I'm not sure how to respond to this firing of General Stanley McChrystal. There are several factors to consider.
On one hand, the UCMJ -- the rules that govern the military (which are in some ways unique to the military) -- is quite clear. Article 88 says, "Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct." As much as this may disturb Americans, the truth is that those who are on the front lines defending our freedom do not enjoy all the freedoms they are defending. One of the first freedoms you surrender in the military is the freedom of speech. You are regulated for a variety of reasons, and it is just a given. One of those regulations is this Article of the UCMJ. Did the general violate the rules under which he is allowed to operate? I don't think there is any question. Now, many are calling it "insubordination", but I don't think that's accurate. If he failed to carry out commands, he would be insubordinate. Nothing indicated that. But he did violate the military rules.
On the other hand, the rule is equally specific. The general "shall be punished as a court-martial may direct". The general didn't get his "day in court". He was summarily dismissed, thank you very much, go away. No negative talk about this administration will be allowed. No questioning of the capabilities of this administration will be tolerated. Begone! And a decorated, four-star general who has served for some 34 years, who was credited with the death of Al-Qaeda's Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and who was leading an effective new offensive to clean up Afghanistan is gone. His career is done. Thanks for your service. Go away. What happened to the court-martial? What happened to due process? I mean, sure, sure, military members don't get freedom of speech and all, but do they also not get due process? I guess not.
The president is being touted as "decisive" by the media. Anything less than handing the general his head would have been flinching on the president's part. No, no, he had to go. No mere reprimand. No simple demotion. Generals cannot disrespect presidents. The whole thing is being compared to Lincoln's problem with General McLellan who refused his order to fight Robert E. Lee's army. That, by the way, is definite insubordination. (I loved the quote of President Lincoln when he fired the general: "If General McClellan does not want to use the army, I would like to borrow it for a time.") But that's a refusal to obey a command, obvious insubordination, and a failure on the general's part to follow the orders of the civilian government that commands him. That was not the case with General McChrystal.
The other parallel is interesting. The media is comparing this event to that of Truman and MacArthur. For those of us too young to remember and too short on memory from school to recall, MacArthur led the American forces in the Korean War. MacArthur had great success, but when he criticized President Truman's "limited war", he got into trouble. You see, MacArthur thought that defeating the enemy was the goal, but Truman thought that just stopping the fighting would suffice. MacArthur wanted to push communism out of Korea and Truman just wanted to stop North Korea from attacking South Korea. (Consider where we'd be today if that nasty little Kim Jong Il never had a country in which to take power.) Well, our system is civilian control of the military, and in that case again the president chose to eliminate the problem.
I bring all this up because there is a factor here that no one seems to be addressing. Should the general face discipline? I'd say "Yes." He violated the UCMJ. Should he be fired? I don't know for sure. Maybe. All of that is up for debate, and that's fine. But no one is asking, "Is he right?" The leadership in the Vietnam era successfully tied the hands of the military so that we failed miserably to accomplish the mission. The general is afraid that it's happening again. He is afraid that the leadership is ignoring the guys on the ground with the best view of what's going on. When he asked for more troops, he was reprimanded. (It worked in Iraq, but, hey, that was Bush -- bad.) The general aside, is the civilian leadership directing the military in Afghanistan incompetent? Are they tying the hands of the military to the point of producing certain failure? No one seems to be asking whether or not the general had valid concerns. The fact that he expressed them seems to have dwarfed that possibility. That's a problem.
51 comments:
The general "shall be punished as a court-martial may direct". The general didn't get his "day in court". He was summarily dismissed, thank you very much, go away.
I'm certainly no expert on military justice, but it certainly seems to be the case that according to the law you quoted, he should be court-martialled and it wouldn't really be much of a trial, since he clearly used "contemptuous words" against the President.
It appears that Obama showed some mercy and let him step down instead, a grace that McChrystal was probably glad to embrace.
Is it wrong for a president to show grace in this kind of situation? I don't know, I guess I don't see the harm in it.
Is there a bigger problem?
Yes. The belief in the myth of redemptive violence. The modern (and ancient) worldly view that IF we just use the right sort of violence and do so without regards to innocent human life, there will be good results from it.
But this myth is part and parcel of the popular religion of much of the world and it won't go away easily - even though these Bush wars are ample evidence to the fallacy of the belief.
One fella's opinion.
You are so funny, Dan. You assure us that it is wrong to be confident in things that are simply our own opinion, yet you state confidently that there is no such thing as "redemptive violence". The whole concept of a "just war" is nonsense and anyone who disagrees is, well, wrong. When the U.S. fought the Nazis in WWII, they were wrong because there is no such thing as "redemptive violence". When we responded to the attack on Pearl Harbor with self-defense, it was wrong because there is no such thing as "redemptive violence". Tacking on "One fella's opinion" doesn't make it sound less certain.
The "bigger problem" I asked about wasn't regarding the possibility that we shouldn't even have a military (which, for some reason, despite your views, you won't actually admit). It was whether or not the general's comments had merit regardless of the venue in which they were made.
(And, despite how I might feel, I think it is clear that the general needed to be court-martialed.)
I'm not sure the general ever said anything at all. I think it was his subordinates, so should he be court-martialed for what his subordinates did? Funny thing on this though, the president didn't dither.
