Christ our Hope: Part 3 - Witness of Christ

This is Part 3 of a series entitled Christ our Hope in the Face of Violence and our Witness to Nonviolent Love. Part 1 served as an introduction and Part 2 considered God as a God of Peace in the Old Testament. Here we shall begin to consider what Christ has to say on the issue of violence and war.

At the outset we must admit that we have no evidence of an explicit teaching of Jesus or of his apostles on the issues of war.¹ Nevertheless, simply because Jesus does not directly address the issue of war in the Gospels does not mean that we can claim that his silence expresses neutrality or implicit approval towards war, for many of his sayings do contain implications for violence and for peace.

It is not within the scope of this paper to pursue a complete or extensive exegetical study of the Biblical evidence on this matter. However, we shall consider a few of the key texts which have been used to support violent warfare, but first we shall look at some of the texts which have been interpreted as Jesus’ condemnation of violence.

Jesus’ Statements Which Seem to Conflict with Violent Warfare

First let us turn to the Sermon on the Mount during which Jesus is referencing traditional teachings of the Old Testament and Jewish tradition and is giving them their full and complete interpretation, as only he, the Word made flesh, can. Jesus recasts the traditional teachings, in every case, in a way which is more strict than the tradition and demands greater love and self-sacrifice. Three specific passages from the Sermon on the Mount concern us. Let us now examine the first.

Jesus begins to speak of the Fifth Commandment. He proclaims, “I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment.”⁴ He condemns the act of even being angry at another, as anger is the emotion which leads to killing another. In light of this we can with some confidence say that while Jesus has not condemned violence per se he has spoken against the emotions which generally lead to violent acts, classifying the emotions themselves as unacceptable for his followers.

Jesus continues: “I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well.”⁵ This statement is often misinterpreted as an order to Christians to be submissive. “Turn the other cheek. Do not react violently. Submit to your master or superior.” The implications of this would be staggering and would contradict the witness of Jesus’ own dealings with evil and injustice. Jesus never sits idly allowing evil to be done. He does not react violently, but he certainly does not merely submit. This passage has been used for generations to convince Christian peasants to submit to tyrant kings and to convince Christian wives and children to submit to abusive husbands. The implications of this for modern warfare are despicable and contrary to our natural inclinations to self-defense and to defending the weak and vulnerable. This interpretation will not do.

Walter Wink, in his book The Powers that Be, offers an excellent and convincing alternative exegesis of this passage. Wink shows that in order for a Jew in that culture to be struck on his right cheek, the “superior” must have backhanded him, an action which did not intend to harm but to humiliate and degrade, to put a slave or Jew back in his or her place. Wink says,

By turning the other cheek, the servant makes it impossible for the master to use the backhand again …This act of defiance renders the master incapable of asserting his dominance in the relationship. He can have the slave beaten, but he can no longer cow him. By turning the other cheek, the inferior is saying: 'I'm a human being, just like you. I refuse to be humiliated any longer. I am your equal. I am a child of God. I won't take it anymore.⁶

Jesus calls for us to use, what Wink calls, Jesus’ “third way:” a way of life, of dealing with conflict, which is based neither in passivity nor in violence. This “third way” consists in active nonviolent resistance to all that is evil and inconsistent with the dignity of the human person. This resistance renders the persecutor impotent, unable to denigrate the dignity of the Christian, who, while forcing the persecutor to recognize his equality, must also, like Jesus, be willing to make sacrifices, his own sacrifices, for this truth to be made known.

Jesus is not telling his listeners to merely submit to one who does evil. Rather, he is teaching them not to respond violently, not to respond to one (an individual or a nation-state or either?) with violent warfare. At the very least, based upon the overall context, we can affirm that Jesus seems to intend for his disciples to respond, to resist, in some non-violent fashion.

