I need to work some issue out on the whole pacifism question. And to do so I’d like to throw in a few of Greg’s comments made on his blog in review of Colson’s most recent book.

Here’s what I’m confused on.

Greg and other pacifists argue that we’re called to imitate Christ. Since Christ wasn’t violent (didn’t go to war, kill people, etc.) and didn’t take sides in the partisan issues of his day, we should follow his example and both (a) be pacifists, and (b) remove ourselves from involvement in the political life of whatever nation we live in.

Greg criticizes Colson’s (who takes opposing stances on both (a) and (b)) claim that Christians have “divided allegiances between God and the state.” Colson says, “Christians have the same civic duties all citizens have.”

Now, I would never say we have “divided allegiances” to both State and Christ. I think we have one absolute allegiance to God. But I don’t think this precludes the Christian’s involvement in the State. Paul also tells Christians to “submit to the authorities…this is why you pay your taxes…and revenue…etc.” Doesn’t Paul’s encouraging Christians to pay their taxes tell us something about how he viewed the possibility of Christian involvement in the State apparatus? As hard as Greg tries to make the NT forbid Christians from any such involvement, I just don’t see it.

The real theological appeal is—Jesus didn’t fight other people or go to war or take their lives, so we shouldn’t. It’s sometimes added, Jesus said, “If you’ve seen me you’ve seen the Father,” ergo, God is Christlike; Jesus is the real authority on who God is and what God is like. Ergo, God is a pacifist (since Jesus was) and never “gets his hands dirty” with the State (since Jesus didn’t), and we should be like God (who is Christlike), ergo we should be pacifist. This is the ONLY way to follow Jesus in a fallen and violent world.

Sometimes pacifists qualify themselves (and Greg does this with Rom 13.1-7). God can and does employ the State to enforce justice and punish evil doers. Yes. God does get his hands dirty so to speak. BUT CHRISTIANS MAY NOT. Here’s how Greg argues it…

Greg: The only passage Colson relies on in a substantial way is Romans 13:1-7. Because Paul in this passage says that God “ordains” or “establishes” (tetagmenai) government and that Christians are to therefore obey ruling authorities (again, insofar as this is possible), Colson concludes that Christians have a “divided allegiance” between God and state, and our duties to the state are the same as every other citizen (99-100). In reality, this passage doesn’t support Colson’s position: it argues against it. We have to read Romans 13 as a continuation of Romans 12 (in the original there were no chapter divisions). In Romans 12 Paul commands Kingdom people to love and bless their enemies and never retaliate, but rather leave all vengeance to God (Rom. 12:14-21). Then in chapter 13 Paul proceeds to tell us one of the ways God exacts vengeance – the very vengeance we’re explicitly forbidden to ever carry out: namely, God uses the sword of government (13:4). The purpose of Romans 12 and 13, therefore, is not to inform us that we have a “divided allegiance.” It’s to rather distinguish the behavior that characterizes the Kingdom of God from the behavior that characterizes the sword-wielding kingdoms of the world.

Tom: What do you think of Greg’s use of 12.14-21 here? Interesting. If he’s right, then though God may get his hands dirty ruling the world, Christians are called never to do the same. I run into this a lot. But this undermines the theological argument that we ought to be pacifists because it’s MORE Christlike. If the Son (Christ) shares in constituting the wisdom of employing the State to secure rule of law and enforce justice (even if imperfectly), then the Son DOES get his hands dirty. You can’t limit God’s attitudes about violence entirely to Jesus, not if you say God sometimes settles for the best of the worst options by employing imperfect States to provide for the rule of law and maintain order within human society; whatever God does is attributable to the Son. So essentially, Jesus DOES get his hands dirty.

I’m not saying (with Colson) that Christians have a civic DUTY to run for office and go to war. I’m saying that we should obey the Spirit’s voice and that this MIGHT mean for SOME Christians running for office, becoming policemen or judges, etc. I don’t know how to rule that out IF we say God employs the State to administer justice. The only theological argument used so far for excluding Christians from involvement in God-ordained State enforcement of justice is the appeal to Christ as non-violent and to the Christian’s call to imitate Christ. But if we say Christ is God and shares in the ordaining and providential use of the State, then have we not qualified the sense in which Christ is non-violent? I think so. So how do we argue FOR absolute pacifism based on the claim that it’s “Christ-like”?

