After
September 11th, talk about “holy war” has occupied a lot of the discussion
in the public sphere. The horrific application of religion has stirred a
postmodern nation to think twice about moral relativism. However, the growing
attitude has been that religion in general is responsible—anti-religion has
been growing as an essential absolute for a better world. This is certainly the
goal of the New Atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.[1] The popularity of these
men has brought questions about wars in the Old Testament to the forefront.
Does the Bible promote the violence that plagues the world today?
Because
of the popularity of these writers, much of the discussion has been framed
around New Atheist criticisms. This precedent has forced the discussion to be
defensive in its very nature, either causing Christian writers to aggressively
assert that God can be a monster if he chooses, or apologizing for scripture
and dismissing it as not truly a revelation of the loving God they worship. In
the book, Four Views on God and Canaanite
Genocide, the authors tend to fall into this very trap.[2] Either, in C.S. Cowles’
case, Old Testament scripture is undermined, or in the case of the other three
authors (there is hardly any real difference between them) the angry, violent
God is upheld and weakly tied to the loving picture of God revealed through
Jesus Christ.
Part
of the problem with how the discussion has been framed recently is that it has
catered to the attacks from the outside. There has been a rich, ongoing
discussion in the Church for a long time—particularly among the Anabaptist
peace churches. This discussion gets some attention from the authors in the
popular theology book, but usually it is footnoted and left out of the wider
discussion. Of course, this has always been the case for Anabaptists—they are
rarely included in the wider Christian conversation. However, I believe that by
inviting them into the center of the discussion, Christians can find a much
more satisfying answer to the tension between the nature of God and the
reliability of scripture. Thus, I have focused much of my research on the Anabaptist
tradition, but still attempting to allow it to fit into the popular discussion.
Nevertheless, the answer will likely not be very popular—not because it harms
God’s reputation, nor because it undermines scripture, but because it has such
a great demand upon the life of the follower of Jesus.
To
answer the question, Is genocide
justified in the book of Joshua, without making some of the same errors
that have been displayed in the popular argument, the question must be
considered in two parts. First, God’s action will be considered—was God
justified in taking the lives of the Canaanites? Second, Israel’s action will
be considered—was Israel justified in engaging in war and genocide? By considering
the question in two parts, I hope to show that God is always justified in
withdrawing life, but it is always sinful for men to carry-out violence.
Furthermore, I hope to show that God commanding violence in Joshua does not
present a contradiction to these two statements when considering the full
narrative of scripture. Finally, I will suggest some ways that Christians can
apply what has been argued.
God Acting in the Book of Joshua
The
first thing to be evaluated in this complicated question concerns how one views
God’s actions in Joshua. As has been demonstrated in the popular discussion,
God’s nature becomes an area of great confusion. Is God justified in taking the
lives of human beings? Is God a violent being? And, if one concludes any of
these questions in the affirmative, how does one reconcile this God with the
revelation of the “Crucified Christ”—a humbled God that chose death on a cross
out of his desire that all might be saved? Each of these questions will be
answered in turn. Then one can adequately assess God’s action in the book of
Joshua.
Is
God Justified in Taking the Lives of Human Beings?
The
force of the question about God’s justification in killing people and wiping
out societies cannot be belittled. Unfortunately, in many arguments that have
been presented, this question is dismissed as though anyone who sincerely
wrestles with it ought to feel ashamed. The tone of the argument becomes, “Of
course God is justified, HE IS GOD.” However, a confident and forceful
assertion should not stir a sense of piety or triumphant faith in the believer.
This does not line up with God’s own attitude about such things. Rather, God
regularly lays out a patient and careful rationale behind his judgment.[3] The prophets always
meticulously speak on behalf of God to offer a reason for why God must bring
his judgment.[4]
And in the Joshua narrative where so-called “genocide” is committed, God
demonstrates His purposes as the entire story plays out. God reminds Israel
that it is not because of their righteousness or favor, but because of the
wickedness of the nations before them that He is driving them out.[5] Furthermore, God does not
allow Abraham to take the land immediately because the sin of the people had
not yet reached its full measure.[6] Finally, in Leviticus
18:24-25, one can see the level of sin that the nations surrounding Israel had
reached. Thus, it is important that those seeking a rationale for these
troubling acts of God be taken seriously—for God Himself thought it a worthy
question to address.
