The Peace of Christ and the Soteriology of the State
Article Series - Christianity, Politics, and Violence
|
Violence is the default reality of our society. We assume violence. We consume violence. We trust violence. It is our default reality because we can see no other alternative to defeating evil in many circumstances. We run to it before considering other possibilities. We flee to violence because it offers us protection and preservation. Indeed, violence offers the very same things the unseen God does.
For us violence often has a salvific quality to it. It is seen as that which can ultimately save us, preserve us, and justify us. We call upon it to protect our American way of life. We utilize it in the effort to preserve our lives, which Christ said we could not save anyway. We employ violence to justify things we already wanted to do.
Long before our willing submission to soteriology of violence, however, we have bought into what others have called the ‘Soteriology of the State.’ That is, what we once trusted the church for (salvation, preservation, justification) we have handed over to the state. The state preserves our way of life, it saves us from evil (terrorism), it justifies our desires and actions (consumerism and exploitation). In fact, it tells us what we should live and die for. We’ve fallen in a Soteriology of the State – Caesar has become our Lord. [1]
If you doubt this, just look at the war rhetoric of our nation – it is rhetoric taken from the church: The spreading of democracy coincides with the spreading of the gospel (GW – “Democracy is God’s gift to the world.”). The war was needed to ‘preserve the American way of life,’ just as Christians are supposed to preserve society by being ‘salt.’
In our co-opted Soteriology, we have blindly bought into the ideology and agenda of the state. The goals of the state have become our agenda and Jesus has become nothing more than a bumper sticker politician.
Because we have given Lordship to the state, we’ve also given away any possibility of seeing an alternative reality – especially an alternative reality where violence doesn’t win. If violence is used to stop evil – violence, not the cross, wins. This is, in effect, eliminating evil with evil – the very thing Paul commanded us not to do. Indeed, he tells us to over come evil with good. Then, in the very same context, tells us to submit to government. Government = evil, submission to government = overcoming evil with good. [2]
Is this impossibility of seeing an alternative reality to the Soteriology of the State, the Soteriology of Violence, the reason we so quickly jump to violence as justifiable? I think so. Even Just War Theory says violence is the last alternative after all others have been exhausted. But because we assume violence we cannot see any alternative to exhaust. Maybe this is part of our problem.
Christians as part of the kingdom of God cannot continue to conform their lives to the kingdoms of this world. In the kingdoms of this world violence wins – violence saves. In Christ’s kingdom the denial of self, the laying down of one’s life, and the taking up of one’s cross wins.
All I know is that I’ve seen us (as American Evangelicals) jump to violence without biblical support. [3] In the rules of logic the one who says something exists must offer evidence. Is there NT justification for violance? I’ve found nothing compelling.
I don’t like this non-violent streak in the NT. But I also know that we must be faithful to the witness of Scripture which says, ‘pray for your enemies, love those who hate you, bless those who curse you, go the extra mile, turn the other cheek.’ You will simply not find an example of Jesus or any other NT writer saying, ‘protect your way of life, spread democracy, or slug your enemy.’
Peace (no, really) in Christ.
- This, I think, is why we are so adamant about getting a Republican in office. We think politics (the state) is the way to save America. Unfortunately, politics never saved anyone and Jesus wasn’t a Republican. [↩]
- It’s not even funny to me how many times I’ve heard Christians justifying the war in Iraq by saying that we should submit to our government and its decisions. Yeah, apply that logic to abortion and see what you get. [↩]
- And I understand why. I wish I could allow myself to do the same. I’d much rather someone prove to me that I’m wrong though – it would be a lot easier on my conscience. [↩]
We are? Who is “we?”
Evangelicals in general
Hey Tom,
Here’s a couple of thoughts:
Nonpacifists would probably deny that using violence is always “overcoming evil with evil” since they will usually think that it is good to perform some violent actions.
You make a good point about the NT not giving much evidence that violence is permissable, but remember that scripture is not our only source of evidence concerning morality. I think we also have moral intuitions that give us information concerning morality. Alot of people have very strong moral intuitions that they should use violence in certain situations.
I think that you’re right that christians have gone to far in associating being a christian with supporting America/Republicans. However, I don’t think we should see the state as an essentially bad thing or as something we should never support or attempt to influence for the better. (I’m not saying that you were claiming this.) It seems like states (like people) can be good or bad, and a mostly good state can accomplish alot of good in the world. It seems like christians should work with the state when it is doing something good and oppose the state when it is doing something bad. Perhaps we should support the state even in cases where the state uses force to accomplish good (banning abortion for instance).
