Exploring Pacifism, Pt. 4

In the previous parts of this series, I have laid out some of my views on power, force and violence. In exploring the issue of pacifism from a theological & ethical standpoint, namely that of Christian theology & ethics, the time has come to engage those portions of scripture that persons "use" to advance not only the idea of submission to modern government agendas of power, force, violence and war but also the promotion of it, especially when it comes to the Apostle Paul. Such readings treat Paul as if he were writing a systematic theology on state-run or government-led politics and militarism. This is seen, perhaps, nowhere more clearly than with Romans 13.1-7. As Ernst Bammel has pointed, however, "As an account of the Pauline view of the State this passage must be given its place in the side aisle rather than the nave."

To begin, we shall cite this section below and follow it up with some exegetical and interpretive thoughts:

Romans 13:1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 13.2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 13.3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 13.4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 13.5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 13.6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 13.7 Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

As one apt interpreter has remarked about these verses, "These words have caused more unhappiness and misery in the Christian East and West than any other 7 verses in the New Testament by the license they have given to tyrants." I would venture to guess that this assertion is indeed correct. Given that this is so, we should realize when we step up to the plate to "take on" these verses, we have before us an important task. So, while I do not believe that my comments here will extinguish the debate surrounding these verses, I do hope that some thoughts offered can show that there are healthy alternative readings which exist, other than the typical, non-contextual, modern-political readings of these verses.

I wish to make 3 points here:

1) We recall that in the original languages, the texts of the New Testament were not divided by chapter and verse numbers. Instead, they were written Scriptum Continuum, which is just a fancy Latin way of saying that all the letters ran together. There were no punctuation marks, no dividers, no sentence or paragraph breaks, etc. I say all this to say that the modern day translations of the Bible separate Romans 12 from Romans 13. However, this is VERY problematic! In my view, those words which precede what we define as Rom 13.1-7, help set the context for Paul's words. Thus, Rom 12.9-21 must be considered. When we read these verses, we find that they are littered with language about "love" and turning the other cheek.

Clearly, war is evil. Some would call it a necessary evil (this is a popular idea among Christians) but I would disagree with the "necessary" part of that claim. In 12.9 Paul says, "Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil and cling to what is good." Can we really imagine Paul saying this and at the same time promoting war and violence? He says in the same breath: "Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves."

Following this he says, "Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer." Does he say, "When you are afflicted retaliate?" No, he says to be patient! He says right after this, "Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse." Again, does he say "Kill the enemy" or "Bomb the foes"? No! He says to bless them and not even to "curse" them! Certainly if "cursing" them is out of the question so is killing them!

Then, Paul calls persons to live in harmony with one another and to shun a mindset of superiority so as to associate with the lowly. Continuing on, he says, "Do not repay anyone evil for evil." Is this not clear enough already? Paul is against violence and the violation of others by cursing them or inflicting any type of evil upon them. In fact, he urges that as far as it is possible within their own power, to "live at peace with everyone." He is not saying, "Go destroy them" or "get rid of them" if they cannot be at peace with you. Instead, he is saying, do your part to make peace. He is not naive to the fact that some people will not allow reconciliation to happen. He continues, driving home the point once again: "Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God's wrath." Clearly, for Paul, any sort of harm done to another is uncalled for and unjustified. The judgment, he contends, is up to God and God alone. How quickly and often Christians forget the truth that vengeance really is the Lord's!

And as if that isn't enough, Paul cites Proverbs and says, "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this you will heap burning coals on his head." Of course, the burning coals metaphor is not literal; it is a metaphor! He is saying that if you are nice to your enemies despite their unjust acts towards you, not only will wrath be on their head but eventually, they will get so preturbed by it that they may actually begin to act differently towards you. And he follows this with: "Do not be overcome by evil but overcome evil with good." Is it not clear enough that Paul is non-violent? Keep in mind, this is all prior to 13.1-7! Thus, we CANNOT simply read 13.1-7 univocally or on its own! These verses must be taken into account.