From the previous point, one can see a glimpse of God’s
rationale and purpose for ending the lives of certain peoples—it is sin and
rebellion. This is the case with the flood in Genesis, with the fire that
rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah, and so on. But in Joshua 6:21, the text reads:
“They
devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in
it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.” This passage
raises a legitimate question—Did God kill innocent people?[7] “Surely,”
one might argue, “among all those people, there were some who did not practice
the sinful things listed in Leviticus.” They might continue, “At least consider
the children; certainly they could not be guilty of such acts. Yet, we read
that God indiscriminately killed them as well.”
Depending
upon one’s view of original sin, the answer to this question may go several
ways. One might conclude that there are none who are innocent—even the children
are guilty from birth. It is a sheer act of mercy on God’s part that we are
given life at all. On the other hand, one may view the children under a certain
age as innocent and argue that it is an act of mercy that God preserved them
from a life within such a society. Furthermore, one could point to the story of
Rahab, where God acknowledged her faith and spared her life as well as her
entire family.[8] This
demonstrates God’s willingness to relent for those who would change—it was
simply the case that none other than Rahab wanted to repent. All of these are
scripturally sufficient ways to make sense of God’s rationale, and they will be
comforting to some, and troubling still to others.
Yet,
while it is good to recognize the rationale of God’s actions—primarily because
God mercifully offers it—it is not philosophically necessary. Peter Craigie
insightfully uses the phrase “withdrawing life” to describe God’s actions.[9] God, being the One who
sustains life, has a unique right to withdraw it whenever He chooses without
needing any justification. The truth remains that God does not need a justification for His withdrawal of
life, because there is no one who can sit in judgment of God. Giving and taking
life remains God’s free prerogative. Nevertheless, at the risk of belaboring
the point, God does offer a rationale
for such an emotionally difficult decision (for both Him and humanity) out of
His mercy to his creatures.
Is
God a Violent Being?
The need to consider whether God is violent may not be
obvious to all readers, especially after it has been established that it is
God’s free prerogative to withdraw life. However, the question serves to
develop some important theological conclusions that will be useful later when
we consider the consistency of the nature of God between the Testaments. But
before we move on to a discussion of God’s nature, let us consider a working
definition of violence.
John Howard Yoder offers a series of possible
constructions for the concept of violence.[10] Violence, in the most
common conceptions, is distinguished from force. If one is a legitimist, they will argue that force
can be legitimate when carried out by a legitimate government and authority.
Thus, anyone using force that is not part of a legitimate authority structure
is guilty of using violence (apparently synonymous with “illegitimate force”).
On the other hand, one can take the liberationist
position which argues that the distinction between force and violence is
based upon justice. That is, one must distinguish between force being used for
a just cause, but violence being used as an injustice.
This is a helpful distinction in considering whether God
is violent. Regardless of which definition one adopts, God is nonviolent. He
either uses legitimate force, or force for a just cause, but God cannot be
guilty of violence by either of these definitions. For, as we discussed above,
God withdrawing the life for which He sustains certainly cannot be seen as
unjust. Likewise, being the unique authority, that none can sit in judgment of,
God is the ultimate legitimate authority. Thus, while God is all powerful,
uniquely sovereign, and free to give or take life, He cannot be violent by
definition.
Can
the Nature of Jesus be reconciled with the Nature of God in the Old Testament?