Thanks Philip. I appreciate your thoughts.
I had a longer reply, but it got lost.
Just a few issues…
I think our issues is ultimately going to come down to the fact that I see Scripture as they sole moral authority. Yes, we do have moral intuition, but that moral intuition is finite and fallen. The scriptures are infinite and perfect in converting the soul and instruction in righteousness. Ultimately, you have affirmed that the NT lacks support for the use of violence as morally acceptable. That settles the question for me.
So, my question for you would be, how can you have a Christian morality without reference to the NT?
Here’s how I would frame my argument:
1. The Scriptures, specifically the NT, are our sole source of Christian moral authority
2. The Scriptures, specifically the NT, do not justify the use of violence, but in fact condemn the use of violence.
3. Therefore: The Christian has no scriptural basis upon which to ever call the use of violence ‘moral.’
Most Just War people would challenge premise 2, though with limited support. But, it seems you wish to challenge premise 1.
So, if you could, could you delineate further why. My assumption in my argument was that everyone agreed on premise 1. So, as you do not, I would like to understand your moral intuition argument more fully.
As to your comments are Christianity and Gov., from my perspective your questions concerning premise 1 will determine how I approach your thoughts concerning that issue.
Thanks Philip, I appreciate your thoughts.
Cheers.
If I have misunderstood you at any point, please feel free to correct me :) I wish to deal with what you’re saying, not what I think you’re saying.
quit colonizing people Tom.
geeze.
Hey Tom,
I actually think that both premises are false. But my reasons for thinking (2) is false depend on thinking (1) is false, so I’ll focus on (1).
I think that we can get information about what is right and wrong from sources besides the Bible. In particular I think we have a “moral sense” or a “conscience” that enables us to learn about morality. One reason to think this is that people who have never read or even heard about the Bible will still know things like ‘torturing innocent people for fun is wrong’, so if they know this and they have never even read the Bible there must be a non-biblical way to gain moral knowledge. But if you think about it, even those of us who have the Bible available to us still learn about morality in other ways. When we hear about some horrible event that occurs (say torture) we don’t stop and think, “what does the Bible say about this again?” Instead we have an automatic reaction (perhaps sometimes prompted by the holy spirit) that tells us that what we are hearing about is morally repugnant. Also it seems like we have moral knowledge about issues the Bible doesn’t speak on. (The Bible never says slavery is wrong but I still know it is wrong.) So I think both christians and non-christians can learn about morality in this way.
More generally I think it was John Wesley who said that there are 4 ways to learn about God: scripture, reason, experience, and testimony from church tradition. I would suggest that we can learn about morality in these same 4 ways.
So those are some reasons for doubting (1), I’m not sure how convincing they are, let me know what you think.
Philip
p.s. A pretty good essay you might what to check out on this issue is “Why I’m not a Pacifist” by C.S. Lewis.
I also doubt premise one – but I am starting to think there are two moral orders. A lower rational moral order and the a higher grade – NT/biblical moral order. The rational moral order is based primarily on reason and justice whereas the NT moral order is based on “higher” virtues of love and mercy. While I am intuitively thinking this now – I have not rationalized nor biblicized this line of thinking.
So Tom, while I want to deny premise one in one sense, I want to affirm it in another. I guess that you qualify it in terms of Christian morality, so I guess I agree with you.
Premise two – I see no justification for Christian violence, corporate or personal. I see prohibition of personal violence. I do not see any mention of corporate violence being prohibited (but note that one will be hard pressed to find any justification of it either!)
Jr – Is Jesus a colonizer?
Have you read Cavanaugh’s “Theopolitical Imagination?”
Hey folks, sorry I haven’t responded – been busy.
Jamelle, yes, I’ve read Cavanaugh. Excellent stuff. Though, I’ve had to tweak his ideas as he is Catholic and only so much of his stuff crosses over. But yes, he and Multmann, Wright, and Clapp have had their say in this post.
Others:
The conversation we are having is going to take a lot of work. I think it is worth it, but I am running out of time. I may or may not be able to respond later this week (as I will be on vacation and will be doing whatever the heck I want).
[...] What prompted me to broach this topic–2 topics, actually–on this blog… I ran across the following article by Tom Fuerst, which excited me so much I had to post it. And I couldn’t post it without some explanation. So there was the explanation, and here’s the link to the article: The Peace of Christ and the Soteriology of the State. [...]
