rant archives

war

The purpose of this post is in response to a question posed by Z.

The gist of it being, 'how can christians bomb innocent children?'

Let's nip in the bud this breaking down into semantics. We know the intent of the question, and I don't want no wiggle room. It 's a legit question, and it deserves a straight answer. Doesn't help that it's a question every christian asks, without resolving it in their own minds.

Think of the poor bastard circling near the boarder of Iraq at this very moment, thinking that right now.

And guilt-by-association, those that voted for the leader who sends the bombs, and pay taxes to support buying bombs, and buy the luxury products that makes the economic drive to war, etc. , etc. ; you have a long chain of causality where your connection, either signigicant or incidental, puts you responsible to defend your actions.

If it's a question of duty to country, we know that's a high priority; but don't God's commandments take a higher priority?

Yet duty to country is expected.

When confronted with solders, Jesus's response was that this wasn't a situation that warranted violence. Notice He doesn't say never touch the sword. The one time He's face-to-face with military power, and He takes the opportunity to say two things: (1) His mission had to be accomplished in a way of complete surrender (to His enemies, to the Will of God, to the prophecies of Scripture), (2) If you live by violence, you'll die by violence. Reap what you sew. Notice -- no condemnation of violence (in the context of a military force, or in self-defense) when He had a perfect forum to speak against it.

The quote 'go and sin no more' directed at the prostitutes He forgives; doesn't extend to 'go and kill no more' to the Centurion who's son He cured.

Instructions to early christians included 'to remain in the professions they practiced when converted'. Presumably, a soldier would remain a solder. Thieves and prostitutes were told to quit their professions. Should soldiers have been included? Good time to put it in. But it wasn't.

There's the whole 'render unto Caesar' question: how much is Caesar's? Does it extend to ownership of your body? It does if you're in the military. Does it extend to your mind? What if it demands an oath of loyalty?

What if it's a sworn duty to obey commands?

Does duty to God trump duty to society? It should.

What if doing your duty for your country is the way God wants you to show duty to Him?

We're in the slippery slope of what is the Perfect will of God, and the Acceptable will of God. What He wants and what He allows. A direct path, or one not so direct.So if you feel called to be a pacifist, surrender will entail penalties from society; but your consciense is clear and your hands unbloodied.

So if you feel called to support your country, then expect if your country is involved in violence; you'll not be spared violence.

Alright, I diverted because of that guy on the boarder of Iraq. Can't keep from thinking of what images he's replaying in his mind.

I know duty. And I know given different circumstances it could be me up there.

And how would I feel about it.

My duty would be to bomb, and I would. But every second would be like taking that guilt upon me like jagged boulders on my back. Immiately upon even contemplating violence, the spirit is assaulted. Reaping.

But once I turned my back on the zero cooperation option, my duty to my orders is my responsibility.

The legitimacy or morality of the choice belongs to those at the head of the chain of command.

But now here's what Z was leading to towards the end of his post-

How can bush; who's at the head of the chain of command; who has the moral choice of what those under him have to carry out--how can he claim to be a christian, and yet bomb innocent children?

(And why side-track into mil-speak about collateral damage, and acceptable minimal civilian casualties? Let's not lose the point.)

If he's a real christian, he would know that no one can trigger the final battle, until the time is fulfilled (which means more than 'the time is right'; it also means, like Hannibal Smith, 'when a plan comes together'; and when all possible things that needed to be done are finished.). No one can precipitate any biblically forcasted event that requires long threads of human history to come to one point. Think of all the NWO, and aliens, and Illuminated, and the greatfungii, and all the rest, that each have threads they're furously pulling in all directions.

So it's not that, he shouldn't have any delusions of prophethood.

Why is it, the cheek isn't being turned?

So this is the quesion....and I'm still thinking and threads of ideas go in all directions that I can't get a coherent handle onto, and I can't justify what bush does except in a secular manner. But the question is in a christian context, so I need christians to answer. Oh, anyone can answer, but this one was aimed at christians to wiggle on the hook trying to answer.

There seems to be a time and place for everything, turning the cheek included.

I noticed Jesus wasn´t war & swords kind of guy, but meekness didn´t include being messed with. He didn´t mind venting on an fig tree, and then use it as a lesson.

In fact, I haven´t found a ´be a doormat´, that wasn´t balanced with a ´resist evil´.

As for our conflicts, I see Iraq being a different kettle of fish than NKorea. If a mad dog breaks loose, you shoot it.

You can love your brainwashed-from-birth NKoreas to pieces, but if they use those 7.62 rounds, you´ll be hit before they can see your evagelistic smile, or hear your first bible tract.

I still think this ´if you take up a sword, you´ll die by the sword´; is not an injunction against swords, but a warning of the physical consequences of entering into a profession of life-taking. Fair warning, and go about your business, sort of thing.

So if war with NKorea could be justified, and Iraq not; at what point when China takes Taiwan, and India creams Pakastan, and so forth, when it gets all balled up; do you say it´s an unjust war? Or a war you don´t participate in? Remember, this leads to the massive world wide sigh of relief when this is over, and everyone says finally we have ´peace and safety´. Then it really hits the fan. As bad as the current situation looks, it´s only a preliminary round.

Of course, in the 10 commandments; don´t murder.

But is this ´turn the other cheek´ not exclusive to violence? Isn´t there a thing about if a hitch-hiker wants to get to the city limits, you take him all the way to the bus station? If he wants a smoke, you give him the whole pack?

If that´s the sense of it, then turning the cheek is making a choice every encounter with someone, as if Jesus was the one involved and you were playing His part?

Yeah, I vividly remember Him chasing (and this may just be the Catholic slant on it)
WHIPPING the loan-sharks.

I remember Him calling the lawyers and priests snakes.

Every time He got riled it was because someone was misrepresenting God. Or blocking the people from getting in contact with God. The enemies of God.

(Don´t this start sounding like Muslim thinking?)

The loan-sharks didn´t attack Him (pre-emptive strike?) but attacked God indirectly.

Turning the cheek applied as the standard of perfection, but apply the smiting of the other´s cheek in discernment?

remember, it was during the Crusades the phrase "kill them all, let God sort them out", was coined.

This is the smug superiority of those given dominion over all the beasts of the field?

Is there a racial component? Sub-human heretics don´t count?

Some people extract power from any source.
Without responsibility. Telling someone they´re free from the penalties of sin, turning them loose like a 3-year-old with a loaded gun?

Is this what´s happening?

complication is "a good defense is a good offense".
We keep saying where do we draw the line.
It seems clear-cut, I should turn the other cheek, but it seems impossible if someone´s killing my child. To draw it out further, impossible to stand by if my neighbors´ house was being attacked.
So I would expect countries to act as individuals would act.

Is is only potential enemies we turn the cheek to?