This last installment of a Carson summary finishes “Disputed Agendas & Frustrated Utopias.” After speaking of some more sweeping paradigms yesterday, Carson now moves to a less ambitious perspective.
Minimalist Expectations
This view recognizes culture as a storm that we cannot affect, but we help individuals who are being battered by the storm. There is some wisdom that culture cannot ultimately be redeemed until the new heavens and the new earth, but there is surely some temporal good we can do. For example, we can do more to abolish slavery than just rescue individual slaves – or cure diseases, not just individual sufferers. And, Christians can help create culture to make a better world that is passed on to the next generation for the common good.
Post-Christendom Perspectives
Carson gives initial praise to Craig Carter’s Rethinking Christ and Culture and it operates from a post-Christendom perspective. The dividing line for Carter regarding Christendom or post-Christendom is pacifism. The latter are the approved post-Christendom models. The strength of this model is that it discusses what Christians and the Christian community should do, but Carson ultimately has little use for it due to the arbitrary dividing line of pacifism (equating the Crusades with WWII, for instance, as both morally indefensible) and it is ultimately reductionistic.
Persecution
Finally, persecution is a painful reality in the world and, when it is extensive and exhaustive, the blood of martyrs is not the seed of the church. It can be stamped out when the persecution is particularly intense (e.g., Turkmenistan). Persecuted Christians don’t often see themselves as part of the culture, but “other.” However, while some flee for freedom, others stay to try to bring about change. Carson offers that options on how the church should engage in culture are not given to everyone and we must humbly learn from those who are in much more difficult circumstances than most of us find ourselves in.
As useful as all these paradigms and grids may be, culture changes within a generation or two and it must constantly be rebuilt and re-thought.
There is a tension between “This is My Father’s World” and “This World is Not My Home” (in Michael Horton’s words). Both are too reductionistic – as are most options. We need to keep the turning points of biblical theology and flex with regard to how we engage with culture rather than canonizing inflexible paradigms.
Carson’s final words serve as a good summary for his study: “…we will live in the tension of claiming every square inch for King Jesus, even while we know full well that the consummation is not yet, that we walk by faith and not by sight, and that the weapons with which we fight are not the weapons of the world (2 Corinthians 10:4)” (p. 228).
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Monday, July 6, 2009
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Christ & Culture Revisited: Overall Conclusions, Part 1
Carson begins his final chapter with his summary of the previous five chapters, summarizing that there is not fixed paradigm that is universally transferable, but our discussions of church and state must take into consideration the key turning points in biblical theology (these have been written previously). Then Carson goes through some more recent paradigms that he calls “Disputed Agendas and Frustrated Utopias.”
Fundamentalism
Fundamentalism is culturally reactive – even winning some battles in the culture war. This is not a theocracy, but more of a 1950s America. He argues that fundamentalists should not argue that America was based on Christian principles. Rather, it is based on some Christian principles. We wouldn’t want to return to slavery, Carson contends. Hard to argue with that. While this paradigm has social ills that it is particularly passionate about, it neglects others.
Luther & His Heirs
This is the Two Kingdoms view, but Lutherans disagree on how this actually plays out. This view has its strengths, but it can also forget that Christ is Lord over all and that there can be a polarized view of knowledge – a distinction between human reason and divine revelation. Such a sharp distinction can result in letting the government do whatever they want – like Nazi Germany in the 1930s. Beyond politics, to draw too sharp a distinction makes “reason” king and doesn’t allow God to speak into His world via special revelation.
Abraham Kuyper
Kuyper had unparalleled success in articulating a view of church and state and actually implementing it well. He argued that all truth is God’s truth and all of creation is God’s, but the consummation is not yet and so there a tension because the recognition that God is Lord of all is not realized, but Christians are called to speak Christ’s lordship into every area of life. He founded Christian unions and universities, not for the purpose of withdrawing, but to speak into the world. Carson thinks Kuyper shifted to a more liberal position once in power – emphasizing common grace over redeeming grace. Also, once he departed leadership there was a massive decline in Christian influence and the church had become full of the unregenerate members due to “presumptive regeneration.” Finally, this Kuyperian paradigm is helpful when you have the piety of a Kuyper, but it fails when it is not wed to personal piety.
Fundamentalism
Fundamentalism is culturally reactive – even winning some battles in the culture war. This is not a theocracy, but more of a 1950s America. He argues that fundamentalists should not argue that America was based on Christian principles. Rather, it is based on some Christian principles. We wouldn’t want to return to slavery, Carson contends. Hard to argue with that. While this paradigm has social ills that it is particularly passionate about, it neglects others.
Luther & His Heirs
This is the Two Kingdoms view, but Lutherans disagree on how this actually plays out. This view has its strengths, but it can also forget that Christ is Lord over all and that there can be a polarized view of knowledge – a distinction between human reason and divine revelation. Such a sharp distinction can result in letting the government do whatever they want – like Nazi Germany in the 1930s. Beyond politics, to draw too sharp a distinction makes “reason” king and doesn’t allow God to speak into His world via special revelation.
Abraham Kuyper
Kuyper had unparalleled success in articulating a view of church and state and actually implementing it well. He argued that all truth is God’s truth and all of creation is God’s, but the consummation is not yet and so there a tension because the recognition that God is Lord of all is not realized, but Christians are called to speak Christ’s lordship into every area of life. He founded Christian unions and universities, not for the purpose of withdrawing, but to speak into the world. Carson thinks Kuyper shifted to a more liberal position once in power – emphasizing common grace over redeeming grace. Also, once he departed leadership there was a massive decline in Christian influence and the church had become full of the unregenerate members due to “presumptive regeneration.” Finally, this Kuyperian paradigm is helpful when you have the piety of a Kuyper, but it fails when it is not wed to personal piety.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Christ & Culture Revisited: Church & State, Survey of Biblical Priorities, Part 2
Different Styles of Government, of Reign
If you read Matthew 20.20-28, you’ll see that there was a political expectation – even near the end – when it comes to Jesus’ reign. It’s a great passage. Be sure to read it. In it, Jesus rebukes the way of the world when it comes to authority. Instead of striving for prestige and praise, seek to serve and sacrifice for their sakes. This is the attitude Jesus had (Philippians 2.5-11).
Transforming Life … and Social Institutions
Christian belief may seem odd and even antisocial at times, but it can also be strangely attractive for some. At the same time, it can be subversive and transform social institutions. Philemon didn’t speak against slavery, but it planted the seeds that would eventually destroy the institution.
In the end, Jesus wins
Tension is inevitable because there is a contradiction between the world and the gospel. But that doesn’t mean, as the world would have us believe, that the gospel is a private truth. It is personal, but it is not private. It is public truth that will oftentimes lead to conflict, but we need to speak the truth, knowing that Jesus ultimately wins.
Summary of the Diversity of Biblical Themes
The church is a “transnational community” under a God who has placed human governmental authorities in place that they should obey – unless it conflicts with what God has called them to. And if it means conflict, the church can take comfort in the fact that God will win in the end.
These basic principles allow flexibility depending on the stance of the government. As change happens within believers, it is going to be beneficial to the state or cause the state to eventually persecute the church.
