John,
A beautiful post. I need to reflect on this more and perhaps comment further, but for now, two things.
First, I too find it humorous that you have been 'accused' of reading Hauerwas devotionally, in part because I often find in reading him that that is exactly the experience I have (and certainly not just on the issue of war/violence).

Second, from one currently living beyond the borders of the US, this comment was chilling:
" I wonder what was celebrated in congregations throughout the United States -- Pentecost or Memorial Day?"
This past Sunday was most definitely Pentecost where I worshiped. I had forgotten that it was a national holiday in the states. Living beyond the reach of the US (commercial/political?) calendar for just a couple of years has really been instructive for seeing the importance/relevance of living by the church's calendar.
That's all for now.
Peace,
Jeremy Gabrielson

John,

Some miscellaneous thoughts. First, let me admit that I haven’t read Hauerwas (in general, or the specific book you’re interacting with). Second, keep in mind that you and I agree on much, including some of the stuff in your post. I particularly like the following: “the conservative evangelical church is paying for its mindless idolatrous loyalty.” But I want to draw some cautions and, perhaps, some disagreements with what you wrote.

First, you write: “The fact that Christians embraced the first Gulf War through ‘just war theory’ made it easier for them to embrace the unprovoked invasion of Iraq in 2003 via the same theory.” Perhaps this is true. But even if so, I don’t see how this counts against just war theory per se. It’s just another reminder that many Christians are nearly as intellectually reflective about their commitments as they should be.

Second, you cite (with apparent approval) the following from Hauerwas’ text: “But from a realist perspective what must be acknowledged is that those with the biggest armies and the best technology can call any war just, if they so choose, when or if they have won it” (p. 140). Again, perhaps. But the victor calling a particular war a ‘just war’ doesn’t make it so. So again I don’t see this as cutting against just war theory per se. Compare the following. Say that I claim that a Kantian ethic makes torturing babies solely for pleasure morally permissible and that, since such a behavior is clearly morally impermissible, that Kantian ethic is false. What would be needed for this to count against Kantian ethics is for the first part of my claim to be right, and not merely a claim. So what it seems to me that Hauerwas needs is the following:
(1) If just war theory were true, then the [First] Gulf War would have been morally permissible.
(2) The [First] Gulf War was morally impermissible.
(3) Therefore, just war theory is false.
But then he’d also have to give an argument for the truth of the conditional in (1). Perhaps he does (again, I haven’t read his book). But then we’re on to a different issue (namely, said argument).

Finally, I’m not convinced that Hauerwas is right that “nonviolence is simply one of the essential practices that is intrinsic to the story of being a Christian” (137). For this to be correct, we’d need an argument that just war theory is not even possibly consistent with the ‘story of being a Christian’. (Let me also add that I’m not quite sure what he means by this odd phrase. Does he just mean, the truth of Christianity?) But I’m prima facie disposed against any argument that would entail that Augustine and Aquinas (not to mention the majority of Catholic thinkers on the subject of war throughout the centuries) embrace something that is essentially contrary to ‘the story of being a Christian’.

Now, to perhaps get defensive before signing off. I’m not claiming either (i) that just war theory is true or (ii) that either Gulf War was just. (Nor am I claiming (iii) that Augustine and Aquinas were right about everything. In fact, insofar as I think that Augustine changed his mind about key theological issues, I think that (iii) as stated is necessarily false.) But I think that we need to be cautious and careful about these issues. And, like you, I think we need a healthy does of confession and absolution as well.

Boy, did I have it all wrong, I thought I could be a christian and not have to be a Hauerwas drone. I didnt know that nonviolence was intrinsic to my relationship to God through jesus Christ. Having been enlightened now I am going to have to rethink everything. I only wish Hauerwas was around in Jesus time to add his thoughts to Gospel sayings.. Man if only Hauerwas made damn sure Paul included pacifism as one of the fruits of the Spirit we could have avoided so much misunderstanding. All my christian heroes who dont embrace this typical postmodern reconstruction of what Christianity is are essentially whats the word oh yeah mindless. Thanks for the insight Peace Barry

Barry,

Besides the fact that your comment is (to my mind) dripping with sarcasm to the point of offense (how does one spell tisk-tisk?) – and I’m usually a big fan of sarcasm – you seem to have failed to grasp the peace-making import of the Spirit in Paul’s letters. Of course Paul didn’t include ‘pacifism’ in the fruits of the Spirit – there was no such word available to him. But what about peace?

