Tags
authority, emergent, Institute on Religion and Democracy, IRD Blog, Luke Moon, neo-anabaptist, pacifism, power, Shane Claiborne
Once again we have been lulled out of our state of complacency by an act of horrific violence. The methodically planned and orchestrated mass murder in Aurora, Colorado last week stands as a testimony to the fragility of life and human propensity to do evil. But if we just looked at the statistics–12 dead and 58 wounded would normally never even make it out of local news. In Chicago there were 27 murders in the first 18 days of July. A bombing in the Middle East needs to clear a death toll of 50 before it hits the news in the US. Hundreds need to be massacred in Syria before it rolls across the bottom of your favorite news channel. There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that we live in a violent world. But are all acts of violence evil?
In a recent article titled, The Myth of Redemptive Violence, Shane Claiborne states, “Perhaps it is also time that we declare that violence is evil, everywhere — period.” For Shane and other neo-anabaptists, violence has only one face. It is that of James Holmes, who opens fire on unsuspecting moviegoers, or Timothy McVeigh, “who committed the worst act of domestic terror in U.S. history, [and who] said that he learned to kill in the first Gulf war.” But if there is not such things as redemptive violence and all violence is evil what manner of justice can be applied to Holmes and McVeigh?
Shane’s answer is typically neo-Anabaptist, look to Jesus. Shane writes,
“Even in the face the evil that Jesus endured, he consistently challenged the myth of redemptive violence. He looked into the eyes of those killing him and called on God to forgive them. He loved his enemies and taught his disciples to do the same. He often said things like, “You’ve heard it said ‘an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth’… but I want to say there is a better way” and “You’ve heard it said, ‘love your friends and hate your enemies’ … but I tell you love those who hate you … do not repay evil with evil.’” He challenges the prevailing logic of his day, and of ours. He insisted that if we “pick up the sword we will die by the sword” — and we’ve learned that lesson all too well.”
Aside from tragic exegesis, who can dispute this?
The point of contention lies not in whether we as individuals should act according to the teachings of Jesus, but how does this apply corporately. At the heart of this divide is the question of authority. Does my individual obligation to forgive a murderer negate the obligation of the governmental authority to carry out justice. St. Peter tells us to submit to governmental authority “who are sent by [God] to punish those who do wrong and commend those who do right.” Similarly, St Paul writes, “If you do wrong, be afraid, for [the governmental authority] does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” If there is no such thing as redemptive violence then both Peter and Paul are misleading the church.
What is misunderstood by the neo-Anaaptist is that all governmental authority is by nature coercive, meaning potentially violent. None of us pay our taxes out of benevolence but rather obligation. At the end of every law is a sword-bearer demanding compliance. If Shane were consistent and truly radical he would demand the end to ALL political authority, not just the big bad military, but police, prison guards, EPA officials, dog catchers, IRS agents, parking meter attendants, social services workers, mayors, etc. The whole structure which allows Shane the ability to fly all over the world and speak about being “holy troublemakers, fools, and tricksters,” is itself fundamentally violent. Would Shane be so quick to fly if his chances of being blown up was dramatically higher? He can thank the violent TSA agents for keeping his airplane bomb free.
Jesus does not do away with earthly political authority. He instead offers a different kind of political authority–one where he is King. Jesus rejected the coercive political authority offered to him by Satan, and the notion that his Kingdom would be established by violence when he tells Peter to put down his sword. Jesus offers citizenship to all who willfully choose to submit to His rule and authority. Through Him we have the power to love our enemies and forgive those who have hurt us.
We who have chosen to submit to the authority and Lordship of Jesus become “Saturday people,” living between the victory over death which is Good Friday and the Resurrection and “making all things new” of Sunday. We participate in and submit to coercive earthly authority because we recognize that, just as God uses sinful, finite, broken people to carry out acts of mercy and love, God also uses sinful, finite, and broken governments to carry out his justice through redemptive violence. To declare the myth of redemptive violence is to declare that earthly political authority is a myth too. Good luck explaining that next time the TSA agent tells you to take off your shoes.
oops, typo: That should have said… “that I did NOT say “killing is always prohibited…” “
Keith…
I can’t quite get my mind around a position of Christian who says that Jesus is telling him that killing is always prohibited
If you’ll look at my actual words, you will see that I specifically said that “killing is always prohibited…” because I don’t have a faith in a religion of rules, but in a salvation by grace.
Again, this makes me wonder if part of the disconnect in these conversations between supposedly liberal and supposedly conservative Christians is that, because ours is not a religion of rules (the letter of the law, which kills) but of grace (the Spirit of God, which brings life), you all just have a very difficult time even understanding our actual words, which you all seem to keep drawing incorrect conclusions from.
Something to consider.
I’m sorry if it doesn’t make sense to you. It does to me.
What doesn’t make sense is the the apparently random/whimsical suggestion that “KILLING, which is normally wrong, but it becomes GOOD when done by a soldier, but RAPE, which is normally wrong, does not become good when done by a soldier. Mass killings, like Hiroshima and torture… maybe so, maybe not…”
?
On what rational, consistent basis would someone make that claim? It seems rather whimsical and ill-thought out, to me. Any chance of trying to explain that huge inconsistency/hole in your argument?
Keith…
Only after you address THAT issue, will I attempt to answer how I and the just war tradition addresses the moral status of the Christian
Looking forward to your promised answer.
