How’s that for a post title? Okay, there is a serious point here. These two subjects have something in common that points to a problem at the heart of the pacifist theology of Lee C. Camp.
A student in one of his classes at Lipscomb forwarded an article by Camp entitled “The Non-violent Reign of God” a few years ago as a defense of the anti-war position Camp had convinced him to take. I have been trying to locate a copy online so that I can link to the entire text, but haven’t had any luck. I believe the article is available in Christian Ethics: The Issues of Life and Death.
In “The Non-violent Reign of God,” Camp begins with the fall of man and Kingdom of God themes that everyone seems to be emphasizing so much these days:
Instead of these things, taken as a whole, scripture provides us with an overarching grand narrative, a story which we take to be the truest representation of the meaning of all of human history.
In brief, that story relates this: God created a good creation. The Hebrew word shalom proves useful in describing the nature of that good creation: not just a “peace†that is the absence of conflict or killing, but a positive harmony, wholeness, abundance, and plenty, in which God and humankind shared deep fellowship, in which the human was intended to “image†the character and concerns of the Creator for the creation. Nonetheless, in response to God’s act of creation, the human rebelled against the rightful sovereignty of God, rejected the offer of relationship, and struck out on its own, loving neither God nor neighbor.
As a result of this rebellion, the shalom of God’s creation gets shattered by lust, greed, violence, and murder. And with the Fall comes death, the epitome of the consequences and meaning of rebellion. But the Creator God is also the God of Redemption, refusing to leave the creation to its own demise; so God seeks first to redeem the human race through Noah, and subsequently enters into a covenant relationship with Abram, promising the patriarch that “in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed†(12:3). We might simplistically characterize the remainder of the canon as the story of God working in the midst of human history to redeem the rebellious creation back to its original intention.
Violence and the Fall, Non-Violence and Our Redemption
Violence plays a particularly prominent role throughout the story of scripture. As the Hebrews scripture recount the work of the Creator, violence is not part and parcel of God’s creation (as is true, for example, in the Babylonian creation myths). Instead, violence comes in the wake of the humans’ sin, in the wake of human rebellion.
This is the point in the article where he lost me. Violence comes in the wake of the fall? So does sex and childbearing. Are these things always wrong or somehow inherently evil? No. When approached seriously, with respect for God’s will, a sacrificial spirit of selflessness, and a sincere intent to do what is right, these things are more than just “not wrong†they are right and good and wholesome. This is true even though they are a result of the fall. Violence is similar. But for the fall, it would not exist. But it does. That does not make it inherently and always evil.
The way pacifists tend to frame their arguments avoids the issue. “Violence†is too broad a term to discuss as if it had some intrinsic moral content in and of itself. The question is not properly framed as whether “violence†is good or bad. Again consider sex. Would it make sense to ask generally whether “sex†is good or bad? No. We know that sex within the bonds of marriage is good and blessed, but outside of marriage it is sin.
Individual circumstances matter. Intent, motivation, and state of mind matter. Whether one is behaving sacrificially or selfishly matters. To ignore this is to ignore a consistent theme in the Gospels. Christ constantly tried to get people to focus on the spiritual rather than the physical. “God wants our hearts†is just another way of saying that intent is everything. What you do is less important than why.
We cannot know another person’s heart. All we can see is the external. So in order to think about the moral content of a certain type of behavior — whether violent, sexual, or otherwise — one should want to consider its complete context and think about the issue with as many facts in mind as possible. A more precise statement of the circumstances or the addition of new facts can change the equation. For example, sex within the bonds of marriage is not sin. Sex within the bonds of marriage, but without the consent of one partner, is sin.
Speaking of “violence†imprecisely and without reference to specific circumstances, serves to avoid the core issues. To speak so broadly implies that there is no possibility for distinctions — as if all violence is the same. It is not. Note that Scripture itself does not address “violence†as a broad topic unto itself the way Camp does.
Later in his article, Camp turns to the “kingdom” language:
In the New Testament narrative, Jesus comes upon the scene declaring precisely the coming near of the Reign of God. “Repent, the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand,†we are told Jesus preached (Matt. 3:2; 4:17; Mk. 1:15; cf. Mk 6:12; Lk. 4:43; 8:1; 9:2, 11, 60; 10:9, etc.). Thus Jesus teaches his disciples to pray for the coming of the Kingdom, which Jesus implicitly defines as “God’s will being done on earth, as it is in heaven†(Matt. 6:10). “Kingdom†language confuses us if we think territorially. In geo-politics, there exist discrete kingdoms and nation-states whose boundaries are defined geographically. But in scripture, the whole creation belongs to God the Creator—though the human inhabitants have rebelled against God’s rightful reign. Thus the coming of the Kingdom is the restoration of God’s rightful reign over God’s Creation—in the Kingdom, God’s original intent, the “image of God,†is restored to us (cf. Col. 3:10). The “Kingdom†is not merely a new religious group, a group of folks finally “doing church right.†Nor is the Kingdom to be equated with “going to heaven.†Instead, the Kingdom is the Rightful, Peaceable Reign of God over God’s creation.
