[An unpublished novel by me treats of
violence and nonviolence as a major theme with hell a subtheme. It is entitled Chrysalis Crucible, and tells the story of a young evangelist’s
coming of age on the short-term mission field in West
Berlin. Following are two
chapters on violence and nonviolence. Please
also read “Violence and Nonviolence – (Part II)” as a kind of climax of this
theme.
If you are interested in dialogue on this,
please feel free to contact the web administrator with your e-mail address and
comments. I will then respond to you at
my discretion. Thanks.
Wayne Northey]
Chapter
Forty-five
The drive from Bonn through the East German “corridor” (there were only a
few designated routes permitted through East Germany) was uneventful for
Hans. He arrived, as planned, in time
for supper. Together with Sharon, Joanne had
prepared a repeat of Andy’s parents’ visit, Rouladen,
Rotkohl, and Schwarzwälderkirschtorte.
Such a spread from one experience had gone right up there for Andy
alongside roast beef. It succeeded
again.
After supper, Joanne
had suggested an evening of games. She
liked she had said a few times how the Team had fun together with Rook, Monopoly, and Stockticker,
all brought over by Jack. She said that
Hans’ family never played games, that sitting around their table was at times
like being at a funeral wake, so serious were they all in discussing “issues”. Hans’ dad was also a physician, his mom a
College professor.
Hans was completing
his practicum as a doctor, and would
begin working in a hospital in mid-October.
He and Joanne were also to be married two weeks before, at the end of
September and practicum. They
were to spend their Flitterwochen in
northern Ontario. Janys and Andy had promised to give them some
good tips for the early October trip.
Hans had belonged to
the SMD, Studentmission Deutschlands,
the German counter-part to Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship, an
evangelistic
student organization found on campuses throughout the world. He had
also studied a year at Wheaton College in the States – where he and
Joanne had met. His command of English
was superb. It helped that his mother
was American, and that he read in English voraciously.
At the end of the
meal, the conversation turned to biblical infallibility. Andy was
remonstrating about the difficulty
of getting Germans even to understand what was at stake. Hans’
response was mild enough: “At first when at Wheaton I wasn’t even sure
of what the term meant. It’s of course
not anywhere in the Bible.”
“Neither is the word
‘Trinity’ ”, Andy came back quickly.
Hans continued: “But as I discovered, it has a long and
revered history in North American churches, because in particular of an
interesting experience of a major ‘fundamentalist-modernist’ controversy
earlier this century.”
Andy was very
sketchy on recent, for that matter most, church history, so he remained
silent. As did Gary.
Andy had however won the History Prize in Grade 13, so was keen.
“How I have come to
understand it from my studies in the States, it seeks to affirm that the Bible,
in its original manuscripts, is equally accurate in all areas it touches upon:
theology, science, history, anthropology, etc.
“The first question
that arises is of course about manuscripts.
There are no originals in existenz,
not even fragments.” Occasionally Hans’
pronunciation took on a German colouring - not unsurprisingly. However, his vocabulary was even better than
his usually excellent pronunciation.
Andy always felt jealous. There
was intense concentration in his knitted eyebrows. Some faces exude
intelligence. Hans’ was one. “This doctrine always claims infallibility to
be true in ‘the original manuscripts’.
“But if ‘the
original manuscripts’ have long-since been lost to history, it’s rather empty
to claim anything about something likely forever disappeared. Like the Angel Moroni’s magic glasses and
manuscript the Mormons got their Book of
Mormon from.
“Second, to say
something is true in history is at best only talking probabilities. You weigh many conflicting theories, and opt
for what seems most probable. Now, to
say for example that the creation story is ‘true history’ immediately raises
problems. (Francis Schaeffer claims you
could hear a clock ticking in the Genesis story of Adam and Eve.) But the story ‘takes place’ really in the era
of pre-history. It is only written down
aeons, centuries at least, according to ‘Creationists’, after the purported
events, and only after a long process of oral transmission. So there are no comparative records to glean
from – except other entirely fanciful accounts of the origins of creation
found, I believe, in most cultures throughout the world.
“So to say the
creation story is ‘true’ is really to say: ‘I believe for this and that
theological reason it is true, though no scientific/historical research can
ever touch the issue, and fair enough.’ ”
“That sounds very
neo-orthodox to me, Hans.”, Andy chimed in.
“What do you mean by
that term, Andy?”
“Francis Schaeffer
says neo-orthodox theologians like Karl Barth fall into the Hegelian synthesis
by seeking to have the best of both worlds: a religiously true Bible in the
area of Geschichte, salvation history, but a higher
critical view of the Bible in the area of Historie, what really happened, which allows
for the Bible to have mistakes.
Andy continued: “That is really schizophrenic thinking,
however, and the dilemma of modern man is that the Bible always stands for the antithesis: there is no ‘leap-of-faith’
truth in the religious realm that is not true in the phenomenological world.
“But”, and he pushed
his point hard, “there has never been one proven error in the Bible. Many apparent discrepancies have been dealt
with through further diligent research, and those which have not been will no
doubt be explained in time.
“That is why
infallibility is so meaningful to me. As
I mentioned already, the word ‘Trinity’ is not in the Bible either. But the New Testament everywhere reflects the
concept. Likewise, whenever the New
Testament touches down on Scripture, it implies the concept of
infallibility.
“Perhaps the only
uniqueness of finding it mainly in North America
is, that is where the doctrine especially has been developed – in response to
certain historical circumstances. Just
as, so I understand, the two-nature aspect of Christ at Chalcedon was developed in response to
certain specific circumstances. That
makes it no less biblically valid.”
Andy felt fairly
satisfied with his response to Hans. He
thought he had done with Schaeffer’s material what Bill Gothard encouraged
people to do with his Basic Youth
Conflict Seminars: so imbibe the teaching that it becomes one’s own.
What had been mainly
purely theoretical to Andy back in North America reading Schaeffer’s books had
been experienced in Germany. Andy had begun to suspect that behind every
thinking German Christian was tragically a Hegelian mind-set. He sensed a need to challenge this wherever
he met it. He even felt compelled to
elicit it, if it was there, where it perhaps lurked just beneath the surface.
Hans did not look
all that impressed, Andy felt. The
others listened to the conversation politely, but rather blankly too. Andy wondered why, not once thinking how
esoteric it all sounded to “non-intellectual” ears. There was some uncomfortable movement at the
table. Was Joanne about to say
something?
Hans asked Andy,
“Have you ever read Karl Barth?” Andy
admitted he had not. “Do you know that
Dr. Barth has written far more theology in his lifetime than most Christians read
in a lifetime? That he is considered the
greatest theologian since Thomas Aquinas, a kind of theological Mount Everest?”
Andy did not feel
all that impressed. So what he though,
if it is all error? Why scale a man-made
mountain like at Disneyland? Why read man-made theology? Ken Kincaide’s point. Hans did not press for a response.
