How The End Doesn't Justify The Means, Part Two

Well, I don't know if the lack of comments on part one means that no one cares about this area or not, but I really believe that the separation of the Christian faith and nationalism is vitally important for today's times, especially considering the volatile situation in Iraq.

Part one spoke about the end of World War II and how the killing of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians was justified in the eyes of most Americans at that time (and perhaps even today) because it signified the end of the war and the end of the deaths of "the good guys" by warfare. Most people would say that in this case, the end did justify the means.

But in whose eyes? Certainly not God's eyes. Although we may differentiate between the good guys (us) and the bad guys (Japan/Germany/North Korea/North Vietnam/Iraq), God doesn't. He doesn't group nations into one category of "good" and one category of "evil". I'm sure that in this war on Iraq, there have been plenty of non-evil civilians who have been caught in the crossfire and killed. I'm sure that there have been evil American soldiers that have been killed as well.

I appreciate Lee Camp's book Mere Discipleship: Radical Christianity in a Rebellious World the deeper into the book I get. Although I was not expecting that a majority of this book would be about the difference between true discipleship (following the commands and teachings of Jesus) and what he calls "the Constantinian cataract" (the belief of American Christians that (1) the end justifies the means; (2) the way of Christ cannot really be relevant to matters of this world, and (3) it is our task to be in control, to run the world, to make things turn out right.) This hearkens back to the days when Constantine became emperor and established Christianity as the national religion - thus causing a majority of his constituents to become Christians in name only - for fear that they would be put to death if they didn't accept the new Christian religion. If we look at the three above beliefs, we can certainly see them in the time of Constantine.

"The end justifies the means" - it doesn't matter how you become a Christian, or what motives are behind it (fear of death, jumping on the bandwagon, promises of riches), as long as you become a Christian.

"the way of Christ cannot really be relevant to matters of this world" - Constantine had every solider in his army baptized, except for their fighting arm. Therefore, they could still fight battles and wars, yet the rest of them were totally Christian.

"it in our task to be in control, to run the world, to make things turn out right" - The Roman Empire, especially now that it has the blessing of Jesus himself, needs to enlarge its territories. The Roman Empire needs to fight its neighboring areas, to further the kingdom, and to kill infidels.

Does anyone else see any similarities between Constantine's empire, and our nation?

In the section "Christians and Warfare", in his chapter on worship, Lee Camp continues to challenge our widely held beliefs. He says:

- All extant Christian writings prior to the fourth century reject the practice of Christians killing in warfare. It is easy to understand why. Why would one want to fight and serve and empire that persecuted you? But the early Christians did not reject killing in warfare simply because it was not expedient to fight for an empire that sometimes persecuted the church. They rejected killing in warfare, in short, because it violated the way and teaching of Christ. Tertullian wondered, for example, "If we are enjoined to love our enemies, whom have we to hate? If injured we are forbidden to retaliate. Who then can suffer injury at our hands?" Clement of Alexandria proclaimed, "If you enroll as one of God's people, heaven is your country and God your lawgiver. And what are his laws?...Thou shalt not kill...Thou shalt love thy neighbor as himself. To him that strikes thee on the cheek, turn also the other."

- Faithfulness to the teachings of the Master is of first importance; everything else must find its place within the sphere of obedience to the Lord. But once the church assumes a position of privilege within society,once the church assumes a mantle of power and "responsibility" within the empire, such "faithfulness" is thought to be naive: "We must do whatever is necessary in order for the good to win." The "good guys" can now win, and the "good guys" should always win. Our task is now to do whatever is "necessary" in order to preserve and uphold the good. But such logic refuses to worship, to give full allegiance to Jesus as Lord. Disciples of Jesus do not kill their enemies because they believe the gospel. Our worship is why we don't kill our enemies. The Lamb of God, through suffering and death, has inaugurated the new aeon, in which offenses are forgiven, sins remitted, and war is learned no more.

Powerful stuff to think about. I guess in all of this, I should really tell you what I believe. I am not against the war in Iraq in theory. I understand that sometimes a nation needs to defend its citizens against terrorism and tyranny. What I am against is using Christianity as the impetus for war, for killing people. When preachers tell their constituents that the war in Iraq isn't just a physical battle, but a spiritual battle, I get mad. When God and patriotism get mixed together so that we truly believe that God is fighting "on our side", I get mad. When Christians are more concerned about the kingdoms of earth than the kingdom of heaven, I get irritated.

Hmm, I think a part three is coming.