Let us turn now to our third text from the Sermon on the Mount: Jesus instructs his disciples: “love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you…For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? …Do not the pagans do the same?”⁷ Again Jesus offers us another extraordinarily rich teaching. We do not here have the opportunity or the ability to fully explicate its meaning, but it does contain salience for our purpose and has a great deal to say to us. Jesus previously told us that anger, the emotion of desiring to bring harm upon another, specifically one’s “brother,” is sinful. Here, he takes it a step further, challenging his disciples to love their enemies and to pray for their persecutors. Even evildoers love those who treat them well; Christians, who share a universal call to holiness, are called to love everyone, even their enemies and persecutors, for the Father is the Father of all. God wants to bring salvation to all men, including those who are presently the enemies of Christ, including those who are persecuting his followers, his body.

The Bible gives us several examples of proper Christian responses to our persecutors which may serve to evangelize a culture of violence.⁸ Jesus confronts Saul, asking “why are you persecuting me?”⁹ In doing so, Jesus not only communicated to Saul the very real unity of Christ and his disciples, but he also called him to conversion and to service of the Church. In reflecting upon this experience and on Christ’s incarnation, death, and resurrection, St. Paul tells us that while we were still sinners, enemies of his kingdom, Christ proved the love of the Triune God for us in his passion and death.¹⁰ Thus, Jesus shows us by example what it means to love one’s enemies. Wink sums up Jesus’ alternative to both passivism and to violence well: “Jesus is not advocating nonviolence merely as a technique for outwitting the enemy, but as a just means of opposing the enemy in a way that holds open the possibility of the enemy’s becoming just also.” Jesus calls us to love them which the kenotic love which leads to the cross and opens the door to conversion and salvation.

Before we move on to consider the Gospel evidence which could support violence, we should consider the witness of Jesus’ kenotic love as exemplary for all Christian love. St Paul, writing to the Philippians, tells us that Jesus emptied himself of power, becoming humble and obedient unto death. If we, following Cardinal Kasper and others, take Rahner’s Trinitarian axiom¹¹ to be accurate, then the incarnation of the Son is a true and real self-communication or revelation of God the Father. And, if God is love,¹²then this Love, as revealed by Christ, is not love which covets power to subdue its enemies, rather this Love empties itself in a complete and total gift of self for the other, even the other who is enemy. This kenotic love, never fails.¹³

Thus we can offer a preliminary conclusion: in reflecting on the collective witness of the above passages we can say not only that Jesus personally rejected all violence, most prophetically in his passion and death, but that he also stipulated that his disciples -- all of them, not a select few -- do likewise. Nevertheless, there are a number of passages which many use to show that Jesus’ disuse of violence was either not absolute or not authoritative for modern Christians. We shall consider them in part 4 of this series.

WORKS CITED

1 John Cecil Cadoux, The Early Christian Attitude to War: A Contribution to the History of Christian Ethics,(London: Headly Bros, 1919), 36.

2 Wilma Ann Bailey, "You Shall Not Kill" or "You Shall Not Murder"? The Assault on a Biblical Text, (Liturgical Press: Collegeville, MN, 2005), 86.

3 Ibid., 24.

4 Matthew 5:21-22

5 Matthew 5:38-32.

6 Walter Wink, The Powers That Be, (New York, Doubleday, 1998), 102.

7 Matthew 5:43-48.

8 In a discussion on this topic, a colleague countered that at times killing someone can be an expression of love. He argued that, because the human person is not merely temporal, because we can eternal end, he hopes that if he were about to commit some heinous and evil crime, killing him before he committed the act would be an expression of love. However, I cannot understand how this would be consistent with love. It seems like a sort of “moral euthanasia” in which we kill someone out of mercy so that they have don’t undergo or self-inflict some moral evil or spiritual suffering. Jesus teaches us that violence is not salvific, but suffering, suffering with him, is.

