Monday
Feb122007
love your enemies
Monday, February 12, 2007 at 01:49AM
This past year I've started to become a news junkie. For that you can blame Apple Computers and the Drudge Report. I keep reading about wars and killing and torture and revenge. I fly most every weekend and am incredibly frustrated with the incompetence and screwy economics of national security. I find myself more and more thinking like a pacifist.
As stated by a number of Caedmon's fans in 2003, I am no Derek Webb. I don't have this all figured out. This post you're reading is me working these thoughts out, and I'd love your opinions.
Obviously, the war in Iraq is on my mind the most when I think about these things. I've had some good conversations from guys who have served over there and I am well aware that there is good happening in the area and that all we see in the media is the bad stuff. Just like the non-stop "news" about whats-her-name, the rich Playboy model who just died, the media reports the darkest stuff to get the best ratings.
However, it's obvious to all that the war isn't going "as well" as it was supposed to. The president said that, and he, for all his faults, always seems to say what he really thinks. But what does a war that "goes well" look like? A quick victory, I assume. But the truth is that a quick victory or a slow loss look very similar in a global sense: many, many people are killed by many, many other people.
I've had it explained to me many times how "Thou shalt not kill" doesn't apply to war, but I still have a hard time believing it. I also have a hard time believing in the idea of a "just war". What's cited as a just war is often America's involvement in WWII. Nazi-ism was terrible and the holocaust needed to end, that is so true, but America didn't enter the war to stop the Holocaust. We entered because Japan bombed us and we fought back. History is taught to us very differently than it actually happened. Much like our current war, we declared war for revenge while carrying a banner of liberation.
If America really entered Iraq because it's our job to stop dictators and genocides then why haven't we invaded Darfur or Sudan or North Korea? I don't buy the "teacher stopping the bully from picking on the other kids" bit. Not that it didn't happen, it did, but that wasn't the motivation. I'm sure it has something to do with oil and money, it always does. I'm sure it had something to do with helping people out, that's always a good thing. I'm very sure it had an awful lot to do with revenge.
But this war is flawed like any war, and I don't claim to understand any of them. What I do understand, though, is that every father killed creates an enemy out of the child. There are orphans in Baghdad and in New York City who will grow up hating the people on the other side. More killing leads to more enemies.
I was terrified and angered by the treatment of Saddam Hussein. Not that he wasn't guilty as a mob boss, he was, but they made him a martyr and that was a very bad thing to do. I was glad to see America getting as far away from that as it could. Martyrs are powerful things, and war creates many of them.
I see some of both sides though, when I really think about it. The Holocaust of Nazi Germany needed to end, as it does now in the Sudan and Darfur. The oppression of the Dalit in India needs to end. In the case of the Nazis I don't know how else you could have stopped them. Could there have been another way?
It just seems, though, that fighting just leads to more fighting. Hiroshima won the war, but at what a terrible cost. Our proud nation killed hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children. I will never see a justification for that. Somehow Japan has moved on, though the scars must run so incredibly deep.
Even if the weapons are laid down, the wars still live on in the heart. I live in the South right down the Interstate from a statue of the founder of the KKK. That war is still being fought by some people.
I ran across this article yesterday from The New Yorker. This paragraph was really interesting to me...
Since September 11th, depictions of torture have become much more common on American television. Before the attacks, fewer than four acts of torture appeared on prime-time television each year, according to Human Rights First, a nonprofit organization. Now there are more than a hundred, and, as David Danzig, a project director at Human Rights First, noted, “the torturers have changed. It used to be almost exclusively the villains who tortured. Today, torture is often perpetrated by the heroes.
That is a pretty incredible picture of us as a culture now, don't you think? They only keep putting that stuff on TV because we keep choosing to watch it. We got attacked and it seems, at least subliminally, we want to fight back.
The only real way to end a war, that I can see, is by ending the fight. For good. And that only happens one way. Not by victory, but by forgiveness. We will kill each other until someone chooses forgiveness over revenge, even over justice.
