[…] Paul taught in 2 Corinthians the Christian position on weapons and war: “For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world.”[1] The Christian weapons are persuasion and reason, not the instruments of this world that are used only for killing and maiming fellow image-bearers of God who we are commanded to love.
Fortunately, very few Christians would actually attempt to defend the blood-soaked centuries of church-sanctioned violence and massacre. But at the same time, far too few are out front confessing and apologizing for the sins of our predecessors. And far too few are emphatically reminding the world that Christians who bear the sword aggressively even today misrepresent Christ, and that there exists a principled remnant of peacemakers that hopes to repair the image of Christ in the world by being faithful to his teachings.[2]
Perhaps the most important fact is this: while few Christians would defend Christian conquest, far too many still operate with the same fallacies that led to the centuries of violence. The idea that violence is redemptive. The idea that simply making disciples is not enough. And that Christians should try to make the world a better place by partnering with the empire and perpetuating its conquest. That there is such a thing as a Christian empire.
No doubt, many Christians have good intentions in their promotion of militarism. They do believe that violence is redemptive, that America is God’s instrument to liberate people and do His will. So this is not to say that Christians who have promoted America’s wars are evil. God judges the heart.
But, regardless of the motives of good Christian brothers and sisters, this issue is of supreme urgency. To the extent that American evangelicals marry themselves to a nation, a flag, a military, an empire…they divorce themselves from the un-adulterated devotion that we are called to have for Christ and his Kingdom. Has the Bride been lured by another husband? Have we married ourselves to the sword and betrayed Christ and his Kingdom Way? Don’t forget that it is Satan and his “beast” system, in Revelation 13, where we see the use of force to impose the will of the devil upon people.[3] Christians enter dangerous territory when we pick up the sword to use force and coercion, even if we are attempting to bring good to the world. God does not need that kind of help; He simply calls us to be faithful to the way of Jesus.
Those Loud Christian Voices: Are they drowning out Christ?
Calls for violence are sadly still voiced by the Christian leadership of the religious right today. Following 9/11, the late Jerry Falwell stated what the Christian approach ought to be toward al Qaeda and Muslims who see themselves as violent opponents of the American empire: “Blow them all away in the name of the Lord.”
Blow them all away in the name of the Lord. In the name of Jesus? Where in the New Testament can one find even a hint of support for making such a statement—that Jesus’ followers would be “blowing people away” in his name?
This is not to say that it is improper for a government to apprehend terrorists, but how can a Christian view this as a distinctly Christian activity, a New Testament-sanctioned activity? Where is violence found in the Kingdom way of Jesus?
What would Jesus do in response to the emergence of foreign rivals, who threaten the American monopoly of power? According to Pat Robertson, Jesus would assassinate foreign presidents.[4]
And most ominously of all, Pastor John Hagee has several times called for a war of aggression against Iran, a version of warfare that he labels “pre-emptive:”[5]
The United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God’s plan for both Israel and the West… a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation… and [the] Second Coming of Christ.[6]These are no small-time preachers. These are three of the most widely recognized Christian leaders in the country. They made these statements and others like them in public and in the context of Christian ministry. And apparently, they believe that killing people is a form of Christian service. They believe the same lie that Constantine and his successors believed…that violence can be redemptive, and is a legitimately Christian activity.
But they aren’t the only ones. Countless mockingbirds have arisen, carrying the Christian militarist banner forward. Most notably is Rod Parsley, pastor of a 12,000-member flock in Ohio. Parsley calls Christians into a literal “holy” war against Muslims. His statements, like Hagee’s, are chilling.
From the pulpit, he has called for waging a violent crusade against image-bearers of God who happen to be captives to the deceptions of Islam. This literal war should “destroy Islam.”[7] And he isn’t talking about evangelism and discipleship.
He dehumanizes and misrepresents 1.3 billion Muslim people when he states broadly, from the pulpit, that, “Islam intends, through violence, to conquer the world.”
Christianity has been at war (the New Testament church wages war?) with Islam for centuries, according to Parsley. America has a “divine purpose” in this war. “America was founded in part with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed.” The theological and historical errors in this statement by Parsley alone are voluminous.
Parsley criticizes truths that are at the heart of Jesus’ message—loving our enemy and being peace-makers—when he mocks the concept of, “We ought to just all get along.”
In fact, Parsley would just as soon reverse the progress that America made through the ratification of the Constitution and the freedoms it protects. To Parsley, there's no coexisting with Muslims. Appalled at the concept of freedom of religion and property rights in America, he laments, “Your government and politicians and preachers want you to snuggle up next door to them and allow them to build a mosque next door to your church.” So…would Parsley criminalize the building of mosques in the vicinity of a church?
