Beating our Ploughshares into Swords
Long enough have I been dwelling With those who hate peace.
I am for peace, but when I speak, They are for fighting.
(Psalm 119/120)
This verse has never been more relevant in light of current electoral politics. Presidential candidates are falling all over themselves trying to appear tough on potential enemies, one saying he would “carpet bomb ISIS,” the self-proclaimed Islamic state, “into oblivion.”
One of the many ironies of Christianity, now and historically, is that so many of us who proclaim Christianity ignore what Jesus, our church’s leader and founder, had to say about violence.
Taking his cue from the spirit of the psalm above, Jesus covers the subject in his famous Sermon on the Mount. According to Revised Standard Version of the gospel of Mathew, he tries to get his listeners to understand that the age-old sayings that they live by aren’t what God intends, that he expects much more of his followers than what is acceptable to the culture.
Turning the other cheek
“You have heard that it was said, ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist one who is evil. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if anyone would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well.”
Perhaps this is an instance of the literary technique called hyperbole, the exaggeration-for-effect that is common in the Bible. Jesus often used it to get his point across. Other examples include the “plank in the eye” that he uses in an analogy about judging others and his suggestion that we “hate” our family members for the sake of his kingdom.
But we can’t use this as an excuse to ignore what he was trying to say about violence. At the minimum, it surely means that his followers shouldn’t initiate violence or retaliate, and in giving one’s “cloak as well” that we should be lavish in our generosity. Ok, but what about defendin oneself or one’s family, or one’s country?
Many defend violence by resorting to the Hebrew Bible, with its sometimes warlike language, or the Book of Revelation in the Christian Bible with its mysterious apocalyptic language. Jesus certainly used violent language against the religious establishment of his time and in the cleansing of the Temple, used physical violence. But overall, he preached non-violence and acquiesced in his own execution, the model of unjustified violence.
Not entirely clear
But as with many issues, the Bible isn’t entirely clear and most of us need help to know if and when violence is justified. We often have to depend on interpretations of his words and actions. And although many of my fellow Christians would not agree, I believe the “just war theory” is a reasonable way of interpreting what Jesus intended. If followed, I believe it would eliminate 99 percent of the violence in this world.
The famous 4th century bishop and theologian Augustine of Hippo was the first among Christian scholars to consider how violence can be justified. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century elaborated, providing the basis for the just-war doctrine taught by the Catholic Church, to which I belong.
It provides four basic conditions that could justify war:
- That damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations contemplating war must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- That all other means to end it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- That a planned war must have serious prospects of success;
- That the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.
In our time, the prospect of nuclear war appears to make meeting the last criterion virtually impossible.
As people search for God, they need to be more God-like and not buy into warlike positions. A prophecy of Isaiah envisions God helping humans to “beat their swords into ploughshares.” How can we talk of beating our ploughshares into swords?
