Wall Street Opinion Journal JAMES TARANTO Thursday, May 5, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
Secular liberals show open contempt for traditionalists.
I am not a Christian, or even a religious believer, and my opinions on social issues are decidedly middle-of-the-road. So why do I find myself rooting for the “religious right”? I suppose it is because I am put off by self-righteousness, closed-mindedness, and contempt for democracy and pluralism–all of which characterize the opposition to the religious right.
One can disagree with religious conservatives on abortion, gay rights, school prayer, creationism and any number of other issues, and still recognize that they have good reason to feel disfranchised. This isn’t the same as the oft-heard complaint of “anti-Christian bigotry,” which is at best imprecise, since American Christians are all over the map politically. But those who hold traditionalist views have been shut out of the democratic process by a series of court decisions that, based on constitutional reasoning ranging from plausible to ludicrous, declared the preferred policies of the secular left the law of the land.
For the most part, the religious right has responded in good civic-minded fashion: by organizing, becoming politically active, and supporting like-minded candidates. This has required exquisite discipline and patience, since changing court-imposed policies entails first changing the courts, a process that can take decades. Even then, “conservative” judges are not about to impose conservative policies; the best the religious right can hope for is the opportunity to make its case through ordinary democratic means.
Michael: I certainly do not wish to denigrate the military as a vocational choice. However, there are some valid concerns regarding an All-Volunteer army we should consider:
1) “You say, “The draft would only accomplish mass protest against any use of arms and leave the country undefended ? a prospect which many on the left relish. ” i disagree. After Pearl Harbor (when my own Father enlisted) and September 11th 2001 the military experiened an upsurge in enlistment. I think most Americans are patrriotic and that when presented with clear, compelling evidence of a threat to the nation will respond and come to her aid. On the other hand, if evidence of a threat to the nation appears false or manufactured perhaps it is in our best interest that we resist the impulse to go to war.
2) In the United States civilian control of the military is one of our core values. An institutional mentality with attitudes and mores distinct from those of the citzenry at large is more likely to develop in a professional army.
3) You say, “If enough folks don?t want to fight, they won?t volunteer and their will be no army to fight with.” With the military branches now consistently falling short of their enlistment goals this may actually be happening presently. On the other hand, as globalization creates pockets of unemployment in US inner cities and rural areas many young people have no choice but to join the military. My wife grew up in Northwest Indiana just as the steel mills were closing and most of her high school classmates ended up in the military.
4) Don’t you think there is something distasteful about sending the poor man’s son to bleed in the war, while the rich man collects divivdends from his defense industry investments and war profiteering and the rich man’s son never has to make a sacrifice for his country?
5) A draft need not only involve military service, but could have an option for community service as well, instilling in young people the sense of duty and responsibility you spoke of. In many societies in history the benefits of citizenship were only conferred on those willing to take on responsibilities, such as serving the militia.
You say “you cannot promote peace with an emotional and wrathful attitude”. That’s good advice and I’m sorry my tone prompted you to have to remind me.
God Bless you as well, Michael.
Since I’m being attacked as a cowardly chicken-hawk by the hate-filled Radical Left (Dean Scourtes) and as “everything that’s wrong with conservatism” by the hate-filled Radical Right (Glen) then I must being doing something right.
God Bless.
Daniel writes: “But I am most certainly putting in their killing camp the fools at Newsweak and elsewhere in MSM who are so stupid that they don�t understand how these Islamist morons will react when these anti-American stories are written.”
Glen writes: “The MSM should never, ever have printed this story.”
I have to disagree here. For the sake of argument let’s assume that the story about the Koran being flushed down the toilet is true. Newsweek has backed away from the story, but they seem to have done that more because of the controversy than because they believe it to be false.
To the extent these things go on, the media should report on them. There are all sorts of situations in which bad things happen as a result of certain stories becoming public knowledge. The cure for that is not to refrain from telling the story but rather not to do the bad things in the first place. As a practical matter stories like this usually come out anyway. In this case eventually some prisoner would be released and tell the story. At that point you either have to come clean — an option that has already been rejected — or you have to deny that it happened. At that point there is a situation in which we’re doing both immoral AND dishonest things, and why should anyone believe us about anything?
Withholding the unfortunate truth about something we have done is completely different from the government lying about things so as to gain a strategic or tactical advantage. (“Stealth bombers? What stealth bombers? Never heard of ’em.”) Every country does things like this, and this kind of “transcending of the truth” is accepted in the international community, even when it is officially denounced.
Where I work we have what we call the “Oregonian test,” named after the local newspaper. It goes like this: if you’re doing something that you wouldn’t want to be reported in the newspaper, then maybe you shouldn’t do it. Good advice, I think.
Everyone please be careful with the use of “God Bless”. Sometimes I have to wonder about rhetoric that essentially says, “You’re an idiot. God Bless.” Its a mixed message.
Jim: I’m reading “Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror”
by Michael Scheuer, and I have to say it’s a pretty frightening and sobering book.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1574888498/104-7511117-0642363?v=glance
It certainly validates everything Missourian has said about how dangerous radical Islam is. As an enemy Al Qaeda is clever, calculating, ruthless, stealthy and elusive. They know exactly how to manipulate public opinion and appeal to the frustrations of young Muslims and turn them to their advantage. The Al Qaeda leadership has thought long and hard about how to inflict the maximum damage on the United States and they intend to do it. The next attack will probably be far worse than September 11th and will be designed to cripple our economy. If we haven’t been attacked a second time that may not be a good thing, but may be a bad thing because it might mean they are still waiting for the right sequence of events to inflict the most severe devastation.
What’s equally chilling is the cultural ignorance and total cluelessness of the current US administration, which repeatedly acts in a manner that validates, confirms and strengthens Al Qaeda propaganda. The Al Qaeda leadership actually celebrated when we attacked Iraq because it was exactly what they wanted: a chance to tie down the bulk of the US military in a Viet nam like quagmire, make our servicemen easy targets, and slowly bleed the US economy with ruinous war costs.
The fact the Bush administration enthusiastically embraced methods of torture that included religious humiliation, again further serves demonstrate their own cultural ignorance and cluelessness while confirming and validating everything Al Qaeda has been telling the Islamic world about America.
Stephen, I like Dean. The Gospel commands us to bless our enemies and those that despitefully use us. Since Dean et.al, made comments that directly reflect on the character of my son, an honorable and upright young man, who is preparing diligently to enter military service, I felt it was appropriate. One may look at the blessing as a way of asking God’s mercy on this person, as a way to ask for forgiveness for harshness that is overboard, or as in St. Paul’s way, to heap coals of fire upon their head. Your choice. Personally, I genuinely wish Dean all of God’s blessing and mercy and know that he is my brother in Christ no matter how much I disagree with him. I also know that I am an idiot in a lot of ways. Idiots need more blessing than non-idiots. I just hope Dean prays for me as I pray for him.
Christ is Risen and with Himself He raised all the dead! He draws all men to Himself.
Since by God’s standard we are all idiots of the grossest kind, and yet He loves us anyway, and blesses us anyway by giving us His Body and Blood, who am I not to want those blessings to be magnified in anyone’s life.
Dean, I was not strongly in favor of the war in Iraq. Nevertheless, I must wonder how Arabs watching Iraqi insurgents blowing up their own countrymen plays out. Apparently, anything goes. One would think that seeing the Iraqi citizens responding positively to the developments going on in light of Saddam’s removal would make other Arabs in the region pause and reflect that perhaps democracy can have its benefits. Unfortunately, such improvements make little or no difference.
