Curious Christian

16 responses to “Peace is a fighting word”

1. 

   Janet

   2009-09-24

   It’s interesting isn’t it? There’s something disturbing about refusing to play by the schoolyard rules. I wonder what the “primal driver” is for this defensiveness and anger?

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. 

   Jarred

   2009-09-24

   Why, because Christian peacemakers undermine the legitimacy of claims that religion causes violence.
   Such claims should be challenged. Yes, religion has been used as a way to rationalize, excuse, and even promote violence. And that’s an issue that must be addressed and resolved. (Something I’ll note Christian peacemakers strive for.) But that doesn’t mean that religion is inherently violent or must inevitably lead to violence.
   Of course, my other thought is a bit more snarky: Religious violence? Really? That’s the best criticism you’ve got?
   Of course, I really don’t get the whole criticizing Christianity (or any other religion) business anyway. For the most part, I find it much more beneficial for me to explore and explain what I do believe and why rather than criticize or try to deconstruct something I don’t.

   LikeLike

   Reply
3. 

   Janet

   2009-09-24

   I wonder whether criticism is driven in part by “brittle superiority”… I feel better by attempts to prove you are wrong and I am right. Those who are more emotionally mature are both settled in their core beliefs, open to dialogue, and largely untroubled by differences of opinion.
   I say “largely” because… frankly… some beliefs and practices are quite toxic. There are some moral limits to freedom, and mature people ought to be disturbed by that which falls outside the bounds of human decency. Ah, complexity…

   LikeLike

   Reply
4. 

   Andrew Park

   2009-09-25

   What difficult questions this topic raises for me, Matt.
   As a follower of Jesus Christ, I hear his words loud and clear: “Love your enemies. Pray for those who persecute you”.
   That is pretty clear.
   But the issue of war also raises some fairly grey issues for me personally.
   I cannot say 100% that I am utterly and totally against war, because I believe I should be at war against violence.
   I am also reminded of something profound that was said a few years by a lawyer who was fighting against the death penalty in a very emotional episode:
   She said: “I am passionate against the death penalty and have been fighting against it in these courts for many, many years. It sickens me that we still resort to an act of legally sanctioned violence in order to punish someone’s violence…But I also realize that if it were my child being murdered, and if I had a gun or some other means to stop it, in the heat of the moment, in my love for my own child, I would probably kill the person murdering him, even though in intellectual hindsight and in my mind I know that I would still see killing the guilty person as wrong – so ethically and morally against everything I stand for regarding this issue”.
   Having lost a sister to murder, having lost the son of a friend to a senseless shooting, and sharing very personally in their pain, I can truly say that I know the dilemmas the issue raised for that lawyer and the grieving family of the victim. That scenario is probably played out many times for families and other participants in capital cases in the USA and elsewhere where the death penalty is applied.
   How do you protect people from other people’s unjust violence…just let the guilty continue to do it.
   As you are aware, I have been passionately against the war in Iraq since its beginning – it resulted from a knee-jerk, emotional reaction of revenge from a lying and morally deficient Bush regime.
   But it is still a difficult issue with many grey areas to be resolved about it.
   How different is a so-called Police Action by so-called Peace-makers any different from the sort of war being waged in Afghanistan supposably to prevent murderous Talliban warriors from wreaking their crazy killing upon local innocents? Don’t they – the peacemakers and the soldiers – use the same brands of guns and bullets to do their jobs? Many anti-war advocates (e.g. Jim Wallis whom I support in most things) argue for Police Actions instead of wars. I reckon its still potentially the same thing viz. Vietnam War which was called by Johnson “police action”.
   Hard stuff. Certainly well worth asking important questions about regularly in a forum like this so people can think this issue through adequately.

   LikeLike

   Reply
5. 

   Andrew Park

   2009-09-25

   Oh by the way, I meant to say an episode of “The Practice” on TV. Somehow must’ve hit the delete button by accident during writing my post.

