Well, Jeremy this is a big one to tackle. Paul Pace brought up a number of interesting moral questions and scenarios in the last thread. They are so numerous and so important to discuss I thought we should dedicate some blog time to this thorny issue of torture, war, and morality. Wrapped up in this complex issue are two sub-issues that I want to focus on here: According to the Bible, what is an individual Christian's opinion to be about this? And according to the Bible, what does God want Government's role and opinion to be of this?
I feel that it's very important for these issues to be addressed Biblically, and not just anecdotally. In your friend's, friend's blog: thomerica.com/reformanda/2007/06/torture-eucharist.html he makes some biblical points but most of his points are political and are akin to the America hating, anti-capitalist rantings I would find on any liberal fringe website. Be careful about what you ingest. There are many things that claim to be morally-based, or Christian based, but really they are just more ideologies wrapped up in a guilt-laden, religious package. "There is no condemnation to those who are in Messiah".
For example, he is incredulous at the idea that there could be any kind of plurality of opinion among Christians on this very complicated issue. He asserts that any Christian who makes exceptions with certain circumstances of torture or war must be bigotted against "inferior ethnicities", blinded by the "pathology of imperialism", or simply "antichrist". These are all huge straw men that we must agree to denounce if we are going to have a thoughtful discussion. There may be some that arrive at a pro-war or pro-torture position because of those repugnant beliefs, but that's not me. So let's agree that we won't name-call here.
So, if I understand correctly, the central idea of Christian pacificism, (at all costs) is: since Christ suffered to redeem the world, so should we. I hope that's a correct assumption, because that's what I'm going to deal with here. My response to that is "yes" and "no". There is "denying ourselves, taking up our cross and following Jesus", but there is also the religious spirit that was at work in the pharisees. They extended the rules and regulations of the Torah denying themselves all sorts of conveniences, and God given pleasures out of a religious spirit. The Lord hated this tremendously. This pharisaical spirit is what made them mad when Jesus healed on the Sabbath. So what suffering, or burdens, do we take and what burdens do we not take? Only the ones the Lord gives us!!!!! We do not place these burdens upon anyone. We are not the Holy Spirit.
Let me deal for a moment on the economic dimension of this since it was connected to war in that blog. Your friend's, friend is playing upon good-hearted, peace-loving people with a message of guilt who's aim is to deconstruct America's military might, and economic might. These two American assets have been causes of the greatest spread of freedom in the history of the world. Within the last 75 years our military and economy have defeated some of the most oppressive regimes, many times without firing a single missile. Our free market trade policies have given countries we don't really agree much with, a reason not to attack us. Our military has intervened in genocidal tragedies to re-establish order. When we defeat a country militarily, we spend billions of our own dollars to rebuild that country. Then we hand it back over to their people so that they can determine their own destiny as a free nation. Never has a nation had so much might, and wielded it with such restraint as the United States. Please acknowledge the good that America has done.
Now, I certainly understand that a consumerist mentality can be used as a form of escape, and ultimately distract a person from what's really important. But, that doesn't mean that the entire capitalist system must be dismantled, and replaced with a socialist economic policies. Worse than rampant consumerism, is government tyrrany where they decide what I get to keep from my own labors.
Now, to the idea of extreme pacifism. Let's take it individually first and then governmentally. If someone is attacking an old lady, and you have the power to physically stop them and don't, I would see that as immoral. Maybe, you'd say Jesus would take the beating for her, so you'd offer the assailant that opportunity. The problem is that she didn't deserve the beating and neither did you. It's UNNECESSARY suffering!!!! What Jesus did for us was NECESSARY suffering because we all deserve the penalties of sin. I cannot solve poverty by renouncing my economic assets. I cannot solve hunger by never eating again. I cannot stop the violence of a terrorist by throwing down my arms. As a Jew, it is very clear to me that when my ancestors peacefully went to the concentration camps, and then the gas chambers it did not stop their awful fate. That brand of hatred is what is in the hearts of the radical Islamic terrorists. They kill anyone who will not cow to them; including targeting the mosques of their own people.
