Recommended reading on nationalism and peace

I just learned of a fellow who goes to my folks' church in North Carolina, who has written some interesting stuff on the flag in church, the Kingdom of God, and related topics.  I encourage you to take a look at his site, www.kingdomofgodflag.info.  In particular, I was intrigued by this comment in his post on "Patriotism:"

When people say “Freedom isn’t Free,” what they’re actually saying is: “Freedom isn’t free - it requires killing and dying, human sacrifice, as if to the gods of old. It is not a gift from God. Gifts are free. Grace is a gift. Freedom, on the other hand, is earned. And because freedom is earned, we deserve it. We bought it (and continue to pay for it) with our blood, fair and square. We need thank no one but ourselves. Our perseverance and superiority over others have given us a reward worthy of a great people.”

Scott has actually developed a proposed "Kingdom of God flag" to use in lieu of the current "Christian flag" when one wishes to symbolize the universal nature of the Kingdom.  He has, I think, put some serious thought into the meaning of the symbolic elements of that flag, and this, too, is worth a read.

Check it out!

Must-Read: Mark Siljander's "A Deadly Misunderstanding"

Today I finished the book A Deadly Misunderstanding by Mark Siljander, and I vigorously recommend it.  A former Republican congressman with impeccable conservative credentials, colleague of Newt Gingrich and the "Young Turks" of the Reagan Revolution, Mark was also a staunch conservative Evangelical Christian, solid supporter of Israel and opponent of communists and Muslims wherever they might be found.  Challenged not long after an electoral defeat, to find the scriptural basis for his conviction to convert others to Christianity, Mark discovered to his shock that the supposed command wasn't there.  But rather than pull back into his comfortable religious shell, Mark did the crazy thing:  he learned Greek and Aramaic and started digging into what the original languages of the New Testament actually taught.

Without trying to tell Mark's story for him (which I couldn't anyhow--he tells it too well himself), let me just say that he's a shining example of what can happen when a true believer in Jesus allows for the dangerous possibility that what Jesus said and taught might actually be lived.  In Mark's case, that has meant learning Arabic and studying the Qur'an too, and discovering between Quranic Arabic, New Testament Aramaic, and Old Testament Hebrew, that an awful lot of the buzz words our faiths use to keep us apart, are actually the same words--or at least words with the same roots--in the Semitic language family.  For example, he demonstrates with some weight, that the Aramaic word "salem" that the Peshitta (Aramaic New Testament) uses to describe repentance and turning to Jesus, is of the same root as the Arabic word for "submission" to God (a Mu-slim is "one who submits or surrenders" to God).

I want to be clear:  this is no milquetoast universalist pablum.  Siljander is NOT claiming some notion of all roads leading to God.  What he's doing is far more careful and well-thought than that.  He is demonstrating the frequency with which fundamental--often violent--differences between the Abrahamic faiths are based on ignorance:  not only ignorance of the "other's" faith, but all too often ignorance of the actual text and context of our own faith and its creeds.  In this, he's coming to a conclusion a Muslim roommate and I (with far less scholarship) came to more than 20 years ago:  if both of us and our brothers merely were careful to follow what OUR OWN SCRIPTURES actually said, we'd find a lot of common ground, and at the very least, we couldn't fight each other.

Through story after story, Siljander tells how dealing with the actual person and teaching of Jesus (as opposed to the theological constructs ABOUT Jesus that make up most creeds), has opened doors for loving, peacemaking relations with Muslim, Buddhist, and other religious and political leaders on three continents.  This book is a powerful call to live in submission to the Prince of Peace, not in word and doctrine, but in actual love and practice.

Read it!

Movie Recommendation - Avatar

I know it's probably odd for a mostly-theological blog to recommend an entirely-secular movie, but odd has never stopped me yet and I don't think I'll start now. . .I just saw the film "Avatar" with my brother and our sons yesterday, and I have a new addition to my top-ten all-time favorite movies.  It's really that good.  Not because it's a compelling sci-fi and intercultural story, though it is that.  Not because it has the most seamless integration of CGI and live action I've ever seen, though it has that.  Not because of breathtaking cinematography or stunning action sequences, though it has both in spades.

No, what makes Avatar leap to the top reaches of my list is the moving way that James Cameron has told the story of the depths to which a military/industrial society will go to obtain the materials that contribute to their (our) consumer economy, and the complete disregard for the lives and cultures that may get in our way.  The material in question in the movie is "unobtanium," and the location where it's mined is a habitable moon around a blue gas-giant planet some six years' space travel away from us, but it's also the story of diamonds in Southern Africa, coltan in Congo, gold in Papua New Guinea, and all the other blood-minerals that power our economy.

Watch this movie.  Be prepared for an uncomfortable look in the mirror, even as you drink in a stunning exemplar of storytelling--probably Cameron's best ever.  And if you don't see 9/11 in the imagery, you're not paying attention. . .

It's rated PG-13 for violence and "sensuality."  No question the battles are violent.  The sensuality is very low-key in my opinion, unless you consider the nearly-nude (though depicted discretely) forms of the native race to be offensive.  The imagery is not sexual, it is natural.  The need for parental guidance on this film is not because of the overt material--it's to make sure your teenagers think about the deeper subtexts.  And they are thoughts we of the West should contemplate.