“I don’t think lethal violence is always prohibited for the Christian.” –Good. Perhaps a few other folks listening in can go through everything Dan has said in these posts, especially that bit about Jesus prohibiting killing and try to square the circle. I can’t quite get my mind around a position of Christian who says that Jesus is telling him that killing is always prohibited because it is always (supposedly) evil and yet still says that “”I don’t think lethal violence is always prohibited for the Christian.”
If I may return to a point the author made in the original post…
For Shane and other neo-anabaptists, violence has only one face. It is that of James Holmes, who opens fire on unsuspecting moviegoers, or Timothy McVeigh
It is true that some young pacifists may oversimplify things and make that suggestion. But this is simply not the case for most well-reasoned/seasoned peacemakers. We, oftentimes, have been to Nicaragua, El Salvador, Israel, troubled urban cities and have seen the violence that happens first hand, we know from experience and from research that violence, and violent responses to violence, and violent responses to oppression, is not as simple as saying, “Those people who embrace violence are just evil…” and we would not/do not make the mistake of oversimplifying the case. (Interestingly, this is the pattern I often see in conservative commentators, but not peacemaking advocates.)
We know the pain and fear that comes, for instance, when Contra terrorists keep attacking your village, and the lure of responding in kind. We know the temptation of starting to carry a gun “for protection” in urban settings. We recognize the desire to protect loved ones. Not all those who embrace violence are a McVeigh or Holmes. I’ve never heard a rational pacifist make any suggestion of the sort (setting aside the sort of less-rational venting that sometimes takes place, especially amongst the young).
Violence is complex and multi-tiered and an integral part of our fallen human nature, the capacity for which is found in each of us. No one serious suggests otherwise, or they are missing the point of pacifism.
Just to point out that you may have or (based on my experience with you all so far) quite likely have misunderstood your target here and have ended up misrepresenting him. I’d ask that you be a bit more cautious in your representations of others’ views, especially when stating, “They think…” and following it up with something they never said.
That’s sloppy scholarship and lacking in Christian grace.
Who was killed or harmed by the fig tree’s “death?” Who was killed or harmed by the chasing the money changers and animals out of the temple?
I’m not sure “violent” fits a description of those two events.
On the other hand, Non-violent Direct Action and Civil Disobedience DO fit the description of the driving the money changers/exploiters of the poor out of the temple.
Didn’t Jesus get annoyed and wither a fig tree? How was that nonviolent? Flipping over tables in the temple, making a whip? Hmmm…
Shane is going to Anaheim to stop the violence there.
Ah, one more thing, lest I’m misunderstood: When I referenced Keith’s intelligence and my own lack thereof, I was not mocking him, I was being sincere. I looked up his credentials and I’m confident that Keith is an intelligent guy. I’m sure he puts me to shame. I am just asking for grace and patience in dealing with my own (and others) shortcomings.
If I can learn something from his intelligence, maybe we could all learn a little bit more about grace and respect for one another?
One way to do this, it seems to this poor soul, is to answer questions to better communicate to one another each others’ positions. Another way is to quit with the name-calling and ad hom attacks. I may be a poor sinful Kentucky boy with limited intellect, but I know name-calling when I see it.
I will be traveling and will unlikely be able to continue this discussion, for a while anyway. Two quick points: the non pacifist just warrior is not opposed to using non-violent means, if these lesser nonviolent means can do the trick. If talking a terrorist hostage taker into surrendering will do the trick, then that nonviolent means is the preferable option. But if that or other nonviolent options are judged to be ineffective, and to protect the hostages from grave harm requires that a sniper put a bullet through his head, then to do so is not unjust and is not evil. Which gets to the second point: the JWT does not claim that the pacifist isn’t in favor of preventing the black man from getting lynched by the Klansman. But the pacifist NECESSARILY believes (given his principle that all violence –or all lethal violence– is always evil) that it is morally preferable for the Christian to allow the black man to get lynched RATHER than have a Christian police officer use lethal force to prevent him from getting lynched. That is, if the Christian police officer judges that the Klansman will not respond to nonviolent methods and whatever nonviolent methods in his tool kit will be ineffective, then the pacifist prefers to keep his hands clean rather than save the black man. The just warrior believes that lethal force is just and he does no evil if he kills the Klansman to protect the black man from grave harm.
But the pacifist NECESSARILY believes (given his principle that all violence –or all lethal violence– is always evil) that it is morally preferable for the Christian to allow the black man to get lynched RATHER than have a Christian police officer use lethal force to prevent him from getting lynched.
Some pacifists believe thusly. Some would allow that a lesser evil might be preferable. We just wouldn’t make the mistake of calling a lesser evil, “good.” A lesser evil remains evil, wrong, outside of the Christian way.
Is it your argument that a lesser evil becomes a moral good? Do you believe that by wiping out an entire city of civiilians (a very obviously evil act) becomes morally good, if you believe it MAY result in less evil?
On a related question: Any chance of an answer to the question about, “On what basis do you say committing one sin (rape) as a soldier following state orders remains wrong, but another sin (killing) as a solcier following state orders becomes morally good?
I’m sure you’re busy, but if, when you get a chance, you could get around to addressing that, it would be greatly appreciated.
Peace.
