Friday, May 23, 2008

The Christian Dilemma of War, pt. 2

Last week we looked at the three main perspectives on war: activism, pacifism, and the just war theory. This week we’ll look at the strengths and weaknesses of activism. Activism is the idea that Christians (or citizens) have a duty to obey their government, including participation in a government declared war.

In the Old Testament, after the judgment with a flood because of the murderous violence of mankind, God commanded Noah to punish murderers with capital punishment. Genesis 9:6 says, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.” Later, Abraham used this power of the sword when he went to war with the kings who committed aggression against his nephew, Lot (Gen. 14). A strong case can be made that in the Old Testament the power of the sword (the power of life and death) was ultimately given to human governments to protect its citizens from acts of murderous aggression.

What is implied in the Old Testament is made explicit in the New Testament. In Romans 13:1-2 Paul writes, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.” In verse four, Paul explains why God has given authority to human governments: “for he [the government] is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.” This does not mean that all governments honor or even recognize God, but it does mean that the government’s main task is to punish evildoers. Even a bad government is better than the certain anarchy of no government.

The activist position, then, is that if the government is established by God, and the government declares war on another nation, no matter how popular or unpopular the war is, citizens (including Christians) are obligated to obey (a similar position was argued by Socrates [Plato] in “Crito”). The underlying principle to the activist is the famous saying, “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” If governments did not act, or citizens refused to fight, the world would be ruled by evil tyrants such as Hitler.

There are, however, a few inherent problems with activism. In any given war, both sides claim the other side is the evil aggressor; both sides claim to be right. This means that Christians in both warring countries would be duty bound to obey their governments and kill each other.

Another problem for activism is a government giving specific orders to commit evil, such as purposely harming innocent civilians. Would the activist be duty bound to carry out such orders? Surly there is a time when a Christian must say “We must obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29) The conclusion of the Nuremberg trials was that “I was just following orders” is no excuse.

Next week we’ll examine pacifism.

a pdf version of this entry is available here

Labels: , ,

posted on  Friday, May 23, 2008    |  0 comments

Friday, May 09, 2008

The Christian Dilemma of War, pt. 1

By year’s end I’ll find myself in the middle of Iraq without a weapon. As a military chaplain, I’m considered a non-combatant. The chaplain’s task, simply put, is to nurture the living, care for the dying, and honor the dead. A chaplain performs or provides religious services, pastoral care and counseling, and religious education to soldiers who daily will be put into harm’s way. A chaplain is to insure that every soldier’s first amendment right of the free exercise of religion is protected. As a special staff officer, a chaplain advises the commander on matters of religion, morals, and morale. A chaplain also provides humanitarian support when needed, and can be used as a liaison between the command and local religious leaders. United States military chaplains have been providing essential ministry to soldiers and their families since 1775.

As important as these tasks are, they do not lessen the inner angst a chaplain experiences in the context of war and killing. In the military, there are many soldiers who are Christians and combatants that experience this inward struggle to an even greater degree; many find their way to the chaplain in hope of resolution.

If one searches through two thousand years of Christian literature, one will find that Christians have always struggled with the moral dilemma of war. It is a true dilemma because war always seems to have a ‘darned if you do and darned if you don’t’ aspect. So what is the Christian response to war? This is an important question in light of verses such as “thou shall not kill” and “you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” To further the confusion, good Christian men and women have always disagreed on this issue.

Historically, there have been three major approaches to war by Christians: activism, pacifism, and the just war theory. Activism holds it is the Christian duty to obey the government and to participate in every war that the government deems necessary. The pacifist view is that all wars are wrong and against the biblical injunction “thou shall not kill.” (Exodus 20:13) The just war theory suggests that there are certain criteria that must be met in order for a war to be just or moral. These are the main approaches, but each one of these can also be modified.

Before I swore the oath to become a chaplain and an officer in the United States military, I had to settle this matter in my own mind. Over the next several weeks, I’ll examine in some detail each one of these approaches and discuss each one’s strengths and weaknesses. I’ll then explain my own position to this dilemma.

War is a bad thing and it certainly should be a last resort, but there are other things worse than war. This is what we’ll explore in the weeks to come.

a pdf version of this entry is available here

Labels: , ,

posted on  Friday, May 09, 2008    |  0 comments

Friday, May 02, 2008

The Church of Oprah

Last week we examined how American religion has moved away from a belief in the Bible as objective truth and toward an inward, subjective, feelings-based spirituality. This inward move has affected many who attend church. It translates into a focus on the worship experience (which has more to do with an inward experience than worship) and a desire to hear emotionally charged, therapy laden, human-centered sermons. Many have abandoned organized religion to pursue their own feelings-based spirituality. There is no better example of this than Oprah Winfrey.

Like many Americans, Oprah was raised in Christianity; she grew up attending a Baptist church. However, she departed from a strictly Christian faith in her late twenties after hearing a pastor proclaim from the Scripture that God was a jealous God. Rather than taking the time to explore what that meant, she said, “Something about that didn’t feel right in my spirit because I believe that God is love and that God is in all things, and so that’s when the search for something more than doctrine started to stir within me.” By rejecting God’s reveled word and looking to her own feelings, Oprah tapped in to the burgeoning American spirituality; she has now become its leading prophetess.

This new American religion is a mixture of Christian ethics (i.e. forgiveness, generosity, gratitude, and community), positive thinking, the pursuit of wealth and fame, and new age spirituality. The belief that the Bible is God’s self revelation is abandoned, and one’s own feelings become the primary source of authority. On her recent webcast Oprah said, “God is a feeling experience not a believing experience, and if your religion is a believing experience--if God for you is still about a belief--then it’s not truly God.” Evidently, Oprah and her listening fans did not ‘feel’ the contradiction; after all, Oprah was explaining her own ‘belief’ about God. Nevertheless, Oprah was clearly taking pot shots at biblical doctrine.

Oprah’s eclectic spirituality can be seen through the books she recommends and the guests she interviews, such as Deepak Chopra and Marianne Williamson. Recently, she has been promoting Eckhart Tolle and his new book, “A New Earth.” On March 3 Oprah began a web-based seminar featuring Tolle. That night, over 500,000 people tried to log in, which brought down the server. Since then, over 2 million people have downloaded that first class.

So what is Tolle’s teaching about which Oprah is so excited? In the spirit of American spirituality, Tolle teaches an eclectic combination of Hinduism, Buddhism, and pseudo Christianity; it is, in essence, New Age. This means he believes that we are all gods. Tolle writes in “The Power Now” that he doesn’t like to use the word ‘God,’ or talk about finding God, because it implies that God is something other than you, or me. Along with reincarnation, Tolle also teaches that truth is “inseparable from who you are…”

These are just the latest doctrines being taught from the church of Oprah, and because it fits within the scope of American spirituality, millions of Americans are buying into it.

a pdf version of this entry is available here

Labels:

posted on  Friday, May 02, 2008    |  0 comments