How seldom we hear the message of the Kingdom of God from our pulpits, when this, according to the New Testament is precisely the content of the Good News. The long-awaited Reign of God’s Redemptive purposes has broken into human history, making all things new. The fallen creation is beginning to experience renewal; the Rule of righteousness, peace, justice, and mercy has begun.
The problem with this assertion is that it cannot be supported empirically. Look at the world. There is no less war, and there has been no return to an Eden-like existence. To view the meaning of the Kingdom in this way is to make the same mistake that the Apostles did during the Christ’s incarnation. They too thought that the Kingdom came to establish was an earthly, physical one. Camp is right when he says what the Kingdom is not. But, he cannot be right when he says what it is — because the facts are otherwise. It may be easy to think that the world has become more righteous, peaceful, just, and merciful — easy for those of us living under the umbrella of freedom and safety provided by the U.S. military and in the material comfort provided by the U.S. economy. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people on this planet live in a very different world. The people of Iraq and Afghanistan live in a very different world.
Later in the article, Camp responds to five objections to pacifism:
- That’s just not realistic.
- But, warfare on behalf of the innocent is “love thy neighbor.”
- So we should just do nothing?
- What would you do if…
- But Jesus didn’t tell the Centurion to quit his job.
I plan address his responses to these arguments in a future post.
{ 9 } Comments
“But, he cannot be right when he says what it is — because the facts are otherwise.”
And as long as there are people who maintain the duality between a “spiritual kingdom” and an “earthly” one, and maintain that the coming of the first has no impact on the second, it will always seem like the “facts are otherwise.”
When people start taking seriously the physical manifestation of the reign of God in their lives, by being more peaceful, more merciful, more loving, less violent, etc., then perhaps we’ll see more of this reality you choose to put in quotation marks.
Oh boy! There’s quite a bit to respond to in your post. I do agree that as far as sex is concerned, there is a context where it is right and good in God’s sight and a time when it is not good in His sight. But, as for violence, I don’t see how a Christin could make the assertion that violence is ever justified. If violence is justified, wouldn’t it have been easier for Jesus to use violence to bring about God’s will. If violence can be justified wouldn’t it have been easier to use violence to convert the pagans around them. iF violence is justified, why did the Christians in the first century rarely resist when they were dragged off to the arena and eaten by wild animals or when theirland was stolen from them by the Roman government. Jesus makes it very clear that Christians are to love their enemies and to suffer for God’s name. I don’t think that it is a coincidence that when Peter raises his sword and cuts off the servants ear, Jesus’ reponse is to heal the man and show love and not join in. The choice to practice a non-violent life in a world full of violence and hate is one that takes a very strong faith. One that lives life in that way has to believe that God is protecting them. As far as God’s Kingdom is concerned. Some of ones belief in what the Kingdom will look like depends greatly on one’sinterpretation of Scripture. My study has brought me to the conclusion that with Jesus’ life and death were the ushering in of that Kingdom. With our personal conversion we become a citizen of that Kingdom. Now, here’s where you have to stretch your mind a bit, Jesus ushered in the kingdom but it isn’t fully relized yet. It won’t be fully realized until God returns for His final judgement. That is when God’s Kingdom will come to earth. I believe the Scriptures are quite clear that God will recreate the heavens and earth as well as our bodies and we will dwell with God forever. I understand what you were saying when you talked about the lack of peace in the world right now. Most first century Christians lived in a much closer community with each other than Christians do now. This being the case you had a community of people more like what is mentioned in Acts 2 where they spent a lot of time together and shared and worshiped together. The writers of the new testament understood that the world they lived in was fallen and full of injustice and violence and war and greed. But, they also knew that all of the fallenness of the world would be gone as soon as Christ returned. A lot of the statements you made about God’s kingdom fall under the category of eschatology. There are plenty of writers out there that discuss some of the issues surrounding this in much more detail. I know you will rty to find holes in my arguement and that’s okay. I’m writing off the cuff and didn’t have all of my thoughts in line but I would be more than happy to continue this discussion.
A comparrison of Sex and Violence being both a result of the fall. That is interesting given that God told Adam and Eve to increase their number (procreation through sex, an expression of love) before the fall (Gen. 1.28). The argument does not hold up.
If you want to defend the just war cause from a CHRISTIAN perspective, you need to present a positive Christian case for just war. I would start looking at Augustine of Hippo, as he is the first person in Christian history to articulate a case for just war. You will never convince people who lean towards pacifism that just war is ethical simply by exposing supposed weaknesses in the case for Christian non-violence.
