|
Register
|
|
Individuals, small groups,and congregations are invited to join the National Registry of Peace Churches. More...
|
|
|
 |
| Following Jesus in nonviolent struggle for justice and peace, we love our neighbors and enemies
as God loves us all, becoming a peace church to share in God’s work to save the world. |
|
| |
Militaristic Christendom and the Gospel of The Prince of Peace
by Dan Shubin
See the book from which the following essays are excerpted http://www.peacehost.net/peacechurch/
To preach Christian pacifism during wartime is a voice crying in the wilderness to deaf people. The old cliche is only too true, that conscientious objection as a sound Biblical concept is valid only during peacetime, but not practical during a war. ECAPC is an encouragement to individuals and Christian churches alike that the primary concept of the Gospel of the Kingdom taught by Jesus Christ is to abolish war and terminate the necessity of military training.
Speaking with John Stoner about 7 years ago, he was a motivation for me to develop my own small effort to disseminate the concept of Christian pacifism, with writing and printing books on this subject and creating a peace oriented web site. John also encouraged me to become more involved in the effort of conscientious objection for the military age members of my own denomination when the Iraqi war began. Including me in his ECAPC Speakers Bureau made me study the topic more in order to be able to provide a response that would be concrete and practical, a response that was both Biblically sound and could defeat the political arguments that are presented by the secular state to justify war and military agression. My latest book on Christian pacifism, Militarist Christendom and the Gospel of the Prince of Peace, is likewise dedicated to John Stoner.
That violence is not a solution to a conflict of ideas or physical altercation was exemplified by Jesus Christ when he was arrested by the Roman soldiers.
And behold one of those [Peter] who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword and struck the slave of the high priest, and cut off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” Matt 26:51-52.
Jesus followed this reprimand of Peter by healing the wound on the soldier, and then stating that if it was the will of God that he should defend himself from the arresting officers, he could summon Angels from heaven to rescue him. Matt 26:53.
The law was superceded by the Gospel, however, militarist Christendom grasps one of the tenets that were made obsolete by the death and resurrection of Jesus and utilizes every passage in the NT to prove that it has not been abolished. The several statements of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, where the old law was replaced by a new mode of conduct that contain the phrase, “You have heard it said of old,… but I say unto you,…” likewise pertain to war, reprisal and violent aggression. Christendom dismisses Moses and the laws of his dispensation to justify Christian freedom, except in the case of Christian freedom from war. Then Christendom applies the Old Testament with full force as its justification, even though the general trend of the gospel is that of peace and reconciliation and endurance of offense and abuse without reprisal.
To use human weakness as an excuse to not observe the command to not be angry with your brother, or not to turn the other cheek, is no different than using the same excuse to violate any other command of God, which ever one it might be. If we are unable to observe the command then it is our attitude we should change, not the gospel. We should pray for the strength to follow in the footsteps of Jesus and not revile in return when we are reviled, not threaten in return when we are threatened, and die to sin and live to righteousness. If we are unable to turn the other cheek, put down that weapon, not become angry with someone, love our enemy, and suffer even unto death, the problem is not with the commands of Jesus, but with us, and we must change our attitude through prayer and fasting and penance to conform to his example.
The concept of Christian pacifism and non-resistance to aggression and violence under the Prince of Peace replaces the military struggle against enemies under the ancient kingdom of Israel, now obsolete. No more are the members of God’s people to become involved in the manufacture of weapons and military equipment; this vocation is replaced by those that promote the society and are aimed toward peace and harmony. They are non-violent in every situation and refuse retaliation for offenses or aggression, realizing that there is no justification to violence in any situation, even if means a person’s own injury or death. Jesus Christ said to his disciples, “The disciple is not above his teacher and a servant is not above his master.” Matt 10:24. Jesus conducted himself in a non-violent manner when persecuted, and so should his disciples. 1 Pet 2:22-23.
Daniel H. Shubin
Molokan C.O. Advisory Board
Peace Church Challenge http://www.peacehost.net/peacechurch/
ECAPC Speaker's Bureau
______________________
The Will of God that War be Abolished
Jonathan Dymond wrote in 1847 regarding the purpose of Christianity, and which is just as applicable, if not the more so, today.
It was the will of God that war be eventually abolished, and Christianity was the means by which this was to occur. Christianity with its present principles and obligations is to produce universal peace. It is because we violate the principles of our religion, because we are not what they require us to be, that wars continue.
In the Sermon on the Mount, the most studied and applicable passage of the New Testament for disciples of Jesus Christ, he makes 3 profound statements.
“You have heard it said of old, Do not kill, and whoever kills will be liable to judgment. But I say to you, that every one who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment.” Matt 5:21-22
“You have heard it said, And eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Matt 5:38-39.
“You have heard it was said, You will love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” Matt 5:43-44.
In these passages Jesus forbid his disciples to kill and be violent, or even to become angry. As Messiah of Israel, Jesus perfected the law of God, and taught that no longer was violence, hate, anger, malice, or vengeance to exist among the members of his new church. It is not the physical war that is the real struggle, but a metaphysical. For the true Christian, the real war is a spiritual war. It is the war against sin, against the lust of the flesh, and the victory is gained in defeating temptation. Apostle Paul defined it in the following terms:
Put on the entire armor of God that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we do not contend against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the power, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Eph 6:11-12.
Apostle Paul wrote the letter to the Ephesians during his 2 year imprisonment at Caesarea. Roman soldiers stationed in the prison as sentries, and no doubt an entire regiment or battalion always in training for combat. This led Apostle Paul to utilize the vocation and gear of the secular soldier as an analogy to apply to the real war of the spiritual soldier. The enemy according to Apostle Paul is not flesh and blood, it is not the person on the battlefield. The real enemy is the impulse inside a person that causes him and her to inflict damage and act violently. Sin and lust is the real enemy, and the real victory is gained when temptation is defeated. Apostle James also realized this.
