'Not of This World'

The Miller Center for Public Affairs at the University of Virginia recently held a debate on the question, Should Religion and Politics Mix? The debaters were Barry Lynn of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and Jacques Berlinerblau of the Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University on one side; and Charles Colson of Prison Fellowship Ministries and Bishop Harry Jackson of Hope Christian Church on the other. Please listen-

http://millercenter.org/public/debates/religion

Where in the Bible does it teach the Bible alone, or that the Gospels take precedence over the Pauline Epistles or the Old Testament's teaching's on war?

Liberal "theology" is nothing but sentimentalist nonsense.

Ryan Haber wrote: "The Just War theory was developed to sort wars whose aims are these from those whose aims are the base: acquisition and misconceived patriotism."

I agree wholeheartedly. One of the greatest contributions of Christianity to Western civilization was its transformation of war from a positive good (as it was among the Greeks and Romans) into a definite, if sometimes necessary, evil.

My reading of Augustine is that he would advocate only defensive wars as being just. It was Aquinas who had to deal with offensive just wars, mainly because he was living in the time of the crusades.

Mr. Colson is correct vis-a-vis the Just War theory. It developed since the establishment of Christianity as the state religion of Rome in various stages, culminating in the Emperor Honorius' Edict of Unity in 405, during Augustine's day. It came to be needed because governments, charged with the safety of their people, must make decisions regarding the conduct of national defense and the preservation of justice. The Just War theory was developed to sort wars whose aims are these from those whose aims are the base: acquisition and misconceived patriotism.

The previous and current Roman Pontiff (the current one himself an Augustinian philosopher) repeatedly asserted in clearer and clearer terms that the war we have undertaken fails in the criterion for a just war. More and more Americans are becoming increasingly, or at least subliminally, aware that the war was not undertaken for any of the stated reasons. The only unstated reason seems to be the most obvious, the elephant in the livingroom, as it were: oil. Even those Americans who most stridently oppose the war very often seem clueless (to me, at least) of the sort of sacrifices we will have to make if we do an about-face on our war policy.

We will have to value Arabs more than their oil. We will have to value Arabs and their right to their oil more than we value our SUVs, leaving the lights on, throwing away plastic, relatively cheap gasoline (compared to the rest of the world's), and so on. We will have to love our global neighbors as ourselves, and let go of the cheap plastic crap to which we clutch, that is cluttering our lives to the point of drowning in it. In short, we will have to convert.

That is what Jesus called the people of his day to do. He very deliberately said that he was not going to establish himself as King in our worldly sense. Kings and Presidents and Corporations and United Nations all rely on coercion. Force is their way of securing things. To fix the world's ecological problems, Al Gore wants new (coercive) laws. To fix the governments corruption problems, McCain wants new (coercive) laws. Jesus consistently, without abandoning one iota of the law, relied not on coercion but on conversion to fulfil it. Chastising, persuading, critiquing, teaching, modeling - these were Jesus' methods - the gentle methods of the heart that respect the humanity and the dignity, the "I"-ness of each person.

Here we languor on earth, looking for a savior who will make us (we really mean "everybody else") be good. We have a savior, and that's the first step to which he calls us: goodness. But we don't want that. We want, each of us, to be left alone as we are, "good enough," and for someone else to do the rest of it all, fixing the world and such.

And that Savior specifically declined, when crowds tried to crown him in Jerusalem, to take up the mantle of government, of coercion, of force. I rather suspect he would do the same today. I also suspect that he wouldn't take up the vote anymore than the campaign trail, which is only how power is distributed in a democracy. Instead, he took up a crown of thorns and attempted to woo him with his love.

George Carlin.

Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man -- living in the sky -- who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! But He loves you.
-- George Carlin Politically Incorrect, May 29, 1997

Charles, "On the question of Iraq..." It's perfectly clear. The Devil made "W" do that. Like the oracle said, "if you attack a mighty empire will fall." She carelessly failed to say which one and the mighty ruler made a bad assumption.

Jesus was the son of the being in the burning bush so it's in your best interest to determine just which being that was.

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul then decide if you really want Jesus to be ruler of America. He already is!? We can fix that with a free election but we can't bring Cindy Shehan's son back to life. Can Jesus do that? What's the big delay all about?

I'm very happy St Augustine authorized it. I was beginning to worry there might be something immoral going on.

To Martin CT --

Rev. Colson is correct in his invocation of St. Augustine and the tradition of the just war. Personally, I don't think the current military action in Iraq meets the sniff test, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a tradition.

As for where one finds these ideas in Scripture, Christ himself engages in violent behavior in the temple when he drives out the moneychangers. (Matthew 21:11-13; John 2:13-15) Prior to his betrayal at Gethsemene, Christ commands the apostle to purchase swords (Luke 22: 36-38). John the Baptist also told soldiers to be "content with their pay" (Luke 3: 13-15). Though the New Testament does not explicitly condone warfare, it does not unilaterally condemn warfare either. It's the later theologians (Augustine and Aquinas, mainly) who develop these ideas into rules for Christian warfare.

It's interesting that Mr. Colson would utilize the thought that Christ's Kingdom is "not of this world," seemingly saying therefore it's principles and standards do not apply. I find this most interesting considering Christ was constantly talking about the restoration of His Kingdom here on earth, the spreading of His Kingdom like "a mustard seed," to name just a few examples. It seems obvious enough though that this has little importance to many Christian "leaders" if, in fact, we are more concerned with building up a "great nation" - that unfortunately one day will fall just like all other nations - rather than sowing and reaping the harvest of the Kingdom Christ talks about.

andrew.kreider@gmail.com

I think Colson has it right. Jesus rejected worldly power. That's the direct answer to the question.

Whether many Christians, especially those in positions of power, succeed in emulating Christ is a different question, but the answer is obvious isn't it? By their fruits you will know them. The fruits have been war and all manner of injustice over the ages. Not all of this is due to self-identified Christians, but plenty is.

As to "Christian" Just War theory - where do you find that in your Bible?