peter@yetti.UUCP (Runge) (04/06/85)
*** REPLACE THIS MESSAGE WITH A BETTER LINE ***
At this time of year, the radio and TV remind me through news stories
of ceremonies in Rome and Jerusalem and through Biblical movies on the
"Late Show" that many, many of my neighbors feel themselves to be Christians
in a Christian country (whether Canada where I live, or the US where I grew up),
and, as at every Easter, I am struck with bewilderment at what they profess
to believe.
Is it really part of Christian belief that in order to resist (or conquer?)
a different culture which is hostile to Christian faith and perhaps hostile
to all other cultures, Christians ought to threaten to destroy mankind, and to
invest their country's wealth at an ever increasing rate in the production
of weapons of mass-destruction?
Is the Crucifixion then a symbol of what we ought to do to ourselves? If so,
then why do Christians celebrate Easter, which is, as I understand it, a triumph
over death?
If not -- if massive, horrible death at the hands of our brothers (and hence
at our own hands, in a sense) is not what the Crucifixion symbolizes, then
why are we told daily by our leaders (almost all Christian, as far as I know)
that this is what we as a society should make ourselves capable of?
What did Jesus teach that leads my Christian neighbors to support the
development of the means of global death and the sincere threatening of
global death? Or is it that Christianity as a religion is not deeply concerned
with this issue? Is it then the message of Easter and the resurrection that only
after we are dead (individually or as a species?) does religion really matter?
(I know that some Christians are not "on-side" with respect to developing
more weapon systems and threatening global annihilation,
but they are obviously a minority -- a deviant group. I am more interested
in understanding the majority, mainstream view of the Christians who support
Reagan and Weinberger and the American "defense" budget.
Explanations of the connection between the faith of this majority and their
views on arms and nuclear "war" whether by mail or by posting will be
gratefully received. If you send me mail on this topic, please let me know
if you permit me to comment on your response in a further posting.)
--
* *Our* universe is not merely bankrupt; there remains
* no dividend at all; it has not simply liquidated; it
* is going clean out of existence ...
* H. G. Wells, 1945hedrick@topaz.ARPA (Chuck Hedrick) (04/09/85)
The early church is believed to have been almost completely pacifist. However this obviously changed when Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the empire. Many Christians feel this was the greatest disaster to hit the church. During the middle ages, there was a lot of discussion of this topic. As near as I can figure out (and I am certainly no expert), the church decided that some wars had to be fought. However they tried to limit war in several ways: - it had to be "just". Typically this meant it couldn't be aggression on your part, but most be protecting your citizens - there were limitations on attacking civilians, on handling wounded, on when fighting could be done, etc., to try to keep some humanity present. Some of these limitations are now seen as silly, but it was was sincere idealism I think, at least in the beginning. The Crusades introduced the abberation of the war for God. It is easy to understand how this could happen. A war to recover the holy land is "obviously" just, and when dealing with pagans, the limitations that the church enforced on wars between Christians would not apply. I do not want to defend the Crusades, but I should point out that only in the last few centuries has the idea of toleration of a divergence of views become really widespread in the West. (Hinduism seems to have had it for some time. Presummably also Buddhism, but I don't claim to know Eastern religions.) The idea of the holy war is not unique to Christianity. Indeed Christians found it in the Old Testament, and it was also practiced by the Moslems (who also found it in the Old Testament -- begins to sound like a pattern, doesn't it?) Nor do I see any consistent toleration or systematic nonviolence in the other major source of Western culture, Greek culture and philosophy. It seems to me that this ideal simply wasn't there. If the Church changed anything, (1) it added some idea that there should be limitationns on war among Christians and (2) it gave people something to believe in that was important enough to make them want to fight the infidels. The first large-scale pacifism in the West seems to me to have started in the Reformation. The Left Wing of the Reformation (currently