Prince of Peace - God of War Film Screening

Thursday, Novemeber 10th, at 7:00pm, Tanks To Tractors will be showing the documentary film Prince of Peace - God of War by John Campea at Gordon-Conwell's Boston Campus: The Center for Urban Ministerial Education (90 Warren Street, Roxbury, MA). After the screening, the T2T crew will be holding a Q&A on the Christian Nonviolence position.

To RSVP, go to: http://bit.ly/warpeacefilm

Peace Ethics and Federal Taxes

Shane Claiborne (Christian speaker, author, urban minister, and outspoken pacifist) has shared an open letter to the IRS with his convictions about the payment of his federal taxes this year along with his protest of the government's use of tax dollars to fund the military.

Claiborne's position is that since he objects to the US government's use of federal tax dollars, his Christian pacifist convictions compel him to withhold a percentage of the taxes he owes in protest.

Carson T. Clark, an evangelical Anglican pastor and writer, has written a response. It is not an attack on Claiborne himself, or even on his convictions. It does however raise several good points, that I thought would make for good discussion fodder.

Also, Clark makes the very humorous comparison of Claiborne's approach to a scene from a Will Ferrel movie (below).

"TAXMAN!!!"

Four Flaws in Chris' View: A Case-study in Evangelical Hermeneutical Error

Chris has been nice enough to comment on our blog. He has been reading for months now and expresses concerns about the theology being presented here. Chris' view is representative of many evangelicals—especially evangelicals in the US. That is why I thought it worthy of a more thorough response. Here are four hermeneutical flaws in Chris' view:

Flaw #1) The Assumption of Congruence Between the First and New Covenants

The covenant that God made with the Hebrew people is not binding on disciples of Jesus Christ. Paul and the writer of Hebrews are clear on this matter (Gal. 3—particularly vv.23-25; Heb. 10.1-3). Disciples of Jesus Christ are recipients of a new and better covenant that supersedes the First Covenant. (Heb. 7.18-22, 8—particularly vv.5-13)

Chris' view assumes congruence between the First Covenant and the New Covenants that Scripture clearly shows is absent. Where Chris seeks to find sameness, Scripture teaches distinction and newness. Jesus demonstrates this clearly:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them… (Matthew 5.17)

You have heard …but I tell you… (vv.21-22)
You have heard …but I tell you… (vv.27-28)
It has been said …but I tell you… (vv.31-32)
…you have heard that it was said …But I tell you… (vv.33-34)

You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. (vv.38-39)

You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (vv.43-48)

Do you notice a pattern? Is it congruence with the First Covenant, or incongruence?

Whether God used war to punish or judge humanity in the First Covenant is irrelevant to the fact that God has, in these last days, revealed Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace, as the Lamb who conquers through self-sacrificial love. (Heb. 1.1-3; Rev. 5.12, 7.10, 12.11)

Flaw #2) The Assumption that the Revelation of God in the Hebrew Bible is Equal to Revelation of God in Jesus Christ

The Hebrew Bible, the Law and the First Covenant, point to Jesus—Jesus is revelation perfected. (Col. 2.17) The revelation of God in Jesus Christ is superior to the revelation of God in the Hebrew Bible—the Law and the Prophets—because Jesus is the "exact representation" of God's being—the final Word of God. (Heb. 1.1-3) In Christ, all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form. (Col. 1.19, 2.9)

Flaw #3) The Assumption that God's Judgment of Humans Permits or Prescribes Christian Judgment of Humans

Ananias and Sapphira were struck down by God directly (or indirectly)—with no mention of Jesus Christ I might add. Nowhere in this account is there any prescriptive or permissive application for disciples of Jesus Christ. God is humanity's Judge and is justified in requiring of a person his or her life. It does not follow, however, that this in any way exists as a command for Christ's followers to kill or even to do violence to human beings.