9 Acts 9:4.

10 Romans 5:8.

11 “The economic is the immanent and the immanent is the economic.” quoted from Karl Rahner, The Trinity: trans. By Joseph Donceel,(NY: Herder and Herder, 1970), 22.

12 1 John 4:8.

13 1 Cor 13:8.

“Christ, Our Hope: Part II - God of Peace in the Old Testament

A commenter on my first post of the series asked the following question: "How do Christians like yourself conciliate your pacifist view of Jesus with an often war-friendly God of the Old Testament?" In order to properly and fully answer the above question, I would need to write a book. Being that a book ain't happening, hopefully the following will suffice. Now first we must have a general understanding of a Catholic approach to Sacred Scripture. Painting in broad strokes we can say that Scripture is inspired by God and written by men. It is not dictated, but inspired. Scripture is free from error.

all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the HS, we must acknowledge that the books of scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God , for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided in the Sacred Scriptures (Dei Verbum 11)

However, when speaking of inerrancy we must also keep in mind the intent of the Biblical authors, both human and divine. Generally speaking, Scripture is not a history or science text book. It is not intended to speak to that sort of truth. Rather, it reveals God to us, and reveals how we are to respond to His gratuitous gifts in order to accept (and receive) salvation. All of the above affects how we interpret the Bible. The Catechism lays out several guidelines. 1. We must pay attention to the intention of both the human and Divine authors. 2. We must keep in mind the content and unity of the Bible. Everything is to be read in context and in light of the whole, and the Old Testament (OT) is always to be read in the light of Christ. It is preparation for him and points toward him; therefore Christ, in Himself, unveils the deeper, hidden truths of the OT. 3. Augustine adds that when we come across something in the Bible which appears to be self-contradictory we are either dealing with a translation error or some error on our part in interpreting the texts.

Now we can actually consider the Old Testament of an apparently "war-friendly God" in light of Christ. At the onset we must acknowledge that the pages of the OT are dripping with blood. War abounds. Israel seems to commit genocide in some cases. Furthermore, it is not only that God is war-friendly, but He himself is even called a warrior. (Exod 15:3). Not only can this not be reconciled with the "pacifist" views held by some Christians, but it cannot be reconciled with a God who is just and merciful. I do not want to worship a God who condones genocide.

So, what is going on here? First, we must recognize that in the Bible we see the slow development of God's self- revelation. Just as we slowly reveal to children the truth about any number of things (i.e. sex, death, math, etc.), God slowly reveals himself to humanity after the fall, after they have forsaken him. He makes covenants, first with a couple, then a family, a tribe, a kingdom, and finally with all humanity. At first no other God is to be worshiped before him. Later, he is the only God. God, in revealing himself to us meets us, where we are and guides us into a fuller understanding of Truth. God meets the His people, the Israelites, as a nomadic group living in a pagan world and slowly purifies their conceptions of God (from polytheism, to monotheism, to Trinitarianism) and the world. Ultimately he is preparing humanity and the world to receive his full revelation of self in the incarnation, in Christ.

Second, we must remember that God is God -- and we, well, we're not. It is conceivable that the Author of Life could, in all justice and mercy, allow/command death, famine, war, as a punishment (which is still always also an act of love and mercy), whereas we, in our limited knowledge and typically selfish motivations, cannot rightly make such judgments. We have no right to claim authority over anyone else's life.

Third, we must not proof text or take passages out of context. The passages that appear to depict God approving of or commanding genocide or the like, when in context, do not reveal that at all. Before looking at cases of war, let's take a step back and briefly consider a few paradigm cases. Sodom and Gomorrah: We can find background info on this in Gen 13-19 and scattered throughout the NT. Glen Miller sums up the situation as follows:

It is important to note that (1) they had plenty of access to 'truth' (at LEAST 25 years); (2) their crimes were perverse, public, and the cause of international protest/outcry to God(!); (3) the annihilation was a judgment; (4) God was willing to spare the innocent people--if any could be found; (5) children living in the households of their evil parents apparently died swiftly in the one-day event (instead of being killed--as homeless orphans--by a combination of starvation, wild beasts, exposure, and disease; or instead of being captured and sold as slaves by neighboring tribes, for the older ones perhaps?); (6) the one innocent man and woman are delivered (along with their children of the household).

