Dr. Rick Beam, Academic Dean, Johnson Bible College
2007.01.30
Faculty at JBC,
I am interested in scheduling a time for a group discussion over Just War, Pacifism, and our response to current events regarding the War on Terrorism. I realize that this hot topic issue is in need of thorough biblical examination in light of current media trends, as always. I also want to gain a deeper level of understanding from the insight of professors and students at JBC. Logan Laituri, a former soldier released on a CO status whose story is widely circulating the U.S, will be visiting during homecoming week, and would be more than happy to faciliate an open discussion. You can read more about his story from these links:
Here are my questions: (1) Do you think JBC students would be interested in participating, based on former classroom discussions over this topic? (2) Would you be able to attend and offer your insight if this takes place sometime Thursday evening, Feburary 22, on campus? If not, is there a better time for you? (3) Would you be interested in having Logan visit one of your classes when you discuss this issue?
Here are three possible outlines:
What is a Christian's role in a time of war? Is it only as a pacifist or Just War supporter? Might there be more complex approaches then simple black or white responses to a very 'gray' subject? Jesus himself struggled between the Essene option of retreating to the desert and the Zealot option of using violence to communicate his message, though he chose another way. Please join us in an informal discussion aimed at exploring the many options followers of Christ have in answering the question; "Where do I stand as a Christian when my nation is at war? "
As followers of Christ in a sinful world, do you ever wonder what a considerate response might be should someone ask you your thoughts on the War on Terrorism? There are many ways to answer the very simple question; "where do you stand?" Join other students who are interested in exploring the Just War theory, pacifism, and other possible ways to respond to our country in its time of need.
If you are interested in hearing firsthand accounts of the life of a Christian on today's battlefield, feel free to join us in exploring the ups and downs of the struggle to be subject to the governing powers while retaining one's loyalty to Christ. Logan Laituri is a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and has served over 6 years in the US Army. Logan has also traveled to the Occupied Palestinian Territories as a missionary, where he found himself on the other end of the rifle's scope. He has a unique perspective that he would like to share with you.
Thanks for your consideration,
Tracey Harmon
2007.01.30
Dear Tracy;
David Legg forwarded your email to me as academic dean. I appreciate your concern for what is certainly an important topic. I have read the articles in the links you sent with your email, and I respect the position taken by Logan Laituri, though I do not agree with it. I suspect these issues and viewpoints are being addressed in the classroom as they come up. Though you may be impressed by his passion, Mr. Laituri’s position is not new to the discussion. Professors may, of course, invite guest lecturers as they see fit, but I have spoken to Philip Eubanks about Homecoming, and we agree that Homecoming (especially with the full program we have this year), is not an appropriate venue for the group discussion you propose. I hope this does not come as a severe disappointment to you. The Homecoming program is planned by the Alumni Association, and it would not be appropriate for us to schedule a competing event during that week.
2007.01.31
Mr. Beam;
I must apologize for the intrusion into a conversation which I may have only mistakenly been included in, but I felt compelled to respond to your email particularly. I am new to this whole 'position in' and 'discussion of' war and how I respond to it with my identity in Christ in mind. It has been less than a year since I could honestly call myself a Christian, so I am a bit naive when it comes to realizing my own position on anything. Also, I wanted to assure you that I had no intention of interrupting the conduct of the Homecoming observances, and apologize if it seemed that way, and I appreciate your thoughtful consideration in regards to Tracey's enthusiastic request. I respect the honor and dignity of both your position and that of the Homecoming ceremonies and wish not to impede the activity in any way.