The discussion with
Hans would have ended then had Gary, who was not put off by the rarified tenor
of conversation, not asked Hans to state his own view of Scripture. Andy thought Joanne was again about to
interject. She was keen on a Games
night, he knew. He looked at her. Was there a slight deflated countenance?
Hans responded
calmly by telling briefly his own testimony.
“I like all youth in Germany
who reached the draft age knew I would have to do service soon in the
army. I had been a fairly nominal
Lutheran until then. But someone had
passed on to me a small book entitled Militia
Christi by Adolf von Harnack, a German theologian. I became intrigued by his discovery that
early Christians opposed war, and that the war imagery of the New Testament had
to do with spiritual, not earthly, matters.
“This New Testament
understanding is summed up in Paul’s words in II Corinthians. Can someone please pass me a Bible? Moment
mal... Here it is, chapter 10,
verses 3 and following: ‘For though we
walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our
warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong
holds.)’.
“I think that sounds
too old-fashioned. Any modern
translation around?”
Peter went to his
room and returned with J.B. Phillips’ paraphrase. Andy was amazed to hear the Scripture raised
he had just discussed with the Americans.
“Here: ‘The truth is that, although of course we
lead normal human lives, the battle we are fighting is on the spiritual
level. The very weapons we use are not those of human warfare
but
powerful in God’s warfare for the destruction of the enemy’s
strongholds.’ This of course is why Ephesians 6:12 and following says
our ‘whole
armour’ is for fighting spiritual battles.
“And by the way,
early Christians understood Ephesians 6 to be the passage concerned with the State, not Romans 13, where exactly
the same Greek for ‘authorities’ appears.
From Ephesians 6, it is clear that the ‘authorities’ are part of the
spiritual enemies of Christ and his church – and not a benign, or more, since
Constantine, benevolent, State which Christians should obey uncritically and
benefit from in its wielding the sword, as Evangelicals usually interpret
Romans 13:4. This view of the benevolent
state is especially demonstrated by Reinhold Niebuhr, a great 20th
century American political ethicist and advisor to presidents, since democracy
for him is nearly kingdom come.
Interesting that Niebuhr, who genuinely
did not take Scripture normatively, and was truly “neo-orthodox”, should
articulate by far the dominant North American Evangelical position on such a crucial
matter as the State. Ironically, I argue
in line with John Howard Yoder, this position is profoundly unbiblical.”
Andy felt the point
was somewhat arcane. “Do you mean,” Andy
asked, “that God did not ordain the State, let’s say especially one with
Western-style democracy like the United States
and Canada,
as a ‘good’ automatically, by virtue of its being a constituted State?”
Hans said,
“Yes.
“And incidentally,
the violence of the State, claimed as divine right and mandate in the ‘sword’
language of verse 4, is only extended, by Evangelical interpreters ever since
Saint Augustine, to the nation state, but never to ‘revolutionaries’, or other
kinds of ‘Robin Hood’ do-gooders, which are likewise ‘constituted authorities’. The text never mentions ‘state’ as the only
kind of legitimate ‘authority’. Revolutionaries of course are self-appointed,
but such is the history of all royalty – and through invariable vanquishing
violence. Often, as in South America,
revolutionaries’ causes may be vastly more righteous than the state they are
subverting or overthrowing. And for that
matter, of course, the United States was born of a revolutionary deposing of
Britain’s power in the New World – for very questionable ‘righteous’
reasons. For all intents, the War of
Independence was a mutiny against the legitimate (according to most
Evangelicals’ interpretation of Romans 13) prerogatives of the then
God-ordained ‘authority’ in North America: the
British Crown. ‘Captain America’, George
Washington, John Adams, etc., by Evangelicals’ account of Romans 13 is in fact
a “pirate” deserving the very sword used to overthrow British rule!
“Ironically again,
most American Evangelicals indulge in histrionic hagiography about the great
Christian ‘founding fathers’ of America. Most were Deists in fact. And George Washington amongst others was
indeed ‘father’ of the nation in ways generally disapproved of by Evangelicals
today.”
Andy felt shocked by
these assertions, which at points he barely followed. He fully expected an outburst from Fiona,
maybe even Jack or the Collins’, but it never came, surprisingly.
Andy could not
resist: “Hans, what does ‘histrionic’ mean?” Andy learned a new word that day
in contemplating Evangelicals putting on a kind of theatre about the mythology
of “Christian” origins of America, when it was so patently prevaricated; at
least seriously skewed.
Hans was very
patient. He paused as if waiting for
other questions or challenges. Joanne
finally said, “I was really hoping we could play some games tonight. Anyone else game.” All but Andy, Janys, Gary and Hans put up
hands.
Gary piped up.
“I really want to hear Hans out some more. But if some of you are game
– ahem! – to clear the table at least, that will get us
started.” Peter and Jean immediately
offered. Joanne might have, Andy
wondered, but perhaps stayed to watch over what Hans would say next.
Andy looked at his watch. It was only a little after 7:00.
What was the big rush, he wondered impatiently.
“Continue, Hans.”, Gary said. “Though I have some real questions about your
interpretation of American founding history.
And I have one clarification question, What is a Deist?”
“At the time of the
founding of the United
States,” Hans explained, “many of the
intellectual elite imbued with the Enlightenment spirit of skepticism towards
the truth claims of Christianity turned to Deism as a kind of way-station enroute
to atheism or secularism. Deism in brief believes in a Clockmaker for
the universe, but one who wound it all up ‘in the beginning’, and lets
it all
slowly unwind without interfering. No
Revelation. No Incarnation. No Resurrection. God as Ultimate
Non-Interventionist.” He waited.
Peter and Jean had moved everything from the table to the kitchen.
Would they come back to hear more? Andy heard water being run. Not
likely.
Hans continued by
saying he went through a re-conversion, ended up joining the SMD, then applied
for alternative military service. He was
accepted at Wheaton
College. While there, the major project to which he
devoted himself was a research essay on the early church period, and its
applicability to the church today.
“Through authors
such as Jean-Michel Hornus, C.J. Cadoux, Jean Lasserre and others, not to
mention the church Fathers themselves, I concluded that the early church was in fact mainly pacifist.
“There was further a
new theological study about to be published by Eerdmans, called The Politics of Jesus, which developed
this theme extensively from Luke’s Gospel.
I was shown a copy in manuscript form through a student of Stanley
Hauerwas, a young theologian. I drew on
that a lot. It was written by a
Mennonite theologian, John Howard Yoder.
I also read other writings by him, including one on the state. He had in fact studied under Karl Barth, and,
like Barth, was a committed Biblicist.”
“It seems that the
early church underwent a ‘Great Reversal’ at the time of Emperor Constantine
more far-reaching arguably in outcome in Western history ethically, or in terms
of ‘justice/righteousness’, than the negative effects of the Enlightenment and
modernity. The so-called ‘Great
Reversal’ was a triumph of an alien (non)Christian ethical ideology.
