John, Perhaps I missed something here and you may enlighten me some, did you put the words terrorist in quotes as if they are that only in label and not truly described as terrorist organisations? Also, can you enlarge on the idea you stated that peace can only be brought by non violent means as you state?

Barry:

I see little difference between missiles launched by a nation-state and those launched by "civil society" groups. They both kill indiscriminately. I talked with a high ranking CIA official who himself recognized that "terrorist" was a label that was quite fluid and dependent upon one's prior political commitments.

In current parlance, a "terrorist" is some group that engages in mortal violence for some political end against a nation-state; Weber defines a nation-state as a political group that holds a monopoly on the use of coercive violence over a bounded area. Both claim moral legitimacy for their violence in light of some larger political claims -- the end justifies the means of violence. The reasoning is the same. Both "terrorists" and weapons of the "nation-state" have progressive diminished the distinction between military and civilian targets. In terms of invoking the legitimacy of their violence and their employment of mortal violence, they are very similar.
A "terrorist group" is parasitical on the techniques of the nation-state, even as they try to contest them. This is why they are both so tiresome and so immoral.

For your second question, I assume that violence tends to beget violence; the cycles continue and intensify over time until some rift in violence occurs in which a genuine freedom and justice might emerge with those not embedded in the previous cycles of violence.

Does that help?

John

All terrorists groups and nation-states are equally immoral,tiresome and I suppose illegitimate? Are they all equally oppressive and cruel? Does this include the UN? Can you give me a alternative that you would point to of a governing body that offers moral legitimate governance? Appreciate your insight. Barry Wallace

I don't know if you had a chance to hear Stanley's lecture (or read the paper, if there is one) on "Sacrificing the Sacrifices of War" this past year. During the lecture he made the point that both sides in violent conflict tends towards a one-upmanship as a way to make previous deaths meaningful and not let them have been in vain (Cavanaugh makes this point as well somewhere). The means of violence and the overall death toll must always be escalated to higher levels to make the initial cost of war worth it.

Of course, this is why Bush can't leave Iraq until his mission is complete. Despite the widespread opinion that sending American troops there was a mistake to begin with, to leave now would be to admit that all those who have died, died for nothing. Many of those who initially decried the US's presence in Iraq when no WMD were found, have now committed themselves to the conflict in Iraq lest all the bloodshed sustained to this point be made in vain. So the self-deceptive reassurance that we are doing the right thing comes from sustaining the sacrifices of war as long as possible. Hauerwas tells a story from the Korean War that

nicely illustrates the moral logic at the heart of war. Porkchop Hill was a strategic point that controlled access to the Inchon Valley. During the course of the war the Hill had changed hands many times. Late in the war the hill had been retaken by American troops but at a terrible cost. By the end of the battle fewer than a dozen Americans were left a the top of the hill. This was within the last stages of peace talks and Americans were afraid that if they withdrew the dozen men on the top of Porkchop Hill hill such a retreat could be interpreted as a loss of the will to fight and could therefore prolong the war. They were sure the enemy would counterattack and the dozen left would be killed. Yet if the Americans reinforced the men at the top of the hill more than the twelve would be killed. There was a debate at division headquarters with the result that the twelve would be reinforced. The justification for the decision to reinforce was if they had not done so it would have dishonored the memory of all the men who died on Porkchop Hill during the Korean War. The more sacrifice to honor past sacrifices, the more the moral stakes for which the war or battle has been fought must be continually raised.

And so two kidnapped soldiers have now required the sacrifice of hundreds of Israeli and Lebanese civilians, and immeasurable damage to homes, roads, and hospitals. And what can be done to counter this neverending cycle? Yesterday, I saw a photo from an Israeli checkpoint where young girls were visiting IDF forces and signing artillery shells with magic marker as if they were yearbooks. Then I saw two satellite photos of downtown Beirut, one before July 1st, the other from just this past week. It's just heartbreaking.

Ok you made the point that war generally sucks, so answer your own question, what can be done to counter this neverending cycle? Please dont mention letter writing campaigns, candlelight vigils,or awareness happenings. Prayer vigils are welcome and effective. Barry

John, Please let me know your thoughts, not some exCIA guy you talked with once. Also please let me know if you agree with Weber regarding his definition of nation-state and terrorists as essentially one in the same. Are there no differences between the two? Are there any governments or para governments or terrorists you can point to and say, These people are doing it right? Is there never any difference between bullets fired by terrorists and governments? How about bullets fired by common thieves and police? What if a policeman mistakenly shoots a bystander, does that delegitimize the process of police enforcement similar to your argument regarding Hezbollah and Israel? Barry

Barry:

No, I do not think that non-nation-state mortal violence and nation-state mortal violence are necessary morally equal. On one hand, there are supposedly more checks-and-balances in the nation-state use of violence than a terrorist group.