[Carson concludes by stating there are things Christians should do that are distinct from what the church should do. Someone commented on this in an earlier post and I’m a bit puzzled by how Carson breaks this down. I’ll have to look back because I’m not sure how he draws the distinctions so clearly. ]
If you read Matthew 20.20-28, you’ll see that there was a political expectation – even near the end – when it comes to Jesus’ reign. It’s a great passage. Be sure to read it. In it, Jesus rebukes the way of the world when it comes to authority. Instead of striving for prestige and praise, seek to serve and sacrifice for their sakes. This is the attitude Jesus had (Philippians 2.5-11).
Transforming Life … and Social Institutions
Christian belief may seem odd and even antisocial at times, but it can also be strangely attractive for some. At the same time, it can be subversive and transform social institutions. Philemon didn’t speak against slavery, but it planted the seeds that would eventually destroy the institution.
In the end, Jesus wins
Tension is inevitable because there is a contradiction between the world and the gospel. But that doesn’t mean, as the world would have us believe, that the gospel is a private truth. It is personal, but it is not private. It is public truth that will oftentimes lead to conflict, but we need to speak the truth, knowing that Jesus ultimately wins.
Summary of the Diversity of Biblical Themes
The church is a “transnational community” under a God who has placed human governmental authorities in place that they should obey – unless it conflicts with what God has called them to. And if it means conflict, the church can take comfort in the fact that God will win in the end.
These basic principles allow flexibility depending on the stance of the government. As change happens within believers, it is going to be beneficial to the state or cause the state to eventually persecute the church.
[Carson concludes by stating there are things Christians should do that are distinct from what the church should do. Someone commented on this in an earlier post and I’m a bit puzzled by how Carson breaks this down. I’ll have to look back because I’m not sure how he draws the distinctions so clearly. ]
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Christ & Culture Revisited: Church & State, Survey of Biblical Priorities, Part 1
Carson takes Mark 12.13-17 (“Give to Ceasar what is Caesar’s…”) as the passage that best defines church/state relationships. There are some creative interpretations of it, but it means that, while Jesus has all authority (Mt. 28), it will be contested until He returns and Christians live in the tension of being good citizens while not primarily identifying with any nation or state. This fits with Paul’s exhortations in Romans 13. This fits in our world because many can do good today “within government” in ways that Paul’s people couldn’t. There’s also an OT directive to work for the good of the city – even when they’re in exile (Jer. 29.7). Daniel is a model for serving in government without compromise – even if it meant his death. And Christians are encouraged to do good to all in Galatians 6.10. These basic principles can guide in different cultural contexts and tensions Christians have to think through and navigate.
Opposition and Persecution
Despite the support we should show for governmental authorities, it is clear that there will be opposition and persecution because we operate out of a different set of “norms,” according to Carson. Matthew 10 expects opposition and persecution and it is evident in Acts and Revelation as well (though it shows Christians winning official trials in Acts, too). Sometimes there will not be nationalized persecution, but it may operate on a lower level – state or local. This is also evident in Acts and Revelation.
Differing Fundamental Allegiances
Opposition and Persecution
Despite the support we should show for governmental authorities, it is clear that there will be opposition and persecution because we operate out of a different set of “norms,” according to Carson. Matthew 10 expects opposition and persecution and it is evident in Acts and Revelation as well (though it shows Christians winning official trials in Acts, too). Sometimes there will not be nationalized persecution, but it may operate on a lower level – state or local. This is also evident in Acts and Revelation.
Differing Fundamental Allegiances
But Peter and John answered them, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard." Acts 4.19-20Paul lays expectations on the church in his letters, not the culture (see 1 Cor. 5.12). There was much sin in the Roman world, but Paul felt no need to legislate against it. The church’s citizenship is in heaven (Philippians 3.20-21). The early church had Roman citizenship, but their ultimate citizenship is in heaven. This will set us at odds, inevitably, with those who have no allegiance to heaven.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Christ & Culture Revisited: Church & State, Definitions
Carson begins by noting this is the debate that many people are thinking about when they think about Christ and culture. This is true for me. He also says that to fit under one of Niebuhr’s categories is to be overly-reductionistic in our understandings of Christ and culture. The first section of this chapter deals with definitions. He does this a lot in the book. I suppose it is helpful for a scholar, but sometimes I wish he’d just lay it out and go for it. I understand why he doesn’t – clarity, and all. I’ll lay down some conclusions and then we’ll move forward in the next post. Here he seeks to define – or discuss the difficulties in defining – religion, church, and nation/state.
Religion in the ancient world was related to “the cult.” That doesn’t mean what current culture would define as aberrant teaching. Rather, it refers to the practices of the temple or place of worship. It is a sedentary religion. That is not what historic Christianity started as. It started as a movement that had a vision for life that moved people to a mission. It was counter-cultural. As it succeeded it became more of a “cult” (in the technical sense). It’s hard to be counter-cultural when you dominate the culture. But religion is used by people differently. Some secular worldviews are considered “religious” because they have a vision for life for all people. Carson settles that it is best to let each define religion their own way and discern what is meant from the context.
Next, Carson seeks to define the church. He has some good descriptions of what the church is and he doesn’t think it is just two or three people together at a bus stop sharing Scripture together. It is a body of people on mission together (structure is negotiable) doing the things that churches do (worship, Scripture, communion, prayer, etc…). The church has a mission and responsibilities, but he seems to distinguish between church responsibilities and Christian responsibilities. For example, there is an important social engagement that Christians are called to, but it may not be the church’s responsibility. The church should facilitate and encourage people to fulfill the vision of justice, but it should be separate from what the church itself does. This seems to be counter-cultural with much of the social justice emphasis these days. (Note: Carson is not anti-social justice. It just seems that he thinks this is something the church should encourage and provide for on the side – outside the auspices of “church”).
Finally, Carson defines the nation/state. Not sure where the controversy is here. He does note that the nation/state has become the supreme entity whereas there was more intermingling of authority and “religion” in the ancient models. Now the state is largely secular and that has significant implications for the church/state relationship.
More coming soon.
Religion in the ancient world was related to “the cult.” That doesn’t mean what current culture would define as aberrant teaching. Rather, it refers to the practices of the temple or place of worship. It is a sedentary religion. That is not what historic Christianity started as. It started as a movement that had a vision for life that moved people to a mission. It was counter-cultural. As it succeeded it became more of a “cult” (in the technical sense). It’s hard to be counter-cultural when you dominate the culture. But religion is used by people differently. Some secular worldviews are considered “religious” because they have a vision for life for all people. Carson settles that it is best to let each define religion their own way and discern what is meant from the context.
Next, Carson seeks to define the church. He has some good descriptions of what the church is and he doesn’t think it is just two or three people together at a bus stop sharing Scripture together. It is a body of people on mission together (structure is negotiable) doing the things that churches do (worship, Scripture, communion, prayer, etc…). The church has a mission and responsibilities, but he seems to distinguish between church responsibilities and Christian responsibilities. For example, there is an important social engagement that Christians are called to, but it may not be the church’s responsibility. The church should facilitate and encourage people to fulfill the vision of justice, but it should be separate from what the church itself does. This seems to be counter-cultural with much of the social justice emphasis these days. (Note: Carson is not anti-social justice. It just seems that he thinks this is something the church should encourage and provide for on the side – outside the auspices of “church”).
