Reflections on Psalm 144, the Old Testament Heart, and the Pacifism of Stanley Hauerwas

Here goes my second thesis on war and peace. Previous posts in this series: here, here and here.

(2) For the sake of a third party, or in the common interest, the use of violence is commanded in the Bible. It is the duty not only of the state, but of anyone in a position to do so, to crush the wicked.

It needs to be clear who the wicked are, according to the witness of biblical tradition. The wicked are those who defraud the poor, who ensure, by sins of omission and commission, that their appeals for redress go nowhere. The wicked are those who, though they have the means to do so, do not break off every yoke and do not let the oppressed go free. The wicked are those who, under the guise of a “live and let live” policy, blindly pursue a policy of “live and let die.” If you still don’t know who the wicked are, go in front of a mirror, and repeat, in the inimitable words of the prophet Nathan:

אתה האיש

You are the man. (2 Samuel 12:7)

 Peter Kirk (5 Jan 2008 3:03 pm) defends the “live and let die” policy of international law. I agree this far, and this far only: it is important not to rush into war at every opportunity.

But that is not the same thing as standing by while the government of a member of the United Nations, a signatory of its charter, commits genocide within the territory over which it is sovereign. That, according to current international law, is an actionable offense. A military solution to a genocide-in-process is specifically allowed. On the other hand, the international community – a theoretical construct at best, a band of rogues at worst – is far from having put into place a set of mechanisms such that, without strong leadership from one of its more powerful and haughty members, genocidal governments are dealt with. Let’s face it: for the foreseeable future, coalitions of the willing, not the UN, will face down would-be and actual aggressors if at all.

If pacifism becomes ideological cover for a “live and let die” policy, I for one will oppose it. Better John Brown, that crazy abolitionist, that terrorist and murderer of slave-owners who received his just reward, than pacifists of the “live and let die” variety.

הֲלוֹא זֶה צוֹם אֶבְחָרֵהוּ

 

פַּתֵּחַ חַרְצֻבּוֹת רֶשַׁע

הַתֵּר אֲגֻדּוֹת מוֹטָה

 

וְשַׁלַּח רְצוּצִים חָפְשִׁים

וְכָל־מוֹטָה תְּנַתֵּקוּ

 

הֲלוֹא פָרֹס

לָרָעֵב לַחְמֶךָ

 

וַעֲנִיִּים מְרוּדִים

תָּבִיא בָיִת

 

כִּי־תִרְאֶה עָרֹם וְכִסִּיתוֹ

וּמִבְּשָׂרְךָ לֹא תִתְעַלָּם

Is not this the fast that I desire:
 

To unlock fetters of wickedness,

         and untie the cords of the yoke;

to let the oppressed go free,

         and break off every yoke?

 

Is it not to share

          your bread with the hungry;

the wretched poor,

          to take them into your home;

when you see the naked, to clothe them,

          and not to hide from your own kin’s need?

                                             Isaiah 58:6-7

 In case you failed to notice, the bit about “the wretched poor” is Isaiah quoting from the Statue of Liberty. I for one will not vote for a presidential candidate who fails to reaffirm that principle, and propose a workable immigration policy on that basis. Each of us defines the American vocation in different ways. The words of Emma Lazarus’s poem, The New Colossus, still define it for me.

So far, so good, you might be saying, but does the Bible really expect us to crush the wicked? It does. Take a look for yourself. It is expected of the authorities first of all: Psalm 72:4. It is also expected of anyone who has the means to do so: Job 29:12-17.

The embrace of violence in the name of protection of the defenseless runs through the Bible, but is a stumbling block to many. In the aftermath of so many killing fields, the stumbling is understandable. Still, it has to be asked: do not those who are scandalized by violence to the point of advocating pacifism, not as a calling for some, but as a rule for all, enable the very thing they abhor? Would not  a policy of non-intervention enable a country like China vis-à-vis Taiwan to impose its will without fear of reprisal?

In De officiis, Ambrose puts it this way:

fortitude which in war preserves the country from the barbarians, or helps the infirm at home, or defends one's neighbor's from robbers, is full of justice. . . . He who does not repel an injury done to his fellow, if he is able to do so, is as much at fault as he who commits the injury.[1]

Sam Norton movingly speaks of the Old Testament heart, and is brave enough to define it in these terms.

The Old Testament heart is the capacity to inflict pain for the greater good; to keep eyes fixed upon the essential point, and to take the measures needed to ensure long term flourishing. It is when the heart is set wholly on God that priorities find their proper place, and God's hand guides the blade.