Yet in terms of effect, the nation-state has the ability to kill many more people than groups that those committed to the nation-state call terrorists. The use of nuclear weapons by the US is a much greater moral atrocity than an attack on a civilian bus in Israel. Both are activities that we must not participate in, unequivocally condemn as Christians, and mourn equally for their victims. The use of a nuclear weapon by a terrorist group would be just as much of a moral atrocity as that used by a nation-state -- if not more so.

I in no way want to condone terrorist violence that goes into cafes and detonates a bomb strapped to a person. It is a moral atrocity at many different levels.

Neither do I want to condone the violence of a nation-state that uses high tech missiles to take out the electrical infrastructure of a country that decimates the weak and vulnerable in a population or that takes away safe water supplies. It seems to me that a case-by-case ad hoc judgment must be used, rather than a blanket "this type of mortal violence is righteous"; "this type of mortal violence is evil."

I do agree with Weber that we may define a modern nation-state as a group of people who hold a monopoly on the coercive use of violence within a bounded territory. This makes participation in a nation-state very difficult for Christians -- not impossible, given the state, but one that we need resensitized to in our fundamental moral reasoning. Rather than make a blatant rule, I want to re-sensitize us as Christians to the moral ambiguity of the nation-state. Very few Christians, it seems to me, except of a leftist political type, would want to morally legimate the violence of "terrorists".

As far as police work, this is another area were we need creative thought as Christians. There are lots of "bad guys" out there who use horrible violence; I am not saying that they should be allowed to continue. What I am asking for is creativity in different techniques that do not continue the rounds of violence that violate Christian teachings on the sanctity of all life.

We must entrust all life to God and not participate in the cycles of violence, and find creative ways of ending violence -- like Benedict XVIth it is violence that is not "realistic." Our attempts are more difficult because we Christians are so fragmented. Maybe one of our first steps would be to learn to pray together.

Peace,
John

We don't have to be successful. That has never been the call for followers of The Way. Our call is to be faithful.

Barry, you want to find a way to break 'never-ending cycle' of violence and war. I feel you are asking the wrong question.

Our job as followers of Jesus is not to solve the world's problems, but be a witness against them. This is done by practicing non-violence within our personal relationships, by our communities being a non-violence witness in their areas, and by our united regional non-violent witness being an example to nation-states.

We become peace-makers when we ourselves are witnesses for peace. When our lives reflect the peace of God, then our witness is a light shining in the darkness.

These are not easy steps. They are not very satisfying to the American mindset that we can fix any problem with enough gumption. But just because the flood waters of war are raging now, our job is still to be building the levee's of non-violence brick by brick.

Dear John,

As always your thoughts are clear, concise, and well thought out.

Iraq may well have been a mistake, Korea, Vietnam, all wars are a mistake.

We are ultimately in a religous struggle whose final end will be, which group of people defines who God is for everyone else.

I know your stance against those who would define God from the Koran is not so naive as to think this problem will go away if we ignore the root........................ They are coming for us, they have come for us, they prepare now for our destruction.

I would strive for this; The church of Jesus Christ truly loving and evangelizing the world, and in the Middle East every person accepting Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Saviour, this is the best and ultimate solution.

Although we long for utopia, reality says this..... millions have died, millions will continue to die, both sides will pray to the God they serve, and in His name they will kill and be killed.

Armageddon is on the horizon..........nothing can stop that..........not all the well meaning prognosticators of a thousand centuries is going to change that inevitable day.

May the incarnate church of Jesus Christ reflect who God is as never before.

When our great country sends troops into battle and they look incarnate evil in the face, may their bullets fly straight, and may their hearts feel nothing but the strength of being on the right side of the eternal struggle between right and wrong.

The laughter of all of our children echoes down the halls of my mind to the sound of the New York Trade Center falling on thousands of innocent people.

It will continue to happen until we are all destroyed, unless by force we take away their ability to do it again.

I pray that our country and Israel will defeat our enemies anywhere and everywhere, and that the Chosen people of God can live in safety and security.

I thank God for our troops, they fight the wars while we enjoy the blessings of safety and freedom.......

Blessings,

M. Palm

Reply to Matt:

Jesus calls his followers to look at the plank in their own eye before trying to remove the speck in their brother's eye.

"Incarnate Evil"
I hope you are including the American soldiers who took turns raping the Iraqi teenager. I hope you are including the Israeli soldier who launches the missle that hits a building filled with the poorest of the poor Lebanese who didn't have the money to leave their hometowns. I hope you are including the Iraqi Shiite government (paid for by your tax dollars) who turn a blind eye to their death squads who are trying to exterminate Iraqi Sunni's.

Yes there will always be war and violence. There will always be people who believe in an eye for an eye. Appartently, you subscribe to this too. For how else could a follower of the Prince of Peace pray for the bullets of American soldiers "to fly straight."

I don't know what Bible you read, but the Jesus I follow says that his country is not of this world. The country I give my allegiance is not the one that promises me "security" and "freedom" if I pay my taxes and be a good patriot. My allegiance is to the King that is above all nation states. And that King tells me every day I wake up that if I want to be in his army, I will turn the other cheek, I will love my enemies and I will willingly walk the extra mile in my oppressor's shoes.

