This quote is taken from an essay by Stanley Hauerwas titled “Should War Be Eliminated?” in The Hauerwas Reader edited by John Berkman and Michael Cartwright (pp. 421-422). When I first read it I was on my way back from New York City where I had just seen the 9/11 memorial for the first time. My initial reaction to being reminded of such a tragedy was that of most Americans–let’s get revenge! In part, I think the Afghanistan and Iraq wars have shown us just how costly revenge is. What Hauerwas says here may be hard to accept (it has been for me at times) but I think is worth wrestling with it:
Christians believe that the true history of the world, that history that determines our destiny, is not carried by the nation-state. In spite of its powerful moral appeal, this history is the history of godlessness. Only the church has the stance, therefore, to describe war for what it is, for the world is too broken to know the reality of war. For what is war but the desire to be rid of God, to claim for ourselves the power to determine our meaning and destiny? Our desire to protect ourselves from our enemies, to eliminate our enemies in the name of protecting the common history that we share with our friends, is but the manifestation of our hatred of God.
Christians have been offered the possibility of a different history through participation in a community which one learns to love the enemy. They are thus a people who believe that God will have them exists through history without the necessity of war. God has done so by providing them with a history through the church. For without the church we are but a scattered people with nothing in common. Only through the church do we learn that we share the same creator and destiny. So the world’s true history is not built on war, but that offered by a community that witnesses to God’s refusal to give up on his creation.
the archives near Emmaus 
Someone should alert Jesus. It turns out that he is about to engage in the Final Crusade:
Revelation:
11 ¶ And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;
18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.
19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.
It seems that John specifically refers to just war, and he teaches that the problems of the world will be settled by war.
In fact, this is the reference in the gospel, rather than to sacrifice:
John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which [violently] taketh away the sin of the world.
John is proclaiming the violence that Jesus will inflict on the world, graphically described in Revelation.
Two points:
(1) Eschatology: It is not our place as Christians to preserve human history. This is the role of God. God has the right to determine how things should wrap up including the possibility of a cosmic war (which we need to carefully approach when reading Revelation since there is a thin line between symbolic/literal or even heavenly/earthly pictures).
(2) Incarnation: Again, I know we won’t make headway here but if Christ is more than a man his work from God is the work of God. Even if you were adoptionistic here that doesn’t change much because he would be the man (only) elected by God to end history which is something no one else can claim.
I am not sure where you got your translation of Jn 1.29 but αἴρων doesn’t mean he violently takes away.
>>>…It is not our place as Christians to preserve human history…
I’m not sure what that means.
>>…This is the role of God. God has the right to determine how things should wrap up including the possibility of a cosmic war
Indeed, though, the lord is not a pacifist:
Exodus 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
Psalms 144:1 «A Psalm of David.» Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:
Deut 1:
28 Whither shall we go up? our brethren have discouraged our heart, saying, The people is greater and taller than we; the cities are great and walled up to heaven; and moreover we have seen the sons of the Anakims there.
29 Then I said unto you, Dread not, neither be afraid of them.
30 The LORD your God which goeth before you, he shall fight for you, according to all that he did for you in Egypt before your eyes;
I mean, the whole slaughter of the inhabitants of Canaan and the subjection of those in the surrounding areas was accomplished by divine decree and with his participation. That is the model of the new Joshua (the one Jesus was named after).
1 Cor 15:
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot [isn’t strong enough] inherit [take over] the kingdom of God [the middle east]; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
…
57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory [in our conquest of the promised land] through our Lord Jesus Christ.
>>> (which we need to carefully approach when reading Revelation since there is a thin line between symbolic/literal or even heavenly/earthly pictures.
Revelation uses many figures but is intended to describe real people and events. It is a wonder that people can’t grasp what is being described, given the prominence of the theme in the NT saying that this is the divine agenda for the son of man (human).
>>>(2) Incarnation: Again, I know we won’t make headway here but if Christ is more than a man his work from God is the work of God.
