Why "Gays" (as a Group) Are Morally Superior to Christians (as a Group)

Morbert

In the wake of Trump's ban on trans people entering the military, a theological ethicist I follow tweeted this interesting article by Stanley Hauerwas:

"Why Gays (as a Group) Are Morally Superior to Christians (as a Group)"

Broadly speaking, he argues that Christendom's integration into the Western military machine, and LGBT exclusion from it, has exposed the moral failings of contemporary Christians. A Christian understanding of the abomination of war should render Christians just as problematic as gays when it comes to military service, but the military happily recruits Christians without any fear of subversion.

"Consider the implications of Catholic Christians trained to press issues of discrimination in terms of battlefield strategy. Would the military welcome pilots who worried if bombing drops might incur civilian casualties?"

"Even more troubling is what they might say to one another in such a group. Christians are asked to pray for the enemy. Could you really trust people in your unit who think the enemy’s life is as valid as their own or their fellow soldier? Could you trust someone who would think it more important to die than to kill unjustly? Are these people fit for the military?"

"If gays can be excluded as a group from the military, I have hope that it could even happen to Christians. God, after all, has done stranger things in the past. However, until God works this miracle, it seems clear to me that gays, as a group, are morally superior to Christians."

Manach

That is a premise that is perhaps as devoid of context as of content.

The balancing act that (in general) that Christianity injects into war and the study therof is derived both from the concept of a Just war (as per Augustine) and an attempt to have some form of overriding theory that places war as a societal action - as per the works of Claustwitz - that can be moderated instead of being an absolute goal in itself in the service of the state. The consequences of the latter can be best illustrated in the Soviet/Nazi clash of WWII. Hauerwas seems lacking in both a knowlegde of the foundations of Christianity as well as Military theory.
Thus it seems a rather easy career this "theological ethicist".

Morbert

While I don't tender this as an argument from authority, I should point out that Hauerwas is a theological heavyweight, and a leading thinker on Just War & Pacisfism. Accusing him of lacking knowledge of Christianity or military theory is quite a peculiar claim.

Is it your opinion that war, as it is practiced by the West, is a moderated societal action?

Mancomb Seepgood

A provocative title,I see it was written in 1993 so even more provocative then!

From a quick look,he was making the point that gay people were seen (by politicians and senior officers) as undermining the integrity of the military,an institution which Hauerwas considers fundamentally immoral.Christians, on the other hand are seen as fundamentally unthreatening as they (in general) won't undermine the military by letting their beliefs get in the way of their work.At least that's what it seems to say.

Its difficult to argue with this.Most wars don't even meet the Augustinian "just war" criteria,yet Christians have no problems joining their national militaries,even if those militaries engage in aggressive overseas adventures.In any case,Hauerwas is a pacifist and a serious and very accomplished theologian.

Manach

While it is to your credit that you find people on the Internet that support your worldview, thanks google, I'd again call into question both that person's knowledge of war a given that my sources (Clauswitz both in original writing and his present day interpreters such as Hew Strachen) are the ones who are advance this point on how the classical model of war is seen. Thus Hauerwas' assertion about the meanings and morality that military actions can be ascribed is lacking in a form of foundational framework to hang his assertions on.

Morbert

Manach wrote: »

While it is to your credit that you find people on the Internet that support your worldview, thanks google

Is this sarcasm? Do you think this kind of childish attitude is appropriate for serious discussion?

I'd again call into question both that person's knowledge of war a given that my sources (Clauswitz both in original writing and his present day interpreters such as Hew Strachen) are the ones who are advance this point on how the classical model of war is seen. Thus Hauerwas' assertion about the meanings and morality that military actions can be ascribed is lacking in a form of foundational framework to hang his assertions on.

This, at best, demonstrates contention, and not that Hauerwas lacks knowledge of Christianity or war. The theological community's opinion of Hauerwas is very much at odds with your account of him.

Morbert

Manach wrote: »

Thus Hauerwas' assertion about the meanings and morality that military actions can be ascribed is lacking in a form of foundational framework to hang his assertions on.

The foundational framework in this case would be Christianity.

hinault

Morbert wrote: »

In the wake of Trump's ban on trans people entering the military, a theological ethicist I follow tweeted this interesting article by Stanley Hauerwas:

"Why Gays (as a Group) Are Morally Superior to Christians (as a Group)"

Broadly speaking, it argues that Christendom's integration into the Western military machine, and LGBT exclusion from it, has exposed the moral failings of contemporary Christians. A Christian understanding of the abomination of war should render Christians just as problematic as gays when it comes to military service, but the military happily recruits Christians without any fear of subversion.

