theologians and war

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by wannaJD, Mar 31, 2003.

Loading...
  1. wannaJD

    wannaJD New Member

    How do you reconcile sending your children off to kill?

    I don't mean to sound impudent, but I never studied religion much, and I don't know how I would reconcile these issues without significant cognitive dissonance if I were the deeply religious parent of a warrior.
     
  2. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Wanna,

    This is a topic that has been hotly debated for a long time. Augustine formulated the 'Just War Theory' to analyze situations under which it would be acceptable to go to war. We know from the OT that there were times God authorized conflict for justice. The NT says that if at all possible we should live peacefully with all men. This is not always possible.

    You may or may not be familiar with the theologian Dietrich Bonheoffer who was martyred by the Nazi's. A very deep and learned man he had to wrestle with these ideas in relation to the regime in Germany and a Christian's duty. As I recall he particpated in resistence to get rid of Hitler.

    The Christian History Institute quotes Bonhoeffer as saying "If I see a madman driving a car into a group of innocent bystanders, then I can't, as a Christian, simply wait for the catastrophe and then comfort the wounded and bury the dead. I must try to wrestle the steering wheel out of the hands of the driver."

    It is easy to theorize not involving oneself in conflict but that is not always possible or the humane thing to do. Someone had to stop Hitler & well meaning niave pacifists would not have done it.

    I remember an analysis of the non violence movt of Gandi & MLK. Some say that non violent resistence is the way to go. What the person pointed out in discounting this line of reasoning was that Gandhi & MLK for all of the faults of the countries (England & USA respectively) they were dealing with, were civilized & moral nations. Yes there were acts of violence but overall morality won out. The person went on to point out that if Gandi or MLK had tried the same tactics in the Third Reich they and their followers would simply have been machine gunned and ceased to exist.

    We have the rights we have because some were willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice to secure that. You enjoy relative safety at home because a police officer is willing to use violence if necessary to prevent someone from doing you harm. Luckily the cop does not debate the merits of acting.

    North
     
  3. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

    ===


    This is a hard question , and I appreciate the way it is framed. I certainly am not offended. Since I am nearly a "fundie" my concern is what Scripture says or does not say about this issue.

    Of course, I did not send my child off. He is 26 and decides for himself. However it is true that I did not attempt to raise Dan as a pacifist. His grandfathers and great uncles were in WW2, one at Pearl on a struck ship. Dan has been in the Guard for over six years. In my part of the world many people own guns for hunting, collecting, competition, or personal defense. I do too.

    One might assemble and defend two principal arguments from the Judeo-Christian Scriptures against killing or war. One is from the "Old Testament" commandment against killing. But I believe if anyone does even a minimal research it will be found that murder is the intent of the restriction; self defense is not there prohibited. So, is God's mind in the New Testament changed now and no longer allowing the self defense so frequent in the 'Old Testament'?

    Perhaps the weightier problem is the "New Testament" injunctions to love one's neighbor. However that such love has boundaries is obvious from Paul's cursing damnation upon the ones who were misleading that church in Galatians as well as Peter's treatment of Ananias in Acts. Somehow too God's love so oft mentioned in the Scriptures needs to be synthesized with God's wrath, a very hard thing to do. All are aware of the Armageddon motif wherein God leads the final battle between good and evil. I do NOT mean to say the Iraqis are the "evil ones." Nor would I say America has an unblemished record.

    Of course much of the strength of my "defense" above is connected to religious issues and it may be questioned that such argumentation justifies killing for political reasons or personal defense. I need to secularize my counter. So consider the rendering to Caesar that which is Caesar's in Matthew 22. The US Government (Caesar) proclaimed war. Or consider the parable of the landowner in that same chapter wherein the other cheek was not turned.

    True Jesus said, "Turn the other cheek," but does that mean let your little girl go on being raped or your sons murdered? It is true that in Matthew when Jesus was arrested that Peter was told not to use his sword as" those who live by the sword would die by the sword." Did Jesus mean that any self defense is living by the sword? But has any wondered why Jesus allowed Peter to carry a sword at all? To peel onions? And is self defense with a sword living by the sword? And, why in John is Jesus' remark balanced with the idea that His arrest was God's plan and that that is why Peter should not fight?

