So you thought that was scary, keep watching…
Here’s a link that’ll provide many hours of enjoyment for several of you: Christians United For Israel is the organization John Hagee began to get this particular message out to the world. Of particular note is ‘Brog’s Blog,’ down on the left-hand side, which expresses a regular response to ‘mainstream media’ coverage and other timely issues sorrounding theie heroic struggle (hmm, jihad?) to get the U.S. to militarily strike Iran preemptively.
Notice the flexibility of end times interpretation: it was the Russians in the 1970s and 1980s, Muslim extremists post 9/11. Tomorrow, there will be another monster against whom we can throw our fears and hatreds.
I’d like to note that, when Hagee answered the journalist’s question about his end-times theology and his support for Israel, I thought for the first time in all my wasted hours of listening to this man: he’s being intentionally dishonest.
So, to piggy-back on the conversation that grew up in response to the last Hagee post, let’s discuss this: What is the Christian response to war? Do we accept it as the natural consequence of things to come? Is it morally acceptable? What’s the Christian response to Hagee? Do we agreewith him? Do we technically assent to the timeline he lays out? Granting his interpretation, are his conclusions the only logical ones to come to?
What does the just war theory have to say about preemptive military strikes, both in general and specifically against Iran? Is Hagee using a just war theory? If not, what is he using?
What does one who believes in Christian nonviolence have to say in response to all this?
What do you think?
15 Comments
October 24, 2007 at 3:33 am
These are MY responses. I am a Christian and would hope these are Christian responses.
Christian response to war? Good and evil do exist. If you can discern evil, it’s not something to close your eyes and pretend it will go away. As an example, if your neighbor is beating up his wife…you call the police and if the reponse has to be quicker, you may have to intervene yourself. You don’t have to prove that he has a pistol and is about to kill her, you can see that the guy is using his fists to pummel her, and you react appropriately. If there is no intervention, chances are he will abuse her again. Simple enough?
Do we accept it as the natural consequence of things to come? Is it morally acceptable? It is the consequence of a fallen world where good and evil are always battling, whether it be in a physical war or spiritual battle. Part 2: Is it morally acceptable to strap yourself with a bomb and kill innocents? No. Is it morally acceptable to try and prevent suicide bombers from walking your streets? Yes.
On Hagee: Sometimes the truth sounds so arrogant it hurts. I see nothing really outlandishly wrong with the guy. Our focus should not be on him, but on the truth we find in following the Lord…with the help of strong believers.
Timelines? Not really. But the timing of the earth’s “contractions” are growing closer together.
Preemptive on Iran? Don’t need one if we can get the blind to see the “Hitler” in our midst, we can use that enlightening power to overthrow the government. There are plenty of people within Iran that would love to see the country’s president out of there.
Sadly, a Christian who believes in non-violence just may see his or her loved one killed before their very own eyes. Now a Christian who believes God can work miracles is more powerful than we can comprahend.
My response? Trust God first, who we get to know through Jesus Christ. And get ready for the many storms in life…personal and globally. To quote a pastor after his many talks about the Middle East and Biblical prophecy…”These are exciting times!”
I can’t always get jazzed about these “exciting times” but this quote always lets me know that we can get through this!
October 24, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Thank you, Alexander, for your response. I appreciate your willingness to express your opinion here. Welcome!
If you’ve read this site for a certain amount of time, you’ve perhaps noticed that I’m a law student. I say that because, if law school has taught me anything thus far, it is that we are to appeal to authoritative sources. And that provides me with my first question for you: From what authority in the Christian tradition are you basing your analysis? To my knowledge, there are two major streams of thought in the Christian tradition concerning war: nonviolence and the just war theory. Are you basing your analysis of Hagee’s words on the just war theory? Or are you suggesting that, accepting his dispensationalist interpretation of scripture, we are to do away with both nonviolence and just war doctrine?