Furthermore, I deeply appreciate your concern that Tracey might be in jeopardy of violating a code of conduct in regards to political action (she asked me about my experience in regards to the Army Regulations governing a "code of conduct" within the military). A "code of conduct" is unit-specific and implies basic tasks such as wear and appearance of unique unit insignia, greetings rendered to officers within the unit, standards for physical appearance (haircut, fingernails, etc.), things of that nature. Any regulations that the unit puts out in its particular "code of conduct" is superseded by an Army Regulation, against which the unit's standards may not deviate. However, in the case of involvement in political activities, it is actually the Department of Defense which dictates to each component that service members are encouraged to "carry out the obligations of citizenship." The only restriction is that the service member is prohibited from appearing at such activities in uniform, as it could be misconstrued that such an appearance represents the endorsement of that component (Navy, Army, Air Force) for that particular event. I have attached the Department of Defense Directive, should you be interested in learning more. I am certain, however, that a discussion surrounding theology and religion by a group of University students and professors could in no way be mistaken as a political activity. A service member in no way surrenders their inherent American right to freedom of expression (or practice of their religion) once they don the uniform.
Finally, I am overwhelmingly relieved to find that whatever position I hold is not new to the discussion; I have been searching for nearly ten months straight for other people who shared my position; it has been a fruitless effort to find another career soldier who desired to serve his/her country deeply, but who, because of their undying devotion to Christ's commands, could not kill another human being for whom He had died to save. It has been a demanding endeavor to try to find someone else who has the credibility to speak from first hand experience of direct armed conflict in Iraq and who desired to return, but who found no theological satisfaction in the leftist groups who called for a withdrawal of troops from that land, nor the religious right who seem to claim that God is on a particular side. Furthermore, it has been difficult to find another soldier who would share my intent to return to the streets of Iraq in uniform without the hindrance of a temporal weapon; who knows that spiritual weapons are the greatest weapons a Christian may wield, must wield. Thankfully, however, you are the first to inform me of the fact that my 'position' is not new. After months of hearing deafening silence in regard to my attention for any hint of a voice similar to my own, perhaps my search has met its end. If you would please forward me any contact information of the people you know who share my position, I would be infinitely indebted to you.
Your servant in Christ,
Logan Laituri
2007.02.01
Dear Logan:
What I wrote in my email was, your “position is not new to the discussion.” I did not mean to suggest that your particular experiences (soldier, convert, Pacifist, missionary) were not unique. I was simply saying that though your experiences generate passion, they do not represent arguments. The arguments for and against pacifism have been around for hundreds of years. In that sense, your “position is not new to the discussion.” I think the Bainton book recommended by Dr. Bridges will confirm my point. While these old ideas seem new to the person who is thinking them for the first time, they are not new to the centuries old discussion. That is what I meant when I wrote that you “position is not new to the discussion.”
2007.02.04
Dr. Beam,
Forgive me for the error in title in my last email, I was not aware of the position you currently hold at Johnson. I appreciate your continued correspondence and am grateful for your insight into the current discussion. I hope this belated email is not out of place, but I was compelled to send it despite the apparent conclusion drawn in the matter at hand. Perhaps it can be taken for what it is worth and not confused as an attempt to spur you to any action that has already been decided against. I must say, however, that I am confounded by two principles you suggest; first, that you liken me to a pacifist, and second, that passion does not represent arguments. Please allow me to briefly address those subjects; perhaps it will shed more light on my 'position' and the arguments they represent (apparently much too subtly).
I am befuddled by the 'pacifist' camp primarily because their argument rests strongly upon war being abolished or avoided entirely by Christians. We know that war will exist until the Day of the Lord and that no amount of protest will ever abolish war. But to be sure, what John wrote in his revelation was descriptive, not prescriptive; he wrote of what would be, not of what should be. If you have had time to review my stance through the various links Tracey included, you are aware that I firmly support Christians going to war. However, I do not support any amount of killing by the same Christians, nor do I think there is any place for the use of a weapon in one's defense, though self defense is clearly permissible from my meager understanding of Christ's message. I know from experience that weapons are actually a hindrance to any Christian's vocation, as it proves more to be a temptation to kill our enemies instead of praying for them or blessing them, an explicit command made by God through Jesus. On the other hand, I think the idea of justifying war by relying solely upon man's fallible rational mind is equally a hindrance. Man is corrupt, as we all know, and must rely upon the authority of God's Word to discern our place as His body in a fallen world. The question remains; where in God's word is it understood that one is acting according to His will by ending another human beings life? Although, before dismissing ourselves to being passive voyeurs of life, how does Christ call us to action, to 'fight the good fight?'