Finally, Carson defines the nation/state. Not sure where the controversy is here. He does note that the nation/state has become the supreme entity whereas there was more intermingling of authority and “religion” in the ancient models. Now the state is largely secular and that has significant implications for the church/state relationship.
More coming soon.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Christ & Culture Revisited: Cultural Forces - The Worship of Freedom, The Lust for Power
Freedom
A high value on freedom comes, perhaps necessarily, with democracy. In fact, which is obviously problematic for Christians, is that freedom can be worshiped. It also raises a host of practical issues that we see played out all the time because there are tensions to freedom.
One difficult tension for the church rolls around each election season. Carson cites a sampling of liberal writers who see Christian conservatives voting a particular way as an erosion of democracy and voting for theocracy. (An insightful writer notes that if political evangelicals got their way (which he doesn’t seem to want) would put us back to the 1950’s, not make a theocracy.) It seems that theological considerations are considered disallowed by some in the working out of the democratic process. Carson seems to speak to this a little later in this section: “Thus every position that is angling for a greater say in the democratic mix is in some sense trying to ‘impose’ its will on others, in the sense that it is trying to build a majority voice, a consensus” (p. 133).
Another challenge with freedom is that the value of the individual is placed so highly that there seems to be no rights of groups to set their own values. When the group values are disallowed, it is simply the work of another group putting their values upon these groups – in this case, those who hold individual rights as superior to all else.
Yet another interesting, yet brief, observation about freedom is how its understanding has shifted in time. Initially it was something that was granted by God and the US sought to make sure the government did not encroach upon it, but it has shifted to entitlements that people expect and the government should grant those freedoms, according to Carson.
Another tension of freedom is that it is both good and bad is that it has to allow some things that we might consider destructive and yet others do not. He uses the example of pornography. Most think negatively of it, but are reticent to limit the freedoms of those who want it for fear the cost of pornography being available is preferable to the cost of losing freedom of choice in general.
Carson concludes with this tension clarified:
The democratic tradition in the West has fostered a great deal of freedom from Scripture, God, tradition, and assorted moral constraints; it encourages freedom toward doing your own thing, hedonism, self-centeredness, and consumerism. By contrast, the Bible encourages freedom from self-centeredness, idolatry, greed, and all sin and freedom toward living our lives as those who bear God’s image and who have been transformed by his grace, such that our greater joy comes in doing his will” (p. 138).
Power
Carson didn’t spend much time here apart to say power is not inherently bad, but the fact that we are fallen people and all of us will be tempted to abuse power in the event that we get it. We should recognize, however, that power is always, from a Christian perspective, delegated from God. Not just for pastors, but for kings as well. It is a lust any would struggle with and we need to use it for good and in a good way if we end up having any at all.
A high value on freedom comes, perhaps necessarily, with democracy. In fact, which is obviously problematic for Christians, is that freedom can be worshiped. It also raises a host of practical issues that we see played out all the time because there are tensions to freedom.
One difficult tension for the church rolls around each election season. Carson cites a sampling of liberal writers who see Christian conservatives voting a particular way as an erosion of democracy and voting for theocracy. (An insightful writer notes that if political evangelicals got their way (which he doesn’t seem to want) would put us back to the 1950’s, not make a theocracy.) It seems that theological considerations are considered disallowed by some in the working out of the democratic process. Carson seems to speak to this a little later in this section: “Thus every position that is angling for a greater say in the democratic mix is in some sense trying to ‘impose’ its will on others, in the sense that it is trying to build a majority voice, a consensus” (p. 133).
Another challenge with freedom is that the value of the individual is placed so highly that there seems to be no rights of groups to set their own values. When the group values are disallowed, it is simply the work of another group putting their values upon these groups – in this case, those who hold individual rights as superior to all else.
Yet another interesting, yet brief, observation about freedom is how its understanding has shifted in time. Initially it was something that was granted by God and the US sought to make sure the government did not encroach upon it, but it has shifted to entitlements that people expect and the government should grant those freedoms, according to Carson.
Another tension of freedom is that it is both good and bad is that it has to allow some things that we might consider destructive and yet others do not. He uses the example of pornography. Most think negatively of it, but are reticent to limit the freedoms of those who want it for fear the cost of pornography being available is preferable to the cost of losing freedom of choice in general.
Carson concludes with this tension clarified:
The democratic tradition in the West has fostered a great deal of freedom from Scripture, God, tradition, and assorted moral constraints; it encourages freedom toward doing your own thing, hedonism, self-centeredness, and consumerism. By contrast, the Bible encourages freedom from self-centeredness, idolatry, greed, and all sin and freedom toward living our lives as those who bear God’s image and who have been transformed by his grace, such that our greater joy comes in doing his will” (p. 138).
Power
Carson didn’t spend much time here apart to say power is not inherently bad, but the fact that we are fallen people and all of us will be tempted to abuse power in the event that we get it. We should recognize, however, that power is always, from a Christian perspective, delegated from God. Not just for pastors, but for kings as well. It is a lust any would struggle with and we need to use it for good and in a good way if we end up having any at all.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Compassion, Justice, and the Christian Life
Our youth group is heading to New Orleans for a week long missions project for the second year in a row. One of the books they suggested is Compassion, Justice, and the Christian Life by Robert Lupton. I’m also trying to start a small group to minister to the area of our city that is a little more financially challenged – people living in motels, etc… Hearing this is a good book, I was eager to read it and think about how we can best reach a community in need. I was not disappointed. The book is brief enough that it is a quick read for anyone – so I won’t give too much away, but I’ll hit some basic principles that I found compelling and that challenged my thinking on how to minister to the poor – as a church in general and in our community.
His basic goal was community development, not serving the poor. The goal is to get those who have been marginalized and beat down to being full functioning members of their community, caring for their community, taking pride in it, and seeing it transformed. This doesn’t come with free services in and of themselves. It comes by reminding people they have something to offer, something valuable to give. It gives them dignity and creates what they need to restore their communities.
I have often thought about a coffee shop (or something like it) in conjunction with a ministry in downtown LA we work with. It could get people who are doing well (lots of people struggling with addictions down there) out of a bad environment, give them job training, etc… Lupton rebukes that idea. Taking thriving people out of a hard environment only makes that environment worse. God has called the church to care for the poor as brothers and sisters, not to drop in and serve to feel good. That means we’re called to transform communities in a way that leads to the best possible change for God’s glory – and this will take much more than clergy. It takes all kinds of businessmen using their gifts and talents to see God’s glory transform communities.
I’ll probably get mushy on some of the details if I keep going, but it is small enough that it will be easy to scan again as need arises. I highly recommend it. In fact, I have a handful of friends who are good businessmen and/or have a heart for the poor that I’m going to buy one for. Lupton’s book may not be the most in-depth analysis, but I thought it was great for a novice in this area like myself. I’m sure there are others like me who could benefit from it.
His basic goal was community development, not serving the poor. The goal is to get those who have been marginalized and beat down to being full functioning members of their community, caring for their community, taking pride in it, and seeing it transformed. This doesn’t come with free services in and of themselves. It comes by reminding people they have something to offer, something valuable to give. It gives them dignity and creates what they need to restore their communities.
