I argue that not only is he in theological error, he has
misread the history.
Why bother to respond? In the 1950's it was the Niebuhr camp
of the Mainline Churches that attacked Mennonites and other pacifists. This of
course was in the wake of World War II and the newly developing Cold War.
Niebuhr's theological liberalism (unbelief) and the decline of the Mainline
Churches meant his views were for many years all but ignored. The resurgence of
political Evangelicalism in the 1970's re-embraced Christian Nationalism and
consequently Militarism and yet the viewpoint and certainly the tact were a bit
different than Niebuhr.
Tooley, the author of this piece is in many ways attempting
to re-invigorate the Niebuhr position. The Mainline Churches have largely just
followed the culture when it comes to their understanding of theology and the
Church's relation to the world. Many drifted toward what might be called a
Center-Left position in terms of politics. Tooley seems to be re-embracing a
Nationalistic variety of the Mainline.
Dealing with the full scope of his arguments would be a
project in and of itself. In the end since I'm not an Anabaptist, I'm not
particularly interested in such an undertaking. But I do believe that in the
post-Reformation era it was largely the Anabaptists who continued to faithfully
adhere to a foundational doctrine of persecuted Medieval Non-Conformity.
This was the idea that the Church embracing political power
leads to its compromise and ultimately its apostasy. The Church cannot serve
God and Mammon. Dissent in the Middle Ages often expressed some form of
Biblicism but even when it didn't (such as in the case of the Cathars, the
Arnoldists or the Franciscans) it meant a rejection of the Church holding
wealth which these dissenters rightly understood as synonymous with power. They
have always gone together but this was perhaps even more poignant in pre-modern
times. They rejected the idea of a Christian political order and the economic
implications that went with it.
When the Church held lands and was integrated into the
feudal system it ceased to represent the Spiritual Kingdom. It became
acculturated and ultimately (despite its official positions) denied the Bible
as its source of authority.
The Dissenters divided and some sects turned violent. Most
of them had either been eliminated by the time of the Reformation or abandoning
some of their previous principles joined with it.
The myriad of medieval sects all but disappeared. The groups
that stood the test of time embraced poverty and pacifism. They were serious
about the teachings of Christ concerning the Kingdom.
Now how to interpret and apply poverty and pacifism? That's
a discussion we can have. But the author of the article would have little
interest in that.
His article is well written and gives a good challenge. If I
were officially an Anabaptist I would feel more inclined to spend some serious
time interacting with it. In lieu of that I've decided to highlight several
points where I think his assessments and certainly his application of Scripture
are flawed and gravely in error.
This article exhibits some common misconceptions and
assumptions regarding Christian Pacifism.
1. The
idea that we are somehow being protected by the police and military is a
concept most of us utterly reject. We see these institutions as self-serving
and violent expressions of state power. The military hasn't defended this
country from foreign invasion since the War of 1812 and the contemporary
enemies of America are born of American foreign policy and geopolitical
meddling... a euphemism for Empire. The Police are the defenders of the system.
The notion that they serve and protect the public is something you don't have
to be a Pacifist to realize is bogus.
2. While
I personally have no stake in defending the Schleitheim Confession of 1527, the
statement rightly affirms the teaching Romans 13. The state has been instituted
by God and serves a purpose. But that doesn't sanctify it. It may be a minister
of God's Providence but Biblically these same terms and concepts were used in
reference to Cyrus of Achaemenid Persia and even the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Were
they sanctified? I think not.
The idea that the Anabaptists accepted the
order as it was and just decided to not participate in it is to misunderstand
their motivations. He's equating them with someone like Bernard of Clairvaux.
Bernard had no problem with Crusades and Christendom, he just chose to separate
and live the monastic life. His piety was not anti-system or non-conformity, it
was rooted in a belief of a hierarchical concept of Christian spirituality.
The Anabaptists had a problem with
the very notion of Christendom. The idea that state violence could somehow be
viewed as Christian was repugnant to them. We need a state to some degree but
it will never be Christian. That's impossible. Tooley has misunderstood their
position.
In addition it was this same concern that
motivated thinkers like Chelcicky and The Waldensians. It's not a novelty
despite the claims of Tooley. It's an old teaching, older in fact than the
Reformation, and did not originate in the mid-20th century.
3. No
one is suggesting the Church lived in a pure age prior to Constantine. What is
being suggested is that when the Emperor ended the period of persecution in the
early 4th century and began the process of incorporation,
fundamental changes began to take place. The Church 'shifted' its attitudes
about state-violence, money and ultimately the very nature of the Kingdom of
God. This shift is admitted and celebrated by many Evangelicals such as Albert
Mohler.
While the Church wasn't perfect the changes
ultimately changed what the Church was and within a few generations made it
unrecognizable.
Even today authors like Peter Leithart try
and vindicate the Constantinian Shift by the supposed lack of protest. He
argues the Church at large embraced it and therefore it wasn't a 'shift' at
all.
Neither the salient issues nor the argument
are historical. History is nebulous enough to begin with, open to subjective
interpretation and dependent on source survival. The heart of the argument
isn't historical. The nature of the shift is theological. The reason it's
viewed as a shift or even as 'The Great Apostasy' is due to the fundamental and
existential change in what the Church was. I'll admit, most happily embraced
it. It was catastrophe and one that has been repeated.
