The Prince of Peace was a Warrior, Too

[Poly]

The Prince of Peace Was a Warrior, Too
By JOSEPH LOCONTE


WASHINGTON

Everyone, it seems, wants Jesus on his side. Nutritionists publish books with titles like "What Would Jesus Eat?" Environmentalists issue policy statements asking "What Would Jesus Drive?" With talk of war, we're now hearing "How Would Jesus Vote on Iraq?" ? assuming that he were a member of the United Nations Security Council.

A growing number of religious leaders have decided that Jesus would veto a war against Saddam Hussein. Back from a fact-finding trip to Iraq earlier this month, a delegation from the National Council of Churches said it harbored no doubts: "As disciples of Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace, we know this war is completely antithetical to his teachings." The Christian Century magazine, quoting from the Sermon on the Mount, has criticized military action by warning that "he who hates his neighbor is in danger of hellfire."

Religious liberals are making the same mistake that often bedevils religious conservatives: They're grossly oversimplifying the Bible. It's true that Jesus put the love of neighbor at the center of Christian ethics. Forgiveness, not vengeance, animates the heart of God, offered freely to any person willing to renounce sin. But the Christian Gospel is not only about "the law of love," as war opponents like to put it. It's also about the fact that people violate that law.

That's why Jesus talked a great deal about punishment, and the moral obligation to oppose evil with a strong and swift hand. Human evil must be confronted, he said, not merely contained. Depending on the threat, a kind of "pre-emptive strike" or judgment against evil might even be required: "Be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matthew 10:28). Allow the darkness to roam unchecked, Jesus said, and it will devour individuals and entire regimes. That helps explain why in the New Testament we see the Son of God rebuking hateful mobs, casting demons into the abyss, chasing religious charlatans out of a temple with a whip. "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth," he said. "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" (Matthew 10:34).

Ministers have always invoked the example of Jesus to judge the morality of United States military action, but not always with their eyes open. The Rev. Ernest Fremont Tittle, a Methodist leader during World War II, insisted on American isolation even after Hitler's war machine had ravaged most of Europe and threatened Britain. Jesus "does not try to overcome evil with more evil," Mr. Tittle argued. "I can see only ruin ahead if the United States becomes a belligerent in Europe or in Asia ? ruin for us and for all mankind."

Like Mr. Tittle, many of today's war critics hail Jesus as "the Prince of Peace," while forgetting that the Bible also calls him "the Lion of the tribe of Judah," the one "who judges and wages war." In itself, that's not an argument for a pre-emptive strike on Baghdad. But it's a good reason for a little more humility among the apostles of diplomacy.


--Joseph Loconte, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, is a commentator on religion for National Public Radio.

 

[drbrumley]

Poly,

Good Article! I just want to comment it if I may.

Everyone, it seems, wants Jesus on his side. Nutritionists publish books with titles like "What Would Jesus Eat?" Environmentalists issue policy statements asking "What Would Jesus Drive?" With talk of war, we're now hearing "How Would Jesus Vote on Iraq?" ? assuming that he were a member of the United Nations Security Council.

This is sad but true!

A growing number of religious leaders have decided that Jesus would veto a war against Saddam Hussein. Back from a fact-finding trip to Iraq earlier this month, a delegation from the National Council of Churches said it harbored no doubts: "As disciples of Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace, we know this war is completely antithetical to his teachings." The Christian Century magazine, quoting from the Sermon on the Mount, has criticized military action by warning that "he who hates his neighbor is in danger of hellfire."

That is poposterous!

Just got to love how these people totally miss the context.

Religious liberals are making the same mistake that often bedevils religious conservatives: They're grossly oversimplifying the Bible. It's true that Jesus put the love of neighbor at the center of Christian ethics. Forgiveness, not vengeance, animates the heart of God, offered freely to any person willing to renounce sin. But the Christian Gospel is not only about "the law of love," as war opponents like to put it. It's also about the fact that people violate that law.

That's why Jesus talked a great deal about punishment, and the moral obligation to oppose evil with a strong and swift hand. Human evil must be confronted, he said, not merely contained. Depending on the threat, a kind of "pre-emptive strike" or judgment against evil might even be required: "Be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matthew 10:28). Allow the darkness to roam unchecked, Jesus said, and it will devour individuals and entire regimes. That helps explain why in the New Testament we see the Son of God rebuking hateful mobs, casting demons into the abyss, chasing religious charlatans out of a temple with a whip. "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth," he said. "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" (Matthew 10:34).

