Sentinels Prayer Update - "Religious Battles & The Christian Stance on War"

April 2009

Web Source: http://www.link-zone.net/sentinelsprayer/09updates/april.html

The Face of War has Changed - John Stott

During the 50 years between 1945 and 1995 there were 80 wars. Yet of these only 28 were in 'traditional' wars between the regular armies of nation-states, while 46 were civil or guerilla wars.

What, then, are the causes of this escalation of violence?

Professor Samuel P Huntingdon of Harvard, in his book, The Clash of Civilisations and the Remaking of World Order, develops a thesis that, whereas during the Cold War global politics had been 'bipolar' (between the two super powers), after the Cold War it has become 'multipolar and multi-civilisational.' In particular, 'in coping with identity crisis, what counts for people are blood and belief, faith and family. People rally to those with similar ancestry, religion, language, values and institutions, and distance themselves from those with different ones.' Thus today the important distinctions between people are not so much ideological and political as cultural.

[Stott John, New Issues Facing Christianity Today, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1999, Page 82]

People NOW talk and ARGUE about God ALL the time! - Madeleine Albright

After 911 Madeleine Albright's view of the world was shaken ... having grown up in a world where God was spoken of privately and having served in a government that disaffirmed the importance of religion she suddenly understood something that had actually been evident for some time:

"... almost everywhere, religious movements are thriving!"

Madeleine Albright, who served as US Secretary of State from 1997 to 2001, speaks openly and honestly about her faith and the role of faith in politics, in her book, The Mighty and the Almighty.

She proudly expounds the importance of American leadership saying:

"why wouldn't I? When I was a little girl, US soldiers crossed the ocean to help save Europe from the menace of Adolf Hitler. When I was barely in my teens, the American people welcomed my family after the communists seized power in my native Czechoslovakia. Unlike most in my generation who were born in Central Europe, I had the chance to grow up in a democracy, a privilege for which I will forever be grateful."

Her religious background, she learned late in life that her heritage is Jewish, was fairly typical of the day. She was raised a devout Roman Catholic and her sense of morality was 'molded' by her church and her 'parent's instruction.'

As an immigrant and daughter of a former Czechoslovakian diplomat she describes her self as "primarily interested in world affairs" although she did not 'view the great issues of the day through the prism of religion.' Conforming with others of her generation she explains, "I did not consider spiritual faith a subject to talk about in public," and quotes 60's scholar Michael Novak's analysis of the day:

"As matters now stand, the one word [that could not be used] in serious conversation without upsetting someone is 'God.'

In the 1980's she became a Professor at Georgetown University, specialising in foreign policy. According to the icons of this time, 'foreign policy was compared to a game of chess; cerebral with both sides knowing the rules ... a contest governed by logic.'

"I cannot remember," she says, "any leading American diplomat speaking in depth about the role of religion in shaping the world. Religion was not a respecter of national borders; it was above and beyond reason; it evoked the deepest passions ... diplomats in my era were taught not to invite trouble and no subject seemed more inherently treacherous than religion."

This was the understanding that guided her and her colleagues during these years, so much so she explains that "when Professor Samuel Huntington of Harvard predicted that an era following the end of the cold war might well witness an interreligious 'clash of civilisations,' we did all we could to distance ourselves from that theory. We had in mind a future in which nations and regions would draw closer as democratic bonds grew stronger, not a world splitting apart along historic fault lines of culture and creed."

This was reflected in the way Madeleine describes the efforts of the Clinton government, her roles being Ambassador to the UN and Secretary of State, to negotiate peace in troubled regions:

Then came the terror attacks of 9/11 which she says were a wake up call to many foreign policy professionals:

"I have had to adjust the lens through which i view the world, comprehending something that seemed to be a new reality but that had actually been evident for sometime ... almost everywhere, religious movements are thriving..."

"In contrast to Michael Novak's observation four decades ago, "people now talk and argue about God all the time"

• What does one make of this phenomnon?
• How can we best manage a world in which there are many religions with belief systems which flatly contradict one another at key points?
• How do we deal with the threat posed by extremists who, acting in the name of God, try to impose their will on others?
  