Actually, the general himself made statements of disrespect for the President, but more so for the Vice President and the Ambassador to Afghanistan. Some of the negative statements were indeed by his staff, but he made his own contributions (and apologized for them).
I don't think President Obama would dither in eliminating people who speak out against him. Would you?
When the U.S. fought the Nazis in WWII, they were wrong because there is no such thing as "redemptive violence". When we responded to the attack on Pearl Harbor with self-defense, it was wrong because there is no such thing as "redemptive violence". Tacking on "One fella's opinion" doesn't make it sound less certain.
What of the evil uncorked from this "just war"? What about the horrendous, unspeakable act of genocide — the senseless slaughter of women and children and the state lying about it (Hiroshima, fire bombing) that overtly violated rules of war and for which officers of the losing side are judged by world courts and condemned to retributive punishment?
What does Jesus (and Paul) have to say about loving your enemy, blessing them that curse you, etc.… …repeatedly?
Casting that aside, let's look at the ethics of General McChrystal — how he carried out a coverup of the Pat Tillman affair and then intentionally deceived about his actions?
Naum: "What of the evil uncorked from this 'just war'?"
I'll ask the same question I was asking Dan Trabue. Is there no such thing as a "just war"? Is there never any reason whatsoever for a nation to take up arms against another nation? Or, to your question, is the fact that other evils will generally accompany a "just war" (using the term as it is typically defined in "just war theory") make the bearing of arms against another nation unacceptable, immoral, evil? (It would rationally follow that bearing arms against another person would be equally wrong, as in defending your home.) I mean, killing people is bad. Anyone who suggests otherwise is unclear at best. But is it your premise that under no cirumstances is it ever justified? (That was the thrust of the comments you were quoting that I made to Dan Trabue who assured us that the concept of "redemptive violence" was a myth.) Is it your view that the Bible demands absolute pacifism? If not, what?
Naum: "let's look at the ethics of General McChrystal"
I think I did say, and I quote, "I think it is clear that the general needed to be court-martialed." You think he should be more court-martialed?
(By the way, one might conclude that your apparent predisposition against any sort of bearing of arms would obviously bias you against anyone who bears arms, so I'm not sure how much it would make sense to discuss the ethics of any military member with you.)
Is there no such thing as a "just war"?
No. Not in my opinion.
As an aside - and to address one of your comments to me -I think you misunderstand my thoughts on being opinionated. You interpret my opinion on the matter as "You assure us that it is wrong to be confident in things that are simply our own opinion..." and I don't believe I've ever stated that. I have made it quite clear, I believe, that I AM pretty opinionated on many matters and I don't think I'm wrong to have opinions and to have them confidently.
My concern is when people make the mistake of having THEIR own opinions and having them confidently and moving to assuming that THEIR opinions = God's opinions. THAT is where I think we go astray. NOT in being confident in one's opinions or having strong opinions.
Moving back to your question:
Is there no such thing as a "just war"? Is there never any reason whatsoever for a nation to take up arms against another nation?
No, I don't think there is any such thing as a just war. In most wars (if not all), innocent people die. The death of innocents is an injustice. Thus, one can't have a Just War.
Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict) said...
There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a "just war."
IF the destructions and harm goes beyond the combatant groups, one would be hard-pressed to call the results "Just."
What some JW Theorists posit is that we might call an action a Just War IF the results of NOT going to war are more evil than the results of going to war. If NOT going to war would have even MORE evil results than going to war, then we might say that going into that war is Justified, in order to try to avoid more evil results. But there WILL be evil results when one engages in war.
I think that is a reasonable position, even if I disagree with it.
See General Sherman's quote:
I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation. War is hell.
That is an apt assessment from one who would know.
But to try to suggest that a war might be Just (as opposed to merely justified) is poor moral reasoning. Choosing a perceived lesser of two evils is STILL choosing an evil. We must never lose sight of that.
My opinion. Not God's. For what it's worth.
And, despite how I might feel, I think it is clear that the general needed to be court-martialed.
So, in your opinion, showing him some grace and mercy is not a good idea in this circumstance?
Dan Trabue: "So, in your opinion, showing him some grace and mercy is not a good idea in this circumstance?"
A good idea? The question in my ears is "When is it best to strip away a person's rights of free speech and due process?" That just nags at me. The suggestion on your end seems to be that firing him was "grace and mercy" and, more to the point, a court-martial has no capacity for either. (Is it, for instance, more gracious and merciful to summarily fire him or to demote him and move him to other duties? It's a question. I don't know.)
Oh, and FYI, people who believe that war can, on occasion, be justified still believe that "war is hell." Anyone who thinks otherwise has no concept of war. No sane person thinks war is fun, that war is just a dandy idea. I don't think it can ever rise above the level of "necessary evil". Still, I think, at times, that it is necessary. (And I arrive at that from Scripture as well as life.)
I don't think it can ever rise above the level of "necessary evil". Still, I think, at times, that it is necessary.
You are safely in the majority, then, and I am in the minority on this point, and we disagree. It happens.
Could you clarify something for me, please, then? If you think war may be a necessary evil, do you agree with me that war is then, in fact, evil? (or at least that it involves much evil, even if it is "necessary")?
Or put yet another way: If you think war is a necessary evil, then you think those who participate out of perceived necessity will participate in evil, albeit a "needed" evil?
And, if so, do you think that's something we ought to encourage one another to do, as Christians? To participate in evil?
