Violence, Monsters, and the Ascension: Barth and Wright on the Problem of War
May 8, 2009 by keasBack in April I spent a week closely reading Karl Barth’s treatment of war in Church Dogmatics and writing an essay that affirmed some aspects and critiqued others. Over the last few years I’ve developed strong convictions in favor of nonviolence and pacifism through my reading of the Gospels, Martin Luther King, Jr., and John Howard Yoder. I’m currently studying N.T. Wright’s Following Jesus: Biblical Reflections on Discipleship with a group of friends, and this morning I read a chapter about the ascension of Jesus that deals with power and empire. I’d like to revisit Barth’s argument in light of Wright’s chapter and see what it adds to the discussion.
To summarize (and grossly oversimplify) Barth’s argument in Church Dogmatics (hereafter CD), I should begin by saying he comes much closer to the position of pacifism than he does just war. In CD III/4 he asks, “Can there ever be a time when war is justified?” He asserts that any affirmative answer to this question is wrong from the very outset and a betrayal of the Gospel. To even discuss the question of just war, one must first admit that the arguments for absolute pacifism are “almost infinite” and “almost overpoweringly strong” (455).
In spite of the fierce arguments he builds against the traditional doctrine of just war, Barth says “nevertheless,” war must still remain a possibility for the Christian. To understand his reasoning one must first understand how ethics function in Barth’s thought. He has already stated elsewhere (CD II/2) that the commands of God are both sovereign and definite: sovereign in that they are true and good, definite in that they speak to a specific time and place. This definition of definite is key; he’s deconstructing the traditional approach to ethics, both philosophical and theological, which takes general, universal, static principles and applies them to specific cases. This “casuistic” movement (the general to the specific) is at the heart of Barth’s rejection of traditional ethics because it impinges on God’s freedom to speak into the present by confining truth to a set of timeless principles.
Over and against the traditional approach, Barth contends that Christian ethics is obedience to the word of God pure and simple. And since God is a living God who speaks even today, ethics can never remain static nor tied down to an old word. Christian ethics, like Christian theology, must always be oriented toward the object that stands at the center of the Christian faith: the revealing, reconciling, and redeeming work of God in Jesus Christ. God’s word speaks to every new time and place with fresh immediacy, and ethics is the obedience to that living word.
This doesn’t mean specific commands found in scripture, such as the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount, do not have relevance for Christians today. They cannot simply be made into principles to be applied universally, but they do reveal the general direction that God’s commands have had and will have. The Word of God that speaks in every new situation is always Jesus Christ, and since Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever, we can be confident that there will be a considerable amount of congruence among all the commands. God’s Word spoken to a new place and time with be aligned with the direction of the words and commands God has already spoken in Christ himself and through scripture.
So here is the big question I’ve been wrestling with – do the nonviolent teachings and life of Jesus give us enough indication of the direction (to use Barth’s language) of God’s commands in the future that we can assume followers of Jesus in every place and time will be called to reject violence and war? According to Barth, almost. Christian ethics must point in the direction of nonviolence, yet the possibility of God commanding war cannot be ruled out.
I’m with Barth in thinking that Christian ethics isn’t frozen and fixed but dynamic, since it constitutes obedience to the living Word that continues to be spoken today in Jesus Christ. But I don’t know if I can go along with Barth in leaving the possibility open that Jesus will command his followers to use violence and wage war. Here’s where we can bring Wright’s thoughts into play.
Following Jesus: Biblical Reflections on Discipleship is a collection of sermons N.T. Wright preached in 1994, and the chapter titled “Heaven and Power” examines the ascension of Jesus and what it means for us today. He talks about the love of power that we find throughout human history and the world today. So much of our life is concerned with power – who has it, how to get it, and what it does for us. We live in an age “that is dying for power, and that is in fact dying of power” (102).
He contends that the ascension of Jesus is seminal because it shows that the power of love is supremely stronger than the love of power. He interprets the death and resurrection of Jesus in light of Daniel 7 (one of Wright’s favorite moves) where the prophet Daniel has a vision of a great monster emerging from the sea and boasting before a courtroom about its power, muscle, and destructive potential. The monster, like all human empires, believes its power is shown chiefly in its ability to kill.