Second question: you said that the truth sounds so arrogant sometimes it hurts. But is truth arrogant? Did Christ save his most vicious attacks for the outsiders? Or did he use his most vehement rhetoric on people like us?
Now, some observations. You seem to conflate nonviolence with weakness. I don’t understand nonviolence, as you appear to, as dictating that a pacifist sit by and watch his neighbor’s wife get pummeled. Instead, it is a peacemaking strategy which seeks to avoid those type of conflicts in the beginning, and to end those conflicts, once they’ve begun, though nonviolent (or non-lethal) means.
Also: I have also heard the comment “These are exciting times!” from preachers who’ve just finished telling us about the imminence of massive tragedy and death (aka, the Rapture/ Tribulation) To call such tragic occurrences “exciting” seems arrogant and counter to what God would think about that same thing – that is, given that such an interpretation of scrpture were accurate. I’m troubled by this line of thought when I hear it from preachers because it seems to affect our relationships with those around us not of our faith. They become an unknowing pawn in our God’s game, and the bloodshed and misery they are apparently about to face is “exciting” to us. That’s chilling.
Anyway, thanks again for speaking up. Chances are, you spoke for several readers of this post who felt the same way. Feel free to keep the conversation going!
October 24, 2007 at 8:09 pm
I’d like to offer a few suggestions to the just war/pacifism debate, although I must say I haven’t watched either video entirely because I fear that if I do, I might have to renounce my own pacifism.
That being said, I must first address Drew’s comments (though I think we would be mostly in agreement on many points). Now I share many sympathies with this type of full-blown uncompromising pacifism, and I also appreciate your Christology driving your ethics. The main thing I want to say against this all or nothing pacifism is that even regarding the best defenses of pacifism (i.e. Yoder, Yoder, and more Yoder), they are generally meant to be a faithful response, not necessarily a system or a political theory, although this will by extension be part of it. Therefore pacifism is not a theory of what the government should do but what Christians should do. And just war theory is more of a political theory that would try to put limits on what a government should do. I could potentially see a Christian president (maybe not in this country, but at least somewhere) use just war principles, but it would seem to go against the nature of the state to have a pacifist president. That being said, I think the faithful response for Christians is a nonviolent one, and we should not partake in war. But I would also allow the possibility of Christians with political power using just war principles to inform their decisions. (I’m also leery of Christians and power, but for now let’s just admit that it exists). To allow only pacifism and say that there is no place in the Christian tradition for just war theorists would seem to be the same thing as saying there is no place in the church for pro-choice or pro-life proponents, as this would be an unsettled moral issue. I agree with Clint that it would be better to have just war theory than no war theory, which is more like what we have now at the popular level at least. What is important is that pacifists like many of us, give the most charitable reading possible to just war theorists, believing that they want to limit violence rather than further it. Likewise just war theorists should understand that pacifists are not sectarians but desire to remain faithful to the gospel as they understand Christ. I think this understanding of the other side is important for all of us, and think we can let both traditions stand when we understand the purpose of the other side. That being said, a hell of a lot more work must be done for just war theory to ensure that it is attempting to emphasize the justice aspect rather than the war aspect. And pacifists outside of the traditional pacifist church traditions need to do more rigorous work as well.
Along these same lines, I have begun to think lately that pacifism is not so much a systematic belief but a conviction or commitment, meaning that it is something we must reaffirm each day, not something that is settled once and for all. This is exactly what Hauerwas means when he says he is a pacifist because he’s a violent son of a bitch. He believes his pacifism being made public demonstrates his accountability to being held to his conviction to be nonviolent, and this is what I think is essential about pacifism. I had somewhat of an epiphany not that long ago while gazing at Christ hanging on the cross. It was made apparent to me that we kill Christ every day, and that pacifism as a system cannot overcome this. Instead pacifism is a commitment not only to desiring for nations not to destroy each other, or for persons not to destroy each other, but also a commitment to admitting the ways we kill Christ every day, and only through this confession are we able to then give Christ’s peace to the world. This may be in agreement with what everyone reading this blog believes, but I just think it’s important to point out that pacifism does not allow us to stand above the bloody mess of war and violence, but it always entails our confession of our compliance with it.
