POST SERIES
Introduction
Views of Christian Participation and War
Jesus on Violence and the Kingdom in Matthew 5:38-44
Paul on Empire and Submission in Romans 13:1-7
The Kingdom of Heaven and Christian Identity
Analyzing War and Christian Participation in Light of a Kingdom-Identity
A Christian Response to War
Conclusion
Here is post 5 on our series on Christian participation in war and violence. Forgive me for not unfolding the argument all at once in one lump sum. Sometimes it’s best to let these things open up over time, particularly because of the implications of what I think Jesus and His Kingdom ethic calls us Christians to regarding violence: non-resistance and peace. Despite the fact that this world is not the way it’s supposed to be—horrible people do horrible things, which Colorado and Wisconsin bear recent witness—I still can’t shake the strong countercultural, radical ethic to which Jesus calls His followers. That radical ethic seems to discount retributional violence, seems to demand a peaceful response to violence.
I should say, however, that I’m not sure this issue is as black and white as many of us from either side of the aisle make it out to be, as I even make it out to be in these posts. I think Shane and Jazz illustrate the tension well in the third post. And my hope with this series of posts from my paper examining the ethic of violence generally and war particularly is to force us Christians to recon with the new ethic of the Kingdom inaugurated through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. An ethic that seems to preclude violent responses to violence itself.
OK, but does “the kingdom ethic for a general love to one’s fellow man…necessarily preclude violence in an immediate, life-threatening situation” as my friend Shane pushes back? This is a good question, one we must ask in the real world—rather than the “straw-man world” I seem to have constructed, as Shane also suggests! Again, how should we Christians think and respond to violence? How should we think and respond to and participate in war? How should we Christians think about the 2nd amendment? How should we think about all three in light of the Kingdom-ethic Jesus has established? Because, as Richard Burridge suggests in Imitating Jesus, rather than relaxing the ethical and legal requirements of God’s faithful community, He strengthens them and radicalizes them through His attitudes on neighbor-love.
Does this mean we cannot or should not use violent means to stem or hold back violent acts, particularly in the moment as they are unfolding in front of us? I’m not sure we should not. Does this ethic preclude violence in an immediate, life-threatening situation? I’m not sure it does. What I am sure of is that Jesus has raised the standard of what it means to be human—He has shown us how we are to live as we were intended to live. And Christ’s Kingdom and its ethic is the political realm to which we must bow and give allegiance in all manner of conduct. It must shape our identity, even our response to violence abroad or in our own home.
————————————————–
Upon establishing both the political and biblical understanding of the issue of Christian participation in war, an analysis may be undertaken. Though biblical evidence regarding enemy nonresistance and enemy-love has already been established, outlining the Kingdom of Heaven will provide the singular lens through which to analyze the political explanations for and against Christian participation. After establishing this analytical lens, participation in war and violence will be analyzed in light of the Kingdom-identity of the believer. Finally, a Christian response to war and violence will be given as a way to understand why it is not legitimate for a Christian to participate in war and how one should respond to the State when called for military service.
A. The Kingdom of Heaven and Christian Identity
Important to analyzing the legitimacy of Christian participation in war is an understanding of the Kingdom of Heaven, a movement that was central to the teachings of Jesus, ((I. Howard Marshall, Jesus the Saviour. Studies in New Testament Theology(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990), 213.)) and key to present Christian identity. Understanding the Kingdom will provide a lens through which to analyze the current topic. “The term ‘Kingdom of God/Heaven’ signified God’s sovereign, dynamic and eschatological rule,” ((Caragounis, “Eschatology,” Dictionary on Jesus and the Gospels, 417.)) an apolitical movement that is both present and future. Rather than being far-off into the future the Kingdom has arrived with the incarnation of Jesus Christ. David Flusser, in his book The Sage from Galilee, presents a convincing case that Jesus Himself believed the Kingdom had come and was amongst the world. In fact, this idea would have been a fixture of rabbinical Judaism: “There should be no doubt that both for rabbinical Judaism and for Jesus the Kingdom of Heaven is a present reality.” ((David Flusser, The Sage from Galilee(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2007), 87.)) God’s Kingdom, the exercise of His kingship, and the manifestation of His sovereignty has dawn near. ((James D.G. Dunn, The Jesus Remembered(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2003), 408.)) “Consequently, when we talk about the [Kingdom of Heaven] we are talking about something that is actually happening here and now.” ((Marshall, Jesus the Saviour, 231.))
