Christian Pacifism
As many of you may know, I've been toying with pacifism for some time now and trying to put my ideas about it together. So I will take this opportunity to try to write up everything that I've been thinking about. Feel free to criticize.
The call of Christ begins with a fundamental divorce from the prior way of living. We see with this in Peter dropping his nets, or Paul becoming a missionary. In Luke 9:57-62 Christ himself sets down the call to obedience that Christianity entails.
When Christ calls this man, the man responds with a perfectly reasonable request: let him bury his father first. But Christ says no. Leave your father to rot and proclaim the gospel. Such is the call that it dissolves all prior earthly connections.
Christ reiterates the all-consuming nature of the call in Luke 14:26:
So what's the upshot of this? This means that no national, international, or community commitments can trump the call of Christ. We are citizens of the United States, but we are first and foremost Christians. We do not make decisions as citizens, but as Christians. Flag-waving jingoism has no place in the life of a Christian. Likewise, Christians must remember that there is nothing inherantly good or Christian about the United States government. It is a Christian government only insofar as the people governing it make Christ-like decisions. As Augustine said, "In the absence of justice, what is sovereignty but organized robbery?" In this way the US government must prove itself just every day.
Reinhold Niebuhr, the neo-orthodox theologian, suggested in his book Moral Man and Immoral Society that people tend to delegate their immorality to their governments. It is nearly impossible for me to imagine killing a person, but it is much easier to vote for my government to do it for me. In a governmental decree, people find justification for their actions. Thus those who would never kill feel comfortable shooting at strangers because war has been declared.
In order properly to discuss war, we must start by stating that the government has no power to justify an action. An action is good or bad because God decrees it to be so. If that is the case, what does God say about killing? The attitude of the New Testament is clear: over and over again it states that we must accept injustice from our enemies and respond with love; this is particularly evident in the Sermon on the Mount: "But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:39)
Also, there is a specific call from God himself in the Old Testament variously translated as "You shall not murder," or "You shall not kill." I do not claim to know Hebrew so that I can intelligently comment on the issue, so I will deal with both cases.
1) If the verse is properly translated "You shall not kill," then it is simple. Killing is wrong, and no state authorization will change that. Some would counter that the Israelites did lots of killing, throughout the Old Testament, and God seemed to approve. That's true, but the Israelites had an over-riding command from God to purify the land and to stave off invaders. Israel was the promised land, and God authorized Israel to take steps to secure it.
2) If the verse is translated, "You shall not murder," then the message is still clear. Murder is killing someone unjustly. Who defines justice? God himself. Therefore a killing without the approval of God is murder. Since God only granted approval for wars fought to defend the promised land, we cannot extend this approval to any other war.
Since the coming of Christ, there is no evidence that God approves of any war, violence, or killing. That being said, I will offer two exceptions to my brand of pacifism.
1) The first exception is what I call the hostage situation. The hostage situation is when malevolent forces have a group of people in captivity that they intend to kill unless action is taken. Germany in World War II is a great example of this. If someone did not act, Germany was going to exterminate every Jew in Europe. Since killing is the inevitable result either way, this situation demands action by Christians. Those Christians, however, must go in knowing the weight and seriousness of what they are doing. They are violating God's commandment and hoping that God will vindicate them. Only a person convinced of the righteousness of his action will take part in this kind of an offensive. Again, this is no place for self-righteous jingoism. One must approach his action with sober judgment.
2) The second case is a modified version of the hostage situation: self-defense. Self-defense is a modified version of the hostage situation in that the hostage is yourself. Again, great seriousness and humility are necessary when approaching such a situation.
I think these two situations are the only two where exceptions that can be allowed. I recognize that I am giving perhaps too much wriggle room in the hostage situation, but that is a risk I am willing to take, as I do not feel that every war is unjust. Some will contend that the Iraq war happened to free Iraqi citizens. An attempt to secure freedom or democracy or any pre-emptive motive does not meet the standard of the hostage situation. The equation must be as follows: there must be a group, in power, who wishes the death of a group of people and has no reasons not to kill them. The killing must be imminent.
That's why the Iraq war fails the test. There was no clear evidence that Americans or Iraqis would have died if Saddam Hussein remained in power. Since then, many Americans and Iraqis have died without clear purpose, especially after the WMDs were never found.
This description of my theory of war came out of my dissatisfaction with just war theory, which prevails in Christian circles but has only a tenuous connection with Christ. Please send coments, questions, or anything else as I am still trying to refine it.