Especially as a Christian, one who believes that God chose to forgive me over exacting justice, how can I not apply that in war? Weren't we commanded to love our enemies? I don't see any grey areas there, as much as I feel I'm supposed to. I just don't. Not only do I think forgiveness is the wisest thing to do, I feel like it's the right thing to do.
Now I know that some of you readers are folks in the service. I would REALLY like to know your thoughts on this. A few of you are veterans. Please take a few minutes to write your responses to this, even if its to tell me I'm an ungrateful fool. To all of you, how do you interpret "love your enemies" as a nation at war?
I read a story by the great Wendell Berry a few months ago where the main character told how his grandfather on one side shot and killed his great-grandfather on the other. The son of the slain man stopped a lynch mob on their way to get the killer. The narrator ends the story by saying of his grandfather "I was the child of his forgiveness." I couldn't help but cry with the weight and beauty of that sentence. I want my children to live with the freedom of forgiveness. How do I start doing that?
As stated by a number of Caedmon's fans in 2003, I am no Derek Webb. I don't have this all figured out. This post you're reading is me working these thoughts out, and I'd love your opinions.
Obviously, the war in Iraq is on my mind the most when I think about these things. I've had some good conversations from guys who have served over there and I am well aware that there is good happening in the area and that all we see in the media is the bad stuff. Just like the non-stop "news" about whats-her-name, the rich Playboy model who just died, the media reports the darkest stuff to get the best ratings.
However, it's obvious to all that the war isn't going "as well" as it was supposed to. The president said that, and he, for all his faults, always seems to say what he really thinks. But what does a war that "goes well" look like? A quick victory, I assume. But the truth is that a quick victory or a slow loss look very similar in a global sense: many, many people are killed by many, many other people.
I've had it explained to me many times how "Thou shalt not kill" doesn't apply to war, but I still have a hard time believing it. I also have a hard time believing in the idea of a "just war". What's cited as a just war is often America's involvement in WWII. Nazi-ism was terrible and the holocaust needed to end, that is so true, but America didn't enter the war to stop the Holocaust. We entered because Japan bombed us and we fought back. History is taught to us very differently than it actually happened. Much like our current war, we declared war for revenge while carrying a banner of liberation.
If America really entered Iraq because it's our job to stop dictators and genocides then why haven't we invaded Darfur or Sudan or North Korea? I don't buy the "teacher stopping the bully from picking on the other kids" bit. Not that it didn't happen, it did, but that wasn't the motivation. I'm sure it has something to do with oil and money, it always does. I'm sure it had something to do with helping people out, that's always a good thing. I'm very sure it had an awful lot to do with revenge.
But this war is flawed like any war, and I don't claim to understand any of them. What I do understand, though, is that every father killed creates an enemy out of the child. There are orphans in Baghdad and in New York City who will grow up hating the people on the other side. More killing leads to more enemies.
I was terrified and angered by the treatment of Saddam Hussein. Not that he wasn't guilty as a mob boss, he was, but they made him a martyr and that was a very bad thing to do. I was glad to see America getting as far away from that as it could. Martyrs are powerful things, and war creates many of them.
I see some of both sides though, when I really think about it. The Holocaust of Nazi Germany needed to end, as it does now in the Sudan and Darfur. The oppression of the Dalit in India needs to end. In the case of the Nazis I don't know how else you could have stopped them. Could there have been another way?
It just seems, though, that fighting just leads to more fighting. Hiroshima won the war, but at what a terrible cost. Our proud nation killed hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children. I will never see a justification for that. Somehow Japan has moved on, though the scars must run so incredibly deep.
Even if the weapons are laid down, the wars still live on in the heart. I live in the South right down the Interstate from a statue of the founder of the KKK. That war is still being fought by some people.
I ran across this article yesterday from The New Yorker. This paragraph was really interesting to me...
Since September 11th, depictions of torture have become much more common on American television. Before the attacks, fewer than four acts of torture appeared on prime-time television each year, according to Human Rights First, a nonprofit organization. Now there are more than a hundred, and, as David Danzig, a project director at Human Rights First, noted, “the torturers have changed. It used to be almost exclusively the villains who tortured. Today, torture is often perpetrated by the heroes.
