Gospel Pacifism

Christianity Today has an article by Professor Jonathan R. Wilson on Gospel Pacifism. 

Gospel pacifism bears witness to the Messiah who was crucified. Jesus Christ could have called upon his Father to rescue him and destroy his enemies, but instead he died at our hands. His death and resurrection exposes the reign of sin for what it is—an alien power and enemy that rules over humankind by lies and deceit. The apostle Paul calls death "the last enemy" (1 Cor. 15). When we think that we can master this enemy to be our tool or even our friend to do our bidding, we have bought its lie. When we take up death as a weapon against others, we are in that very act defeated by our great enemy, death. The Good News of Jesus Christ is that his death (and only his death) has conquered death.

Gospel pacifism recognizes that when the gospel claims us, our identity as followers of Jesus Christ subordinates and transforms (but does not eradicate) all other sources of our identity—national, racial, linguistic, sexual, and so on. The apostle Paul practiced this. Although he enjoins obedience to the government in Rome (Rom. 13), he did not allow his identity as a Roman citizen to silence his witness to Jesus Christ—even to the point that he was jailed and almost certainly executed by Rome for his disobedience.

We Christians may not do as Americans something that we must not do as Christians. As we listen to and debate arguments about going to war, note how often our Christian identity is subordinated to our American identity. We have been so formed by the collusion of the church with America that we find it difficult to even distinguish between Christian and national identity, and harder to subordinate our national identity to our identity in Christ.

Gospel pacifism believes that God primarily works in the world through the church, not the nation. The church, as the community of disciples, is called to bear witness to the one hope that we have: Jesus Christ. Most of the debates about war, even in the church, are about what the United States should do. This is natural for those who primarily find their identity as Americans. But for Christians, our debate should be about what the church should be doing.

Today, more than ever, we see that the church is the global people of God: transnational, transracial, translinguistic. As strange as it may seem, this gathering of people from every tribe and tongue and nation is the vehicle through which God acts in the world. Our inability to recognize and act upon this is a major tragedy for which we will be judged.

Gospel pacifism argues that the church compromises its mission, corrupts its life, and abandons its witness when it follows the way of death by acting out of national, racial, and cultural identity. If this is the case, God's judgment looms over the church in the West and elsewhere.

For most people in the world, the United States of America is a Christian nation. When we advertise the Christian faith of our President and others in the government, we reinforce the perception of America as "Christian." So the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan appear to be (and in many ways are) wars fought by Christians against Muslims. If there is no other Christian voice or action, then the cause of the gospel among the nations—among Muslims included—could be significantly compromised for years to come.

The form of Christian pacifism I teach, which motivated my daughter and son-in-law to join CPT in Iraq, calls for the church to resist evil non-violently. Followers of Jesus Christ who are also Americans will act in ways that seek to faithfully represent the gospel apart from the work of this nation-state. We do this not because we deny the existence of evil or the claims of justice, but because we have been claimed by the Good News of another kingdom—the kingdom established when Jesus defeated death on the Cross, which will bring justice for all creation.

Gospel pacifism bears witness to the Messiah who was raised from the dead. Although the Bible teaches that Jesus defeated death by his death, it also looks forward to the return of the risen Christ when death will be destroyed. As we wait for that event, the practice of gospel pacifism requires great patience in suffering, endurance in hope, and the firm conviction that any "peace" that comes in this age is only a foretaste of the peace of God's kingdom. So we live the way of peace today as a witness to Jesus Christ, the only one who can bring true and lasting peace to our warring world.

I am very sympathetic to some of the arguments that Professor Wilson makes in this article. I have no sympathy for secular humanist and utopian conceptions of pacifism, which fail to understand the fallen nature of human beings, but there is a strong case to be made for Christian pacifism. There is never a single act of violence committed by a Christian in the New Testament except for Peter who Jesus rebukes. Paul and Jesus also both use rhetoric, which seems to indicate that Christians should often embrace the injustice that others inflict on them as a means of changing the heart of the oppressor. I also strongly agree with Professor Wilson's comments about the dangers of Christianity becoming associated with any national entity or culture whether it be the United States, the West, or any other earthly power or culture. I also agree with Professor Wilson that Christianity has built in transformational power that most Christians ignore when they become excessively reliant on the state for their solutions. Previous postings of mine make similar arguments including Onward Christian Soldiers, Massive Growth in the African Church, Rahman Is Free, and This Is The Agape Revolution. My point of disagreement with Professor Wilson comes with Romans 13.