October 25, 2007 at 2:07 am
I don’t believe in all the “end times” hog wash. I believe that these end time preachers are spreading fear in unsuspecting folks bilking them out of thousands of dollars every.
Get the facts.
http://endtimesfact.com
October 25, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Brett,
EXACLTY. That’s it! I think you’re making an important distinction between pacifism as a faith community ethic and just war theory as a governmental ethic. That appears like a senisble division to me. Perhaps, then, we could say that the Christian community should shape its individual members through peaceful practices, while at the same time making room for those who lobby our government to wage war according to the just war doctrine, which would drastically limit our nation’s scope of war-making, in hopes of expanding the reign of God in this world? Are we on the same track here?
Also, I think your description of pacifism is dead on. I sometimes treat it as a system of thought, and that can be a wrong thing. Instead I should confess, as Hauerwas does, that I am a pacifist because I’m a violent son of a bitch, and need the accountability of my faith community to affirm that daily commitment to not kill others in the same way that I, that we, have killed Christ. I like that because it seems to wrestle pacifism out of dogmatism, where I often like to put it, and instead relocate it back in the dogma-less Cross, which bids me to come and die.
That dog’ll hunt!
October 25, 2007 at 2:57 pm
i was just thinking about how interesting the video was in comparison to what i remember going on as laste as the early/mid 90’s (i.e. “before” left behind). I remember a huge emphasis on the “mark of the beast” and all of that junk, and how the country of america will become an unsafe place for christians and christians will be put to death becuase they are so, and that we have to resist the what will become of america in all of this. If that wasn’t bad enough, now it seems that we have progressed to an idea where america is permanately the good guy. Hagee often equates concepts of good/christian to our present ways of life (i.e. “you think gas prices are high now…”) Anyway, its wierd stuff. I feel bad for a lot of the kids involved in all of that sort of “Ernest scared stupid” crap.
October 25, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Brett & Clint,
I agree that Christian non violence is a daily commitment that is lived out through a faith community and must be reaffirmed each day. I also like the idea of needing to be accountable to a community of faith to make sure that it is lived out properly. I guess I need to “flesh out” the comment I made about Just War theory having no place within the church. I believe that everyone no matter what they believe should be welcomed into a community of faith. Much like a person who is pro-choice has just has much right to be a member of my church as I do. I am not stating that people who practice Just War have no place within the church. What I was trying to get across was that I do not feel that Just war theory should be coming from the pulpit or exercised by a faith community, due to the fact that I do not think it has any theological basis. Also, this idea that Just War theory is better than no war theory is correct I can not argue that, but I still do not agree with teaching/advocating for a theological stance that seems to have no theological basis. Clint in regards to your comment about the Just War mind set. How can any killing be excused in the eye of God? If a limited amount of killing (when it would meet the just war requirements) were excusable, then Christ killing those who put him on cross would have been acceptable; however, we clearly disagree with that statement. This idea of “excusable killing” just does not sit right with me. Christ demonstrates and teaches us that loving our enemy and doing good to those who hate us is the way of the Cross, not retaliation (which I see the just war theory advocating). I see no point in the Sermon on the Mount where killing would seem to be excused, if a particular set of requirements were met. I am not trying to be dogmatic; I just see no theological ground on which Just War theory can stand. If we truly believe as Christians that violence is wrong then I do not see how it can then become excusable when certain “man made” requirements are met? Even if the people doing the killing are not viewed as heroes and understand the grave “necessity” of their actions. Apparently, I am just not as compassionate or as compromising as you two. However, in the end, I do believe that all Christians; Just War, pacifist or no war all have a place within the community of Christ.
