Is It Appropriate for a Christian Institution to Support a Military Unit on Its Campus?
Presented by Paul Sheldon & Joseph Betz, on Wednesday, March 18, 2009, 12:30-1:20 p.m., in Room 300, SAC.
The life of Jesus brings a new covenant between God and man. The Prince of Peace tells us to put away the sword, trust in the Armor of God, and to love our enemies. If we are to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s, which do we put first when these two appear to conflict? Until the time of Constantine, Christianity functioned apart from the Roman government, and complicity was minimal. How has the Christian message of love and forgiveness changed in the intervening centuries? What are the responsibilities of the academic Christian community in this regard? If you have questions, please contact paul.sheldon@villanova.edu.
***
The announcement above was distributed to all Villanova faculty and staff via the Campus Currents page, and in addition was sent to various departments (including Naval Science) and individuals who might likely have a special interest in the topic (background material leading up to this event is at the bottom of this post).
About twenty-five of us were present. At the start of the discussion I distributed the following list of queries that I felt might help inspire discussion:
Would Jesus understand why Villanova has an ROTC on campus?
What does the bible tell us about Jesus’ views on war and peace?
If we say that Jesus would sometimes condone war, then when, why, and how?
Have recent wars met the standards of Christian just war?
What choices do ROTC students have for ethical decision making according to Christian just war standards?
Can we be assured that ROTC students will be called to use their military skills only in wars that meet Christian just war standards?
We are evaluating ROTC programs, not the participants.
Should an academic institution have programs over which it has no control?
What is the purpose of military training?
I am grateful for the quality and variety of the discussion, and that we were not distracted by any knee-jerk animosities. I will not try to reproduce the hour here. I have copied three items that I think are relevant to the discussion into Comments below.
I had prepared myself for debate on specific biblical texts as well as the work of Augustine and Aquinas on just war theory. Fortunately, considering our limited time, we did not delve heavily into such details. It seemed sufficient to note that the few texts of Jesus that talk about support for government are notably ambiguous, while the many statements of love and forgiveness are clearly stated. (Incidentally, my father’s Ph.D. was in biblical text criticism.)
Some background: This Ethics discussion was a key opportunity to discuss the question that I have posed on campus via the large sign in my office window that asked “Who Would Jesus Train to Kill?” (see www.peacefulways.com/ and http://blog.peacefulways.com/ and Search for Jesus for more) The physical presence of this sign generated considerable attention and comment. But disappointingly, no one ever dealt with the question itself. When I moved to a smaller adjunct office this year, I did not want to let this question disappear without being addressed at Villanova. Thus I arranged (with the help of Joe Betz in the Philosophy Department) for an Ethics for Lunch discussion on this topic. I hosted a similar meeting two years ago on the topic of “Is conscientious refusal to pay federal taxes for war an instance of civil disobedience based on holy obedience to God’s will for peace?”
p.s. Villanova later removed any mention of the word PEACE from its Mission Statement.
Ethics for Lunch : Is It Appropriate for a Christian Institution to Support a Military Unit on Its Campus?
1. What is our understanding of Jesus’ message of peace and love among all people? Does his message give Christians any reason to be involved with warfare or military endeavors?
What did Jesus say, what does it mean, what is the essence of his message?
What is our understanding of the biblical texts?
2. If we believe that it may be appropriate at times to use military force to do or defend God’s work, can we insure that Christian principles will be followed? Can we insure that University-endorsed military training will accord with just war principles?
If training and deployment are outside our control, we could find ourselves responsible for training military personnel that are used in unjust ways (jus ad bellum; jus in bella).
Has this already happened, and have we already acquiesced in this regard?
Are individual Christians in the military free to follow their Christian principles?
3. What is the unique position of ROTC at Villanova? All appointments and all course offerings at Villanova are subject to review by the Board of Trustees with one exception — ROTC. An institution such as Villanova makes a separate contract with the government regarding ROTC, by which they relinquish control over ROTC appointments and programs. Imagine that Wyeth offered Villlanova ten million dollars for a program in the College of Nursing, with the stipulation that they appoint the professors and determine courses taught and their content?