"Consider the implications of Catholic Christians trained to press issues of discrimination in terms of battlefield strategy. Would the military welcome pilots who worried if bombing drops might incur civilian casualties?"

"Even more troubling is what they might say to one another in such a group. Christians are asked to pray for the enemy. Could you really trust people in your unit who think the enemy’s life is as valid as their own or their fellow soldier? Could you trust someone who would think it more important to die than to kill unjustly? Are these people fit for the military?"

"If gays can be excluded as a group from the military, I have hope that it could even happen to Christians. God, after all, has done stranger things in the past. However, until God works this miracle, it seems clear to me that gays, as a group, are morally superior to Christians."

Morality concerns behaviour. In fact morality concerns only behaviour.

The Church teaches that every person must try to lead a sinless life. Part of the instruction given by the Church is that to avoid sin, a person must avoid or minimise the temptation to commit sin.

The author of the piece trying to bring some sort of equivalence between the ban on homosexuals in the military and the behaviour of christian solders in war time, doesn't make sense in my opinion.

War is a specific condition of military service.

How many people who have served in the military have served in a theatre of war, as a percentage of the entire number who've served throughout the military?

I don't see where any credible comparison can be drawn.

Manach

Morbert wrote: »

Is this sarcasm? Do you think this kind of childish attitude is appropriate for serious discussion?
Your faux-outrage, in light of the OP, brilliant.


This, at best, demonstrates contention, and not that Hauerwas lacks knowledge of Christianity or war. The theological community's opinion of Hauerwas is very much at odds with your account of him.

It shows that both of ye lack a knowledge of war as it is understood from Napoleonic times onwards. This as relates to the problematic definational issues of what constitutes War, The West and Morality that is part and parcel of the discussions of how war realiites to societal structures and the use of armed force.

Morbert

hinault wrote: »

Morality concerns behaviour. In fact morality concerns only behaviour.

The Church teaches that every person must try to lead a sinless life. Part of the instruction given by the Church is that to avoid sin, a person must avoid or minimise the temptation to commit sin.

The author of the piece trying to bring some sort of equivalence between the ban on homosexuals in the military and the behaviour of christian solders in war time, doesn't make sense in my opinion.

War is a specific condition of military service.

How many people who have served in the military have served in a theatre of war, as a percentage of the entire number who've served throughout the military?

I don't see where any credible comparison can be drawn.

Hauerwas argues that Christianity should render Christians ineffective or subversive military personnel, due to their attitudes towards both the enemy and civilians.

He then uses this as a premise to argue that Christian participation in western wars constitutes a sever moral failing, and that gays, simply by virtue of their exclusion, constitute a morally superior group.

I don't think his arguments hinge on any statics of participation in war vs military service.

Morbert

Your faux-outrage, in light of the OP, brilliant.

I'm also not sure what you mean by this. Outrage?

Also, what is it you believe is my position? Do you believe I am either a Christian or a pacifist?

Manach wrote: »

It shows that both of ye lack a knowledge of war as it is understood from Napoleonic times onwards. This as relates to the problematic definational issues of what constitutes War, The West and Morality that is part and parcel of the discussions of how war realiites to societal structures and the use of armed force.

Hauerwas's understanding of war is a Christian one, and he explicitly argues against framing Christianity in modernity. Much of his career is dedicated to arguing that Christianity, to its detriment, has been reframed by modernity.

He might very well reject a modern understanding of war, but that is not sufficient to argue he lacks knowledge of war. A modern framing might or might not describe contemporary wars as just (a discussion for another day), but Hauerwas's thesis is that a Christian framing absolutely does not.

hinault

Morbert wrote: »

Hauerwas argues that Christianity should render Christians ineffective or subversive military personnel, due to their attitudes towards both the enemy and civilians.

He then uses this as a premise to argue that Christian participation in western wars constitutes a sever moral failing, and that gays, simply by virtue of their exclusion, constitute a morally superior group.

I don't think his arguments hinge on any statics of participation in war vs military service.

I think he's trying to draw an equivalence which is not there.

We need to examine why homosexuals were barred from military service.

The argument that homosexuals should not be permitted to serve in the military was because such service requires personnel of the same gender being accommodated on the same premises and that such living arrangements could become opportunities for homosexual sexual activity. That is a reasonable argument to make and it is justification for the bar.

To say that the bar on homosexuals serving in the military makes homosexuals morally superior than Christians who'd kill their enemy in war, is a bizzare and inaccurate equivalence, in my opinion.
I don't see how any equivalence could be drawn. War is a specific condition of military service. It is the exception rather than the rule.

Manach

How can he argue against war and the interaction of Christians (or any other group) in such when he lacks the modern understanding of it as it understood now. The dominant narrative was been Clausewitz and that has been the mainstream narrative in the West for generations on the political use of War. By not engaging with such and his assertions on how war is view from a Western perspective is akin to arguing the benefits of Phrenology.

