Author: Warren Rachele

Christians and Pacifism

The church is the spiritual, social, and political body that gives its allegiance to God alone. As citizens of God’s kingdom, we trust in the power of God’s love for our defense. The church knows no geographical boundaries and needs no violence for its protection…As disciples of Christ, we do not prepare for war, or participate in war or military service. The same Spirit that empowered Jesus also empowers us to love enemies, to forgive rather than to seek revenge, to practice right relationships, to rely on the community of faith to settle disputes, and to resist evil without violence. “Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective”

The Anabaptist tradition within the larger Church is perhaps the most well-known body of pacifist believers, though the practice is not confined to these Christians. Pacifism, the refusal to engage in military action or violence in revenge or defense, is a radical practice. In the larger world of non-believers, Just War, and increasing violence, the refusal to visit violence on those labeled ‘enemies’ immediately sets one apart from the society norm and expectation. The radicalism extends to our physiological makeup; when we are about to become the victim of a violent act our body and mind naturally seek to act in self-preservation, even to point of exterminating the threat. The Christian who follows the path of pacifist action must strongly apply their allegiance to Christ alone at the expense of their citizenship in the state and more importantly, they must train their mind and body to submit to the suppression of its natural response to react to violence. Dr. Buschart records,

“Anabaptists were the most violently persecuted Christian movement of the sixteenth century, being pursued by both Roman Catholic and Protestant forces, in conjunction with civil authorities. Consequently, Anabaptists were were confronted by the demand to practice in the most radical ways this practice of nonresistance, and many practiced the principle to the point of suffering a martyr’s death.” Exploring Protestant Traditions

The source of the practice of Christian pacifism is deeply rooted in the Gospel. From the mountainside, Jesus said in contrasting the old and new ways  “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist and evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Mt 5:38-39) Later in the garden he  cautioned Peter “Put your sword back in its place, Jesus said to him, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.” (Mt 26:52). The Old Testament, often derided as being blood-soaked and hyper-violent, is not neglected either. Micah speaks eschatologically, pointing us forward to the era of the Christ  when he says “They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Naiton will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.” (Micah 4:3)

Over and above the words of Jesus, the pacifist follower will point to the life of the Lord as being completely non-resistant and peace seeking in His lifestyle. With Christ as our center and our revelation, believers are to develop their ethics, morality, and behavior from His example and teaching. These will often run counter to the demands of the state but we are called to be theological thinkers, examining the decisions that we must make in the light of our higher priority membership in the kingdom of Christ. It is to this that our primary allegiance is required teach the pacifists.

The early Church is historically pacifist and there is scant, if any, evidence of early Christians engaging in warfare. There was a gradual acceptance of military service through the centuries with noted objectors – such as the Anabaptist movement – here and there through the records. In our modern era we see the pacifism practiced in Martin Luther King who confronted the violence he encountered with an equally vehement non-resistance. King worked from five principles which fit human bio-social understandings effectively into the notion of Christian pacifism:

  1. Nonviolent resistance is not for cowards as it requires more strength to stand without retaliation.
  2. The non-violent resistance is not intended to humiliate the attacker but to establish love and understanding.
  3. Non-violent resistance is focused on evil, not the people performing the evil act
  4. You must be willing to suffer without retaliation.
  5. The external lack of violence is to be matched with an internal peace.

John Howard Yoder has a prodigious body of work that is rooted in this ideal. He says that we cannot kill other people for whom Christ died. We are to live the first commandment of the Lord, to love Him with heart, mind, and soul and to love our neighbor in the same way. Violence toward them for any reason is seen as contrary to this command.

Despite its inherent attractiveness, pacifism is not without its critics. Some say it is unrealistic in today’s world or that Christ’s words were hyperbole and not meant to be directly applied in this case. Theologians examine the word of Jesus in the light of Paul’s later commands that we be good citizens of the state in Romans 13, going so far as to see this as allowing military service as a part of this obedience. Another argument against the pacifist system is that our own non-violent capitulation may expose us and our neighbors to a greater violence. In this position, our refusal to act does not demonstrate an effective love for neighbor by the absence of our protection. In other words, Justice cannot be restored without the Christian’s action and ethics.

