I didn’t want to respond point by point to Kim’s “propositions” on peace and war, but it seems I will have to. Of the ten propositions only three offer any compelling explanatory power. The rest are either expansions of the three or “mere opinion”. Rather than make this post way too long, I’ll just offer my responses. For the initial propositions you’ll have to follow the link above.
1. It does not follow that if God is the god of peace then he is a pacifist. Peace and pacifism are not the same, but even in Kim’s title Peace is put in place of pacifism. Equating these two terms is a stretching beyond the bounds of what they mean. Additionally, it does not follow that God wants “pacifism” or “non-violence” between himself and humanity. He wants peace between himself and humanity. How Kim manages to extract “non-violence” from the wider term and meaning of peace is beyond me. Of course, this wouldn’t be the first time I’ve missed something.
2. I’ve already spoken in the comments of the original post about this, but this is, again, a stretch beyond what the texts themselves aim to deliver. We do not have a complete view (even if we use all available Jesus texts) of the life that Jesus practiced. We can at best make inferences, but even these inferences must be made within the continuum of 1st century Judaisms. In this proposition Kim would have us believe we have enough information to inform us about Jesus’ preaching and practice. I’m sorry, but I don’t think we make make these claims in the certain way in which Kim offers them.
3. When we a priori presume as Kim has done in proposition 1 and 2 that Jesus practices of pacifism (point 2) were an embodiment of the divine nature (point 1) then there must be a harmonization of the texts where violence is mentioned. In such a short reponse all I can offer is that the interpretation presented by Kim are in no way agreed upon by all and still hotly debated depending on which a priori assumption you come to the table with. We must resist interpretation of the Christian scriptures using our a priori assumptions.
4. Kim whispers the voices of supersessionism to reduce the effectiveness of the arguments offered by Torah. As I’ve stated elsewhere there is no evidence whatsoever that the earliest followers of Jesus (Jews) discontinued or abandoned strict observance of the Torah.
5. I agree with Kim that the people of God misunderstood, misapplied or refused to apply the commands contained in the Sermon on the Mount. Again, Kim intends his particular interpretation of these texts to be the “most correct” understanding and therefore applied to his ethic of pacifism. Whether his interpretation is in fact the “most correct” I leave to the reader. Again, see point three above.
6. An argument using the “failure” of Just War Theory. Sure we get it wrong, but what does this have to do with a theological view of pacifism (or Peace if you prefer)?
7. Again more anecdotal information regarding contemporary failures. I feel the frustration and agree that we get it wrong, but, again, what does this have to do with the theological view of pacifism (again, Peace if you prefer)?
8. and 9. I’m surprised to see Kim reach back to the “roots” argument. How do we know, unless we assume Kim’s position, that these roots got it right and that their view represent an ideal? A reaching back into time argument doesn’t really work here I’m afraid. We have to demonstrate why they believed what they did, not simply that they believed certain things. This arguments fails to explain.
10. Kim wants us to, as a community, “try pacifisim”, but why should we try something if it is not an ideal we ought aspire to? Kim thinks he has established this in the above propositions, but falls short in my opinion. Kim goes so far to equate loving our enemies with the very concept of pacifism bypassing other ideals such as justice, fairness and mercy.
As should be clear by now, Kim fails to convince me that pacifism is both an ideal communicated in the Christian scriptures and a prescriptive virtue to be practiced above others. Anytime I see a binary (this OR that) approach it warns me to be cautious. To misquote Meier, ” “Indeed the usefulness of the historical Jesus to theology is that he ultimately eludes all our neat theological [or idealogical] programs.” Until we think carefully and clearly about the myriad issues involved we will fall back into these binary distinctions. No matter how strongly we may feel about certain issues using religion or “Jesus Ethics” to promote one particular view just doesn’t work. Well, it can “work”, but you won’t have any succifient justification.
Now, my rant. It is easy to say we must begin the quest to free ourselves from the ravages of war. It is easy to say that pacifism is the only real, noble, virtuous answer to the world’s troubles. However, it is difficult to do when we witness the atrocities committed ALL over the world against those that cannot help themselves or do not have the ability to defend themselves. What is the world, filled with those that want to rid the world of war and pursue peace, going to say when thousands are being slaughtered when they say these easy words? What are they going to do? We can’t start with a clean slate, where all countries and cultures will forgive one another for the crimes perpetrated against them at some time in the recent or distant past. We can move toward a condition where war may not be required, but right now people are dying and saying things does not protect those lives. Should we pursue non-violent means of resolution? Certainly, but everyone in the world does not share a common ethic. In short, this issue isn’t as neat and tidy as some would like you to believe. It requires care, compassion and balance. Beware the binary solutions.