We can find the same situation in the story of the Flood. Humanity has devolved into horrid sin and violence. Noah preached warning and repentance for 100 years. It was an issue of divine judgment and punishment. Yet, the innocent, again, were spared. Again in Nineveh we see a similar situation. A society wallowing in sin and defilement, which God gives an unconditional warning. John 3:4-10:

Jonah began his journey through the city, and had gone but a single day's walk announcing, "Forty days more and Nineveh shall be destroyed," when the people of Nineveh believed God; they proclaimed a fast and all of them, great and small, put on sackcloth.When the news reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, laid aside his robe, covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in the ashes.Then he had this proclaimed throughout Nineveh, by decree of the king and his nobles: "Neither man nor beast, neither cattle nor sheep, shall taste anything; they shall not eat, nor shall they drink water.Man and beast shall be covered with sackcloth and call loudly to God; every man shall turn from his evil way and from the VIOLENCE he has in hand. Who knows, God may relent and forgive, and withhold his blazing wrath, so that we shall not perish."

When God saw by their actions how they turned from their evil way, he repented of the evil that he had threatened to do to them; he did not carry it out.

Notice that violence was part of the evil for which the Ninevites repented and that upon their repentance the Divine judgment is not carried out.

Now that we have background of the OT's depiction of God's judgment and punishment and mercy, we can consider the issue of war more directly. Due to the size of the OT let us choose one case example, which certainly will not prove to relieve all doubts, but I have no intention of writing a book. Let us consider the annihilation of the Canaanites (aka Amorites). 1. Was this a divine judgment? Gen 15:16 - "In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure." Seems like it was, 2. What their sin really that bad? Was this warranted? Lev 18:2-5 - The LORD said to Moses, "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: `I am the LORD your God. You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God. Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD'." The passage continues listing all sorts of sinful practices apparently common among the Canaanites. Referencing the same group, the Bible also states, "You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshipping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods." (Deut 12.31) In short, on top of their violent warlike tendencies, Canaanite religious practices were...

1. Child sacrifice (with at least some of it in fire)
2. Incest
3. Bestiality
4. Homosexual practices
5. Cultic prostitution--both male and female.

Through Abraham, Melchizedek, Joseph, etc., repentance and Truth were preached for 400+ years. Throughout the years several different types of threats were issued:

1. "wipe them out" (e.g. Ex 23.23)
2. "throw them into confusion" (e.g. Ex 23.27)
3. "make them turn their backs and run" (e.g. Ex 23.27)
4. "drive them out of your way" (e.g. Ex 23.28)
5. "struck down" (e.g. Ps 135.10)
6. "dispossessed" (e.g. Num 21.32)
7. "drive out" (e.g. Num 33.52)
8. "thrust out" (e.g. Deut 6.19)
9. "destroy them" (e.g. Deut 9.3)
10. "subdue them before you" (e.g. Deut 9.3)
11. "annihilate" (e.g. Deut 9.3)
12. "delivered them over to you" (e.g. Deut 7.2)
13. "defeated them" (e.g. Deut 7.2)
14. "perish" (e.g. Deut 7.20)
15. "give kings into your hands" (e.g. Deut 7.24)
16. "wipe out their names from under heaven" (e.g. Deut 7.24)