If your version of Christianity is right, then Jesus' teachings are lies. I don't want to be a part of that version of the Church, and I have news for you...If you go out trying to evangelize the world with that intrepretation of the gospel, the people of the world should and will reject it too.

Just a few notes to add to the discussion:

i should show my cards at the outset, I am decidedly more sympathetic towards the views of Mr. Blythe than I am with those of Mr. Palm. (And, perhaps unfairly for Mr. Palm, I have the luxury of spending every working hour on my thesis, which is directly related to the issues raised.)

to "pray that our country and Israel will defeat our enemies" in order to live in "safety and security" sadly, I think, distorts the teaching and example of Jesus. Christians are told to love their enemies and pray FOR them. As for "safety and security" - it reminds me of the Roman Imperial slogan Paul quotes at 1 Thess. 5:3 "peace and security." It was the very peace and security guaranteed by the threat of Roman Imperial violence that Paul turns on its head: "sudden destruction will come upon them." Paul, however, consistent with the witness of Jesus, does not rally the Thessalonians troops to use force to take away the ability of their persecutors to perpetuate their suffering. In fact, he tells them to make sure "none of you repays evil for evil."

Mr. Palm also allows that all wars are mistakes; I would like to press it a bit further and call it sin. This might go some way toward acknowledging that it is something to be avoided, repented of, not becoming of disciple of Christ etc. I suppose if we cannot agree on war as sin, it seems we're working from fundamentally incompatible paradigms. (maybe both Mr. Blythe and Mr. Palm would acknowledge this?) If so, I think Mr. Palm bears the burden of proof as to how his violence-inclusive paradigm comports with the witness of a non-violent Jesus. If reason and experience serve as warrants ("millions have died, millions will continue to die..."), what does that say about the place of scripture in Christian ethics? I infer, Mr. Palm, that you regard scripture very highly; how do you justify the killing of enemies when Jesus specifically instructs his disciples to do just the opposite? Not only do the gospels prohibit retaliation or self-defense, but violence in defense of an innocent third party (i.e. "our children") is nowhere condoned, and in fact Jesus rebukes the disciple in the garden of Gethsemane who does just that - wields the sword to 'protect' the innocent Jesus.

Finally, Christian hope in the resurrection seems to be playing in the background of Mr. Blythe's "faithful" if "unsuccessful" model of discipleship. I simply want to bring it to the foreground. To refuse to retaliate or use force to "take away their ability to do it [9/11?] again" is sheer folly without the promise of the resurrection, the redemption of our bodies.

N.B. I should reiterate, being critical of embracing the use of force by Christians does not diminish or excuse the sin of the same by the "other" side.

Anyway, enough.

Peace,
Jeremy

To Jeff and Jeremy,

This comes from Jeff Landauer and Joseph Rowlands
in a website about philosophical trains of thought. I will say no more, enjoyed the discussion. Great site Pastor John, as always, you make me examine myself. As usual I strongly, but respectfully, disagree.

Blessings,

Matthew Palm

And I quote:

"Pacifism

Pacifism is the moral principle that the use of force is wrong for any reason. This applies to both the initiation of force, as well as defensive or retaliatory force. If your life is being threatened, pacifism holds that you should not defend yourself. If someone has stolen from you, pacifism holds that you should not retrieve your property. If someone has murdered other people, pacifism holds that nothing should be done about it. Pacifism is the moral principle that attempts to permanently disarm its practitioners, leaving them helpless and at the mercy of any thug.

Some people accept pacifism due to a faulty inductive process. They notice that force can be used for evil, and generalize it believing that force is only used for evil. Others accept pacifism as a moral commandment or duty. There is no rational reason to accept pacifism, and its consequences are deadly. This ethical premise is destructive to one's life and values. It makes morality oppose self-interest, and requires the choice of either being good, or being alive.

Pacifism requires one to withhold the use of force. It is thought that if practiced by everyone, the world would be a better place, making life easier to live. This is mistaken, though. A single thug could destroy any society based on pacifism. Since nobody could respond with equal force, even in self-defense or the defense of their loved ones, the thug would be constantly rewarded for his acts. He could rob, steal, or murder, and nobody could stop him. It would encourage others to act this way as well, since nobody would be willing to stop them. But one cannot live under such circumstances. One's life would be at the mercy of the worst people alive.

Pacifists are able to survive in as far as either they abandon this faulty principle, or others dismiss it. Without the use of retaliatory force, they could not survive against the threat of other people. A lone pacifist in a society willing to enact justice can survive at the expense of his fellow citizens. It is to them that his survival is maintained. It is his ethical system that makes him dependent on the good will of others.

