The Gospel? A denunciation of Patriotism - among other things

"And this Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."

- The Gospel According to Matthew 24: 14

I have been reflecting a good deal on this lately and so today's entry is going to dwell on this issue:

I think that one of the major issues I have with American conservative-evangelical Christianity, and by extension to this, why I see no problem with reconciling my own very progressive, and sometimes even "radical" politics with a very orthodox and traditional affirmation of Christian truth, is because I am truly convinced that the evangelical movement in America has completely reified the meaning of "the Gospel" to mean something it was never historically understood to mean before relatively modern times. Moreover, in even more recent times, the American political movement generically referred to as "the Religious Right," seems to have so co-opted the perception of an overwhelming majority of evangelicals, that it has become almost impossible to distinguish this type of Christianity from values associated with the American political conservatism. In particular the notion that patriotic nationalism and Christianity have anything remotely to do with one another.

It is helpful to point out that N.T. Wright, Anglican Bishop of Durham (England) and one of the worlds leading biblical scholars - and probably the worlds top academic expert on the literature associated with the Apostle Paul - points out that Paul's use of the word "Gospel" (i.e. "Good News") esp. in his letter to the Romans, has been completely mis-understood and mis-applied by modern evangelicals. Bishop Wright points out that Paul borrows his use of the term in his letters to the churches directly from the widely recognized Roman proclamation of the time "Caesar is Lord" - this was the "Gospel" of the Roman State. What Paul suggests is that the good news or "Gospel" of the Church of Jesus Christ is the proclamation "Jesus is Lord." This new gospel presented a radical challenge to Roman state authority. It was this suggestion that the "Christos" (the "anointed" King) was elevated above Caesar by the early Christian communities that occasioned the several persecutions suffered by the Christians at the hands of the Roman government.

In short, the "Good News" was not an individualistic Gospel of personal salvation - it was the Gospel of the "Kingdom of God." Throughout the Four canonical Gospels, the central message of all Jesus' teaching and conversation seems to be preoccupied largely with this subject of the "Kingdom," relatively little is said regarding the salvation of individuals, and when the matter is addressed at all, it is directly in connection with the Kingdom, is understood as entirely a divine supernatural work of the Spirit, and not related at all to an instantaneous personal decision or "prayer of faith". Nowhere is the personal decision act of "accepting Christ as personal savior" even explicitly taught in the New Testament. Even the phrase "you must be born again" (in John's Gospel) is in the original Greek text in fact rendered more accurately as, "you must be born from above" and is directly linked with the practice of ceremonial baptism ("born of water and the spirit"). Calls to "Repent" as recorded in the Luke-Acts chronicle of the early Church are always associated with baptisms.

The early Christians understood "the ecclesia" - the Church - as the in-breaking of the Kingdom into the present age of the world, and that the age would end with the second advent when the King would return to personally inaugurate the Kingdom. It was precisely this claim to Kingship for Jesus on the part of the followers of "the Christ" that persuaded the Roman governor to grant the Jewish San Hedrin Council's petition to execute him - even though the Jewish "beef" was in fact blasephemy (not a capital offense under Roman law). The Roman legal justification for crucifying Jesus of Nazareth was high treason, which is why the sign Pilate had placed on the cross of the condemned was "King of the Jews". More than one early church father of the 2nd and 3rd centuries made it quite clear in his writings that their existed "no concord between Christ and Caesar." Polycarp was executed for refusing "to swear by the genius of Caesar" - he was but one of thousands of martyrs who would suffer death for no other crime than the simple act of rejecting the Lordship of Caesars Kingdom for that of the Christ.

What I am arguing is that modern evangelical Christianity, especially as widely understood and practiced by contemporary evangelical Protestants of several denominations (or so-called "non-denominational" churches) has transformed the Gospel message into a primarily private and individualistic matter of personal salvation and a view of "the Kingdom" as an exclusively future eschatalogical event with little or no reference to the universal Church. When I speak of "the Church" I am not really speaking of an institutional heirarchy per se - though clearly, it has institutional expression and as such is a visible phenomenon - but of the Eucharistic Community. The community that celebrates the "body and blood" of the coming King and is the visible embassy of the Kingdom in the world (and in this regard I do not advance the claim of any particular denominational entity as constituting the Church merely in itself - in the Anglican tradition we practice open communion, which means the sacrament is available to all baptized Christians). Secular political institutions such as national governments - with their use of war, force and violence as basic instruments of policy - are understood by many theologians and biblical scholars, such as Bishop Wright referenced above, as a manifestation of the Satanically dominated kosmos ("the world") of this present age. As such our loyalty and allegiance to the divine global institution of the Church - and by extension the coming Kingdom of God - must supercede any loyalty and allegiance to a national entity. Indeed with this understanding of the Gospel in view, nationalism becomes in fact, a form of idolatry. This is why personally I even object to national emblems on parish altars, and will refuse to stand for the flag if it is carried in processional during a church service on so-called "national days." There is no compromise possible in my view - we are either Americans first, or we are Christians first - we cannot be both! "There is no concord between Christ and Caesar."

