I have to admit, I have been persuaded by that argumentation. I find nuclear weapons to be morally reprehensible in every way, and yet the history of the Cold War seems to suggest that they were at least part why the nuclear superpowers did not engage one another in large, open, armed conflict.

While I think we should absolutely work for disarmament, we need to make sure that we are doing it in such a way that all of the nuclear superpowers disarm. What we don't want is to unilaterally disarm and then face a regime change in one of the other superpowers that puts us or others in a percarious position.

Posted by: MV | July 15, 2008 5:43 PM

MV:
"While I think we should absolutely work for disarmament, we need to make sure that we are doing it in such a way that all of the nuclear superpowers disarm. What we don't want is to unilaterally disarm and then face a regime change in one of the other superpowers that puts us or others in a percarious position."

while i understand your point, it still seems to go against what Jesus taught. are we supposed to wait for others to agree to do the right thing to do it ourselves? and why do we feel the need to defend ourselves? isn't the Lord our shield and our defender? can we not trust Him? and if we are killed, isn't to die "gain"? don't you think the enormous statement that would be made by the U.S. unilaterally disarming all nukes would shake the world into following suit and unite the world against those who held out?

my point is, we are judged by our actions (and inactions) and not the actions (or inactions) of others. will God accept the defense, "i didn't get rid of the evil in our midst because the other guy wouldn't get rid of his!"?

Posted by: dave | July 15, 2008 11:25 PM

Kevin, I think it's a far leap from putting a roof over your house for protect against others in an extremity. That evil (of nuclear weaponry) may be so great we must bare ourselves to whatever consequences God permits. Our problem is we have become so nationalistic our nationalism blurs our Christian beliefs and convictions.

Posted by: George, Jr. | July 16, 2008 11:19 AM

I'd like to take a different slant. The mere possession of weapons does not make for war. Attitudes do. Enemies are created by attitudes. In the last few years, our nation's leaders - our President and his Cabinet - have damaged friendships worldwide. They have kicked the shins of neighbors like a band of tow-headed bullies and have only gotten away with it because they belong to the richest and most powerful family in town.

In short, they have been in the business of generating such highly resentful attitudes toward the USA to that pushing back by them is to be expected. An incubator for the production of enemies is a major legacy of this Administration.

The 9/11 attacks were the result of generations of nation building, power wielding, resource stealing, and political interfering by England, France, and then the US in the Middle East. The letdown of broken promises was a breeding ground for the frustration, mistrust, and anger that have come together to create enemies. Even without nuclear weapons, "they" have been able to attack, and quite successfully.

In response, instead of our purportedly Christian government coming to its senses (a la David with Nathan) and confessing its sinful past, it sealed the deal and created a whole new batch of enemies that probably never would have been had the attitude in the White House been one that is influenced by Christ.

So. Giving people like G Bush and company brand new nukes is a huge mistake! Can we guarantee that we will never have another President like this in the future? No. All we can do is make sure future Presidents do not have what this one so desperately wants.

Posted by: Bud | July 16, 2008 12:27 PM

"What did Jesus teach, and how does his point 'go against' it?"

sorry, i guess i assumed the knowledge of Jesus' statements in regards to making peace (they are the ones called "children of God"), his condemnation of Peter in his attempt to defend Jesus (and the sweeping statement that "he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword"), turning the other cheek, loving your enemy, etc. his point seems to directly contradict the idea of "doing unto others as you would have them do unto you." that ideal is not dependent on the other person doing likewise. thus, waiting to disarm our nukes for others to agree to do likewise is not in accord with this "golden rule."

"You implicitly assert what you need to prove. MV's point rests upon the idea that possession of nuclear weapons actually inhibits their use. You must either make the case that this is not so, or make the case that the mere possession of weapons violates Christ's teachings."

okay, we have used atomic weapons twice in japan. if having these weapons inhibits their use, then they would have never been used. sure, you can argue that because we have them now (and don't use them) it keeps our "enemies" from using them as well. but we would have a much higher guarantee that the weapons would not be used if they were not kept at all. it violates Christ's teachings about the use of force and the treatment of our neighbors and enemies. do you not think He calls us to motivate people through our love and service rather than fear and intimidation?

"Because people want to kill us."

pharoah wanted to kill the hebrews. nebuchadnezzer wanted to kill the 3 in the fiery furnace. the romans wanted to kill early Christians during the numerous persecutions. the last example shows especially how the earliest Christians interpreted Jesus' message of peace and his teachings against the use of force and violence as a means of coercion... even to coerce people from not killing us.