DAN–before I leave, it would really help if you stop this “some pacifist believe yada yada yada, and “some pacifists believe blah blah blah” and tell me what YOU believe. I’m interested in what follows from YOUR premise that lethal violence is ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE prohibited for the Christian. The hypothetical is designed to clarify THAT fundamental problem. Your response that “some pacifists blah blah blah…on serves to obfuscate the issue. Only after you address THAT issue, will I attempt to answer how I and the just war tradition addresses the moral status of the Christian who uses lethal force to protect the innocent from harm. (hint–the JW tradition does not say that the act is wrong or a vice, or that evil is to be done for a greater good, but is indeed an act of charity.)
Keith…
I’m interested in what follows from YOUR premise that lethal violence is ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE prohibited for the Christian.
Again, I apologize if I was less than clear and ask for your patience in explaining my position. Grace, please.
The short answer, as directly as possible:
1. I don’t think lethal violence is always prohibited for the Christian.
2. I think lethal violence is outside of the way of God that we have been taught.
3. I understand the desperate response to choose a lesser evil in a lose/lose situation.
4. I just don’t think it rational to call a “lesser evil” a moral good.
The fuller explanation…
I tend to answer (sometimes) in the general, so as to not make it personal and to be as informative as possible. I also strive to imply my own position, and I’m sorry if that made it less-than-clear. It is entirely true, for instance, that some pacifists tend towards one idea and some towards another. I thought it was fairly obvious in context what my own position was, but I was trying to speak about ideals, not personalities.
I would not frame my premise in the words you ascribe to me. That lethal violence is always and everywhere prohibited for the Christian.
I would respond that lethal violence is a failure, it is wrong, it is outside of Christian perfection/Christ’s teachings/Christ’s example.
But, “Prohibited…”?
I have tried to be clear that I understand that, when faced with an impossible situation, we sometimes feel that deadly violence is our only solution at that point. I have tried to be clear that I would not condemn the mother who shot an attacker to protect her child. I just wouldn’t call “killing the enemy” part of God’s plan, or part of God’s way.
I also question the premise that such ONLY kill or be killed situations are in any way common. There is almost always another solution/another way that is more in keeping with Christ’s way. (Besides which, the premise tends to assume too much – what if the mother shooting at an attacker accidentally kills the child or a neighbor – the fictional scenario almost always assumes that only a good outcome will come by embracing violence and it also fails possible negative consequences and also fails to consider the Power of God to save and redeem the situation…)
I tried to be clear that I was making a distinction between saying “I chose the lesser evil because I didn’t know what else to do” with “I chose the lesser evil and, thus, it became a moral good…”
I, for one, don’t think of Christianity as a religion of do’s and don’ts… of prohibited behaviors and allowable behaviors – but of a Way, a path to walk on striving to follow in the steps of our savior who faced violence without responding with violence and who taught us clearly to love our enemies, do good to those who hate us, to overcome evil with good.
So, that might be part of the problem in our misunderstandings: Conservatives oftentimes approach their faith as a religion of rules, where anabaptists and progressives approach it as a faith based on grace, thus, I/we wouldn’t even make a statement like your initial premise…? Just a possibility.
Does that make it more clear, now?
Keith…
you ramble and your response(s) borders on incoherence.
My apologies if I was not sufficiently clear for you. I’m trying my best to explain my position and, if my poor words fail to clarify, then I ask for your patience. We aren’t all as intelligent and well-spoken as you are. Patience, dear brother. It is a big topic that Christians of good faith have disagreed upon for ~1800 years (there appears to have been a pacifistic consensus our first ~200 years, or at least some would say), and answering a complex question can sometimes be difficult, at least for this poor sinner.
A few points (I’ll try to be clear and concise)…
The pacifist Christian is telling the non-pacifist Christian that they have engaged in an intrinsically evil act if they serve as a police officer or as a soldier.
Not all pacifists condemn all policing. We do believe that killing the enemy is a sinful action, not part of the Christian Way, as taught be and lived out by Christ, our Lord.
Is that clear?
to prevent a black person from being lynched by a Klansman, the pacifist makes a moral judgment about that act, namely that he has committed an gravely immoral and evil act.
? Name one pacifist who is opposed to stopping a klansman from killing someone. Of course, we aren’t opposed to stopping evil. We’re opposed to embracing evil (or non-Christian ways) in order to stop evil. We support overcoming evil with good.
Is that clear?
You say that you are part pacifist, part just peacemaker, part just war theorist.
If you’ll read my actual words in context, you will see that I said, clearly, “Ultimately, I disagree with JWT, but I’d be slightly more contented if the militarists and States would hold even to that level of war-making.”
Does that help clarify my position? Again, sorry if I was less than clear. I’m doing the best I can.
As to JWT, it has been my experience that we pacifists tend to be more familiar with it than non-pacifists. Yes, I have read about JWT a good deal, thanks. For over twenty years, now. Am I an expert? No, but neither am I unread on the topic.
So, getting to my question that went unanswered (“what are your limits to following the state AND WHY?”), you addressed it in part by saying…
You ask, “Is there any governmental behavior that you think Christians ought not participate in?” Of course! But why would ask such a silly question?
Okay, I get that you agree there are limits, but ON WHAT BASIS?
