Distinguishing Two Gospels of Salvation
I have argued before that a materialistic and militaristic gospel of salvation pervades in our political discourse and that we find this gospel proclaimed even by those who also proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Of course, advocating the use of military force in defense of life and limb does not, in itself, mean the proclamation of this gospel. Rather, we find this “good news” witnessed to by those who uphold the instruments of war as the solution to the problem of evil, who treat the threat of evil in the world as essentially a material problem with a human solution, who seek salvation from evil by killing the evildoers.
The Gospel of Jesus Christ teaches that evil is fundamentally a spiritual problem with a divine solution: only through Christ can man be saved. This Gospel calls for conversion, atonement, redemption, and salvation of the evildoer – a category that includes us all. It does not divide the world into the evildoers (them) and the non-evildoers (us), the guilty and the innocent, and it does not seek salvation only for one group and not for another. It does not call for the death of some, but rather for the life of all.
Anyone who advocates the instruments of war as the fundamental response to terrorism or other threats to life follows a materialistic and militaristic gospel of salvation. To be sure, not everyone who defends the use of violence in response to evil is a believer, but if such defenders of saving violence do not also seek, by the means available to them, the salvation of those consumed by evil, their actions witness most to a faith in the human power to kill and destroy.
Comments are closed.
I just started reading The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 over the weekend, and I was startled to discover how much the critiques of modern society by Sayyid Qutb and Ayman al-Zawahiri sound like posts on Vox Nova! Capitalism, racism, materialism, too much individual freedom, a society dominated by secularism. The only solution is to bring about a rule in conformity to the will of God. I am sure the denunciations of (classical) liberalism would be — or would have been (Qutb has been dead quite some time) — music to their ears.
What exactly this means is very debatable, since I suppose a great many religious (or “otherworldly”) thinkers would have similar critiques of the modern world. But I found it startling nevertheless.
Kyle, you wtite:
“Anyone who advocates the instruments of war as the fundamental response to terrorism or other threats to life follows a materialistic and militaristic gospel of salvation.”
Thanks for hitting the nail on the head regarding what may be called the Don’t-mess-with-Texas school of foreign policy and its larger philosophical or theological framework. It’s too bad that Republicans and others often see looking for non-violent solutions to international problems as pandering to the enemy–and there is a whiff of this attitude in what David Nickol has to say.
But it is not pandering or any kind of appeasemant to admit that an enemy using evil tactics has legitimate grievances or a partly valid critque of the way we in the West live. Am I obliged to disagree if Osama bin Laden claims the sky is blue and grass is green?
It’s too bad that Republicans and others often see looking for non-violent solutions to international problems as pandering to the enemy–and there is a whiff of this attitude in what David Nickol has to say.
It seems to me that we are pretty much stuck trying to kill the people who are currently trying to kill us, but I would certainly not underestimate the importance of “winning hearts and minds.” Sayyid Qutb and and especially Ayman al-Zawahiri saw the only solution to the ills of this world as world domination by Islam. Once people see things that way, I doubt that there are nonviolent solutions to change their minds. When the supply of people who are willing to blow themselves up to kill for a cause exceeds the demand, violent solutions are necessary. I don’t see any way around it, unless you are a complete pacifist and believe that surrender and submission will ultimately convert Muslim extremists to Catholicism.
I do think Obama is correct that Guantanamo helped to create more terrorists, and I think the West would be wise, in fighting Islamic extremism, to do everything possible not to make matters worse. But terrorism is a kind of blackmail and is totally illegitimate. If the United States is doing something wrong, it should stop doing it because it is wrong, not because it will provoke terrorists.
Of course one of the things that the United States is doing “wrong” is supporting Israel. I have many reservations about the way the United States has dealt with Israel, but I am not about to recommend abandoning Israel to placate Islamic extremists.
Exactly what are the nonviolent solutions in dealing with Al-Qaeda?
I don’t see any way around it, unless you are a complete pacifist and believe that surrender and submission will ultimately convert Muslim extremists to Catholicism.
I’m pretty sure you must have heard by now that pacifism does not mean “surrender” or “submission.” If you haven’t, now you know.
Michael,
What about when your enemies are willing to use guns and bombs, and you are committed to nonviolence? Gandhi and Martin Luther King were not dealing with people who were intent on killing them (and killing themselves in the bargain, if it made killing them easier).
