. I'm saying that that very local and concrete situation has been very local and concrete to me and others who do my job. When we go into a place, usually, it's because the death and destruction we're about to wreak is in fact significantly less bad and necessary to stop the death and destruction currently underway. (I say usually. Iraq is a train wreck and you'll have a hard time finding someone in DOD who will say otherwise.) See Bosnia, Kosovo and Darfur for historical examples.
If my wife was threatening the life of a stranger, I'd kill the stranger. Honest answer. I won't try to justify it. But I will say that, for me personally, my loyalties are thus: God, family, country. If a police officer saw my wife threatening the life of a stranger and he shot her, I'd be upset but I wouldn't think them unprofessional or evil.
-Perhaps it is okay for someone to be a solider, but it is not faithful imitation of Jesus to kill another child of God.
I disagree.
-So there's a tension. How can you be a soldier and not kill? That's a question I think every Christian solider needs to be asking themselves, one you apparently have already wrestled with. Your own service in the military is a legitimate way of being redemptive in the midst of an evil system. Building a theology of killing around what Jesus didn't say is no way to build a theology.
I think that's silly. We have to build theology around all sorts of things that aren't specifically mentioned red letter. That's the nature of theology. That's what theology is for. That God spent a lot of time not only condoning warfare but actively demanding it (OT, obviously) makes me a lot less nervous about my theological and logical grounding. The theology of killing, frankly, has been around longer than Christianity.
-If chaplains are addressing thelogically the issue of killing, then that's a start. Having not served in the military myself I don't know from first-hand experience what they do and don't do. All of my knowledge of chaplains comes from accounts of those in the military, so I might not see the bigger picture. Some chaplains, like George Zabelka, didn't address what was going on and simply said prayers of blessing before his Atomic Bomb squads of WWII flew away. I think it is a great idea for Christian pacifists to be chaplains. Why should we only send people pre-disposed to Just War theory into warzones?
They might have lower-than-expected job satisfaction.
-Which I think is best done locally and trusting in God, rather than globally via State militaries.
I trust in God to heal me and keep me safe, but I also go to the doctor and am glad of tax dollars spent on police and public safety officials. These things are not mutually exclusive. It's nothing other than foolishness to run a flat and sit by the side of the road, full of faith that God will make your car work again when you have a spare tire and jack in the trunk.
Kara -
You're right that it isn't a red-letter statement but in my denomination the bible is the divinely inspired word of God. I'm not a strictly red-letter Christian, though there are days when I think Jefferson was on the right track.
D,
Yeah, thanks for the conversation, I agree that people are unwilling for the most part to engage these important theological/ministry issues. I'm glad to have someone of your expertise and experience join the conversation and give us a glimpse from the "inside." You've already illuminated many things about the reality of chaplaincy I was previously unaware of. Okay... in response to your last post...
Well first actually, in response to your response to Kara...
I believe (and I think Kara does too) that Jesus Christ is the WORD of God, and we find that primarily through the Bible. The Bible is the story of God and God's people, but much of it is written to God, much of it is history, some of it theology and all of it comes alive when we read it and the Spirit of God speaks to us and shapes us through it... but the bible itself is not the word of God, that's Jesus. So Jesus' words are on another plane than that of John the Baptist.
Not sure what you meant by the Thomas Jefferson comment though. Seems like in one sentence you're biblical literalist and in the other you're a unitarian... explain.
Okay, now on to your post.
If I had told my chaplain that I felt I couldn't do my job in an unjust war, I think he would have encouraged me to disobey orders and go to jail.
Would a chaplain at any point be the one to bring up the conversation or do they simply respond to solider's questions? A chaplain friend of mine and I have often talked about what was going on with the chaplain for the soldiers at Abu Grabe (sp?). This particular chaplain was holed up in her office and didn't engage the soldiers. What would it look like for chaplains to call out Christians when they are involved in these kinds of things? What about soldiers who drop cluster bombs? Would a chaplain ever challenge these practices when he/she sees Christians involved in them?
I'm challenging you on the more basic premise of whether or not a soldier can be a Christian. If they can, then Chaplains are right to encourage soldiers to do their job with integrity, as Jesus did, rather than encouraging them to quit.
Well first, as Kara points out, it is not Jesus who tells them to do their job with integrity. And neither Jesus nor John the Baptist spent a ton of time preaching to gentiles, both of these men were preaching to Jews so it is not surprising that we don't get long exhortations about to be a good Roman.
Secondly, my argument is that to do one's job with "integrity," we must locate who gets to define integrity. As a Christian solider, integrity must be defined by Jesus alone, not the military. That means no cluster bombs, no torture, no bombing civilians, shooting to wound rather than kill, etc. This means that being a Christian and being a solider should be so hard as to mark Christians as unfit for the duty. Stanley Hauerwas has a great article addressing this exact point called "Why Gays as a Group are Morally Superior to Christians as a Group."
I'm not talking about avenging evildoers. It might be part of just war doctrine but that's not in my job description. I'm not a superhero.
I have faith that even here and now on this earth that God will intervene to save others, and I know (like anyone else who's read a history of the holocaust) that sometimes American soldiers are the means by which God accomplishes this intervention. Not always, but sometimes. I have faith that God saves lives, but that doesn't mean that I don't go to the doctor or that buying health insurance means I'm lacking faith.
And God used Assyria to judge Israel... then turned around and judged Assyria for their actions. So to say that God is able to use evil institutions for his own ends, yes I agree with that. That is not to say that we're supposed to join up in those institutions. In the midst of liberating Jews in concentration camps the Allies also bombed the hell out of Dresden and Tokyo, two of the most lethal acts of terrorism in world history.
Your comparison between going to war and going to the doctor misses an important point. Jesus did not give us reason in the sermon on the mount to think that going to the doctor is sinful. However I find it hard to come away from the sermon on the mount with any other way of relating to "enemies" other than loving them, and as a last resort being martyred by them.
