More Moral Than God, Part 2 (last)

You may wonder what motivated me to bring ‘religion’ to a blog devoted to one soldier’s honest appraisal of a war against a religiously motivated enemy. I mean, isn’t one set of fanatical religious ideas enough of a problem? Why pour gasoline on a raging fire? What could I hope to accomplish by bringing Christianity to the discussion other than to renew the passions that resulted in the Crusades?
Actually, I hope and pray that this war never comes to that, not that it’s very likely it could. My reason, conscious or not, had more to do with what I regard to be the undermining of America’s effort to defend itself by purported Christian groups. My church, the Presbyterian Church USA, has taken the official position that the war in Iraq is "unwise, immoral and illegal". To the extent that this position influences its members and conflicts the conscience of soldiers and their families, it serves to work against America’s ability to defend itself from a proven dangerous enemy. This foe is intent on the destruction of non-Muslim nations as a necessary step toward achieving Muslim dominance throughout the world. That Christians would make themselves a liability to any nation wishing to defeat this evil (if you object to this terminology, see previous post), I believe, is to misrepresent God himself. In terms of the Ten Commandments, this falls under #3- taking the Lord’s name in vain (and you thought that one just applied to what you utter when you miss the nail and hit your thumb).

I ended the last post citing some teachings of Jesus that seemed to suggest he condemned all forms of war or even self-defense. I intended to begin this one by balancing those statements with others Jesus made that seem to suggest the opposite. Several commenters have done that for me. One of you astutely offered Matt.10:34, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword." Now, you don’t have to student of the Bible, let alone a New Testament scholar, to recognize that this statement seems at odds with what most everybody knows about Jesus. How can that statement not contradict Matt.5:9, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God." Perhaps you have better answers to that than I have but here are a few thoughts.
1) What does it mean to ‘make peace’? Have you ever gotten into a "fight" with a loved one that resulted in things ultimately being resolved for the better? Wasn’t that making peace by one party pulling out the sword? By analogy to the U.S. Civil War, who ultimately was the peacemaker- Lincoln or Lee? Both? Neither? (I don’t know the answer but my money’s on Lincoln).
2) Jesus was known for his acute awareness and promotion of "heaven". He continually asked his hearers to consider their "spiritual" or "eternal" life and not just their "physical" life. Which realm did he have in mind when he uttered these words? One, or the other, or both?
3) To what extent is Jesus using hyperbole? After saying that to look on a woman lustfully is to have committed adultery, he goes on to say that if your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. Good advice? Or is he using strong language to make a point? (Hmmmm, maybe that’s why God made me left-eye dominant.)
Its fairly clear from the context that when Jesus says we are to turn the other cheek, he is teaching that we are not to seek revenge, not that we aren’t to defend ourselves (or others). Paul seems to make this point in Rom.12:17-19 when he says "repay no one evil for evil" and also "never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God". Between these thoughts is found this, "If possible, so far as it depends upon you, live peaceably with all." Now sometimes ‘peace’ doesn’t depend on you, such as when your home is invaded and your family threatened, or when hijacked airplanes are flown into your office buildings. I’m sure many people want payback. I’ll be happy with deterrence. Unfortunately, the only way to deter some people is to kill them.
What other clues does the New Testament (the second half of the Christian Bible) give us? The story of the Good Samaritan, Luke 10:30-37, indicates that the suburbs of Jerusalem at the time of Jesus weren’t immune to violent crime. Even with big, bad Roman soldiers providing the Pax Romana. It might not have prevented his mugging, but the man in the parable might have benefitted from another bit of advice Jesus gave his disciples, about the time that it was getting dangerous to be identified with Jesus- "And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one." JESUS SAID THAT? Must’ve been hyperbole. Peter must’ve missed the nuance then because what do we find him doing in the garden of Gethsemane the night Jesus was betrayed? Packing heat! (John 18:10) Now its clear Jesus didn’t approve of Peter whacking off the guy’s ear, and it was nice of Jesus, according to Luke, to put the severed ear back where it belonged, but from the context, it’s clear Jesus’ anger with Peter was that he lacked faith in Jesus to believe that Jesus had the situation under control. Interesting, isn’t it, that if Jesus was the proto-pacifist, after 3 years of hanging with Jesus, Peter would still be carrying a sword?!?