I think likely even many anabaptists and Amish might agree that war is a necessary evil, it's just that they would not think that participating in evil is something we, as Christians, can actively do or encourage.
Dan Trabue: "Do you think that's something we ought to encourage one another to do, as Christians? To participate in evil?"
By carefully stripping away the descriptive "necessary", you have also shifted the meaning of the term "evil". Let me illustrate from the Bible. God says, "I am the LORD, and there is no other. I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things." That's from Isaiah 45, and it's the ESV Bible. The King James says, "I am the LORD, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." Now, assuming the statement is accurate (that is, it isn't some superstitious prehistoric idiot making up quotes from God that never happened), there are a few possibilities. One is that the ESV and the KJV disagree. Another is that the ESV and the KJV agree, but we have something of a 17th century language barrier. The third (obvious) possibility is that they agree ... in which case we need to figure out in what sense "calamity" and "evil" are the same. The easiest place to resolve this dilemma is in the original language. The term is rah and is defined as "bad or evil (naturally or morally), adversity, affliction, distress, harm". So, the term is indeed "evil" as long as you define "evil" as "that which causes ruin, injury, or pain; harmful" which may be either moral or otherwise.
When I said it is a "necessary evil", I mean that war is something that should be avoided because it is something that is evil because it causes ruin, injury, and pain, but that sometimes the ruin and injury and pain that it causes are necessary. By definition a "necessary evil" is "anything which, despite being considered to have undesirable qualities, is preferable to its absence". Since I don't believe in "necessary immorality", your question doesn't make sense to me.
Going back, then, to your question, do I think that we should encourage Christians to participate in things that, although these things may have undesirable qualities and may produce pain, Christians should still do, I would say, without a doubt, "Yes!" (In terms of war, I certainly would rather have Christians involved to moderate the "collateral damage" -- the genuine moral evil that so often occurs. Imagining war is difficult. Imagining war without a moral compass is horrific.)
The question in my ears is "When is it best to strip away a person's rights of free speech and due process?" That just nags at me.
The way you state that, it sounds like you suspect that McChrystal would have WANTED to be court-martialled and that he's being "deprived" of his rights. I suspect (or course, I don't know) that it's entirely reasonable that McChrystal had the option of "Would you like to resign or would you like to be court-martialled" and he chose resignation.
I doubt seriously that McChrystal is cursing Obama for "stripping" him of his "right" to be court martialled.
By definition a "necessary evil" is "anything which, despite being considered to have undesirable qualities, is preferable to its absence". Since I don't believe in "necessary immorality", your question doesn't make sense to me.
Okay, so you're defining "evil" differently than in standard English. You don't mean war is sometimes a "necessary immorality," you mean it's sometimes a "necessary calamity."
I think war is - AT BEST - a necessary evil, with "evil" having the standard English definition, not some other definition.
Thanks for the clarification.
I was using the standard English definition of the term, "necessary evil".
From the accounts I've read, he was not given the option to face due process. He was called to the White House and asked to offer his resignation. But I wasn't talking about what he would want. I was talking about the law. Fortunately no one is too overly concerned about the rights of the folks who are putting their lives on the line to defend our rights.
Fortunately no one is too overly concerned about the rights of the folks who are putting their lives on the line to defend our rights.
I'm not sure that you're getting my point, Stan. If we gave the general his "rights," he would be in jail. This was an act of charity and kindness on Obama's part, not taking away anyone's rights.
Now, I'm not sure that Obama was right to show mercy on the general and keep him out of jail, but it's hard to fault him for showing mercy.
It's like us and God. If we got our due, we'd be left out in the cold. But God has shown us mercy and grace.
It's hard to fault a brother in Christ for following God's example.
Is it your view that the Bible demands absolute pacifism? If not, what?
No.
Jesus does not call for nor exhibit "pacifism". Pacifism implies to run for cover, to duck your head in the stand. Jesus confronted his assaulters, and delivered peace and blessings back upon.
Instead, he speaks of and models a third way, non-violent resistance. Offering himself up as a living sacrifice.
Regarding "just war" philosophy (which is a Platonic Augustinian doctrine, with little, IMV, biblical basis) — I would be delighted if even that would become the model of nation relations. And, definitely WWII would fit that casus belli justification.
Dan Trabue: "If we gave the general his 'rights,' he would be in jail."
I asked earlier. I will read this as a confirmation that a court-martial has no capacity to either determine innocence or to show compassion. All courts-martial end in conviction and unkindness. Got it. Thanks.
Naum,
While I'm not using "pacifism" as you have defined it, you have answered my question. In your opinion, the only right thing for the United States to have done after Dec. 7th, 1941, would be to surrender or, at best, do nothing. God it. All clear. Thanks. (Interestingly, although you are quite clear that the Bible is not the Word of God as I use the term, you think that nations ought to submit to the commands of Scripture. Very odd.)
Stan...
In your opinion, the only right thing for the United States to have done after Dec. 7th, 1941, would be to surrender or, at best, do nothing.
While this was directed to Naum, I will just say that this is NOT what Just Peacemakers or many pacifists call for at all, and it is not what Naum seems to be talking about.
He mentioned quite specifically a Third Way (common vernacular in Mennonite writings, and, I'm sure, elsewhere): NOT running and doing nothing, NOT fighting death with death but facing violence with creative non-violent solutions (in Naum's example, he pointed to Jesus' living sacrifice, but this is not the only possible Third Way option).