Simply put, he might be known to his own group but within the wider understanding of military theory (having just check some current works) he has no traction or mention of and is arguing against his own straw man constructs and not that of current thinkers in the field. So by relying on his limited straw man, you are likewise asserting from an argument that does not reflect reality.

Thus there is no case to argue for or against.

homer911

No good will come of this thread, I sense an early closure...

Morbert

Manach wrote: »

How can he argue against war and the interaction of Christians (or any other group) in such when he lacks the modern understanding of it as it understood now. The dominant narrative was been Clausewitz and that has been the mainstream narrative in the West for generations on the political use of War. By not engaging with such and his assertions on how war is view from a Western perspective is akin to arguing the benefits of Phrenology.

Simply put, he might be known to his own group but within the wider understanding of military theory (having just check some current works) he has no traction or mention of and is arguing against his own straw man constructs and not that of current thinkers in the field. So by relying on his limited straw man, you are likewise asserting from an argument that does not reflect reality.

If I understand your objection correctly, you are saying a modern framework might describe some wars as just by Christian standards, and Hauerwas is wrong because he is not acquainted with this modern framework.

Instead, Hauerwas is claiming a Christian framework, being incompatible with a modern enlightenment framework, does not describe these wars as just.

You might argue that employing a Christian rather than modern framework means he is limiting his criticism of war to "his own group", but his own group are Christians, and plenty of them have participated in war. It's therefore perfectly reasonable and relevant to interrogate Christian participation in war from a Christian perspective.

smacl

Manach wrote: »

Thus there is no case to argue for or against.

It does seem reasonable that someone who undertakes not to kill, unless it is in a just war, should not join the army as killing during a war may be demanded of them and they have no say as whether or not that war is just. Is this a responsibility a Christian can pass onto whatever politician or military leader happens to be in charge?

Peregrinus

homer911 wrote: »

No good will come of this thread, I sense an early closure...

This is an excellent thread, complies fully with the forum charter as far as I can see, and is the kind of thread we could do with a lot more of.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is an excellent thread, complies fully with the forum charter as far as I can see, and is the kind of thread we could do with a lot more of.

Agreed, though the opening argument seems flawed on two counts. Firstly Christians and gays aren't distinct groups, there are plenty of gay Christians. Secondly one can't claim moral superiority on the basis of not being allowed join the army, it would surely need to be an elective decision. There could well be a proportionately similar number of gays that would like to join the army, given the choice to do so.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Agreed, though the opening argument seems flawed on two counts. Firstly Christians and gays aren't distinct groups, there are plenty of gay Christians. Secondly one can't claim moral superiority on the basis of not being allowed join the army, it would surely need to be an elective decision. There could well be a proportionately similar number of gays that would like to join the army, given the choice to do so.

I think Hauerwas's headline is deliberately provocative and overstated. (It may be relevant that this originally appeared in a newspapers as an opinion piece.) If you read the article, although is final statement is that "gays, as a group, are morally superior to Christians", I think he's being ironic there. At no point does he construct a coherent argument for this. In fact he makes it clear that in his view the ban on gays has nothing to do with any moral virtues or vices that may or may not characterise the gay community. The gay ban is a tool for creating an illusion of moral certainty, so that the wider community can continue to be in denial about its own moral confusion. That may be an indictment of the wider community, but it's not an endorsement of gays.

Hauerwas's argument here isn't about gays at all; it's about Christians. In Hauerwas's view, fidelity to authentic Christian beliefs and values should make you highly undesirable as a soldier. Therefore, if Christians were as faithful as they should be, they would be excluded from the military. If society is looking for a scapegoat to exclude from the military, faithful Christians should make a much more plausible, justifiable scapegoat than gays. The fact that gays get this dubious honour may not be an endorsement of gays, but it is an indictment of Christians.

Delirium

smacl wrote: »

Agreed, though the opening argument seems flawed on two counts. Firstly Christians and gays aren't distinct groups, there are plenty of gay Christians. Secondly one can't claim moral superiority on the basis of not being allowed join the army, it would surely need to be an elective decision. There could well be a proportionately similar number of gays that would like to join the army, given the choice to do so.

Pretty much what I was thinking when I first read the thread.

hinault

The more one reads the linked article I think the author is being ironic about the moral superiority aspect.

Peregrinus

Well, you could make this argument:

If and to the extent that it is true that there is some aspect or dimension of LGBT identity, culture, etc which is genuinely challenging to or subversive of the culture/ethic of redemptive violence that underpins/sustains the US military (which is either the explicit or the implicit justification offered for the gay ban) then gays are challenging/subverting that ethic in a way that Christians ought to be, but evidently aren't (since they're not banned). And, therefore, in that respect, the gay stance is (morally) better than the Christian stance.

