The Just War Theory and Drone Strikes

Should Christians in American Support President Obama’s Drone Policy in Pakistan?

Background and Introduction

In response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration launched a series of targeted attacks against suspected Al Qaeda members in Afghanistan, Yemen and, in June 2004, Pakistan.  By employing “predator drones”, the administration capitalized on technology that had been existent since World War I, but prior to 2001, was primarily used for surveillance.  Virtually every target has been a suspected terrorist or terrorist associate, however the death toll has affected countless civilians throughout the region.  Nek Muhammad, a Taliban commander, was the first to be targeted in Pakistan, a region that has experienced the brunt of United States drone attacks over the past twelve years.[1]

            A drone is an unmanned aircraft operated by remote control.  While these drones have been utilized in a number of locations, for several different purposes, the focus of this paper will be to look at the use of predator drones in the aforementioned country of Pakistan.  Drones vary in size and capability, but predator drones are primarily used to attack,  “the enemy”, by exploding on site and relaying a recorded video image via satellite, documenting the event and its success or failure.  These drones weigh upwards of 1,300 pounds, and can remain at a height of twenty-six thousand feet for nearly twenty-four hours at a time.  Both the Bush and the Obama administrations have utilized this technology as a means of fighting terror with systematic precision, and their usage in the Middle East has increased from 147 strikes as of 2002, to over 7,000 strikes recorded as of 2012.      

Statistics

            While the intent of these drones is to target terrorists in the region, their usage has not come without casualties.  According to an analysis of U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan since 2004, 337 CIA strikes have been launched within the country.  Although these strikes have killed anywhere from 1,487 to 2,595 militants, civilians and even children have been caught in the middle of these devastating attacks.  The analysis reports that somewhere between 188 and 315 “unknown” persons have been killed, and somewhere between 257 and 310 civilians have also lost their lives.  Statistically, upwards of 19% of drone strike killings are brought upon innocent civilians, although this percentage has declined significantly since 2004.[2]  Under the Bush administration, nearly 50 drone strikes occurred in Pakistan.  Since the inauguration of President Obama, these strikes have increased by more than 5 times that number, with 292 strikes occurring in the first three and a half years of President Obama’s first term.  Perhaps the most troubling statistic of all is the estimated 147 children that have been killed by these strikes since 2004.[3] Of course these statistics only reflect the death toll, neglecting injury, property, and emotional damage inflicted upon the people of Pakistan.

Just War Theory

According to the Just War Theory, seven criteria must be met in order for war to be justifiable.  These include:  Just Cause, Comparative Justice, Competent Authority, Right Intention, Probability of Success, Last Resort, and Proportionality.[4]  These criteria weigh the motivation, cost, and perceived result of violent activity against the enemy.  From a Christian perspective, the question must be asked:  Does the United State’s drone policy constitute a just war?

            In an article written for, Christianity Today, Paul F.M. Zahl writes, “…it is wrong to conduct war when one side in the fight does not see the mortal results.”[5]  Dr. Zahl articulates that drone strikes are unjust because they are a one-sided affair.  Considering Dr. Zahl’s position, it is difficult to even implement the Just War Theory, as a war requires two participants.  Nonetheless, this begs questions concerning Just Cause and Last Resort.  It is difficult to conclude that drone strikes are a last resort, when the enemy is not only in a distant country, but in a whole other hemisphere!

            Looking specifically at Comparative Justice, drone strikes become even more problematic.  According to this criterion, a war is only justifiable if the injustice on the side of the aggressor significantly outweighs the injustice committed against the recipient of the attack.  Considering the civilian casualties and human damage, as well as property damage, of Pakistani people, it is difficult to conclude that the injustice experienced by the United States significantly outweighs the injustice she is creating.  An article from the May 2010 edition of, The Christian Century, argues, “According to just war principles, it is better to risk the lives of one’s own combatants than the lives of enemy non-combatants.”[6] However, perhaps some might suggest that the entire War on Terror should be the basis out of which Comparative Justice should be evaluated.  Broadening the scope would certainly illustrate the tremendous cost American troops are willing to pay, but also opens to further discussion as to the loss of civilian and non-combatant lives.  In a June, 2007 essay, Dr. John Williams of Durham University writes, “Insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan may have done something to restore the vulnerability of Western troops, but even here the number of civilians being killed dwarfs the number of troops.”[7] Though the focus of this paper will continue to be on Pakistan, the argument that the war is broader than the drone strike policy is valid, yet lacking in that it fails to justify the loss of innocent lives, and remains questionable under the criterion of Comparative Justice.

Considering the criteria for just war, I confidently conclude that, though the drone strikes in Pakistan may be beneficial to our country, they are not justifiable under the Just War Theory, and thus should be opposed by Christians living within the United States.  The drone strikes against Pakistan violate at least three of the criteria under the Just War Theory, and therefore must be opposed by those who adhered to the theory.  While is impossible to estimate the potential victims of prevented terrorist strikes against the United States, and this should not be ignored, it is difficult to defend policies that remove all risk from the aggressor while levying heavy burdens upon the recipient, and most importantly the innocent.  While all Americans do not adhere to the Just War Theory, the theory is inline with Christian teaching and thus should be held in high regard within Christian communities.  If violated, Christians must seriously consider the moral implications of remaining silent.

