The mainline Christian Churches still teach
something that Christ never taught or even hinted at, namely the
Just War Theory, a theory that to me has been completely discredited
theologically, historically, and psychologically.
So
as I see it, until the various churches within Christianity repent
and begin to proclaim by word and deed what Jesus proclaimed in
relation to violence and enemies, there is no hope for anything
other than ever-escalating violence and destruction.
Until
membership in the Church means that a Christian chooses not to engage
in violence for any reason and instead chooses to love, pray for,
help, and forgive all enemies; until membership in the Church means
that Christians may not be members of any military, American, Polish,
Russian, English, Irish, et al.; until membership in the Church
means that the Christian cannot pay taxes for others to kill others;
and until the Church says these things in a fashion which the simplest
soul could understand – until that time humanity can only look forward
to more dark nights of slaughter on a scale unknown in history.
Unless the Church unswervingly and unambiguously teaches what Jesus
teaches on this matter it will not be the divine leaven in the human
dough that it was meant to be.
"The
choice is between nonviolence or nonexistence," as Martin Luther
King, Jr. said, and he was not, and I am not, speaking figuratively.
It is about time for the Church and its leadership in all denominations
to get down on its knees and repent of this misrepresentation of
Christ’s words.
Communion
with Christ cannot be established on disobedience to His clearest
teachings. Jesus authorized none of His followers to substitute
violence for love; not me, not you, not Jimmy Carter, not the pope,
not a Vatican council, nor even an ecumenical council.
Food for thought.
Hopeful thought.
Happy Memorial Day, 2011.
.
Link: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/mccarthy5.html
Posts
12 comments:
What should we have done about Hitler--let him take over Europe? For that matter, was it right for Europe to fight a war to resist Hitler? Should we have allowed Iraq to keep Kuwait?
That most of our recent battles have not been just, or even that most battles are not just does not mean there is no such thing as a just battle. Invading another country is rarely just--but resisting an invasion is usually just.
Okay, here we go--yet again--with the very tired old "what should we have done about Hitler?"
Okay, here's what should have happened--had we been smart--the entire world, having learned the lessons from mankind's entire history: the German populace, beginning with their churches, all of them, Christian and all others, should have raised bloody hell and not allowed him, madman that he was, to do what he did.
That, honestly, would have taken care of that. Remember? "All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to remain quiet", paraphrased.
That said, since that didn't happen, should we have let him, Hitler, do his will?
Heck no, obviously and of course.
But that's what COULD have happened.
Now, again, we are at a place where we could truly learn from the history of mankind and both insist, from a moral, church-based level that all Christians and all other people of faiths are vehemently opposed to war, for starters. Then what should happen is that all countries 'round the world should declare war illegal and unacceptable. If an attack is undertaken, all nations 'round the world would be united to go against the violating country or countries.
Will it happen?
No, extremely doubtful, at least, if not absurdly hopeful.
It won't happen but it should.
And Pope Benedict XVI should lead the way.
Anything else is hypocrisy from him and all Christian churches, just as this minister from WWII said.
Christians really aren't practicing Jesus' teachings.
And don't want to, to date.
and to make clear, "just war" is bullshit.
Or at least it should be, to someone who calls themselves a Christian.
That's what this minister is saying but he uses more polite words to say it.
Finally, actually I would think the Kuwait attack would prove my point. It DID have international support, it was a limited attack (we got in, did what we had to do and got out), etc. It kept the situation from going on, period and from then on, Kuwait behaved.
So your 'nonviolence or nonexistence' is mere hyperbole. It appears that your vision of a just war is pretty similar to mine, except that you also claim that there is no such thing.
At least one side of every war is unjust--but defending against Hitler, or driving Iraq out of Kuwait were both just, even though they required violence. Defense can be done unjustly, or can be taken too far, but that is not inevitable.
(and the song that is by chance currently playing in the background is "I Ain't Marching Anymore")
No, my "nonviolence or nonexistence" is not mere hyperbole. Far from it. I said, in the case of Hitler, the churches and everyone who knew what was right should have stood up to him. As we know, there were people who did, in fact, plot to kill him, however late, at least in some instances. Had anyone and everyone stood up to him, he wouldn't have gotten as far as he did. The pope at the time should have stood up to him. Supposedly that should have made a difference.
And again, I think the Kuwait attack would prove my point. It DID have international support, it was a limited attack (we got in, did what we had to do and got out), it kept the situation from going on, period and from then on, Kuwait behaved.
If this system I describe took place, that is, all people of churches and their leadership and then all other governments aligned with this, the number and size of all violent skirmishes would diminish, at least.
"Man's reach should exceed his grasp or what's a heaven for?"
This sort of contradictory argument is why I took a hiatus from here for a while.
You say that Violence is always wrong, but it was not wrong to use violence to stop Hitler, or to get Iraq out of Kuwait.
Huh?
I said that for churches to give a pass or say that violence is okay is always wrong, per Jesus Christ, his book and teachings. Would you disagree with that? I said Christian churches should, therefore, given Christ's teachings, declare it always wrong.
Then, on top of that, all governments should declare war "illegal" and then use things like NATO and the UN to collectively keep wars or skirmishes to a minimum. That's what I said and am saying.
To repeat, the Catholic Church and all Christian Churches--let alone all other religious organizations--should have come down heavily and clearly against what Hitler was doing or even planning to do, far before he did it and then maybe it wouldn't have happened.
I said, yes, violence is always wrong but occasionally necessary if some neanderthal--as in the case of your examples, Saddam Hussein attacking Kuwait and Hitler attacking most of Europe--lashes out on another people. Then, the "civilized" people should come down hard on them and make it a very brief skirmish, and end it quickly there, if, in the worst case, even that can't be avoided.
"Total nonviolence" makes a good soundbite, but isn't remotely practical. There is a huge difference between outlawing offensive violence (whether we are talking countries or people) and outlawing all violence including defense. It is much more difficult to come up with a reasonably accurate soundbite for a moral system that bans offensive violence but allows legitimate defense, but it is a much more realistic code.
When you ban all violence including defense, it benefits the instigators.
Who said or wrote "total nonviolence", for starters? You put it in quotes here as though a) someone wrote it above, exactly like that and b) like it's a bad thing. It's not here, above. That said, the churches should advocate for it, as no one else.
Second, naturally you're not going to go for this, being someone who wants and owns firearms and all that goes with that.
Third, going back to the original post, because that's where this should stay, I have to reiterate that Jesus' teachings were all about love, literally, and non-violence and forgiveness, period. His followers today, "Christians" and the "Christian Church" should be all about this, as he was, just as this Catholic priest and military chaplain wrote, so long ago.
That's the point of it all.
until membership in the Church means that Christians may not be members of any military, American, Polish, Russian, English, Irish, et al.; until membership in the Church means that the Christian cannot pay taxes for others to kill others;
Sounds pretty complete to me, doesn't sound like it leaves room to defend against Hitler or Iraq.
If you want to say 'don't start violence', I'm on board. But unfortunately there has to be a mechanism to enforce nonviolence, otherwise a tiny fraction of evil people will take advantage--and in some cases the only effective enforcement requires at least some violence.
I think that's what he's saying, yes, that we "don't start violence", at least the churches, anyway, so yes, absolutely, that's what I'm saying. How could a supposedly "Christian Church" saying anything else, without being patently hypocritical? I think he's saying they have to come down ahead of time, against any such violence and they are not and have not, to date. At least, not in the last several hundred years, sadly.
Post a Comment