Welcome to Adobe GoLive 6

JS: At prayer meeting last night, we studied forgiveness. A WWII veteran spoke up; "I see what you're saying about forgiving people, but I keep thinking of Hitler. England was well down the road to synching up with Germany when Winston Churchill stepped to the forefront. I think God used Winston Churchill!" It occurred to me that this man was grappling with the question of just war. How I wished some of my deep, thoughtful friends were there to give some input. But it's not too late. . ..

LK: Well, let's see if we can get back into the deep, thoughtful groove now that all the holiday craziness has passed. In fact, (not so coincidentally), we have another deep, thoughtful friend waiting to synergize with us this month--Trudy Morgan-Cole, a freelance writer who lives in St. John's, Newfoundland (which sounds like a terrifyingly cold place to this dedicated desert rat). Trudy has a special interest in the subject of Christian nonviolence and said she'd enjoy doing a "trialogue" with us about it.1 So what do you think, Trudy? Do you think there's such a thing as a "just war"--and if so, can a Christian ever justifiably participate in it in a combatant capacity?

TM: Thanks for inviting me, ladies! Honestly, Leslie, I don't think it's my place to judge those who choose to engage in combat--just as I can't judge those who live in the desert while we're shoveling out from under a mountain of snow! But I don't see anything in Jesus' teaching or His life that supports the idea of violence or a "just war." The people of Jesus' day expected a military Messiah. What cause could be more "just" than freeing God's chosen nation from brutal Roman oppression? But Jesus completely undercut those expectations. He consistently taught and practiced nonviolence.

JS: In fact, Jesus' first recorded scripture reading was His own Messianic mission statement in the first two verses of Isaiah 61. But Jesus left off the second half of verse two, which was "the day of vengeance of our God." He knew that was the Pharisees' favorite part, because it told them that God would give the Romans their comeuppance. Jesus didn't want to reinforce those attitudes in the slightest.

LK: So it looks like we can agree on some basic biblical concepts here: The purpose of Jesus' ministry was not to instigate literal, violent revolution, but to inspire people with the revolutionary principles of His kingdom, that they might learn to impact their world and resolve conflict from the inside-out, not the outside-in. Therefore, the church as an institution is never to be an agency of political and military intervention--which is precisely what it became during the Dark Ages, (and is, in fact, what precipitated and perpetuated the Dark Ages), as you noted in your article, Trudy. Having said that, I think the thornier question is, While military intervention is never the prerogative of the church, and not God's ideal for civil governments, is there ever a time when it's preferable to nonintervention? In other words, does a posture of nonviolence translate into an unconditional pacifism?

TM: I tend to think that it does, but it's a mistake to confuse pacifism with passivity. Sometimes we're called to actively resist evil, but I think the ideal is always nonviolent resistance. The New Testament calls us to obey legitimate authority, but there are also times when we have to follow the example of Jesus and the apostles and disobey unjust laws--to "obey God rather than men" when men's laws violate God's laws. There are many creative, nonviolent, and historically successful ways of doing that without taking up the sword--something Jesus and his followers refused to do. To me the greatest drawback to violence is that when we confront evil using evil's own weapons, we tend to become the very thing we're fighting against. I think we see a lot of examples of that in current conflicts around the world today.

JS: Throughout most of wretched human history military efforts have been characterized by the machinations of sin reacting to sin. But in the history of the universe there have been a few unquestionably just, divinely implemented wars, have there not? The Revelation plainly depicts "Michael and his angels waging war with the dragon."2 It also speaks clearly of a "day of wrath" in which God will, in effect, war against those who are persecuting His people.3 Doesn't God care to deliver the oppressed? Can he always do it through nonviolent means? I admire the way God's foreign policy perfectly straddles the best elements of just war and pacifism. Most of the time he refrains from intervention in earthly affairs to allow for human free will. Then there are times when He does take matters into His own perfect hands, and then always to save the innocent from oppression and temptation. But we mustn't forget that He is the Creator and Redeemer of those He finally wars against. They belong to Him twice over. That cannot be said of human beings--at least I don't own anyone, do you?