Jesus’ main task was to be the center of a movement which realized God’s Kingdom reign among mankind, right now in this present age, which was why it was such a common fixture of His ethical teachings. ((Flusser, Sage from Galilee, 88.)) Using the Sermon and parables Jesus Christ taught that the Kingdom of Heaven is a new social community and movement to which believers were now presently committed and aligned. While this Kingdom is often unnoticeable at first, it progresses and pervasively invades human societies so that the reign of God renews and restores them. This was the message of the parables on the mustard seed and leaven (Matt. 13:31-33). In both parables, Jesus describes exaggerated growth of the tree and dough to teach that the Kingdom of Heaven has a dramatic effect on human society now. ((France, Matthew, 526-528.)) A new social ethic and community centered on the teachings of Jesus Christ has begun now and will culminate in the future, and followers of Christ are part of it. Thus, the issue of war and violence, for instance, take on new meaning in light of this eschatological movement and community. War and violence is not the way it is supposed to be, and through this movement God is now restoring everything, ethics an all, to the way He intended it to be at the beginning of creation. Therefore, those who are part of God’s Kingdom now should fight for the way things are supposed to be: a world without war, a world at peace. But while the Kingdom is a seemingly insignificant, progressive movement with agents of renewal, both still exist alongside rebellion and chaos, as evidenced by war and violence.
The disciples themselves were from among a people who were subjugated and distressed by a violent power, they were surrounded by chaos and brokenness and would have surely wondered: if the Kingdom of Heaven was growing and progressing in their time-space reality during the time of Jesus and beyond, why was there still grand-scale evil and violence? Davies and Allison contend that, “while the victory of God’s Kingdom is sure, the way from here to there is hampered by unbelief and its effects.” ((Davies and Dale C. Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991), 408.)) In other words: evil in the form of unbelief and the consequences of active rebellion (in the case of the present discussion, war and violence) still exist along side the good that will eventually triumph. To explain to His followers the nature of this phenomenon, Jesus gave them a parable on Wheat and Weeds (Matt. 13:24-30, 36-43).
In this parable Matthew sees the activity of the Son of Man (Jesus Christ) as a renewal and extension of the historic activity of God in establishing His people within a world of evil. ((John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2005), 548.)) The sowing activity of the Son of Man in the present age is equated with establishing the authority of God Himself. Along with this activity of the Son of Man, though, is the activity of the Evil One: within the world the Devil sows alongside the Son so that the Kingdom still exists alongside evil, violence, and chaos. Within the present world, then, believers and unbelievers coexist, even after the Kingdom of Heaven is announced, proclaimed, and arrives in the present world. ((France, Matthew, 533.)) Though the disciples wondered why rampant evil and opposition was left unchecked Jesus calls them to patience, directing their attention away from the present situation to future judgement. Here Matthew is concerned that “the church that now lives and acts in the Kingdom of the Son of Man, in the world, becoming what it should be, viz. a community of righteous ones who some day will shine in the Kingdom of the Father.” ((Ulrich Luz, Matthew 8-20 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 270.)) Judgement, then, was neither the purpose of Jesus’ ministry nor is it the present purpose of the Kingdom of Heaven; using the sword to enact that judgement was not the way of Jesus nor is it the way of those who are part of His Kingdom. Rather, right now the Church is called to patience as the ‘already’ Kingdom of Heaven pervasively invades and progressively transforms the world among the wicked until they are removed and judged and the ‘not yet’ Kingdom finally arrives.