But here is the twist in Daniel’s vision. God is presiding over this courtroom scene, and in one swift move he silences the monster’s boast and exalts to his own right hand not a fierce supernatural being, but a human figure, “one like the son of man.” God gives this son of man authority, dominion, and kingly power. But this is a power different from the one the monster (read: human empires) had exercised; it’s the power of love. Let me at this point quote Wright at length:
“The original writer of Daniel, and those who studied the book at the time of Jesus, interpreted the ‘son of man’ figure to refer to the faithful few who suffered for God’s sake at the hand of the tyrants, and who would be vindicated at the last. Jesus drew this image on to himself, and went to his death believing that thereby the power of the monsters would be broken, that the weight of human arrogance would have done its worst, and that then the creator God, the God of love and new life, would vindicate him and so begin the process of establishing his own kingdom, in which power has been stood on its head. The chief thing that the monster can do, then and now, is to kill. Jesus believed in a God who could, and would, raise the dead. The power of God, says St Paul in 1 Corinthians 1, is therefore revealed in human weakness, supremely in the weakness of Jesus. At the heart of the Christian gospel stands the ridiculous paradox that true power is found in the apparent failure, and the shameful death, of a young Jew at the hands of a ruthless empire” (104).
If the death and resurrection of Jesus was not defeat but victory over evil and the powers that be, then where does Jesus’ ascension to the Father fit into this and what does it signify? Wright answers, “The generous self-giving love of Jesus, giving himself for the sins of the world, has been vindicated and exalted as the supreme principle of the universe” (104).
Let’s now return to Barth’s treatment of war. If we’re to go with his way of doing ethics (which I think we should) then morality isn’t a set of timeless principles but obedience to the living Word of God that continues to be spoken through Jesus Christ. This means we must expect and look to the Spirit of God to speak while we pray and study the Word of God (Scripture) with the community of God (church).
Now we’ve come full circle back to the big question – is there still a possibility that God will command us in the future to use violence and wage war? If the ascension was God’s way of exalting not only Jesus but also the way of Jesus, then no. God rejected the human empires of this world and their way of power by exalting Jesus to his right hand and giving him a kingdom built on love.
So when it comes to the question of war, I think there’s a way to combine Barth’s approach to ethics and Wright’s reflections on discipleship to arrive at the conclusion that violence and war are not options for the follower of Jesus. Christian discipleship isn’t about aligning your life to a set of abstract moral principles. It’s about following the crucified, resurrected, and reigning Jesus. And following Jesus means not only believing in, but being a citizen of, his peaceable kingdom. So until I can imagine Jesus, the exalted “son of man,” throwing hand grenades and firing a machinegun, I’ll reject violence and war as options for his followers.
I’ll let Wright finish this entry:
“Jesus himself, no abstract principle but a human person, is now exalted as the still loving, still giving, still generous Lord, to whom one day every knee shall bow, and whom we are today summoned to follow…God now longs that we, his children, should take our own part in implementing his victory, the victory of the power of love over the love of power, throughout his creation. Those who commit themselves to following the ascended Lord Jesus are thereby signing on for this task” (104-5).
Mary Knapp
This is a compelling argument for an active pacifism, calling the Christian to reject all forms of violent response, if I read it correctly.
What would be the posture of the Christian when suffering is inflicted on others,in all likelihood not followers of Christ and therefore not likely to be participating in his sufferings as an act of submission?
For the love of justice, should the Christian oppose outrageous acts of violence (e.g.Rwanda, Sarajevo) with all means available?
Comment — May 9, 2009 @ 2:55 pm
Joe Delahunt
Mary Knapp’s question is a good one. A further question would be: Given that all social order (in the world as it is) is based on the threat of coercive violence (imprisonment and other forms of punishment or restraint), must a Christian renounce all involvement in that social order? This would seem to be impossible.
Comment — May 22, 2009 @ 11:15 am
Gary Babcock
How should a Christian address the situation where the government has opted for war and initiated a military draft? Do we object on the basis of our beliefs and if so does this conflict with Romans 13:1-6 and the call to submit ourselves to the governing authorities?
Comment — June 24, 2009 @ 11:31 am
D C Cramer
Gary,
Yes, we do object on the basis of our beliefs, and, no, this does not conflict with Romans 13, since “submit” does not mean “obey.” In some instances non-obedience can be submissive if one is willing to submit to the consequences of non-obedience (e.g., imprisonment).
Cf., for example, the German Christian in the late 1930s and early ’40s. Would his commitment to Christ have been shown better through his rejection of German military service or in his obedience to serve the national cause?
