https://www.christianpost.com/voices/the-death-of-christian-pacifism.html
Tooley's powers of
perception must immediately be questioned when he asserts that Neo-Anabaptist
Christian Pacifism was so prevalent in 2015. The position has always been (since the fourth century) an
almost inconsequential minority at best.
Rather, I think Tooley
is plugged into some other interests and driven (perhaps) by his own hostility
to any theology that doesn't celebrate the American credo he seemingly glories
in. Brandishing his CIA credentials it can be safely said that Tooley glories
in his shame and in this case he wants everyone to recognize his triumph, and
as such he needs an enemy to claim that he has vanquished. And so he has
conjured one up – one that he particularly despises.
The so-called
Christian teaching about Just War and what he calls Christian Realism are actually
negations of New Testament Christianity rooted in the tradition of sacralist Christendom
– the political Christianity that Tooley believes in and has confused with the
Kingdom of Scripture.
Hauerwas and Yoder are
important names in the modern challenge to Constantinianism and its Just War tradition
– but it's not an ideology that I would even necessarily label as pacifist.
There is a distinction between pacifism which tends toward political action by
means of utilising non-violence (as seen with figures like Gandhi and Martin
Luther King Jr.) and that of non-resistance. The latter (which is clearly the
New Testament position) rejects pacifistic non-violence because it is still a
form of political coercion. This is so far beyond the scope of Tooley's
thinking it's not even on the table. A servant of mammon and power, it's not a
religion or ethical system he's even remotely interested in.
Tooley simply
dismisses Hauerwas without engaging his arguments. Tooley safely assumes that
most of his readers are good Americans and adherents of its ideology and its
narratives. So be it, but this has nothing to do with Christianity.
I don't accept his
narrative regarding the Bush years and I wasn't surprised to see him turn to an
ad hominem attack on Yoder. I'm not interested in defending Yoder. Some of his
work is interesting but it's not nearly as Biblically based as it might have
been – which I believe would have strengthened the arguments and made them more
effective and compelling. The same is true of Hauerwas.
Tooley wastes three
paragraphs on discrediting Yoder – once again without ever engaging any of his
ideas or claims.
He's right on one
point. The Trump-precipitated crisis has undoubtedly driven many from the
non-resistant non-activist camp over into the Left, believing (with some
justification) that America's fascist moment had arrived and not acting was no
longer an option. This is not to say they were right, but they were at least
perceptive enough to understand the magnitude of what was (and is) taking
place. The same cannot be said for the bulk of the Evangelical community of
which Tooley is a part.
Tooley's justifying
narratives about the American Empire are false and he knows it as he makes his
statement and then has to more or less walk it back lest he appear completely
ignorant. As far as the chaos and greater repression he refers to, these
realities are a result of American interference. To start the fire, pour fuel
on it, and then leave and blame the smoldering and flare-ups on the absence of
the arsonist is delusional to say the least – if not sick. It's just the sort
of morally bankrupt commentary I would expect from a Langley apparatchik turned
denominational bureaucrat like Tooley.
I also reject Tooley's
self-serving (CIA-reminiscent) narrative regarding Russia and the war in
Ukraine. The contextualisation of the war is wrong and the dilemmas he presents
are false. Again, it's just the sort of deceitful type of argumentation that
seems to dominate and characterise Tooley and all that we've seen him produce
over the years.
It is questionable as
to whether or not Dispensationalism is in decline. The school has suffered
something of a systemic failure and is increasingly overshadowed by the likes
of New Calvinism. That said, and despite the undermining of its structural
foundations, the Rapture/Judaized Premillennial eschatological schema is still
fairly dominant within the Evangelical sphere. This unfortunate reality is
compounded by the movement's incoherent embrace of Dominionism. It has
generated a lot of confusion and internal contradiction to say the least. Contrary
to Tooley, I see no evidence to suggest Evangelicalism's idolatrous marriage to
the American Empire has lessened to any degree and Tooley's growing popularity
unfortunately testifies to this.
Regarding one of his
points, I think he meant Neo-Marcionite
as opposed to Pseudo- because the
latter designation would actually rank them favourably, meaning they're not
actually Marcionite at all, which is what he wants to accuse them of being. But
regardless, it's a ridiculous assertion on Tooley's part as I've read, listened
to, and interacted with a great deal of Anabaptist thinkers and I can safely
state – that's not their view of the Old Testament at all. They believe
(rightly) that the New Testament epoch represents fulfillment and as such marks
a shift – and the people of God are called to a higher ethical standard. The
Judaizing comes into play when Dominionists seeking justification for their
political gospel appeal out of context to typological arrangements in the Old
Covenant and apply them mutatis
mutandis to contemporary contexts without taking New Testament teaching into
account. It's a failure to read the Old Testament through the lens of Christ.
Or to put it differently, it is failing to read the Old Testament as a
Christian.
I think Tooley may be confusing
the theological liberalism (and political liberalism) so dominant in his
beloved United Methodist denomination with actual non-resistance teaching found
in Anabaptist circles.
And while he disingenuously argues
for a shift in geopolitics that makes the US less of a villain he still has to
take his Right-wing shots – Iran is still a threat and so forth. A threat to
whom? To the American Church? Or to the Whore-Sacralist Pseudo-Church and the
Beast-Empire it rides upon?
Tooley appeals to Christian
statecraft and prudence. And how does he define that? The New Testament is
nowhere in his thinking. Instead he is an agent and voice for a larger body of
monied political and ecclesiastical interests. His star is rising. I hope he
enjoys the respect and standing he seems to have attained. Tooley will fall as
will his allies and then the same filth he promotes will reappear in different
garb at some point. It's a dog-to-vomit recurring cycle within Church history.
But what will he do when his
efforts go awry? Will he realize what he's been party to? No, I suspect he'll
wipe his mouth and say he's not at fault. I doubt he grasps that his misnamed prudence
leads to violence and has played a part in leading the American Church into the
arms of fascism. Tooley's prudence is a cover for leading God's people astray
and strengthening the hands of the evildoers. That's not prudence, that's
foolishness and that's not name-calling but meant to be understood in its moral
sense.
In the meantime, those who know
the Scriptures and believe in the teachings of the New Testament will
persevere. In addition to understanding the ethics of the New Testament which
Tooley and his ilk reject, they also know the truth is always maintained by a
persecuted remnant. Tooley is of the kind that (more often than not) throughout
Church history has joined with the persecutors. Beware this wolf in sheep's
clothing.
See also:
https://pilgrimunderground.blogspot.com/2020/11/judgment-on-african-church.html
https://pilgrimunderground.blogspot.com/2022/04/james-dobsons-bloodthirsty-swan-song.html
https://pilgrimunderground.blogspot.com/2015/12/sacralism-umc-and-ex-cia-agent.html
https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2014/03/neo-anabaptists-or-historical-anti.html
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.