I don't believe that Naum was suggesting we ought to have surrendered in WWII - quite the opposite is what I read in his answer. He can, of course, speak for himself. I'm just suggesting that perhaps you have misunderstood what he has said.
Dan Trabue: "I'm just suggesting that perhaps you have misunderstood what he has said."
I didn't say run or fight. I said to do as Jesus did -- surrender. When put on trial, He neither ran nor fought. He surrendered. (Of course, the concept of a "living sacrifice" like Jesus won't work for other humans, will it? I mean, He rose again. We don't.)
I'm not nearly as familiar with Japanese thinking in the first half of the 20th century, so let's look for just a moment at radical jihadist thinking in the 21st century. Throwing out fighting or running, what third option could we consider? What do those radical types (I'm using that term to differentiate from the normal, everyday, non-violent Muslims) want from us that we could provide without either fighting or running, without hiding or defending ourselves? Well, from what I've read, all they really want is our annihilation. It's based on the whole "death to infidels" concept. So ... what creative, non-violent solution could we offer? Looks like we could ... die. From what I've read about the Japanese thinking at the time of the the war, their thinking was quite similar. What do they want from America? Absolutely nothing. Should we assist China? Absolutely NOT. Should America aid Great Britain? By no means. The best of all possible non-violent options would be isolationism and hope they don't gain the capacity to reach out and kill us.
But maybe I'm missing something. Maybe you have some insights into the thinking of the kind of people who willingly fly bombs into ships or drive explosives into buildings that might provide alternative options -- creative, non-violent options. And on a smaller scale, I'm trying to figure out what I would do with a drug-crazed man pointing a weapon at my wife. If I had a choice between using my own weapon to save my wife or taking the time to figure out some creative, non-violent option, I'm not sure I'd want to risk her life that way. But, like I said, maybe you have some insights I don't.
@Stan,
1. You keep repeating this nonsense how I don't believe the Bible to be God's word! While I don't accept inerrancy (and no ancient interpreter regarded the Bible in that light, nor would it have even been possible for cultures deeply seeped in mythos to read it as such, but that's dialogue for another post), I do pronounce it true, and God-breathed/God-inspired.
2. Surrender in 1941? No. Again, you misconstrue and then proceed to a misleading caricature far removed from reality. My point was that Jesus did not (a) embrace violence OR (b) adhere to cowardly passivity but instead, (c) engaged the enemy in a "third way", offering himself as a living sacrifice. He challenged "the enemy", but on Godly terms, not in the tit-for-tat redemptive violence model, which is rooted in depravity and sin. Don't quarrel with me, take it up with Jesus — the Gospel (and Paul's letters, too, echo the sentiment) is clear on the matter. Sad how Christians choose to ignore those clear cut imperatives issued from the mouth of Christ, but eagerly extrapolate entirely tangential threads to conclude what they desire the text to say. Or take the text literally, and totally disregarding the cultural lenses and eardrums of ancient audiences.
Well, from what I've read, all they really want is our annihilation. It's based on the whole "death to infidels" concept. So ... what creative, non-violent solution could we offer? Looks like we could ... die.
As has been said: War is a failure of imagination. IF we presume our options are fighting and doing so as strongly (re: deadly) as necessary to win OR surrendering, then the only reasonable solution is fighting.
The myth of redemptive violence.
But we are NOT limited to two options. Whole books have been written about what we could do instead.
Check out Reza Aslan's book, "No God but God," for some good insights from a Muslim about how to "win" a cosmic war against fundamentalists (the short answer: Don't fight, don't participate, don't engage in a cosmic war - if you do, then you lose).
Or check out the Mennonites Third Way website and books.
http://www.thirdway.com/peace/
Or Glenn Stassen's Just Peacemaking books and articles.
As it is off topic and I've probably commented too much already today, I'll just let you read up on options yourself. The point is, we have MANY options, not just kill or be killed.
Stan...
The best of all possible non-violent options would be isolationism and hope they don't gain the capacity to reach out and kill us.
Very few peacemakers/pacifists would advocate such a position, in my experience. Again, that sort of thinking demonstrates a failure of imagination and determination and, too often (not saying in your case - but in the Bible and in the world today, too often), a lack of trust in God to deliver.
I seriously doubt the president fired the general out of any sense of compassion or mercy. He reacted on an insult to himself and his underlings, and he reacted in a way that would not weaken his position. Mercy for the general had no part in it. A court-martial could actually have been a good thing. In a court-martial, all the facts would have been heard and gone over, you know, like we do in a normal court, and his military peers would determine guilt or innocence and what his punishment should be. Court-martial doesn't automatically mean "you're guilty and we're just going to punish you". It would have been better for the president to set the general to his court-martial and let military justice do its thing.
Naum,
What I said was "you are quite clear that the Bible is not the Word of God as I use the term." In fact, I specifically stated it that way because I knew you would object if I said what you said I said. Now for more confusing phrases ... no, kidding.
"no ancient interpreter regarded the Bible in that light"
Nice to know you have information that no one in the history of Christianity has, since the history of Christianity has,as long as the question has been on the table, affirmed the source and, therefore, the inerrancy of Scripture. But, hey, I recognize that modern scholarship has discovered all sorts of things that no one knew before ... including what "ancient interpreters" thought.
