What Is It Good For? Nonviolence In A Violent World: Part I
December 21, 2008
|
I: Introduction
In 1945, Father George Zabelka administered mass to the Catholic bomber pilot who dropped the atomic bomb on Nagasaki. Much later, he felt it was necessary to repent of his support in the act and described his experiences in an interview in 1980:
“I was there, and I’ll tell you that the operational moral atmosphere in the church in relation to mass bombing of enemy civillians was totally indifferent, silent, and corrupt at best—at worst it was religiously supportive of these activtites by blessing those who did them…
Catholics dropped the A-bomb on top of the largest and first Catholic city in Japan. One would have thought that I, as a Catholic priest, would have spoken out against the atomic bombing of nuns. (Three orders of Catholic sisters were destroyed in Nagasaki that day.) One would have thought that I would have suggested that as a minimal standards of Catholic morality, Catholics shouldn’t bomb Catholic children. I didn’t. I, like the Catholic pilot of the Nagasaki plane, “The Great Aristle,” was heir to a Christianity that had for seventeen hundered years engaged in revenge, murder, torture, the pursuit of power, and prerogative violence, all in the name of our Lord.
I walked through the ruins of Nagasaki right after the war and visited the place where once stood the Urakami Cathedral. I picked up a piece of censer from the rubble. When I look at it today I pray God forgives us for how we have distorted Christ’s teaching and destroyed his world by the distortion of that teaching. I was the Catholic chaplain who was there when this grotesque process that began with Constantine reached its lowest point—so far.”
Nagasaki After the Atom Bomb, 1945
This is not a post about the justice or injustice about that specific decision, but Father Zabelka’s story does transport us drastically to the center of this ethical labyrinth. How does one balance the Christian’s command to neighbor-love with his or her committment to the state? Should the Church resort to violence in defense of justice? How are we to understand Jesus’ teaching on “turning the other cheek” in the Sermon on the Mount?
It’s impossible to study either Christian tradition or Scripture and merely pluck out a moment when there seemed to be complete consensus in this manner. Certainly the Old Testament presents us with tension between the Holy War accounts of conquering Canaan and the condemnation of wars we find in the prophets like Isaiah and Micah. In the New Testament we find Jesus telling us to love our neighbors but also warning that he’s come bearing a sword. The Early Church was well known and persecuted for its refusal to participate in the Roman Army and yet there are a host of Saints who were soldiers and stories of Christian military heroics like Marcus Aurelius’ Thundering Legion.
Imperial Church and Ascetics. Crusaders and Quakers. This is not a clear cut issue and for that reason, I hope we can approach it with all possible humility. As these posts unfold, my own opinions in the matter will become more apparent. While I may stand against the greater tide of Christian History, I believe we can find a few strands in tradition and Scripture that bring us back to the root teachings of Christ, so that we may be perfect, as our heavenly father is perfect (Matt. 5:48).
Continue on to Part II
Tony Hunt
jstambaugh
Shawn Wamsley
December 21, 2008 at 23:42
I got an interesting perspective on ‘Turning the other cheek’ from a book I borrowed from Jeremy, so it was probably Marcus Borg.
Anyway, the point of the illustration he made (whether it’s historically correct or not) is that turning the other cheek was actually a wry sort of rebellious act.
To be slapped with the back of a person’s hand was to insulted. The higher class only used the back of the hand with servants and lower class people. Borg (I believe it was him) suggested that to offer your other cheek was to say, slap me again, but this time with your palm, as an equal. So sure, you were allowing the person to hit you again, but you were challenging their position in society at the same time.
Now the only reason I bring this up is that this ‘Turn the other cheek’ thing has always bothered me. Many people who I’ve met that were pacifists used this as their main ‘proof text’ for their anti-war stance.
We also have to balance Jesus’ character with that of God displayed throughout the bible. If we are trying to be Godly, not just Christ-like, it’s much easier to make a case for just war. A case for murder? Not a chance. But a case for self defense, for defending your country, I think so.
Sure, Christ didn’t lead any military crusades, and many of The Crusades were completely outside of what any church should have condoned, but that doesn’t mean war is wrong completely. It simply needs to have a different context for our modern world. The Old Testament is full of wars, and even the New Testament ends with an enormous battle between good and evil in a military setting. Whether or not that is all completely literal, I think it’s safe to assume we cannot just rule out military action as a part of any Christian’s life.
Instead, even in war situations I believe a Christian can stand up for what they believe, refusing to kill civilians or bomb non-military targets… something of this sort.
Maybe turning the other cheek in that context would be to suffer the consequences of refusing to follow orders and do something morally wrong in a war context.
Man… that was sort of a rant. I’ll have to come back and read it again to make sure it makes sense.
December 22, 2008 at 2:28
Thanks for your thoughts Tony. My next post will indeed focus on that sermon on the mount text. I’ve actually done some research on the “back of the hand” theory too and I’ll share some research.
We live in a world where war is often thrust upon us whether we invite it or not. (The biblical texts certainly reflect this). Without silencing any particular voice, I think it’s important we look at military conflict in its larger narrative context in scripture.
Check back for the fuller discussion on this.
December 22, 2008 at 21:53
Sounds good. I know I’m no scholar, so I’m interested in your thoughts and the usual responses.
December 23, 2008 at 17:40
Tony I think that you may be taking Borg farther than he intended. It seems to me that his point was that Jesus was not advocating that the Jewish people just lay down and take the oppression from the Romans and the ruling elite. That said it must be balanced with what Borg says about Jesus view of subversive resistance instead of oppresive resistance. Borg argues that Jesus laid out a path for non violent resistance. This is at least what the first century church believed Jesus message was. After all they were the ones being oppressed and they chose not to fight violence with violence. It wasnt till the church came into power that it began to see the need for Christian violent force.
January 2, 2009 at 19:52
I am so glad I stumbled upon this blog. God, Beer, and Tobbacco are three of my favorite things, and somehow they go together so well.
I appreciate you setting the stage in this post for the others in the series by pointing out that this issue is so terribly complex. I do however believe that the early church, according to the writers of the first couple centuries, seemed to have a universal consensus on this issue. That certainly doesnt settle the issue, but I think it is well worth consideration.
I look forward to reading the other posts in this series, and whatever else I may find as I wander around the blog a bit.
January 2, 2009 at 20:22
Thanks rogueminister,
Keep in mind as you look through our series that we play off of each others essays, so try to go in chronological order.
We look forward to your interaction.
March 1, 2010 at 20:31
I think it’s Wink rather than Borg who has made the argument re: turning the other cheek discussed above (or Borg has made the same argument as Wink). And Wink’s larger aim is to advocate nonviolent resistance.