That is a pretty incredible picture of us as a culture now, don't you think? They only keep putting that stuff on TV because we keep choosing to watch it. We got attacked and it seems, at least subliminally, we want to fight back.
The only real way to end a war, that I can see, is by ending the fight. For good. And that only happens one way. Not by victory, but by forgiveness. We will kill each other until someone chooses forgiveness over revenge, even over justice.
Especially as a Christian, one who believes that God chose to forgive me over exacting justice, how can I not apply that in war? Weren't we commanded to love our enemies? I don't see any grey areas there, as much as I feel I'm supposed to. I just don't. Not only do I think forgiveness is the wisest thing to do, I feel like it's the right thing to do.
Now I know that some of you readers are folks in the service. I would REALLY like to know your thoughts on this. A few of you are veterans. Please take a few minutes to write your responses to this, even if its to tell me I'm an ungrateful fool. To all of you, how do you interpret "love your enemies" as a nation at war?
I read a story by the great Wendell Berry a few months ago where the main character told how his grandfather on one side shot and killed his great-grandfather on the other. The son of the slain man stopped a lynch mob on their way to get the killer. The narrator ends the story by saying of his grandfather "I was the child of his forgiveness." I couldn't help but cry with the weight and beauty of that sentence. I want my children to live with the freedom of forgiveness. How do I start doing that?
Reader Comments (46)
War is tough. I'd like to think it's entirely unnecessary, and we can simply forgive people for their mistakes and move on.
The problem being that we cannot always do that. After September 11th, we find out that the ones behind the act of killing thousands of innocent civilians are hiding away in Afghanistan, protected by the government there. In a perfect world, their would be no such safe haven for criminals of this sort. But when the government of the nation they're in protects them... something has to be done.
I wish we'd gone about things differently. I think the Iraq war was a mistake, and we should have put far more effort into Afghanistan, where our true enemies were. Saddam was a thug, but his trial and execution a horrible farce.
I've served with the US Air Force in the skies over both Iraq and Afghanistan. I may or may not be responsible for people dying in both countries. I do not really know. In intelligence, it's an odd facet to the job. I pass on what I find out, and I never really hear about it again. I would like to think I have led to the arrest of the bad guys, not their deaths. I hope I've protected our soldiers on the ground. Sadly, I'll never know.
And on the note of torture... I think it's horribly wrong, and the fact that it has happened is disgraceful. Everyone involved should be sent to the Hague. The same place Saddam should have gone to trial.
I certainly don't think you're an ungrateful fool. War is bad. I can't truthfully say I know anyone in the military who thinks otherwise. But sometimes, I feel it is necessary (in the case of Afghanistan), and other times (in the case of Iraq) a horrible mistake.
The only thing I would like to point out is that the KKK from the twentieth century that burned crosses and lynched black people was not the same as the KKK Forrest founded. They simply used the same name. The original KKK was more a boy's club than anything else, and it had more to do with resisting the Reconstruction than anything else (though admittedly they did employ racist tactics).
Also, Forrest's actual involvement is disputed. Though he did seem to sympathize with their plight early on, he never actually admitted to being a member, and actively distanced himself from the organization later on, stating that he didn't agree with their use of violence. He also renounced his racist beliefs in later years, telling black leaders that they had his support if ever they were oppressed by whites.
Sorry for the history lesson. I feel the need to defend the South whenever possible.
Isaac Asimov may have been an atheist, but I think that he was onto something when he argued that "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." But it happens.
I've become far more of a pacifist, too, mainly because I know what our equipment is capable of. That's because I do work close enough to defense, really too close for my own comfort. [Flying monkeys into space isn't all we do at work. I don't do any of that, though; I'm all about the monkeys.]
The power to wage war is a great and awesome task. For whatever reasons, be they right or wrong, we chose to do it at the time. Certainly the Law of Unintended Consequences has bitten the American action square in the ass eighteen ways from Sunday, with tens of thousands dead as a result. But just because it's all gone to crap doesn't mean we can just up and walk away at this point. I may be a quasi-pacifist, but I'm not arguing for a pull-out. Until the Iraqis ask us to leave, the situation solidifies [and I could be pushing 40 before that happens; the Balkans are still held in check by outside forces, folks], or until we lose the political will to finish what we started in nation-building, we need to stay and change tactics to do whatever will quell the violence.