If the command is not to do evil but to overcome evil, and if, as so many are willing to admit, war is an evil, then how in the world can we go on acting as if promoting war is okay or even Christian? And so, Paul has made his case! And then he moves into his language about governing authorities. This is where I make point #2.

2) Among interpreters of Romans and in particular, Rom 13, there have been some very creative readings suggested. Post-colonial readings and anti-imperial readings have gained much ground and attention in recent decades. However, it may well be the case that while there are some merit to those interpretations, they are not so spot-on. In my view, the social contexts suggests, as made evident in the work of T. Engberg-Pedersen, that Paul is inverting Stoic political ideology.

Basically, Paul's comments in 13.1-7 reverse the claims made by the Stoic philosopher Seneca in his De Clementia (On Clemency 1.1-4). As Engberg-Pedersen notes, "The point [of Rom 13.1-7] is this...there was an idea in Rome in the 50s CE of the ruler or earthly rulers acting on behalf of the gods or God in support of behaviour that is good. This idea writers could take for granted and presuppose in what else they had to say. Indeed, they could appeal to it as something that would not be questioned—and could then move on from there to make whatever other points they were bent on making. Seen in this light there is absolutely nothing strange about the transition from Rom. 12.21 to Rom. 13.1ff. Believers should ‘conquer the bad by means of the good: in so doing, they should be subjected to the powers of this world since these, on their side, represent God and in themselves support behaviour that is good (13.1ff)."

In Seneca's work, he is referring to how an idealized idea of government, in particular, Nero. And Seneca hopes that Nero will practice judicious clemency and honesty and goodness, thereby proving his divine appointment. Do this and nobody in society will question your political role, it will simply be assumed that these qualities were given by the divine! Paul, however, is saying in Rom 13 that it is quite the opposite: If one embodies such qualities, the people will reason from bottom-to-top, not top-to-bottom, that divine appointment has been proven. If the contrary is proven, then one is not ordained by God. To sum up: Paul's claim to submit to God-ordained authorities presupposes first of all that the authorities were put in place by God. He does not suggest submitting to non-ordained authorities! Remember, there may be authorities in place, but they REALLY have no power if they're not ordained by God. And what is power? It is not what the Romans thought of power, the mighty fist or the sword, which helps "lord it over" people. No, it was submitting to and serving one another! (See the previous posts in this series, which discuss "power" in Christian theology.)

To rebel against the authorities that God has ordained is to rebel against none other than God himself. This all brings up the matter of discerning who is God-ordained? Hitler? Bin Laden? Hussein? Bush? Obama? Chavez?

Well, the key to recognizing those who are God-ordained is by looking back at what Paul has already said: They will be overcoming evil with God and not using violence and for or repaying evil with evil. Perhaps Americans and those in other parts of the world should really consider who they vote for in light of such things!

3) One last item of context may help shed light on this pericope. In Rome, Paul was basically dealing with a power struggle between various groups, namely, Jewish Christians and Roman (Gentile) Christians. The Jewish Christians had been exiled from Rome and when they came back, they realized that their leadership positions and essentially the entire church, had been co-opted (filled in) by the Gentile believers. Thus, there was a great struggle! Not wanting the Jewish folks to be exiled again, not wanting the church to divide, not wanting to draw attention to them because it could mean death, not wanting them to go into the streets and start chanting against the empire, Paul simply tells them to do what they have to do to keep the peace. If that means paying a tax, just do it. (Note: "Under Nero a difficult situation had become significantly worse. Tacitus tells us that so severe was the unrest over taxation that Nero was almost forced to capitulate over the issue. Instead of capitulating, however, he increased the burden of taxation, and non-payment became a criminal offence. In these circumstances Paul urges his readers to conform, to pay the taxes, and thereby not draw attention to themselves in a way that would provoke a Roman backlash.")