Copyright © 2001 by Jeff Landauer and Joseph Rowlands "

A few comments, if I may. First, Kaz, and others, did you happen to see an editorial in the NYTimes a few weeks ago about human propensity for one-upmanship? It's well worth the read. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/24/opinion/24gilbert.html?ex=1155182400&en=7497688eaa9468d4&ei=5070 (My apologies if it's not available without registering or paying.)

John. I really appreciate your thoughts in this post. (And all others! : D) I agree with your criticism of the nation-state, but I've got a question concerning just-war theory. I'm pretty sure you and I equally reject this theory's claims, but I think it's fruitful engage with those who come from this perspective within the Church. Now, one of the requirements for a war to be just is that it must be waged by a proper authority. Any thoughts on what this means exactly? I believe most would argue a nation-state holds such legitimacy while terrorist organizations do not. Just curious what your reaction would be to this, since it seems to me the more "legitimate" (according to most) of the parties in this conflict is the one more callously disregarding lives of all sorts. Ironically, it seems to me this "legitimacy" merely springs from Israel's vastly larger stockpile of weaponry, no thanks to the U.S.

I recently finished Toole's "Waiting for Godot in Sarajevo." A book like this aptly reminds us that there really will be no end to this mess through humans. However, there is good news. (Yes, apocalypse is great news!) We aren't resigned to nihilism (a la Nietzsche) or viewing this mess as tragedy (as would Foucault), but, thanks to thinkers like Yoder, we can see this world apocalyptically and know it is unto God whom we must put our hope.

This book has reminded me that Christians are not about a politics of effectiveness. Rather, we are about a politics of faithfulness, and this has a way of turning the powers and principalities on its head. That's the type of approach we need to remember, lest we end up praying for American bullets to fly straight. And Matthew, I must ask, when you ask for these bullets to fly straight, does that include those bullets America supplied to Afghanistan, now used by al qaeda against American forces, and those bought with money supplied to Iraq back when Donald Rumsfeld and his cronies considered Saddam a precious ally fighting Iran? Take care that you place your allegiance to the Kingdom of God, not a kingdom of man. No on can serve two masters. We need to revisit the radical nature of the claim Christian discipleship places on our lives.

Okay, it looks like Matthew and I posted at the same time. In addition to what I said above, I use Matthew's own words to rebut his recent claim. "May the incarnate church of Jesus Christ reflect who God is as never before." Remember Matthew, this would mean we reflect the very God-become-man who did not violently resist the powers, even those who nailed him to the cross.

Matt,

Perhaps somewhat in response to your question about the 'just war' criteria, you might find Daniel M. Bell's pamphlet called "Just War as Christian Discipleship" helpful. Specifically to your question on "legitimate authority," see pp. 7-9.

Peace,

Eric

Matt:

As I have thought through the issue, I have modified my position, at least rhetorically some. I am not necessarily anti-Christian just war. In some ways, I don't think that it matters any more, because contemporary warfare and technology have made the just war criteria obsolute -- thus making all wars immoral. Notice that in this war, as in Iraq (if they are not really just one war), it has been non-combatants who have suffered most.

As far as legitimacy, it is an interesting question. Hezbollah does have a recognized leader; does legitimacy fall only on the political leadership of a nation-state within a just-war setting?

Unfortunately, this is the least of the issues. The failures to negotiate the release of the prisoners on Israel's part have made everything unjust from that point on, whether one is a pacificist or not. Just like Iraq, it makes no difference whether one is a just war or Christian pacificist -- just like it made no difference in Bosnia in Clinton's unjust war or the first invasion of Iraq for George H. W. Bush, or invasions of Grenada and Panama under Ronald Reagan, or Vietnam . . . need I go on?

What is most terrible is that because modern warfare cannot be conducted justly, it has produced other types of violence to try to stop nation-state violence that merely duplicates the atrocities.

Peace,
John

PS You sure you want to raise a kid in a world like this? What an act of faith and hope and love!

John. I couldn't agree more that modern war effectively eliminates the possibility of just war. In addition to conflicts of empire, I consider the way America fights these wars as extremely cowardly. It's very easy to kill nameless children when you're pushing a button to launch a cruise missle from a ship a thousand miles away. Ironically, it seems like there could have been more opportunity for just fighting when combatants had to see each other's eyes.

I've been thinking a lot about raising a child in this sort of world. I keep coming back to meaning being found in the aesthetic, as Toole writes about in Waiting for Godot in Sarajevo. As I write this, watching and reading about the world's horrors, there is something strangely, beautifully artful as my daughter sits on my chest while I do this, grinning, cooing, and pooping at the same time. : D I'm feeling more at peace knowing apocalypse is a beautiful thing because all this mess is still God's creation, and within God's arms will we one day be fully re-gathered. Okay, it's late, and this imagery is puzzling me too much. I've got to sleep while the little one does!