Okay guys,
I don’t see two competing moral orders for the Christian. I see no other place for the Christian to get his ethical imperatives than from the Bible. Yes, obviously non-believers have a sense of morality grounded outside the biblical text – but Paul considers that morality as pointing to the special revelation of Jesus Christ. Their moral faculties are marred by sin. The ethical imperatives founded within the biblical text will never lead us in the wrong direction.
I’m not sure if we’re agreeing or disagreeing.
So – yes, there is a sense in which people have moral faculties operating outside of the special revelation of the NT. However, these are not adequate for the believer – the NT is the sole standard of ethics and morality.
So – I guess what I’m saying is, if we’re going to justify violence (or anything else for that matter) apart from the NT, can someone give me a logically and theologically sound argument for the Christian to seek ethcial imperatives and standards outside the NT?
Thanks guys. I can’t tell if we’re talking past one another or if I’m just a bit confused by your reasoning. Thanks for clearing things up.
Tom
Tom by the “ethical imperatives founded within the biblical text,” I’m assuming you refer specifically to the NT. If you include Hebrew Scripture, then I have some issues with the ethical imperatives found in the genocides, debasing of women, the worth of childred, etc. Even the NT has justified “ethical imperatives” that demeaned women and promoted slavery (rightly or wrongly, but we must take into account our own interpretations in our own time are what give the texts their meanings).
Also, what is the role of the Holy Spirit then if scripture is all we’ve got? If the biblical text is our only guide, is one third of our triune God rendered impotent? Is it only there to help us interpret scripture? I don’t think we’ll find much in scripture itself to support that. I think we obviously agree on much here, but I think these are important questions to ask given the discussion at hand.
Now, I would say that obviously there are countless moral and ethical situations that we are presented with today that simply aren’t touched on in the biblical texts. However, the biblical texts do put forth rhetorics of ethical/moral behavior. They establish paradigms within which to work. These are broader issues based on love, submission, non-violence, etc. It is these broader ethical standpoints that we should use as our guides to confront situations that seem to be outside the purview of scripture.
This should impact moral/ethical imperatives we encounter from outside biblical texts/Christianity. I don’t see why we should ever appeal to philosophers or ethicists that aren’t Christian. They simply aren’t part of our community, and they don’t opperate within the paradigm that we do. Ideally we should be thinking of the issues at hand in completely different terms than they. The early Church fathers often turned to the Greek philosophers, and they did so to great detriment to the faith IMO, despite the worldly successes it may have given them.
I think that’s all I’ve got for right now. Happy Turkey Day everyone!
I agree completely with that.
The only think I can thinking of off the top of my head as I am getting ready to leave are situation that are not named in the New Testament – then one has to build a case off of revealed principles and then apply them to the new situation. But again, we are still basing it off of the NT, so I guess I agree with you here. And I don’t think there is any way to justify violence in the NT for the believer.
Lastly, a friend of mine and I were talking about the Christians and corporate violence the other day, I think it was Monday evening, and he suggested that the conversation between a roman soldier and John might be grounds for corporate violence (just war theory, being members of a police force and the like). He was saying (and I don’t remember this off the top of my head, where it is or anything) that the soldier asked what he should do now and that John said something along the lines of go back to your post and do it well or something like that. I’d have to look it up because I have no idea what book that is even in, but it is something to look at.
Oh, I found what he was talking about: Luke 3:1-20.
When I read that I see an early Christian community that wants to not be crushed by the romans…
Thanks for the responses guys.
No, I do not see any part of the Trinity restricted in my view. The Holy Spirit does much within the conscience of the believer – namely to convict them to righteousness. That righteous standard is given by the NT. The Holy Spirit does much outside of this, but one of It’s roles lies in convicting the believer toward the righteous demands of the NT. I don’t see how the H.S. is restricted here. When the Holy Spirit convicts me of sin, it is by means of what has been revealed in the NT.
As far as those things not mentioned in the NT – I think the answer is easy enough. We base our ethical decisions concerning issue not found in the biblical text upon principles we know are within the biblical text.
Yes, I am specifically referring to the NT, as it is specifically Christian. However, this does not mean there isn’t much to be gained from the OT.
Honzo,
I don’t think we’re disagreeing on anything. However, I’m a bit confused by the appeal to the Luke text. It seems to me the text doesn’t justify or forbid violence – it’s somewhere else entirely. Can you explain? thanks, man.
