Time to resist
by Ray Gaston

With the UN inspectors arriving in Iraq and the increasing likelihood of our country becoming embroiled in another U.S.—led war, how should Christians respond? [Ed. note: Gaston writes from England.] In recent weeks the Anglican church, through the House of Bishops, has expressed caution and the Roman hierarchy has questioned moves toward war, but is it not time for Christians to be bolder in our opposition to the move toward war? Our mild-mannered criticism often fails to address/recognize the "bigger picture" of a world dominated by U.S. imperialism. Our obsession with institutional church crises prevents us from drawing clear parallels between our existing context and the context of Jesus, presenting the radically relevant and challenging message of the gospel to our world and discovering its power afresh.

Jesus was a radical prophet who posed resistance to both Roman rule and the established religious authorities of his time. Jesus preached the good news of God's reconciling love, a good news that was not easy for those in authority to welcome but was a word of liberation to the poor and marginalized. His challenge to the religious authorities of his time was a challenge to the institutional tendencies through which the liberating message given to the people of Moses had been transformed into a legalistic ideology which now oppressed those people and itself collaborated with the oppression of Rome. He spoke, too, against the religious "terrorists" of his time – the Zealots and others who sought to defeat the Romans by indiscriminate violence against Roman authority and ordinary Roman people. He challenged people to "love their enemy," to "pray for their persecutors" – a truly radical perspective.

Jesus' call in the Sermon on the Mount to nonviolent direct action through shaming the oppressor was a creative response to Roman rule: "If someone strikes you on the right cheek turn to him the other also." Just as creative were his healings and his approach to the elitism of the temple, challenging the religious hierarchy of his time. These actions, aimed at political and religious authorities, were matched by a call to a way of life that was deeply challenging for individual Jews facing an oppressive and barbaric foreign power, whether they were rich or poor, powerful or powerless within the Jewish social structure.

It was this triple challenge – firstly, to Roman authority, secondly, to religious authority and thirdly, to the prevailing popular culture that encouraged personal hatred of anything or anybody Roman – that led to his crucifixion. By saying this, I am not saying that Judaism was inherently legalistic and oppressive, but in Jesus' time the institutional tendency had taken over from the more prophetic tradition that sought to call the community back to its original radicalism. Similarly, in the face of Roman oppression, the temptation to resort to a limited interpretation of the "chosen" people in favor with God over other peoples, rather than responsibility to God in relation to all humanity, was too great. Jesus was a prophet in a new key. His gospel drew on that prophetic tradition, challenging institutionally dominated perspectives and racial prejudice, whilst moving it in new directions.

The crucifixion is central to this, as Paul says "foolishness to the Greeks, a stumbling block to the Jews." The self-giving, risk-taking love demonstrated in that act is what leads us as Christians to talk of Jesus as a new revelation of God, a revelation of the true Love and vulnerability of God in a world of violence, expediency and hatred. This risk-taking God answers human violence with love and the risk of vulnerability and, through that offering, opens a new way via resurrection. Christians are called to live this way of self-giving and risk-taking love that opens the way to personal and communal experiences of the hope of the peaceable Kingdom to come.

The early church recognized this with its militant pacifism. This slowly became watered down as the church became more and more incorporated into the state and the Roman Empire particularly. Christian attitudes to the violence of war became more pragmatically orientated. Augustine began the development of a "just war" theory, later developed for a different context in the 13th century by Aquinas and others, as the church increasingly became an institution of the state and a powerful "political" force in the sense of wielding influence with, and being used by, those in power. As with the Judaism of Jesus' time, so with Christianity in the post-Constantine era, the tendency toward institutionalism has had a stifling and negative influence upon the proclamation of the true gospel.

We are in a period of time in which parallels can be drawn to Jesus' own context. The Gospel is a challenge to us in three ways. Firstly, there is the challenge to U.K.—backed U.S. imperialism. Pax Americana is akin to Pax Romana in that it proclaims liberation and peace through violence and oppression, a violence that is waged through war and through the horrendously unequal distribution of the earth's resources and a neo-liberal economic philosophy – a violence of which we are a part.  Secondly, the gospel challenges our own religious institutionalism where, like the High Priests, we fear what we might lose, rather than risk letting go and living in the hope of transformation. Thirdly, it is a challenge to the violence of the oppressed, to the embittered terrorists whose rage has led them to a hatred that refuses to see the humanity of the oppressor.