The modern American gospel seems to be "the Market is Lord" and this culture of consumerism is rather obviously in direct defiance of everything the Gospel of the Kingdom that our Lord Jesus taught stands for. A Kingdom in which "it would be harder for a rich man to enter...than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle", a Kingdom in which "the life of a man would not consist in the abundance of his possessions" etc. The contemporary evangelical Gospel of being "saved" or "born again" understood as an entirely personalistic and individual "crisis experience" involving a "decision" unwittingly plays conveniently into this Market-driven modern cultural context. Christianity becomes a private matter distinct from the sector of public or community life and is thereby open to being transformed into a market commodity. Churches become businesses where a product called "religion" is sold rather like the sacrificial doves in the Temple marketplace whose tables our Lord Jesus overturned in his day.

All the above said, I do not disparage the personal dimension of salvation, nor do I consider it unimportant. Individual persons are "saved," they do experience "the new birth" etc. Scripture clearly affirms this. But they do so only in the context of the sacramental Christ-community called the Church, and they do so not as a result of a personal decision of "accepting Jesus" (after the manner of a Billy Graham crusade) but entirely as a supernatural work of God's grace - "lest any man should boast" (Paul). Personal salvation and redemption is but an underlying component of the Gospel, which is as Paul plainly stated it, and the early Church clearly understood it, "Jesus is Lord."

I also do not disparage the requirement - as plainly affirmed by Paul in Romans 13 (and reiterated by Peter in 1 Peter 2) - "to submit to the governing authorities." However this admonition too is broadly mis-understood by contemporary Christians to mean something it does not. Christians are admonished to "live at peace with all men" and it is always been part of the Christian tradition to respect the rule of law. But only so long as the rule of law of a given Nation-State is not in violation of the law of God. Indeed one advantage the United States has - historically at least - enjoyed above many other nations, is that in our civic republican tradition the law is elevated above "the State," and even the State is regarded as accountable to it. This idea is actually directly inherited from the English tradition (and has a thoroughly Christian basis and heritage) that even the King himself is subject to the rule of law (its worth pointing out that in medieval England most written law-codes were largely Church canon law). That the only sovereignty that is absolute is the sovereignty of God - and by extension the sovereignty of the law. On this very basis the English Parliament actually ordered the execution of Charles I in 1649.

However, what happens when even the State forgets the law and acts lawlessly? Or - what happens when the very law propounded by the State calls upon Christians to act against their Spirit-directed conscience (such as for instance on the matter of participation - or endorsement - of imperialistic wars, or assent to State policies that sanction slavery, race prejudice or the forceful dispossession of indiginous peoples, or allow the economic violence of social injustice to the poor for the sake of pretecting the private profit of corporations as over against the public interest and the public welfare) well in Acts 5, we are told that "we ought to obey God rather than men." Clearly, non-violent Civil Disobedience to the State is firmly recognized in the New Testament, in fact both Gandhi (who it must be said did not profess to be a Christian) and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (a Baptist Minister) openly claimed they had derived their use of this political and revolutionary tactic directly from the Christian tradition.

I have come to recognize that the proclamation "Jesus is Lord" is not merely a privatistic spiritual claim applicable to the personal lives of individual Christians, it is indeed a radical political claim that calls for the prophetic confrontation of all violence and injustice (legal, social or economic) even if on perpetrated on the part of the secular State. The only patriotism applicable to Christians is the patriotism of the Kingdom of God, any other is a compromise of the Gospel.

JF

State of the Union

This evening Barack Obama, the President of the United States, will read his first "State of the Union" address to Congress (and to the American people). Hopefully he will level with us and admit -as Gerald Ford did back in the mid-70's - that "the state of the union is not good" (I'm actually old enough to clearly recall hearing this speech) but likely since our new President has proven himself a consummate master at the art of ecquivocation we will be told something other than the unvarnished truth. Some of the measures that he is expected to propose as a solution to our current economic dilemmas resemble those taken by Herbert Hoover after the Great Crash of 1929, and as my entry below implies, it is my expectation they will have similar results. A band-aid is inappropriate when major surgery is required, but there are few politicians in either major party who have any stomach for the kind of surgery necessary, indeed they would regard even the mere proposal thereof as politically inexpedient to their careers.

