Athens and Jerusalem II: A Religion for Sissies?
If humility is the skandalon of Neopagans, they typically base their more pragamatic case against Christianity on its suppose opposition to what pagan cultures regarded as the legitimate use of violence: personal self-defense, defensive war, and the execution of murderers, rapists, traitors, and other serious malefactors. They are entirely wrong, as they are about most things.
The text most frequently cited is Matthew 5:38:
"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."
If the first recorded sin was Eve’s and Adam’s disobedience in the Garden, the second was Cain’s murder of his brother. In the Pentateuch, revenge (as we shall see later) was the only law on homicide. Now, that indulgence is being taken away (or at least turned over to the rulers of the commonwealth) and, along with it, even the desire to get even and the natural inclination to hate one’s enemy. Some pacifists, Christians among them, have construed this passage to imply an express condemnation of all forms of violence and all use of force whether in self-defense or national defense or criminal justice, but neither the context of the passage nor the wider context of the Scriptures and tradition would bear out this interpretation.
Jesus is primarily addressing his followers, the brethren he had assembled from the towns of Galilee. Like most Mediterranean peoples, the Jews were a fractious and litigious lot. In Greek, the enemy He refers to is an echthros, that is, a personal enemy, and not the foreign enemy who rides in to slay, rape, and pillage. A personal enemy is someone with whom you are having a dispute over a property line, an inheritance, or insults that may have been exchanged when the two parties were in their cups. Anyone who has lived in a small town, suburban neighborhood, or coop apartment building knows that man is not just wolf to man but also weasel and jackal, ready to start a lifelong quarrel over a loose dog, an unpainted fence, or a noisy party. What a waste of time and energy this can be, especially among the brothers who are told to love each other.
Modern Christian pacifism is less a product of the Scriptures and Tradition than it is of the Enlightenment. From the beginning, some eccentric early Christians (e.g., Tertullian) rejected legitimacy of the Roman Empire and, consequently, all forms of imperial service, including soldiering and serving in the bureaucracy, but they were for the most part extreme rigorists who withdrew from the Christian main stream. Early apologists, such as the author of the “Epistle to Diognetus” and Aristides the Athenian only distinguish Christians for their moral purity. Otherwise, “Christians are not distinguished from the rest of mankind by country, speech, or custom,” and, although they are treated as aliens, they shoulder the burdens of citizenship.[i]
St. Augustine, who argues strenuously against particular applications of the death penalty, did not repudiate the right of the ruler to inflict it. Christian pacifism, he insists, is a slander used to discredit Christians as loyal Roman citizens. In his letter to an imperial commissioner whose queries helped to prompt the writing of the City of God, Augustine argued that the admonitions to turn the other cheek and not repay evil with evil have to do with the Christian’s mental disposition and not with the need to correct, with charity, an erring son, a criminal, or an invader. As a provincial administrator and yet a Christian, Macedonius had asked Augustine to justify his pleas for clemency. The bishop began his response by conceding that the state has been given the power to correct wickedness:
“Surely, it is not without purpose that we have the institution of the power of kings, the death penalty of the judge, the barbed hooks of the executioner, the weapons of the soldier, the right of punishment of the overlord, even the severity of the good father....While these are feared, the wicked are kept within bounds and the good live more peacefully among the wicked.”
This is obviously a gloss on the text of St. Paul’s “Epistle to the Romans,” where Paul defends the sovereign power over life and death [Ro 13:1-4]
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do tht which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”
In appealing to the Roman officer’s mercy, Augustine goes on to say that while the Old Law did preach harsh justice, the New Testament urges us to pardon offenders either that we may be pardoned or as a means of commending gentleness. After surveying a number of arguments (not all of them convincing) for mercy, Augustine concludes that there is good both in the magistrate’s severity and in the bishop’s plea for mercy. “Do not be displeased at being petitioned by the good, because the good are not displeased that you are feared by the wicked.”
In calling for mercy in specific instances, Augustine has simply repeated Christ’s admonition to be merciful; he did not repudiate the death penalty itself or call for an unqualified defense of life for life’s sake, unlike the modern theologians who, in attempting to weave a seamless garment of life, are really swaddling unborn babies in the uniform of the death-row convict. If all human life is equally precious, then none can be very valuable. In most cases, perhaps, the proponents of a seamless garment have simply failed to understand the consequences of their reasoning. But in using the same language to defend the innocent unborn and the condemned murderer, they are equating innocence with guilt.
If the ruler is justified in executing domestic criminals, how much more is he justified in defending his people against a foreign enemy? John the Baptist, after all, did not tell the soldiers to lay down their weapons and desert but was content with instructing them to “do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.” [Luke 3:14] The barbs were aimed at soldiers who augmented their incomes by collaborating in the extortions of tax-collectors.
When a Christian engages in homicide, either as executioner or soldier, it is the ruler and not he who is morally responsible for the killing. The soldier is merely the instrument of a ruler whose power comes from God, as Christ informs Pilate during the interrogation. In Romans 13 (cited above), St. Paul sums up the Christian position succinctly, “Not in vain does he [the ruler] hold the sword.”
Vengeance belongs to God, who then delegates that power to the ruler. Christians, then, must foreswear the right to vengeance, though in exchange the ruler must protect the innocent from violence. The ruler must not only punish but defend his kingdom or empire against invaders. His subjects or citizens, correspondingly, have a duty to pay their taxes, obey the laws, and defend their country. This reasoning depends on an important premise, that a commonwealth—whether city republic or kingdom or empire—is a legitimate human institution that requires the power to defend itself. In the high Christian Age, Thomas Aquinas would make it clear that Christians owe a primary moral duty to their family and a civic duty to their commonwealth.