I have often thought about a coffee shop (or something like it) in conjunction with a ministry in downtown LA we work with. It could get people who are doing well (lots of people struggling with addictions down there) out of a bad environment, give them job training, etc… Lupton rebukes that idea. Taking thriving people out of a hard environment only makes that environment worse. God has called the church to care for the poor as brothers and sisters, not to drop in and serve to feel good. That means we’re called to transform communities in a way that leads to the best possible change for God’s glory – and this will take much more than clergy. It takes all kinds of businessmen using their gifts and talents to see God’s glory transform communities.
I’ll probably get mushy on some of the details if I keep going, but it is small enough that it will be easy to scan again as need arises. I highly recommend it. In fact, I have a handful of friends who are good businessmen and/or have a heart for the poor that I’m going to buy one for. Lupton’s book may not be the most in-depth analysis, but I thought it was great for a novice in this area like myself. I’m sure there are others like me who could benefit from it.
Monday, January 26, 2009
One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich
A few weeks ago, when I went up to Washington with Vivian for our Daddy Date Weekend, started reading One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich by Alexander Solzhenitsyn (check for link in the margin). It is a fictional, though realistic, account of what a day in a work camp was like during Stalin's reign. In the introductory material, I was surprised to see that Kruschev wanted it published to show Stalin's excesses as a leader. Regardless, it was an interesting read for the most part, but I have previously read a couple of Richard Wurmbrand's books, which spoke of his imprisonment for being a pastor who would not go along with Communist leadership. It has been a few years since I read Wurbrand's books, but there seems to be significant similarity, as one would expect. I don't know how to attach links to words, so here are the links to Wurbrand's books: http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Underground-Richard-Wurmbrand/dp/0882643487/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232991286&sr=8-4
http://www.amazon.com/Tortured-Christ-Richard-Wurmbrand/dp/0340863684/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232991950&sr=8-7
http://www.amazon.com/Tortured-Christ-Richard-Wurmbrand/dp/0340863684/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232991950&sr=8-7
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Just War?: Fighting Justly
The issue of just war isn't just on when Christians should fight, but on how they should fight. There is no justification for evil done in the name of good. Just war, according to Cole (see margin for book info), is an act of love. He starts by noting that acts of force can be loving by using the example of a parent punishing a child, even if the analogy is too simple. There is no place for evil in a just war. Augustine said, "...courage decides to endure evil rather than consent to evil" (p. 94), and yet Augustine believed in just war, not pacifism.
The two keys to fighting justly are Discrimination and Proportion. Discrimination is the granting of immunity to noncombatants. Noncombatants should not be killed intentionally. While such deaths are inevitable, intention should be determined by word and deed. If one can justify executing an operation whether or not there were civilians present or not, it seems likely that proper discrimination has taken place. And just because one can see that there will be civilian casualties does not mean it is one's intention to bring them about. One can see the challenges of determining "proper discrimination" in the Israeli-Hamas conflict in Gaza - at least from my limited knowledge of the conflict.
The second issue is Proportion. This asks, essentially, "Does the intended good outweith the potential consequences of the innocents killed?" This is the responsibility of every warrior.
Along these lines, Cole believes World War II to be just, but the saturation bombing and the atomic bomb unjust tactics. They crossed the line and were indiscriminate and actually targeted civilians. Cole goes on and recognizes the moral challenges of the Vietnam War, but does not fault US soldiers, apart from My Lai and like isolated events, for failing to discriminate their enemy from the civilians. The guerilla armies of the North Vietnamese made this task difficult and one can argue the soldiers did their best. He does question the justice of the war on the grounds that the South Vietnamese were not a country worth partnering with because they, too, were unjust. It may stand on the other points of just war. Finally, the 1991 Gulf War was just and the discrimination, while not perfect, was more perfect than any other modern war - by far.
The two keys to fighting justly are Discrimination and Proportion. Discrimination is the granting of immunity to noncombatants. Noncombatants should not be killed intentionally. While such deaths are inevitable, intention should be determined by word and deed. If one can justify executing an operation whether or not there were civilians present or not, it seems likely that proper discrimination has taken place. And just because one can see that there will be civilian casualties does not mean it is one's intention to bring them about. One can see the challenges of determining "proper discrimination" in the Israeli-Hamas conflict in Gaza - at least from my limited knowledge of the conflict.
The second issue is Proportion. This asks, essentially, "Does the intended good outweith the potential consequences of the innocents killed?" This is the responsibility of every warrior.
Along these lines, Cole believes World War II to be just, but the saturation bombing and the atomic bomb unjust tactics. They crossed the line and were indiscriminate and actually targeted civilians. Cole goes on and recognizes the moral challenges of the Vietnam War, but does not fault US soldiers, apart from My Lai and like isolated events, for failing to discriminate their enemy from the civilians. The guerilla armies of the North Vietnamese made this task difficult and one can argue the soldiers did their best. He does question the justice of the war on the grounds that the South Vietnamese were not a country worth partnering with because they, too, were unjust. It may stand on the other points of just war. Finally, the 1991 Gulf War was just and the discrimination, while not perfect, was more perfect than any other modern war - by far.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Just War?: The Criteria for Just War
Cole lays out pretty simply “Why Christians Should Fight” in this chapter with some unacceptable options as well. The good reasons are pretty simple.
1. Proper Authority. You can’t declare war unless it is your place. There’s some disagreement among the different theologians whether revolution is acceptable or not.
2. Just Cause. This is the most difficult issue, I imagine. Self-defense and restoring what has been wrongfully seized are basic, but some of Augustine’s other reasons are debated by some. Tehse are: avenging wrongs and punishing an unjust nation.
3. Right Intention. Is the goal to advance the good and avoid evil? It should be.
War as the Only Way to Right the Wrong. This obviously has to be within reason as those opposed to war could always say there’s something else that can be done.
4. Reasonable Hope of Success. There are some reasons to surrender. It may be more responsible to live under the rule of another than to have your nation leveled.
One unacceptable reason people go to war (that some try to put off as good) is “Comparative Justice.” The idea is, it seems, it’s OK if we’re bad, so long as we’re not as evil as our enemy. But just war is not seeking to be less evil; it is a positive good and an act of love toward the neighbor flowing out of a relationship with God.
One more noteworthy issue is the idea that just war theory grew out of Christian nation-states and the current liberal state that does not favor a particular faith means just war cannot be applicable any longer. Regardless of their stance toward faith, Christians should not support a state that is engaged in an unjust war. Christians must either fight or protest passionately, depending on the justice of the war in question.
Do you find these criteria satisfying? How do they apply to the challenges we face as a nation?
1. Proper Authority. You can’t declare war unless it is your place. There’s some disagreement among the different theologians whether revolution is acceptable or not.
2. Just Cause. This is the most difficult issue, I imagine. Self-defense and restoring what has been wrongfully seized are basic, but some of Augustine’s other reasons are debated by some. Tehse are: avenging wrongs and punishing an unjust nation.
3. Right Intention. Is the goal to advance the good and avoid evil? It should be.
War as the Only Way to Right the Wrong. This obviously has to be within reason as those opposed to war could always say there’s something else that can be done.
4. Reasonable Hope of Success. There are some reasons to surrender. It may be more responsible to live under the rule of another than to have your nation leveled.