The Manhattan Declaration -- I won't be signing it

A couple of friends have recently pointed me to The Manhattan Declaration with encouragement that I and other like-minded believers should sign on.  I won't be signing it, and I encourage my believing friends to think long and carefully about it too.  The declaration purports to lay out three principals as particularly important for Christians to support, and to publicly advocate:

• the sanctity of human life
• the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
• the rights of conscience and religious liberty. 

I actually support all three of these principles, but not in the way the writers of the Manhattan Declaration mean the words.  In point of fact, a careful reading of the principals as elucidated in the Declaration makes it abundantly clear that they only mean these things in the American Christian Republican manner, despite their nonpartisan protestation.  I say this in particular with regard to points one and three:

The sanctity of life  The text of the declaration is unmistakable in its denunciation of abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and therapeutic cloning.  I agree that abortion and euthanasia are inconsistent with a Jesus-centered life ethic, even though I disagree with most of the particular actions and laws that so-called "Pro-Life" advocates actually push (stem cells and cloning are far less clear-cut IMO).   In typical Republican fashion, however, the declaration says nothing about warfare or capital punishment.  While I freely grant that there are consistent, Jesus-honoring people who believe that there are times where the Christian may condone both of these, a position that truly considers the sanctity of all human life would have to require that any application of either warfare or capital punishment pass certain tests far more stringent than simply "the government (or at least the good, conservative, Christian, Republican government) says so."

In the case of warfare, a rigid application of just war criteria would have to precede every use of military force, and would require a deliberate and public examination of the causus belli and the actual prosecution of the war.  If human life is truly sacred, then the notion of "collateral damage" in warfare should be as horrifying as the notion of infanticide.  So, too, should the notion that we go and fight (i.e. kill people) for our "freedom."  Nothing but the preservation of life--not lifestyle, but life itself--can possibly justify the taking of other life if human lives are really sacred.

In the case of capital punishment, a Christian perspective should at the very least be in the vanguard of efforts such as the Innocence Project and similar efforts dedicated to making sure no one is wrongfully executed.  Quite to the contrary, Christians are often leaders in the enforcement of capital punishment.  If human life is truly sacred, then we should go to every conceivable length to make certain that those who go to the gallows are indeed guilty.  The notion that courts might actually reject the petition for a DNA test of a capital case is unconscionable.

The Right of Conscience and Liberty  This section advocates for the rights of Christians to promulgate and practice their views without government interference.  For the most part I agree with this, though when those same Christians attempt to enshrine their views in publicly-sanctioned (or owned) assets it gets a bit murky.  I do agree, for example, that Christian hospitals shouldn't be forced to perform abortions, and Christian adoption agencies should be able to screen their placements for families who meet faith criteria (though they should be prepared to give up government subsidies--including tax exemption--when they do).  However, there is not a word in this document on the liberty of other religions within America.  I know people in my own church who consider Islam to be an "enemy religion" and have said to my face that the Christian West and Muslim nations are inevitably at war.  I remember lots of Christians who felt that if Barack Obama were a Muslim (which anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows was false) it should disqualify him from the presidency.  The church in America has not been sufficiently vocal on the side of religious tolerance in our own country, and conservative Christians who support documents like the Manhattan Declaration are among the most egregious offenders.

Unlike points one and three, the section on Marriage at least shows some nuance in its acknowledgment that Christians have all too often violated the sanctity of marriage by their divorces and infidelity.  In large measure I agree with that section of the Declaration, though if I were to write a declaration of places we believers ought to take a stand, I doubt that the defense of traditional marriage would make my top ten list; it certainly wouldn't make it to the top three.

But until Christians who stand for the sanctity of life mean ALL human life (Jim Wallis of Sojourners calls this a "Consistent Life Ethic" and though I'm not an overall fan of Wallis, he gets that right), I can't endorse their statements on the sanctity of life.  And until the right of conscience is defended even for those whose conscience differs from mine--or yours--I can't endorse those statements either.

An interesting take on incarnation and God's chacter

I just came across an interesting article by Greg Boyd at Christus Victor during my lunch break.  In it, Greg outlines several points that he is finding helpful in an attempt to reconcile the peaceful, self-giving portrait of God painted in Jesus Christ, with the violent and even nationalistic God portrayed in the Old Testament.  I was particularly struck with Greg's first point, which I quote here:

The Principle of Incarnational Flexibility. If Jesus reveals what God has always been like, then God didn’t start being “incarnational” with the Incarnation. Rather, God has always been willing to humbly “embody” himself within our fallen humanity and has always “borne our sin.” The portrait of Yahweh as a nationalistic, law-oriented, violent-tending warrior god is the result of God condescending to “embody” himself within our barbaric and deceived views of him in order to work toward freeing us from them.

That rings true to me, at least in part.  I'm not sure it fully grasps the times in the O.T. where God appears to command violence, however.  I still tend to see those more as the result of humans (whether cynically or ignorantly) co-opting God's mantle to promote their own objectives.  What do you think?

Where/when can Christians serve in the armed forces? Part 1

I know that many (most?) of the readers of this blog share at least some of my qualms with Christians serving in the military (for those who haven't yet explored my blog, click on the "War and Peace" subject in the index at the top of this page). I have a question aimed primarily at those who do NOT fall in the no-Christians-in-military camp. I hope to get a few of my "Just War" friends to weigh in; if you know of anyone who ought to be invited to this dialog, and who can commit to keeping it civil, please recruit them.

This is not intended to be a "gotcha" or an attack on those with whom I disagree. Rather it's a conundrum I genuinely do not understand and would like to learn more.