From the beginning, the adherents to the main current of Christianity acknowledged the duty to obey the laws and commands of the rulers. Christ did not resist Pilate, because Pilate, however badly, represented the sovereign authority of the Roman Emperor who did the Lord’s will on earth. Aha, says the pagan, this is pacifism. No, not at all, since Christians also obeyed the command to defend the empire. Jews were absolved from military service, because Sabbath observance conflicted with the duties of a soldier. Christians, as they came to be distinguished from Jews, were not absolved. Some radicals—and who knows how many of them were either Jewish or Judaizing Christians—misconstrued Christ’s teachings to be an exemption from all civic duties. The Apostolic writer known as the Disciple did not: "[Christians] obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives.”
A Postscript on Revenge
The Old Law, which has been fulfilled not overturned, was crystal-clear: Justice is vengeance, the retribution of tit for tat--[Exodus 21:24-25] “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, stripe for stripe.” When the first homicide is driven into exile, the Lord threatens seven-fold vengeance on anyone who kills Cain [Gen 4:15]. In homicide cases, the earliest justice was the blood-feud, and the family’s revenger of blood could hunt down and kill the killer without impunity. In time, apparently, restrictions were imposed, giving protection to both innocent men and men guilty only of accidental or justifiable homicide. [See chapter on Family Values].
As the society of the Israelites became more complicated--evolving from a loose federation of tribes into a more centralized kingdom--homicide law had became correspondingly less tribal and less passionate. Leviticus contains the remarkably Christian admonition: “Thou shalt not avenge nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” [19:18] However, this commandment is given not so much to inculcate mercy per se as to prevent the socially destructive blood-feuds that almost inevitably accompany the lex talionis. It may be no accident that it occurs in the context of prohibitions on tale-bearing and malice. It is followed, as if to clarify the point, by a chapter prescribing the death penalty for wizards, and not long afterward in the book, we are told that God himself will avenge transgressions. [Le 26:25]
This theme, that vengeance belongs to the Lord, recurrs frequently in both Testaments. “Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord, I shall repay.” [ ] Far from being a prohibtion on taking revenge, this declaration elevates vengeance to the divine plane. Although, it is true, the Lord may sometimes take matters into his own hands, punishing the Egyptians with plagues, more often it is human instruments that are used: Jepthah in Judges [11:36] and Jehu in 2nd Kings [9:7]. But, because Jehu is guilty of slaugheter in Jezreel, the Lord will “avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu.”
Prophets and psalmists are continually invoking divine vengeance against their enemies--gentiles in particular--and it is a mark of his righteousness that Ahasuerus gives the people of Israel the right to take vengeance on their enemies by killing them. [Es 8:11-13] Psalm 58 is particularly striking, since it begins with a cry for justice and concludes:
“The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked. So that a man shall say, Verily there is a reward for the righteous: verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth.”
In the sublime vision of Isaiah, the good news includes “the day of the Lord’s vengeance,” when God will avenge his enemies.
Luke’s Gospel picks up the theme, and Jesus foretells first the sufferings his followers must undergo and then the despoliation of Jerusalem: “For these be the days of vengeance,” when the Lord will use gentiles to destroy his rebellious people. [21]. Luke also records Christ’s parable [18:1-9] of the unjust judge badgered by a woman to give her justice, saying: “Avenge me of mine adversary.” Fearing neither God nor man, the judge is worn down by the woman’s cries and grants her the vengeance she desires. “And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?”
Vengeance belongs to the Lord, yes, but his instruments are often human. As Paul reminds us, in his long mediation on justice, God is righteous who exercises his wrath [Ro 3:5]; therefore, “Avenge not yourselves,” he says quoting the Old Law, “Vengeance is mine.” [12:19] Justice, in other words, is in the hands of the universal ruler. This is not a plea for non-resistance, of course, because in the same epistle, justice is to be exercised by the ruler appointed by God as “a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”
It should be obvious that the modern "Christian" arguments against revenge and self-defense have been overstated and misunderstood. Jesus not only claimed not to have overturned the old law, but he even told his disciples to buy swords. His admonitions on forgiveness are addressed to his followers living in religious community and do not apply to alien aggressors. Even a “brother,” if he refuses to make restitution, is to be treated as a gentile.
In sum, the Scriptures teach that vengeance is the basis of justice, that within the community (whether of Jews or of Christian believers), personal vengeance should be foresworn, and that vengeance/justice on this earth is to be carried out by rulers who derive their power from God.
Throughout the stormy Middle Ages, Christians adhered to this conception of vengeance. Rulers had the duty of executing criminals and of inflicting national vengeance in a just war. Dante’s only word for justice is vendetta, a word that is now restricted to the meaning “blood feud.” The Church Fathers, in condemning personal revenge, were upholding the Roman view of punishment in which the state acted as intermediary between the criminal and the victim (and his family). In ruder times, hoever, the Roman law’s prohibitions on dueling and revenge killings broke down, and many a true man--including priests if they were gentle-born--took upon himself the duties of self-defense and revenge.
St Francis de Sales as a pious youth was studying in Padua, where his meekness and humility offended some dissolute young men who attributed his mildness to “cowardice and effeminacy.” Planning to waylay and beat the boy, they hid in a thicket near the path he would take on his way home. “They, knowing his habitual gentleness, imagined he would offer them no resistance....But in this they deceived themselves, for they had forgotten, or perhaps were not aware, that the virtue of religion which teaches meekness and humility of heart inspires also courage and intrepidity in the hour of need.
“When Francis had reached the spot where his assailants were waiting, they rushed out to attack him unawares, and began by trying to raise a quarrel without any cause; then they heaped upon him untold injurious words, and finiding all these of no avail to provoke him to anger, they prepared to inflict on him the bodily cruelties they had previously designed.
“But when the pious youth seeing that this ws an ocasion when duty to himself required him to resist these attacks, instantly drew his sword, brandishing it vigorously over his cowardly aggressors, instantly made them fly away in great haste....Francis pursued them for a time, but they, finding that they themselves were in danger, turned toward him trembling and full of confusion. They fell at his feet imploring his forgiveness.”