But it's a highly qualified argument and, as I say, I don't think Hauerwas is making it anyway. At no point does he suggest that gays are in fact subversive of military culture/ethics. He offers an entirely different explanation for the ban.

I think the truth is that Hauerwas's title is an attention-grabber, nothing more. He's not concerned that gays are subverting military culture; he's concerned that Christians aren't.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think the truth is that Hauerwas's title is an attention-grabber, nothing more. He's not concerned that gays are subverting military culture; he's concerned that Christians aren't.

It does seem like a reasonable concern, in that many modern conflicts that involve Christian soldiers, e.g. the Gulf wars, would struggle to meet the criteria for a just war. While it could be argued that the soldiers were unaware of this fact at the time, I'm not sure how that qualifies as an excuse. Similarly, given that Donald Trump is currently commander in chief of the American army, one wonders how many soldiers would have serious reservations as to whether any and every conflict he might enter them into would be just. I'm picking on the yanks here, but the same could be said for many modern armies.

EirWatchr

smacl wrote: »

It does seem like a reasonable concern, in that many modern conflicts that involve Christian soldiers, e.g. the Gulf wars, would struggle to meet the criteria for a just war.

Indeed, there are those who even say no war can ever be claimed to be just because the criteria can never be fulfilled (especially the criterion of last resort, which can never be proven to have been exhausted).

hinault

The article is food for thought in respect of people of faith serving in the military and the dilemma they face in the event of war and having to kill the enemy.

The are many arguments made in respect of the person of faith taking another human life. One could reasonably argue that no person of faith should place themselves in that situation.

Personally I could only justify killing someone else if they were physically trying to kill me. But what degree of self defence I apply may well differ to other peoples degree.

EirWatchr

hinault wrote: »

Personally I could only justify killing someone else if they were physically trying to kill me. But what degree of self defence I apply may well differ to other peoples degree.

Also, if you participate in a war (even a defensive one), you put yourself in a situation where the above could (and likely will) arise, so hence the moral obligation to conscientious objection (or support of the war effort from a non-combative role).

lazybones32

The article title is the 90's version of clickbait. The retweeting of the article is more clickbait...don't know who it is aimed at; Trump is an atheist so it can't be him.

On the morality of war: it's hard to find any conflict post WWII that could be classed as just, but how many of the wars before that could also be considered just? WWI was kind of a family dispute played out with other people's lives.

It would have been better, imo, to critique the propaganda used to justify war to, and gain recruits from, the Christian population of USA, rather than have an offensive title which can set the readers mind against your point before they even get your point. But i guess there is a reason why this essay or paper is largely forgotten about.

Mancomb Seepgood

lazybones32 wrote: »

The article title is the 90's version of clickbait. The retweeting of the article is more clickbait...don't know who it is aimed at; Trump is an atheist so it can't be him.

On the morality of war: it's hard to find any conflict post WWII that could be classed as just, but how many of the wars before that could also be considered just? WWI was kind of a family dispute played out with other people's lives.

It would have been better, imo, to critique the propaganda used to justify war to, and gain recruits from, the Christian population of USA, rather than have an offensive title which can set the readers mind against your point before they even get your point. But i guess there is a reason why this essay or paper is largely forgotten about.

The "gays in the military" debate was in the news in a big way when this was written in 1993,though, culminating in Bill Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Hauerwas has a reputation for being provocative and wouldn't let an opportunity like this go amiss - his aim was to provoke,even shock those Christians who are supportive of the military and it's actions.

I get that that in 2017 it looks kind of clickbait-y but in reality it was probably aimed mainly at other theologians and denominational leaders.

FWIW,Trump sees himself as a Presbyterian,although many Presbyterians aren't too happy about that.I suspect his real religion is self-worship.

lazybones32

Mancomb Seepgood wrote: »

The "gays in the military" debate was in the news in a big way when this was written in 1993,though, culminating in Bill Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Hauerwas has a reputation for being provocative and wouldn't let an opportunity like this go amiss - his aim was to provoke,even shock those Christians who are supportive of the military and it's actions.

I get that that in 2017 it looks kind of clickbait-y but in reality it was probably aimed mainly at other theologians and denominational leaders.

FWIW,Trump sees himself as a Presbyterian,although many Presbyterians aren't too happy about that.I suspect his real religion is self-worship.

I remember the simpsons having a one-liner or two about 'don't ask..' but nothing more.
Trump gave an interview years ago where he said he didn't believe God exists but thinks there may be some sort of afterlife.

