Brian McLaren discussing peace and war

“When fleeing and banishing aren’t options, what do we do?

That is the question.

I really sympathize with the heartache behind the Sermon, however a soldier who loads his gun with a heart filled with ambivalence is a dead soldier. And should his leader hold such ambivalence in his heart, he must not show it to anyone lest he be responsible for the death of all his own troops on top of loosing the war. This is an unworkable solution. Brian, it sounds like you might have had the ear (eye) of the Pres. But there is no way he can afford to take such advice. We have to have something more realistic to say or we will be, and should be, ignored. I’m sorry. Ouch.

The silent benefactor of pacifism is the Tyrant lying in wait.

And that is the answer to the question, in disguise. The Tyrant is the Shadow of pacifism. When we can’t get away from or purge the evil from amongst us, the solution is to integrate the naked impulse back into the system and consciously cultivate it in a new and healthy way.

I LOVED the King quotes. And I recognize in them the repression of the violent impulse. As you said, when one is casting a vision, one must sometimes make such strong or polemic statements. He is, in fact, waging war on the unconscious impulse of violence.

But I think it’s time for a different response. Instead of simply resisting the impulse or paralyzing it by hand-cuffing it to regret and shame, bring consciousness back into it. Bring consciousness into our desire to fight, win, hurt, “kill people & break things”.

Tyrants train their armies to do this, but instead of teaching them to redirect that impulse into more creative directions and interpreting the conflict as resolvable using more mature tools, they encourage the childish expression of tantrum and rage. We don’t have to go in that direction. But the inclusion of that impulse will necessarily mean that the darkness of it and the powerful energy behind it will decrease enough to be manageable. It will also mean that we will be less blindly hypocritical in our actions.

Remember the “New World Order” speach, after 9/11? It seemed to me that the Pres was trying to cast a vision for something like our ideal of compassionate capitalism and sustainable progress. These are great places to aim the energy. But he must now wear the black hat of the Bad Guy and he can’t talk much about that anymore. He’s gotta be a hardass. That’s why we hired him.

Incidentally, I really don’t think it’s govt.s job to express the Kingdom Desire or initiate the Kingdom of God. That’s our job. That’s why there’s a Church. It may be good news to his eyes to read that WE’re coming up with solutions and WE’re going to see if they work from OUR end, and that WE’ll try real hard to make it unecessary for him to keep wearing that damned black hat. When one has to wear that hat for too long without taking it off, it tends to darken the mind of the wearer…

Pray WE can bring about the day he can and will take it off and “throw it into the fire”.

~Ww

Great to be discussing this on the weblog!

I agree that there are times for just war, but those times are rare, and I do not think these are those times.

My overall concern is that such “provisional fighting”, however honorable, will last forever. MLK was more than talking about repressing the violent impulse. He was saying that in fact the best way to fight violence is with non-violence, and this is a big distinction, from passive peace to active peace, as Brian was saying.

We are in an historically anomalous time in that we have large numbers of people who actually think that lasting peace is not only desirable, but critical and possible. In my humble estimation (no thesis done to research this), this has only happened because we had gone through such horrible atrocities in the beginning of the last century that a feeling of corporate repentance has managed to last us this long. My point being: History has shown that violence does not eradicate violence in the long-term. The only two things that do so are: 1. People outright refusing to participate in it, and 2. Such abject violence that gifts us with the knowledge that our choices, and their consequences, are unforgivably real, and thus change us as people to not desire it anymore under any circumstances.

I understand and support the need for the church to change the culture, because to such a large extent the government cannot do so. However, times of war blur those lines so readily, and so we must be ready with sensible ways to speak into these times hope of a different future.

So does it seem to you that I am advocating a backwards pov about warfare?

~Ww

So my comment / question is, If one is currently in the military (I am) What ought our respeonce to pacifism be? More imporntantly what ought our view twards continued military service be? This is something that I am curently struggling with. I have waverd back between conciensious objection ans strong militrism for the past few years.

As for our leaders if they are pacifists at heart than our military would be best served at home where its pourpose is olny definsive. However this is obvisoully not the case. Infact many in the military today are blantly agressive people. I have met verry few people whoom I could even remotly call pacifist. Moreover The war is agnst an idology of hate and is not the olny way in which we can combat such an idology with one of agressive love? These are incredabilly complicated issues of morality and warfare. Im starting to ramble so I will cut it short. Note that I represent myself and olny myself here.

Blessings

Hey James,

Well, I think your question is an extremely important one. It is a difficult question to think through especially considering the implications.