I voted for Obama - mostly as a vote against the conservatives (whom I really strongly oppose) rather than as a vote for the candidate himself - but like many I had indulged high hopes that an African-American running on a platform of "change" would actually bring at least some component of genuine progressive thinking to the office. I have been disappointed so far - he has proven himself as merely a progressive liberal by rhetoric, but a pragmatic Centrist by policy, and fundamentally conducts himself no differently than any other Washington politician. The Right has made a sensational rhetorical game out of attacking Obama as a "socialist" and a man who keeps company with "radicals" etc. and has won quite a few converts among a disaffected and not very well informed population - but the truth is there is little substantive difference between either of the major parties in terms of the actual conduct of policy. Both Democrats and Republicans remain equally committed to upholding the existing status quo - in spite of the fact that the evidence - to those who really care to take a good hard look - is that the present way of doing the peoples business in the Republic is failing, and that genuinely progressive alternatives are needed. The people voted for "change" because that is what, deep down, the people really want and need - we haven't seen any!

Blog format has changed

As of todays date I am altering the format of excaliburs word - this site will no longer be a public forum on public policy & faith, but has been converted to a personal electronic journal which will include commentary on current affairs and issues. However, this journal will continue to be available for public comment.

2009 has been a stressful year - last February, my desperate financial circumstances in the wake of an extended layoff from my last job made it necessary to re-locate from Tampa and move in with my recently widowed aunt and two twentysomething cousins here in Pinellas Park. My aunts house is comfortable, but family circumstances here make it a three-ring circus most of the time, and the adjustment has been difficult for one like me who is accustomed to the serenity of living alone. It now appears that I am facing a possible layoff from my current job as a civilian staff member with the Police Dept. (I work in an office that handles fund-raising for Police-related public charities such as the Police Athletic League). I started in this position last March and have almost a year of service, but our productivity numbers in our office have dipped precipitously due to the impact of the economic recession on charitable donations.

With reference to the recession - in the opinion of economists we are currently experiencing a "recovery" in terms of most of the major indicators upon which these things are measured, although it has not impacted unemployment which remains at record lows not matched since the 70's - and not exceeded since the Great Depression of the 30's. However many of the economists have suggested that this is really a short-lived psuedo-recovery that will be followed up by a second recession likely more devastating than the one from which we are now recovering.

Personally, I am inclined to agree with this Cassandra prognosis, as I'm aware the long-term cause of the crisis itself was the multi-dimensional failure of the finance-capital system of Wall Street, and is a demonstration to me that the American-style de-regulated brand of corporation capitalism is a non-viable system given to repeated cycles of instability. Moreover, economies today are no longer "national" economies, but we now live in an interdependent global economy in which trans-national actors (such as transnational corporations) have a more significant impact on economic events than do the policies of individual nation-states. What the present occupant of the White House does, or does not do, has only a marginal impact on an interconnected global system. The USA has only a minimal production basis for its economy today and is dependent on off-shore production from industrial contractors in other nations (especially China), what was once the center of US economic strength has now been sacrificed on the altar of corporate greed. We are now but a consumer market for mostly foreign produced goods - and as the economic system proceeds to unravel, even our viability in this regard will rapidly disintegrate. In short, I'm not sanguine about our future.

Faith vs. Dogmatism: a personal reflection

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."

- Hebrews 11: 1 (NRSV)

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians, they are so unlike your Christ."

- M. K. Gandhi

Recently I was put to the unpleasant expedient of having to remove two individuals from my Facebook internet social networking account. Why was this necessary? Because I am a man who has come to have a limited tolerance for the dogmatic, especially when it is taken to the point of personal disparagement in a public venue. The two in question were people with whom I had become acquainted on an evangelical Christian site concerning "apologetics" (the rational defense of faith) that I had taken an interest in, and I did not really know them personally. It had however become quickly apparent to me that these two had little interest in a lively exchange of views, but only in persuading me of the merits of their own position - and in rather un-Christ like fashion, had no qualms about using labels such as "heretic" or "apostate" in describing other Christian groups with whom they disagreed on rather disputable questions of doctrine. This experience caused me to reflect at length on a matter that has occupied my inner life for some time now - the distinction between faith and dogmatism. I heartily affirm the former, but have grown increasingly impatient with the latter as I have encountered it over the years - from others - or within my own spirit.