Moral Norms

            In a 1983 letter, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops lays out a 339-article reflection on war and peace in the midst of the nuclear arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union.  While the circumstances were different in 1983 than they are today, many of the principles of this letter apply directly to the current situation in Pakistan, such as the attempt to remove risk to the aggressor through the use of nuclear warfare.  Considering this overlap, it is important to note the priority of love in the bishops’ remarks.  Article 49 reads,

Most characteristic of Jesus' actions are those in which he showed his love. As he had commanded others, his love led him even to the giving of his own life to effect redemption. Jesus' message and his actions were dangerous ones in his time, and they led to his death - a cruel and viciously inflicted death, a criminal's death (Gal. 3:13).[8]

At the foundation of the Christian faith is a Savior exhibiting what Dr. Ellen Marshall terms, “unconditional love”.  In her book, Faith That Transforms Politics, Dr. Marshall writes, “I believe that Christians should engage politics with a love that risks not being reciprocated, an unconditional love for all, a love that makes no distinction between friend and enemy.”[9] Though problematic to self-preservation at times, the priority of love is consistent with Christian authorities ranging from Scripture, to Tradition, to Catholic and Protestant leaders, to the example of the Founder Himself.  For Christians discerning the moral implications of President Obama’s drone policy, the moral norm of love must be at the foundation of ethical discernment, and the innocent Pakistani people must be considered through the lens of Christian love. 

            A second moral norm that deserves the attention of Christians engaged in ethical decision-making is that of responsibility.  In conclusion to an essay entitled, The meaning of Responsibility, H. Richard Niebuhr poses the question, “To whom or what am I responsible and in what community of interaction am I myself?”[10] In answering this question, the Christian must consider to entities to which he or she is responsible:  God and the community.  Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan serves as a Biblical example of the appropriate response to both of these entities.  The parable reads, “Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him.”[11] Additional instruction found in the opening chapters of the book of Genesis suggests that humanity is responsible for the care of the earth and all that is therein.[12]

            According to Niebuhr, human responsibility in response to God and the community is inseparable.  It is,” …to seek guidance for our activity as we decide, choose, commit ourselves, and otherwise bear the burden of our necessary human freedom.”[13] We find ourselves responsible to God through God’s commandments in Scripture, as well as responsible to the human community to which God has made us a part.  Like love, it is impossible to practice responsibility without a response to both God and the community.  This therefore begs the question, “Do we hold ourselves responsible for our brothers and sister in Pakistan and, how do we then exercise that responsibility?”

            Turning back to the Just War Theory, one can easily recognize the inseparability of love and responsibility within the criteria for just war.  To practice justice is therefore to incorporate love and responsibility in an effort to exercise all three in the global community to which we belong.  It is neither loving nor responsible to sacrifice the lives of innocent Pakistani citizens while violating such tenants as Just Cause, Last Resort, and Comparative Justice.  Justice cannot exist without love and responsibility, and these moral norms must be taken into account when discerning the ethical response of Christians in America.  That is to say that love and responsibility are necessary components, without which justice can never be achieved. 

Moral Evaluation

            After all of the statistics, theories, and norms have been evaluated, an answer to our moral question can be achieved and must then been implemented.  With high rates of civilian casualties, minimal risk, and the absence of moral norms such as love and responsibility, President Obama’s drone policy in no way falls under the criteria for a just war.  It thereby must be opposed by Christians in America, in an effort to minimize and eliminate the significant damage being done in Pakistan.  To affirm an unjust action of war is to reject the moral obligations that the Christian has voluntarily taken upon him or herself and is to authorize the exercise of injustice on behalf of our own country.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this paper has attempted to illustrate that President Obama’s drone policy does not meet the criteria for just war, ultimately causes catastrophic damage to innocent people, and thus must be opposed by Christians in America.  From an ethical standpoint, Christians in America have the obligation to oppose President Obama’s drone policy in Pakistan, and this obligation must be the responsibility of all Christians, and ecclesial leaders in particular.  At the same time, it is important to understand that the Just War Theory does not hold as much weight in some circles as it does in others.  Christians cannot expect non-Christians to hold to every particular of a Christian theory of war, though many of the tenants do reflect universal norms of ethics and morality.  At the same time, the criteria for just war under the Just War Theory seems congruent with Scripture and Church teachings, and thus should be valued and appropriated within Christian communities.  While Christians cannot expect all Americans to agree with this stance on President Obama’s drone policy in Pakistan, they must nonetheless voice their opposition to it, in the hopes that their voice may be heard and war may cease.

 Afterward

While I stand by the conclusions derived from my evaluation of U.S. drones strikes under the Just War Theory, there are two misconceptions that could be discerned from this paper.  I wish to avoid both.  The first is that this paper in someway undermines the work of the United States Armed Forces, and suggests that putting their lives at risk is a preferable alternative to drone strikes.  While I may not be in agreement with the CIA’s approach or the Administration’s policy on drone strikes, I do recognize that it is a preferable alternative to employing ground troops in these endeavors.  My suggestion is that, as a last resort, drone strikes could be justified, but at this juncture there is no imperative to issue such attacks.

            We live in a country that affords its citizens with freedoms and liberties absent in many parts of the world, and for this we should all be grateful.  Of course, as we all know, these freedoms and liberties would be impossible without the sacrifice of our soldiers and military personnel, and for that they deserve our utmost thanks and support.  While this paper serves as a critique of particular policies, it is in no way intended to critique the efforts of our brave men and women of the Armed Forces. 

            A second pitfall I would like to avoid is that of political party affiliation.  While the current administration receives the majority of my critique, as we live in a country governed by it, this is not a policy unique to President Obama or the Democrat party.  As mentioned, these strikes were first implemented under Republican president George Bush, and my critique of that administration’s approach would be the same.  This paper is not written from the perspective of a particular political party, but from that of a seminarian bound to the tenants of the Just War Theory.  Cheers!

Bibliography

Hoye, Monsignor Daniel F. The Challenge of Peace:  God’s Promise and Our Response.  United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Washington D.C. 3 May 1983. Reading.

"Just War Theory”.  [The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]". Iep.utm.edu. 2009-02-

10.  Retrieved 2010-03-16.

Marshall, Ellen Ott.  Christians in the Public Square.  Nashville, TN:  Abbington Press,

2008.

Niebuhr, Richard H.  The Meaning of Responsibility. 

“Remote-Control Warfare”.  The Christian Century.  May 18, 2010.

