A Response to War, Terrorism, and Militarism for Jesus-followers

Team Members: Dave, Josh, Jesse, Jessi, Lea, Reed

Initial Definition of Terms
       War
       Militarism
       Terrorism

Description of the Social Problem
       Cost of War
       Disruption of God's Shalom
       Hegemony:  Stronger Nations Over Weaker Nations
       Mental Health and Social Disorders

Practices / Structures That Give Rise to This Problem
       Clarification
       Overview of  Potential Structures
             History of Modern Conflict
             Islamic Fundamentalism
       Media / Propaganda
       Globalization
       The Bible

The Task of Jesus-Followers in Response to This Problem
       Overview
       Pacifist Response to Just War
       Response to Pacifism

Final Exhortation - Just Peacemaking

Case Studies
       Iraq
       Chechnya
       Cuba

Additional Resources

Initial Definitions of Terms 

1. Definition of War (Wikipedia):

2. Definition of Militarism (Wikipedia):

3. Definition of Terrorism (Wikipedia):

Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby — in contrast to assassination— the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought. (Schmid, 1988).

4. Resources:

 Links:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032542/site/newsweek

http://www.afsc.org/about/mission.htm

http://www.iep.utm.edu/j/justwar.htm

http://www.un.org/terrorism/

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm

Books:

Mark Juergensmeyer, Terror in the Mind of God. (Berkley: University of California Press, 2000)

St. Augustine. Augustine: Political Writings,  edited by E. M. Atkins and R. J. Dodaro     (Cambridge: Cambrigde University Press, 2001)

Anna Politkovskaya, A Dirty War. (London: The Harvill Press,  2001)

Describe the social problem  

1. The Costs of War

War and Militarism are significant drains on a country's financial resources, and supporting a militaristic regime can siphon valuable resources away from other areas, areas that enable nations and individuals to carry out the commands that Christ has given to his followers in the Scripture.  The estimated cost of US millitary conflicts from the Revolutionary War to WWII is $4 trillion.

Cost of War

The problem with war is that the effects, and costs are not contained to the soldiers who fight it or the nations that choose to partake, in our global economy the effects spread to all nations and all peoples around the world. There are so many other costs to consider, how about the casualties from the nation we are at war with, the environmental impact of war, the poverty that may ensue from the war in the place were it is being fought, the psychological issues, or how about the possible effects on the spread of the Gospel.

2. The Disruption of God's Shalom

The Hebrew concept of shalom is, roughly, a universal flourishing and wholeness based on “the webbing together of God, humans, and all creation in justice, fulfillment, and delight.” According to Cornelius Plantinga, sin can be defined as the culpable breaking of this shalom, an interference of the way things are supposed to be. I think this perspective of shalom can be useful in understanding the ways in which militarism and war constitute a social problem. Plantinga talks about sin and the way it corrupts and taints aspects of creation, the way it leads to a perversion of the good that God created and ultimately to destruction, the way sin acts as a parasite to God’s good creation and cannot exist apart from shalom, and the way in which sin can be confusing since it meshes together so easily with “the good” in a range of complex, ironic situations.

There are so many “benefits” that are cited for a strong national defense, such as security and the protection of our values and way of life, the perspective of Military Keynesian economists of the way in which it boosts our economy, and the way in which it can be used to carry out justice, but these must be balanced by a realistic and honest understanding of the sinfulness of man and a fallen human nature. These benefits must be countered by the fact that militarism is at its root a question of power. Haugen explores this, and his “anatomy of injustice” is also an interesting concept that provides a good starting point for understanding the social problem of war and militarism. He sees injustice as an abuse of power and breaks down all types of injustice, including “abusive police or military” and “state, rebel, or paramilitary terrorism” into patterns of coercion and deception. These factors are necessary in order to maintain a state of injustice, and I believe that they are key components in maintaining a state of militarism in general.

Plantinga, Cornelius. Not the Way It’s Supposed to Be: A Breviary of Sin. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995

Haugen, Gary A. Good News About Injustice: A Witness of Courage in a Hurting World. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999

3. Hegemony: Stronger Nations over Weaker Nations

4. Mental Health and Social-Disorders

War and Terrorism take a social and mental impact on those involved. Terrorism, a response to U.S. intervention and democratization of other nations impacts the people of this nation. Psychoanalytic experts admit they were/are not prepared to deal with it themselves much less address the needs of the victims of the tragedy.

1. Clarification of Structures

According to Stanley Grenz, structures of existence are “those larger, suprahuman aspects or dimensions of reality which form the inescapable context for human life and which therefore condition individual and corporate human existence.” (228) These structures can be religious (astrology), political (polis or city-states), economic (Marxism), or take another form, and even though they are linked to human existence, they are actually more than simply human constructs and are actually quasi-independent and quasi-personal.

These structures are connected to the Pauline concept of “powers” which can influence human affairs through ideas and traditions (Colossians 2:20-22). The key to understanding how these structures are related to angels and demons, according to Grenz, is understanding the latter’s role in governance. One of the functions of the heavenly beings is “that of serving as agents of God’s governing of the world,” (233) and God’s intention for creating the structures of existence was essentially good: to benefit humankind and creation. According to Grenz, structures, therefore, are tools that are used by angelic beings to foster community, but because of the way in which structures provide cohesion and order to the human existence, they can also be used to hinder community and to hold the community away from God. Structures can actually be channels of evil, and demonic realities can use structures to hold humans in bondage.

These structures are a tangible channel for what may seem like distant realities, namely angels and demons, to seem much closer to home and closer to our reality. Although the Bible asserts the reality of angels and demons and thus the dangers of superstition, which almost invariably leads to some form of idolatry, demonic powers and principalities are all under the authority of the risen Christ. We can take faith in the fact that even though such powers are real, in light of Christ’s victory, they can be deemed as powerless and irrelevant.

2. An Overview of Potential Structures

1. Government (Nation, Nation-State, Government itself)
2. Religion (Consider structures like Denominational, cultural associations with political groups and how those overlap i.e. Saudis and Muslims, Religous / Theocratic Right)
3. Military
4. History
5. Political Parties
6. Modern Ideologies, including Economics (Capitalism, Communism)
7. Media

2b. A Few Select Moments in the History of Modern Conflict (needs to be continued...)