This is where it gets to some actual inconsistencies (at least as far as this poor sinner can see)…
If you say: It is okay to kill an enemy combatant but ONLY if one is a soldier in a ‘just war,’ acting on behalf of the State which has told you to kill an enemy, otherwise it’s a sin.”
And then you turn around and say, “BUT, it is not okay to rape an enemy, even if you are a soldier in a just war acting on behalf of the State. It’s a sin to do so individually and it’s a sin to do so in war…”
Do you see how that seems to be a glaring inconsistency?
And do you say it’s okay to torture? Was Hiroshima okay?
Many (most?) JWTheorists I have read have said, yes, but they do tend to draw a line at rape. Even if the rape was being used as torture, which they agree with.
Why? On what basis do you draw that line, IF the state is making the argument that “doing this action will help lead to a cessation of war…”?
That seems, on the face of it, inconsistent.
Because JWT is a spectrum, as with pacifism, I really would like to know your answers to these questions: Would you agree with those JW Theorists who say that JWT precludes torture and nuclear attacks, a la Hiroshima? Attacks where there will be known civilian casualties?
I’m trying to figure out what sort of JWTheorist you are and if you’re consistent with that line of thinking.
To the point here: No one has yet to say how…
1. Believing that Jesus taught us to overcome evil with good/some form of pacifism; and
2. Living that out
is inconsistent. Any chance of a direct answer to that?
Its good to see someone recognizing the folly and inconsistency of blanket bans on violence. God himself commanded violence in the Old Testament, so its clearly not intrinsically evil.
I recall when I was in college debating with a Christian pacifist, and I realized that the heart of his argument came down to the notion that Jesus CHANGED the Law, that he somehow made certain things that had been sinful not sinful and certain other things that had not been sinful, those were now sinful. Folks the nature of God is unchanged and unchanging and righteousness is always the same.
I do think that terminology like \”Redemptive violence\” is misleading though. Christ is redemptive, all other things are not, though some of them are necessary or even deserving of approval.
And People, sometimes you encounter a person online who just wants to fight and has no intention of debating. If they stay on topic thats fine. But if they dont… DON\’T FEED THE TROLL.
Dan–you ramble and your response(s) borders on incoherence. The pacifist of both the classic variety and the modern variety (as expressed the this Clairborne character) makes an absolutist claim.That leaves NO ROOM for splitting the difference. If I say “forcing someone to have sex against their will” is ALWAYS wrong, and someone responds, “No, sometimes forcing someone to have sex against their will is good” and someone comes along and says, “Hey, you both have a good point” that person isn’t saying something profound, they are saying something profoundly ignorant. Either I am right in my absolutist claim that rape is always wrong, or the other guy is right that it is at least permissible in some circumstances. Same here.
The pacifist Christian is telling the non-pacifist Christian that they have engaged in an intrinsically evil act if they serve as a police officer or as a soldier. If that Christian is serving as a police officer and has to use deadly force (to continue my example) to prevent a black person from being lynched by a Klansman, the pacifist makes a moral judgment about that act, namely that he has committed an gravely immoral and evil act. He has, in the view of the pacifist, done evil so that good may come. The non-pacifist fundamentally rejects this claim–he asserts that the failure of the police officer to use the requisite force to prevent this grave evil (the lynching) is immoral and that the police officer, in using deadly force if that is the only way to prevent the lynching is not a vicious act, but a virtuous act. That puts the non-pacifist just warrior in fundamental disagreement and you can’t split the difference with a barrage of rhetoric.
Now, you seem to embrace this absolutist pacifist position. But what you seem not to understand is that this is in FUNDAMENTAL CONTRADICTION to the most basic theological premise that undergirds just war theory. You say that you are part pacifist, part just peacemaker, part just war theorist. That is incoherent nonsense and the fact that this kind of rhetoric is popular doesn’t make it any less incoherent or any less nonsensical.
You ask, “Is there any governmental behavior that you think Christians ought not participate in?” Of course! But why would ask such a silly question? If you knew ANYTHING about the just war tradition, (have you read Ramsey, Johnson, the classic great Christian theologians) you would take that as axiomatic and not use it as a ploy. Do you know of ANY responsible defender of the just war tradition who says that Christians must do ANYTHING civil authority tells them to do? No, neither do I, so what’s up with THAT question?
I’ll leave it to others to tutor Dan on the jus in bello principles of proportionality and discrimination and the principle of double effect.
Mr Binky, I don’t think you understand that which you are criticizing. “Do something…”? Absolutely. We’re not speaking of PASSIVISM, but pacifism, just peacemaking, taking steps to overcome evil, NOT with the same evil being employed, but overcoming evil WITH GOOD.
It’s not a choice only between “do nothing and let them kill everyone” or “Kill more of them before they can kill all of us” (which is not a Christian teaching), but smart opposition, overcoming evil with Good, as we have been clearly and directly taught.
Why is it you people all bemoan “Oh, if only I had been in that theater WITH MY GUN,” but none of you are stepping out and saying, “Oh, if only I had a chance to be a Godly influence in that young man’s life…” One is trusting in your shooting skills and your big weaponry, one is trusting in God’s redemptive power, fearlessly, unarmed.
Your claims to bravery (from behind a gun) leave me unimpressed, gentlemen, and your demonization of the truly fearless says more about your fears than their bravery.
Seems to me.