"... the nature of this test extends back to pagan times and is therefore nothing new; what is new is the extent of damage violence can inflict. This is where technology has truly made a difference. A religious war fought with swords, chain mail, catapults, and battering rams is one thing. A war fought with high explosives against civilian targets is quite another. And the prospect of a nuclear bomb detonated by terrorists in purported service to the Almighty is a nightmare that may one day come true."

"... Religious scholars I have consulted are passionate about the need for political leaders to educate themselves in the varieties of faith and to see religion more as a potential means for reconciliation than as a source of conflict.

[Adapted/condensed from] Albright Madeleine, The Mighty and The Almighty, Reflections on Power, God and World Affairs, Harpers Collins Publishers, 2006, Pages 5-11

Religious Battles in the Nations - They Need our Prayer

We feature Elizabeth Kendall's updates on Religious Liberty in Link-Zone's pages - the following information is excerpted from some of her recent articles - links take you to the full article.

IRAN:

There is a very real possibility that persecution of the Church will continue to escalate in Iran in line with its aspirations for Shi'ite ascendancy and the regime's desire for leadership of the Muslim world. Both aims are being pursued and advanced through dangerous anti-Semitism and defiance of the West, which includes an overt, hardline, Islamic rejection of Western-style religious liberty.

Meanwhile, Iran has a negative birth rate, widespread poverty and endemic prostitution, drug addiction and suicide emanating from disillusionment and despair. Iranians need liberty; they need the gospel of Jesus Christ.

http://www.link-zone.net/columnelizabethkendall.shtml

NIGERIA:

In January 2000, Governor Ahmad Sani Yarima Bakura defied the Nigerian Constitution and enacted Shari'ah Law in his north western state of Zamfara. Other northern and middle-belt Muslim-majority states soon followed and it was not long before all 12 northern states were under Shari'ah Law: the constitution of the Islamic State. In religiously mixed middle-belt states such as Kaduna and Plateau, thousands -- mostly Christians -- died in Shari'ah riots and anti-Christian pogroms.

Nigeria has a secular constitution which guarantees religious freedom and does not permit states to adopt a religion (See Link 1). Adoption of Islamic Law as the law of the state does violate the constitution. It is extremely unfortunate that the federal government did not nip the Shari'ah movement in the bud while it had the chance. Then-president Olusegun Obasanjo seriously underestimated the Shari'ah movement, believing it would fade away by itself. But of course it did not. Instead it has transformed from bud to monstrous ticking time bomb.

http://www.link-zone.net/elizabethkendall/2009/03nigeria.shtml

SOMALIA, KENYA:

Since Ethiopia withdrew its forces in January 2009, virtually all southern Somalia has fallen under the control of a Taliban-style, al- Qaeda-backed Islamic fundamentalist group called al-Shabaab. Unappeased by the new Islamist-dominated government's imposition of Sharia Law, they are presently fighting for control of the capital, Mogadishu.

The population of Somalia (including self-declared independent Somaliland and semi-autonomous Puntland) is estimated at around eleven million. Further to this an estimated six million ethnic Somalis -- migrants and refugees -- live across the borders in North Eastern Kenya, eastern Ethiopia (the Ogaden), Djibouti and Yemen.

A further million live in the West, particularly in the UK, Scandinavia and North America.

http://www.link-zone.net/elizabethkendall/2009/somalia.shtml

SAUDI ARABIA:

In August 08 the Religious Liberty Prayer (RLP) ministry issued a prayer bulletin entitled: "Saudi Arabia: shaken by apostasy and dissidence." () The case at the centre of the prayer bulletin was that of a young Saudi woman, Fatima Al-Mutairi (26), who revealed in her blog that she had converted to Christianity. When her brother (or father: reports vary), an officer with the Commission for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, learned of her conversion, he reportedly cut out her tongue and burned her to death.

Gulf News reported: "The death of the girl sent shockwaves and websites where the victim used to write with various nicknames have allocated special space to mourn her, while some others closed temporarily in protest."