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

Although, I believe that Christianity itself has some very pacifistic tendencies, I do not believe that those pacifistic principles should be applied to the state. Changing the world through love and suffering is the role of the church. It is not the role of the state. The role of the state is to use coercive force to carry out justice against those who violate the moral law. The use of the word sword by Paul is indicative of this fact. The state is not an intrinsically evil institution just because it does not use the same tactics as the church. The church and the state were both created by God, but they both have very different goals. The state primarily exists to maintain order, carry out justice, and promote the common good. The church builds God's Kingdom by sharing God's love with the world and offering the possibility of salvation. This does not mean that Christians should not attempt to positively influence the state with Christian values. It just means that Christians need to understand that these two institutions have different roles, and Christians need to be cautious about making Christianity appear too connected with any particular state or culture.

(Posted by Trask)

What Is Currently Preventing a Population Crisis in the United States?

The countries that makeup the European Union are currently suffering a population implosion, which is going to create major problems for the economies and social welfare systems in these countries. The current birthrate in the European Union is 1.47 per woman, which is 30 percent below the fertility rate that the E.U. needs to replace its existing population. In the United States, the birthrate is stable at 2.09, which is just .01 short of the replacement level. Why is there such a difference between the E.U. and the U.S.? The Answer: More people in the U.S. love God than in the E.U. In reality, the U.S. has its own little E.U. on the east and west coasts, and those areas of the country are facing population problems similar to Europe. It is only the population growth in the more religious Red States that is preventing the United States from ending up like Europe. Phillip Longman demonstrated this point a few years ago in an article that he published in the Washington Post (Sept. 2, 2004).

But one big difference in fertility rates remains: Conservative, religiously minded Americans are putting far more of their genes into the future than their liberal, secular counterparts. . . .

Fertility correlates strongly with religious conviction. In the United States, fully 47 percent of people who attend church weekly say that their ideal family size is three or more children. By contrast, only 27 percent of those who seldom attend church want that many kids.

High fertility also correlates strongly with support for George W. Bush. Of the top 10 most fertile states, all but one voted for Bush in 2000. Among the 17 states that still produce enough children to replace their populations, all but two — Iowa and Minnesota — voted for Bush in the last election. Conversely, the least fertile states — a list that includes Maine, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Connecticut — went overwhelmingly for Al Gore. Women living in Gore states on average have 12 percent fewer babies than women living in Bush states.

In most coastal cities and states, maternity wards have more and more empty cradles. Between 1990 and 2002, for example, the number of babies born in Los Angeles County dropped by 30 percent, while there was a 14 percent decline in infants in California as a whole. In the mid-Atlantic region and New England, the decline in the number of newborns ranged from 13 percent in Massachusetts to 37 percent in the District of Columbia. But there are 14 states, led by Nevada, Colorado and Idaho, in which the number of births increased substantially over this period. Of these 14 states, all but one voted for Bush in 2000.

In states where Bush won a popular majority in 2000, the average woman bears 2.11 children in her lifetime — which is enough to replace the population. In states where Gore won a majority of votes in 2000, the average woman bears 1.89 children, which is not enough to avoid population decline. Indeed, if the Gore states seceded from the Bush states and formed a new nation, it would have the same fertility rate, and the same rapidly aging population, as France — that bastion of "old Europe."

Choose Your Revolution! 

(Posted by Trask)

Civil Damages for Adultery II

I have previously discussed that the House of Lords is about to rule on whether to allow damages to be awarded in divorce cases for adultery. It is currently the law in all jurisdictions in the United States that one does not have to prove fault in order to obtain a divorce. However, there are a few jurisdictions like the State of Texas where the courts will consider fault when distributing the marital property, which means that a person can get a greater award of marital property if spousal adultery caused the divorce. I have posted below one example of such a case where the Texas Court of Appeals held that it was acceptable for the district court to consider adultery when distributing the marital property.