The call of Christ begins with a fundamental divorce from the prior way of living. We see with this in Peter dropping his nets, or Paul becoming a missionary. In Luke 9:57-62 Christ himself sets down the call to obedience that Christianity entails.
Christ reiterates the all-consuming nature of the call in Luke 14:26:
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple."In the call of Christ there is no room for earthly connections and loyalties; all must be brought under the command and word of Christ. It is said best at Matthew 6:24: "No one can serve two masters." The final call comes down to Christ and Christ alone. No peripheral commitments can be tolerated in the call of Christ.
So what's the upshot of this? This means that no national, international, or community commitments can trump the call of Christ. We are citizens of the United States, but we are first and foremost Christians. We do not make decisions as citizens, but as Christians. Flag-waving jingoism has no place in the life of a Christian. Likewise, Christians must remember that there is nothing inherantly good or Christian about the United States government. It is a Christian government only insofar as the people governing it make Christ-like decisions. As Augustine said, "In the absence of justice, what is sovereignty but organized robbery?" In this way the US government must prove itself just every day.
Reinhold Niebuhr, the neo-orthodox theologian, suggested in his book Moral Man and Immoral Society that people tend to delegate their immorality to their governments. It is nearly impossible for me to imagine killing a person, but it is much easier to vote for my government to do it for me. In a governmental decree, people find justification for their actions. Thus those who would never kill feel comfortable shooting at strangers because war has been declared.
In order properly to discuss war, we must start by stating that the government has no power to justify an action. An action is good or bad because God decrees it to be so. If that is the case, what does God say about killing? The attitude of the New Testament is clear: over and over again it states that we must accept injustice from our enemies and respond with love; this is particularly evident in the Sermon on the Mount: "But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:39)
Also, there is a specific call from God himself in the Old Testament variously translated as "You shall not murder," or "You shall not kill." I do not claim to know Hebrew so that I can intelligently comment on the issue, so I will deal with both cases.
1) If the verse is properly translated "You shall not kill," then it is simple. Killing is wrong, and no state authorization will change that. Some would counter that the Israelites did lots of killing, throughout the Old Testament, and God seemed to approve. That's true, but the Israelites had an over-riding command from God to purify the land and to stave off invaders. Israel was the promised land, and God authorized Israel to take steps to secure it.
2) If the verse is translated, "You shall not murder," then the message is still clear. Murder is killing someone unjustly. Who defines justice? God himself. Therefore a killing without the approval of God is murder. Since God only granted approval for wars fought to defend the promised land, we cannot extend this approval to any other war.
Since the coming of Christ, there is no evidence that God approves of any war, violence, or killing. That being said, I will offer two exceptions to my brand of pacifism.
1) The first exception is what I call the hostage situation. The hostage situation is when malevolent forces have a group of people in captivity that they intend to kill unless action is taken. Germany in World War II is a great example of this. If someone did not act, Germany was going to exterminate every Jew in Europe. Since killing is the inevitable result either way, this situation demands action by Christians. Those Christians, however, must go in knowing the weight and seriousness of what they are doing. They are violating God's commandment and hoping that God will vindicate them. Only a person convinced of the righteousness of his action will take part in this kind of an offensive. Again, this is no place for self-righteous jingoism. One must approach his action with sober judgment.
2) The second case is a modified version of the hostage situation: self-defense. Self-defense is a modified version of the hostage situation in that the hostage is yourself. Again, great seriousness and humility are necessary when approaching such a situation.
I think these two situations are the only two where exceptions that can be allowed. I recognize that I am giving perhaps too much wriggle room in the hostage situation, but that is a risk I am willing to take, as I do not feel that every war is unjust. Some will contend that the Iraq war happened to free Iraqi citizens. An attempt to secure freedom or democracy or any pre-emptive motive does not meet the standard of the hostage situation. The equation must be as follows: there must be a group, in power, who wishes the death of a group of people and has no reasons not to kill them. The killing must be imminent.
That's why the Iraq war fails the test. There was no clear evidence that Americans or Iraqis would have died if Saddam Hussein remained in power. Since then, many Americans and Iraqis have died without clear purpose, especially after the WMDs were never found.
This description of my theory of war came out of my dissatisfaction with just war theory, which prevails in Christian circles but has only a tenuous connection with Christ. Please send coments, questions, or anything else as I am still trying to refine it.
posted by Tim Dees at 3:40 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home