"Was he David's shield and defender?"

yes

"Yes. I trust God that I will be protected from storms. In his providence, he has facilitated for me the purchase of a home with a roof. The latter is the means to the former, and God is in it."

so those without a roof are not being protected by God? i agree that God is "in" the provisions we receive, but that does not mean that God calls us to defend ourselves against those who would attack us. Jesus didn't defend Himself. the apostles and martyrs didn't defend themselves. in fact, the earliest Christians wrote that it was not permitted for a Christian to ever use violence... even for self preservation.

"You see where I'm going with this, I trust."

i do and i think (from a Christian perspective based on scripture and apostolic teaching) my position is correct. i understand you disagree and that is fine. i know that you have a legitimate argument as well, but i think mine involves the necessity for a deeper trust in God.

"Not if you aren't a Christian."

so let the non-Christians defend themselves and let the church be a kingdom that gives a completely opposite option from the ways of the world. let us be prophetic and call those for whom dying is not "gain" to a way of life and community and faith that can change that for them.

"History suggests otherwise."

actually, church history would support my position. for the first 400 years of Christianity, it was absolutely forbidden for a Christians to ever use force in any situation. it was an excommunicable offense to join the military, and those who were already soldiers and became Christian were denied full communion (they were barred from the eucharist) until their service was over. this group of people who completely embraced pacifism ended up toppling one of the most powerful empires of all time.

the mistake came when the Christians accepted the political power offered to them. it was after that that a "just war" theory emerged. the church ceased to be a prophetic voice and began to look exactly like every other political power in the world.

Posted by: dave | July 16, 2008 2:46 PM

"sorry, i guess i assumed the knowledge of Jesus' statements in regards to making peace"

MV's point is that our nuclear policy does, in fact, make peace.

"his condemnation of Peter in his attempt to defend Jesus (and the sweeping statement that "he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword"),"

He didn't condemn Peter for trying to defend him. He condemned Peter for trying to thwart God's will. If Peter had fled on foot, the phrase would have been "those who live by the boot, shall die by it".

Otherwise, you are left with the conclusion that suddenly decided to pick this particular moment to condemn all violence. This, along with the "cheek" and enemy-loving admonitions, do not come close to forbidding the possession of nuclear weapons.

"thus, waiting to disarm our nukes for others to agree to do likewise is not in accord with this "golden rule.""

You equate the possession of weapons with doing unto others. You impute this connection into your exegesis, but it isn't necessarliy so. And who are the others? If I am Israel, I am very happy that the United States maintains a nuclear stockpile. Is Israel not an other?

"okay, we have used atomic weapons twice in japan. if having these weapons inhibits their use, then they would have never been used."

Just because it wasn't true doesn't mean it isn't true.

"sure, you can argue that because we have them now (and don't use them) it keeps our "enemies" from using them as well."

That is the argument.

"but we would have a much higher guarantee that the weapons would not be used if they were not kept at all."

But this is out of our purview. We cannot control what other countries do.

"it violates Christ's teachings about the use of force"

First of all, Christ did not teach against the use of force. If he had, Romans wouldn't allow for it, and he would have rebuked the Centurion. Second, again, mere possession of a weapon is not tantamount to a use of force.

"do you not think He calls us to motivate people through our love and service rather than fear and intimidation?"

The question is what he calls governments to do. He does not call on governments to "motivate" at all, much less abstain from intimidation.

"pharoah wanted to kill the hebrews."

And how did Moses respond? Intimidation and threats, followed by deadly action. Or do you think the first born of Egypt were killed by happiness and kitten-dust?

"nebuchadnezzer wanted to kill the 3 in the fiery furnace."

If you are looking for scriptural support for pacifism, I wouldn't look to the Babylonian kings. That said, I don't understand your point here.

"the romans wanted to kill early Christians during the numerous persecutions."

And they did. That sucked.

"yes"

And yet David killed lots of people. As such, you present a false dichotomy.

"so those without a roof are not being protected by God?"

Not from rainstorms.

"Jesus didn't defend Himself."

Jesus will judge and condemn those who reject him to hell. If that isn't defending himself, I don't know what is. On earth, he was sent to die for our sins. Had he defended himself, he could not have done so because he could not have been killed.

"the apostles and martyrs didn't defend themselves."

There were strict rules governing participation in the Roman army, which manifested into rules regarding violence. That said, there is no conclusive case here that we cannot use violence of any kind. Surely you support the use of a police force, yes?

"so let the non-Christians defend themselves and let the church be a kingdom that gives a completely opposite option from the ways of the world."