Such a contract enables the institution to receive considerable federal funding, but at what cost to institutional integrity?
4. Is academic freedom compromised by a university’s financial dependence on maintaining its current relationship with ROTC? By current law [DoD–2006–OS–0136], 2008 Final Rule), a college or university that removes ROTC from its campus may forfeit all federal funding.
The purpose of the military is to fight and win wars (Dick Cheney seems a good enough reference for this.)
Comment by admin — March 19, 2009 @ 4:28 pm
Benedict XVI on Nonviolence
Benedict XVI Calls for a “Christian Revolution”
Invites Faithful to Respond to Evil With Good
Vatican City, Feb. 18, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of the address Benedict XVI delivered today before reciting the midday Angelus with several thousand people gathered in St. Peter’s Square.
* * *
Dear Brothers and Sisters!
This Sunday’s Gospel has one of the most typical, yet most difficult,
teachings of Jesus: Love your enemies (Luke 6:27).
It is taken from the Gospel of Luke, but it is also found in Matthew’s
Gospel (5:44), in the context of the programmatic discourse that begins with
the famous Beatitudes. Jesus delivered this address in Galilee, at the
beginning of his public ministry: It was something of a “manifesto”
presented to everyone, which Christ asked his disciples to accept, thus
proposing to them in radical terms a model for their lives.
But what is the meaning of his teaching? Why does Jesus ask us to love our
very enemies, that is, ask a love that exceeds human capacities? What is
certain is that Christ’s proposal is realistic, because it takes into
account that in the world there is too much violence, too much injustice,
and that this situation cannot be overcome without positing more love, more
kindness. This “more” comes from God: It is his mercy that has become flesh
in Jesus and that alone can redress the balance of the world from evil to
good, beginning from that small and decisive “world” which is man’s heart.
This page of the Gospel is rightly considered the “magna carta” of Christian
nonviolence; it does not consist in surrendering to evil — as claims a
false interpretation of “turn the other cheek” (Luke 6:29) — but in
responding to evil with good. (Romans 12:17-21), and thus breaking the chain
of injustice. It is thus understood that nonviolence, for Christians, is not
mere tactical behavior but a person’s way of being, the attitude of one who
is convinced of God’s love and power, who is not afraid to confront evil
with the weapons of love and truth alone. Loving the enemy is the nucleus of
the “Christian revolution,” a revolution not based on strategies of
economic, political or media power. The revolution of love, a love that does
not base itself definitively in human resources, but in the gift of God,
that is obtained only and unreservedly in his merciful goodness. Herein lies
the novelty of the Gospel, which changes the world without making noise.
Herein lies the heroism of the “little ones,” who believe in the love of God
and spread it even at the cost of life.
Dear brothers and sisters: Lent, which begins this Wednesday, with the rite
of the distribution of ashes, is the favorable time in which all Christians
are invited to convert ever more deeply to the love of Christ.
Let us ask the Virgin Mary, the docile disciple of the Redeemer, to help us
to allow ourselves to be conquered without reservations by that love, to
learn to love as he loved us, to be merciful as our heavenly Father is
merciful (Luke 6:36).
Comment by admin — March 19, 2009 @ 4:42 pm
Published on Obama Politics (http://obamapolitics.com)
Why McCain, Time, and Obama Are Wrong About ROTC
By JohnKWilson
Created 09/11/2008 – 11:05pm
Note: I’m the author of Barack Obama: This Improbable Quest [1] (see me on C-SPAN2 [2]) but I’m not part of the Obama campaign.
At the Columbia University forum on service [3] on Sept. 11, John McCain declared, “do you know that this school will not allow ROTC on this campus? I don’t think that’s right.”
Rick Stengel, the editor of Time magazine, confirmed this “fact” in speaking to Obama:
STENGEL: To that end, to get the best and brightest into the military, this university, your alma mater, invited President Ahmadinejad of Iran to be here last year, but they haven’t invited ROTC to be on campus since 1969. Should Columbia and elite universities that have excluded ROTC invite them back on campus?