In reality, Christians should “snuggle up” with people we are seeking to reach with the Gospel. Jesus “snuggled up” with all sorts of unsavory individuals in his ministry. He was known as a “friend of sinners” because of how he associated so closely with “the sick” rather than “the healthy.”[8]
Are we called to make disciples by outlawing Islam and killing or converting 1.3 billion people in some Christian Jihad?
Or are we called simply to love and to serve…even when enemies place themselves in violent opposition to the Gospel?
One could argue that killing only in a directly and overtly defensive way is acceptable for the Christian. One could argue that maintaining a cautious “Just War Doctrine” might be a theologically defensible position for a New Testament Christian to hold. The New Testament Christian might legitimately be justified when supporting or participating in a war if it fits the historic definition of a just war that Christian theologians have articulated for centuries. But Christian militarism is simply not biblical. Using force to spread goodness is not Christian. Killing for the Cross is contradictory. In fact, Christian militarism, even in its 21st century manifestations, is diametrically opposed to the way of Jesus. It is the opposite of the Gospel of the Kingdom.
But even for Christians who uphold the natural right of self defense and the Just War Doctrine, resorting to violence should still take a back seat to the advancement of the very clear teachings that Jesus gave us on non-violence. How much of the New Testament is devoted to arguing for the use of violence in self defense? On the contrary, how much is devoted to teaching Christ-followers to live a life of radical love like Jesus did? Non-violence is the way of Jesus. If the Christian is going to participate in violence, it should be as a very last resort and should be a strange anomaly in the Christian’s position on the issue. Advocating war should be the exception, not the rule.
Unfortunately, Christians have come under the influence of the Hagees and Parsleys of our day, and have accepted the fallacy that aggressive violence is acceptable and even redemptive. Many now even believe a teaching completely foreign to the Scriptures—that the American and Israeli militaries are God’s modern versions of Old Testament Israel. Throwing off even the shackles of the Just War Doctrine, Christian militarists are freeing themselves entirely from the Kingdom of Heaven, and merging once again with “holy” empire.
This is not the Kingdom that Jesus brings to us. […]
The Just War Doctrine Versus the Crusade Theory of Warfare
But Hagee is not the only one arguing that America has a special relationship with God. It is a common theme among the religious right that the American government has a covenant with God, and that we are a chosen nation…this amounts to a modern version of a Constantinian worldview. Since America has this special covenant with God, the wars of the American government are always righteous.
The logic of empire, or Christian militarism, will always subvert not only Jesus’ teachings on non-violence, but also the historic Just War Doctrine. Reasonable Christians might disagree on the matter of whether there is such a thing as a just war for the Christian to participate in. Some will argue that Jesus’ requirement of absolute non-violence is clear enough, and we should be purely pacifist. Others will point to Jesus’ admonition for the disciples to carry two swords among the twelve of them (and assume that those swords were for defending themselves against bandits or other aggressors) and teach that Christians can use force in defense.
But for the most part, just war theory, first articulated by Saint Augustine, has become a guide for Christians when it comes to discerning whether a war is just or unjust. A guide that most Christians have adopted.
To be specific, just war theory does not permit warfare to be aggressive in nature. A war must be defensive. The amount of defensive force employed must be the minimum necessary, and it should be proportional to the level of force of the aggressor. It must be waged as a last resort. Innocent lives of non-combatants cannot be taken. And it must be declared by the proper legal authority, which in America, would be the Congressional war-declaration power.
After examining this doctrine, it is clear that most of the popular “Christian” ideas about America’s place in the world represent a radical departure from the historic Just War Doctrine.
Arguing that “the best defense is a good offense,” or that we need to “go on the offensive” to kill those who might eventually want to do us harm is not a biblical posture.
Arguing that America is God’s chosen nation to rid the world of evil and spread democracy through wars that we initiate is not a biblical posture.
“America will act against emerging threats before they are fully formed” (the official Bush doctrine, enunciated in 2002[9]) is not a biblical posture.
All of these ideas deviate from the Just War Doctrine and violate New Testament teachings. Sadly, Christians in America have turned not only from non-violence, but have even abandoned the Just War Doctrine.
