Posts Tagged war
Thoughts on War in the Bible and Terrorism in the 21st Century, Essay 2 – War in the Hebrew Bible: An Overview
Posted by Joel in Book Review, Religion and Politics on November 10, 2010
Click to Order
For an introduction to the series, see here.
Often times, especially in the latest round of discussion concerning war, terrorism and the appropriate response to attacks, the Hebrew bible is mined extensively (well, not too extensively, I suspect) to support a violent and oftentimes, religious response in the form of a crusade. I remember the days after 9/11 when our rhetoric was a ‘our God vs their god’ type mentality, with phrases such as ‘we should go Old Testament on their….’ brought up repeatedly. Richard Hess, an editor of this series, shapes a response to those who do violence to the Old Testament by using it to justify a swift and brutal reaction. His purpose is twofold: to consider the issue og war in a then/now spectrum as well as to allow the modern Westerner to regard him or herself in this light allowing them to see how much the views have changed by examining recent contributions to the ethics of war.
He notes that every ancient generation knew war (p20). We should be reminded, even from a casual reading of the Old Testament of places such as Har Megiddo which holds such a violent reaction in our minds because of the blood constantly spilled there during the ancient times. For evidence, as he notes, there is the fact that of the books of the Jewish canon, only two doesn’t mean war. War was a large part of the life of the ancient community, but as he goes on, it isn’t the take on it which we currently have. Instead, Hess begins to craft the notion that when YHWH went to war, it was defensive, except when YHWH stands against Israel. Contrary to Volf, Hess acknowledges the inherent violence in such things as the Day of the Lord and the wrath involved, although the author attributes this to preserving the holiness of YHWH (p24). He goes on, noting the development of ethics, but comes to show that war must be relative to YHWH, His holiness, and His judgment.
In one section of the essay, Hess details various views of war as found in the Hebrew bible – bardic and holy, to name two. I find it interesting though that the consequences of David’s bardic warmongering was not mentioned, in that the promises of the Temple were removed from his hand for the expressed reason that David’s hands were too bloody. David and presumably always fought the battles of YHWH and yet, at the end of his life, his most cherished goal and promise was denied to him because of his bloody acts as King. I do find it interesting, however, that the idea of holy war, something we hear today frequently tossed around, is not expressed in the Old Testament because their understanding included the idea that gods were always involved in war. I do appreciate his taking to task the notion of genocide as an act of human sacrifice, siting the Binding of Isaac as proof that God simply didn’t require sacrifice.
Hess takes the new normal road of seeing the wars and genocidal battles in Joshua and Judges as more in line with the bardic tradition than with an actual presentation of history. To his credit, however, he notes fully that these stories increased in the amount of bloodshed until they bring about a civil war filled with massacre. Further, he notes that the bible doesn’t give explicit approval to these actions, but as in the case of the tribe Dan, pleases the onus of warmongering on the people. (p31) In other words, they care little about being on YHWH’s side, but desperately want YHWH on theirs. It sounds all too familiar. The author deals swiftly with views which focus on war and yet leaves out the narration of such events, which generally speak only to the ‘history of it’ without giving credence to it. He ends his essay by noting that the bible, even in speaking about war, offers contradictions after contradictions on the subject, but carries with it a moral tenor that points to the cosmic struggle.
From reading the sacred text, I find very little reason for war, but the more so when reasons are given we must struggle to see they have divine approval or are the inventions of a fallen humanity. I believe that Hess, succinctly, points this out and doesn’t hide from the fact that war is prevalent in the Hebrew bible but calls us to examine whether or not the reasons are always welcomed by God.
Thoughts on War in the Bible and Terrorism in the 21st Century, Essay 1 – Christianity and Violence
Posted by Joel in Book Review, Religion and Politics on November 9, 2010
Click to Order
I wanted to spend some time going through the eight essays of this book, as I find that this issue is important. Not only in the we see the world at large, which has increasingly become known only through the lens of nativism, but so too how we remember ourselves. I’ll be up front – my views on such things as ‘an appropriate response to terrorism’ has been influenced by Richard T. Hughes and his book, Christian American and the Kingdom of God. I imagine it is more Mennonite than what some would like, but it is mine nevertheless because I view it as a Christian method of response.
