The Pope could learn from this:

quote:

---

"If war is ever lawful, then peace is sometimes sinful." --C. S. Lewis

---

Someone help me understand the viewpoint that views war, in and of itself, as an evil entity.

Nix-

If I'm reading Lewis correctly, lawful is in spiritual terms, as in God's law. The Apostle Paul writes:

quote:

---

For the whole law can be summed up in a single commandment, namely, "You must love your neighbor as yourself."

---

Galatians 5:13

It seems that Lewis understands war as a violation of this commandment, even if we can justify the offense by appealing to our interest, other's interest, or our safety. The second part of Lewis' quote , regarding peace, I think follows from the first. If you win a war, even a justifiable war, the ensuing peace is tinged with the violation of divine commandment because humans do not have the capacity in themselves (nor the authority, really) to exact perfect judgement, nor to avenge without hate.



Christ is in our midst!

"At the Last Judgement I shall not be asked whether I was successful at my ascetic exercises, nor how many bows and prostrations I made. Instead I shall be asked, Did I feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick and the prisoners? That is all I shall be asked"-Mother Maria Skobtsova

"Modern commerce and social agendas *are* at war with their values"-titan

"If you're aware you sin everyday, you're living in sin."--janag81

"anytime you stop talking about specific goals and objectives and start talking about killing a thousand of them for one of us to show them, you've just deposited your humanity in the toilet." --utut

"There is something right about this world. There is a plan, and we are too human to be making the decision as to whether a life full of potential stays or goes." --TCLTC

"It is not cowardice to stand up to a bully government and it's moronic leader.' -- MH99

"We need to be creating a world that we would like to live in when we're not the biggest power on the block." -- William Jefferson Clinton

quote:

---

It seems that Lewis understands war as a violation of this commandment, even if we can justify the offense by appealing to our interest, other's interest, or our safety.

---

Lewis himself was a veteran of WWI and often reflected on the nobility of serving and defending one's own country. I find it difficult to assert that he believed that war was a violation of this commandment when he, who was one of the most humble people I've ever read, never suggested in the least that his own service in war was tainted.

Lewis often spoke about how WWII was a just war, however he also was clear to distinguish between the cause and the individuals whom he fought against. In fact, he stated that he believed (philosophically speaking) that if he and some German soldier had killed each other simultaneously, they'd share a drink in the afterlife and laugh about it.

As a result of what I know about Lewis, I don't believe your take is accurate. I've heard many respected theologians assert that the verse you quoted was in respect to personal relationships when examined both in context and in the context that Jesus preached it (when he issued the greatest commandment in the gospels).

quote:

---

If you win a war, even a justifiable war, the ensuing peace is tinged with the violation of divine commandment because humans do not have the capacity in themselves (nor the authority, really) to exact perfect judgement, nor to avenge without hate.

---

But isn't all "peace" an "ensuing peace"? At what point does an "ensuing peace" become real, true peace? Since humans cannot exact perfect judgement, how can you justify the existence of our criminal justice system?

I really don't understand your position at all.

I don't think war made by nations comes under the "love thy neighbor" guideline. Nations are obliged to protect their citizens from forces from without. I also think aggressor nations, or those that are bent on economic and territorial conquest, are eventually under God's judgement. But then, remember God used pagan nations to chasten the Children of Israel....

David

I tend to agree with Orphan. But more specifically, the recent attempt to cast `war as always evil' is just too inconsistent with the past of the papacy and the patriarchates to seem very credible. At times of even more religious interest and ties in governments, they did not conclude this.

Second, arguably, while called to be in the world, Christians are concerned with and in communion with a Kingdom not of this world. The world is fallen, and will remain so till Judgement Day. There does not seem to be an expectation to make `Heaven on Earth' outside of a certain poetic imagery. Otherwise there would be no need for a Judgement or arguably salvation. That's why I see the world's evils as something that must be restrained as far as possible, while also realizing it -- like the poor --- will never vanish.

