You asked -
“Have you considered that King David was “a bloody man” (II Samuel 16:8) who went to war often and shed much blood, yet God called David “a man after my own heart” (Acts 13.22)?

Hard to reconcile isn’t it?”

Yes, I have. Are you suggesting that because we call David a man after God’s heart that he was a man without sin? By that logic, rape, adultery and murder are defensible. David was a man of profound sinfulness who loved God. To say that David loved God is not to excuse the things he did.

So it’s not hard to reconcile for me because I am a Christian and take Christ as the standard for my faith rather than David. Jesus himself (God WITH US) had some very clear words concerning violence in the sermon on the mount, words which Paul repeats in Romans 12. But if you are a Davidian and take David to be the standard of our faith rather than Jesus, then by all means…

You also said -
“People who live in glass houses….
You are free to say what you say because of those who fight – don’t stomp on their sacrifice!”

That is a lie. My “freedom” to speak my mind does not come from the United States military. That is absolutely a lie. My freedom to speak comes from God, the father of Jesus Christ and in no way from any bomb dropped on someone in Iraq. Even my “right” as an American to free speech does not come from the US Military, it comes from the Bill of Rights, drafted by civilians and defended by civil rights movements, not by soldiers.

It seems at times that many American Christians want to add the US military as a fourth person of the Trinity. I’m sorry but we as Christians always are given our freedom as a gift from God, not as a gift from armies.

We are called to be God’s witnesses in this world and at times that means being a witness to the wickedness of war. That doesn’t mean we’re against soldiers. As Christians it is our duty to love un-discriminately. We love soldiers all the more by refusing to lie about what they are asked to do in times of war. We love soldiers all the more by refusing to use propaganda clichés like “You are only free to criticize them because of their sacrifice.” This phrase is deceitful because it tells two lies, 1 – freedom comes from the military and not from God, 2 – soldiers are simply servants who sacrifice for us rather than people who have been trained to kill other people when the government says they should.

Hard to reconcile isn’t it?

People who live in glass houses….
You are free to say what you say because of those who fight – don’t stomp on their sacrifice!

great post chuck.

this is off topic, but you heard they are shutting down the oak right? just wanted to say that you were a huge part of that place when you were there and you were an amazing gift to us all.

John Howard Yoder somewhere in “Politics of Jesus” makes the comment that it is tempting for us to stand at our immediate point in history, glance towards the past and with a nod towards the future grab the reigns of history and plot a new course. He of course is alluding to the kind of triumphal move that we undertake as human persons in community to solve the world’s problems through the imposition of our collective self-will. I often see the dangers of this triumphalism in multiple camps (neo-cons, republicans, democrats, Christian just-war(ists) and Christian pacifists.

As the humility and gentleness of this conversation attests to, as simple persons in mystical union with God our creator in Christ Jesus by the power of the Spirit, we are simple and humble servants. Our discipleship necessitates sitting at the feet of Jesus as a way of avoiding our hunger for power.

Its a really hard thing to watch death and horrible things happen knowing that armed people can come in and keep it from happening. It is an even harder decision to decide to be a martyr if necessary. And when faced with these choices, sometimes self-preservation is what we choose. My comments were a confession, not a justification for just war. And certainly not a use of Bonhoeffer to support just war. I was using Bonhoeffer’s life to demonstrate the difficulty in doing what is right when practically we know we can make a more immediate difference. Does that make sense?

Christianity Today//

Children of a Lesser Hope
What happens when we lose confidence in the church.
by David P. Gushee

…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.

I’ve been thinking about this a lot. I still hold that Christians should not send in armies to “bring peace” to the situation in Darfur. It is entirely possible that God, in God’s providence could use such action to bring the end to a “greater evil.”

I think however that solution can only temporarily suppress violence with larger more overwhelming violence. I think that it is only the church that can bring healing between these peoples, because we as the church (unlike the State) can bear witness to a reality beyond violence where eternal reconciliation is a posibility. I think that Christians in America who are called to do something in Darfur should join the efforts of those like the Christian Peacemaker Teams.

But perhaps there are alternatives for you if you choose to get involved via the State Department. Is it possible that the US would send in “peacekeepers” to bring food and aid, without engaging in killing? This could end up badly for the US, like Somolia, and end up with the US pulling out … which makes sense though, the US doesn’t have the future hope in a peaceful Kingdom of God that would give meaning to martyrdom.

Now this says a few things. If just war theory be affirmed, Christians ought not be trained killers. That is a malformation of the image of God. If just war theory be affirmed we ought to affirm it in the same manner as Israel, as Charlie pointed out. Alway outnumbered, totally untrained, as far as the world is concerned, and ever desiring a miracle from God. However, let is be said, Israel is not of what the Spirit gives testimony.

But look and see that as soon as Israel rejected God in favor of a King they built their first standing army. It is from this point on that God, through the prophets, rebukes Israel for their military arrogance and oppression.

So I have two questions based on what we learn from War in the OT…

1. Did God call Christians to invade Iraq… or Afganistan… or Panama… or Japan, etc? American President’s often tell us to go to war, but has God called the Church into battle since Jesus Christ? I think this is the only time a Christian could truly go to war, if God called the church to battle.

2. How is Israel’s rejection of God and dependance upon a standing army for “security” (which by the way delivered just the opposite for them), mirror our own situation? How can we, who practice idolatry when we have “faith in the military,” pretend that God would call us to practice this idolatry?

ps – I’m still thinking about your Darfur question.

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 did repeat it from there). And that question is what I meant when I said to you a long time ago about making decisions that hurt real bad. I was wrestling with my mental health and paying my bills and having stability when I found a job working for the American government. I’m doing more than paying my taxes, I’m being fed by the taxes people pay to our government. And my work supports the policies that are often unjust and immoral.

I opted for self preservation. The ideal theological answer is hard for me to swallow. I know what the theologically right answer is, I just don’t know how I can survive and see God’s answers ALWAYS following that theologically right answer.

Bonhoeffer comes to mind when I wrestle with this. World famous pacifist who plotted murder. (Not that I think my choices are at all on that level, I’m simply trying to point out the theoretical and practical tensions).

Before I ramble to infinity…that’s where I’m at with this conversation.

Emily

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).

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.)