“You want to know
why the Muslim world to this day cannot see a loving Jesus? Because they
see the sword of the Crusaders ever in Jesus’ hand. They only hear the words of Constantine’s vision: ‘In hoc signo vinceres’. They
know that they were direct targets of that vision: ‘In this sign you will conquer’ – the sign of
the labarum – for all intents, the sword. How Billy Graham incidentally can continue to
use the term “Crusades” for his Einsätze astounds me utterly. There could not be a more offensive term
imaginable for the Muslim. It totally
drives them away from Christ. Is that
what he, what America,
wants subconsciously, still to declare war on Islam? One wonders that when considering near
universal American Christian support for Israel…”
Andy looked over at
Fiona. Her face was clouded. Sharon’s
nose wrinkled in concentration. Jack
appeared to be taking it all in. Janys
was inscrutable. Did Hans remind her of
her brother? Gary seemed right on the edge of more
questions. And Andy? Frankly confused. He suspected Hans would have
facts and
figures to support his interpretations.
Why then so at variance with American Evangelicals? Ideology.
There must be underlying ideology at work. Could one look at anything
without that sieve? Lessing’s “necessary truths of reason” given
the prior ideological set of coloured glasses.
Put on a different pair, and Kant’s “categorical imperatives” are
suddenly less of the essence, perhaps even to the contrary.
Hans was on a
roll. “You want to know why I believe Europe so quickly secularized and is so incredibly
resistant to the Gospel today? It’s not
all that unlike Muslims.
“You North Americans
are so hung up about the Enlightenment and its disparagement of the
‘foolishness’ of the Gospel. But you
fail to understand that Western Europe simply became utterly sick of the
endless and horrendous bloodshed blessed or instigated by the church: the
Crusades; the Inquisition; the (what’s that word in English?) pogroms against Jews; the Holy Wars; the
witch-hunts; the burning of thousands of heretics by the Catholics; the
drowning of similar thousands of Anabaptists by Protestants; the incredibly
retributive penal justice system modelled after church canon law, and universal
support of the death penalty; the church’s blessing both sides of every war in
Europe since Constantine; and on and on and on ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
“If I just had
majority church history to go on, I’d be a raving atheist too. There has been arguably no more bloody institution in Western history than the church since the
fourth century! If this is what Paul
meant by ‘Christ, the power of God’, then frankly, ‘the revolt of atheism is
pure religion’ by contrast. (I heard an
American theologian named Walter Wink once say that at Wheaton.)
Ironically, however, that very revolt is instigated in the first place
by biblical revelation. Jesus first
elicited the Western atheistic philosophical tradition with his cry from the
cross, ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ Jürgen Moltmann, and I’ve also heard him say
this, observes that this indeed is either the end of all religion, and
therefore the atheists are right, and likely the anarchists too, or the
beginning of a whole new way of understanding ‘the executed God’.
“There’s a line from
a German poem, I forget by whom, that goes: “Die Gerechtigkeit der Erde O Herr hat Dich getötet!” The moral righteousness of the Earth, O Lord,
has killed You! The blood spilled on
the ground in the name of Christ for nearly two thousand years is by far the
strongest counter-evangelistic argument I know. Why should any morally sensitive person want
to align with such an insatiably blood-drenched institution? I’ve never thought of this, but it would be
like, like evangelizing for membership in the Mafia!
“And it continues. To this day, missionaries either follow the
gunboats as Hudson Taylor did in evangelizing China, or they benefit
from the
violence of the colonizing powers. One
reason that missionaries in this century came to be hated in so much if
the Third World was their complete identification with Empire
– British or American, these past two centuries. Hudson Taylor’s
‘spiritual secret’ was in
reality a ‘military not-so-strictly kept secret’.
“Contrary to all
that, I argue in my paper, if Christ is the foolishness of God in
response to the Enlightenment, but really God’s ultimate wisdom, he is
likewise the weakness of God in answer to violence and war, but really
his is the way of self-giving, nonviolent sacrificial love which is truly God’s
revolutionary power. Jesus the (Other)
Way, right?
“A lot of what I’m
saying now comes from my paper, which gets quite technical, sometimes. Sorry….
“I’ll stop
now.” He did. Noises of dishes and pots came from the
kitchen. There was muted
conversation. Andy asked: “How can you
appraise the Enlightenment so positively, calling it God-ordained?”
Gary added, “Hans, I learned at Bible School
that the Enlightenment was the real enemy today of Christianity. Yet you paint it as almost from God.”
Hans responded: “The
Enlightenment was in part an understandable reactionary celebration of
the
brilliance and goodness of man over against a church perceived to exist
to
glorify violence through its belief in ‘god’ and a doctrine of
‘original sin’
that leads directly to a hell of eternal conscious torment and the
ultimate
degradation of man. ‘Wretched worm’
theology is handmaiden to a hell of eternal conscious torment. How
does the King James go?: “Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is
not quenched.”
“The reason the
Enlightenment took such root in the first place was the valid revulsion towards
the ‘god’ of the churches: a ‘god’ who blessed war, bloodshed and everlasting
punishment in Jesus’ name on a massive scale.
Did you ever read Voltaire’s Candide?”
“I did – in
French.”, Andy replied. But got no
further.
Gary snapped back: “Hans, this all sounds not just neo-orthodox,
but even heterodox! How do you justify all this biblically?”
Hans paused for some
time. Then, “Perhaps hear me out a
little more, and see whether you still think that. You’ve gotten me going. I’ll summarize a little more my paper, which,
by the way, won the theological prize at Wheaton College
last year.”
Andy felt
impressed. Joanne excused herself from
the table, saying she’d help Peter and Jean.
Couldn’t she handle it anymore?
What?, Andy wondered. Peter had
come out at one point to turn on the lights.
The entire apartment building was quiet.
Not even street sounds invaded.
Andy looked over. The French
doors were closed.
“In my paper, I
suggested that North Americans positively worship
at an alternative ‘god’s’ shrine, which is Mars, god of Violence. Ironically, while you defeated the Nazis in
World War II, you Americans have become increasingly more like them ever
since! ‘In God we trust’, I wrote, is a
lie. ‘In Violence – supremely bombs,
bullets and missiles – We Trust’ is the real truth. Bombs built by taking bread from the mouths
of the poor. That’s what President Eisenhower once claimed. Most Christians worship this ‘god’ every bit
as much as secular people.
“In Germany there was only a small ‘confessing
church’ which refused to bow the knee to Hitler, while the majority of Germany’s
Christians totally supported the entire Nazi enterprise. Karl Barth, incidentally, was primary author
of the Barmen Declaration that denounced Hitler. He was forced out of the university he taught
at in Germany to Basel, Switzerland. He was one of the few theologians in Germany
to oppose Hitler. Another was of course
Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
“I personally think
it is somewhat similar in America
today. And few of those refusing to bow
the knee to America’s
devotion to violence and the military are in the Evangelical churches. They are Quakers, Catholics, Mennonites, and
others. Not Evangelicals. Not Billy Graham. Not Leighton Ford. Not Bill Bright. And not
Francis Schaeffer, Andy! Not the rank
and file in the pews either. Ever heard
of Dorothy Day? William Stringfellow? Jim Wallis?