[This message has been edited by titan (edited 3/29/2003 4:26p).]

quote:

---

As a result of what I know about Lewis,I don't believe your take is accurate.

---

Hence my caveat beginning my statement.

quote:

---

I've heard many respected theologians assert that the verse you quoted was in respect to personal relationships when examined both in context and in the context that Jesus preached it (when he issued the greatest commandment in the gospels).

---

Resepected by whom

I will admit to not being a Bible scholar and defer to the opinions of those who are:

quote:

---

God has given us His love in Jesus. When a person is "in Christ" he can love with the love of God. This is the "new commandment," that men filled with the Holy Spirit should love with the love of God Himself.

In his first letter to the Corinthians, Saint Paul describes the perfect love which is Christ's gift of God to men in the Holy Spirit. He describes what Christian love is: the chief gift of the Spirit of God, who is love.

Through the love of Christ, men are called to bear, believe, hope and suffer all things. This is what Christ has done. This is what love does. The one who does this has fulfilled the "new commandment" of Jesus and abides in the love of God. The one who does this abides in God Himself, and already possesses eternal life as a member of His Kingdom.

---

http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/orthodox-faith/spirituality/the-new-commandment.html
I reiterate my point that I think that the law that Lewis is speaking of is God's law. The context in which Christ speaks this, the Greatest Commandment: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and love your neighbor as thyself, is again a refence to the law of Moses, and Christ quotes from Leviticus 19:18. The text of that verse is as follows:

quote:

---

You must not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the children of your people, but you must love your neighbor as yourself.

---

A footnote for this verse (taken from bible.org) bears out my understanding of the use of "love":

quote:

---

Some scholars make a distinction between the verb bha ("to love" with the direct object and the more unusual construction with the preposition l (lamed) as it is here and in Lev 19:34 and 2 Chr 19:2 only. If there is a distinction, the construction here probably calls for direct and helpful action toward one's neighbor (see the discussion in Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 305 and esp. 317-18). Such love stands in contrast to taking vengeance or bearing a grudge against someone and, in NT terms, amounts to fulfilling the "golden rule" (Matt 7:12).

---

The spirit, I believe, of the "golden rule" is borne out by the Orthodox understanding of our salvation as communal. We are called to be distinct persons, but perfectly submitted to one another. Notice that God's name is self assertion: "I AM." Notice also that Christ, when asked His identity, answers with the self-assertive name of God. We belive in one God, with three distinct persons. To say that this commandment is directed to the individual with an understanding that divorces that individual from the community does not make sense from this perspective.

quote:

---

I find it difficult to assert that he believed that war was a violation of this commandment when he, who was one of the most humble people I've ever read, never suggested in the least that his own service in war was tainted.

---

quote:

---

he also was clear to distinguish between the cause and the individuals whom he fought against

---

I don’t pretend to have the knowledge that you have on the man. What I do know is that I found in the statement you posted evidence of the spiritual turmoil that any instance of war should bring to the Christian. I believe that Lewis wrestled with these as we do. As I have stated before. I think that Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator and should be removed for the sake of humanity. I have also made it clear that I deplore war in general and would expect that in conflicts Christians would lovingly exhaust all means to bring peace without resorting to violence (or military might).

quote:

---

But isn't all "peace" an "ensuing peace"? At what point does an "ensuing peace" become real, true peace?

---

No, not if by “all..”ensuing peace” you mean that all peace is a result of the end of violence. Peace pre-existed violence and is still attainable without it. The point at which peace becomes true peace is the point at which we depend on the original source of peace, instead of our faulty judgment, to bring it.

quote:

---

can you justify the existence of our criminal justice system

---

The existence, like war, is probably a necessity. The way in which it is operated, like this war, is certainly faulty.