- The first is the relationship between the growth of the modern nation-state and its connection with the rise of commercial activity, found within the emerging cities of early modern Europe . (Global Transformations, p. 149, 187). As the economic landscape of Europe was changing so too was the social landscape. As a result, old modes of life were changing and the ideologies that accompanied those old ways of life were no longer suitable to many of the people's life condition. This social anxiety often-time led to a serious sense of dread and an obsession with personal sin. There was personal dislocation and an accompanying ideological shift, hence the Protestant Reformation and a less hierarchical and more individualized conception of the faith. There was economic change and social dislocation, and many of the knights and lower aristocracy found themselves poor, bankrupt, and increasingly marginalized. The more powerful aristocracy, and the royalty, took advantage of this and sought to extend their own power at the expense of the lesser nobles. However, many nobles found themselves in stalemate with one another. However, cities were developing and creating an independent tax base, apart from a king or nobles own lands. The king, therefore made deals with the cities and used this extra revenue to overcome opposition, consolidate power, and increasingly saturate his territory with state power. The king’s resources far outstripped those of his opponents and he could afford military technology that his opponents couldn't. This would eventually lead to absolutism. This was also a long and violent process. So from the very beginning of the modern state, (or early-modern at this point), there was a connection between commerce and military violence. The modern state was born of warfare, as made possible by commercial revenues. It is also related to nationalist sentiments, though still in its early stages. So, we have trade, state power, ideology, and theology all interrelated to one another.

-So nations happen, time goes on, the Westphalian system is established, which results in balance of power politics, revolutions occur, enlightenment, industrialization (this gave states a resource base for military power much greater than before), society-wide nationalism, nation-states emerge, diplomacy is established, national markets emerge, etc. This entire process took many long and bloody years, out of which the west as we know it emerged. During all this, international trade is increasing, coming to represent a larger portion of the national economy.

-During this process, the west, and its "new" form of civilization, came into increasing contact with other parts of the globe, often with imperial ambitions and brought its new economic power with it. By the 19th century, however (Global Transformations, p. 154), "trade was not significant enough by itself to determine the patterns of international inequality." It was during and after the 19th century that Europe came to dominate much of the globe, relying on the power that they were able to accumulate as a result of their industrial base. Their military hardware was superior and they had the financial resources to sustain it, especially against primarily agricultural societies, who therefore had fixed revenue. Imperialism resulted from inner-European nationalist rivalries that were then projected across the globe. And, they had the resources to do so. So economics and warfare are very much related.

-During this time the west came into contact with other parts of the globe at a level never seen before, and brought their economic and social policies into these regions. The results varied, depending on the actors, but some responses included the complete disruption of traditional modes and patterns of life and the forcible introduction the western model as a result of particular government action, as was the case in colonial . (F. Collona,) Or, the spread of an increasingly international western oriented economic trade system and the introduction of industrial forms of production into a particular region often created immense social dislocation as old patterns of life were deeply shaken, without direct government action. Of this process in the Middle East H. Batatu writes,

"The causative factors underlying revolutionary outbreaks are, to be sure, multiple and complicated and some of them arise out of the unique internal or external conditions of Arab countries. At the same time they? all have a common context. They are all related to a crucial historical process: the gradual tying-up of the Arab people in the course of the 19th and 20th centuries to an international market resting on large scale industry and their involvement in the web of forces or consequences of forces unleashed by the industrial and technological revolutions. In these structural changes all the important radical parties and movements, including the Muslim Brethren, the Communists, the Ba'th, the Free Officers, the Arab nationalists, the Algerian Fellaghas, ans the Palestinian Fedayeen, had their roots." (H. Batatu, 1983)

 So, as a result of the growing, western-oriented, international market there was massive social dislocation, social anxiety, and anomie that arose in many places around the globe. As a result, many people sought means of coping with these changes. Depending on the person and their particular station in their respective society, they developed a particular ideology in response to it, and sometimes reacted against it. This came in the form of nationalism, fascism, populism, socialism, communism, fundamentalism, (and perhaps evangelicalism in the context?) Each ideology was a response to the process (in the west of modernization, but in the non-West) of being tied into the international market system, the deep structural changes in one's society that resulted, and the social dislocation that resulted from this. This is seen in Global Transformation (pg. 163),

"During the period of 1870 to 1939 markets for key goods began to acquire a global dimension and, unlike earlier periods, this resulted in country specialization such that national patterns of production were increasingly influenced by global competition. One result of this, broadly in line with the standard trade theory, was that income levels within those economies more fully enmeshed in the trade system were increasingly subject to global market disciplines and this had a key impact on domestic politics."

Global events affected national patterns of trade. This affected, or altered, the social conditions of many in a particular society. There were winners and losers, the latter of which often reacted violently against whom they considered responsible.

Ideologies arose which responded to and sought to give answers to an individual's feelings of social anxiety, anomie and isolation. These ideologies often prescribed a social or political course of action as well. Often these ideologies were such that they placed the troubled individual in the very center of his cosmology, giving him not only purpose, but a course of action in response to their social condition. He became a warrior for God with divine purpose in fundamentalism, a warrior for the peasants in populism, a warrior for the workers in the labor movements, a warrior as the troubled pseudo-academic in Marxism/socialism. Industrialization and the global market economy led to social atomization and anomie which led to new social expressions such as nationalism, fascism, fundamentalism, socialism, Marxism, populism, among others. They were all reaction to the above dilemma.

2c. A brief overview of Islamic Fundamentalism

(for sources and citations see link in section below)

Although everything is tied to specific and localized historical circumstances, a standard model as to the appeal of Islamic fundamentalism in the Muslim world relates to a reaction to modern European colonialism (and/or integration into the modern market system). Rather than relying on traditional and local power structures and relationships to maintain order, as the Ottomans had traditionally done, the colonizers’ economic and social policies accompanied (in a pretty standard modernizationist model) the breakup of traditional property relationships and the collapse of tribal structures, leading to the destruction of the economic and social base of traditional society.  As a result, a segmented society originally broken into tribal units with a tribal and collective conception of economics and property, transformed into a society organized by various classes based upon different economic interests and social position. For example, as it concerns the growth of fundamentalism in , Fanny Colonna, in “Cultural Resistance and Religious Legitimacy in Colonial Algeria,” writes,

“Just as the fragmented reaction of the Sufi? brotherhoods was adapted to a society fragmented into tribes, so the new conditions brought by colonization made both necessary and possible the establishment of an overall movement, at the level of the country as a whole, capable of organizing isolated individuals, without a tribal framework, through a puritan and individualistic religion...”