A hard lesson learned about the Middle East.
I don’t pretend to understand the Arab mentality. As often as you seem them wailing over the deaths of bombing victims, they don’t seem to have any respect or concern for life in any tangible way otherwise. They send their children to the Israeli border strapped with bombs, and they send women into civilian buses armed to the teeth. One begins to wonder whether the only language they understand is brute force.
Dean,
Good book. I think it also addresses a major problem. The dichotomy that exists in the minds of many people is this – “If you want to fight Muslim terrorism, then you must support Bush. If you oppose Bush, then you support Muslim terrorism.”
That is a completely false dichotomy. I would love to combat Muslim terrorism in a large number of ways, none of whom are on the agenda of the Bush Administration. These would include:
1) Restricted Muslim immigration to the United States and Western Europe
2) Greater border security for the United States
3) A focus on stable, pro-Western governments in the region with Christian-friendly policies, rather than a focus mob-rule through Democracy. Preferably, distance ourselves as much as possible from these governments so that we are not seen as their benefactors.
4) End all current occupations, and allow articificial nation states to disintegrate to their constituent parts.
By the way, Daniel – you still didn’t address the problem with the Clinton Administration’s Kosovo policy, which has been continued by the current administration. Are you saying that the Kosovo intervention was justified, and that bombing Serbia was the right thing to do and was unrelated to Clinton’s impeachment vote? Is that your position?
Taking it one step further, were does one’s duty end and one’s obligation to God begin? Where the Feds who seized Elian Gonzolez justified in their actions since they were ‘ordered’ to do it by Janet Reno? Were the Terri Schiavo cops justified since a court ordered them to prevent people from feeding Terri? These are vital questions in today’s society.
As for being part of the radical, hate-filled ‘right’ – that’s another way of saying that my opinions are irrationally motivated by hatred. But, of whom? George Bush – a man I actually voted for. A man whose brother I have voted for THREE TIMES in Florida for governor. A man whose father I voted for TWICE for president. Is it him I hate irrationally, and his family? Neo-cons? Republicans in general? I guess all of the above, would be the correct answer, right? Can’t just disagree with President Bush, I have to hate him as well? And the fact that I agree with Tom DeLay on judges, or Tom Tancredo on immigration, or any number of other points of agreement between myself and Republicans is just a smokescreen to cover up my ‘hate?’
This is just wonderful, now I’m being attacked for writing God Bless.
Actually Stephen I wrote about 4 different responses, which could simply be boiled down to what you wrote in Note 156, i.e., “you’re an idiot”, which would only create more anger and hatred in those to whom I was responding and in me, neither of which I wanted to do.
So I deleted response after response after response after response. Finally I figured I would just point out how I’d had my character attacked and try to bow out of this very acrimonious exchange gracefully. I’ll even admit that comments I made led to some of the bitterness in these comments, and for that I was wrong.
And then you come along and attack me for that.
Well, Thank You.
And,
God Bless.
Re: 159: JamesK: The Bush administration should now admit that Iraq is in civil war and adjust it’s policies and language accordingly.
See “Experts: Iraq verges on civil war”, TIMOTHY M. PHELPS, Newsday (New York) Posted 2005-05-12 17.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-woiraq0512,0,4630319.story
The Bush administration wants to portray all the Iraqis as one big happy family troubled only by a few malconteneted insurgents, but this depiction omits the important ethnic and religious divisions in that country. Condoleeza Rice ignored the severity of those divisions when she recently asked the Iraqi Shiites to bring more Sunnis into high level government positions. Why would they do that for people they regard as enemies?
On one side are the former Sunni Baathist supporters of Saddam Hussein who obviously planned, prepared and armed themselves for a prolonged resistance against anyone the United States installed in power after their removal. Joining them in an alliance of convenience are Al Qaeda affilliated foreign jihadis who want to strike out against America. Both the Baathists and foreign jihadis have received aid from more radical Islamic elements in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. At one point I hopped that enough peace-loving Sunnis might emerge and support the new government, but that’s become too dangerous for them now, and most are too embittered after the razing of Falluja by the US Marines.
On the other side are the Kurds and Shiites, both long persecuted by the Saddam Hussein and the Baathists. Of these only the Kurds are true allies of the United States, while the Shiites barely tolerate the Americans as a necessary deterrent to a Baathist return to power. By backing the Kurds, the US risks alienating Turkey. Backing the Iraqi Shiites means entering into an uncomfortable alliance with Shiite Iran, who also oppose a Baathist return to power amd will inevitably extend their influence into the Shiite portions of Iraq.
We need to pick one side or the other, and the dangerous alliance of the Baathists and Al Qaeda means we have to side with the Shiites and Kurds. We need to arm them both to the teeth, and allow in the Iranian revolutionary guards remembering the old phrase that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Let them have the bloody work of subduing the Sunnis while we provide the weapons, training and other assistance. It may be that an Iranian presence in Iraq is the price we pay to destroy the Baathists and extricate ourselves from that mess.
Michael writes: ” . . . my son, an honorable and upright young man, who is preparing diligently to enter military service . . .”
One of the things in this venue that strikes me about the exchanges related to military issues is the lack of reference to any theological principles. Granted that there have been some dissenting comments, it seems almost a given that military service is perfectly acceptable.
What I have a hard time understanding is how this attitude squares with large pieces of the Christian tradition. A friendly attitude toward military service seems to me to originate in “the world,” as we old fundamentalists called it, and is really a sign of a fallen human nature.
For example James Hillman’s book _A Terrible Love of War_ discusses the way in which war is practically hard-wired into the fabric of existence. Indeed, for many people war is seen as the norm, and peace is a kind of temporary aberration during which more thought must be given to war. As Hillman expresses it: “If war fathers the cosmos (Heraclitus), if being reveals itself as war (Levinas), if the natural state is one of war (Kant), it must be the first of all norms, the standard by which all else be measured, permeating existence and therefore our existence as individuals and as societies. War then is permanent, not irruptive; necessary, not contingent; the tragedy that makes all others pale, and selfless love possible.” Even our ordinary conversations are filled with the metaphors of war — we “conquer” disease, “fight” with our spouses, and “beat” other sports teams. At work we warn people not to “shoot the messenger.” And now we even have a “culture war,” and a “drug war.” Images and metaphors of war seem to resonate with the deepest structures of consciousness.
Over against the norm of war stands early Christianity. In talking about “the God of Peace,” and “the Prince of Peace,” early Christianity stands apart from the ontological and psychological norm of war. In early Christianity it is the “peacemakers” who are blessed, not the warmakers. The coming of Jesus was supposed to “guide our feet into the way of peace.” The angel announces “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.” Jesus urges people not to retaliate but to turn the other cheek. And Jesus departs from the physical world through an execution ordered by a military governor and carried out by soldiers. Paul says of the unrighteous that their feet are quick to shed blood, destruction and misery are in their ways, and the way of peace they have not known. The author of Hebrews urges Christians to “follow peace with all men.”
For other early Christians the idea that Christians could serve as soldiers was unthinkable. Some time ago I posted a list of quotations from early Christian authors up through the third century. There was uniform opposition to Christians going to war.
Now I’m not trying to start any arguments here. But it seems to me that Christians would at least be bothered by the idea of military service. It seems that they would at least be offended by it, and enter into it only under the most extreme circumstances. But the concensus seems to be that war really isn’t all that bad, that it can be a handy way to accomplish certain goals, and that the military is not a bad career. I don’t want to say that this is an unchristian view, but it strikes me as a nonchristian view — a view that at the least does not seem very informed by the earliest Christian tradition.