What I find fascinating (coming from both you and Dan Trabue) is this notion that there cannot be "redemptive violence". The requirement for this to be true would either be that God in all the Old Testament was wrong a lot of the time, because the Old Testament has a lot of "redemptive violence" instigated by God, or the Old Testament can't be trusted ... you know ... mythos and all. If you say, "That stuff didn't actually happen as written", you are affirming what I claimed that so upset you about you not viewing the Bible as the Word of God as I use the term. If you agree that God actually instigated violence in the Old Testament, then you have to admit the fact of "redemptive violence".
You consider it an absolute given that the Bible forbids violence. Apparently you believe that this also ought to be the requirement of nations. You say we "eagerly extrapolate entirely tangential threads" and "choose to ignore those clear cut imperatives". You don't explain why Jesus told His disciples to take up swords or why Paul affirmed that the government "does not bear the sword for nothing".
And, of course, I'm not arguing with the Bible. I'm disagreeing with your interpretation of limited passages. Further, it is hard to remain passive in the face of your continued snide remarks. You know, it's "nonsense" what I believe, the suggestion that anyone with any intelligence would clearly see it from your perspective, that anyone who doesn't see it as you do is "sad", choosing to ignore the Bible and "eagerly extrapolate entirely tangential threads". No intelligent person looking at the Bible could disagree with you. So for my gross stupidity, I apologize. I'm clearly beyond help (you know, with my inane belief that the Bible is actually the God-breathed, inerrant word and all). Perhaps you should just give up on me.
David...
In a court-martial, all the facts would have been heard and gone over, you know, like we do in a normal court, and his military peers would determine guilt or innocence and what his punishment should be.
I'm not sure what "facts" you think would be forthcoming, but the facts in this case are that the general spoke disrespectfully of the president and vice president, the evidence would be the article and it would seem to me to be an open and shut case. Of course, I'm not an expert on military justice, but it seems like an open and shut case to me.
And if Obama wasn't acting in compassion, why WOULDN'T he have court-martialled the general? THAT would be the harsh thing to do. Obama would have nothing to fear in a court martial, as far as I can see.
It seems that some on the Right think "something" would come out in a court martial about Obama's policies or some such that would be embarrassing to Obama. I don't believe a trial of this sort would have anything to do with the policies. The evidence would be the article and the words speak for themselves...
Dan Trabue: "The myth of redemptive violence."
And, how do you deal with the violence in the Bible, especially the violence instigated by God in the Old Testament and Jesus in the New Testament? What is your explanation for Paul's praise of the government bearing swords for good reason? The Bible isn't vague in the Old Testament. God clearly and repeatedly used human armies as a means to discipline. Indeed, the Flood wasn't even a human army. It was God's own act. Other such "acts of God" are littered throughout, including disease, snakes, earthquakes, fire and brimstone ... you know, lots of violent stuff. The biblical account often lists them as judgments from God ... quite specifically "redemptive violence". Your view?
Dan Trabue: "
It seems that some on the Right think 'something' would come out in a court martial ..."
Haven't heard that one. Didn't even think it. Seems like most (on all sides of the argument) are ignoring Obama's policies.
Would you favor removing the rights of citizens (like "due process"), or is it just for the military?
Stan asked...
how do you deal with the violence in the Bible, especially the violence instigated by God in the Old Testament and Jesus in the New Testament?
Do you really want me to deal with this off topic question? It seems you tire of me writing and so I hesitate, but since you asked...
I believe we've covered this before, but we agree, I think, that it is VERY important to strive to understand the context something was written in in order to understand the Truths we might learn from it.
The Bible was written in many different styles and using many different writing devices and techniques. There is poetry in the Bible, there are proverbs written in a traditional proverb format, there are songs, there are parables, there is hyperbole, stories, etc, etc.
Given the time period the Bible was written in and that these stories of God commanding the slaughter of whole peoples (children included!), these stories seem to be fairly obviously written in an Epic format, telling grandiose stories that use fantastical imagery, not necessarily literal history.
It would be a mistake, I think, to take a story where God commands Israel to wipe out all the men, women and boys, but to bring home the virgin girls/women (what ever age) and make them their wives... to take that story as representing how God likes for us to deal with our enemies.
God has presented much clearer and literal ways of dealing with our enemies in the teachings of Jesus and throughout the OT that would rule out taking these stories as a literal history. We are to love our enemies. We are to turn the other cheek. We are to overcome evil with good.
These are clear teachings of truth that our own consciences affirm as holy and true, in addition to consistent biblical teachings.
So, given that we can't take those stories as literal history, AND given that all other stories (at least the ones I'm aware of) from that time period were written in an Epic style of writing, it seems entirely reasonable to expect that these stories, too, are written in an epic format.
What possible reason would I have for taking such stories as literal history?
It's important to understand the style in which a piece was written.
As to Jesus telling his disciples to buy a sword? The text tells us explicitly WHY Jesus told them to do this...
He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."
The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."
"That is enough," he replied.
He told them to buy swords NOT to mount a defense. Two swords would hardly do that, right?
And besides, when Peter actually raised his sword, Jesus stopped him and told him to put it away. "For all who live by the sword, die by the sword..."
So, Jesus specifically says why the disciples were to buy swords and it wasn't for defense.
As to Paul and his "praise" of gov't holding the sword? What's the text say there?
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority?
Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing.