These radical changes forced individuals to create new forms of interaction and identity. A new relationship between the individual and society had to be created. For many, this identity took the form of an individualistic, universalistic, fundamentalist, puritan, and often nationalistic form of Islam that reflected the changing social make-up. (Another segment of society adopted European modes of self-identification and social organization. )

As a revolutionary movement, however, radical Islam provides an ideological role for the displaced individual in the post-colonial (or modern) Islamic society, much the same way Marxism did for the displaced worker in the 19th and early-20th centuries during industrialization. With economic and social modernization Islamism became an important 20th century social/political movement.  Fundamentalism provides a neatly packaged list of enemies and explanations that give form to a displaced individual’s war torn world. The colonial (or the post-colonial government) government responsible, or perceived to be responsible, for an individual’s loss of loved ones and property becomes the agent of evil. The radical fundamentalist, as a result has a moral obligation, being a true believer, to rage against the powers that, acting on behalf of evil, represents a barrier to the spread of Islam and the creation of a just Islamic regime on earth.  Acts of terrorism, therefore, also become moral obligation. It is here, in the mission to reconstruct society upon an abstract perception of right, where things tend to get dangerous and innocent people tend to die.

3. Media as a Channel for Structures - Propaganda

Nearly every conflict is fought on at least two grounds: the battlefield and the minds of the people via propaganda. The latter, the war on peoples minds, is often used prior to the actual war. In many cases, war itself is not to be expected. Consequently, propaganda is often employed to get closer to war, if that is the preferred foreign policy option.

Here are 4 rather simplistic views of how propaganda is passed down to its subjects (I’m sure you will be aware of them and their examples):

1. The Big Lie, adapted by Hitler and Stalin. (i.e. state-controlled Egyptian press has been spreading a Big Lie, saying the World Trade Center was attacked by Israel to embarrass Arabs)
    
2. The truth doesn’t matter, but give them a story that is plausible. (i.e. demonizing the “enemy” who does not fit into the picture of what is right, reinforcing reasons and motivations to act due to threats on the security of the individual)
3. Tell the truth, yet do not give the other side’s viewpoint. (using partial facts, or historical context, using a narrow range of discourse, using selective stories that come over as wide-covering and objective)
4. Tell the truth (both sides), the good and the bad.

Western governments, for the most part, avoid The Big Lie, because their peoples will not allow such bold lies. However, the governments are able to manufacture consent through the creative use of the last 3 steps.

Roderick Hindey in Identifying Religious Terrorism through Profiles of Propaganda says there are 3 basic approaches resulting in repetitive formulas and self-hypnotic meditations that targeting the youth binary thinking in simplistic terms. “Although indoctrination and propaganda do not always result in terrorism, they logically precede it. And although propaganda and indoctrination do not work like weapons of physical mass destruction directly, in terms of damage to human minds and freedom they function as weapons of incredible mass destruction”(Hindey).

In order to move along in the peace process, especially in regards to terrorism, there needs to be a proactive defense. First off, we must understand propaganda and accurately interpret its message. We have to be able to think critically about the herd-type of thinking and demand that others do as well (this means pointing the finger at ourselves first). We (ourselves and others) must learn to be unafraid of otherness and to interact with viewpoints opposed to our own. One of the leading structures which give rise to our problem of War, Terrorism, and Militarism are therefore the media outlets which allow for such subliminal propaganda. We are fed the news and given facts which are most likely skewed. The responsibility of people who claim Christ as their Savior is to interpret and search out the truth. We cannot be naïve to think that these things do not matter. We cannot base our knowledge of world issues on popular media. We must take a Biblically sound, intelligent view of the world. We must not align ourselves solely to patriotism and nationalism, but rather to that of Godliness and Christ-likeness, first and foremost.

4. Globalization:

Global Transformations is a text that we have been reading concerning the present era in which we live. Any event in history must be contextualized before being properly understood. Many of the wars occuring today are the direct result of, related to, and affected by, not only localized historical peculiarities, but also, in our increasingly interconnected world, global trends, forces, actors, instituations, etc. Wars have never taken place in a vacuum, but in our present historical context they are ever increasingly the concern of the entire world, to an extent they had never been previously.

Every step of the process from Empires to Modern Nation-States has been characterized by a use of military power. In every section of 1.1, the authors note how military force was used for the powers to maintain, gain, or defend their territory. Military power was also crucial for the transformations from one stage to the next (pg. 31-49)

Currently in the Modern Nation-State set-up, we are bound to the state for military protection and rely upon their decisions for war. The book states: “the claim to hold a monopoly on the force and means of coercion (sustained by a standing army and the police) became possible only with the ‘pacification’ of peoples, the breaking down of powers and rivals within the nation-state.” (pg. 45).

One of the main functions of international regimes is to attempt to maintain codes of war and relations, to relegate the manufacturing of nuclear weapons, and to provide security and defense of its members (i.e., nuclear non-proliferation regime, sea regime, etc). (pg. 51)

Telecommunications has changed the shape of war. We can now view what is happening in one place from virtually anywhere in the world (pg. 59). We have a new sense of connection in global politics; maybe even especially when it comes to war and revolution.

It is important to recognize that in the process of globalization that the gap between industrialized nations and non-industrialized nations is expanding, specifically in regards to military expenditures (see tiers mentioned on pg. 88). I was shocked once again by seeing the statistics on how much the US pours into the military compared with the rest of the world (pg. 97-98).

