Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site topaz.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!topaz!hedrick From: hedrick@topaz.ARPA (Chuck Hedrick) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: Easter and the Arms Race Message-ID: <1154@topaz.ARPA> Date: Tue, 9-Apr-85 13:14:56 EST Article-I.D.: topaz.1154 Posted: Tue Apr 9 13:14:56 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 10-Apr-85 06:48:00 EST References: <135@yetti.UUCP> Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 108 The early church is believed to have been almost completely pacifist. However this obviously changed when Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the empire. Many Christians feel this was the greatest disaster to hit the church. During the middle ages, there was a lot of discussion of this topic. As near as I can figure out (and I am certainly no expert), the church decided that some wars had to be fought. However they tried to limit war in several ways: - it had to be "just". Typically this meant it couldn't be aggression on your part, but most be protecting your citizens - there were limitations on attacking civilians, on handling wounded, on when fighting could be done, etc., to try to keep some humanity present. Some of these limitations are now seen as silly, but it was was sincere idealism I think, at least in the beginning. The Crusades introduced the abberation of the war for God. It is easy to understand how this could happen. A war to recover the holy land is "obviously" just, and when dealing with pagans, the limitations that the church enforced on wars between Christians would not apply. I do not want to defend the Crusades, but I should point out that only in the last few centuries has the idea of toleration of a divergence of views become really widespread in the West. (Hinduism seems to have had it for some time. Presummably also Buddhism, but I don't claim to know Eastern religions.) The idea of the holy war is not unique to Christianity. Indeed Christians found it in the Old Testament, and it was also practiced by the Moslems (who also found it in the Old Testament -- begins to sound like a pattern, doesn't it?) Nor do I see any consistent toleration or systematic nonviolence in the other major source of Western culture, Greek culture and philosophy. It seems to me that this ideal simply wasn't there. If the Church changed anything, (1) it added some idea that there should be limitationns on war among Christians and (2) it gave people something to believe in that was important enough to make them want to fight the infidels. The first large-scale pacifism in the West seems to me to have started in the Reformation. The Left Wing of the Reformation (currently represented by the Mennonites and Amish) invented the idea of the "gathered church". That is, they believed that there should not be a State church, but the church should include only committed Christians. They also attempted to restore the ideals of the Early Church, which they saw as having been corrupted when the Church became an official religion. These were considered both politically and theologicallly dangerous, and were persecuted by both Church and State. However they seem to have acted as the Biblical "leaven", and slowly but surely their ideas have permeated much of Christianity, particularly in countries that believe in separation of Church and State. But this victory is by no means complete. I believe at the moment, you will see all 3 major trditions in the Churches in the U.S.: - the Medieval idea that wars are necessary to contain evil enemies, but that violence must at least be justified and limited to the minimum necessary. - the idea of the Holy War against the infidel - full pacifism Traditionally, most of the major churches have held the first position, with tinges of the second (particularly in conservative churches). A few churches, mostly those associated with the Left Wing of the Reformation, have held the full pacifist ideal. Currently the leadership of most non-fundamentalist churches hold relatively liberal ideas on war. They are generally in favor of pushing the U.S. government to do something about disarmament much stronger that what is currently being done. Several churches have official positions of this kind (I know of a statement by the Episcopal church), and several are undertaking church-wide studies of peace (the Presbyterians). In general the membership of these churches are not unanimously behind this effort. A number of conservatives are also now becoming concerned about peace. Given that the early church was pacifist, and that the conservatives tend to think of themselves as the inheritors of the Left Wing of the Reformation (i.e. the Anabaptists), there is historical precedent for this. So far, I suspect that only a small fraction of conservatives have followed this lead. In general, those who favor current U.S. policy do it reluctantly, because they see no other good choice. There is a growing feeling that deterrence is morally wrong. It is an attempt to restrain a group of leaders by threatening the lives of a large number of innocent bystanders. Indeed Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative is a result of this realization. You may have cynical views of Reagan's intent in proposing it. You may not believe it will work, and you may also believe it will be destabilizing. But I think the only reason it would get any widespread support is because it is an attempt to find something other than deterrence. The reason why some Christians in the U.S. continue to support nuclear weapons is that they see the Soviet Union as threatening the world with war, and they see a nuclear deterrent as the only practical way to stop them. Many of the opponents of this view differ from it, not on religious grounds, but in political judgement. That is, they do not see the Soviet Union as a potential aggressor. It is very hard to separate the essentially political issue (your assessment of the threat from the Soviet Union) from religious views. Many "liberals" seem to be convinced that the conservative fears of the Soviet Union are so obviously groundless that they must be a smoke- screen for some inherently aggressive intent. I think this is wrong. I do not know any Christian who wants war. I do not know any Christian who is comfortable with the idea of massive retaliation as a national policy. I do know Christians who believe that if we drop this policy, the world will be overrun by evil. *Given that belief*, Christian tradition does supply justification for continuing the current policy. So currently I see roughly 4 groups in the Church: - those who support a nuclear deterrence because they believe it is the only approach - a group who also support deterrence as a current policy, but consider it untenable as a long-range policy and are actively looking for alternatives - a group who believe that nuclear disarmament, or at least large reductions in nuclear arms, is practical, and support it. - true pacifists, who would like us to resist evil nonviolently. Generally the third group differs from the first two primarily in a non-religious way: i.e. in their assessment of the political realities between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. The fourth group may in principle agree that the Soviet Union is evil (though in practice they generally do not), but want us to resist evil with good.