G.K. Chesterton– who lived during the times he wrote of, and observed and pondered World War I, the flawed peace, and the rise of Hitler with a thoughtful eye– considered all pacifism (as it arose in 1914 and afterwards) as– effectively– granting aggressive nations what they wanted, no matter how evil their means or desires, no mater what peaceful international agreements or rule of law or basic decency violated. When Mr. Claiborne states that all violence is evil, I try to place his views in line with real history, or real evil, or real circumstances, not an abstract & impossible “Wouldn’t It Be Nice If”. That is, someone trying to injure or kill me, my family, or a neighbour or stranger. Someone seeking to destroy a country, political order, laws, freedoms. Someone tying to overthrow Western Civilization from outside or within.
~ If I had been in that Aurora theatre, with my conceal-carry .45 ACP-loaded pistol, should I stop the shooter if I was within my power? I would have. Mr. Claiborne?
~ If I was a a British statesman, knowing the authentic details of the Rape of Beligium, and what Gernamy intended to do with & to a subjugated Western Europe, should I oppose Teutonic supremacism & militarism, or leave those nations to their doom? I would have– as G.K. Chesterton advocated– AND been sure to cauterize the ideology when the war was done, which was not what happened after WWI. Instead, revenge, humiliation, but the German military class left unjudged and in power, waiting for a new leader. I’m guessing Mr. Claiborne would have been with the pacifists, seeking an unconditional British cease-fire in 1915. The Second Reich Uber Alles it is, then.
Soviet-funded pacifism was all the rage 1960-1989, as the West tried to deal with Russian Imperialism world wide, and in post-war Eastern Europe, China, Central America, Southeast Asia, and throughout Africa. That pacifism meant, in effect, the surrender of all those millions of people (and a hundred million murders), their freedom, hopes, aspiration, future all in chains. Mr. Claiborne?
War may be the last and worst method, but it’s better than (a) surrender, (b) annihilation, (c) slavery, (d) looking on while others are enslaved murdered, or ‘re-educated’… with a principled if slightly inhuman shrug.
http://chesterton.wordpress.com/2010/09/08/on-pacifism/
http://steynian.wordpress.com/2011/09/11/in-memoriam-2001-2011/
Chesterton on War and Peace: Battling the Ideas and Movements that Led to Nazism and World War II: G. K. Chesterton, Michael W. Perry, Winston S. Churchill: 9781587420610: Amazon.com: Books
Also, Keith, if you’d be inclined, it might help the conversation if you or someone might address an earlier question I had…
Is there any governmental behavior that you think Christians ought not participate in? If the “God-appointed” authorities said, “We ought to bomb this city, including its children,” do you think the Christian could go along with that? If they said, “Torture that man to gain information,” would you go along with that? “Rape that prisoner to get information…” would you do that? “As an undercover agent, lie and sleep with that enemy to gain information…” would you do that?
Are there any limits to what a “Christian” can do as long as they’re acting with state authority? If so, what are those limits and on what do you base them?
If it’s wrong to kill (and clearly, biblically, it is) but “okay” if the State authorizes it, where do you draw lines to Christian behavior and based on what?
A short follow-up…
You will note that when the Schleitheim confession says that GOD assigns the responsibility to the civil magistrate to use coercive violence against evil doers. We know that God does not COMMAND people to do evil
Absolutely. God does NOT command people to do evil. Which is one logical reason why we can know that God doesn’t command people to invade a nation and destroy all its inhabitants. Shedding innocent blood is amongst the most evil things that humans do (and contrary to God’s will).
Use the clear to interpret the obscure.
The question about the Schleitheim would be, then, does their saying “God ASSIGNS responsibility to the state…” indicate that God is commanding people in the state to do wrong? I can’t say what the original anabaptists thought, but I would say on the face of it, that is an irrational/unbiblical conclusion. Is it merely indicating that the state WILL engage in warring and that is the way of the world, it is to be expected in FALLEN humanity, but regardless, we Christians have another Way? That would be more rational and biblical, it seems to me (and I suspect, many/most modern anabaptists).
Having answered your question, would you answer mine: Do you think something that is OUTSIDE of the Christian Way is something Christian’s should engage in?
What do I believe? A mix of pacifism, just peacemaking and, believe it or not, just war theory (although a pretty concise/strict interpretation of JWT)…
1. I believe I (and we) are fallible humans striving to understand the almighty mind of an everlasting God. I believe that should give us pause to speak to authoritatively on matters we can’t prove.
2. I believe Jesus’ teachings are clear: We who follow Christ are to hold to his teachings, including loving our enemies and overcoming good with evil.
3. I believe biblical teachings should be interpreted using the whole of the Bible to confirm the individual, the clear passages to confirm the obscure, the teachings of Christ as a lens on interpreting the rest.
4. I believe Jesus’ teachings are quite clear on this point. Christians ought not kill their enemies, and certainly ought not engage in wars where we’re likely to not only kill enemy combatants, but also innocent bystanders.
5. I believe that states WILL engage in war at times. I believe some may be more justifiable/less evil, but that they will still be evil. The lesser of two evils does not become a Good by comparison, it remains evil.
6. I believe Christians ought not engage in evil, that such is outside of the Christian way.
7. Having said all of that, I recognize the human tendency towards violence and wanting to strike back in kind, violence to violence. I understand this fallen nature and have a hard time blaming the mother or father who picks up a gun to protect their children, or their neighbor’s children. It’s a natural human reaction and I’m loathe to criticize anyone for doing so.
