War and Peace
I have to work at 6:30 am most weak days. I'm not complaining. I actually really like my new job. Working at 6:30 means I arrive at the Metro Station at about 6:00. Part of the ritual is that I get my free Washington Post Express paper right outside of the Van Ness Metro and read it on the way to Union Station.This morning, something in the paper hit me like a sledge hammer. The headline read:
Report: War Costs Total $1.6 Trillion
That is an astonishing figure. The article put it in perspective--that's about $21,000 for every family of four in the US.
The Iraq war's unpopularity is not new--many people probably saw that figure today and weren't a bit surprised. I guess the whole issue of war has become a bit more pertinent for me lately. I'm taking a Christian Ethics class in which we've been considering the viability of a 'just war' philosophy under the lordship of Jesus. One of our texts for the class, Richard Hays' The Moral Vision of the New Testament, argues that there is no such thing as a 'just' act of violence for those who are part of Jesus' new creation. Stanly Hauerwas argues similarly in his text The Peaceable Kingdom.
I have to say I'm becoming convinced. Both texts make a strong case that an ethic of nonviolence is a mandatory part of the Christian life. Jesus way, as both Hauerwas and Hays suggest is that of 'turning the other cheek and going the second mile.'
Hays mentioned that he often gets asked by his students, "What if none of the Christians in America had stood up to fight against Hitler?" It's easily the most frequent question that advocates of nonviolence get asked. After all, is it really 'Christian' to stand idly by in the face of obvious injustice when the only route to peace is some kind of armed conflict? In response to the question Hays, like a good rabbi, answers the question with a question of his own:
"What if none of the Christians in Germany had agreed to fight for Hitler?"
Now, that may seem like the easy way out, but I don't think it is. In fact, I think Hays is deconstructing the false either-or the original question presupposes: Violent Resistance or Doing Nothing. Bono (as cliche as it has become to invoke his name in a blog post) hit on a similar theme in the most recent issue of Rolling Stone:
"Isn't it cheaper and smarter to make friends out of potential enemies than to defend yourself against them later?"
To me, that sounds more like the way of Jesus. And, I think I'll have an easier time in the future explaining to my kids why I'm a pacifist than explaining why our family has paid $21,000 for a senseless, ill-conceived war.
Labels: DC Life, Ebenezer's, In the News, Politics, Theological Musings
posted by timmer k. at
6:28 PM
5 Comments:
I love how we often times have "passed each other by" theologically. However, on this issue I'm still on the fence… it’s no surprise when I say that for the longest time I have been a pacifist. I think I still am, but I’ve questioned as of late. It’s never even as easy as the deconstructionist question “what if German Christian’s didn’t fight for Hitler.” Fair enough in a “Christian” vs. “Christian” nation. But say you ARE Bonhoeffer for a moment. Say you DO have family and political connections that you have a legitimate opportunity at being within shot of Hitler. You have keen awareness of both the atrocities AND that no one else is acting. Christians on BOTH sides have chosen wrongly and brought me to this moment in time. If the world around me has already chosen wrongly, do I choose one act of wrong to make right?
What I really struggle with often is the foundational question to this discussion. Is this whole conceptual framework or right and wrong too reductionistic at first pass? Is there always only a right answer and a wrong answer? Or is “rightness” and “wrongness” more of a sliding scale.” If there is a slider, then the question regarding pacifism becomes infinitely more difficult. Personally, I do think that rightness and wrongness isn’t as defined as yes or no. Sometimes there is a clear right and wrong answer and we’re given clear directive—sex outside of the bounds of marriage is always wrong. Other times as far as clarity goes, not so much—or at the very least the absoluteness of the rightness or wrongness is closer to the Infinite than the Finite.
Just random and directionless thoughts.
By
Aaron, at 4:00 PM
I'm wrestling with this same issue as well. I was reading a book recently about the early church (first and second century) and they went so far as to say that anyone converting to the Christian faith had to give up his post as a soldier or guard, if that was his job. They simply would not allow men who were in any way connected to the military to even be members of the body.