OBAMA: Yes. I think we’ve made a mistake on that.
Stengel is wrong. No one is banning ROTC or the military from speaking or appearing on campus, except for the military.
It’s politically understandable why Obama feels obligated to support ROTC. And in fact he is right: there should be ROTC programs at every college. However, the problem lies with the military (and Congress), not with the colleges that are falsely accused of banning ROTC. Columbia and other elite colleges never banned ROTC: they simply decreed that ROTC must follow the same rules for faculty control and open access as any other academic program. It was the military (following the rules imposed by Congress), that withdrew ROTC from Columbia and other colleges under these circumstances, not the reverse.
As I’ve written about before [4], according to military rules, ROTC programs must receive college credit and must be entirely controlled by the military in terms of faculty hiring, curriculum, and what students are permitted to attend classes. According to ordinary college rules, program curriculum and faculty must be determined by the university, not by outside groups. Some colleges simply allow ROTC unique status to violate campus rules, but they shouldn’t.
Even in colleges that currently refuse to grant college credit, the military could create ROTC programs. ROTC units can be run by the military using facilities rented from a college. Or they can created as registered student organizations open to all and run by students, or departments run and controlled by universities. But the Pentagon refuses all of these options.
It is true that the military’s biased “don’t ask, don’t tell” policies violate virtually all anti-discrimination laws. But we can hope this bigotry will end soon. However, it’s not homophobia [5] that causes ROTC programs to be banned by the military from campuses.
What we need is a president who will turn ROTC into an independent, truly academic program rather than the current system. Having independent Military Studies programs would expand academic offerings about the military, allow all students to take these classes, and provide more faculty doing research on the military. It would be a winner for everyone: ROTC programs would be restored to all campuses, academic freedom would be preserved, and the quality of intellectual work and research about the military would greatly improve.
Crossposted at DailyKos [6].
——————————————————————————–
Source URL: http://obamapolitics.com/node/123
Links:
[1] http://obamapolitics.com/
[2] http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=9818&SectionName=Politics&PlayMedia=No
[3] http://www.clipsandcomment.com/2008/09/11/transcript-servicenation-presidential-forum-at-columbia-university/
[4] http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2007/06/25/wilson
[5] http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Obama_and_the_military.html?showall
[6] http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/12/05330/0087?new=true
Comment by admin — March 19, 2009 @ 4:56 pm
In response to a question of eschatology. I spoke briefly yesterday, in consideration of the limited time that we had available. Quaker theology is both simple and complex, meaning that while it is simply experiential and transforming, to explain it can be difficult. This situation is made more confusing when you consider the range of beliefs that can be encompassed by the Religious Society of Friends. Quakers of my variety are universalistic, meaning we feel that God is available to all people. We do not have an expectation of a second coming and resultant judgment by God. Barclay’s Apology is the standard historical source for all this. In brief, Quakers believe that God/spirit of Jesus is with us today as much as 2000 years ago and is available to all seekers. As a result, relative to Catholics, there is a focus on this world and the sense that the spirit enables us to potentially share in God’s kingdom at this time rather than the other-worldly City of God. In fact, we may suffer for our beliefs without apparent compensation now or in the future. But this makes our spiritual experience no less compelling. See Barclay for much more. This theology is part of the reason that my wife’s family (Dudley and Bradstreet) hanged Quakers on Boston Common more than three and a half centuries ago (I always remind her of this, and she is somewhat mollified now that I at least say “hanged” instead of “hung.”).
