War: What If Christians Took Jesus at His Word?

[Joanne98]

In November, more than 400 Christians gathered in New Orleans for the Centennial Gathering of the National Council of Churches (NCC). One focus of their work was to grapple with a paper on "Christian Understanding of War in an Age of Terror(ism)." The issue is how to reconcile allegiance to the teachings of Jesus Christ with serving in the military, especially when ordered to engage in military actions that are believed to be inconsistent with Jesus' message.

This is not a new dilemma. The teachings of Jesus have perplexed those engaged in military action and war from the time of Constantine the Great (circa 280 -"337 CE), the first the first Roman Emperor to become a Christian. As the emperor, he used his armies as his means to sustain control of the Roman Empire. As a Christian ruler unwilling to give up his armies, he needed to reconcile the teachings of Christ with militarism. This is what the Just War Doctrine purports to do.

The inception of the Just War Doctrine as church law is traced to the theologian Augustine in the fifth century, although he drew upon established Roman practices and the tradition of punitive justice that extended back to well before the time of Moses. While probably the original intent was to limit war, or control the conditions of war, in so doing, it has had the significant effect of condoning war.

The doctrine holds that war is moral if it is executed in accordance with certain tests that Augustine defined as follows: right authority, a just cause, right intent, the prospect of success, proportionality of good to evil done, and that war is a last resort. The problem with these tests is this: any aggressor, by his own measure, can claim to have met them all.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/War-What-If-Christians-To-by-Sylvia-Clute-101226-249.html

Two things that are dooming the Christian faith. Christian Warmonger and Christian Greedmonger.

[Angry Dragon]

1. All they need to do is to forget about Jesus and just go back

to the Old Testament.

God the Father was very war mongering.

[freshwest]

2. Thanks Joanne98, you bring some great things here.

[Paranoid Pessimist]

3. Which words? They're very contradictory

"I am the way, the truth, and the light. Let no man come to the Father but by me."
That's pretty arrogant. I guess that tells all the Hindus and Jews and Budhists and worshippers of the Greek gods where they can go.

"A man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me." I'm not worthy!

"Think not that I come to bring peace on earth; I come not to bring peace but a sword." That one certainly turned out to be true!

"But as for these enemies of mine who do not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me." Luke 19:27. Christians have been following that instruction enthusiastically for two thousand years.

There are some good injunctions in the gospels that it would be wonderful if people would follow. The Christian deal, spelled out in the Lord's Prayer, is pretty straightforward: "Forgive us our trespasses AS WE FORGIVE THOSE WHO TRESPASS AGAINST US." Most of the devout Christians I've known were pretty good at accepting that they themselves have forgiveness, but the second part of the deal, well, not so much. I try to tell some of them if they harbor thoughts of personal revenge and believe in heaven and life after death, they won't make it unless they forgive. They don't like to hear that.

So I wouldn't be too eager to urge people to live by the words of Jesus.

[Igel]

4. Most such contradictions can be resolved.

Some are parables, not instructions. Some are temporily delimited. Etc.

Others are sort of annoying. Turn the other cheek has as its context being taken to court: If you do wrong, be willing to do everything possible to make amends, to do what's right. It's a shame to go to court, because such things should be settled between friends and equals. "Righteousness" covers a lot of ground--something most Xian groups aren't big into, the definition that Jesus would have assumed for "righteous" and how that would play out. Etc.

Even relations between believers and non-believers in the NT are pretty straightforward: If somebody persecutes you because of your faith rejoice in the persecution, don't resist what they do to you. Patient yet unmerited suffering for one's belief is a good thing, it would seem.

What's not clear are purely secular relations: If you're not attacked because you're a Xian but because you're of a different ethnicity, what do you do? How do you respond? If somebody wants to attack you because they want to take away your house or the money you need to feed your family, if somebody attacks you to rape you or just for the fun of beating you up, how do we respond? The standard in the NT is damned difficult to live up to; a lot of people want to be more virtuous than Jesus, and not only do that but require it of others. ("Super-Pharisee" comes to mind.)

It's easy to say that we should forgive a murderer or rapist. But there's the issue of righteousness and protecting the innocent, as well: If we forgive a murderer or rapist, does that mean we say, "Oh, well, yeah, John killed Betsy last week and Burt this week, but let's not punish him or lock him up." So some sects refuse to judge, even on a civil jury. Some refuse to allow people to fight, and say they would sit by, passively, as somebody raped their kids and tortured them to death. I'm agnostic on the first part; the second part I would consider it my Xian duty to kill the bastard if simple maiming didn't stop him.

A lot of this is how to reconcile the civil-order and national-theocratic aspects of the OT, even if you don't like the OT details. Jesus didn't produce a government. He wasn't particularly concerned about how to govern, if you look at the NT texts. "Governing" wasn't something that Primitive Christians had a big say in. But there are hints, however you want to explicate them. A Roman soldier was told just to do his duty honestly. Publicans were to collect what was required, no more. Both could easily "eat" off the public largesse--publicans were tax farmers, sort of private collection agents just responsible for collecting a fixed sum of money. Neither would be suitable "Xian" activities according to most pacifist groups, but they were fine. Taxation without representation was okay. It's just that the hints aren't enough to build any kind of framework on without some seriously huge assumptions.