Orphan-

quote:

---

Nations are obliged to protect their citizens from forces from without. I also think aggressor nations, or those that are bent on economic and territorial conquest, are eventually under God's judgement. But then, remember God used pagan nations to chasten the Children of Israel....

---

I agree. titan's later comment regarding a fallen world certainly comes into play here. But, I would direct attention to the fact that a Nation is not God's perfect will (ref. God's grudging allowance of the installment of King Saul).


titan-

quote:

---

to agree with Orphan.But, more specifically, the recent attempt to cast `war as always evil' is just too inconsistent with the past of the papacy and the patriarchates to seem very credible. At times of even more religious interest and ties in governments, they did not conclude this.

---

Notice that I referenced human waging of war. I would also reccommend Louis. J. Swift's The Early Fathers on War and Military Service as a good reference to study the growth of the acceptance of war from a Christian standpoint. The book doesn't try to make a conclusion on the question; it merely proveds in translation the writings on war. The juxtaposition provides the contect from which to take a position.

quote:

---

Second, arguably, while called to be in the world, Christians are concerned with and in communion with a Kingdom not of this world. The world is fallen, and will remain so till Judgement Day.

---

This is a very cogent statement and I agree. It is also in this sort of situation that we should maintain the separateness that God calls for.

quote:

---

There does not seem to be an expectation to make `Heaven on Earth' outside of a certain poetic imagery. Otherwise there would be no need for a Judgement or arguably salvation.

---

To the contrary (at lest from an Orthodox perspective), while we are not called to "make" Heaven, we are called to participate in it to the extent we can. Your comment presupposes what one terms heaven, if it is an eterannly pefect place of no pain or suffering, then yes, if we could make it there would be no need for Christ's salvation. If, however, heaven is communion with God, which brings the other, then there is no way that we could make heaven, only participate in it. From the perspective I take, heaven and salvation are one and the same.

quote:

---

That's why I see the world's evils as something that must be restrained as far as possible, while also realizing it -- like the poor --- will never vanish.

---

But, at the same time, we are not called to sit idlely by and do nothing to relieve the poor...

[This message has been edited by jkotinek (edited 3/29/2003 4:50p).]

quote:

---

I have also made it clear that I deplore war in general and would expect that in conflicts Christians would lovingly exhaust all means to bring peace without resorting to violence (or military might).

---

That's commendable, but when you do such a thing with full knowledge as to what you'll eventually have to do and people suffer in the meantime, you are being foolish. There simply is no point where you will truly 'exhaust all means to bring peace without resorting to violent' so I find that statement meaningless. If that's what it takes for a war to ever be considered just, then war cannot be just (and I think we'd all agree that war can truly be just).

BTW...Nixter..you might be interested in this magazine that my mom gave me a subscription to this past Christmas:
Touchstone Magazine: A Journal of Mere Christianity
http://www.touchstonemag.com

It looks very interesting, but if I start reading it I'm afraid I'll find out how little I know! Ignorance is bliss you know.

The OT perspective:

quote:

---

If one sees his fellow drowning, sees robbers attacking him and can save him, or if one learns that evil doers are conspiring against him, or if one can persuade his fellow not to harm another, and he has not done, he has transgressed the commandment, "Thou shalt not stand idly by the blood of thy neighbor." (Leviticus 19:16). But if one saves another, it is as though he has saved the whole world.

---

This is incumbent on nations as well as individuals.

opk

quote:

---

This is incumbent on nations as well as individuals.

---

Wow. Then for one who knows the truth, its practically a command in the present situation for us to intervene. Pick up this weekend's NewsWeek which has a chapter on the homicidal crimes of actual officials of the top Iraqi cabinet, not just guards and other stooges.

jkotinek

To address some points:

quote:

---

I don’t pretend to have the knowledge that you have on the man. What I do know is that I found in the statement you posted evidence of the spiritual turmoil that any instance of war should bring to the Christian. I believe that Lewis wrestled with these as we do. As I have stated before. I think that Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator and should be removed for the sake of humanity. I have also made it clear that I deplore war in general and would expect that in conflicts Christians would lovingly exhaust all means to bring peace without resorting to violence (or military might).

