Three Pacifist Cheers for a Non-Pacifist God!
(With thanks to Derek Rishmawy for his inspiration of this post. Though he is not accountable for any errors, mistatements, and infelicities contained in this post)
The Bible’s God cannot be pacifist! His people can be, must be, but only because
he is not. This startling counterintuitive claim is true for at least the
following reasons.
1.
Unless God has forfeited his role as the
Ruler of human history in a world rebelling against him (Psa.2) and using
nations as agents of his judgments against one another (Isa.10), he must be
continuing to employ violence. Though
God “does not willingly afflict or grieve anyone” (Lam.3:33), he will do what
is necessary for justice to prevail.
2.
We, followers of Christ, can only be
non-violent, unless God enacts the vengeance justice demands (Rom.12:19). Miroslav Volf is required reading here.
“One
could object that it is not worthy of God to wield the sword. Is God not love, long-suffering and
all-powerful love? A counter-question
could go something like this: Is it not
a bit too arrogant to presume that our contemporary sensibilities about what is
compatible with God’s love are so much healthier than those of the people of
God throughout the whole history of Judaism and Christianity? . . . one could . . . argue that in a world
of violence it would not be worthy of God not to wield the sword; if God were
not angry at the injustice and deception and did not make the final end to
violence God would not be worthy of our worship . . . in a world of violence we
are faced with an inescapable alternative: either God’s violence or human
violence. Most people who insist on
God’s ‘nonviolence’ cannot resist using violent themselves (or tacitly
sanctioning its use by others). They
deem talk of God’s judgment irreverent, but think nothing of entrusting
judgment into human hands, persuaded presumably that this is less dangerous and
more humane than to believe in a God who judges! That we should bring “down the powerful from
their thrones” (Luke 1:51-52) seems responsible; that God should do the same,
as the song of that revolutionary virgin explicitly states, seems crude.
“My
thesis that the practice of nonviolence requires a belief in divine vengeance
will be unpopular with many Christians, especially theologians in the
West. To the person who is inclined to
dismiss it, I suggest imagining that you are delivering a lecture in a war zone
(which is where a paper that underlies this chapter was originally delivered). Among your listeners are people whose cities
and villages have been first plundered, then burned and levelled to the ground,
whose daughters and sisters have been raped, whose fathers and brothers have
had their throats slit. The topic of the
lecture: a Christian attitude toward
violence. The thesis: we should
retaliate since God is perfect noncoercive love. Soon you would discover that it takes the
quiet of a suburban home for the birth of the thesis that human nonviolence
corresponds to God’s refusal to judge.
In a scorched land, soaked in the blood of the innocent, it will
invariably die. And as one watches it
die, one will do well to reflect about many other pleasant captivities of the
liberal mind.” (Exclusion and Embrace, 303-04)
3.
God as Creator and Ruler of the world has
certain responsibilities that he alone executes. Humans are not to imitate everything God
does, only what he instructs us to do.
And that is what we see Jesus of Nazareth doing and hear Jesus of Nazareth
teaching us (become non-violent peacemakers, Mt.5:9).
4.
Divine wrath is an expression of God’s love,
just not a nonviolent love. Like the
discipline a parent gives to a child who has cheated and bullied his or her
friends, God’s wrath stops or restrains evil from proceeding and offers relief
and justice to evil’s victims. Indifference to such evil is the opposite of
love.
5.
As followers of Jesus, living between the
time of his resurrection and return when sin and evil, though defeated lash out
violently in their death throes against God and his people, we are called to
live the life of the future now in the risk and vulnerability of loving others,
even our enemies. The hope that energizes
such radical openness to others is grounded in the certainty that God is in
control, ruling and guiding history to his eschaton when love will be received
and returned by all.
So, three pacifist cheers for our non-Pacifist God!
Comments
Post a Comment