Banner
Vegetarianism Involves More Than Liking Your Veggies PDF Print E-mail
Money, Love, Desire - Foundations of Mercy
Written by Douglas Wilson   
Tuesday, 09 December 2008 01:49

Every Christian longs for the day when this sorry world will be put completely to rights. One of the features of that day will be the destruction of our weapons, their transformation to peaceful use, and we will shut down the Naval Academy and West Point, their services being no longer required. As I said, every Christian longs for this day.

"And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more" (Is. 2:4).

"Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruninghooks into spears: let the weak say, I am strong" (Joel 3:10).

"And he shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more" (Micah 4:3).

But Christians who long for this day are not "partially pacifist." Nancy cooks well-balanced and delicious meals for me, and veggies are of course a part of that. I eat them too, but this does not make me a "partial vegetarianism." Vegetarianism is a position defined, not by the presence of vegetables, but by the absence of meat. Pacifism is not the exaltation of peace. If that were the case, every Christian would be a pacifist because we serve the Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government there will be no end. Pacifism is the insistence that war and/or violence are never options, and this means that at bottom pacifism is sentimentalist confusion. They don't get everything wrong, because peace is desirable under many conditions, and peace is the final telos in God's story for this world. But what it does mean is that what is distinctively pacifist is fundamentally confused.

This means that Christians who love mercy, because they love the God of all mercy, will love that mercy in a way consist with all the Scriptures, and not just certain cherry-picked passages. As demonstrated earlier, God Himself is a great warrior, and reveals Himself to us as such. Throughout Scripture, being a warrior is not considered to be a profession as pursued by prostitutes, or cutpurses, or idol manufacturers. A warrior can be godly or ungodly in just the same way that a merchant can be, or a weaver, or a cook. It is a profession made necessary by the fall, which cookery is not, but it is described throughout Scripture as an honorable profession. "Now Naaman, captain of the host of the king of Syria, was a great man with his master, and honourable, because by him the LORD had given deliverance unto Syria: he was also a mighty man in valour, but he was a leper" (2 Kings 5:1). Naaman was a pagan military man, mighty in battle, and he was honorable.

"Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight" (Ps. 144:1).

In the New Testament, we have a different state of affairs. The gospel is sent out into all the nations, in order to transform those nations. One of the tasks of the gospel is therefore to transform the militaries of those nations, and it will do this the same way the gospel transforms everything else. Salt and light, leaven in the loaf. What would you think of a Christian who said he was going to transform the film industry, and that his means for doing so would be by never having anything to do with it?

The way God will transform the military is by means of numerous Christians in the military. During my time on my second submarine (the USS Ray), in the last two years of my hitch, about 10 percent of the crew either came to Christ, or their commitment to Christ became open. At the beginning of those two years, I and one other guy, a nuke from back aft, were the only open Christians on board. When I was leaving the Navy, I had an "exit interview" with the captain (who became a Christian later, I understand), and he told me that the morale of the entire ship had been transformed. Ten percent of the crew affected far more than ten percent of the crew. This is how it is supposed to work.

When military men in the New Testament come face to face with the claims of Christ, this is the kind of thing they are told. Keep your nose clean, don't do anything outrageous, and serve Christ faithfully. "And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages" (Luke 3:14). "Do violence to no man" here does not refer to a requirement that they refuse to do their jobs as soldiers. After all, he says that they should be content with their wages, which assumes that they will continue to receive them. "Do violence to no man" is rendered by the ESV and NASB as "extort money from no one." In other words, the ethic required of all Christians at all times is required of Christians in the military. Individual Christian in the military have to be trained and prepared by the Church to insist on it.

We see the same realities in Christ's praise of the centurion, the highest words of praise that ever came from the Lord's lips during the course of his ministry. And He was talking about a soldier in the pagan army of the beast of Rome. "When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel"(Mt 8:10).

I have not yet talked about how decisions to go to war need to be made. Obviously wars have been occasions of very great injustices indeed, and this means that biblical principles must be brought to bear there. This is what Augustine's famous just war theory was intended to do. If we want wars to be declared righteously, we need Christians being salt and light in Congress. They should know what jus ad bellum means because they are the ones responsible to declare war. If we want wars to be fought righteously, we need Christians being salt and light in the military. They need to know what jus in bello means. Just grounds for going to war are one thing, and just conduct in war is another. Obedience to these scriptural standards is conducted in different spheres.

Put another way, just war theory is very little help to an eighteen-year-old recruit. What must he have instead? He should have a strong walk with Christ, he should know that he must never exhort money, he should not grumble about his paycheck like everybody else does, he must never rape women, and so forth. But as a born-again ground-pounder is not told that he must become well-versed in geo-politics, read 58 books on inter-libarary loan, and establish himself in Augustine's just war theory, before he personally can decide to go on a given mission. The application of putting just war theory into the hands of everyman is American individualism run amok.



Add this page to your favorite Social Networking websites
Digg! Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Google! Live! Facebook! StumbleUpon! MySpace! Yahoo! BlogRolling! Twitter! LinkedIn! TwitThis
Last Updated on Tuesday, 09 December 2008 01:49
 
Comments
Search
Only registered users can write comments!
Jeff Moss  Tuesday, December 09, 2008 6:40 am
Do you mean "extort" money?
Douglas Wilson  Tuesday, December 09, 2008 7:00 am
Jeff, oops, thanks.
Matthew N. Petersen  Tuesday, December 09, 2008 7:42 am
As demonstrated earlier, God Himself is a great warrior, and reveals Himself to us as such.