One more consideration from a New Testament perspective which caught my eye several years ago when all this became more than a theoretical matter. Luke 3 tells us about John the Baptist, whom Jesus called "the greatest of those born of women." Given that John and Jesus were both teachers in the rabbinic tradition (that is, teachers of Torah, Jewish doctrine and law) its fairly safe to conclude a great similarity in thinking. Anyway, a soldier asked John the Baptist, "And what shall we do?" The question was asked in response to John’s admonition to "prepare the way of the Lord" by "bear(ing) fruits that befit repentance." John’s answer to the soldier was "Rob no one by violence or by false accusation, and be content with your wages." If doing what soldiers do, defending their nation by killing their nations enemies, was an offense in God’s eyes, surely John would not have said, in effect, ‘be a soldier but have high ethical standards." John recognized the need of a society for soldiers, just as a functional society needs tax collectors. Jesus, I believe, endorsed John’s answer, as did Luke in recording this and the early church in receiving this as Holy writ.
This brings me to my final argument. Most non-Christians, and I believe the majority of Chr.s, preeminently think of Jesus as kind of an extra-terrestrial who walked among Jews but taught like Plato. He is seen as ethereal, not truly connected to this world, and as one whose message was 99% heavenly/ 1% earthly. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Jesus was a Jew, born in the line of King David and therefore an heir to the covenant which God made with Abraham. The descendants of Abraham (the Israelites, later, the Jews) were not the Amish of today, or the Puritans of yesteryear or the Ascetics of ancient Greece. Though their covenant with God required a distinct lifestyle from the polytheistic cultures around them- they were still very much part of the world. They lived, moved about and participated within the same Mediterranean culture as their neighbors.
The culture that the Hebrews developed, practiced and refined was functional and had the strength to remain intact through the millenia against the forces of absorbtion and disintegration. It was founded on Moses and the Ten Commandments. It was a society that sought no conquest beyond the land promised them by God. It was rich in culture, in agriculture, in learning, in religious devotion, in the prizing of ethical behavior (if not always practiced) and in a highly detailed system of justice. It was very this-world oriented with actually only minimal regard for the afterlife (this was developed late by sects such as the Pharisees). The common dream of the Israelites was to have a vine and fig tree, to beat their swords into plowshares and to enjoy the mercies of God. It was as enviable a society, in concept if not in actuality, as history records.
But in a fallen world, violence abounds. To survive meant to protect oneself from wild animals, from marauding enemies without and from the criminal within. Killing was differentiated from murder early on (Gen.9:5-6). Family defended family (Gen.14, John 15:14). The Book of Judges is about the Spirit of God anointing individuals to conduct war for the preservation of Israel. In Ecclesiastes, Solomon says "to everything there is a season,.... a time for war and a time of peace." Israel had to take possession of the promised land by conquest. Usually the attacks were made by the Canaanites; after Joshua they often became agressive (preemptive). There was compulsory military service and a command structure to the military. [Could God have given them the land by other than violent means? Sure. Did he? No.]
It is the clear teaching of the Old Testament that God used violent defeat as a corrective for Israel’s waywardness. Seems harsh but without maintaining their covenant with God they would have ceased to be an identifiable people. Without taking up the sword they would have simply ceased to be a people.
Every writer of the Bible, certainly the O.T. but also the N.T. (which, for the Christian, are simply divisions of the same book), had a profoundly Hebraic perspective on life and the world. In other words, the O.T. is the foundation for the New. Therefore, the most important single source for understanding the N.T. is the Jewish Scriptures, the O.T.
The apostle, Paul, states that "the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body" (Eph.3:6). For Christian Gentiles, Israel’s history is their history. In the early Church, Jews and Gentiles claimed a common spiritual ancestry with the Hebrews of old.
Which brings me back to Jesus. Christians believe he was not merely a Jewish carpenter/rabbi, but a Jew he most certainly was. He knew Judaism like Tiger Woods knows golf. "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." One can find parallels in Rabbinic literature to a high percentage of Jesus’ teachings. Jesus was the first to say "You shall love your neighbor as yourself", right? Wrong- Leviticus 19:28.
There’s an historical reason why the early Christians- Jews and Gentiles- parted company with the Jewish community but it was not due to a rejection of them by Jesus. His repeated call for Jews to ‘repent’ was not a call to convert away from the ancestral Jewish faith but to become renewed and restored in God’s forgiveness within that same community. The major question confronting Peter, James, John, Paul and the 1st century Church was not whether Jewish believers in Jesus could belong to this new, Spirit-born community but whether Gentiles could, upon repentance from sin, belong to a totally Jewish community.
My argument is, you can disconnect Jesus from the Jews if you want to, but you’d be going against all the evidence. The role of the appropriate use of force in the preservation of the Jewish people, throughout its biblical history, is built into the warp and woof of its society. We would be hard pressed to know the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob if not for the Bible and the God we find therein, treats force in the suppression of evil as a necessity. It is beyond ludicrous to me, that Jesus would have any other view than that of his ancestral people and his Father, God. For followers of Christ today, to condemn this biblical precedent, is to me, the height of arrogance and a misguided attempt to be MORE MORAL THAN GOD.