Stanford Law and NYU Law.  “Living Under Drones:  Death, Injury, and Trauma to

Civilians From US Drone Practices in Pakistan.”  September 2012.  <http://livingunderdrones.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Stanford_NYU_LIVING_UNDER_DRONES.pdf.  September 2012>.

"The Year of the Drone." http://counterterrorism.newamerica.net/drones.  2012. Web. 8 Oct. 2012.

Williams, John. The Borders of a Just War. 2007.  SGIA Research Working Papers

Series

Zahl, Paul F. M.  “It’s an Unfair Fight”.  Christianity Today, August, 2011.   

---

[1] Stanford Law and NYU Law,  “Living Under Drones:  Death, Injury, and Trauma to Civilians From US Drone Practices in Pakistan,” September 2012  http://livingunderdrones.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Stanford_NYU_LIVING_UNDER_DRONES.pdf.  September 2012.

[2] "The Year of the Drone," http://counterterrorism.newamerica.net/drones,  2012.

Web.  8 Oct. 2012.

[3] “Living Under Drones”

[4] "Just War Theory”,  [The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]", Iep.utm.edu. 2009-02-10.

[5]Paul F. M. Zahl, “It’s an Unfair Fight”, Christianity Today, August, 2011, 64.   

[6] “Remote-Control Warfare”, The Christian Century, 7.  May 18, 2010, 7.

[7]  John Williams, The Borders of a Just War. 2007, SGIA Research Working Papers Series

[8] Monsignor Daniel F. Hoye, The Challenge of Peace:  God’s Promise and Our

Response, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Washington D.C. 3 May 1983.

[9] Ellen Ott Marshall, Christians in the Public Square (Nashville, TN:  Abbington Press, 2008) 3.

[10] Richard H. Niebuhr, The Meaning of Responsibility, 204.

[11] Lk.10:37, ESV.

[12] Gen. 1-2, ESV.

[13] Niebuhr, 195.

Leviticus

Is Leviticus Still Relevant?

What an Ancient Text Says to a Modern World

Introduction

Although Leviticus was the first book that Jewish children studied in the synagogue, it is often the last to be tackled by modern Christian readers, if they ever try!

-Gordan J. Wenham

The Book of Leviticus is at the center of rabbinic teaching and learning.  Traditionally, young children would begin their study of the Torah with Leviticus, for multiple reasons.  These include the idea that purity was a concept best grasped as a child, the emphasis on daily worship and life in general, and the theme of God making a point to dwell with His chosen people.  

There are many divisions within the book of Leviticus, ranging from sacrifice to temple cleaning, feasts and holy days, cleanliness and uncleanliness.  A major division is made between chapters 1-16 and 27 (The Priestly Code) and chapters 17-26 (The Holiness Code).  The former proves to be the more difficult of the two sections and thus merits our reflection and dialogue.

What Leviticus Says About God:  Creation of Tabernacle Worship

            Chapters 1-7 of Leviticus outline the multitude of sacrifices to be offered within the Tabernacle.  These include: burnt offerings (1:1-17, 6:8-13), grain offerings (2:1-16, 6:14-18, 6:19-23), peace offerings (3:1-17, 7:11-21, 7:28-36), sin offerings (4:1-5:13, 6:24-30), and guilt offerings (5:14-6:7, 7:1-10).  Each description provides the manner in which the sacrifice is given, what is offered, who it is on behalf of, etc.  The complexity of sacrificial worship is crucial in that it recognizes the many facets of human existence.  The sacrifices transcended economic status, priestly status, and even the uncleanliness of humanity (16:16).  Essentially, sacrifice allows for the consecration of humanity, regardless of circumstance or status.  In creating such a formula, God is providing a way for man to obey His command to, “consecrate yourselves, and you shall be holy; for I am holy” (11:44). 

            In recognizing what God is doing through the sacrificial system, it becomes apparent that God is once again attempting to dwell with humanity, despite humanities consistent rebellion.  As chapter 10 proves, even when God goes to such great efforts to reconcile humanity, humanity finds a way to rebel.  Regardless, the mere fact that God is willing to provide communion between man and Himself points back to the garden and forward to the Incarnation. 

What Leviticus Says About Humanity:  The State of Being Unclean

            In addition to dietary laws (external uncleanliness), the book of Leviticus focuses on several internal catalysts for uncleanliness.  The unfortunate difficulty is that many of these factors that result in uncleanliness, can in no way be equated with sin.  To develop this point further, the examples of childbirth and skin disorder may be employed.

            First, Genesis 1:28 makes it apparent that childbirth is not only a necessary piece of human existence, but it is a direct command from God.  How then can an entire chapter (12) be dedicated to the ritual of cleansing after childbirth?  The answer is not that the act of giving birth is sinful, but that the woman herself, as well as her male counterpart (15:16), is sinful by nature and consequently so is their child.  George A.F. Knight explains that, “Rather, the woman is aware that all that she is and does, including having sex (and giving birth), is involved in her state of original sin.  Consequently she asks God to let it be that her baby should be born from a forgiven sinner”.

            Secondly, while there are several examples of God using leprosy as punishment for disobedience (Num. 12:10, 2 Kings. 5:27), there is little support for the idea that leprosy (as it is called) was a consequence of rebellion or sin.  Again, the question as to why these members of the Israelite nation would be excluded from Tabernacle worship must be asked.  In this case, the leper is rejected due to imperfection.  As previously discussed, holiness is what is being sought by the worshiper.  As Gordan Wenham puts it, “Peeling, raw skin is not perfect life, so it is understandable why it is regarded as unclean”.  It is only upon approved termination of the disease that the cleansing process may begin and the leper may be restored (14:1-57).

            Significant to the modern Christian is the fact that God requires complete holiness.  Unfortunately, when born with original sin, the task of achieving holiness is incredibly daunting.  Regardless, the message of Leviticus is that the Israelite (Christian) must seek to rid himself of all uncleanliness, even that which comes natural.  Here the Christian finds motivation to repent of original sin, recognize his depraved state, put to death the flesh, and embrace the gift of new life in Christ which alone provides escape from natural sin.