   LikeLike

   Reply
6. 

   Steve Hayes

   2009-09-25

   Perhaps I could comment from an Orthodox Christian point of view.
   The Orthodox Church has no just war doctrine. No war is just or justified. Yet the Orthodox Church is not a “peace church”, like the Quakers or the Mennonites.
   And perhaps this is because the Orthodox Church does not share the Western legalism that leads to a theological obsession with “justification”, which I believe lies at the root of the lawyer’s dilemma.
   That is the idea that every action has to be “justified”. If I kill someone in “self-defence”, then legally I must plead that it was “justifiable homicide”. But morally?
   For Orthodox Christians, killing in self defence, or even killing someone who is about to kill someone else, is not “justifiable”. It may be something you “had” to do to save someone else’s life, but you dont HAVE to try to justify it. You can, and should, acknowledge and confess it as a sin. In fact it is important to do so, because if you don’t, if you believe it is justified, then you are setting yourself up as deciding whether other people have a right to life, and you become inhuman.
   The Orthodox Church has saints who were soldiers, and saints who were conscientious objectors, and does not urge people to ve conscientious objectors as if that were the only way. But if a soldier kills someone in battle, then he should confess that as a sin and do penance for it, without the dehumanising attempt to say that it was “justifiable” or “justified”. The moment you say that killing a killer is “justified”, you place yourself in exactly the same place as the killer.
   To see the Orthodox approach to this, read Dostoevsky’s “Crime and punishment”, where a killer thought of all kinds of justifications, but in the end repents.
   The moment we try to justify homicide, or war, we dehumanise the people we kill, but we also dehumanise ourselves.
   Killing someone in self-defence may be the lesser of two evils, but it is still evil, and therefore something we need to repent of, and indeed, to see that it is the greater evil. It is but a short step from saying that killing is “justifiable” to saying that it is not evil but good, and something we have no need to repent of.
   The self-righteous and self-justified man who kills someone in such circumstances might say “I have no regrets, and I would do it again tomorrow.” But the repentant sinner will say “I have taken the life of someone made in God’s image, and may God in his mercy forgive me, and God forbid that I should ever find myself in a position where I had to do something similar again.”

   LikeLike

   Reply
7. 

   Janet

   2009-09-25

   I rather like the Orthodox view!

   LikeLike

   Reply
8. 

   Matt Stone

   2009-09-29

   Jarred, whilst I must say I do recognize a place for critiquing alternative paths (including Christianity, I won’t exclude my own here) I agree that it is more beneficial to explore and explain our own. This is what we Christians sometimes call the difference between “negative apologetics” and “positive apologetics”.
   One of the problems with negative apologetics is that, often undergirding it, is the assumption that disproving an alternative path proves ones own. This is a very dubious assumption I feel in the current pluralistic environment. Nevertheless, it does have it uses. For example, I would suggest that many of the New Atheist authors like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, etc, rely almost exclusively on negative apologetics. So I would ironically advance the negative apologetic that their inability or reluctance to engage in positive apologetics actually leaves them in a very weak position.
   For example, recently the Bible Society announced it was distributing Bibles to the NSW police force. Atheists, predictably, reacted negatively. After clarifying that the Bibles were being distributed for free, at no expense to taxpayers, and that they were only for those who wanted one, I responded that, under anti-discrimination laws, nothing should prevent Atheists from doing something equivalent. So, if they thought Darwin’s Origin of the Species, with its survival of the fittest philosophy, could better help police officers cope with trauma on the job, go right ahead. That they were unable to advance a counter proposal was for me quite telling. They were locked into criticism mode, they were unable to advance an alternative.
   Focussing back on Christian peacemaking then, I think the greatest strength of the Christian peacemaking position is that it is deeply Christocentric. It may be criticised as impractical, as naïve, as all sort of things, but at the end of the day, all we have to say to warmaking Christians is, show us how your understanding is more Christocentric than this.