At best, this would result in disinterest as it relates to the nuclear issue. You are parting ways with Sojourners on this one.

"the mistake came when the Christians accepted the political power offered to them. it was after that that a "just war" theory emerged."

You are greatly oversimplifying the fall of Rome, as well as the political role of the church. I disagree that the church has ceased to be a prophetic voice.

Posted by: kevin s. | July 16, 2008 3:54 PM

"MV's point is that our nuclear policy does, in fact, make peace."

and i would say it does not create peace but it tries to force it. it also does not work. there is no peace. there is just the fear of all out nuclear war so people don't use nuclear weapons (because those in power know that they would be just as much at risk... it is to save themselves i think). to create peace, we must practice it and change others' hearts and minds to embrace it as well. our goal should not be to change behavior because that will last only as long as we continue to point the gun. by changing hearts and minds a behavior change is enacted that will not die.

"He didn't condemn Peter for trying to defend him. He condemned Peter for trying to thwart God's will. If Peter had fled on foot, the phrase would have been 'those who live by the boot, shall die by it'."

sorry, but i think you have a wrong interpretation of this. the church for 400 years (and augustine and aquinas even wrestle with this passage in their standards of just war) understood this passage to mean no use of weapons, violence, or force... even in defense.

"Otherwise, you are left with the conclusion that suddenly decided to pick this particular moment to condemn all violence. This, along with the 'cheek' and enemy-loving admonitions, do not come close to forbidding the possession of nuclear weapons."

that is not the conclusion we are left with because that is not the first time Jesus condemns violence. as stated before, He commanded us to be peacemakers (not peace enforcers), to turn the other cheek, and to love our enemies (and not just those who love us also). these, mixed with how his closest friends and followers seemed to understand His words and with the prophecies regarding the Messiah being a "Prince of Peace" and that when the Messiah comes "men will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning forks and war no more" show that this was just a reinforcement of no violence.
it was also a prime teaching moment because no longer was Jesus having to deal in "theory" but he could use a practical situation and speak plainly. so plainly the church completely rejected violence for 400 years.
nuclear weapons are easily assumed in these passages because we (by your admission in regards to their most important use) use them to intimidate and strike fear in our enemies rather than show our love for them by laying down our weapons, without regard for our own safety, and embracing them through empathizing with their struggles and needs. also, nuclear weapons cannot even be justified under any sort of just war theory. one of the stipulations of just war is that casualties must be kept at the lowest possible level and that non-combatants cannot be targeted and their lives must be guarded vehemently. nuclear weapons break those stipulations.

"You equate the possession of weapons with doing unto others. You impute this connection into your exegesis, but it isn't necessarliy so. And who are the others? If I am Israel, I am very happy that the United States maintains a nuclear stockpile. Is Israel not an other?"

Israel is an "other," but they also fall into the admonishment of just loving those who love us. we should not only look to serving Israel as an "other," but seeking ways to serve everyone, regardless of their feelings for us or their potential abuse of us. i do equate carrying or possessing a weapon with not "doing unto others." it is because simply having the recourse available to do harm to some one is an attempt at intimidation and not in accord with doing unto others.

"Just because it wasn't true doesn't mean it isn't true."

it shows that it hasn't always been true and that it will possibly be "not true" again.

"That is the argument."

and i acknowledge your argument as valid. i just disagree with it and feel my reasoning is more solid and biblically based. not that you don't have a biblical argument as well, i just think mine is better which is why we disagree (and we do it in a civil way).

"But this is out of our purview. We cannot control what other countries do."

correct, but we can control what WE do. doesn't some one need to set the standard and get the ball rolling? change is always gradual. the entire world isn't going to wake up one day and agree.

"First of all, Christ did not teach against the use of force. If he had, Romans wouldn't allow for it, and he would have rebuked the Centurion. Second, again, mere possession of a weapon is not tantamount to a use of force."

first, Christ did teach against it. many times. plus, the old testament puts it up as the ideal that will be realized through the Messiah. Christ did not tell the centurion to leave his military service... you are correct. he did rebuke him in regards to his financial oppression of the people ("be satisfied with your wages" is aimed at the practice of the soldiers extracting more money from the civilian population). many times, Jesus hinted at the order in which things were to be done. many times He revealed, as part of that order, that He was sent to the lost sheep of Israel and not to the gentiles (He also hints that the time for going to the gentiles is coming however). it was not the time or the place for Him to condemn the centurion's military service as the Jewish crowd would have viewed it as a call for rebellion. oh, and the romans didn't "allow" for Jesus... they crucified Him. also, again, the possession of a weapon is tantamount to a threat of violence, which is intimidation, which is not loving.