In fact, it has been suggested that if we read Rom 13 along the lines of 1 Cor, something interesting is realized, namely, that Paul is radically qualifying his statements. In 13.11-14, we see the "as if not" construction that appears in 1 Cor 7.29-31. The idea is, "do this but do it as if you were not really doing it." In other words, when you pay your tax, just do it as if you were not really doing it. This is expressed in the Greek by the "ως μη" construction (esp. Rom 13.13). As Taube has put it, "Pay your taxes (fulfil your duties in that field) as something that can in fact be fulfilled. And then forget about it since the duty has, by now, been fulfilled. In other words, do it ‘as if not’ doing it."

Having laid all of this out, even in a rather brief blog post, I think it is more than clear that there is an alternative way, and even a better way to read this section of Romans than is often suggested by the typical modern-day evangelical. Even more, I think it is abundantly clear that Paul is all about peacemaking and peacekeeping. Many have accused Paul of being inconsistent here but I do not think that is the case. All the same, I do not think he was issuing a systematic theology of the State and government and blind submission to ungodly (or godly) rulers.

Instead, the call was to never use violence, never to retaliate, never to repay vengeance and never to oppress others but to love and serve them. Where the enemy would not allow reconciliation to happen, the call then was still not to harm them or attack them but again to serve them. In the context of Romans, where the church was not only full of internal struggle but where that struggle was being kept under watch by an abusive government, Paul warned his followers to make peace and to do whatever they had to do so as not to draw unneeded attention to themselves, especially in the political arena. This is what eventually leads him to say, as a last resort you can even do all this as though you were not really doing it! Or, to put it differently, you can do all this knowing the real reasons you are doing it as opposed to the reasons the corrupt government thinks you are doing it.

In the end, there is no justification in this section of Romans for war or violence that I believe can be found! However, I do believe there is justification here for Christians to have a mentality and faith that overcomes the psychological bent and law of retaliation!

Exploring Pacifism, Pt. 3

It has been a bit since I have really had the chance to begin exploring pacifism here on Pisteuomen again but there's no better time than now to get going again. I had mentioned in Pt. 2 of this series that here, in Pt. 3, I would speak about power. That is still my aim. In particular, I want to talk about power in relation to violence (the topic of my Pt. 2) and explore some of the ways they are or can be connected or disconnected. Let's start with the latter.

I need to make it clear that power and violence are not the same thing. This should seem obvious enough, after all, they are two different words. As Arendt has pointed out, when we move beyond the individual to the group or society, one difference between power and violence is that power relies on numbers whereas violence can, up to a point, be managed by a single entity. On a different note, but just as well, since I am coming at this from a Christian perspective, I can say that in my tradition, we believe that Jesus' understanding of power had to do with strength given by the Holy Spirit and worked out not in "lording power over people" but rather by serving them. Here, we get into the relationship between power and willful submission. So, there are a couple of different ways to illustrate that power and violence are indeed different things.

However, beyond some of the more simplistic contrasts like those above, too often, power and violence go together like hand-in-glove. It was Voltaire who said, "Power consists of making others act as I choose." Whether or not we agree with this definition, it does lead us into a discussion about power and obedience. This even leads us into thinking not just about the power of one human to exact obedience from another but even more the power of a law or doctrine that desires obedience from persons. It is at this juncture that I think I begin to actually draw some theological distinctions.

In my estimation, there is a stark contrast between the institutions of power that states and governments have constructed versus those which Jesus himself espoused and set as the foundation of his life and "kingdom." For example, democracy, at its root has the connotation of being a plan or system developed by a community of humans is different than the ethics of Jesus' Kingdom, which was initiated by Jesus Christ himself. Do not hear me incorrectly at this point, I am not speaking of a Theocracy. All I am wanting to do is show some distinction between the two. One major difference between these two systems of thought has to do with voting. In a democracy, the majority vote wins. Not so in the Kingdom of God; power is not found in numbers! Yet, even the corollary could be true that when the minority loses, there could be such a small margin between the two sides that violence might be used to coerce the other side to reign in the power at stake. Again, this is not how the Kingdom of God functions.