You're right, though, Andy; forgiveness and grace is what's needed: in Iraq, in Israel, in our own homes. I challenged my Sunday school class this week to name a lasting peace forged out of something other than forgiveness or total annihilation. And that forgiveness and grace has got to start here at home: we've really started to become that Red-State/Blue-State binary thinking that mass media invented as a way to make their newscasts interesting. That's a powerfully dangerous way to be in a nation like ours.
Over the past five years, I've gone back and forth time and time again. Sometimes, war seems justified to me, and other times it seems ridiculous. I really just don't know. I do know that forgiveness is the only thing that can really change the world. I also know that the only person who can truly do it right is Jesus. And where does that leave us? Every day I have a different opinion.
I could try and put together my thoughts on several topics mentioned here (war, violence, symbols). However, to do that, I would certainly involve several net searches. I don't need to distill that down, you will probably benefit from the activity. Try 'Christian War'. The first link I found was a military chaplain writting on this topic in 1999.
Also, maybe John Piper's http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TasteAndSee/ByDate/2001/1180_Terrorism_Justice_and_Loving_Our_Enemies/" rel="nofollow"> Terrorism essay
I'm not sure where I am on all this, but I thought I'd add some resources to the discussion.
Forgiveness is powerful and can change the hardest heart. But I read somewhere last week that people forgive, nations do not. People turn the other cheek, nations cannot. It's an interesting thought, though I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with it yet.
Also, Christians are called to forgive (seven time seventy). But radical Islamists aren't called to forgive, are they? They're called to destroy the "infidels" in an insane jihad. They are rewarded for killing us and our children. They may not be the Nazis YET, but what if we had paid closer attention to Hitler's rise and taken stronger steps then? How many deaths could have been prevented?
All that said, we must be more radical when we encounter these dangerous "movements" in their infancy. Santions sound good, but what if we got more economically involved in a nation, to the point that our freedom could help but seep into their very way of life.
Very random thoughts.
AO,
Great post, and I can't respond to everything. But I want to share a few things.
First, the same Jesus who said, "Love your enemies" is going to return one day and strike down "the nations"--and put to death the enemies of God (see, for example, Revelation 19). So, as a matter of principle, I don't think it's impossible to love your enemies and also to make war against them, as paradoxical as that may sound. I realize, however, that two things about Jesus seem readily distinguishable from us: (1) Jesus is perfect, and (2) God has given him authority over all things. However, those distinguishing facts aren't completely accurate either. It's true, we're not perfect--but we are called to be like Christ (or "perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect"). Also, while God hasn't given us authority over all things, we will reign with Christ someday.
Like you, I don't have it all figured out, so I'm not trying to state here what I think all of that means; it's just something to think about.
Second, as far as teaching your kids about forgiveness, the only thing I know is to point them to Jesus--I know you know that, but it's worth repeating. And when I say Jesus, I don't mean pointing them only to the seemingly pacifist, "love-your-enemies", teacher-Jesus--of course point them to him. But also point them to the warrior-king Jesus, who will put to death the enemies of God and wipe away tears and end every injustice. Without the hope that God will be just--either in the cross for those who are in Christ, or in the final day of judgment for those who are not in Christ--love and forgiveness are meaningless words. In other words, without justice, there is no love, and there can be no true forgiveness.
Now, how does all that play out in the way governments should act toward one another? I guess that's the question you were asking ....
Wendell Berry is fabulous; so glad to find someone else who reads him.
That quote from _The New Yorker_ made me a little sick inside. How sad that we as a culture have reached the point where torture (and depictions of torture) is virtually commonplace. I don't want any part of that. Torture is never right, and I can't call anyone who does it a hero.
So you're saying jack bauer can't be your hero?