8. Nonetheless, just because I understand this human nature, I don’t think it rational or biblical to call it “Christian,” meaning that it fits with the teachings of Jesus.
9. Beyond that, there is a mountainous difference between a parent taking up a rifle and shooting back at someone shooting at their children and going to war, especially modern war. War is, as soldiers have rightly noted, hell, I think that quite literally. I don’t think Christians ought to take part in hell.
10. I think the State does many things and not all of them are God-ordained. Whether or not God “ordains” states to wage war (or to destroy a whole town, women and children included), I find hard to believe, but maybe so, you’d have to ask God.
But if God does “ordain” it, clearly God doesn’t bless it or call it good or the Right Way to live. Jesus’ teachings preclude that. Clearly. Obvious morality precludes that. “Shed no innocent blood.”
11. Ultimately, I’m just an humble Christian short of perfect knowledge. I believe what Jesus clearly taught and I believe Jesus clearly taught us to love our enemies and to overcome evil with Good. I simply believe this Third Way (not fight, not flight, but wisely overcoming evil with good) is not only the most moral way to live, especially for Christians wanting to follow Christ, but it is the most effective way to fight evil.
Does that answer your question?
Ultimately, I disagree with JWT, but I’d be slightly more contented if the militarists and States would hold even to that level of war-making. It would preclude most of our modern wars. Even this current pope has said as much (he questioned whether modern war can ever fit JWT, due to the indiscriminate killing that is part and parcel of modern war-making).
?
1. Not all anabaptists, today, hold literally to the Schleitheim confession.
2. Nonetheless, the cogent point of Schleitheim is The Sword point, which says, in part…
The sword is an ordering of God outside the perfection of Christ. It punishes and kills the wicked and guards and protects the good… But within the perfection of Christ only the ban is used for the admonition and exclusion of the one who has sinned, without the death of the flesh, simply the warning and the command to sin no more.
The anabaptists (some anabaptists) believe that deadly violence is part of God’s plan in a fallen world, but it’s not part of God’s Way for God’s followers. It is clearly, they believe, OUTSIDE of the way of Christ, our savior.
I’m not seeing where the inconsistency is.
IF the sword is OUTSIDE of Christ’s Way, and
IF we want to be INSIDE Christ’s Way,
THEN, for us, any embrace of deadly violence is sinful (OUTSIDE God’s Way for us).
Beyond that, IF some of us anabaptists don’t hold the Schleitheim Confession as a perfect representation of God’s will, just an attempt at explaining the topic, then where is the inconsistency?
I, for one, don’t know that I hold to the teaching that sometimes, deadly sinful violence is part of God’s will for the unsaved (another way of putting that point). But even if it is, I don’t see how calling the embrace of deadly violence sinful at the same time as saying that sinful behavior might be ordained by God is inconsistent.
I think the point you may be missing is that, in saying, “THIS behavior is OUTSIDE of God’s will, but may be used by/ordained by God, nonetheless,” it is not saying that this behavior (OUTSIDE OF GOD’S WILL) is not sinful because God uses it. That behavior which is outside of God’s will, IS sinful, or at least many of us would hold.
Do you not agree that behavior outside of God’s will is sinful/wrong?
I fail to see any inconsistency, in either the old anabaptist understanding or in calling all behavior OUTSIDE OF GOD’S WILL “sinful.”
BUT, upon the pains of irrationality, YOU CAN’T SAY BOTH
Sure you can, watch:
It is entirely rational to believe that something may be used by God that is OUTSIDE of God’s will, and yet believe that which is OUTSIDE of God’s will is sinful.
See, easy and entirely logical. I think the point you’re missing is “OUTSIDE” Christ’s perfection/OUTSIDE of God’s will.
The more fundamentalist types tend to this regularly when they refer to God working God’s will even through bad circumstances. The militarist types do it all the time in their embrace of a lesser evil (“Yes, bombing hiroshima was a horrible, evil thing, but I think God used it ultimately because it was the lesser of two evils…”)
Dan–You will note that when the Schleitheim confession says that GOD assigns the responsibility to the civil magistrate to use coercive violence against evil doers. We know that God does not COMMAND people to do evil, (or as the apostle Paul put it, we are NOT to do evil so that good may come.) Therefore, these traditional pacifists would not say that when the civil authority does what God assigns them to do (per Rom 13) that they do evil. On the other hand, this Claiborne character would have us condemn all acts of coercive violence against evil doers either to prevent them from doing evil or as just recompense for their evil actions.
According to this Clairborne guy, if a police officer were to use necessary and proportionate force against a Klansman about to lynch a black person, that use of force would be intrinsically evil. Not so, for the traditional Mennonite of the Schleitheim. For the traditional pacifist, for a police officer to rescue the black man from the clutches of the KKK is NOT evil in itself. Just read the text. The difference between the traditional Mennonites and the entire non-pacifist Christian tradition is that the traditional pacifist says that God does not permit Christians to do what he has otherwise commanded non-Christians to do. It is like there is a fight or a tension within the Trinity–God commands the civil magistrate to use the sword and he is commended for it but if the Christian does it, somehow it becomes evil in itself. The Son tells the Father that it is evil for Christians to do what the Father has COMMANDED non-Christians to do as an act of justice. Calvin, for one, justly mocked this view. These contemporary pacifists differ from the traditional pacifists in that they believe it is intrinsically evil to use force to rescue the black man from a lynching, whether it is done by a non-Christian or by a Christian.
