On Christian Pacifism, pt. 2
[As I said, I intend to create my argument for CP by answering some of the more frequent questions I hear. I will however take the time to answer Joel's specific question from the last post next, it is a follow up to this post, but I feel this post wouldn't nearly settle anybody's mind (especially mine) when it comes to his question. For now though...]
As Doyle asked, what do you do in the case where you need to defend yourself? The question I had planned was similar, what if your (insert loved one here) was/is being attacked? Either way, we see a sort of existential question here, a question that, I believe, finds its answer in the Biblical motif of the Kingdom of God.
The Biblical motif of the Kingdom of God does not find its roots in Jesus, nor does it start with the anointing of Saul. The motif of the Kingdom of God finds its roots in Adam. It could (and should I would contend) be said that the original task of humanity (ADAM) was to be priest-kings. Genesis 1 sets up the kingly motif, where God builds a kingdom and then sets Adam (humanity) in it to have dominion over it. Genesis two sets up the priestly motif, where God creates a temple in that Kingdom and sets Adam in it in order to cultivate it, to grow it through out the kingdom. (More on that in the next post) For now, look at (in a new window) Genesis 1:26-30). Terms that should jump out are dominion, subdue, given to you, etc. These terms are terms used with kings and kingdoms throughout the Scriptures.
In "The Kingdom of God", Geerhardus Vos argues that eschatology, the doctrine of the last things, precedes soteriology, the doctrine of our salvation. I completely agree and would like to add, therefore eschatology precedes ethics. What does that have to do with the Kingdom motif in Genesis? Well, it forces us to ask the question, what was the God's original goal for Adam (humanity)? The answer is rest. The eschaton of creation was (and is) to be a humanity that has subdued and cultivated the earth into God's temple-kingdom, filled with his image-bearers, reflecting God's glory in every corner and sharing with God in eternal Sabbath rest. Put a little more confessional, the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever. This is achieved in a Kingdom of God that fills the earth with God's rest. Now, fast forward a epoch. Adam (is it clear yet that I'm equating Adam with all of humanity) has failed in bringing forth the Kingdom unto Sabbath rest, therefore he has been cursed. His task has been made impossible. Enter Jesus, the seed of the woman, the second Adam and with him a radical proclamation "REPENT! For the Kingdom of God is at hand!" Biblical scholars pretty much agree that Jesus inaugurates the Kingdom on earth, but I would like to modify that statement by saying that Jesus inaugurates the consummation of the Kingdom that Adam was originally created to advance. Jesus inaugurates the eschaton and, as the perfect Adam, guarantees its fulfillment. Therefore, the end result of Jesus' kingdom is the same as Adam's, because it is the same Kingdom! So as I said before, eschatology precedes ethics. That is to say that any ethic that would be called "Christian" must conform to the Christian eschaton, Kingdom. So in some ways, the eschatology and ethic of Christians are the same, "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." [After reading this a second time, I would like to say that this most likely will be the heart of most of my arguments in the next couple posts]
So we see Jesus inaugurate a Kingdom eschatology, "The Kingdom of God is at hand." He then spends the majority of his life teaching the ethic of this Kingdom. The most obvious thesis coming in the sermon on the Mount accounts in where Jesus simultaneously teaches us how to live and what the Kingdom will look like. All of this is to say that I do believe that since Constantine, something catastrophic has happened. The church has traded building THE Kingdom for building a kingdom. The ethics and the politic of the Kingdom of God has become wedded to the ethics and politics of whichever kingdom was most powerful in the West. It's easy to say that individualism and self-preservation are ideals of the enlightenment, but I think the truth is they are the ideals of the kingdoms of the world, or as Augustine put it, the city of man. Easier still, would be to say that these are ideals of America which has imposed itself on Christianity when the truth is that these are the ideals of the city of man and that America is, simply put, the greatest model of humanism, liberalism, and materialism (I mean these all in their classic understandings) today. So the question becomes when we divorce ourselves, as Christians, from the ethos of the world and look only to the example of the King, how are we to act? (more specifically in this case with regards to self-defense) You must then answer a few more specific questions:
What is the general ethos of the world today? I would argue that the great guiding principle of the post-enlightenment world is individualism. That individualism is characterized by self-preservation and self-prosperity. That individualism is already, at its core, opposed to the creative order imposed by God wherein it is not suiting for man to be alone. Further still, the precipitate ethics of self-preservation and self-proseperity find themselves in direct contradiction not only to the teachings, but the life of Jesus and His Kingdom. As it turns out, whoever would seek to save his own life would lose it. Jesus, when attacked and hated, retaliated not by force, but by the way of suffering and the cross. Jesus lived and died the command to love your enemies.