Concluding that God is nonviolent is proved further by
the fact that when Jesus humbly left his place of honor to become a man, he did
not use “force” or violence, but died peacefully on the cross.[11] Thus, the question of
continuity between God in the New Testament and God in the Old Testament is supported
by the way we understand violence. When Jesus is depicted as using force, it is
only when he is exalted to the right hand of his Father, ruling as the King of
the entire universe. When God became a man, he took on the role of man, so that
he might be the perfect man in our place. In his obedience and humility, Jesus
modeled the way to overcome evil with good. This is what Jesus meant in his
Sermon on the Mount and what Paul had in mind in Romans 12.[12]
Thus, the clear, nonviolent nature of Jesus serves as a
moral imperative for all other humans, but does not negate God’s ability to
rule justly and give and withdraw life freely of His own prerogative. This is
the key to reconciling the Old and New Testament pictures of God—the just wrath
of God versus the nonviolent life of Jesus. The confusion for someone like C.S.
Cowles, who cannot reconcile Jesus’ pacifism with God’s justice, needs to
recognize the unique role that Jesus played while walking upon the earth.[13] Jesus has taken on the
likeness of man, offering us a picture of perfect humanity. But eventually, God
exalts Jesus to His right hand, and gives him a name that all will bow to—the
picture of Jesus that is seen in Revelation. It is in this unique position that
Jesus will finally execute justice. Thus, it is still proper to refer to God as
nonviolent, especially in light of the image of Jesus in Revelation, because
Jesus has been exalted to the proper authoritative position for executing “just
force” or “legitimate force”. Nevertheless, God can still be called nonviolent,
because violence is something only mere humans can carry-out—something that
Jesus, taking on the form of a man, but having the very nature of God, never
utilized.[14]
In the effort to answer the question about God’s behavior
in Joshua, several preliminary questions have had to be addressed. Thus far, it
has been shown that God is justified in withdrawing life from anyone, because
he is the very giver of life. Nonetheless, God does mercifully offer a rationale for His actions—that sinfulness
had reached its full measure. This action does not qualify God as a violent
God, but is consistent with his nature as a sovereign God who acts justly and
legitimately. And when Jesus took on the form of a man he behaved nonviolently,
offering a model of perfect humanity. But once he resumed his place of
authority at the right hand of God, he now exercises judgment upon injustice
and sin. Hence, the tension between the Testaments has already begun to be
resolved. However, the full answer to that problem will have to be addressed in
the following section.
Man Acting in the Book of Joshua
Man Acting in the Book of Joshua
The question that now must be evaluated
is the genocide itself—were the acts that were carried out by the Joshua and
the Israelites justified? It will be concluded that genocide was not justified because
war, let alone genocide, is always evil. However, this quickly raises a deeper
question—why God would allow or command war if it is evil? These questions
cannot be answered without a proper, yet brief, discussion of the full narrative
that is at work. Once there is a better understanding of the concept of God as
a warrior, the larger picture of God’s purposes will become clearer—that is
that God intends to remove war from the world and does not desire that humanity
engage in it. It is from this perspective that one should evaluate the actions
of Israel in Joshua.
God
is a Warrior
Throughout the Old Testament God is called the Warrior
God, the Lord of Armies or Hosts, and so on. This is a glaring problem for one
who wishes to argue that the war that humans engage in is evil. If God is a
warrior God, how can war be evil—is it not part of God’s nature? Would this not
be accusing God of evil? However, in the following paragraphs, it will be clear
that while God has this designation, war still remains the responsibility of
humans, not God.
Peter
Craigie offers a helpful insight at this point. To Give God the name “Warrior
God” it is clearly an anthropomorphism.[15] This is just like calling
God a Loving Father or Jealous Husband. These are parts of the human language,
born out of human experience, that clearly reveal something about God, but do
not reveal the full nature of God. We should not imagine that God is wearing
armor and holding a spear, or that God is actually covered in the blood of His
enemies. As Craigie says,
It
may be true language about God, but it is incomplete, for the reality of God is
greater than any words which may be used to describe him. And so expressions
like “God the Warrior” and “Lord of Hosts/Armies” we may understand as a part
of the divine revelation; it is truly descriptive language about God, provided that the limitations inherent in
language are recognized and remembered…Thus, when we read of God the
Warrior, we are being pointed to truth about God, albeit a limited and less
than complete truth.[16]
To simply call God a
Warrior does not settle the discussion. Rather, it opens up the question, what
does God wish to reveal about himself by taking the title of Warrior God? The
truth that lies behind this title has much to do with God’s relationship with
Israel and His role in human history.