What causes wars, and what causes fighting among you? It is not your passions that are at war in your members? You desire and do not have; so you kill. And you covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and wage war. Jam 4:1-2.
The apostle Paul described it in the following terms:
For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ… 2 Cor 10:3-5
The real war is against the flawed nature of humanity which contains this impulse of aggression and retaliation. The real war is won with faith, the gospel of peace which is reconciliation and with a knowledge of the word of God, knowing how a person should conduct himself. Using these spiritual weapons a person can defend themselves from temptation and gain the spiritual victory.
In summary, the purpose of the preaching of the gospel of the Kingdom of God and the principles of Christian tenets as taught by Jesus Christ during his ministry was the abolition or elimination or war through either reconciliation between parties, or refusal to participate in violence, reprisal or aggression.
Daniel H. Shubin
Molokan C.O. Advisory Board
Peace Church Challengehttp://www.peacehost.net/peacechurch/
ECAPC Speaker's Bureau
____________________
New Testament Justifications of War?
A few passages that pro-war advocates quote as so-called NT evidence for the justification of war will be discussed in this article.
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus reflected how his fellow Jews taught other Jews to hate their enemy, referring to the Roman occupation of Israel, and only to love themselves. But in contradisctinction, Jesus taught his disciples to love their enemies, pray for them and be kind to them. The incident of Matt 8:5-13, is a good example of how Jesus put his words into action: Jesus acted charitably to the person who held his people in contempt as political subjects and occupied their territory. The concern of the Roman centurian (a military officer in charge of 100 soldiers) was his servant, paralyzed and seriously ill, perhaps even near death, and so he, a Roman, was desperate to find someone who would heal him. He may have been in the same situation as the woman who suffered 12 years from menstrual bleeding, having lost all hope in doctors and nowhere else to turn. The Roman soldier was willing to subject himself to a Jewish faith healer – this is probably the manner that the soldier approached Jesus – whom he had heard of: this was the faith that Jesus commended. Jesus as a prophet knew that by commending this faith – or perhaps desperation – of a Roman willing to condescend to a Jew, and by healing the servant, he could display compassion to the soldier and indicate to him that the Jews were not his enemies.
When Jesus heard him, he marveled, and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.” Matt 8:11.
Viewing this statement from the perspective of Jesus’ precept to love their enemies, by commending his faith and healing the servant, Jesus displayed love to the enemy of the Jews – the Roman occupation. Jesus overcame evil with good. Rom 12:21. It is obvious that Jesus intended that an act of charity of this type toward the soldier would convince him that the Jews were really not his enemies, and then the soldier would no longer see the need to continue being a soldier and so resign. One of the most quoted passages to defend the military vocation is this comment of Jesus to the Roman centurion, yet its intent is entirely opposite. There is no evidence in this passage that because Jesus complemented his faith, and did not directly reprimand him for his vocation, that Jesus was indirectly approving of, if not at least condoning, his vocation as a soldier in Rome’s army.
The same logic can be applied to the visit of Apostle Peter to the home of Cornelius the Roman centurion in Act 10. Peter going to the home of Cornelius and preaching the gospel to him, and them receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit, was the manner that Peter showed love to his enemy: the Roman occupation. Through this act of charity Peter impressed on Cornelius that he was not their enemy, but now, having received the new birth from above, Cornelius and his household were now Peter’s brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ. From this point on, Cornelius was to no longer consider either Jews or the members of the new Messianic community his enemy, and he would eventually cease his vocation as a soldier.
That Jesus or Apostle Peter approved of such a vocation as a soldier in commending the faith of the Roman centurian and Cornelius has no more validity than Apostle James approving the vocation of a prostitute by commending the faith of Rahab in James 2:25. It is very doubtful that Rahab continued her business among the people of Israel after her and her family’s deliverance from the divine demolition of Jericho.
Slavery is much easier to justify in the NT, with no prohibitions clearly indicated, but on the other hand, having statements by the apostle Paul for the proper treatment of slaves by slave owners: Titus 2:9, Eph 6:5, and I Cor 7:21. The entire book of Philemon deals with Apostle Paul returning a runaway slave Onesimus to his master, and nowhere in this book is the institution of slavery condemned or discredited. Not one passage in the NT requires slave owners to free their slaves upon becoming Christian! However, the trend of Apostolic thinking was to eventually result in the emancipation of slaves, and this is exemplified in Gal 3:28 and Col 3:11, that the slave and slave owner are equal in the eyes of God. Eventually, the apostle hoped that Christian love would initiate emancipation.
Herding animals out of the temple area can hardly be utilized as a comparable event to the vocation of a soldier and the practice and atrocities of warfare. John 2:14, Matt 21:12. The whip used by Jesus was made of the ropes that tied to cattle together. Apparently, Jesus first untied the cattle, then used the ropes to herd them out of the temple premises. As Messiah, Jesus had the right to reprimand those who corrupted the true worship of God in his Father’s house. Jesus impressed on the Sadducees their corruption of temple worship by upsetting the tables of the money changes and driving out the sacrificial animals for sale. In each case they ignored him and shortly after continued their business practices. The point of discussion applicable is whether Jesus would have defended himself if attacked by these religious criminals. He would not have, just as he did not defend himself when arrested.
Daniel H. Shubin
Molokan C.O. Advisory Board
Peace Church Challengehttp://www.peacehost.net/peacechurch/
ECAPC Speaker's Bureau
___________________
Obey the State?
There are two examples in the Old Testamemt of state officials refusal to obey commands issued by their head of state, even with the balance of officials of the state supporting the edict. These two examples serve as evidence that the Biblical injunction to obey state officials of Rom 13 is only valid as long as the edict does not violate or contradict the law of God. The state is comprised of individuals whose responsibility is the welfare of the population of the nation, but when these same officials legislate law that conflicts with the law of God, then they have exceeded the authority delegated to them, because, “there is no authority except from God.” Rom 13:1. Any civil law that contradicts the law of God is not to the benefit of the population, because the law of God is to be the basis of all law that is legislated for the benefit of the nation.