We should be aware of the vast difference between words like "annihilate" and "drive out." About 10 of the phrases, about 2/3, could be said to be of the "driving out" variety, rather than "annihilation." If we consider the above passages in context it grows increasingly clear that God is planning on "moving" a nation, instead of "destroying a people"... interesting. Even after all the evil they've committed? But, how are we to reconcile the driving out with the annihilating? It seems, upon reading in the context, that the people were driven out and the nation/culture annihilated. The Canaanites who refused to leave were killed by the Israelites, enforcing the punishment of God. Again, the Canaanites had waged periodic and often unheraled wars with Israel for generations. They practiced all kinds of abominable acts and were a threat not only the physical survival of the people, but also to the purity of Judaism. Nevertheless, the Biblical data seems to agree with the historical and archaeological data -- there was no genocide. Further, God used the same criteria, warnings, and punishment with Israel. After generations of disobeying God and falling into the same sinful practices (child sacrifice - Is 57:5; temple prostitution - Jer 13:27, & I Kgs 15.12; 22; etc.), after generations of prophets preaching repentance, God issued his judgment:

Then Jeremiah said to Zedekiah, "This is what the LORD God Almighty, the God of Israel, says: `If you surrender to the officers of the king of Babylon, your life will be spared and this city will not be burned down; you and your family will live. 18 But if you will not surrender to the officers of the king of Babylon, this city will be handed over to the Babylonians and they will burn it down; you yourself will not escape from their hands.'" (Jer 38.17ff)

"This is what the LORD says: `Whoever stays in this city will die by the sword, famine or plague, but whoever goes over to the Babylonians will live. He will escape with his life; he will live.' 3 And this is what the LORD says: `This city will certainly be handed over to the army of the king of Babylon, who will capture it.'" (Jer 38.2)

"Furthermore, tell the people, `This is what the LORD says: See, I am setting before you the way of life and the way of death. 9 Whoever stays in this city will die by the sword, famine or plague. But whoever goes out and surrenders to the Babylonians who are besieging you will live; he will escape with his life. 10 I have determined to do this city harm and not good, declares the LORD. It will be given into the hands of the king of Babylon, and he will destroy it with fire.' (Jer 21.8)

Thus God uses war, both for and against Israel, to enact his mercy, justice and punishment. God, as the omniscient Author of Life has that Authority. We do not.

Furthermore, we cannot consider the OT passages which depict war without considering the, in some ways, central concept of shalom in the OT. A few examples will be helpful. Shortly after leading several peoples into a victory in war, Abram runs into a man named Melchizedek whom we don't hear from again until the letter to the Hebrews, which refers to Jesus as "a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." (Christianity has picked up this enigmatic figure as a type of Christ.) The verse in Genesis in which he appears reads as follows, "Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine, and being a priest of God Most High, he blessed Abram with these words: Blessed be Abram by God Most High, the creator of heaven and earth; And blessed be God Most High, who delivered your foes into your hand." Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything." (Gen 14:18-20) We can glean a few interesting bits from this. Melchizedek, whose very name means "priest-king" and is called righteous, is king of Salem or shalom. Melchizedek, who is a type of Christ, is the king of a mountain called Peace. Immediately after a war, Abram meets with the King of Peace and offers a sacrifice. The mount on which Abram met Melchizedek is the same mount on which the sacrifice of Isaac took place. After the event (which is whole other series of posts) Abram names the mount "the place where God will provide" or Yahweh-yireh, which eventually comes to be known as Yireh-Salem or the Mount where God will provide Peace. God is the God of Peace. As the whole OT points forward to Christ, it also points forward to a time of peace. The book of Isaiah contains one of the many prophecies that speak of an eschatological future without war. Isaiah 3:2-4 says:

In days to come, The mountain of the LORD'S house shall be established as the highest mountain and raised above the hills. All nations shall stream toward it; many peoples shall come and say: "Come, let us climb the LORD'S mountain, to the house of the God of Jacob, That he may instruct us in his ways, and we may walk in his paths." For from Zion shall go forth instruction, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. He shall judge between the nations, and impose terms on many peoples. They shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; One nation shall not raise the sword against another, nor shall they train for war again.

