Recently Argus directed my attention to this “Easter Sermon” by Kim Fabricus, with the comment that it may be rather political, but perhaps that’s alright. As may be reasonably inferred by my posting this, I have several disagreements with the contents of the sermon (and one with the comment of Argus as well).
Mr. Fabricus begins his sermon by invoking the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. My immediate reaction was, “no good can come of this.” Unfortunately, I was pretty much right. Whenever someone invokes that day in a sermon, there will be one of two sermons to follow: the conservative righteous-anger-we-must-smite-them sermon discussing how our armies are now off fighting to liberate the middle east, or the liberal why-can’t-we-just-get-along sermon about how our armies need to pack it in and America needs to turn the other cheek. This sermon turned out to be the latter, though both are equally obnoxious and inflammatory in a religious setting (a separate issue).
The sermon centers around tactlessly (see below) comparing the aftermath of the Crucifixion with the aftermath of 9/11. He emphasizes the point that “the most astonishing thing of all about the resurrection of Jesus: there was no payback!” (emphasis his). There were no legions of avenging angels sent to cow the Romans and exact retribution for His ignominious death. He goes on to imply that forgiveness is the appropriate response to terrorism.
Now, this does sound somewhat reasonable from a Christian perspective, but there is one major flaw in his thinking that should be apparent to even the most casual of observers (particularly American ones): he has conflated the religious and the political. It is the solemn duty of a temporal, political body to protect its citizens. We can debate whether the methods are effective at doing so, but to argue that the government of the United States of America should turn the other cheek is preposterous. A government unwilling to take up arms in its own defense will be conquered and destroyed, and thus unable to spread its influence. Had Christ set Himself up as a political figure, the messiah-king the Jews all expected, he would have had to do precisely what Mr. Fabricus is decrying: punish the Romans, to ensure that his worldly kingdom would not be extinguished, thus driving the Gospel out of the world forever (see the modern state of Israel).
Beyond that, there is a general moral hazard problem associated with forgiveness rather than punishment from the perspective of the state. Essentially, it is the political equivalent of the old aphorism, “spare the rod and spoil the child.” By not punishing unacceptable behavior, we fail to send an effective message that such behavior is wrong. By tolerating bad behavior, we encourage its spread. That is why the criminal justice system is not based on forgiveness, but rather, on punishment. The forgiveness is a personal matter between the criminal and the victim – the state is not an intermediary in this. Thus it also is with war. The state must, for its own survival and the survival of its citizens, make war on external organizations who would kill its citizens. Those citizens may personally forgive those individuals who seek to kill them, but that does not change the duties of the state one bit. Any argument that seeks to argue that we as a nation shouldn’t be waging war against those who want us dead needs to address things at a level at least this fundamental. (Any arguments about whether we are, in fact, waging war on those people right now are tangential to this argument.)
Oh, and about that tactlessness mentioned above? Wooh, boy, is there some inflammatory rhetoric:
Think of 9/11 again. On the third day, as it were, America rises from the dead, from the ashes of Ground Zero. What is the immediate reaction of the nation, embodied in the melodramatic speeches, soon to become military policy, of George Bush? What else but payback? First the easy pickings of Afghanistan, then the full-scale invasion of Iraq; and now here we are, five years later, with George Bush unbowed and unrepentant, in defiance of reason and evidence still speaking the empty rhetoric of freedom and democracy, still claiming that he did the right thing, and, notwithstanding the current anarchy and slaughter, eyes wide shut in denial, still declaring that he’d do it again: bring the superior firepower of the US, its swift and righteous sword, to bear on the evil and cowardly terrorists.
We all know that inflammatory rhetoric like this, while personally satisfying, will never convince anyone who disagrees with you. Give it up.
This is getting a bit long, so I’ll leave my issues with political sermons in general for another, later, argument. Suffice it to say that I have them.