But that leaves the question–which view do YOU hold? Do YOU believe it is intrinsically evil to use force to prevent a Klansman from lynching a black man. Or does that act only become evil if a Christian is serving as a police officer to prevent the lynching. Or do you believe (with me and the non-pacifist tradition) that for civil authority to rescue an innocent from grave injustice, using the necessary degree of proportionate force is an act of justice which is not only not evil in itself, but rather commendable.
Dan–you can either go with Shane Clairborne and say (A) “all violence is evil, period” or with the Schleitheim Confession and say, (B) ““The sword is ordained by God outside the perfection of Christ. It punishes and kills people and protects and defends the good. In the law the sword is established to punish and to kill the wicked,and secular authorities are established to use it.” BUT, upon the pains of irrationality, YOU CAN’T SAY BOTH . So, you tell me which view you hold, (A) or (B) and I’ll tell you why I, and the entire non-pacifist, non-Mennonite, non-Anabaptist, Christian world REJECTS (A) and (B).
Here you go Dan:
http://www.mmisi.org/ir/37_02/pavlischek.pdf
spent over 30 percent I mean under Obama.
Well, conservativess can have a better attitude on taxes. Taxes are great for national defense and other large scale projects duch a dam. Let’s say the early Roman empire which wasn’t perfect only spent 10 percent of the GNP on government programs and so forth, we are now I think under Obama over 10 percent. Granted, in the late period a lot more taxes since it experiance a lot of invasions and civil War, a warning if we too fall behind on defense, Some libertarian thinking that all taxation is theif is wrong too since the Government can tax for certain things like Defense and Roads, granted there are a few private roads but a totally for hire army doesn’t always work that well.
On the whole “back when Anabaptists were consistent” stuff: You might take a look at the Schleitheim Confession–you know that stuff about “outside the perfection of Christ” and that bit about the civil authorities being given the power of the sword to take vengeance against evil doers–with, you know, the death penalty and all. “The sword is ordained by God outside the perfection of Christ. It punishes and kills people and protects and defends the good. In the law the sword is established to punish and to kill the wicked, and secular authorities are established to use it.”
They sure don’t make Mennonites like they used to!
Keith, if this was in answer to my question, I’ll have to be honest and say I don’t know what in the world you are getting at. I mean, I know what the Schleitheim Confession was, but I don’t see what it has to do with consistency.
Are you all suggesting that anabaptists aren’t consistent because they don’t behave the way you’d consistently like them to behave? I just don’t know what you mean.
In what way are anabaptists being inconsistent? Speak straightforward and clearly if you want to help this poor old boy to understand.
I hope you will both continue the discussion as I find both arguments compelling in parts. This is something worth grappling with.
I hope you two will continue to deliberate here. The debate is a good one and I find myself agreeing with some of both of your points.
A very basic exercise in logic: John the Baptist was a prophet of God. When some soldiers approached him, (Luke 14:14), it reads “And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.” Essentially, no roughing innocent people up, no using your authority for false witness, and don’t extort money. No sermon on “Oh, by the way, God hates everything you do, all soldiering & police-work, all weapons, and there you go.” Nor does Jesus tell off the Centurion whose servant is healed. Self-appointed radical false-prophets like Mr. Dreadlocks would countenance no limits to evil in this world by use of weapons, force, or trained protectors. Others like him will quote “die by the sword”, forgetting (a) Jesus had recently told the apostles to get some weapons, and (b) that the word to Peter was essentially “If you think like a sword, everything starts to look like a target.” Pacifism is a gnostic-utopian kinda thing, where evil need not be resisted in this world, and everything will just work out, because peace love flowers fluffy bunnies. There is no utopia– there never will be in this world. After all, in Greek, the title of Thomas More’s book (he came up with the word) means “no place”. Repent, Luke Moon.
I meant to say, repent Shane Claiborne. Luke Moon like the rest of us, needs to repent, too– but not for the thoughts of Shane Claiborne, nor for this fine blog entry.
You quoted Luke 3:14, not 14:14, by the way.
Binky said…
Pacifism is a gnostic-utopian kinda thing, where evil need not be resisted in this world, and everything will just work out, because peace love flowers fluffy bunnies. There is no utopia
There is a spectrum of pacifistic thinking. Non-resistence/passivism IS one small component of pacifism. Most (just an educated guess) modern pacifists are not advocating passivism. Most modern pacifists lean towards Just Peacemaking, Non-Violent Direct Action models of peacemaking. That is not the same as saying “evil need not be resisted…” Understand the difference?
Also, while there is no utopia, there IS the Kingdom of God – that which we are called to live in, here and now. Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven.
I’d ask that you choose to disagree with a bit more grace. Christians of good faith can disagree on this topic without resorting to snottiness.