My question is this:

We know that there are, and have been for centuries, Christian citizens of the nation of Iraq. Do you believe it was (a) morally acceptable, or (b) morally requisite, for those Christians to serve in the army of Saddam Hussein's Iraq when:

1. Iraq invaded Kuwait?
2. The U.S. invaded Iraq in response to the Kuwait invasion in 1991 ("Operation Desert Storm")?
3. The U.S. invaded Iraq again in 2003 ("Operation Iraqi Freedom")?

If you answer in the affirmative in either (2) or (3), how do you reconcile the notion that Christians, citizens of the Kingdom of God, would have found themselves on opposing sides of a conflict where they very well might have tried to kill each other?

If you answer in the negative, please help me to understand, in the Biblical framework of Romans 13 or your choice of other passages, how you see the differing duty or freedom between citizens of Iraq and the United States in the context of the above conflicts.

And above all, please keep the ensuing discussion civil.

War and Peace - A Civil Discussion

I just wanted to point those of you who read my blog to a discussion I've been having with John Hobbins on his "Ancient Hebrew Poetry" blog. John and I most definitely do not agree about the appropriateness of Christians serving in the military, or on the justness of (at least some) military actions we're now involved with in the U.S. But we both agree that people who really care about Jesus don't all come down in the same place on these issues, and we're neither of us comfortable with the rancor that usually characterizes discussions between the "sides."

John has been proving to me that it is possible for one of my perspective and one of his to have a civil discourse. I doubt we'll come anywhere close to agreement on at least some of the issues, but IMHO this sort of discourse enriches the participants. I learned about a book I'm going to want to read, at the very least--the upcoming "Just War as Christian Discipleship: Recentering the Tradition in the Church rather than the State," by Daniel M. Bell.

But give John's thoughts a serious listen. And think about his challenge to "armchair pacifists." It's a worthy question he's asking, and someone who maintains that sort of Christian demeanor while asking is worthy of engaging.

Torture - May God have mercy on us!

I just learned of this CNN report from a friend. Here's the meat of the story, referencing a new poll by the Pew Research Center:

The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists, according to a new survey.

I have no words strong enough to express my outrage. I am ashamed to be part of the group "Americans who go to church" if that's what we look like.

as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.” (Rom 2:24)

Perhaps we need to follow the example of Daniel (Dan. 9:20) and learn what it means to confess the sins of our people. . .

War and Peace in Revelation - A friend's post

I want to call your attention to an excellent post by Mason over at the New Ways Forward blog. He has done a great job of pointing out why, despite the violent language of Revelation, it is not justifying or encouraging violence on the part of believers. He points out that the violence in Revelation is all done either by the evil powers, the Beast, etc., or else by God in effecting justice on those who oppose him. . .and NEVER by the people of God.

Right judgment and wrath for wrongdoing is only to be placed in the hands of God. A Christian doctrine of nonviolence is based not on the idea that evil is really not such a big deal, so violence is an overreaction, but rather on the fact that evil is an incredibly big deal and that fallen humanity simply can not use violence and justice together without our sinful natures twisting the violence into injustice, vengeance, and in doing so pushing along the endless spiral of violence.

War and Peace - Part 8 - Words from a 20th-Century Prophet

In June of 1984, while I was en route to a two-year assignment at a mission hospital in Shirati, Tanzania, I attended the Mennonite World Conference in Strasbourg, France. There, in front of an audience of about ten thousand Mennonites from around the world, author and professor Ron Sider delivered the most compelling address I have heard anywhere. Sider is, of course, best known for his book Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, as well as his role as founder and president of Evangelicals for Social Action. But it's his 1984 address on Christian peacemaking that I will always remember. The full text is here, at the site of Christian Peacemaker Teams, an organization that formed out of Ron's call. I encourage you to check out the site in further detail if you dare. . .I want to share a few excerpts from that speech.

Sider was addressing a Mennonite audience, obviously, and I doubt anyone reading this blog is unaware that Mennonites have a tradition of nonviolence and nonparticipation in the military that extends back over the entire 450-plus years of the movement. He suggested that the times in which we were living (the US-Soviet arms race was in full swing, and the US was intervening actively in conflicts around the world), were times in which the Mennonite peace witness was particularly relevant:

Our 450 years of commitment to Jesus' love for enemies finds its kairos in these two terrifying decades (the last 2 decades of the 20th century). This could be our finest hour. Never has the world needed our message more. Never has it been more open. Now is the time to risk everything for our belief that Jesus is the way of peace. If we still believe it, now is the time to live what we have spoken.

To rise to this challenge of our Lord and history, we need to do three things: we need to reject the ways we have misunderstood or weakened Jesus' call to be peacemakers; we need to embrace the full biblical understanding of shalom; and we need to prepare to die by the thousands. . .

Sider challenged Mennonites' willingness to basically sit back in their conscientious objector status without engaging the wider world in peacemaking. He suggested that Christian isolationism was not an acceptable option:

. . .The most famous advocate of pacifism in our time, Mahatma Gandhi, once said that if the only two choices are to kill or stand quietly by doing nothing while the weak are oppressed and killed, then, of course, we must kill. I agree.

But there is always a third option. We can always prayerfully and nonviolently place ourselves between the weak and the violent, between the oppressed and the oppressor. Do we have the courage to move from the backlines of isolationist pacifism to the frontlines of nonviolent peacemaking?