How many of our younger neopagans would ever dream of using their fists? By their photographs on the web, not many. When one young would-be pagan made what I regarded as impudent remarks, I warned him that he was making a mistake. When he asked, mockingly, what I intended to do, beat him up? I told him, as a joke, "Perhaps," or, if I was afraid of hurting my 60+ fists, I could hire someone for a thousand dollars to break every bone in his body. As the blood drained from his face, I hastened to assure him I was jesting, but with a point. Like many troubled young men, the kid has good blood in him and probably just needs a little seasoning from raw experience, but some day he will have to learn the hard way, as I did, that it is best not to trifle with mean old men of an earlier generation. We may aspire to the meekness of St. Francis of Assisi, but our hearts are still with Beowulf and John Wesley Hardin. Wes Hardin was the son of a Methodist preacher but became the most notorious killer in Texas, which is quite a feat.
PPS To any impoverished student or teacher who would like to come to the John Randolph Club meeting to hear tales of those Christian cowards the Texas Rangers, it is not too late to apply for a partial scholarship.
[i] Epistle to Diognetus
Entries(RSS)
Dr. Fleming has, once again, debunked another false dogma propagated by the pseudo-Christians. Perhaps he will next turn his masterful knowledge of Scripture and his incisive prose upon another all too common bromide of the Christian left, the one which holds that the concept of social justice is utterly synonymous with state socialism. I had a religion teacher in high school who would proselytize in this fashion: "Dare we become like our European counterparts and have a government that provides equally for all? Ladies and gentlemen, that is not socialism, that is Christianity at its finest."
Augustine's comments on mercy & capital punishment highlight what is intolerable about those who act as if banning the death penalty is *the* urgent issue for the modern Church.
"Execute Justice, Not People", is how one of the more popular liberal Catholic bumper-stickers puts it. I used to be bewildered at my own intense dislike of such mantras -- to be honest I find the idea of marching someone to the electric chair profoundly distasteful myself.
But the activists' implicit belief is not that we should show mercy to any particular murderer, or even to all murderers (both of which seem to be logically defensible positions).
Rather, their position is that it is somehow unjust or unfair when a murderer is put to death (which is not).
As to the younger generation, an uncle of mine (who grew up as something of a hellion in Appalachia) once observed that if boys got into more old-fashioned fistfights there'd probably be less killing in the country -- Columbine-esque school-shootings, drugs, streetgang murders, etc.
I don't know much sociology but I'd put my money on his pithy maxim.
For a society so supposedly deadset against "repression" of natural instincts, school counselors certainly have a hissy-fit nowadays if some kid pops another kid in the nose -- even if it's for an utterly legitimate reason.
What repulses me when priests condemn the death penalty is the implication that worldly life takes primacy over the afterlife. "Oh but you're wrong," they say. "Had he been spared he might have converted." On the contrary : for such a wicked man it is likely that only something as severe as the threat of imminent death would force him to make his peace with God while he still has a chance. Johnson was right when he said that it has a way of focusing a man's mind rather well.
So the big problem that we have today is the reluctance of Christians to kill other human beings? I dont't think so. The problem on the other hand seems to be the tendency of Christians to consider their faith to be a sort of James Bond type license to kill. I am appalled by the Christians who apparently thing that they are entitled to kill any who do not agree with them.
"The problem on the other hand seems to be the tendency of Christians to consider their faith to be a sort of James Bond type license to kill"
It's hard for me to accept that politicians, who are temporarily endowed by a thoroughly corrupt electoral system with illegally assumed powers of a ruler, can be equated with the kings of Israel to whom the admonishments of obedience apply.
God gave the Israelites a king at their own insistence. It's a base sophistry to pretend that some apostate imbecile like Bush or Obama, inflicted upon the citizenry by corrupt humans, is a king appointed by God.
Killing innocents at the behest of an American president can't be excused by the argument that the killer is merely an agent of a Godly ruler. The killer is, instead, the willing dupe of a servant of Satan, and must repent in order to be forgiven of that sin.
Aren't we also instructed to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves? Being willing to put forth the effort of discerning whether some strutting windbag is a God given ruler or simply the beneficiary of a crooked electoral contest is a wise move.
I can't accept that Bush or Obama are kings anointed by God. The moral gymnastics required for such an acceptance are beyond my capacity for stretching the truth.
What about Christians ordered by a putatively legitimate authority to serve in an unjust war? There have been countless wars between Christian states throughout history and at least half of the causes were unjust (presumptively, the aggressor's). The rulers who prosecuted them were legitimate and their states established as Christian states.
I think my column must have confused some readers. The point is not the legitimacy or lack thereof of modern states or the wisdom or justice of American Presidents. Oh yes, the wonderful kings of Israel who murdered, slaughtered, robbed, and seduced with abandon. David even practiced human sacrifice, it appears, or at least knowingly contributed to the sacrifice of Saul's sons. The citation of OT examples outside the context of the Church's teachings--however one defines "Church"--is an invitation for everyone to play John Brown. This forum is not about what I or anyone thinks about OT commandments but about traditional Christianity and the dishonest interpretations made by anti-Christians.
An entire discussion might be made of the false "seamless garment" argument, which, even when made by famous theologians, bishops, and Popes, is extraneous to the Church's teaching. Sullivan is right that we should take up the Christianity=socialism line.
In the mid-19th century the Yankees created a confused and toxic concoction of "Christianity" and "Americanism" that justified the slaughter of opponents (i.e., wicked Southerners rebelling against "the best government on earth.") That has been the American pattern ever since to some degree or other. There is nothing in the least new about the evangelicals glorifying raining death on opponents of "the greatest government on earth." The same rhetoric was heard to justify the slaughter of Southerners, Filipinos, and "Huns." Those who criticise the current regime must learn to take a longer view.
"In the mid-19th century the Yankees created a confused and toxic concoction of “Christianity” and “Americanism” that justified the slaughter of opponents (i.e., wicked Southerners rebelling against “the best government on earth.”)"