LK: It's true, Jen; we don't own anyone, including ourselves. Yet even though we don't own life, God has made us stewards of it, which is a grave and complex responsibility. It forces us to address the age-old question: Are there times, in this sinful world, when we can best value life by taking it, when we can best quell violence by overcoming it with force, even deadly force? German pastor and theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer "grappled with the moral and theological implications of using violence to stop violence;" as he tried to "reconcile the ethical dimensions of Christianity with the miserable facts of the 20th century," he concluded that he could best serve the cause of life by participating in a plot to assassinate Hitler--for which he paid with his own life.4 It's a paradox that Christian ethicist Norman Geisler has described like this: "True love and a just war are not incompatible, for true love will protect the innocent against an evil aggressor...love and justice are not incompatible. If they were, then they could not both be attributes of God...To say love and war are inconsistent is itself an inconsistent extending of love to the aggressor but not to the victim."5 Any comments?

TM: Wow, I agree with so much of what you say--it is vital that we protect the innocent against evil aggressors. But how do we do that without becoming evil aggressors ourselves? I can admire Dietrich Bonhoeffer's courage and his convictions without agreeing with his choices--humbly recognizing, of course, that I am in no position to judge until I have faced an enemy as evil as Hitler.6 I find it interesting that Jen started with an allusion to a WW2 vet, and your comment brings us back to Hitler. In discussions of nonviolence, Hitler invariably becomes the symbol for an evil so great it must be fought with violence. Yet virtually every time nonviolent resistance was used against Hitler, it succeeded.7 Dictators like Hitler are able to attain and cling to power because ordinary people support them--willingly or otherwise. Think of the people who defied Hitler, and the lives they were able to save--usually at risk of their own. If there had been thousands more Raoul Wallenbergs, or Oskar Schindlers, or Corrie Ten Booms, thousands more religious leaders like the German Catholic bishops who spoke out against Hitler's plan to euthanize mentally disabled people--would Hitler have been able to succeed? I think not. Violence--perhaps the nearest thing our century has seen to a "just war"-- finally defeated Hitler, but at what terrible cost! What atrocities did the "good guys" commit in order to stop Hitler's atrocities? Any student of history knows the sad answer. Yes, evil must be dealt with, but I think human beings can best deal with it by peaceful nonviolent resistance. Dealing with it ultimately, as Jen points out, is God's job. And even there I find our Biblical Seventh-day Adventist understanding of eternal punishment more consistent with God's character than the idea of a God who looks forward to torturing people forever in hell. God never takes pleasure in violent death, even of the wicked,8 and Jesus' example shows us that when God lived as a human being, He chose to live nonviolently. Who else can we take as our example?

JS: Great points. I am truly interested in reading more about how nonviolent means succeeded in Hitler’s case, although I have a touch of skepticism. But now I want to add another wrench to the works: Trudy made the point well that "human beings can best deal with it [violence] by peaceful nonviolent resistance." I think we can all agree that nonviolent resistance is God's first choice. Yet the conquest of Canaan was a case of God instructing human beings to destroy other human beings. So we can't really say that it's innately and dogmatically wrong for human beings to use violence, for God commanded it in certain cases. But it's true that neither Jesus or any other New Testament writer endorsed violence as a means of putting down evil. Quite the opposite.9 What changed? It can only be the dissolving of the theocracy when Jesus came as a fulfillment of type and symbol, and when God's headship transferred from national Israel to spiritual Israel, the church.

LK: I appreciate that thought, Jen, and all the excellent points that Trudy made earlier. If it's any consolation to anybody (including myself), I really am a peace-minded former hippie who voted for both Mondale and Dukakis, and in my hitchhiking days talked a would-be rapist-murderer out of carrying out his threats, then ended up comforting him when he broke down in tears. But having two beautiful daughters to protect, and advancing age (I wish there was a more delicate way to describe that), have brought a little pragmatism to my idealism. The most concise description of my position is this: I believe that God's pattern (as expressed in both the Old and New Testaments) is to avoid the use of force whenever possible, to the point even of absorbing it into Himself (as at the cross); yet He does not shrink from its judicious use when human perversity becomes incorrigibly resistant to milder interventions. And while both military and judicial intervention are not the prerogative of the church but of civil governments, individual conscience must dictate our support (in either a combatant or noncombatant capacity, in the case of war) or conscientious opposition.10 And that's about all I can think of to say about it. So are we finished or are we still having fun?