He went on to describe the way in which Mennonites in particular had shirked their duties by basically living in our contented pacifism without seriously engaging questions of injustice that lead to violence in our world, and followed that challenge with an overview of Jesus' active but nonviolent challenge to the status quo in his time. He laid out the case for Christians as peacemakers, drawing directly from the Biblical accounts of Jesus' life and teachings, and deriving from Jesus' own sacrifice to bring peace between humanity and God. Then he got personal and called us to engage the world in a new effort to represent God's shalom to humanity.

But to do that , we must not only abandon mistaken ideas and embrace the full biblical conception of shalom. One more thing is needed. We must take up our cross and follow Him to Golgotha. We must prepare to die by the thousands.

Those who have believed in peace through the sword have not hesitated to die. Proudly, courageously, they gave their lives. Again and again, they sacrificed bright futures to the tragic illusion that one more righteous crusade would bring peace in their time. For their loved ones, for justice, and for peace, they have laid down their lives by the millions.

Why do we pacifists think that our way--Jesus' way--to peace will be less costly? Unless we Mennonites and Brethren in Christ are ready to start to die by the thousands in dramatic, vigorous new exploits for peace and justice, we should sadly confess that we really never meant what we said. We did, of course, in earlier times. In previous centuries, we died for our convictions. But today we have grown soft and comfortable. We cling to our affluence and our respectability.

Unless comfortable North American and European Mennonites and Brethren in Christ are prepared to risk injury and death in nonviolent opposition to the injustice our societies foster and assist in Central America, the Philippines, and South Africa, we dare never whisper another word about pacifism to our sisters and brothers in those desperate lands. Unless we are ready to die developing new nonviolent attempts to reduce international conflict, we should confess that we never really meant the cross was an alternative to the sword. . .Making peace is as costly as waging war. Unless we are prepared to pay the cost of peacemaking, we have no right to claim the label or preach the message.

Sider then proposed that the Mennonite and Brethren in Christ churches lay the groundwork for a 100,000-strong "nonviolent peacekeeping force" ready to interpose itself in prayer and witness--ready to die if necessary--between warring factions. He suggested a "force" that was not merely going out and holding candlelight vigils in front of military bases, but rather trained in diplomacy, history, politics, etc., and deeply involved in (and supported by) intercessory prayer.

Our world needs that alternative. Now. But the world will be able to listen to our words only if large numbers of us live out the words we speak. Our best sons and daughters, our leaders and all our people must be ready to die. The cross comes before the resurrection.

There is finally only one question: Do we believe Jesus enough to pay the price of following him? Do you? Do I?

War and Peace - Part 7 - Hippolytus

A much briefer statement on Christians participating in the military comes from the third-century bishop Hippolytus. As with Tertullian in my previous post, I must caution that no reasonable person would take Hippolytus' writings as authoritative at the level of Scripture, and there are plenty of instances within his writings (nude baptism, for one) that we clearly don't care to emulate today. That said, the Apostolic Tradition ascribed to Hippolytus provides us with another insight into the pre-Nicene perspective of the church. As with Tertullian, I have yet to find a contemporary source (any pre-Nicene source) who made any effort at all to refute the proscription on soldiers. This leads me to suspect that, whatever variations there may have been in practice, there was no serious contention that Hippolytus and Tertullian were wrong in their assertions.

Herewith, then, I excerpt from Hippolytus' Apostolic Tradition, a section of the regulations on who may be accepted for baptism:

A soldier in command must be told not to kill people; if he is ordered so to do, he shall not carry it out. Nor should he take the oath. If he will not agree, he should be rejected.

Anyone who has the power of the sword, or who is a civil magistrate wearing the purple, should desist, or he should be rejected.

If a catechumen or a believer wishes to become a soldier they should be rejected, for they have despised God.

(These quotes are taken from page 100 of the Google Books online edition of On the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus by Alistair Stewart-Sykes. Full source here)

There is another document, sometimes ascribed to Hippolytus, that is all the more blunt. Most historians I've come across in my search suggest that the so-called "Canons of Hippolytus" (also known as the Canons of the Church at Alexandria) are actually later than he, but still pre-Nicene. I cannot find the full text though the internet is loaded with identical quotes of the headings of the canons. They all agree that Canon 14 states that a Nazarene (that document's term for a Christian) "may not become a soldier except by order." I shall be indebted if anyone can come up with a full-text resource for these canons as I cannot find one. The closest I can come is a partial text in C. John Cadoux "The Early Christian Attitude to War" (full text here) in which he reproduces partial translations of the Canons along with two parallel documents (page 122 in the PDF edition). Rather than reproduce the variations in readings here, I refer you to the entire discussion (pages 119-128 in the PDF edition), which essentially says that soldiers were to be refused baptism unless they renounced their office, or at least refrained from shedding blood; and that no believer should voluntarily become a soldier.

Incidentally, the entire Cadoux text is worth further reading for those who would like to go into this subject in depth.

War and Peace - Part 6 - Tertullian

I want to present to you some very interesting writings by some of the church fathers regarding participation in the military. In doing so I am not claiming that the early church was monolithic in its stand against the use of violence, for if it were, the writers I'm about to cite might not have had to make their arguments at all. There have been at least some historical accounts of Christian soldiers during the first 2-3 centuries of the church--many (but not all) martyrs. Nevertheless I think the Christian-soldier apologists fail to appropriately reconcile the fact that, while some pre-Constantine church fathers are explicit in their opposition to war, and others may seem to acknowledge Christian soldiers as a reality, I have yet to see a single pre-fourth-century Christian writer who defended or advocated military service by the believer. An argument that military service may have been tolerated is not the same thing at all as claiming that it was encouraged.