So if Jesus gives us a new way of life, we have to trust God in living into that new way. This has everything to do with violence and nothing to do with dentists.
I don't think that those two goals (effectiveness & faithfulness) are mutually exclusive
No indeed it isn't always mutually exclusive. Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi both were very "effective" in accomplishing their goals as well as remaining faithful to God.
...I'm no fan of spiritual masturbation. I have a low opinion of those who take actions (or remain inactive) in order to make themselves feel better while having no real positive impact on the lives of their neighbors.
Remaining faithful to Christ no matter what the consequences is not about "feeling better about yourself." I never said anything about being inactive either. I simply said that faithfulness to God is the most important thing. Compromising this faithfulness (by contradicting the sermon on the mount) because we think we have a greater plan that requires us to do so is what I'm talking about. That kind of "effectiveness" does not smoothly fit with a life of discipleship.
If my wife was threatening the life of a stranger, I'd kill the stranger. Honest answer. I won't try to justify it. But I will say that, for me personally, my loyalties are thus: God, family, country. If a police officer saw my wife threatening the life of a stranger and he shot her, I'd be upset but I wouldn't think them unprofessional or evil.
If your loyalties are God, family, country how can you kill a stranger (created in the image of God) whom your wife is threatening to kill? My argument is that when we kill out of (dis)ordered love, we have actually put our loved ones above God.
Perhaps it is okay for someone to be a solider, but it is not faithful imitation of Jesus to kill another child of God. I disagree.
Do you think that killing another person can be a faithful way of imitating Jesus?
I think that's silly. We have to build theology around all sorts of things that aren't specifically mentioned red letter. That's the nature of theology. That's what theology is for. That God spent a lot of time not only condoning warfare but actively demanding it (OT, obviously) makes me a lot less nervous about my theological and logical grounding. The theology of killing, frankly, has been around longer than Christianity.
A theology that addresses something "specifically mentioned red letter" is different than constructing a theology around what you don't hear. ESPECIALLY when the sermon on the mount does address how Christians should relate to enemies. The first takes into account the character of scripture and most importantly the character of Jesus. The latter says that "if he didn't mention it, he can't be against it." That's a horrible hermeneutic and results only in simplistic interpretations that will mirror your own ideas.
I trust in God to heal me and keep me safe, but I also go to the doctor and am glad of tax dollars spent on police and public safety officials. These things are not mutually exclusive. It's nothing other than foolishness to run a flat and sit by the side of the road, full of faith that God will make your car work again when you have a spare tire and jack in the trunk.
Again... comparing a principled stance to trust in God to provide the answer to situations of oppression and suffering that doesn't require us to disobey what he sent his son to tell us, to waiting for God to fix my flat tire... it's downright insulting.
D,
Just a couple of initial thoughts…
You said: “So the bigger question is: do you believe that if someone is raping and torturing your friends and family (a fairly standard wartime scenario) and the only feasible way to stop them is with lethal force, do you think that it's just to use that force, or is it more just to allow the GREATER evil to occur through your inaction?”
The dichotomy of action vs. inaction is an unfair limitation to place on a person presented with this scenario. Before I go further, might I point you toward John Howard Yoder’s article, What would you do if? He wrestle’s with these very questions.
You said: I have faith that even here and now on this earth that God will intervene to save others, and I know (like anyone else who's read a history of the holocaust) that sometimes American soldiers are the means by which God accomplishes this intervention. Not always, but sometimes. I have faith that God saves lives, but that doesn't mean that I don't go to the doctor or that buying health insurance means I'm lacking faith.
Perhaps it might be interesting to note who fought in Hitler’s armies. Catholics and Lutherans. If the Church had been able to resist the rise of the dictator things would have been different. I cannot say for sure, obviously. But I’m pretty confident. William Cavanaugh in Torture and Eucharist discusses the Catholic Church in Chile, which falls under the oppression of General Pinochet. He notes that instead of violently resisting they bought fully into a Eucharistic theology that was able to teach them to resist the state through creative and imaginative ways that the weapons of war can never know. War can’t comprehend the virtue of a suffering faithfulness.
But before you label me a non-activist I would have to read Cavanaugh’s account and then decide if one can call it inaction.
You said: It's not hypothetical. I have Iraqi friends whose friends and family members were, in fact, tortured and raped to death. I'm saying that that very local and concrete situation has been very local and concrete to me and others who do my job.
I can only mourn and cry out “how long.” My skins crawls and my stomach aches to think this is a reality.
You said: When we go into a place, usually, it's because the death and destruction we're about to wreak is in fact significantly less bad and necessary to stop the death and destruction currently underway. (I say usually. Iraq is a train wreck and you'll have a hard time finding someone in DOD who will say otherwise.) See Bosnia, Kosovo and Darfur for historical examples.
I have heard it said something to the effect of that stopping violence with violence is like fornicating in order to attain purity. The only way to stop violence is to in fact not be violent. If Christ is the social norm for Christian ethics then this we have to understand the victory of the cross in his very refusal to not come down off it.
You said: The theology of killing, frankly, has been around longer than Christianity.
Why, then, is Christ the fulfillment of the law? The Godhead is eternal and Christ is the image of which we His body as the Church. Israel, while the people of God carry a store fulfilled in Christ. Yes, God commanded wars but only so far as it taught Israel the God was the victory of their wars and not their weapons. Consider that Israel’s victories are often rather absurd compared to modern “shock and awe” strategies.
Lastly, scripture, tradition, reason, and experience are a difficult car ride! We must be careful to consider much and love always. I have to believe that it is better to die and that by death prove God faithful as he raises the dead, for that is our hope. Christ, for the life of world, a true Eucharist.
I have enjoyed this conversation. It has been awhile since I have talked about just war and Christian pacifism. I, too, am thankful that a thorough and critical voice like yours exists and has the integrity to pursue honest and necessary theological dialogue.
Peace,
Scott
David,
You asked if a soldier can be a Christian. Yes, I believe a soldier can be a Christian.