Besides, all Rm 12.14-21 may be saying is that Christians are not to take matters into their own hands and should never repay “evil for evil,” but leave “vengeance” to God. But that doesn’t rule out ALL involvement in the State. It doesn’t rule out being a State or Federal employee for example. Greg reads Rom 13 as saying God may employ/ordain violent means to maintain sanity on the earth for the time being, but God has forbidden Christians (Rom. 12) from sharing in this. One can read the transition from 12 to 13 that way I suppose. But it’s plausible that all 12 means is that Christians ought to not attempt to execute judgment on their own. It wouldn’t preclude their serving in whatever legitimate God-ordained State activities there may be. It would in fact limit their activities to those of the State. In other words, if the State is ordained by God to punish evildoers, then the States judgments in this regard can’t be considered (simplistically) as repaying evil with evil. In that case, the Christian isn’t violating the prohibition of 12. 17 (“Don’t repay evil for evil”) if she, say, becomes a federal judge, or a lawyer, or a policeman, or a customs agents.

Tom

Post Edited (Similtude) : 6/16/2009 10:01:27 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Asher) : 6/16/2009 10:16:56 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Similtude) : 6/17/2009 6:52:36 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Tom) : 6/17/2009 11:12:47 AM (GMT-5)

I sent Greg the text of my last post (very slightly edited). Asked him what he thought. It helped me locate Greg on the map a bit better. Just read it straight through like a phone conversation. It’s stuff he’s already published basically. I don’t imagine he’d object. But I might get chewed out 'cause I did ask him if I could post this and haven't heard back yet. But I know how busy he is, so I'm gonna say it's safe to assume he's say OK.

Tom: Does this all capture your view? 

Greg: Pretty much  

Tom: a) All human political systems are fallen and under the domination of Satan. 

Greg: Amen. 1Sam. 8 sets the pattern. To want and need a human king is to reject God. God’s ideal is theocracy. 

Tom: b) In spite of (a), however, the domination of sin's corruption has not eradicated the sense of morality and conscience in humankind so completely as to render human government utterly useless to God’s purposes. 

Greg: I’ve never associated God’s use of government with a soteriology or imago dei. God uses governments for his sovereign purposes regardless of how evil they are, e.g. Assyria, Babylon, Egypt in OT.

Tom: c) Given (a) and (b), the State retains some God-ordained capacity for good (as the enforcer of the rule of law and the punisher of evil doers; Rm. 13). 

Greg: It doesn’t “retain” a God-ordained capacity as though it had a capacity prior to the rebellion and its corruption. The state exists only because of rebellion and corruption. Yet, God uses it to bring about as much justice as possible. As I discuss in Myth of a Christian Nation and Myth of Christian Religion (chapter 2), the word “ordained” in Romans 13 has the connotation of “to put in order” or “orchestrate” or “file.” God orchestrates governments AS HE FINDS THEM to achieve his purposes.

Tom: d) In spite of (c), the State is not a “redeemed” community and thus cannot reflect the purity of God’s intentions for creation. 

Greg: I'd scratch the “in spite of (c).” And to say the State is not a “redeemed” community is, in my view, a massive understatement.

Tom: e) The purity of God’s intentions for creation—the “way of life” God intends us to live—is revealed authoritatively only in Jesus, God incarnate. 

Greg: Amen. And, of course, reflected in the rest of the NT.

Tom: f) Jesus’ way of life is embraced by his redeemed community, the Church (not the State), to reflect for the world what God’s way of living truly looks like. Thus the Church, as Christ in the world, fulfills a prophetic role as an eschatological community within the world (including with respect to the State). 

Greg: Very nice. (Borat)

Tom: g) The prophetic role of the Church as Christ in the world requires the Church to take a position vis-a-vis the fallen structures of human society that never denies this prophetic presence and role. 

Greg: Okay. 

Tom: h) If Christians engage in supporting the fallen structures, supporting it and working for its survival, it is to THAT degree unable to stand in a prophetic role. It thus denies is identity as an eschatological community. 

Greg: This is a little too all-or-nothing. I’d say if Christians support fallen structures in ways that compromise their unique call to follow Jesus, then we deny our identity as an eschatological community. But I wouldn’t say we should never in any respect support fallen structures. We’re supposed to pay taxes, for example. In fact, I don’t think you can live without supporting fallen structures, since all structures are fallen.

Tom: So, you’ll agree that the State has a God-ordained function within this present age and even that this may include violence. But this doesn’t transfer to the believer who may wish to participate in fulfilling whatever God-ordained calling the State may in fact be fulfilling. 

Greg: Right, but I see no problem with a believer participating in God’s use of the State if this participation doesn’t compromise their call to live like Jesus. But if it does compromise (e.g. killing enemies rather than serving them), then I’d say no. Just because the state/nation/military/pagans can do it, and good can come of it, doesn’t mean WE’RE supposed to do it.