Disciples of Jesus Christ—that's us—are to "follow Jesus Christ." This is what it means to be his "disciples." Jesus suffered injustice, loved unconditionally, sacrificed his life for his enemies—this is our example to follow. (I Pet. 2.19-24) Jesus does not strike people dead, nor does he permit his disciples to even injure them. (Mt. 26.50-54)

God is humanity's Judge; disciples of Jesus Christ are forbidden judgment. (Mt. 7.1-2)

Flaw #4) The Assumption that God's Unchanging Nature Requires that God's Engagement of Humanity Must Not Change

God's essential nature is perfect and unchanging. (James 1.17) God can and does change how he engages humanity (e.g. "New" Covenant).

A change in God's engagement of humanity is not a change in God's essential nature. God's nature is free. Therefore, God can and has chosen to engage humanity in a "New" way in these last days. Namely, God has chosen to send Jesus Christ to be the Mediator of a "New" Covenant. (I Tim. 2.5; Heb. 9.15)

To recap:

1) The "New" Covenant is New—not a continuation of the First Covenant

2) Jesus Christ is the perfect revelation of God's nature—not the First Covenant

3) God is the Judge of humanity—disciples of Jesus Christ are expressly prohibited from judgment

4) God's essential nature is unchanging—God's engagement of humanity has changed radically in the New Covenant

Martin Luther King Day 2011 Quotes

"In the terrible midnight of war men have knocked on the door of the church to ask for the bread of peace, but the church has often disappointed them. What more pathetically reveals the irrelevancy of the church in present-day world affairs than its witness regarding war? In a world gone mad with arms buildups, chauvinistic passions, and imperialistic explorations, the church has either endorsed these activities or remained appallingly silent. During the last two world wars, national churches even functioned as the ready lackeys of the state, sprinkling holy water upon the battleships and joining the mighty armies in singing, "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition." A weary world, pleading desperately for peace, has often found the church morally sanctioning war." - The Strength to Love (1963)

"Violence brings only temporary victories; violence, by creating many more social problems than it solves, never bring permanent peace. … A voice, echoing through the corridors of time, says to every intemperate Peter, "Put up thy sword." History is cluttered with the wreckage of nations that failed to follow Christ's command" - The Strength to Love (1963)

"During recent months I have come to see more and more the need for the method of nonviolence in international relations. …more and more I have come to the conclusion that the potential destructiveness of modern weapons of war totally rules out the possibility of war ever serving again as a negative good. If we assume that mankind has a right to survive then we must find an alternative to war and destruction. …The choice today is no longer between violence and nonviolence. It is either nonviolence or nonexistence. …I am convinced that the church cannot remain silent while mankind faces the threat of being plunged into the abyss of nuclear annihilation. If the church is true to its mission it must call for an end to the arms race." - Pilgrimage to Nonviolence (1960)

- Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

"We ain't goin' study war no more." - Dr. King

"When I first took a stand against the war in Vietnam, the critics took me on and they had their say in the most negative and sometimes most vicious way. One day a newsman came to me and said, 'Dr. King, don’t you think you’re going to have to stop, now, opposing the war and move more in line with the administration’s policy? As I understand it, it has hurt the budget of your organization, and people who once respected you have lost respect for you. Don’t you feel that you’ve really got to change your position?' I looked at him and I had to say, '...I’m not a consensus leader. I do not determine what is right and wrong by looking at the budget of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference...' Ultimately a genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus, but a molder of consensus... There comes a time when one must take the position that is neither safe nor politic nor popular, but he must do it because conscience tells him it is right. I believe today that there is a need for all people of goodwill to come with a massive act of conscience and say in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "We ain’t goin’ study war no more."

- Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. - From "Remaining Awake Through A Great Revolution " (Sermon) March 31, 1968

Critique of an Essay on C. S. Lewis' Just War View

I love C. S. Lewis. In many ways, he has been a mentor to me throughout my Christian life. From the time I first read Mere Christianity to now as I am reading the Chronicles of Narnia series to my children, his teachings have helped to shape my faith. That is why it is particularly troubling to me when I read his thoughts on war and peace. I recently found an essay on Lewis' view of Just War, and opposition to pacifism, on the website of Touchtone Magazine—which is apparently a Christian journal. I'd like to spend a little time and space here dissecting parts of this essay in the hopes of exposing critical errors in its conclusion.