As I see it the basic difference is that dogmatists traffic in certainty, whereas people of authentic faith deal in hope. As the writer of the letter to the Hebrews expresses it, "...faith is the assurance of things hoped for, and the conviction of things not seen." What this passage of scripture would seem to suggest to me is that religious faith is non-rational. Notice that I did not say "irrational" - there are very good and compelling reasons for Christian faith that commend themselves to those of us who have come to accept its claims, but none of these reasons offer conclusive proof of any sort that justifies a claim to certitude or spiritual hubris. Faith addresses itself entirely to realities that are outside the range of the empirically verifiable. What any religious tradition affirms about such things as "God," "eternal life," or "revelation" (as disclosed within a particular set of scriptures, or mediated through the ritual and practices of a community within that tradition) are amenable neither to any proof, or dis-proof, that is external to that faith-community. The only "evidence" that can prove or justify the claims of any faith - Christian or otherwise - is the personal mystical experience of that faith in those who believe in it. The best that any historical evidence could do (such as the apostolic testimony of the Four Gospels for instance) is offer compelling data that our faith might be true - and therefore reasonable. But beyond this it cannot go. To use the language of both the lawcourt and laboratory, the evidence is "inconclusive." Consequently, it would seem to me that in faithful people the recognition of this reality would engender a spirit of charity and humility. As a Christian I cannot claim to know that any of what I believe is the "truth" in any absolute sense, I can but rest in hope and expectation.

Don't get me wrong, I am a man who is in love with God, passionate about his Christianity, and have some very definite personal convictions about both the doctrines I believe and the values I try to practice. I am a member of the Episcopal Church - a denomination in the Anglican tradition - and theologically my views are largely "conservative" ones with respect to the central affirmations of this branch of the Church of Jesus Christ. When I say the Nicene Creed during the liturgical service of my parish on Sunday morning, I heartily endorse without reservation the truth and historic reality of the entire corpus of this ancient affirmation of the Christian Gospel. As I see it, authentic faith must have form and content - and doctrine provides the content, and tradition provides the form. My faith has provided for me, in the words of the song "Forever Young" that 60's era folk-singer Joan Baez sang so beautifully "...a strong foundation when the winds and changes shift."

On the other hand it is not that I would disparage reason either. Quite the contrary, where matters of a "this-worldly" nature are concerned I have long been the consummate rationalist. I am very much the sort to insist on facts, evidence, and empirical data with regard to any issue that admits itself to analysis on this basis. But I have come to see that rational methods of inquiry have met their boundary when it comes to having much to say in the area of faith. Not that I think faith and reason are incompatible (for that is yet another kind of dogmatism indulged in by the "religion" of atheism) but simply that they address themselves to very different kinds of questions. As I see it faith transcends reason, but it does not contradict it.

No one believes anything without some degree of inward personal assurance that that what s/he believes is "right." If I weren't personally convinced that Christianity were "true" or "right" in its claims, well obviously I would believe in something else. This only makes sense, doesn't it? What does not make much sense is for me to fail to recognize that other people are making exactly the same assumption regarding the truths that they believe that may be very different from mine. What also does not make much sense - especially given the values of love and charity that our faith purportedly teaches us to practice - is to behave in a patronizingly superior manner toward those of a different religion (or no religion) or even of a different denomination within the same religion. Or even worse yet - to indulge the sort of outright hate that is responsible for a good many of the profound tragedies of our human history. We could be wrong, and those we patronize could well end up being right - we just don't know. As Christians we have our faith and the "witness of the Spirit" to guide us, but not the sort of concrete absolutely verifiable evidence of "certainty" that would allow us to insist on assent to our "truths" on the part of anyone else. Why is it, I wonder, so many Christians - be they fundamentalist or evangelical Protestants or very orthodox Roman or Anglo-Catholics, indeed even those who call themselves theological "liberals" - do not seem to have the humility to recognize this?

I am certainly not innocent of the sin of spiritual pride, particularly in the years of my teens and early adulthood I too indulged the arrogance of certainty of which I am now so critical. It damaged my relationships and in fact made shipwreck of my faithful witness to the Gospel. It took a long road of hard knocks and painful experiences for me to really wake up and see what the teaching of Jesus was really all about, and I'm still learning it every day. But it is life that teaches me these lessons much more than doctrine. The older I get (and I will turn 46 as of the week of this writing) the more I recognize that our witness is not in what we say, but largely in what we do. It is not our ortho-doxy that others notice and are either impressed or repelled by - but our ortho-praxy, or the lack of it.

Those for whom Jesus had the harshest rebuke were the rigid and legalistic dogmatists of his own culture and faith-community - the Pharisees. The sort that would order the stoning to death of an adulterous woman on the street, but not even bother to ask where was the male accomplice of the adulteries for which she stands accused and condemned? "You who is without sin, be the first to cast a stone at her" is what the Gospel writer records Jesus as asking the mob - and it is as fair a question today as it was then to any who are self-satisified in their own sense of personal "holiness." Jesus impacted those who followed him much more by his works of love, mercy and compassion, than by anything he ever said or taught. It was his work of supreme self-sacrifice on the cross in suffering and giving up his life that stands as the central story of our faith and that our creeds and rituals commemorate - not some particular teaching that he propounded.