As I have said before, I'm not pacifist, but what do you think of this line from The Dream of the Rood?



"The young hero stripped himself then (that was God Almighty),

40 strong and resolute. He ascended onto the high gallows,

brave in the sight of many, there, [since] he wished to release mankind."



I think he captures at least one aspect of the Cross well. Namely, YHVH Sabaoth is a foreshadowing of the Cross, and YHVH Saboath conquers not by calling in Hassabaoth, but by embracing the gallows.



In light of that, couldn't someone respond to your verses about the warrior God that the true way of the warrior has been revealed, namely the Cross.
Matthew N. Petersen  Tuesday, December 09, 2008 7:42 am

Does that end the link?
Douglas Wilson  Tuesday, December 09, 2008 7:57 am
Matt, it is not either/or. Yes, Christ conquers by means of dying. But He also anticipates, before His passion, His role as a more traditional warrior, vindicator, and judge. He conquers by dying in Matthew 27, but read Matthew 23-25 carefully and discover that the resurrected Christ is still a warrior.
Matthew N. Petersen  Tuesday, December 09, 2008 9:19 am
Pr. Wilson



I agree it's not an either/or. As I said in my previous post, Christ is a traditional warrior, precisely on the Cross. "Traditional warrior" is, like all things, a image of the Cross. Likewise, judge and vindicator are images of the Cross. All things are.



Thus Matthew 25:30-31 is a reference to the Cross. (Or perhaps it's a prophesy of Constantine.) We know this because Christ quotes the passage from Daniel again in his trial, more clearly refering to the Cross, because as the Gospel of John says, He is glorified precisely as the Cross, because it is on the Cross that He draws all men unto Himself. And, it is, of course, on the Cross, that Christ is lifted up into the air, thus trimphing over the prince of the air.



I agree that there is no either/or, but rather a both/and. But there is nothing outside the Cross. I know nothing beside Christ and Him Crucified. There is no question Cross or judge. The question is on the Cross Christ victim or judge or warrior. And there is no possible or. The Cross is all things. Christ on the Cross is victim and judge and warrior.
Douglas Wilson  Tuesday, December 09, 2008 11:06 am
Matt, I think we are still talking past each other a bit. "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels" (Mt 25:41). Is this a word from the cross?
Matthew N. Petersen  Tuesday, December 09, 2008 11:34 am
Pr. Wilson



In summary: Yes.



I don't think we can peer into the Eschaton any more than we can peer into the Father. We are commanded to see both, but we do not see the beginning--that is the alpha--save by looking to the Cross and Incarnation, and similarly we do not see the end--that is the omega--save by looking to the Cross and Incarnation. And that means that we must see everything from the Cross. St. Paul makes the marriage of the Lamb from Revelation explicitly cruciform.

Romans 8 says that the Spirit that raised Christ from the dead shall quicken our mortal bodies, and then makes this Spiritual resurrection cruciform (or says the Spirit resurrects us through his suffering) by connecting this future glorification of the sons of men with the Spirit's interceeding with groans which cannot be uttered. And clearly the sons of men bring about that future resurrection of nature through their cross. So at the very least Christ tells those on His right hand to receive the kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world, He is speaking from the Cross. And it would seem rather odd to me to say that He is speaking from the Cross, but then steps down from the Cross for the second judgment.
Matthew N. Petersen  Tuesday, December 09, 2008 11:34 am
I'm not sure what this means, perhaps, as Lewis suggests in Perelandria the sinners have ceased to be people and have become their sin. If that is so, Christ's destruction of sin is the destruction of these sinners. Or perhaps the sinners are, as all creation is, united to Christ in His death, but somehow are not then resurrected with Him. Or perhaps those options are the same. Or perhaps there is some more glorious mystery that shall be revealed in the age to come. I don't know. But I do know that even that terrible word is spoken from the Cross.
lewsta  Tuesday, December 09, 2008 4:55 pm
In his essay/lecture "Why I am Not a Pacifist" (found in Weight of Glory), CS Lewis addresses many of these same things. He delves into the "theory of just war", the conduct of godly soldiers, and such, and well. It is particularly interesting to read it and consider its original context, that of Britain in the throes of Nazi attack and the very real possibility, even likelihood, of being overrun and destroyed as a nation. Still, in this dark hour, there were many calling for the government to adopt a pacifist position, and it is to these the essay is directed. Nightly air bombing raids from Luftewaffe aircraft, and some are sufficiently naif as to propound a pacifist position? Barmy!! Today's pseudopacifists are making similar cries, though we are not in quite the imminent danger of annihilation Britain was, and from similarly misconstrued notions of righteousness. Many absolutely refuse to honestly examine the moslem threat to the western world, a threat not as well developed but every bit as real and capable of that bearing on Britain and the remainder of Europe when this address was composed and delivered. They cry "peace peace" when there is none, and cannot be. How can one be reconciled with another seriously bent upon the destruction of all others but their own? There is no "discussion" at that point, only preparation for war. Many cry "war is not the answer". To which we need to respond "what is, capitulation and slavery?"
Jane Dunsworth  Wednesday, December 10, 2008 9:16 am
I just have to say that I really like veggies, dislike vegetarianism except in limited circumstances, and hate it when the main page lies about the number of posts. So I'm posting again to correct it.