Dr. Wilson,
Over the years you have convinced me of this truth. It had precedence in England and France but we will leave that for another day. The one peculiar sign of this truth still reigning today is that it is no longer enough to kill the body but now one must attempt to kill the soul as well. Mr. David Flim-Frum's Unpatriotic American Jihad is a recent example but there are thousands of others. For these types, it is not enough that the targets of their vile slanders have children who served and died in these dirty little wars or that some of their targets still carry bullet holes from former service, nay it is also necessary for these pathetic types to demean good names, assassinate the good character of authentic citizens and culumniate their friends and benefactors. The old Yankees from the Northeast wanted to fight their enemies, whip'em into submission then give'em that false liberty.(or death) The new breed wants something even worse,they want what Hamlet wanted for his Mother's new husband --divine assurance that we all go to hell. It is literally a fight to the death which really does have a way of focusing one's mind in these times.
"In the mid-19th century the Yankees created a confused and toxic concoction of “Christianity” and “Americanism” that justified the slaughter of opponents."
Are we talking about...oh Oliver Howard here or are we talking about ole Stonewall? Cause it sounds like both of them....
And let's not forget the patron saint of handgunnersm, St. Gabriel Possenti, a Passionist father born in Assisi in 1838. According to the St. Gabriel Possenti Society:
"After a battle [in 1860] in Pesaro, Italy, in which Giuseppe Garibaldi's Piedmontese army defeated Blessed Pope Pius IX's army, several contingents of the former left the main body of the troops, and proceeded to terrorize the countryside. About 20 of them entered Isola del Gran Sasso, where Gabriel Possenti served as a seminarian. When the noise from the ruckus caused by the gang reached the monastery, Possenti asked the monastery rector if he could go into the town to see if he could help the people. The rector said yes.
"Possenti found the gang about to rape a young woman, and ordered them to set her free. When they refused to obey, Possenti yanked two pistols out of the soldiers' holsters.... At that moment, a lizard ran across the road. Gabriel Possenti took aim, fired and killed it with one shot. Then, he turned his weapons toward the gang which, surprised and shocked, left the village."
There's a book about him, "Gun Saint," by John Michael Snyder.
Rob @ #10. I fear we are getting far away from Dr. Fleming's lesson. Your equating Stonewall with the Yankees is a common little bit of propaganda but is completely wrong. True, Stonewall advocated ruthless warfare AGAINST INVADING SOLDIERS. Though it was never implemented by the Confederates. Union armies waged total war against a whole society. Compare "Dixie" and "The Battle Hymn of the Republic." The South only wanted to be let alone with the liberty won by their forefathers. The Yankees wanted domination.
"I think my column must have confused some readers. The point is not the legitimacy or lack thereof of modern states or the wisdom or justice of American Presidents"
Dr. Fleming, maybe I am confused. That is always possible, I admit.Here is some of my thinking on this subject:
The entire point of reading the Old Testament's histories of the depravities of the anointed kings of Israel is to learn the lesson that God has allowed us to create for ourselves with our own insistence on having earthly authorities. Our Creator gave us free will and expressed his will to Israel that we be free of earthly rulers. The Israelites insisted, instead, upon having a king. The attendant evil of submitting to earthly authority is easily discerned, as our Creator surely knew it would be.
On Romans 13, 1-4:
Compare the "mainstream Christians" of today to those you describe as the "Christian mainstream" of Paul's time. The same moral gymnastics are necessary for Christians in any age if those Christians are to justify to themselves a decision to submit to a secular authority which requires them to do murder in service to an empire.
Referring to early Christians who refused to serve as Caesar's soldiers and bureaucrats as "eccentric" and "extreme rigorists who withdrew from the Christian main stream" doesn't make your point convincing to me.
The Christian mainstream of today hardly even qualifies as Christian by any standard I can credit. Nationalist idolatry is what passes for Christianity among many Protestant churches today, and Paul's admonition to the early Roman church is their defense for their apostasy.
My concept of the legitimacy of earthly authority may well differ from that of the mainstream today. This concept is based on the example of the Confessing Church in Nazi Germany.
I value this quote from Dietrich Bonhoeffer's "The Cost of Discipleship".
"The followers of Christ have been called to peace. … And they must not only have peace but also make it. And to that end they renounce all violence and tumult. In the cause of Christ nothing is to be gained by such methods. … His disciples keep the peace by choosing to endure suffering themselves rather than inflict it on others. They maintain fellowship where others would break it off. They renounce hatred and wrong. In so doing they over-come evil with good, and establish the peace of God in the midst of a world of war and hate."
Bonhoeffer's and Niemoller's view of the national socialist government of Germany was, I think, accurate. Had they taken literally Paul's message to the Romans, they would have willingly submitted to the takeover of the Church by the government.
I prefer the teachings of Christ to the opinion expressed by Paul.
Dr. Wilson's point is well taken but if memory serves Gen. Jackson got his start in war by trying to grasp the forbidden fruit-invade Mexico. Too many Southerners of that era followed the dreams of empire, and followed the dreams of Quitman and Walker. And then real empire came to town and threw them down. As usual in that era, the South should have followed Calhoun's advice--and not invaded Mexico.
Getting back to Dr. Fleming's thoughtful essay, I am very struck by what he has to say-though my mind is dwelling on Pilate since I just finished "The Master and Margarita." What obligation does a Christian-be it a citizen or solider-have to an immoral regime? Certainly the John Brown-Timothy McVeagh route can be embraced by no follower of Christ. But what if the crew of the Enola Gay or the bombers over Dresden called themselves Christians? Or the federal agents at Ruby Ridge or Waco? Are they absolved from guilt since all the blood is on the hands of the men at the top of command? I'm thinking of a few scenes in Henry V. Had King Henry launched an unjust war, then the guilt would be on him. But we, alas, do not live under a monarchy (preferably a Stuart one!). Is guilt to be distributed under a government that claims to be "of the people" and "by the people"?
