Pardon me, please!

M.

The weapons of our warfare, that is, of the warfare of the Church Militant, are not indeed carnal; this does not mean, however, that the weapons of a Christian regent are not in part carnal, insofar as he is indeed a governor and ruler on this Earth—else the Christian ruler could not carry the sword, as St. Paul tells us is the right of the Earthly authorities. Yet the use of what weapons may be justified? If it was wrong to use atomic weapons against two Japanese cities, regardless of whether Japan had tried to surrender or not (it seems that the Japanese were trying to negotiate a surrender, rather than offering the more-or-less unconditional capitulation that the Allies understandably required), was it also therefore wrong to firebomb so many of the great cities of Japan and of Germany? Surely. Was it, furthermore, therefore wrong to use merely explosive, rather than incendiary, ordinance against those cities? It must be so. And yet how was one going to stop the war-machine of the Axis without first destroying its ability to supply and maintain itself? You see, I presume the dilemma. The means, maybe, were disproportionate to the ends, and I do not say that the use of bombs, of firebombs moreover, and, in particular, of atomic bombs was justified; I wish, what is more, that none of these things had ever been made. Yet did Germany (and I am a German by blood and citizenship!) and Japan, who had wrought unimaginable evils in their conquests, not, as nations, deserve the punishment that fell upon them? “Punish not children for the sins of their father, nor a father for the sins of his children.” Indeed, yet God also brings wrath upon wicked nations, and that not simply by the fires of heaven that fell on Sodom and Gomorrah, but by means of other nations. This does not, however, justify committing atrocities in the name of punishing atrocities.

One last point, if you will indulge my ramblings just a little further: I do not believe that the Liberal Christians (by which I mean, of course, not the politically leftist or libertarian, but the Theologically heterodox) are taking the Gospel of Jesus Christ more seriously than are their Theologically (and often politically) conservative brethren. For those who refuse to confess, to uphold, to defend the doctrines of the Most Holy and Blessed Trinity and of the Hypostatic Union have denied the Gospel, as they have denied the One about whom, from whom, by whom, through whom, and in whom the Gospel and all salvation is. They uphold, instead, a stunted and self-pleasing form of the Law, which, though they retain the parts of the Law, those pertaining to mercy and almsgiving, most worthy of being retained though all others be rejected, is little more than a new and more pleasing Phariseeism. “Faith without works is dead” indeed, but works without faith is nothing more than the old yoke of bondage in a more pleasing package.

Thank you for your indulgence, sir.

M.

Ella – I was really being naughty in this post…I gave my readers all the problems and didn’t offer any solutions. :-P I don’t think a Golden Mean is appropriate, but rather trying to find Biblical principles and applying them wherever we can. The first is obedience to God’s commandments.

Lauren – thanks. And hear, I completely agree with you. It’s nice to here you say so. (OK. So maybe that was a little strained. :P)

Jenny – perhaps I didn’t make this clear. I object to socialism and the Social Gospel movement for the same reasons you do. You can’t coerce people into being charitable. But I don’t think I was implying that government should do any of this. I mean, after all, we both believe in a strong ecclesiology – wouldn’t you agree that simply saying it’s “an intensely individual decision” leaves no room for the One, True Humanitarian Organization, if I may so put it? I made a similar post along similar lines a while back (http://www.pontificationadnauseam.com/?p=595) that might elaborate my position a bit more.

But God said to care for the poor, the sick, and the naked, and treat them as you would have yourself treated. God did not say, “Force your neighbor to care for the poor.”

God did not say “Use the government to eliminate poverty and sickness.” He said that we would always have the poor with us.

God did not say “As Christians, you are obligated to create a Christian nation.” He said, “Give what is Caesar’s to Caesar.”

There should not be — cannot be — an argument from a Christian perspective that we aren’t responsible for the poor. Neither are we responsible for our neighbor’s conscience. The decision to help the less fortunate, whether through charitable donations, volunteer work, or what have you, is an intensely individual decision and not one we are entitled to make for our countrymen. The conservative argument against the welfare culture has always been that private charities and religious organizations are capable of handling it on their own.

I think there is a real misunderstanding here of what the Christian response to social ills should be.

To apply it to a modern situation: A (hypothetical) Christian USA, faced with the two evils of 1) suffering repeated terrorist attacks due to military inaction, or 2) taking unjust preemptive military action, would instead opt for 3) inaction. It’s clear, however, that inaction is really just choosing option 1. But even so (according to you), the US perpetrated no positive evil, and therefore option 1 (waiting to be attacked) was the only moral one, and in fact not an evil after all. I guess what I’m saying is that you solve the dichotomy of two evils by denying the evil of one. Similarly, Jack Aubrey should have chosen inaction, and therefore the first evil of letting the ship sink, rather than the second (positive) evil of killing the tangled sailor. The first evil isn’t really evil at all.

But what if Aubrey’s job description is (as he thought it was) to keep his ship afloat regardless of cost in human life? What if the job description of the US government is to keep its people safe even if other people must die in the process? Can governing and military bodies waive the commandments in war? Your political thrust begs these questions, and though the answers may seem obvious, what about Old Testament biblical precedents of mass slaughter?

And I’m diggin’ the Truman source. Great read.