He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
Paul is talking to a Roman group of Christians here (the text is from Romans 13). A group that has been oppressed by the Roman gov't. SOME in the church are thinking the same as some in Jesus' day - that armed rebellion against the gov't is the way to stop this oppression.
Paul is putting a stop to that line of thinking. Mostly, this is about Paul saying "Do right, then you will have nothing to fear..."
Or at least that is what it sounds like to me (and others I have read on the topic who are more learned than myself): That Paul is reining in thoughts of violent uprising from within the church. It is a commendation AWAY from violence, not towards it.
Ideally, the gov't WILL and DOES only pose a threat to wrong-doers. Of course, we know that sometimes the gov't wields the sword unjustly (S African Apartheid, for instance, or the CSA/Confederacy or Hitler, or ANY gov't that would kill innocent civilians).
It would be absurd to say that this UN-just use of violence is God's Will, at least by my way of thinking. Was Hitler killing millions of innocent people "God's servant to do good"?? Of course not! Ought people have submitted to such oppression and deadly violence? Of course not!
Paul, of course, was well-acquainted with the use of the gov't "sword" for evil, not for good (Jesus' crucifixion, anyone? John the Baptist's beheading??) and could not be saying that ALL gov't use of violence is good and Godly. This is why it appears to many of us that he is speaking to the church to try to quell an embrace of "the sword," quite the opposite of suggesting that this is in praise of "the sword."
Now, there is a range of views on this within the ranks of Christian peacemaking and since I'm pretty sure we've covered all this before, I'll let it go at that, which gives a basic answer to your question.
If you want more, here's a little bit of renowned anabaptist theologian John Howard Yoder on Romans 13.
Stan...
Would you favor removing the rights of citizens (like "due process"), or is it just for the military?
Why would you ask a ridiculous question, Stan? It sounds like you're trying to be insulting.
No one here has advocated removing rights of citizens OR soldiers. Quite the opposite.
Are you actually not understanding what we're saying or is it that you do understand and you're trying to be deliberately rude? Or something else altogether that I'm not getting?
Dan Trabue: "these stories seem to be fairly obviously written in an Epic format"
I actually wasn't thinking about the one you mentioned. I was thinking about how the Bible says that God used Babylon to punish Israel and Assyria to punish Judah. But, since the Old Testament is "obviously written in an Epic format" when it presents things that disagree with your take, I can't expect you to take what appears otherwise to be written in historical format to be such.
Dan Trabue: "Paul, of course, was well-acquainted with the use of the gov't "sword" for evil"
But ... his wording in Romans 13 isn't about using it for evil. "It does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God." He's not talking about using the sword for evil. He is saying that they use it rightly when they use it against evil people.
Dan Trabue: "Why would you ask a ridiculous question, Stan? It sounds like you're trying to be insulting."
I asked because you keep saying that I'm arguing something I'm not. I've argued from the post on that a court-martial would have been due process. It sounds like you're being insulting when you keep saying I'm arguing for some ulterior motive (like "'something' would come out in a court martial about Obama's policies". I never thought or intimated any such thing. The post and my continued concern has always been that the general didn't get due process.
But, you're right. No point in continuing this. You see summarily dismissing a 34-year military man as "grace and mercy". I don't. We'll disagree.
Lunacy abounds.
I haven't seen anyone here say they actually read the Rolling Stone article. I haven't yet. (Is it even on the stands yet?) From what Medved said, the actual words of McChrystal seem somewhat innocuous, though could be interpreted as worthy of some disciplinary action by someone of the anal retentive variety.
I see Stan's point about the General getting his day in court, but I had thought that he tendered his resignation first, rather than Barry suggesting in any way that he do so. Barry merely accepted it with the pretense of being in control, being a decisive leader type guy and a way to mitigate questions of poor progress in Afghanistan. I admit to not knowing for sure either way.
Another quote I heard about Lincoln, after being questioned about McClellan's blatant disrespect for Lincoln goes something like this: "I'd hold his horse for him if he'd bring me victory."
I mention this to contrast Obama's well known thin skin (the thickness of which is far more important to conservatives than is color). If McChrystal was called to account over the RS article, it was sissy stuff the likes of which any self-respecting American president should abhor. Even Truman didn't just stomp his feet over MacArthur right away. And from what the movie suggests, Patton pissed off his superiors for awhile before he did something to compell action against him.
This episode speaks volumes about how unqualified Obama is to be CIC for THIS country. We already know the policies of engagement are prohibitive if winning is the goal. But then, victory is something with which THIS president is uncomfortable.
Come quickly Nov 2012.
More lunacy.
That Christ showed us "a third way" by his sacrifice is the type of nonsense I've grown familiar in Dan. Too bad you also have Naum, Stan.
Christ's sacrifice was planned from before His "birth". It was decided from at least the time Adam took a bite of the wrong fruit. The purpose was to save us from the wrath of God. Laying down our lives rather than fighting scumbags like Hitler does not bring about the same result. No one is saved from the consequences of their sins by our deaths. Thus, the premise is silly. I'd prefer a stronger term, but I'm trying to give up profanity. "Silly" is a poor alternative.
And Stan, I shuddered when I read that you asked Dan to explain his understanding of the many, many examples of God's wrath poured out on his creation in the OT. Again, "silly", "outlandish", "nonsensical"...only profanity carries the level of disdain for such poor and self-serving interpretations. One can't get to "Just War Theory" without eliminating that part of God's nature of which we are all at risk and from which Christ died to save us.