Ed Roberts' sincere and well-intentioned remarks illustrate the problem of attempting to grapple, as an individual, with the Scriptures. In the end he is forced to invent a doctrinal division between Christ and Paul. He sides with what he imagines to be the position of Bonhoeffer and Niemoller against the great apostle to the gentiles offering as proof only such remarks as "I value this..." and "I think accurate..." Or, worst of all, "The entire point of reading the Old Testament's..." Who says so and on what basis? This sort of reasoning always reaches the dead end where the Quaker is waiting for inspiration to reveal the truth.
I repeat for the last time: This is not a discussion of a Christian's duty to a bad government. I have been over this before and all I received were subjective and emotional comments from people who hate the United States because it is not perfect. Rob, however, is asking good questions. The answer lies in making a distinction between an ordinary soldier doing a soldier's duty in wartime, that is, fighting the enemy, no matter what he may think of the regime, and his willingness to do what he knows to be wrong. Lon Horiuchi, in firing into a house with a woman and child and where the violence had been precipitated by the Federal government, did what, as a Catholic, he knew to be wrong. In my view, he should have served time for the reckless or deliberate shot that killed a young mother. Horiuchi could have said, with no expectation of being shot or jailed, "I'm sorry, I cannot shoot into a house holding an American woman and her child." The German officers who refused to kill Ukrainian peasants were shot immediately.
In defense of Prof. Wilson I should add that it is not a little misguided to equate the patriotic fervor of Americans in the 1840's, when an aggressive and well-armed Mexico did its best to provoke a war with the US which everyone expected the the European trained and armed Mexican army to win, especially after the despicable behavior of Santa Anna during the War for Texas Independence, with the saber-rattling nationalism of crazed ideologues, whether Yankee Puritans or Nazis. A little study of history can sometimes save us from extremist judgments. One example is the mistake of attributing to our government Lincoln's glib and completely personal statement or of thinking that because we have superficial mechanisms of popular government that our system is anything but an oligarchy rigged by demagogues.
One of the great objectives of any serious study is to liberate our minds from cant, both the cant imposed on us by demagogues and the cant we have as willingly imbibed as Jim Jones' followers who. Those who wish to set up their own version of the Kingdom of God on Earth have, I fear, already drunk the Kool Aid.
Thank you Dr. Fleming for the clarification and my apologies for veering off topic.
The question of Christianity and pacifism has been on my mind a while now. One of the most fascinating passages I have come across in recent literature was when I came across Solzhenitsyn taking Tolstoy to task in the opening scene of "November 1916." A young artillery officer who has read too much Tolstoy has a conversation with a priest who basically speaks for Solzhenitsyn on the Christian's duty in war and other topics. The priest says in no uncertain terms there the state commits greater evils than war-such as an unjust punishment. I think there may be something to this. A Christian should not enjoy war and has a duty to oppose unjust wars but a Christian can not, should not embrace pacifism. Defenses of our homes, our families, our faith etc. fall in the Christian tradition (which is why despite my grumblings, I think most of the Confederates were in the right). We must be thankful that pacifists were not in charge of Christianity at the gates of Vienna or at Lepanto and that people who better understood the faith were defending the West.
I have sometimes wondered at religious sects that embrace pacifism because they think that service in the military is immoral no matter what, but then turn around and embrace utterly senseless and disgusting practices that kill people, such as Jehovah's Witnesses and the fatal blood transfusion fallacy, thus imperiling their souls, and others who refuse to go to a doctor at all. They may as well go get killed in a war.
Regarding cant, it seems that we have it all around us, and it's as easy to step into as dung in a chicken house. Beliefs and opinions come by the millions every day, and most are useless or harmful. Lord help those who let themselves be led by those who use cant on them, for they refuse to help themselves.
I would add that Walker, Quitman, etc., never had more than marginal support in the South. If it had not been for Yankee attempts to ban the South from the U.S. territories and thus consolidate permanent Yankee political power, there would have been no Walker and Quitman. It was a reaction to attack, unlike the settlement of Texas which was a natural movement of the people.
Even a "brother, if he refuses to make restitution is to be treated as a gentile". The words of Jesus, brother meaning Jew, and gentile meaning us, all non-Jews. It's futile trying to twist the words of Matthew into something else or take seriously a religion never intended for non-Jews.
#16 and 17- I agree that Christians should not be pacifists but again I don't see how the tiny number of genuine Christian pacifists (the JWs are not even Christian) are a danger as compared to the millions of Christian militarists and the hundreds of millions of Christians who will just go along with the presumption that any war their government engages in is just. Pacifist as used in contemporary discourse is generally a slur against those who advocate fighting only defensive wars or who subject their own government to criticism for violations of Christian just war teachings.
@19 Kirt Higdon - I think you miss the reason for the article. Certain young men at a certain webzine suggest Christianity is a weak, effeminate religion. Dr. Fleming's trying to set the record straight.
We have heard socialism proposed as a topic. There is also the fall of the Roman Empire, the lack of virility in Medieval Christendom. Any other proposals?
It would seem to me that the fall of the empire and the supposed lack of virility in mediaeval Christendom are related in the minds of some. Perhaps the two together would be a good topic?
We might also consider the survival of the Christian eastern empire or the death of the Persian empire after it persecuted it's Christians into near oblivion, and consider why no one considers Zoroastrianism weak and effeminate after it failed to fight off Islam.
It might be a good idea to consider why modern 'pagans' have failed even to found a real religion of any sort, and are powerless to affect the world around them.