The argument the author makes is amazingly naive. For example, he writes, "Human beings cannot be expected to survive in a political system meant for angels, nor is there any biblical warrant for them to attempt such a system." By this he is referring to pacifism, but it is entirely unclear where he is pulling the idea that peace is an angelic ideal, not a human one.

At one point he examines what he calls the "failure of pacifism" from several points of view: facts, intuition, reasoning, and authority. Take a look at some of his points.

"Intuition provides a stronger case for pacifism. We seem to feel very strongly that love and helping are good, while hate and harming are bad. What this intuition fails to tell us, however, is how we are to love and help the innocent who are being treated unjustly by the wicked without using force on the wicked. So intuition in this case leads us astray because it does not see (not immediately at least) what reason sees: that you can love and use force at the same time."

First, the author is supposed to be demonstrating the failure of pacifism under the criterion of "intuition." How does he do so? He states upfront that intuition seems to support pacifism. Then, he goes on to abandon intuition altogether and judge intuition's conclusion by reason. How does this demonstrate pacifism's failure using intuition as a criterion? It doesn't. If anything, this demonstrates pacifism victory on the grounds of intuition, and reason's failure to support our intuition. If our reason goes against our intuition, this author directs readers to jettison their intuition entirely. However, it could just as easily be argued that the author's "reason" or "logic" is just as much an "intuition," since the instinct that killing is not love certainly has a "logical" and "reasonable" grounding.

"Authority, too, is against the pacifist. Every human society has said that some wars are good and that every citizen benefits from some wars (most obviously, wars of self-defense). The Christian tradition since the fourth century has declared that some wars are good.

Yes, opinion was divided in the first two centuries, but not nearly as much as popular opinion would have us believe. The first Christians were held in suspicion by the Roman authorities, and, to make matters worse, participation in the Roman army meant engaging in pagan rites such as emperor-worship. But we find little evidence of the earliest Christians rejecting military service on account of a moral aversion to bloodshed. Most of the early church fathers who speak on the subject of just war speak with approval.

In fact, the 'pros' clearly have it over the 'cons.' Clement of Alexandria, Origen (who was unique in limiting Christian support to prayer for the troops to succeed), Eusebius, Basil, Ambrose, Chrysostom, and Augustine all admit to the goodness and usefulness of just wars. Only Tertullian can be listed on the pacifist side. The great early Reformers, such as Tyndale, Luther, and Calvin, were all proponents of the just war. Only the radical reformers rejected the notion of a just war."

Second, the author scrutinizes pacifism under the criterion of "authority." Of course, what the author means by authority is unclear. Apparently, he appeals to history as authority rather than Scripture. Not a single verse is cited. And even the author's use of Church Fathers is amateurish at best. The fact that he begins his case for the Church's support of war with a statement that starts this support in the "fourth century" and only claims "some" wars are good, does not make a strong case. The obvious questions this statement begs are: What about the preceding centuries, closer to the time of Christ? And, if all wars have not been good, which wars were not good? The author does not answer the second question, and misrepresents the facts to address the first. He claims that there is a lack of evidence in support of Christian nonviolence before the fourth century, and that more early church fathers supported a concept of just war than were opposed. In fact, he counts Origen as a supporter of war because he taught that we should pray for soldiers. However, he erroneously adds that Origen taught we should pray for soldiers' victory in battle. In contrast, Origen argues that if, as Celsus hypothetically pondered, all Romans were Christians, then war would be unnecessary because through prayer God would destroy Rome's enemies.