October 26, 2007 at 12:24 am
i was thinking today a bit about brett/clint’s distinction between what a community of faith does as a community of faith, and what a community of faith does as a political/voting/national/citizenship. i’ve decided that its a tricky issue.
i’m wondering if we’ve set up a dichotomy here? and if so, if that dichotomy is one with philosophical teeth or not. i think something that we can do to help this discussion is to better understand why we think that a seperation of a community/individual’s of faith reliigous convictions and of a community/individual’s of faith political responsibilities must occur. Perhaps i’m reading you guys wrong though. Perhaps its more like a spectrum, and we’re just trying to figure out how far to go with one side over the other. If so, it might be helpful to ask the question ‘when we do make the distinction, why did we do it, and what was our motivation’? Are we too worried about being effective political agents or do we think that by not being politically relevent we are not relevent in society at large, etc, etc. Just some ideas.
i.e. Brett’s epiphany…boo ya!
October 26, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Drew,
I appreciate your position, and I really find it difficult to defend the just war theory consistently. So, of course I don’t you’re less compassionate than me because you take a firm stance on the side of nonviolence. Rather, I think you’re less compassionate than me simply because I’m a better person than you are. Period.
And speaking of compromise, I think the extent to which either of us is willing to compromise, and the connections between the lofty heights our rhetoric and the brutal reality on the ground, may be tested this weekend, if you catch my drift. We’ll see how uncompromising you are then, my friend.
Carlo,
I believe we can, as a faith community, practice nonviolence and remind ourselves of its importance everyday. I don’t believe that a secular state such as the U.S. can be expected to embody the same ethic, and so perhaps our goal as a responsible faith community engaged in the world around us is to bring more of the world under the reign of God by speaking admonishing words of limited/ no violence to our trigger-happy government. Maybe today the just war theory can be a tool of the faith community to call our country to restrict its warring ways? Does this make sense? Let me know.
October 29, 2007 at 2:23 am
Wow, that scares the living crap out of me! I think the term Islamo-fascism in reality is code for Crusades part 2. So I guess all those Christian missionaries I’ve supported that are in the Arab world ought to pack their bags leave so the US can bomb all those countries. Those missionaries are wasting their time since Arabs “have no souls” as the one lady said, right?
I see overwhelmingly the most biblical evidence for pacifism, very little for just war theory and nothing biblical for pre-emptive war. Many Christians have been hoodwinked with scare tactics and Zionistic politics/theology. Pre-emptive war talk today is merely a sanitized modern day version of Napoleonic war theory.
My current big picture theory (always subject to review or change) is the days that Carlo refers to of it being unsafe for Christians, will really come from all of this Islamo-fascist talk. I see our posture of having to invade many more Muslim countries in order to stamp out Islamo-fascism as eventually leading to China and Russia aligning to help stop our advances in oil rich countries. At the end of WWIII in the post-mortem lessons learned, the world will place the blame on literalists or fundamentalist religions. From the ashes of this war will be a huge push world wide against any religion that claims any exclusivity and further, for all religions to unite. It is called order out of chaos. It may be far out there, but this is one scenario I can see happening.
I still need to get this Hauerwas, he keeps coming up in your posts and I am ignorant about him.
October 29, 2007 at 6:53 am
i just have a few thoughts.
the first is that i wonder if we are too concerned about speaking words that politicians willl hear. for me, i don’t really see how the just-war-theory has any practical place in this day and age. perhaps in its original historical setting it could have been a helpful tool for a faith community to use but i don’t think that translates today. my main thought is that with the rise of mass media and advanced war-making abilities (i.e. economic, social, propoganda, etc.) several of the just war criteria are inherentley impossible to meet if our present modes of gathering and distributing information and engaging in war continue. while the just war theory has a certain place in the xian tradition, i don’t see its place being of much help in this day and age. information, “truth”, and technology change so rapidly it is practically impossible to cover every political topic using the theory. also, the world is so much more “global” now that it becomse impossible to isolate situations and conflicts to theorize about them.