“Military power has been fundamental to the evolution and institutional form of the modern sovereign, territorial nation-state. The independent capacity to defend national territorial space by military means is at the heart of the modern conception of the institution of sovereign statehood. But, as discussed here, contemporary military globalization poses quite profound questions about the meaning and practice of state sovereignty and autonomy. For in the contemporary age, the traditionally presumed correspondence between the special organization of military power and the territorial nation-state appears to be changing.” (143)

5. A Biblical Basis for War?

Isaiah 2:1-5; 11:1-9 - these seem to be visions of a future time when peace will reign and warfare will cease. What is our responsibility as Christ-followers in light of passages such as these? Are we to enter in this coming Kingdom of peace here and now and aid in the ushering in of these visions? Or are we as Christ-followers about standing up for justice of the oppressed, even if that means taking up arms? Is there a circumstance when that is called for?

It is interesting to note that in verses 3b-5 in this passage, God equips the king mentioned in verse 1 with all he needs to govern in God's idyllic reign.  Not only does he give him wisdom and discernment, knowledge and fear, but counsel and might/power.  This pairing of counsel and might is meant to provide the king with both the skills of diplomacy to avoid war as well as the power to engage in it victoriously if need be. 

Numbers 31; Jeremiah 50 - these are two instances when God commands the Israelites to enter into battle and to kill every last one of their enemies. Is God a pacifist? A proponent of just-war? It is difficult to see God as the former in light of passages such as these.

What is the task of Jesus-followers in response to this problem?  

1. Overview:

The response of Jesus-followers in regards to the topic of war range along a broad spectrum. There are those who are pacifists and who biblically back up their position; there are those who believe that there is a just cause in taking up arms under certain circumstances, who are also able to support their ideas on a biblical basis; and then there are the majority of believers  who find themselves somewhere in between. Perhaps the best task for Christ-followers  at this juncture is to be willing to open and honest dialogue. That requires developing listening-skills, the ability to challenge and critique one another, and simply the chance to step into one another's   shoes and take a look at the issue from a new perspective.

2. Pacifist Response to Just War:

 While Just War Theory may look ethical to most people, inside and outside of the Christian faith, I have to question its merits based upon scripture. Jesus, as revealed in Scripture, did not simply come to be the sacrifice for the sins of humanity. He also came to inaugurate His kingdom, the eternal kingdom. He did this first among the Jewish people, who followed Him by preaching a radically different ideal of what it meant to be a person or people of God. Christ in the Sermon on the Mount began to lay out the ethic, which this new kingdom would personify.

The Sermon on the Mount is not simply about non-violence, it is a statement about how we are to treat all that we come in contact with regardless of who they are or what they have done to us. The issue of non-violence is a concern to Christ and He deals with it in Matthew Ch. 5:38-39.  In this passage Christ first uses a saying that the people would have been familiar with (‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’), and contrasts it to the principle that He wants His people to live by, “do not resist an evil doer.  But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also;” the question is what does Christ mean?  According to Walter Wink anthestemi the word translated here as resist, is often used in a military sense.  This means that resistance implies counteractive aggression.  If we use this interpretation of the text, what Christ is saying is not to use aggression to fight back.  The Scholars Version of the Bible reads: “Don’t react violently against the one who is evil.”

Christ in the second half of Matthew 5:39 tells them "But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also;" in order to understand this text we must understand the historical context.  In the culture at this time the left hand was seen as being unclean, so it would not have been used to strike a person.  The only way to hit a person on the right cheek with the right hand would have been a backhand slap.  This is significant because a person would only backhand a person who they thought was inferior to them.  If the person would have been an equal with the one who he had struck the fine would have been 400 zuz, but the fine for backhanding someone who was inferior to you was nothing.  So why then should Jesus teach the people who could be freely struck to turn the other cheek?  It has been suggested that it was a way for the people to rob the oppressor of the power to humiliate "The person who turns the other cheek is saying, in effect, 'Try again.  Your first blow failed to achieve its intended effect.  I deny you the power to humiliate me.  I am a human being just like you.  Your status does not alter that fact.  You cannot demean me."  Turning the other cheek would also offer logistical problems for the one striking, because they would not be able to backhand the person again, and if they wanted to strike them with a fist they would have to be acknowledging the person they were striking as an equal.  This is a way to show that we can stand for our rights in such a manner that we do not need to strike back, non-violent actions and words are more powerful than we allow them to be, by insisting that we must fight at times.
 
This is a difficult point for humans to understand, and even more difficult to carry out in our own lives. But could that be the point, could it be that Christ’s Kingdom does not come naturally to humanity given our fallen nature? Couldn’t it be that Christ is telling us to do something that we would not naturally do, in order to show His character, and His power played out in our lives?  When our sinful nature takes over, it is the Holy Spirit’s supernatural healing in our lives, which makes it possible for us to live in the manner Christ is telling us to live.

A second point that is important for this discussion is found in Matthew 5:41 “if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile.” Here Christ is referring to the practice of Roman soldiers who would make Jews carry their bags for them. What Christ is saying here is to not simply give to those who persecute you what they ask, but give them more, showing that instead of begrudging your enemy, that you love them in the name of Christ. This relates to the topic of pacifism in the sense that we are not to hate an enemy. Physical violence, which is active between two parties, is inherently filled with contempt or hatred. What Christ is saying, is that the other person may have contempt in their heart for you, but you are to have love in your heart for them.

Some have suggested that the words of Christ in this passage are speaking of simply our own personal lives. They claim that there is a difference between being a pacifist in our daily interactions with people, and being in the military, or fighting for others. This compartmentalization of life is simply not how God sees us. He does not see our actions in one sphere of life differently than He sees us in another. This idea that we can be different people in different places seems to weaken the message that Christ is preaching. It does this by saying that Christ’s power, and sanctifying Spirit is only allowed in the sectors of life that we think He can change. It is taking Christ’s ethic for our lives and turning it into our private ethic, into a situational ethic where what Christ taught is only good in certain instances in our lives. The early Christian believers did not take Christ’s words in this manner, and neither should we.

When Christ says to turn the other cheek He is telling us to turn the other cheek in all spheres of our lives. If we take this passage as something to do only in our personal lives when we are attacked, and not when others are attacked or in military situations, then we will also have to say that when Christ says “Give to everyone who begs from you, and to everyone who wants to borrow from you,” (Matthew 5:42).   Christ does not mean give to everyone who begs from you. Instead we should change it to say: give to everyone who begs from you if it fits in your life right now.

