The Nigel Biggar/Richard Hays debate about non-violence in the New Testament was okay. Richard Hays was more rhetorically polished; Nigel Biggar was slightly more perceptive about the nature of their disagreement; but to some degree the debate itself seemed to dance around the periphery of this fundamental disagreement, I think.
Hays (probably rightly) felt that Biggar was simply responding to individual exegetical particularities rather than appreciating his whole approach to Christian ethics, seeing the cross as shaping the life of an alternative community. Biggar (probably rightly) felt that Hays wasn’t appreciating the task of the moral theologian, who is free to take issues & distinctions outside of the text, and bring them to the text to see if they might find validity.
One question I would have been interested to hear Hays address is: Given that (unlike Paul) I have been born into a situation in which the government who wields the sword is chosen by and representative of ME, how am I to approach this situation of “secondarily” wielding the sword – whether I like it or not?
RSS - Posts
Matthew,
Thanks for these thoughts. I’ve been teetering on the fence on this issue for quite some time, and the issue you raise, about a government elected by the people, seems to be the nub of the issue. Is there such a thing as a pacifist government? I suppose there is to some extent at least, but it’s an interesting thing to ponder. A robust Just War vision seems better suited to the realities of the modern world. But is it also just conforming to the world’s vision of how things should be? I would have loved to hear the debate. Especially as Hays’ Moral Vision is, regardless of whether I agree with him at every point, one of the most masterful books I’ve read on the New Testament.
I’m not sure that it really makes a difference whether a government was chosen by the people or not, or for that matter even if you personally voted for it or not. It is in any case in some way established by God, Romans 13:1. But if it does what is evil, such as warmongering, it is responsible for that. I suppose you bear some secondary responsibility if you knowingly voted in favour of such policies. But I don’t think you are to blame just because it claims to represent you, if it doesn’t carry out policies you encourage. After all ancient rulers also claimed to represent their people, while often not doing what the people wanted them to do.
Maybe Richard Hays could have a word with Laurent Nkunda in Congo. He is described on the front page of my paper this morning as an ‘evangelical Christian warlord’. I’m pretty sure that both Biggar and Hays would agree that those last two terms shouldn’t belong together…
James: Before this debate, Hays presented a reading of Mark’s Gospel, which certainly outshone the debate – I think his strength is especially in raising creative questions about how we can be attentive to rhetoric & movement in NT texts. His suggestion about Mark’s Gospel was essentially that Mark’s rhetoric consciously pursues the approach of Jesus’ parables in chapter 4: Revealing by concealing – thus the messianic secret, the ending in 16:8, etc etc… It was an intriguing suggestion and I look forward to seeing it developed in print at some point, so I can evaluate it properly. If you liked his Moral Vision, I think you would have enjoyed this paper.
Peter Kirk: A follow-on question would be: If I accept some secondary responsibility because I voted them in, should I anticipate that sense of responsibility by calling upon my representatives to act in accordance with principles of “just war” (particularly given that their wielding of the sword is arguably said by Paul to be ordained by God as a means of regulating justice)? Or should I (I guess I’m speaking as ‘the church’) separate myself entirely from the government’s wielding of the sword, aiming rather to be an alternative community in Christ?
Hays affirms that at least the Roman government wielded the sword as ordained by God to regulate justice; but he sees Christians as being called to NOT participate in that (so they shouldn’t be soldiers for example). So I wonder how that fits with the reality that today I effectively AM involved in wielding that sword, whether I like it or not, because of the way our government works.
This is putting things too simplistically, but I’m aiming to raise genuine questions rather than ridicule either position.
Peter: I like the choice of newspapers you read. This gives me a great idea for a band name: “The Evangelical Christian Warlords”… unfortunately that’s probably already the name of a weird church somewhere
I suppose I would deny that you are involved in wielding the sword, by virtue of being a citizen or voting at all in an election. You don’t have moral responsibility for something you have no choice about doing. But I guess that if we are talking about the general activity of regulating justice, and if you think that even in countries like ours without the death penalty that is fundamentally wrong (a rather extreme position I would suggest), your duty would I suppose be not to vote. Well, I know it is hard to do that in Australia with its compulsory voting, but is there a way to indicate that you are not voting for any one candidate from religious principle?
I think the way you put this highlights the issues well: What is the relationship between an “alternative community” and their representative government? Hmmm… that’s one I need to continue to think about…