Morbert

As an aside, the current comparison might be moot.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/07/joint-chiefs-transgender-ban-military

lazybones32 wrote:

The article title is the 90's version of clickbait. The retweeting of the article is more clickbait...

The title is provocative, but I do think he meant what he said. He certainly isn't claiming the intentions of the LGBT community are more virtuous, but the ban meant they were denied grievous participation in war. Unpacking what it means to be "morally superior" in this context probably requires an exploration of the deontological aspects of Christian ethics, if there are any.

lazybones32

Morbert wrote: »

As an aside, the current comparison might be moot.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/07/joint-chiefs-transgender-ban-military



The title is provocative, but I do think he meant what he said. He certainly isn't claiming the intentions of the LGBT community are more virtuous, but the ban meant they were denied grievous participation in war. Unpacking what it means to be "morally superior" in this context probably requires an exploration of the deontological aspects of Christian ethics, if there are any.

Yeah, i read the link and know it's a critique of christians who render military service. But the title could have been more honest and accurate.

But as to the content and inspiration of the Trump tweet: i question the wisdom of people with psychological issues being given access to weapons. His tweet doesn't amount to a presidential order, so why are people getting so worked up by it?

J C

Manach wrote: »

That is a premise that is perhaps as devoid of context as of content.

I agree ... and virtue signalling is nearly always an exercise in hypocracy.
Firstly all generalisations are false ... and the OP is certainly a generalisation.
Secondly, gays aren't excluded from the military and many (both closet and 'out') are in the military ... and Trumps tweet was only a tweet and, in any event, only seems to apply to transgenders.
Thirdly, some Christian denominations don't join the military on principle ... and if conscripted they refuse to engage in combat ... the Quakers and Amish come to mind.
Fourthly, some individual Christians, within other denominations, also refuse to engage in military combat.
Finally, there is a moral imperative to defend the weak against injustice and to pursue and defeat evil ... so taking part in a just war is morally justified IMO ...
For example, taking up arms to stop Hitler engaging in his genocide, was actually a highly moral position to adopt and pursue IMO ... while sitting on the sidelines and letting others do the fighting wasn't virtuous at all IMO.

uck51js9zml2yt

I know a lot of Christians in the Irish Defence Forces, both NCO and officer.
I remember talking to one of them a few years ago about him having to shoot someone.
His dilemma was that if he shot someone who was unsaved, he robbed him of his chance of salvation. On the other hand he may be shooting his brother in the Lord.

I'm not sure he reconciled it in his own head.
For now we have a defence force and not an army. We don't engage in active military engagements only peace keeping.

Peregrinus

J C wrote: »

I agree ... and virtue signalling is nearly always an exercise in hypocracy.

Well, yes. And one of Hauerwas's points is that the ban on gays in the military was virtue signalling.

J C wrote: »

Firstly all generalisations are false ...

I'm sure you mean that ironically

J C wrote: »

Secondly, gays aren't excluded from the military and many (both closet and 'out') are in the military ... and Trumps tweet was only a tweet and, in any event, only seems to apply to transgenders.

When Hauerwas wrote his article in 1993, LBGT people were generally banned in the US military. The ban which Trump has just announced applied only to the "T" in LBGT, but presumably much of what Hauerwas had to say about the wider ban in '93 would still be pertinent to a narrower ban. And as for it being "just a tweet", don't forget that for the Donald the tweet is the highest and most authentic form of expression!

J C wrote: »

Thirdly, some Christian denominations don't join the military on principle ... and if conscripted they refuse to engage in combat ... the Quakers and Amish come to mind.
Fourthly, some individual Christians, within other denominations, also refuse to engage in military combat.

Yes, and Hauerwas himself has been influenced by the theological traditions of the peace churches, though he himself is from a Methodist background. But he recognised that they're fairly marginal in the US Christian tradition; when he writes of "Christians" as an undifferentiated group, he means American Christians as a whole, who are generally uncritical of the place that violence has in the American self-understanding.

J C wrote: »

Finally, there is a moral imperative to defend the weak against injustice and to pursue and defeat evil ... so taking part in a just war is morally justified IMO ...
For example, taking up arms to stop Hitler engaging in his genocide, was actually a highly moral position to adopt and pursue IMO ... while sitting on the sidelines and letting others do the fighting wasn't virtuous at all IMO.

I don't think Hauerwas is an absolutist pacifist, though he does argue that Christianity requires an ethic of non-violence. But he would certainly be critical of, e.g. talking about the struggle against Hitler in such a simplistic binary, and framing the discourse in ways which suggest that everyone to fought Hitler did so "to stop Hitler engaging in his genocide", when for the most part this certainly wasn't the case.