Can a sinner be a Christian? Sure, I am.
Can you be a Christian and be who you are and believe the way you do? Sure. You are a Christian.
I think when we wrestle with these issues personally it is important to keep in mind many of the things Scott just pointed out. There are tensions between what we read in scripture, what our tradition tells us, what reason and experience affords us. Being informed by all these things brings each of us to slightly different places in our faith.
Because of those different places we have conversations like this to help us journey together towards Christ-likeness. This conversation is not about separating the right Christians from the wrong Christians. Or decide that in order to be a Christian you must think the right thoughts about Christianity. That was the Gnostic problem. We attempt not to be gnostic. And so Scott is right, we live out our faith. Inaction is not a fair assesment.
But also, I would challenge you to read Charlie's words carefully about how we use scripture to inform our faith. It may not be the first time you have heard it put this way, but I think Charlie said it well.
Also, when you refer to "my tradition" what does that mean? You are Nazarene as much as any of the rest of us. I think you will find that as proud as we are of our tradition, we know that discipleship and communication of our doctrine and practice hasn't been the greatest in all our churches. These people talking on this blog are some of the best folks to offer correction to our Nazarene tradition. To explain what we REALLY believe. Many Nazarenes are shocked to find out that being faithful to scripture means being very against war and violence. You probably wouldn't be surprised by the number of folks who don't even question the war we are in. And they are Nazarenes just like us. Our brothers and sisters.
I guess, all that to say that no one is going to give blanket statements about who is a Christian and who is not. (Except me). But everyone is going to love one another and encourage each other to righteousness AND judgement based on what God has revealed to us.
As much as faith is corporately lived, it is also personal. When a person decides to participate in violence he or she is responsible to God for that behavior. When you decide to participte in violence you have to reconcile that violence with what you know to be true about God.
But... have you seen the ads for AIDS awareness? A bunch of people (celebrities included) are pictured and the headline reads something like "We all have AIDS, if one has AIDS." And that is the way with violence. We all are violent, if one is violent. Until we all, believers and non-believers alike, live in peace, we are all participants in violence. May God have mercy on us. Let us all be peacemakers in the light of Christ with God's help.
Emily
I agree with the sentiment here. I think the church can and should have a nonviolent mission. I think the church can be a force for good that has the ability to bring an end to violence. That's the church's job and I embrace it. I believe that God, through the church, will achieve peace and justice here on Earth.
But the state has a different mandate than the church does, and I'm a pretty firm believer in separation of church and state.
(I'm also a libertarian/borderline anarchocapitalist, so talk about your internal conflicts!)
We could continue to do a blow-by-blow here on specific instances, but it seems to me that the heart of the theological debate revolves around this simple question:
Is the state subject to the same rules about sin that individuals are?
(Particularly in the Untied States, a constitutional democracy with a codified separation of church and state.)
There are a lot of important implications here, but I'll let those get hashed out in the ensuing discussion.
-D
-I have heard it said something to the effect of that stopping violence with violence is like fornicating in order to attain purity. The only way to stop violence is to in fact not be violent.
This assumes that all violence, in and of itself, is a sin. The story of Jesus driving the merchants from the temple seems to refute this, since Jesus was without sin. The commandment is "do not Murder" not "do not be violent."
And I gotta tell ya. This idea of a world in which the government is no longer willing or able to commit violence in order to bring about stability isn't hypothetical. Iraq in the Baghdad region and Somalia are real-world examples and it's clear that this policy (intentional or no) has not resulted in LESS violence, but substantially more violence for its citizens.
Your being non-violent and my being non-violent doesn't bring about any less violence. We weren't violent to begin with. The trick is getting nasty VIOLENT people to be less (or non) violent. It's a harsh reality, but the only proven 100% effective methods that I'm familiar with involve weapons.
Theologically, sin is sin, but ethically, I think most would agree that the rape, torture, and murder of the innocent and helpless is more bad than the quick death of the rapist, torturer and murderer at the hands of the government.
I'm a bit of an outsider here, I only really know Charlie and Scott, but from that perspective I want to thank all who have been involved. This has been an insightful, and, more difficultly, graceful, conversation. A balance very hard to attain with this subject matter.
If I could pose one question in response to the following statement:
It's a harsh reality, but the only proven 100% effective methods that I'm familiar with involve weapons.
Perhaps this is overstatement? If they have been so effective, why hasn't violence been erased? Also, see Charlie's previous comment on the effectiveness of Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Both shunned violence. Even as a reaction.
The statement was intended to be narrow. Weapons aren't effective at ending violence. They're only effective at stopping the actions of a specific violent individual. A surgeon can remove cancer with a scalpel, but he can't eradicate cancer with the same tool.
They're two separate problems.
We are obviously coming from different perspectives here, but I have a hard time with this analogy. To me, it seems to fall apart at the beginning, when you link the state's instrument of death to a surgeon's scalpel.
What about the person with a link to the now violently deceased perpetrator of violence? Are they not going to want revenge? And, especially as long as we continue to justify and enact violence, are they not, at least within themselves, going to have enough grounds to justify and enact their own violence?
We will continually have to mortally cut someone open again to try to fix the effects of our last lethal surgery.
When does it stop?
The way I see it, a more accurate analogy would be removing cancer, but using a carcinogen to anesthetize the patient. You can't cure cancer with cancer.
Again, I refer to Gandhi. Through his methods he sought, and was pretty much was able to attain, the goal of escorting the British our of his country as friends.
Peace, friend.
I agree with the sentiment here. I think the church can and should have a nonviolent mission. I think the church can be a force for good that has the ability to bring an end to violence. That's the church's job and I embrace it... But the state has a different mandate than the church does, and I'm a pretty firm believer in separation of church and state.
I think this gets at the heart of the discussion. If the State and the Church have conflicting goals and we believe in the separation between church and state (as I do)... then what do we do? Do we divide life up into two spheres, the public/state/duty and the private/church/conscience? Then we can easily compartmentalize our lives between the two.