TM: I'll finish by saying I'm totally in awe of the personal experience you related, Leslie. I'm sort of the opposite of you--as I grow older I find myself becoming more idealistic and more committed to total nonviolence as God's ideal for His people. But I have never been personally threatened with violence and, like most women, I have the shadow-image of the rapist/murderer in the back of my mind as the constant test of my nonviolent principles--how can I know how I would react until faced with the reality of violence? It awes me that you've faced such a threat and responded by resisting evil in such a nonviolent, creative, even loving way. That's what it all comes down to: we can have all the theory in the world about pacifism and nonviolent resistance, but the ultimate test is how we live daily in this world of power, domination, and violence. Do we respond creatively, nonviolently, and with Christlike love? It's my prayer that I can learn to do that.

LK: Actually, Trudy, before you congratulate me any more for my nonviolent diplomacy, I should tell you that before I managed to talk him out of it, I slugged him and bit him on the ear. So as you can see, I believe diplomacy must have some teeth in it. Seriously, though, I join with you in your prayer that we might better learn to respond to provocation with the love of Christ. And now I really am done. Do you believe me, Jen?

JS: I do. You may be long-winded, but you do have a “stop” button. And your speeches are edifying and informing, as are Trudy’s. But I must say, it’s so easy to theorize here in the safety zone. As we speak, many struggle in war-torn parts of the earth, facing foes so cruel they would make our blood curdle. War for us is a subject. For them it is a constant, grim reality. I think I can speak for us all in saying our prayers are with them, regardless of where they stand on this issue.

________________________________________________________________________

1. See Trudy's "Christ or Constantine" in the October 16, 2003 issue of the Adventist Review, at http://adventistreview.org/2003-1542/story2.html.

2. Revelation 12:7-9 Michael is evidently the chief angel, thought by some to be Jesus (See Daniel 12:1). Regardless, he is a being with heavenly authority and power.

3. Revelation 6:16 and 17. The day of wrath is also called "The day of God," or "The day of the Lord," or other, similar expressions. (See also Is. 63:4, Jer. 30:7, Joel 1:15, 2:1, 11 and 31, Zeph. 1:14, and Rev. 16:14).

4. See Philip Kennicott, "'Bonhoeffer': Thou Shalt Kill, The Parable of the Theologian Who Decided Hitler Had to Die" at http://www.jknirp.com/bonny.htm.

5. Norman Geisler, Christian Ethics: Options and Issues (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2002), pp. 230-231; see the discussion of Activism, Pacifism and Selectivism in the chapter "War." Personally, I wouldn't use the phrase "just war" because so much that happens in the context of war is not just, but I believe there are "just causes" which require military intervention.

6. According to theologian Walter Wink, Bonhoeffer himself did not believe violence was necessarily the "right" choice here. "If counterviolence appears to be the only responsible choice, this still does not make violence right. Bonhoeffer is a much-misunderstood case in point. He joined the plot to assassinate Hitler. But he insisted that his act was a sin, and threw himself on the mercy of God. Two generations have held back from full commitment to nonviolence, citing Bonhoeffer's example. Had he known, both that his attempt would fail, and that it would have the effect of justifying redemptive violence in the eyes of so many Christians, I wonder if he would have done it." Walter Wink, Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992).

7. For more information on this and a thought-provoking overview of Christian nonviolence, see the work cited above by Wink (pp. 254ff particularly deal with nonviolent resistance to Hitler.) The information about Catholic bishops protesting Hitler's plans comes from James Carroll, Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews (Mariner Books, 2002).

8. See Isaiah 28:21, Ezekiel 18:32, 2 Peter 3:9

9. See Romans 12:17-21

10. Of course, much more could be said about the ethical considerations of war, but it's not within the scope of this discussion to examine such issues as national sovereignty, the morality of preemptive strikes and covert operations, etc.