The three-way challenge of Jesus is the challenge we face as Christians today and is the gospel we are called to proclaim. Firstly, to expose U.S. imperialism for what it is – violent and terrifying, in the grip of the principalities and powers and not to be seen as a benevolent force. Secondly, to push for renewal in the church and for our ecclesiastically centered preoccupations to be cast aside in favor of a confident proclamation of a radical gospel. This will lead us initially to increasing marginalization, "irrelevance" and numerical church decline but also, God willing, to a growth in discipleship. And finally, to challenge the prevailing culture of violence, whether in the form of imperialism or its opponents. In our case that means facing up to the challenge of refusing to be dominated by calls for national security in the face of the terrorism of the oppressed. It means resisting the temptation to side with the terrorism of imperialism, but challenging ourselves and others to walk the way of love. And, in response to 9/11, that means the challenge to place the search for justice for all peoples above safety, security and vengeance for ourselves and those "like us."

Christians can pick up this challenge by engaging in nonviolent direct action (NVDA) against the War on Iraq and the "war on terrorism." I accept such action is not open to everyone. However, engaging in NVDA should be a communal activity, embracing not only those who take the action in an obvious way but also the wider community of people who support them in a variety of ways – with prayer, financial support, court support, vigils, etc.

The vast majority of mainline U.K. Christians would perhaps disagree with this and consider in our present climate that war might be a necessary evil. It is a view held by perhaps the majority of Christians. However, I do not think it is a tenable Christian position. I would go as far as to say that in light of the above to support a U.S.—backed war is to sup with the devil. But even without that shocking recognition, if we look at the options the tradition offers us, it is hard to see how support for the war on terrorism and Iraq can be theologically justified.

In Christian history, as I have said, two options have been open to Christians – a radical nonviolence and various versions of a "just war" theory built upon the work of Augustine and Aquinas. The "just war" theory just does not hold up in contemporary context: Modern warfare with its civilian casualties cannot be thus legitimized. Thankfully, things are not as they were in 1914, when bishops and clergy were actively involved in recruiting soldiers to the war and claiming God was on our side. In the war of 1939—1945, a more humble church blessing was offered, however. Toward the end of the war, Bishop George Bell questioned – by application of a "just war" theory – the continued morality of the war, in the light of the blanket bombing of German cities and the Allies' refusal to countenance a negotiated peace with anti-Nazi Germans. In recent years, the church is one of the last voices in society willing to support war, confining itself to maintaining a largely cowardly silence, a hand-wringing reluctant support, as it did for the war on Afghanistan, or mild-mannered caution in relation to war on Iraq. I have yet to hear a theological justification for war post 9/11. No one speaks of a "just war." I have heard many Christians pragmatically accept that there seems to be no alternative and so reluctantly support the "war on terrorism," but I would maintain this is because of our lack of confidence in the gospel. We listen instead to our own fears and concerns for security. Who can blame us? It is a terrifying world. Fortunately Jesus does not allow us to get away with that and calls us instead to listen to him.

The ancient tradition of Christian nonviolence has not disappeared in Christian history and has been kept alive through the post reformation peace churches especially. But it has also been growing in the mainline denominations since 1900 – our own Anglican Pacifist Fellowship is an example. There has also been a marked change in its interpretation from rather passive personalized absolutist pacifism to a more engaged militant nonviolent perspective more akin to the politics of Jesus. The Christian component of the anti-Vietnam War movement associated with the Berrigan brothers, which has continued in the anti-nuclear "ploughshares" movement of the 1980s and 1990s, is a stunning example of this.

The time is now ripe for the church again to take a strong anti-war stance and it can do so now by church communities signing up to the Pledge of Resistance organized by anti-war groups ARROW and Voices in the Wilderness. In signing the pledge, people agree to undertake nonviolent direct action if and when war is declared by the U.S. on any other nation. People can sign either as active resisters or supportive resisters. The House of Bishops could issue a statement supporting all Christian people who, through an examination of their conscience, decide to participate in nonviolent direct action against war. Wouldn't it be a refreshing change if the Church Times were filled, not with letters debating the "orthodoxy" of our new Archbishop over homosexuality, but with debates on tactics for anti-war activity? This then would be a church really exploring living the Kingdom in the present world crisis, a church being "foolish" for Christ's sake.

[The Pledge to Resistance can be signed online at www.j-n-v.org or by contacting: ARROW, c/o NonViolent Resistance Network, 162 Holloway Road, London N7 8DQ.]