When we lived in Mobile, Alabama in 1991, we put our 4 year old son in a preschool at a nearby church. At the end of the year, they were having a "patriotic" graduation program and all the little boys wore blue t-shirts and white shorts while the little girls wore red t-shirts and white shorts. They all looked so cute standing up on stage. Then the program started and it was all about how the Confederacy had fought the Yankees in the War of Northern Aggression. I was horrified. Being originally from northern Ohio, I had no idea that so many people in the South still hung on to the anger from that war, and passed it on to their children. But it did help me understand something. It made more sense to me when I heard on the news that Palestinian children learn to hate Jews in school. That it is part of their curriculum. I learned reading and writing and math and social studies at school. Racism and prejudice I learned at home. But in many other countries, children are taught at home and in school from a very young age that certain other people are dirty and less than human and deserve to die. I believe this now because I saw a very mild case of this myself in my own country with my own eyes.
On an even more personal level, a few years ago I was at a small get together with some other folks from church, where we were getting to meet new people. As a part of introducing ourselves, we told a little bit about ourselves. There was a man there who proudly stated that his grandfather (if I remember correctly) had been a famous German flying ace. Totally unexpectedly, anger and hatred toward this guy welled up inside of me. My father had been a teenager on a rural farm in Poland when the Germans invaded in WWII. They took him with them to work in their camps. Somehow, he ended up with the Allied Forces and ended up coming to the US as a displaced person. He never went home again. Maybe it was all the war movies and TV shows I had watched as a kid, where the good Americans kill the bad Krauts. Maybe it was the fact that, even as a kid, I knew the movies weren't what it was really like because my Dad only talked about the war when he was drunk. This guy's relative had never done anything personally to my Dad. This guy had never done anything to me. It wouldn't have even bothered me if he had mentioned that he had been a German flying ace. It was the he was so PROUD of this fact that made me so thoroughly pissed off that I wanted to run across that nice living room in that nice house and rip the guy's heart out. I didn't, of course. But I never felt comfortable around this person, who worshipped at the same church I did. Where did that anger in me come from? Well, obviously, not from God. But I understood it because I remembered the nice church lady who talked about the evil Yankees while my son stood in blissful ignorance looking so cute and clean in that blue t-shirt and white shorts.
This is a subject that has become increasingly important to me over the last few years. I used to consider myself a pacifist. I thought that if we just forgave everyone, then the world would be a better place. I thought that mercy was always incompatible with justice, and was always the better choice. However, after studying and thinking on it, I've come to a different conclusion. Mercy and justice are compatible after all. Is it really mercy to forgive a brutal dictator when that dictator shows no repentance or remorse for his or her actions? If so, to whom is it merciful? Surely not the people who are being oppressed and terrorized. Also, I don't see how it is merciful to the dictator to allow him to continue to heap judgment upon himself by his evil actions.
I also agree with someone who said above that people forgive but nations do not. No government is called to turn the other cheek. That is a command that is given to individuals, and Christian individuals at that. The nations have been given the authority to wield the sword. Many times they do not wield the sword well, but I believe it is the responsibility of those nations to do it when it is necessary. This is where the just war theory comes into play. I'm not trying to say that the war in Iraq is just. i agree that if we entered that country for just reasons, then there are many more places where we should be intervening as well. Also, in order for the war to be just, those waging it must truly believe that it is winnable. Maybe our government thought that it would be. Maybe it is, and is just taking a long time, I don't know.
I think I'm rambling now. I actually don't even remember what all I've said, so I'm just going to stop. Hopefully what I wrote makes sense. that's all. Goodbye.
Great thoughts about "nations wield the sword." The phrase that comes to mind is "defend the constitution." Our nation is called to protect the constitution and, therefore, our lifem liberty, blah, blah.
I realize this is clear in matter related to defense (Pearl Harbor, 911, etc.) Where it gets muddier is in matters of preemption. Is attacking Iraq a true "defense"? I don't know the answer, but I am really curious about what folks think.
I've really appreciate this discussion. Thanks AO!
This is one of those questions to which I've never been able to reach a satisfactorily coherent answer.
On the one hand the commandment is clear: "Thou shalt not kill."
On the other, the Law (of Moses) itself has several offenses for which death is the prescribed penalty. Many people, myself included, see a justification for this in a certain conceptualization of justice.
But what about war, which was one of the main points of this blog entry? Defending one's self or mobilizing an army to defend a society seems like a fairly straightforward justification.