One unacceptable reason people go to war (that some try to put off as good) is “Comparative Justice.” The idea is, it seems, it’s OK if we’re bad, so long as we’re not as evil as our enemy. But just war is not seeking to be less evil; it is a positive good and an act of love toward the neighbor flowing out of a relationship with God.
One more noteworthy issue is the idea that just war theory grew out of Christian nation-states and the current liberal state that does not favor a particular faith means just war cannot be applicable any longer. Regardless of their stance toward faith, Christians should not support a state that is engaged in an unjust war. Christians must either fight or protest passionately, depending on the justice of the war in question.
Do you find these criteria satisfying? How do they apply to the challenges we face as a nation?
Monday, January 5, 2009
Just War?: Virtue and Warfare
I’ll admit this is a pretty good book (When God Says War is Right by Darrell Cole), but that doesn’t mean I always track where he’s going or how he organizes his book. This chapter seems like it’s in an odd place, but it had good stuff. It’s essentially about the importance of spiritual formation in the lives of warriors. And yes, he argues, the church should be in the business of forming warriors.
The believer’s goal (again relying heavily on Aquinas and Calvin) is loving union with God; beatitude in Aquinas’ terms. Virtue helps the believer achieve that union and act properly in a given setting. The morally virtuous is the one who does so regularly. The four cardinal virtues are prudence (wisdom), justice (rendering each their due), courage (controlling passions that make us act unreasonably or fearfully), and temperance (controlling passions contrary to reason). All of these help a person love well, which is the ultimate point as we are in union with Christ. We ought to love like Him and our character is obedient to Him, functioning as He would function.
Given the development of these virtues, war is a positive good, not just a “necessary evil.” It is an act of love toward those who are being attacked and to your fellow soldiers to fight (there are concentric circles – at least as I understand it – of responsibilities of love). It would be unloving for a believer to avoid engaging a just war when it is called for.
Cole closes with the dismissal of Jesus’ meekness as a model for believers, according to Calvin. Simply put, Jesus’ ministry was priestly reconciliation and sacrifice that is not duplicated by believers. We cannot be a Savior, but we can follow the Father’s command to love our neighbors.
I can feel the tension here between loving your enemies meaning turn the other cheek and loving your neighbor meaning killing enemies who are harming them. Paradigms seem to have much to do with where one ends up on this issue.
The believer’s goal (again relying heavily on Aquinas and Calvin) is loving union with God; beatitude in Aquinas’ terms. Virtue helps the believer achieve that union and act properly in a given setting. The morally virtuous is the one who does so regularly. The four cardinal virtues are prudence (wisdom), justice (rendering each their due), courage (controlling passions that make us act unreasonably or fearfully), and temperance (controlling passions contrary to reason). All of these help a person love well, which is the ultimate point as we are in union with Christ. We ought to love like Him and our character is obedient to Him, functioning as He would function.
Given the development of these virtues, war is a positive good, not just a “necessary evil.” It is an act of love toward those who are being attacked and to your fellow soldiers to fight (there are concentric circles – at least as I understand it – of responsibilities of love). It would be unloving for a believer to avoid engaging a just war when it is called for.
Cole closes with the dismissal of Jesus’ meekness as a model for believers, according to Calvin. Simply put, Jesus’ ministry was priestly reconciliation and sacrifice that is not duplicated by believers. We cannot be a Savior, but we can follow the Father’s command to love our neighbors.
I can feel the tension here between loving your enemies meaning turn the other cheek and loving your neighbor meaning killing enemies who are harming them. Paradigms seem to have much to do with where one ends up on this issue.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Just War?: War Based in God’s Character
Our author now sets out on the case for just war with a chapter called “Why Christians Use Force” and it is grounded in God’s character. God is a warrior in the Old Testament (Jer. 20.11; Zeph. 3.17) and the God of the NT is the same as the God of the OT. There is a progression of revelation, not a replacement of the OT God and the OT message. And if one reads Revelation, we see God as Warrior yet again.
The philosophy of just use of force is grounded in God’s character. God is not just loving, but he is just and righteous as well and His warlike characteristics are an expression of His justice, mercy, and love. Sometimes it is difficult to see how God’s love interacts with His wrath (see Joshua) and yet it comes together perfectly as we understand Jesus as the Suffering Servant (Isa. 52.13-53.12).
While Jesus does encourage the turning of the other cheek, the distinction lies in that we must not take personal vengeance, but we do not sacrifice justice. We will, however, sacrifice personal rights for the sake of love. I thought this was a good distinction. Cole states, “Jesus’ goal is to restrain personal retaliation, not to restrain political force, which is, after all, an agent of His Father’s wrath and love” (p. 43).
Calvin puts Romans 13 at the center of his theology of just war. God puts governments in place to secure God’s justice and righteousness in a fallen worldWar may be a result of sin (the Fall in Gen. 3), but it is not evil in itself. It actually restrains evil so people can enjoy God’s created world. . In a just cause, the soldier is a legitimate agent of God’s wrath for righteousness in the present situation. Calvin even calls it a “holy vocation” where soldiers are operating in a “God-like fashion” (p. 47). War is obviously not ideal; peace should be sought before going to war.
Cole gives a summary of “Why Christians Should Fight?” (pp. 48-49)
The philosophy of just use of force is grounded in God’s character. God is not just loving, but he is just and righteous as well and His warlike characteristics are an expression of His justice, mercy, and love. Sometimes it is difficult to see how God’s love interacts with His wrath (see Joshua) and yet it comes together perfectly as we understand Jesus as the Suffering Servant (Isa. 52.13-53.12).
While Jesus does encourage the turning of the other cheek, the distinction lies in that we must not take personal vengeance, but we do not sacrifice justice. We will, however, sacrifice personal rights for the sake of love. I thought this was a good distinction. Cole states, “Jesus’ goal is to restrain personal retaliation, not to restrain political force, which is, after all, an agent of His Father’s wrath and love” (p. 43).
Calvin puts Romans 13 at the center of his theology of just war. God puts governments in place to secure God’s justice and righteousness in a fallen worldWar may be a result of sin (the Fall in Gen. 3), but it is not evil in itself. It actually restrains evil so people can enjoy God’s created world. . In a just cause, the soldier is a legitimate agent of God’s wrath for righteousness in the present situation. Calvin even calls it a “holy vocation” where soldiers are operating in a “God-like fashion” (p. 47). War is obviously not ideal; peace should be sought before going to war.
Cole gives a summary of “Why Christians Should Fight?” (pp. 48-49)
1. “Christians fight for justice because God is like that. … He uses force to check evil and to bring justice.”
2. “Because of sin, God uses force to work out His will for us,” which is “a product of His love.”
3. “Human political order is the structure God has given to encourage virtue and restrain vice.”
4. “Just war is something Christians do in this world out of loving obedience to God and in conformity with His ways.”
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Just War?: Background, Part 2
As Christianity gained prominence a shift, but not a break from the past, in just war theory came with the church father Ambrose. He saw the state as subject to the church. The state was charged with wielding the sword (Rom. 13), but the church was responsible for making sure they did it the right way. David was the prototypical just warrior, in Ambrose’s eyes.