   LikeLike

   Reply
9. 

   Matt Stone

   2009-09-29

   Andrew
   I acknowledge this is a difficult and emotional issue, and for people with your experiences more than most. And to be honest I don’t know what I would do in the heat of the moment if faced with the hypothetical child protection scenario you describe.
   But neither could I honestly say what I would do if faced with extreme temptations of other kinds. I know what I hope I would do. But would I do it? I won’t know till I am tested will I! So my intention is not to declare myself innocent. But there are a few things I would say about that hypothetical scenario.
   Firstly, it is far from clear that the child protection scenario directly correlates to a realistic war scenario. How many wars are genuinely fought to protect an innocent third party? I’ve heard this emotive analogy used many times, but can you name a war which directly mirrored it?
   Secondly, it is far from clear that it’s a zero sum game, kill or be killed. Why do we have police hostage negotiators if we think leathal force is the only option? I can think of many alternatives to the two options of my child being murdered or me murdering the intruder. In fact, I am sure if I introduced an extra gun into the situation it may only make matters worse. Learning de-escalation tactics is an alternative way of preparing for such a moment.
   Thirdly, to suggest killing is the only option, you’ve not only abandoned pacifism, you’ve also abandoned just war theology, which says violence should only be used as the last resort, not as the first or only resort.
   Fourthly, does the difficultly of following an ethic make it invalid? This is a most serious question.
   Fifthly, it needs to be recognized that there are a plethora of positions when it comes to war, not two. There is the just war position (war is a necessary evil), the holy war position (war can be a positive good, commanded by God), the machivelian position (whatever the governement says, just do it), the pacifist position (war is an unnecessary evil), and all sorts of variants in between. Your description of Jim Wallis’ position, I would say that better described as a restrictive varient of the just war position. In either case, it does not reflect my position.
   But all that being said, I again want to reiterate I understand this is a tough issue.

   LikeLike

   Reply
10. 

    Matt Stone

    2009-09-29

    Steve
    I would suggest that justification was more the obsession of the “magisterial reformers” than the “radical reformers” and the peace churches they gave birth to. In many ways pacifism is a rejection of just war theology.
    In any case, as a pacifist, I’d prefer to speak in terms of gracious war.
    Thus, what you describe as the Orthodox position has many similarities with my own. To approach pacifism too legalistically risks self refutation. Grace must abound.
    Nevertheless, I do differ from the Orthodox position in that I do advance conscientious objection over conscientious compliance. One may repent of past actions, but far better to not need to.
    And speaking of not needing to do it, conscientious objection is only half the story anyway. Peacemaking is not just about what you refuse to do, it is also about what you chose to do instead.
    Reconciliation work is equally the mark of the true pacifist, if not moreso. It is not enough to object to military service when war arrives, and sit on you bum before hand. A true peacemaker actively engages with enemies, in peacetime so that peace may continue, and in wartime so that peace may come. Hence my engagement with Hindu fundamentalists, even prior to the recent terrorist actions in India. Hense my engagement with others I disagree with. True peacemaking is not a path of avoidance but of alternative engagement.

    LikeLike

    Reply
11. 

    Jarred

    2009-09-29

    Matt, I agree that there is a time and place for critiquing alternate paths. However, I think it’s for other reasons than merely finding out what’s “wrong” with those paths or trying to prove those paths illegitimate on the whole.
    On the topic of peacemaking, I find myself often wondering if I’m a pacifist or not. I think that peace should be sought after whenever possible. But at the same time, I do think there are and will be those incidents where force and violence (I’m willing to question outright war) may be unavoidable and necessary. So I can’t quite get into the “unnecessary evil” camp.
    I think what we can do, however, is reduce the frequency of such incidents and find other solutions to the problems which often lead to war and violence. And I’m all for doing that. In that sense, I can appreciate what you said about reconciliation and the importance of doing work to maintain peace.

    LikeLike

    Reply
12. 

