Helping Ukraine: War without Violence?

Today is the twentieth day since the beginning of the unprovoked Russian invasion of the sovereign country of Ukraine. The courage and resilience of the Ukrainian people has certainly been admirable, but their suffering has been great and their short-term future is exceedingly bleak. 

From the 3/5/22 cover of The Economist

President Zelenskyy’s Call for Help

Since the very beginning of the invasion of his country, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been widely praised as a courageous leader in his beleaguered country and an exemplary advocate of freedom. He will be awarded the Ronald Reagan Freedom Award for 2022.

President Zelenskyy has repeatedly taken to the airwaves to make zealous appeals for increased military help from NATO and the U.S. He has warned that the refusal to give assistance through such means as declaring a no-fly zone over his country will result in the deaths of thousands of his citizens.

In response to that March 5 appeal, Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) said, “Let’s be cleareyed about our options: “A No-Fly Zone means sending American pilots into combat against Russian jets and air defenses—in a battle between nuclear powers that could spiral out of control quickly.”

So, how should the U.S. and NATO respond to Zelenskyy’s call for help?

Has President Biden’s and NATO’s Response been Weak?

Some in this country have used the lack of full positive response to Zelenskyy’s call as a sign of weakness on the part of President Biden.

An opinion piece in the March 11 online issue of The Christian Post is titled “The Ukrainian crisis: A catastrophic failure of leadership.” The author is Richard Land, President Emeritus of the SBC’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.

Land asserts that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was “so preventable,” pointing out that 62% of Americans believe that if Trump were still president, Russia would not have invaded.

Apparently, Land is among those 62%. He writes, “Putin feared Trump’s strength, whereas he holds Biden’s invertebrate weakness in disdain.”

He also asserts that “Biden’s weakness is illustrated by his apparent fear of what Putin might do.”

This same sort of criticism is expressed by Wendell Griffen, a progressive Baptist leader for whom I have great respect. I was disappointed, though, by what he wrote in a March 9 opinion piece.

Griffen asserted, “What perturbs Zelensky and delights Putin is the knowledge that world leaders lack the will to bring their arsenals, warriors and other war-fighting resources to bear against Putin.”

The opinion of Daniel Davis, a former lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army is far better than the two divergent Baptists just cited. Davis’s article in the March 8 post of The Guardian is titled “A no-fly zone means Nato shooting down Russian jets. We must not do that” (emphasis added).

Can there be Significant Help without Violence?

The effectiveness, and even the morality, of the violent resistance of the Ukrainian people is discussed in an article posted March 7 by Religious News Service (here). It is titled “Catholic theologians question the morality of Ukraine’s violent resistance.”

While I agree with much in that significant article, here I am writing only about the morality of help for Ukraine supplied by the U.S. and NATO—and in that regard I strongly believe that the stance taken so far by the U.S. is not a show of weakness but of prudence.

The increasing level of sanctions leveled against Russia will surely in the long run lead to a cessation of violent fighting in Ukraine. Direct military action would, no doubt, be more effective in the short run—but with the distinct possibility of leading to greater escalation of violence.

Greater military help of Ukraine now, could—and perhaps would!—lead to greater suffering, more casualties, and more violent Russian warfare not only against Ukraine but also against other European countries.

Hasty, belligerent acts by the U.S./NATO could—and perhaps would!—provoke Russia to use strategic nuclear weapons. And that could well be the beginning of World War III.

Looking at the bigger picture and the potentiality of unthinkable disaster, I am deeply grateful that the U.S. and NATO are seeking to help Ukraine mostly by non-violent (=non-military) means.

What About Christian Radicalism?

In 1970 a young man, Arthur G. Gish (b. 1939), published a book titled The New Left and Christian Radicalism. It was a slim, but powerful, book.

A couple of years later, another young man (me, b. 1938) read and was greatly influenced by Gish’s book. I have written about it before: the “Amish beard” I have worn since 1972 was partly due to my reading it (see this 2010 blog article.)

ART GISH’S VIEW OF CHRISTIAN RADICALISM

Just this past November, I again made reference to Gish’s book (see here), saying that it was “one of the most influential books I read in the 1970s—or maybe have read in my lifetime.”