Sam’s remarks (please read them in context; I also recommend this post - I myself might choose less colorful language to make the point) bring to mind Psalm 144:

בָּרוּךְ יְהוָה צוּרִי

הַמְלַמֵּד יָדַי לַקְרָב

אֶצְבְּעוֹתַי לַמִּלְחָמָה

 

חַסְדִּי וּמְצוּדָתִי

מִשְׂגַּבִּי וּמְפַלְטִי לִי

מָגִנִּי וּבוֹ חָסִיתִי 

הָרוֹדֵד עַמִּים* תַחְתָּי

 
* So Targum and Saadia, and according to a historical reading of the text

Blessed is יהוה my rock,

        who trains my hands for battle

                   my fingers for warfare.

 

My faithful one, my fortress,

         my haven and my deliverer,

My shield, in whom I take shelter,

          who makes peoples my subjects.

                                                 Psalm 144:1-2

 The question can and should be asked: is it possible to crush the wicked without actually crushing them? One would hope so. Remember how this post started: with: “thou are the man.”

Nevertheless, it would clearly be wrong to suppose that it is always prudent to attempt the path of non-resistance to evil. Furthermore, it is wrong to suggest that to attempt that path unceasingly is, even when imprudent, commanded of us. Christians have rarely interpreted Jesus’ insistence on forgiveness and non-retaliation as principles that must be applied in any and all circumstances. Rightly so.

In the current issue of Christian Century,[2] Mark Thiessen Nation reviews God, Truth, and Witness: Engaging Stanley Hauerwas (ed. L. Gregory Jones, Reinhard Hütter, and C. Rosalee Velloso Ewell; Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2005). Nation, a Mennonite theologian, is careful to give Hauerwas’s critics their due. Among the most telling critiques in the volume is one by Orthodox theologian (yes, Kevin, that’s a big “O”) H. Tristram Engelhardt Jr.

[Engelhardt] accuses Hauerwas of a “near reduction of being holy to being charitable, hospitable, just, and pacifist.” He continues: “Hauerwas’s pacifism is not integrated into an account of how in holiness and purity Christians are called to approach God.” This accusation from one who frequently attacks the liberal zeitgeist is hard to ignore.

The critique puts its finger on the blasé nature of much of what passes for Christian ethics, including my own. As I see it:

Hobbins’s embrace of the use of violence in the name of love of one’s neighbor is not integrated into an account of how in holiness and purity Christians are called to approach God.

Let me quote Sam Norton once again:

Long time readers of this blog will know that I have long struggled with the question of non-violence (newcomers can explore the links on my sidebar). The debate is sharpest within me when considering the “frightening scenarios,” i.e. “what would you do if. . .” Stanley Hauerwas says that this is a failure of Christian imagination and that Christians should be concerned with the wider questions that arise prior to such scenarios taking place. I am becoming clearer in my mind that this is not the whole truth, however much sympathy I have with his perspective. If an opportunity had arisen then it would have been the right thing to do to kill Seung Hui Cho. I do not mean that killing him would have been without sin; I mean that in such situations there is a choice between the present reality and possible futures. . . .

Sometimes a man is good not just because he has killed the bad, but because he is prepared to do the same thing again. That is, he is not crippled with regret or remorse. He recognises the link between death and life.

Seung-Hui Cho, for those who have forgotten, was the student at Virginia Tech who murdered 32 people and wounded 25 others in a shooting rampage known as the Virginia Tech massacre. Cho committed suicide after law enforcement officers breached the doors of the building Cho secured before going about his deeds of darkness. Cho was diagnosed with a severe form of an anxiety disorder known as selective mutism in middle school, as well as depression. He received treatment and continued receiving therapy until his junior year of high school. During Cho's last two years at Virginia Tech, several incidences of aberrant behavior, as well as writings submitted by him filled with disturbing references to violence, caused concerns among teachers and classmates.

The topic of violence is one of the most challenging there is. The intellectual challenge is a minor one compared to the existential one. Minute by minute we use violence, or refrain from using violence, on ourselves and others. How do holiness and violence relate to each other?

---

[1] 1.27.129; 1.36.179.

[2] CC, like CT (Christianity Today) and FT (First Things), are must-reads for anyone who wishes to follow the ongoing discussion of current affairs among US Christians.

Comments

[John]

Hello John,

An interesting series of posts.

Once on another blog -- where pacifists often write -- I asked the following question.

When does the failure to use force, when force is the only means capable of stopping a grave evil (i.e., genocide), become complicity in that evil?

I was sincerely looking for a reasoned response. None of the pacifists replied.