---

As long as "exhaust" is then followed by action , I can agree. Personally, I think we rushed and pushed into this a bit, but from a historical omniscient "lens" type of view, I am betting its irrelevant and a case of "just as well". No peace, no option, would have stopped Hitler short of his own death or regime change. Nothing. Because it wasn't desired. Saddam's regime shows the same traits --- ironically, this time, the media hype is right, but they have cried "wolf" so much its not giving credit by the pundits and activists.

quote:

---

No, not if by “all..”ensuing peace” you mean that all peace is a result of the end of violence. Peace pre-existed violence and is still attainable without it.

---

There I differ. I don't think fallen man can pull it off. An individual can, but even if a "Federation' gets set-up (and I think it could) in time, wicked minds would get the upper hand and the cycle repeat all over again. There is not the slightest indication that man (collectively) can become sinless prior to salvation. So I prefer to opt for a judicious and highly-reflective use of force, rather than saying one never can. (I stress again --- I wouldn't have done much of this the same way. Too much posturing, too little candor. I just agree with its trajectory).

quote:

---

Notice that I referenced human waging of war. I would also reccommend Louis. J. Swift's The Early Fathers on War and Military Service as a good reference to study the growth of the acceptance of war from a Christian standpoint. The book doesn't try to make a conclusion on the question; it merely proveds in translation the writings on war. The juxtaposition provides the contect from which to take a position.

---

I am unfamiliar with that book, but its "early" emphasis piques great interest. However, what I can discern from what you are saying it may be making the argument that early Christians generally chose non-resistence or non-violence as a way of dealing with the world. Even joining the military was a debated issue in the 3rd century.

If that's what you are getting at, with all the attendent implication that the Constantinian fusion with the state and establishment of `power' in the churh was wrong, then you may be right. One of the strengths of Reformed thought is that it would not require a specially empowered hierarchy to witness. For it is all the actions related to power, deal-making, legislating new laws or interpretations, etc, that made the church have to accept war and violence in the first place. Consider: it was only when punishing heresy was given the power of secular execution (Priscillian's execution in 384 the first)that the use of violence began to be rationalized alot. At that point, arguably the same path as the Sanhedrin had been taken, which slew Christ himself, James the Just and Stephen among others.

I don't know if I am ready to go down that road, but for the first time I can see how a special body of power may not be necessary, and that immediately re-frees up Christians to do as you ask, to themselves choose to separate from a violent path.

quote:

---

That's why I see the world's evils as something that must be restrained as far as possible, while also realizing it -- like the poor --- will never vanish.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But, at the same time, we are not called to sit idlely by and do nothing to relieve the poor...

---

Not at all. But I don't think "relieving the poor" means "leaving intact despots" that happen to rule over them. They are best relieved by assisting them after banishing the tyranny. Ergo, you get rid of Hitler before worrying about Germany's needy.

titan-

quote:

---

it may be making the argument that early Christians generally chose non-resistence or non-violence as a way of dealing with the world.

---

Actually, it doesn't. That was what I was getting at by saying that the book doesn't really take a position, really just acts as a collection. What is interesting, from my perspective at least, was that before there was a such thing as a Christian nation, the writers are almost unanimous on pacifism. Like many other developments, the use of force may be read as a necessary accoutrement to empire.

BTW, if you have any luck finding the book, please let me know. I lent my copyout almost a year ago and have been trying to replace it, with no luck.

quote:

---

It is certainly a finer and more wonderful thing to change the mind of enemies to another way of thinking than to kill them...The mystery of [the Eucharist] requires that we should be innocent not only of violence but of all enmity, however slight, for it is the mystery of peace. - Saint John Chrysostom

---

Here's another perspective:
http://incommunion.org/resources/pogo.asp