So was the original Joshua also necessarily an incarnated deity?
>>>Even if you were adoptionistic here that doesn’t change much because he would be the man (only) elected by God to end history which is something no one else can claim.
Are you saying that Joshua was not chosen to serve God by slaughter? That Jesus is unique in that regard? What do you do with the Torah, for which this theme is so central?
>>>I am not sure where you got your translation of Jn 1.29 but αἴρων doesn’t mean he violently takes away.
No, it does not, which is why I delineated my clarifying addition with [brackets]. Would that modern translators would have the decency of the KJV tradition in that regard.
But contextually, this is what is meant. The term “lamb of God” is not a sacrificial figure, because lambs were of no significance in the Levitic system. Adult flock animals, primarily goats, were the mainstay of the Levite diet (as well as the animal of the Seder – along with Pita bread, not crackers).
The “lamb” was a *violent* figure (think of Sylvester Stallone in “Lamb-o – First Blood”). Note the latter text:
Revelation 6:16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
Revelation 17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.
In the other gospels, the violence of the lamb in taking away the sin of the world is also explicit:
Matthew 3:12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
Luke 3:17 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable.
Matthew 3:10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Luke 3:9 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Adoptionism is indeed the correct view:
Psalms 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
Acts 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
Hebrews 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
Hebrews 5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.
WE,
On a side note it would be helpful if you just references passages instead of cutting and pasting to the comment. It makes it distracting (e.g. Rev. 6.16; 17.14 instead of quoting the whole verse). I have plenty of tools that make these references easily accessible if I want to see where you are basing your argument. Likewise, as I am sure you are aware, the quoting of Scripture says little about what Scripture says. We must exegete and expound meaning.
When I say it is not the task of Christianity to preserve human history I am commenting on Hauerwas’ statements that we are not to adopt the meta-narrative of the State. We do not need to fight to maintain our existence. If God wants us to be then we will make sure we are.
I do not argue that God is a pacifist. Why would God who gives and takes away life as God need to refrain from taking life. Pacifism is not anti-violence for the sake of anti-violence (at least not for everyone) but rather the acknowledgment of God as God and since God is God we do not have the right to take life that is not ours to take.
As concerns Joshua and the Canaanite slaughter I am sure you are aware that there have been many, many attempts to interpret the meaning of that text in Jewish and Christian history. Even if it is the call for some sort of “genocide” this would be a God-ordered act. Christians believe that Christ spoke for God and therefore our current command is not to do violence. On the other hand, I am not so sure your interpretation of Joshua is correct: (see the link to Matt Flanagan’s dealing w. this subject that I provided here: https://nearemmaus.wordpress.com/2010/07/02/week-in-review-07-02-10/).
While I understand your Jesus/Joshua analogy I think you show continually that you are not interested in how Jesus becomes the ultimate fulfillment of OT themes just like you don’t care to see the Spirit in the same light as we have previously discussed. So I will leave it at that.
Adoptionism is not the correct view of Christology. See Rom. 8 where we are the adopted sons of God in contrast with the true son of God. Paul makes an important distinction there.
>>>…When I say it is not the task of Christianity to preserve human history I am commenting on Hauerwas’ statements that we are not to adopt the meta-narrative of the State.
What about Roman 13? Doesn’t Paul say that the State is established by God, and does God’s bidding with the sword?
>>>We do not need to fight to maintain our existence. If God wants us to be then we will make sure we are.
That rings a bit hollow after the Shoah. Do you believe God holds the allied armies culpable for “resisting evil” rather than “turning the other loin”? Is the “State” a fiction or a scriptural reality?
>>>…but rather the acknowledgment of God as God and since God is God we do not have the right to take life that is not ours to take.
So how does one scripturally ignore the reality of the State?
>>>…Even if it is the call for some sort of “genocide” this would be a God-ordered act.
Doesn’t Paul say that the State’s sword is placed in its hand by God, for it to use for God’s purposes?