Now it's possible that my question was just overlooked.

But ... I wonder.

At any rate, until someone can convincingly answer that question.
I will remain ... unconvinced.

john (the less)

[JohnFH]

Your question is carefully and appropriately worded, John.

It does not surprise me that you did not receive a reasoned response. Most blogs, I'm afraid, like the people who write them, are mostly about rallying the troops to whatever positions they already hold on issues dear to their gut or to some other body part, the brain excluded.

I prefer to keep this blog a full-bodied one, and also a place of genuine dialogue. Within limits, it's fine with me if you write from your heart, your gut, your brain . . . , well, I'll stop there.

[Stephen (aka Q)]

Cho was diagnosed with a severe form of an anxiety disorder known as selective mutism in middle school, as well as depression. He received treatment and continued receiving therapy until his junior year of high school. During Cho's last two years at Virginia Tech, several incidences of aberrant behavior, as well as writings submitted by him filled with disturbing references to violence, caused concerns among teachers and classmates.

This makes Cho a perfect example of Hauerwas's point, "… that Christians should be concerned with the wider questions that arise prior to such scenarios taking place." Instead of arguing that it would have been just to kill Cho, how about arguing that someone ought to have intervened to head off this incident before it began?

However: I don't fundamentally disagree with your thesis, John. If the only way to stop Cho, after the killing started, was to kill him; and if I was in a position to kill him; I believe I would do it to prevent other, innocent people from dying violently and senselessly.

Nonetheless, your argument is fundamentally flawed in exactly the same way as the pro-torture argument is fundamentally flawed:

(a) You reason in the abstract, from limit-case scenarios in which violence arguably is justified.

(b) But President Bush and others of his ilk will leverage your theoretical support for war to justify military action in real-world situations where the moral boundaries are much murkier.

In the case of torture, the limit-case scenario involves the "ticking time bomb", envisioned as nuclear, meaning that hundreds of thousands of innocent lives are at stake. In that situation, torture looks perfectly reasonable.

In reality, the USA has tortured suspected terrorists in the absence of any such ticking time bomb; and reportedly, tens of thousands of those tortured suspects were, in fact, innocent.

Thus, in your abstract reasoning, you unwittingly lend your support to a great evil committed by your government.

The same thing applies to war. Just war _theory_ works fine in the _abstract_, and in limit-cases like W.W.II. But what you're abetting _in practice_ are ill-advised military adventures like the one in Iraq.

Christians should refuse to play ball with the political hawks. We should make the case for peace and let others, with blood-stained hands, make the argument for war.

[Stephen (aka Q)]

p.s.
One might also take issue with the Psalm you've quoted:

"My shield, in whom I take shelter,
who makes peoples my subjects."

Is that a Jewish ideal or a Christian one? Is America a Christian nation, with a mission to reduce the pagan nations to vassalage?

The point is, we can't adopt these Old Testament texts — not unless you're prepared to go the whole way to argue that America is God's chosen nation and America should be a theocracy with the Penteteuch for its law code.

[JohnFH]

Thanks for your lucid comments, Stephen.

I can't follow you, however, in thinking that a soft pacifist position, in a world full of contradictions, is clearly the best way to go. Historically speaking, soft pacifism has a lousy track record. Historians suggest that it cost the US and its allies, by delaying preparations for and involvement in WWII, millions of lives. By the way, the soft pacifists ("give peace a chance" was their slogan) during the adventure in Yugoslavia, were Republicans, with Dems being the warmongers. But I think Clinton and Holbrooke did the right thing, including bombing the Chinese embassy. Now if you wish to tell me you are against blank-check American commitments in dozens of places around the globe, and that in a situation like present day Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq, we should let the "natives" fend for themselves - I remember a Republican campaigning on that platform before 9/11, and getting elected.

But I don't see anyone except Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich campaigning on a similar platform today.

I point these things out because you make it sound as if there are good guys - the Democrats, and bad guys - the Republicans. Surely you know better.

I think the example of the Iraq war is a good one to continue reflecting on. Many on the right and the left judge this war, a continuation, really, of an earlier one, as a misguided adventure. But a hardy minority on both the right and left have defended it. People as different as Kanan Makiya, Elie Wiesel, John McCain, Paul Wolfowitz, Paul Berman, Jean Bethke Elshtain, and Tony Blair.

Obviously the war is unpopular among Sunni Muslims: the oppression of the Shia majority and the Kurdish minority in Iraq and elsewhere was and is a non-problem for them.