Well, Luke has become rather well known for how pro-Roman it is (and going along with that, anti-Jew/Judean). It’s rhetoric is quite similar to many of the apologists like Justin, who make the case that Christians can be productive and positive members of Roman society…attempting to smooth out any animosity (on both sides) that may exist. So that piece of text makes sense in the broader themes of Luke (by comparison to Mark or Matthew which may not have such positive views of Roman interaction).
That aside, how much authority do we give to John the Baptist? I honestly don’t know where to fit him in when it comes to ethical imperatives. Just because he’s in our canonical works, does that make his teachings canonical? Perhaps he’s just “profitable and good for reading,” but not on the same level as others? I really hadn’t considered that until now…interesting.
Ham… I think an equally compelling case can be made that Luke is subverting Rome, not supporting it. He’s maybe just more subtle than John would’ve been.
I agree with JR. I’ve been doing some work in the Magnificat lately – wow – very subversive to the Empire. It has been banned by a number of contemporary governments from being read aloud to the masses. I’d say theirs an anti-empire bend to Luke.
Hey Tom,
The passage Honzo quoted is thought by some to refute pacifism because if all violence is wrong then being a soldier is wrong and if being a soldier is wrong then the soldiers would have been told to quit being soldiers rather than just to be content with their pay.
You seem to accept that non-christians have non-biblical evidence for moral claims. What do you think happens to this non-biblical evidence when people become christians? Suppose that before Smith is a christian he knows based on evidence from his conscience that torture is wrong, when Smith becomes a christian is this evidence (that was good enough before) suddenly not enough to justify his belief that torture is wrong? Does he lose his knowledge that torture is wrong until he studies the Bible enough to learn some principle inconsistent with torture being permissable? That would be a strange result.
Henry,
I think the two moral orders suggestion is very interesting. Would you say that christians have obligations to be loving and merciful but non-christians only have a smaller (or different) set of obligations? Another way to go would be to say that non-christians have the same obligations as christians but that we can’t expect them to fulfill these obligations.
Cheapham,
You suggest that we shouldn’t appeal to non-christian ethicists. What would you say about other areas of philosophy? Most of the best contemporary thinkers in epistemology and metaphysics aren’t christians. It seems like we do learn things like ‘justified true belief is not the same as knowledge’ from non-christians. Is there something special about ethics which makes it so we can’t learn from non-christians? It seems like I could learn from a non-christian something like ‘moral properties supervene on descriptive properties’. In general, the view that we could only appeal to christian ethicists seems like it would commit you to offering an ad hominem against any argument produced by a non-christian. Christian and non-christian ethicists who hold identical views on a certain matter will often give identical arguments for their view. Why would the christian’s presentation of the argument be acceptable for use while the non-christian’s presentation is not?
Luke seems to appeal to Plato in Acts 5:29. “we must obey God rather then men” (the apostles) vs. “I shall obey God rather then you” (Socrates). Both of these claims are made in the context of responding to political leaders who order an important teaching from God to be stopped. If Luke is indeed appealing to Plato as an ethical source, then that would give us evidence that we can learn from non-christian ethicists.
-Philip
[...] we accept, which I do, Tom’s rejection of the soteriology of the State, how should Christians interact with the government? I don’t see a scriptural imperative, as [...]
phillip,
As for the Luke passage: Being a soldier in the first cent. wasn’t the same as being one now – you couldn’t just choose when to become one and when to leave (not that you even can now). You actually see in the first several centuries, soldiers having to wait until after their ‘tour of duty’ to be baptized and become officially Christian.
Furthermore, this is an argument from silence – tricky things at best. The emphasis of the passage is elsewhere.
I think unbelievers have a corrupted morality. Sometimes that morality may line up with Christian morality, but it still lacks the Holy Spirit and the theological underpinnings. And again, I’m not laying an ethical framework for all people – just Christians. Our moral faculties are created anew in Christ – being sanctified by the Spirit and washed by the word. If my ethical understandings go outside of explicit biblical teachings or principles derived from explicit biblical teachings, I have a problem. I guess I’m still not seeing a good logical argument against this thought.
Or – more likely, I’m not understanding what you’re telling me. I’m kind of dense sometimes!
Cheers.
Hey Tom, I agree that the argument from the Luke passage isn’t very good. Regarding my argument, I don’t think I’ve been very clear. My original claim was that Christians have nonbiblical sources of evidence concerning moral truths. Here’s an argument for this claim.