A point of clarification before I proceed: I appeal to these writers, not because I suggest that they have Biblical or "inspired" authority, but rather as evidence of teaching within the early church, close to the time of Jesus. There is plenty within the writings of the very authors I quote, that I would consider quite weird (for example, the descriptions of pennance and preparation for baptism). Their testimony, however, is still compelling.

Tertullian (around 160-220 AD) was an early and prolific apologist for Christianity, hailing from Carthage. He had some interesting things to say about the use of the sword, which I offer below. These quotes are taken from the compilation "Latin Christianity: It's Founder - Tertullian" by Philip Schaff. The complete online text is available at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library. In each passage I have put the quote in green with added emphasis to key phrases in red.

(In answer to the accusation that Christians are the enemy of the state) If we are enjoined, then, to love our enemies, as I have remarked above, whom have we to hate? If injured, we are forbidden to retaliate, lest we become as bad ourselves: who can suffer injury at our hands?
(and later in the same passage)
For what wars should we not be fit, not eager, even with unequal forces, we who so willingly yield ourselves to the sword, if in our religion it were not counted better to be slain than to slay? Apologia, ch. 37

(Speaking of Jesus) He to whom, had He willed it, legions of angels would at one word have presented themselves from the heavens, approved not the avenging sword of even one disciple. The patience of the Lord was wounded in (the wound of) Malchus. And so, too, He cursed for the time to come the works of the sword; and, by the restoration of health, made satisfaction to him whom Himself had not hurt, through Patience, the mother of Mercy." De Patientia (On Patience), Ch. 3

And probably the most comprehensive:

To begin with the real ground of the military crown, I think we must first inquire whether warfare is proper at all for Christians. What sense is there in discussing the merely accidental, when that on which it rests is to be condemned? Do we believe it lawful for a human oath to be superadded to one divine, for a man to come under promise to another master after Christ, and to abjure father, mother, and all nearest kinsfolk, whom even the law has commanded us to honour and love next to God Himself, to whom the gospel, too, holding them only of less account than Christ, has in like manner rendered honour? Shall it be held lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword? And shall the son of peace take part in the battle when it does not become him even to sue at law? And shall he apply the chain, and the prison, and the torture, and the punishment, who is not the avenger even of his own wrongs? Shall he, forsooth, either keep watch-service for others more than for Christ, or shall he do it on the Lord’s day, when he does not even do it for Christ Himself? And shall he keep guard before the temples which he has renounced? And shall he take a meal where the apostle has forbidden him? And shall he diligently protect by night those whom in the day-time he has put to flight by his exorcisms, leaning and resting on the spear the while with which Christ’s side was pierced? Shall he carry a flag, too, hostile to Christ? And shall he ask a watchword from the emperor who has already received one from God? Shall he be disturbed in death by the trumpet of the trumpeter, who expects to be aroused by the angel’s trump? And shall the Christian be burned according to camp rule, when he was not permitted to burn incense to an idol, when to him Christ remitted the punishment of fire? Then how many other offences there are involved in the performances of camp offices, which we must hold to involve a transgression of God’s law, you may see by a slight survey. The very carrying of the name over from the camp of light to the camp of darkness is a violation of it. Of course, if faith comes later, and finds any preoccupied with military service, their case is different, as in the instance of those whom John used to receive for baptism, and of those most faithful centurions, I mean the centurion whom Christ approves, and the centurion whom Peter instructs; yet, at the same time, when a man has become a believer, and faith has been sealed, there must be either an immediate abandonment of it, which has been the course with many; or all sorts of quibbling will have to be resorted to in order to avoid offending God, and that is not allowed even outside of military service; or, last of all, for God the fate must be endured which a citizen-faith has been no less ready to accept. Neither does military service hold out escape from punishment of sins, or exemption from martyrdom. Nowhere does the Christian change his character. De Corona Militis (on the Military Crown), ch. 13

There is no question, in the broader context of De Idolatria and De Corona Militis, that one of Tertullian's major objections to military service was the frank idolatry that came with the territory. This is particularly clear in the last passage I quoted above. To argue, however, that idolatry was the only reason Tertullian had an issue with military service is to go against the plain language of his argument. He is abundantly clear that the use of the sword is contrary to the character expected of the Christian, and that trying to justify otherwise-sinful behavior because of the military command is "quibbling."

It is important to acknowledge here that Tertullian is not making any argument as to whether or not the state should have armies, or whether it should use them. He is merely arguing (but quite vehemently) that the follower of Jesus has no business taking part in this activity of the state. I suggest his argument still holds.

War and Peace - Part 5 - My Own Evolution

Throughout my posts to date I have been careful (and I hope it shows) to qualify my statements with the perspective that I am not absolutely sure that no Christian can ever use violent means for any reason. I sense that some of the commenters so far (and I am grateful for your input--keep it coming!) probably feel a little more strongly on this than I do. I haven't always been willing to countenance such reservations, and to be honest I'm not entirely sure that I'm not just copping out here. In any event, I hope that a brief summary of how I got where I am might help to tease some of this out, or at least stimulate some good probing questions from the rest of you.