Comment — July 18, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
Georeg Cline
What about smuggling bibles into countries where that is illegal? Is that ’submitting’? Just a thought. What about Moses mom, albiet that was prior to Romans 13 (first few verses) but what about that sort of situation. In my head, I kind of arrive at “no, someones life is at stake, so of course we follow our believes over the governments ‘commands’”, but then I guess I just ruled out war mandated by the government as well then…
Comment — July 19, 2009 @ 11:19 pm
N. T. Wright on Reason and War - MethoBlogroll Mirror Test
[...] T. Wright on Reason and War (ht: Allan Bevere)And here is is a post from a fine new blog called "The N. T. Wright Project." The project is being [...]
Pingback — July 21, 2009 @ 10:09 pm
Sue
Christianity and war are one and the same thing. It became INEVITABLY so when the church was coopted by the Roman state and this became an integral part/player in the Western imperial project and its drive to total power and control.
Summed up with “Onward Christian Soldiers going/marching into war”.
Any religion that claims to possess or own the “one true faith/way/”revelation” has explicitly declared war on ALL other faith traditions and their various cultural expressions. And WILL, given half the chance, use whatever means it can to “convert” every one else to the “one true way”. Both Christianity and Islam specialize in this attitude and tactic.
Meanwhile these two references sum it all up in very stark terms.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panel13.html
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/winter.html
And of course the recent Imperial invasion of Iraq was just the latest chapter in the imperial conquest.
Comment — July 21, 2009 @ 10:33 pm
Evan
Though I agree with your conclusion, I once heard Wright say that he could not go as far as his friend “Stan Hauerwas” to full pacifism. He believes that there are times where injustice to the innocent must be dealt with by war. It seemed to me that he was saying, “Only as a last resort,” type-of-thing but still necessary. So, I wonder if that has MORE connection with Barth than often noticed. I do, however, like how you handled this–”So until I can imagine Jesus, the exalted ’son of man,’ throwing hand grenades and firing a machinegun, I’ll reject violence and war as options for his followers.”
Comment — July 22, 2009 @ 11:03 am
keas
Sue,
Your comments are always welcome here. They do, however, strike me as a bit strange. You’re fiercely insisting that ‘Christianity is violent through and through’ on a post that is arguing for and promoting Christian pacifism.
The only reason I’m a pacifist is because I’m a Christian. What do you make of that? There’s no way I would reject the sword and what it stands for if I hadn’t committed myself to following Jesus.
So I guess I’m sort of a walking piece of empirical evidence that proves your hypothesis wrong. Furthermore, there’s thousands more of these “walking pieces” that point to the contrary, both from the past and in the present. If you’d like a brief history of this (written by a non-Christian) then take a look at Kurlansky’s Nonviolence: The History of a Dangerous Idea.
I will readily admit that many things have been done in the name of Jesus that Jesus wants nothing to do with. At times and places, Christianity has greatly compromised the message of Jesus, but this doesn’t mean “Christianity and war are one and the same.” There has always been a strain of radical pacifism in Christianity – even during Constantine and the Holy Wars. One such example is Francis of Assisi who spoke out against the church in the twelfth century for perverting its message with violence. As Christians and Muslims were killing one another, Francis made a trip to Egypt on foot to meet and develop friendships with Muslim leaders.
And there’s a bit of irony in the capitalized words in your comments. It appears that the only person in this discussion who’s making dogmatic totalizing statements is you.
Your efforts might be better spent elsewhere, such as arguing for pacifism where it doesn’t exist. But why try to convince those who are already committed to peace that the reasoning of their peace is wrong?
Comment — July 22, 2009 @ 4:29 pm
promiseandpeace » Blog Archive » Karl Barth and N.T. Wright on the Issue of War
[...] recent post called “Violence, Monsters, and the Ascension: Barth and Wright on the Problem of War” caught my eye since I’d been reading Barth and love N.T. Wright. The post intends to [...]
Pingback — July 23, 2009 @ 9:26 am
Chris
In what possible circumstance would Jesus need to use a machinegun or hand grenade? He is God, the wind obeys Him, the ocean obeys Him, death itself is powerless before Him.
Therefore, I think your inability to imagine such a thing has nothing to do with whether it is permissible for a Christian to prevent injustice by force. Its just a silly thing to imagine. Its like imagining Jesus conducting open heart surgery in an emergency room rather than just healing by His word.”Peter! Scalpel and 100 cc’s saline fluid, stat!” Anyways… what is not silly to imagine is the real possibility, as a mere follower, of having to do violence to prevent real injustice.
