Christians should focus on the life of Christ, death of violence


Daniel Clemens,

Guest Columnist 

 

In the interest of truth I thought it valuable to offer an opposing conclusion to those independently arrived at by John Hampton and Beth Pearson. Thus I assert the possibility that the support of the United States in current and various military conflicts may well be against the will of God.

Both John and Beth cite Romans 13 as the guiding principle by which Christians ought to relate to the government, highlighting that Paul believes God places our governmental leaders in authority to execute justice and exercise war powers when necessary. I wholeheartedly agree that Christians ought to support the government when their ideas and actions do not conflict with the will of God. However, consider the historical reality that the church has had a long history of opposition toward governments. This very opposition begins in the life of Jesus, who was executed by the God-ordained Jewish and Roman authorities of His day. In addition, Paul spent lengthy amounts of time in prison and was eventually executed by the same authorities he charged Christians to obey. But Paul and Jesus are not unique in their disobedience and suffering at the hand of the government, consider the lives of John Chrysostom, Dietrich Bonhoffer, Thomas Moore, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Certainly there exists a precedent among these for Christ-inspired and directed civil disobedience.

While I mourn with the families and nation for the losses of Sept. 11, I cannot support the current military conflicts that the United States has entered because I regard the life and teachings of Jesus to suggest a posture of nonviolence toward other human beings. As Gandhi proved in India and Martin Luther King Jr. would later exhibit in America, the possibility of resolving conflicts justly and by the use of nonviolent means on both the intra and international level is not merely a possibility. It is an achievable reality. Given the many faithful and brilliant minds that reside in America alone, a God-inspired, creative and effective solution to the current situation is not unlikely. Even if it were not a reality, the life and teachings of Jesus suggest that perhaps Christians ought to be willing to sacrifice their own lives before they are willing to take the life of another who is made in the image of God. In turning the other cheek, the Christian radically trusts God, the only one able to bring about true justice and peace in a world of injustice and violence, with the life of him or herself and the lives of others. I do not suggest this is an easy thing, but only that it may indeed be precisely what God commands us to do.

Jesus claimed to be the fulfillment of the law. As John Chrysostom suggests, Jesus fulfilled the law by exhibiting and commanding self-restraint. For in the Old Testament, God commanded the Jews not to take more than “an eye for an eye,” in effect not allowing the harmed to inflict more punishment on the harmer than they had initially received. And in the New Testament, the son of God commands us not to hit back at all. Here I come to the same conclusion as Chrysostom, “He hath by the two (commandments) corrected the whole world.” How daring it would be to participate in this correction.