This sermon by Christ was preached when the Jewish people (for the most part) were being oppressed, and what they wanted was Christ to be their Messiah that would liberate them. Their circumstance is not unlike those of many in our world today, who are looking for somebody to liberate them. Christ did not liberate the Jews in a worldly sense, and He is telling His followers not to liberate themselves or others. This is because the true liberation that Christ brought is the same message of liberation that we can bring to others, through the message of the Gospel, which is freedom from sin, and death.

Paul in the epistle to the Romans also admonishes them to live in peace, and love-filled lives. In chapter twelve, Paul admonishes the people how to live. Included in this passage are such things like offering bodies as living sacrifices, not conforming to the patterns of this world, et cetera, basically Paul is telling us how “righteousness manifests itself” in the life of the believer.

12:14 reads’ “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse,” righteousness manifests itself when we bless those who have persecuted us – we must remember that when it says “you,” Paul is talking to a group of people. He is not addressing individual members; instead he is talking to a community. This shows that the requirement to bless those who persecute us is not simply a personal issue that, we do when we are being persecuted. It is a community issue, for a community that is being persecuted.

v.17 - “Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord.” Righteousness manifests itself when we come to understand that revenge is not ours, because we do not have a claim to it, instead we are commanded not to take revenge, but to leave it up to God, for vengeance’s true owner is the only perfect, holy, all-powerful God. It belongs solely to Him.

In verse 20, Paul describes what our part with our oppressors should be. “On the contrary: if your enemy is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” We are to love our enemies into submission. Verse 21 restates the issue “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” Instead of perpetuating the cycle of violence with violence (which only leads to more death), stop it with the love of Christ.

We are commanded to love our oppressors, because in doing so we show the only true love that the world has ever known, that being the love of Christ. If we take this scripture to only mean that we are to be non-violent in our personal lives, then when we act with violence to stop oppression we are trying to take something that is not, and will not ever be ours…vengeance

Other passages to consider:
1.   Matthew 26:52 "Then Jesus said to him, 'Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.'"
2.   John 15:13 "No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends."
3.   John 8:1-11 the story of Jesus defending the women who is about to be stoned
4.   Luke 6:27-35 Christ's sermon on the plain.

3. Response to Pacifism:

To center this discussion around Scripture is a challenge, especially since a realist or a just war response to the position of pacifism seems so much more natural to us as emotional, rational, and passionate human beings. It is easy to defend these positions using ethical arguments or challenges to place ourselves in certain situations, but I’ll avoid that route for the most part and focus on how the Bible can guide us to this position as Christ-followers.

There can be no doubt that the early church took a pacifist position and that the greater acceptance of warfare in the circles of Christ followers came after Constantine endorsed Christianity. But to say, then, that warfare has no place in “pure” Christianity and that this growing acceptance was a sign of corruption is too short-sighted. To classify the contributions of Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, Ambrose, and Augustine, to name just a few, as corruptions of biblical interpretation on this subject is a bit extreme.

Loving Our Neighbors

The basis for Augustine’s view, which formed the foundation for Just War theory, was the view that war, although acknowledging the evils of war in agreement with Tertullian (Lisa Cahill, “Nonresistance, Defense, Violence and the Kingdom in Christian Tradition,” Interpretation 38, no. 4 (1984): 380), war could also be seen as an act of love. The argument, as a friend of mine put it, is “if one's neighbor is powerless to defend her/himself against aggression and destruction, and you, as a responsible follower of Christ, both recognize this oppression and are able to intervene to ameliorate its consequences, then any decision to not act is not a loving decision.”

I do believe that Augustine may have gone a bit too far in a several ways, first in spiritualizing the Sermon on the Mount and making it more an individual issue of one’s heart and by seeing the punishment of sin as an act of love. I do agree, however, that bringing safety to the greater community is an act of love, and we as Christ followers are called to action and our faith and beliefs cannot simply be positions we take that have no practical manifestations. To say that you love your neighbor and yet you do not raise your arm to defend them to me is a separation of faith and works. When discussing faith and works, James asks, “If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill,’ and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that?” (James 2:15-16, NRSV) How was to U.S. to feed the hungry of Somalia without the use of military force given the influence of the warlords there to prevent the fair distribution of food? UN Peacekeepers were ineffective in this role. Would we be loving our global neighbor to nonviolently airdrop food so that the warlords could hoard it and exercise even more power over the starving populace?

Pursuing Justice

In line with the motive of loving one’s neighbor is the idea of pursuing justice. We are called to defend those who cannot defend themselves. Once again, James speaks on this issue: “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” (James 1:27, NRSV) This echoes the call of the Hebrew prophets, who continually cite Israel’s inability to defend the cause of the weak and oppressed as the cause for YHWH’s displeasure. One cannot read through the prophets, even at a cursory level, without acknowledging the call to social justice that inundates the Hebrew Scriptures. (Isaiah 1:17, 10:2, 16:3, 42:1, 56:1, Jeremiah 21:12, 22:3, Ezekiel 18:8, Amos 5:24, Micah 3:1, 6:8) Justice, no doubt, is a key characteristic in the Kingdom or Reign of God that Jesus proclaimed.

In line with this argument, Thomas Aquinas also saw the use of force as an instrument of social justice and not so much as a means of punishment, as Augustine may have seen it. (Lisa Cahill, “Nonresistance, Defense, Violence and the Kingdom in Christian Tradition,” Interpretation 38, no. 4 (1984): 382). The problem with Aquinas, however, is that he did see the clergy as being obligated to follow Jesus’ example of nonviolence while the laity did not have this obligation. This dichotomy between clergy and laity seems inconsistent with what the church should be as the Body of Christ. Along these lines, Anabaptists (e.g., Menno Simons) and other traditions have seen this obligation to nonviolence as extending to all followers of Christ.

Nevertheless, the ultimate ends of pursuing justice may ultimately necessitate the use of force at a national-political level.