They all draw blanks, don’t they?
“You know the famous
statement by Pastor Martin Niemoeller after the War? Probably not.
Another name Evangelicals have never heard of.
“He spent seven
years in Dachau Concentration Camp. He
said something like, more or less verbatim, translated: ‘In Germany, the Nazis first came for
the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they
came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I
didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the
Catholics, but I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for
me, and by that time there was no one left to speak for me.’ ” Hans paused.
He deliberately looked at each person at the table, as if asking, were
they comprehending?
Andy found this very
troubling. He had gone over to Germany
convinced of the need to show German Christians biblically
their wrong allegiance to Enlightenment “modernist”
theology. Now, somehow, the very Bible
he most wanted to defend was being turned back on him. This was not
right! He did not have a ready response. He said nonetheless: “But
divine violence is
the stuff of the Old Testament. It’s
also central to the atonement, God’s demand for penal substitution and
satisfaction. And the Book of Revelation
is all about the Lamb who conquers all foes and violently tosses his
enemies
into the Lake of Fire.”
“Andy”, Hans came
back, “you might read New Testament theologian C.F.D. Moule’s article sometime
that I came across in a Swedish theological journal, entitled “Punishment and
Retribution: An Attempt to Delimit Their Scope in New Testament Thought”. He directly challenges the violent theories
of the atonement, and argues that God never intended the dire consequences that
ensue upon sin punitively, retributively.
I’ve also heard American theologian Donald Bloesch in a lecture at Wheaton argue that the
traditional doctrine of hell as eternal conscious torment is not biblically God’s
final word. Love is. As to the Old Testament, you’d find quite
entertaining Vernard Eller’s romp through the Scriptures that says the Hebrew
people set out heading north by going south on the issue of violence. It’s due out next year, and is going to be
called King Jesus’ Manual of Arms for the ‘Armless: War and
Peace from Genesis to Revelation. Just the thing for all the new Jesus People.
Andy was mystified at how readily this
was all rolling off Hans’ tongue. He
felt at a loss. He’d never had time to
do that kind of study.
Hans asked. “Shall I continue?” No one spoke.
Finally, Gary said flatly, “I
think we owe it to hear you through.”
“You got me started
on this, Gary. I’ll try to bring home a few points.
“You have a CIA
which engages in the same amount of deception, assassination, destabilization,
torture, covert – and overt – war, and blatantly immoral activities of every
kind imaginable, as the SS ever did, or the KGB does today. And you have CIA directors for instance, who,
according to some stories, would make inhabitants of Sodom
and Gomorrah
blush, their personal lives are so immoral.
You also have nuclear war preparation and stockpiling that is
responsible already for incalculable numbers of deaths, maimings, and diseases
the world over. The environmental damage
to the good Creation by military build-up in which America is massively front-runner,
is overwhelming worldwide. You are the only country to have actually dropped
atomic bombs, not once, but twice! – and
on defenceless civilians, and when
Japanese surrender was imminent. They
claim it was to protect up to a million GI’s lives in a potentially protracted
land invasion. Just as likely it was to
say to Moscow à
la Wild West: ‘Watch out! We have the
Biggest Guns!’ It was doubtless the
first salvo of the Cold War. And
besides, these were innocent civilians!
Do we now justify as well the Aztecs for their human sacrifices of
innocents?
“But, ‘if it’s good
for American security it’s good for Evangelicals’ is the seeming Evangelical
norm. ‘America The Beautiful’,
right? Just like Israel The Virtuous. In both cases, they can do no wrong for they
are God’s ‘Chosen People’. Evangelicals
subscribe to that throughout North America. I’ve heard the sermons July 4th
Sunday. I’ve listened, even in one year,
to innumerable prophetic teachings about modern Israel. Hal Lindsay’s The Late Great Planet Earth is as you know an American
best-seller. With all due respect, what
a piece of garbage! And though it
will be discredited eventually in its prophetic specifics in favour of
endlessly shifting theories about contemporary application to world events and
figures, as all others have been for the last 100 years, you can bet
there will be an endless crop of these, ever best-sellers, since they not only work
to get people saved, even closer to the American Evangelical and secular
dream, they sell!”
Andy looked around
him. He suddenly thought of Jesus, whip
in hand, clearing out money changers in the Temple.
The image suited. What could he
say?
Hans continued. “What Evangelical has raised any questions
about the CIA – whose top boss is ultimately the President? If the buck for a kind of wickedness – on a
level though perhaps not yet the scale of the worst the Nazis ever did – stops
with the President of the United States, amongst the main ‘money lenders’ and
advisers to that President are Evangelicals across the nation. They elevate ‘Nation and President’ to the
status of Deities. ‘God and Flag’
right? Not ‘Jesus and Resurrection’ as
Paul preached on Mars Hill so that to some they sounded like two new gods for
the Pantheon. Rather, ‘God and Flag’,
which are American ultimate idols.
Evangelicals like Billy Graham have repeatedly been in bed with the
President. Billy Graham by Evangelicals
is compared to a Daniel. The more valid
comparison is to the Whore of Babylon or the Antichrist!” Hans’ nostrils flared. He was worked up at last.
Fiona, though not
understanding it all, exploded. “Billy
Graham is a great man of God!, who has told more people in this century about
Jesus than any before him. How dare
you question his faith?!” Andy had never seen her so angry. Her
beauty if anything was only enhanced, at
least he could not miss the rapid rise and fall of her bosom. Norton’s
Notion came to mind; a midnight skating lesson. His chest heaved too.
He too was an enormous fan of Dr. Graham, but
waited for Hans’ response.
Hans fell silent
again. Then: “Fiona, let me try to
explain what I mean. First though, I’m
sorry. I’m not against Billy Graham’s
faith – as far as it goes. I fully affirm it, as far as it goes. I’m just questioning some of where his and other
Evangelicals’ faith has taken them – and has not taken them. They tell me every word of the Bible is
infallible. But they apparently don’t
apply that infallibility doctrine to one of Jesus’ main teachings, and
certainly his premier ethical instruction, which he also lived out, and other
New Testament writers consistently theologized about: ‘Love your
neighbour/enemies’.
“Billy Graham
published his first book entitled Peace
With God. But that, according to
Jesus, is only half the Gospel. Dr.
Graham has yet to publish the sequel, which should not even be such, rather it
should have appeared simultaneously with his first publication, namely, Peace
With Man. Peace with
God is religious sham if it is not demonstrated in peace with man.
What were the Apostles’ words? Just a minute, I’ll quote them exactly
from
the King James…
“Here: ‘If it be
possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.’
That’s Paul.