The early Christians were radically opposed to any display of force or violence, trusting solely in God for deliverance, if not in this lifetime, then in the next.
So in regards to the Hitler question, do we as believers choose not to act, relying on God to show his justice in the end? Or are we used as instruments of God's justice at times? There are plenty of examples of this in the Old Testament; but has Christ's coming altered this?
When we view justice through the eyes of Christ's eternal Kingdom, I think that may change things a bit. We are no longer bound to just pursue justice in this lifetime, or in our own understanding. Our goal is not world peace, in the common understanding of the phrase. Our goal is to see Christ's name glorified, and this happens everywhere, in all seasons, in all times. Even in the worst of holocausts Christ's name may be made known and exalted; even in the most horrific of human sufferings God may reveal Himself to us.
But if I had a chance to take down Hitler, would I do it? I don't know if I could live with myself if I didn't, and I don't think I could live with myself if I did.
This is a hard issue...
By
Seth, at 2:06 AM
Good post, Tim. I'm late to the conversation, but here's my two cents:
As to the (real dollars) costs of the war, it must be balanced against what it would have cost to "contain" Hussein. This article in US News and World Report discusses the costs of doing nothing: http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2007/11/14/is-the-iraq-war-costlier-than-doing-nothing.html
I'm not an economist, but I doubt that not going to war would have put many more chickens in pots.
As to Christians fighting in combat, I get very conflicted. I'm pretty sure I could pull the trigger on Hitler, Goebbels, Pol Pot, during a time of active war. For some reason (and I don't know why,for sure)I don't think I could assassinate them in a time of non-war. I'm probably giving too much credence to official geo-political declarations of hostility as part of God's grant of government so that a fallen world can (by God's grace?) kill itself in a more organized and documentable way. In other words, governments make decisions in their own putative best interests that result, at times, in evil regimes being crushed. Other times it doesn't work out so well.
I don't take the early church's example as being normative in all areas. E.g., Act 2:42, yes; mandatory home churches, no. It's interesting that, going back to the OT (also not to be taken as normative in all ways), Joesph and Daniel honored God by serving commendably as government officials in pagan nations who presumably did some pretty unjust things to innocent people.
I think Aaron's questions about the conceptual framework are very salient. God could have included a book in the Bible about war and violence, but instead we get the OT narrative, "turn the other cheek," and "render unto Caesar what is Ceasar's and to God what is God's."
Which I think means that conscience will have to guide us in this. Perhaps one reason that we have no unmistakable direction in the Bible is that in areas of submission to worldly authorities, we need to exercise both conscience and wisdom, and not find a principle that we apply every time we feel the situation even hints at its application. My tax dollars fund part of the most cruel and unjust industry in the world, abortion, and my principles are rigid on the issue of abortion. My tax dollars are wasted on pork projects while people starve on US streets. No doubt some of the clothing I buy is produced ostensibly through slavery. So what do I do - but a wool-producing sheep, build a farm, and fall off the grid?
Or do I pay attention to the events around me and keep my conscience clear by exercising it as often as I can, without being paralyzed?
I think we need to learn to make distinctions and trust that God will give us grace and wisdom: So, when the gun-wielding crack-head breaks into my house and I kill him, my conscience may be clear; but when my daughter is dragged in front of me after we are caught worshiping in an underground church, I can "allow" our captor's to kill her because I will not deny the name of Jesus.
Life isn't static, and I think the Christian's decision to eschew or partake in reasonable must be made through wisdom and conscience.
The length of this comment far eclipses the value of its content, but I'm glad to have been part of this little discussion.
By
Nate, at 8:22 AM
correction: "buy a wool-producing sheep"
NOT "but a sheep"
Geez, I'll bet people that read that instantly heard dueling banjos in their heads.
I should apply some wisdom and proof-read my comments better.
By
Nate, at 8:26 AM
Excellent, excellent comments all around. Thanks for your extensive thoughts, guys. We should all get coffee and discuss this sometime...when we...live in the same city.
Shoot.
Someday, someday.
By
timmer k., at 4:11 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home