What Leviticus Says About Jesus:  Applying an Ancient Text to a First Century Messiah

            The New Testament makes many connections between Jesus and Leviticus including:  the idea of Jesus as our Great High Priest (Heb. 4:14), Jesus as our sin offering (2 Corn. 5:21), Jesus’ blood as our peace offering (Col. 1:20), and so on.  These connections, as well as many others, allow the modern Christian to grasp a better understanding of everything that Christ is for us.  Considering the themes previously discussed, Hebrews 12:22-24 provides a wonderful example of the severity of God’s fellowship with humanity. 

But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

            Using Leviticus as a background, it is a very serious matter to approach Zion, the dwelling place of Almighty God (Ps. 51:18, Isa. 28:18, Joel 2:32, Heb. 12:22).  As discussed previously, to approach the dwelling place of God would require complete holiness.  With the sacrificial system no longer in existence, this holiness hinges on the belief that in the sacrifice of Christ, each offering was made sufficiently, “once and for all” (Heb. 10:10).  Essentially, Christ must not only be a sacrifice for sin, but a sacrifice, which sufficiently substitutes for the entire Tabernacle worship model.  Only then may what is unclean without the “sprinkled blood” enter into the holy dwelling place of God.

John Leland and the Separation of Church and State

e

In his dissertation, John Leland:  American Prophet of Religious Individualism, J. Bradley Creed rightly acknowledges that, “A cause which Baptists champion in their heritage is the witness for complete religious liberty.”[1]  Looking at the early stages of Baptists in America, one can see how this cause developed, and has ultimately become definitive of Baptist identity.  Perhaps the greatest contribution that has been made in this regard is the first amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[2]

While the centuries have proven that this amendment is paramount to American ideology concerning Church and State, i.e., separation, early colonies and even the Union itself were not in agreement on these matters when America was established in 1776.  American icons like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would fight for these principles, and ultimately win the day.  However, perhaps the greatest influence of all came from Baptist pastor John Leland, who can ultimately be attributed with pressuring Madison, and thus assuring the ratification of the aforementioned amendment.

John Leland’s strong belief in religious liberty first met opposition when Leland was only three years old.  His father, James Leland, had been convinced of believer’s baptism, but was ultimately persuaded to the contrary by his mother and local ministers.  However, after having his first child baptized, James had a conflict of conscience and presumably reverted back to his previous position.  James Leland would go on to have six more children, none of which he would have baptized.  Then, once more James Leland changed his conviction, and summonsed a minister to baptize all six of the unbaptized Leland children one Sunday afternoon.  John, one of the six, heard the news and took flight.  Running down a hill, Leland fell, and was overtaken by a family maid.  He was then cleaned up and baptized “…not (as) a voluntary candidate, but a reluctant subject, forced against my will.”[3] The man who would go on to fight for religious liberty, and even pressure statesmen to ratify the Bill of Rights, experienced religion forced upon him at an early age.  It would be difficult to imagine that this event was ever far from the mind of the man who would become the “articulate representative for Baptist concerns for religious liberty and freedom of conscience.”[4]

            Growing up in Grafton, Massachusetts, John Leland was not known for his pious behavior.  Although he was fond of reading the Bible, this was likely a consequence of his father’s limited library.  John Leland had aspirations of becoming a lawyer, and was “attached to frolicking and foolish wickedness.”[5]  By his own admission, Leland recognized his folly, but felt some event must precipitate his conversion.  In the summer of 1772, Leland experienced such an event.  On his way home from an evening out, the words, “You are not about the work which you have got to do”, spoke to Leland from the skies.[6] Some time soon thereafter Leland has a conviction of conscience and lost his appetite for his previous delights. 

            Around the same time that John Leland heard the voice in the skies, a traveling preacher named Elhanan Winchester came through Grafton.  Leland took particular interest in Winchester when a certain Priscilla was converted under Winchester’s preaching.  Apparently Priscilla had been a former date of Leland.  According to Leland, this conversion “troubled the waters”, and he turned to reading scripture.  A few weeks later Winchester returned to Grafton and this time Leland responded internally, making vows to God to forsake sin and pursue God.  For several weeks Leland was troubled, not knowing if his conversion had be legitimate, until he received the waters of baptism in June of 1774.  From this point on, Leland felt strengthened and converted.

            In 1776 John Leland was married to Sally Divine.  Shortly thereafter the two left Massachusetts and moved to Virginia where Leland took the pastorate at Mount Poney.  Here Leland would preach for fifteen years before publishing his most renowned contribution, The Rights of Conscience Inalienable, in 1791.  This work concluded that the evils of establishment of religion were in direct opposition to the freedom of conscience given to humanity by their God.  Consequently, such establishment must be rejected as sinful and at odds with God.[7] This belief would prove to be definitive of Leland’s faith, and ultimately lead Leland to be of the utmost influence in the drafting and ratification of the United States Bill of Rights and the First Amendment in particular.

            After his move from Massachusetts to Virginia in 1777, Leland began fighting for religious liberty as he opposed all considerations of a National church.  While this debate raged politically, there were many within the church that ventured into the conversation.  Leland of course, was at the forefront.  When Jefferson retired in 1781, James Madison became the political champion of the Baptist cause.  Although the debates regarding issues of Church and State held strong support by many outside the Baptist faith, there can be no doubt that this conversation was of primary importance to the Baptists, and thus pastors like Leland ultimately sided with Madison, despite strong affinities towards his opponent Patrick Henry.[8] Unfortunately for the Baptists, Madison was slow to implement legislation guaranteeing religious freedom and liberty, that is until a meeting with John Leland tilted the direction of separation legislation in the direction of the Baptist cause.