Then John: ‘If a man say, I love
God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his
brother
whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?’ That
means the enemy too, Fiona! And that’s why Jesus, when asked for the
Greatest Commandment, gave two together for the price of one. Peace
with God, he consistently said, is a
religious ‘crock’, I love that word!, if not demonstrated in peace
towards man. It is only half the Gospel
and a heresy, baldly put. It is clear
everywhere in the New Testament that the litmus test for love of God is love of
neighbour. And the litmus test for love
of neighbour is love of enemy. To the
extent we fail to love the enemy, precisely to that extent our love for God is
phony – whatever our religious protestations and observances otherwise.”
Andy had seldom
listened to a more lucid or fluent, and erudite speaker. And this by
someone who had been raised in Germany. Peter and Jean were listening
at the kitchen
door. Andy had never heard such stuff
before. His mind was grasping at
anything. He suddenly said: “Hans, this
sounds all so works-righteousness! You seem to be adding so much to the simple
faith ‘once delivered’. Wasn’t that
Luther’s great discovery: sola fide –
justification by faith alone?”
Hans hesitated. No one spoke up. He replied: “And what did James say in his rechter strörn Epistel – ‘right
strawy epistle’, so designated by Luther?
“Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what
I do.”; and “Faith without deeds is dead.”
This just after James’ saying: “If you really keep the royal law found in
Scripture, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself,’ you are doing right.” – which
incidentally St. Paul said summed up the entire
Law and Jesus said was the Second Greatest Command just like the first to love
God.”
Andy felt hemmed
in. How could Hans keep doing that?
Hans continued after
a pause: “I’ll add some more from my
paper, if you wish, to put the biblical case home. But let me say this: They can talk all they
want about Christian revival at the American Army Base. If all those good Christian soldiers do,
‘Onward Christian soldiers’ right?, afterwards is slaughter the enemy in
Vietnam, whatever they are worshipping in their newfound religious zeal is
alien to the God of the Bible.
“The point of Jesus’
critique of the Pharisees in Matthew 23 was their, yes, spurious, what a
word!, faith in God. And he says, to win
people over in evangelism to that kind of ‘half-Gospel’
is to make them twice the sons of
hell for the effort. That’s very
interesting arithmetic. Now that
should be very sobering for you in your enterprise in West Berlin – not to
mention for Billy Graham Crusades and thousands of similar evangelistic efforts
the world over.
“Truth is, though, I
argue in my paper, Evangelicals in the main don’t even see that in their Bibles. So, just what are they, just what is Billy
Graham, reading anyway?, I ask.
Apparently not the Bible. But
doesn’t Billy always say, ‘The Bible says!’?
Is he, are Evangelicals, after all, only Liberals in disguise,
picking and choosing from the biblical
witness what they will believe with the best of the ‘classic’
Liberals? Only they never admit it. Vehemently claim the contrary
even. Which makes them Liars as well as Liberals!”
Gary said angrily, “How can Evangelicals be
‘Liberals’? That’s a contradiction in
terms.”
Andy chimed in,
simply befuddled, “And how can they be ‘liars’ when they follow Jesus who is
the ‘Truth’?”
Hans responded
quietly, “You tell me, you guys, you tell me.”
Then: “As you well
know over here, and I illustrate it in my paper, Evangelical military chaplains
abound in the armed forces. I know
you’ve met some of them here, not to mention thousands of ‘born-again’
Christians engaged in blowing their enemies’ brains out in Vietnam right now – and worse, if
you think of napalm, cluster bombs, and saturation bombing of enemy
territory. And I’m sure the thousandth
of all the horrendous human carnage in Vietnam we know nothing about –
yet. Just imagine what we will learn
about the effects of Agent Orange alone.
Birth defects, I’ve documented the predictions, will be massive. Even if the North Vietnamese right now all
deserved to suffer from grotesque deformities, does that mean their children
too?!
“You North Americans
likewise know so little about the countless atrocities committed by the
Allies
during both World Wars. Something else I
document in my paper. For starters, in
the last War the Allies did saturation bombing of civilian targets on
at least
42 German cities. Thousands of innocent
civilians died and otherwise sustained horrendous maimings and
injuries. War is hell, pure and simple! If American authors and movie
makers
afterwards do other than glorify the slaughter, as they mostly did of
the first
two wars, you can bet Evangelicals will ban all those books and movies
as works
of the devil or Communists.
“So where is the
Evangelical church right now? Nixon is a
‘Christian’ of course. Billy Graham says
so – even if he’s too busy with affairs of state to attend church – and the Republicans
are close to ushering in the kingdom
of God with their
longstanding embrace of ‘Manifest Destiny’ doctrine.
“Meanwhile,
Evangelicals go on endlessly about infallibility and the like, while ignoring
entirely the eindeutigen –
one-voiced, univocal, teachings of Jesus and the rest of the New Testament
about how to treat the neighbour/enemy.”
“Hans”, Gary exclaimed in agitation,
“this is coming out of nowhere for me.
For all of us, likely. You have
to understand how hard it is to follow you, let alone agree!
“But, maybe, to draw
this to a close, you could say, in your view, what your summation of
Evangelicals is?”
“Well I came back to
Germany grateful for the
good education I got at Wheaton
but deeply troubled about where the Evangelical church was at. It has fallen in my view ‘culturally captive’
to a longstanding dominant American warmongering spirituality as surely as Jews
were led captive to Babylon, or, more analogously, as the ancient Hebrews
engaged in repeatedly the idolatrous activities of their neighbours. Tell me if it is not dangerously close to
Jesus’ idea that we should follow what Pharisees, read ‘Evangelicals’, believe
– their commitment to Jesus, their love of the Bible – but never
do what they do. Their claims about
John 3:16 and God’s loving the world are rendered pure, what is reine Entweihung - in English?, sacrilege – that’s it! – in the jungles
or skies of Vietnam.”
Joanne emerged from
the kitchen with a Black Forest Cherry Cake ablaze with candles, singing
robustly, “Happy Birthday to You!” She
had told no one except Jean. It was
Hans’ 26th birthday that very day, May 26, 1972.
The evening finished
off in games and celebration. Nothing
more was said about the conversation.
Andy could not write
in his diary that night. His mind was
churning.
Chapter Forty-Nine
Hans had had an
uneventful trip. When they returned to
the girls’ apartment, shortly afterwards, they were called to supper. Joanne and Sharon had done the meal together,
with Jean’s help on setting up the dining room.
It was one of Hans’ favourites.
Bratwurst, sauerkraut, and boiled potatoes. Easy to prepare they were assured. Delicious, they all resoundingly approved.
Jack,
unintentionally or not, got the conversation going as supper wound down. The four singles had described their day in
some detail, and with enthusiasm. “I
learned a new word today,” Jack started, “‘ideology’. It means, if I got it correct, that we all
have our ideas about what is true and right, and we end up killing for
them.
“Interestingly,
Janys accused America
of being driven by an ‘ideology’ not of good towards the rest of the
world, but
of greed. Right, Janys? I’d like to know, Hans, in light of our last
discussion, what your thoughts are on that?
Like, for instance Vietnam. For me it’s black and white. Communism is
evil. We’re fighting evil in Vietnam to make the world safe for
democracy. What’s your take?”