J C

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm sure you mean that ironically

Yes ... I was using a generalisation to (ironically) say that all generalisations are false ... well spotted !!:)

J C

Mathew Lively Airline wrote: »

I know a lot of Christians in the Irish Defence Forces, both NCO and officer.
I remember talking to one of them a few years ago about him having to shoot someone.
His dilemma was that if he shot someone who was unsaved, he robbed him of his chance of salvation. On the other hand he may be shooting his brother in the Lord.

I'm not sure he reconciled it in his own head.
For now we have a defence force and not an army. We don't engage in active military engagements only peace keeping.

Peace keeping or not ... it is an occupational hazard that a member of the military (or indeed the police) may have to kill somebody.
To do this can be very difficult for anybody ... whether Christian or not.

smacl

J C wrote: »

Peace keeping or not ... it is an occupational hazard that a member of the military (or indeed the police) may have to kill somebody.
To do this can be very difficult for anybody ... whether Christian or not.

Not sure the same logic applies to the a police force unless they have a specific shoot to kill policy in a given situation, which will be unusual. Killing people is part of the job of a soldier in times of war, it isn't for the vast majority of law enforcement officers.

J C

smacl wrote: »

Not sure the same logic applies to the a police force unless they have a specific shoot to kill policy in a given situation, which will be unusual. Killing people is part of the job of a soldier in times of war, it is isn't for the vast majority of law enforcement officers.

I agree that killing is more central to soldering ... but my point was that when somebody kills another Human Being, whether as soldier or as a member of the police it is bound to be very difficult.

Peregrinus

J C wrote: »

I agree that killing is more central to soldering ... but my point was that when somebody kills another Human Being, whether as soldier or as a member of the police it is bound to be very difficult.

Well, yes. Even if you kill somebody as a civilian, in self-defence, say, or in defence of another, that's still going to be very difficult.

But I think the issue here is not just the morally problematic nature of killing. A soldier, unlike a policeman or a civilian, undertakes to kill somebody on the orders of another, without making his own enquiry into the moral justification. So joining the army is not simply a matter of exposing yourself to difficult moral challenges; it's abdicating to another - a non-Christian other - the responsiblity for taking the moral decisions that need to be taken, and committing yourself to implement the moral decisions that he takes. By killing people when told to do so.

And, in the US context to which the article refers, I think Hauerwas would say that US defence policy and culture, if examined, will be seen to be fuundamentally imcompatible with authentic Christian teachings. And therefore a Christian who joins the US forces is not merely surrendering his moral judgment about who and when to kill to another, but he is surrendering it to those who, he knows or should know, will make moral judgments on the subject which are fundamentally incompatible with Christian teachings.

To take this stance you don't have to be a pacifist, or even committed to nonviolence. You just have to recognise that American values and attitudes as they shape and direct the military, and US government policy with respect to the military, are fundamentally imcompatible with, e.g., Christian teachings on just war. Recognising this is not pacifism or nonviolence, Hauerwas would say; it's just realism. And therefore Christians, whether pacifists or not, should not join the army.

J C

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, yes. Even if you kill somebody as a civilian, in self-defence, say, or in defence of another, that's still going to be very difficult.

But I think the issue here is not just the morally problematic nature of killing. A soldier, unlike a policeman or a civilian, undertakes to kill somebody on the orders of another, without making his own enquiry into the moral justification. So joining the army is not simply a matter of exposing yourself to difficult moral challenges; it's abdicating to another - a non-Christian other - the responsiblity for taking the moral decisions that need to be taken, and committing yourself to implement the moral decisions that he takes. By killing people when told to do so.

And, in the US context to which the article refers, I think Hauerwas would say that US defence policy and culture, if examined, will be seen to be fuundamentally imcompatible with authentic Christian teachings. And therefore a Christian who joins the US forces is not merely surrendering his moral judgment about who and when to kill to another, but he is surrendering it to those who, he knows or should know, will make moral judgments on the subject which are fundamentally incompatible with Christian teachings.

To take this stance you don't have to be a pacifist, or even committed to nonviolence. You just have to recognise that American values and attitudes as they shape and direct the military, and US government policy with respect to the military, are fundamentally imcompatible with, e.g., Christian teachings on just war. Recognising this is not pacifism or nonviolence, Hauerwas would say; it's just realism. And therefore Christians, whether pacifists or not, should not join the army.

You make some good points ... and some Christians don't join the military for these and other principled reasons.
... and I'm sure that some Gays also don't join the military for similar reasons ... but many Gays do join it ... so where is the moral superiority alluded to by the OP in that?

hinault

J C wrote: »

You make some good points ... and some Christians don't join the military for these and other principled reasons.
... and I'm sure that some Gays also don't join the military for similar reasons ... but many Gays do join it ... so where is the moral superiority alluded to by the OP in that?