For it is by grace that we are saved…
Matthew 5:39, baby! I know you’ve got a glib answer for contradicting Scripture with your JPNVDA … Is it true that neo-anabaptist = max narcissist? “Just asking, not saying …”
(\__/)
(=’.'=)
(“)_(“)
Oh, regarding Jesus telling his disciples to get some swords, they responded by saying, “Oh, we have one or two here, Lord,” and Jesus said, “That will do.” He was very obviously not calling for an armed insurrection, meeting deadly violence with deadly violence. Instead, as Peter later noted, “he suffered, leaving us an example, that we should follow in His steps…”
Luke said…
Does my individual obligation to forgive a murderer negate the obligation of the governmental authority to carry out justice.
A question for Luke or any who agree with him… Is there any governmental behavior that you think Christians ought not participate in? If the “God-appointed” authorities said, “We ought to bomb this city, including its children,” do you think the Christian could go along with that? If they said, “Torture that man to gain information,” would you go along with that? “Rape that prisoner to get information…” would you do that? “As an undercover agent, lie and sleep with that enemy to gain information…” would you do that?
Are there any limits to what a “Christian” can do as long as they’re acting with state authority? If so, what are those limits and on what do you base them?
It sounds a bit like you’re making the argument some (primarily long ago) anabaptists make that said the gov’t can do what it does, kill, torture, whatever, and it is within God’s will, but Christians can’t participate in it. Is that your position?
Back when the Anabaptists where consistent they did think Government could do whatever, but because it is coercive/violent Christians couldn’t participate. I think Christians have an obligation to follow whatever vocation the Lord leads them into. I find it ridiculous to say, Christians should participate in every area of society except government because government is bad. Where is the salt and light? The Christian who is told to rape has the obligation to no comply with the command. The government is not the ultimate authority it is AN authority. And every domain of authority is under the authority of God.
Like I said in a previous blog, I have a lot of respect for the old Anabaptists-pacifist but conservative, the neo-anabaptists want big government, but not the military as if all government was not violent. It’s a pathetic position to hold really.
Luke…
Back when the Anabaptists where consistent…
People keep saying that without explaining it.
We believe that we ought to take Jesus’ teachings fairly literally and faithfully.
We believe that Jesus was clear on how we ought to treat our enemies – with love, turning the cheek (ie, overcoming evil with good, a NVDA, method, it seems to many of us), seeking their good, not embracing evil, relying upon God for our defense, not weapons of destruction… etc, etc, We think Jesus was quite clear on the point and we consistently seek to follow that teaching.
Where is the inconsistency? It seems to me to be an exceptionally consistent view/lifestyle.
You also said…
I find it ridiculous to say, Christians should participate in every area of society except government because government is bad.
? I don’t know that anyone is making that argument. Perhaps your problem is you misunderstand our actual arguments. We (consistently, mind you) don’t say Christians should participate in every area of society – we don’t think we ought to embrace sin, so we don’t advocate, for instance, Christian rapists or Christian prostitutes, etc.
And we don’t say (at least I don’t say) “gov’t is bad,” that seems to be more of a modern conservative viewpoint than an anabaptist one. We just don’t believe in participate in actions that are sinful. We believe bombing a city (even in wartime against an “enemy”) to be clearly sinful and we don’t believe Christians should take part in such.
Luke…
The Christian who is told to rape has the obligation to no comply with the command.
So you would agree that Christians ought not rape, even as part of a gov’t command, even if it’s the enemy, is that right? Then on what basis do you distinguish between raping an enemy (as commanded by the gov’t) and killing an enemy (as commanded by the gov’t) or bombing a city (as commanded by the gov’t? Why is one “sin” acceptable to you, when done by soldiers, but not another?
I don’t see the consistency there.
Just a short response to one comment you made…
None of us pay our taxes out of benevolence but rather obligation.
I personally do not pay my taxes out of fear of a gun, I do so out of moral oblgation. I’m part of a society and I agree to the social contract that, if I want to live here, then I reasonably ought to contribute to our commonwealth.
In fact, if I felt I was being taxed at gunpoint, I would specifically NOT pay my taxes.
Maybe that’s part of the “conservative problem” with taxes? They don’t feel they ought to pay their own way and only do so under duress, and that’s why they so often call it “theft…”?
Just asking/wondering, not saying.
Beyonod that, I disagree with the opinion that all gov’t is, by nature, coercive. That does not appear to be a rational conclusion to make. I participate in this gov’t by my own consent, and agree to the laws and taxes – even the ones I disagree with – by my own consent. Again, this makes me wonder about the “conservative” viewpoint of gov’t – you all seem to be starting from a place of irrational hostility about free Republics. I could understand the hostility towards a despotic gov’t, but a free Republic??
Somehow Dan, I just knew you would comment. Did you, like Shane, choose to not pay 14% of the taxes that go to pay for the military. If you paid all of your taxes and out of moral obligation, you are a better person than me.
On your second point, there is a governmental body that is non-coercive and that is the United Nations. I could spend my whole day mocking them, but I will limit it to a personal experience. The UN building is not bound by the laws of NY where it sits. In the cafe there are big signs that say, No Smoking, and underneath them are people smoking. Why? because the UN has no coercive power and everybody knows it.
No, I did pay my taxes, grudgingly, believing my fellow citizens to be wrong, but by my own consent, because I agree to, living within this commonwealth. I do pay all my taxes out of moral obligation. Do you truly only pay them because of a threat of jail or fines?
Again, maybe that’s part of the difference between conservatives and more progressive types (although, paying what I owe is, I would consider, consistent with conservative thinking, which is why I “scare-quoted” conservative earlier…)