I believe that compartmentalization happened a long time ago, and is why genuine Christians who want to follow Christ find no ethical problem with killing others, as long as it is in the public sphere (military, police). When we kill in "private" it's murder, but as long as we're working under some "public" institution it's okay, because they don't have the same goals as the church.
But christians inside institutions are still Christians and cannot transfer one set of ethics for another when they put on a uniform.
Is the state subject to the same rules about sin that individuals are?
No, but the Christians within the state never get to change "the rules" they live by.
This assumes that all violence, in and of itself, is a sin. The story of Jesus driving the merchants from the temple seems to refute this, since Jesus was without sin.
Nowhere in that story does it say that Jesus hit anyone, or much less killed anyone. Jesus drove out the animals, and as one who grew up on a cattle ranch I can tell you that a whip would be very useful for such things. To use Jesus driving out the moneychangers (and animals) to contradict what he says in the Sermon on the Mount is a poor interpretation.
The commandment is "do not Murder" not "do not be violent."
There is A TON of debate going on about this in the world of theology/biblical studies. A lot of people would disagree with you. It's odd that this seems to be the one case of biblical interpretation we are taught from a young age. My own mother explained this to me when I was very young, when she had zero experience with Hebrew. I think America has trained us to unquestioningly read the decalogue that way.
Your being non-violent and my being non-violent doesn't bring about any less violence.
I think Gandhi paraphrased Jesus well when he said "Be the change you wish to see in the world."
Is the state subject to the same rules about sin that individuals are?
-No, but the Christians within the state never get to change "the rules" they live by.
OK. And this seems pretty reasonable, but as a political scientist I understand that the existence of any modern state is based on the tacit threat of force. The state is funded with taxes. As much as the IRS would like to say otherwise, people overwhelmingly comply with tax law not because they think they're getting a great value for their money but because they fear the men with guns who will come and take their property and liberty from them if they don't comply with the law.
Now, it's not likely that you're going to be killed for not paying your taxes, but if you don't like the idea of them coming to take you away by force to deprive you of your liberty for years on end and resist with proportionate force, you can rest assured that they WILL do their best to kill you rather than just let you go about your business flouting the law.
Is this a good thing? Hell, no. Do I think that at this point in time in our fallen world it's probably the best-case-scenario? Sadly, yes. My anarchocapitalist best friend would be beating me about the head and shoulders at this point, but I've lived in an anarchy, and, as I've said, it's not a Ayn Rand-style paradise with cool people paying each other in gold doubloons.
The sermon on the mount kicks ass. No two ways about it. But I think that it's hard to make an argument that a democratic government that followed its precepts would be successful in accomplishing the primary task for which it is created: namely protecting the property and civil rights of its citizens.
"Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."
Would it really be a good idea for the government, rather than finding an stopping armed criminals, to organize a method to give them what they want, and more? The problem with this method is that ultimately those criminals want the government itself and eventually get it. This is a common scenario in Africa and hasn't led to an ideal "peace and justice" scenario. To say that these bad men need to find Jesus and become nonviolent is true, but doesn't do much for their victims as they continue their rampage.
So, since the basic role which citizens expect the government to fulfill is to protect them from the nastiest of the nasty, those gladly willing to use lethal force to get what they want, should Christians support a government of any kind?
I'm not being a smartass here. I'm an anarchocapitalist at heart and have plenty of sane friends who would be happy to answer no to that question and have a conversation about how to mitigate the complications arising from that scenario.
If you DO support the existence of any state, how do you propose the state accomplish its basic mandate without lethal weapons against criminals and evil men who have them?
And if you support the existence of the state, an institution that you admit must use at least the THREAT of lethal force in order to accomplish its objectives, (show me a country that doesn't own any firearms) do you suggest that Christians not participate in the state in any meaningful fashion? Even paying sales taxes pays the salaries of the men with the guns. It seems a very pharisee-like act to subcontract your sin out to other parties.
And re: Ghandi and being the change.
It's great and that's very inspiring, but my staying in a healthy, monogamous AIDS-free relationship here in Virginia isn't doing a hell of a lot to stop the AIDS pandemic in Africa. Sometimes you need to do more than just exhibit the traits you'd like to see in others. You can eat KFC in front of Jeffrey Dahmer all day, but he's still going to be a cannibal.
Incidentally, how do you feel about intervention in Darfur?
The sermon on the mount kicks ass. No two ways about it. But I think that it's hard to make an argument that a democratic government that followed its precepts would be successful in accomplishing the primary task for which it is created: namely protecting the property and civil rights of its citizens.
I'm not making an argument that democratic states follow it. It was preached to Christians, not to liberal democratic nation-states. I'm not trying to apply any of what I'm talking about in a "top-down" manner. I'm talking exclusively about Christians living as if they were disciples of Jesus. America makes a bad disciple. If America tried to be a disciple it would fail... at least on it's own terms. That's not what I'm concerned with. I'm talking about Christians themselves.
And I'm okay with the fact that America is still at best a distant cousin to Babylon. I have no need for this country to be a "Christian nation," or for it to act like a discple of Jesus... I just want Christians to live like disciples in the midst of this screwed up country.
Your analysis of the Gandhi quote misses the most important word "BE." BE the change you wish to see in the world. So if you want the world to be free of AIDS, not having sex in Virginia is not enough. You must EMBODY that change, by educating those who are ignorant, etc. but your own practice of not contracting/spreading AIDS is also part of the equation.
If I want the world to be more peaceful, I must EMBODY peace. If I want the world to be more peaceful and I go about that task via cluster bombs I am becoming part of the problem so that I might solve it. That can never work Gandhi says. Killing people to get the point across that killing is wrong undermines itself and sends the exact opposite message (although it gives "right" killing to the state alone).
About Darfur,
I think that Christians on the ground there in Darfur must find creative ways to be redemptive and love their enemies. I think that instead of sending our young men and women to go in and start shooting, that we should send Christians in to stand with the Darfur Christians in their work and ministry. This could end in martyrdom for some... but don't nations require as much of their soliders, only for an empty reason?