I have not contributed to this interesting discussion, but in response to Dr. Fleming's call for possible future topics, centered apparently around the theme of identifying the correct Christian approaches to various political regimes and public policies, here are a few suggestions:
1. What if the global warming hypothesis is true? Does biospheric preservation trump all ideologies?
2. Is preemptive warfare always morally objectionable (to Christians)? A great deal of ink was spilled to that effect, by both Christian conservatives as well as libertarians, over this nearly past decade, but I find blanket condemnations of such somewhat childish. Suppose, just suppose, the weirdo Ahmadinejad (and yes, libertarians, yes, Dr. Duke, he is a weirdo, regardless of whether he exhibits such "positives" as hating the US Empire and denying the Holocaust) really believes that launching a nuclear strike could initiate the reign of the Twelfth Imam, or some such nonsense. What would be wrong, if anything, with preemptively destroying Iran's nuclear capacity?
It seems to me that the morality of war cannot be determined in the abstract, but only in its specific context, and with due consideration given to the moral conduct of the actual operations.
3. Is abortion really murder, or is it some lesser form of homicide? Recall Garrett Hardin's notorious thought experiment. A bizarre scientist gathers ten million artificially fertilized embryos in a glass jar, and then smashes the jar before the tv cameras. Is he really the greatest mass murderer in history?
4. What are children's moral obligations toward aging parents who were themselves selfish jerks their whole lives? Suppose an only child suffered through a childhood tormented by a cruel and selfish father, who did nevertheless provide room and board for his child. The father is an obnoxious pain in the posterior to pretty much everyone. Now, he is old, and with little savings, and some bad investments and the Obama Depression have conspired to render him near-homeless (he can barely afford a squalid room in an inner-city tenement). The son, a decent, middle-class Christian, is now a husband and father himself, with a happy home. His wife cannot stand her father-in-law.
Is the son being a "bad son", neglectful of filial obligation, if he refuses to give over a spare room in his ample, if hardly luxurious, suburban home to his father, because he doesn't want his father's presence sowing discord or even just generalized unpleasantness within his own family?
Here is another, even more pointed hypothetical. A man's parents upon retirement put a bumper sticker on their new mobile home, "We're spending our children's inheritance", and proceeded to live according to its wisdom. Their son warned them to be less self-indulgent, as they might need money for as yet unforeseen expenses. They told the son that they had taken care of him for oh so many years, and that he was only selfishly trying to maximize his inheritance.
Eighteen years later, the father is dead, and the mother has run through most of her money, and now needs nursing home care full time. The always prudent, but only modest-earning, son has to decide between saving money up for the college educations of his two intelligent children ("but can't they go to the state university, instead of the Ivy League?", the mother wonders), as well as providing for his and his wife's own retirement years, and putting his mother into a decent private care facility, the only other option being a public 'neo-charnel house'. Had the parents upon retirement been as frugal as the son both is and recommended, the mother would have been able to afford the private facility.
5. America has always been a white nation: that is, whites founded, settled and built the Great Republic. Morally, we own the country. In 1965 the race traitors LBJ and Edward Kennedy persuaded enough Congressmen, through a campaign of false predictions (if not outright lies), to enact their era's "comprehensive immigration reform", which, nearly a half-century later, has resulted in 'diversity' everywhere, and an Obama in the Oval Office. Conservatives failed to preserve their nation, and though still a majority of whites, are now a perpetual (and continuously shrinking) minority of the overall electorate. Thus it shall ever be (absent Acts of God, fratricidal race war, or other unforeseen and improbable occurrences).
At what demographic point may we whites start behaving like other racial minorities? I don't mean that we should rob convenience stores, or sign up for food stamps en masse, matters hard to square with Christian rectitude. I mean, when can we start organizing ourselves on the basis of race, as whites, engage in self-interested bloc voting, as whites, demand respect and especially entitlements and wealth transfers for our racial community, and generally put our racial nationalist interests ahead of any concern with some (increasingly fictitious) broad-based "national interest"?
I have many other ideas for rightist discussion topics, but surely one of the above is worth exploring.
I think, then, we'll start with the FAll of Rome and the virility of Medieval man.
To Lone Racer, I would suggest that it is the mark of a civilized Western man and a Christian not to worry too much about what others have done or not done, but to shoulder one's natural and spiritual burdens without complaint. Waugh's Tony Last (or, a subtler character, Ford Maddox Ford's Tietjens) may be a parody of this quality, but it is something of what used to be known as the gentleman. On racial politicking, thus, the answer should be never. One young man used to call our office, complaining that white men did not take care of other white men. I instructed my assistant to tell him that white men who whine have forfeited the title. Since white men created the problem, by giving the vote to women, liberating and importing minorities, creating minority rights programs, they simply have to quit committing suicide.
As for the lousy parents of my age and a little older, the commandment does not say honor they father and they mother so long as they be good parents. We do the best we can. If we are single, we have no better use for our money than to squander it on undeserving parents. If we have children, they have a prior claim. Now, there is an entirely separate question of what sort of nursing and medical care the impoverished are entitled to, and my answer is not much. We all have to die, and for most of us it hardly matters whether we die at 60 or at 80. Nursing homes and hospices are instruments for shifting the burden onto other people whom we pay. I'd rather die freezing in the woods than go to the best facility I have ever heard described. But, in saying I told you so, mom, the son would be putting himself morally on many rungs lower than his improvident and shiftless parents. His failure to do his duty and his lack of charity would be in principle worthy of hell.
What abortion is or is not is a fatuous question. Hardin was a brilliant man in many respects, but his view of human life was purely materialistic. He could not even explain his own love of music. I corresponded with him several times and published his essays. I admired his mind and his courage, but if he could not put a number to something, he could not understand it. Abortion is seriously wrong because a) our people--Greeks, Romans, Christians--have always viewed it as such, and b) because the mother is not just killing any person but the very baby she is duty bound to nurture, and c) because in interrupting the course of nature we are elevating ourselves to the godhead. Hardin could understand none of this, which is why his thought experiment is utterly pointless. In the Middle Ages, their ignorance of embryology encouraged them to distinguish between a fetus before and after it had received a soul. Abortion was, nonetheless, a mortal sin.