“Again, Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.”  John 20:21

Christians and the Just War

Other than pacifism, the Just War is the idea most associated with the Christian in discussions of war. The word just has a wide range of meanings but, in this context, the word is often interpreted to mean right as describing the righteousness of the war. This, of course, leads to endless debate about the propriety of Christian engagement in war that is declared either right or wrong. The fallacy inherent in this type of discussion is that it centers on the righteousness of a campaign when the idea of just war has nothing to do with this. We will explore in the rest of this post what the just war theory is, and it is just that, a theory or principle upon which decision making can be rested.

The Just War Theory is an ethical framework intended to be normative for all peoples regardless of religion, culture, or racial-ethnic identification that one might assume. As is obvious from any cursory reading of history, just war is not a description of how people have acted nor of how they will act in future conflict. It is rather, a tool by which moral decisions can be made about a war. As the Christian applies it to their thinking and actions, the expectation is that their enemy will also apply the same framework to their planning and action. This expectation is rooted in the biblical notion that all people are held accountable to God (Romans 1-3) for the adherence to moral standards.

The standards established within the Just War framework pre-date Christian thinking and application of the idea lending credence to their universal application. As far back as the 6th century B.C. we find the founder of Taoism, the philosopher Lao Tzu propounding on balancing the knowledge that conflict and war are inevitable realities of the human condition and the realization that total destruction of the enemy and their territory is counter-productive in the long run. Sun Tzu, probably the most read ancient thinker on war, held to similar conclusions, seeing war as a regrettable necessity but one of vital importance to the state and therefore deserving of much thought. 

Since the earliest days of Christendom, believers struggled with understanding the scope of their responsibilities to society in light of their membership in the Kingdom of God. Many served as soldiers while trying to remain faithful to their Lord and comprehending the ethics of their situation. Philosophical thinking on peace was highly developed among the Greeks and the Romans within which Christianity was developing. The Greek notion of peace built upon the Hebrew concept of shalom, a general well being, and added a greater component of prosperity. The Roman ideal described in the word pax was more oriented toward the absence of war. It was from the Greeks however that the framework which would later be defined as Just War would come. Viewing peace as the object of any battle, Greek ethicists and generals began to look at war and ways in which it could be avoided if possible and be less terrible if it could not. They were willing to subject disagreements with enemies to mediation prior to battle and avoid the total destruction of the enemy and their holdings if war should come about. Violence was limited, governed by this reasoning and the justice of a confrontation measured by the vague concept of natural law.

The Christian ethic of war appears to have first been formulated by St. Ambrose (340-396 A.D.) and passed on to his converted Augustine (354-430 A.D.). An important change that his ethic introduced to the Christian sphere was to relegate pacifism to the clerical and private arenas. Duty to one’s state remains an obligation of Christians who enjoy the benefit of the protection offered thereof. Augustine took Ambrose’s rough sketch and shaped it into the foundation that we discuss today.  The Sermon on the Mount had burned itself into Augustine’s heart and deeply affected his view on violence, tempered as it was by the reality of conflict. Peace with justice for all involved is the most succinct statement of his overall ethic that we can make in a short space.

Justice and War

The Just War framework extends far beyond a simple summary statement. It is a highly complex and nuanced  ethic with numerous conditions and presuppositions. In order to maintain this piece at a readable length, I am going to present these in very short form, perhaps to return to them individually as this study continues. Four suppositions frame the moral statements:

1. Not all evil can be avoided. Evil is a pervasive condition brought about by the fallen human condition and a reality with which we must contend.

2. The Just War Theory is an ideal that is normative for all peoples. It is obviously not a historical fact nor a prediction of how humans are likely to behave in the future but rather, it is a standard by which actions and plans can be judged.

3. Perhaps the greatest misunderstanding and misapplication of the Just War Theory by those who are unfamiliar with the details is that it is an attempt to justify war; it is not. Correctly interpreted, it attempts to bring war under the control of justice so that, if consistently practiced by all of the parties to a dispute, it can eliminate war altogether.