In Dan 3 an event is described where King Nebuchadnezzar erects a gold statue of immense proportion: 90 feet high and 9 feet wide, and expects all his subjects to prostrate themselves before it. All comply with his request, until some of his officials inform him that 3 Jewish men who are also officials in his government refuse to do so. They tell the king, “These men, O king, pay no heed to you; they do not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you set up.” Dan 3:12. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego are called to the presence of the king and reply to him, saying, “O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace; and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king. But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image which you have set up.” Dan 3:16-18.
These 3 men, even though they were officials of the government of Nebuchadnezzar, nonetheless refused to follow a law that they considered to be unjust, because it was in conflict with the law of God, not to venerate any images, the Second Commandment. The 3 were likewise willing to go to their death.
The second event is recorded in Dan 6, where Daniel refuses to obey the edict to only petition King Nebuchanezzar on any matter. Government officials manipulated the king to issue this edict, in order to find reason to discredit Daniel or perhaps have him terminated from his government post. But the authority of the state – the king and his officials who legislated this law – is not above the authority of the living God, and so Daniel proceeded to ignore the edict and continued to pray to the God of heaven in his customary manner. After his arrest for violating this edict, Daniel was willing to go to his death, rather than capitulate to the officials and the edict of the state.
The extent of civil obedience is defined by Jesus in a conversation with Herodians, residents of Judea who had political affiliation with the family of Herod the Great.
“Tell us what you think. It is lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the money for the tax.” And they brought him a coin. Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said, “Caesar’s.” Then he said to them, “Render therefore to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” Matt 21:17-21.
This passage can be interpreted in the following manner in the light of the earlier passages by the apostle regarding civil obedience. The reimbursement to the state for the privilege of living in this country is payment of taxes and obedience of civil law. The line of obedience is drawn when the state requires a person to sacrifice their life for the country they reside in. At this point the state is usurping authority over life which only belongs to God the author of life. The state in demanding the life of a person installs itself as deity, and which is a capacity beyond that which the Bible rightfully attributes to and allows the state. This is the right of the Christian, to refuse to yield to the state what belongs to God, their allegiance and life.
The Christian is only a pilgrim and spiritual migrant in this world, a temporal resident, a person traveling through the valley of earthly experience on their journey to the eternal kingdom. The apostles wrote regarding this in the following:
These all died in faith, not having received what was promised, but having seen it and greeted if from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. Heb 11:13.
Beloved, I beseech you as aliens and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh that wage war against you soul. I Pet 2:11.
The Christian pacifist is an enigma in society. He is an enigma as well in the ecclesiastical world. The most popular cliché, “Anything worth having is worth fighting for,” does not apply to the Christian pacifist, because the entirety of the material world is temporal as a result of the short life span of the individual. There is nothing so valuable or indispensable that it is necessary for the Christian pacifist to use violence or weapons to defend it or retain it. The philosophy of the Christian pacifist makes him distinct from the balance of other individuals: he refuses to utilize force or violence or weapons under any circumstances to prove his convictions, defend himself or his Christian faith or congregation, or to compel any person to do his will, even if it means the loss of his property, mortal or physical harm, deprivation of freedom, or even the loss of his own life.
The Christian pacifist is an enigma in the realm of ecumenical Christendom because his interpretation of the message of the New Testament is diametrically opposite to the popular and historical one. The Christian pacifist is smaller than a miniscule minority, yet his presence unleashes considerable upheaval in military recruitment and conscription. The true believer embarrasses the recruits of Christian denominations because he forces them to reevaluate their decision to join the military and subject themselves to military training in the light of the gospel of the person they claim to accept and believe as Prince of Peace. The true believer forces the “Christian” soldier to realize that perhaps the salvation of Jesus is salvation from war, that by taking the same course of non-violence as did Jesus, no more suffering and dearth and devastation will occur. The true believer forces the “Christian” recruit to consider that the oath of allegiance to the secular state he took when he joined the armed forces was a capitulation to the kingdoms of this world, and a denial of the denial of the Divine Kingdom; that he was affirming the authority of the state over the authority of the Gospel; that he replaced his loyalty to Jesus King of kings with loyalty to the supreme head of the secular state.
Daniel H. Shubin
Molokan C.O. Advisory Board
Peace Church Challengehttp://www.peacehost.net/peacechurch/
ECAPC Speaker's Bureau
________________________
How Militarism Entered the Church
This article will deal with the manner that militarism entered the Christian church.
The inclusion of militarism in Christendom has its roots in the political philosophy of the Greek philosopher Plato. In his Republic, Plato states that the creation of the state as a means of providing for the best interests of its residents in the greatest good. The creation of a class to fight the enemies of the state, and for the sate to expand its borders and enlarge its realm – should the guardians deem it necessary – is treated as an axiom. Residents become the subjects of the state, and are not treated as having individual rights, but are utilized as necessary for the benefit of the state, even if they need to be treated as expendable or as a commodity. The life of an individual belongs to the state, and not to the individual, because the greatest good is the use of the individual to the benefit of the state as dictated by the philosopher-king.
At the same time, Plato taught that the god or gods of the state – the supernatural deity – are to be represented such that they are aligned with the good that the state wants to provide its residents. Such a god had the obligation to impress on the warrior it is better to “choose death in battle, rather than defeat and slavery.” Plato also believed that a nation cannot be strong unless it believes in God; he realized the value of a uniform religion to the stability and success of the military. According to Plato, a mere cosmic force or first cause that was not a person could hardly inspire hope or loyalty or sacrifice, and could not offer comfort to the hearts of the distressed, nor courage to embattled souls. Plato taught that a living God could do all this, and advised that the state promote a living God whose doctrines and demands parallel those of the state; religious belief would be used to gain control over the citizens. Plato also taught that control would be more effective if a belief in personal immortality was promoted along with belief in God. This conviction of immortality, the hope of another life, would give the soldiers courage to meet their own death on the battlefield and be able to bear the death of other soldiers and innocent victims. According to the Republic, no subject or resident would question or doubt that their best interests were at all times in the dictates of the state.