Just Love, or Just War? With guest writer Trudy Morgan-Cole JS: At prayer meeting last night, we studied forgiveness. A WWII veteran spoke up; "I see what you're saying about forgiving people, but I keep thinking of Hitler. England was well down the road to synching up with Germany when Winston Churchill stepped to the forefront. I think God used Winston Churchill!" It occurred to me that this man was grappling with the question of just war. How I wished some of my deep, thoughtful friends were there to give some input. But it's not too late. . .. LK: Well, let's see if we can get back into the deep, thoughtful groove now that all the holiday craziness has passed. In fact, (not so coincidentally), we have another deep, thoughtful friend waiting to synergize with us this month--Trudy Morgan-Cole, a freelance writer who lives in St. John's, Newfoundland (which sounds like a terrifyingly cold place to this dedicated desert rat). Trudy has a special interest in the subject of Christian nonviolence and said she'd enjoy doing a "trialogue" with us about it.1 So what do you think, Trudy? Do you think there's such a thing as a "just war"--and if so, can a Christian ever justifiably participate in it in a combatant capacity? TM: Thanks for inviting me, ladies! Honestly, Leslie, I don't think it's my place to judge those who choose to engage in combat--just as I can't judge those who live in the desert while we're shoveling out from under a mountain of snow! But I don't see anything in Jesus' teaching or His life that supports the idea of violence or a "just war." The people of Jesus' day expected a military Messiah. What cause could be more "just" than freeing God's chosen nation from brutal Roman oppression? But Jesus completely undercut those expectations. He consistently taught and practiced nonviolence. JS: In fact, Jesus' first recorded scripture reading was His own Messianic mission statement in the first two verses of Isaiah 61. But Jesus left off the second half of verse two, which was "the day of vengeance of our God." He knew that was the Pharisees' favorite part, because it told them that God would give the Romans their comeuppance. Jesus didn't want to reinforce those attitudes in the slightest. LK: So it looks like we can agree on some basic biblical concepts here: The purpose of Jesus' ministry was not to instigate literal, violent revolution, but to inspire people with the revolutionary principles of His kingdom, that they might learn to impact their world and resolve conflict from the inside-out, not the outside-in. Therefore, the church as an institution is never to be an agency of political and military intervention--which is precisely what it became during the Dark Ages, (and is, in fact, what precipitated and perpetuated the Dark Ages), as you noted in your article, Trudy. Having said that, I think the thornier question is, While military intervention is never the prerogative of the church, and not God's ideal for civil governments, is there ever a time when it's preferable to nonintervention? In other words, does a posture of nonviolence translate into an unconditional pacifism? TM: I tend to think that it does, but it's a mistake to confuse pacifism with passivity. Sometimes we're called to actively resist evil, but I think the ideal is always nonviolent resistance. The New Testament calls us to obey legitimate authority, but there are also times when we have to follow the example of Jesus and the apostles and disobey unjust laws--to "obey God rather than men" when men's laws violate God's laws. There are many creative, nonviolent, and historically successful ways of doing that without taking up the sword--something Jesus and his followers refused to do. To me the greatest drawback to violence is that when we confront evil using evil's own weapons, we tend to become the very thing we're fighting against. I think we see a lot of examples of that in current conflicts around the world today. JS: Throughout most of wretched human history military efforts have been characterized by the machinations of sin reacting to sin. But in the history of the universe there have been a few unquestionably just, divinely implemented wars, have there not? The Revelation plainly depicts "Michael and his angels waging war with the dragon."2 It also speaks clearly of a "day of wrath" in which God will, in effect, war against those who are persecuting His people.3 Doesn't God care to deliver the oppressed? Can he always do it through nonviolent means? I admire the way God's foreign policy perfectly straddles the best elements of just war and pacifism. Most of the time he refrains from intervention in earthly affairs to allow for human free will. Then there are times when He does take matters into His own perfect hands, and then always to save the innocent from oppression and temptation. But we mustn't forget that He is the Creator and Redeemer of those He finally wars against. They belong to Him twice over. That cannot be said of human beings--at