The RLP bulletin highlighted the tensions that are rising in totalitarian Islamic states where Islam is traditionally protected from "blasphemy" (criticism) and "apostasy" (rejection). Today globalisation and advances in information and communication technologies are providing avenues through which differing opinions and ideas infiltrate once closed, totalitarian societies. After discovering diversity, curious and enquiring minds then discover what it means to be living in a culture of no liberty in a land of no difference.

http://www.link-zone.net/elizabethkendall/2009/saudiarabia.shtml

INDONESIA:

"Religious violence is on the rise in the world's largest Muslim country according to a report by the Wahid Institute http://www.wahidinstitute.org/ , which places the blame on the government for its failing to crack down on radical groups.

"The institute, a moderate Islamic think tank founded by former president Abdurrahman 'Gus Dur' Wahid to promote pluralism in Indonesia, reported that religious freedom-related violence had increased throughout the country, with 232 cases reported this year compared to 197 last year.

"Many of the incidences of violence were perpetrated by state authorities, according to the annual report released on Human Rights Day, Wednesday [10 Dec]. "'The acts of violence against religious freedom were 60 percent carried out by civilian groups and 33 percent by the state,' the report said."It said the state perpetrators included local administrations, police, legislators, courts and the Religious Affairs Ministry.

Herein lies the great threat to Kyrgyzstan. Escalating, endemic, systematic corruption is empowering the Islamic fundamentalist revolutionary group Hizb ut-Tahrir (HuT). HuT, which has perfected the art of exploiting grievance and victimhood for its own political ends, is a legitimate threat to the peace, security and secularity of Central Asia.

http://www.link-zone.net/elizabethkendall/2009/kyrgystan.shtml

LEBANON:

Lebanon is now, in the words of Barry Rubin, "part of the Iranian bloc" and Hezballah is free to advance its war agenda unhindered.

Lebanon's fall will probably go down as the most geo-strategically significant event of 2008. Yet there was barely a sound. Instead of crashing like a major tsunami-inducing earthquake, the fall of Lebanon was more akin to a small, weak, abandoned man being kicked into quicksand by a pack of bullies. And as darkness envelopes this poor sinking man, his supposed friends, from the comfort and safety of their faraway palaces, praise all parties for avoiding war and! making peace.

http://www.link-zone.net/elizabethkendall/2008/06lebanon.shtml

MALDIVES:

On 29 October [2008] history was made in Islamic Maldives when a peaceful transition of power was achieved through free and fair democratic elections. Maumoon Abdul Gayoom -- an Islamic scholar who had ruled Maldives as a dictator for some 30 years -- was defeated in a presidential run-off by former political prisoner, torture victim and long-time reform-advocate Mohammad Nasheed (popularly known as "Anni") of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

On 3 September, Maldives' six presidential candidates appeared on a panel to answer questions on their political aspirations. Nasheed told state television that if he were elected president he would run a compassionate government committed to reducing the cost of living, improving housing, improving inter-island trade and transport, improving healthcare, eliminating monopolies and corruption in fish markets, and developing more equity in service provision across island communities. Concerning human rights he said: "It is very important for the citizens' human rights to be protected."

... When Nasheed announced his cabinet in early November, Adaalath Scholar's council president, Dr Abdul Majeed Abdul Bari -- who believes music is "haram" and apostates should be executed was named Minister of Islamic Affairs.

http://www.link-zone.net/elizabethkendall/2008/maldives.shtml

VIETNAM:

On Friday 19 September at around 1 am a pro-government gang attacked the Thai Ha chapel, ransacking the altar and vandalising church property. Then at around 11.20 pm on Sunday 21 September a 200-strong gang surrounded the monastery and attempted to gain access, smashing everything in their way. "In what one priest called a 'sort of terrorism' against the Catholic faithful, the gang ransacked the building, destroying statues and books while shouting threats against the lives of clergy and religious, Catholic faithful, and the Archbishop of Hanoi." (Link 9)

In each case, the police did not intervene.

http://www.link-zone.net/elizabethkendall/2008/vietnam.shtml

Christian Viewpoints on War - John Stott

"... all Christian people affirm that the Kingdom of God inaugurated by Jesus is God's rule of righteousness, to pursue peace, to forbear revenge, to love enemies, in other words to be marked by the cross; and that in the consummated Kingdom

'they will beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning hooks,' for nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war any more' (Isaiah 2:4)

All this must mean that, as Christians, we are primarily commited to peace and righteousness. True, the quest for peace with justice is much more costly than appeasement. We also admire the loyalty, self sacrifice and courage of serving soldiers. Yet we must not glamorize or glorify war in itself however just we may perceive its cause to be. Some Christians believe that in some circumstances it may be defended as the lesser of two evils, but it could never by regarded by the Christian mind as more than a painful necessity in a fallen world.