One interesting comment of Plato is the importance that military service plays in the reputation of the state. "Well, I said, everyone who calls any state courageous or cowardly will be thinking of the part which fights and goes out to war on the state’s behalf. No one, he replied, would ever think of any other.” (Republic, book 4, 429 b)
The reason is obvious: the military preserves and expands the civilization as developed by the state. Since this is in the best interest of the state, then the supreme deity likewise approves of the effort of the military in this area. Residents are to be taught to depend on the military as their source of security. Any warrior who abandons the military or resigns due to cowardice is considered a traitor to the state and emoted to a lower rank of service and outside of the armed forces. Those who die in battle are presented the highest honors, as if there was no greater manner for them to serve their country. It is not in areas of virtue, morality, peace or those areas that develop civilization, such as science or engineering, that are magnified by Plato as significant in the reputation of the state in the world-scene, but the strength and success of the military. The pathetic part is that greater honor is bestowed on soldiers that on reconcilers, which keeps the tradition of military service at the forefront of civil service.
What is noticeable in the treatises of the early Christian ecclesiastical apologists is that many did not advocate the study of Old Testament Bible stories for their students, but rather, the study of Greek philosophy was promoted. The population was entrenched in the various philosophies, including Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Pythagorus, Plotinus, Epicurus, and Zeno, and the apologists felt that a knowledge of this was more applicable to the understanding of Christian doctrine rather than a fluency of the OT. Perhaps they feared being branded as Judaizers if they were to emphasize OT Jewish history, law and praises, rather than their own Greek philosophic sages. The migration into Christendom of the concepts of Plato regarding his militancy, and the gods of the city-state who justified the edicts of the state, and the concept of the philosopher-king, occurred easily as a result of the study of the works of Plato by the ecclesiastical apologists and theologians. As far as Augustine was concerned, Plato was more highly valued than the study of the OT. (Augustine, The City of God, book VIII, chapters 4 and 5.) The promotion of the study of Plato by the apologists acted as a catalyst for the migration of the concepts of the Republic into ecumenical Christendom.
The religion that the Roman Emperor Constantine I promoted for the empire at his First Ecumenical Council in 325 AD was not the religion of the Bible. Constantine’s concept of a state religion was that of Plato, not Jesus Christ. The resultant religion under the Ecumenical Councils was a Christianity redefined in terms of neo-Platonism. The attempt of the Nicene Fathers working together with the secular authority of the Roman state to create a Christian nation was in reality the materialization of Plato’s envisioned Republic. Once Constantine assumed power as philosopher-king, Plato was rebaptized as the new Jesus of the Christendom of Constantine’s Roman Empire, as opposed to the Jewish Messiah proclaiming the Divine Kingdom. As a result of early education in the philosophy of Plato, military service was easily channeled into the doctrines of the accepted – and expected – practice of Christians.
The Christian leaders under Constantine then took the fatal leap of approving this new concept of the Gospel. It now became part of Christian service to serve in the Roman military, since the emperor was “Christian” and the empire was “Christian.” There was no longer a distinction between the divine and secular kingdoms. This identification of the Kingdom of God with the contemporary secular government created in the mind of the population the attitude that service to the government was service to God. To join the military and fight the emperor’s battles was to give service to both God and Caesar. The military now under the authority of a “Christian” ruler then promoted the enlistment of Christians and accepted the conversion of soldiers to Christianity.
_____________________
Augustine and His Just War Theory, Part 1.
This article and the succeeding one deal with the concept of justifiable war as taught by Augustine of Hippo.
Augustine in his early years was part of the membership of the Manichaeans, who were disciples of Mani. They taught dualism, the ethereal struggle between good and evil forces, and they were also objectors to military service. Augustine became a Manichaean in 373 and was a disciple for 9 years. Augustine’s influence by his mentor Ambrose during his early years as part of the Christian church changed his attitude toward war. Augustine’s writings of this period justified the participation of the Christian in a defensive war and treated war in the abstract and subjective, and not as the result of personal experience and conviction, but his new convictions were finally molded as a result of the defeat and sack of Rome by the Goths in 409-410 AD. Writing after this tragedy, Augustine now viewed the state and church as 2 divine spheres each having the responsibility to save the nation, including the defense against enemies, and to each of which the Christian had equal obligations. Therefore if the state required war to carry out its purpose, the Christian was required to participate. Augustine’s new convictions concurred with the political-religious philosophy of his mentor Ambrose.
As opposed to popular opinion, Augustine did not formulate or compile a just-war theory, although he penned some lines in the City of God and other writings on what he felt were sufficient reasons to justify a defense by the state if it was attacked by an aggressive military force – but Christians were not included in the defense. Such justification was not original, but adopted from the Roman philosopher Cicero as well as the Greek Plato. Later generations seem to have taken the little justification available in Augustine and redefined it, attaching his name to something he did not envision, in order to attribute credibility to it. Nonetheless, it becomes apparent after studying The City of God that it is Augustine’s attempt to justify a defensive war, although he was unable to do so, realizing it was a compromise of principle Christian ethics. Nonetheless, he felt that Christians had an equal responsibility in regard to the security of the state as did non-Christians, and must also contribute their share. The basis for the concept of a just-war is Augustine’s City of God, chapter 19, except that the inclusion of points related to a justifiable war was incidental to the primary topic. Chapter 19 deals with the failure of various philosophers, and philosophy in general, to impose a true peace on earth, and which true peace can only be installed by Christianity. As far as the Roman Empire was concerned, as noted in Chapter 7 of the City of God, peace is the absence of war, and Augustine condemns war because of its detrimental effect on the population.