Note 161: Daniel, thanks, I need God’s blessing. My concern is that there is a context where the phrase “God bless” comes across as an insult or as condescension. Perhaps it happens unintentionally, such as when some lay people make the mistake of saying “God bless” to a priest. I just wanted to point out that the phrase should be used with caution. Certainly, it is a great tragedy when we begin to see the blessings of God as a curse.
So Stephen do you want to lay down the rules defining when someone can write God Bless? And would they include sending blessings toward someone who is making you angry?
God Bless.
P.S. I take absolutely no responsibility for how any other sinner wants to interpret those two words. As just another sinner I share them in order to bring some kind of peace to my own heart after it has been inflamed with anger by the words of others.
Romans 12: 17-21 – Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 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. On the contrary:
“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
With regards to worrying about the context of when and when not to share a small two word prayer for God’s blessings on others – think on this:
Romans 12: 14 – Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.
Jim re #163: A large part of my son’s preparation is in the writing of a paper that explores the theological, traditional, and scriptural foundation that blesses military service. At the beginning of his work, I was nearly as convinced as you that such service had some real problems. His work has convinced me otherwise. Saying that in no way minmizes the conerns you raise.
I know the integrity, depth, and conviction he has because of the two years of conversation we have had on this topic. I will point out your post to him and see if he wants to share any of his insights with you and the others here. He may want to wait until he completes his paper which is in rough draft phase right now.
One thing I will say is that his view does not make it easy for anyone entering the military. It is not just another career choice and not one that should even be considered by everyone. If he wants, I’ll let him tell you the rest of the story.
Note 167: Outside of entering a real military conflict, I would suggest that military life can lead to a great improvement in many things, including bravery, loyalty, a sense of purpose, discipline, persistence and a willingness towards self-sacrifice. I know a few guys who the military has helped tremendously, not just in college assistance but in personal development.
As far as actual armed conflict, I would think that there is room in Christian theology for defending the defenseless, just as there is room for the use of police officers within our border. The problem enters, I think, in the fog of war when the danger to the soldier is in becoming like the enemy he is fighting and in exceeding the necessary use of force. The graver responsibility lies with the administrations who launch these efforts, considering the physical, emotional and spiritual damage that often occurs to the troops they send to battle.
It is for the reason I had such qualms regarding the Iraq offensive. I never got the feeling that Bush went into it with the proper degree of regret and remorse fitting for such a large-scale conflict. Don’t ask me what I expected … it’s simply an intangible sense that it was done without proper respect for the consequences.
Michael writes: “If he wants, I’ll let him tell you the rest of the story.”
I would enjoy hearing it, either in this venue or off-line. As I said, I don’t want to get into an argument with anyone or bash anyone. It just seems to me that based on the first four centuries of the Christian tradition there is a compelling case to be made against military service.
JamesK writes: “Outside of entering a real military conflict, I would suggest that military life can lead to a great improvement in many things, including bravery, loyalty, a sense of purpose, discipline, persistence and a willingness towards self-sacrifice.”
There is no doubt that there are many virtues and benefits that can come from military service. But these are all coupled with all the horrors of war as well.
JamesK: “I would think that there is room in Christian theology for defending the defenseless, just as there is room for the use of police officers within our border.”
I think even within the context of early Christian theology one can make a case for war that is essentially self-defense.
JamesK: “The problem enters, I think, in the fog of war when the danger to the soldier is in becoming like the enemy he is fighting and in exceeding the necessary use of force.”
The problem in the U.S. goes far beyond that. We have an empire-like presence across the globe:
“Since September 11, the United States has set up military bases housing sixty thousand troops in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan, along with Kuwait, Qatar, Turkey, and Bulgaria. Also crucial in the operation is the major U.S. naval base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. All told, the United States now has overseas military bases in almost sixty countries and separate territories. . . . In some ways this number may even be deceptively low. All issues of jurisdiction and authority with respect to bases in host countries are spelled out in what are called status of forces agreements. During the Cold War years these were normally public documents, but are now often classified as secret-for example, those with Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, and in certain respects Saudi Arabia. According to Pentagon records, the United States now has formal agreements of this kind with ninety-three countries (Los Angeles Times, January 6, 2002).”
http://www.monthlyreview.org/0302editr.htm
Military service in the United States means that you’re not going to be dug in defending the actual borders of the country. In fact, if there’s anywhere you know that you’re not going to be dug in, it’s here. It’s one thing to be a soldier in a country where the military will be used strictly for self-defense. It quite another thing to be a soldier in a country that literally occupies pieces of the entire world.
But back to the tradition. For the early Christians, it wasn’t that military service had both good and bad aspects, and the bad outweighed the good. It wasn’t that a Christian soldier might be called upon to do something immoral. Rather, it was that the Christian had no business being in the military in the first place. For the early church, the proper response to a military threat was not soldiering, but prayer.
Jim, RE #169. Much of their aversion, IMO, had to do with the fact that the military was serving Caesar and the constant pressure to sacrifice to him and other pagan gods, but I may be quite wrong. The survey my son has done has been largely
post-Constantine.
Michael writes: “Much of their aversion, IMO, had to do with the fact that the military was serving Caesar and the constant pressure to sacrifice to him and other pagan gods, but I may be quite wrong.”
That may have been a factor, but that wasn’t the one of the typical arguments against it.
Michael: “The survey my son has done has been largely post-Constantine.”
If he looks pre-Constantine I believe he’ll see a very different picture throughout the NT gospels, epistles, and other early Christian writings. Perhaps post-Constantine Christians became part of the “establishment,” and thus took on establishment attitudes.
You might want to direct your son the following link:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/4/30/11483/2196
This is a brief “essay” that I wrote on a different web site. It’s not scholarly or even well-researched, but it will give your son an idea of the material I’m looking at.
And speaking of war, has anyone reviewed the “Downing Street” memo? Some relevant excerpts:
“There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. . . . The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun “spikes of activity” to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections. . . . The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.”
If something like this came out about a Democratic administration the right-wing would call for blood. But since it’s a Republican administration no one cares. And one might think that the Christians would be concerned about facts being “fixed around the policy” — you know, the whole “don’t bear false witness” thing. But because Bush “loves Jesus” they don’t care either.
When a Democratic president lies about getting blow jobs from an intern, that’s a national crisis. When a Republican president lies about a war and thousands of Americans are killed or wounded as a result, that’s no big deal. And then the “liberals” are accused of “moral relativism.” Give me a break.
Note 166: Daniel, I agree with you. We should bless our enemies. Why then don’t I ever hear, for example, “God bless Al-Queda” and “God bless Iraq”?
Even if people were saying this, would it make bombing them O.K.? Its a mixed message to bomb someone and then say “God bless”.
The exploding Muslims shout “God is great!”. If that is the greatness of their god, then who wants a part of it? My reaction to exploding Muslims is: keep the greatness of your god far, far away from me. If Christians are bombing Islamic countries and then saying “God Bless”, then I suppose their reaction would also be “keep the blessings of your God far, far away also”. Really, in that context, “God bless” becomes something more akin to “God Damn”.
Note 172: It should be clear to any thinking person that this administration intentionally overplayed the threat that Iraq posed. There was no explicit threat from the regime, and there was no hardcore evidence of the existence of nuclear weapons.
Were they dishonest in stating that Iraq posed a serious and imminent threat? Yes. They will never admit that, of course. The only thing we cannot be certain of is their motives.