.... there are three main positions which Christians hold and defend:

1. The Total Pacifist Position

Pacifists tend to begin with the Sermon on the Mount. At least it is from this part of the teaching of Jesus that many develop their commitment to non-violence. We are not to resist an evil person .... if he strikes us on the right cheek, we are to turn to him the other also. We are to love our enemies, do good to those who hate us and pray for those who persecute us.....

... Jesus practised what He preached. He exemplified his call to non-resistance. For he resisted neigher betrayal nor arrest, neither trial nor sentence, neither torture nor crucifixion. When he was insulted, he did not retaliate. He was the innocent, suffering Servant of the Lord. 'He was led like a lamb to the slaughter and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth' (Isaiah 53:7). He loved those who despised and rejected him. He even prayed for the forgiveness of those who nailed him to the cross.

Thus pacifists conclude, the teaching and example of Jesus together commit us to the way of non-resistance and non-violence.

2. The "Just War" Tradition

The concept of the 'just war' may be traced back to the 'holy wars' of the Old Testament and tos ome Greek and Roman ethical teaching. The notion was christianised by Augustine in the 4th Century, however systemised by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th, further developed by Francisco de Vitoria in the 16th and endorsed by most of the Reformers. It is held by the majority of Roman Catholics and Protestants today.

It has been stated in various forms, although usually seven conditions have been specified, namely formal declaration, last resort, just cause, right intention, proportionate means, non-combatant immunity and reasonable expectation.

....for a war to be 'just,' FIRSTLY, its cause must be righteous. It must be defensive and not aggressive. Its objectives must be to secure justice or remedy injustice, to protect the innocent or champion human rights. It must be undertaken as a last resort only, after all attempts at negotiation and reconciliation have been exhausted, and then only after a formal declaration (following an ultimatum) by a legitimate authority, not by groups or individuals. Moreover, the intention must be as righteous as the cause. Just causes are not served by unjust motives. So there must be no hatred, no animosity, no thirst for revenge.

SECONDLY, its means must be controlled. There must be no wanton or unneccessary violence. In fact two key words are used to describe the legitimate use of violence in a just cause.

One is 'proportionate' and the other 'discriminate'.

Proportionate signifies that the war is perceived as the lesser of two evils, that violence inflicted is proportionately less than that which it is intended to remedy and that the ultimate gains will outweigh the losses.

'Discriminate' means that the war is directed against the enemy combatants and military targets and that civilians are immune. We have to concede that the total immunity of non-combatants is impossible to preserve. But in a 'just war' the distinction must be preserved and the intentional killing of civilians outlawed.

THIRDLY, its outcome must be predictable. That is, like the king in Jesus' parable who 'counted the cost' before going to war (Luke 14:31-2), there must be a calculated prospect of victory, and of achieving the just cause for which the war was begun.

To sum up, a 'just war' is one fought for a righteous cause, by controlled means, with a reasonable expectation of success.

The Just war theory is only a tradition .... can it be commended from scripture? Some try to do so on the basis of wars commanded and directed by Yahweh in the Old Testament. But this is a precarious procedure, since these were expressly sanctioned and not nation can claim today to enjoy Israel's privileged position as a 'holy' nation, God's special covenant people, a unique theocracy.

A more secure basis is provided by Paul's teaching about the state in Romans 13:1-7, and its context. It is actually embedded in a passabe about neighbour-love, since it is preceded by injunctions to love and serve our enemies (12:14-21) and followed by statements that love and never harms our neighbour (113:8-10). We are confronted by a difficult exegetical problem. In particular, the end of Romans 12 and the beginning of Romans 13 appear to be in conflict with one another. .... The first say that evil doers must be served ... the second that they are to be punished ...?

... It is better to see the end of Romans 12 and the beginning of Romans 13 as complementary to one another. Members of God's new community can be both private individuals and state officials. In the former role we are never to take personal revenge or repay evil for evil, but rather we are to bless our persecutors. (12:14) serve our enemies (12:20) and seek to overcome evil with good (12:21).