least I don't own anyone, do you? LK: It's true, Jen; we don't own anyone, including ourselves. Yet even though we don't own life, God has made us stewards of it, which is a grave and complex responsibility. It forces us to address the age-old question: Are there times, in this sinful world, when we can best value life by taking it, when we can best quell violence by overcoming it with force, even deadly force? German pastor and theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer "grappled with the moral and theological implications of using violence to stop violence;" as he tried to "reconcile the ethical dimensions of Christianity with the miserable facts of the 20th century," he concluded that he could best serve the cause of life by participating in a plot to assassinate Hitler--for which he paid with his own life.4 It's a paradox that Christian ethicist Norman Geisler has described like this: "True love and a just war are not incompatible, for true love will protect the innocent against an evil aggressor...love and justice are not incompatible. If they were, then they could not both be attributes of God...To say love and war are inconsistent is itself an inconsistent extending of love to the aggressor but not to the victim."5 Any comments? TM: Wow, I agree with so much of what you say--it is vital that we protect the innocent against evil aggressors. But how do we do that without becoming evil aggressors ourselves? I can admire Dietrich Bonhoeffer's courage and his convictions without agreeing with his choices--humbly recognizing, of course, that I am in no position to judge until I have faced an enemy as evil as Hitler.6 I find it interesting that Jen started with an allusion to a WW2 vet, and your comment brings us back to Hitler. In discussions of nonviolence, Hitler invariably becomes the symbol for an evil so great it must be fought with violence. Yet virtually every time nonviolent resistance was used against Hitler, it succeeded.7 Dictators like Hitler are able to attain and cling to power because ordinary people support them--willingly or otherwise. Think of the people who defied Hitler, and the lives they were able to save--usually at risk of their own. If there had been thousands more Raoul Wallenbergs, or Oskar Schindlers, or Corrie Ten Booms, thousands more religious leaders like the German Catholic bishops who spoke out against Hitler's plan to euthanize mentally disabled people--would Hitler have been able to succeed? I think not. Violence--perhaps the nearest thing our century has seen to a "just war"-- finally defeated Hitler, but at what terrible cost! What atrocities did the "good guys" commit in order to stop Hitler's atrocities? Any student of history knows the sad answer. Yes, evil must be dealt with, but I think human beings can best deal with it by peaceful nonviolent resistance. Dealing with it ultimately, as Jen points out, is God's job. And even there I find our Biblical Seventh-day Adventist understanding of eternal punishment more consistent with God's character than the idea of a God who looks forward to torturing people forever in hell. God never takes pleasure in violent death, even of the wicked,8 and Jesus' example shows us that when God lived as a human being, He chose to live nonviolently. Who else can we take as our example? JS: Great points. I am truly interested in reading more about how nonviolent means succeeded in Hitler’s case, although I have a touch of skepticism. But now I want to add another wrench to the works: Trudy made the point well that "human beings can best deal with it [violence] by peaceful nonviolent resistance." I think we can all agree that nonviolent resistance is God's first choice. Yet the conquest of Canaan was a case of God instructing human beings to destroy other human beings. So we can't really say that it's innately and dogmatically wrong for human beings to use violence, for God commanded it in certain cases. But it's true that neither Jesus or any other New Testament writer endorsed violence as a means of putting down evil. Quite the opposite.9 What changed? It can only be the dissolving of the theocracy when Jesus came as a fulfillment of type and symbol, and when God's headship transferred from national Israel to spiritual Israel, the church. LK: I appreciate that thought, Jen, and all the excellent points that Trudy made earlier. If it's any consolation to anybody (including myself), I really am a peace-minded former hippie who voted for both Mondale and Dukakis, and in my hitchhiking days talked a would-be rapist-murderer out of carrying out his threats, then ended up comforting him when he broke down in tears. But having two beautiful daughters to protect, and advancing age (I wish there was a more delicate way to describe that), have brought a little pragmatism to my idealism. The most concise description of my position is this: I believe that God's pattern (as expressed in both the Old and New Testaments) is to avoid the use of force whenever possible, to