I am willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt by saying that he may have known that a successful installation of a democratic, Iraqi government could drastically change the course of events in the Middle East, opening up the path to a peaceful relations in the future between the US and the entire Arab population.
This was a gamble, but I do wonder whether the greater good in this situation may have warranted the initial dishonesty from the administration at the onset. I don’t really have an answer.
JamesK writes: “I am willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt by saying that he may have known that a successful installation of a democratic, Iraqi government could drastically change the course of events in the Middle East, opening up the path to a peaceful relations in the future between the US and the entire Arab population.”
And how would he “know” that? His vast knowledge of the region? His vast experience in foreign affairs? Divine revelation?
Note 173: I just knew someone would respond the way you did, Stephen.
Now let me site more from Romans 12. Here are versus 9-10: Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves.
Christ, knowing he was returning to the Father, implores the apostles to take up the purse and sell their cloaks and buy a sword if they don’t already have one, when before he sent them out with nothing:
Luke 22: 35-36 Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”
“Nothing,” they answered.
He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”
Let’s be precise, Stephen, Islamofascists do not yell, “God is great” as they kill themselves and the innocents around them. They scream “Allahu Akbar”, which means “Allah is greater.” There is a difference.
Make of all this what you will.
God Bless.
Note 175: Prior to our invasion and occupation, Iraq was probably the most secular-minded of the Arab states. Even under Saddam, they allowed the sale of alcohol, women had more freedom to work and dress as they chose and there was a certain degree of religious tolerance, even for Christians. Perhaps this is why Iraq, despite being under the rule of a crazed despot, was more ripe for becoming democratic than other Arab nations. The common Iraqi citizen was less likely to want to live under the stranglehold of sharia than its Arab neighbors (such as Syria and Saudi Arabia).
They were already more “westernized”.
Plus, I think Ahmed Chalabi of the Iraqi resistance had made some (admittedly exagerrated) claims regarding the wishes of the Iraqi people to enjoy a more democratic government.
Perhaps Bush was thinking that seeing a positive reaction to the democratization of Iraq would encourage other Arabs into viewing the West through friendlier eyes. While logical, I’m not sure it’s been all that successful thus far. We’re only hearing of the resistance, and I’m uncertain as to what the general Arab opinion is regarding the advances in Iraq.
Daniel,
My words were imprecise. This is fair enough. But to use your quote from Romans, “Love must be sincere”, how can we believe that attacking someone is the same as blessing them? I’m not saying that this is impossible, but this idea seems to me in need of better development.
The quote you are using from Luke relating to the Garden of Gethsemane is pretty thick with meaning. In that context, Christ is often understood as the Tree of Life from the Garden of Eden, protected by angelic forces bearing swords. His command to His disciples to arm themselves mirrors the angelic forces which protect Him. The notable ommision in that passage is that Christ does not command His disciples to attack.
Certainly, if Christ had given the order, the Roman army wouldn’t have stood a chance. They would have been pulverized and squashed like tiny insects, but instead, Christ willingly gives Himself up. Christ commands His disciples to arm themselves with swords so that He can more emphatically command them to put their swords down.
Jim,
Prior to Constantine, there were multiple problems with Christians serving in the Legion. The first of these was that the Legionaires were forced to engage in religious rituals that were contrary to Christianity. Joining the legion was a choice between apostasy and likely martyrdom. For example, here is the short description of St. Maurice, “Layman. Soldier. Officer in a legion of Christian soldiers from Upper Egypt during the reign of Emperor Maximian Herculius. His legion, as many as 6600 men, was massacred en masse by their own side when they refused to participate in pagan sacrifices prior to battle. One of the Martys of the Theban Legion.”
Obviously if one converted while already in the Legion, it was difficult to get out. But if one had the option of not going at all, then it was certainly a whole lot safer. Also, the general life in the Legion was anti-Christian. In some areas of the Empire, the Legion was paid in coins that could be redeemed in brothels. They were tradable currency, but were intended to ultimately be redeemed in a way that was unacceptable to Christians. There were other impediments as well, enough that a believing Christian in the Legion was, at most times in the Empire, always walking a fine line between life and martyrdom.
Many of these impediments were removed when the Legion became the army of a Christian state. The Orthodox Church itself has always exhalted peace, even while recognizing that war is inevitable in a fallen world. In the Liturgy, we pray for our armed forces, but we pray for peace above all else. “Bring peace to the whole world, stability to the holy churches of God…” is one line.
As a guide in the post-Constantine world, I rely on the advice of John Chrysostom who declared, “never be afraid of the sword if thy conscience does not accuse thee: never be afraid in war if thy conscience is clear.” This is a corollary to the concept that “salvation is being able to look God in the eyes.”
The concepts of Just War or Justice in War, the teaching of the Fathers, the Bible, the concepts learned from the Liturgy – all of these are used to develop a conscience. It is this conscience that we rely on to guide us, not an automatic, reflexive application of principles.
In my own life, here is how I work those principles out. I will not allow my family to die at the hands of home invaders. I will kill to protect them. If accused by civil authority, I will submit to martyrdom rather than become a rebel. On the other hand, were I offered the opportunity to fight for a recognizable entity (my state of Florida versus the government in Washington), then I would choose to fight. I will fight to defend my home and my family if I can do so in an honorable manner. Defensive struggles do not bother my conscience in the slightest.
I will not fight to impose Democracy on another nation, to liberate others from the oppression of their own government, or for any other abstract concept of ‘greater good.’ Such judgments are better left to God than to man. I will fight for concrete, defensive objectives, always recogizing the inherent limitations of violence to promote any sort of ‘good.’ This is the direction in which my conscience, as imperfectly formed as it is, leads me.
In terms of recent conflicts, Afghanistan was justified as self-defense, since it was from that staging ground that Al-Queda struck. Iraq was not, as it did not attack us or threaten us. Making a case for Iraq being a defensive war is a major stretch, in my opinion.
At the same time, I would refuse any and all orders, even in a just cause, which I could not abide. I will not shoot prisoners. I will not target civilians (Strategic bombing aimed at ‘breaking the will of the people.’)
The problem with joining the military is that your conscience is supposed to be subject to your orders. If ordered to destroy civilian targets, one is expected to comply. If one is ordered to fight Serbs, or Panamanians, or Iraqis – one is expected to comply, whether one agrees with such wars or not. The overall moral climate in the military is also highly suspect.
Any Christians joining the U.S. military must be fully apprised that they will probably face a situation in which they can be either true to Christ and their consciences, or they can follow orders. It is unlikely they can do an entire hitch in this world without facing that kind of choice. We need to prepare them for that in advance.
It is especially unnerving, from my standpoint, that conservative Christians understand the profound moral decay of our society, but somehow think that such a society can produce only military heroes of the highest caliber and only the most wholesome foreign policy.
By the way, Daniel, I would gladly fight any and all Muslim invaders of the United States (or even Europe for that matter) who come at me yelling, “Allah akhbar.” I will not fight them in Iraq, however, as the Iraqis have not attacked me. I would be willing to fight them, on my own accord, in Lebanon or Syria or Egypt if the goal was to carve out a Christian state. For the protection of fellow Christians, I would be willing to die, though I do not think that my own country should force others to take up this burden. For a goal such as ‘democracy’ in which the likely winners are usually Islamic parties who are hostile to Christians – not only will I not fight, but I will do everything possible to keep anyone else from fighting as well.
Glen,
Its an interesting point you make about the limits of democracy. A democracy, or even a republic, can be tyrannical if its members support tyranny. The important element is cultural, or in this case religious, not necessarily the ideology of government process – democratic, republic, etc. I think Americans sometimes mistakenly believe that their freedom comes from their government institutions.
