The opposite of anti

After I wrote 42: Great stuff at untiedmethodist.com Richard picked up part of it in 42: On being “anti”. Lots of comments have followed with polarised views.

I feel it would be helpful if I provided a positive view of what I believe we should do to avoid war. Before doing so I need to point out that I am a hypocrite. I do not do all the things I believe we should do. In this like so much of my life I rely on Gods Grace, the undeserved love that he shows me.

Firstly, I believe that as a positive move the Church should distance itself from the government. We need to be independant, able to support or chastise as appropriate. This is one reason why I am a Methodist (or other non-conformist) rather than a member of the Church of England. It is something that will need to be resolved before unity can be achieved. In the US the strong identification of the Conservative Evangelicals with the Republican party is a significant problem. The Church is seen to provide a mandate or support for all kinds of non Christian behaviour.

Secondly, I believe we should actively monitor Human Rights Issues and challenge (peacefully) ALL who break them. In my opinion Amnesty International and the Red Cross are excellent ways of doing this. I think the Amnesty policy of writing to other governments than your own works well in this context. However, I also believe that the Churches at the national level have an important role to play here.

Thirdly, I believe we should be building up the United Nations, accepting its flaws and working for improvements to its processes, structures etc. Critical to this is accepting its decisions. We should therefore NEVER go to war without a proper and clear mandate from the United Nations. Otherwise it is one rule for us and another for everyone else. That does mean that we need to be active in trying to implement United Nations resolutions. However, we should also make very very sure that war is the very last option.

Fourthly, we should be positively campaigning to clean up our own political systems. No politician should have any way of making money as a result of policies that result in wars. I remember a work of fiction (sorry can't remember the author/book at the moment) where a ruler could authorise assasination to solve international problems, but the cost was their own life once the events were over. Now I don't recommend killing any leader who takes us to war. But I do think we should have systems in place so that a leader or their close supporters cannot take us into a war and then benefit from it financially as is the clear case in the US with this administration (and probably others, I am not particularly picking on GW here). This way we can be more sure that a leader will try other means.

Next we need to stop selling arms. It puts us in the wrong. We end up causing wars. That means no arms to anyone. Now realistically I would exclude those with whom we collaborate as partners in developing things we need ourselves. But we do not sell them.

Lastly, I found this a few minutes ago. jonnybaker: christ of the indian road 1 - in conversation with gandhi. I have ordered a copy. If we followed this advice from an interview with Gandhi then we would be well on the way

"Mahatma Gandhi I am very anxious to see Christianity naturalized in India so that it shall no longer be a foreign thing identified with a foreign people and a foreign government, but a part of the national life of India and contributing its power to India's uplift and redemption. What would you suggest we do to make that possible?" He very gravely and thoughtfully replied: "I would suggest first of all that all of you Christians, missionaries and all begin to live more like jesus Christ". He needn't have said any more - that was quite enough. I knew that looking through his eyes were the three hundred millions of India and speaking through his voice the millions of the East saying to me, a representative of the West itself "If you will come to us in the spirit of your master we will not be able to resist you". Never was there a greater challenge to the West than that, and never was it more sincerely given. "Second" he said "I would suggest that you must practice your religion without adulterating or toning it down". This is just as remarkable as the first. The greatest living non Christian asks us not to adulterate or or tone it down, not to meet them with an emasculated gospel but to take it in its rugged simplicity and high demand. But what are we doing? As someone has suggested we are innoculating the world with a mild form of Christianity, so that it is now practically immune to the real thing... "Third I would suggest that you must put your emphasis upon love, for love is the center and soul of Christianity". He did not mean love as a sentiment, but love as a working force, the one real power in a moral universe and he wanted it applied between individuals and groups, and races and nations, the one cement and salvation of the world.... "Fourth I would suggest that you study the non Christian religions and culture more sympathetically in order to find the good that is in them, so that you might have a more sympathetic approach to the people."

People of course are going to say that we can't just start doing this. They are right in the sense that there will never be an easy time to change. But revenge does not work, violence does not work. Jesus was absolutely clear about that. If we can't bear to follow Jesus then we can continue on the road to destruction.

In all things the Church should be holding us accountable for our own behaviour. First and foremost we have to deal with the logs in our own eyes. Only when we have done that can we go to others, and then we have to go in the way Gandhi suggested. That means we will have to turn the other cheek and build bridges of love.

It is not easy, we will fail in our own strength. But the alternative route that we are on at the moment just keeps on proving itself a failure. We have no peace in Iraq, we have Muslims being radicalised all over the world as a response to our actions. Our leaders are making money out of war, what a motivator to continue.

Just some late night thoughts, there is much more and I know this is something where I have a lot of studying still to do.

Comments

[Richard Hall]

Aen!

[Richard Hall]

Amen!

[DaveW]

I thought you were trying to teach us Welsh for a moment.

[Revwilly]

You point out that conservative Christians are closely linked to the Republicans. It is unfortunate you did not point out that liberal Christians are just as closely linked with Democrats.

[Tom Harrison]

Everyone says war should be the absolute last resort; I disagree. I think slavery, genocide, tyranny, or defeat should be the last resorts, just off the top of my head; and maybe injustice and oppression as well.

I suppose I am an evangelical; I vote for Democrats about a third of the time at the local level, less often for national office. I would like things to be otherwise. I'd be thrilled to have both parties competing for my vote. Would you have me change my convictions, or have the Democratic party change their platform? Of course the most likely way more evangelicals will vote Democrat is if the Republicans make themselves even more like the Democrats to attract 'swing' voters.

[DaveW]

Revwilly, Please remember that as a UK person I do not know all about US politics. However, it seems to me that it is a potential problem when any type of Christian assumes that all Christians will support the same party at they do.

