Following his overall method, Hays begins this chapter with what he calls the descriptive task. This is where he attempts to identify what particular passages of the New Testament had to say on the issue in question (original meaning). In this chapter he focuses in particular on Matthew 5:38-48, the love your enemy part of the Sermon on the Mount. He argues against several interpretations out there with regard to the original scope of these words. So...
- Matthew does not treat this material as an impossible ideal. The wise man does these things (Matt. 7).
- This is not an interim ethic, since Matthew 28 anticipates that the end of the age may be some time off.
- The Gospel of Matthew never advocates violence in defense of a third party, such as one of those with Jesus tries to do in the garden.
- Matthew applies these words to the disciples (beginning framing) and the crowds (ending framing). They do not apply to just a special class of Christians like ministers.
- Matthew knows nothing of "our inevitable failure to be able to do these things simply is to show us our need for grace."
- And even if Horsley were right that Jesus were just speaking to peasants in Galilee about fighting with their neighboring villages, Matthew universalizes the teaching--and it is Matthew as Scripture that is normative for the church, not some hypothetical reconstruction of Jesus.
Next, Hays performs what he calls the synthetic task, which is something like what I call integration. He goes through various other biblical texts to see how unified it may be on the topic at hand.
Here he concludes, first, that the NT is uniform on this issue. Whether another gospel, Acts, Paul's writings, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, even Revelation, Hays finds no justification for going to war, self-defence, or even acting with force for the sake of another. Rather he finds that Christians are to submit to persecution in hope of God's ultimate vindication.
First, I mostly agree with him on the OT. When the NT and OT are in conflict on an issue, the NT trumps. So to the extent that the Sermon on the Mount and Jesus' love ethic stand in conflict with OT warring, the NT wins.
I slightly disagree with him, however, in the sense that the OT addresses matters of governance, while Jesus and most NT texts deal with a position of disempowerment. I have not found any of Hays' arguments to alter my sense that this fundamental distinction must be factored into the discussion.
I personally suspect that he and others like him have also over-reached in their reading of the NT as well. For example, when Paul mentions that rulers are appointed to administer justice, Paul approves of this role (which would include a tacit support of capital punishment). I draw the implication that, although it would involve significant modifications, Paul the Christian would also administer forceful justice if he were in political power.
Hays also recognizes that the mention of Christian soldiers in the gospels and Acts is a potential weak point. He responds by lumping them in with tax collectors and prostitutes. But in their cases, the gospels indicate that they should stop the sinful aspects of their "jobs." When John the Baptist indicates what these might be for soldiers, he does not tell the soldiers to stop being soldiers. He tells them to be content with their wages and refrain from extortion. He gives no indication that soldiering is intrinsically unchristian, as Hays believes. This seems to me fatal to a thoroughgoing pacifist interpretation of the NT.
In my opinion, the obvious need for governments to enact justice--at times in a forceful way--was so obvious to most of the NT authors that it was an underlying assumption, revealed by these anomalies in Hays' position. The reason they do not come to the fore is precisely because the NT world was a thoroughly disempowered world.
By the way, Hays also integrates with three primary lenses: community, cross, and new creation (ecclesiology, soteriology, and eschatology). A nice touch, I think. He finds these to support a pacifist position as well.
Hays third phase includes more of what I would put in the category of integration and then a running of the issue through tradition, reason, and experience. He calls it the hermeneutical task.
First, he finds unanimity in all the biblical modes. Explicit rules prohibit violence. Biblical principles would preclude violence. Narrative paradigms do not model violence. And the symbolic world of the NT does not include struggle with flesh and blood.
It is, of course, in the category of tradition, reason, and experience that Hays finds the strongest arguments against his position. Since Augustine the consensus of Christendom has supported the appropriateness of war under certain circumstances (just war theory). Reason and experience of course strongly tell us that the person/nation that does not defend itself is a person/nation destined to be annihilated, barring some deus ex machina (which seldom arrives).
Common sense would also say that defending someone else fits well with love of one's neighbor, even if it involves forcibly stopping an agressor. To be sure, the unloving run miles with these "inches." But abuse is no excuse. It is a diversion of topic to try to undo a truth by what abuse someone else might do with that truth.
Hays cannot listen, for "extrabiblical sources stand in a hermeneutical relation to the New Testament; they are not independent, counterbalancing sources of authority" (341). So despite the fact that "this way is sheer folly" (343), we are called to have "simply obedience to the God who willed that his own Son should give himself up to death on a cross."
Certainly we must admire this level of obedience, and fundamentalists should recognize that he considers this element of NT teaching far clearer than its teaching on divorce and remarriage, homosexuality, or abortion. As I've said above, I don't think the NT integrates nearly so neatly as Hays suggests. But Hays is more right than wrong to be sure.
The final phase living the text is clear given what has preceded. Do not resort to violence for any reason, including self-defense of individual or nation or to protect others.
15 comments:
While I do think there are problems with the strict pacifist position (if an intruder breaks in your house and tries to rape your wife, you have no right to use force on him), a more destructive mindset is the one held by a large percentage of modern day Evangelicals that comes pretty close to glorifying militarism.