Well, I’ve often wondered how to interpret that portion of Luke. I must tell you, Stephen, that your interpretation, i.e., Christ told them to pick up arms to He could tell them to put them down, is just about the silliest interpretation I could imagine.
On second thought, maybe the stress on Jesus was so great he started having some fun with the apostles.
Jesus, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”
Disciples, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”
Jesus, “That is enough.”
Two disciples picked up the swords.
Jesus, “Hey, put those down.”
They quickly put them down.
Jesus, “I’m sorry, guys, I was just kidding. Those two swords are enough, go ahead.”
They pick them up again.
Jesus, “Hey, I said put those down. What’s the matter with you guys?”
The disciples quickly drop them again.
Jesus, laughing silently to himself, “Just kidding. Go on, pick them up, they are enough.”
Thomas bends down to pick up a sword.
Jesus, “Hey, I said …”
Peter, “Look, Jesus, if you keep this up, I will deny I know you.”
Jesus, “Peter, if you only knew…”
While we proclaim the glories and virtues of democracy, in the back of our minds there are certain aspects of democracy which frighten us. I think the conservative movement in particular is haunted by the memory of what happened to Germany under Weimar Republic, a period that shaped the ideology of influential conservative philossopher Leo Strauss.
“In some sense, modernity itself is the problem. Strauss believed that liberalism, as practiced in the advanced nations of the West in the 20th century, contains within it an intrinsic tendency towards relativism, which leads to nihilism. He first experienced this crisis in his native Germany?s Weimar Republic of the 1920s, in which the liberal state was so ultra-tolerant that it tolerated the Communists and Nazis who eventually destroyed it and tolerated the moral disorder that turned ordinary Germans against it. A Jew, he fled Germany in 1938. We see this problem repeated today in the multiculturalism that sanctions the importation into the West of Moslem fundamentalists whose foremost aim is the destruction of the Western society that makes that tolerance possible, and in an America so frightened of offending anyone that it refuses to carry out the basic duty of any normal state to guard its own borders”
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1233
The students and followers of the teachings of Leo Strauss include: “Justice Clarence Thomas; Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork; Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; former Assistant Secretary of State Alan Keyes; former Secretary of Education William Bennett; Weekly Standard editor and former Quayle Chief of Staff William Kristol; Allan Bloom, author of The Closing of the American Mind.”
In his work on classical philosophy Strauus idealized the Platonic vision of a society ruled by and elite class of “philosopher princes”, and disapproved of Socrates whose contstant questioning her believed undermined social stability and order and the social myths and belief systems upon which they relied.
According to Wikipedia, “He believed that contemporary liberalism contained within it an intrinsic tendency towards relativism, which in turn led to the nihilism that he saw as permeating contemporary American society. As Strauss saw it, “good politicians” need to reassert the absolute moral values that unite society and this would overcome the moral relativism that liberalism had created. To do so, they needed to propagate myths necessary to give ordinary people meaning and purpose as to ensure a stable society. Modern liberalism had stressed the pursuit of individual liberty as its highest goal, and Strauss wanted government to take a more active role in promoting morality. Perpetual deception of the citizens by those in power is critical in Strauss’s view because the populace needs to be led; they need strong rulers to tell them what is good for them
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss
If there are followers of the Leo Strauss ideology in the Bush administraion this would explain why they were so untroubled about lying to the American people about the reasons for going to war in Iraq.
“According to Shadia Drury, who teaches politics at the University of Calgary, Strauss believed that “those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right ? the right of the superior to rule over the inferior.”
This dichotomy requires “perpetual deception” between the rulers and the ruled, according to Drury. Robert Locke, another Strauss analyst says,”The people are told what they need to know and no more.” While the elite few are capable of absorbing the absence of any moral truth, Strauss thought, the masses could not cope. If exposed to the absence of absolute truth, they would quickly fall into nihilism or anarchy, according to Drury, author of ‘Leo Strauss and the American Right’ (St. Martin’s 1999).
http://www.alternet.org/story/15935
…well, I’ll admit that I’m borrowing from the same story in the Gospel of St. Matthew on the last bit of that interpretation.
The Gospel of Matthew goes from Jesus praying in Gethsemane to His arrest, where He is quite clear that the disciples will not interfere with this event.
The Gospel of Luke goes from Jesus praying in Gethsemane to Jesus telling His disciples to gather up their money and arm themselves (and to hate what is evil, btw) to Jesus’ arrest, where He is again clear that the disciples will not interfere with this event.
I think this shows the difference between what was expected of the disciples when Jesus walked, as a man, among them before the crucifixion, and what the disciples could expect after the crucifixion.
Glen writes: “His legion, as many as 6600 men, was massacred en masse by their own side when they refused to participate in pagan sacrifices prior to battle. One of the Martys of the Theban Legion.”
From what I’ve read, that story is probably legendary. Here’s an excerpt from a paper that makes that case:
“1) It contradicts the historical sequence of events. In reality, Christians were expelled from the army several years before the general persecution of Christians broke out in February 303, probably as early as 298. This sequence of events seems to have been planned precisely in order to avoid the scenario depicted here, the refusal of soldiers to obey orders to persecute their fellow Christians.
“(2) Although the text claims that Maximian twice ordered the decimation of the legion, i.e. the execution of every tenth man, this practice had ceased long before he rose to the throne.
“(3) Although the opposition to military service by the pre-Constantinian church has often been overstated, and some Christians did indeed serve in the army, the evidence of such writers as Tertullian and Lactantius confirms nevertheless that the majority of Christians were opposed to military service, whatever their exact reasons. To the extent, therefore, that the story of Maurice and the Theban legion seems to accept military service and the notion of justifiable homicide, it betrays its author’s acceptance of a point of view which did not dominate within the church until the very late 4th century.”
http://www.ucc.ie/milmart/maurorig.html
And there are other problems with the story as well, not the least of which is the fact that the story emerges almost 150 years after the events in question.
Glen writes: “As a guide in the post-Constantine world, I rely on the advice of John Chrysostom . . . ”
Well, the time between Jesus and Chrysostom is roughly around the same time between king Louis XIV and today.
As far as I can tell, pre-Constantine there is little support for the idea that a Christian could perform military service.
This points up a problem that I have when Christians accuse “secularists” of “moral relativism.” If you’re a Christian with pacifist inclinations, then stick with the first three centuries of church history. You’ll have Jesus and the very early church fathers on your side. If you’re a Christian with martial inclinations, then just skip the first three centuries and most everyone else will be on your side. In either case you’ll be supported by “eternal truth” . . . .
Jim,
I haven’t checked the other facts in your post, but one thing was certainly in error. According to my handbook on the Roman Empire, the latest recorded case of decimation is during the reign of Diocletian at the end of the 3rd Century. Now, of course, my text could be wrong, but then again so could your Website. The problem with Roman History is that, for example, Gibbons has been accepted as a genuine scholar. The problem is that much of recent scholarship has discredited him. Even so, the “Rise and Fall” is still considered a “masterwork.” In reality, much of it is slanted by Gibbon’s anti-Roman attitudes. The same things holds true in Byzantine scholarship. Much of it has been debunked.
One thing I do find curious about you, as a person, Jim. I publish an article about the dangers of Christians under state power and you go to great lengths to try and prove that the story could not have happened. Just curious that you would be so eager to prove that Christians could never have stood up to the dictates of the state at that period.