Ensuring Peace

Luther believed that war for the sake of an enduring peace was of value: “The small lack of peace called war or the sword must set a limit to this universal, worldwide lack of peace which would destroy everyone.” (Whether Soldiers Too Can Be Saved, Luther’s Works 46, ed. Robert C. Shultz (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967), 93) Whether or not we accept the dual government system that Luther saw as mutually intertwined, the secular and the spiritual governments, it is difficult not to acknowledge his point that in a position of authority, the ruler cannot rule with the gospel alone and that God has established secular authority, what he refers to as “temporal authority”, to ensure social order and justice on earth. (“Temporal Authority,” Luther Selected Political Writings, ed. J.M. Porter (Philadelphia: Fortress))

Luther spends his time laying out guidelines for Christ-followers in ruling positions, citing that their responsibility as temporal authorities is to care for and serve their subjects, ensuring their welfare, which includes their defense. He is trying to apply the teachings of Christ to a situation that Christ was not faced with: Christ followers in positions of influence, trying to reconcile their beliefs with their civic duties. He encouraged his followers not to pursue positions of influence, but Luther finds himself in a different context where his followers are already in a ruling role.

It is also important to note that Luther also acknowledged that one’s ultimate allegiance was not to a prince or the State, but to God. “If one knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that the ruler is in the wrong, one must not submit to him, even at the cost of persecution and punishment; one must fear God and not man.” (Whether Soldiers Too Can Be Saved, Luther’s Works 46, ed. Robert C. Shultz (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967), 117) The same applies to soldiers, sailors, and Marines in the armed forces today. The question of one’s ultimate allegiance to the Kingdom should never be in question.

Biblical Examples

Although Christ may not have addressed this issue of Christians in positions of political power directly, other New Testament examples provide more than enough evidence that politics, and even warfare, are legitimate practices and powers that can be redeemed and transformed from the inside out. In Luke 3 when John the Baptist comes proclaiming a baptism of repentance and the forgiveness of sins, a message that in the other Synoptics is referred to as the message of the Kingdom of God, he was confronted by soldiers asking what they should do in response. His answer was not to leave their profession, but to “not extort money from anyone by threats or false accusation, and be satisfied with your wages.” (Luke 3:14, NRSV) In other words, he encourages them to do their jobs in an honorable way, not to cease and desist. This forms the basis for jus ad bellum, jus in bellum and jus post bellum in Just War Theory.

Similarly, the fact that Cornelius is converted (Acts 10) and used in a significant way because of his position of influence as a military and civic leader to bring the gospel to the Gentiles can be another indication of the way in which God uses people where they are to make his reign and his kingdom a reality in this world. Although there is no indication of what happened to his military career, it is clear that Luke, the author of Acts, did not think that the termination of his military position was a necessary component to his new life as a follower of Christ.

In addition, it is clear that warfare is used continually by YHWH in the Hebrew Scriptures to carry out the will of God. Throughout the Pentateuch and Joshua, warfare is used to punish the wicked and to carry out the promises of God. YHWH uses the Assyrians and the Babylonians to carry out judgment on his people, and Nehemiah is called to use force to re-establish the remnant in Jerusalem upon their return to the land. Although we can see the negative effects of warfare and the abuse of power throughout books such as Judges, it is clear that warfare has historically been a tool of YHWH to carry out his purposes in the world at an international level, and although Christ has called us to a new life, has God completely abandoned the means in which he has worked in the past?

Final Exhortation - Just Peacemaking  

If those who identify and associate themselves as the church (The Body of Christ) do not listen to the worlds cry for help, how do we expect others to believe that God is our provider, our protector, and our healer? Consider Christ as advocate as a model to advocate for others. Yes, the church has provided a refuge for the weary to come to when their already broken and hurting, in lack due to loss, and this is our responsibility, but what is the church doing to prevent this from happening? As we can see by our previous weeks research, the churches (Quakers, Mennonites, Reform Church, Christian Right) are addressing political and economic issues in several different ways, service programs, awareness and campaign programs, active involvement in politics, but what I see happening is that the churches who are addressing the issues are leading the others to passively adopt what the churches are saying and believing, without knowing the facts of what’s going on. I suggest action oriented churches like these be looked at as models for other churches to progressively address the real issues people are dealing with. As challenging as that may seem in the “busy” lives we have, managing families, church ministries, professions making a decision to actively live in a more pro-active lifestyle is a turning point. In fact it’s nearly impossible to be pro-active unless activism is integrated into ministry and ministry into the other aspects of our lives. I know the word activism sounds far off in relation to how we associate our Christianity, but why is that? Does activism have to be associated with the Left, or as radical, or rebellious? Was not Christ considered alll these things in the Roman Government, as he dwelled with the marginalized. Obviously, I believe it is our responsibility as Christians to learn and explore issues that concern the world, rather than sitting back feeling powerless, frustrated and confused. It is our responsibility to seek and find information and answers and the holy spirit will help, and comfort us into truth, understanding and empowerment to live in liberty asGod intended. How did we come to a time that means to be a true Christian is to support our governments decisions without questioning or having any understanding what it means?The alternatives to our contemporary condition must be at the forefront of our call to peace. We must begin to look at these situations with new eyes, eyes that are technologically pertinent, globally inclusive, and peacefully innovative.

Case Studies  

1. War in Iraq (Operation Enduring Freedom): The reason that we have used this war as a case study is because it hits the nail on the head on each of these three topics and is also a current topic that everyone around the world can relate to. All nations were drawn into the debate as the UN gathered before the war to figure out what to do with Saddam Hussein. Therefore, the scope of the debate is far-reaching and it touches on all three of our topics in the following ways:

First, it is a current example of what War is. The War in automatically brings images into our minds of what War is. Whether it be a sky lighted by “shock and awe”, a limp Jessica Lynch being carried to a helicopter, or video clips of Iraqi prisoners being publicly abused and humiliated by troops, images immediately come to our mind. Perhaps this makes it a powerful case study alongside other Wars simply because of its proximity to our context.

Second, the Iraq War also provides superior examples of Militarism from two different angles. Whether it be in the with the flag being raised and proud reports concerning our troops, or Iraqi insurgents who are desperately grasping for control, the same thing is happening. There is an ideal that unites individuals beyond themselves to a larger cause. There identity is intertwined with their militant actions, making them willing to die for their cause- on both sides.