Furthermore, I disagree that passion/action/willingness to act does not represent an argument. The best way to argue anything is to commit to living it out. Theology by biography is the most credible witness to any argument, religious or secular. It is for this sake that one moves beyond mere argument to application. Faith without works is dead, is that not correct? Why would one be hung up on arguments while there is much to be done? It is for this reason that I describe my work in Israel/Palestine as Interfaith reconciliation, instead of mere dialogue; talking and arguing is hollow if one is not ready and willing to act. God needs well placed passion in the Middle East, not more arguments. Argument and discussion is only good if it leads to action, it is passion that should fuel the faith expressed through deed.
"The one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house upon the ground without a foundation ."
Here, it seems as though Christ is saying quite clearly that 'practicing' precludes even the argument; He seems to discredit all of us who argue and debate without the credibility of firsthand experience! Therefore, my position in the discussion is consequently action-inclusive! We do not inherit the Kingdom by confessing "Lord, Lord," but only by doing the will of our Father who is in Heaven. It is argument that is immaterial, rendered so by hollow discussion; not action, which is fueled by passion. Passion very clearly implies argument; in fact it has matured beyond mere argument.
Finally, my position's value (and anyone else's), lies within the necessity of current applicability. As our nation is at war, and as I have served as a warrior for this nation, my witness is given a certain credibility resting not on my scholastic or intellectual foundations (or lack thereof), but on knowledge gained directly from firsthand account. Neither I, nor a single student at Johnson Bible College has served in Vietnam or WWII, from which the context of many 'pacifist' writings are drawn from (including Roland Bainton's " Christian Attitudes Toward War and Peace"). What our nation needs right now is a lively discussion which addresses current and relevant issues pertaining to and concerning the very people who are asked to be 'in the world but not of it,' as Bonhoeffer was described during the reign of the Third Reich. Should something be organized, I do not even ask to be included, only that the discussion be allowed to take place. My stance only seems to represent the percent who are not satisfied by the arguments on the table, but who are ready to act on their foundational beliefs, beyond simply debating them. Men and women who confess Christ as Lord have a very difficult (and dangerous) task of finding nonviolent ways of actively advancing the Kingdom in the very real spiritual battle that rages today; to be willing to risk their life, either in a slum or on the battlefield, to gain the true life Christ promises. Would it not be to the service of your students that such a discussion be organized hastily; that they may be the next Martin of Tours, Ignatius, Bonhoeffer, or Trocme? Or should they reduce themselves to mere argument and build their houses without a proper foundation? It is not to me whom you should reply to, but to your students.
-Logan Laituri
2007.02.07
Dear Logan:
In my final communication with you on this matter, let me say that I appreciate your zeal for the Lord and pray God’s blessing on your missionary endeavors. I do not agree with your position on war, though I probably held a similar position when I was your age, and sincere Christians hold a variety of views on the subject. I am not convinced by your case against reason. Any presentation we would support on our campus would involve well-reasoned positions thoughtfully presented. We may or may not create a forum for this topic and other timely controversial topics on our campus in the near or distant future. That is for the faculty and administration to decide. In the mean time, it would be a mistake to think that our students are completely uninformed about these issues. Our approach, for the most part, has been to deal with them in classes in the context of Bible or history or theology or worldview. Our faculty members are available for individual conferences with students who have personal concerns. Discussions among our students in the dormitories and other campus settings (such as the home where I understand you have scheduled a meeting during Homecoming week) have been unrestrained. We have a good library and everyone has access to the worldwide web. Our students are not passively waiting for us to present a forum to solve this for them. Their involvement in finding answers must surely be equal to the level of their concern. The notion that a group discussion or presentation would solve the complex issue of how to think about and respond to the war gives too much credit to such a gathering and too little credit to what we are already doing. In any case, I am not sure, what, if anything, we will do in response to your concern, but you have served your purpose in raising it, and I wish you well as you continue to develop your views and go on to live out the things your believe.