This book, published by Eisenbrauns (here), is part of the Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplement series edited by Richard S. Hess and Craig L. Blomberg. This particular volume is edited by Hess and Elmer A. Martens and includes distinguished writers, such as Daniel Heimback and Ian G.C. Durie. It is a collect of essays inspired by Denver Seminary’s annual Biblical Studies conference, help in 2004, which attempted to ‘address… the question of the teachings of biblical ethics regarding modern war.’ (viii)
I want to examine, and to open up the discussion, on the first essay, as written by Miroslav Volf entitled Christianity and Violence.
His thesis is essentially this:
The more we reduce Christian faith to a vague religiosity that serves primarily to energize, heal, and give meaning to a life the content of which is shaped by factors other than faith (such as national or economic interests), the worse off we will be (p3)
His goal is not to argue against the fact that Christianity has been employed to ‘foster violence’ (p3), but that Christianity might actually have some value in securing a more peaceful society. For an immediate historical allusion to this, just note the rise of secularization in Europe during the middle 19th century which brought about bloody and ruthless conflicts. In some small way, I believe that this is actually feeding a resurgence in those seeking religion in much the same way that the bloody religious wars of the 16th and 17th history fed secularization. Religion is simply not dead, nor as private as we might would like to this, according to Volf, who notes that this new religious fervor brought on by changes in the 20th century (think of the Soviet invasion and attempted secularization of Afghanistan in the 80′s and what he led to, culminating in the attacks on 9/11). The author’s answer? More Christianity, but not the thin veneer that we have come to know as Christianity, but something more ingrained.
He validates his argument by calling for a real commitment to this faith of ours, and not a ‘thin’ (his words) religious zeal which scratches the surface of Christianity and will most likely produce violence. Volf argues quite forcefully that by understanding real Christian theology and doctrine, and finding that these dogmas must by necessity of themselves ground the believer in a realm of peace, then the path to peace is entrenching oneself in the historic doctrines of the faith. Frankly, it is refreshing to see an author call for more religion to bring about peace instead of taking the modern path of calling for the end of religion altogether. To do so, he tackles four arguments which is used by scholars to show that religion, and Christianity in particular it seems, leads to violence. In doing so, he turns them on their head, approaching the Christian doctrine not from a stance of regret for doctrine, but a truly Apologetic discourse which attempt to set the record straight on violence in Christianity, or rather, violence for which Christianity is used to underwrite.
His take on Revelation is interesting, and while I may be leaning to the ‘non-violent violence of it all, I am not sure I am willing to completely accept this notion that Revelation is almost wholly without violence. Reader, you have to first understand what he means by violence and how that stands opposed to what we see as violence. I believe that Volf is seeing violence as imposition of will, which he doesn’t find either the Creation or the New Creation. Even in Creation, unless understood properly, someone could see abstract violence in that the Creator molded something which was not of His Nature. Yet, that is not the Christian Doctrine. While I do not explicitly believe in creatio ex nihilo, nor some of his other doctrines so expressed, Volf continues to show that in these doctrines, and even in the most violent of interpretations, there is still the grounding of Love. God is Love.
What is equally interesting and something of note, is that Volf takes these doctrines and simply shows how without them, people are prone to be more violent!
Volf is correct in that ‘The Christian faith is misused when it is employed to underwrite violence’. I have been on the receiving end of relatively a small amount of that violence, but I see the effects of the greater portion of that misuse in my community and circle of friends (he notes on p16 that this is the inflation of the negative in which the evil of religion overtakes the large amount of good produced by religion). I would agree with him, that if Christians were brought back to the historic texts (and I assume, digging through the patina of interpretations back to a better understanding of our values) that they would be true peacemakers. There is a hope for something that Volf speaks about, and I believe that this hope may be realized in this search for historic awareness of the Christian doctrines.
Cannot wait for the second essay…
I’m making a prophecy about 2011 – Israel v Iran and the Tea Party
Posted by Joel in Religion and Politics on July 28, 2010
I have no great love for the Tea Party. I have no love at all for the Tea Party (again, I am clearly wrong to address it as a monolithic structure, but I haven’t heard much right from them, so turn about is fair game, I reckon), but one of the mistakes that they have made is to be co-opted by the same people who they are fighting against. Or, maybe they are just fighting against Democrats…. Nah…they want all the ‘bums’ thrown out, right?