The war in Iraq was poorly executed, as most wars are. It was supposed to be the undoing of American power in the world, something many on the right and left wish for - but be careful what you wish for.

Afghanistan and Irag have not been the undoing of American power, even though the occupation and the associated costs may eventually exceed those of the Soviet Union's involvement in Afghanistan. It is important to try to understand why.

There is one thing that stops me from writing off the liquidation of the Baathist regime, and the birth, amidst blood and filth, of a new Iraq, as nothing more than unmitigated evil. That's because the new Iraq, an outcome of the war, is also an answer to the prayers of millions of Shia and Kurds. Of course the Shia would have wished that the Mahdi in person had liberated them. Instead they have to settle for Bush, who does not even do a good imitation of Cyrus who is called a messiah in Second Isaiah.

But history tends to be like that.

[Stephen (aka Q)]

Just because I criticize President Bush and his Administration, does not mean that I think the Democrats are a better fit for the Christian conscience.

In my view, Christians ought to be consistently pro-life: against abortion, supporting the responsible use of birth control (because not using birth control leads to a higher rate of abortion), opposing war and torture, combatting HIV/AIDS, etc. Neither political party lines up with the issues as I've just laid them out.

My argument is that the state is not a Christian institution and Christians ought not to be cozy with it. Politicians act out of political, not religious motives. This is clear not only from contemporary experience: it is the same conclusion the Deuteronomistic Historian came to.

I am arguing for a radical separation of church and state. The state may legitimately bear the sword: the church must stand unequivocally for peace. That's my position; not Republicans=bad, Democrats=good.

[JohnFH]

Stephen, thanks for the clarification. Your position reminds me of "the seamless garment" position of some Catholics who are consistently pro-life and in consistent opposition to war and torture.

The difficulty I see with the "radical separation of church and state" thesis is that it leaves the Christian in politics, in the military, law enforcement, etc., rudderless.

Now it's possible to interpret separation of church and state in institutional terms, such that they are fiscally independent entities, with no one in the state appointing someone in the church or viceversa, and at the same time, allow church and state to collaborate in sectors of joint concern. That's a good liberal democratic model.

But you seem to want to go further and have the church stand for something, indeed, always the same something, overe against the state. As if the church is to understand itself as the conscience of the state as it goes to war and threatens and inflicts harm and death on those that resist its demands.

Color me unimpressed. I would rather participate in, not as the member of a church, but as the member of a movement that is transversal, with Christian, Jewish, and non-religious motivations, the application of pressure on elected officials such that troops are committed against a regime like that of Darfur (i.e., an act of war) when it is committing genocide. In other words, I would rather stand for war in some instances, than feebly hold up a banner of peace as the world marches merrily off to war in the wake of a 9/11.

[Truman 1]

This Psalm is very powerful in its views of the wicked and it is closely related to many different events in history. There are many times that people have had the chance to help those that are in need and do not act in order to increase their own power. Joseph Stalin is an example of an individual that had the chance to help his people and instead starved them to increase his power. In the bible there have been many violent acts that take place as well and Jesus always said that to retaliate in violence was wrong. He was always in favor of keeping peace which was very wise and at that time many of the people still did not follow his word.

[JohnFH]

Hi Truman 1,

So, if "Jesus always said that to retaliate in violence is wrong," can one be a soldier or law enforcement officer and a follower of Jesus?

Some jobs require under specific circumstances the use of violence to to stop violence. The Amish and the Mennonites believe that a Christian cannot hold such jobs. What is your position, and how do you justify it?

[Nathan Smith]

Just found this interesting:
"Let’s face it: for the foreseeable future, coalitions of the willing, not the UN, will face down would-be and actual aggressors if at all."

Well, the foreseeable future has arrived. ;-) Not that the Libya situation is the best example by any stretch of the imagination.

[JohnFH]

Hi Nathan,

If I'm not mistaken, the French intervention in the Ivory Coast was UN-condoned as was the multilateral intervention in Libya.

Both are examples of the fact that military intervention by the "great powers" is back in fashion.

[Pulp Fiction 3]

John,

In response to your question to Truman 1 saying "Can one be a soldier or law enforcement officer and a follower of Jesus?" I believe that one can. Even though it seems that Jesus is against retaliation I believe there are situations and circumstances in which Jesus is in agreement with some retaliation. For example, if a person is a police officer, part of his job is to stop crime amongst people. In order to be successful in doing so the police officer is going to have to use violence in some situations. I believe that God is aware of that fact and it is alright. So I believe that a soldier or a law enforcement officer can be a follower of Jesus and can still fulfill their duties.