Further, I concur with Greg’s post. Adding to that, I know that we live in a fallen world which will always be comsumed by evil until the second coming of Christ. However, this does not mean that Christians abandon the ethics of the Kingdom. Rather we model kingdom ethics (hint, you must show that just war is a part of the kingdom ethic and not just a utilitarian ethic that says the ends justify the means). And I still wish you would answer why just war is acceptable for Christians today even though Jesus nor the earliest church refused to take sword against their enemies and against the Romans when they slaughtered the Jews in Jerusalem.
I don’t have time to get into this entire discussion, but I did want to respond to one thing Rex said.
I believe one reason the Christians didn’t take up the sword against Rome when they destroyed Jerusalem is they knew that was God’s judgement on Jerusalem.
Yes, God actually used violence to accomplish His will. Oh, and that’s not the only time He’s ever done that…..
We may or may not be able to say whether God “allowed” (not made) another country to use violence to bring about his will when we are 2,000 years removed, but to say that those Christians had that interpretative gift — and to say that God is still using violence to punish people is a far, far stretch. Why? Because you must then explain why innocent people (like children) suffer in these violent episodes.
This is the most rediculous statement to make. Whether God acts in that way or not, neither you or I have the ability to make such determinations as to when. This is why those who sid that 9/11 was God’s punishment on “immoral” American is completely unfounded as well. There are so many people who suffered innocently for someone elses supposed punishment. Such a claim is what keeps all the atheistic philosophers using the problem of evil as a case against Christianity.
Never mind all that. You still have not answered my question in complete. Why did Jesus and his earliest followers refuse to use the sword in defense?
This is an asides as well, but for those who claim loving and praying for your enemies is an irrelevant means to overcoming dangerous and violent people… Tell that to the woman in Alanta who was kidnapped by the man who shot the police officer(s) and judge. The Christ example and teaching still works, we just don’t believe in it and use it enough.
Greg,
My marks were not sneer quotes as you imply. They were just regular punctuation used to indicate that the word was not one I had chosen, but had come from the source.
As for the Kingdom being a matter of the heart (spiritual) rather than an external matter (physical) — what am I to make of passages like Luke 17:20-21?
Naturally the world would be a better place if people acted better. No one has said otherwise, but just because some of us oppose the evils that result from pacifism doesn’t mean we aren’t “taking seriously the physical manifestation of the reign of God” in our lives.
Being more peaceful can sometimes mean aiding and abetting tyranny. Being more merciful can sometimes mean contributing to injustice. God does not always require peace (Matthew 10:32-39) and He does not always grant mercy (Matthew 10:14-16).
Specific circumstances matter.
Rex,
The fall is in Genesis 3. The first sexual relations occur afterward in Genesis 4:1, which is just seven verses before the first instance of violence in 4:8 highlighted by Camp to make his point.
Camp himself also points to sex as one of the results (or causes?) of the fall:
Of course, by using the word “lust” he implies some of the kinds of distinctions I believe are important to make in the discussions of both sex and violence.
Kid,
In a way, he did use violence to bring about God’s will. Seen The Passion? It was pretty violent. Violence is not always justified any more than it is never justified. That’s the whole point I’m trying to make.
No. Conversions under force are not true conversions. That is the Islamic model, not the Christian one.
I answered this on Rex’s blog.
Naturally. This was the beginning of His violent and sacrificial death on our behalf. Peter was interfering with the entire purpose of the incarnation. Of course Jesus stopped him. That’s not an argument for pacifism.
The next time I talk to Lee Camp, I will ask him about the “Sex after the fall” thing. Of course, in order to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1.28) I am assuming that sex was involved in this process. If it was not then I am at a loss for words. If sex was involved in the process and there never would have been a fall, the sex would have been a “holy” sex not done out of lustful passions but out of a deep love for each other. This sort of “holy” sex still exists today in marriage (or it should). The sort of sex that is a result of the fall is a perverse sex based on lust. I assume then, this is the sort of sex you are refering to in the original post?
Extremist, What I meant when I spoke of Jesus not using violence was that Jesus himself did not raise His hand in violence. And, I agree that Jesus acted in spite of the violence of His crucifixtion but I have to think that if there had been a peaceful way for Him to do what He did He would chosen it.
Kid,
I know that’s what you meant. That’s why I said “in a way.”
{ 1 } Trackback
What’s all this Kingdom stuff?
Neil commented on Fishkite:
And what’s all this ‘kingdom’ stuff, anyhow? To me, New Testament discussions of the ‘kingdom’ show that the primary characteristic of that phrase is its proclivity to be misunderstood. The Ap…
Post a Comment