Ministers have always invoked the example of Jesus to judge the morality of United States military action, but not always with their eyes open. The Rev. Ernest Fremont Tittle, a Methodist leader during World War II, insisted on American isolation even after Hitler's war machine had ravaged most of Europe and threatened Britain. Jesus "does not try to overcome evil with more evil," Mr. Tittle argued. "I can see only ruin ahead if the United States becomes a belligerent in Europe or in Asia — ruin for us and for all mankind."

Like Mr. Tittle, many of today's war critics hail Jesus as "the Prince of Peace," while forgetting that the Bible also calls him "the Lion of the tribe of Judah," the one "who judges and wages war." In itself, that's not an argument for a pre-emptive strike on Baghdad. But it's a good reason for a little more humility among the apostles of diplomacy.

The rest of this was excellent! Outstanding job by the author demonstrating good points destroying the reckless ideology of the church as of late.

 

[Pilgrimagain]

While I realize that violence is sometime unavoidable I can't help but think this particular thrust and rush to war with Iraq is not well thought out. Certainly if we can ignore North Korea, whom we have an active military front with already and who has nuclear launch capability and weapans of mass destruction in the open , then we can spend some more time thinking about Iraq.
But as I said on the "State of the Union" thread, there's no oil in Korea. Also, Korea never embarassed Bush Sr.

 

[servent101]

For me I see myself doing the one person at a time thing to improve the condition of the world. I loose the argument and win the person... something I am good at... seems to work for me. What am I talking about? Well Jesus would go to Irac and agree with Saddam and then Saddam would say you are an intelligent man what other knowledge do you have... then Saddam would recieve the Good News and then realize what a bad person he was and change His ways... store up treasure in heaven not in the palace.

 

[beanieboy]

How many people did Jesus kill while he was here on earth?

None.

 

[o2bwise]

Just Follow The Lamb Everywhere He Goes

Just Follow The Lamb Everywhere He Goes

He who lives by the sword falls by the sword.

Israel was perfectly protected when she had no swords and retreated from Egypt. Yes, God worked with Israel when she used the sword. He works with all erring human beings who exercise some faith, "Lord I believe, help Thou mine unbelief."

Wesley, as one example, wrote of being miraculously spared when attacked by others. He did not lift a sword.

To support provocation against another nation is to walk in a manner inconsistent with how Jesus walked. If a nation were THAT consecrated, it would be seen that it would reap plentiful blessings for the entire world.

We just can't see that because of our unbelief.

 

[Goose]

Re: Just Follow The Lamb Everywhere He Goes

Re: Just Follow The Lamb Everywhere He Goes

Originally posted by o2bwise
Just follow the Lamb Whereever He Goes

Even into battle.

Rev 17:14 "These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him [are] called, and chosen, and faithful."

 

[o2bwise]

Other Options

Other Options

Hi Goose,

There is a kind of battle that may seem subtle, but is the most concrete of them all.

Goose, consider what happened to Judas when he killed himself. WHAT was his adversary? Consider the lost at the end of time. They pray for rocks to fall on them. WHAT is their adversary?

All of us have temporal life, in part, because God has (in love) provided a VEIL. A veil from what? A veil from seeing our own moral state. I believe the way God "does battle" is He simply shows the lost how good He is for it is THAT mirror which exposes one's moral state.

This exposes the sin which crushes the lost and causes them to "pull a Judas."

When God has a people that follow the Lamb everywhere, He will have a house fully built on the Rock. That house will survive the exact same storm as will hit the house built on the sand (an unveiled revelation of the love of God).

One house stands. The other house falls.

Battle over.

 

[aikido7]

Jesus says "love your enemeis," "pray for those who despitefully use you," talks about the Father sending His rain and sun on the evil and unjust as well as on the good and righteous, plaintively asks "Who made me a judge," teaches us not to judge but to keep our hearts open, includes all people when he calls God "your father in heaven," teaches that all those who make peace and love their enemies are "sons of God" and teaches in parable after parable about God's absolute forgiveness.

Either he said it or he didn't.

I believe he did, and I believe he meant it!

I suspect Loconte is looking down the well of the New Testament and seeing his own reflection.

 

[Goose]

Aikido,

Was Hitler evil?

 

[aikido7]

Originally posted by Goose
Aikido,

Was Hitler evil?

No, not fundamentally (gasp!). But he did some profoundly evil things. BTW, I don't subscribe to the Augustinian doctrine that mandates "sin" is passed on through male sperm.

