At some point the pragmatic test deserves its day in court. Usually its leveled against the pacifist - i.e., How can we live in a world without war? And that deserves an answer. But there is a more potent practical question the pacifist can ask: Has there ever been a just war?
Both questions appropriately demand livability, an essential component of any conception of Christian life. Something may look great on paper, adorned with proof texts and Luther quotes, but does it work? Can it be lived?
If a pair of scissors was used in a brutal murder, no one would call into question whether or not we should continue to manufacture and use them for their other effective purpose. Just because something is abused does not undermine its validity. But what if we lived in a world where scissors were only ever without exception used not for cutting paper but stabbing victims? Every single time any well-meaning school teacher sought to conduct an art project, she ended up with a room full of bodies. We might begin to wonder if scissors were such a great idea after all.
Enter "just war". Has there ever been a just war? Even if you support war without the "just" part, has there ever been a war for which a Christian could fully support its cause and fully support its means?
This might sound like an unfair test. It might sound like asking, Has there every been a completely untainted democratic process? But that's not what I'm asking. I'm not saying that we throw out democracy because its always tainted. I'm saying we throw out communism because we always end up with totalitarianism.
Enter "war". We don't abandon war for the Christian because it involves non-Christians and its always tainted by evil on both sides. We abandon war because when we set out for justice on paper we always end up with injustice. We fight for unjust reasons, with unjust means, and get unjust results. Sure there might be some mixed blessings in there. I could name a few mixed blessings under Mao or Stalin or Hitler. But collateral blessings are cause for abandonment not embodiment.
And so the pragmatic challenge stands: Has there ever been a just war?
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Why Christians Make Bad Soldiers
Stanley Hauerwas' short article "Why Homosexuals (as a Group) are More Moral than Christians (as a Group)", written during debates surrounding admitting homosexuals into the military, made a great point - the real debate should be over whether to let Christians in. True ones make dismal soldiers. He could have gone much further.
First, the more Christian soldiers espouse just war theory, the more likely they may begin thinking through what they mean by it. Sooner or later protecting oil fields or killing Muslims is going to come up short. What are you going to do with a massive standing army who keeps asking, Should we be doing this?
Second, if a soldier obeys orders and kills civilians there's the nasty business of church discipline, handing them over to Satan. That's terrible for morale.
Third, Christians will (counter-intuitively) pray for their enemies. They will demonstrate mercy over justice. They will turn the other cheek. In fact, they may get confused and accidentally do corporately what they vigorously practice privately. Or they might just realize that's a stupid distinction anyway.
Fourth, they share a commission greater than capitalism. What happens when they begin to lose gospel credibility because they keep shooting everybody? They might be forced to choose baptizing over bombing, witnessing over water boarding.
Finally, Christian soldiers are ultimately under not the commander in chief but Christ. And worse, they are striving to become more and more like him. Which means they are becoming decidedly less and less what they are defending. Old wine skins can't hold the new wine.
First, the more Christian soldiers espouse just war theory, the more likely they may begin thinking through what they mean by it. Sooner or later protecting oil fields or killing Muslims is going to come up short. What are you going to do with a massive standing army who keeps asking, Should we be doing this?
Second, if a soldier obeys orders and kills civilians there's the nasty business of church discipline, handing them over to Satan. That's terrible for morale.
Third, Christians will (counter-intuitively) pray for their enemies. They will demonstrate mercy over justice. They will turn the other cheek. In fact, they may get confused and accidentally do corporately what they vigorously practice privately. Or they might just realize that's a stupid distinction anyway.
Fourth, they share a commission greater than capitalism. What happens when they begin to lose gospel credibility because they keep shooting everybody? They might be forced to choose baptizing over bombing, witnessing over water boarding.
Finally, Christian soldiers are ultimately under not the commander in chief but Christ. And worse, they are striving to become more and more like him. Which means they are becoming decidedly less and less what they are defending. Old wine skins can't hold the new wine.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Jesus was a Sexual Predator
At the crux of the story of Jesus is the cross. Without his humiliating death we are left proclaiming "another Jesus" (2 Cor 11:4), not the one of Scripture. No wonder Paul was forced to fight super-apostles in Corinth, missionaries in Galatia, and adversaries in Philippi over its centrality. Battle fatigue prompted him to assert Christ crucified is what he preaches (1 Cor 1:23), all he boasts in (Gal 6:14), and all he knows (1 Cor 2:2).