Ambrose was a proponent of virtue lived out in the lives of believers, including why and how they fought wars. The pinnacle of virtue was charity (love) and soldiers lived this principle of charity because all they did was for the common good. In fact, abstaining from force in certain circumstances can be the wrong course of action and is, ultimately, unloving. Ambrose uses Moses’ rescue of the slave in Egypt as his example. For Moses to fail to act would have been a failure in character. In some cases love does not just allow for the use of force; it demands it. This is where Ambrose, according to Cole, expands the tradition handed down to him without going against it. It is not a break; it is a development.
Augustine advances the argument by noting it is the purpose of the state to restrain evil and chaos in order to have a tolerable society. Love for the common good is what drives them to do so – even if it means war. Peace is the ultimate common good, but sometimes force is required to get there. Words are preferable, but sometimes a sword is necessary. Cole emphasizes that war is not the lesser of two evils. Rather, it is a virtuous act if done for the love of the other, seeking the common good.
Now the background and foundation have been set. The next posts will look forward to the just war system built by Aquinas and Calvin.
Ambrose was a proponent of virtue lived out in the lives of believers, including why and how they fought wars. The pinnacle of virtue was charity (love) and soldiers lived this principle of charity because all they did was for the common good. In fact, abstaining from force in certain circumstances can be the wrong course of action and is, ultimately, unloving. Ambrose uses Moses’ rescue of the slave in Egypt as his example. For Moses to fail to act would have been a failure in character. In some cases love does not just allow for the use of force; it demands it. This is where Ambrose, according to Cole, expands the tradition handed down to him without going against it. It is not a break; it is a development.
Augustine advances the argument by noting it is the purpose of the state to restrain evil and chaos in order to have a tolerable society. Love for the common good is what drives them to do so – even if it means war. Peace is the ultimate common good, but sometimes force is required to get there. Words are preferable, but sometimes a sword is necessary. Cole emphasizes that war is not the lesser of two evils. Rather, it is a virtuous act if done for the love of the other, seeking the common good.
Now the background and foundation have been set. The next posts will look forward to the just war system built by Aquinas and Calvin.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Just War?: Background, Part 1
A few weeks ago I finally finished a book with multiple views on the role of church and state. It was too long a process, but enlightening. I found Ronald Sider’s treatment of pacifism of particular interest as he was defending the Anabaptist position on church/state relations. As I was loitering in a bookstore a few days later a title caught my eye: When God Says War is Right by Darrell Cole. It is a brief book that lays out the theory and application of just war theory in a simple way. I’ll summarize his work and interact with it to a certain degree, but it seems like a good, slim volume that can help me understand this perspective. As a disclaimer, I think I am probably in the just war camp to begin with, but it is certainly not through much contemplation and reflection. Rather, it is probably due to tradition and our Judeo-Christian heritage. Regardless, here goes…
Let’s start with Cole’s definition of just war:
Let’s start with Cole’s definition of just war:
“The classic just war doctrine as articulated by the Church does not view all use of force as evil; rather, it declares that war can actually be a positive act of love entirely consistent with the character of God. Love of God and neighbor impels Christians to seek a just peace for all, especially for their neighbors, and military force is sometimes an appropriate means for seeking that peace” (p. 7).Cole starts off recognizing the tension that exists when Jesus says to turn the other cheek and love your enemies and yet God, at other places in Scripture, instructs His people to kill – and even does so Himself. Rather than pointing to specific Bible verses (which I hope he gets to later), just war is theologically born – specifically from Aquinas and Calvin.
Sider, and I’m sure others, argue that the early Christians were all pacifists because war wasn’t an option for early believers. Cole, however, seems to give a compelling survey of church fathers who, while they aren’t wild about the idea of Chrsitian soldiers, saw that believers could follow God in this capacity. And those who thought clergy ought not fight still saw the role of Christians to pray for just war.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Social Justice Perspective (J. Philip Wogaman) #2: Social Justice and Creation, Social Science, History, and Issues
Wogaman argues against a Gnostic or docetic view of the world. That is, creation matters, but it is not ultimate. Creation is the arena in where we develop covenant with God. This is important because it means the material, physical world is important and, I presume, we need to seek justice within it, not just wait for eternal justice. Next, Wogaman discusses the social justice perspective’s willingness to use the most recent scientific discoveries to inform how social justice should be lived out. These findings are not ultimate, but they are taken into consideration. (Not sure why he made issue of this, to be honest.)
While there are always questions (apart from Catholics, I suppose) about who really speaks for the church, it is important for the church to speak. Sometimes it has disastrous effects (prohibition) and other times it is successful (antislavery movement). To avoid the disasters, it is probably better to influence hearts and minds rather than force something legally. Wogaman points to abortion as such a contemporary issue.
To conclude, Wogaman goes through a Methodist document and where they stand on current issues as an example of what churches should do. Whether politicians listen to them or not, it is good for churches to think through these issues.
This was a strange essay and wasn’t altogether helpful in some ways, but the prohibition/abortion issue really has me thinking. Of course I’d like to see Roe v. Wade overturned and abortion outlawed, but – whether that happens or not – maybe we need to re-think our tactics in such a way that we can change hearts and minds on the issue so it is lasting and not an ongoing tug-of-war. I’m not sure how to do that, but it seems more lasting and less divisive than the political gridlock we’re currently engaged in. Thoughts?
(PS – I’m done with political stuff for a while, which is a good thing since nobody wants to talk about it or read about it, I imagine.)
While there are always questions (apart from Catholics, I suppose) about who really speaks for the church, it is important for the church to speak. Sometimes it has disastrous effects (prohibition) and other times it is successful (antislavery movement). To avoid the disasters, it is probably better to influence hearts and minds rather than force something legally. Wogaman points to abortion as such a contemporary issue.
To conclude, Wogaman goes through a Methodist document and where they stand on current issues as an example of what churches should do. Whether politicians listen to them or not, it is good for churches to think through these issues.
This was a strange essay and wasn’t altogether helpful in some ways, but the prohibition/abortion issue really has me thinking. Of course I’d like to see Roe v. Wade overturned and abortion outlawed, but – whether that happens or not – maybe we need to re-think our tactics in such a way that we can change hearts and minds on the issue so it is lasting and not an ongoing tug-of-war. I’m not sure how to do that, but it seems more lasting and less divisive than the political gridlock we’re currently engaged in. Thoughts?
(PS – I’m done with political stuff for a while, which is a good thing since nobody wants to talk about it or read about it, I imagine.)
Monday, November 24, 2008
Social Justice Perspective (J. Philip Wogaman) #1: Introduction & Basics
The social justice view essentially argues that churches should strive for social justice by influencing public policy. It is grounded, initially in Wogaman’s account, that the state is society acting as a whole. This does not mean that we necessarily agree with every aspect of what’s done by our nation, but we participate in it nonetheless as participants in our society. This unified society is grounded on influencing others’ values to determine the majority values. Wogaman emphasizes, “anything that is actually valued by people is potentially a source of influence and therefore political power” (p. 217). Obviously people’s values are influenced by faith.
Theological Basis for Social Justice
The idea of rendering each their due is important biblically and in the social justice perspective. This plays itself out in biblical retributive justice, but Wogaman also uses the workers who get paid the same wage in his argument (Mt. 20.1-16). Ultimately, all are due punishment for sin, Wogaman argues, but God has given grace and invited people into life with Him. Likewise, the key component of social justice is that none would be marginalized, but all are included in the process and all have a voice. We are a communal people and all have a right to belong to a society and make their voice known in that society. We are individuals, Wogaman doesn’t go Marxist (and makes a point to say so), but we are less than human if we are not both individual and communal. In his discussion of liberation theology and Marxism, Wogaman notes that, in the emphasis to stem the tide of structural sin, not enough attention was paid to personal sin. The pendulum had swung too far away from the individual.