Comment — September 27, 2009 @ 10:07 pm
keas
Chris,
“In what possible circumstance would Jesus need to use a machinegun or hand grenade?”
How about in Gethsemane? Remember when the Roman soilders came for him? Matthew tells us that Jesus could have called twelve legions of angels to fight on his behalf. Wright interprets this literally (Jesus could have called supernatural helpers down from heaven) but also metaphorically – if Jesus wanted to mount an attack on the Roman occupancy in Jerusalem, there would have been hundreds, perhaps thousands, of disgruntled Jews ready to draw their swords and join him in violent revolt.
That’s what a “machinegun or hand grenade” circumstance looks like in the first century. Yet Jesus refuses to continue the cycle of violence. He doesn’t cower away (pacifism doesn’t mean passive-ism), he stands up against his enemies and opposes their oppressive system, but without violence. Hanging there alone on the cross, Jesus prays for his enemies as they mock him. This is a very different sort of kingdom with a very different sort of power.
So you think that when we have to make these sorts of serious moral decisions we shouldn’t look at Jesus cause he was divine? That’s an odd way of doing Christian discipleship. And it has a name: Docetism.
Comment — September 27, 2009 @ 11:21 pm
how to ollie
how to ollie…
[...] Tap the board hard against the ground to launch into the air [...]…
Trackback — February 9, 2010 @ 1:59 pm
Hero
walther ppk custom
Comment — March 3, 2010 @ 1:33 am
The Record
The Record…
I think you write superbly, wish I could write this well. Thanks….
Trackback — March 3, 2010 @ 2:46 pm
gregory
4RsQ09 http://jf4Gqm84hEQsl0dy2Pu3b.org
Comment — March 4, 2010 @ 5:39 am
Layer
Layer…
I have to agree with this post, well said….
Trackback — March 4, 2010 @ 2:59 pm
gregory
hEmPAs http://jf4Gqm84hEQsl0dy2Pu3b.org
Comment — March 4, 2010 @ 4:08 pm
Charlie Brown
Charlie Brown…
Excellent post, you could almost quote this…
Trackback — March 5, 2010 @ 6:31 am
Twizzle
Twizzle…
Great writing style, love the post…
Trackback — March 6, 2010 @ 5:35 pm
Twizzle
Twizzle…
Excellent content, great read…
Trackback — March 6, 2010 @ 6:33 pm
Evenlope
Evenlope…
Superb post, 10 out of 10 from me…
Trackback — March 7, 2010 @ 11:50 am
Arnie
<a href= http://gkbbloodbookofknowledgeandhistor
Comment — March 9, 2010 @ 7:12 am
The Fishman
The Fishman…
This reminds me of another post, both were really good….
Trackback — March 9, 2010 @ 7:30 am
echodelta
echodelta…
Probably one of the finest articles, in the world…
Trackback — March 9, 2010 @ 2:45 pm
fivealive
fivealive…
Love the post truly….
Trackback — March 10, 2010 @ 6:23 am
email marketing reviews
email marketing reviews…
Superb post, I like how you’ve structured it…
Trackback — March 10, 2010 @ 4:02 pm
automatic email responder
automatic email responder…
Great post, bookmarked…
Trackback — March 11, 2010 @ 6:16 am
steps to get your ex back
steps to get your ex back…
Totally agree with everything you said…
Trackback — March 11, 2010 @ 1:16 pm
get back together after break up
get back together after break up…
Awesome post love the style…
Trackback — March 11, 2010 @ 4:24 pm
NTG
Have you read Revelation or the other end times passages? Where the Son of Man returns in power with a sword? His kingdom is not ‘of this world’ right now, but it will be at the end of the age. So yes, I can imagine Christ with weapons, although as someone pointed out, His own innate power will be plenty. I think the references to a sword coming from his mouth is figuratively saying that His words will have power like a sword. In the meantime, I will take any means necessary to prevent an evil man from accomplishing his evil goals. If I can avoid killing him, I will. But I’d much rather kill a man, if necessary and with regret, than let him, say, molest and kill a little girl. I really can’t imagine Jesus standing by and letting that happen. Jesus had divine power to work with, and thus perhaps it could be argued that he could prevent the rape without hurting (at least physically) the perpetrator. I have a fist, or maybe a big stick if I’m lucky. I’ll have to make the most of it if the situation ever comes up.