I am impressed with Augustine’s spirituality, and perhaps he can truly love the enemy that he corrects. But note the sequence involved. First, show me someone who truly loves his enemy in warfare, and only then does it make any sense to talk with that person about how they wish to “correct” the enemy. Assuming such a person can be found (hardly in sufficient numbers for an army, I must say, so lets imagine we have brought Augustine to life in the 21st century), the scope of modern warfare is unlike anything Augustine ever experienced. Considering his great sense of compassion, I can hardly imagine that war as “we would correct the child” has anything to do with dropping bombs that kill perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocent persons. Your particular example of intervening in a fight between two of us is fine with me, seeing that I do support a well-regulated police and am a pacifist in war but not totally non-violent (that’s a separate issue, not for here). But it is irrelevant. Perhaps the best analogy is to ask our contemporary Augustine, that if he felt a need to punish his beloved child, would he do it be killing all of the child’s playmates? There can be no “proofs” on such a conjecture; my belief is he would not.
The crucial issue for Quakers is hardly the study of theological issues (although I can find it interesting and valuable), but that the words truly touch your spirit and compel you to action . Faith and Practice are absolutely one and the same. This key Quaker belief may go far to explain why there are so few Quakers.
For anyone reading this missive and interested in further discussion, please ask me in person (it is not my calling to write a 21st century theology for Quakers).
Comment by admin — March 19, 2009 @ 6:48 pm
KARL BARTH – QUOTATIONS
There is no way from us to God — not even via negativa not even a via dialectica nor paradoxa. The god who stood at the end of some human way — even of this way — would not be God.
God is personal, but personal in an incomprehensible way, in so far as the conception of his personality surpasses all our views of personality.
I do not preach universal salvation, what I say is that I cannot exclude the possibility that God would save all men at the Judgment.
The best theology would need no advocates: it would prove itself.
QUOTATIONS ABOUT KARL BARTH
One of the cardinal points of Barth’s doctrine of God is that He is the transcendent God. On every hand Barth is out to set God immensely above the dieties of the world, and the substitutes for God which modern philosophy and scientific research into Nature’s forces have put into “modern” man’s mind. … Barth makes it explicit from the beginning that God is the unknowable and indescribable God. The hidden God remains hidden. Even when we say we know him our knowledge is of an imcomprehensible Reality. … Barth’s contention is summed up in the dictum: Finitum non Capax infiniti, the finite has no capacity for the Infinite. … On every hand Barth speaks of time and eternity as two distinct realms, an unbridged chasm between God and man, and the unknown God.
Martin Luther King, Jr. in “Karl Barth’s Conception of God” (2 January 1952)
By contrast, Reinhold Niebuhr regards Barth as a “man of infinite imagination and irresponsibility” writing “irrelevant theology to America. I don’t read Barth any more,” he says. And Dr. Cornelius Van Til of Westminster Theological Seminary speaks for a host of U.S. fundamentalists in charging that “Barthianism is even more hostile to the theology of Luther and Calvin than Romanism.
Barth accepts and welcomes scholarly criticism of the Bible, even when it shows the Scriptures to be full of errors and inconsistencies. He does not consider the Bible infallible, and he deplores orthodox Protestants who make it into “a paper Pope.” Nevertheless, the Bible testifies to God’s Word, which is revealed to man through human speech. The words that the Biblical writers use may not always be the appropriate ones, but they must be accepted as words elected by God.
“Witness to an Ancient Truth” TIME magazine (20 April 1962)
Barth’s dedication to the sole authority and power of the Word of God was illustrated for us … while we were in Basel. Barth was engaged in a dispute over the stained glass windows in the Basel Münster. The windows had been removed during World War II for fear they would be destroyed by bombs, and Barth was resisting the attempt to restore them to the church. His contention was that the church did not need portrayals of the gospel story given by stained glass windows. The gospel came to the church only through the Word proclaimed. … the incident was typical of Barth’s sole dedication to the Word.
Elizabeth Achtemeier
“Met Pastor Scholz at the University at nine A.M., and he went with Carl and me to hear Sellin and Richter. He says, in spite of reports to the contrary, that Barth is still in Bonn, and cannot be dismissed, even though he has been threatened. His is really a Swiss citizen, and if dismissed, he would draw all the German students over to Switzerland to hear him, which the government would not like a little bit.” February 2, 1934 Berlin Diary – Paul Sheldon (my father)
Comment by admin — March 23, 2009 @ 11:39 pm