Our present aversion to the cross centers around a question posed by a friend: Is it a symbol of God's love or God's love itself? There is a world of difference. If the cross is a symbol it is a demonstration; it is a kind gesture (albeit confusing) out there. But if it is God's definitive act of love we invite two messy concepts right here, our sin and God's wrath.
There is no ambiguity in the Scriptures. Jesus died for sins. "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God" (1 Pet 3:18). Language of imputation and balance transfers has the adverse affect of rendering what we mean by it as about as controversial as an accounting textbook. But as we approach Good Friday we are in a season to reflect very graphically and very precisely on what we mean.
On the cross, afflicted, bloodied, abandoned my God, naked, reeking of his own feces Jesus was a sexual predator. He raped women; he performed back alley abortions; he was an avid homosexual with multiple partners; he was strung out on coke; he was racist.
And just as the transition from Romans 1 to 2 indicts the self-righteous elder brother along with the prodigal, he was an online porn addict; he was anorexic; he said and did cruel things to his spouse; he insulated himself in the suburbs; he isolated himself in the city; he withheld the gospel from those who needed it most and collected trinkets for his modest home while others starved; he was proud, greedy, selfish, loving only people who were most like him.
For such a vile sinner there could be no humane execution, no heart attack in the garden or beheading before Pilate. The utter, vehement, violent wrath of God demanded abandonment, humiliation, horror, mocking, spitting, beating, whipping, thorns, nails, agony, desperation till Isaiah's prophecy could chillingly be fulfilled: "his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of the children of mankind" (52:14).
Martin Luther said, "The whole value of the meditation of the suffering of Christ lies in this, that man should come to the knowledge of himself, and sink and tremble."
Our present aversion to the cross centers around a question posed by a friend: Is it a symbol of God's love or God's love itself? There is a world of difference. If the cross is a symbol it is a demonstration; it is a kind gesture (albeit confusing) out there. But if it is God's definitive act of love we invite two messy concepts right here, our sin and God's wrath.
There is no ambiguity in the Scriptures. Jesus died for sins. "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God" (1 Pet 3:18). Language of imputation and balance transfers has the adverse affect of rendering what we mean by it as about as controversial as an accounting textbook. But as we approach Good Friday we are in a season to reflect very graphically and very precisely on what we mean.
On the cross, afflicted, bloodied, abandoned my God, naked, reeking of his own feces Jesus was a sexual predator. He raped women; he performed back alley abortions; he was an avid homosexual with multiple partners; he was strung out on coke; he was racist.
And just as the transition from Romans 1 to 2 indicts the self-righteous elder brother along with the prodigal, he was an online porn addict; he was anorexic; he said and did cruel things to his spouse; he insulated himself in the suburbs; he isolated himself in the city; he withheld the gospel from those who needed it most and collected trinkets for his modest home while others starved; he was proud, greedy, selfish, loving only people who were most like him.
For such a vile sinner there could be no humane execution, no heart attack in the garden or beheading before Pilate. The utter, vehement, violent wrath of God demanded abandonment, humiliation, horror, mocking, spitting, beating, whipping, thorns, nails, agony, desperation till Isaiah's prophecy could chillingly be fulfilled: "his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of the children of mankind" (52:14).
Martin Luther said, "The whole value of the meditation of the suffering of Christ lies in this, that man should come to the knowledge of himself, and sink and tremble."
Monday, March 23, 2009
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Arminianism and the Unreached
How does an Arminian perspective address the question of the unreached? Whole swaths of peoples in various ages have lived and died without the gospel. If Paul is right, if God has "determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place" (Ac 17:26), is he not implicated in their condemnation? If God really does chose that certain persons are born in places where the gospel is not and will not be in their lifetime, is he not condemning them?
Some would argue that this is the church's fault, not God's, that there are unreached peoples. This does not answer the question. Regardless of whose fault, if God determines someone to be born where he knows the church has and will continue to fail to bring the gospel, is he not still condemning them?