    I apologize for the rambling nature of this response. My conviction is that if my family were attacked I probably would use a gun in their defense. If I saw terrorists about to do harm others , probably I would respond. I hope my conscience is not seared, but I often carry a gun legally with a concealed weapon's permit. Once my son Dan , who was a security guard right down the road, called in fear as there were some guys acting in a threatening manner. He called the police too, but I arrived before they did. My 1911 .45 was cocked and locked and in my belt concealed. I did not have to use it as the police soon arrived. Would I have? I think so. Would that have been right in God's eyes? I'm just not sure. I am sure that in many ways I offend both Him and His people.

    Your question is profound.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 31, 2003
  4. wannaJD

    wannaJD New Member

    Re: Re: theologians and war

    Hmmm. Those are a couple of perfect examples. I believe hindsight is 20/20, however. As we go into war with Iraq, our president hasn't made it clear exactly what the motivation is, at this point in time, to go to war.

    True, we pick our battles; they are expensive. But I can't help but wonder why we pick Iraq now and not Rwanda, back then.

    Very thoughtful perspectives, and much appreciated. Thank you.
     
  5. wannaJD

    wannaJD New Member

    Re: Re: theologians and war


    Your treatment on this issue is incredibly even and thoughtful. I am still digesting everything you've written.

    You remind me that I am a victim of my own inconsistent, selfish logic.

    I have a long way to understanding how deep the impact of this question is on my life. I have not had children yet, in small part because I imagine the horror of having to result to violence to protect them.

    I imagine that as anti-violence as I am, that if one of my children were threatened or harmed, I would drop the pretense of intellectual superiority and take care of business, as they say.

    I am still thinking about this. Perhaps after some thought I will have more questions.
     
  6. kevingaily

    kevingaily New Member

    Re: Re: theologians and war


    Hi!

    I think Bill & North said it well. I would just like to add that Jesus never told the Roman Centurion or other soldiers to quite the army and become pacifists. In the NT the soldiers were simply instructed not to take bribes, and to be just etc.... Scripture also states that " the government does not bear the sword in vain, but is a terror to evil doers."

    As far as Scriptues like "turn the other cheek", and " do not resist an evil man" in the Gospels, I gather that it is more or less refering to when a person is being persecuted for his or her faith. If, for instance, The Iraqi government seizes an Iraqi Christian because they are trying to halt the Christian message, then such a person should not fight them. Why not? Because the Christian is trusting that either God will use them as a witness, inspire others, or possibly even deliver them. During the early days of Christianity the Romans tortured Christians mercilessly. Funny thing though, that as people watched the Christians die they saw their faith and love many turned to Christ. There is a quote to which I can't remember the source(Bill or North will), it was something like, " the blood of the martyers is the seed of the Church."

    Anyway, I think otherwise it's okay to defend ones self, family, neighborhood, nation, and allies.

    People tend to break down God in to compartments. God is Love..., God is Holy...... God is Just.... God is Righteous... and so forth. If focus is put too heavily on one aspect then there is a lopsided view of who God is. If someone focuses on God is love, then they will say, " God would never condone war." Yet another who focused on God's justice or judgement, may go too far the other way and say something like, " God will judge all evil and destroy infidels." God must be viewed wholly based on the revealed Word of God which is the Scriptures.

    That was a good question!! As a vet and a Christian I had to wrestle with that issue. I hope I didn't come over as being too preachy. I just wanted to share why I believe what I say. :cool:



    Kevin
     
  7. ahchem

    ahchem New Member

    Re: Re: Re: theologians and war

    I appreciate that even though you seem to be coming from a pacifist perspective your treatment of the war seems to be a contemplative and thoughtful inquiry, rather than simply lashing out at those who are making the decisions.

    Many people on this board could learn a lot from your tone.

    However, to highlight your coment above, we must in fact pick our battles. There are many things that must be considered in the choice of any battle. Is it worth fighting? Is it winnable? Is it justified? And, how will it be perceived by others? I will not seek to attempt to answer any of those quetions in regard to the situation in Iraq, I believe that time will tell us the answers, and that thoughful people can thoughtfullly differ in their answers.

    In regards to Rwanda, as you mentioned, I must say that I watched in horor as the world sat by and did virtually nothing to stop the blood-letting. I was a senior in College watching this unfold, and was sad to discover a fellow student from my college was from Rwanda. I was not sad that he was from that country, but sad for him that he was half a world away from his home, trying to better himself and eventually take back useful knowledge to his home country.... and yet, he litterally did not know if his family was alive or dead.

    So why did the US sit by and do nothing in Rwanda? All I can offer is a few words: Clinton, Somalia, perceived unilateralism, intervening in interal affais of another nation.... Make of those what you might, but the opinion of the rest of the world toward the US in 1994 was not that different than it is today. And what of the rest of the world? They did the same thing that the US did, nothing.