Hans looked over at
Joanne. There was a pause. Joanne looked away, and said she’d start
clearing the table. Peter got up to
help, and soon Jean and Sharon followed.
There were signals…
Hans began. “Let’s discuss Billy Graham and
ideology. He trained at Wheaton College too. He went once behind the lines to preach to
the GI’s about salvation. I’m sure this
was at American government expense, if not, at least obviously with full
permission. Why? Because Billy Graham was a good propagandist
for the ideology of the war America
was fighting against the Communists.
“I can guarantee
that in no part of Dr. Graham’s gospel message was there a call to ‘love your
enemies’. On the contrary, if soldiers
became Christians, and proceeded the next day to blow their enemies to bits
(there’s another word you use... yes, ‘smithereens’)
for love of whom
Jesus died too, Rev. Graham would have fully approved. He did in fact,
for the record. And that’s ideology at work alien to the
Gospel. That’s in fact American
anti-Communist ideology triumphing over the Gospel. Or Darkness
overcoming the Light, to use
biblical language.
“So I ask, where’s
the family resemblance to Jesus from Christians in that? Did it ever occur to Evangelicals to go to North Vietnam
with the message that God loves the Viet Cong Communists too? And that one should rather lay down one’s life
for them, than take theirs? Apparently
not. So when Billy Graham goes to the
American troops with the ‘Gospel’, should not part of his message be that they
should stop the slaughter because God loves the North Vietnamese as much as he
does Americans? Or does God not love America’s enemies? And is evangelism only for the ‘Good Guys’
(read: Americans)? Is God the Ultimate American Nepotist?”
Andy strained at
“nepotist”. Then he remembered: one out
only for kith and kin. Where did Hans
get such vocabulary? Andy interrupted to
supply that information, for which Jack indicated gratitude.
Hans continued. “My conclusion from simple observation is:
Evangelicals routinely practise an under-your-breath ideologized “footnote
theology” that reads repeatedly, ‘Except our enemies’, when quoting John 3:16 and all other similar New
Testament ethical teachings. How could
Billy Graham tell the North
Vietnamese that God loves them, when he fully blesses his own country in doing the exact opposite; when Billy
Graham is still praying with the President for victory in the War – which means
massive carnage and widespread wanton destruction? When he apparently wills the utter inversion
of everything Gospel in treatment of
neighbour, enemy and creation?
“Remember James’
juxtaposition of ‘saying’ and ‘doing’?
Can someone bring me a Bible? Moment mal. Yes: ‘Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without
thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by
my works.’ The ‘works’ of James,
likely Jesus’ half-brother, are found in the Sermon on the Mount, supremely
summed up in ‘Love your neighbour/enemies’ which is biblical justice in the raw
– without which, Jesus warns the Pharisees, one will never enter the Kingdom! This is what the ‘wise man’ does, Jesus says
in Matthew 7, with reference to the vast background Jesus the Sage brings to
Hebrew Wisdom literature.
“Which I also
discuss in my paper I mentioned last time.
This is not ‘works-righteousness’ my predecessor, Luther railed
against.
No, it is righteousness consummated, in
the raw, acted out as ‘living sacrifice’, as ineluctable corollary to
‘justification by faith’, the other side of the two-sided coin of
salvation. Salvation embraced, salvation lived. One does not exist – survive – without the other.
Trouble is, the first exists in American Evangelicalism all too well in
utter disregard of the other.”
Andy realized Hans
had obviously thought lots about their last discussion. So had Andy.
He was beginning to change, he knew.
Hans stopped
completely at that. Joanne had come into
the room. She interjected, “Hans can go
on like this for hours. My best
girlfriend asked me to consider what most would bother me about Hans. This is
it!” To Joanne’s credit, she had said nothing about
Hans’ predilection since the last discussion.
She was feeling her way now.
Fiona almost ignored
Joanne’s somewhat remonstrance. She
appeared angry, yet tenacious. “But
don’t we want this War to end real soon?”
Hans was obviously
troubled. He looked at Joanne. She again looked away.
“Yes, Fiona,” he
said finally with anguished voice. He
looked again at Joanne. “Just like the
Americans wanted World War II to end really soon, and incinerated
instantaneously through two atomic bombs over 120,000 innocent Japanese
civilians – infants, children, middle-aged and elderly. Until the detonations, these civilians were
going about their daily lives as normally as anyone else on the planet at that
time. Let your mind dwell on that
scene. Place yourself in it. Better yet, place any – place all! – your
loved ones in Hiroshima or Nagasaki August 6 or 9, 1945. And let your mind imagine the monstrous
horror willed upon the Japanese – and your loved ones! – by that
Bible-believing President, most Evangelicals, the American people, all the
Allies. And tell me that it is other
than homicidal madness: premeditated mass
murder in the first degree! And utterly wicked and evil.
“The Allies did that
repeatedly to over 100 cities in Germany
and Japan
combined: carpet bombed them with napalm to the tune of over two million
innocent civilian casualties! – up to half of some of the metropolitan
populations.”
“I make this
association in my paper. When the 13th
century papal legate in the southern France
town of Béziers
was asked how to distinguish between Albigensian heretics and ‘real Catholics’,
he replied: ‘Kill them all! God will
sort out who are his own’.
“There is, I
believe, an absolute moral equivalency between that medieval ‘inhuman
barbarity’ (they say 20,000 were put to the sword that day) and America’s
today. Incidentally, President Roosevelt
used that language, ‘inhuman barbarity’, in a memo to all major nations in
1939, with reference to aerial bombing by the Germans of innocent civilians. But America,
in sheer numbers, went on under Roosevelt then
Truman to vastly outstrip that long-ago body count. Arguably, though I do not have the exact
figures to prove it, America is responsible for an annual ‘Holocaust’ that adds
up perhaps by now since World War II to that perpetrated against the Jews
throughout the time of the Nazi ‘reign of terror’. Most of this is of course kept hidden by the
most sophisticated propaganda machine in human history called American corporate
mass media, though anything but a ‘free press’: which would do Joseph Goebbels
better than proud.
“The sheer
wickedness of President Truman’s decision, himself an Evangelical Baptist
Sunday School teacher, is so utterly beyond imagining that I think no American
Evangelical today even questions the necessity and righteousness of that
choice. Those bombs have, what’s the
medical term I used in my paper?, cauterized the American collective conscience
into spiritual numbness and induced mass moral blindness. It would be like the Mafia massacring dozens
of their enemies through a bomb blast, and, because they were all ‘godless
Communists’ anyway, the Mafia are unconscionably elevated to hero status! So I ask: Just which ‘sacred text’ was
President Truman reading? The Bible or America’s Manifest Destiny, when he authorized full-scale massacre of
Japanese civilians? And just what Bible
are Evangelicals reading today, when not a question is asked about these
horrendous ‘crimes against humanity’ in Vietnam
and elsewhere America
still is routinely perpetrating?”