For preemptive war not to be sinful, the aggressor would have to know with reasonable certainty that his target had the will and the means to inflict great damage. We do not know that either is the case for Iran. Indeed, I doubt that in any time in the near future the Iranians will be able to hurt the US very much, though one of our allies in the Middle East may be at risk. Preemptive war is all the more immoral today, when the weapons and technique of war insure that civilians will be killed in very large numbers that will be explained away as collateral damage when the reality is that our warmakers are indifferent to life and positively plan to kill civiliians as a means of breaking the enemy's will. In order to stop an imaginary ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, where Serbs were fighting off the genocidal attack of Albanians, we bombed the Danube bridges in Novi Sad, at the other end of the country, and bombed them during the morning rush hour in a deliberate attempt to kill people who had absolutely nothing to do with the imagined crimes of Milosevic, and who, for the most part, did not even support him. Who would entrust such people with the power to wage preemptive war?
Any non-professional who says he knows the answer to the global warming question is a liar, and, probably, most professionals with a dogmatic opinion on this are are liars. We know that Al Gore is lying when he pretends to understand difficult scientific questions without being able to pass a calculus course., but he is only a little more stupid and dishonest than, say, Rush Limbaugh. We should only worry about saving the planet, if we worship the planet as some neopagans do. I am perfectly willing to accept the argument that we are poisoning our enviroment and will some day have to pay the price. But the poison is a byproduct of our greed, hedonism, and impotence. My late friend the philosopher Zampetti argued that homosexuality and environmental pollution sprang from the same spiritual disorder.
As a regular reader of the threads, if not an active contributor, I would enjoy a discussion on the fall of Rome as long as it didn't became a matter of to what degree the US should be compared to the later empire.
"Any other proposals [for topics]?"
St. Augustine--especially with respect to the limits of politics, ideology, reason, and dare I say it, natural law. I personally am eager to learn about an Augustine who has not been co-opted by muddle-headed "centrist" Christians.
It's difficult, for me, to have nearly every discussion turn at some point to Yankee bashing. What makes it especially trying is that I both respect Dr. Wilson et al, and understand that their criticisms are justified and spot-on. Nevertheless, I feel an affinity and affection for the people amongst whom I grew up (in a dingy mid-sized ex-mill city whose glory days are long gone), and for the region in which I live (New England), and though I agree with most (perhaps all) of the criticisms specifically, it often reads (to me, at least, and perhaps I am being over-sensitive) as a general indictment of my people, friends and family: my Memere (daughter of a farmer in Oxford) and Pepere (a fishmonger who fought on the USS Indiana in WWII), my father and mother, brother and sister. Unless "Yankee" is exclusively meant to mean the Anglo Saxon descendants of puritans and pilgrims and other English settlers, then all the people I love are "Yankees". If it *is* meant to mean exclusively the Anglo Saxon descendants of puritans and pilgrims and other English settlers, then it's a term that should not really be applied to describe contemporary New Englanders (and northeasterners), as those people (old Yankees) are practically extinct as a distinct people, and have been almost utterly replaced in the halls of power with the descendants of the Europeans they imported to labor in their mills.
Perhaps that's a petty complaint. It's a hard thing, I guess, to know the scale of the damage done by those who, by birth or election, lead and represent (or have lead and represented) your home, and to read so often about it. I can't imagine how Southerners must feel, having their people and history slandered so often and so (unlike the criticisms of Yankees here) unfairly.
Perhaps, in the same spirit as his Positive American Contributions to Civilisation piece, Dr. Wilson might do a "Yankees I Admire" piece. It might not be the longest article he's ever composed, but I wager it would be interesting.
Dr. Fleming.
Since Romans 13 was brought up, I suggest a discussion on the flip side of that coin: tyrannicide, or where the line is drawn.
Toddard,
I hope I haven't offended you with my dislike for Yankees because you are one of our more honest bloggers who I tend to read and take seriously. I once attended a wedding in New York where one of the guest asked my wife where she was from ...The silence was similar to years ago when E. F. Hutton spoke about stocks.(The old yankee has since lost everything I am told)In any event there is nothing to be done about the cultural divide between Southerners, Yankees and "boarder trash" like myself. We must just learn the difficult task of loving our enemies and holding our friends dear. You are one yankee it is easy to admire, and that is at least a beginning. Cheers
Dr.Fleming, in the comments section to the first part on this subject, you mentioned that the some of polytheism of pagans is visible in the worship of angels and saints in Catholicism. Will you elaborate on this interesting theme in this or later columns?
Tyrannicide and the incorporation of polytheism are both good topics. I should point out that Dr. Wilson did not introduce the topic of sectionalism but was merely rebutting what appeared to be an erroneous conflation of Southern and Northern Calvinisms. Let us drop it.
On #19, which I just approved, Nemo must either be jesting or has not studied the Gospels. Brother, apart from its literal meaning, is generally used to refer to one of Christ's followers and not the Jews generally. This is very clear from John. Naturally, most, though not all, of His early believers were Jews in the beginning, and it is not until there is a rapid growth in Antioch that the name "Christian" begins to be used. It is absolutely clear, by the way, that as His ministry reached its conclusion, Christ was repudiating conventional Judaism in all its forms. It is well nigh miraculous he was not killed.
"Ed Roberts’ sincere and well-intentioned remarks illustrate the problem of attempting to grapple, as an individual, with the Scriptures. In the end he is forced to invent a doctrinal division between Christ and Paul."
Dr. Fleming, you are also attempting to grapple, as an individual, with the scriptures. I invented no doctrinal division between Christ and Paul. The words of Christ can be taken as law. The words of Paul are the words of a mortal and fallen human being. There lies the division.
The condescending tone of your response shows me that you value your own opinion above any discussion. I have seen this in every single case in which anyone attempts to offer a differing opinion to you, especially in response to one of your pedantic essays.
Next, I suppose you'll go off in a snit, as you usually do, complaining that it's impossible to have a discussion online. I forgot that your columns are to be considered holy writ, with which no reader may disagree.