When we think about things like Darfur, our first reaction must not be what do we (Americans) do, but rather what do we (the Church) do? When we ask questions in that way we eliminate bombing and killing as options becasue (thank God) the church does not have an army!
Amen Charlie, its up to Christians to be Christians...to be students of Jesus to be followers of God who set up Kingdom Economics, where there is mercy and grace, where first shall be last, where we might have to turn a cheek when struck!
-I'm not making an argument that democratic states follow it. It was preached to Christians, not to liberal democratic nation-states. I'm not trying to apply any of what I'm talking about in a "top-down" manner. I'm talking exclusively about Christians living as if they were disciples of Jesus. America makes a bad disciple. If America tried to be a disciple it would fail... at least on it's own terms. That's not what I'm concerned with. I'm talking about Christians themselves.
I understand that. And I think for most Christians, it's easy to say, "Well, I'll just pay my taxes and not worry about American foreign policy." (Though in a democracy, I question whether they really absolve themselves of responsibility in this fashion.) But there are those of us in Washington who have decided that part of working for peace and justice means working to change American foreign policy. For a lot of us our daily jobs mean having an influence on questions like: should we try to get peacekeepers sent to Darfur? (I'm starting a new job at the State Department in a week) For a lot of Christian groups here in DC that have a good, smart outlook on Christian peace and justice, as it relates to foreign policy (sojourners comes to mind) this is one of the primary issues that they're lobbying for, and I think it's right.
It might be easy to say, in regard to American foreign policy (and compatibility with our understanding of discipleship) "that's not what I'm concerned with," but for a lot of Christians within 10 miles of where I'm sitting we're VERY concerned with it and I think we should be.
-If I want the world to be more peaceful and I go about that task via cluster bombs I am becoming part of the problem so that I might solve it. That can never work Gandhi says. Killing people to get the point across that killing is wrong undermines itself and sends the exact opposite message (although it gives "right" killing to the state alone).
There are a couple of assumptions here that mean we're speaking a different language here. Peace, for me, is not the only ultimate goal. I want the world to be more peaceful, but I also want justice. If we (the west) had let Hitler take over Europe and wipe out the Jews and other unsuitables then a lot fewer people likely would have died overall. But would it have been just? I'm looking for an actual answer here.
And you assume that the intent of killing in wartime is "to get the point across that killing is wrong." That's not the point at all. In fact, to me, that's the equivalent of saying to punish a rapist is "to get the point across that sex is wrong." It places the fault on an easily-understood and messy act rather than on the context in which the act occurs. I've never met anyone who killed someone to get the point across that killing is wrong. The only people I know who have killed anyone (I haven't, by the way) did so because they or innocent civilians were being shot at. There is a world of difference between what genocidal war criminals do in a massacre like Dachau or the ethnic cleansings in Kosovo or Darfur and what armed peacekeepers do when they come in to stop those atrocities. To put them in the same category because they're both armed is an anathema.
Killing someone who is trying to kill you or people you're sworn to protect is not in the same category as raping someone to death because they're from the wrong ethic group. It's just not.
And I don't care WHAT Ghandi said on the matter. East Timor, Kosovo, the Bosnian Genocide and Darfur conflict all show that armed peacekeeprs "work." There would be MORE death, and MORE genocide if these guys never came or decided one morning that "violence is bad, so I can't carry a weapon anymore." They'd go from being protectors to victims in the time it took the criminals to discover they were no longer armed.
It's easy for Christians in America to sit in our safe, comfortable houses and say that we should never use violence for anything, ever. But we're IN those safe, comfortable houses because we voluntarily pay for a strong police force and a strong military disincentivizing those who would destroy that peace for their own gains. I know this because I've lived in countries where there was no effective police or military and those who would destroy the peace for their own gain were very very active and brought a lot of death and misery to the region.
These are HARD questions. No doubt about it. It's horrible that we live in a world where we (as citizens of a democracy) have to make these choices, but I don't think that Christians should shrink away from them, easy though it may be.
The truth of the matter is that, even if you say you're not going to use violence, the vast majority of the tax dollars you pay go to buy the bullets (AND "cluster bombs") and pay the men with guns who DO use violence. Your vote (or non-vote) supports the men who send those men to war. It's easy to say you're not going to pull the trigger, but I think it's hypocritical and naive (albeit easy) to voluntarily pay that person's salary with full knowledge of the consequences and then condemn the actions you paid them to do while enjoying the peace their force maintains.
...for most Christians, it's easy to say, "Well, I'll just pay my taxes and not worry about American foreign policy."
That's not what I'm saying at all. I think I'm more informed about and care more about these issues than most people. I vote, I protest, I write letters to congress. All out of a prophetic spirit. I do not take my stance as a Christian pacifist to "let me off the hook" from political involvement, and to be honest I can't think of any Christian pacifists for whom that is the case. I find that we are the most educated and active about issues of American foriegn policy.
Peace, for me, is not the only ultimate goal. I want the world to be more peaceful, but I also want justice.
And you can never BE Justice, only God can embody that.
If we (the west) had let Hitler take over Europe and wipe out the Jews and other unsuitables then a lot fewer people likely would have died overall. But would it have been just? I'm looking for an actual answer here.
When you frame questions in that way you make militay intervention THE default response. What about when we (the Church) let Hitler start his campagin agains the Jews? Did you know that the Church stopped Hitler's genocide against the mentaly handicapped and elderly? The Church stopped this with protest, but they looked the other way when it was the Jews. The Church had the chance to stop Hitler, to train their young men & women to never kill others. If the Church was good enough at teaching Just War and Pacifism then Hitler would have had very few soliders to carry out his plans. We must answer these questions from the point of the Church, not the state.
There would be MORE death, and MORE genocide if these guys never came or decided one morning that "violence is bad, so I can't carry a weapon anymore." They'd go from being protectors to victims in the time it took the criminals to discover they were no longer armed.
