I’ve just finished reading a paper by Nigel Biggar (Regius Professor of Moral & Pastoral Theology at Oxford) which aims to refute the argument for pacifism given by Richard Hays in his book ‘The Moral Vision of the New Testament’.
It’s a relatively concise (10,000 words) argument for the doctrine of just war, and responds to Hays’ pacifistic reading of the New Testament with three main parts:
First, that Hays’ reading of the New Testament stories about god-fearing soldiers, who persist in their profession, is not compelling; second, that he fails to specify sufficiently the meaning of Jesus’ teaching and conduct in terms of Jesus’ own context (particularly the option of armed violence in the service of religiously inspired nationalism); and third, that Hays’ normative moral concepts are often too crude, suffering from a failure to employ valid moral distinctions.
I have found the paper a thought-provoking read. Some parts seem to persuasively counter Hays; other parts I’m not so comfortable with.
For example, he argues (and backs it with ‘empirical’ evidence) that soldiers’ use of violence is not necessarily driven by hatred or anger; but can be driven by loyalty etc…. But one question that then arises for me is: What about at a national level? What if soldiers loyally and impassively participate in a war that is effectively a product of the emperor’s hatred or anger?
Anyway, Biggar and Hays will be debating this issue on Thursday at Oxford, and I will be attending. It should be interesting. Here’s how I envisage it beginning:
Biggar: “Richard, I disagree with your pacifist reading of the New Testament”
Hays: “Them’s fightin’ words…”
RSS - Posts
ha ha
Do you envisage it ending with this?
Matthew : “This is all very well but I really don’t see how anything you’ve said relates to the flow of 1 Corinthians.”
I envisage that comment preceding an all-out brawl, which will conclude with general consensus regarding the preferability of pacifism
And inevitable kudos to you for providng a practical demonstration of what otherwise might well have been a very dry subject
I guess I am glad the West wasn’t pacifist in the 1940’s….
I think Hays might say that there could be peaceful alternatives to stopping force by using force: During the Iraq wars, groups of Christians went and placed themselves in the line of fire to form a human barrier, for example. But I think what you say would be Biggar’s point of view – that sometimes the reluctant use of force is necessary for the promotion of justice in this age. I think it’ll be an interesting debate!