Jesus did not get into macro-political theory, not that we know of. The writings of the Fathers during the pre-Constantinian era were interpreting and applying the underlying teachings of Christ in a given framework. I tried to deal with that framework in a forthright fashion. The situation changed after Constantine accepted Christianity. I don’t think that pacifism has much support even pre-Constantine, given that the church of that time still prayed for the armed forces and the emperor.
The Church has a role representing the ideal of peace to which the world should aspire. That means that priests and bishops should not wield political or military authority, nor participate in battle. However, the laity live in a fallen world, and military conflict is going to occur. If you roll over and let the Avars, for example, take your city – then you are condemning your wives to be raped, your children to be sold as slaves, and your own throat to be cut. Once the empire is all Christian, the only choice is to either allow Christians to fight in the Legion, or to allow yourselves to fall under the domination of the Avars, the Huns, the Muslims, or whatever other group of barbarians wishes to take over.
If you pay close attention, you will also note that the Byzantines, for example, always made efforts to evangelize among the groups with which they were at war. The Rus laid seige to Constantinople, but were later converted through the missionary efforts of Sts. Cyril and Methodius.
In any case, what you are trying to do is the worst kind of fundamentalism. You are attempting to rip writings out of their historic context, and prove that the Church fell into error at the time of Constantine. The Church has taught and will always taught that peace is the preferred, and that we should all refrain from violence. The Church exhalted human life, and eventually that teaching has permeated our society. It took a long time to do so. Surely even you can’t be unaware of the difference between a Rome with Gladiators and a Byzantium without bloodsport. What made the difference? The Church, of course.
Arguing against the Iraq War is one thing. I’m against it too. Arguing that the relationship of a Christian to the American State should be the same as that of a Christian to the pre-Constantinian Roman State is also a valid line of argumentation. However, arguing that because prior to Constantine the Church tried to keep its members out of the military means that only pacifism in the face of foreign aggression is the only possible Christian response is sophistry at its worst. It doesn’t wash.
I am all for rolling back the relationship that exists in the minds of Americans that links warfare and Christianity. But it has to be done honestly. If the U.S. were invaded, the soldiers taking up arms to defend their families could serve honorably and in clear conscience, though a period of penance would be helpful in re-integrating them into the community of faith. To argue that we should turn-the-other-cheek while our daughters are raped and families butchered is something that I know of no Father endorsing. It is beyond human abilities to remain passive, if the means to resist are available. Of course, this does NOT excuse every single global intervention of the American military.
Yes, the martyrs chose to die, rather than renounce the faith or turn into a rebellion. That is because it was their own civil authority that was persecuting them. That is a far cry from a Christian people organizing for its own defense under proper authority. If the U.S. military were to be re-organized as a defensive force, rather than offensive, then I would have no objection to my son joining it. As it stands, with an offensive orientation and a forward deployed mentality serving nebulous aims – I would never allow him to enlist if I could stop him. Since the situation around me could change, and my decision with it – does that make me a relatavist? Or, does it mean that I have sincere principles and that those principles may be acted out differently as the situation around me changes? I believe the latter.
Glen – I don’t think Jim is making a case for all-out pacifism. He is not arguing that with the barbarian horde, axe and scimitar in hand, pouring down from the hills, Christians wouldn’t pick up a sword and defend themselves.
Jim is saying that from the hundred or so years before Constantine to the hundred or so years after Constantine the Christian church underwent a profound change. The impact of this profound change was to cause Christians to identify and support the interests of the Emperor, and his military objectives, in a manner that would have been unimaginable previously.
Before Constantine, Christianity was an almost underground movement of believers who saw themselves as removed and apart from the world around them with all its cruelty and corruption. After Constatntine Christianity became an institutional church that was allied with and part of the existing power structure.
Before Constantine “the princes and powers of this world” were viewed by Christians as rivals to God, and agents of satan. After Constantine, the Church developed its own princes and expanded it’s own powers greatly. Under the Emperor Theodisius, the instititutional Church was able to employ the power of the state to close down the once great pagan schools of Philosophy and to hunt down and harass those it considered heretical.
Charles Freeman, author of “The Closing of the Western Mind”, writes, “My thesis is that Christianity was heavily politicised by the late Roman empire, certainly to the extent that it would have been unrecognisable to Jesus. Note the linking of the church to the empire’s success in war, opulent church building and an ever narrowing definition of what beliefs one had to hold to be saved. (Hand in hand with this went an elaboration of the horrors of hell, a radical and unhappy development which can only have discouraged freedom of thought.) My core argument is that one result of the combination of the forces of authority (the empire) and faith (the church) was a stifling of a sophisticated tradition of intellectual thought which had stretched back over nearly a thousand years and which relied strongly on the use of the reasoning mind.”
see amazon.com.
This would include stifling “the use of the reasoning mind” by Christians on matters regarding the morality of war.
From Father Stanley Harakas:
“The continuity of the pro-peace bias of the Church can be recognised in the ready agreement of the consciousness of today’s Church with the early second century sentiments of St. Ignatius. As he was being escorted by a military guard on the way to his judgement, taught, according to his Letter to the Ephesians, that “There is nothing better than peace, by which all strife in heaven and earth is done away.” Involvement in the empire’s public life meant for the post-Constantinian Church an enhanced appreciation of those elements in the Christian tradition which affirmed the need for order, the punishment of evil doers, defence of the innocent and other such conditions. These new conditions also permitted and even enjoined the involvement of Christians in the military, though there were steps to preserve, in the life of the Church, the earlier pacifistic tendencies of the pre-Constantinian Church.
In addition to the liturgical emphasis on peace, this was accomplished by what I have called elsewhere the “stratification of pacifism” with the canonical requirement that at least the clergy not be involved in military service. In seeking to deal with these two tendencies in the revelatory teaching upon which it based its life, that is, the moral repugnance of war and all it stands for, and the need to support order and defend and protect life, one solution was to embody the peace ideal in its fullest sense in the clergy:
—-the Church decided to require monks and clergy to be the pacifists in a Church which spoke for the whole of society. Thus, canon 83 of the Apostolic Canons says that a priest or bishop may not engage in military matters. Also prohibited to clergy is government service (Apostolic Canons 6 and 81, canon 3 of the 4th Ecumenical Council and canon 10 of the 7th Ecumenical Council), because one thereby compromises his priesthood. Canon 7 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council combines both injunctions: “We have decreed in that those who have once been enrolled in the Clergy or who have become Monks shall not join the army nor obtain any secular position of dignity. Let those be anathematised who dare to do this and fail to repent, so as to return to that which they had previously chosen on God’s account.”
While a solution of sorts, it also reflects serious problems, not the least of which is the ecclesiological problem of the place of the laity in the Church for whom no such requirement is made, and who must meet the question of participation in war by Christians on the basis of different criteria. This stratification of the pacifistic tendencies of the early Church was common, and continues to be common to Eastern and Western Christianity, at least, to Roman Catholicism.
Rather than seek to morally elevate war and Christian participation in it so that it could be termed “just,” the East treated it as a necessary evil.”
Glen,
Fr. Harakas’ treatise cannot be considered an exhaustive statement but only a cursory outline, a point he makes in the beginning of his piece. Fr. Alexander Webster has begun the critique in “The Virtue of War.” The title is a bit misleading, but in general the thesis is that war cannot be considered evil in all circumstances, and that while efforts to avoid war must be taken, Orthodox doctrine is not implicitly pacifist — a point that many who employ Fr. Harakas’ treatise (OPF mostly) want to prove.