"We say that if two of us agree upon earth concerning anything that they shall ask, they shall receive it from the heavenly Father of the righteous... For they will pray to the Word, who said of old to the Hebrews when they were pursued by the Egyptians: ‘The Lord shall fight for you, and ye shall be silent’; and, praying with all concord, they will be able to overthrow far more enemies who pursue them than those whom the prayers of Moses—when he cried to God—and of those with him overthrew...But if, according to Celsus’ supposition, all the Romans were to be persuaded, they will by praying overcome their enemies; or (rather) they will not make war at all, being guarded by the Divine Power, which promised to save five whole cities for the sake of fifty righteous. For the men of God are the salt that preserves the early order of the world; the earthly things hold together (only) as long as the salt is not corrupted."
- Against Celsus, 8.70

Furthermore, the author claims that opinions differ on the early church's stance toward war before Constantine. However, the only detractor from the overwhelming consensus is himself. Cadoux writes,

"The early Christians took Jesus at his word, and understood his inculcations of gentleness and non-resistence in their literal sense. The closely identified their religion with peace; they strongly condemned war for the bloodshed which it involved; they appropriated to themselves the Old Testament prophesy which foretold the transformation of the weapons of war into the implements of agriculture; they declared that it was their policy to return good for evil and to conquer evil with good."
- John C. Cadoux, The Early Christian Attitude to War: A Contribution to the History of Christian Ethics, 245.

Finally, the authors' implementation of reason as a demonstration of pacifism's failure is perhaps the most disturbing. His reasoning proceeds thusly:

1) Pacifists take Jesus' nonviolence teachings at "face value."
2) This is clearly a mistake because we don't take other teachings of Jesus literally (e.g. selling all our possessions to give to the poor, and not burying family members.)
3) Thankfully, Paul and Peter show us that what Jesus meant was not to exact vengeance.

He writes,

"Reason is clearly against the pacifist on all fronts, except, perhaps, one: the teaching of Jesus that one should “turn the other cheek” (Matt. 5:39). Lewis readily admits that it is hard to deal with people who base their entire theology on a few verses—this in itself seems to go against reason—but he does have a response. If we are going to take all of Jesus’ commands at face value, then pacifists should also sell all their goods and give them to the poor. They should also quit burying their loved ones (“leave the dead to bury the dead,” Matt. 8:22).

Fortunately, we have the Apostle Paul to help us here. When Jesus tells us to turn our cheeks when struck, he means that we should not retaliate out of vengeance. We leave vengeance to God, who works his vengeance on the evildoer through the State’s use of the sword. Christians are called upon to support the State, which has been ordained by God just for the purpose of using the sword to establish and maintain justice (Rom. 12–13). This better accords with the rest of the New Testament—not to mention the Old Testament, where God commands killing on quite a number of occasions! Pacifist logic leads us to say that Paul, Peter, and the writer of Hebrews (who, in the eleventh chapter, commends to Christians as people worthy of imitation those Old Testament warriors who waged war for justice) all misunderstood the teachings of Jesus."

The author's hermeneutics are pathetic. Placing the saying "let the dead bury their own dead" in the same category as "love your enemies" is intellectually dishonest. Jesus clearly mourns the death of Lazerus, to the point of shedding tears for him—knowing full well that he would be raised to life. Furthermore, it is clear from the context that Jesus' hyperbole was meant to emphasize the urgency and unrelenting resolve discipleship and Kingdom citizenship demand. It is comparable to Christ's hyperbolic teaching to cut off offending body parts. Christ's command to love our enemies is not at all hyperbolic. God loves his enemies. Godliness requires that we act in accordance with the divine nature.

It is also important to note that Romans 12 contains stark examples of Paul's full acceptance of Christ's nonviolent ethic. This includes the command to "Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse" (v.14) as well as "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." (v.18) If we are commanded to bless our enemies and live at peace with them as far as it depends on us, then we have no justification for violence. This sets the stage for Paul's comments about living under worldly governments. We must never think that ours is a role in society of exacting judgment. Rather, ours is a role of peace, reflecting the Kingdom of God where swords will be beaten into plows.