St. Francis of Assisi is supposed to have said, "We should always preach the Gospel, and sometimes we should use words." I hope to do better at following this example, and have done with dogmatism.

JF

A Bit of Exegesis in the Manner of the Eastern Fathers

This piece was written by Frank Valdez and is posted for the benefit of my blog readers and Facebook friends, JF

In the book of Genesis, Jacob struggles with the Angel of the LORD at Peniel. When the Angel of the Presence touches him his thigh is put out of joint. Yet it is at that point that he is given the name Israel because he has prevailed with God. At the end of the book of Genesis, when Israel blesses his descendants, he leans on his staff. The touch of the Divine Presence crippled Jacob so that his walk was permenantly affected; he became a cripple and walked with a limp.
It is this that made him Israel, one who prevailed with God.

There are those who are sometimes called "emotional cripples" by others. I may have had the privilege of being so labeled from time to time myself. They are people whose experience of life has broken their hearts.As a result they may not walk as well as others;i.e. they may not be as efficient, successful, fashionable and cool as many middle class Christians expect everyone to be. They may be in frequent and unacceptably visible suffering. They may not make "normal" people very comfortable. They soon get the message that they are not really wanted and stop showing up. Their disappearance may be a sign of judgement.

The Greek Fathers understood spiritual growth as deification. It is our being remade in the cruciform image of God in Christ.
Perhaps the broken, the insulted, and the injured are not the outliers of true Christianity. To be touched by the cruciform God entails heartbreak. It entails being crippled as Jacob was crippled so that he might become Israel. Perhaps it is those who keep their hearts under lock and key so that they might avoid heartbreak who have lost their way and wandered from the path of deification. Perhaps if God is determined to transform you he will inevitably break your heart and turn you into a cripple of some sort. Perhaps he already has. Perhaps nothing could be worse than for this not to happen.

Just a thought.

FV

Global Climate Change: A reality beyond debate

"Natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century."

- The American Geophyiscal Union

"...the warming of the climate system is unequivocal...human activity has very likely been the driving force in that change over the last 50 years."

- United Nations Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Fourth Assessment Report February 2007

Writing as a non-scientist, one of the things that I have always respected about natural science is that here at least is a field of endeavor that is committed to rigorous objectivity, and to a reasoned and methodical assessment of facts entirely without reference to popular opinion, superstition or ideology. This aloofness of the scientific community toward the blatant subjectivity inherent in fields such as politics or religion is a feature of their discipline that I must admit I am rather attracted to - and even though I am a man of faith, I am also a man of reason and therefore one to take scientific conclusions very seriously. Given the nature of their profession it is therefore rare, if not almost unheard of, to hear scientists use language such as "unequivocal" when describing scientific results. Yet in the hotly debated political football that is the issue of global warming and climate change, that is the very term used by the IPCC (Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change) an international body convened by the United Nations - with a contributory membership of thousands of the worlds leading scientists in a broad range of disciplines - to assess the causes and effects of Global climate trends. In 2007 this body was awarded the Nobel Prize for its published assessment-reports which concluded that a relatively recent and accelerating global warming trend is a fact and that the cause of this is "very likely" of human origin.

It must be emphasized that the IPCC does not take the alarmist position of predicting some sort of catastrophic "extinction-class event" such as depicted in the Hollywood film The Day After Tomorrow, or anything remotely like it. Such a melodramatic scenario of global warming rapidly impacting ocean currents and triggering an ice age in a matter of days or weeks strikes even a layman like me as pure science fiction - global natural processes just don't work that way. What the IPCC reports do say, is that average global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74 degrees Centigrade and that the "linear trend" since about the late 1950's of 0.13 degrees (Centigrade) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years. Data from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) fully affirm and substantiate these conclusions.