    So today the Third infantry is within 50 miles of Baghdad. Are they in the right place? You have to decide that for yourself. Are they doing something? Yes. What is the rest of the world doing about Saddam Hussein (a man who has performed actions a vile as anything done in Rwanda, if on a smaller scale)? For most countries, nothing. Who is right? ....?

    Regards,
    Jeff Welch
     
  8. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    Kevin's first paragraph speaks for me, too.
     
  9. Christopher Green

    Christopher Green New Member

    thanks for this forum

    I appreciate this forum for this reason. Concerted and tough questioning when it is appropriate.

    Right now, even I (busy with credentialing and second BA, currently amassing what totals to 37 credits) can't get away from the news. The war is seriously omnipresent.

    I just want to point out that in the OT "lex talionis" or what is often called the "law of retaliation" is what Jesus negates in Matt. 5. This "lex" points out in Scripture that the logic of victimization can, and indeed often does, become a weapon. That is, when we are attacked (lose an "eye"), because of the perception of self-centered autonomy caused by sin, we victims make ourselves the independent principle of justice to correct wrongdoing. This "lex" is a law FOR the victims, teaching them not to transgress it and get caught in a cycle of violence, repeating the ill concealed rage of the oppressor.

    This "law" shows the general disposition of man without the cross of Christ, caught in a cycle of violence. This general religion of self-centered justice and retribution is what was limited in the law, and now Christ cancels it on the cross.

    It may be the case that this is a just war, but it is always difficult to perceive the "justice" that this situation calls for when we are, in fact, victims of the aggressive campaign currently underway by bin Laden and his folk. I think the new version of justice (that Christ replaces the "lex" with) may possibly allow for a "just war," but that justice can only be verified in this war if we show that the justice done is only done with the goal of ultimately embracing the enemy and bringing them also into the kingdom of God. I mean, while we were enemies, Christ died for us. So too, our way of dealing with enemies needs to conform to Christ's way if we are to identify with His death.

    So how is that done if one apparently needs to go to war, like this case? If we intend to homogenize the enemy after the war, to make them "like" us in our western individualism, then we are making peace in an artificial and worldy way, trusting in human methods to remove hostility. That is a strategy that is not unlike the "precept centered" aproach of the OT.

    Bush's war, as I understand it, is for two reasons. Disarmament and regime change. I disagree with the latter. I think disarmament is the necessary prerequisite of justice to reopen the relationship with the Arab world after 9/11. However, regime change is, as far as I can tell, homogenization of their culture as well. Homogenizing the "other" is not unlike the precept centered approach of the OT, the perspective that I think Paul would say is centered "in the flesh."

    Chris
     
  10. kevingaily

    kevingaily New Member

    Re: thanks for this forum

    Hi Chris!

    You bring up some good points! Thanks for the angle.
    I'm just wondering if my not retaliating against someone who slanders me or robs me, etc... is the same as on a national level. Do you believe it was right or wrong that we went after the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden? Were we retaliating or bringing justice? This isn't a trap :) I'm just curious as to what you think divides the righteous from the profane. If the police hunt down a killer are they wrong to do so? Should we "turn the other cheek?"
    Again, I do agree that we as Christians shouldn't be retaliatory. I'm just curious as to where the line is drawn. As stated in earlier posts in the NT there are Scriptures like, "the government doesn't bear the sword in vain." I also see a lack of Scripture telling soldier's, who served both as military and as police, to try to quit the military. They were the "arm" of the government.
    Anyway, I'm mainly speaking in general terms, not trying to focus on the War with Iraq, just the principals of the Scriptures concerning pursuing justice and wrongful retribution.

    One last thing I want to say is that while I agree we shouldn't be trying to "Westernize" other countries. Freedom and mercy of the oppressed is very close of the heart of God. That is all through out the Scriptures. Sadam has murdered hundreds of thousands of people. They are enslaved. I greatly feel for their plight.

    Thanks!


    Kevin
     
  11. kevingaily

    kevingaily New Member

    Re: thanks for this forum

    Hi Chris!