OK, boys let me jump back in here. If you think only combatants were hurt in past wars you dont know history. The tragedy of war is not that armies get beat but that whole communities ,families towns and cities get swallowed up in the aftermath. This includes everything from the resultant famine and disease to loss of crops and infrastructure. This has always been the case. Couple of other points. To say this whole war in Lebanon is over the kidnap of Israeli soldiers is to ignore 50 years of history. This is the same war Israel has been fighting off and on since 1948. Israel does not invade other neighbors in hopes of eradicating Islam,neither does it attack others for their natural resources. This has nothing to do with some romantic notion of Israel and its Biblical destiny, but rather the recognition that this sovereign state has a right to defend itself. Speaking of defending itself,while Christians have the obligation to turn the other cheek etc. the nation-state certainly does not. The nation-state has an obligation to defend itself and protect its citizens. One of the huge, glaring differences between terrorist organizations and our nation-state in particular is we have elections that are referendums on whether to pursue war or not. Like it or not, when Bush was reelected he did not hide the fact that he was going to continue this war. In three months we will have another election that will go a long way towards a national debate on whether to continue. Terrorists dont ask anyone if war is justifiable, they are unaccountable to any population. They dont ask for instance if it is acceptable to place a couple rockets in a schoolyard. Neither do they care if your local neighborhood mosque becomes a launching pad. Thats why they are called terrorists. Hope this helps the conversation. Barry Wallace

Some of this contempt for our nation reminds me of a scene in Monty python where an obscure group of Jews are talking about the hated Roman empire and one of them says" what have the bleeding Romans ever done for us?" One of this small group remarks that the roads are better, and law and order is a good thing, another says that the sewage system works now etc. After each remark the leader says "ok other than roads, law, water, protection from invaders,WHAT HAVE THE ROMANS EVER DONE FOR US? Well, the question remains what has our nation ever done for us? Remember even Paul claimed Roman citizenship in his appeal to Rome and demanded the application of Roman law in his appeal to Caesar. The unavoidable truth is that we enjoy freedoms almost unheard of in most parts of the world, some of those freedoms we enjoy to our shame and destruction but that is part of the pricetag of freedom and a different discussion. All in all if you cannot bring yourself to praise our nation at least allow others the common sense to defend it. Barry Wallace

Barry,

Getting back to the differences between terrorist organizations and national governments, I think terrorist organizations are in fact accountable to a populace--the very community from which they draw their ranks. Presidential accountability is no more formal merely because of second-term elections. Voter turnout and demographics should indicate it is anything but "popular." Similarly, many terrorist organizations gain much of their funding and logistical support from other nations and from an elite few with great wealth. That is why Hamas and others have political branches (that even enter elections) to facilitate greater "legitimacy" in the wider world.

Drawing comparisons to history there are a great number of groups in the world who label themselves "freedom fighters" and not terrorists (bin Laden was one such self-proclaimed soul in the 70's while combatting the Soviet intrusion into Afghanistan). Hizbollah and Hamas in Palestine, the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka, the IRA in Northern Ireland, the FARC and AUC in Colombia, the Red Brigades of Italy, Basque separatists in Spain, Chechen fighters--all view themselves as fighting an illegitimate (or occupying) hostile government. Quite often these groups have popular support among local populations because the government may be corrupt, but so wealthy and well-connected as to make electoral challenge impossible.

Does this not sound like 13 colonies in 1776 deciding they'd had enough of the King and staging a revolt against the powers that be? Freedom fighters they are called now, but I think Loyalists called them traitors to the crown.

It seems it always matters which side of the battle lines you are on. For example, the 1948 Arab-Israeli War is referred to as the "War of Independence" and "The Catastrophe" depending on your side of history. Ever since the first Jewish Aliyah (migration) to Palestine at the end of the 19th century, and the subsequent "creation" (it was literally out of thin air) of an Israeli state by the UK and the UN in the 1940's, Arabs in Israel have viewed themselves as an occupied people. And when the occupier has an air force, an armored cavalry, and even a navy, and all you have is rockets, bombs, and your own bodies, it's easy to see why the "modern" citizen assumes legitimacy lies with one side over the other.

So, perhaps there are no states--just freedom fighters and terrorists, and some who have been more succesful than others.

Mr Wallace,
(sorry if this sounds formal - keeping with my pattern above)
A few observation:

You are absolutely correct to remind us that the cause of this war is more complicated than the kidnapping of soldiers. In my (very) limited reading of the sociological study of conflict, it is apparent that conflict tends to have a variety of causes and what many may identify as THE cause is actually the 'trigger' for the escalation of that conflict to the use of violence.

You seem to maintain that Christians should turn the other cheek but this has nothing to do with the nation state. DO you think that Christians should not participate in the military? If one's 'duty' to country conflicts with christian discipleship, which 'wins', or can you maybe say a few words about how you might deal with this conflict of loyalties. (I'm not trying to say AHA! I sincerely would like to know your position since it surprised me to see you concede that Christians should turn the other cheek.)