            In the minds of many Baptists, James Madison “dropped the ball” in 1788 by failing to demand the implementation of a Bill of Rights in the Federal Constitution drafted by the Philadelphia Constitutional Congress.  Disappointment grew within the Baptist church, and Madison would ultimately have to be prompted to act in their favor.  This prompting would come from none other than John Leland.[9]

            On his way back from Congress and a meeting with George Washington, Madison stopped off in Fredericksburg where he received a message from a colleague urging him to meet with John Leland.  According to the telegram, Madison’s election to the Virginia ratifying convention depended on it.  The meeting would occur at Leland’s farm where a manuscript by Eugene Bucklin Bowen notes,  “Both Madison and Leland were candidates for the Virginia Convention on ratifying the Constitution.”[10]   If correct, Bowen’s observations suggest that Leland was running against Madison and only withdrew based on the agreement that Madison would vigorously fight for amending the Constitution.  Madison would go on to win the seat by a narrow margin of 168-158, proving that with Leland thrown on the ballot, Madison would have surely been defeated.[11] Whatever influence Leland had amongst voters was leveraged in an attempt to assure religious freedom in the legislation of the newly formed republic. 

            Madison would go on to win the fight for the ratification of the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment.  While Baptists were not immediately satisfied with Madison’s efforts, ultimately they would win the day.  Leland would continue to fight just as vigorously as ever, writing correspondences to George Washington and others outlining his strong opposition to a Nation religion and, even more relevant, any lack of defense in the form of legislation against such a religion.  Joseph Martin Dawson brilliantly summarizes Leland’s efforts when he pens, “If the researchers of the world were to be asked who was most responsible for the American guaranty for religious liberty, their prompt reply would be ‘James Madison’; but if James Madison might answer, he would as quickly reply, ‘John Leland and the Baptists.”’[12] 

            The American mentality of separation between Church and State seems so ingrained into the minds of United States citizens, that it is difficult to imagine a time when any other alternative was viable.  However, history shows that this was once a great debate that was not solved overnight.  Many suggested a national government, state governments, and even Sabbath laws to prevent work on Sundays.  While these notions seem quite alien to most Americans in the twenty-first century, it is important to note the struggles of the Founders to assure complete separation.  The work of Jefferson, Madison, and others must be held in the highest regard.  However, as the story of John Leland reveals, many ecclesial leaders fought valiantly, and even leveraged their assets, in an effort to pressure political entities into ratifying separation legislation.  Of these ecclesial leaders, John Leland is atop the list.

            Perhaps it was his early childhood experiences of forced religion, or perhaps it was an identification with the Baptist faith that created such a powerful force that was John Leland.  Whatever the case may be it is clear that despite his religious views, Leland held the conviction that religion should be a private affair that should remain unmolested by governments or bureaucracies.  The beauty of Leland’s conviction is that it was not limited to those of Leland’s faith, but to all persons of all faiths.  While it is easy to take the separation of Church and State for granted, Leland had the foresight to dedicate himself to the protection of religious liberty at a time when separation was not the norm.  Without the contributions of Leland, it is likely that Jefferson, Madison, and others would have been allowed to deprioritize separation legislation, and America may have never experienced religious liberty to the extent that we do today.  Perhaps the words of Don M. Fearheily summarize Leland’s contributions best,    

He was a Baptist.  He was a preacher.  He lived during the stirring times of the Revolution.  He fought for religious freedom and saw the triumph of his ideals.  Baptists owe a lot to John Leland.  So does America.[13]    

---

[1] John Bradley Creed, John Leland:  American Prophet of Religious Individualism (Ph.D. dissertation, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1986), p. 7.

[2] The Constitution of the United States, Amendment I, (1791).

[3] John Leland, The Writings of John Leland, ed. L.F. Greene (New York:  Arno Press and the New York Times, 1969), p. 10.

[4] Bill J. Leonard, Baptist Ways:  A History (Valley Forge, PA:  Judson Press, 2003), p. 130.

[5] Leland, p. 10.

[6] Leland, p. 10.

[7] Pamela R. and Keith E. Durso, The Story of Baptists in the United States (Brentwood, TN:  Baptist History and Heritage Society, 2006), pp. 63-64.

[8] Joseph Martin Dawson, Baptists and the American Republic (Nashville, TN:  Broadman Press, 1956), p. 103.

[9] Ibid. , p. 103.

[10] Madison Papers, Library of Congress.

[11] Dawson, pp. 82-117.

[12] Ibid. , p. 117.

[13] Don M. Fearheily, The John Leland Story (St. John, IN:  Christian Book Gallery, 1997), p. 8.

The Priestly Account of Genesis as an Alternative Hymn of Praise

As prospective products of the Ancient Near East, both the Genesis accounts of creation, as well as the Enuma Elish epic, contain a plethora of commonalties attributed to their cultural environment.  At the same time, significant dissonance between the various accounts renders each version distinct in both cosmological and theological perspective.  A close examination of these three accounts exposes such areas of resonance and dissonance, revealing relationships between various Ancient Near Eastern ideas and approaches to creation.  Surprisingly, in many cases, areas of resonance appear more clearly between the Enuma Elish and the Genesis 1-2:4a account than they do between the two Genesis accounts themselves.  This may be seen as evidence of a shared literary objective.  As an Akkadian hymn or poem composed to recount the deeds of the god Marduk, the Enuma Elish is presented on seven tablets, resonating with the poetic use of the number[1].  A similar incorporation of poetic tactics, as well as strong resonance on a number of themes within the text, suggests that the creation account of Genesis 1:2-4b is an attempt by the priestly author to compose a hymn of his or her own; a hymn composed to the chief God of Israel.    