Others argue that all people have general revelation and those who respond to this will receive special revelation. Ignoring the fact that the Scriptures' most explicit language about general revelation is its rejection not its acceptance (Rom 1), there are still two problems with this. First, it harbors implicit racism. Certain ethnic groups have responded to God's general revelation and received missionaries, while other whole races have utterly failed to respond at all. Are there cultures and peoples more hardened to God than others? Second, it does not scratch an Arminianist itch of fairness. How is it fair that I heard the gospel a thousand times before I accepted it while someone else must obey God generally for a season to prove their desire to hear the gospel for the first time?
The illusion of Arminianism is that God's sovereignty is a sliding scale. But the moment you tamper with the dial, even just a hair, you lose everything. If God does not elect some for salvation, how can he possibly become untangled from the web of temporal, cultural, geographical, cultural, personal factors that formulate each person's decision to respond? If God retains any control at all his hands are instantly soiled in determining eternal fates.
God either elects who will be saved and ordains how this comes to pass or he sets creation in motion and butts out. You can't have it both ways.
Some would argue that this is the church's fault, not God's, that there are unreached peoples. This does not answer the question. Regardless of whose fault, if God determines someone to be born where he knows the church has and will continue to fail to bring the gospel, is he not still condemning them?
Others argue that all people have general revelation and those who respond to this will receive special revelation. Ignoring the fact that the Scriptures' most explicit language about general revelation is its rejection not its acceptance (Rom 1), there are still two problems with this. First, it harbors implicit racism. Certain ethnic groups have responded to God's general revelation and received missionaries, while other whole races have utterly failed to respond at all. Are there cultures and peoples more hardened to God than others? Second, it does not scratch an Arminianist itch of fairness. How is it fair that I heard the gospel a thousand times before I accepted it while someone else must obey God generally for a season to prove their desire to hear the gospel for the first time?
The illusion of Arminianism is that God's sovereignty is a sliding scale. But the moment you tamper with the dial, even just a hair, you lose everything. If God does not elect some for salvation, how can he possibly become untangled from the web of temporal, cultural, geographical, cultural, personal factors that formulate each person's decision to respond? If God retains any control at all his hands are instantly soiled in determining eternal fates.
God either elects who will be saved and ordains how this comes to pass or he sets creation in motion and butts out. You can't have it both ways.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Pacifism
In the springtime, when kings go out to battle, it is worth pleading with Christians to reconsider our prevailing ethos of war. I might as soon question the ethics of oxygen than the American military juggernaut. We have so deeply cast our lot with our armed forces that it is difficult to locate where the church ends and Americanism begins. But the Scriptures clamor to be heard on this very point and to them we must go.
There are basically two categories of warfare in the Old Testament. First, God used his covenant people Israel as an instrument of judgment on surrounding nations. It was generally total warfare, a nasty business of razing cities to the ground, sowing salt, executing survivors, kidnapping virgins, collecting foreskins, and dashing babies to bits. The second category of war was that of secular nations used by God to judge and then were judged by God for judging. It was live by the sword and die by the sword - no sooner did God judge Israel with Assyria than he judged Assyria for her wickedness in the matter (Is 10).
Contra wishful thinking, America is not the new Israel. In fact, Israel is not even the new Israel. If you are looking for support for a secular government to be used by God to judge another nation and in turn be blessed for her efforts you won't find it in the Old Testament. Try Greek mythology. If you are looking for a "just war theory" - taking the word war from the OT and baptizing it in some of the humanitarian kindness from the New - you won't find that either. Try Augustine or Geneva.
There's no space to cover Romans 13 here. Suffice to say that it would take some fantastic hermeneutical gymnastics to balance America's worldwide jurisdiction over sovereign states on the point of the sword mentioned there.
Generally a defense for warfare is drawn not primarily from the Bible but our predicament, concerning Hitler, Al Qaeda, Darfur. At best this is thinly veiled scorn for the naivety of our Lord who failed to foresee this. At worst its blatant disregard for everything he said about laying down rights and taking up the cross.
Jesus said "blessed are the peacemakers" and Paul, "for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh"; and yet somehow we've spiritualized the peacemakers and materialized warmongers. Its long overdue for the burden of biblical proof to reside with the war makers.