Third, Terrorism also comes into play in this war over . The insurgents have been named terrorists who sneak in roadside bombs and sniper attacks in order to remind the troops that they continue to be a force worth reckoning with. Not only that, but it continues to reinforce the stereotype in the that a terrorist looks like a person of Middle-Eastern descent. This raises all sorts of pertinent questions regarding foreign-policy, racism, and what we describe as the causes for terrorism and our responsibility in that, if any.

2. Russo-Chechen conflict:

(For sources and citations go to the link below)

In recent years, the ongoing struggle between Chechnya and the Russian Federation has been labeled another front in the global war on terrorism. While it is certainly true that radical Islamic elements, both inside and outside of Chechnya, seek the elimination of Russian and Western influence in the North Caucasus, it is wrong to look at the entire conflict and the history of the conflict within this paradigm. The implications of viewing the Chechen resistance as merely unrestrained religious hatred and Chechen society as uniformly radical have been and still could be very negative for both Russia and Chechnya, leading to indiscriminate prejudice and the destruction of any common ground that might bring the war to an end.

This is not to say, however, that Islam, of whatever variety, has had no role to play in the conflict. That role, in fact, is quite substantial and nuanced. It is essential in understanding Chechen national/ethnic identity and, as a result, it plays a considerable role in the Chechen independence movement. In addition, differing notions of Islam are essential in explaining inter-Chechen divisions.

This subject is important for a variety of reasons. In our most recent “historical epoch,” the “war on terror” has become an ever increasingly important concept, wherever one falls along the political spectrum. Not only of geo-strategic concern, it is also important theoretically, for “the war on terror” has provided the international system with a new ideology through which to conduct and justify foreign policy, complete with a fresh set of perceived international angels and demons. At the heart of this new paradigm resides Islamic radicalism. Russia, seeking international and domestic legitimacy for its campaign in Chechnya, has advertised itself as an ally in the global war on terror and Chechnya as Russia’s own distinct contribution to the fight against Islamic radicalism. International Islamists (radicals) have also used Chechnya as a symbol, for their own ends, in the struggle against secular/western powers. Because the Chechen conflict has been branded another front in our most recent global war, it is necessary to study the events taking place, the people involved and the infinite nuances that complicate the matter. It is these, which as a result, make broad proclamations and over simplifications woefully inadequate in accurately describing the situation.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union Chechnya and the Russian Muslims suddenly, after years of isolation, were not only opened up to but in many ways became part of the wider Islamic world. Because of this, the post-Soviet Muslims became subject, not only to the trends and forces affecting the wider Islamic world. Russian Muslims were exposed to fundamentalism and, in the chaotic times following Soviet collapse, it quickly made itself felt. And, to many radical Islamists, Chechnya has become another symbol of the struggle between good and evil.  While one might expect the above model to apply to Chechnya, being a colonized Islamic nation by a powerful non-Islamic empire, the specific conditions of Chechen national development have acted as a powerful moderating force in the spread of fundamentalism. Therefore, despite elements of similarity, one must not be tempted to apply the above model, carte blanc, to Chechnya.

In Soviet times, the state sought the replacement of traditional religion with the new Marxist dogma. Religion was tightly controlled and state monitored. For all intents and purposes, Marxism was the new state religion and the Soviet state, having the strength to penetrate the daily lives of its citizens, made it so. Marxism, backed up by immense state power, provided the social glue, the means through which the individual person related to and found their place with the broader community at large and, in many ways, the world. With the collapse of the Soviet state, the bankruptcy of Marxism as a social philosophy, and the resulting social chaos of transition, many reverted to traditional religions and symbols for comfort.

Being central to Chechen national identity in its resistance to the Russians, Islam therefore came to occupy a large role in the rhetoric of the nationalist movement. Islamic slogans were used as an important factor in Chechen cultural/national tradition. As the war continued and the situation grew ever worse, with Chechen society crumbling under Russian firepower, many people turned to religion, both radical and traditional, as a means of alleviating their wartime anomie.  Religion became the most effective way of organizing and motivating resistance to the Russian army and the most effective means through which many individuals could reestablish a semblance of ideological certainty and cohesiveness to their war torn lives. Alongside traditional Sufi nationalism, which was still growing as the ideological foundation of the nationalists,  fundamentalism began to make itself felt, as a powerful revolutionary movement.
A combination of exposure to broader Islamic events, post-soviet and wartime anomie, and economic incentives created favorable conditions for the advance of Islamic fundamentalism throughout a considerable segment of the Chechen population. During the war both Sufi nationalists and fundamentalists mobilized against the Russians, making use of jihad as a political mobilizing force.

 Especially important to the spread of fundamentalism in Chechnya concerns those for whom traditional Chechen religious understandings proved inadequate, similar to the way in which Marxism and official Islam both failed to provide a viable social philosophy. Included in this group of people are a large number young, poor, and/or previously secularized Chechens. The immense psychological, physical, and emotional suffering of this period accompanied the erosion of many people’s traditional ways of life.  As this happened, a number of Chechens sought an alternative means of effectively filling the moral void in their life.  To many men, fundamentalism gave direction and motivation. “They were given a real cause to defend, and were provided with a fair amount in expenses.”  Ideological stability and financial assistance provide a strong incentive.

 The main theme underlying the growth of fundamentalism in Chechnya concerns those for whom traditional society cannot fulfill its stabilizing role. Religion provides an individual with meaning and a place in the world. Modern secular religions (liberalism, nationalism, socialism) can provide this too, but these were inadequate in post-Soviet/wartime Chechnya. For the majority, traditional religious understanding served this function. But a decent segment of the population, those to whom traditional religious understandings proved inadequate, sought after a new religious understanding. And, amongst the passion and violence of war, a particularly virulent brand of radical Islamic fundamentalism filled that void.  It was to be the weight of Chechen traditions, however, that contributed to the failure of radical Islam to effectively penetrate the whole of Chechen society.