But let me back up a bit. If I wanted to bore you with the details, I could show you that several of the works of the flesh of Gal 5:19-21 are markers of conflict or attitudes which feed into a spiral of violence. If we take Paul’s view, which you are at liberty to dispute, that the Spirit and the Flesh (as two supra-human powers) are at war with one another since the advent of Christ (Gal 5:17), it becomes fairly uncontroversial, I think, to suggest that Paul viewed one of the defining characteristics of the Flesh as conflict – which could be expressed certainly at low-levels but also at rather high levels too. The early church fathers, too, made similar connections. 1 Clement and Didache (probably more?) both lump several of Paul’s works of the flesh into ‘naughty’ behavior which leads to murder, torture, and the like. Although I am no expert in Thomas or Augustine, it would not surprise me to find them agreeing wholeheartedly that “enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, quarrels…envy” etc. are behavior which mark out one as not walking according to the Spirit, and indeed, these are behavior which feed into the human ‘cycle of violence’ (of course, they wouldn’t put it this way, and would probably have a much more direct way of saying it, i.e., 'murder'). Your comment gives the impression that you are opposed to identifying nonviolence as an essential Christian characteristic, but it seems at least equally absurd to claim that violence is somehow a Christian ‘virtue.’ Perhaps explaining your position in further detail, rather than skewering John or Hauerwas, would help clarify what kind of violent action you hope to protect. Presumably you think it is perfectly acceptable for a Christian to fight in ‘just’ wars. Perhaps you think it compatible with Christian practice to execute criminals. But your tone and brevity of course leave me wondering. Do you also want to protect torture for information to protect the innocent?

Back to Paul. Louis Martyn has written probably the most significant commentary on Galatians in the 20th century (not my judgment, but people who should know) and I do not get the impression that he is a Hauerwas drone. (In fact, he seems to be a rather unique individual, if his commentary is any indication.) He writes about the eschatological battle between the Spirit and the Flesh and the surprising nature of the conflict. In essence, the Spirit has an unusual strategy in battle: “…in the warfare commenced by the Spirit against the Flesh, the violence that is a major characteristic of the Flesh (vv 19-21a) is not met by a greater violence, but rather by love, joy, and peace.” [Martyn, Galatians, 498]. As bizarre as it may sound to us, Paul seems to think that God doesn’t need arms to win the final eschatological battle. Or perhaps better still, God’s weapons are wholly different from those we should expect of a divine warrior – love, joy, peace. It is these weapons of righteousness which counterintuitively are the way in which God in Christ chooses to disarm the powers (cp. Col 2:15).
One last point, the comment re ‘mindless’ – John may have overstepped the boundaries of ‘Christian’ rhetoric too, but he certainly didn’t seem to me to be calling Augustine and Thomas mindless. I don’t know if it is any better to call the average church-goer who happens also to be American ‘mindless’ (though I think it paints a sometimes painfully true picture), but I would think John would say ‘poppycock’ to portraying this as his view of those two great thinkers of the Church. Also, his problem, it would seem to me, is rather more with those who refuse to think about the issue – not those who at least consider their position (like you). But I think now I’m getting onto very unstable ground – my hunch is that John would be better suited to address the issue of thinking about and ‘choosing’ one’s own ‘position’ than I am – I’m certain that part of my response ‘slips’ into the liberalism that John so obviously calls our attention to. I don't have a problem with Christians who think differently, but I'm sure going to try to persuade them to see it from my perspective, which of course is right ;-)
One other note, Robert Brimlow recently wrote What About Hitler: Wrestling with Jesus’s Call to Nonviolence in an Evil World, Brazos 2006 (and yes, Hauerwas endorses the book). In it he addresses admirably the ‘Hitler Question.’ In other words, even if every other war was unjust on moral and philosophical or theological grounds, at least WWII was not. He details more than John did above why just war thinking is flawed (not, I mean, in relation to WWII) from, I think this is accurate, a philosophical standpoint (he is a professor of philosophy after all). His judgment is that just war theory is ‘untenable’ and that it serves simply to justify actions “after we have done what we wanted to do” [56]. This comes in his judgment, not his argument. If you want to see his treatment of WWII/the Hitler question (a brilliant Chapter 7, Barry, you wouldn’t like it I’m guessing) , you’ll have to go and buy his book, because I’ve spent too much time already writing this response…Back to work, Jeremy
Peace,
Jeremy

Thoughtful and challenging post, John. Thanks for this.