Monty Python - an exceedingly funny example, and surprisingly ahead of its time in terms of what classicists are saying about provincial attitudes toward Rome in the first century. Many WERE quite happy with the status quo and profited greatly from Roman Pax et Securitas. They were tired of civil wars and general instability. However, to marvel at the benefits of Rome, one does not have to sweep aside very real criticisms. In fact their enlightened legal system - to which you refer re: Paul - didn't exactly work out in Paul's favor (unless you agree with the Romans that beheading WAS a better fate than crucifixion), and it tended to (no surprise here) reinforce the status quo - i.e. worked to the benefit of the elite/ruling class.

Related to the comment:
"if you cannot bring yourself to praise our nation at least allow others the common sense to defend it." Good rhetoric; bad logic - If I simply agree with you that there is much to praise about the US, does it follow that the defense of it is no longer necessary? The two points do not connect.

Also, on the point of WHAT HAVE THE ROMANS DONE FOR US - again, python is fantastic! - although they may not say it in as many words, it brings up the issue of benefaction. Rome was at the pinnacle (well, the emperor actually), granting favors to clients in return for acceptable displays of loyalty and honor. I would suggest that one of the shocking things about early christianity was the rejection of that empire-wide system of benefaction. Christians were likely seen as having contempt for Rome on account of not showing allegiance to Caesar and the rest of the locally honored pantheon. That they were accused of contempt (IF you'll grant me that without my providing evidence) doesn't mean that they actually didn't appreciate benefits that accrued to them by living when and where they did. I think there is a similarity here - I'll speak only for myself - as a Christian disciple, I don't have contempt for the US; yes, I enjoy many benefits (though not as many at present, I live in the UK) simply by the fact that I was born there. However, I also don't depend on the US for my identity (however weird it would be if the US ceased to exist). My identity comes from being incorporated into the body of Christ - a trans-national, transethnic, transchronological assembly (a decidedly political term in the first century) which would still exist whether the US did or not AND whether the US recognized my right to identify my allegiances as such or not. I can truly THANK GOD that I/we have the freedom to identify ourselves as such - but the freedom so to identify ourselves has to do with the policies of the US only in a derivative way. The freedom so to identify ourselves come not from being born into US society, but by finding myself among the children of God. I think, in a way, that is similar to stepping out of the first century patronage network. I don't identify my (ultimate) patron in the same way that many Americans would, despite what many evangelicals might protest. But does that mean I have contempt for the US? Not necessarily. (Man, I'm sorry if this last paragraph sounds preachy...I got on a roll).

Jeremy, Thanks for the input. My point re Paul is that he did in fact appeal to Roman law as a citizen of Rome. Surely he had no illusions of receiving perfect justice, nevertheless he did acknowledge the system as at least legetimate, otherwise, why appeal to it? Perhaps my rhetoric was so brilliant, it masked the idea that the US is and the west is in general worth defending. John, to equate todays terrorists with the founders of our nation is silly and harmful to the higher ideas you ascribe to. Reading the works of Adams, Jefferson, et al and reading the works of Bin Laden et al reveal two very distinct goals and thought processes at work. Agreed, both follow their words with the willingness to die and were accused of treason but at least acknowledge the founders were not bent on the destruction of London for example. The notion that Islamic Fascists fight to grant freedom and human progress to millions of people is contrary to reality. Please acknowledge that wherever these people succeed we see women subjugated,children uneducated,censorship on a massive scale,cruelty in a ancient justice system and other delights to be found in the 7th century. Barry

Actually, Barry, those were my comments, not John's.

Yes, I realize it is somewhat fallacious to compare Al-Qaeda to the Revolutionaries of early America. My point was merely to demonstrate, however, that moral judgments about the other side are always arbitrary. British citizens of the time had a less than favorable view of those rabble rousing thugs in Boston. And history is written by the winner.

Bin Laden's commitment to destruction of the US is primarily based on his desire for the US to leave the Middle East to its own affairs. Even if that were not the case, how is Israel's intrusion into Lebanon to defend its Homeland any different? Or for that matter the US into Baghdad. They are all playing the same game. In different ways, but in the end its coercion and violence on an ever larger scale that overcomes the same from the enemy. It's one upmanship. You kill us, so we kill you more. This is the never-ending cycle of violence John was talking about.

It is the Cross that teaches us how to deal with the violence of the world. To take the violence of the world into our own bodies, into the Body, and trust in the faithfulness of the Living God, who has defeated death and violence by raising God's Son from the dead. The powers of the world have been unmasked.

The freedom provided by the United States is not freedom at all. Neither was the freedom provided by the Taliban (freedom to live under extreme Islamic law) freedom. Nor is the freedom Hizbollah is fighting for true freedom. They are all earned and maintained by violence, by fear and coercion. The unity and freedom Christ brings are maintained through peace, in perfect love without fear of the other. God will be faithful to God's people--dead or alive. And as Ash Wednesday reminds us, none of us is getting out of this thing alive.