But neither defense nor justice seem to me justify much of the God-directed killing in the Old Testament. On numerous occasions God directs the leader of a state to attack another without provocation. The book of Joshua, for example, is replete with accounts of God directing Israel to attack and conquer various cities, often to the point of leaving no survivors. The "justification," such as it is, seems to be that these are pagan societies.
Are we to discern from this that "thou shalt not kill" doesn't include killing non-believers? Or that it's OK to kill those that God tells us to kill? If so, it seems to me that the commandment doesn't at all mean what it says.
Unfortunately, like I said at the outset, I can't reconcile all of this. And frankly I would love to be able to, because I have to admit that sometimes it (as well as certain other "issues") takes a toll on my faith.
Andy,
I fear that I come across as to forceful sometimes when I post on here, so I want to apologize up front if it comes across that way. It is never my intent. A couple of things:
1. To Seth Harper: I hold two degrees in history and social studies and have done a lot of study on American history...Civil War - WWII in particular. With all due respect, there isn't much that the academics don't know about Reconstruction and post-Reconstruction. The Nadir (the lowest point) for African-Americans occured in the 1880s/90s. Read WEB DuBois' "Soul of Black Folk" some time. The role of the KKK in lynchings, "voter discouragement," and other illegal acts of terrorism from that time up through the 1940s/50s is well docmented. The only thing we don't know is exactly how many bodies of African Americans and northern "carpet baggers" are eroding at the bottom of swamps in places like Mississippi and Georgia. There is a reason why D.W. Griffith's "The Birth of a Nation" is widely considered accurate. There's also a reason why it was/is so popular (and a great film on so many levels). Because it's true...scarily true. I don't think loving what the South is/was means that we need to redact history. You are right that the KKK of the 20th Century is far different than that of the 19th Century (founded for different reasons, different issues, etc. ... as was the neo-KKK or 3rd KKK of the late 20th C). But that doesn't mean that the KKK of the 19th Century was just a "good old boys" club.
2. On the topic of war...
I don't think any of what was posted here is necessarily wrong. Yes, the reason we're not agressive in Darfur is because they don't have black stuff under their feet. It would be foolish to think otherwise (and it is very angering). But, as Christians, our main sources is the Bible. I believe that you can make a case for pacifism based on Biblical convictions. And I can respect that if a person chooses to. I've tried to in the past, but I can't. The two passages that have convinced me that war can not only be necessary sometimes, but might even be right, are Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2. God made clear in those two passages that the governing authorities are ordained by Him to keep order in society. To wield the sword of justice. Sometimes that means enforcing justice and sometimes it means disciplining (in the same way that a father disciplilnes a small child because He loves him and wants him to be a better person - see Hebrews 12). God used the armies of even heathen countries in his own Word (the Old Testament) to wield his justice. The problem is not with war by God-ordained governing authorities. The problem is with the execution of war by fallen humans in a fallen and messy world. The solution is not pacifism. The only solution is Christ's return. I agree that we need to be forgiving, loving, generous, peaceful, etc. as Christ's ambassadors in this world. But we cannot bring the Kingom (other than a few patches of light here and there). Christ alone brings the Kingdom. And that's why we long and get so frustrated.
That's where I've landed on the topic. I make no claim that the war in Iraq is being conducted justly. I completely agree that just war would entail, for one, invading most of the continent of Africa (which, ironically, the reason they are in such bad shape, from an historical/global perspective is because of the long term ramifications of Western Imperialism and pullout). And the bi-product of war is always more conflict. But the problem is not whether war is permisible on a general level. At least the way I understand Scripture. God's huge concern for justice, heart for the poor, and distain of oppression can and sometimes does include war. It's humans who mess it up.
What's up with the distinction between individuals and nations/government? In America, we of all people believe that the nation/government is the people. Does that mean we dodge Jesus' command not to kill if we do it on behalf of a government? How is that possible?
Also, how does Jesus' eventual return to put all things straight give us license to get a head start? The fact that he's coming back to do the job ought to be an argument against us taking matters into our own hands. It's not an argument for the compatibility of love/forgiveness and war; it's an argument for not taking God's prerogative for our own.
