what you believe, part 2

Part 1

Wow. I got more response (in the form of comments) from that last post than I’ve gotten in a while. It only seems nature to continue the conversation—and it is a conversation. Please, whether you agree or disagree with me, feel free to join in.

I’d like to pick up where one of the comments to my last post left off. A friend of mine (and a qualified theologian in his own right), Jeb Barr, wrote:

“We know the command to love is absolutely paramount for a Christian. But nations are not Christian. Christians must turn the other cheek and not defend themselves, but nations do not. In fact, nations are to uphold justice, and Paul even refers to their divine right to ‘carry the sword’. We certainly know from the Old Testament that God can and does use nations and war to advance His purposes.”

What an excellent point Jeb makes. I agree completely.

This calls to mind another thought that’s been bounding around in my brain lately, though it’s not an original thought. I have to credit Lee C. Camp and Shane Claiborne as the originators. Here it is:

When we talk about “we” (as in, “We should feel this way about the war…” or “Our response to 9/11 should be…”), who is “we”? The vast majority of the time I would contend that “we” is the nation of America. This makes sense in as much as we are Americans and given that we love our country. But what should the church’s response to such events be? What should we, as Christians, do in the face of such evil?

I can’t disagree with Jeb’s assertion that nations are charged with the responsibility of defending their people and preserving order. That is absolutely correct. And Jeb asks a question that needs to be asked: “If pacifism were to be embraced as a national calling rather than merely a personal one, what would it mean to ‘respond in love’ as a nation? It sounds good, but what would it really look like at a practical level?”

I would answer first by saying that I do not mean to convey that pacifism is a national calling. I believe, however, that God has called his people, corporately and individually, to a high standard of love. This means that the church and the individual disciple cannot but weep at the brutal reality of war. (And Jeb said this: “…there does have to be a disconnect between supporting that course [violent response] and also loving people, especially those that could be considered our enemies. We can support the right course of political action while also mourning the suffering caused by it and actively involving ourselves in the process of healing and restoration.”) I am made very uncomfortable by comments like “Kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out.” I struggle to see love in the enthusiastic embrace of violence.

Secondly, I would say that I don’t know entirely what it looks like for the church (or for me) to love our enemies, global or local. All too often we don’t even ask that question. But we need to.

As disciples, our first allegiance must always be to our God and his mission. He has charged us to love, even in the face of hate. How do we do that? What does that look like? How do we determine what is “the right course of political action” and to what degree should we attempt to persuade our government to pursue non-violent resolution? How can we be the voice of healing and of love in a world overrun by blind aggression?

I don’t know. But I think we need to start asking.