But, say they, the wise man will wage just wars. As if he would not all the rather lament the necessity of just wars, if he remembers that he is a man; for if they were not just he would not wage them, and would therefore be delivered from all wars. For it is the wrongdoing of the opposing party which compels the wise man to wage just wars; and this wrong-doing, even though it gave rise to no war, would still be matter of grief to man because it is man's wrong-doing. Let every one, then, who thinks with pain on all these great evils, so horrible, so ruthless, acknowledge that this is misery. And if any one either endures or thinks of them without mental pain, this is a more miserable plight still, for he thinks himself happy because he has lost human feeling.
As Augustine expounds above, the justification of non-believers – the Roman state – to wage war is that only wise men would initiate a defensive war, and the purpose of such a war would only be defense, defeating the invading enemy to again impose peace. This was in summary the Pax Romana. Augustine’s preference is for the wise man to grieve over the necessity of a war, and so preclude it from occurring because of its damage on people and property. Defense in this passage become the sole justifiable purpose to war, and because of war being inherently wrong. An offensive army is wrong to initiate an attack, and the defensive army is likewise in the wrong, because in defending itself it will cause more misery. However, what is notable is that this passage gives greater justification to not defending ourselves in defense if attacked, not to use force as a means of defense, thereby avoiding additional misery and devastation. Remember though, that this passage does not deal with Christians or the Christian church, but a secular state and society in general. Chapter 12 of Book 19 of the City of God states:
For even they who make war desire nothing but victory,--desire, that is to say, to attain to peace with glory. For what else is victory than the conquest of those who resist us? and when this is done there is peace. It is therefore with the desire for peace that wars are waged, even by those who take pleasure in exercising their warlike nature in command and battle. And hence it is obvious that peace is the end sought for by war. For every man seeks peace by waging war, but no man seeks war by making peace. For even they who intentionally interrupt the peace in which they are living have no hatred of peace, but only wish it changed into a peace that suits them better. They do not, therefore, wish to have no peace, but only one more to their mind.
So peace, Augustine writes, means different things to different states. For one state, the absence of war is peace; while for another the conquest of a neighboring state and the institution of a totalitarian rule is peace, like the Pax Romana. This likewise pertains not to Christians, but to pagan and secular states. Chapter 26 of Book 19 mentions temporal peace, which, when applied to the Roman Empire, would be those periods of the absence of war.
By Dan Shubin
see Dan in the ECAPC Speakers Bureau, under "Grow a Movement"
_________________________
Augustine and his So-Called Just War Theory, Part 2
Augustine concludes in chapter 28 of his City of God, that war is executed by the wicked of this world, and so it is confined to the secular or earthly city, and not to the city of God. Based on such passages, there is more reason provided in Book 19 for a genuine Christian not to participate in war, and even a defensive war. By not participating in either an offensive or defensive war, the genuine Christian does not identify himself with the temporal peace of the secular earthly city, but with the city of God, which strives after the true divine peace. Augustine realized that only God can introduce true peace on earth, and that wars will also pervade history, since the earthly city will always exist on earth. Nonetheless, Augustine proceeds to provide justification to soldiery, explaining his imbalanced logic, but not in the City of God, but in his letter to Faustus, a Manichaean.
What is the evil in war? Is it the death of some who will soon die in any case, that others may live in peaceful subjection? This is mere cowardly dislike, not any religious feeling. The real evils in war are love of violence, revengeful cruelty, fierce and implacable enmity, wild resistance, and the lust of power, and such like; and it is generally to punish these things, when force is required to inflict the punishment, that, in obedience to God or some lawful authority, good men undertake wars, when they find themselves in such a position as regards the conduct of human affairs, that right conduct requires them to act, or to make others act in this way. (Augustine, Against Faustus, 22:74)
Augustine’s conclusion was that since the enemy is going to die at some time anyway in his life, it would be better for him to die the sooner so he would not continue his evil, and that only cowards – referring to religious pacifists – would consider war wrong. If the postulate of Augustine is correct, then it is best to kill the enemy since this will stop him from further perpetrating his crime of killing. But won’t each consider the other the aggressor who should be stopped? Each one is doing exactly what the other is doing. And if the enemy is killing another because of orders from his superior, and because of his own conclusion that the war is just, based on his own determination of the war corresponding with the concepts of Augustine’s justifiable war, then where is the line of demarcation? Who exactly is the aggressor and who is the defender, since each one claims the same criteria for the justification of their aggression and armed attack, each one obeying the orders of their respective states? So where is Christian love in this act to kill the attacker, when his criteria for attack are the same? The following paragraph continues his thinking:
No one can have any power against them but what is given him from above. For there is no power but of God, who either orders or permits. Since, therefore, a righteous man, serving it may be under an ungodly king, may do the duty belonging to his position in the State in fighting by the order of his sovereign,--for in some cases it is plainly the will of God that he should fight, and in others, where this is not so plain, it may be an unrighteous command on the part of the king, while the soldier is innocent, because his position makes obedience a duty,--how much more must the man be blameless who carries on war on the authority of God, of whom every one who serves Him knows that He can never require what is wrong? (Augustine, Against Faustus, 22:75)
In this passage Augustine clearly states that the Christian should fight in a war even if ordered by an ungodly king because of the necessity of obedience to the state, and that he would be innocent of any crime committed, because God requires this obedience to the order of the king. In the same vein it was very easy for Augustine to rationalize away the statements of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount:
If it is supposed that God could not enjoin warfare, because in after times it was said by the Lord Jesus Christ, "I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but if any one strike thee on the right cheek, turn to him the left also," the answer is, that what is here required is not a bodily action, but an inward disposition. (Augustine, Against Faustus, 22:76)
Based on the above expositions, a Christian soldier should never feel guilty or sense wrong in his actions when killing the enemy on the battlefield when ordered to do so by his commanding officer as long as the soldier has inner inclinations of peace. Therefore, if this conclusion of Augustine is correctly interpreted, external actions must be isolated from personal conviction, and a person could continue to retain Christian humility, but it should not interfere with executing orders. This section also lists a few points that would later become the criteria for a just-war theory:
1. The monarch is to issue the edict for war.
2. The purpose is the peace of the region.
3. Cruelty is not to be utilized, but war is to be waged in love.
The primary flaw in the statements of Augustine regarding justifying war is that both sides can claim the same justification. Each side claims that peaceful means of resolution have been exhausted to no success; the war is declared by their sovereign; each nation is defending itself from aggravated assault; each nation is attempting to bring peace by punishing the other for their injustice and atrocity. But war is not war without the death of civilians and the massive destruction of private property. Augustine’s criteria have given Christian denominations greater justification to promoting war, rather than ceasing war.