represented by the Mennonites and Amish) invented the idea of the "gathered church". That is, they believed that there should not be a State church, but the church should include only committed Christians. They also attempted to restore the ideals of the Early Church, which they saw as having been corrupted when the Church became an official religion. These were considered both politically and theologicallly dangerous, and were persecuted by both Church and State. However they seem to have acted as the Biblical "leaven", and slowly but surely their ideas have permeated much of Christianity, particularly in countries that believe in separation of Church and State. But this victory is by no means complete. I believe at the moment, you will see all 3 major trditions in the Churches in the U.S.: - the Medieval idea that wars are necessary to contain evil enemies, but that violence must at least be justified and limited to the minimum necessary. - the idea of the Holy War against the infidel - full pacifism Traditionally, most of the major churches have held the first position, with tinges of the second (particularly in conservative churches). A few churches, mostly those associated with the Left Wing of the Reformation, have held the full pacifist ideal. Currently the leadership of most non-fundamentalist churches hold relatively liberal ideas on war. They are generally in favor of pushing the U.S. government to do something about disarmament much stronger that what is currently being done. Several churches have official positions of this kind (I know of a statement by the Episcopal church), and several are undertaking church-wide studies of peace (the Presbyterians). In general the membership of these churches are not unanimously behind this effort. A number of conservatives are also now becoming concerned about peace. Given that the early church was pacifist, and that the conservatives tend to think of themselves as the inheritors of the Left Wing of the Reformation (i.e. the Anabaptists), there is historical precedent for this. So far, I suspect that only a small fraction of conservatives have followed this lead. In general, those who favor current U.S. policy do it reluctantly, because they see no other good choice. There is a growing feeling that deterrence is morally wrong. It is an attempt to restrain a group of leaders by threatening the lives of a large number of innocent bystanders. Indeed Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative is a result of this realization. You may have cynical views of Reagan's intent in proposing it. You may not believe it will work, and you may also believe it will be destabilizing. But I think the only reason it would get any widespread support is because it is an attempt to find something other than deterrence. The reason why some Christians in the U.S. continue to support nuclear weapons is that they see the Soviet Union as threatening the world with war, and they see a nuclear deterrent as the only practical way to stop them. Many of the opponents of this view differ from it, not on religious grounds, but in political judgement. That is, they do not see the Soviet Union as a potential aggressor. It is very hard to separate the essentially political issue (your assessment of the threat from the Soviet Union) from religious views. Many "liberals" seem to be convinced that the conservative fears of the Soviet Union are so obviously groundless that they must be a smoke- screen for some inherently aggressive intent. I think this is wrong. I do not know any Christian who wants war. I do not know any Christian who is comfortable with the idea of massive retaliation as a national policy. I do know Christians who believe that if we drop this policy, the world will be overrun by evil. *Given that belief*, Christian tradition does supply justification for continuing the current policy. So currently I see roughly 4 groups in the Church: - those who support a nuclear deterrence because they believe it is the only approach - a group who also support deterrence as a current policy, but consider it untenable as a long-range policy and are actively looking for alternatives - a group who believe that nuclear disarmament, or at least large reductions in nuclear arms, is practical, and support it. - true pacifists, who would like us to resist evil nonviolently. Generally the third group differs from the first two primarily in a non-religious way: i.e. in their assessment of the political realities between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. The fourth group may in principle agree that the Soviet Union is evil (though in practice they generally do not), but want us to resist evil with good.