The UN panel report points out that this warming trend has not been globally uniform, for example the American Southeast (where I and most of my friends and family all live) has actually cooled some over the last century, but that the overall trend planet-wide, especially in the Northern Hemisphere above 40 degrees North latitude (essentially Canada, Russia and nearly all of Europe) has been a significant increase in average temperature. The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1995, 7 of the 8 warmest since 2001. NASA satellites provide striking evidence of what is possibly the most alarming physical consequence of this warming trend, the decrease in the permanent Arctic sea-ice layer. Satellite imagery beginning from when large-scale satellite based measurements were possible in the late 70's to the present day, reveals that in a 30 year period nearly half of the North polar sea-ice layer then extant has since retreated, the most dramatic reductions having occurred since the 1990's. One serious result of ice-cap regression that not only could, but likely will, have grave consequences for the planet is that ocean levels are projected to rise anywhere from 7 to 23 inches by 2100. Worst-case scenarios - that seem increasingly probable to an overwhelming majority of earth scientists - predict flooding that would likely put many major relatively low-lying urban centers such as New York, London and Shanghai permanently under water (including I might add our own Tampa Bay metro area) within the current lifetime of some of us, and alter significantly the basic geography of the planet for the next several thousand years.

The above brief sketch of some of what is involved with climate change is an example of the information reported in a very prosaically worded technical document published by a highly respected, multi-national and strictly mainstream scientific source with no discernable political agenda or axe to grind. The reports of the IPCC also affirm the central conclusion of the world scientific community as to the primary cause of the current rapid climate change process - namely an acceleration of the so-called "Greenhouse effect" by increased concentration of greenhouse gases (GHG's) in the atmosphere.

It is important to point out that, in and of itself, the greenhouse effect is a normal and necessary natural process that has been part of planetary climate cycles since the beginning of the earth's natural history. Gases such as carbon dioxide and methane in the tropospheric layer of our atmosphere permit sunlight to reach the earth while trapping some of the heat, exactly like the glass paneling of a greenhouse, inhibiting it from radiating back into space - the formation of life on the planet would in fact have been impossible absent this process. However, the problem in the modern period has been that the burning of fossil fuels (namely coal and oil) and massive deforestation have caused the concentration levels of gases such as CO2 (carbon dioxide) to increase to a point apparently unparalleled in previous history. Climate models from NOAA, NASA and the IPCC predict that if GHG's continue to increase (as a result of for example CO2 emissions from automobile exhaust - only one of several major sources of atmospheric pollutants to increase substantially during the industrial age) that the average global surface temperature could increase from 3.2 to 7.5 degrees Faranheit by the end of the century. According to the website of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) "Scientists are certain that human activities are changing the composition of the atmosphere, [italics mine] and that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases will change the planets climate. But they are not sure by how much it will change, at what rate it will change, or what the exact effects will be." A much stronger affirmation in this regard comes from the National Academies of Science which in a 2005 joint statement with the U.S. Academy of Sciences states: "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions."[italics mine]

It seems clear that a virtual scientific consensus exists with respect to the fundamental reality of global climate change and the strong likelihood (The IPCC reports this liklihood as greater than 90%) that people are causing it. Yet, notwithstanding the growing mountain of evidence and substantiating data from every reputable source around the world, there remains a persistent and indeed intractable mindset of denial from certain quarters of the body politic. This inclination toward denial is particularly evident within the political right wing of advanced industrial states like the United States. Some politically conservative elements, often in league with some of the worst offenders in the area of private-sector industrial pollution, continue to propagate the notion that there exists a scientifically credible alternative explanation to this phenomena and its causes. In some cases this belief in a so-called alternative explanation is genuinely motivated by political ideology, which advances an elaborate conspiracy-theory sort of argument that the whole concern re human causes to climate change is an alarmist liberal plot. In other cases it seems very obviously to be driven entirely by market interests (i.e. greed - for lack of a more appropriate term) on the part of certain industries and companies who fear the costs of increased environmental public-interest regulation.

At any rate, in doing the research for this post I failed to find any scientific argument from a recognized or academically reputable source to refute the apparent overwhelming mainstream position on this question. Everything I found seemed to substantiate everythig else, confirming my suspicion that for all intents and purposes the scientific community speaks with one voice with regard to at least the central issues involving this particular issue. There may be divergence on fine points and peripheral questions, but the main themes seem to remain the same from virtually every source I located. Such competing authentically scientific explantions as I was able to find - and they were few and well outside the mainstream - were all directly associated with the very industries that are most identified with the problem, or were sponsored by antagonistic conservative political groups. A fairly conscientious attempt on my part to find the relevant information I was searching for failed to produce any alternative explanations from a credible independent researcher untainted by an obvious ideological or industry-related bias.