The first comment I received on the latter article was from Thinking Friend Phil Rhoads. He wrote, “I wish you could give us a synopsis of Gish's 1970 book referred to.”

Well, I can’t give a full synopsis in this brief article, but I have elsewhere posted a brief summary which you can open with this link. In this article, though, I wish to think more about the meaning and feasibility of “Christian Radicalism.”

Gish’s book has two parts: The first has two chapters: an analysis of the New Left that was active in the U.S. in the 1960s and an explanation of 16^th century Anabaptism.

The second part of Gish’s book has three chapters, each of which begins with a striking statement:

                To be a Christian is to be a radical (p. 79).

                To be a Christian is to be an extremist (p. 94).

                To be a Christian is to be a subversive (p. 113).

Radicalism is closely linked to seeking revolution. Thus, Gish’s fifth and last chapter is “A Theology for Revolution”—but it is quite clear that he advocates only non-violent revolution. He is a thoroughgoing pacifist.

I have often quoted Gish’s assertion that “violent revolution is occurring because nonviolent revolution is not occurring” (p. 139). 

REFLECTING ON GISH’S VIEW

But is revolution along the lines Gish envisions possible in the contemporary world? It certainly didn’t happen in the 1960s or 1970s. And while it was somewhat a different kind of revolution Bernie Sanders and his followers sought last year, the result of the presidential election was just the opposite.

Here are some conclusions I have come to in reflecting upon Gish’s book about Christian radicalism:

(1) It is much easier to have a vision of radical (revolutionary) social change when 30 years old than 40 or more years later (notwithstanding Bernie). Most revolutionaries (peaceful or violent) and radicals (whether Christian or not) have been relatively young.

Jesus began his ministry when 30. Che Guevara’s revolutionary activity started when he was 28. Martin Luther King, Jr., who was born 88 years ago today, first became actively involved in the civil rights movement when he was 26. And so it goes.

(2) The type of revolution brought about by radical Christians, as envisioned by Gish, will be long in coming. It is not going to be a matter of a few years; it will take decades or even centuries. Kent Annan is the author of a new book titled Slow Kingdom Coming, and he makes a valid point: God’s Kingdom is coming, but it is coming very slowly. 

(3) The vision of radical Christianity that Gish set forth is an ongoing challenge for all of us who seek to be genuine Christians. It is easy to be drawn into conforming to the surrounding culture. It is easy to grow complacent, lazy, and/or tired. Serious consideration of Gish’s book helps us, still, to see visions and dream dreams (cf. Joel 2:28).

From "Just War" to "Just Peace"

New Year’s Day has come and gone and it's already in the fifth day of 2017. But do you know that January 1 was not only New Year’s Day but was also the Catholic Church’s World Day of Peace (WDP)? In fact, this year was the 50^th anniversary of the WDP. 

The Pope promotes nonviolence 

For this year’s WDP observance, Pope Francis chose the theme “Nonviolence: A Style of Politics for Peace”.

John Dear, a Catholic priest and peace activist (whom I wrote about here in 2014), has pointed out (here) that the Pope’s message on New Year’s Day was the Catholic Church’s first statement on nonviolence ever made. 

The Pope emphasized, “To be true followers of Jesus today also includes embracing his teaching about nonviolence.” He goes on to state, “The name of God cannot be used to justify violence.” (Click here to see the Pope’s entire message.)

In his WDP message Pope Francis said, “I plead for disarmament and for the prohibition and abolition of nuclear weapons.”

Those important words by the Pope were made public last month about two weeks before the PEOTUS (foolishly? dangerously?) tweeted, “The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.”

The long “just war” position

The term “just war” was introduced by Augustine of Hippo in his early fifth century book The City of God. It was later articulated in depth by 13th-century theologian Thomas Aquinas. At present, it is outlined by four conditions in the formal Catechism of the Catholic Church. 

(See here for a brief statement of “the traditional elements” in what the Catechism calls the “‘just war’ doctrine.”)

A major problem, though, is this: the leaders of every country that is at least somewhat culturally Christian thinks that all wars they engage in are just wars. When have you ever heard the political leader of a Western country admit that their country’s war activities were not just?

When will you ever hear that? My guess is, Never.

In February 1991, then-President Bush sought to assure the American public that his proposed Gulf War conformed to the historic principles of Just War theory.