now this is all to say just that i don’t think the just-war theory can be a real pracical tool in todays world. i’ve never thought that it was an adequate response to the message of the cross. i see your point about trying to curb our governments bloodshed using any means possible, but i just don’t think lobbying for the use of the just-war theory is very practical. and when we lobby a government, practical is all we can be because we can’t expect any government to understand and hear the language of christ.
i think turning our attention to bringing about peace in a totally non-violent way in our local communities and families and counties is where christians must begin. i think of how jesus didn’t solve all the problems of the world (and when he did heal something/someone it was never through the political process).
i also wonder if, by being 21st century americans, we have a hard time realizing that the problems of today cannot be solved by the political process. we americans have a real zeal for our political process and think that is the most important process for effecting change. i think this has led to the belief that if we are not totally engaged in the political process that we are simply “out of this world” and irrelevant, and unable to be of any help. for as much as i love people like john stewart and colbert, they still have this belief that the political process is of the utmost importance and that is why it must be critiqued. maybe its good to remind ourselves that most of the most important changes in society have come about because someone heard the cry of people suffering and just started going doing what he/she could without worrying about what politicians may be doing. i guess maybe i’ve realized how little time for the political process xians have to spare. call me an anarchist or something…i don’t know if any of this makes sense. it was all kind of stream of consciousness.
October 31, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Patrick,
I agree with you. Pacifism seems to be the way of the Cross, and I cannot find any evidence in the life of Christ for any other approach to war. Just war theory was something Christian philosophers devised in view being part of the political elite: at least it took away the justifications of Constantine’s kind of war-making (God gave me a sign to conquer this whole people) and intends to severely limit our excuses for going to war and thus our love for it, I ultimately reject it as revealing the way of Christ. However, I know Christians who are much smarter than myself, who have been at it much longer than I have, who hold to it and hate war at the same time. I continue to think it has its uses, but it is not the most faithful response to the Cross.
Yes, the name is Stanley Hauerwas, and if I were you, I’d start with “Resident Aliens.” Great book.
Carlo,
I agree with you that Jon Stewart continues to see informed participation in our American democracy as the answer, and though I appreciate that response, I, like you, don’t think that that is the final answer. And I affirm your point that Christians are first to love those around them and, after having been schooled in particular practices within their faith community, living out those practices in our communities. I guess my thing is this: in a world guided by the information age, is it indeed ‘tribalism,’ as Hauerwas’ critics charge, to retract from the political and larger social happenings and focus on just our own community? How is it that we are spreading the Good News?
You mentioned how the Selma marches gave Herschel the feeling that his feet were praying; that mmovement, the civil rights movement, began as a local community response to injustice, and grew to a national and political struggle against injustice. Did it lose its prophetic nature at that level? Is there no room at that level to speak the Good News with one’s feet?
Just some thoughts.
October 31, 2007 at 8:34 pm
I wanted to clarify a couple things a few days ago, and finally I have the time to do it, so hopefully this will help make sense of what I’m trying to get across.
To Drew: You have said a lot that just war theory has no theological basis. But to say this is to say that Old Testament laws concerning life and death were not theological. What I mean is that by our standards, the OT laws seem gruesome at times, but in their context, they actually valued life over death. Even the famous eye for an eye axiom, which Christ ultimately transcended but which was important for the Israelites in their time, was originally intended to LIMIT retaliation. Likewise, while we all here would agree that just war theory is in itself inadequate, we must try to uphold its intention, which is to limit the evil of war. This doesn’t mean that we should believe in just war theory, as I think none of us really do, but it means that we must try to understand our brothers’ and sisters’ best intentions for holding a just war theory. You may say that post-Christ, we don’t need principles to limit killing anymore, for we now have the absolute principle of nonviolence in Christ. Yet this side of the eschaton, we should also be realistic of the ‘not yet’ aspect of our existence. And just war theorists are certainly more ‘realistic’ about the seemingly unavoidable reality of war and violence than are pacifists.