At no point in Scripture are we told that it is okay to violate Jesus' commands so long as we do so in our line of work or under any other circumstances.
Isaiah 2:4-5
I think I was misunderstood. I didn't mean to argue that we should be "taking things into our own hands." That would be in severe violation of the Word (and what many "Christian" nations have done over the centuries).
The key word in my (far too lengthy) post was "fallen." The point is that we can't execute perfectly, not that war is wrong. It's not to give license to do whatever we want. It's simply the reality that we live in.
Think of it like a family. Parents sometimes have to give hard consequences for childrens' choices (for their own good and the good of the family). That does not mean that a father has license to unjustly beat a child into submission. No father is perfect, just like no government is perfect. We're fallen so we execute poorly sometimes. Only Christ will execute perfectly. Again, the problem is not with the permisibility of war, it's with the inevitable fallen execution of it. God established the ruling authorities to keep order in society and that's their main role in the world according to the way He structured it. Needless to say, they don't always do that in a Godly way...if at all.
And I do agree, one of the benefits we have as "We the people..." in America (a democracy - remember, this form of government is a blip on the radar of history...most Christians have lived under other systems just as established by God) is in holding our leaders' feet to the fire on justice. And, one of the saddest things in the world is that we haven't insisted on justice (especially in relation to the West's role in African politics and economy...and don't even get me started on South America).
What I'm saying is that war and love are not necessarily incompatible from a Bibilcal standpoint. They prove difficult to impossible when fallen humans get involved. The problem is not God's structuring of society, the problem is our actions that go beyond His structure.
Thecachinnator said: "What’s up with the distinction between individuals and nations/government? In America, we of all people believe that the nation/government is the people."
The distinction is that the USA isn't a Christian nation, despite the pledge of "one nation under God." Not everyone (voters or elected officials) subscribes to Christian beliefs. Therefore our nation can't forgive like you or I would, but must seek to do what is in the best interest of all it's people and their freedom.
So that brought an odd hypothetical question to mind: If we were a completely Christian nation that followed Jesus' teaching to the letter, wouldn't that mean we would have to allow terrorists to attack us at will until we were basically wiped out? I struggle with that. It's radical, which would seem fit Jesus, but the thought of not defending ourselves...our children? Maybe our constant cheek-turning and forgiveness would break down the hearts of our attackers, but recent history has shown they care little for what any of us think.
Interesting post, Andrew, and very honest. Here are $.02:
The Christian way of change, be it in Darfur or anywhere else, is "regeneration, not revolution." Leaven through the loaf. The Sudanese, the Dalits, the Iraqis, all will one day live under the peace of Christ (assuming one has an optimistic eschatological view--I do).
But in this world we will have trouble, and God has given the sword to our rulers to defend us from evildoers. In WWII, as you say, we went to war with our attackers and their allies. In this war, we have done the same: Saddam was our attackers' ally. I believe there is Biblical precedence for this.
There is a command for us to love our enemies, it's true. It was given in terms of personal ethics, and IMO does not contradict Romans 13. How could it? God is not double-minded. So you, personally, love your enemies. Forgive. But if you are ordained as God's deacon to avenge His wrath (as the Scripture says), fulfill your office according to God's Commandments. Which is difficult, but unlike WWII, so far we have tried to--not targeting civilians.
Jesus did not tell the Centurion to quit the Roman army. There's something to consider there.
From here: http://butler-harris.org/archives/173" rel="nofollow">http://butler-harris.org/archives/173
Basics of Christian Just War Theory
In the comments section to a previous post, somebody asked if there are any studies on just war theory (JWT) that the hosts of this site recommend. I give some references at the end, but will also take this opportunity to remind everyone about the principles of just war.
Basic Principles of Christian Just War
jus ad bellum
(1) The cause and intention of a war must be just. The war must have limited objections and objectives that are just in the eyes of God. This includes protecting the innocent who are threatened or restoring order in the society. Wars of conquest or wars to “spread democracy� are thus unjust.
(2) In a just war there must be a right to intervene with violence.
(3) There must be a declaration of war by lawful authorities.