It is commonly agreed amongst scholars that the Enuma Elish was not merely an attempt to explain the origins of the cosmos, but a poem or hymn to honor the god Marduk.  Wordplay, poetic divisions, and repetition are all characteristics of the Enuma Elish and help classify this Akkadian myth as a hymn.  Furthermore, it has been suggested that many Ancient Near Eastern cities incorporated their own chief gods into this creation story.  Therefore, as the Enuma Elish would have championed Marduk in Babylon, when read in other cities, an alternative local god could have been substituted as hero.  This notion of a hymn to honor the chief god of the city is immensely important due to the incorporation of this hymn into civil affairs.  As a text incorporated in Babylonian New Year’s festivals, the Enuma Elish not only contributed to the honor of Marduk, but also to the city of which he was chief deity, namely Babylon.  Due to the poetic style of the text and the incorporation of it into civic celebrations, the Enuma Elish must be understood as a liturgical composition, which had both religious and civic potential.  The Enuma Elish holds religious validity as a hymn to honor the god Marduk, but civic and even political or national validity as a hymn to honor the chief god of Babylon.[2]

The Priestly author incorporates a number of poetic and literary devices to compose this first creation account found in Genesis 1-2:4b.  While the number seven often holds poetic connotations, it is presented in the Priestly account as more of a rhetorical device to frame Sabbath observance.  However, repetition and parallelism are devices utilized by the Priestly author, even within the Sabbath framework, which allow for a more fluid and poetic reading of the text.  Each day of creation begins with the preface, “And God said”, and is concluded with the phrase, “And there was evening and there was morning, the (sixth)[3] day”, with the exception of day seven.  Additionally, the sequence of events occurring from day one to day three, and from day four to day six, reveal a parallel arrangement by the author.  On day one God creates light, and on day four God creates the heavenly bodies.  Similarly, on day two God creates a dome to divide the heavens and the earth, and on day five God fills this divide with birds and aquatic life.  Days three and six recount the creation of land and its vegetation, and the animals that survive therein.  This parallelism, as well as the repetition of the Divine voice and authorial response, is an example of the literary and poetic devices, which help to form what author Michael Coogan terms, “a kind of liturgical rhythm”[4], characteristic of the Priestly account and paramount to the understanding of this text as more than an ancient perspective on the creation of the cosmos.  

Considering that both the Enuma Elisha and the Priestly account of creation can be framed in poetic and liturgical terms, the resonating themes between these two compositions suggests a dependent relationship.  To begin, both the Priestly account of Genesis and the Enuma Elish suggest a world formed out of a watery chaos.  In Genesis, God moves over the face of the waters, then immediately moves into creating the world.  This chaos is personified in the Enuma Elish as the water goddess Tiamat from whose body Marduk creates the world.  Furthermore, another personified water god, Kingu, has his blood used as the ingredient for human life.  In both cases, it is out of this watery chaos that the world is created.  Furthermore, Genesis 1:26 suggests the idea of a Divine Council, with the character of God speaking in the first person plural tense, “Then God said, 'Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness.”  Throughout the Enuma Elish, this group of deities is not only acknowledged, but also named and incorporated in the form of Apsu, Tiamat, Marduk, and a plethora of other deities.  Finally, both creation stories describe the division of waters above and below the heavens.  In Genesis, the God of Israel makes this separation by the divine command whereas the Enuma Elish describes this division in more detail as Marduk separates the body of Tiamat.  In both cases, a division is made between the waters above and the waters below.  It should also be mentioned that these themes shared between the Priestly account and the Enuma Elish are not shared with the Yahwist Account of Genesis 2b-3:24.  This resonance, over and against the dissonance between Pentatuechal accounts, suggests a relationship between the Priestly account and the Enuma Elish.  Additionally, this relationship must be understood using the appropriate dating of each text.  Scholars generally agree to date the Enuma Elish during the eleventh century BCE, while the Priestly account of Genesis is dated much later, likely during the sixth century BCE.  Using these dates, and the resonance between these two texts, it can be surmised that the dependency within this relationship must be recognized as the Priestly account of Genesis relying on the Enuma Elish. 

Acknowledging the poetic and liturgical tones of both creation stories, and recognizing several significant themes resonating within both texts suggests a dependent relationship, the reasons for such a relationship being cultivated must also be explored.  It seems as if the Priestly account incorporated these themes of Akkadian mythology into their own story, and the question of “why” is of paramount importance to understanding the Priestly creation account.  As a predecessor to the Priestly account, and an Ancient Near Eastern composition, it is unlikely that the Priestly author would not have been aware of the Enuma Elish and its existence as an epic poem or hymn to the supreme Akkadian god Marduk.  Therefore, it would be advantageous for the final redactors of the Pentateuch to compose their own poem or hymn.  By utilizing several themes of the Enuma Elish, the Priestly writers were not only able to offer an obvious counter to the Akkadian epic, but one that would have resonated well within the minds of contemporary Ancient Near Eastern people groups.  Thus it seems that the Priestly authors intentionally framed their creation account in poetic and liturgical tones, and at the same time incorporated a number of themes from alternative creation epics, to construct the same type of composition.
            This evidence suggests an epic poem or hymn to the God of Israel as the supreme deity of the Israelites and of the Pentateuch.  In the same way that the Enuma Elish is recognized as a hymn or poem to Marduk, the framework of Genesis 1:2-4b suggests a similar motive.  Additionally, by incorporating themes that were already recognized as epic components, the Priestly author was able to position the Priestly account as an alternative to the Enuma Elish.  This would have been significant not only for religious purposes, but for national purposes as well.  Furthermore, by borrowing these themes from the Enuma Elish, the Priestly author is allowing for a degree of resonance within contemporary communities.   As the final redactor of the Pentateuch, writing in the sixth century BCE, it should not be at all surprising that the Priestly author chose to compose an alternative to the Enuma Elish.  Not only did the Israelites attribute the creation of the universe to the God of Israel, but they were also experiencing the oppression of a nation, which claimed an alternative deity.  The hymn to the God of Genesis 1-2:4a is a hymn that stands at opposition with the Enuma Elish for both religious and nationalistic reasons.  Despite the resonance between the two texts, the chief aim of each composition is to honor the chief god of each people group.  Subsequently, the primary objective for the Babylonians is to honor Marduk, and the primary objective for the Priestly author is to honor the God of Israel.  Taking this into account, while strong areas of resonance exist between the two texts, they contain alternative and opposing purposes.  In fact, due to this opposition, it can be observed that the resonance between the two was intentional, not as a reflection of common worldviews, but as the attribution of creation to alternative deities.  In short, it   can be concluded that the Priestly creation account capitalized on not only the composition of an epic poem or hymn to Marduk, but many of the themes within this composition as well, in an effort to compose Israel’s own hymn of praise to the God of Israel.