Consider that even pacifists believe in using force to prevent evil, they just say that there’s some maximum permissible force. No pacifist I’ve ever met would say it was wrong to take a gun from someone who was trying to use it for murder. That’s theft, and probably requires physical strength to break his grip, but I think we all agree it’s a good idea. Say you’re at a distance, would you through a stick to knock the gun out of his hand? Of course you would. What if the stick cut his wrist when it hit him? Would that mean you’d made the wrong choice, you should have just let him shoot someone? Of course not! What if it broke his arm? Still, we all agree (I think) that it’s still the best thing to do. But this is violence (opposing someone’s sovereign, God-given will by stopping them from accomplishing it), just not deadly violence.
If this kind of reasoning interests you in any way, or even if you find it appalling because I haven’t quoted scripture yet, or if you have any strong feelings at all about what I’ve said, I recommend you read the article by C.S.Lewis entitled “Why I am not a pacifist”. It is very clearly reasoned. No Christian should believe what someone says simply because they are a respected Christian teacher without first checking to see if perhaps some other respected Christian teacher says the opposite. Then study both carefully and respectfully and make a decision. But remember that there are things on which Christians may legitimately differ, and all will be made clear in the life to come.
Cheers
A man with a sword
Comment — April 15, 2010 @ 1:16 pm
Unthinkable: de ethiek van het eigen gelijk « RELIREL
[...] Wat Unthinkable in al zijn onsamenhangendheid onbedoeld wel aantoont is de onmogelijkheid van het dilemma waar we mee zitten: terreur is een reactie op terreur en alleen terreur lijkt daar het antwoord op. Geweld is een spiraal die alleen maar eindeloos door kan gaan, hoeveel ethiek of religie je er ook tegenaan gooit. Ik hoorde een van de bioscoopbezoekers na afloop tegen haar vriendje zeggen, in antwoord op zijn onvermijdelijke vraag (die ik hier niet hardop zal stellen omdat het een spoiler is): `ja, natuurlijk, twee levens tegen een paar miljoen, dat is toch niets…’ En daar verwoordde zij precies de drogredenering die het rookgordijn is van deze hele war-on-terror: het gaat er helemaal niet om wat je doet op het moment dat de dreiging daar is, het gaat erom wat je doet om die dreiging te voorkomen. Een aanslag is altijd het onvermijdelijke gevolg van geweld en uitbuiting van onze kant. Het gaat er niet om welk antwoord we daarop geven, het gaat erom welke vraag we stellen. Wij zelf, ons handelen, het kwaad dat wij over de wereld verspreiden, vormt de legitimatie voor hun geweld tegen ons. Hun geweld en ons geweld zijn inderdaad twee kanten van dezelfde medaille. En die vicieuze cirkel kan alleen maar oneindig door blijven gaan. Het gaat niet om geloof of ongeloof, het gaat niet om waarheid of leugen, het gaat niet om goed of kwaad. Het gaat erom of we onszelf verheffen boven de ander en de ander minder achten dan onszelf. Dienen we een koninkrijk van geweld, dan maakt het niet uit aan welke kant je staat. Of dienen we een koninkrijk van vrede? Maar vrede heeft altijd een prijs, het kost je namelijk jezelf, je eigen gelijk. Unthinkable? No, i don’t think so. [...]
Pingback — July 13, 2010 @ 5:56 pm
web tasarımı
Excellent tips .I really appreciate all these points, and I agree completely…
22
Comment — December 13, 2010 @ 4:55 am
estetik
and soo good page.. thanks admin.
Comment — June 17, 2011 @ 7:33 am
estetik
and sooo good page.. thanks admin..
Comment — June 17, 2011 @ 7:45 am
Snoring Treatments
Fast Snoring Cures…
[...]totally free backed one-way links that definitely have beforehand hyperlinked to thanks to totally free promo[...]…
Trackback — September 6, 2011 @ 7:00 am
Thanh Coffinberger
I have definitely compared and resulted in the 2011 becker cpa from Morgan to be the easiest to work with.
Comment — September 16, 2011 @ 3:15 am
sears carpet cleaning discount
hello there and thank you on your info ? I?ve certainly picked up anything new from right here. I did on the other hand experience several technical issues the use of this site, as I skilled to reload the website lots of times previous to I could get it to load correctly. I were pondering in case your web hosting is OK? Now not that I am complaining, but slow loading cases instances will very frequently have an effect on your placement in google and could harm your high quality score if advertising and ***********
Comment — November 10, 2011 @ 8:16 pm