This was too much
for Fiona. “I believe in ‘Manifest Destiny’ for America. I believe
in righteousness that exalteth a nation, our nation, America the Beautiful. I believe
in God and Flag!”
Joanne had remained
standing throughout this exchange.
“Don’t you think you have said enough, Hans?”, she asked. She looked
pained. Hans looked pained. Andy quickly surveyed everyone’s face
listening in. There was tension
everywhere. Maybe it would be best to
wind down. But this was fascinating,
albeit perilously.
Fiona insisted that
they continue. “I want to hear Hans
out. I want to, I want to prove you
wrong, Hans! You obviously were not
raised American, Hans, despite your American mom. I think you are operating under an ideology
I can’t quite name. But it is alien to America. I think we are the God-given norm, and what
you are saying, even when quoting Scripture, is pure ideology. I want to help name it for you, and then let
you see it, if, like Jesus says, ‘you have eyes to see’.”
It was a valiant
retaliation. It was fiercely ‘Texan’,
typically American Empire Loyalist, standing up for the ‘right’ against all
odds. The only problem for Andy was, so
far all the “odds” were with Hans, all the ideology with Fiona. He said nothing. He had nothing to say.
Hans again looked at
Fiona, and continued. “I grant that by
comparison to Stalin and Mao in sheer numbers slaughtered, Truman does look
like a Sunday School teacher, which he was!
But isn’t that the point? Sunday
School teachers should know better. Much
better. Or doesn’t that Bible mean a
thing even to Evangelicals beyond serving as the central cultural icon of America,
all the more, for that honour, to be totally disregarded and trivialized?
“I am not a
Marxist-Leninist, if that is what you are alluding to, Fiona. Far from it.
I am a committed Christian who have discovered ‘the strange new world of
the Bible’ as Karl Barth called it, and I am trying to find my way through its
meaning for today. Of course I’m
biased. But I’m trying to make my
reading of the Bible challenge my biases, rather than my preconceptions filter
the Bible, like I believe on this issue Evangelicals largely do. As such, that is my conscious ideological
commitment. Consequently, in my reading
of the Bible, no matter what, I cannot kill for my ideology, nor bless any
state that does. I agree with Gandhi who
rightly read the Bible in saying, ‘It seems everyone but Christians knows Jesus
was nonviolent.’”
Gary had been listening intently. He suddenly thought of something. “Wasn’t it Christians who not only authorized
the atomic bombings, namely President Truman, but also the chaplain who blessed
the crew on their mission? Do you claim
to know better than millions of believers before you Hans?”
Hans’ eyes narrowed more. “Gary,
do you want me to respond?” Fiona and
Gary said in unison, “Yes!”
“Father George
Zabelka was in fact the Catholic military chaplain who blessed the crew of the Enola
Gay that dropped the first atomic bomb, August 6, 1945. He since repented totally, and has been
telling the world that there is no moral or Christian justification whatsoever
for such a coldly calculated act – and a second one, three days later! – of
mass murder. He says the entire
Christian church has been utterly brainwashed for almost two millennia to
accept war of any description (it always gets called ‘just’ by Christians), not
least the deliberate slaughter of innocents.
Ten percent civilian deaths in World War I. Fifty percent civilian deaths in World War
II. Some claim up to eighty percent in Vietnam.
You cannot bomb without huge percentages of civilian deaths. And who said ‘combatants’, even if that’s all
you killed, were Christianly fair
game anyway? Certainly not Jesus – or
any other New Testament writer.
“So you say Fiona,
along with High Priest Caiaphas at the Crucifixion of Jesus: ‘It is better that
one should die than that the whole nation perish.’ Or in this case, that 120,000 plus innocent
Japanese civilians, or several million North Vietnamese must perish, instead of
precious American blood being spilled.
Or that multiplied millions of innocents had to have been maimed and
slaughtered to stop the Nazis and the Japanese.
“Doesn’t
matter. That is conventional scapegoat
wisdom as old and allgegenwärtig –
ubiquitous – as humanity. Of course
sacrificial violence always has made perfect cultural sense, and underwrites
all rationalizations for immolating scapegoats amongst peoples as diverse as
head hunters in New Guinea, cannibals the world over, the ancient Aztecs or
Incas of the New World, Nazis in Germany, Whites lynching Blacks in the
American South, and Americans slaughtering the Viet Cong in Vietnam, and vice versa of course. It is
also utter antithesis of all Gospel logic, though that is emphatically
not majority church theory and practice.
So much the worse for the church over against the Bible! The Bible may be the church’s Book. It has rarely with reference to state
violence been the church’s Guide.
“Sometime, you must
all read an unknown French Catholic author working in America: René
Girard. I used some of his material in
my paper. But it is doubtful Evangelical
theologians will ever appreciate him, since he argues theologically and
anthropologically the very inversion of the ‘satisfaction theory of the
atonement’. Another matter…”
“Hans”, Andy
interjected, “I did read some of Girard in university. What I didn’t like about him is his making a
theory – scapegoating – fit all, like his own discovery of a revelation. I think life is always more complex than any
one metatheory.”
“Heh Andy”, Jack
said, “keep the vocabulary simple.” Andy
laughed. “I think metatheory means one grand explanation for everything about how
violence originates and works itself out in human cultures, past, present, the
world over. Right, Hans?” He nodded.
Hans then replied
slowly: “Andy, I found I liked Girard because it corroborated and at times
elucidated – shed light on, Jack! – the Bible’s own description and response to
violence. Not the other way around. I found Girard supplemental, not revelatory.”
“So”, Gary quizzed, “my main
question since the last time is, are you saying there is never a place, according to the Gospel, for killing our
enemies. Never?
”It seems you
are. Not only do I dispute that, but it
basically says almost everyone in the church for two thousand years has been
wrong. That is pretty arrogant, to say
the least! And what about Jesus’ cleaning
out the Temple
with a whip? What about his positive
response to soldiers – and John’s, without ever telling them their killing was
wrong? What about the two swords Jesus
says were “enough”, when the disciples presented them before his arrest? What about Jesus’ painting God as “Judge” –
like a sentencing judge, bringing down the violence of the State? What about a doctrine of hell that is
violence in the end, ultimate violence?
Etc.?”
The dishes had long
since been done. Peter had finally
turned on the light switch on his way to his room. Jean, Joanne, and Sharon diffidently had sat
down at the table again. Andy felt the
vibes from Joanne. Sharon looked, if anything, bored. Jean was just blank, though once again apart
from Peter.
Andy suddenly
remembered his thinking that very afternoon.
He piped up, surprised at his sudden boldness, and in favour of Hans:
“Isn’t killing the enemy, Gary, the exact
opposite of evangelism – what we Evangelicals say all the time is our main
mission on earth? How can we warmly
underwrite sewing life-giving seed, evangelism to bring life, on the streets of
West Berlin, while equally supporting strewing
cluster and conventional bombs – and worse! – on the villages of North Vietnam? Is that not evangelism’s exact inversion – to
bring death – as they once did over Berlin?”