You probably disagree with much of what I've said, and I don't think I addressed everything that I said I would, but it's late. I hope that I've said enough so you see that it is possible for a Christian to truly believe that war is not always immoral and not always in conflict with the Christian Faith.
-Paul B.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hey Paul, I just want you to know I read what you said, and I will respond tomorrow or the next day. You bring up serious points of discussion and I will look forward to further dissection.
Hey Paul, whats up?
First, let me say that I do not agree with everything about "pacifism", including the word. I believe the words should be, "active peacemaking", because "Blessed are the peacemakers..."
The problem also with seeing pacifism as something individually focused will mean that I have to let someone beat me up, instead of protecting myself. There is a corporate aspect, i.e. something the church does actively, but we have so much trouble thinking in those terms, because we for the most part live isolated in the suburbs, only experiencing life with our families, not as a whole church community. Think about it, how many people that go to church, have to drive there? If I only see other Christians once a week, how can I possibly be affected by what they think, feel, and experience? This creates fear, because individually I have to make decisions only based upon my own vested self-interest, thinking about my wife and family. Important, yes, but also sometimes detrimental to healthy living. Also, there are more than two choices of either "pacifism or violence". We need to be creatively influenced by the Spirit of God to understand the redemptive power of God's love. I have seen firsthand how transforming that can be, by seeing a violent person, hellbent on killing, brought into a peaceful state, where he/she can think rationally. If I immediately came at the person with force, then I would have to escalate the force, until they were subdued, which would also be possibly killing them.
I know many people would say, "Well they deserved it, but the people that think that way, live isolated, solitary lives away from the real problems, of which Jesus is redeeming."
The U.S. has created an environment where we have to globalize at the expense of everything, because there is too much at risk to not globalize.
Torture in respect to interrogation is the "least affective" way to illicit a confession. Anyone who is involved in intelligent law enforcement knows that. The best way to have anyone speak is to establish rapport with them, listening first, then speaking second. After all, the Shema say's, "Hear..." first, right?
We need to "Listen..." to what countries are saying. Every time a roadside bomb hits Iraq, we need to ask, "What would I do, if another country was driving down my streets in tanks?" Violence creates violence.
Lets be honest, God could have eliminated evil by force if he wanted to, but he chose the Cross, why would he do that? I am not greater than God, right? We need to again develop a Cross-centered theology, after all, it was the physical death of Jesus, not the spiritual, because I am not a neo-platonist, Gnostic.
Anyways, I hope to keep the dialogue going.
Well, Paul it's good to hear that there are some things we are not so far apart on. I definitely agree that whether you're talking individually or in terms of national policy you should always try the most peaceful means of resolution first. But there comes a time when the enemy becomes such a threat that the only way to end it is with force.
Take for example the Virginia Tech shooter. I wish someone would have taken that evil man out early in his rampage before he killed the dozens of people he did. There definitely are people you can talk down, and negotiate with. That's why the police force has hostage negotiators and the like, and why governments have diplomats. I totally believe in that, all I'm saying is don't take option of the use of force, and lethal force if necessary off the table. If it will protect the lives of others it would be ungodly to not intervene.
As far as peacemaking goes, once again I'm totally with you. One of my heroes is my sister, who for several years was involved in a mediation program for youth offenders. Her role was to help the victims and victimizers reconcile to the degree that they were able. She's an incredibly brave, and noble person to take on these heavy issues.
But back to the original point. Please let me know if you acknowledge that there are circumstances when the right thing to do, even though it's difficult, is to intervene with force, and even deadly force if necessary. I hope you see the difference between the violence of an attacker and the violence of a protector.
-Paul
P.S. - after you answer this I do want to get into the role of individual Christians, and the Body of Christ corporately, in peacemaking.
Post a Comment