In the second October edition of "The American Conservative" my piece focused on how Evangelicals supported the recent war at a higher level than any other demographic group in the country. They remain some of the staunchest defenders, even though those numbers have dropped a bit in the past four years. This almost seems to go hand in hand with dispensationalism which believes its prophetically inevitable for more and more wars, that anything in the Middle East is related to Bible prophecy, and that peace in these regions is really something from the antichrist, not Christians. You'll also find this hyper-nationalism amongst many triumphalist postmillenialists, but their numbers are much smaller.
Where you do have a "just war" its usually a lesser of two evils, and with modern warfare it's almost impossible to practically implement Augustine's tenets. Therefore, I think prevention is the key. Just Warriors love to harp on World War II, but WW2 would have never happened without the first Great War, which was a collosial waste of time, lives, and property. All so the Great Powers could slice and dice their empires. That gave us the conditions that led to the rise of Hitler and Stalin. We certainly came to a point where there was probably no other option (though I don't agree that nuking Japan was a necessity), but did it have to? That should be our point of reference for the future.
Of course, according to the modern and belligerent doomsday prophets like John Hagee, Bible prophecy demands we bomb Iran. Couple that with a hyper-patriotism that makes one an American before a Christian and not vice versa and you have a recipe for something that in my opinion does not resemble the NT ethic.
It's interesting that Hays wrote this chapter before the current Iraq war. Certainly this war did not fit the criteria Augustine or Niebuhr set down. It was a war of choice rather than one of necessity. It was not a last resort. It will be a textbook case in the future for why not to attack pre-emptively (you know, just in case your facts are wrong, like some sense that this country has weapons of mass destruction they're about to use on you or something). It will be a textbook case also on the importance of probability of success--that has to include what is likely to happen after shock and awe.
Like I said, Hays is more right than wrong. And most of the Christian warmongering has nothing to do with Christianity.
I would add that the commitment to "freedom" is the "main" issue for Americans, Christian or not. Identity for Americans is their individuality. And I believe that God did make us unique and individual so that the individual could make a difference for the social groups one is connected to. Not only is our identity threatened, but also our way of life and that calls for defense. That is self=presevation in a fallen world. While I agree that war is never the "perfect response", it is inevitable, not because of eschtology, ecclesiology or any other "theological" term, but because of the very fact, that diversity is a part of creation. Diversity can only exist within the context of a free society. So, therefore, I disagree that there are not "other" reasons for self-defense for a nation. Even tribal societies war for self-presevation and THEY do not allow for diversity for their identification is tribal. THAT I think is worse, in the sense of freedom of the individual's development (made in God's image). Angie Van De Merwe
Common sense would also say that defending someone else fits well with love of one's neighbor, even if it involves forcibly stopping an agressor.
It does make sense, but in so doing one makes the qualitative choice that the life of the aggressor is less valuable than the life of the person being defended (or at least that the aggressive act necessitates this qualitative judgment). In other words, we choose to suspend "loving our enemy" for the sake of our ties to the endangered person (whether they be familial, political, nationalistic, religious, etc.). It is here that I think we must admit that in order to do so we must appeal to a standard outside of the Gospel and person of Christ. We say, "But it's the only reasonable thing to do;" "It's loving to use violence to defend another." These arguments appeal to standards besides Christ.
If we see in the cross not just atoning value, but an ethic of Christian discipleship then we are hard pressed to suspend our love for our enemy on any account. We cannot appeal to familial relations because Christ redefines those. We cannot appeal to political or nationalistic relations, because Christ's kingdom demands our ultimate political allegiance. We cannot appeal to religious allegiance because every human being is a potential partaker of the new covenant. And we cannot appeal to the cross because in the cross we see nonresistant love perfectly manifest.
I'm not saying the position of non-violence is a "knock-down drag-out" position defined by the New Testament (especially considering you are far better equipped to comment on the ethical values of the NT than I am :) ). But it does seem we do not find a perogative for the justified use of violence in the NT, and instead must reach for extra-biblical justification.
War is inevitable? Humanely speaking, yes, I'd agree. But I think it's problematic to have the presupposition from the get-go that the standards Christ gave for us are "unrealistic" and not for this world. As far as I can tell, the NT ethic is not just some otherworldly pie in the sky ideal, but here for us now and today. Also, plenty of wars in history could have been avoided or were completely unnecessary. Also, I'll leave it to others to decide if the current war is a fight for our "freedom" and "way of life." Things are a bit more complicated than that, and even using Just War criteria, this just never measured up. But without getting on a side tangent, I think most of us would agree there are times when some sort of force is something that can't be avoided or at least is the lesser of two evils. But I'd like to we could learn from our past mistakes and also have the hope and power of Jesus Christ to live up to the teachings the New Testament on issues of war and peace, revenge and retaliation, and love for God's creation here and abroad.