Tom, About what should be a last resort. Hopefully Christians are not advocating these items like slavery (at least any more!). Therefore those items are beyond what they would want their government to do. I pray for the day when so far as Christians are concerned it is also unacceptable to go to war. Some Christians used to argue for slavery from the Bible. It will be good when those who now argue for war from the Bible are also extinct.

As regards your convictions I would have you compare all aspects of all parties by gospel values and campaign for them all to change where there is not a good fit. The records of all western governments of all parties include many aspects that are contrary to Biblical teaching and they should all be challenged on it.

[dh]

Dave what do you do if the UN says certain actions should lead to war and then changes their mind or definitions of things to say no, as is the case with WMD (the 1992 definition of WMD as compared with the 2001 definition of WMD). To me the UN must stick to what it says rather than change for convienence. Also, when you look at the end result I think Iraq and Afghanistan with new constitutions and the dramatic support within those countries for it with people having the freedom of religion is all we need to see how God hates people living under toirturous regimes.

War is bad but many times necessary. Getting rid of Saddam and the Taliban were necessary. To put slavery and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the same breath is really ridiculous.

How about the ite's, Jericho and the like where God used nations for His judgement. It makes sense (not that this is the case) that God could do that now. Christ never spoke to political governments with regard to violence he spoke to individuals within those governments. HE also mentioned "There will be wars and rumors of wars". Christ predicted there would be wars and never said spefically war was wrong. He never addressed war except in the passage mentioned.

You think God would rather let people be tortured under an evil regime than allow nations to attack the government after years of diplomacy to overthrow an evil dictator thus saving lives long term? I feel God would be for justice for the greatest amount of people and if God wants to use nations in a war way for that purpose then we should say that isn't from God (not that this is the case but trying to make a point against EVERY case like implied by you).

[dh]

...shouldn't say it isn't from God. Sorry late in the day. DH

[DaveW]

dh, Please provide references for your comments about WMD in the UN. Please also note that in the UK the war in Iraq was justified because Iraq had WMD that were ready and could be deployed within 45 minutes. There were none.

If getting rid of Saddam and the Taliban was justified then how was the support of them before justified?

I do not understand why slavery (something not condemed by scripture ) is invalid while war (supported by the Old Testament only, not at all by the New Testament) is valid.

It is not Christian to justify based on the OT without reference to Christ. So look at the whole of Matthew 5 and then tell me that Jesus supports war. He said

"But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. ... But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute me"

Consider John 8 as an example of Jesus responding to someone who had clearly broken the law.

Consider the teaching of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10, remember that the Samaritans and Jews hated each other. Now rephrase in modern terms - which nation would Jesus use today for an American audience?

If Jesus had thought the way of your last paragraph how would he have lived and taught given that he was living under a brutal invading army who ended up killing him? His life and teaching do not support your argument at all.

Final challenge. How much does God love Saddam Hussain compared to how much he loves you?

Dave

[dh]

The statement was in relation to a missle casing dated 1996 found in 2001 before the changing of the definition of WMD by the UN in 2001.

The support was because another tyannt on the other sides was raising their head. We also didn't realize how bad Saddam and the Taliban were till later. Early on they focused on going against Communism and Iran alone. Later they were worse.

I personally feel it is Christian for God is the God of the OT as much as the NT. To say that war was allowed in the OT and not in the NT I feel is wrong. God never said war specifically was wrong.

I feel the you applies to people and our day to day interaction not governments.

Also, I don't say this in an attitude of hate toward Saddam or the people or any group so the "Good Samaritan" thing I agree with you totally.

I would have agree with Christ and would understand the difference between my own personal life should be in relation to what governments should be. There are different criteria. I also feel saying nations can't be used for God's glory for judgement, like is mentioned in the NT as well as the OT puts limitations on God that aren't there.

I do understand God loves everyone but I also know at different times by individuals wrong rebellion choices that hardening of the heart can result like that of Pharoah. I feel this is equivilent to Saddam hardening his heart as well. Pharoah hardened his heart and God judged him so Saddam hardened his heart and God judged him as well. (I could bring up Goliath who had a chance to change in his interaction with David and didn't and God told him to defeat Goliath), etc.

[DaveW]

dh,

"The statement was in relation to a missle casing dated 1996 found in 2001 before the changing of the definition of WMD by the UN in 2001."

Can you corroborate this? I can't find it via google.

But even if this is true it would not mean that we were told the truth in the UK. One shell casing does not make a 45 minute deployment.

As I keep saying. I am a Christian that means a follower of Christ. You only ever argue from the Old Testament.

Reread Matthew 5, how could you understand this mean that Jesus is supporting war?

[dh]

I can't speak for the UK because Bush never mentioned "45 minute deployment".

Again while I don't believe we are under the Law, I do feel that how God operates is the same (I am the same yesterday, today and forever).

I personally feel Matthew 5 has nothing to do about war but how as individual and the Body of Christ should interact. The passage makes no reference or implied reference to government interaction. So it neither supports or discounts war. Christ was neutral as implied by "render unto Caeser what is Caesers and unto God what is God's".

We can agree to disagree and i am not condemning people who feel the war in Iraq is wrong I just don't think we should condemn people who feel the war in Iraq is right. I will say the ideal is no war but I feel sometimes it is necessary and in the past God has done this as part of His judgement. To say He can't use this I feel isn't consistent.

With regard to the hardening of Pharoah and Goliath here is a verse that confirms this as well in a more broad way from 2 Thes 2:11-12:

"11For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness."

I feel this happened to Saddam and the Taliban leadership.