Tom: Just because God has the State doing X doesn't mean believers can help the State do X. God’s being involved in both doesn’t mean the Church can do both. I’m wondering if this is at the heart of your view.  

Greg: Yes. But it doesn't mean the christian CAN'T do X simply because the state is doing X. It all depends on X.

Tom: You differentiate THEOLOGICALLY between God’s activity in/through the State and God’s activity in/through the Church.  

Greg: Absolutely. It’s the contrast between Rom. 12 (to the Church) and Rom. 13 (to the State).

Tom: We cannot just assume that since one and the same God is active in both (State and Church) that believers can therefore participate in the political machinery of State. We might as well say the State has a right to participate in what the Church does because the State is a God-ordained instrument for good in the world just as the Church is. But if we’d say NO to this (and we do say no to this), it’s because we see the DIFFERENCE between the two in spite of one and the same God being involved in both. 

Greg: Yes.

Tom: Hence, God’s presence in the Church is utterly unique because of the Church’s CALLING as a redeemed community to represent the life of the age to come. The Church is the “presence of the age to come here and now.” The State cannot be this, and we should think of God’s activity via the State (Rom 13) as a “presence in this age of the age to come.” The Church alone re-presents Christ in the world. 

Greg: Well said.

Tom: If this is accurate, Greg, then it looks to me that not only mustn’t the believer participate in State sponsored violence (EVEN if we imagine the State is fulfilling its God-ordained task here), but actually ALL participation in the life and machinery of the State, period.  

Greg: I don't see how this follows.

Tom: And that would have FAR WIDER implications than just not participating in violence. It would mean having nothing to do with contributing to the survival of the State—in any shape or form. The State is absolutely viral in its power to corrupt and is not called by God to re-present Jesus to the world (even though it IS called by God to do other things). Believers who participate in the life of the State in any way are by definition embracing a conflict of interest, even though there’s no conflict of interest for God. 

Greg: Yet we’re supposed to pay taxes. Also, what’s wrong with (say) working as a janitor at the Whitehouse, or as a clerk? The thing, there is no unambiguous “holy” place to stand. Suppose you (rightly) say Christians shouldn’t kill their enemies. Fine, but can you work in the factory that makes the bombs that kill the enemy? Suppose you say “no.” Fine, but can you work in the factory that makes the metals that get shipped to the factory that makes the booms that kill the enemy? Suppose you say “no.” Fine, but can you work as a janitor at the factory that makes the metal that makes the bombs that kill the enemy? Suppose you say “no.” Fine, but can you work at the factory that makes the brooms that sweep the floors of the factory that makes the metal that makes the bombs that kill the enemies? Suppose you say “no.” Fine, but can you plant the tree that becomes the wood of the broom that sweeps the floor of the factor that makes the metal…you get the point. We can’t help but be complicit in evil. It’s the sin of corporate solidarity in Adam.

Tom: So pointing out that God has ordained the State to do x, y, and z completely begs the question for you. You’d basically say, “So what? Why think the Church’s calling and purpose are compatible with participation in the political life of the State JUST BECAUSE God manages to employ the State in managing the flood of evil in the world?”For you, the calling and presence of the Church in the world are utterly unique within the wider purposes of God. GOD can span both sides of the State and Church relation and be active in both, but neither Church nor State can stand on the other’s side.

Close? 

Greg: Right on.

Tom: I’m trying to decide whether or not you really can consistently say a believer (or the Church) can partner with the State EVER, even if the goal seems to be good (planting trees in a park, helping an official city-sponsored effort to clean parks, or working in a charity that receives State monies). Wouldn’t all State and Federal employment in fact (public school teachers, garbage men, city council members, park rangers, etc.) in your view be out of the question for believers? Given how you differentiate theologically between State and the Church, how could you not be opposed to all State and Federal employment? How in fact can you support paying taxes? Yes Paul expressly says we ought to pay our taxes, but taxes support the State’s agenda, and that includes war. How you manage? 

Greg: It’s coming to accept ambiguity and living by principles and the Spirit rather than hard and fast rules.

How far does he want to go?  Will he preach against puttting CHURCHES in malls (like one that exists at MOA)?  Where does HE shop?  Hmmm...

Post Edited (One Love) : 6/17/2009 1:04:32 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (One Love) : 6/17/2009 1:28:54 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Tom) : 6/17/2009 1:45:22 PM (GMT-5)