As a concluding point, I must stress that I approached my subject with no particular bias (that is, other than a bias in favor of a purely objective scientific argument as opposed to anything tainted by ideological considerations of either the Left or the Right) on an issue about which, until very recently, I have not been all that terribly well informed. My own politics are actually very much a "mixed bag," as my profile states, I do not fit neatly into any ideological category or label but approach issues from a fiercely independent place that is rooted in a deep skepticism with regard to all totalistic ideological constructs. As it turns out, though I once indulged a very brief flirtation with socialist politics some years ago, I am today deeply critical of socialism, seeing in it an incipient tendency toward totalitarianism (and I am a confirmed anti-totalitarian) and in fact endorse a free-market system as likely the only viable rational alternative to state-socialism in modern economics. In brief, though I have reservations about capitalism I basically accept it - so long as it is subject to reasonable regulation commensurate with the aggregate public interest, and promotes responsible corporate citizenship with respect to the environment. So when it comes to the question of global warming or climate change, I have no explicitly "pro-Left" agenda to advance, I am interested only in facts and empirical evidence. To date the conservatives who would disagree with the position heretofore advanced have failed to supply me with any that I find particularly compelling.

JF

Christians & War: A Personal Statement

Happy 4th of July! This may be controversial with some but given the celebration of the patriotic Independence Day holiday and in keeping with the democratic tradition that dissent is patriotism in a genuinely "free" society, I have elected to moderately revise and re-publish my post from last month (and delete from June) regarding "Christians and War." I have also re-posted from June "Church & State: The Bible is not a Political Manifesto" of which this post on war is a necessary follow-up, the two should probably be read together.

"He has shown strength with his arm, he has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts, he has put down the mighty from their thrones, and exalted those of low degree."

- From The Magnificat of Mary the Mother of Christ

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."

- Jesus of Nazareth

I should probably begin this by making it very clear, for reasons already argued at length, that I remain firmly committed to both the separation of Church and State, and to the principle that a Christians status as a member of the Church does not abrogate his/her biblical mandate (see Rom. 13; 1 Pet. 2) to submit to the authority of the civil state and the rule of law it provides. However, as has also been argued, the Apostle Peter's remarks recorded in Acts 5: 29 - that "we ought to obey God rather then men" - when taken in their proper context, remind us that there do arise conditions and circumstances that legitimate peaceable Christian civil disobedience to the State. It was suggested in this argument that where a clear "conflict of interest" exists between the requirements of one's faith, and the obligations of state-citizenship, that one's faith must then take priority. Acknowledging that the experience of others has perhaps been different, in my personal experience as a citizen of this American republic, no serious conflict of interest in this regard has ever arisen - except with regard to this question of war and participation in war.

The difficulty is that even in a liberal republic like the United States, the relationship between "citizenship" and participation in warfare, or support for such participation, is no small question. There are many who would argue that one cannot rightfully assume the rights and privileges of citizenship in a State or a Republic, without also being willing to participate in, or at least actively endorse, its military defense. Even some in my own family or among my closest friends, would strenuously defend this point of view (in fact my best friend, also an ew blog member, is a former U.S. Marine - there are no "ex-Marines" - enough said). Some historians of the early Church have noted that a major cause of the persecutions early Christians suffered at the hands of the Roman Empire were directly the result of the widespread refusal of Christian males - even those who were themselves citus romanus "citizen of Rome" at that time a privilege given only to a select class - to serve in Caesar's legions.

The classical, indeed practically canonical, position of the Church on this question has historically been the "just war" tradition attributed to the teaching of St. Augustine. For those who may be unfamiliar with Church history, Augustine was a fourth century Bishop and Church Father whose interpretation of Scripture and Church tradition has had a profound influence on Christianity, both Catholic and Protestant, down to the present day. The Augustinian tradition does permit Christian participation in war or military service, but only under very rigidly and narrowly defined conditions. In order for a war to be regarded as "just" it must be strictly one fought in defense against invasion by an aggressive enemy - wars of conquest, "preventive" warfare, or wars fought to protect so-called national "interests" are therefore absolutely excluded from this category of a "just" war. Such a war may only be waged as a last resort when all other diplomatic options available have been exhausted, or when it seems quite clear that such options would be of no avail to forestall enemy aggression. A Christian warrior or knight who participates in such a conflict may engage only enemy combatants and must take as much care as possible to avoid civilian casualties. Moreover, rapine or pillage among the non-combatant population is absolutely proscribed.

There is of course also a pacifist or "non-resistance" tradition that has also been very influential, and has its roots primarily in the 16th century Anabaptist movement. This tradition takes several Gospel passages classically interpreted as relating to personal retribution very literally and expands their application to any and all use of force. On the opposite side of the question - with the rise of nationalism within the absolute monarchies of medieval and renaissance Europe there emerged a "Church-militant" tradition that distorted the older Augustinian just war tests and actually supported aggressive militarism on behalf of "God and King." A modern republican "made-in-America" variant of this latter tradition can be discerned among many adherents of the evangelical Religious Right, which attempts to establish nationalistic patriotism as virtually synonomous with Christian discipleship.