---

[1] James Hadley, “The Number Seven,” Essays Philological and Critical (New York: Holt & Williams, 1873), 325.

[2] S.H. Brooks, Babylonian and Assyrian Religion (New York:  The Mayflower Press, 1953).

[3] Substitute with day one, two, three, etc.

[4] Michael D. Coogan, The Old Testament:  A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures Second Edition (New York:  Oxford University Press, 2011), 32.

Judgment Day

This essay serves as a summary of Lutheran theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg’s theology of the final judgment.  While I find many of Pannenberg’s insights logically powerful, there are several major points with which I disagree.  However, as a global leader in the field of theology, his contributions should be noted and considered.  A rebuttal will be coming soon, but for now, this is what I took from Dr. Pannenberg’s insightful reflection on the Christian belief of the final judgment.

Christian hope for salvation rests upon the eschatological resurrection of all of humanity into eternal life with God.  That is to say that the temporal shall be transformed, not destroyed or replaced by eternity.  Further, this resurrection and eschaton is open to the fullness of the human populace, past, present, and future.  Finally, there are particular Christian advantages, so as to not mistake this theory with universalism.

To begin, the Christian hope of salvation affirms a belief in that which is temporal, i.e., humanity, being united with and made participant of God’s eternity.  This is not to say that humanity is not presently involved in God’s eternity, a point that shall emerge later in this essay, but that the perceived temporal limitations of this life will be overcome.  In order for this eternity to be a reality, there exists the necessity of soul and body being united in one human person.

In both Platonic and modern thought, the inseparability of body and soul is challenged.  Platonic thought suggests that the soul is a separate being from the body, and that upon death, the soul is released from its bodily prison.  Unfortunately, this individual salvation does nothing to address the whole of creation.  From a Christian perspective, it is imperative that the creation as a whole be reconciled, for after all, it is God’s creation.  In modernity, an alternative position has been taken in which the soul is not seen as an object to be saved, but only the body of humanity in general.  Through advancements and efforts, this notion suggests that there can in fact come a point in human history at which “Heaven” is ushered in as peace and justice are established and reign.  This notion also proves problematic as it in no way accounts for those who were not saved in the past.  Only those who are alive at the period in which salvation is attained will be capable of experiencing it.

In contrast to these alternative positions, Christianity teaches a bodily (emphasis on the whole person, not just the corporeal aspect of flesh) resurrection, of all peoples throughout history, at a one time eschatological event.  While many debate over the particulars of this event, it is imperative that the Christian maintain the notions of the full, one time resurrection of all peoples.  At this moment, the whole community of God is ushered into God’s eternity, and thus the Kingdom of God reigns.

The Kingdom of God entails peace and justice, but it is also contingent upon the eternal nature or space in which it exists.  Now eternity implies the sum of all temporal time existing within eternity.  That is to say that eternity does not replace temporality, but rather engulfs it as part of itself.  So it is that all people, from all places, at all times are brought into God’s eternity, as an expression of universal and eternal Christian community.  Unfortunately, this presents a problem.

If all people from all places at all times are brought into the eternity of God, then something must be done about their sin.  Yet as has been shown, eternity must engulf temporality, as temporality determines who people have become.  Unfortunately, the sin of humanity is a part of human existence.  It is sin that has caused separation from God in the first place, and it is sin that is ultimately responsible for death, be that literal natural death or eternal death as complete separation from God in eternity.   Therefore, a transformation and purification process must take place as the temporal enters into the eternal.  For Christians, this process is often referred to as sanctification, a process that begins in this life, and is completed at the final judgment.

When sin enters into God’s eternity, it cannot maintain its existence.  The conflict and contradiction of sin destroys itself in the presence of eternity.  Thus, the notion of a final judgment may be affirmed, but not in a final “court room” scene at the entrance of the pearly gates (the Honorable Judge Jesus presiding).  Rather, judgment comes as the sin that a person has chosen in life is destroyed in the presence of eternity.  For this reason, it does matter how one conducts oneself in this temporal life.  How much of ones person is left remaining is contingent upon how much sin one has pursued in this life.  The hope is that all of humanity may have some goodness left.  So it is that a mastermind of genocide is left with significantly less of him or herself than say, Saint Francis or Mother Teresa of Calcutta. 

However, the aforementioned judgment implies an act of reconciliation.  The Christian understands God’s reconciliation through the ministry and Word of Jesus Christ.  This reconciliation must be extended to all of humanity, be it through the proclamation of Christ, or at the final eschaton.  This offer of reconciliation will be given to all people at the final judgment, even if they were not aware of it before.  This does not imply however that all will be responsive to this reconciliation, as all are not responsive to Christ’s offer of reconciliation, in an accepting manner.  As humanity can chose to accept of reject Christ in this life, so can humanity either accept or reject the reconciliation offered at the final eschaton.  If one choses to reject it, one will be left to ones own sin, which will destroy oneself in the contradictions of sin in God’s eternity.  So it is that God does not rain down blessings and curses as the jury of angels reads the record of one’s life, but that the individual ultimately gets the opportunity to chose whether or not to accept God’s reconciliation and avoid self destruction.  This provides hope to all people but is not to say that all will be saved.