I grew up in Mennonite and Church of the Brethren fellowships, so my early perspective was one of absolute "nonresistance," which was the term we usually used at the time (from Jesus' "do not resist an evildoer" in Matt. 5:39). Not only did I hold then--as I still do--that military service was incompatible with Christian morality, I also held that any use of violence, whether in self-defense or defense of another, was morally unacceptable (of course, that didn't stop some very physical fights with my brothers, but that's another story!). I went to a Mennonite high school and a Mennonite college, so in reality I never seriously confronted a different point of view during the first twenty-six years of my life.

It was when I was dating my fiancee (now wife of 19 years) that I first faced my convictions in a new light. She did not grow up Mennonite, but rather several different Evangelical denominations, and many of the men in her family are veterans. I told her very directly during our courtship, that she needed to be OK with the understanding that as much as I loved her, I could never kill even to save her. It's a testimony of how devoted to me she was (is) that she accepted this and married me anyway (for which I remain grateful beyond words).

But that situation forced me to consider a question I had never faced before: It's all well and good to be willing to die for my own convictions, or to save others. But what about letting someone else die for my convictions--in particular someone who doesn't also share them? Suddenly the answer wasn't so obvious. . .and to this day it still isn't, for me anyway. Today, I don't think I could let my wife or kids die or be seriously injured if I had it in my power to stop the attacker, even lethally.

Here the example of Jesus is unfortunately far more murky than we might wish. Living in Roman-Empire-occupied Israel, Jesus certainly encountered violence in progress, but with the exception of those instances where he was himself the target, the only example we have to go on is the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11). This is a case where Jesus stopped the violence nonviolently, by shaming the would-be perpetrators. It's a great example of how force of any kind may not be the only response even to a crazed mob. But it's not sufficient to clearly give us a template for all situations. He certainly wasn't averse to some physicality as evidenced by his spectacular cleansing of the temple--though we have no evidence that anyone was injured (and therefore I suspect not) in this event. But what would Jesus have done in the event of a physical attack on an innocent person? The evidence just doesn't tell us.

I remain convinced that warfare is unacceptable for the believer. I don't, in fact, subscribe to the usual interpretations of "Just Warfare," although I continue to maintain that if Christians even took Augustine's criteria seriously we'd have fewer wars than we do. Nevertheless, I cannot in my current thinking, say that it is always, unequivocally, unacceptable for a follower of Jesus to reach for a weapon. At this juncture in my life, I still find myself carving out an exception for those cases where violence is being done to innocents, and in which that violence can be stopped by exerting force--even deadly force--against the perpetrator. This is not an attack on an "enemy" I'm talking about here. It's intervening to stop an attack by one third party on another.

That intervention need not always be deadly. Creative leaders like Gandhi and Martin Luther King, among others, have demonstrated that even in situations of violent oppression, nonviolence can have spectacular results. I freely grant the contentions of authors like Greg Boyd and Shane Claiborne, as well as my fellow blogger Mason over at New Ways Forward, that resorting to violent intervention may be as much a failure of imagination as it is a necessary evil. Boyd, I think, does a great job of crystallizing this dilemma in the final chapter of "Myth of a Christian Nation" (pp. 166-167). Having just stated that Jesus "would choose nonviolence" if his family was attacked, Greg says:

"At the same time, I have to confess that I'm not sure this is what I'd do. I honestly admit that, like most people, I don't yet quite see how it would be moral to do what I believe Jesus would do. Yet I have to assume that my disagreement with Jesus is due to my not having sufficiently cultivated a kingdom heart and mind. If I felt I had to harm or take the life of another to prevent what clearly seemed to be a greater evil, I could not feel righteous or even justified about it. Like Bonhoeffer who, despite his pacifism, plotted to assassinate Hitler, I could only plead for God's mercy.

What we must never do, however, is acquiesce to our worldly condition by rationalizing away Jesus' clear kingdom prescriptions. . ."

This is where I'm at, for now.

War and Peace - Part 4 - Matt. 5 vs?? Rom. 13

I'm tempted in my discussion of war and peace, to start from the top, outline the full Biblical case for nonviolence, and enter into dialog with major objectors to that case. I'm not going to do that--now at least--primarily because I really don't think I've got much to add to what has been said far more eloquently by others. I will rather reiterate a few main points.

First, the case for Christian nonviolence rests primarily with the character, teaching, and demeanor of Jesus himself. Try as one might to say otherwise, we have to confront the reality that Jesus lived a life of peace, taught love for enemies, and explicitly commanded that his followers return good for evil. Never in his entire ministry, did Jesus qualify any of those commands with an exception for when a disciple was working in a state-sanctioned capacity.

The objection is often raised that Jesus' commands (in particular the Sermon on the Mount and its parallels) must be taken in the larger context of God's commanding and/or condoning warfare in the Old Testament (for an insightful struggle with issues of O.T. Violence, I recommend Greg Boyd's occasional blog series on this subject). Indeed this context must be considered, in the same way that ALL of the "You have heard it was said. . .but I say" statements should be seen, as Jesus clarifying, strengthening, and otherwise modifying accepted principles given before. When Jesus made explicit statements addressing an issue, as he did with our behavior toward our enemies, they must be taken as the final word on the issue. Of all the places we CANNOT qualify Jesus' commands on the basis of other Biblical perspectives, those places where he was most explicit seem to me to be the ones we must be most cautious. Simply put, where Jesus speaks, his words trump every other consideration. Otherwise, someone or something else is Lord.