Morrison v. Morrison, 713 S.W.2d 377 (Tex. App. 1986).

The record shows that David and Carolyn were married for over thirty-five years when David filed for divorce. David alleged as grounds for divorce insupportability and cruelty. Carolyn filed a counterclaim seeking a divorce on the grounds of insupportability, cruel treatment, adultery, and desertion. The judgment of divorce was entered July 17, 1985. The community property distributed by the discretion of the court was: (1) the residence valued at $62,473.00; (2) Focus on Dallas, Inc., Carolyn's corporate business valued at $139,000.00; and (3) David's insurance business valued at $14,000.00. The court awarded Carolyn the house and her business and awarded David $29,000.00 and his business.

The trial court filed findings of fact and conclusions of law on September 3, 1985. The court found that the marriage was insupportable because of conflict of personalities. After David perfected his appeal, Carolyn requested additional findings which the court filed on January 16, 1986. The court additionally found that David was at fault in the breakup of the marriage because of his alcoholism, adultery, and diversion of community assets for the benefit of other women.

With respect to the diversion of community assets, the trial court found that David spent "substantial amounts of community funds" on other women while married to Carolyn. David admitted he had secretly put a girlfriend on the insurance coverage of Focus on Dallas Inc. He also admitted: (1) taking other women to Hawaii and staying in fancy accommodations; (2) taking trips all over the country with various women; (3) paying traveling expenses for various women; (4) "advancing" cash to various women; (5) paying attorney's fees for one or more women; and (6) buying gifts for other women during his marriage. He also admitted paying $2,689.45 for rent for another woman's apartment and paying or "advancing" another woman $7,385.00.

In points of error one through five, David contends that the trial court awarded Carolyn 83.5% of the community estate and that this division was manifestly unjust. We disagree.

Section 3.63 of the Texas Family Code gives the trial court broad discretion in the division of community assets and the division made by the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal unless a clear abuse of discretion is shown. Murff v. Murff, 615 S.W.2d 696, 698 (Tex. 1981). In exercising this discretion the court may consider many factors, including fault in breaking up the marriage. Id. at 698. It is presumed that the trial court exercised its discretion properly and every reasonable presumption is resolved in favor of the trial court's exercise of discretion. Id.;  Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, 643 S.W.2d 786, 787 (Tex. App. — San Antonio 1982, no writ). Furthermore, unequal divisions of community property have been upheld where the facts warrant the unequality. See Jones v. Jones, 699 S.W.2d 583, 586 (Tex. App. — Texarkana 1985, no writ); Cluck v. Cluck, 647 S.W.2d 338, 343 (Tex. App. — San Antonio 1982, writ dism'd) (the appellate court affirmed a division in which appellant contended that the appellee received eighty-six percent of the community property).

In the instant case, Carolyn was entitled to reimbursement to her half of the community property because of David's misuse of community funds. The right of reimbursement is an equitable right which may be considered by the trial court in determining the division of community property. Horlock v. Horlock, 533 S.W.2d 52, 60-61 (Tex. Civ. App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1975, writ dism'd). We presume, therefore, that when the court divided the community, it awarded Carolyn a substantial reimbursement for the assets David diverted from her half of the community. See Robbins v. Robbins, 519 S.W.2d 507, 510-11 (Tex. Civ. App. — Fort Worth, 1975, no writ) (the appellate court presumed that the wife's entitlement to reimbursement of her separate estate was taken into calculation by the trial court when it divided the parties' community property); TEX. R. CIV. P. 299. Furthermore, the trial court found David at fault in the breakup of the marriage because of his adultery. We presume that the trial court also considered this factor when it divided the community. Gutierrez, 643 S.W.2d at 787. Based on the evidence of Carolyn's right to reimbursement and David's adultery, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding a disproportionate amount to Carolyn. See Murff, 615 S.W.2d at 698.

. . .