"The question is what he calls governments to do. He does not call on governments to 'motivate' at all, much less abstain from intimidation."

governments are made up of people. Jesus gives His call to all people. shouldn't the governments then reflect this call? shouldn't we call our governments to the highest standards as put forth by Jesus?

"And how did Moses respond? Intimidation and threats, followed by deadly action. Or do you think the first born of Egypt were killed by happiness and kitten-dust?"

okay, no need for sarcasm. let's try to be civil and respect the fact that we both have valid arguments. Moses responded by doing exactly what the audible voice of God told Him to do. we do not have such a luxury. Moses simply relayed what God said would happen. the point of telling the egyptians was to prevent it from happening. also, God is the one who took the lives of the first-born... not Moses. while i don't necessarily understand God's actions (but i am okay with that as it reinforces the fact that God is too big for me to possibly comprehend) it is clear that God did not tell the Hebrews to take up arms and kill the first born... God did it Himself.

"If you are looking for scriptural support for pacifism, I wouldn't look to the Babylonian kings. That said, I don't understand your point here."

i was not using the babylonian kings' actions as being pacifistic... i was showing that the faithful were protected by God, not by their own actions. and their submission and trust in God amazed Nebuchadnezzar when they were spared that he made it illegal to say anything against the God of the Jews. their lack of self-defense is what sparked a change of heart.

"And they did. That sucked."

it must have, but the Christians didn't fight back and their numbers swelled because they were offering a life radically different from the endless conflict offered by rome.

"And yet David killed lots of people. As such, you present a false dichotomy."

not so. i am not a dispensationalist, but it is clear that David's actions are done before the promises of the Messiah are realized. also, David has access to a prophet of God. again, we do not have this luxury today.

"Not from rainstorms."

so, does God care about you (and protecting you and giving you the means to protect yourself) more than those whom He has not chosen to protect from a rainstorm? or is it just that God sees His role as our shield and defender as being specifically tailored to each person? maybe He knows you can't handle the rain but that the homeless person can. i do not want to attempt to know God's reasoning... i simply trust in it.

"Jesus will judge and condemn those who reject him to hell. If that isn't defending himself, I don't know what is."

it is not defending, it is submitting to the will of those people who choose to reject Him. they choose it. He allows it despite the fact that it breaks His heart. there is a rejection of the use of force in this. God will not force us to be with Him, but will respect our choice even to His own pain.

"On earth, he was sent to die for our sins. Had he defended himself, he could not have done so because he could not have been killed."

so, He understood there was a higher purpose than self-defense. there is the call to sacrifice yourself for those who would spit on you and crucify you. wow, what a high standard for us to live up to. maybe a first step in doing that is to sacrifice the means of defending ourselves in an attempt to show our enemies that we truly seek to love them. if they kill us, we have only followed in Jesus' footsteps... not a bad path to walk.

"There were strict rules governing participation in the Roman army, which manifested into rules regarding violence. That said, there is no conclusive case here that we cannot use violence of any kind. Surely you support the use of a police force, yes?"

actually... no i don't think a police force would be necessary if the church lived like it was supposed to live. there is a conclusive case that the earliest Christians believed we could not use violence of any kind. the ones closest to Jesus and the ones immediately following them were in "one accord" when it came to this issue.

"At best, this would result in disinterest as it relates to the nuclear issue. You are parting ways with Sojourners on this one."

good thing i try to follow Christ as best i can and don't worship at the feet of Sojourners (as much as i respect the organization and support them in so many things). i know my views are pretty radical and a definite minority opinion today (although it was not always so). i know that i am put in with people like Yoder and Hauerwas. but i believe if we were truly willing to sacrifice ourselves for others (especially those who would kill us) then the church could truly change the world. i don't think it would result in disinterest. in fact, the more the church lives the values of the Kingdom of God rather than simply mirroring the values of the world, the more the people of the world will be attracted to our message.

"You are greatly oversimplifying the fall of Rome, as well as the political role of the church. I disagree that the church has ceased to be a prophetic voice."

i wholeheartedly disagree. i think there is a direct correlation between the rise of Christianity and the fall of Rome. and i am certainly not the only one. Bruce Shelley talks about it in "Church History in Plain Language" as well as do many late antiquity historians and church historians in general. the church remains prophetic in some ways, but for the most part we look exactly like everyone else. we strive for the same things as everyone else. we do not call people to the highest ideals. we call people to good ideals but not the scary, dangerous, and potentially deadly "highest" ideals. that would be true prophecy.

peace out til tomorrow.