the point even of absorbing it into Himself (as at the cross); yet He does not shrink from its judicious use when human perversity becomes incorrigibly resistant to milder interventions. And while both military and judicial intervention are not the prerogative of the church but of civil governments, individual conscience must dictate our support (in either a combatant or noncombatant capacity, in the case of war) or conscientious opposition.10 And that's about all I can think of to say about it. So are we finished or are we still having fun? TM: I'll finish by saying I'm totally in awe of the personal experience you related, Leslie. I'm sort of the opposite of you--as I grow older I find myself becoming more idealistic and more committed to total nonviolence as God's ideal for His people. But I have never been personally threatened with violence and, like most women, I have the shadow-image of the rapist/murderer in the back of my mind as the constant test of my nonviolent principles--how can I know how I would react until faced with the reality of violence? It awes me that you've faced such a threat and responded by resisting evil in such a nonviolent, creative, even loving way. That's what it all comes down to: we can have all the theory in the world about pacifism and nonviolent resistance, but the ultimate test is how we live daily in this world of power, domination, and violence. Do we respond creatively, nonviolently, and with Christlike love? It's my prayer that I can learn to do that. LK: Actually, Trudy, before you congratulate me any more for my nonviolent diplomacy, I should tell you that before I managed to talk him out of it, I slugged him and bit him on the ear. So as you can see, I believe diplomacy must have some teeth in it. Seriously, though, I join with you in your prayer that we might better learn to respond to provocation with the love of Christ. And now I really am done. Do you believe me, Jen? JS: I do. You may be long-winded, but you do have a “stop” button. And your speeches are edifying and informing, as are Trudy’s. But I must say, it’s so easy to theorize here in the safety zone. As we speak, many struggle in war-torn parts of the earth, facing foes so cruel they would make our blood curdle. War for us is a subject. For them it is a constant, grim reality. I think I can speak for us all in saying our prayers are with them, regardless of where they stand on this issue. ________________________________________________________________________ 1. See Trudy's "Christ or Constantine" in the October 16, 2003 issue of the Adventist Review, at http://adventistreview.org/2003-1542/story2.html. 2. Revelation 12:7-9 Michael is evidently the chief angel, thought by some to be Jesus (See Daniel 12:1). Regardless, he is a being with heavenly authority and power. 3. Revelation 6:16 and 17. The day of wrath is also called "The day of God," or "The day of the Lord," or other, similar expressions. (See also Is. 63:4, Jer. 30:7, Joel 1:15, 2:1, 11 and 31, Zeph. 1:14, and Rev. 16:14). 4. See Philip Kennicott, "'Bonhoeffer': Thou Shalt Kill, The Parable of the Theologian Who Decided Hitler Had to Die" at http://www.jknirp.com/bonny.htm. 5. Norman Geisler, Christian Ethics: Options and Issues (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2002), pp. 230-231; see the discussion of Activism, Pacifism and Selectivism in the chapter "War." Personally, I wouldn't use the phrase "just war" because so much that happens in the context of war is not just, but I believe there are "just causes" which require military intervention. 6. According to theologian Walter Wink, Bonhoeffer himself did not believe violence was necessarily the "right" choice here. "If counterviolence appears to be the only responsible choice, this still does not make violence right. Bonhoeffer is a much-misunderstood case in point. He joined the plot to assassinate Hitler. But he insisted that his act was a sin, and threw himself on the mercy of God. Two generations have held back from full commitment to nonviolence, citing Bonhoeffer's example. Had he known, both that his attempt would fail, and that it would have the effect of justifying redemptive violence in the eyes of so many Christians, I wonder if he would have done it." Walter Wink, Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992). 7. For more information on this and a thought-provoking overview of Christian nonviolence, see the work cited above by Wink (pp. 254ff particularly deal with nonviolent resistance to Hitler.) The information about Catholic bishops protesting Hitler's plans comes from James Carroll, Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews (Mariner Books, 2002). 8. See Isaiah 28:21, Ezekiel 18:32, 2 Peter 3:9 9. See Romans 12:17-21 10. Of course, much more could be said about the ethical considerations of war, but it's not within the scope of this discussion to examine such issues as national sovereignty, the morality of preemptive strikes and covert operations, etc.