Although both traditional Sufi and Wahhabi forces fought along side one another in the first Chechen War, the fundamental differences between the two Islams became evident following the withdrawal of Russian troops (after the first conflict). While both fought in the name of Jihad, each faction had its own meaning. To one, Jihad inspires national unity and resistance to the Russians, while to the other, it represents the purification of the faith and the implementation of an Islamic political reality, based upon a narrow puritanical conception of Islam. Without the Russian threat to unite them, these elementary differences would cause rifts within Chechen society.

So, with the loss of a coherent social glue as Marxism had been, and the absence of a viable religious establishment, coupled with the destructive force of the war, fundamentalism promised to be the social glue that the Islamic establishment and traditional Islam, among many, could not provide. It was to do this through the implementation of Shari’ah, promising divine justice, a divine social order and an individual’s place within that order. This is why so many were attracted to it, clung to it, and fought for it as hard as they did. But in the end, it was too foreign, too alien, and would require a complete re-structuring of the very core of Chechen identity. Chechen society, in the battle not just for national liberation, but also for its very existence, was not willing to do this. The contradictions between Wahhabism and Chechen national identity were too important.

This, however, does not mean radical Islam has no future role to play in the Russo-Chechen war. It does. Those stimuli that initially led to the growth of Wahhabism haven’t gone away. And, as time goes on, more and more people will have been born and/or come of age in an era where war, indiscriminate discrimination, hatred, and social anarchy run wild. Many Chechens will, in all likelihood, lose any bond or connection with traditional Chechen ways of life. Many, as a result, will be increasingly susceptible to the fundamentalist doctrines. As traditional elements weaken and increasingly fail to serve the individual’s social needs, radical Islam, claiming to explain and provide solutions to one’s misery, will expand and gain influence as a wartime ideology. Russia’s war on terror is, essentially, destroying those more moderate, although increasingly radical, influences that hold back fundamentalism as a central Chechen ideology. 

 In the end, as it concerns the ideological role of the war on terror, (the new paradigm though which to view and conduct foreign policy,) one must be careful to differentiate between those many splits and nuances within a particular society. One must understand that Islam and terror do not go hand in hand, that there is no such thing as a clash of civilizations, that Islamic fundamentalism doesn’t define the beliefs, practices, and political agendas of a large number of Muslims, and that inter-Islamic factions are often hostile to one another. Failure to understand this could have very negative consequences for all parties involved, as the people, events, nuances, and personal motivations that all contribute to particular society get glossed over and even forgotten. Both Russia’s and the Fundamentalist’s failure to recognize this has led to many indiscriminate killings and the deaths of many innocent terror victims. This only leads to increased misunderstanding, hatred, and radicalism.

For more info: http://jswheelermp520thesis.blogspot.com/

Additional Resources for Jesus-followers

1.  Tools: Resource for those interested in...

Conscientious Objection: http://www.objector.org/
Active Pacifist's: http://www.nonviolentpeaceforce.org/
Educating Poor Neighborhood's on Alternatives to Military Serivice (The Poverty Draft):
http://www.afsc.org/youthmil/Military-Recruitment/poverty-draft.htm

: tells one of humanity's most important and least understood stories — how, during a century of extreme violence, millions chose to battle brutality and oppression with nonviolent weapons — and won. This is a PBS website and again, gives information regarding each of these endeavors.

3.  We have incorporated the following books on this wiki in order to allow the reader to look at the issue from various perspectives.

Hopefully, this is a way to open dialogue within our communities.

Norman Rich, Great Power Diplomacy 1814-1914 (Boston: McGraw Hill, 1992).

Norman Rich, Great Power Diplomacy Since 1914 (Boston: McGraw Hill, 2003). These books offer a historical perspective on diplomacy and war.

Lisa Sowle Cahill. Love Your Enemies: Discipleship, Pacifism and Just War Theory. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994. This is an excellent introductory book on the various positions that Jesus-followers have taken up in regards to the topic of war.

Paul Ramsey. The Just War: Force and Political Responsibility. New York: Scribner, 1968. This book steps into the shoes of one who has taken up the Just War position.

Nevertheless: The Varieties and Shortcomings of Religious Pacifism. Scottdale, PS: Herald Press, 1992. This book takes an honest look, full of self-critique at the various points along the spectrum of pacifism.

Luther: Selected Political Writings. Ed. J.M. Porter. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974) A great historical look into Luther's views on war and the Christians response to them.

4. We have also incorporated a small sampling of various interfaith organizations who have taken various stances on war.

Again, this is but a sliver of the pie of the enormous amount of organizations who have literature dedicated to this topic.

Reclaiming the Prophetic Voice - a Connecticut statewide interfaith gathering of religious leaders and people of faith committed to peace, specifically with regards to the War in Iraq.

http://www.forusa.org/articlesandresources/default.html - Various articles and statements for peace.

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=about_us.community – Sojourners Statement of Faith.

Dan Peters, “Should Christians Have Guns? A Biblical Basis for the Second Amendment.” The Biblical Evangelist, Vol. XXIX No. 3 (May/August 1998) page 1, 14-16 - A stretch, at best, but this does raise some good points that can be extended to a defense for a strong national military.

Norman Jackson, “It’s God’s Mission” - A missiological base for a justice ministry

Martin Shupack, “Biblical Basis for Our Advocacy,” Washington Memo, Jan-Feb 1999 - Biblical basis for the Advocacy ministry of the Mennonite Church.

Mennonite Central Commitee: A faith based organization which seeks to be active in this issues of war, poverty, and equality. They have a lot of different resources to become involved with.

Decade to Overcome Violence (2001-2010) Churches Seeking Reconciliation and Peace: This site gives links to various church organizations that are dedicated to Peace.

Interfaith Communities United for Peace and Justice: this is a local group in Pasadena, California.  ICUJP was founded in Los Angeles after 9/11 to support the work of faith leaders from Buddhist, Christian, Islamic, Jewish and other spiritual faiths and traditions who say "Religious Communities Must Stop Bless War and Violence..."  

United for Peace and Justice is a coalition of more than 1300 local and national groups throughout the United States who have joined together to protest the immoral and disastrous Iraq War and oppose our government's policy of permanent warfare and empire-building. Links to local groups can be easily found on this website.