    Matt Stone

    2009-09-29

    Jarred
    Given that Christian see Christ as “the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being” and “the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation”, it is somewhat inevitable that we Christians will see other representations and other images as less legitimate … even ultimately illegitimate, as hard as that is to say.
    But that being said, this does not make us Christians incapable of seeing some value in other paths. Nor does it render us incapable of hearing God’s voice in non-Christian critiques of Christianity. I quite happily admit that I have learnt much from NeoPagans and continue to do so.
    And even if I did not, I would still say it is legitimate that people having the option to embracing other paths and rejecting Christianity. I very much affirm conversion as a voluntary thing.
    But understand, this last affirmation is very much linked to my understanding of force and violence, or rather, my rejection of it.
    Which brings me to a crucial point. I think it is wise, for Christians and non-Christians, to have a very close look at the links between “religiously sanctioned war” and “state sanctioned inquisition” in the history of Christendom. Often these were just two sides of the same coin. Just consider how Augustine of Hippo, the author of just war theology, was also the earliest Christian leader to theologically justify the persecution of heretics. Conversely consider how it was the radical reformers, the ones who rejected military service, who were also the most vocal advocates of freedom of religion during the Reformation.
    Do you think this is coincidence? Do you think its coincidence that me and Jarrod McKenna, two of the Aussies Christian bloggers most actively engaged with building reconciliation between religions are both Anabaptist influenced peaceniks? I’d say its no coincidence at all, that theologically the rejection of war and the rejection of persecution hang closely together with a deeper rejection of force and violence. Which leads me to a deeply disturbing challenge, do Pagans think they can sanction war, in any way, without risking blowback, however unintended?

    LikeLike

    Reply
13. 

    Jarred

    2009-09-30

    “…do Pagans think they can sanction war, in any way, without risking blowback, however unintended?”
    Probably not. But then, I find myself wondering if there might not be that rare, exceptional instance where taking that risk might still be the appropriate action. Granted, I haven’t seen any sign of such an instance in recent history. And I pray I never live to see such an instance. But that has much to do with the fact that I’d rather live in a world free of war and violence rather than a desire to avoid personal blowback.

    LikeLike

    Reply
14. 

    Matt Stone

    2009-09-30

    Fair enough. As with Steve, I think there’s a mistake in getting too bogged down in the rightness or wrongness of it anyway. Justifiable or not, the deeper question is, what makes for peace?

    LikeLike

    Reply
15. 

    Jarred

    2009-09-30

    I certainly agree with you on that, Matt.
    I think that recognizing and respecting the basic humanity and dignity of all people is a start. In my opinion, wars usually come about because people somewhere have forgotten or have chosen to ignore that simple fact. (Sadly, I also think that war also encourages people to forget or ignore that simple fact. “Othering the enemy” is a powerful tool for promoting and gaining support for war.)
    I also think there are different ways that gets expressed. Sometimes, it’s a case of someone deciding they want something and don’t mind taking it by force and at the expense of other people. Other times, it’s a case that people have been oppressed or mistreated to the point where they decide that the only recourse they have is violence and war. In a lot of cases, I suspect there’s a combination of both factors at work.
    So how does one address those issues. It seems to me that the latter is probably the simpler one to address. That’s a matter of offering solutions to people’s very real problems that don’t require them to become violent.
    But what do you do about wars started and promoted by people who are willing to take what they want — as opposed to what they need — at the expense of others?

    LikeLike

    Reply
16. 

    Matt Stone

    2009-09-30

    Jarred, what it comes down to is, I believe there is a deeper power at work in this world. Take a look at this – http://tiny.cc/Ge0Jt – though no doubt you’ve seen it before. Two forms of power, facing off. To me it is a powerful reminder that the power of death cannot stand against those who do not fear death. Jesus expressed this as a paradox: those who save their life shall loose it, those who loose their life shall save it. For me, that is an awakening to other power.

    LikeLike

    Reply