>>>Christians believe that Christ spoke for God and therefore our current command is not to do violence.
Are we talking about the State or the individual? Or are you confusing the two?
>>>On the other hand, I am not so sure your interpretation of Joshua is correct: (see the link to Matt Flanagan’s dealing w. this subject that I provided here: https://nearemmaus.wordpress.com/2010/07/02/week-in-review-07-02-10/).
That God ordered the Jews to kill the inhabitants of the promised land and subdue the nations round about? You are not sure I’m correct about that??
>>>While I understand your Jesus/Joshua analogy I think you show continually that you are not interested in how Jesus becomes the ultimate fulfillment of OT themes just like you don’t care to see the Spirit in the same light as we have previously discussed. So I will leave it at that.
Your assertion about me is unfounded.
>>>Adoptionism is not the correct view of Christology. See Rom. 8 where we are the adopted sons of God in contrast with the true son of God. Paul makes an important distinction there.
Um, where in Romans 8?
Was Jesus not begotten upon his resurrection?
WE,
Yes, Paul does affirm the role of the State as an agent of God. Inherent in this passage is a distinction between the State and the people of God. In the Adam-Christ theme of this epistle Paul must clarify that just because Christians are the new, eschatological humanity this does not equate to grasping at power. In this era the State is still a tool of God and we must respect it without disregarding our call to be people of the age to come.
The State is a Scriptural reality but it seems evident from the gospels and the writings of Paul that we are to understand ourselves as an alternative to the State. God can use the allies in WWII but this does not mean we have the right to kill. Christians are called to behave differently.
My assertion is not unfounded. You think I refuse to see your point of view since I won’t agree with you on various things. I guess that means the same for you.
Rom. 8.14 through the end. The point is not that Jesus is the forerunner. That is agreed and his humanity is all that is needed for that. The point is that he is described as the son into whose image we are to become. If he was adopted like we are adopted this distinction makes little sense.
Hauerwas at his best.
Do you agree with this statement from the article?:
“…Our desire to protect ourselves from our enemies, to eliminate our enemies in the name of protecting the common history that we share with our friends, is but the manifestation of our hatred of God…”
>>>…The point is that he is described as the son into whose image we are to become. If he was adopted like we are adopted this distinction makes little sense.
Actually, the opposite is true:
Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the **firstborn** among many brethren.
In what way is Jesus the firstborn? He is the firstborn (first begotten) by means of resurrection:
Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the ***firstborn from the dead***; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
So, as Jesus was born the son of God by resurrection, so will all the saints.
Acts 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, ***this day have I begotten thee***.
Which day? Upon his resurrection. Every reference to Jesus as “son of God” prior to that is in *anticipation* of “this day”:
I meant to supply this before I posted:
Romans 4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth [makes alive] the dead, ***and calleth those things which be not as though they were***.
Abe was not a father to many nations when he said that, but, he called him that in *anticipation* of the day that it would be so.
“Eternally begotten” is part of The Lie of “Trinitarianism” that God has foisted upon people in order to damn them:
2 Thess 2:
3 ¶ Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that **man of sin** [the worshiped Jesus] be revealed, **the son of perdition** [the worshiped Jesus] ;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; ***so that he as God** [the worshiped Jesus] sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he [the worshiped Jesus] is God.
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you [in the first century], I told you these things?
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time [the 4th century].
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth [prevents] will let, until he be taken out of the way [the emperor?].
8 And then shall that Wicked [the worshiped Jesus] be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a [THE] lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
>>>Yes, Paul does affirm the role of the State as an agent of God. Inherent in this passage is a distinction between the State and the people of God…
Okay, but I don’t think that it will be the State that accompanies Jesus on the Final Crusade. So war it will be, and Jesus will be hacking and whacking. There is nothing in the nature of God as revealed in the scriptures that hesitates to whack a child’s head against the rock if he or she is the spawn of the enemy.