Friday, September 20, 2013

Peace

Peace.  The word, the phrase, the idea, has been on my mind of late.  The last post to this blog was about the possibility of the United States taking military action in Syria, and whether or not that fit into Just War theory.  As it turned out, a few days after that post, such action was averted (at least for the time being), when a diplomatic solution emerged.  Whether that particular solution was in the best interests (long term) of the United States, indeed whether or not that solution is even a solution (some suspect that Syria and Russia have out maneuvered both the White House and the State Department -- see here), remains to be seen.  But, if peace is the absence of armed conflict, then at least for the time, we have peace (even if civil war continues to rage in Syria itself).  If nothing else, and as I hope that post helped to point out, there is much discussion that can (and should) take place within America's churches about war and peace, and when the State can and should act in the wider world, and what the faith thinks about that (see here for more in that vein).

No sooner had we achieved peace, at least for the time, at least in one place on an international level, America was reminded how fragile that peace can be at home.  Earlier this week a disgruntled civilian contractor walked into one of the building at the Washington Navy Yard and opened fire with weapons, killing thirteen people for no reason we now know, and in a random way that leaves many questions, and only grief in its wake.  If in the case of Syria, American Christians were asked to think about what constitutes a just war, in the case of the Navy Yard shooting they are called much more to grieve with the families of the victims than to discuss policy changes to gun laws or mental health or security at government facilities, at least for now, and at least for the most part.

And then came news that hit closer to home.  I awakened Friday morning to word (both via social media and from the local news) that someone I went to high school with, Officer Rod Bradway, had been killed in the line of duty.  Rod was a police officer (a term that has largely replaced the notions of law enforcement from the nineteenth century and before of a "peace officer" and the related "justice of the peace"...those officials who were charged by the state to enforce the laws of peace upon our civil society) in Indianapolis, who had responded to a call of a suspected domestic violence incident, and from initial reports, was ambushed upon entering the apartment.  Both he, and the man who shot him, died.  Rod was two years older than me, and I won't pretend to that we were friends or even knew each other well, but I do remember him.  He was always nice (not all upper class men were of course), and then there was the 50 yard field goal he made in a close football game! 

It is ironic, if that is the right word, how tragedies such as these make us think about life and about concepts about peace in different ways.  I can't say that I'd thought of Rob in years, nor seen him (probably since he graduated, or perhaps when my class did, as his younger brother was in my grade).  And yet, seeing his official picture today (as well as old ones from our time at NorthWood High School) brought back memories of him and others.  My prayers tonight are for his wife and family, that they may know peace in this time of tragedy.  And that they may remember, as one of our classmates put it, that while life is not fair (though we wish it were), it is very precious.

And the search for peace, for our world, our country, ourselves, and for others continues despite these stories of success, progress, setbacks, and sadness.  At Butler University, where I spend part of my professional life, in the past week or so there have been stories of trying to work for peace.  A peace pole was unveiled on campus in an interfaith prayer service.  Situated between the union building and the main classroom building, the pole, it is hoped, will be a visual reminder to strive for peace on earth.  Likewise, the university announced plans to launch the Desmund Tutu Center, named for the Anglican Archbishop Emeritus of South Africa (who visited and spoke on campus earlier this month), that will be dedicated to "social justice and reconciliation, international relationships, and interreligious and community bridge-building."

What will become of these and other attempts to craft a more peaceful world remain to be seen.  Christians, of course, recognize that while Jesus is the Prince of Peace, He did not promise that peace would reign on Earth (see Matthew 10:34) until He does.  But they are also called to be peacemakers (Matthew 5:9), and that can come in a variety of forms.  Perhaps these words from a song turned into a hymn (written by Jill Jackson and Sy Miller in 1955) are worth repeating as we start this weekend and think of such things:

Let there be peace on earth
And let it begin with me.
Let there be peace on earth
The peace that was meant to be.
With God as our father
Brothers all are we.
Let me walk with my brother
In perfect harmony.

Sunday, September 8, 2013

Just War or just war?

I grew up in an area of the United States where there was a strong presence of Amish and Mennonite churches.  For those of you unfamiliar with these denominations, one of the facets of their faith is a very strong peace, or pacifistic, testimony.  While many of my childhood classmates and friends came from this heritage, I did not.  Though my family wasn't what I'd call militaristic (though extended members on both sides of my family had served in the United States military), we were patriotic, and believed that there were certain times and certain principles worth fighting for if called upon to do so by our nation.  That being said, I have a healthy intellectual respect for those who hold to Christian call to be peacemakers, even if I might argue that there are times when the only way peace can be made or preserved is through first engaging the enemy on the field of combat.

Historically, Christians have summed up their arguments in favor of supporting their government's call to arms via the Just War doctrine.  Formulated by the early Church (much of it by St. Augustine), and embraced (and perhaps made famous) by the Roman Catholic Church (you can read more here), Just War theory argues the following:

1.  The use of force is something that must be considered in the gravest of terms.
2.  The use of force should be in defense, against an aggressor who is seeking to do great harm.
3.  The use of force should be a last resort, after other (peaceful) options have been tried.
4.  The use of force should carry with it a good chance of success when it comes to the conflict.
5.  The use of force should not cause worse conditions than those that prompted their use at the outset.
6.  It is up to the government to decide these factors.
7.  The war should be conducted morally, this means fair treatment for non-combatants, wounded, and prisoners.  Genocide and large scale destruction of whole cities is immoral.