4. Finally, the Just War framework insists that private individuals have no license to utilize force and engage in war on their own. War is the prerogative of states alone in their duty to preserve the order of their society.

That stated, we can examine the rules by which justice is applied to the consideration of war:

1. Just Cause. All aggression is condemned and only defensive actions are legitimate.

2. Just intention. The only intention for war is the securing of a just peace for all involved. Revenge, conquest, economic gain, or ideological supremacy are never justified.

3. Last Resort. Only when all negotiations and compromise have been exhausted can war be entered upon.

4. Formal Declaration. War must be declared by the highest authority of a state.

5. Limited Objectives. If the purpose of a war is peace then the complete destruction of a nation’s economic or political institution or an unconditional surrender are disallowed objectives.

6. Proportional Means. The force and weapons brought to bear in a war must be limited only to what is needed to repel aggression and deter future attacks. This rules out Total or unlimited war.

7. Noncombatant Immunity. Only those agents of the government authorized to fight may engage in the war. Civilians and those not actively participating in the fight are to be protected from the violence.

 

Due to the ongoing reality of conflict in the fallen world in which Christians lives, the Just War theory and its application has often been deemed to be unrealistic. Because it assumes that all parties to a conflict will apply it equally, it has found little use for those who would be themselves aggressors with economic or ideological objectives stated as the basis for war. The equal application of justice to both sides of the conflict rarely exists for example when the objective of a war is the subjugation of one’s enemy or the imposition of a government which restricts the loser’s liberty. The Just War theory provides an excellent framework through which Christian’s can discuss the morality of their involvement in conflict but ultimately we discover that the notion of justice has many definitions upon people do not agree.

War and the Christian

In the pantheon of evils that are a part of the human experience, war and the destruction and carnage that follow in its wake rank in the uppermost tier of wickedness. War has been a constant of human history and, despite the promise of the transforming power of Jesus Christ, we are warned (Matthew 24:6) that it will be with us until the eschaton. Given these twin dynamics of the horrific and the constant, the Christian worldview is forced to confront the issue and settle a position from which we determine our thoughts and actions in relation to the act of war. The Christian is under competing pressures that obtain from the Lordship of Christ and our membership in society. Shall we declare ourselves to be conscientious objectors when the country that supports the foundation of our religious liberty is under attack? Can we determine for certain that a war is just, and thus appropriate to engage in for the follower of Christ? These questions just begin to enunciate the concerns that a spirit led Christian must wrestle with in approaching the desires for peace and the reality of war.

There is a great body of work created by  Christian thinkers to which we can turn to begin to develop our own thinking and what will follow in the coming weeks is a series of posts surveying the variety of positions. In general we will encounter four schools of thought: engaging in the Just War, offensively approaching a Preventative war, the Nonresistance role as a noncombatant, and ultimately Christian pacifism. A quick read of the last sentence tells us right away that Christianity has engaged the full range of philosophy toward war, from full participation to absolute prohibition. If asked, can you define your position such that it will not wither in the face of challenge?

The Bible of course is the ultimate resource from which we develop our beliefs and even a cursory knowledge of the text shows us that war has been a reality for God’s people since they became such. Early in the OT we encounter mentions of war and as God’s people coalesce around their movement into the Promised Land they are told that they are going to have to fight the current residents to take possession of the land and later, take up a defensive mindset in order to retain it. All this of course, at the behest of Yahweh who generals and guides the battle Himself. Is God therefore in support of war, despite the destruction and loss of life that follow? What of the words of Christ that even non-Christians can quote to ‘turn the other cheek’ toward the face of evil? Is God of two minds? Certainly not, but the complexity of thinking about war and how the Christian should think about the topic should be obvious by now. As difficult as it is however, the demands of the Gospel and our allegiance first and foremost to our Lord and His will should cause us to soberly and carefully determine the most correct position to take.