Another major flaw in the rational of Augustine is his direction of specifically focusing on just-war, rather than seeking justification of the violation of any other commandment of God or the Gospel. There are 10 Commandments, and not just the one prohibiting arbitrary killing, and many rules of life that are provided by Jesus Christ and the apostles in the NT, but Augustine seeks no justification to violate any of them, except this one. But could not the same criteria be used towards, for example, adultery? A just-adultery criteria? Or a just-false-witness criteria? Or a just-violate-the-Sabbath criteria? James indicated in his letter, that if a person violates one commandment, he violates them all. Taking Augustine’s premises into consideration, the Christian should then be able to utilize the same criteria into justifiably violating every command in the Bible. But this ludicrous approach will never materialize, yet it serves to unveil the major flaw of Augustine’s rational to justify war and military aggression.
by Dan Shubin (see the ECAPC Speaker's Bureau, under Grow A Movement.)
_________________________
Thomas Acquinas and the Catholic Just War Doctrine
Thomas Aquinas was the greatest of theologians of the Catholic church of the Middle Ages, living 1225-1274. He defined Catholic theology for the future generations of Catholics, and is highly respected and very influential at the present in world-wide Catholicism. Thomas Aquinas lived and taught in the era of the 6th, 7th, and 8th Crusades, 1228-1229, 1248-1254, and 1270, respectively. The popes were urging the citizens to war against Islam, whom they labeled as infidels. Three of his brothers were soldiers in the Crusades. The Catholic Church was also waging inquisition and persecution of the Albigences and Bogomils during this same period. His Biblical rational for the justification of war and inquisition was very valuable to the Catholic Church at this time. Thomas Aquinas also taught the legality of slavery and the burning of heretics by the state. Popes Gregory IV and Clement X were in office during the period that Thomas Aquinas was writing his Summa Theologica – 1266-1273.
The following section is the justifiable-war theory of Thomas Aquinas, which is based on the original premises provided by Augustine.
I answer that, In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. For it is not the business of a private individual to declare war, because he can seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior. Moreover it is not the business of a private individual to summon together the people, which has to be done in wartime. And as the care of the common weal is committed to those who are in authority, it is their business to watch over the common weal of the city, kingdom or province subject to them. And just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers, according to the words of the Apostle (Romans 13:4): "He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil"; so too, it is their business to have recourse to the sword of war in defending the common weal against external enemies. Hence it is said to those who are in authority (Psalm 81:4): "Rescue the poor: and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner"; and for this reason Augustine says (Against Fautus, xxii, 75): "The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority."
Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says: A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly.
Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil. Hence Augustine says (De Verb. Dom.) "True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good." For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention. Hence Augustine says (Against Faustus, xxii, 74): The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war. (Summa Theologica, Part 2 of 2, Question 40: War. 1. Whether it is always Sinful to Wage War.)
As mentioned above, Aquinas specified 3 conditions for a just war in his Summa Theologica: 1. The ruler under whom the war is to be fought must have authority to do so. 2. A just cause is required. 3. The war has as its purpose a right intention: to achieve some good or avoid some evil. Much like Augustine’s criteria for a just war, Aquinas’ criteria likewise gave Christians greater justification for waging war than ceasing it. Thomas Aquinas confirmed Augustine’s just war criteria as valid Catholic doctrine, but not without good reason.
But in matters concerning the disposal of actions and human affairs, a subject is bound to obey his superior within the sphere of his authority; for instance a soldier must obey his general in matters relating to war, a servant his master in matters touching the execution of the duties of his service, a son his father in matters relating to the conduct of his life and the care of the household; and so forth. (Summa Theologica Question 104: Obedience. 5. Whether Subjects are Bound to Obey their Superiors in all Things.)
The above statements on the obedience of the Christian to secular authorities are a parallel of Augustine on the same topic. Therefore, based on the conclusions of Thomas Aquinas, any disregard or defiance against any order of the state can be easily construed as a disregard or defiance of the command God Himself, as the state interprets the command of God.
As mentioned above on the section on Augustine, war is not war without the massive destruction of the enemy’s armed forces, country and population, and such criteria as a Just-War becomes unrealistic, since wars are waged to be won by whatever means is necessary, and not to be lost.
By Dan Schubin (see ECAPC Speaker's Bureau under Grow a Movement)
_______________________
The Contemporary Conscientious Objector to War
One of the most important single decisions of my life occurred shortly after my 18th birthday in early 1968, at the height of the Viet-Nam War. I walked into the Selective Service office in downtown Los Angeles and told the official behind the counted that I wanted to register as a conscientious objector. I gave him my registration and he informed me that the Selective Service would in return send me the necessary forms to acquire a CO exemption. At this time I committed myself to this tenet of Jesus Christ the Son of God and Prince of Peace, and so have continued to have this conviction. Soon after, I went to work doing alternative service at Goodwill Industries in Los Angeles. I was paid $1.25 an hour. At least 5 others of my Molokan denomination were employed at Goodwill at the same time.