Of course, one need not be Catholic to embrace the tenants of Just War Doctrine, most Protestant Churches have some variation on the above, even if most of the old Mainline denominations have become more pacifistic (and like my old Amish neighbors) over the course of the twentieth and into the twenty-first centuries.  The interplay between growing American military, political, economic, and cultural influence, and the turn against many American foreign policy pronouncements by the Seven Sisters over the second half of the twentieth and into the twenty-first centuries is something I talk about in The Mainline.  For more on the growth of pacifistic thought in America's churches, see these posts (here and here)

All of this theological discussion on the nature of war takes on a new meaning this week.  The United States is currently set to debate, at the request of President Obama, a Congressional authorization for the use of military force in Syria (you can read more about it here, here, and here for starters).  And if you read these (and other posts) the complexity of that request becomes clear.  Democrats who have been anti-war are being asked by an administration of their own party to authorize war (as an aside, let us no longer kid ourselves about such "use of force" requests -- there might be technical differences, but this has simply become the modern "declaration of war" -- and cloaking it in any other language or denying it as such does a disservice to the American armed forces that are asked and tasked with undertaking such operations).  Republicans are torn between wanting to protect (historically) bipartisan means by which the nation now fights its wars (some, no doubt, thinking ahead to the next presidential election), while also showcasing mistrust of the Obama Administration's intentions and plans.  Some of the public appears to be "war weary," while others argue that this is not "our fight," and others still calling on the U.S. to embrace a non-violent, pacifistic role.

If we were to apply Just War doctrine to the Syrian case (and few supporters or detractors seem to be doing so), I think it would be a hard one to make.  One might argue that since earlier this year, when a "red line" was first pronounced about the use of WMDs, that the U.S. government has been thinking about the use of force in "grave terms," so criteria 1 would have been met.  Criteria 3 also has likely been met (war as a last resort).  Criteria 4 (that of success) is a bit murky, though any air strike would likely be "successful" (the murkiness comes, rather, from how we define total success).  Criteria 6 (a governmental decision) obviously is met.  And criteria 7 (because of the likely limited nature of U.S. involvement -- Secretary of State Kerry having said that there would be no deployment of U.S. ground forces) might also be considered achieved.

The problem is that for Just War doctrine to be applied in the affirmative ALL the criteria must be met.  Criteria 2 (that force be used defensively to halt a great harm) is somewhat problematic.  Syria is in the midst of (at best) a civil war.  On the one hand is the Assad family dictatorship (which is ruthless, fighting for its survival, and may very well have used WMDs).  On the other, is a group of rebels, which includes some moderates, but also some with terrorist links (the latter, it has been alleged, may have used WMDs themselves).  Neither side, in other words, is blameless.  And while both sides may, on some level, be "bad," neither is actually posing a current, direct threat to the United States either.  The argument that might be made is that they could pose such a threat in the future, or that what is happening is genocide that must be stopped,  but I've yet to really hear that be articulated.  Indeed, what the Obama Administration is proposing is akin to the Bush Doctrine it claimed to have rejected when the president took office in 2009.  Likewise, it is not clear that a U.S. strike would meet criteria 5 either (that the use of force would not make the situation worse than it already is).  After all, civil wars are, by their very nature, terrible for the nation involved.  More bombs are not likely to make it better or more tolerable for either side, nor for those trapped in between them.

In short then, it is hard to see the Syrian case in a Just War doctrine light.  Indeed, it seems like any U.S. action would be just war, not Just War, in its implications.  Be that as it may, like most things in the real world (one where theory has to be applied, not just debated in the abstract), the present situation is much more complicated than mere words on a page can articulate.  Perhaps all that can be done is that people of good will pray for peace, even as war clouds seem to gather yet again.  That isn't a pacifistic nor militaristic view, nor is it a Republican or Democrat, or even a Old Mainline or New Mainline point of view.  It is simply the right thing to do, no matter the ultimate decision or outcome.  "Wars and rumors of wars" (Matthew 24:6) are part of the real world experience for those who are blessed as "peacemakers" (Matthew  5:9) in the Christian tradition.

Sunday, September 1, 2013

Evidence

I always tell my classes at the start of the semester how, when I went to off to college, I thought I was going to go to law school and become a lawyer.  That didn't happen, for a variety of reasons -- the waning of the influence of "Law and Order" in my life; the realization that I really did love (and wanted to make it my vocation) History; and power of professors in the Indiana University History Department to reshape my thinking.  That being said, I did marry into a legal family (my father-in-law and wife are both members of the bar) and my brother also ended up in law school.  I've done legal history as well, and so the law is never far from me, nor are its precepts.  One of the foundations is the importance of evidence when you make a case, and tonight I came up on further evidence that maybe, just maybe, I was on to something in The Mainline.

Readers will recall that one of the arguments I made in the final chapter was that we needed to think (in order to save the term) of a new make up for the Mainline of the twenty-first century.  I included in that list of denominations or groups Pentecostal Christians (most importantly, the Assemblies of God).    In a recent article for World Magazine, Thomas Kidd (who was kind enough to provide the blurb for the back of my book, in an effort at full disclosure -- another legal rule) makes the argument that Pentecostals (highlighting the Assemblies) are indeed bucking the trend when it comes to membership growth and are a force to be reckoned with on the religious scene of today.  You can read the whole article here.

It isn't, of course, the final verdict in such discussions about the role/importance of denominations in telling American religious history, but it is a pretty good bit of evidence that maybe, just maybe, not every story about denominations has to be about decline.