Ed Roberts is wrong again. First, it is a matter of fact not of opinion that he drew a line between Christ and Paul. This style of hermeneutics is a product of modern liberalism. Why is Paul a less reliable witness to Christ's teachings than, say, Luke? Paul writes earlier and was the recipient of a direct revelation. If we are to reject Paul's claims to be an apostle, why do we accept the word of a disciple of a disciple?
I do not value my opinion at all. My intention is merely to point out what the Christian tradition, as represented by the New Testament, the early and most authoritative fathers, and the continuous traditions of the Church have taught. When I reject Origen's theory that everyone, including Satan, will some day be reconciled to God, it is not on my authority but on the authority of the Church. Similarly, when I reject the Montanists' excessive rigorism, it is because the Church condemned it then and has continued to condemn it. By "church" in this context, let us say I mean the consensus of Catholic and Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran.
I do not believe I have a right to my own opinion, in matters as grave as these, even on my own website, and when the Greekless presume to lead others astray with their private doctrines, I shall repudiate and, when necessary, ridicule their erroneous opinions.
#29. Mr. Toddard. I appreciate your thoughtful comments and your point. I have mentioned before that by "Yankee" I do not mean all old stock Americans from the North, but refer to a particular type, which I carefully describe in an essay called 'The Yankee Problem in American History." A former student of mine is completing a book on righteous Northerners like Franklin Pierce of New Hampshire who stood on the capitol steps at Concord on July 4 while the battle of Gettysburg was going to denounce Lincoln's illegal and fratricidal war; or Chauncey Burr of Connecticut who throughout the war published and orated against the illegitimate war of conquest against the South.
I am sorry that I derailed somewhat Dr. Fleming's more importantt discussion, and now, per instruction, drop it.
Thank you, Dr. Wilson and Robert. I apologize, Dr. Fleming - it is dropped.
Dr. Fleming @ 26,
We had no problem targeting Serb civilians because they were white Christians. We haven't (unless I'm missing specific incidents) done that in Bush's wars since they're against brown Muslims.
Dr. Fleming @ 26,
Also Dr. Fleming, would it be un-Christian of me to turn away my mother-in-law or even my parents because they are very un-Christian moral examples to my young children and I don't want them living in the same household? I.e. not a question of financially being able to take care of them. Not a theoretical question either, I can imagine this happening in the near future.
The "collateral damage" in our current wars, though it is hard to get real numbers, appears to be horrendous. I do agree that Serbs were probably deliberately targeted because they were Christians who loved their own people and were fighting Muslims. But the tactics of modern war include systematic destruction of civilian life and infrastructure, which makes allegations of war crimes against our enemies, whether Karadzic or Saddam, a ludicrous exercise in hypocrisy.
Our duties toward our parents does not supersede our duties to our children. When the two conflict, we have to engage in a clumsy balancing act that requires a sophisticated casuistry. Some things to consider: Old people have already become what they are and have made their bed, while children are a work in progress requiring special attention. In a simple case of money, if one has to choose between a private school for the children or an expensive nursing home for parents, I would choose the former and do the best I could for the parents. In the example you cite, it would depend on how bad the examples are. If the oldsters in question advocate immoral principles, even if they can no longer act on them, it is best to minimize contact and not bring them into the house. If they are simply muddle-headed but not aggressive, one can explain to children that granny and gramps have gone a bit dotty and while you have to love them, their ideas can be dismissed. I don't think, for example, that the children of a tee-totalling family are much harmed if grandpa takes a nip in his room. On the other hand, a grandfather who regularly gets drunk and disgraces himself is another matter. The bottom line is no, it is not un-Christian to refuse to take into your house close relatives who might be harmful to your children's minds and morals, though one has to be on guard against, 1) pharisaical puritanism, and 2) confusing personal dislike with moral objections. I hope this helps a little. Talk to your pastor or priest, if he is a sound man.
I think for the future we shall have three installments on the same theme: 1) What role did Christianity play in the fall of the Roman Empire, 2) What sort of virility did the men of the Middle Ages display, 3) Was the virility of Medieval Christianity really Christian or something that the Germans injected--this will be a discussion of Russell's The Germanization of Medieval Christianity, so often cited by the Neo-Neopagans.
Perhaps it has been mentioned but the reasons for the longer survival of the Eastern Roman Empire after the fall of the Western would be an interesting topic.
Or perhaps Maimonides. He was one of the first, if not the first, to think seriosuly about the conflict between Athens and Jerusalem, or rather reason versus revelation. Maybe the discussion, though, is meant to be about historical movements and the "ideologies" behind them. I'm sure we all agree that it would be odd to regard ideas of the divide between Athens and Jerusalem as mere ideologies or excresences of historical movements. But that is still easy to forget. That said, I hope this digression will be excused.
"reason versus revelation"
This would be interesting because I think it is such a little understood subject in our time. The notion of revelation is exaggerated in the contemporary imagination to be something like a "Real Wizard Of OZ with amplified voice-overs speaking to a few elect" and reason is restricted to what can be measured by the senses rather than what can be known by their accute use. It t'is all in pieces now, but would be good all the same. But Dr. Fleming has some good topics that will relate to all of this, especially
"What sort of virility did the men of the Middle Ages display?" These poor damned fools praising everything German, (or Anglo Saxon, or French, or Italian, or Spanish)Never knowing what image men are made of.
dwright,
This guy is a pussy not a Christian but it does illustrate what the poorest of all poor religions has been reduced to in our times.St Peter knew how to handle a sword and used it on occassion until Christ told him to put it away. (Which demonstrates that His followers owned and carried arms.) There are instances of heroic virtue being displayed for the conversion of sinners or hardened criminals, but this ain't one of those instances.
It would seem that this man is a fool, not a Christian, and the so-called 'Christianity' that he thinks he belongs to is not Christianity at all. It sounds a lot like stupid new-age mumbo jumbo to me. Either that or he thinks he can set them up for revenge.
I think we need to distinguish between the real thing and the degenerate form.