    You bring up some good points! Thanks for the angle.
    I'm just wondering if my not retaliating against someone who slanders me or robs me, etc... is the same as on a national level. Do you believe it was right or wrong that we went after the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden? Were we retaliating or bringing justice? This isn't a trap :) I'm just curious as to what you think divides the righteous from the profane. If the police hunt down a killer are they wrong to do so? Should we "turn the other cheek?"
    Again, I do agree that we as Christians shouldn't be retaliatory. I'm just curious as to where the line is drawn. As stated in earlier posts in the NT there are Scriptures like, "the government doesn't bear the sword in vain." I also see a lack of Scripture telling soldier's, who served both as military and as police, to try to quit the military. They were the "arm" of the government.
    Anyway, I'm mainly speaking in general terms, not trying to focus on the War with Iraq, just the principals of the Scriptures concerning pursuing justice and wrongful retribution.

    One last thing I want to say is that while I agree we shouldn't be trying to "Westernize" other countries. Freedom and mercy of the oppressed is very close of the heart of God. That is all through out the Scriptures. While I would't retaliate against someone who attacked me or my family, I would defend them to the death. Defence of family isn't retaliatory, but part of my calling from God to provide for my family. I provide safety, among other things. Sadam has murdered hundreds of thousands of people. They are enslaved. I greatly feel for their plight. I don't hate Sadam or anyone, but the man needs to be brought to justice. How many more should he murder before someone says stop! Afterwards, let the Iraqi people decide how they want to run their own country. Not us.

    Thanks!


    Kevin
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 2, 2003
  12. cdhale

    cdhale Member

    Re: Re: thanks for this forum

    This is an important point in this discussion, both in this forum and elsewhere. I think some people really misundertand this fact (or else I do).
    Jesus DOES speak of turning the other cheek. Who was he talking to? It really seems to me that this, and other such directives are intended to be followed by those who are followers of Jesus. Individuals and probably collectively the church are to live this way. I don't see how a rule of life for a Christian or even the entire Christian church can be applied to a government (unless it was theocratic...).
    So my conclusion would be that as terrible as war is, there is a place and time for it. It would fall into the category of a "national" issue and therefore the church should refrain from declaring war on anything (except our spiritual war). Let the governments handle all "war declaring" :D .
    I guess the issue of a Christian serving in the war would be a stickier subject. My personal conclusion is that it is OK for them to do so. I know many fine Christians that disagree with my conclusion.
     
  13. Christopher Green

    Christopher Green New Member

    Thanks Kevin:

    I like your honest questions, and I thank most everyone on this forum (especially Bill) for just being plain honest. I don't see myself letting another man rape my wife, or kill my children (when I have them) etc...

    In terms of general criteria I think I can answer your question with what my position is on the "justice of justice." I think we might agree that the "lex talionis" shows that perceptions of justice are clouded by the cycle of violence. Besides, it's common sense.

    So I think "justice" is "just" when the attempt to apply it is girded by the underlying motivation or attitude towards the "other" or the "enemy" (the "outsider" or "less valuable" person that one's indigenous culture resists). I think one has to have the motivation to embrace, welcome, bring the "other" into the kingdom that undergirds the attempts made at justice. That's why I agree with disarmament, because it is a necessary thing to continue and keep the relationship alive. However, I don't agree with homogenizing Iraq into a westernized culture, because that is an act of cultural dominance, not welcoming the "other" but dominating them. It is not challenging the other to become part of the kingdom, or bringing him into the kingdom, embracing (etc.)... it's artificially making him/her agree with the same humanistic construct you do to pretend "peace." Granted, if current western culture was the kingdom of God, then homogenizing them would be right. However, since the fall, homogenizing has been the dominant social trend that shows Adam's self-reliance.

    Since true peace is only achieved in the cross, justice done in the spirit of loving the enemy (not destroying) is just with the aim of embracing him/her and welcoming him/her into the kingdom.

    How that plays out in practical circumstance, literally, God only knows...
     
  14. kevingaily

    kevingaily New Member

    Hi Again!

    Again, you bring up some good points.

    I do know that in Isaiah God speaks of bring down one kingdom and raising up another. If not for Alexander the Great, there wopuld be no Koine Greek infused into the then "civilized" world. This would have made the spread of the gospel much harder. Rome came in and built a superior roadway system which made for better transportation which sped up the spread of the Gospel. Who's to say that right or wrong, God won't use this war to open the way for more to hear the good news and come to faith in Christ? God is soverign. I don't say that God enjoys death and destruction. Quite the contrary. He says in the OT that He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. Now I know that "wicked" is a strong word in today's society, but ultimately it's saying "unsaved." He so loved the world that He died...... Yet God has chosen to use nations to bring justice to others all throughout history.