Andy had a whole new
insight: “Those same people who send us monthly cheques to support inviting
Berliners today into the Kingdom simultaneously
underwrite with their patriotism and taxes and sons and daughters consignment to hell of countless
Vietnamese. And their parents applauded,
participated in, and prayed for the same slaughter of Berliners, parents and
grandparents of those we now minister to, barely a generation ago! Isn’t that juxtaposition contradictory of all
logic – and that is just human logic?”
Hans agreed, adding:
“Adduce Gospel logic, the only Reality Test Christians are to employ, and the
unfaithfulness of Christian support of war and capital punishment materializes
as surely as acid or alkaline solutions are demonstrated in a litmus test.
“So no, Gary,
I see no place for ever legitimating killing one’s enemies. Not in Gospel logic. And there are responses to the exegetical
issues – issues of interpretation – that you raise. I’ll ask you: is there ever a place for
extra-marital sex in a marriage? Not in
New Testament teaching, no matter how rampant the alternative cultural
norm. There are no exceptions to Jesus’
call to love neighbour and enemy. On the
contrary, see if there is not New Testament consistency that the only way to
know I love God is loving the neighbour.
And the litmus test for that is loving the enemy.”
Gary said nothing.
Hans went on: “Let me add, again
about Billy Graham, who so classically is representative of the Evangelical
mindset. That’s why I mention him, not
otherwise to single him out. I believe
he is a great man of God in his own context, utterly sincere.
“According to the
Gospel as I read it, what Dr. Graham should be doing in addition to preaching
to the American soldiers in Vietnam is going to his own Evangelical churches to
challenge them to call for deep nation-wide repentance that would end the
war. No war since Christ has ever been
God’s will. The American Evangelical
church is worshipping an idol, not God, when it participates in war, sends its
children to war, blesses America
and others in war. All wars, past, present, and future, are unreservedly
contradictory to Gospel, its most complete symmetrical inversion. War, all war by all sides, is utter
transgression and the greatest heresy, according to biblical revelation.”
Fiona looked
nonplussed. Where could she begin, Andy
wondered? “But America stands for truth!,” she
exclaimed. “The truth that ‘shall set
one free.’ Freedom. Truth and freedom. They are America’s birthright and bequeathal
to the world. And that’s what Vietnam
is all about!
”What do you say to
that, Hans? What you are saying is so,
is so, untruth!”
Janys, Andy suddenly
realized, had listened intently without comment to the entire exchange. Was she feeling repentant for having been too
hard on Fiona earlier? He looked at
her. She really looked great. She was registering fascination even
contentment possibly. Was she wishing
Ted might have been there? Was she
comparing Ted to Hans? He’d love to have
a long talk with her.
“Well?”, Fiona’s
challenge was almost shrill.
Hans did not look at
Joanne. “The first casualty of all war,
of all violence, by the state or the individual, is truth. This is what former U.N. Secretary General U
Thant once said and Cain’s religiosity demonstrated. The first casualty of all religion, war’s
first cousin, is also truth, Fiona. And
that’s why religion and war inevitably intertwine, the one feeding into the
other, and looping back again. That’s
why all military chaplaincies are about truth’s opposite: violence. Their final word is death. I would add, incidentally, all sports
chaplaincies too. That’s why the worst
plague on the planet has ever been religious wars; likewise the scourge of
Western Christendom.
“Now contrast that
with Jesus whom religious people claim to be “the Truth”. Something has to give. If violence is not truth’s casualty, like
darkness’ dissipation the sun’s supreme handiwork, then all you have left is Jesus
the Untruth. Jesus the Violent. Jesus the Avenger. Jesus the Cosmic Tyrant. Jesus the god of Christendom, ultimate
scourge, ultimate violence. Not Jesus
the Truth, Jesus the Life of the World, Jesus the Light of the World, Jesus the
Prince of Peace. Then Constantine’s in hoc signo vinceres, in
this sign you will conquer, rings true to Mars the god of war, to be
sure, but utterly false to Jesus the God of love and peace. The contrasts are utterly stark and
irreconcilable.
“But most of us
prefer our lies, are addicted, as surely as any alcoholic, to prevaricating
violence. So it is with dominant
American Evangelicalism. This is of
course the brilliant point of Hans Christian Andersen’s The Emperor’s New
Clothes: as John’s Gospel puts it, ‘men love darkness – lies and violence –
rather than light’: Americans, Westerners, most of us, likewise love lies more
than truth. This is why Nazi Germany was
so successful in liquidating six million Jews.
While truth promises to set us free, we fairly grasp instead after our
violent addictions: national security; right to private possessions;
nationalism; the free enterprise system etc., etc., etc. We thereby negate ‘the mind of Christ’ that
didn’t ‘grasp after’ violently Christ’s own prerogatives as deity. Remember, He could have called 10,000 angels,
but refrained. Your President calls up
10,000 G.I.’s, hardly angels!, to fight in Vietnam and Billy Graham and
American Evangelical leadership, I’m sorry, cheer on the slaughter. Billy even goes to preach in support of them,
just like Bob Hope goes to entertain. Same
difference. Identical ideology. Both utterly foreign to the Gospel, that’s
all.
“ ‘The truth that
sets us, sets nations, free’ is nonviolence.
In the CIA building is inscribed Jesus’ statement: ‘You shall know the
truth and the truth shall set you free’.
The irony is palpable. An
organization that is committed to covert violence and secret lies on a
massive
scale, with America
in turn dependent upon the CIA to maintain its freedom, claims
‘freedom’ as
they lie and murder, kidnap and assassinate, God only knows what else,
routinely the world over! This is George Orwell’s haunting double
speak; this is Jeremiah’s ‘peace, peace, when there is no peace’. This
is what America’s
most famous evangelist, and most others, sell to America and to the
world as
‘beautiful’ and God-ordained, blessed, demonstrative of a righteous
‘manifest
destiny’.”
Fiona looked furious
and also near tears. She appeared
utterly tongue-tied as well. No one else
was saying anything, knew what to say.
Andy was feeling sick but speechless.
Hans had more to
add. “To resort to violence means to
deny God, since we trust in it instead and are bound by the ultimate anti-god,
what is the final ‘anti-christ’: Violence.
‘In Guns we Trust’ is America’s de facto motto,
what they really believe. ‘One Nation
Under the Gun’ is the last truth of American social reality played out in
American overt and covert CIA and military interventions the world over, and on
the streets of every American city. America
was born in violent revolution against a ‘lawful’ state. It proceeded to steal wholesale an entire
continent from its rightful occupiers, and now acts as Robber Baron to the rest
of the world. The CIA, many say, is
about to orchestrate a military coup in Chile, to overthrow a
democratically elected leader, Salvador Allende, because of his socialism! And they almost invaded Cuba because Castro is
Communist. And so it goes, all over
Latin and South America, and Asia – the entire
world. But you’ll never hear an American
evangelist or Evangelical leader question the righteousness of all this
monstrous murder and mayhem. R
Recent Comments