I read through Joshua this week. I feel quite confirmed in my assertion that JWT does not allow us to morally approve of the Israelite conquest. No distinctions are made between combatant and non-combatant; the Israelites (apparently in obedience to YHWH), put to death "everyone that breathes", including women and children. So, whether pacifist or just-war theorist, a Christian must come up with a separate theology of Holy War to cover the history of Israel.
When doing OT theology, therefore, I wonder if one's ethic regarding war and the use of force really makes any difference. Here there can be much fruitful common ground between the two historic traditions of the Church for doing biblical theology. It is our New Testament ethics that are opposed.
------
"He Himself is our Peace." (Eph 2)
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
The need for a theology of Holy War for pacifists and just war theorists
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Good point. It's given me something to chew on; I think that the question now concerns which of the two views raise less tensions. The Pacifist could claim that her view would be more continuous with Jesus, and no worse with Joshua, so therefore at least more congruous with Scripture. The JWT, on the other hand, could claim that the boundary between "war-no war" is greater than that between different types of war, and so even if Joshua's war is not a JW, it is still more congruous with JWT than Pacifism. Any thoughts?
Yes, that's pretty much how I see it too.
I think that the cognitive dissonance involved in accepting that God allowed--even commanded!--the killing of women and children and military conquest is no different whether one approaches from a JWT perspective or a Christian Pacifism (CP) perspective.
I would be interested to see whether there are any good examples of a violent conflict that do meet the criteria for JWT in the Old Testament (possibly the very first one would be--Abraham rescuing Lot before tithing to Melchizedek?). These examples, if they exist, would be better ground for the JWT to use the OT against the CP than Joshua would be.
At the risk of repeating myself, I am somewhat inclined to think that the theologian who is interested in providing a theodicy of the Israelite conquest would need to come up with special rules that apply to God and God's people that would permit the killing Israel did (or at least what it was commanded to do) as a kind of divine judgment against horrific cultural evils. But I'm really uncomfortable with this.
I will also briefly point out that it is typical among Anabaptist theologians (that I have read) to point to Joshua (espcially Jericho) as giving good grounds for an anti-militaristic theology. I.e., God is the one doing the fighting, not a dedicated, professionally trained military force.
Post a Comment