Your scenario assumes a world with no Church, a world where non-violence means inaction. What you call victimization I call Martyrdom, and it is one of the most powerful weapons in the world. Martyrdom is a witness to the world that we believe so much in the resurrection that we follow Jesus and his non-violent teachings and rely on God to be faithful to raise us from the dead.
It's easy for Christians in America to sit in our safe, comfortable houses and say that we should never use violence for anything, ever.
Then why don't more Americans practice non-violence as a way of life? I encounter far more Americans that think violence gives them a "nice safe life" and therefore support it all the more.
But we're IN those safe, comfortable houses because we voluntarily pay for a strong police force and a strong military disincentivizing those who would destroy that peace for their own gains.
I don't buy that at all. For starters not all of America looks like Pleasantville. Have you been to Skid Row? There are ghettos of poverty and violence all over this country. Secondly, the military does not make me safe. That lie is told to us so that the military can justify itself. Security as it is defined by our government is an illusion Christians should name as such. Security comes only in the grace of God. What Americans call security is (as you point out) what our tax dollars are spent on to commit acts of violence. And so I have a big problem with taxes. Do I pay them, yes. But its something I wrestle with, as I think about what it funds. I know of many Christians who spend what would be tax dollars on other charities, etc. I wish there was a way to only pay "social" taxes and not give money to the military, but that legislation always gets shot down. So those are things I wrestle with. I don't, as you seem to suggest, sit on my couch gleefully paying taxes so that I can have "security" as the consequence of war and violence, but never myself have to "get my hands dirty" to "enjoy" the blessedness of a violence-free life. Besides, the Christian life is not about the avoidance of violence, it is however never about being the one who does the killing.
There is a movement happening within the church called "new Monasticism" and as a part of that movement there is a rule of life, here are two of the "marks of a new monasticism."
1) Relocation to the abandoned places of Empire.
For example, getting out of the suburbs, back into the "rough" part of town. We Christians have all too often been afraid of the "wrong side of the tracks," but that's where our mission is, that's where Jesus is.
11) Peacemaking in the midst of violence and conflict resolution within communities along the lines of Matthew 18.
These communities are commited to actively persuing peace, especially on a local level where it requires one to "get off the couch."
I would have loved to get in on this sooner, but I have had some PC problems. No matter though as I think everyone involved has more than adequately identified the tensions we all experience between being a part of the Church and knowing how to deal with the world and our role in it.
I am glad the differences between the Church and the State were finally fleshed out and David rightly noted that the "the state has a different mandate than the church does." This is clear when we consider that "existence of any modern state is based on the tacit threat of force." Indeed, the modern state can easily be characterized as the sole authority of legitimated violence within particular borders. Justice, so we're told, is the State's to dispense. And though justice is what we want, justice is the Lord's alone. And if justice is what we want, then justice we shall receive.
But if we can bring about justice, what need do we have for Jesus? If justice is as simple as killing the right people who needs a crucified Lord? Did Peter not go through this in Gethsemane when presented with the opportunity to liberate his teacher from a terribly unjust fate? Where is the justice for Jesus and for his torturers and murderers?
It is in the forgiveness Christ offers them, and in his bearing their sins in his body, where he continually bears the sins of the world--yours, mine, and every other violent sonofabitch to come along. Justice is in the resurrection, a promise we as Christians affirm in our baptism--that we believe in the resurrection of the body. Coupled with Ash Wednesday Christians should be under no illusions we will make it out of this world alive.
Our hope lies in the knowledge that long before increased profiency in killing and the amassing of ever-larger armies violence, death, and sin were defeated in the cross--something we as followers of Christ have been charged to pick up and carry with us towards Christ.
Christ's first sacrifice is the last sacrifice meaning that the sacrifices war requires (the lives of our sons and daughters, friends and those of our enemy) are no longer needed. Even more so, war requires us to sacrifice our normal unwillingness to kill. But this sacrifice is also one we need not make. Christ's death means more deaths are no longer necessary--instead we may be for life, even if not our own, for our own lives are no longers our own anyway, but belong to He was was crucified. We die in Him.
Interestingly, over the centuries the Church has chosen to remember martyrs and saints who have died very tragic (and unnecessary insofar as they could've been prevented with reciprocal violence) deaths. The Church has not chosen to remember and honor those who made the enemy pay with their lives, but those who laid theirs down.
The State does quite the opposite. Being willing to kill for your country comes prior to being willing to die for it. Violence is the fundamental reality for the State, it's existence depends upon it. The Church on the other hand exists only because of the death of Christ, and that death continually remembered in the Eucharist.
The Church and the State are entirely at odds. But politics do not reside solely in the sphere of the State. The church in Chile under the tyranny of Pinochet is a good example of a counter-politics meant to reclaim lives for Christians capable of narrating our existence without violence.
The difference goes beyond mere mandate. The Church and the State operate in two different realities. And when one is lived in light of the Gospel, and the other is lived as if sin and violence were a given, it is no question which is the real politics. Augustine said as much when comparing the City of Man to the City of God. The justice in the City of Man is no justice at all for it fails to give justice to God--it fails to see the world as it is.
So it is a choice then. Do we live as if death and sin have been defeated by God on Sunday or as Rome and it's gruesome crucifixions have power to right the world on behalf of the Empire?
Justice requires patience and I know it must've been a long time between Good Friday and Sunday. But God is faithful to vindicate the righteous, and then some. Justice will come. Not with bombs or guns or sit-ins or civil disobedience. Not with fascism or democracy, anarchy or utopian idealism. It comes in the slain Lamb who has given life to His Church through the Spirit to be the Kingdom on earth as it is in Heaven, to God be all glory and power, forever and ever. Amen.
Charlie, Kaz,
I'll need to take some time to respond to this stuff but let me just say that I am THOROUGHLY enjoying this conversation and am getting a lot out of it. I hope you are too.