What? God will be faithful to Gods people dead or alive? Jaysus,man you sound like one of theseterrorists themselves! Ok, let me take a breath, here. I understand the command to make peace and offer forgiveness but I also recognize that Matt 5,6,7 are not collective suicide notes. Lets all die in sweet forgiveness and allow evil to triumph in this world? God forbid! The idea that God will rescue us from evil if we are only spiritual and hopeful enough is fantasy. God did not rescue the Jews from the ovens in WWII even though by and large they walked passively into the trains, camps, and the showers. What are you thinking? The burnings stopped when soldiers showed up with guns on their hips. We simply live in a world that requires the use of force to maintain a minimal amount of justice. If we don't really believe in the use of some force then disconnect your alarm system at the church, fire all security people at the college campus, and trust God to put out fires cosmically, or to control crowds at any concert or soccer match. While we're at it let's make sure the next time we are sick we simply trust God to extend his hand and cure us, without the benefit of modern medication.

One last thing before I go salmon fishing with my son, I think a Christian can be a soldier. I see examples of this in the Bible where this profession is not rebuked by Jesus or Paul. I also feel within this vocation acts of mercy and humanitarian aid are required. To delegitimize the entire armed forces because some idiot rapes an Iraqi is shallow. If there are 200,000 American forces over there are they all angels of mercy? Indeed on any given saturday night are there no members of the body of Christ itself who don't sin? Have you not ever received a phone call from a wife who just got beaten by a church member? A drunken teenager etc. If you can't control a group of 100's how can you expect a higher standard over there in stressful situations amongst 1000's? Love, Barry

"Lets all die in sweet forgiveness and allow evil to triumph in this world? God forbid!"

Barry, if I may step in for Kaz just a bit, your whole first (and I would argue second, but not right now) paragraph in response to Kaz in an adventure in missing the point. Notice he did not say that we should "all die in sweet forgiveness and allow evil to triumph over this world" -- nor did he imply it. But I understand that over this thing called the internet that things can become easily misconstrued.

In saying that God will be faithful whether we live or die means at least a couple things: first, it means that it places the focus on what God has done and not what we are foolishly trying to do by making sure history comes out right by defending our works (i.e. 'necessary force'); second, it places the power of life and death into God's hands and not our own, because in God's hands is where this power is anyway. It is not our place to kill, but to love, even our enemies, even to the point of our death. Do we truly love our enemies by inflicting violence upon them? Paul didn't exactly argue for the same kind of legitimacy for the nation state /sword as you are -- instead he focused on our roles in relation to it because we are not to play a part in the coercive violence of the sword. Submission to earthly powers is not the same as obedience, for Christ and Christ alone has our obedience, faith, hope, and love.

Jesus and says that we must take up our crosses daily (Luke 9:23); doesn't exactly sound like a walk in the park that somehow means 'some force is okay.' Jesus says that the persecuted are those that are blessed. It also doesn't help your case to immediately denounce Kaz by saying he "sound[s] like one of these terrorists themselves," when he was pretty much just relaying the basic themes of the Gospel. We are not promised comfort, worldly 'freedom', worldly 'liberties', but we are promised that God will be faithful in Christ by the Spirit and that we will indeed have a difficult life ahead of us, one that walks a narrow way (Matthew 7:14, Luke 13:24) and is filled with hardships and persecution, and even in those times, we give thanks because they build our character, and thus give us hope (Rom 5:1-5).

That's all for now. I'm tired.

Peace,

Eric

Thank you for you thoughts, nevertheless I am not persuaded by your insistence that we simply do not defend our culture,church,families etc. I am aware of the gospel as well and believe in the forgiveness towards those who have harmed us, on a personal level I have been able by grace to extend this. As I look at the totality of scripture I see more than "love your enemies" at work. There is a mantra out there I am sure you heard that people ignorant of scripture use to excuse any behavior and that is "do not judge", They use this phrase as escape mechanism to cover the totality of human error. It seems this is similar. Does the phrase love your enemies extend to every situation? Again, can you imprison anyone if you love them? What does this do the entire notion of justice but stand it on its head? I think our command is to visit those in jail, not empty them under some super spiritual notion that we must love our enemies. In the same way then,society seems to have the right and duty to protect itself from bad -guys on an international level as well. People of good conscience can argue the merits of each military action on an individual basis, this is healthy and serves as a check on the nation-state but to throw out the whole idea of defense of ones lives is not biblical. What do you do with all the military endeavors of Joshua, David, etc.? Relegate them to myth? Or assign them to a primitive belief system in a different God. Grace to you Barry