We conclude that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in dividing the community estate and that the disparity in the division favoring Carolyn was due to David's diversion of community assets and his adultery. Because the trial court's division of property was warranted by David's wrongful diversion of community assets and adultery, we need not address David's point of error relating to the court's finding of his alcoholism. Consequently, we overrule points of error one through five and points of error nine and ten.

(Posted by Trask)

United Kingdom May Allow Civil Damages for Adultery

According to the Daily Telegraph, the House of Lords is about to rule on an issue that could allow for civil damages for adultery.

Husbands and wives who behave badly during a marriage could be financially punished in the divorce courts if a ruling is upheld by the House of Lords in the next few weeks.

If the law lords conclude that conduct matters, it will turn divorce law on its head and, experts believe, could create a new wave of "blame culture" in the family courts. There is already a greater use of private detectives.

The ruling centres on the high-profile divorce of Alan and Melissa Miller, a wealthy, childless couple whose marriage lasted less than three years. Mr Miller, a fund manager with a fortune of between £14 million and £20 million, was ordered to pay his former wife £5 million.

The court concluded that Mrs Miller, who gave up her job a year into the marriage, had "an expectation" of a high standard of living and that Mr Miller was partly to blame for the end of the relationship.

After losing in the Court of Appeal, Mr Miller took the case to the House of Lords. If the ruling is upheld, many divorce experts believe that it will reverse the trend towards equitable settlements for couples with no dependent children. A survey by the financial advisers Grant Thornton showed that 63 per cent of divorces last year involved a 50:50 split.

This would be a ground breaking decision if the House of Lords allowed for these civil damages for divorce. The marital contact is unquestionably the most important and fundamental contract that one can make. Courts have historically held that marital contacts are in some sense on a higher plane than all other contacts. Yet, the marital contact is the only contract that most western jurisdictions today refuse to enforce. If a person suffers harm because of the adultery of their spouse, that person deserves to recover damages. Allowing these civil damages is good from the standpoint of public policy since allowing the spouse to collect damages would help deter both adultery and the divorces that result from it.

(Posted by Trask)

The Frightening Truth of Why Iran Wants a Bomb

Amir Taheri, the former Executive Editor of Iran's largest newspaper, had a fascinating article in the Sunday Telegraph about the intentions of Iran's President entitled The Frightening Truth of Why Iran Wants a Bomb. Volokh Conspiracy has some other articles, which comment on this article.

According to this analysis, spelled out in commentaries by Ahmadinejad's strategic guru, Hassan Abassi, known as the "Dr Kissinger of Islam", President George W Bush is an aberration, an exception to a rule under which all American presidents since Truman, when faced with serious setbacks abroad, have "run away". Iran's current strategy, therefore, is to wait Bush out. And that, by "divine coincidence", corresponds to the time Iran needs to develop its nuclear arsenal, thus matching the only advantage that the infidel enjoys.

Moments after Ahmadinejad announced "the atomic miracle", the head of the Iranian nuclear project, Ghulamreza Aghazadeh, unveiled plans for manufacturing 54,000 centrifuges, to enrich enough uranium for hundreds of nuclear warheads. "We are going into mass production," he boasted.

The Iranian plan is simple: playing the diplomatic game for another two years until Bush becomes a "lame-duck", unable to take military action against the mullahs, while continuing to develop nuclear weapons.

Thus do not be surprised if, by the end of the 12 days still left of the United Nations' Security Council "deadline", Ahmadinejad announces a "temporary suspension" of uranium enrichment as a "confidence building measure". Also, don't be surprised if some time in June he agrees to ask the Majlis (the Islamic parliament) to consider signing the additional protocols of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Such manoeuvres would allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) director, Muhammad El-Baradei, and Britain's Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, to congratulate Iran for its "positive gestures" and denounce talk of sanctions, let alone military action. The confidence building measures would never amount to anything, but their announcement would be enough to prevent the G8 summit, hosted by Russia in July, from moving against Iran.

While waiting Bush out, the Islamic Republic is intent on doing all it can to consolidate its gains in the region. . . .