War is not evil and I don't believe the Bible says otherwise. The intention behind going to war can be. And though I tend to admire the last couple Roman Catholic Popes, he's got it totally wrong in the sense that most, if not all of US actions in Iraq and Afghan are designed for the least amount of collateral damage to the detriment of our own people. I fear the Pope, like too many people here and around the world, place the blame for deaths there at the feet of the wrong people. When scumbags start wars, whether outright or by invitation of their actions, all deaths are they're fault. THAT is more of a Just War FACT. That means, for Naum, there would be no Hiroshima without there first having been a Pearl Harbor.
I would add that I defy anyone to show how any Just War Theory prevented any war from being fought that was about to be fought. One would need to prove that there wasn't just sword rattling to prove that a war was prevented by JWT. Where has it stopped a war that was already in progress? And how has Reza Aslan prevented anyone from having their head hacked off? And what Mennonite helped win a war without pulling a trigger? As far as theories go, JWT is more wishful thinking than legitimate theory. It's not based on any reality this world ever experienced.
Marshall,
If you don't really have any thoughts on the matter, why bother? (Humor)
The only comment I wanted to make was on your last comment. It is indeed stunning to me that, while peace activists rail against war, the fact is that the peace marchers haven't brought us freedom. No love-in stopped a hostile invasion. No pastor has freed a people from a tyrannical government. I include "pastor" in that because I don't mean to diminish the need for peace or love, let alone pastors. I simply point out that I believe that there are times that a fight is unavoidable and even required. I think history proves it. More importantly, I think the Bible proves it.
(Oh, and in case I was unclear, I wasn't disagreeing with anything in your comment.)
It is indeed stunning to me that, while peace activists rail against war, the fact is that the peace marchers haven't brought us freedom.
I agree. Freedom comes from God and God alone, not peacemakers, not soldiers, not bloggers.
Having said that, there are indeed instances of peacemakers employing wise, creative and Godly strategies that have helped the cause of both peace and freedom.
Surely you're not unaware of the peaceable work of Christian peacemakers in Nicaragua, who stopped conservative US-supported terrorists from killing folk in Sandinistan villages?
Surely you're not unaware of the global opposition to Apartheid that helped bring a peaceful revolution to S. Africa without a violent overthrow?
Read up on your history of non-violent revolutions.
Dan,
You make numerous mistakes with your link. First of all, a revolution is not the same as what we have in mind when we say "war". Most of the revolutions to which your link refers, if not all of them, were a matter of a people revolting over internal disputes, mainly election results.
Secondly, not all of the people in charge were willing to massacre tons of people assembled plainly for the world to see. Some wouldn't do it no matter what (the British in India, for example).
Third, it doesn't speak to the years of oppression and suffering that took place before the revolution, as if that doesn't count and we're only speaking from the point of the revolution onward.
Fourth, some of those listed did indeed either end in bloodshed or, as the article states, were "mostly" bloodless revolutions.
Fifth, none of those overthrown were willing to murder and die to the extent of the radicals that we now face, the Japanese of WWII or a host of others throughout history.
Sixth, as I said, revolutions aren't the same as two separate peoples warring against each other. And especially regarding the threats we now face, based on an insane idea of religion that transcends concern for worldly rewards.
So try again.
Try again? If you are intent on hanging on to war and bloodshed as your preferred answer in some situations, no number of instances I come up with will sate your bloodlust and fear.
If your only tool is a hammer, every problem is a nail. If you truly believe with all your heart and soul in the myth of redemptive violence, I can never change your mind. That would be God's domain. I merely offer an opinion for what it's worth.
Your words don't mean much, Dan. "Bloodlust"? "Fear"? What kind of cockamamie nonsense is this? Your psuedo-sanctimony continues to bore. Never, EVER have I suggested, implied, hinted or even said outright that war is a first response. EVER ! But your false witness exposes you.
The fact that war has its place, the fact that war is too often necessary in a fallen world, the fact that peace has been won and defended by war more often than any fantasy "Just War Theory" will ever have the chance to is without question, except to those with questionable morals and mental faculties.
More to the point, it's not that I wouldn't be receptive to sound evidence. It's that you haven't provided any. You never do. And once again, when we're talking about war, links about allegedly "bloodless" revolutions doesn't begin to have any relevance. In addition, my follow up concerns are legitimate. So why accuse me of something no statement I've ever made justifies instead of addressing those concerns? Likely because to answer them honestly would lessen any credence your support for JWT might, for some, have.
Marshall Art,
You referenced "Just War Theory" as a fantasy (twice). You're agreeing with Dan on that. He likes to call it "the myth of redemptive violence", but he's denying that it is possible to engage in war under any moral premise. "Just War Theory" is the notion that there can be, under certain circumstances, a war fought for just reasons. Look up the criteria for the concept. I don't think you're understanding the idea quite right. The suggestion is that you're right; there are times that war is just and necessary. Just sayin'.
Marshall...
Never, EVER have I suggested, implied, hinted or even said outright that war is a first response. EVER ! But your false witness exposes you.
I'm sorry you have misunderstood my words. If you will read what I wrote, you will see that I never, EVER suggested, implied, hinted or even said outright that you believe war is a first response.
I'm glad I could clarify that for you so you don't continue to guess what my position is wrongly and so you don't have to misrepresent my position further.