(1) Christians can know that torture is wrong without having biblical evidence that torture is wrong. (e.g. the guy who just became a christian and never read the Bible)
(2) If (1), then can Christians have some nonbiblical evidence that torture is wrong.
(3) Therefore, Christians can have nonbiblical evidence that torture is wrong.
I’m not sure how this connects up with the claim that nonbiblical moral faculties are corrupt. I agree that they are corrupt to a degree, but I’m arguing that they are not so corrupt that we can’t get evidence from them. Thus, I suggest that we could have nonbiblical evidence that pacifism is false.
Another thing to note is that while its true that our moral faculties are corrupt/fallible, the cognitive faculties we use to interpret the the Bible might be similarly corrupt/fallible. So it’s possible that we shouldn’t rely on our evidence from biblical intepretation much more than evidence from our consciences (especially in cases where the Bible is difficult to interpret).
I’m not sure how much we are disagreeing. Maybe we are just talking past each other. I also should note that I might be a little biased on this issue since I’m just finishing up a masters in ethics which will turn out to be mostly a waste of time if you’re right :)
Philip
Phillip,
I think the gap of our disagreement is closing – now that we are understanding each other a little more. I agree that there are ways to discern right and wrong outside the Bible. But, for the Christian, our moral faculties are always held captive to the biblical text over and above that of the non-biblical means of establishing morality.
I don’t think pacifism, from an extra-biblical perspective, is intuitively good or evil. There are seculars on all sides of that debate. So, I would disagree with that claim. I am arguing, however, that the bible (NT) as the ultimately authoritative source for Christian morality, seems to support a pacifist perspective. Even if my moral faculties were pointing me to another position, my mind and heart must ultimately bow to the Scriptures.
And just to quibble – as far as torture goes, there are many in history who have not considered it wrong. There are many in our own government right now – hence, the discussion over ‘what counts as torture.’
Enjoying the discussion, Phillip. I think we’re actually going somewhere with this:)
Oh yeah….
As far as your MA in Ethics – what’s the topic of your thesis?
Ethical theory is mind-bending, well, the justification of an ethical theory is mind-bending. How does one argue for a universal ethic, which I gather we all posit, without appealing to special revelation of that ethic, which no one outside our shared tradition will accept? Further, even if we accept the divine command theory of special revelation, how do we explain why the ethical imperatives were chosen by the divine commander? If they can be traced to some rational principle, then it is not really divinely commanded, but instead based in some other theory. Also, if they are in fact, not based in some other ethical theory, then does that not make them arbitrary? If the ethical imperatives mandated by God are arbitrary, is that a good thing and should they be obeyed on God’s word alone?
Hey Tom,
ok I think we pretty much agree. My view is that we can learn about morality in other ways, but if we come to know that the Bible says something is right or wrong that settles the matter. Sound right?
I’m not sure whether you were implying this or not but I don’t think it follows from the fact that people disagree about whether torture is wrong that someone can’t know that it’s wrong. Some people still believe that the world is flat or that human sacrifice is ok, but we still know that they are wrong about these things. Also, as christians we think we know that God exists even though this is very controversial.
Regarding pacifism, would you admit that it has at least some pretty counterintuitive implications? Think about cases where a really bad guy is torturing an innocent person to death and the only way to stop him is to punch him in the face. Doesn’t it seem like you should hit him?
For my M.A. I argued for two different things. I argued that there is such a thing as the property of goodness. And I also argued that people being morally responsible for their actions is inconsistent with their actions being determined. (this kinda supports arminianism or open theism against calvinism)
I’m also enjoying the discussion, sorry it took me a while to respond.
Philip
I don’t like the term pacifism. I’d rather say creative non-violence (CNV) because CMV does not have the overtones of non-resistance. Jesus did not advocate non-resistance, he advocated non-violence.
The question, then, is whether defending another innocent person is violence. Doing what we can to get a gun out of someone’s hand is not violent, it is asserting the personhood of the innocent person. Once you have the gun, though, excessive force must not be used. also, as a far as a situation will allow, the use of non-physical and creative force should be used.
So, I don’t think either position is intuitive. Rather, I think at this point we have sinful tendency toward violence and Jesus wants to correct that tendency in us. The only question is – are we creative enough to consider all possible means of resistance before we resort to violence? If we did, I dare say we would have no need of violence.
BTW, there was an interesting write up about this in Christianity Today a week or so ago. It’s probably worth checking out.
Later
Tom