Posted by: dave | July 16, 2008 8:30 PM

Nuclear weapons guarantee such peace that we are willing to go to war to prevent anyone else getting them.

If they created peace, and we wanted peace, then we would have a foreign aid program in place to supply them to all comers.

What we really want is nuclear hegemony, so no one can attack us no matter what we choose to do to them.

If they are for peace, then why does every U.S. President affirm that we have a right to use them in a first-strike scenario?

If we arm every schoolchild, teacher and school employee, will the schools be safer? What if in our society everyone, without exception, carried a hair-trigger sidearm?

The conservative argument for nukes as instruments of peace sounds remarkably like the arguments made by some Iranians as to why they would feel more secure with them.

Why are conservatives of the same mindset as radical Mullahs?

Hmmm... maybe the neocons are OUR version of those radical mullahs.

You think?

I think.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | July 17, 2008 12:10 AM

The "War Jesus" crowd would have you believe that "nuculer" weapons protect America.

From whom? From what? Invasion? A takeover? From Canada? Mexico?

It is to laugh. Think logically and practically.

Do you seriously believe that America was ever in any danger of being invaded and then run by Soviet bureaucrats? Just how would they have gained our cooperation, or had enough people to watch over every nook and cranny without the citizenry plinking at them?

Do nuclear weapons protect the millions of innocent civilians targeted or are they rather instruments for playing global power politics by elites at the expense of those disposable civilians?

It so happens that the Russians have good historical precedent for fearing invasion from the West - Napoleonic France and then Germany jump immediately to mind. And we helped them along in that sometimes justifiable paranoia as we quickly forgot about de-Nazification in the aftermath of World War II and made Germany an ally, as we targeted hundreds of millions of civilians and played first-strike nuclear war gaming. This in a country sensitized to and propagandized about that loss of many millions in the war.

We sought to keep a nuclear monopoly where the peace was to be one in which America ruled supreme and unchallenged. What kind of peace did we envision? One in which we would be pre-eminent militarily, politically and economically - de facto world rule.

Now we aren't the first with the thirst. But let's not continue to pretend that it was all done as selfless benefactors of mankind, because it never was.

And it has nothing do with Jesus or God, any more than anyone else invoking their tribal gods in furtherance of their profitmaking and warmaking has to do with any true spirituality.

Nuclear weapons are the genocidal power tools of the worldly and world-seeking. What should Christians have to do with that, unless they are absolutely indistinguishable from those in the world?

All these "War Jesus" types who revel in David being "a man of war" "after God's own heart" and seek to justify the lust for murder in their own hearts, seeking to give it divine approbation, are completely contrary to what Jesus actually taught. Not for them the red letter versions of the Bible - all the Jesus edited out, like grotesque Tom Jeffersons, run amok.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | July 17, 2008 2:30 AM

"Do nuclear weapons protect the millions of innocent civilians targeted or are they rather instruments for playing global power politics by elites at the expense of those disposable civilians?"

Protect millions of innocent civilians.

Posted by: DITE | July 17, 2008 3:57 AM

kevin,

i appreciate the discussion, but it seems you and i completely disagree on this issue. i know i am an extremist on these things which is why i welcome the balancing voices within the faith. i think by addressing each and every comment individually, we would just continue to say the same things. so let me just end with this:

we should take the view of "other Christians" seriously because it is a vital aspect of biblical interpretation. john wesley gives the 4 necessities for proper biblical interpretation: 1) of course a reliance on the Holy Spirit to speak, 2) a serious consideration of tradition, 3) reason, 4) experience. the fact that the entirety of believers, closest to the time of Jesus and directly influenced by Him and His immediate followers, rejected any and all uses of violence should give us serious pause in an issue like this.

and the idea of being able to replace "self-defense" with "eating" in that there is a higher purpose than both is true. but one involves either attempting to intimidate, strike fear in, or even harming (or killing) another human being, while the other simply involves the perpetuating of a natural function through natural means. killing is not natural and did not exist in God's perfect creation until after the fall. eating has always existed (although, in God's perfect creation we were all vegetarians... actually vegans... but that is for another debate).

peace out
dave

Posted by: dave | July 17, 2008 11:21 AM

Kevin: ""nuclear weapons are easily assumed in these passages because we (by your admission in regards to their most important use) use them to intimidate and strike fear"

What is the problem with this?"

Are you SERIOUS? What about perfect love casting out fear? We can't be loving perfectly if we're causing fear instead of casting it out. This is a really, really sad attitude.

Posted by: JEM | July 18, 2008 6:29 PM