Ben, It would definitely be difficult to justify self-defense biblically. The same goes for force against someone aggressing toward someone else (although I think I might be able to give it a shot, no pun intended).
Important for me is to distinquish justice from love. I don't think "eye for eye; tooth for tooth" is unloving de re. It's actually what is deserved.
Also in the case of an aggressor in the act, there is no question of what justice might be.
But, like I said, it is difficult to argue this individually. My main exception to Hays has to do with the application of justice governmentally. How could we even have police if we pursued this line of thought to its logical conclusion?
Two thoughts. I'm not sure any of the teaching of the NT has a "Christian State" in mind and so it can be hard to take a personal ethic and apply it to a nation.
I don't think violence is good, or admirable, or Christ-like. If I was walking down the street and I say a grown man beating up a 12 year old girl I wouldn't think twice about laying the guy out cold and would be more concerned about answering to God for not loving my neighbor (the little girl) than for supposedly not loving that little girl’s enemy. That being said if I was the guy being so heinous as to beat up a little girl I would hope someone would love me enough to beat my $#% silly in order to stop me from doing wrong. Maybe it’s not just a matter of loving someone enough to defend them but loving someone enough to stop them that we need to consider.
Aj, the problem there is that when it comes to war, a lot more is going on then an innocent little girl being defended. For example, in the 90's, an estimated 500,000 children and eldery people died because of economic sanctions on Iraq. These did little to harm Saddam Hussein, their intended target, who continued to build more and more palaces in his honor. A similar situation can be seen in Cuba where sanctions hurt the innocent, not the people in power. In war, thousands upon thousands of people die because of disputes between two governments. This does't even include the many more innocent non-combatants die because they happen to live or cross through the line of fire. In today's terms we call them "collateral damage" so as to remove the emotional effects of hordes of dead innocents.
People learn to hate each other because their leaders tell them the other side is the "enemy." Well, we desposed and then killed Saddam, but how many other people on both sides have had to die as well? And look at the execution of Hussein. Even if you accept capital punishment, that whole thing was a fiasco and was driven by hate-fuled revenge, not justice. If our leaders want to act primitive and uncivilized, then they can go back to fighting in duels. I choose not to enable or support their militarism.
urgrpI think there needs to indeed be a distinction in what is a personal ethic, and what is a national ethic. I believed we were talking theoretically, as Ken's blog suggested, instead of about "this" war. If we are talking about "this" war, yes, I agree there has not been a consensus on methodology in approaching "this" enemy. But, just as Jesus himself found it impossible to reason with the religious (he withdrew himself, until the time appointed), I believe it is impossible to reason with "these" enemies. Unless an act of God,i.e. revival, happens there is no other recourse, for our "enemy" has not left open any other way to protect the values of "life", liberty and justice for "all". Do you want to "believe" that our enemy will not take any means of destroying their "enemy", i.e.us? There are biological, chemical means avaiable to them now, that could destroy our crops, transportation...etc....and that would leave us defenseless to pursue any worthy goal as worship of our Creator. It is not wise to be without "oil" (no pun intended) when our enemy is "at the door". If we do close our eyes to "evil" then we inevitably will become the victims of our captors. And, then, we will not have the freedom necessary to worship, evangelize, dress, buy and/or sell as we know it today. Which is of greater moral value? Liberty or Life? Without liberty, is life worth living???? And is it moral to have no "choice"?
Bill, I didn't have war in mind when I made that comment just violence as a concept. I wasn't trying to set up a metaphor, it was meant to be and actual example. I'm not into war. Shoot - I'm Canadian, we don't want to fight anyone and nobody wants to fight us. I do think it's ironic that you point to the damage done by economic sanctions as that is the type of action many pacifists would prefer to armed combat. I think any war, even a well fought war for an honorable end is still and ugly, hellish mess. I have no interest in fighting my enemy but I think sometime's its right to fight for your neighbor. Some would say that's why we are in Afghanistan and not Iraq. Others would say we are chicken. Both are probably right.
Angie - the idea that freedom is necessary or even beneficial to the Church has little historical support. If there was a war Jesus would. If there was any war Jesus would clearly be against it would be a religious one
Just War with modern day weapons is pretty much impossible, right (See Yoder's "When War is Unjust")? So has Christendom come up with a new Just War theory that fits modern weaponry better? (Hauerwas would argue that even WWII wasn't "just" because we demonized the enemy and desired their extermination, instead of desiring their surrender).
How is the new evangelical majority (the poor, darker-skinined, African, Asia, Latino) handling issues of war and peace? This might be more important (the future Christendom) than our haggling :)
Ken, this whole discussion in squarely in your area of specialty. What do evangelicals do when we come to reject the plain teaching of Jesus that is no longer applicable or reasonable in our world? Answer: we turn to your discipline. Luckily your discipline provides for us the tools to come out on such things wherever we want to... ;-)
You might argue that it's only when I start trying to do theology that things go squishy... :-)
Chris, John, are you out there???
I really appreciated The Moral Vision of the New Testament -- glad to hear you're reading it -- Excellent grist for reflection
Post a Comment