Thus, Michael Lienesch has described the new logic of Christian militarism as “a crusade theory of warfare.” Unlike the Just War Doctrine, the crusade theory of warfare permits Christians to engage in aggressive or “preventive” war (confronting emerging threats before they are fully formed), because, after all, America is God’s instrument of military redemption in the world.[10] Special nations like America are directed by God, like Israel was in the Old Testament, and since God maintains the prerogative to use violence to wipe out the wicked, so America can legitimately engage in “crusades” on His behalf.
In other words, America has an extra-biblical covenant with God that our “prophets” Robertson and Hagee have somehow divined. And this exceptionalism then exempts the American government from biblical standards of justice. Just War Doctrine has been replaced by the crusade theory of warfare.
But this is moral relativism—normally an idea so adamantly (and rightly) opposed by conservative Christians. Why do we not apply the absolute standards of right and wrong to our government? “My country right or wrong” is not a defensible Christian position. But many Christians fall into this trap of putting the state above God and biblical teaching.
Rus Walton in One Nation under God demonstrates perfectly for us the intellectual hoop-jumping that Christians go through to defend military aggression in the name of Jesus, the Prince of Peace:
Our Savior and our King instructs us to love our enemies. Yes! But nowhere in Scripture, nowhere, does the Lord God tell us to love His enemies…In the final analysis, He must lead us against the foe, at home and abroad. In the meantime we go forth—commissioned, instructed, inspired—to seek dominion in His name and for His holy sake.[11]Mr. Walton, who has commissioned and instructed “us” (the Christian Church?) to violently dominate pagans? Are our presidents prophets?[12] What New Testament sanction do we have for this mentality?
And loving our enemies, but killing God’s enemies? Really? I must have missed the place in the Gospels where Jesus drew limits around our love or where we’re given permission to put our love on hold and begin to hate and to kill…just so long as the people we hate and kill are God’s enemies. And even if you accept his argument, it begs the question—how do we discern who is an enemy of God? Aren’t all non-believers enemies of God?[13] So we no longer have to love non-believers, but instead we should “dominate” them all and kill them in modern crusades? Wow. […]
[1] 2 Corinthians 10:3-4
[2] Of course, that is not to say that any “faithful remnant” is perfect either. We should all continually re-evaluate our hearts, our motives, and our actions. It’s quite easy to point the finger at Christian militarists as a cover for our own sin.
[3] People are forced to worship the beast by having their buying and selling rights stripped from them if they refuse to worship him. This is the famous “mark of the beast” scenario.
[4] Namely, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela
[5] Pre-emption has been a traditional doctrine of international relations whereby Nation A may legitimately attack Nation B, if indeed an IMMINENT attack is forth-coming from Nation B. Our government has called the attack on Iraq “pre-emptive,” and those who favor attacking Iran call their desired attack “pre-emptive.” Was Iraq about to attack America? Is Iran about to attack America? No. In reality, these are not pre-emptive strikes, but preventive strikes. A preventive war is considered a war of aggression, according to international law. This is why advocates of such wars use the term “pre-emption.” Otherwise, they would be admitting that they’re committing war crimes.
[6] “The Religious Right’s New Bugabear,” Online Journal, March 23, 2007, http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/printer_1880.shtml
[7] This and subsequent quotes are recorded in the publication, Mother Jones, which is a leftist publication. Several of Parsley’s statements were also reported by ABC.
“McCain’s Spiritual Guide: Destroy Islam,” March 12, 2008, Mother Jones, http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-rod-parsley-spiritual-guide.html
“McCain’s Pastor: Islam is a ‘Conspiracy of Evil’,” May 22, 2008, ABC News, http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4905624&page=1
[8] Luke 7:34 and Luke 5:30-32
[9] George W. Bush, The National Security Strategy of the United States, September, 2002, http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nssall.html
[10] Michael Lienesch, Redeeming America: Piety and Politics in the New Christian Right (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1993), p. 216
[11] Rus Walton, One Nation Under God, (Thomas Nelson Inc; Rev Sub edition: 1987)
[12] George W. Bush is actually reported as having stated that God “inspired” or “told” him (depending on the source) to attack al Qaeda and/or Iraq. One source quoted him as saying: “God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike Saddam Hussein, which I did.” The other quoted him as saying: “God inspired me to hit al Qaeda and so I hit it. And I had the inspiration to hit Saddam, and so I hit him.” Washington Post, October 14, 2005, “George W. Bush and the G-Word,” by Al Kamen. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/13/AR2005101301688.html
[13] More likely, Christian militarists would argue that the enemy of the American government is the enemy of God. If he were writing in the 21st century, he would probably say that Muslims are the enemies of God that Christians should kill.
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Your Thoughts?