[Nell 1]

Even if the use of war is commanded in the Bible, I do not feel that is it the first action that should be initiated upon conflict. There may be people in the world who deserve to be punished severely but war and death are not always the first thing that should occur. Rushing into war is not the most important thing. I understand that the Bible wants those who have done wrong to suffer the consequences but what about those who repent? If one is to do horrible actions and yet repents and is truly sorry, are they still supposed to receive such horrible punishment? God forgives people and therefore one would hope that such punishment could be spared. I also agree 100% with Pulp Fiction 3. I do feel that a soldier or law enforcement officer can be a follower of Jesus. They did a good job giving an example of the police officer who is fulfilling their duties but still a follower of Jesus. God knows that certain positions, such that of the police officer, are needed to keep peace and limit the amounts of violence in society. I guess it just seems that people always take the most extreme measures of punishment than step back and look at other possibilities.

[Nell 4]

John,

For your question that you asked Truman 1 "Can one be a soldier or law enforcement officer and a follower of Jesus?" I would have to completely agree with Pulp Fiction 3. As for being a veteran I would only hope so. I think God knew as the world would prosper and years were going to go on, he knew police officers and soldiers were going to be in this world to serve and protect our country. I think God knows that certain job positions such as these are needed to keep the peace and try to limit the violence as much as possible. Or else, this world would have ended a long time ago in chaos.

[shawshank1]

Most countries have unresolved issues rooting from their religious believes. I believe a lot of the time this is overseen due to a lot of the political and economical differences that are conflicted also.
One question I have is - is one held subject to sin when they do not know any better, when they have not been taught differently? For example,If a child grows up in a communist country, and has never known any better.Does god hold these people accountable to sin? and should we as specific religion followers consider these people "wicked" or "sinners?" take into consideration the limited resources that one has in a communist country to learn and broaden their education on a lot of important topics. I think this happens a lot in democracies and free liberal countries as well. We are taught from are parents most of the time to believe in certain religions, should we be held accountable for following our parent guidance. the 5th commandment is honor your father and mother! just curious if someone could answer my questions thanks a lot!

[Nell 6]

This Psalm is very powerful it relates to all of the wars we have faced in our nation’s history. When people are facing struggles in their lives and other people see this we do not always come to the rescue and help them out. There are people out there they inflict pain on other people just to feel more powerful themselves. In you discussion with Truman 1 you ask if a person can be a soldier or a policeman and a follower of Jesus I think that they can. Those people are the ones that are protecting our country against people who only want to do bad things to us and gain power for themselves. They are also not just killing people because they want to they are doing it to protect us from harm and things that could be worse.

[Lior 4]

I do agree that there is a huge difference in using violence to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Doing violence for the sake of doing violence, or doing violence to gain power should never be done. Even in the case of protecting the weak violence should only be used when all other methods have been tried.

[Truman Show 2]

I agree that we should not rush into war at every opportunity. I also agree that we do need to crush the wicked. I believe that as a Christian we are at war against the Devil every day, and we need to crush the wicked to stop the spread of the wicked. I really like the use Isaiah 58: 6-7 telling us how to get away from wickedness by letting the oppressed go free, feeding the hungry, letting the poor into your house, and clothe the naked. I also agree that we should try to crush the wicked in a way were we don’t actually crush them, but this way does not work all of the time and we have to use force to crush the wicked.

[Pulp Fiction 4]

I found the idea of “frightening scenarios”, and the discussion of pre-emptive violence that followed, very interesting. I just can’t get behind the use of such violence. Take the example of Seung-Hui Cho. There’s no way I could have justified killing Cho because he seemed like someone that would shoot a bunch of people, and the current justice system in the U.S. wouldn’t have bought that argument either. It’s better to let the unrighteous start the chain of violence than to incite it yourself based on a hunch or some possibly flawed information.

[Chariots of Fire 4]

In response to the previously asked question to Truman 1 I believe that God understands and accepts the use of violence. If he didn't support it then why would there be so many instances in the bible of him supporting nations in battle to overthrow other nations doing wrong doing, one very strong example of this would be Deuteronomy 20 " When you go out to war against your enemies, and see horses and chariots, an army larger than your own, you shall not be afraid of them; for the Lord your God is with you" I interpret this as God supports you in times of war. Then latter in Deuteronomy it states " When you draw near to a town to fight against it, offer it terms of peace. If it does not submit to you peacefully, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all it's males to the sword." I interpret this as God supporting killing for the better good. This would mean you can be a christian and a police officer or soldier and nothing would be wrong about it.