I was leery of this perspective, coming from a more evangelical, rather than mainline background, but I appreciate Wogaman’s balance between the communal and individual. I take some issue, but there are some interesting insights in this.
Theological Basis for Social Justice
The idea of rendering each their due is important biblically and in the social justice perspective. This plays itself out in biblical retributive justice, but Wogaman also uses the workers who get paid the same wage in his argument (Mt. 20.1-16). Ultimately, all are due punishment for sin, Wogaman argues, but God has given grace and invited people into life with Him. Likewise, the key component of social justice is that none would be marginalized, but all are included in the process and all have a voice. We are a communal people and all have a right to belong to a society and make their voice known in that society. We are individuals, Wogaman doesn’t go Marxist (and makes a point to say so), but we are less than human if we are not both individual and communal. In his discussion of liberation theology and Marxism, Wogaman notes that, in the emphasis to stem the tide of structural sin, not enough attention was paid to personal sin. The pendulum had swung too far away from the individual.
I was leery of this perspective, coming from a more evangelical, rather than mainline background, but I appreciate Wogaman’s balance between the communal and individual. I take some issue, but there are some interesting insights in this.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Anabaptist Perspective (Ronald Sider) #3: The Logic of Anabaptist Political Engagement
The Logic of Anabaptist Political Engagement
This section is so titled because some say, since every state uses force, that Anabaptist social engagement is logically inconsistent. Sider admits it is unlikely that a pacifist would ever be elected to political office. Yet, their goal is to move people more toward Anabaptist values. This includes holding just war adherents to their own standards, voting for people who are the lesser of two evils, and offering alternatives to war like nonviolent intervention teams for the purpose of reconciliation. Sider agrees God uses governments and force for good at times, but he does not think it ideal and, while the cost may be great, a pacifistic way is to be preferred. Even though force can be used for good, that doesn’t mean it is preferred.
Separating Church and State and ‘Legislating Morality’
Anabaptists are strong supporters of separation of church and state, but they do not argue for a privatization and irrelevance of spiritual beliefs. Our spiritual beliefs shape us and should influence how we engage politically. In a democratic process, our spiritual beliefs should shape our philosophy of what we contend for, but the majority and the process (outside of discrimination) should determine what law is.
From here Sider argues in favor of Bush’ Faith Based Initiative and Clinton’s Charitable Choice legislation arguing that, where church and state values match, they should work together with the understanding that there are things the church does that the state should not – like conversion – and the church should not lose their prophetic voice in the process of cooperation. Still, partnership in common goals is a good thing. This is similar to the Catholic Social Teaching in the first chapter of this book, but the Catholic perspective seems a bit more exhaustive in the roles the church plays.
Some of the critiques pointed to inconsistency in the Anabaptist tradition – first and foremost be a witness as the church, but yet move people politically toward your goals/ends. This has been an interesting enterprise, but better minds than mine need to wade through some details of political theory. One more position – the Social Justice Perspective by J. Philip Wogaman coming soon.
This section is so titled because some say, since every state uses force, that Anabaptist social engagement is logically inconsistent. Sider admits it is unlikely that a pacifist would ever be elected to political office. Yet, their goal is to move people more toward Anabaptist values. This includes holding just war adherents to their own standards, voting for people who are the lesser of two evils, and offering alternatives to war like nonviolent intervention teams for the purpose of reconciliation. Sider agrees God uses governments and force for good at times, but he does not think it ideal and, while the cost may be great, a pacifistic way is to be preferred. Even though force can be used for good, that doesn’t mean it is preferred.
Separating Church and State and ‘Legislating Morality’
Anabaptists are strong supporters of separation of church and state, but they do not argue for a privatization and irrelevance of spiritual beliefs. Our spiritual beliefs shape us and should influence how we engage politically. In a democratic process, our spiritual beliefs should shape our philosophy of what we contend for, but the majority and the process (outside of discrimination) should determine what law is.
From here Sider argues in favor of Bush’ Faith Based Initiative and Clinton’s Charitable Choice legislation arguing that, where church and state values match, they should work together with the understanding that there are things the church does that the state should not – like conversion – and the church should not lose their prophetic voice in the process of cooperation. Still, partnership in common goals is a good thing. This is similar to the Catholic Social Teaching in the first chapter of this book, but the Catholic perspective seems a bit more exhaustive in the roles the church plays.
Some of the critiques pointed to inconsistency in the Anabaptist tradition – first and foremost be a witness as the church, but yet move people politically toward your goals/ends. This has been an interesting enterprise, but better minds than mine need to wade through some details of political theory. One more position – the Social Justice Perspective by J. Philip Wogaman coming soon.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Anabaptist Perspective (Ronald Sider) #2: Church, Politics, & the Sword
The Church
Sider continues to argue that the church is part of the gospel of the Kingdom and it is to be a visible expression of God’s new creation/community. It’s values are such that it stands out (racial unity in the 1st century) as a countercultural (not anticultural) community. This new community should influence the surrounding culture and it does so by living out Jesus’ values first and foremost. This includes “binding and loosing” – where differences are resolved by “reconciling dialoge,” not force, economic sharing, an inclusive community, everyone having a voice and a gift, and “forgiveness rather than retaliation is the way to reconciliation” (p. 175). The living out of these values are to influence culture positively.
Government, Society, and the Sword
Next, Sider offers that government is a good gift that should be limited, but is intended to restrain evil and promote the good. From there he talks specifically about how government should (or shouldn’t) wield the sword.
He begins with the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5.38-48), which Hengel believes is written contra the Zealots. Loving your enemies is radical, as is the expansion of the definition of “neighbor” (Lk. 10.29-37). Sider argues the context is public, not a two powers view articulated by Luther (personal ethic and public responsibility). The ultimate responsibility is loving the other and doing what they need.
This idea of nonviolence is not nonresistance. The key tenets of Sider’s pacifism are…
1. Don’t place every evil person in the category of enemy.
2. Don’t retaliate, but respond according to the needs of others – even if they’re offensive.
3. Regardless of response, we need to love because love is not based upon response.
4. We should act in these ways at great personal cost.
To do anything less than these is to weaken Jesus’ costly call. Sider does not buy the double ethic of public/private because he doesn’t think God has a double ethic. Jesus was calling the nation of Israel to righteousness, not private righteousness. It also goes against the literal understanding of the text. Also, this dual ethic allows for Christians to engage in atrocities like Nazi Germany. Finally, the early church (prior to Constantine) knows nothing of this public/private distinction and Christians were forbade from being executioners or in the military, according to Sider.
Lastly, God shows us how to treat our enemies in that while we were yet enemies, Christ died for us (Rom. 5). Just as Christ dealt with His enemies through suffering, so we should do the same because the cross is not the end of the story. There is a resurrection and it tells us that Jesus’ way triumphs and He will ultimately make things right.