Serving God and country, was a catchphrase that used to be applied in the case of military service.

I guess the use of that phrase coincided with the citizens perception that the political decision to go to war was justified. And truthful. People trusted the politicians decision to go to war, back then.

In more recent decades people, rightly or wrongly, question the basis for the political decision taken to go to war. People don't trust the decisions taken by politicians on a whole range of issues. Therefore the decision to go to war is bound to be one which is subject to distrust. After all the first casualty in conflicts of war is the truth.

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

I guess the use of that phrase coincided with the citizens perception that the political decision to go to war was justified. And truthful. People trusted the politicians decision to go to war, back then.

God only knows why, there being nothing new under the sun.

Peregrinus

J C wrote: »

You make some good points ... and some Christians don't join the military for these and other principled reasons.
... and I'm sure that some Gays also don't join the military for similar reasons ... but many Gays do join it ... so where is the moral superiority alluded to by the OP in that?

Well, I've already said that I think Hauerwas's headline was overstated for the purposes of being provocative.

If I live a chaste lifestyle because nobody will sleep with me, does this make me virtuously chaste? I think most people would say "no". Similarly, if I don't serve in the military because the military won't have me, you can't either laud my principled pacifism or denounce my craven cowardice. The decision that I would not serve was not my decision.

But if it is true that the exclusion of gays is based on some incompatibility between gay culture/attitudes/values and the needs of military service, then Hauerwas would say that's a good aspect of gay culture, and it's a good aspect which Christian culture clearly lacks.

Or, you could argue, if they're looking around for a group to exclude from the military as a spot of virtue-signalling or to bolster there own self-esteem or whatever, and the group they pick on is not you, Christians, then you're obviously doing Christianity wrong. Which is a bad thing.

Peregrinus

hinault wrote: »

Serving God and country, was a catchphrase that used to be applied in the case of military service.

I guess the use of that phrase coincided with the citizens perception that the political decision to go to war was justified. And truthful. People trusted the politicians decision to go to war, back then.

In more recent decades people, rightly or wrongly, question the basis for the political decision taken to go to war. People don't trust the decisions taken by politicians on a whole range of issues. Therefore the decision to go to war is bound to be one which is subject to distrust. After all the first casualty in conflicts of war is the truth.

Hauerwas would say that the "serving God and country" slogan is blasphemous. It represents civil and military co-option of the concept of "God" for entirely worldly and ungodly purposes.

Cabaal

lazybones32 wrote: »

The article title is the 90's version of clickbait. The retweeting of the article is more clickbait...don't know who it is aimed at; Trump is an atheist so it can't be him.

Nice try,
But he's actually NOT an Atheist

Many people incorrectly clam that he claimed that "being an atheist gives Trump "an edge in every deal." in his book "The Art of the Deal" but he never refers to being an atheist or religion in general in this book. So the claim is 100% false.

Other people claim he said he was an atheist during campaign in 2016, but this is also 100% false.

He's be a very poor atheist given his religious liberty order and the fact he allows his cabinet to have a bible study group in the white house.

Trump is very much a religious man, he has links to religious leaders and he takes communion. Trump is Presbyterian.

Back in 2011 he clearly stated that in an interview "I am a Protestant. I am a Presbyterian within the Protestant group and I go to Church as much as I can. And I am a believer. Now I don’t know if that makes me conservative or not, but I am a believer." Source: http://humanevents.com/2011/03/14/trump-unplugged/

lazybones32

Cabaal wrote: »

Nice try,
But he's actually NOT an Atheist

Many people incorrectly clam that he claimed that "being an atheist gives Trump "an edge in every deal." in his book "The Art of the Deal" but he never refers to being an atheist or religion in general in this book. So the claim is 100% false.

Other people claim he said he was an atheist during campaign in 2016, but this is also 100% false.

He's be a very poor atheist given his religious liberty order and the fact he allows his cabinet to have a bible study group in the white house.

Trump is very much a religious man, he has links to religious leaders and he takes communion. Trump is Presbyterian.

Back in 2011 he clearly stated that in an interview "I am a Protestant. I am a Presbyterian within the Protestant group and I go to Church as much as I can. And I am a believer. Now I don’t know if that makes me conservative or not, but I am a believer." Source: http://humanevents.com/2011/03/14/trump-unplugged/

The publication I was referring to was a Playboy interview where he said he didn't believe in God but might believe in some afterlife. I didn't read it, or look at the pictures but Quora had it.

So Trump would be a very poor atheist by allowing religious liberties and people to study the bible in the W.H?