Anyway, a few weeks ago, a certain depraved Congresswoman from Minnesota organized the Tea Party Caucus in Congress. The great thing about the grassroots movement is for once, common people were taking part in the conversation (you know, except when financed by Freedom Works and their corporate sponsors). From what I understand, many in the Tea Party crowd(s) are non-interventionist, following the only sane thought which Ron Paul has ever had, that we do not need to use our military in the foreign nation building and police watch dog policies which we are currently and have been engaged in for several generations. Now this Caucus, which has co-opted the grassroots movement, is suggesting that Israel go to war with Iran. Do they really think – wait, of course they don’t think – that Israel would be alone in the war with Iran or that Iran would be alone with the war with Israel? An Israeli-Iranian war, while fodder for Christian Zionists, would do nothing but prolong our involvement in the Middle East, and get more of our troops killed – even if, for some reason, we didn’t have to intervene.
Look, I don’t like thinking this, much less putting it out there, but Ron Paul is right. (Shivers, uncontrollably) We forget that Iran supported us at first in Afghanistan, moving towards moderation in their politics; it was only after the U.S. invasion of Iraq that Iran snapped back into conservatism and elected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Had we listened to people like Ron Paul and the late Senator Byrd, the world would be a different place at the moment. Yes, we got rid of Saddam, but by doing this, we got the nutjob in Iran. Good trade? Hardly.
So, let me tell you my prophecy – the Tea Party Caucus comes to power in the November Elections, hardly resembling the actual Tea Party and pass resolutions giving Israel the ‘support’ it needs to do what the ‘U.S. won’t.’ Israel attacks Iran, with the cheers of U.S. Zionists of the Hagee variety. Iran strikes back and so do other Islamic countries We have to get involved because we are in the cross-hairs. Lots of solders die. Lots. Lots. And more….
note 1 – Ron Paul and the non-interventionist foreign policy is actually a ‘Christian’ thing to do. I generally tend to be libertarian when it comes to foreign policy.
note 2 – Bachmann is a nut.
note 3 – the Hagee Zionists are different from the garden variety kind. Hagee and his bunch believe that things like pushing Israel to battle Iran is something that can bring on the mythical Rapture. Hagee and his CUFI, which is Assyrian for ‘I will blow you up to make peace’, pervert the Scriptures and the well-intentions of Messianic Jews (real Jews who believe in Christ) and real Christians who support the Jewish People. They are also connected to Bachmann and others in the Tea Party Caucus
note 4 – unless the Tea Party people – the real people who support smaller government, etc… – make a concerted effort to destroy the so-called Caucus, then their positions are invalid and thus muted. They are being used. Deal with it.
Is religion about war or peace?
Posted by Joel in Religion and Politics on December 21, 2009
I wonder, if we truly are the religion of peace, then where is our call for it?
Evangelical Christian leaders such as Pat Robertson have assailed President Obama’s effort to engage Iran, and the results so far have not vindicated the president’s approach as a diplomatic policy.
Thank God for the New Testament: Rabbi tells IDF to show no mercy
Posted by Joel in Messianic Judaism, Religious News on November 14, 2009
And what is scary, is that people often associate this country with Old Testament Israel.
Rick Warren on Interfaith Projects with Muslims
Posted by Joel in False Prophets, Islam, Rick Warren on July 5, 2009
I am no fan of Rick Warren, but does he have a point?
“Some problems are so big you have to team tackle them,” evangelical megachurch pastor Rick Warren addressed the annual convention of the Islamic Society of North America.
Warren said Muslims and Christians should be partners in working to end what he calls “the five global giants” of war, poverty, corruption, disease and illiteracy.
(Snip)
“It’s easier to be an extremist of any kind because then you only have one group of people mad at you,” he said. “But if you actually try to build relationships — like invite an evangelical pastor to your gathering — you’ll get criticized for it. So will I.”
In his speech, Warren also urged Muslims and Christians to speak out against stereotyping of any group and to respect each other even while disagreeing. Addressing Muslims who “have been in America for many generations now,” he urged them to help “the newcomers learn what it means to be American.” (read the rest here.)
Can we work together across religious and theological lines (remember even among those claiming the Christian religion, there is discord and hatred) on projects which touch us all?