hedrick@topaz.ARPA (Chuck Hedrick) (04/10/85)
In my first response to this I tried to give a brief historical review of Christian attitudes towards war. Now I would like to mention a couple of specific traditions in this area. First, it seems clear to me that pacifism is the most obvious interpretation of the New Testament. Turn the other cheek. Love your enemy. It is easy to support non-violence from the NT. And indeed there are certainly Christians who take all of this seriously. It is my impression that they are a minority. But they do interesting work. There have even been some discussions of what a non-violent defense would look like. Apparently it was tried against the Nazi's in WWII in one place, with some success. However I have only seen references to this. I haven't read any details. (Does anyone know more detail?) I am not referring to people who let the Nazis roll over them. I am talking about a concerted attempt to meet them with love, and to resist their evil nonviolently. This is clearly in the tradition of Gandhi and Martin Luther King. If you take this position with ultimate seriousness, you would say that we should allow the Russians to conquer us and then resist nonviolently. (If indeed they would do so -- the other hope is that it takes two to make a conflict, and if we disarmed, the Russians would in fact not conquer us.) The hope is that it would result in a real victory, i.e. turning evil into good. This is something that we can't hope for using violent methods. I think many people are simply afraid that this is not "practical". There is a concern that successful non-violence might require an almost unanimous commitment by the victims. Some people also feel that it requires a certain basic level of humanity on the part of the aggressors. One often hears the comment that Gandhi's approach worked because he was dealing with the British, but that if he had tried it against the Nazis, his group would have gotten blown away. However I believe there is a growing realization that non-violence is a basic Christian position, and even if we can't use it immediately to solve the arms race, we should be trying to expand the sphere in which we can apply it. The mainline Protestant tradition takes a somewhat different approach. While it is admitted that individuals must turn the other cheek, this may not apply to officials. The idea is that there are certain offices what are ordained by God, such as parent and magistrate. I don't have here a full exposition of the Biblical authority behind this, but 1 Pet 2:13-14 and in some indirect sense Mark 12:17 testify to the legitimacy of the magistrate's authority. (Jesus' cleansing of the temple, although not directly relevant here, can also be cited as justification of the use of force by an authorized person.) When this is combined with the definite theocratic ideals of the OT, it is easy to come up with the idea that magistrates are appointed by God to maintain order. One of the responsibilities of the ruler is asserted to be protecting innocent people from being harmed by aggressors. So while it might not be acceptable for you to defend yourself, it is acceptable to defend someone else, particularly when you are acting as a magistrate. This concept of the magistrate shows up in both Lutheran and Reformed theology. As a typical example, what do you do if your ruler is a tyrant? Several of the Reformers would answer that the ruler is ordained by God, so rebellion is not allowable, at least not when you are acting as a private person. However it is the duty of the lesser magistrates to curb tyranny around them. So effectively you could still have a revolution, but it would have to be carried out by some responsible authority. (There is something to be said for this historically, by the way. Revolutions have a tendency to get out of hand and make things worse. One reason why the American revolution seems to have resulted in less chaos than the French one is because in America what really happened is that the colonial governments continued to function. The lesser magistrates simply defended the people against the greater ones. We didn't have a total overthrow of the basic governmental structure.) The effect of this point of view is to bifurcate ethics, so that Jesus' ideals apply only between individuals. When dealing with governmental policy, the controlling principle becomes protecting your citizens using the sword which God has put in your hand. This seems to have been the dominant position in the mainstream of the Reformation. (As I mentioned before, the Left Wing was pacifist.) It is clear that there is still an ambivalence in Christianity about the role of the government and power. On the one hand, much of the NT and parts of the OT (particularly the Psalms) take it for granted that the people with power will always be evil and God's people will always be persecuted. It is very easy to derive an ethic of non-power from this. Indeed some people question whether we should be thinking of accomplishing goals at all. The ultimate in non-power is that we should simply do good, and trust to God to make things come out right. On the other hand, there is a strong theocratic ideal. Our goal is to bring God's kingdom about on earth. The Puritans were one of the stronger representatives of this view. Their ideas were quite influential in the early days of the U.S., and continue to be now. I confess that I see attractions to both of these positions.