    The million dollar question is how this affects the Christian. I believe in justice for the Lord does, however, not retaliation on a personal or Church level. If I'm wronged say by someone who robbed my house, justice states, "I should call the police", while retribution says, " I'm gonna get you!" Self defence is fine, but after the fact, the time for personal retribution isn't called for. Now it's for the authorities to handle the crisis or situation. Even the apostle Paul used his citizenship as a Roman to stop an unwarranted beating. So clearly, he understood law and legal rights.....and used that knowledge to good avail! Sometimes, though, he chose not to stand up for his rights. Perhaps, he thought that showing mercy at that particular moment would help break down the barriers that kept them from Christ. I wouldn't always be quick for justice either. I let a lot slide. Heck, if God nailed us for every time we blew it where would we be? David said, that "if the Lord should marked our iniquities who could stand, but there is forgiveness that you may be feared." So while I am for justice, there should be room for mercy, whenever possible. Sadam, I feel, has had plenty of mercy given and he trampled on it. Therefore, justice demands being heard.

    Anyway, thanks again for your thoughtful post. Take care & God bless you :)


    Kevin
     
  15. kevingaily

    kevingaily New Member

    Re: Re: Re: thanks for this forum

    Hi cdhale!

    I tend to agree with your post. The Church's sword is of the Spirit, the Government's is of cold steel. We render unto Caesar what is his and to God....His. Both, however, done with the knowledge that it's to God our final alleigence belongs, and never shall we transgress the Spirit for the Government.

    Take care!



    Kevin
     
  16. cdhale

    cdhale Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: thanks for this forum

    Were you reading my mind?? Your words are my sentiments exactly. Sorry, I forgot to sign the last post...

    clint
     
  17. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

    And now to stir the "placid" pool:

    Chris, Clint (and Kevin too?) have alluded to portions of the Sermon on the Mount as authoritative today. But I wonder if they could respond to the dispensational opinion that said Sermon primarily is intended for the "Kingdom Age" not the Church Age? For the non theo folks Dispensationalism, which is a very large segment of fundi/evangelical Christianity today, is a view that divides history into stages of man's responsibilty to revelation and postulates varied economies in the outworking of God's program [Ryrie in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 321,322].

    This view that the Sermon primarily is applicable to the Millenium --not to today-- is expressed by Ryrie in his Biblical Theology of the NT , 79. One of the better known proponents of the view is Chafer, a founder of Dallas Theo Sem, who writes re the Sermon that , "as a rule of life, it is addressed to the Jew before the cross and to the Jew in the coming Kingdom, and THEREFORE IS NOT NOW IN EFFECT."[my caps, see: LS Chafer, Systematic Theology , vol 5:97]...[of course, Chafer believes the Kingdom was offered by the earthly Jesus, was rejected, but will come at Christ's return].

    Were Chafer correct, then, any principle based on that passage of Matthew chapters 5-7 which is applied to this thread's issues may be suspect. Perhaps, then, the Sermon has nothing to do with current wars , retributions, or self defenses?

    I do not necessarily agree with Chafer, but am feeling unusually cantankerous today! :D Whattcha think?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 3, 2003
  18. kevingaily

    kevingaily New Member


    Hi Bill,

    My only response would be that the principles in the Sermon on the Mount are echoed in other NT writings like the Pauline Epistles, and I believe First John. Also, the early church fathers followed the same principles, even for hundreds of years after the Scriptures were given. (ref Fox's book of Martyrs for examples, as well as the church history section of Halley's Bible Handbook) Well, at least for the most part. Again, I do believe in "just war" but as stated in the previous posts there is a difference between justice and retribution; between defence and handling persecution.... you got the picture from those previous posts;)


    Kevin
     
  19. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 4, 2003
  20. Christopher Green

    Christopher Green New Member

    Hey Bill

    Greetings Bill,

    do you subscribe to the postponement of Matt. 5-7 as in Ryrie?

    My best reading of the sermon in the context of Matthew's gospel is that there are five discourses in Matt, among them the first being Matt. 5-7. Compositionally, I think Matthew structured them as "five" because it had some kind of symmetry, and some say perhaps this structure was an allusion to the five books in the Torah. Who knows?

    Jesus' injunction in the Great Commission is "...teaching them everything I have commanded you," I take to be a reference to the five discourses. So, as far as I can tell, Jesus' resurrected perspective and injuction, including the Great Commission, makes the Sermon normative as part of the same shebang.

    I honestly don't know. Just a thought.

    Blessings in Christ, Bill. Keep fighting the good fight. Especially with respect to your dissertation.

    And by the way, that particle in 1 Cor. 14 still rocks my world.

    Blessings,
    Chris
     

Share This Page