The one apsect of McLaren’s discussion I would criticize is his lack of distinction between Church and world. Granted, he did note the separation with church and state, but the deeper sense that the calling of the Christian is not an American calling. I think he would agree with that, I just wish he had explicitly stated it. Many Christians believe they have a stake in America in order to be Christian and that’s just not the case. The narrative for the believer is as McLaren rightly pointed out, “being” peacemakers. It is not that you as a Christian should be a peacemaker and not kill in order to stop killing and war around the word. It is rather the case that in a world of war and killing, the church and Christians can think of no other possible way of “being” in the world other than peaceable.

I would challenge you to consider whether you believe that a political nation or homeland to which you belong by birth can take precedent over the heavenly citizenship of a Christian in one’s new birth. That’s a question you have to pray through and seek out. How can Christians, for the sake of their country’s prestige or possessions or land, seek to take the lives of their spiritual brothers and sisters, when their sole offense is to have been born under another flag? I’ve heard it said that when Christians kill other Christians, it’s not murder, it’s suicide. We’re killing ourselves.

I don’t envy your position but I will sincerely continue to pray for our Christian soldiers and for pastors like McLaren to at least preach on the topic.

Peace,
J.T.

J.T., but our brave soldiers like James are not “killing other Christians”. He is killing the enemy, radical Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists, who want to wipe out you, me, James, all Christians, America and Israel, and all of the west. They want to replace it with a radical , warped Islamic caliphate and make all those who they have not killed live under harsh Sharia law. If you don’t believe me then read their own words:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/whattheybelieve.html

So, I agree with Whitewave, “The silent benefactor of pacifism is the Tyrant lying in wait.”

Another way of saying that is “Pacifism in the face of aggression is suicide”.

I look forward to listening to this item

Just War,
I am saddened by your (and many other people’s) view of ‘non-Christians’ as ‘the enemy’. This us vs. them attitude only furthers hatred and violence. At the same time the critics of pacifists do have a point – Evil is a reality. The only problem is that we tend to see ourselves as ‘good’ and ‘the enemy as ‘evil’ which is not in line with scripture or any basic understanding of human nature. All of us are evil. As Jim Wallis pointed out in his book ‘God’s Politics’, the line between good and evil lies not between nations but in every human heart. Jesus pointed to the law of Love as the greatest commandment – Love even for enemies.
Of course, something should be done to bring justice to this world and keep evil at bay. But waging war I’m afraid is not the answer. Bombs do not choose their targets and tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children are dead because of our (the US’s) bombs and other weapons.
The men leading the war (Rumsfeld and the gang) are the very men who supported Saddam durring some of the worst violence against his people durring the 80s. The hypocracy of such a position fatally compromises any sort of moral high ground. We are fighting mosters of our own creation and in so doing we must recognise that we have become a monster ourselves.
To repent and turn from our self-righteous/evil ways of thinking and acting is not to be looked down upon.
Rather than persuing a seemingly endless war which only fuels hatred of the US, while persuing our ‘National Interest’ and security, much better plan to gain a safe, free, and more just world is to bring perpetrators of violence to justice through policing, and to work to uplift those who have been downtrodden, the poor and starving. It can be done.

Just War,
Unfortunately, there seems to be the widespread idea that equates Muslims with Terrorists. This is wrong. I personally know quite a few Muslims. None of them support what was done on 9/11. None of them seek the destruction of America. They are good people.
The best way to get beyond steriotypes about people is to talk to them and get to know them. In doing so, and in seeing them as children of God, loved by God, we can begin to love and care about them too. Thus fulfilling the greatest commandment – Love.
When you see someone as a child of God – as a brother or sister as McLaren pointed out – it becomes a lot harder to do violence to them. If only we can get past the shallow impersonal images, of who the enemy is, we will find in him a brother, one in need of the same saving grace as ourselves.

Pacificism is what brought sin into the world. Adam and Eve were passive to the Serpent, and negotiated with him instead fighting him with the words of warning that God gave them about the tree of good and evil. Their compromise was to eat the fruit to see whether what Satan told them about what the fruit would do was true. When you encounter evil, you NEVER, NEVER, NEVER negotiate with it, compromise with it….You DEFEAT IT!!

Pacificism is not the same as passivity.
Jesus was pacifist -he was never physically violent, but he was not passive.

quote:
‘’Just War,
I am saddened by your (and many other people’s) view of ‘non-Christians’ as ‘the enemy’. This us vs. them attitude only furthers hatred and violence. At the same time the critics of pacifists do have a point – Evil is a reality….’’

agreed…I thought this was a discussion amongst Christians…

do we forget, so easily..

‘we wage war not against flesh and blood’

‘love your enemies’

‘so from now on we regard no-one from a worldly point of view’

[sorry if any words are not quoted exactly, as it was from memory].