Violence, Pacifism, and Straw Men

https://theaquilareport.com/a-consideration-of-certain-of-the-pope-of-romes-remarks-on-palm-sunday/

I both agree and disagree with Hervey regarding the pope's statement - 'God, who always rejects violence'.

Prevost/Leo made what could be described as a sloppy statement. It needs clarification.

Obviously under the Old Covenant violence was regularly employed in reference to typological Israel - prefiguring and picturing the coming Judgment. As such, the statement cannot be understood in an absolute sense. Clearly, God does not always disapprove of violence.

And just to be clear, there is certainly a coming Judgment which will involve an act of cataclysmic violence - the destruction of the Earth by fire and the sentencing of unbelievers to eternal punishment - eternal violence as it were.

But at the same time, Calvinists of all people should be able to grasp something of the dichotomy between revealed and decretive will when it comes to God.

Yes, there will be wars. This is certain. This present age is an evil one.

But in terms of revealed will, in terms of New Testament ethics, we (Christians) are not to be part of that violence. We are neither to employ it nor sanction it. Hervey is wrong when he speaks of lawful defense. He can quote the Proverbs but they need to be read in light of New Covenant doctrine and ethics. The New Testament does not teach 'lawful' self-defense.

And so it is also correct to say (like Leo) that God rejects violence. That is what he has revealed for us - for Christians. It is a Kingdom ethic rooted in eschatology.

Now I will grant the so-called Bishops of Rome have very little moral standing when it comes to such questions. In fact it's borderline ridiculous. That said, it's far more ridiculous for those holding up their Bibles (in apparent ignorance) and arguing for war and the 'just' nature of violence - in other words making a Christian argument for war. There is no New Testament basis for that position. The whole theory of Just War is farcical - a contrivance born of the Constantinian epoch and its rejection of New Testament norms.

Now some will counter and say - you keep saying 'New Testament', we're 'Whole Bible' Christians.

Actually those who argue such are not being faithful to the whole Bible. They're guilty of Judaizing and misappropriating Old Testament texts which cannot be read apart from Christ and the teaching of the apostles. To do so, is to read the Scriptures like a Christ-rejecting Jewish person - a lost person. The Old Covenant has been fulfilled and no longer has stand-alone authority. It can only be read and utilized in light of the New Testament. On this point both the Judaizing Dominionists and the Evangelical Academics (who would prioritize human authorship) arrive at the same error by means of different roads.

And in fact the ethical bar is raised in the New Testament as we are citizens not merely of a typological Kingdom that has now been fulfilled - one that pointed to both reconciliation and judgment. We are part of the real, eternal, and eschatological Kingdom which is heavenly. We experience it now (by means of the Spirit and union with Christ) but it is also not yet. Nevertheless we are called to an eschatological ethic. We are called to non-resistance, to turn the cheek and to take up the cross as world-rejecting martyrs, who as pilgrims have no treasure here in earthen vessels but rather lay up our treasures in heaven.

Given that the dominant forms of Christianity are all deeply affected by (and infected with) sacralist thinking, it's not too surprising that such debates immediately spawn confusion.

Sacralism (in viewing all of society as covenantal) applies New Testament ethics in a universal sense. The imperatives of Christ and the apostles apply at all times and in all places. And where they don't, sacralism argues and necessitates that Christians should be striving to that end.

The New Testament frames these questions in a completely different way. Ethics are covenantal. Unbelievers cannot please God even if they go through the motions of Christian ethics. Paul categorizes unbelievers as those who are 'outside' and declares that he has nothing to do with them. Christ says the coin is Caesar's and therefore of a different order than the things rendered to God. Additionally I would argue the paradigm in Revelation concerning the Mark of the Beast is actually normative for the entire age - again suggesting that Christian ethics are not universal nor is it the Church's task to try and apply (let alone enforce) them within the context of this present evil age.

Many of Hervey's criticisms are valid but he mishandles the Old Testament. You can quote the Psalms but apart from the Old Testament context (and its different set of typological and thus temporary ethics) the primary (and typological) voice is that of Christ, the true Prophet, even the true Psalmist as it were. He indeed brings a sword - and this is meant in different ways. But His calling for us in this age is clear - we are to take up the cross, not the sword.

As such I find Hervey's Scriptural arguments to be largely guilty of straw man fallacy or again are testimonies to a skewed hermeneutic and poor exegesis.

He also resorts to additional fallacies in order to make case - using the typical appeals to extreme example or oversimplifying the scenarios he presents. I find it rather twisted that he seems to think submissions and cross bearing are forms of self-violence. There's a lot of Enlightenment 'individualist rights' thinking at work that is overshadowing (indeed casting down) Scriptural teaching. Hervey is hardly alone.

And contrary to Hervey we can safely state that neither Gaza nor Iran are just wars by any set of criteria.

He's right, the popes are not reliable guides to these questions. Unfortunately we must say the same when it comes to Confessional Presbyterians.