And I think you are right that just war theory shouldn’t come from the pulpit, and perhaps I am now too removed from my more fundamentalist roots, but I haven’t heard a lot about violence or nonviolence from the pulpit lately, especially not explicit just war theory. If there is support for Bush from the pulpit, then it needs to be condemned. But if a sermon makes us question our allegiance to either justice or nonviolence, which often can’t both be maintained, then it’s probably a good sermon.
I also see the potential in your argument for turning pacifism and nonviolence into an absolute principle and thus turning God into a static principle. When reading the Bible, I don’t think we can help but be confused as to the many ways God is portrayed. And theologically, it is always dangerous to assert one characteristic of God or one doctrine so strongly as to upset the balance. So saying that God could never approve of killing may be correct, or it may take a whole lot away both from God’s sovereignty and from God’s freedom and mysteriousness. It’s just something to think about, what we lose when we take away God’s ability to be violent or approve of violence. In a very similar fashion, I would want everyone to be saved in the end, but universalism strongly limits God’s sovereignty, justice, and also threatens a host of other doctrines. So here what I’m concerned with is not our response as nonviolent people, but the outcome of claiming the necessity of God never approving of violence.
Still, at the end of the day, I appreciate your balls to the wall pacifism. And I really think you should read Yoder’s The Original Revolution. I think it would help clarify what I’ve been saying, that I don’t want to comply with our nation’s conquests but that we must qualify and be realistic about what our commitments to nonviolence mean.
To Carlo: I’m not trying at all to say we should be pacifists in our private life and just war theorists in our public life. One reason I have such difficulties voting for any presidential candidate is the general unwillingness of almost all candidates to remove the threat of war from the table. Sure, everyone wants to get the hell out of Iraq because it’s a mess, but who is saying that we should not keep military threats on the table with Iran? No, I would definitely rather have a president who could embody a few Christian ideals every now and again.
So I’m not suggesting we adopt one theory in certain circumstances. What I’m suggesting is that rather than bear false witness against all the great just war theorists throughout the history of the church, we read them as having the best possible intentions. So do I think Augustine was merely trying to justify the empire? No. Augustine had his shortcomings, and plenty of them, but we must understand when to call blasphemy blasphemy and when to listen to other Christians and believe their intentions are good.
Still, I agree with you that there are no just wars being fought today, and I am highly suspect of the possibility of just wars. In many ways I go back and forth from being a pacifist to being a just war theorist who finds the idea of a just war to be impossible. I know they sound like the same thing, but they are actually opposite ways of approaching the problem. Well anyhow, I could write plenty more, but all I really wanted to do was clarify what I said earlier, though succinctness is obviously not my gift. Hope this helps.
And to Patrick: Yes, read lots of Hauerwas. And John Howard Yoder.
November 1, 2007 at 2:19 am
i agreee with what everyone said. gee…that’s not very discussive. my only thought is this…in regards, Heschel’s feet praying in selma…i just want to make the point that his feet were marching against the political process/government, not next to it. My whole thought these days is that in order to really be prophetic we must march against the powers that be. i don’t think that in order to effect social change we need to begin with the political process. Heschel and Dr. King teach me that when an injustice is seen, all you need is someone to stand up it and that rarely ever means by first engaging in the political process. I think that true change in government only occurs after the people demand it. If Hauerwas is a faithful isolationist, then count me out. I think that, as christians who stand up to all societal injustices, and act primarily on a relational level, our ultimate goal, long term or short term, should not be to change politics.
November 2, 2007 at 12:30 am
The library didn’t have “Resident Aliens” so I went for The Hauerwas reader. I hope that one is good. I read some of the Amazon reviews and I must say I’m intrigued.