In the latter role however, if we are called by God to serve as police or prison officers or judges, we are God's agents in the punishment of evil-doers. True, vengeance and wrath belong to God, but one way in which he executes his judgment on evil doers nowadays is through the state. To leave 'room for God's Wrath' (12:19) means to allow the state to be an agent of wrath to bring punushment on the wrongdoer' (13:4). This is not to say that the administration of justice should not be tempered with mercy. It should. And state officials should be concerned not only to 'punish' evil but to overcome' it, since retributive and reformative justice should go hand in hand.

Nevertheless, what this passage of Scripture emphasizes is that, if evil is to be punished (as it deserves to be) then the punishment must be administered by the state and its officials, and not by individuals who take the law into their own hands.

It should be clear then that the state's punishing role is strictly limited and controlled. There is no possible justification in Romans 13:1-7 for an oppressive regime to whom the words 'law and order' have become a synonym for tyrrany.

3. Relative or Nuclear Pacifism

The invention of nuclear weapons brought an entirely new dimension to the debate about war. The old categories of conventional wisdom seemed to become as obsolete as the old weapons of conventional warfare. Both scientists and theologians began to call for new and bold thinking ... everybody knows that if nuclear war were ever to be unleashed, the casualties would be numbered in hundreds of millions, and could not be limited (as they largely have been in the past...) to armies confronting one another.

... To 'shed blood' is to take life by violent means, in other words to kill. But human life, being the life of humans made in the image of God, is sacrosanct. In the Old Testament the shedding of blood was strictly forbidden except by specific divine sanction, i.e. in the execution of a murderer and in wars explicitly authorised by God ... A distinction was made in the Old Testament times not only between murder and manslaughter, but also between blood shed in war (which was permissable) and blood shed in peace (which was not). Thus when Joab killed Abner and Amasa, the two commanders of Israel's army, David condemned him for avenging in time of peace blood which had been shed in war, and so bringing upon David's house the guilt of shedding innocent blood (1 Kings 2:5, 31-4).

... The same horror over the shedding of innocent blood continues in the New Testament. Judas confessed that he had 'betrayed innocent blood' (Matthew 27:4) and when Pilate claimed to be 'innocent of this man's blood' the people recklessly responded "Let his blood be on us and on our children' (Matthew 27:24-5)

The biblical evidence on this matter is an impressively united testimony from the time of the patriarchs through the law and the prophets to the New Testament ... To shed the blood of the innocent is therefore the gravest social sin, whether committed personally in murder or judicially by an oppressive regime.

... The biblical message must not be evaded. The judicial authority God has given the state, including use of the sword (Romans 13:4) is strictly limited. In the case of the Police it is to be used only to arrest criminals and bring them to justice, in the case of the army, only to engage in a just war for a just end. In both cases the immunity of the innocents is to be ensured - law abiding citizens in peace-time and of non-combatants in war time.

... if it is legitimate to resist an aggressor nation, it is legitimate to regard its army as its agent in a way that its civilian population are not. This distinction is endorsed both by International Law ('the protection of civilian persons in time of war) and by biblical teaching (the prohibition of the shedding of innocent blood). It applies in two ways:

1. The principle of non-combatant immunity condemns the indiscriminate use of 'conventional' (i.e. non-nuclear) weapons. (example given is the WWII saturation or obliteration bombings of towns etc)

2. Secondly the principle of non-combatant immunity condemns the use of all indiscriminate weapons. (i.e. chemical, biological, atomic or nuclear weapons)

... These three (atomic, biological, chemical) are sometimes referred to as 'ABC' weapons; they surely constitute the most gruesome alphabet ever conceived. The invention and refinement of ABC weapons, especially nuclear devices, have radically changed the context n which one has to think about the morality of war; they challenge the relevance of the 'just war' theory .... Therefore the christian conscience must declare the use of indiscriminate nuclear weapons and also chemical and biological weapons immoral.

A nuclear war could never be a 'Just War'

[Adapted/Condensed from] Stott John, New Issues Facing Christianity Today, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1999, Pages 98-109