Cabaal

lazybones32 wrote: »

The publication I was referring to was a Playboy interview where he said he didn't believe in God but might believe in some afterlife. I didn't read it, or look at the pictures but Quora had it.

Didn't look at the pictures....sure thing
So this would be the 1997 interview in Playboy you are referencing

Trump was asked by reporter Glenn Plaskin if he was worried about his own mortality. "No," Trump answered. "I'm fatalistic, and I protect myself as well as anybody can. I prepare for things. But ultimately we all end up going."

Trump was heading up the stairs to dinner when he turned back to Plaskin, contemplating the afterlife. "No," he said. "I don't believe in reincarnation, heaven or hell — but we go someplace."

"Do you know," he said, "I cannot, for the life of me, figure out where."

So he's clearly not an Atheist so...Agnostic perhaps at that time though.

Now the interviewer went on to state:

Trump is not a religious man, not in the traditional sense nor in Marla's New Age manner. Still, she pesters him to go with her to church on Sundays.

"I don't want to go to that hillbilly church you go to," he tells her. "If I'm going, I want to go to a church where somebody knows me."

What purpose if one is not seen to worship?

"Tony," he asks his butler, "what's that church?"

"St. Andrew's, sir."

"Who does Donald know at St. Andrew's?" Marla asks.

"God," says Tony.

And the Donald laughs all the way up the stairs.

So given this was back in 1997 and based on more recent info from Trump we can safely come to the conclusion that Trump was perhaps agnostic? but he now considers himself a Presbyterian (as per his own words).

So again, certainly not an Atheist like you claimed.

Claiming he is a Atheist is like claiming a person who calls themselves a Catholic and who goes to mass each week is an Atheist. This of course wouldn't be the case

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

A few thoughts:

There isn't a single Biblical reference in the PDF on the first post. I think there's scope for a serious argument but without Biblical engagement it isn't of much use.

Secondly - the claim that anyone is morally superior than anyone else is nullified in the New Testament. The idea that anyone can be morally upright on their own account is flattened particularly in Romans chapters 1 to 3 which is why Luther held to salvation by grace alone (sola gratia).

Thirdly - as for whether or not Donald Trump is a Christian is a matter for him and God. He will like all of us be judged on God's standard and not our own.

I think the article is unhelpful as it doesn't cause us to focus on how desperately the world needs Jesus Christ. All people everywhere need to repent of their sin. Superiority and inferiority have no truck. Other people are not the yardstick.

The fundamental question that Christianity resolves is how can a holy God dwell with sinful people? The answer is only through Jesus' blood. That's true for everyone. When Jesus returns we'll stand before Him in judgement.

That's as much true for the atheist as the Christian because Jesus will objectively return. Should that have implications for how the Christian lives? Yes, hugely challenging ones that I find hard everyday.

How do I get over myself getting obsessed about today and get focused on the future hope that I have in Jesus and how can I focus on living a godly life today both so I can be more like Jesus and to call others to follow Him before it's too late for them.

A huge rebuke to me as well as to all of us. If Stanley Hauerwas focused on this more it'd be better for everyone.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

You and Hauerwas are closer than you think, solo! His main critique of American Christians is that, despite what they say, in their deeds they put their faith in wealth, power, violence, etc to save them, and this allows Christianity, or at any rate the language and institutions of Christianity, to be co-opted in support of wordly and sinful goals. As he puts it:

"When Christians no longer believe that Christ's sacrifice is sufficient for the salvation of the world, we will find other forms of sacrificial behaviours that are as compelling as they are idolatrous."

He sees American militarism as one of these "sacrificial behaviours". (And not just American mililtarism, but he largely writes for an American readership. Plus, as an American, its something he's familiar with.)

Nick Park

lazybones32 wrote: »

So Trump would be a very poor atheist by allowing religious liberties and people to study the bible in the W.H?

That was Cabaal's claim - possibly much more revealing about the kind of atheism that Cabaal espouses, rather than about Trump's beliefs.

Nick Park

The original article by Hauerwas, as has already been pointed out, was deliberately provocative in order to challenge the syncretistic distortion of Christianity which, sadly quite common in the US, exalts patriotism and military might rather than the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Addressing the thread title at its face value, being denied the equal opportunity to enrol in the army and kill people because of one's sexual orientation is hardly a measure of righteousness.

Have there ever been cases of gay people being imprisoned because, on the grounds of their sexual orientation, they refused to carry arms and claimed the status of conscientious objectors?

As someone who is a pacifist on religious grounds, I would encourage readers here to read a bit more of Hauerwas. A less academic approach, but one that makes a compelling case for pacifism, is Brian Zahnd's "A Farewell to Mars" (which I think is possibly one of the cleverest book titles of all time).