(4) In a just war, war is the last resort. Even if a nation has a just cause and a right to intervene, it must not engage in warfare unless it is the last resort. An appeal must first be made to right before recourse is made to might.
(5) A war is just only if it is entered into with a probability of success. Not all just causes can be successfully prosecuted. It is unjust to ask for vain sacrifice.
jus in bello
(6) A just war is one where the cost that is to be incurred is not thought to be a greater evil than that which is to be remedied.
(7) The means of a just war must be both discriminative and proportional. Total war is unbiblical. A just war is one which carefully distinguishes civilians from combatants. Wars should not be needlessly destructive. The violence used must only be sufficient to restore the peace that has been destroyed by the aggressor nation.
Advocates of Just War Theory
Augustine is the “father� of just war theory, but his thoughts on the subject are dispersed throughout his vast corpus. Aquinas systematized them in the ST. The pertinent section is found http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/SS/SS040.html" rel="nofollow">here.
The Westminster Standards demand JWT, although it does not articulate the details (see WCF 23:2 and WLC Q. 136). Almost all Reformed theologians have advocated JWT, which invariably amounts to defensive war. If there are exceptions, I am ignorant of them.
Calvin: Institutes, book 4, sections 11 and 12.
Turretin: Institutes, Topic 11, Question 17.
Dabney: Lectures in Systematic Theology, Lecture 33, Question 7.
Charles Hodge: Systematic Theology, Part 3, Chapter 19, Section 10.
John Murray: Principles of Conduct, pp. 178-9.
Greg Bahnsen did a nice series on JWT called “A Christian View of War,� available from Covenant Media Foundation.
To Ellsworth:
Doing a little bit of research, I can see that you are correct about the original KKK. However, I think I've read somewhere that the original intent was to be a boy's club, but it eventually got out of hand and became a militaristic vigilante group. However, I still object to the commonly held belief that the statue of Forrest in Nashville is a symbol of racism or terrorism, because he did eventually reject racist beliefs and he was a brilliant military tactician. I think it's unfair that he is remembered only as "The Father of the KKK".
Forrest is just one in a line of a number of "Southern gentlemen" that extends on through to folks like George C. Wallace, folks whose roles in pervasive Southern movements have to be discussed to place them in context. Whether or not they turned from their old ways is unimportant in historical terms; that they did so is important in societal terms. The theme of redemption is a greatly important one, but history has this nagging thing of wanting to remember the past in toto.
Just as it's a fact that Forrest founded the KKK, it's a fact that Wallace stared down Katzenbach in '63 while seeking to deny Malone and Hood entrance into UA's Foster Auditorium. One simply cannot look at their later-life reversions without understanding why their reversions were so bloody important in the first place.
Now, can we get back to talking about war? ;)
Check out this website: http://blog.thebudgetgraph.com
The cool thing about Jesus is that he was even more than just a pacifist, he was a peacemaker. The beattidudes are full of this. Jesus says, "GO and be reconciled" if you are slapped on the cheek "TURN and GIVE him the other also." There are countless more examples in Matthew 5. Jesus didn't run away from this issue but was proactive in saying that we need to be peacemakers in this world.
I've always struggled with the concept of "just" war when there are the simple teachings of Jesus that say, "Blessed are the merciful for they shall recieve mercy", "Blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called sons of God," "love your enemies."
Matthew 5 is filled with the statement, "you have heard it said, but I said to you..." Jesus is showing us a new way to live. Tooth for a tooth, eye for an eye. That was the old law. Christ shows us the new way to live and isn't he the one we follow?
I also think Jesus' live was the perfect example of someone who used non-violence and was the victor. As christians our beliefs are centered on this example of the cross.
How long will we use the name of God to commit such atrocities? The Crusades were a "just war" in the eyes of Pope Urban.
Jihhad is the Isamic term for fighting in the name of Allah.
War is never just. Justice is a fabrication for men to create greater mass casualties.
"Men are not born in a state of war with eachother. They come into conflict over property and posession." -Rousseau
AO- It was great to hear you play at Exit Inn last week. Thank you for your thoughts, thank you for your music!