Pax Christiana
Friday, June 29, 2007

"He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit. Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone" (Ephesians 2:17-20).
I mentioned before that I'm reading John Howard Yoder this summer. That reading is part of a theology seminar with Stanley Hauerwas (Dr. Hauerwas regularly invokes Yoder's influence on his own theological understanding and has remarked before that Yoder made him a pacifist, or as he might put it, a practitioner of Christian non-violence).
Reading Yoder is disturbing. I wish I could say that he makes me feel good, or energizes me, or stimulates me, or helps me out in some way. But he speaks the truth in a way that makes me extremely uncomfortable. He convicts the Laodicean lukewarmness of my faith.
Yoder is relentlessly biblical in his theological argumentation, which makes him very difficult to disagree with at times (alas, he knows the Scripture much better than I ever will). He makes a compelling case for who Jesus is - namely, the incarnate One who reveals the Father's love through non-resistant suffering at the hands of the world. But he also goes further and makes a compelling case for who we should be as the Church (and this is where you start to get uncomfortable). Jesus' normativity for the world is in his person and work, of course. But it is also in his teaching. The Sermon on the Mount is meant to be practiced; our thinking that we cannot do so is only because we have become so deeply mired in a "Constantinian" practice of faith.
I believe that any Christian who does not want to be a pacifist has, at some level, to reckon with Yoder:
"[T]he Christian does not renounce war because one can expect intelligent citizens to rally around. They usually won't. The believer takes that stand because the defenseless death of the Messiah has for all time been revealed as the victory of faith that overcomes the world ... When the Christian whom God has disarmed lays aside carnal weapons it is not, in the last analysis, because those weapons are too strong, but because they are too weak. He directs his life toward the day when all creation will praise not kings and chancellors but the Lamb that was slain as worthy to receive blessing and honor and glory and power (Revelation 5:12-13)" (Yoder, He Came Preaching Peace, pp. 27-29).
I thought about all of this today because I have been re-listening to a lecture that Dr. Hauerwas gave at the end of the spring semester this year. In it, he reflects on the church as a community of non-violence. Here's a quote from the lecture that is classic Hauerwas in content. By comparing it with the above passage from Yoder's He Came Preaching Peace, you can see Yoder's influence on him:
"Constantinianism, that is, the church's accommodation to the thinning out of our language and our understanding of courage ... results in the loss of our skills for survivial. Because exactly what Christianity is, is ongoing training in skills of survival of a community across time, [which] has been sent out in the world to live non-violently as part of our worship of God in a violent world. Thus, my claim that Christians are not called to non-violence because we believe our non-violence is a strategy to rid the world of war. But rather, in a world of war, Christians as faithful followers of Christ cannot imagine being anything else than non-violent. And that will make the world more violent. Because the world does not want its 'order,' which it calls 'peace,' exposed for the violence it is. And that's exactly what you must be about" (lecture, 4/19/07).
So should pacifism - which sometimes goes by the terms non-violence or non-resistance - be normative for all Christians? That is, are we expected to take the Sermon on the Mount so seriously that we actually practice it?