Note 187. Dean, the thesis is too politicized, too devoid of cultural content and influence. Constantinian society was more than a “power structure” but the beginning of the Christianization of pagan antiquity that brought forth the intellectual advancements your author claimed it stifled. (St. Basil originated hospitals and orphanages, for example; historians of science argue that the scientific method could not have developed apart from a Christian world view (paganism could not distinguish between creation and creator and thus could not draw the proper distinctions between man and creation, etc.)).
The author draws from an idea first promulgated by the German historian of dogma Harnack in the 19th century who argued that the conversion of Constantine represented the decline of the Church. The idea proved incredibly potent and has drifted into secular culture as historial fact.(This is where the impetus among fundamentalists to organize themselves like the “early church” and where their historical blindness to 1900 years of Church history originates.)
There is no doubt some ecclesiastical officials were corrupted by their proximity to state power. This corruption however, does not negate the fact that western civilization is culturally Christian and that Christianity is the theological source, the well-spring, of the western cultural advance.
I’m with Russel Kirk here: religion is the basis of culture. The author you cite obviously does not agree. His disagreement I would argue is itself based on religous ideas however. Christianity, IOW, is escapable. Religion is not.
Dean,
Such sentiments as expressed by the author here are an example of taking an agenda and forcing the facts to fit it. Jim is doing the same thing.
For example, here is an excerpt on the Capadocian fathers, “The Cappadocians are significant figures in the history of Hellenistic Christian philosophies. They were a 4th-century monastic family, led by St Makrina to provide a central place for her brothers to study and meditate, and also to provide a peaceful shelter for their mother. Abbess Makrina fostered the formation and development of three men who collectively became designated the Cappadocian Fathers, Basil the Great who was the older of Makrina’s brothers and eventually became a bishop, Gregory Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa who was the younger of Makrina’s brothers and also became eventually a bishop of the diocese associated thereafter with his name. These scholars set out to demonstrate that Chritsians could hold their own in conversations with learned Greek-speaking intellectuals and that Christian faith was not anti-philosohpical but was a thoroughly distincitive movement of learning, piety, and life-style – one best represented by monasticism. They made major contributions to the definition of the Trinity finalized at the First Council of Constantinople in 381 and the Nicene Creed.”
I have read a great deal of the 4th Century fathers. I have found them to employ Hellenistic philosophy, advanced rhetoric, and even advanced science. One meditation on the Resurrection begins by discussing the roundness of the Earth – a fact that all Greek astronomers knew to be true. I don’t see the Church as repudiating Plato and Socrates so much as preserving their teachings and transmitting them to the future, while absorbing the best in them. At the same time, the Church founded the first hospitals and was kindly disposed to science. Orthodoxy never had an equivelent of Gallileo.
Many people see collaboration between the Church and the Roman State as the state subsuming the Church. I don’t see that at all. I see Bishops time and again resisting and chastising the state. I see Emperors intervening in Church affairs, only to be told repeatedly to buzz off by bishops who would rather die than yield. During the 4th Century, there were various emperors who were apostates (pagans) and Arians. The Orthodox were in full opposition to them, eventually winning the battle through sheer tenacity and blood. At some councils, the Emperor’s side lost outright or even won, only to be reversed later such as was the case with iconoclasm – a heresy pushed forward by the emperors of the day.
Have you forgotten John Chrysostom blasting Eudoxia for her lack of concern for the poor? This brought about his fall and eventual death. There are many other examples of hierarchs, monks, and even laity refusing to allow the state to assume mastery over their souls as well as their bodies. In the separation of Caesar from God, the State lost its claim to divinity that it had when the Emperor himself was considered divine. The State became an earthly institution, not in spite of Christianity, but because of it. The Emperor may have been given his earthly authority by God, but he WAS NOT GOD – as had been Pharoah, Caligula, Xerxes, and almost every other despot from the ancient world through Constantine.
This author is telescoping forward from the Greek East to the Middle Ages. He is simply not credible in putting forth that the Roman Empire succumbed to irrationality with the advent of Christianity. Rather, a Christian framework liberated thinking from previous superstitution and state-worship that had been the lot of man for many years.
One example of this is in the lot of girl babies. The Greeks and Romans rarely raised more than one girl, preferring to kill the children by exposure. Sons were prized, girls were burdens. The Christians did not do this, valuing the girls and boys both highly. Christians tried to stay married, the Greek and Romans in pagan times had a relaxed attitude to divorce. The Christians helped the sick and the weak, the Greeks and Romans equated health, vigor and wealth with divine blessing and denigrated the sick and the suffering.
The current fascination with paganism is not a specifically ‘left-wing’ phenomenon. Many writers for National Review, for example, are extolling the militarized society with Sparta or early Rome as examples. Sterile, culturally moribund, but militarily powerful states have an allure for the modern neo-conservative right. Sad, really, that both the ‘left’ and the ‘right’ would find such attraction in thought systems that are directly opposite the ideals they officially espouse.
Re 190 – Father Hans, I agree. I quoted Father Harakas merely to show that the Orthodox Church didn’t wake up one fine day in the 4th Century and simply turn into a war-mongering institution. The truth is more complicated than that. I am no pacifist, and see no evidence in Orthodoxy that such a stance is required. At the same time, the Church has preserved her teaching in favor of peace as an ideal, and has tended to have both a realistic view of state power and state wars.
One thing that I would say is that the Church of the 4th Century understood its role in society and lived up to it, becoming the foundation of the entire culture. The only organizations capable of fulfilling this role in the United States would be the fundamentalist churches, but they are busy running away from that responsiblity.
RE: 190: Thanks Father Hans and Glen. You made it clear that that while Freeman’s assertions may contain some truth they are greatly over-generalized. The lack of new scientific discoveries after the fourth century that Freeman cites as evidence of a “stifling of the reasoning mind” for example, could as much have been the result of territorial instability and a succession of invasions. Byzantine history is an almost endless series of accounts of the empire defending it’s borders against one invader after another.
Western Europe was plunged into an even darker “Dark Ages”. The experience of Ireland, and the Irish monks and clerics who preserved Christianity and the books and learning of classical Western Civilzation in the face of barbrian onslaught, also belies Freeman’s argument of Christianity as intellectually “stifling”.
Note 191. Great post Glen. This paragraph touched on a theme I teach and even preach about at times:
It’s the modern assumption that Pharoah was a leader of a nation-state rather than a god that leads to a grave misreading of Exodus. Exodus has to be read as a war between the God of Abraham with Moses his prophet, and the god of Pharoah with Pharoah as the god’s son. The narrative of Exodus is actually a battle of cosmic proportion, the functon of which is to reveal the cosmic dimension of Christ’s defeat of death (the defeat of the kingdom of the ruler of this world) granted to man through the real Red Sea (baptism) where the power of the ruler is vanquished.
The ascent out of paganism into Christianity is the foundation of progress, because Christ, as the Apostle Paul says, is the source of knowledge.
193. Dean, Freeman is laboring under some mistaken assumptions. The Twelve Century Renaissance (not the Italian Renaissance) that occured in Medieval Europe is credited in western history books to the Muslims. The truth is that the Muslims bequethed the intellectual wealth of Byzantine antiquity to the West. The rediscovery of the Greek philosphers was a legacy of Byzantium, not Moslem antiquity, even though the Moslems transmitted that legacy to Medieval Europe.
Glen writes: “One thing I do find curious about you, as a person, Jim. I publish an article about the dangers of Christians under state power and you go to great lengths to try and prove that the story could not have happened. Just curious that you would be so eager to prove that Christians could never have stood up to the dictates of the state at that period.”
