Back the in early 1990’s I belonged to a book club and purchased far more books than I could read in the small amount of time I had for such activity. Connecting to the internet (with all the fine material available there to read) took even more time away from book reading. I’m just recently getting caught up with those shelves of unread books.One of those books is The Death of Christian Culture, by John Senior (1978, RC Books). I don’t recall specifically purchasing this book, so it must have been one of those “bonuses” the club would send if you purchased another, more in demand title; the equivalent of a title offered in the discount rack at a book store.
After laboring through endless passages from “great books of our Christian and classical heritage” I finally got to the essence of the message Mr. Senior was looking to send:
- “Pacifism is international sentimentalism- and it is most definitely not Christian. Particular religious sects such as the Mennonites and Quakers are special cases that come under the rule of clerical privilege: Certain men may set themselves aside from the ordinary duties of society in order to pursue some higher aim that is not against the nature of society. Toleration under the rule of conscientious objection is a luxury a healthy nation can afford. But Christianity is not an idea, a theory, or a special privilege. It is a fact. And the fact remains that the history of Christian nations has been continuously military. Christian pacifists have got to deny the universal actual practice of two thousand years of Christianity, and beyond history to eternity with the wars of thrones and dominations, principalities and powers. Christian pacifists begin by denying the good of war and end by rewriting Scripture so as to exclude the good of hell. [hell is just punishment forever.]”
Allow me to analyze this passage line by line:
- “Pacifism is international sentimentalism- and it is most definitely not Christian.
So Christ’s plea for peace and to love your fellow man (even your enemies) and “turning the other cheek” is just useless, “sentimental” tripe? The opposite of pacifism is belligerence, combativeness, and acting war like. This is appropriate Christian behavior?
- Particular religious sects such as the Mennonites and Quakers are special cases that come under the rule of clerical privilege: Certain men may set themselves aside from the ordinary duties of society in order to pursue some higher aim that is not against the nature of society.
- Toleration under the rule of conscientious objection is a luxury a healthy nation can afford.
In other words, pronouncing absolute rejection to war is only to be “tolerated” until the nation state decides to pursue such activity. Long held and defended principles of peace and pacifism should be discarded once our secular masters (with the blessing of their religious counterparts) direct us to kill some unnamed enemy that threatens the state/church collective. Spoken like a true Christo-fascist hypocrite!
- But Christianity is not an idea, a theory, or a special privilege. It is a fact. And the fact remains that the history of Christian nations has been continuously military.
And this sordid history has produced what? Peace? Hardly. Every war creates a seed or seeds for still more wars as the vanquished counterattack and seek revenge. Death, destruction, misery, poverty, and spiritual incertitude are the consequences. Each war moves us ethically and spiritually further away from Christ’s easily understood commands. Each war seems to make the idea of future wars that much more acceptable and even encouraged.
- Christian pacifists have got to deny the universal actual practice of two thousand years of Christianity, and beyond history to eternity with the wars of thrones and dominations, principalities and powers.
No one is denying this “actual practice.” What’s being denied is that this practice has produced anything positive, anything beneficial to mankind, beyond strengthening the corrupt institutions that enslave the lives of individuals and diminish their spirit and sovereignty. Instead, the ethic promoted is that an individual should be motivated by serving the collective needs of the nation state rather than by his God-given free will confirmed by Christ.
Christian pacifists begin by denying the good of war and end by rewriting Scripture so as to exclude the good of hell. [hell is just punishment forever.]”
When did Christ ever promote the “good” of war? The author (and his predecessors and contemporaries) seem to confuse the ideas of spiritual war and earthly, physical war. Christ promoted the idea of spiritual war- fighting evil by enlightening the minds and hearts of men to reject earthly evils (including physical war). Hell as punishment? The state/church alliance’s centuries old attempt to create heaven on earth has created a hell on earth that punishes all.
Needless to say, after reading the above passage I closed the book, seeing no need to read further. Mr. Senior’s worldview (and one which I once held) is certainly not compatible with my present view, and reading further would only expose me to blather that once confused my thinking and distorted my reality. As the saying goes, “I’ve been there, man.”
The “Christian culture” Senior aims to defend and promote is really the culture promoted by Christian institutions. That culture includes loyalty and obedience to church doctrine, militarism (and the accompanying state loyalty), forced conversion of unsaved masses, and the acceptance of popes, priests, and preachers as gatekeepers to salvation. While the true Christian culture is that which results from individuals living amongst each other in a spirit of love, respect of life and property, voluntarism, and peace- the very tenets promoted by the Prince of Peace, himself.
The distinctly aberrant culture Mr. Senior describes as “Christian” may have “died” because it does not promote the civilized behavior necessary for a healthy culture to flourish and survive.
No comments:
Post a Comment