God
has chosen to act in human history. Now this is a messy thing to have chosen to
do as one can quickly see. Nevertheless, this is a truth about God, revealed in
His participation in the human act of war, as well as many other things. This
truth is very valuable to the Israelites. God is not only active in human
history, but He is acting through their particular nation, giving them success
in battle, going before them to give them their promised land.
Statehood
requires securing borders. If God is going to act through Israel as a nation,
which He does for a time, they will have to secure the borders around
themselves or they will be wiped out. This very fact requires that God, working
through Israel, get involved in war. This is not part of God’s actual nature—to
have people kill other people in order to prevent further killing. Rather, this
is a reality of humanity’s brokenness. The title Warrior is not so much about
God’s particular skill set, or about the activity with which He wishes to be
occupied with, but about His commitment to his people, who for now happen to be
in a position where war is inevitable. Of course, God does give and take life,
but it is not His desire to pit his creation against itself and be worshipped
for his destruction of His own creation.
There
are other titles that God is given, such as the Prince of Peace. How does this
fit with His warrior status? The Old Testament has to be understood as a whole
if we are going to reconcile these seemingly contradictory names. While God had
worked through Israel as a nation for a time, eventually they too fell into the
sins that their neighbors committed and God sent them into exile. Once they
were sent into exile, they did not become a sovereign state again, until the
recent century. The prophets helped Israel to see that, once they abandoned God
as their King, they failed as a nation. But God had every intention of
preserving his work, and He powerfully rewrote this tale of human brokenness into
a story of God’s redemption. God turned the Kingdom of Israel into the Kingdom
of God, a coming hope in the words prophets and finally inaugurated by Jesus.
The Warrior God is now the Prince of Peace, the Crucified Christ.
War
and Genocide are Evil
It is because of this larger picture of God’s actions
that we can look back on the wars and the genocide and see that those actions
are evil. That killing and death were never part of God’s plan for humanity.
God merely used these things out of his commitment to work through sinful
humans. A clear example of this paradox is the fact that God told David to
engage in war, yet because of this sin he was not able to build the Temple. The
fact that God uses humans, and thus uses methods that humans employ, does not
change the fact that those things are evil.
Let us consider other similar examples in the Old Testament
that may serve as analogies, and that also may refine one’s intuitions.
Polygamy was prevalent throughout the Old Testament. God allows it, uses people
who engage in it, uses the fruits of it, and even seems to endorse it.[17] Yet, it is very clear
that this is not how God intended humans to interact with one another. Rather,
this is the result of God working through broken human beings. The same way one
reads the texts that demonstrate polygamy, so one ought to read the texts that
seem to condone war.
Divorce also represents one of these realities that the
sin of human beings brings into reality, and God works with, but does not
reflect God’s real desire for his people. Thus, just because God allows divorce
because of the hardness of humanity’s hearts, and even commands it because of
their disobedience, it does change the fact that divorce is part of the evil
that will be wiped out when God restores all of the earth under Jesus’ rule.[18]
It
is never God’s will that humans engage in such things—they are evil, they are
lacking in goodness, they are sin, they miss the target—but God’s commitment to
working through sinful people leads Him to get involved in a very messy
narrative. This may not make one feel better about God’s seeming participation
in evil, but the problem of evil is an ongoing philosophical and theological
question that cannot be answered in this essay. The point of this argument is
to simply point out that war and genocide should be handled theologically the
same way one handles other aspects of evil caused by human sin and rebellion. War
does not have a special status—there is no such thing as a “holy war”.
The
Way of Non-Violence
Ultimately, the fact that war and genocide are not the
way God intended people to behave is made obvious through His coming to show
humanity the true way to overcome evil. That is, when Jesus came and modeled
perfect humanity, he exposed the failure of war and offered a better way. Jesus
demonstrated the way in which people can overcome evil with goodness—even if
that means suffering and dying, as Jesus did. Some question that Jesus actually
modeled nonviolence as a way of being a full human. Most of this argument rests
on the belief that war is justified in the Old Testament. However, this argument
is not as compelling once one considers how war is seen in light of the entire
Old Testament.
