Surprisingly enough, I have given quite a bit of thought to the idea of pacifism in the past few years. Early on, in my uber-conservative, zealous-to-the-point-of-crazy days, I considered pacifism to be weak and truth be told, I probably had deep suspicions about the patriotism of pacifists. How could you love America and oppose its work overseas? Eventually though, I began to realize that "The Evangelical Right" was not wholly united in their support of the American military efforts. In fact, I began to notice that there are several, very distinguished and respected, theologians who are opposed to capital punishment and Christian involvement in the military. This realization forced me to confront my very preconceived notions that I had about capital punishment and military intervention. But at the end of this time of consideration, I still find myself confused and uncertain and I think that the aforementioned blog post demonstrates my concerns pretty clearly. So now, in the words of Taylor Mali, "I invite you to join me on the bandwagon of my own uncertainty."
The post in question was written by theologian Ben Witherington and it was entitled, "Why Capital Punishment is not Such a Capital and Christian Idea." In this post, he argues that Christians should not be employed in any career in which they are responsible or in any way involved in the taking of human life. He based his argument on the life and example of Christ and cited passages from Matthew 18 and Genesis 4 as evidence of Christ's respect for life. Witherington allows, although with doubts, that Romans 13 provides warrant for a government's involvement in killing, but he suggests that Christians who intend to live by the love ethic set forth in the New Testament and displayed by Christ should shun all involvement in the taking of human life.
Basing a pacifist theory off of the New Testament ethic of love is a compelling argument. The greatest commandment is to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind...and the second is like it, love your neighbor as your self." Furthermore, the entire book of 1 Corinthians hinges on love. We are to love our enemies, pray for those to persecute us and turn the other cheek. And the question that is left after all of this is "how can it be loving to kill someone?"
For all of the reasons I've listed above, I find Ben Witherington's argument compelling, but I also have concerns. At several points in his article it appears to argue that there is a marked distinction between the state and the church, and not just a distinction of purpose. It appears as if Witherington believes that there are two sets of ethical norms: one for the state and one for the Christian. He says, "...but there is a higher calling on the life of Christians, a higher law and a set of principles they must answer to - namely Jesus and that law of Christ." This quote would suggest that the state functions and is bound to a base notion of Biblical ethics, but that Christians and the Church are held to a higher morality. Can this really be the case? Does Jesus set out a general ethical expectation but then hold his followers to a higher expectation? Would "right" then have to be classified as "good, better or best?"
In short, I have two major concerns about the argument put forth by Witherington:
- I believe that what Witherington argues regarding the "higher calling" of Christians propogates the notion that there are duel moralities functioning in the world. I find this very problematic because what would be a sinful action for one person is an accepted practice for another. How can killing be appropriate and acceptable for one group of people (i.e. non-Christians) and be an unacceptable moral norm for others?
- Futhermore, I find his argument concerning Romans 13 to be rather weak.
Romans 13:4 reads, "for he [the government] is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain." In his article, Witherington confesses doubts about how scholars have historically interpreted this passage. Typically this verse is used in support of justice that is distributed by the government. It would appear even, that it is good and ordered by God. Witherington however, questions the interpretation because of the Greek word for "sword."
He argues that the word used in Romans 13 refers to a "short sword" and that during the Roman era the "short sword" was used as a tool for personal protection and not a means for execution. Therefore, he concludes that this passage is not referencing the government's ability or license to implement capital punishment.
I believe that this assessment misses the point of the analogy. The state, not an individual, is using a sword and swords typically represent violence (otherwise why be afraid of the sword?). Romans 13 reveals that the state does utilize a sword and that action is not condemned by Paul.