Ahmadinejad has also reactivated Iran's network of Shia organisations in Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Yemen, while resuming contact with Sunni fundamentalist groups in Turkey, Egypt, Algeria and Morocco. From childhood, Shia boys are told to cultivate two qualities. The first is entezar, the capacity patiently to wait for the Imam to return. The second is taajil, the actions needed to hasten the return. For the Imam's return will coincide with an apocalyptic battle between the forces of evil and righteousness, with evil ultimately routed. If the infidel loses its nuclear advantage, it could be worn down in a long, low-intensity war at the end of which surrender to Islam would appear the least bad of options. And that could be a signal for the Imam to reappear.

(Posted by Trask)

Only Nations with Strong Families Survive

George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney, made an impressive argument about the consequences of not procreating in the Sunday Telegraph (Australia) (Jan. 22, 2006) a few months ago.

A society which does not have enough children to reproduce itself will be replaced by another. Europeans find themselves confronted by this fact with some urgency. . . .

Up until 2000 it was still possible for Europe to stabilise its population with a relatively modest increase in the number of children per family to just over two.

But after 2000, decades of low fertility came home to roost as the larger group of baby-boom women (1945-65) approached the end of their child-bearing years.

To keep Europe's population at its current level a fertility rate of 2.1 is no longer enough. A rate of 4.0 is now required.

Europe from Iceland to Russia west of the Ural Mountains recorded a fertility rate of only 1.37 in 2000. This means that fertility is only at 65 percent of the normal replacement rate of 2.1.

In that year, deaths outnumbered births in 17 European nations. Some regions in Germany, Italy and Spain already have fertility rates below 1.0.

To see what this means over a century, consider Russia and Yemen. In 1950 Russia had about 103 million people.

Despite the devastation of wars and revolution the population was still young and growing. Yemen had only 4.3 million people.

By 2000 fertility was in radical decline in Russia, but because of past momentum the population stood at 145 million. Yemen had maintained a fertility rate of 7.6 over the previous 50 years and now has 18.3 million people.

Median level UN forecasts suggest that even with fertility rates rising by 50 percent in Russia over the next 50 years, its population will be about 104 million in 2050 — a loss of 40 million people.

It will also be an elderly population.

The same forecasts suggest that even if Yemen's fertility rate falls 50 percent to 3.35, by 2050 it will be about the same size as Russia — 102 million — and overwhelmingly young.

(Posted by Trask)

The Aftermath of Overturning Roe

Susan Page at USA Today has an article today that predicts what would likely happen if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and returned the abortion issue to the states.

USA TODAY used the Guttmacher data and other factors to calculate how states would be likely to respond if Roe were reversed. The 1973 decision recognized access to abortion as part of a constitutional right to privacy and limited states' ability to restrict it.

The conclusions:

•Twenty-two state legislatures are likely to impose significant new restrictions on abortion. They include nearly every state in the South and a swath of big states across the industrial Rust Belt, from Pennsylvania to Ohio and Michigan. These states have enacted most of the abortion restrictions now allowed.

Nine states are considering bans similar to the one passed in South Dakota — it's scheduled to go into effect July 1 — and four states are debating restrictions that would be triggered if the Supreme Court overturned Roe.

•Sixteen state legislatures are likely to continue current access to abortion. They include every state on the West Coast and almost every state in the Northeast. A half-dozen already have passed laws that specifically protect abortion rights. Most of the states in this group have enacted fewer than half of the abortion restrictions now available to states.

•Twelve states fall into a middle ground between those two categories. About half are in the Midwest, the rest scattered from Arizona to Rhode Island.

The result, according to this analysis, would be less a patchwork of laws than broad regional divisions that generally reinforce the nation's political split. All but three of the states likely to significantly restrict abortions voted for President Bush in 2004. All but four of the states likely to maintain access to abortion voted for Democrat John Kerry.

The 22 states likely to enact new restrictions include 50% of the U.S. population and accounted for 37% of the abortions performed in 2000, the latest year for which complete data were available.

The 16 states likely to protect access to abortion include 35% of the U.S. population and accounted for 48% of the abortions performed.

(Posted by Trask)