I also don't appreciate your level of sarcasm, Barry. Very unfortunate in a thread about peace. Very unfortunate, indeed.

See you next week, John!
Maya

Jeremy, OkOkOk no more sarcasm. That was very insightful and helpful Jeremy. I understand the idea of two kinds of warfare. Clearly Paul the weapons we use are not carnal. but they are mighty for the pulling down of strongholds,taking captive every thought. He uses phrases like fight the good fight,more than conquerers Im sure you know all these and more. Here is the point, sometimes we morph the gospel into a political viewpoint that we are comfortable with. Whatever you may say about the gospel, the phrases Paul and Peter use do not imply a Zenlike , passiveHard-Rock philosphy(love all serve all) that takes a nonviolent Gandhiesque position at all costs. I know I know the christian right does the same thing where we impose our political beliefs on Christ, but honestly, when is the last time you walked into a church and heard a rousing rendition of ONward Christian Soldiers? Or the Battle Hymn of the Republic. You may make the case that Evangelical Churches are too right for your political tastes but having said that, just leave it it at that. I gotta go Im late for an interfaith dialog at my local Methodist church where we are going to hold candles and write letters to see if we can get these people in Darfur some help. Yours in Christ Barry

John,

First thanks for the Dead Sea Scroll lectures. Who says cutting edge biblical scholarship isn't exciting.

Just war, when I was an R.C., I was indoctrinated in this reasoning. You can't be the leading numeric Christian religion without endorsing a just war. After all it was charted by a Roman Emperor and the state can't be without defense.

And it works. I enlisted in the Marines without a thought about it. Fr. (Capt. U.S. Army) Murphy assured us it was no bar to heaven.

Fast forward 30 years to my spiritual re-birth in Christ and it is apparent what is moral in the face of aggression. Jesus taught it, Dr. King practiced it.

Heck two or three times a month I witness it at church when you gently turn Lawrence. And after a few years even I see the value of Lawrence to our understanding of Jesus.

Self defense or defense of others. I could cover up and hope for the best for myself. However I am incapable of standing by while the weak and defenseless are attacked, can't do it.

But in the end there can be no misunderstanding of Jesus in my mind when he says, "Do unto others ...." I have never been a big fan of getting hurt or killed so as a Christian I just assume that nobody else is either. It is basic to my understanding. As easy and as undebatable in my mind as a punch in the nose.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. (But first do no harm Dummy!)

Thank you for a great post

Good post, thanks

Excellent job.

Great post!

I would like to propose not to hold off until you get enough amount of cash to buy goods! You can just get the home loans or commercial loan and feel yourself comfortable

Usually strive to be original. Hence, to be the best you should present academic essay papers of the best quality. You can utilize the writing a term paper company to get created by specialists essays. Moreover, your essays can be written according to your style of writing.

That is good that you are doing such superior knowledge referring to this good post. And I think that it can be great if students order the thesis titles and dissertation writing from you.

The thesis help should be required by students if hold the issue referring to this good post. I opine the that is realizable to detect the thesis service which can perform that stuff.

There are many picks available for gathering an education these days,you can buy term papers or buy research papers which is perfect news for those who have not yet controlled. veraciously, essays writing is not an easy article so try make right declaration between writing on yor own or to buy custom essay papers about this topic. Maybe you need help with individual analysis , maybe you want help in producing a fresh plan on a circumstance that is vast and complex.

Old school students composed the custom term papers themselves and that could destroy their academic grades. But, everything is modified nowadays and modern students would be able to buy buy term paper from premium buy term paper writing service.