John
Howard Yoder argues that the primary theological insight one should gain from
the war narratives is that God fights for us.[19] In light of the argument
above, this would be the appropriate way for God’s judgment to be carried out
since God is the only one who can justly withdraw the lives of humans. Paul
Copan tries to answer the criticism from the New Atheism movement that war also
destroys the individual committing the act, psychologically and emotionally
breaking the person down.[20] But Copan, hoping to
defend humans engaging in some kinds of war, does not adequately answer the
criticism. While the psychological impact may have been less severe in the days
of Joshua due to what one might consider a “hardness of heart”, it remains clear
that taking the life of a human being ought to be reserved for the One who
gives it. And as the full story unfolds, this seems to be how God would have
it; several times in Israel’s history God miraculously delivers his people.
Part
of the emotional and psychological consequence is that war has a cyclical
effect; once it starts it cannot stop. The chain started with the very first
murder in the Bible, Cain killing his own brother. The effect was that others
in society wanted to return the act—God had to protect Cain from the wrath of
society, for they would surely have killed him.[21] Further, after the flood,
God forbids the shedding of man’s blood because it will result in more shedding
of man’s blood. And Jesus also points to the cyclical reality of violence; he
explains that those who live by the sword will die by the sword. If it is God’s
ultimate plan to turn destructive weapons into constructive tools, and to
foster a society where people do not train for war anymore, then the cycle of
humans killing humans must be broken. But this does not mean that justice is
forgotten, for God says that vengeance is His, and throughout His narrative He
has shown that He is faithful—He will fight for His people.
The
belief that God will fight for his people became a powerful part of the Jewish
consciousness. Before Jesus came on the scene, there were already Jewish
pacifists who read the same Old Testament as Jesus and his followers and came
to the very same conclusions.[22] Jewish pacifism continued
through the Middle Ages and suffered persecution from all corners of the world,
including those corners filled with Christians.[23] For many Jews, the
failure of war so many times in their history proved to them that they must
rely on the miraculous intervention of a messiah. The failure of the Maccabbean
Revolt, and the revolts in the late-first-century and early-second-century set
their convictions in stone. In fact, the only two forms of Judaism that
survived these episodes, Rabbinical Judaism and early Christianity, were both
clearly nonviolent. If this is how the Old Testament was understood then,
perhaps there is stronger reason for modern Old Testament readers to consider a
similar understanding of the whole narrative.
While
historical arguments can be compelling, the strongest argument for a nonviolent
alternative to war is Jesus himself. As briefly mentioned earlier, the Sermon
on the Mount is Jesus’ clearest articulation of how his followers might
overcome the violent and corrupt institutions around them. Walter Wink offers
an interpretation of Matthew five through seven that is far from passive
allowance of evil.[24] Rather, according to
Wink, Jesus offers a profound alternative that resists evil, but creatively
uses methods that do not fall into the cycle of violence and war. What is most
compelling is the fact that the Early Church practiced this kind of resistance,
and eventually overcame the most powerful military the world had yet seen—all
without using violence.
It
has been argued that God, though referred to as a warrior, does not delight in
war. Rather it is a consequence of His participation in human history. Instead,
the fact that humans participate in violence has always been a result of sin
nature and should be viewed as evil. Further, the fact that God intervenes to
fight instead of His people, and that
Jesus modeled a way that is nonviolent, demonstrates that war as a way for God
to accomplish His purposes has been eradicated. It is now, with the redeeming
work of Jesus, possible for God’s people to overcome evil with good, not more
evil. Thus, the actions of Joshua and Israel in the book of Joshua were not
justified. Rather, they are an evil that resulted from the sinful human nature.
But God has overcome man’s cycle of war and violence by becoming a man and
showing the way of nonviolence—of loving one’s enemies the way God loves them,
and praying for one’s persecutors trusting that God will act on behalf of his
people.