Pacifism and non-violence when a loved one has been placed in danger is, however, a wholly different matter. The command is to turn your other cheek, not someone else's. Self-preservation is out, but what of the preservation of another. This is one that presents, for me, the greatest amount of existential doubt. To be honest, I don't know how I would react, God forbid, if the rubber was ever forced to hit the road on this one. Right now I think my reaction would be one of violence, but I don't always react the way I ought, and the discussion at hand is one of oughts. I find my only case for pacifism under this circumstance in Jesus' reaction to Peter in the Garden. For Peter, still unaware that Jesus would need to be the suffering servant before he became the triumphant King, the lesson learned was that even when the one you loved was being attacked, live by the sword, die by the sword. It comes as no coincidence that Paul later calls the word of God a sword. It seems that we have two means we can live and die by. We can choose the sword of the world or the sword of the Spirit. The Kingdom ethic is that we ought always choose the sword of the Spirit. We are working towards a peaceable Kingdom (eschatology). The only way we can do that is by peacemaking (ethics) especially in the most counter-intuitive situations.
As Doyle asked, what do you do in the case where you need to defend yourself? The question I had planned was similar, what if your (insert loved one here) was/is being attacked? Either way, we see a sort of existential question here, a question that, I believe, finds its answer in the Biblical motif of the Kingdom of God.
The Biblical motif of the Kingdom of God does not find its roots in Jesus, nor does it start with the anointing of Saul. The motif of the Kingdom of God finds its roots in Adam. It could (and should I would contend) be said that the original task of humanity (ADAM) was to be priest-kings. Genesis 1 sets up the kingly motif, where God builds a kingdom and then sets Adam (humanity) in it to have dominion over it. Genesis two sets up the priestly motif, where God creates a temple in that Kingdom and sets Adam in it in order to cultivate it, to grow it through out the kingdom. (More on that in the next post) For now, look at (in a new window) Genesis 1:26-30). Terms that should jump out are dominion, subdue, given to you, etc. These terms are terms used with kings and kingdoms throughout the Scriptures.
In "The Kingdom of God", Geerhardus Vos argues that eschatology, the doctrine of the last things, precedes soteriology, the doctrine of our salvation. I completely agree and would like to add, therefore eschatology precedes ethics. What does that have to do with the Kingdom motif in Genesis? Well, it forces us to ask the question, what was the God's original goal for Adam (humanity)? The answer is rest. The eschaton of creation was (and is) to be a humanity that has subdued and cultivated the earth into God's temple-kingdom, filled with his image-bearers, reflecting God's glory in every corner and sharing with God in eternal Sabbath rest. Put a little more confessional, the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever. This is achieved in a Kingdom of God that fills the earth with God's rest. Now, fast forward a epoch. Adam (is it clear yet that I'm equating Adam with all of humanity) has failed in bringing forth the Kingdom unto Sabbath rest, therefore he has been cursed. His task has been made impossible. Enter Jesus, the seed of the woman, the second Adam and with him a radical proclamation "REPENT! For the Kingdom of God is at hand!" Biblical scholars pretty much agree that Jesus inaugurates the Kingdom on earth, but I would like to modify that statement by saying that Jesus inaugurates the consummation of the Kingdom that Adam was originally created to advance. Jesus inaugurates the eschaton and, as the perfect Adam, guarantees its fulfillment. Therefore, the end result of Jesus' kingdom is the same as Adam's, because it is the same Kingdom! So as I said before, eschatology precedes ethics. That is to say that any ethic that would be called "Christian" must conform to the Christian eschaton, Kingdom. So in some ways, the eschatology and ethic of Christians are the same, "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." [After reading this a second time, I would like to say that this most likely will be the heart of most of my arguments in the next couple posts]