So if God’s reconciliation is extended to all people at the final eschaton, it would appear as if there is no advantage to the Christian, as salvation is ultimately offered to all.  However, there are significant advantages for the Christian over all others, but this also implies greater responsibility.  First, the Christian had heard the Word proclaimed through the message of Jesus Christ.  This results in the knowledge of how to live properly in this life, and consequently bring less sin into eternity.  This is held in tension however as, “to whom much is given much is required.”  Secondly, the Christian experiences the promises of Christ through baptism.  Baptism serves as an individual initiation into the Christian community, and an acknowledgement and gift of God’s grace.  Finally, the Christian experiences the community of believers, as a prolyptic sign of the Kingdom to come.  This is not to say that this community (the Church) is the Kingdom of God, but a sign of it.  For these three reasons, the Christian has a distinct advantage as assurance of salvation, despite reconciliation being offered to all peoples at the final eschaton.  As has been noted, this assurance necessitates the added responsibility of responding appropriately. 

In conclusion, there are three practical suggestions to be suggested as ways of appropriating the Christian understanding of eschatology.  First, at the moment of death, the Christian has great hope and assurance.  Death is still a reality, but it is no longer an eternal separation from God.  Rather, it is a hope in the eternal participation of humanity in God’s eternity.  One still has to die, but in death possesses the hope and assurance of resurrection, as signified in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Secondly, what one does in this life matters!  Christianity does not teach that God is planning to destroy God’s creation, but that God is determined to save and purify it.  There is no leaving earth and heading to the next, or trading one’s earthly being for a white robe and halo.  Rather, this life, as part of eternity and who one is, will be united with God’s greater eternity.  Sure, as temporality is engulfed by eternity some things will change (sin, evil, etc.), but that is not to say that there is this life and then comes the next.  This would be to suggest that what we do with this life, in and with this world, doesn’t matter at all.       

Finally, there is hope for all people.  Certainly Christianity has much to offer the world, and can encourage others to experience the assurance of salvation through our faith, but that does not mean that all non-Christians are lost and damned.  Reconciliation from God is offered to all and humanity must respond appropriately.  This will encourage inner-religious dialogue and foster a community of beings that are vested in peace and justice.  After all, Christian beliefs regarding salvation may not guarantee that all will be saved, but the hope is certainly there.

Commentary on Luke 19:1-10

            This text from Luke’s gospel introduces a unique and telling character by the name of Zacchaeus.  Once Luke acknowledges the fact that Zacchaeus is wealthy, the astute reader is already recalling the story of the rich ruler in chapter 18.  In the words of Ronald Reagan, “there you go again.”  For the second time in as many chapters, we have a character that is wealthy and Jewish, neither of which qualifies him as a traditional hero in the gospel of Luke.  For those hearing this story for the first time it would seem as if the future looks quite bleak for the wee little man from Jericho.  And yet the story takes a surprising twist. 

Zacchaeus has come to see Jesus, for no other reason than sheer curiosity, and somehow ends up being one of the good guys.  In his book, Luke for Everyone, N.T. Wright presents Zacchaeus as, “one of (Luke’s) minor heroes.”[1]  But why?  Positing Zacchaeus as a hero does nothing to advance Luke’s theme of bringing salvation to the Gentiles, and one runs the risk of implying a double standard, as Zacchaeus is celebrated while the rich ruler is condemned.  The answer to what qualifies Zacchaeus to attain the status of minor hero is essential to comprehending another theme paramount to the gospel itself.

            The obvious answer would be that this story has something to do with money.  The rich ruler is asked to give all he has to the poor and declines, while Zacchaeus gives half of everything he owns.  But what about the other half?  What about the whole leaving to follow Jesus part?  The text never suggests that Zacchaeus leaves Jericho after this scene is finished, he retains half of everything he owns, and yet Jesus assures us that salvation has come upon his house.  To suggest that money is the focal point of either of these stories simply doesn’t add up, no matter how radical that might be.

            Wait!  Jesus came to save sinners right?  Perhaps Zacchaeus is awarded salvation because he’s a sinner.  This line of thinking works until we come to the realization that the rich ruler was not free of sin himself, and if he were, he would be in no need of salvation.  So it is, that both characters are rich, both characters are Jews, and both characters are obviously sinners.  Yet despite all of this Jesus shows favor to one while condemning the other.  Okay, maybe Calvin was right.  Ehh… not so fast.  Let us turn to chapter 14 and the parable of the Great Banquet before jumping to such a bold conclusion.

            After giving a bit of practical advice regarding etiquette at a dinner party, Jesus exerts, “For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.”[2]  Now let’s go back to the scene in Jericho.  We have a man who is short in stature, overwhelmed by the crowds, and has no choice but to climb a tree just to see what is going on.  “He was surprisingly good at climbing trees for a man who was so unusually short that he had to take a flying leap just to get into his chair in the morning.”[3]

            Now there is no way a grown man, no matter how short he was, could have managed to climb up a tree in the midst of such a large crowd without being noticed.  In doing so, Zacchaeus affirmed his weakness in front of a crowd that already despised him.  It would have been difficult for Zacchaeus to find a “lower” seat than the heights of a sycamore tree.  As the story continues, it is Jesus who approaches Zacchaeus with the opportunity to welcome Him into his home.  And the rich young ruler?  Well he approached Jesus, essentially presented his qualification for eternal life, and sought affirmation for his pious reputation.  To this Jesus responds with a little slice of humble pie.  Eat it pledge.

            The conversion of Zacchaeus began before Jesus even walked his way.  Perhaps it was intentional, perhaps he didn’t care, but whatever the case, Zacchaeus was willing to humble himself in exchange for an encounter with Christ.  Only in light of our weakness are we able to experience the greatness of God.  Zacchaeus humbled himself and accepted Jesus out of humility, while the rich ruler exalted himself in an effort that ultimately lead him to reject the invitation.  The road to eternal life begins with humility, and salvation is not a reward but a gift. 

“This is the race that Jesus ran, humble to God, haughty to man.”[4]

---

[1] Luke for Everyone

[2] Luke 14:11

[3] The Jesus Storybook Bible

[4] The Everlasting Gospel