Conclusion
God
acted justly when he withdrew life from the Canaanites, but this act was
carried out through a broken, human act of violence that cannot be “justified”
as a normative way of executing justice. Rather, this human activity was a
result of God’s commitment to use the nation of Israel for His purposes. It is
clear, through prophets, and Jesus, that God does not desire that man engage in
violence, though God himself will exact judgment. The strength of this answer lies
in the fact that it does not fall into the complication of the popular arguments.
That is, it explains war that was sanctioned by God, but later clearly
prohibited, without viewing God as schizophrenic or damaging the inspired
status of the Old Testament. Further, it preserves the peace tradition that,
from the perspective of many Christians, comes directly out of the teachings of
Jesus. Nonviolence should not need to be a footnote in a discussion about war
in the Old Testament. Instead, when the wealth of this theology is brought into
the center of the discussion, a much clearer picture of God come to the fore.
Application
John Woolman was a Quaker in eighteenth-century colonial
America. His life serves as a powerful testimony to American’s today for a
number of reasons: he was a business man who put Christ before his bottom line;
he was a man who recognized his own guilt in the midst of a sinful nation; he
resisted taking on a lifestyle that abused other human beings for the sake of
comfort; and he chose peace when most of society chose the easy option of
violence. I want to share one story from a recent biography on Woolman that
will illustrate some applications for the conclusions made in this study of war
in the Old Testament.[25]
Among many things, Woolman’s ministry was to arbitrate
peace between Native Americans and the European Settlers that were taking the
land. Frequently, the “white man” would take land and claim it as his own—even
though that land was shared by many of the tribes beforehand. This of course
created tremendous tension between the “white man” and the “Indian”. One such
clash had recently happened, resulting in what was certain to become a terrible
cycle of violence. Woolman and his friend decided that they needed to visit
this particular tribe and see what they could do to prevent any kind of
retaliation. Frequently, Quakers were able to negotiate peace by going to these
tribes and offering to pay for the land that had been stolen from them. This
was what Woolman had in mind this time as well.
However, this trip was a little more troubling. The
violence and hostility had reached an all time high—the tension was palpable.
Woolman had heard about settlers being killed even though they were not
intending to be hostile. In fact, by the time Woolman finally left for the
journey, he had resolved that he would likely die on this particular mission.
His wife and family were terrified as they watched the two men leave.
They had decided ahead of time not to bring guns for
hunting because they were committed to the Quaker way of nonviolence. Instead
they would have to have a more simple diet for the duration of their trip.
As they were walking along a narrow path through the
woods, approaching the village where this particular tribe lived, Woolman and
his friend came upon an Indian who looked startled at their presence. The man
was a long way off down the path, but Woolman and his friend could see that he
had lifted his hatchet and was running toward them. Woolman immediately began
calling out that they only wanted to talk, that they only had peaceful
intentions. As the man came closer and closer, Woolman’s words became quicker
and louder: Peace, peace, peace! The Native American finally reached the two
men with his hatchet in the air. But he stopped, put his hatchet away, and led
the men into his village. Woolman relays in his journal that the episode scared
him worse than any other moment in his life. And even though he was successful
in establishing peace between that tribe and the local settlers, he never went
on another mission that dangerous again.
The point of this story is that it illustrates the need
to commit to peacemaking if we are to ever really give it a chance. That is, if
John Woolman and his friend had brought guns, whether for hunting or for
protection, at what point in their crying out for peace would they have grabbed
their guns to save their lives? Some may have grabbed their guns immediately,
some may have grabbed them at the last minute, but not many would have waited
until peace actually triumphed. Perhaps Woolman knew that he would be tempted
to use his hunting tools against his fellowman. Perhaps Woolman knew that he
was too weak to leave that possibility open. But by leaving the guns at home,
they had to rely on the protection of God and the hope of peace.
Now I believe our commitment to being peacemakers is
going to require a similar approach. Regardless of what one believes about war,
whether they are a pacifist or hold to a version of Just War, if they are a
Christian they ought to be committed to peacemaking. It is clear that the
trajectory of God’s story is to establish peace, and insofar as we are
participants in the winning side of that story, we will be working toward
peace.