As Matthew makes clear with the Sermon on the Mount episode, he “does not regard the discipleship of the Sermon on the Mount as an impossible ordeal. It is, rather, the way of life directly commanded by Jesus, who possesses ‘all authority in heaven and on earth.’ The calling of discipleship is not impossible, for the powerful risen Lord is present in and with the community.” ((Hays, Moral Vision, 323.)) The task of pacifism and nonresistance Jesus and His Kingdom ethic require is not impossible, because He has accomplished it Himself and has empowered His people to perform in His footsteps. As the Church’s identity is wrapped up in that of Christ, so too is Her identity wrapped around the ethics of the Kingdom of Heaven. Rather than ethically belonging to the “kingdoms of this world,” the Kingdom ethics of Jesus are consigned to every follower of Christ, right now. The believer is not waiting for the new Kingdom to inaugurate a new way of living in the future, for that new way and new Kingdom came with Jesus Christ. “The teachings of Jesus about the [Kingdom of Heaven] enshrines the conviction that God has already begun to act in the world and will complete what He has begun. Thus the vitality of the hope depends upon the validity of the conviction that God is already at work in the world.” ((Marshall, Jesus the Saviour, 221.)) God is already at work in the world through His followers who find their identity in the Kingdom of Heaven, an identity that sharply contrasts with the use of retributional violence and war.
Jeremy,
Thanks for the kind comments regarding my previous arguments.
If you're not sure about the ethic of violence in immediate self defense, why are you sure that gun control should be initiated to stop violence? On a practical level, I think a wider ownership and carrying of guns in self defense is the answer, rather than the reverse. I either do now, or have at one time, owned the specific type of gun used in the Colorado massacre up to and including the exact type of Bushmaster AR-15 he used. My reason for having it was both for fun, and I recognized the fact that bad guys often don't come by themselves, and good guys can miss. An AR-15 is an excellent home defense weapon in cases of multiple attackers. It's small, but high velocity caliber can be fitted with ammo that will not penetrate multiple walls, making it a more just weapon to thy neighbor than many other guns. The Remington shotgun is another example. Multiple attackers could be stopped without reloading, yet with birdshot, rounds can be effective but not deadly to nearby neighbors.
Here's a question: is it immoral for the Colorado theater to post a legally binding notice that no one may bring in a legal concealed weapon when no one actually verifies the safety of the theatre? Recent reports say that at least one man rushed the attacker with his body and was gunned down. Isn't it immoral that he was stripped of the legal ability to retain protection of a more likely good outcome? I'm afraid that an overconcern that we not be violent strips our ability to be violent when necessary, as you seem to admit the possibility exists.
Yours Respectfully,
Shayne with a y.
An additional question is that of efficacy of laws. In a nation with hundreds of millions of guns, is it tenable for the government to think that greater gun control will result in lesser use. I don't think so. A determined and intelligent attacker, which many of the recent attackers were, would have found illegal means for firearms if they worked hard enough. Someone who can make their own bombs will get their own guns. I'd rather the government be in the position of allowing us to protect ourselves, which they failed to do in Colorado.
I spent a semester in college studying gun control policy…which means that what I say below could be a bit dated because, well, that was a long time ago now. (Let's just say it was a different millennium then.)
Anyway, one of the points I came across in my studies was that gun owners and their families were statistically more likely to be involved in a gun-related accident than to successfully protect themselves from an assailant. So the price of being theoretically able to protect your family is that you actually increase the danger to them. I suppose some of that could be mitigated through mandated safety training, but that in itself would be a form of "gun control."
I've never been persuaded by the "criminals will always find a way to get guns" argument…not because it isn't partly true (it is), but because it doesn't take into account the fact that the US has an abnormally high rate of gun crime compared to other industrialized nations, almost all of which have stricter gun control laws. Also, not all crimes are premeditated. Many (perhaps most, even) are "crimes of passion" — that is, they're the result of someone with access to lethal force suddenly finding themselves in the wrong state of mind. Take away the former — or at least make it harder for someone to just go out and get a gun on a whim — and you'll reduce the likelihood of their doing something in the heat of the moment that can never be undone.
One of the things I appreciate about Jeremy's perspective (finally bringing it back to the subject of his current series) is that he has a realistic view of human sin. It seems to me that our nation's gun control policies don't take this into account. We tend to think in terms of "us" (the law-abiding types) and "them" (those dirty criminals). But the reality is, we're all broken. We're all capable of evil. That's why a commitment to nonviolence is so important. To what degree such a commitment can be enforced by the state (e.g. via gun control) is a legitimate question, but in any case, this is a conversation worth having.