At this point it may be premature to get into discussion about "God's Kingdom." So, we might just say, for the sake of discussion, that in Jesus' view, instead of vying for power to "lord it over" persons, in this world, true power is found in willful submission. And this is the crux of the matter; this is where Christianity becomes tough and even undesirable! Yet, in many ways, this is the very heartbeat of Christianity. Jesus' understanding of power stands radically opposed to the world's ideas of it. For the world, wherever there is a government or a legislative group or some kind of political party, they are not simply imbued with power just because. Instead, as in any democracy (or even communist regime), power needs to be legitimated by a clan or community of people. That group may even use violence to bring about the peoples' legitimation of the state's power. But that is exactly where the ethics of Jesus regarding power are different: They need no legitimation!

For the Christian, the teachings of Jesus are inherently legitimate in and of themselves. This is essentially what we mean we say that Jesus needs no defending or that his teachings need no defense. Jesus' views are not legitimized based on how many people accept and/or agree with them; they are already legitimate! This is why fundamentally, Christianity is at its very core, is espoused as a faith of choice!!! Whether many or few agree or disagree with Jesus and his teachings does not matter; his teachings do not fall under the umbrella of human democracies, instead they transcend such things.

And this, I propose, is why all Christians in all times and in all places should take seriously--utterly seriously!--what Jesus teaches about power and violence. One of Jesus' last commands (Mk 14) to his follower Peter was to "put down the sword." Had Jesus wanted a revolution to blossom through violence, he could have called a legion of angels to help him fight. Had he wanted to establish a kingdom based on violence, he could have incited riots, as Mark's gospel alerts us, he had every opportunity to do so. Yet, Mk also records Jesus saying that he was in the temple teaching daily and never once did he intimate violence or intimidate with force. The question must be raised, then, why do we not take that word or command seriously to "put down the weapons"?

And what about the Beatitudes, why do we shove those to the side too when discussions about violence and force surface? Why do our beatitudes, especially in American culture trump those of Jesus? Why have we essentially created anti-Beatitudes? In his book, John Dear has illustrated this well in showing what our modern-day American Beatitudes really read like:

* Blessed are the rich; the reign of the world is theirs
* Blessed are those who make others mourn
* Blessed are the violent and invincible, the proud and powerful, the domineering and oppressive
* Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for injustice
* Blessed are those who show no mercy
* Blessed are the impure of heart
* Blessed are the warmakers
* Blessed are those who never stand up for injustice, who do not rock the boat

The truth is, the current generation has no guarantee that there will be a succeeder to it. With nuclear weapons and warfare promised to us, the future is questionable and therefore, at stake. What, then, is our option? Is it to continue to push-back against what the founder of our faith taught us? Is it to continue to reject and redefine his most basic and fundamental principles concerning violence, force and power? What about value, faith and life? King and Gandhi only reiterated the truth that Jesus had already spoke many years before when he made that call for Peter to put down the sword because "If you live by the weapon, you die by the weapon."

It is not guns and bombs and armies that keep us safe. Likewise, it is not the military or anyone else that makes it possible for us to believe. In fact, if you think this, then you really have no "faith" at all!!! If it takes someone creating a context where you must feel comfortable to believe to actually believe, then that is not sincere belief because when the threat of death comes knocking, you will not lean hard on your faith, you will turn back to weapons, violence, force and whatever else it takes to protect yourself, even if it means killing another. This, then, is why pacifism begins to emerge, in my view, as not only the most viable option for the whole human race but the only true-to-fact option for those who claim to follow Jesus and his teachings.

I hope that for those of you who are keeping up with this series, you will ruminate on some of the points made here. Again, with a topic like this, there is almost bound to be disagreement and/or heated debate. Whether such talks happen here or elsewhere, I plead with you to have those discussions in all peacefulness and graciousness. Please, continue exploring this topic with me as I value your thoughts and opinions.

