Another post over on Intellectual Defenestration has caught my attention again. This one is a critique of the position that the sixth command, "Thou shalt not kill," is to be taken at face value. There is never a reason to take human life. Whether it be self-defense, defense of another, just war, capital punishment, whatever, the command is still the same, "Do not kill-ever." While agreeing with the desire to uphold life at all costs, Nathan homes in on the fatal flaw of this reading, "Pacifism fails, I think, because it ultimately becomes a commitment to the principle of upholding life, rather than a commitment to actually upholding life." I think he's right. I also believe that there is a deeper dichotomy to consider.
The commitment to preserve human life is ultimately based upon the creation of that life in the imago dei. It does not follow from this, however, that the only or even the primary means of honoring this image will be found in the preservation of a human life or even of human lives. To put it another way, simply being alive is not all there is to being made in the image of God. If it were, then the Bible itself has severely complicated the picture with all of its divinely sanctioned wars and death penalties and slaughterings. And, though it is true that no one today has any sort of a mandate for Joshua like conquest, this is not a thing relegated entirely to the barbaric OT. "The one in authority," says Paul, "does not bear the sword in vain."
Leading into this, Paul had just said, "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities." This is not, as may be supposed, mere pragmatic advice for model citizenship. It does not fit neatly into that outline of Romans whereby 1-11 are theological and 12-16 are practical. The book does follow a structure that divides it up like this, but the split is not between the sacred and the secular, or between faith and practice. It is between the already and the not yet. It is a book of the covenant and of Covenant, i.e., Federal Heads. It is written to the church, which is already in Christ, but not yet loosed from Adam. The first part of the book is a soteriological contrast between the first and second Adams. For now, I am more interested in the second part. This section is also centered around the covenant. In this case, however, Paul is concerned with what unites us with the rest of world. It isn't simply that they're people too. Paul is still thinking covenantally and, this time, he expresses this with allusions to the imago dei and creation mandates.
The imago dei is not a passive descriptor of each living individual. It is rather a covenantal concept whereby mankind, living in community, upholds and displays the communicable attributes of God. Still considering the topic of human government, Paul writes, "For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." In particular, the attribute that defines the essence of governing authorities functioning within the parameters of their ordination is justice. The preservation of of the imago dei is found in a corresponding preservation of human life. Yet, even more so, it is found in the practice of justice. "He does not bear the sword in vain."
The first scriptural record of God's institution of government is found in the post-flood covenant. This should not be taken as the first time government itself is instituted by God. The institution thereof is a part of the creation covenant, of which that following the flood is a republication. The specific inscripturation of government's institution is found in Genesis 9:6, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image." The explanation concerning the imago dei is not given so much in connection with the first clause as it is with the second. The command, "Thou shalt not kill, " is upheld, not in pacifism, but in the exercise of justice. When a life is unjustly taken, the fulfillment of the law is not that another life be unjustly spared, but that justice take it as well. Capital punishment and just war theory exist because of the sixth commandment, not in disregard to it.
What about taking another life either in self-defense or in defense of another? This, too, is a matter of justice. If person A is about to murder person B then I am complicit in that murder if I could have stopped it, even if this includes taking the life of person A. Justice is served both in preserving the innocent life and, if need be, in taking the life of the guilty. On the other hand, I am not justified in taking the life of someone who has already taken a life. There is a difference between justified self-defense and vigilantism. Vengeance belongs to the Lord and is justly exercised only by those to whom it is given. These are the ones appointed by God, who do not bear the sword in vain.
Have you read any of the major Christian pacifists on this? the "principle of upholding life" criticism does not really stick to them, by my reading. Their approach (and I'm referring specifically to Yoder and Hauerwas here) is that we should not take life because of the example of Jesus Christ. Thus their pacifism is not some sort of averarching priciple of statecraft, but rather a statement about how the church should behave.
I'm not saying they are right in this, just that you are not interacting with a main feature of Christian non-violence thought. The way they look at things, we follow Christ in allowing our rights to be stripped away. While we certainly have a "right" to self-defence, they would say that Jesus asks us to not exercise such a right.
Posted by: Paul Baxter at fevereiro 14, 2005 9:49 AMNo, I haven't, but it sounds interesting. Would you recommend any specific titles? It wasn't really my intent to try to interact with various features of Christian non-violence thought; only to provide a counter-claim to the absolute statement, "Do not kill-ever." Since you bring it up, though, perhaps I can try to do something with what you've described.
First, I'd have to know just what is meant by "the example of Jesus Christ." I'm usually quite skeptical of this approach to ethics. I would need to know that his behavior was not conditioned by a particular aspect of his Messianic office. It seems better to me to consider the teaching of Christ as a guide to behavior.
Second, the state cannot be informed by behavior specifically appropriate to the church. I think that I have demonstrated that capital punishment and just war are acceptable by virtue of the imago dei found in the magistrate. However, having done so, this does not necessarily mean that the church, or those in the church, may do the same things. It may be the case that a pacifistic call to the church would preclude its members from holding the office of a magistrate or from being soldiers. In this case, however, the example of scripture is relevant and it does not bear this conclusion out. Those converts whose professions necessarily entail violence are never told to stop what they're doing.
In regard to self-defense, the decision not to exercise such a right is an example of Christian liberty. Conversely, so is the decision to defend ourselves with deadly force. I would need to be shown from scripture that Jesus actually does ask us to do otherwise. But I'm not so sure that, of one who is able, the failure to use deadly force in defense of another life is a matter of liberty. It looks more to me like an accomplice to murder. As before, though, I am willing to be convinced otherwise.