By far the most common objection I hear to this perspective is Romans 13:1-7, which clearly states that governments, who have their authority from God, wield the sword to reward those who do good and to punish those who do evil.. However, we have got to keep in mind that this passage is bookended by commands directly to the believer to live a completely different paradigm marked by love and self-sacrifice. Romans 12:17-21 explicitly commands us to love our enemies, and Romans 13:8-10 reiterates the message about loving our neighbors (don't forget how Jesus defined "neighbors" in Luke 10:29-37). This "bookending" suggests rather strongly that, whatever the state's rights or responsibilities may be vis-a-vis violent force, it is categorically not the acceptable way for followers of Jesus.

Furthermore, the command to submit to earthly authorities has no bearing on our current state in the U.S., where we have a volunteer army, not a compulsory one. Anyone who joins the military today may do so for a variety of reasons, but it is not submitting to the authorities to do so when the authorities have not demanded it. Therefore, even if Romans 13 might mandate submission to a draft (I am not suggesting for a moment that it does), this is a useless argument in favor of military service in America today.

But this brings me to a point that I have not heard discussed in either camps who traditionally advocate nonviolence, nor those who traditionally favor military service. Throughout the Old and New Testaments, we are repeatedly shown that we are each accountable for our own actions. One of the biggest concerns I have with military service is the fact that the soldier must submit himself to the authority of the military chain of command, and accept the commands to do actions (destruction of lives and property) that would by any definition be immoral except for the context (warfare) in which they are done. The problem is, even Augustine's "Just War" doctrines make it clear by the very things they proscribe, that not all wars, nor all actions within a war, are just. In the chain of command, it is rare that the individual soldier is privy to sufficient information to accurately weigh the justice of the command he has been issued. He is required to trust the intrinsic morality of the chain of command, and on that basis to commit actions that would be sinful in any other circumstance.

This, I submit, is abdication of one's moral responsibility. All the famous hypotheticals about big men breaking into your house and threatening your wife and kids, are personal, intimate pictures where the (ill-founded) presumption is that a clear-cut moral picture is visible. But when an air force pilot is directed to bomb a village in Afghanistan, he must rely on the entire command and intelligence structure to have gotten it "right," that the village or house he's targeting actually contains a combatant or terrorist leader who must be eliminated, and that whatever civilian deaths may accompany this attack are both unavoidable and a sufficient price to pay in order to get our bad guy. The result may indeed be the death of a "bad guy," but it can just as well be the annihilation of a wedding party. Either way, our churches have absolved our pilot of responsibility for the morality of his action. There is absolutely no Scriptural case for this.

To put it as bluntly as I can, I propose that no Christian has the freedom--ever--to yield to another person the right to determine that an otherwise-sinful action is, after all, moral. We are accountable for our own actions, and Romans 13 does not give us a pass when the state commands otherwise.

War and Peace - Part 3 - True Lies and Tom Clancy

When I hear many Americans discussing the appropriate contexts for the use of deadly force, I have noticed that there are some pretty key assumptions underlying the discussion that rarely--if ever--get examined. While I don't want to get into the chicken-egg question of which causes which, I would suggest that popular entertainment may give us a useful window onto some important fallacies.

Although I believe in peace as a way of life, I confess that I enjoy a shoot-em-up thriller as much as the next red-blooded American. The 1994 movie "True Lies" with Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jamie Lee Curtis, and Tom Arnold is a fun, and funny, example of the genre. Although it goes way over the top (come on, even Arnold S. couldn't avoid being sucked into the intakes of a hovering Harrier in the final fight scene), it also presented an interesting window into the popular perception of the violent hero.

For those who haven't seen the movie, the hero (Schwarzenegger) is a secret operative with a computer-salesman cover, and his wife (Curtis) has no clue of his real job till a scene when they are both in the middle of a firefight. Curtis' character is understandably freaked out, and at one point asks her husband "Did you ever kill anyone?" His answer, in that inimitable Terminator accent "Yeah, but they were all bad."

It goes even deeper with the novels of Tom Clancy--undoubtedly one of the best writers of gripping international warfare and subterfuge novels today. From "Hunt for Red October" on, the Jack Ryan series has made a ton of money on paper and film, all the while perpetuating the notion of American clandestine operations that are clearly always in the right and usually close to omnipotent. But the most telling dialog I remember in any of the Ryan series, comes from CIA agent John Clark. I'm sorry I don't remember if this was in "Clear and Present Danger" or "The Sum of All Fears," but I believe it was one of the two. Clark is a gritty character, who is often called upon to do the dirty work. He has no apparent compunctions about his task, and in fact says on several occasions that he does the things others would see as criminal, such as assassinations, kidnappings, dealings with "bad guys," because that is what is necessary to preserve the freedom of the rest of us to care about right and wrong.

This is not a unique feeling--we've heard it countless times from the Bush/Cheney administration over the past eight years in phrases like "taking the gloves off" and "preserving our freedom" in the "War on Terror." (btw, how do you declare war on fear? That name has always been disingenuous in my opinion) Consider this quote from Cheney ("Meet the Press" interview with Tim Russert, September 16, 2001):

We also have to work, though, sort of the dark side, if you will. We've got to spend time in the shadows in the intelligence world. A lot of what needs to be done here will have to be done quietly, without any discussion, using sources and methods that are available to our intelligence agencies, if we're going to be successful. That's the world these folks operate in, and so it's going to be vital for us to use any means at our disposal, basically, to achieve our objective.