I will say this. I AM a soldier. I do work in Washington DC and help craft and execute policy. Should I, as a Christian, stay here? Can I justify this way of life with my faith?
And I will tell you, truthfully, that (as in Baghdad) aid organizations, including all Christian aid organizations that I know of, will not enter Darfur until armed and effective peacekeepers enter the region.
No hypotheticals. This is a real disaster, (complete with systematic rape) hapenning right now, and as Americans working in the policy arena we essentially have two options, because no one who can do anything meaningful is going to go in there until peacekeepers secure the area. Which way do we push? Do you support sending in peacekeepers? Or do you oppose it?
And you can say "well, Christians on the ground should be martyrs, plead the soldiers not to rape and pillage, protest, etc." "we shouldn't be in this situation in the first place" etc, but I'm not asking you what THEY should do or what we SHOULD have done because the "should" time has come and gone and I'm not them. I'm asking you what _I_ (and people like me) should do. Right now. Today. We might be able to have some influence on this single issue. Which way do we push?
And you can say that I'm creating an artificially limited scope of options, but these are the only options under serious consideration and any third option that doesn't include securing the region with force will essentially be discarded. Do we advocate one course of action or the other? Or do we sit this one out, along with any other discussion involving the use (or implied use) of force in which we might have the ability to save a life or, y'know, a million lives by advocating the less destructive course of action?
And you can quote scripture and discuss theology all you like but you MUST recommend a course of action because WE must recommend a course of action or let others (less concerned with shalom) do so in our stead. If our faith isn't able to help us make real-world decisions then it isn't worth a whole hell of a lot.
"The bigger question is, what would it look like for Christians to rely on God for justice instead of standing Armies?"
This really is the bigger question, one that is not addressed enough. Great post Charlie.
As a soldier and a Christian, I have thought about this issue often. There is no directive in scripture that commands Christians to not serve in the military. There are a few passages I find interesting:
Matthew 8:5-18 and Luke 7:1-10, A centurion approached Jesus and asks that a favored servant be healed. Jesus' response was to immediately go to the centurion's house. But instead the centurion recognizing Jesus' authority asked him to command that the servant be healed and it would be so. Jesus was amazed at the centurion's faith, and the servant was healed.
It might be noteworthy, that Jesus did not tell the centurion his sins were forgiven, nor did he send him on his way with the command to sin no more and he didn't tell the centurion to quit the army.
Acts 10, Cornelius the Centurion was described as devoute and God fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly. One day while he was praying he had a vision where an angel told him to call for Peter. This centurion sent a devout soldier and an attendant to get Peter. When Peter met the centurion, he and his whole household were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
In this passage we see at least two soldiers, Cornelius and his devout soldier, who were in God's favor. Again, there is no record in scripture where they are told to stop sinning or advised to leave the Army.
Matthew 27:54 and Mark 15:39, After Christ died, it was the centurion and soldiers who were first to recognize and confess his diety, and by their terror and confession express remorse.
This discussion is necessary and probably overdue, the ethics of soldiering extend not just to the soldier, but to all of us who live in a democracy. We are all accountable regarding the use of our military. We are accountable in the way we vote and by the issues we raise or don't raise to our representatives. If we are employeed by the government the questions extend to the civilians who work for the Departments of Defense and State as well as our various intelligence agencies. Just because someone isn't a trigger puller and doesn't wear a uniform doesn't absolve them of the responsibility for the actions of their army.
As for me, since these discussions always seem to leave me seeing different shades of grey I'll continue my military service until I feel God leading me elsewhere.
D,
I'm haven't forgotten your comment, I'm still thinking about it. I don't know that any of my thoughts would be better articulated than Dan Bell's book... but I'm thinking about it long and hard still.
CV,
I know there've been a lot of posts up to this point, but we've already covered some of this ground. In summary, I think it's a bad idea to construct a theology of Christians and violence based on what you don't hear. For you to say it's okay for Christians to kill because the author of Matthew didn't record Jesus saying anything about the Roman's military service would be to completely overlook the explicit ethic Jesus gives us on the sermon on the mount. Again, to construct a theolgoy out of what you don't see, to the exlusion of what we do have is poor theology. You could use the same logic to say that Jesus isn't against idolatry or fraud, and while it seems obvious how silly that is... how much more so is it that we American Christians construct a theology where Jesus must approve of the killing soliders do because we don't have an account of him rebuking a solider, never mind all that sermon on the mount non-sense about loving your enenemies and turning the other cheek.
What's even more confusing to me is that you point out the Matthew 27 & Mark 15 passages to support the claim that being a disciple of Jesus and the duty of a solider to kill are a smooth fit with one another.
Your last paragraph suggests that I am as responsible for the deaths in Iraq as the American soliders who actually did the killing. I don't buy that. While I lament that taxes extracted from me go to pay for these horrible things, I am quite active in opposing these acts of violence. What's more troubling to me is that you seem to assume that the America we live in is "our" America. As a Christian, I cannot help but name America Babylon. The armies of Babylon (America) are not "mine," but are used against my brothers and sisters in places all over the world.
Even in the armies of Babylon, Jesus is showing up in redemptive ways. Through medics who bring the ministry of healing in the midst of violence and destruction, in the solider who chooses to disobey orders to kill, in the chaplain who refuses to justify the war but instead encourages radical discipleship for those in his care.
Lastly, CV, you take a stance which is very troubling to me. At least it seems to me that you take the stance where the Christian pacifist must bear the burden of proof. It makes my heart sink to think that this is the stance most American Christians have taken. When presented with the posibility of war it is those who want to follow Jesus in non-violence who must "prove" the validity of their argument, while those who play on our fears and construct lies to manipulate us get the benefit of the doubt. Suspicion my friend, is better directed towards thsoe in charge of the government. So maybe your military service will not soon require of you to do something in conflict with a life of descipleship... but that day may soon come, and I hope that when/if it does that the sermon on the mount will be all the "leading" from God that you'll need.