The image of a pure bride becoming the
Beast-riding Harlot is very apropos.
We must look to the Scripture and the
currents at work in the Early Church. A majority action does not grant moral
rectitude.
4. To
bring Karl Barth into the equation just further emphasizes that Tooley is
either ignorant of or has chosen to ignore the historical precedents I
mentioned above. While Barth's ideas have loomed large since the early to
mid-20th century, his concepts are not directly related to the issue
of the state, warfare and violence. His context perhaps gave him some
credibility in this realm but the Barthian Dialectic and his views of Natural
Law are not the source of Yoder's thought regarding the politics of Jesus and
the Kingdom of God. Did Yoder and some of his followers help to synthesize
Barthianism with older forms of Anabaptist thinking? Perhaps. But it must also
be pointed out that Barth was hardly an Anabaptist.
5. If
it seems like there's an excessive amount of attention and criticism directed
at the United States there's a reason for it and it's very simple. The United
States is virtually alone in the contemporary milieu in its projection of
Empire wedded to a cultural form of Christianity. This may not be official policy
but it's often the elephant in the room.
Who can say? With Russia beginning
to revert to its historical role the time may come to start really criticizing
the Orthodox spin on their foreign policy. We have Christianized regimes in
Africa that are worthy of criticism. They are wedding visions of the state and
state violence with their understanding of God's Kingdom. Perhaps someday we
will see 'Christian' regimes in places like China or South Korea. I hope not
but if it occurs then the voices of criticism and denunciation will turn there
as well.
Ours is not a preoccupation with
the United States or some special hatred of it. The concern centers on the
Christian Church and the worldwide influence of the Christian Church through the
lens of American political and cultural power cannot be ignored.
The notions of Christian America,
Christendom or even a Christian Culture are to be prima facie rejected as
heretical. They erect a false kingdom based on violence, lies and hypocrisy.
That's why there's such a great deal of criticism directed at the American
Empire. There have been 'Christian' Empires in the past but I don't think the
world has ever seen moral hypocrisy on the scale of what we witness in American
word and deed.
6. Patriotism
and Nationalism are absolutely incompatible with Biblical Christianity. Tooley
wishes to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to whitewash history because
he doesn't want America to look bad. Rather than view America as yet another Rome
or Babylon, and there have been many, he wants to vindicate its actions through
his own perversions of Biblical texts. Somehow modern Christian Pacifists are
at the same time Liberals and Fundamentalists, Moralists and Academics.
One of the hallmarks of Christian
Pacifism has been a rejection of casuistry and slight-of-hand theological
nuance. Its adherents have always argued that Christ lays out the mandates of
the Kingdom and we are actually meant to follow them.
But that means we'll fail! We won't
acquire power or respectability. We won't have security. We can't be middle
class. The world will hate us and sometimes we'll be on the run or end up
slaughtered.
Exactly. It doesn't require an
esoteric reading of Scripture to acknowledge these things. It's called Faith
and a recognition of the Spiritual nature of the Kingdom....something Tooley
clearly does not understand.
Like most cultural Christians he is
unwilling to take up the Cross and follow the Lamb. I do not say that in a
spirit of pride. I don't pretend that it's easy or uncomplicated. But his view
is to cast down the New Testament and de facto turn the Imperatives of both
Christ and the Epistles on their heads.
In the end what he's saying is that
New Testament Christianity just doesn't work. I'll agree it doesn't if you're
trying to do what Tooley is doing. He attacks this criticism but he cannot
escape it. One wishes he would just admit that he doesn't believe New Testament
ethics work in the real world. This was at the heart of Niebuhr's argument.
7. Near
the end of the essay Tooley again caricatures and misrepresents the position.
The police are a necessary evil. They will do their work but it is not holy
Kingdom work. They serve a Providential purpose. Through their less than pure
motives they as agents of the state help to keep the world from getting
completely out of control. They stop crimes but that doesn't mean they are
therefore 'good'. Their mission is not ours.
His charges about genocide and rape
are just examples of bearing false witness and in fact exhibit his
irresponsibility or even desperation.
He speaks of a 2% minority or
something along those lines. He pulls out the 'Historical Church' argument.
Well, if you understand the thesis of the Constantinian Shift his arguments
help to make our point. The Church drifted into error and compromise and
ultimately embraced the Kingdom of the World and rejected the Kingdom of
Christ. Is the Truth in the minority? Of course. Christ Himself said so.
If he doesn't think the majority
slips into apostasy then why in the world would he be working to reform of all
things the United Methodist Church? He's a minority figure within those ranks
to be sure. The rebuttal of his view is staring him in the face.
There's nothing left to reform and
if he thinks otherwise he's even more deluded than what he's already revealed
in this well-written but completely flawed article. Theologically Liberal Mainline
Christianity became the majority during the post-War years. Many rightly recognized
it is apostate and broke away. If he wants to employ the majority argument he
would do better to lay his crown at the feet of the Rome's Bishop, for that is
at the heart of their argument. Historically they have the monopoly on numbers.
If he thinks that is what 'make right' then there's nothing more to say.