What are some specific things that we can do to truly
give peace a chance? For one, we can question and challenge any acts of
violence that are committed in the name of God. This obviously applies to the
concept of “holy war” in Islam—Christians have a strong theological ground,
even in the Old Testament, to challenge the entire concept of a war that is
holy. But this also applies to so-called Christian nations. Not too long ago,
George W. Bush claimed that God told him to fight the war in Iraq.[26] Committed Christians have
a responsibility to challenge such claims on the basis of scripture. Even Just
War advocates should be able to embrace this, considering the fact that no war
ever waged by the U.S. has actually lived up to the requirements of classic
Just War Theory, save the arguable position that World War II met those
standards. Christians must get clear-headed about their calling to be
peacemakers and raise at least as much of a witness on this issue as they do on
issues such as homosexuality and abortion.
Second,
we can change who we promote as heroes. In my view, Woolman’s courage far
exceeds that of many of the people that society holds up as heroic. But Woolman
is not alone. In fact, throughout Church history there are models for
peacemaking that can inspire us to live out a Christ-like commitment to love
even our enemies. There is St. Francis, who tried to negotiate peace with
Muslims in the midst of the awful crusades; there is William Penn who
brilliantly founded a state without conflict with Native Americans; and, of
course there are the numerous martyrs of the early church who chose to die
peacefully at the hands of their enemies just like their Lord and Savior. The
belief that nonviolence is a sign of weakness is a lie that has promoted
violent nationalism for too long. We must begin to be inspired by the courage
of Jesus’ way—the way of love, the way that truly overcomes evil.
Third,
we can make the wise choice that John Woolman made and create an environment
where violence is less accessible, because we know that our inclinations will
exclude a real chance for peace. Whether this means a personal application where
guns are removed from the house, or a national application where we diminish
our military spending. Nuclear weapons have long been a terrible threat that
ought to be removed. There is no hope in building up stronger and stronger
armies—they might promise to secure our comfort for the moment, but they also
promise to continue the cycle of violence. In fact, building a bigger and
bigger military is the worst kind of selfishness and indulgence. Our desire for
security now will cost the lives of many to come. Let us learn from Woolman and
leave behind the weapons. This will then allow for my last point, the real
chance for us to think creatively about peacemaking.
Finally,
by removing the possibility of choosing violence, we create the atmosphere for
real, creative peacemaking strategies. In fact, our lives will depend upon
calling for peace. Just as Woolman had to trust God and persist in his effort
to call out peace in that situation, we must view peace, and the power of God,
as our only real hope. As long as we trust in the habits of war, we will never
get serious about making peace. Churches need to train Christians in ways to
make peace. They need to stop encouraging all of their courageous young people
to fight wars and to harness that potential for creative peace alternatives. As
long as a young man or woman believes their zeal is best used for violence, and
the Church encourages such an ideal, we will continue to lose that needed part
of the body of Christ to the evil cycle of war. I am not suggesting that
Christians adopt the Mormon policy of missions, but the fact that they
successfully mobilize their young people to such a courageous and difficult
task—sometimes in dangerous and difficult parts of the world—makes it clear
that the Church has not creatively engaged the potential in the body of Christ.
At
this point, I would like to close with a response to a common objection. Many
people, in response to the thought of nonviolence, like to paint a picture of a
situation where an intruder has broken in and is threatening to harm or do evil
to one’s family. A scenario like this often allows the use of violence to seem
heroic and plays on the intuitions of self-preservation and love for family
members. I think of the last Rambo movie where the pacifist preacher is seen as
a weak and naïve man who almost allows his whole group to perish. But
thankfully, Rambo, who is the real hero, shoots everybody.
However,
Gregory Boyd challenges the Christian to think differently about this
hypothetical situation. He tells a story about a woman who is being attacked
and who is about to be raped. In a moment of panic, and perhaps a moment of
divine intervention, she calls out “Your mother forgives you,” and the man
immediately stops and breaks down into tears. She runs away and the man is
caught right where she left him.[27]
There
are numerous cases where miraculous and inspiring redemption happens in moments
where many would turn to violence but instead nonviolence is practiced.[28] The point is not that
nonviolence will always rescue us from suffering or danger, not even violent
alternatives can promise that, but that nonviolence at least opens the
opportunity for God to fight for us, redeem his people and overcome violence.