We've been talking about not basing our theology on what Jesus DIDN'T say, but God DID tell the Israelites to go to war. A lot. This is the context of scripture in which Jesus operated and it seems that if this were a theological point that needed clarification he would have done so. He spent a lot of time clarifying the principles underlying OT scripture with parables etc. But I don't see how you can just dismiss the God of the OT that commands his people to go to war and to kill. A lot.
-D
I'll just throw in a comment here. I have a bit of interest in biblical interpretation that inspires me to respond. I'm so pleased that people are using the Bible to talk about issues of peace and violence, especially bringing the OT to bear on NT interpretation. That's a subject close to my heart.
First, I want to comment regarding the various centurions whom Jesus (or the apostles, in the case of the Acts account) does not explicitly command to leave their posts. What is interesting (especially for Christians like many of us in Holiness traditions) is that we find very few times when Jesus commands the sinners with whom he comes into contact to leave their lives of sin. Exceptions would have to include Zacchaeus and, interestingly, a crippled man by a pool who is told to sin no more (also the woman caught in adultery, which was likely a later addition to John, but no less conveys Jesus' personality). Otherwise, we have multiple gospel accounts of a Jesus who was apparently considered a "glutton and a drunkard" by association and was repeatedly criticised for hanging out with tax collectors and prostitutes. Yet it is difficult to construct a theology of repentance from Jesus' teaching. He does follow John the Baptist whose teaching was filled with talk of repentance, but look closely and you'll find that Jesus' teaching is strikingly absent of it.
Rather, what we hear almost universally from Jesus' lips is the instruction to FOLLOW him. Taking up crosses, becoming a disciple, it's all part of following. What's interesting is that Jesus' life leads him to nonviolent resistance of the powers of evil who ultimately crucify him. That is, simply, where we are to follow. And our Christian hope is that we will also follow Jesus in his resurrection. If that's not a blatant instruction to a faithfulness to God that is entirely dependent on the power of God to act (rather than human force to do so), I can't say that I know what is.
Regarding the OT, as Christians we read all of Scripture as pointing to Jesus. We call the Old Testament "old" not because it's out of date (sorry, Marcion), but because it's the first or older account of God's activity in the world. The New Testament is called "new" not because it's replaced the Old, but because it's the newer account of God's activity that culminates in the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus--God's fullest revelation of Godself. It is, thus, through Jesus that we read the OT. It is through Jesus that the covenant with Israel applies to Gentile Christians like us. Did the OT mean something before Christ? Certainly. Do we understand it more fully through God made human in Jesus? We must. So, the OT does tell the story of God's work in the people of Israel. The story is a mixed history of obedience and disobedience, violence and peace, faithfulness and unfaithfulness, praise and cursing. What does Jesus embody? He reenacts the life of Israel in his calling, wilderness wandering, temptation, enactment of the covenant, and faithfulness unto death. We must read the OT through that lens.
Much else can be and has been said about the OT in terms of community history, myth, and liberation ... and a lot of questions can be answered that way. But I think that as Christians whose foremost understanding of God is in the special revelation of Jesus Christ, our formula for reading scripture is fairly theologically set. And in Jesus was see what true faithfulness to God involves.
(P.S. Just for reference, reading Paul's letters in this light is very informative for what a devout rabbi understood of the God of Israel in the light of Jesus as the Messiah. Whenever your English Bible says "faith" (like in Romans), just know that the Greek word is a way bigger mix of "trust," "belief," and the more verbal "faithfulness" than a sort of unchanging sense of "faith" that means something more like "tenet." For me, this vocabularic understanding was helpful in connecting the life of Jesus--that of faithfulness to God--to the story of Israel AND to the development of Christian theology.)
Um, I want to clarify before this gets responded to.
In equating centurions with sinners, I guess I left some logical connections unspoken. Let me be explicit. It's just impossible to imagine that any faithful Jew could have conceived as the soldiers of an occupying power--the heathen Romans who worshipped their own emperors--as anything but instruments of sin.
Here I'll dive into some more in-depth exegetical stuff. Regarding the centurion's confession of Jesus' deity at the cross, interpreters are divided. They fall into two camps, that it is either:
1) an instance of obvious inspiration by God that is evidence of God's grace to a complete sinner who just participated in the death of his son;
or
2) a rhetorical device used by Mark--who does that kind of stuff so awesomely--to ironically point to the truth about Jesus by the lips of a pagan who was speaking sarcastically "surely this man was the son of a god ... [yeah, right, he died like a wimp, not like a demigod]"
I think it's #2, but in either case, it's clearly not a vindication of soldierhood. It's definitely a case of God making the unlovely, the vile, and the evil into something that witnesses to Jesus' lordship (whether in the text itself or ironically in the confession of gospel audience).
Kara- Can we by default understand that Jesus calls us to repentence eventually? First we follow, of course. Let's say, like many of us have, that God is calling the Church to pacifism. As a Christian who is a soldier discovers this way, it means leaving the old way of soldiering, correct? I mean, isn't this the hard answer? Jesus didn't right away call these newly converted faithful to change dramatically but eventually as we are discipled into the truth, aren't we eventually called to swallow the solid food after we have handled the milk (to pull Paul's theological perspective out of your teaching above--am I way out of context here? I'm trying not to be.)?
So are we further then essentially saying to D, yes, if you find that God is calling the Church to pacifism, you must find ways to live out pacifism even if it means employing unpopular, seemingly non-viable solutions to the Darfur conflict. Does that mean you quit, or don't take your job with the State Department? Yeah man. Sorry, but yeah.
Illogical, unreasonable, ridiculous? Are you seeing the suffering Jesus faced on our behalf? Are you watching the ultimate Martyr's sweat turn to blood as he prayed for the cup to pass if possible? It only makes sense if you are seeking an undivided heart. And even then Jesus answered, Father, not my will but yours be done.
So I guess my question to you D is, where are you at on your journey to loving God with all your heart, soul, mind? (That's OT by the way, Jesus