Barry,
First I dont think you understand that there is a difference between The Church and The Nation-State. I pitty you if you think that God, the Almighty, needs a rediculous man made idea (the nation state) to continue God's Kingdom. The Church is in no need of the State. Moreover are you then saying ("I am not persuaded by your insistence that we simply do not defend our culture,church,families etc") that you hold your allegiance to the state over your allegiance to the cross. What's wrong with your arguements is that you have failed to realize the difference between borders and The Church. You seem to think that nations can or have the ability to live ou the Gospel. Moreover you tend to think that the U.S. is somehow Christian in nature. So, you ask "What do you do with all the military endeavors of Joshua, David, etc.?" and somehow imply that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were the founding fathers of America. That God spoke to Abraham and said "You will be that father of a great nation, and you shall call it America." The sheer insanity of such a ridiculous rationale points to me that you have forgotten to read the Text within the lense of a story. The bible to you must take a form of a mass displacement of verses set to indulge your political agendas. So, then I could pull any verse out of Isaiah and use it to justify the war in Iraq. Shame on us. Just because we have arrogantly placed "In god we trust" on the Idolatry Americans call money, does not mean that is that same god that is YHWH the God of Israel, the God of Jesus.
You have forgotten how to read the Bible with humility to say "to throw out the whole idea of defense of ones lives is not biblical" tells me you have began to read the Bible as a Pharoah instead as a Christian. And we all know what happens to Pharoahs. I will leave you Barry with a very important saying "You know you have made God in your image when, God hates all the same people you do."
Peace of Christ
Eric

Eric, I have to say that I feel your comments against Barry were too strong. It should be a rare occasion that, when arguing a theological point you call into question the humility of your opponent.

Also, it was uncalled for to call Barry a pharaoh. A pharaoh is someone who is intent on trying to destroy God's people. I have no doubt that Barry is falling on the wrong side of this important issue, but it does not make him an enemy of God. Barry is following in a long and established line of Christian tradition that cannot be ignored or belittled with cute little sayings.

Many of the greatest Christian minds in the history of the Church would stand with Barry's views. Like you and me, they have sought the best way to figure out how to live out the Christian’s place in the world. And although their views have put us on opposite sides of the issue, it does not mean their perspective is illegitimate.

Let me also say something to the tone of your post. You need to realize that as you defend the call to nonviolence, that there is such a thing as violence of speech. I suggest you reign in your rhetoric, and learn to be a little wiser in your defense of nonviolence. If you don't, all you are doing is perpetuating the circle of violence that the Church and the world seem to be caught up in.

Peace to you.

Leo,
you are right, I am humbled by you comment and agree with what you have said. I thank you for your help and understanding. I am highly influenced by Yoder and Hauerwas, so sometimes i feel like i have nothing nice to say. Thank you Leo for reminding me that peace comes in words too. grace to you.
sorry

I am a big boy and can take it, get back to you later am thinking up some real cool invectives. Grace to you Barry

Ok no invectives but just a couple thoughts to perhaps clarify. I take the position that many of the great minds of Christian thought have taken but that does not make me at all great. do yourself a favor and read some of these minds and see if perhaps there is not something to learn. In addition to great theological minds you may find something to gain in reading first source material of American leaders. Find out that some of these men held deepl Christian beliefs( at least as deep as yours) and yet sent young men into battle. You would do well to read understand that men like Washington and Adams and Lincoln held this same argument in their mind that you and I have and yet decided to send men into war to kill and be killed. Are they all beasts? Were they all as un-enlightend as you think. I am? Perhaps they were not as skilled in understanding the nuances of Scripture as you are? I think that you are on the right track when you call for humility... God grant us the grace to receive it. Again, I understand that some wars seem more unjust than others, can you grant that some wars are at least needed to to be waged at all? Also please dont be too hasty to throw away your Western culture as if 100% of our culture is antithetical to the cross. Much good has been done by your country in this world even if you dont want to accept it. If perhaps this nation is too idolatrous for your liking , point out a better one and I will move my family there with you and we can live out out days in peace. Let me give you a classic quote from Lincoln regarding the tension between war and peace in a Christian context, he said that both sides of civil war prayed to the same God, read from the same Holy book, neither sides prayer were answered fully. Read ,if you will, his second inaugural address and you will see someone whose soul is tortured with the same debate you and I have. How to reconcile the sermon on the mount with the very idea of protecting the good from the assault from evil. Here is a man that led your nation into a war that cost 600,000 lives but also feed the slaves. Did he not feel the burden of that daily casualy report? Please extend some grace to these leaders and find out if you can read them that these men were well acquainted with the very same argument you and I have. One thing to keep in mind is you and I have the luxury of debating this issue online in relative peace and comfort,but this is not a luxury that leaders of nations have, they cannot indulge themselves is a 3 week blog about the nature of nation-state status as opposed to the Kingdom of God etc. Grace to u Barry

Barry, I think you should re-look at history & discover why the civil war took place. Lincoln went to was to show that states did not have the right to seceed from the Union, hence, the name of the Northern states' army. Do not think that his motives were as pure as they are painted to be. Much like Bush's motives are being painted as pure by the right-wing warhawks. Anyways, that was just a side thought... I do not have the time to further imerge myslef into the actual debate at hand here.

Not listed,

The civil war had an irrestible catalyst..... that catalyst was the evil pall of human slavery; period.

M. Palm