[1]
See Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not
Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (New York: Twelve, 2007). See also Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Boston: Mariner Books,
2006). Both books were New York Times bestsellers.
[2]
C.S.Cowels et. al., Show Them No Mercy:
Four Views on God and Canaanite Genocide, ed. by Stanley N. Gundry (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2003).
[3]
Pierre Gilbert, “The Problem of War in the Old Testament,” Articles, Papers,
Essays by Pierre Gilbert, http://www.cmu.ca/faculty/pgilbert/articles/index.shtml
(accessed September 9, 2011).
[4]
For example, see Amos 2:6-16, Micah 2:1-2, and Habakkuk 1:2-4.
[5]
Deuteronomy 9:4-6.
[6]
Genesis 15:16.
[7]
Gregory Koukl. “Can God Kill the Innocent?” Stand to Reason, 2005. http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=News
Article&id=5271 (accessed September 9, 2011).
[8]
Joshua 6:22-23.
[9]
Peter C. Craigie, The Problem of War in
the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman’s Publishing Co., 1978),
42.
[10]
John Howard Yoder, The War of the Lamb:
The Ethics of Nonviolence and Peacemaking (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press,
2009), 33-36.
[11]
Philippians 2:5-11.
[12]
See Matthew 5:38-48, Romans 12:17-21.
[13]
Cowles, 23. Cowles makes several comments about the “discontinuity” between
Jesus and the Old Testament picture of God. One of the more remarkable comments
he makes suggests that Christians should no longer view God as “the father of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” but as the “Father of our Lord and Savior.” This
kind of discontinuity would not be necessary if Cowles recognized that the
revelation of Jesus is not merely that of the nature of God (which it is), but
also the revelation of how humans ought to be human.
[14]
Tremper Longman III, in his criticism of C.S. Cowles’ position, argues that
Cowles overlooks Jesus flogging the people in the temple and driving them out.
However, it seems to me that Longman is making the common mistake of assuming
that Jesus was striking humans. Jesus was not striking people, but driving out
the animals. (Martin Scorcese’s Last
Temptation of Christ has furthered this misconception by dramatizing the
scene, depicting Jesus as crazed and violent.)
C.S. Cowles, et al., Four Views on
God and Canaanite Genocide: Show Them No Mercy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 60. See Longman’s footnote.
[15]
Craigie, 39.
[16]
Ibid., 95.
[17]
See Ex 21:10, Deut 25:5–10, and 2 Samuel 12:8.
[18]
See Ezra 9 and 10; Matthew 5:31-32, 19:1-11.
[19]
Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman’s
Publishing Co., 1994), 76-88.
[20]
Paul Copan, “Yahweh Wars and the Canaanites: Divinely Mandated Genocide or Corporate
Capital
Punishment?” Evangelical
Philosophical Society, 2011, http://www.epsociety.org/library
/articles.asp?pid=63 (accessed September 9, 2011).
[21]
Yoder, The War of the Lamb, 28-29.
[22]
Ibid., 71-75.
[23]
Ibid.
[24]
Walter Wink, The Powers that Be: Theology
for a New Millennium (New York: Galilee Doubleday, 1998), 99-111 .
[25]
Thomas P. Slaughter, The Beautiful Soul
of John Woolman, Apostle of Abolition (New York: Hill and Wang, 2008), 259.
[26]
BBC, “God Told Me to Invade Iraq, Bush Tells Palestinian Ministers,” BBC Press Office, June 10, 2005, http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml
(accessed October 11, 2011). Nabil Shaath, Palestinian Foreign Minister, quoted
Bush, saying "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission
from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in
Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and
end the tyranny in Iraq ." And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words
coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis
their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do
it.'"
[27]
Gregory Boyd, The Myth of A Christian
Nation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 162-167.
[28]
See Thomas Merton, The Nonviolent
Alternative (New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 1980).