(It is perhaps noteworthy, however, that Bush II did not use that same language with regard to the Iraq War; although he would never admit it, perhaps he harbored doubts about his presumptive war being just.)

Death kneel for the “just war” doctrine?

There have always been opponents of the just war doctrine. Erasmus of Rotterdam, for example, wrote (in 1508), “The most disadvantageous peace is better than the most just war.”

Now, however, key leaders in the Catholic Church have spoken against it. “Death Knell for Just War: The Vatican’s Historic Turn toward Nonviolence” is the title of John Dear’s article in the Autumn 2016 issue of Plough. (Click here to see that important article.)

(And if you are interested, see this link for an article I wrote last summer about Plough.)

Dear’s article was about the Vatican’s Nonviolence and Just Peace Conference held in April of last year. That seminal meeting issued a document titled “An Appeal to the Catholic Church to Recommit to the Centrality of Gospel Nonviolence.” That appeal included a call for the Church to no longer use or teach “just war theory.”

The Pope seems to have followed that guideline in his World Peace Day message.

My prayer is that all Christians, and others, will heed the recent Catholic call for movement from “just war” to “just peace” and will seek to sanction only nonviolence as the style of politics for peace.

Radical Christianity vs. Radical Islam

Years ago I taught a Christian Studies course at Seinan Gakuin University titled “Radical Christianity.” The Japanese word for “radical,” just like the English one, had to be defined, for it was a term easily misunderstood.

As part of my explanation I told the students how the English word, which is often transliterated into Japan, comes from the Latin word radix, which means root. So my emphasis was that radical Christianity was the sort of belief and practice that went back to its roots, to Jesus and his teaching and activities.

(By the way, do you know about Radix, the “radical” Christianity magazine? I subscribed to it for several years, beginning soon after its initial appearance in 1976.)

In explaining what radical Christianity looks like in Christian history, I talked about people such as Francis of Assisi, Kagawa Toyohiko, Martin Luther King Jr., and Clarence Jordan (among others).

The only examples I used were Christians who believed in and practiced non-violence and who were devoted to social justice. And I still believe those are characteristics of what radical Christianity should, and does, embrace.

In recent years the term “radical Islam” has been widely used—and in such cases radical has a completely different meaning—or does it? In general use, radical means “associated with political views, practices, and policies of extreme change” (Merriam-Webster). Used this way, it most often includes use of violence to bring about that change.

Christianity changed from its radical beginnings to become more and more aligned with violence (war). In contrast, until the recent rise of the Taliban, ISIS, and other such radical groups, Islam became more and more peaceful through the centuries.

“Muhammad and the Caliphate” is the first chapter of the massive tome titled The Oxford History of Islam (1999). It is explained there that beginning in 627 Muhammed “launched raids against Meccan caravans, seizing valuable booty and hostages.”

Then by a “series of raids and battles” Muhammad was able to subdue some of his opponents and by “outright force” was able to subdue other groups.

Soon after Muhammed’s death in 632, Abu Bakr, his successor, sanctioned the “Apostasy wars” and then by “shows of force” brought the entire Arabian peninsula under his control by 634 (pp. 10-11).

The British historian Hugh Kennedy is the author of The Great Arab Conquests (2007). In his first chapter Kennedy explains how Muhammad’s “military campaigns” were “the beginning of the Muslim conquests. His example showed that armed force was going to be an acceptable and important element first in the defence of the new religion and then in its expansion.”

Kennedy also writes, “The Prophet’s example meant that there was no parallel to the tendency to pacificism [sic] so marked in early Christianity” (p. 48).

In spite of the changes that later took place, both in Christianity and Islam, it seems indisputable that the nature of the public activities of Jesus and Mohammed from the beginning to the end of their lives differed greatly. There was also great difference in the activities of the followers of Jesus and Mohammed in the decades after their deaths.

Restoring radical Christianity is a challenging and worthy goal for all Christians, and one I continue to promote. How badly most contemporary Christians need to go back to following the radical teachings and activities of Jesus!

On the other hand, staunchly opposing radical Islam, such as embodied by ISIS, as well as affirming and supporting the peaceful Islam that has developed through the centuries and widely practiced here in the U.S. now is also badly needed.