So we see Jesus inaugurate a Kingdom eschatology, "The Kingdom of God is at hand." He then spends the majority of his life teaching the ethic of this Kingdom. The most obvious thesis coming in the sermon on the Mount accounts in where Jesus simultaneously teaches us how to live and what the Kingdom will look like. All of this is to say that I do believe that since Constantine, something catastrophic has happened. The church has traded building THE Kingdom for building a kingdom. The ethics and the politic of the Kingdom of God has become wedded to the ethics and politics of whichever kingdom was most powerful in the West. It's easy to say that individualism and self-preservation are ideals of the enlightenment, but I think the truth is they are the ideals of the kingdoms of the world, or as Augustine put it, the city of man. Easier still, would be to say that these are ideals of America which has imposed itself on Christianity when the truth is that these are the ideals of the city of man and that America is, simply put, the greatest model of humanism, liberalism, and materialism (I mean these all in their classic understandings) today. So the question becomes when we divorce ourselves, as Christians, from the ethos of the world and look only to the example of the King, how are we to act? (more specifically in this case with regards to self-defense) You must then answer a few more specific questions:
What is the general ethos of the world today? I would argue that the great guiding principle of the post-enlightenment world is individualism. That individualism is characterized by self-preservation and self-prosperity. That individualism is already, at its core, opposed to the creative order imposed by God wherein it is not suiting for man to be alone. Further still, the precipitate ethics of self-preservation and self-proseperity find themselves in direct contradiction not only to the teachings, but the life of Jesus and His Kingdom. As it turns out, whoever would seek to save his own life would lose it. Jesus, when attacked and hated, retaliated not by force, but by the way of suffering and the cross. Jesus lived and died the command to love your enemies.
Pacifism and non-violence when a loved one has been placed in danger is, however, a wholly different matter. The command is to turn your other cheek, not someone else's. Self-preservation is out, but what of the preservation of another. This is one that presents, for me, the greatest amount of existential doubt. To be honest, I don't know how I would react, God forbid, if the rubber was ever forced to hit the road on this one. Right now I think my reaction would be one of violence, but I don't always react the way I ought, and the discussion at hand is one of oughts. I find my only case for pacifism under this circumstance in Jesus' reaction to Peter in the Garden. For Peter, still unaware that Jesus would need to be the suffering servant before he became the triumphant King, the lesson learned was that even when the one you loved was being attacked, live by the sword, die by the sword. It comes as no coincidence that Paul later calls the word of God a sword. It seems that we have two means we can live and die by. We can choose the sword of the world or the sword of the Spirit. The Kingdom ethic is that we ought always choose the sword of the Spirit. We are working towards a peaceable Kingdom (eschatology). The only way we can do that is by peacemaking (ethics) especially in the most counter-intuitive situations.
Labels: Christian Pacifism
posted by Shaun Cross at 10:58
3 Comments:
"eschatology precedes ethics. "
I'm having a hard time with this. In the begginning, from the first day to the seventh, God looked at his creation and called it good. This is a God, before sin, who is good, claiming that that which is from him is good. So, it seems to me that God is Ethic and thus precedes eschatology.
Had Adam never violated the early ethic (neglecting Eve to the Serpent and then eating the fruit) there would be no need for eschatology because it would have been fulfilled. However, if there is no ethic, there is no need for an eschatology because nothing is good, everything is as it is. So how do you create an a-ethical eschatology?
I'm finally caught up on your CP posts. Just wanted to tell you thanks for writing this all out in words that those of us who aren't attending RTS can understand. I'm enjoying the enlightenment, if you will, that I am receiving from reading this "series." There are definitely some things I hadn't thought through all the way before. So thanks.
Sorry to not have responded earlier to any of this... the internet at my house is flaky at best. I'm at a coffee/tea/wine house which is pretty cool, but anyway...
Ryan, a fair question and think that I might clarify a little by saying "post-fall" or "redemption" ethics are preceded by eschatology. Theres more I'd like to say about God and ethics, but I think it would muttle up this discussion so perhaps later when I look at a post-modern apologetic.
Post a Comment
<< Home