The vital point that we must recognize is that most discussions defending the use of violence presuppose that "our side" is good, we know who the "enemy" is, that "enemy" is unequivocally "bad," and that the violence being contemplated or defended will either cow the enemy into submission or, by eliminating him, eliminate the problem. How can anyone object to killing "bad" people to "preserve the freedom" of "good" people?

Of course the real world isn't as simple as a Hollywood movie or a suspense-thriller novel. We don't have an omniscient narrator setting up the story of all the evil things we--the readers/viewers--can know which prove how bad the bad guys are. We are actors in the play, and we don't know (completely) who's good, who's bad, and how either will respond to our actions. Furthermore, in the fantasy world of our entertainment, collateral damage and suffering of innocent bystanders only happens when the callous "bad guys" do their thing, never when the "good guys" get the "bad guys."

Yet it is precisely these fantasies that seem to me to propel so much of the popular culture's support for war. . .at least until reality sets in some thousands of casualties later. And the notion that anyone, anywhere in the world, might see us as the "bad" actors, is utterly incomprehensible for far too many.

We cannot have a rational discussion about the use of force, if our perception of reality has more in common with our entertainment than it does with living, bleeding humanity.

War and Peace - Part 2 - Life and Death Decisions

Wisdom can be found in many places, not all of them holy. In The Lord of the Rings, the great J.R.R. Tolkien made a profound observation:

"Many live that deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends." (Fellowship of the Ring, Book One, Chapter 2)

Perhaps this is part of what Paul meant in Rom 12:19-21:

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." No, "if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (NRSV)

Now, I am not saying that this verse alone is a categorical case for nonviolence in every instance, because that's not the context of what Paul is saying. He is, however, clearly saying in the entire Romans 12 passage, that Christians should be known for their peaceable behavior. He is particularly forbidding the Christ-follower to exercise vengeance or violent retaliation. He is also saying that it is God's job, not ours, to mete out punishment for wrongs committed.

Of course, the King of Kings himself had a few things to say about how we behave toward our enemies too:

• Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you (Matt 5:44)
• Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. (Luke 6:27-28)
• But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. (Luke 6:35-36)

Rather than (necessarily) mandating nonviolence in all circumstances, these verses clearly speak to the issue of how we are to behave toward our enemies. There is a bumper sticker "out there" that says it pretty clearly: "When Jesus said 'Love your enemies,' I think he probably meant 'Don't kill them.'" Taken together with Paul's statement, I think it's pretty clear that exacting violent punishment on people because they have done us violence, is unacceptable in the Kingdom of Jesus.

Which is not to say that justice will not be done. Paul's statement, as well as passage after passage throughout the Old Testament, make no bones about the fact that God will, in his time, exact justice (though it may not look like we think). But it is a duty God reserves for himself, not one that we may arrogate to ourselves.

This, interestingly, is the context in which the very next chapter, Romans 13, talks about the power of the State (the "governing authorities" in NRSV and NIV, "the higher powers" in KJV) being God's servant to reward the good and punish the evildoer. This context is ignored by those who claim Paul is saying it's OK for Christians to participate with the state in the meting of punishment. If we are not to return evil for evil, if we are to treat our enemies with love, then we cannot engage in the state's violence upon them.

In fact, the "authorities" section of Romans 13 is bracketed on BOTH sides by commands of loving behavior, for from 13:8-10 Paul repeats the message, concluding "Love does no wrong to a neighbor" (v.10). Remembering how Jesus defined "neighbor," (Luke 10:29-37), that's a pretty broad-brush command.

In summary, in the case of those who we define (or a government defines for us) as "enemies," we have very clear marching orders, and dealing of death is not part of them. There are other issues regarding the use of violence, but they will have to wait for further posts.

War and Peace - Part 1

I have been discussing a lot of different issues related to war and peace with a couple close friends lately, and it's time I get some things in writing. This is going to take a number of posts, but I want to start by laying out a couple of basic challenges that I will flesh out in more detail later.

To put it simply and directly, when a human life is taken, evil is done. There is no way to sanctify or bless the act of human life without flagrantly violating the very character of Jesus.

This is a strong statement, especially for one who says, as I will in future posts, that I believe there are still limited instances where, in the fallen world in which we live, the taking of life may be the only way to address certain extreme circumstances. While I was once an absolute pacifist, I cannot today state that it is always, absolutely, and indisputably wrong for a follower of Christ to use deadly force (though as you will see, my acceptable limits for doing so are pretty narrow). However, even given that there may be times where deadly force is tragically necessary even for the Christ-follower, it must never be glorified, elevated, seen in any light other than a supreme tragedy for which we weep that it must happen at all.

Secondly, and for a variety of reasons that are not simply pacifist reasons, I shall advocate that it is morally unacceptable for a Christ-follower to assume the career of a soldier.

I make this claim even though I freely admit that I have friends who serve or have served in the military. I do not claim that they are "not saved," primarily because I repudiate the saved/unsaved dichotomy as a criterion for judging discipleship. Christ-followers are called to emulate our king because of who he is and what he demands, not because we'll go to hell if we don't.

Finally, I acknowledge at the outset that my thinking is not finalized on all of these issues, despite years of wrestling with them. I am probably internally inconsistent in some of what I'm going to say, and I definitely have room to further refine the positions I'm going to lay out. However, I hope that these thoughts will challenge the readers to re-consider some of their own closely-held positions on this issue, and that perhaps we can take the discussion beyond the usual pacifist-vs-nationalist rhetoric that has so often characterized the debates I have heard.

More to come. . .