There are basically two categories of warfare in the Old Testament. First, God used his covenant people Israel as an instrument of judgment on surrounding nations. It was generally total warfare, a nasty business of razing cities to the ground, sowing salt, executing survivors, kidnapping virgins, collecting foreskins, and dashing babies to bits. The second category of war was that of secular nations used by God to judge and then were judged by God for judging. It was live by the sword and die by the sword - no sooner did God judge Israel with Assyria than he judged Assyria for her wickedness in the matter (Is 10).
Contra wishful thinking, America is not the new Israel. In fact, Israel is not even the new Israel. If you are looking for support for a secular government to be used by God to judge another nation and in turn be blessed for her efforts you won't find it in the Old Testament. Try Greek mythology. If you are looking for a "just war theory" - taking the word war from the OT and baptizing it in some of the humanitarian kindness from the New - you won't find that either. Try Augustine or Geneva.
There's no space to cover Romans 13 here. Suffice to say that it would take some fantastic hermeneutical gymnastics to balance America's worldwide jurisdiction over sovereign states on the point of the sword mentioned there.
Generally a defense for warfare is drawn not primarily from the Bible but our predicament, concerning Hitler, Al Qaeda, Darfur. At best this is thinly veiled scorn for the naivety of our Lord who failed to foresee this. At worst its blatant disregard for everything he said about laying down rights and taking up the cross.
Jesus said "blessed are the peacemakers" and Paul, "for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh"; and yet somehow we've spiritualized the peacemakers and materialized warmongers. Its long overdue for the burden of biblical proof to reside with the war makers.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Carey: An Unlikely Ally
I just finished S. Pearce Carey's biography of William Carey, and was surprised time and time again with some of the positions Carey took on issues. It seems the new monasticism has got nothing on this guy. Here are a few:
- Carey refused to eat sugar because, at the time, it was grown, harvested, and produced by slaves.
- Carey was absorbed in the politics of his time. As a Brit he supported the American and French revolutions.
- Carey was an avid gardener and horticulturist. When he first moved to India he supplemented the money he was receiving from England by being an indigo farmer. This infuriated the people that sent him to India, because of the potential for him to get too involved in "worldly affairs". He later founded an agri-horticultural society in India. He lamented that,
"in one of the finest countries in the world the state of agriculture is so abject and degraded, and the people's food so poor and their comforts so meagre. India seems to have almost everything to learn about the clearing of jungles, the tillage of wastes, the draining of marshes, the banking of river courses, the irrigation of large areas, the mixing of composts and manures, the rotation of crops, the betterment of tools and of transport, the breeding of stocks, the cultivation of new vegetables and herbs, the planting of orchards, the budding, grafting and pruning of fruit trees, and the forestation of timbers. Their only orchards are clumps of mangoes crowded together without judgment. The recent introduction of the potato and the strawberry suggest what might be done. Many British farms have quadrupled their produce, since they pooled their information and experience through agricultural societies."
- 6 years or so after Carey's ship had landed on India 3 families joined his mission. The families decided that they should all live together, and hold everything in common for the sake of minimizing expense and also to promote Christian fraternity.
- Despite translating parts of the Bible into 35 different languages, Carey also translated many works of Indian classic literature. One of these works is the epic Ramayana, more or less the Indian equivalent to the Iliad. This was a projected 10 volume work, but all their work was destroyed in a fire after they had completed 3 of the volumes. After the fire it had to be put down. The Ramayana project was wildly controversial in England, with Baptist pastor and friend of Carey, Andrew Fuller, calling it, "that old piece of lumber." Yet, Carey and his companions saw it as an essential element of their work.
- During some delirium Carey was having because of a leg infection he chided his doctor for wearing a red coat, thinking him to be a military officer. Carey yelled at the doctor, "How dare you come to me in that read coat? Don't you know that God Almighty has decreed that all war shall be abolished." The doctor withdrew, and returned in a black coat, but he was immediately recognized and rejected. Though he was delirious Carey never accepted that this exclamation was out of line. "There were truths in my delirium whose force I wish to feel, and for whose triumph to strive, to the end of my life."
All this, and yet his name is so rarely brought into the current holism/prioritism conversation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)