Do you believe there is any place in a Christian worldview for war? What would make it a viable choice?
I believe that Jesus, the New Testament, and the early church all call us to non-violence. The Gospel itself—that the peaceable Kingdom of God has broken into human history—is an invitation to participate in the peace of God that has triumphed over the reign of war and Death. This Kingdom of God will ultimately triumph over all war-making powers. Until that time, the church is called to be an "outpost" of that coming peaceable Kingdom, even though the kingdoms of this world will continue to wage war.
But allow me also to say here, as I say in the book, that obviously most Christians do not agree with me on this point. In that case, they must embrace something like the Just War Tradition (JWT). So to these people I say: take the JWT more seriously, not less; realize that the JWT is often used as a way to rationalize whatever wars the powers-that-be have decided to fight on other grounds. In such cases, for Christians to march off to war, doing whatever the commander-in-chief demands, lacks any integrity whatsoever.
By enumerating Christian violations of Jesus' command to love our enemies, don't you feel you're making Christianity itself the moral equivalent of Islam in ways that controvert the truth of the gospel?
Thanks for asking this question. "Moral equivalency" is often used as a way to justify one immoral behavior by comparing it to the immoral behavior of a competing group. "Moral equivalency" might work this way: Osama bin Laden killed civilians. American Christians have killed civilians. So (a "moral equivalency" sort of argument might wrongly conclude), we should not judge Osama bin Laden too harshly.
I am arguing precisely against this sort of logic as I spell out at length at the beginning of chapter thirteen. Unfortunately, and much too often, various groups justify their own atrocities by pointing at the atrocities committed by their enemies. Osama bin Laden used this very logic in justifying his plotting the mass murder of September 11, 2001. Western powers have, in turn, justified their own mass killings of civilians in a similar way, as I discuss in the book.
By pointing to atrocities committed by professed Christians, I do not mean thereby either to justify the atrocities, nor do I mean to say that Christianity and Islam are in some sort of way therefore "equivalent." One of the fundamental contentions in the whole of the book is that Islam and Christianity have fundamentally different founding narratives, that the two traditions have different founding logics. What I am trying to point out is that Christians have often contended that Christianity is superior to Islam (pointing, for example, to Jesus' teaching that we should love our enemies) but then ignore the implications of this teaching when it comes to war-making. But we cannot have our cake and eat it too.
While the book seems to criticize the Christian nationalism that makes war on Muslim enemies, isn't this itself a back-end argument about the United States being a Christian nation? After all, it is the State that has responded with violence, not the Church.
That's a great question. I argued with myself about the possibility of being misunderstood on this point while I was writing the book. And in fact I do fear that sometimes, caught up in the book in the rhetoric of Christians who think of the U.S. as a Christian nation, I may lead people to think I believe that something like a "Christian nation" is possible. In an earlier book (Mere Discipleship, Brazos Press 2003 and 2nd ed. 2008) I argued at length about the falsehood of thinking about the United States as a Christian nation, so I am particularly sensitive to this issue.
What I try to do in Who Is My Enemy? is point to the way in which the so-called secular state has co-opted Christianity in the west. Because of the myths we have been told, we tend to see "religion" as the bad guy and the "secular state" as the good guy when it comes to war and peacemaking. But this can be turned on its head: it may be the case that "the state" has been all the more violent and war-mongering than the church has ever been.
If this is the case, then it is incumbent upon Christians to look for the ways in which we have let the state co-opt us.
As your book primarily addresses the attitude Christians hold toward Muslims, what might you add to direct your readers to proper attitudes toward American politics? How are the two related?
As I suggest in various ways in the book, the first thing to come to grips with is this: that Christianity is itself political. Christianity, rightly understood, is inseparable from politics. I do not mean by this that Christianity must get the right person in the White House or get the vote to swing a certain way. I mean that the way of loving enemies, practicing forgiveness, celebrating the gift of life, embodying reconciliation, and sharing our wealth are inherently social and political practices.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In