I come from a family of conscientious objectors: both my father and my father-in-law were COs during World War 2 and were stationed at Civilian Public Service camps in central and southern California. My father also spent time in jail at Ft. Bowie, near Baltimore, MD, in 1947, and then was finally released from CPS service, about 1-1/2 years after the end of the war.
My personal convictions regarding this topic came be summarized in the following:
The disciple of Jesus Christ considers war to be organized and premeditated murder on an international scale. It is controlled criminal insanity resulting in violence and devastation, and without justification. They recognize that the purpose of military training is to make men killing machines. There is only one manner for the disciple of Jesus Christ to conduct himself in regard to the question of military service and that is to refuse. The conscience of the true Christian will prohibit them from such participation, and which includes employment manufacturing military equipment and weapons. The conscientious objector refuses to participate in war in any form, and to military service and training, because he is a disciple of Jesus Christ the Son of God and Prince of Peace and conducts himself based on the precepts He taught.
A person who claims to be Christian and is faced with the dilemma of whether to enlist in the military should contemplate in the following terms, “Will my service in the military institute peace, or will it promote more war and aggression? Is the military a service unto the living God, or is it service unto the secular god of war? If I die in combat, do I die for a purpose that is worth the value of my life, or do I die as a pawn of the state? Do I acknowledge as supreme the dictates of the secular state, or those of the spiritual kingdom? Should I suffer on the battlefield as a sacrifice to the state, or should I suffer for my faith as a Christian?”
A Christian is a conscientious objector in these terms. “My convictions will not allow me to participate in military service, armed combat, or any aggression. Jesus of Nazareth, the son of God, taught pacifism as part of his gospel of the Kingdom. He exemplified in his personal life and ministry that I am not to retaliate or take vengeance for any injury committed against me or against another person or society. even if it means my own injury or death. The gospels teach that further aggression does not resolve conflict. I cannot face the judgment seat of Christ knowing that I have taken the life of a soldier or an innocent person, or destroyed property in war, or caused people to suffer. I will not have a clean conscience if I am employed manufacturing military equipment or weapons. Although I am in the world, I am not of the world.”
Priests and ministers have the moral obligation to corporately voice to their congregations for their members to not enlist in the military, to refuse conscription and participation in war, and to not have a vocation in the manufacture of weapons and munitions. Only the Christian Church can stop the tide of the devastating results of war and military aggression by taking this stand. Only by returning to its Apostolic roots can the Christian Church fulfill its responsibility to its founder Jesus of Nazareth, who said, “Put down that sword Peter, for whoever takes the sword will perish by the sword.” First and foremost priests and ministers must be willing to lay down their life in imitation of Jesus Christ as an example to others, instead of condoning, advocating or further contributing to war and devastation.
It is difficult to be a conscientious objector, because you are in the minority and are liable to be labeled a traitor, a coward, unpatriotic, and not willing to serve your country as others have done in the wars of previous generations. The choice is a difficult one and Jesus knew that it would not be easy, just as he said, “If any person will follow me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.” Matt 16:24. Others have suffered and the contemporary true Christian must realize that he may have to also. The true Christian must have the attitude that he or she would rather die and lose his life rather than contribute to war and military aggression. This can be accomplished due to their belief in their resurrection from death: that if they die for the principles of the Gospel of Christ, they will resurrect at His second advent. True Christians do not fear death, because it is the transition to eternal life. Others have suffered and the contemporary true Christian must realize that he may have to also. It is this faith that will lead to the termination of war, and likewise enlighten the population, cease aggression, and serve as an example to others, and especially those of future generations.
By Dan Shubin (See ECAPC Speaker's Bureau, under Grow A Movement)
_____________________________
The Defeat of Christianity
by Dan Shubin
The actual religion of American is democracy. The actual religion of America is not Christianity by any means. It is democracy because democracy provides freedom of religion. Democracy must be defended by the American state in order for freedom of religion to exist. If democracy fails or is defeated or replaced by some other type of government, then the fear is that freedom of religion will also cease to exist. This is why historic Christian denominations must support the military, and especially the support of the military chaplaincy. The rite of communion for dying soldiers, or requiem for those who have died in battle, provides divine approval for the war the soldier is part of. But the higher cause is not Christianity that soldiers die and suffer for, it is American democracy.
Ecumenical Christendom is designed for a superficial adherence to New Testament teachings, rather than a serious practice of the gospel. The practical issues of the NT, taught by Christendom, can be derived from most philosophers and humanists, and political leaders having a humanitarian nature, and the religion is supplemented with rites that are associated with the ministry of Jesus. But if theology and the shell of ecclesiastical sacerdotalism and sacraments were removed, the ethic and morality that would remain would essentially be no different than any that could not be derived from humanism, humanitarianism or philosophy. The idea of pacifism is not an issue to be seriously considered in the NT; it is fine and noteworthy during times of peace, for children’s Sunday School lessons, and a precept to ponder, but not to be taken seriously, because historic Christianity views it as only an ideal, but impractical to actually implement. During wartime, Christendom as an institution becomes the state’s department of religious services for the state, to echo and implement the requirements of the state. During war, so-called Christians do not conduct themselves any differently than people with no religious scruples or who are members of non-Christian religions. Essentially, there is nothing of substance or distinct about ecumenical Christendom once it is stripped of its superficial shell of ceremonialism, sacerdotalism and theology. The conclusion is that ecumenical Christendom denies the essence of the gospel that was preached by Jesus the Messiah, which was the deliverance of humanity from its perpetual self-destructive trend of warfare. The elimination of preparation and training for war, and its replacement by reconciliation, is the salvation that Jesus the Messiah came to provide his Jewish countrymen, and that toleration of abuse suffered in the process would be less devastating than aggression or reprisal suffered in war. Eventually this gospel was to extend to all nations, for them to convert their weapons into implements of agriculture and not to learn war anymore.