The issue for me is that the story, if a later legend, presents an idea of military service that reflects Christian thinking perhaps 150 years after the time period when the story was supposed to have occurred. In my view Christians refraining from military service would actually have been an even greater rejection of societal norms than would rejection of orders while soldiering.
Glen: “Jesus did not get into macro-political theory, not that we know of. The writings of the Fathers during the pre-Constantinian era were interpreting and applying the underlying teachings of Christ in a given framework. I tried to deal with that framework in a forthright fashion. The situation changed after Constantine accepted Christianity.”
The issue here is the extent to which the moral teachings of the Christian tradition are tied to a particular context, or whether they change when the context changes. Christianity is a developmental religion. That is to say, it develops over time, doctrinally. liturgically, morally, etc.
In the case of war and military service, the problem is that the case against it comes from Jesus himself. Granted that Jesus and the very early church fathers lived in a certain time and place, the emphasis by Jesus on peace seems, in my reading, not to be dependent on any particular context. Rather, he is the “Price of peace,” who would guide our feet into the “way of peace.” In the middle of a brutal foreign occupation he blesses the “peacemakers.” In other words, one could say that there is an kind of ontological connection between Jesus and peace. It’s not that Jesus’s teachings about peace and emphasis on peace depended on a particular historical context, but rather they were part of his essential nature.
This is what the early church fathers thought, as the example of Jesus was tremendously important to them. And in the midst of an Old Testament filled with stories of combat and warfare, the concept of turning swords into plowshares and other passages related to peace were particularly influential to the early church fathers, since those passages reflected a radical new vision of what Jesus and the kingdom of God were all about.
Glen: “Once the empire is all Christian, the only choice is to either allow Christians to fight in the Legion, or to allow yourselves to fall under the domination of the Avars, the Huns, the Muslims, or whatever other group of barbarians wishes to take over.”
Yes, what I’m saying is that after Constantine the whole concept of war and military service changes for Christians, and that represents a radical departure from the life and teachings of Jesus and of the early church fathers. But there is a great difference between military service for the purpose of self-defense vs. military service for the purpose of the expansion of empire. In other words, there’s a difference between defending against the Huns and conquering the Huns. But then again, look at the example of Jesus. Israel had already fallen under the domination of another country, and yet Jesus gives not the slightest indication that the occupation should be resisted in any way.
Glen: “In any case, what you are trying to do is the worst kind of fundamentalism. You are attempting to rip writings out of their historic context, and prove that the Church fell into error at the time of Constantine. The Church has taught and will always taught that peace is the preferred, and that we should all refrain from violence.”
Actually, I’m trying to recover some of the impact of the early writings through taking them seriously. Call that fundamentalism if you will, but as far as I can tell most of the teachings on peace by Jesus, the New Testament, and the early church fathers have been interpreted out of existence. For example, I think that in the case of the majority of Christians in the U.S., even fundamentalist and evangelical Christians for whom the Bible is “inerrant,” you could remove all the passages in the New Testament dealing with peace, and it would have absolutely no effect on them. This is because these passages have in effect been interpreted away already. As I posted last week, conservative Christians — followers of the Prince of Peace — favored war in Iraq by substiantially larger margins than the population as a whole. In that context, what does it mean to be a follower of the Prince of Peace?
If the pre- and post-Constantine periods were so different that Christians had to re-think their views on war, then I would assert that the first few post-Constantine centuries and today are so different that Christians today need to rethink their views on war. The weapons today have a destructive power that would have been unthinkable in the fourth century. I would wager that a properly-armed modern infantry squad could just about rout an ancient Roman legion. In the case of the U.S. we have bases all over the globe. We attack countries that haven’t attacked us. Even our best efforts at minimizing civilian casualties result in tens of thousands of civilian deaths and injuries. When a single errant artillery shell can destroy a neighborhood; when a single errant bullet can kill a civilian two miles from the intended target; when today more lethal force can be brought to bear in a single battle on a single day than what a Roman emperor had available to him in an entire lifetime — at what point does the Christian conclude that the entire enterprise is not something that he can support in good conscience? At the very least, how does a Christian justify having a “career” in that line of work?
What I’m saying is that war, the tools of war, the attitudes of war, the metaphors of war, the usefulness of war, are etched very deeply in human consciousness. And I’m saying that Jesus and the early church fathers, by their very being, their example, and their teachings, constitute a radical rejection of that consciousness — were we to take them seriously.
It appears that at least the NAE (sometimes labeled as the “Religious Right”) has decided to broaden their platform. I’m thinking that gay-related issues will no longer make up 98.26582983% of the group’s agenda.
The National Association of Evangelicals? statement identifies seven areas of concern in which evangelicals should step up their social engagement:
– We work to protect religious freedom and liberty of conscience.
– We work to nurture family life and protect children.
– We work to protect the sanctity of human life and to safeguard its nature.
– We seek justice and compassion for the poor and vulnerable.
– We work to protect human rights.
– We seek peace and work to restrain violence.
– We labor to protect God’s creation.
The comment that the NEA is concerned only with the aggressive gay rights lobby is a caricature. In actual fact, Evangelicals have become focused and consistent defenders of human rights around the world. Non-Evangelical Christians may have their differences with Evangelicals, but in the defense of human rights they put others to shame.
On This They Do Agree: Evangelicals take the lead in human-rights activism
Quote-of-the Day: “James Dobson: Who does he think he is, questioning my conservative credentials?” Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said in an interview. Dobson, head of the conservative group Focus on the Family, criticized Lott for his efforts to forge a compromise in the fight over the judges. Lott is still angry. “Some of his language and conduct is quite un-Christian, and I don’t appreciate it,” the senator said.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-22-pressure_x.htm
Evangelical Christians aren’t the “religious right”, that people worry about.
Rather it is political activists, like James Dobson and Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association mentioned in the article (see link), who keep pushing the Republican party further and further to the right, while demonizing politicians who won’t support thier agenda.
I’m not saying liberals don’t have their extremists as well. But Good Lord, you have to ask what is happening when even Trent Lott isn’t considered conservative enough. Given the mess George W. Bush is making of things, one has to acknowlege that either a Democratic-majority Congress and/or a Democratic President is at least a possibility by 2008. So why would prudent Republicans want to eliminate the minority rights that they might need then, for short-term gain now?
What “minority rights”?
The rights of the minority party in the Senate.
Wouldn’t it be nice to know that if a Democrat-majority Senate was on the verge of approving an extremely liberal judicial nominee that conservative Christians disapproved of, as few as 41 minority Republicans and/or moderate Democrats could block that candidate, rather than 51?
One of the reasons we have a bicameral legislative system is that one of the chambers was intended to cool the enthusiasm of the other, while acting as a check against the power of the executive. It is consistent with that role, therefore, to require that any candidate nominated for high judicial office, be acceptable to at least 60 members of the Senate.
Re 201 – Last time I checked, extremely liberal nominees to the bench always got approved, Dean. Justice Ginsburg, for example. The real problem is that the judiciary has become such a high-stakes game. Who among the Founding Fathers would have thought that so much power would become invested in the judiciary that their decisions would literally change the lives of millions of people in a single swoop?
Oh, wait, George Mason, Patrick Henry, and even Thomas Jefferson all warned about this very outcome. The Federal Courts are too powerful, the very fight we are having over seating judges proves this very fact. Until we remove political questions from the judicial arena and again address them through the electoral process, this viscious situation is only going to worsen. I, for one, have had enough of it.