War brings death. Death is a result of sin. No one wants war. It always represents a failure of some kind. The OT presents a God who wants to bring peace (lasting universal peace) to the world. The OT as a whole represents a slow move away from the prevalent culture of war to Christ. This makes sense in light of Christ, who as the revelation of God himself, reveals himself as a non-violent, but powerful and eminently loving yet just God of peace. We shall consider the words and witness of Christ in the what is to come.

Sources: Walter Wink, John Dear, Catholic Peace Fellowship, Pax Christi , Adrian Helleman, Albert Winn , Glen Miller

Part 3 can be found here.

Edited for grammar and readability

Being Catholic in America part VIII - Just War

"War is always a defeat for humanity" and is contrary to Jesus' call to be peacemakers. The Christian always mourns the destruction and death which accompanies war, but the Church has recognized that in some cases the secular world must resort to war. In order to evaluate the involvement of Christians in these regrettable situations to help guide her children, the Church teaches a Just-War Doctrine, which the delineates the preconditions necessary for a war to have a just cause and for the actually fighting to be waged in a just manner.

The Catechism describes the Just- War Doctrine here, see specifically, articles 2307- 2317.

A country can only be said to have a just cause for going to war if all of the following conditions are met:

1 - The war must be a war of defense and the response must be proportionate to the initial attack to which one is responding.

2 - War must ALWAYS be the last resort. ALL other "diplomatic" options must be exhausted.(when has this ever been the case?)

3 - The country must have high likelihood of success in war.

4 - The use of weapons must not cause more suffering/evil than refraining from war would have caused.

Furthermore a legitimate authority must make the decision to go to war and civilians and non combatants must not be harmed. By "legitimate authority" the Church does mean the head of a country or nation-state, but an international authority. In other words, President Bush is not the legitimate authority here, the UN is the legitimate authority.

With this information in mind we can evaluate the recent war policies of our country. Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II have both condemned the Iraq war as being unjust. Why might that be?

Contrary to the misinformed opinion of some of people, Iraq had no role in the 9-11 attacks. In fact, for all his flaws, Saddam Hussein was an enemy of Al Qaeda, which had no presence in Iraq before the war. Therefore, our invasion was not a defensive response. We initiated the violence. Some will counter that the war is justified as pre-emptive strike against an imminent threat. However, Joseph Ratzinger has explained that the just war doctrine does NOT allow for a pre-emptive war. The Catechism does not allow for such a justification.

Furthermore, in attacking Iraq, President Bush ignored the recommendation of the legitimate authority, the UN, and hundreds of thousands of non-combatants have been injured in the war. The Archbishop of Baghdad has noted that daily life for the average Iraqi, specifically Iraqi Christians was safer, less chaotic, and more "normal" during the reign of Saddam Hussein than it is now. Despite the horrors and evils of the Hussein Regime, the argument could be made that the war and overthrowing the regime has produced more evils than leaving the regime in place.

Simply put, the Iraq war cannot be justified based on Catholic principles of peace and justice.

America's current policy of war does not support a consistent ethic of life which demands that we hold all life as sacred and priceless. Iraqi lives are just as important and sacred as American lives. We must remember that we are one Body in Christ, we are the Catholic (Universal) Church, not the American church.

IF we want to live out our universal call to holiness, if we want to be faithful Catholics in America we must not buy into this us (good guys) vs. them (bad guys) rhetoric. War is not the answer and is always a defeat for humanity. JP II taught "there can be no peace without mercy and forgiveness." War does not bring this. It only brings pain, death, suffering, hated, and a false,forced sense of closure. This is why the wars in the middle east, specifically between the Jews and Palestinians have continued and will continue. There can be no peace without mercy and forgiveness. We must love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us, not bomb them to smithereens.

May God grant us the grace to be witnesses to faith, hope, and love, witnesses to the peace which only Christ can offer, in a society that puts its open in armed weaponry and the strength of men.