-Michael

Exploring Pacifism, Pt. 2

As I begin to explore the issue of pacifism in greater depth, I do hope that you, my readers and discussion partners, will show civility and patience. As we are all aware, this is a very touchy subject for some and oftentimes when this issue is addressed in the public forum, emotions can override common sense and zeal can overtake civility and thoughtfulness. Remember, this is an "exploration" of pacifism and as such, I do not believe I already have all the answers. Just as well, I choose the term "exploration," because this is a viewpoint I hold but which I want to see if I can substantiate further, especially, as I said in Pt. 1, from social, economic, historical, theological, philosophical, exegetical and other vantage points. In addition, I would say that regardless of your viewpoint on this matter already, I think that pacifists and non-pacifists alike should admit that within their belief systems there are tensions; neither belief system is without its debatable points! This being the case, however, does not mean that both are equal or that it is not a matter worth discussing.

It might seem beneficial to begin by defining pacifism, however, this is a definition I'm still working out and until I have a clear-cut definition, I do not want to offer a definition. I should be able to give a definition soon, however. So, here, I want to start by exploring the topic of violence. It seems to me that at the core of violence is the belief that if one can physically manipulate an other, then they will not be subject to that other's will. Thus, when we get into macro-level, large-scale issues like war, we see this viewpoint intensified; one country physically manipulates another so as to make them the subjects of their will. Typically, the manipulated subject will strike back with violence, even if in defense, so as to make their manipulator their subject. Ironically, though, when the defender strikes back, they must use more violence than their attacker! Thence begins the escalatory cycle of violence on an international level. The result of this massive amount of violence is basically, whoever has does the most damage or kills the most first or until the other one gives up, wins.

The adoption of violence as an ethic, is very troubling to me personally. On a macro-level, the results are beyond devastating! At this juncture, the average person would make the jump from the macro-cosmic view and ask, "But what if someone was breaking into your home and attempting to hurt your spouse or children, would you not do all you needed to, even use violence, to stop the intruder?" To such an inquiry I would suggest that it is fallacious to compare the macro-level example to the micro-level one. For starters, in the macro-level example, the first attacker is initiating violence with the view to doing so on a massive level. This is not the intent of an intruder. Secondly, on the macro-level, the attacking nation is launching their assault with the hopes of making their enemy their subject forever. An intruder into a home does not generally have the mentality that he or she will make the victim their subject forever.

Thirdly, I think it is a misnomer to suggest that the massive level of killing on the international level is the equivalent to that of the mirco-level. Fourthly, destroying cities, ruining economies, destabilizing countries and killing on a large scale level, is not all that comparable to a house being broken into or an individual being harmed. Fifthly, it would seem to me that there is a difference between the use of temporary force and lethal force. Breaking an intruder's leg or using force to tie him up until the authorities arrive is not even comparable to dropping bombs on a nation, especially when hundreds of thousands of civilians who are totally removed from the situation may be harmed. For all these reasons and more, the jump cannot just be made from the macro-level example to the micro-level one!

I think this is a very important point to make at the outset because in general, this is the first response by the non-pacifist to the pacifist. However, the logical and comparative leap just cannot be made so easily. Further, in the micro-level example it is always assumed that no sort of agreement can be worked out between intruder / attacker and victim. However, there are many examples which would suggest otherwise. Off the top of my head, I think of police negotiating with someone who has taken people hostage or of several examples where someone spoke a conscience-convicting word to the attacker and the attacker just stopped. The point I am making is that violence and responses to violence are circumstantial and given the many and varying types of violence (physical, emotional, educational, spiritual, economic, political, etc.), it is problematic to just leap from one example to the next as if they were equally comparable.

Having made the above points, I feel like I am in a position to begin to talk about power, especially as it exists in relationship to violence. In my next post, then, it is likely that I will address this matter. I look forward to hearing thoughts from others and exploring the depths of these matters with you all. For now, feel free to respond to the thoughts above (in a civil manner). Grace and peace. -TMWH