And next to Jesus of Nazareth, I believe as a Christian that no one else is as righteous in my cultural mileiu. All of us miss the mark.

It is all well and good to say "over here is good" and "over there is evil" and if we could just get all the evil people together and destroy them we would have no more problems. It's a natural human trait. Violence has been the "social norm" for about 8,000 years, when a myth evolved that the world was created by a heroic, virtuous male god who defeated an evil female goddess. From that point on, we've had the image of the good guys killing the bad guys--and that has evolved into "retributive justice"--the notion that there are those who deserve to be punished and those who deserve to be rewarded.

Not every culture has been exposed to it but, unfortunately most have.

The historical figure of Jesus, like a lovely spring rain, turned this notion on its head by astounding parables and verses like "love your enemies" or "the Father causes his sun to shine on the bad and the good, and sends his rain to fall on the just and the unjust."

Destroy evil? It sounds good, but it comes from a lack of imagination. Most compassionate people and mystics from all faiths know that the line between good and evil runs down the center of every human heart. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?

 

[Goose]

Goose:Was Hilter evil?
Aikido: No. Everyone is evil.
Goose: ?

 

[aikido7]

Originally posted by Goose
Goose:Was Hilter evil?
Aikido: No. Everyone is evil.
Goose: ?

I pray that your understanding of Jesus is better than your understanding of my last post. No wonder you end with a question.

I used to live in Texas, and when they would execute somebody there, the good Baptist students from the local college would gather outside the prison and have a party. When the word came over the loudspeaker that the convict had been killed, there was loud cheering and chanting--the same kind of cheering that went on in some parts of Palestine when they found out about the September 11 terrorist attacks.

When you have a concept of justice based on good and evil, in which people deserve to suffer for what they've done, it makes violence enjoyable.

We are a mixture of good and evil--we all have that potential as Jesus pointed out in Matthew. The trick is to encourage the good, provide healthy and functional strategies for meeting our underlying needs. The scarey part: figuring out and then being able to express those underlying needs.

In a healthy, functioning way.

 

[Goose]

Originally posted by aikido7


I pray that your understanding of Jesus is better than your understanding of my last post...

Let's see your understanding of God.

I used to live in Texas, and when they would execute somebody there, the good Baptist students from the local college would gather outside the prison and have a party. When the word came over the loudspeaker that the convict had been killed, there was loud cheering and chanting--the same kind of cheering that went on in some parts of Palestine when they found out about the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Equating the death of a wicked murderer to the death of innocent people is perverse. It's not the same kind of cheering. Why pervert justice?

Luk 23:41 "And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss."

Eze 13:19 "...You profane Me among My people killing people who should not die, and keeping people alive who should not live..."

When you have a concept of justice based on good and evil, in which people deserve to suffer for what they've done, it makes violence enjoyable.

Are you saying God is wrong for seeking justice?

We are a mixture of good and evil--we all have that potential as Jesus pointed out in Matthew. The trick is to encourage the good, provide healthy and functional strategies for meeting our underlying needs. The scarey part: figuring out and then being able to express those underlying needs.

In a healthy, functioning way.

You just told me we all are evil. How bout God first loved us, and that's how we know love. We, by ourselves our incapable of salvation.

 

[aikido7]

Originally posted by Goose
Let's see your understanding of God.[/i][/b]

I don't have as much "an understanding" of God as I do a relationship with Him. Like all relationships, it waxes and wanes. Generally I see God as the Very Ground of Being out of which our many different human ideas of "God" come from.

Equating the death of a wicked murderer to the death of innocent people is perverse. It's not the same kind of cheering. Why pervert justice?

I can understand your confusion, Goose. Try and widen your view to understand that the Palestinians who cheered in the street saw the thousands who died in New York as wicked and murderers. My point is that both sides see their own system as "fair and just" because they both believe that both kinds of people ("good" and "evil") deserve what they get. I am sure that a rabid fundamentalist on the Palestinian side would also see a "perversion of justice" and a marked difference in our own cheering. But we are all humans. The sound of the cheering is the same and it comes from the same source. We just usually don't have the compassion to look far enough. And being human, neither do they.

May God continue to give some the compassionate understanding to criminals as he gives to them. God first loved them, and that's how they knew love. Men and the world came between that love and shut it down too soon. May God give us the discernment to try and follow Jesus in untangling these horrible webs from people's hearts.