What do you think of this sketch of pacifism? I’m intrigued and certainly challenged. I see some basic issues, but I don’t know that I could build anything as textual and coherent as Sider has at this point. I have a book, When God Says War is Right, that I’ll probably be reading soon to see how it compares to Sider. Thoughts?
Sider continues to argue that the church is part of the gospel of the Kingdom and it is to be a visible expression of God’s new creation/community. It’s values are such that it stands out (racial unity in the 1st century) as a countercultural (not anticultural) community. This new community should influence the surrounding culture and it does so by living out Jesus’ values first and foremost. This includes “binding and loosing” – where differences are resolved by “reconciling dialoge,” not force, economic sharing, an inclusive community, everyone having a voice and a gift, and “forgiveness rather than retaliation is the way to reconciliation” (p. 175). The living out of these values are to influence culture positively.
Government, Society, and the Sword
Next, Sider offers that government is a good gift that should be limited, but is intended to restrain evil and promote the good. From there he talks specifically about how government should (or shouldn’t) wield the sword.
He begins with the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5.38-48), which Hengel believes is written contra the Zealots. Loving your enemies is radical, as is the expansion of the definition of “neighbor” (Lk. 10.29-37). Sider argues the context is public, not a two powers view articulated by Luther (personal ethic and public responsibility). The ultimate responsibility is loving the other and doing what they need.
This idea of nonviolence is not nonresistance. The key tenets of Sider’s pacifism are…
1. Don’t place every evil person in the category of enemy.
2. Don’t retaliate, but respond according to the needs of others – even if they’re offensive.
3. Regardless of response, we need to love because love is not based upon response.
4. We should act in these ways at great personal cost.
To do anything less than these is to weaken Jesus’ costly call. Sider does not buy the double ethic of public/private because he doesn’t think God has a double ethic. Jesus was calling the nation of Israel to righteousness, not private righteousness. It also goes against the literal understanding of the text. Also, this dual ethic allows for Christians to engage in atrocities like Nazi Germany. Finally, the early church (prior to Constantine) knows nothing of this public/private distinction and Christians were forbade from being executioners or in the military, according to Sider.
Lastly, God shows us how to treat our enemies in that while we were yet enemies, Christ died for us (Rom. 5). Just as Christ dealt with His enemies through suffering, so we should do the same because the cross is not the end of the story. There is a resurrection and it tells us that Jesus’ way triumphs and He will ultimately make things right.
What do you think of this sketch of pacifism? I’m intrigued and certainly challenged. I see some basic issues, but I don’t know that I could build anything as textual and coherent as Sider has at this point. I have a book, When God Says War is Right, that I’ll probably be reading soon to see how it compares to Sider. Thoughts?
Friday, November 21, 2008
Anabaptist Perspective (Ronald Sider) #1: Introduction and First Principle
Sider discusses the Anabaptist perspective, which I find commendable in many ways upon first glance, apart from the pacifism. And the fact that I like most of what he says otherwise, it makes me think I should at least take seriously his arguments for pacifism. His is the argument (thus far) most grounded in the biblical text (that’s not to say the others aren’t biblical). He gives a little history lesson to start, which is pretty interesting – though you could probably look it up on Wikipedia and get a better summary than I can give. The key gift of the Anabaptists, according to Sider, is religious freedom. They were persecuted by Lutherans and Calvinists early in their existence, but they have won the day with religious freedom being preferred in society over state religion.
The Center: Jesus Christ
Sider lays out his Anabaptist perspective by starting with Jesus. Specifically, he wants Jesus set as the example of what we’re to strive to be. While we may never attain Jesus’ values and character, He is normative. And this gospel He came to preach is not just a matter of having sins forgiven. It is that, but then these disciples are forming a new community that are living out the next age in the here and now.
The Center: Jesus Christ
Sider lays out his Anabaptist perspective by starting with Jesus. Specifically, he wants Jesus set as the example of what we’re to strive to be. While we may never attain Jesus’ values and character, He is normative. And this gospel He came to preach is not just a matter of having sins forgiven. It is that, but then these disciples are forming a new community that are living out the next age in the here and now.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Principled Pluralist Perspective (Corwin Smidt) #4: The Rest of the Political Principles
2. The nature of the church: The church is a community that observes sacraments, preaches the Scripture, and exercises discipline. But it is not a community that exists in a vacuum. The church – even beyond the visible church – is to be God’s people, but they are also to promote God’s righteousness in the culture.
3. The nature of the state: There are two key aspects to the state. It has limited powers and should secure justice. Power is limited because God has delegated authority to communities other than the state – the family for instance. Government ought not overstep their authority. Governmental power is also limited for the Christian by their conscience. Submission to God trumps submission to government.
Regarding securing justice, governments are to make sure different spheres do not encroach on the others and to make sure justice is protected. It cannot enforce every moral code, nor should it, but it should ensure that behaviors that impinge upon others’ fundamental rights should be stopped.
4. An agent of common grace: The state has nothing to do with the spiritual welfare and salvation of people, but it is an instrument of God to care for order and the general good of all people. It is an agent of common grace.
5. The call to political engagement: All of creation is touched by the fall and God wants Christians to redeem every area in the cultural mandate. No area of life is so forsaken that God does not want Christians to make a difference.
6. Political modesty, toleration, cooperation, and compromise: Even if believers have the Truth, we still see through a glass darkly (1 Cor. 13.12). Toleration only comes when there is genuine disagreement between people, but the key to government is enforcing justice. That means, even if we don’t agree with everyone, we need to cooperate and compromise for the movement toward good and God’s values – even if we can’t have everything. “The perfect should not be the enemy of the good” (p. 149).
7. Principled pluralism and public policy: Using the Charitable Choice Act, Smidt shows how it practically works. The idea being that when there is a common interest for the good, church and state should work together – like poverty. Because the circles are different, working together will reach some groups that would fall through the cracks – and the common good is accomplished.
3. The nature of the state: There are two key aspects to the state. It has limited powers and should secure justice. Power is limited because God has delegated authority to communities other than the state – the family for instance. Government ought not overstep their authority. Governmental power is also limited for the Christian by their conscience. Submission to God trumps submission to government.
Regarding securing justice, governments are to make sure different spheres do not encroach on the others and to make sure justice is protected. It cannot enforce every moral code, nor should it, but it should ensure that behaviors that impinge upon others’ fundamental rights should be stopped.
4. An agent of common grace: The state has nothing to do with the spiritual welfare and salvation of people, but it is an instrument of God to care for order and the general good of all people. It is an agent of common grace.
5. The call to political engagement: All of creation is touched by the fall and God wants Christians to redeem every area in the cultural mandate. No area of life is so forsaken that God does not want Christians to make a difference.
6. Political modesty, toleration, cooperation, and compromise: Even if believers have the Truth, we still see through a glass darkly (1 Cor. 13.12). Toleration only comes when there is genuine disagreement between people, but the key to government is enforcing justice. That means, even if we don’t agree with everyone, we need to cooperate and compromise for the movement toward good and God’s values – even if we can’t have everything. “The perfect should not be the enemy of the good” (p. 149).
7. Principled pluralism and public policy: Using the Charitable Choice Act, Smidt shows how it practically works. The idea being that when there is a common interest for the good, church and state should work together – like poverty. Because the circles are different, working together will reach some groups that would fall through the cracks – and the common good is accomplished.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)