I am in agreement with many Christian thinkers who wholeheartedly reject this latter "Christian nation" perspective as heretically false to classical Christian teaching as it conflates the Church directly with the secular Nation-State. Christians are commanded to submit to and obey the civil government and its laws, we are however strictly prohibited from what amounts to deification of the State. It is for this reason some Christians refuse to say the pledge of allegiance to the flag, or are opposed, as am I, to the American flag being displayed on a Church alter or for that matter even within the nave or sanctuary of a church or chapel. Personally, I will stand for the cross when it is carried in processional, for it represents the Monarchy of Christ, but I will generally refuse to do so for the flag if it is also so carried. In my view, disciples of Christ should stand opposed to any importation of the idolatry of nationalism and the heresy of civil religion into the sacred precincts of the Church.

Quite a few contemporary Christian thinkers - most notably the late Thomas Merton (d.1968) - have reached the conclusion that the nature and character of modern warfare is such that the just war tradition, while perhaps valid in the past, is no longer viable for Christians, and pacifism the only remaining option. For myself, I do find this argument compelling and persuasive, but as yet remain morally unresolved concerning it. For instance, I am less than convinced that the Nazis could have been stopped with anything other than military force. Even the widely revered German minister and theologian Deitrich Bonhoeffer, a convinced pacifist, felt it necessary to play a participatory role in the "Valkyrie" assassination conspiracy against Adolph Hitler - and died in a concentration camp in consequence thereof.

What does seem clear is that, for the possible exception of World War II, even the most cursory review of the conflicts that the United States has engaged in over the course of the past century, indicate that not one of them has even remotely satisfied the just war standard. Certainly not the Vietnam conflict, nor the current mess in Iraq, could be said to be consistent with the Augustinian criteria. [See my post from June "The Ghost of Quagmires Past" which offers some comparison/contrast of these conflicts] In neither case was the American homeland under imminent threat of invasion, and in both cases so-called "collateral damage" to civilian non-combatants (including children) was normative and regarded as an acceptable risk by U.S. government policy-makers. Indeed, independent of the religious standards of the Christian faithful, it is worth noting that a case could be made that both conflicts were waged unlawfully in that our own Constitution requires a formal declaration of war by Congress before engaging in hostilities. The last time an American President actually asked Congress for such a declaration was in December, 1941 - after the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor brought the United States into the Second World War. Every conflict since then has been waged largely by executive order and Congressional rubber stamping of war-spending resolutions in the absence of any formal declaration.

Notwithstanding my arguments elsewhere that Christian religious standards of belief and practice have no direct part in civil state policy, it does remain a question as to whether an individual Christian can in good conscience cooperate with the State in this area of participation of non-just wars. I would argue that here is a clear case where the Christian is in fact obligated to resist the State and engage in the peaceable civil disobedience sanctioned in Acts 5. Naturally, such resistance must be conducted in a manner that is respectful of the rule of law by accepting the legal consequences often inherent in acts against the civil authority. It must also be non-violent in character, thereby carrying moral authority and bearing a faithful witness against the unlawful violence of the State

Now I am compelled to add that in spite of the above statement of personal conviction in this area - I have for some years now largely parted company from the local and national anti-war movement in which I was once quite active. My reasons were in large part due to the fact that the secular "peace" movement does not in fact seem to function as authentically advancing the cause of peace. In my experience, contemporary "anti-war" organizations and movements have become far too co-opted by ideological agendas that are inimical to the standards of authentic Christian discipleship. Far too often for example, a march or rally presumably against war, becomes instead a march or rally covertly in favor of some foreign nationalistic agenda. Others of these protest events turn into anarchist diatribes against the State, or even advocacy of so-called "anti-imperialist" revolutionary militancy. This kind of peace movement I have no interest in or use for (nor does this sort of protest rally approach strike me as particularly effective - it didn't really work in the 60's when it was new and novel and the media covered it, it certainly doesn't work today), although I have watched some of my activist friends get taken in by it.

It would seem that Christian open witness against war is best practiced by personal civil disobedience, if and when such becomes necessary due to extraordinary circumstances. An example would be registration as a conscientious objector, or simple refusal of military service if called upon to serve - and as alluded to above, patient acceptance of the legal consequences that may come with this refusal. Naturally this would be most effective if the Church as a whole would line up behind such a one's refusal creating an unassailable "community of resistance" but the present state of things in the American Church would seem to make this a utopian expectation.

Another example would be far simpler, and yet more difficult: The daily practice and discipline of following Christ's injunction to actually "love your enemies... and pray for those who despitefully use you."

JF