Luk 23:41 "And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss."

Eze 13:19 "...You profane Me among My people killing people who should not die, and keeping people alive who should not live..."

Are you saying God is wrong for seeking justice?

God--as Jesus revealed Him--is beyond human good and evil, justice or injustice.

You just told me we all are evil.

Again, you misunderstand. I have miscommunicated and I cannot figure out how else to get it across. It is getting kind of late for me here.

How bout God first loved us, and that's how we know love. We, by ourselves our incapable of salvation.

Amen!

A lot of our confusion comes out of linear, literal, propostional theology which only reinforces our dualistic black/white good/evil way of seeing reality. I believe Jesus saw another reality (the Kingdom--or Rule--of God) and that's why he used parables in his teaching. In fact, doesn't Matthew say he taught "everything" in parables?

Parables, by their very nature, point beyond the literal and dogmatic. Their function is to subvert our "conventional wisdom" about how the world works.

 

[cynder]

Requirements for a just war

Requirements for a just war

Forgive me for not including references (Biblical or otherwise). It is late and I want to share my thoughts before prayer and sleep.

There is currently a lack of consensus among Christian theologians regarding the morality of pre-emptive war with Iraq. I have neither heard or found convincing evidence in Scripture in support of pre-emptive military action. Instead, the question of morality seems to revolve around whether the conflict with Iraq satisfies the requirements of just war doctrine.

Briefly, legitimate defense by military force requires:

1) damage inflicted by the (in this case, potential) aggressor must be significant and lasting.

2) all peaceful means of conflict resolution must be exhausted.

3) success must be certain.

4) just war cannot produce greater evil than it eliminates.

While it is unlikely that Iraq could attack US soil directly, it is possible that Americans overseas could be threatened. Also, the weapons of mass destruction produced by Iraq (and N. Korea, but that is a discussion for a different thread) could be given to terrorists who would attack the US directly. This satisfies the first requirement.

There is little doubt that weapons inspections have failed to fully disarm Iraq thus far. On the other hand, it is the opinion of the Chief UN weapons inspectors that progress is slow but consistent. In addition, former Chief UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter has stated several times that prior to being forced to leave Iraq, weapons inspectors had successfully destroyed 95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, effectively disarming Iraq completely. It does not appear that the second requirement for just war has been met as of mid-March, 2003.

There is no question that the US would win a war with Iraq, regardless of whether it was unilateral or through a coalition of nations. The third requirement is satisfied.

A significant number of people have stated that multiple negative effects may result from any war waged against Iraq, but particularly unilateral pre-emptive war. These effects are manifold, and include a surge in anti-Western Islamic fundamentalism. It is unclear whether the fourth requirement for a just war has been satisfied.

I remain unconvinced of the morality of pre-emptive war.

 

[Hank]

Originally posted by Goose

Equating the death of a wicked murderer to the death of innocent people is perverse. It's not the same kind of cheering. Why pervert justice?

One of the problems with understanding this entire conflict is that Americans tend to think this started with 9/11. There will never be a solution that is acceptable to both sides until as a nation we realize that out government took sides long before 9/11.

 

[Jefferson]

Re: Requirements for a just war

Re: Requirements for a just war

Originally posted by cynder
I remain unconvinced of the morality of pre-emptive war.

cynder: Welcome to TOL. If you had a neighbor who has attacked and killed some of his neighbors in the past and has publicly stated he wants to kill your family and other neighbors of yours, don't you think you would have the right to pre-emptively stop him?

 

[Hank]

Re: Re: Requirements for a just war

Re: Re: Requirements for a just war

Originally posted by Jefferson

cynder: Welcome to TOL. If you had a neighbor who has attacked and killed some of his neighbors in the past and has publicly stated he wants to kill your family and other neighbors of yours, don't you think you would have the right to pre-emptively stop him?

You don't have the legal right in the US if you are talking about killing him.

 

[cynder]

pre-emption

pre-emption

Jefferson,

Thanks for the welcome.

"If you had a neighbor who has attacked and killed some of his neighbors in the past and has publicly stated he wants to kill your family and other neighbors of yours, don't you think you would have the right to pre-emptively stop him?"

Absolutely.

I can see why my comment was confusing. Allow me to clarify: I remain unconvinced of the morality of this pre-emptive war.

I don't believe that diplomatic measures were exhausted prior to the inception of the current conflict. I am also concerned about potential fallout from the conflict, including the results of turning away from international alliances such as the UN and NATO.