What is your plan for nonviolent resistance to suicide bombers? How do you even stop them from getting on planes if you are not prepared to use violence?
I feel my John Courtney Murray quote coming on again:
How do you even stop them from getting on planes if you are not prepared to use violence?
Or is there a distinction between violence and force?
David – The enemies of the united states are not my enemies. As far as I know, no one wants to kill me except maybe for some scattered Catholic bloggers. Does anyone want to kill you?
The enemies of the united states are not my enemies. As far as I know, no one wants to kill me except maybe for some scattered Catholic bloggers. Does anyone want to kill you?
Michael,
Yes, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri want to kill me or to see me killed. To quote from their 1998 fatwa:
And much as you may want to distance yourself from the “united states,” the ruling is to “kill the Americans and their allies — civilians and military,” and Canada is an ally.
He certainly sounded like he was serious 12 years ago. You know, there are things we can do to improve our relations with the bin Ladens of the world that do not involve bombing the crap out of people in other countries that have nothing to do with them.
David, your quote states, “There is no charter of political morality in the Scriptures.”
One wonders if we are speaking of the same scriptures.
Michael,
What is your plan to placate Al-Qaeda?
David N. – I don’t have to have a plan to know that the current plan is immoral.
Nate,
It’s a quote from John Courtney Murray, and I assume he read the same Scriptures you and I do. It seems self-evident to me that “pacifism . . . may be a dictate of the individual conscience, but it cannot be a public policy.” Even Switzerland has an army and is not a pacifist country. They prepared militarily for a Nazi invasion rather than working out a plan for nonviolent resistance.
I do not see a condemnation of war anywhere in the Bible, and we have such things as 1 Samuel 15:
And what was Saul’s transgression? He actually didn’t kill all the men, women, children, infants, oxen, sheep, camels, and asses.
The Catholic Church has never advocated pacifism or condemned all wars. It seems to me the Church has, in the past twenty years or so, all but condemned capital punishment, but apparently not so definitively that George Bush, who personally signed 152 death warrants, could not receive an honorary degree from Notre Dame.
David N.,
You quote JC Murray: “There is no charter of political morality in the Scriptures.”
How about, “Be as wise as a fox, and as gentle as a dove”? That’s a start.
I can’t really disgree with anything you say, which amounts to a common-sense centrist sort of position.
All I ask for is a foreign policy which begins with geniune respect for the human dignity of all people, and which actually resorts to force only as a last resort. That’s a very general statement, but it sure doesn’t describe the Bush approach. I think it does describe the Obama approach in theory, though perhaps not in practice.
David R,
I agree completely. I would be the last to try to defend the Bush administration or to say that everything the United States is doing or has done is consistent with the Gospels as I understand them. I oppose torture. I think the Iraq should never have been invaded. However, it seems to me the “Catholic pacifist” position being articulated here is not the position of the Church itself now, nor has it ever been (at least since before Constantine). The Catholic Church was very important in the development of Just War Theory, which is not pacifism. If Catholicism or Christianity in general was meant to be pacifist, one can only say it has been almost an utter and complete failure.
However, it seems to me the “Catholic pacifist” position being articulated here is not the position of the Church itself now, nor has it ever been (at least since before Constantine). The Catholic Church was very important in the development of Just War Theory, which is not pacifism. If Catholicism or Christianity in general was meant to be pacifist, one can only say it has been almost an utter and complete failure.
There has always been a pacifist tradition in the Catholic Church. It has been a minority tradition, for sure. In the last several decades the Church has affirmed these pacifisms as part of the tradition. The Church does not have one position on war. Never has. At the present moment, the Church seems to approve of two general traditions that seem to be in conflict with one another. I think if one takes the just war tradition with utmost seriousness today, what you get is virtual pacifism.
David, Jesus’s words in the Sermon on the Mount condemn bloodshed: “do not violently resist evil” (Mt 5:38=39). In place of violent resistance, Jesus gives us loving the enemy. N.T. Wright has this to say about the passage:
“‘Do not resist evil’ (5.39) is not to be taken simply to refer to personal hostilities or village-level animosity. The word ‘resist’ is antistenai, almost a technical term for revolutionary resistance of a specifically military variety” (Jesus and the Victory of God, 291).