Remembrance Sunday



Before I begin, I just want to say that not everyone is going to agree with what I'm about to say, but I hope that leads us to deeper conversation and thought.

I find Remembrance Day to be a difficult day, which is probably how it should be. I would like to share a bit of that struggle with you this morning. I think it is important to remember the suffering endured in times of war. It is important to remember how fragile peace can be. It is important to remember the sacrifices of those who tried to do something to bring peace because to sit back and do nothing was a worse evil. It is also a day to remember Jesus' words to us about violence and enemies.

When I think of Remembrance Day I primarily think of my grandparents telling me about their time in Holland. My Opa spoke about being dragged out of bed at gunpoint in the middle of the night and being robbed by Nazi soldiers. My Oma tells me about her brothers playing in the wreckage of an aircraft that had crashed into their fields, and how she would sleep with her pillow over her head to muffle the sounds of bombs exploding near their house. I think of my wife’s grandfather who was a rifleman that helped liberate a concentration camp and would only speak about the war late at night until tears filled his eyes and he would suddenly go to bed. … My last name is “Roth”, which is German. My ancestors had immigrated to Canada, but I wonder about any Roths that remained in Germany and what they endured in the war. I also think about my Jewish great grandmother whose maiden name was “Goldstein” and had slipped through the Nazi’s nets probably because of a peculiar Dutch spelling of her last name.

On Remembrance Day I also consider what it means to be a Christian when faced with war. What was happening in Germany was horrible and something had to be done about it. A decision had to be made to help those who were suffering. And the action that was decided on was not the easy option. Those who went to fight risked their lives trying to do something about what was going on.

War has always been a difficult thing for Christians to participate in. For the early Church killing was not something Christians were permitted to participate in, which made being a Christian in the Roman Army a controversial thing.

The question of Christians participating in war became more difficult after the Roman Empire adopted Christianity in 380. Before this Christians lived in the empire, but they really didn't have any power. An empire uses violence for things like maintaining order, defending its borders, and defending its citizens. Suddenly, there was a need for an understanding as to how a Christian empire can use violence.

Here is where St. Augustine put his mind to work. He came to the conclusion that we could separate outward actions from inward motivations. In defense of an innocent person I may actually use violence against an attacker, even kill them, but I did not sin if inwardly my motivation was to protect the innocent person being attacked. I did not want to kill the attacker. It was a kind of accident that occurred as I was defending the person. For St. Augustine, we can participate in a “just” war. What makes it “just” is that our internal motivations are correct. I won’t spell out all the details of Just War Theory, but basically if I am motivated by a desire to protect the innocent rather than out of violent anger and revenge, then I am justified in participating in violence against an enemy.

On top of this, St. Augustine believed that the social order we exist in is part of the natural order ordained by God to give us stable and peaceful lives. God meant society to be organized under rulers. God meant for there to be empires and kingdoms. Jesus’ words to us as individual Christians about how we treat our enemies are perhaps not applicable to the ruler of a country when considering defending their people against an aggressive military force (see Romans 13:1,4; and 1 Peter 2:14).

This does not mean that St. Augustine was bloodthirsty. Augustine clearly saw it as a last resort to be used only when all other means have failed and when the other nation compels a defensive response. War is always seen as the lesser of two evils. The suffering and evil of allowing the enemy to destroy at will with no opposition is seen as too great an evil to endure. Entering into war amounts to less evil overall.

The Just War Theory is a compelling argument that Augustine put together. It should be said that to go against this theory is to go against the vast majority of Christians throughout history (as CS Lewis’ essay Why I Am Not a Pacifist explains). But, there are problems with it. I will give two examples. First, as theologian Stanley Hauerwas once said, "I just want to know when the Just War theory has led Christians to say 'no' to a war?" Just War theory often provides a way of justifying wars, but doesn't really ever seem to have the power to prevent a nation from entering into war. In fact, the ethicist Robert Brimlow, in his book What about Hitler? shows how Hitler might have even used the Just War Theory to justify the actions of the Nazis.

A second problem with the theory is that it separates our motivations from our actions. Jesus taught that our actions flow from our inward dispositions. The act of adultery begins through the lust in our heart. Murder begins through the anger in our heart. If we love our enemy our actions will flow from that disposition. Our actions will not contradict our inward disposition. Loving our enemy is turning the other cheek and doing good to those who hate us. It seems strange to see an act of inward love expressed through a balled fist swung at an enemy's nose.

Jesus' words about our enemies are pretty plain. Jesus says in Matthew ch 5, “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven." (Matt 5:38-44).

We have to ask, "did Jesus really mean what he said?" Is there any way that we can follow Jesus’ teachings to love our enemy and then punch our enemy in the nose?

For most of us, asking the question about what we would do if war was at our doorstep is fairly hypothetical. But, we should remember that there were many events that led up to the Second World War. The ethicist Robert Brimlow says, "If the question is asking how a pacifist church should have responded to the horrors of the Holocaust, the answer surely lies in being a peacemaking church long before the holocaust ever began. The church should have preached and lived a love of the Jews for many centuries before the twentieth; the church should have formed Christians into the kind of people who do not kill Jews, or homosexuals, or gypsies, or communists, or other Christians, or Nazis, or whoever else was victimized by the war. The church should have lived and taught in such a way that the First World War would have been incomprehensible in a largely Christian Europe and, failing that, should have railed against the Versailles Treaty and the vengeance it embodied in favour of forgiveness and reconciliation. The failure of the church and of Christians to be peacemakers in 1942 is horrible precisely because it is a result and culmination of centuries of failure."