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (04/11/85)
> (I know that some Christians are not "on-side" with respect to > developing more weapon systems and threatening global annihilation, but > they are obviously a minority -- a deviant group. I am more interested > in understanding the majority, mainstream view of the Christians who > support Reagan and Weinberger and the American "defense" budget. > Explanations of the connection between the faith of this majority and > their views on arms and nuclear "war" whether by mail or by posting > will be gratefully received. Is Christianity really the culprit here? Indeed, the violent tendencies of many christian societies from the past have supplied a vast arsenal for Christianity's critics. How could any sane person want to be associated with the same religion that brought you the 4th Crusade, the Inquisition, the rape of the Third World, pogroms, the persecution of Galileo, slavery, et cetera ad infinitum? Accordingly, many have rejected Christianity and substituted a purely scientific viewpoint, perhaps with the belief that the source of evil was to be found in the Christian faith. Does this new belief stand up to critical analysis? I don't think so. Death, torture, and nuclear holocaust are as much the product of atheistic societies as they are of christian ones. Today's nuclear nightmare was in existence before the rise of the current fundamentalist movement. And one could argue, as was fashionable in the 60's, that technology is reponsible for the evils of the world today. Some prefer to blame all anti-Humanists -- this includes the Political Elite and their followers, the Rigid Conformists, international corporations, machinelike technocrats, ambitious executives and their wives with dishwater hands, not to mention certain reactionaries who, hoping to return to Simpler Times, would impose Old Time Religion and Blind Patriotism on their brethren. Perhaps that covers enough people to include Reagan & Co., the makers of Wonder Bread, and the power structure in Russia. -michael
peter@yetti.UUCP (Runge) (04/14/85)
The responses I have received to my posting have definitely helped me to understand at least some aspects of the relationship between Christian faith and the possibility of global annihilation. There appear to be a number of Christians who hold what I believe is called a "millenial" view (since it was very common in the century prior to 1000 AD) -- that the end is nigh; Christians should await it with acceptance and joy, because they will be spared its horrors. Obviously this is not a majority view -- the Consumers Price Index or the GNP would have no meaning or interest if it were. However, it is a view which at least relates to Christian teaching in an understandable way and does not duck the nuclear issue. My guess, based on responses such as Hedrick's (discussed below), is that the majority of Christian Americans (including perhaps Reagan and maybe even Weinberger -- although the latter's greater technical understanding makes that less plausible) reconcile their faith with support for nuclear deterrence and American "defence" policy by shutting out the fundamental features of our situation from their consciousness. This is in sharp contrast with the millenial view which sees much more clearly the true scope of global destruction. Before responding to some details of Hedrick's article, I should make clear that I appreciated it very much and learned a number of things of which I was not aware. Had I asked a different question, it would have been even more useful to me. > However this obviously changed when Constantine made Christianity the > official religion of the empire. Many Christians feel this was the greatest > disaster to hit the church. I think it is highly unlikely that "mainstream" American Christianity feels this strongly about the concept of Christianity as an 'official religion'. If they did, why do American coins say "In God We Trust"? Why was "under God" added (in the 50's?) to the Pledge of Allegiance? It is possible that the leaders at the time intended thereby to assert that America was "officially" committed only to the existence of God, no matter whose, but I doubt it. I think only the Christians were interested in such state recognition. > > ... [The Church] decided that some wars had to be fought. However they > tried to limit war in several > ways: - it had to be "just". Typically this meant it couldn't be aggression > on your part, but most be protecting your citizens - there were limitations > on attacking civilians, on handling wounded, on when fighting could be done, > etc., to try to keep some humanity present. Some of these limitations are > now seen as silly, but it was was sincere idealism I think, at least in the > beginning. > Unfortunately, Christian theology on the subject of war seems quite irrelevant to our current situation. War is the use of organized violence to force another group or society to yield land, treasure, etc. or to prevent another society from taking land, treasure, etc. War has the objective of winning. But nuclear deterrence doesn't fit into the concept of war. The threat is at least in part that if one side takes certain actions, the other side will retaliate by destroying large parts of the world, with the distinct practical possibility of destroying all human life. (This is all explained much better in Jonathan Schell's book *The Fate of the Earth*.) The issue I was attempting to raise for Christians in the context of Easter was NOT the problem of coping with evil or violence or war from a Christian perspective. That is a very old problem and I leave it to others to assess how well Christian theologians, philosophers, priests and ministers have dealt with it. I was concerned with what I take to be a NEW problem, not considered in traditional Christian thinking: is it compatible with Christ's teaching in any sense (pragmatic, fallabilist, quietist, etc.) to threaten death on a global scale? to threaten that under certain circumstances this society would be willing to risk the annihilation of the species? to use a large part of its resources (at the cost of neglecting the poor, and the sick and the small children) to intensify the threat and make it even more all-consuming than it already is? > [Several churches] are undertaking church-wide studies of peace. > ... In general the membership of these churches are not > unanimously behind this effort. ... This is very confusing. Unanimity isn't really required -- how about a healthy majority? or is the implication to be drawn that American churches are deeply divided on the nuclear issue? If so, what position would those opposed to these "peace efforts" like to have the churches officially support? (I am not interested here in positions which are unrelated to Christian faith such as "don't protest against the manufacture of bombs, because a lot of people here in town work at the local bomb plant". I am trying to understand what alternative views to the peace movement are held by mainstream American Christians which bear some recognizable relationship to the deep, core beliefs of Christianity -- those beliefs which Christians would want non-Christians to share or become converted to.) > In general, those who favor current U.S. policy do it reluctantly, because > they see no other good choice. There is a growing feeling that deterrence > is morally wrong. It is an attempt to restrain a group of leaders by > threatening the lives of a large number of innocent bystanders. This begins to get to the point. The question it raises is the following: if deterrence is not a natural outgrowth of Christian values and may be, in fact, unsupportable on the basis of Christian values, then why is it supported at all? Perhaps Christians cannot imagine any alternative; even so, why support one you don't believe in? Doesn't that just remove the incentive to find a better and more Christian policy? (I don't think a 'lesser of two evils' argument will work here, because the mainstream Christian churches have never supported extreme violence such as armed revolution in the face of oppression or enslavement (think of the teachings of the Church to American slaves.) > Indeed Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative is a result of this realization. > You may have cynical views of Reagan's intent in proposing it. You may not > believe it will work, and you may also believe it will be destabilizing. > But I think the only reason it would get any widespread support is because > it is an attempt to find something other than deterrence. > There is a great deal of evidence to show that SDI is not intended to replace deterrence. It is intended to protect missiles which could be destroyed in a first-strike, thereby increasing the deterrent threat of retaliation. If it were, in fact, capable of providing a shield against Soviet missiles for American *cities*, then it would be obviously destabilizing, since the Soviets would have no way of deterring a first-strike on the part of the US, and the US is on record that it would consider a first-strike to deter aggression by Soviet conventional forces against Europe. In either case, I do not understand the connection between support for SDI and Christian values. The situation is still that American society is dedicating itself to improving its ability to threaten to blow up the world (SDI is not replacing MX missiles. Does anyone sincerely believe it ever will? That would be unilateral disarmament, to which the US is opposed.) Is this goal of American society legitimate for mainstream Christians or not? If not, why do they support it? if not, how is it related to Christian values? (I take it for granted that the enormous moral significance of making threats on this scale guarantees that Christian thinking must take account of it, but perhaps I am wrong on that point.) > The reason why some Christians in the U.S. continue to support nuclear > weapons is that they see the Soviet Union as threatening the world with war, > and they see a nuclear deterrent as the only practical way to stop them. This sounds plausible, but it might simply mean that some Christians disconnect their practical actions from their religious beliefs, which is understandable but surely not defensible on religious grounds. That is to say, a person might support deterrence on practical grounds, on game-theoretic grounds, on economic grounds, etc., but given what's at stake, are there religious reasons for believing that what the US is doing is what it as a society ought to do? If mainstream Christians have such religious reasons, what are they? > I do know Christians who believe that if we drop this policy, the world > will be overrun by evil. *Given that belief*, Christian tradition does > supply justification for continuing the current policy. At this point, I feel very stupid and un-understanding. Surely the world is already "overrun" with evil. Is that not an essential part of Christian theology? If not, why would baptism be important? What worse evil (in the religous sense, NOT in the sense of economic oppression or censorship) is it that justifies (in Christian tradition) 'the current policy'? Is this JUST the 'lesser evil' argument which any atheist can use to justify any action? -- Peter H. Roosen-Runge, Department of Computer Science, York University Toronto (Downsview), Ontario * *Our* universe is not merely bankrupt; there remains * no dividend at all; it has not simply liquidated; it * is going clean out of existence ... * H. G. Wells, 1945
cb@hlwpc.UUCP (Carl Blesch) (04/16/85)
> Perhaps that covers enough people to include Reagan & Co., > the makers of Wonder Bread, and the power structure in Russia. I'll bet ITT is glad they sold Continental Baking (makers of Wonder Bread). Now they're off the hook! Carl Blesch