During war, industries produce employment and profits, and during war, many residents are employed in industries that are related to the war effort. Since ministers are supported by the charitable contributions of parishioners, they are not about to bite the hand that feeds them by dictating form their pulpit that such employment is antithesis to the gospel of the Prince of Peace, and that employment should be sought elsewhere for the Christian, in some vocation that is directly a benefit to society. It is almost treason and disloyalty for a minister to tell his parishioners not to be employed by a company designing, manufacturing, or selling weapons or military-related equipment and accessories. In no manner will ministers of mainline denominations be critical of war, if they expect to keep their pulpit and the respect of their parishioners.
Although the First Amendment states that the government will not respect any one religion over another, this is applicable only during peacetime. During wartime, the unwritten rule is the respect of those religions that defend the war from the pulpit and support the war effort by providing recruits for the armed forces from among the military-age parishioners of their congregations. Religions whose pulpits do not echo the voice of the state are deprived of freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and are suspected of treason and even collaboration with the enemy. The state requires approval of its dictates from national religious organizations and denominations to provide a united and formidable front without dissension against the enemy. In exchange for this, the state provides such groups religious freedoms – speech and the press – during wartime.
Dan Shubin
________________________
Conscription and the Constitution
By Dan Shubin
Conscription – or the military draft – is the state forcing a person to place himself in harms way – possibly to be killed – and to conduct himself in a manner that he would not do in normal life – kill the enemy and devastate his country. Conscription is a violation of the most fundamental premise of the Declaration of Independence, that people are “endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Conscription is dictatorial, and antithesis to a free society, because it deprives the citizen of his guaranteed unalienable rights. Politically, the draft is clearly unconstitutional. No amount of rationalization, neither by the Supreme Count, nor by private individuals, can alter the fact that it represents “involuntary servitude.”
Of all the state violations of individual rights in a mixed economy, the military draft is the worst. It is an abrogation of rights. It negates a person’s fundamental right—the right to life—and establishes the fundamental principle of the authority of the state: that a person’s life belongs to the state, and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in battle. If the state may force a person to risk death or hideous maiming and crippling, in a war declared at the state’s discretion, for a cause he may neither approve of nor even understand, if their consent is not required to send them into unspeakable martyrdom – then, in principle, government is not the individual’s protector any longer.
In another respect, and this was the lesson learned from Vietnam, conscription is the state’s admission of defeat in war. If the state needs to force someone to kill or die for his country, the war is already lost.
If the state cannot effectively prove the worthiness of a cause to its residents, for their voluntary support and participation, then force or threats must be utilized by the state to recruit persons to accomplish its purpose, then the cause is already defeated. Those that are conscripted for the task will exert the least amount of effort, or even defy the state, as a vendetta for conscription against their will. For people to submit to conscription, the punishment must be severe enough in order for them to submit to conscription rather than try to evade it, such as 5 years imprisonment and $25,000 fine at present. To insure the effectiveness of the punishment for Selective Service law violation, the state will prosecute a few recalcitrant as sacrifices, as an example to the balance. Impressments into service can now be guaranteed, as men will take the risk of warfare survival, rather than incarceration and its risks. In this manner, the state will always have access to recruits in order to perpetually conduct the business of war.226
The constitutionality of conscription was tested in a Supreme Court decision as a result of the many who refused induction during World War 1. Congress declared war on Germany on April 6, 1917. Immediately, armed forces were needed to accomplish the task. So about a month after the declaration of war, the Selective Draft Act of 1917 was passed by the House on May 16; by the Senate on May 17; and signed into law on May 18, 1917 by President Woodrow Wilson. It authorized the president to move the National Guard and Reserves into the regular army, and draft additional recruits as necessary to increase the number of ground troops to at least 1.2 million, and as high as 1.7 million. Included in the bill were provisions to prosecute any person who failed to register, failed to show up for induction, or deserted: 5 years prison plus up to $10,000 fine (a large sum at that time).
It is no surprise that about 15% of military-age Americans (3 million) failed to register; and almost 360,000 who received an induction notice either never showed up for induction, or else deserted after arriving at boot camp. By mid-1918, about 10,000 non-registrants were arrested and prosecuted, and half of those who evaded induction or deserted were apprehended. The non-registrants claimed that conscription was not constitutional. They argued that congressional power to declare war and to raise armies did not include the authority to enact a conscription law and compel military service, and was also a violation of the 13th amendment (involuntary servitude).
The issue went to the Supreme Court under the heading of Selective Service Draft cases, and the pivotal case which set the precedent for all others was Arver et. al. versus United States, 245 US 366 (1918). Joseph F. Arver and others refused to register for the draft on June 5, 1917, and were subsequently tried and sentenced to 1 year in prison, and at the end of their term, they were to be conscripted into the armed forces.
By a unanimous vote the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Draft Act of 1917. Chief Justice Edward D. White wrote the court opinion (only the first paragraph is quoted).
The grant to Congress of power to raise and support armies, considered in conjunction with the grants of the power to declare war, to make rules for the government and regulations of the land and naval forces, and to make laws necessary and proper for executing granted powers (Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 8), includes the power to compel military service, exercised by the Selective Draft Law of May 18, 1917, c. 15, 40 Stat. 76. This conclusion, obvious upon the face of the Constitution, is confirmed by an historical examination of the subject.
For the Supreme Court to rubber stamp the Draft Act was no surprise to anyone. Subsequent court cases of individuals who failed to register for the draft or who failed to be inducted, all of whom claimed that conscription was a power not permitted or delegated by the Constitution, were never heard by the Supreme Court. The courts have upheld the constitutionality of conscription during all subsequent wars, based on the decision of the above case.
The ultimate allegiance for any member of the military is the state, not Jesus. His position of King of Kings or Son of God is recognized only as a matter of personal conviction, but in no way is it allowed to interfere with the state as supreme authority. The military likewise limits the extent of religious freedom that is permitted, and that the morality of any war decreed by the US Congress is not to be questioned. There is no room for a person to have ultimate allegiance to God in the armed forces, because this interferes with the ultimate authority of the state.
|
|
|