If you want to understand my position, read the writings of Mennonites (John Howard Yoder is a good starting point), read the writings of Glenn Stassen. Read through articles on the Third Way Cafe website. Read the teachings of Jesus.
If you still disagree, then I guess you need to cling to war as a possible option and a good one for Christians in some circumstances. I'll cling to God for my defense and opt out of killing my enemies, as I think is just and right and good.
May God grant us all wisdom and grace.
Stan,
I have done just that since writing my last comment. Strangely, I wonder how if it could possibly align with what Dan thinks the Bible suggests to him. True JWT DOES INDEED allow for the possibility of war as a JUST response. I don't think Dan EVER believes it is and pretends there is Biblical justification for such a belief. He suggests more study, but frankly, I find his evidence more often than not justifies my position better than it does his, but he only sees what he wants to see.
To clarify, I don't think JWT works to end a war already in progress. I think by and large, our country has always lived by the REAL understanding of JWT already, even considering our entry into Iraq in 2003 which was after 12 years and 17 UN resolutions produced no change in Hussein's attitudes and actions. Dan is content to let people suffer and die in perpetuity rather than use violence of any kind to remove the cause of that suffering and death, because in his addled mind, there is always a better way.
Dan,
"I'm sorry you have misunderstood my words. If you will read what I wrote, you will see that I never, EVER suggested, implied, hinted or even said outright that you believe war is a first response."
I think the implications in this comment:
"If you are intent on hanging on to war and bloodshed as your preferred answer in some situations, no number of instances I come up with will sate your bloodlust and fear."
...are quite clear. What else can "bloodlust" imply to the average objective and reasoned reader? That I just like to drink blood? That I'm sexually aroused by the sight, smell or taste of blood? Gregory Hines never tapped the way you can.
Marshall, regarding your last comment, I will just quote someone who recently addressed your thoughts quite well...
It is a not un-typical ploy to paint an opponent in the most negative context in order to overshadow any negative aspects of one's own position, whether there are any or not (usually there are and the position holder knows it, but won't admit to it). We see it all the time. Those who oppose "rights" for homosexuals are "bigots". The same goes for those who oppose open borders, as your first example tries to imply...
Such is the common propaganda tool of those who haven't truly found complete confidence in their own position, but are drawn to that position nonetheless. I believe that more often than not, it is indeed intentional and thus most definitely malicious, as well as a most heinous example of bearing false witness...
The urge to use such tactics should be a tip-off that one is on the wrong side of the issue.
Can I get an Amen?
Please, Dan, this gets really old really fast. You said, "No number of instances I come up with will sate your bloodlust and fear." That got a rise out of him. You argued, "If your only tool is a hammer, every problem is a nail." There is no other conclusion but to believe that you are accusing Marshall of having only one tool -- war -- and that he does so out of "bloodlust and fear". Now you're trying to sound all peace-loving with a call for "wisdom and grace"? And it's Marshall who is painting his opponent in the most negative context? Dancing around words doesn't eliminate the facts. The hypocrisy is thick.
Again, I am sorry if you all are misconstruing my position, if I have not adequately stated my position in a way that you all understand it.
I thought I fairly clearly stated that, "If you are intent on hanging on to war and bloodshed as your preferred answer in some situations..."
My INTENT (and I think just plainly obvious) meaning there is that IN SOME SITUATIONS, Marshall's (and yours) preferred solution is war, death, destruction. Beyond that, I believe Marshall is even saying that even JWT tactics are not suitable IN SOME SITUATIONS. I believe Marshall has hinted at here what he has said (I believe) in other places: That once you engage in war, you need to be as ruthless and deadly as necessary to overwhelm the enemy with force and bring the war to an end.
Clearly, IN SOME SITUATIONS (as I stated) war is, for you all, the preferred solution.
I'm sorry if you all misunderstood my words, but I think you can see that they are fairly clear.
As to "bloodlust and fear," that is language that I believe (one man's opinion) rightly sums up the pro-war stance. You FEAR that if you don't respond with sufficient deadly force (bloodlust, if you will), you will lose your freedom, or that you will lose to the "enemy," or that bad things will happen.
This position does not seem to me to start with and end with the notion of I will trust my God to be my defense, it starts from a position of fear.
For myself and most anabaptist and progressive Christians, we can't reconcile "love your enemy," "overcome evil with good," and "turn the other cheek," with "kill them til they surrender," and "Sometimes, we WILL kill innocent bystanders and that's just the way war is."
You all disagree. That's where we stand, as it seems to me.
And it's Marshall who is painting his opponent in the most negative context?
Ummm, from where I sit, clearly and obviously, yes.
Marshall had said...
Dan is content to let people suffer and die in perpetuity rather than use violence of any kind to remove the cause of that suffering and death, because in his addled mind, there is always a better way.
When, in fact, I am NOT content to let people suffer and die. Rather, Marshall has painted my position FALSELY and in an EXTREMELY NEGATIVE light.
Thus, I agree with Marshall that those who stoop to such false representations of positions have already lost the discussion and have dropped back to false demonization, rather than adult, Christian conversation.
Or at least that's how it seems to me.
Like I said, Dan, real old real fast. But you go ahead and paint yourself in the role of saint. Mean ol' Marshall said bad things about you and you only spoke warm, gracious things about him. Got it. The comments are there for anyone to read. They can draw their own conclusions.
As for me, I'm putting an end to this discussion.
Post a Comment