“War is a poor chisel to carve out tomorrow.” ~ Martin Luther King

Punished With a Child

That he wouldn’t want his daughter “punished with a child” should she become pregnant as a teenager is Senator Obama’s latest revelatory extemporaneous statement. I commented on the insight that this gives the voters about the Senator’s pro-choice agenda yesterday but as I have pondered this statement further, it shines a light on a greater cultural issue that we must address if we want to avoid the further degradation of society that threatens to engulf us. Aside from the moral issue of referring to the unborn child as a “punishment” we must examine the mind-set that cultivates the idea. It is nothing less than the complete abdication of personal responsibility to simple solutions meant to mollify any lingering sense of accountability for the decisions we make.

To be punished succeeds a choice that one has made to run afoul of a societal or legal construct. I speed and run stop lights, I get a ticket or lose my license. I cheat on an exam and get caught, I fail the class or get expelled from school. Though some will disagree even with these examples, most of who exist in the modern world accept that the regulations implicit in the examples are in place for the common good. A segment of our society however, sees certain behaviors as beyond the reach of cultural standards. Using the example provided for us by Senator Obama, there are those among us who believe that sexual activity should be entirely free from consequence though it is well known that impregnation can be a direct result of intercourse. Instead of insisting on accepting the personal responsibility for engaging in sexual intercourse, there is a cultural movement to insist that a woman must be free to eradicate the baby and remain free from consequence of her decisions.

This notion of the complete eradication of personal responsibility in favor of seemingly easy and cost free solutions has wheedled its way throughout our culture. Students protest expectations that they read, speak, and write correctly because their earlier educational devotion did not prepare them adequately for a rigorous challenge. They demand that the coursework be made easier so that they can continue to receive the value-diminished excellent marks that they have come to expect. Any teacher that stands up for the integrity of scholastic requirements is deemed unfair and their teaching status challenged. And on and on it goes. This demand for a life replete with freedom of choices without consequence extends into every area of life until one day we arrive at a utopian society in which all problems brought about by our choices are fixed by an external authority.

There are many in our society, Senator Obama included, who envision this external authority as the government or, in stickier situation, para-governmental organizations such as the abortion industry. They would ‘free’ us from those moral constraints which have served humankind throughout history but are anathema to an ‘enlightened’ culture. Why have consequences when the solutions are so easy? Get pregnant by exercising your ‘choice’ to engage in sexual intercourse? Kill the fetus and move on! Problem solved. Make a bad decision in any aspect of life, no worries, someone else will fix the problem. This all sounds inviting until we realize that whatever behavior we reward (by removing the consequence) we naturally get more of and so the cycle deepens. As we accept this cycle, we revert to a kind of childhood where mommy and daddy fix our mistakes for us. When we live in this kind of environment, Mom and Dad define the limits of our liberty in return for this benefit. Are we willing to continue to return to a governmental mommy and daddy?

Thank God for My Punishment

Obama provides us with further insight into how he views the unborn and their convenient disposal, referring to an unplanned pregnancy as a punishment. In referencing his own daughters and the possibility that despite his teaching on morals and standards, he stated that they should not be punished with a child. We can further extrapolate from his favorable stand on unfettered access to abortion that this punishment could only be mitigated by the extinguishing of the human life and the disposal of the unborn fetus.

My apologies Mr. Obama but a child, whether born or unborn, is not a punishment. You may view it as a consequence of engaging in sexual activity, but in no way should a child ever be referred to as a punishment. Perhaps those values and morals that you teach your daughters should be that Pro-Choice can mean something more than the free ability to dispose of a life; it can also be the choice not to engage in an activity that has specific and predictable biological consequences. I’ll be interested to see in the coming days how you finesse this staff. Perhaps the next time you are in church, you can ask about Psalm 139.

I’m eternally grateful for my punishment.

MyPunishment

Ultimate Fighting Jesus

Once again, the inimitable Dr. Groothuis leads us through an examination of one the movements afoot within Christendom: Jesus for Men. This vision of the Lord is meant to counteract the supposed feminization of the Church which is turning men away. He is attractive to men, not because of holiness but because of His brawn. Read the piece here.