Brimlow is telling us that the next World War might be prevented by our serious and intense discipleship to Christ right now. The sacrifice we expect of our soldiers, we have to be willing to make for the Gospel. The seriousness and vigor with which we try to live as people of the kingdom right now is precisely what the world needs to prevent future wars.

We don't know what lies in the future, but if human history is any indication of the future we can expect that war will continue to be a part of human reality. … But we have choices to make now. We are called to live Jesus' way right now and to deal with the seeds of war that sit inside us. And we have to deal with those seeds with the same diligence and sacrifice a soldier gives to participating in war. If we don’t ferociously deal with those seeds of war within us, we make war inevitable for our children and grandchildren and all those that come after us.

The seeds of war sit in each of us. We see them when we hold grudges against others. We see them when we are unwilling to deal with our anger and contempt towards others. We deal with these seeds when someone offends us and we use the opportunity to practice peace and reconciliation by not shooting hurtful words back. We deal with them when we see someone being hurt by someone else and we use the opportunity to be a peacemaker. We deal with the seeds of war when we are tempted to push others around to get our own way and we use the opportunity to practice self-sacrificial love. We deal with those seeds when we are cut off in traffic and we learn to deal with our anger and bless the other driver, rather than curse them. We are called to deal with the seeds of war within us, and instead to plant the seeds of peace.

We are not to look down on the decisions of those who have gone before us. They had hard decisions to make. We have no clue how difficult those decisions were. They should be remembered for not taking the easy way out, and for being willing to die to do something about the suffering they saw. …. However, as Christians, we also need to notice the contradiction of the belief that war leads to peace.

The peaceful world the prophet Micah speaks of, where the people of the world "will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; [and] Nation will not lift up sword against nation, And never again will they train for war" - That world will come about as God works through us. When the Sin that infects us and causes war is fully healed by the blood of Jesus and we are transformed into people who see each other as bearers of the image of God, then war will truly end.



I find some comfort in reminding myself that Jesus is not surprised by war or the complexity of the world. Jesus has given us his teaching precisely in order to live in this world, not some imagined utopia. Jesus said, "These things I have spoken to you, so that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have trouble, but take courage; I have overcome the world" (Jn 16:33). May we remember the effort of those who have fallen by making a courageous effort towards peace. And may those who come after us know effort, and love, and courage, but not war. Amen.

Comments

  1. Hi Chirs, thanks for this thoughtful treatment. I agree with your critique on just war theory, although part of the answer to Hauerwas lies in the church allowing what should be an independent analysis to not be subverted by the influence of Empire. That happened in the 2nd gulf war, if I recall, when Rowan Williams said the UK involvement could not be said to be just.

    I am left with the same question I always raise. The usual answer from a pacifist perspective is to spiritualize the response...if the confessing church is pre WW II Germany had really preached the love of Christ, the war could have been averted. But that has never happened, and probably won’t happen until the second coming.

    What is the proper Christian response to the murder of innocents today? Say Rwanda, or a violent home invasion at my neighbours house right now? We don't have the time to analyze fir weeks, for each moment a new person is killed? That’s the place I find most theologians have to revert to a spiritual response. Miroslav Volf I find most credible but even he has not answered that question directly.

    A good Word...our outlines for preaching lined up pretty well for remembrance!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Brother! :)

      I think you're right. What Hauerwas was saying is that, on the whole, the Just War Theory hasn't proved itself able to prevent war for exactly what you are saying. The church historically hasn't been able to separate herself from the empire enough to be that prophetic. Usually it is a small voice (like Jeremiah). I suspect that Hauerwas is implying that if that is historically the case, what makes us think we will be any different in our application of the Just War Theory?

      I think you're also right to point out that we can't always be thinking about prevention. One book I found helpful was John Howard Yoder's, "What would you do? if a violent person threatened to harm a loved one...". Instead of looking at violence from the perspective of war, in this book, he is looking at it on a more personal level. It is an essay with an anthology of other readings and an appendix of examples. It was a while ago that I read it, but if i remember rightly basically he emphasizes a third way. We can't do nothing, but we also can't shoot the attacker in the head. There is a big gray area between those two extremes. He suggests we should prayerfully and creatively find ways of encountering the violence- a third way.
      It sounds a bit idealistic, but he gives a number of examples where this has worked. I seem to remember (from the appendix) the story of a woman who caught a man sneaking into her house. She asked what he was doing and he said he was going kill her and rob her. She responded by saying, "well I better make some tea then". They sat down to a pot of tea and the man eventually left her alone. The creative response threw the man off. If she confronted the man with violence I suspect the outcome would have been different. I think Yoder is also careful to say that you can't take that response and apply it as a template to every violent situation (in a sense, each situation is unique and requires the inspiration of the Holy Spirit), but it is an example of a prayerful and creative 3rd way between doing nothing and "taking out the bad guy" Clint Eastwood style.

      I think something like the situation in Rwanda (or ISIS) is incredibly difficult to respond to. And I have to admit that I don't know what the right response is. Even Bonhoeffer partook in an assassination plot against Hitler. I think if I was someone in power I would attempt to seek guidance for a third way. I wondered, for example, what would happen after 911 if North American governments put their resources into trying to bless those who considered them their enemy- building schools, hospitals, etc. I mean we have spent how much money on waging war in the region and is the region more stable? I'm not sure war gives us what we are hoping for, y'know?

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Theology of Sex

Lust and Chastity

The challenge of being a priest today