2007.02.09
Dr. Beam;
I am pleasantly surprised by your continued discourse with me on this subject. Would it be appropriate for me to assume a mention has been made to the student body, to which you are in service, of the progress of such an event? Nonetheless, thank you for your latest email, it was very enjoyable. The language was rich and multi-layered, like this comment;
“I do not agree with your position on war, though I probably held a similar position when I was your age…”
Perhaps when you have time to respond, you might illustrate which pillar of my beliefs toward war you disagree with; the fact that Christians have a part to play, or that they cannot enjoy divine endorsement for killing fellow human beings in honoring Christ’s command to love one’s enemies? I suppose your particular stance (I am entirely forced to speculate here, so feel free to correct me), might be in supporting Pre-Emptive War, which the Vatican and other Christian scholars have condemned, Realism (which must assume that Man’s reason is free from the influence of sin and corruption; Milton had some great thoughts on this that he weaved into Paradise Lost ) or perhaps strict Pacifism. I would greatly appreciate your viewpoint, considering you have had much more time to consider the arguments, since you seem to hint that age will eventually cure me of my foolish idealism, as it ‘probably’ did yours. Admittedly, I have weighed way too heavily on what the church fathers have said about war and death;
James (a fisherman): “What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from your desires that battle within you? You want something but don’t get it. You kill and covet, but you cannot have what you want. You quarrel and fight.”
Peter (fisherman): “Turn from evil and do good. Seek peace and pursue it.”
John (fisherman): “We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him …we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.”
“Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.”
“If anyone says, “I love God,” yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.”
Paul (a retired mercenary/Rabbi and tentmaker):
To Ephesus - “We do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world”
To Rome - “Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.”
“The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so.”
“Love causes no harm to it’s neighbor”
The idea that I have made a “case against reason” is equally confusing. Where in our correspondence have I said reason is not to be trusted, but that it cannot be trusted fully; without the authority of the Bible to support it? I am fully aware that reason is a gift God has given man, though so is sexual intercourse, and how severely has man been able to pervert such a seemingly simple physical act? My only argument has been to not place our faith in ourselves (selfishly), but instead upon the book we all seem to at least claim has shaped our very beliefs. If the Bible claims one thing pretty clearly, why must we ‘amend it,’ as we seem to be required to do in order to justify such a thing as ending another created being’s life? Is that love? Where is the reason in that? As cliché as it has become, there is a grain of truth in the saying “waging war to bring peace is like screwing to promote chastity.” The two (war and peace) are, to the extent of my understanding, and extremely personal experience, quite mutually exclusive! Again, I welcome your arguments supporting whichever worldview you subscribe to; I think it would be a rewarding and educational discussion for both of us.
The meeting “I have scheduled’ is actually nothing of the sort, as I have done no such scheduling or organizing; that effort has been entirely reliant upon Tracey’s initiative (a prized character trait in the Army; one she has embodied well). A discussion in a private setting has been our goal since the get-go; in fact we were going to have it in a local coffee shop, but Tracey felt professors would be interested in taking part in the discussion (likely her reason for not including you in the original message; we had no interest in seeking institutional endorsement, nor did we see any need). She and I have been aligned throughout on the hope that anything that ‘we’ organized would be student led and participant oriented. We both realize some (though not all) colleges react at slower paces toward current events, and that such an unfortunate fact would be a factor in the urgency surrounding addressing such a volatile issue (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/27/iraq.protest.ap/index.html).
Tracey thought my particular experiences might lend a unique flavor to the discussion, as I could speak from first hand experience of being expected to end another human being’s life in the performance of my duties in the Army, a position I held for over 6 years in a combatant capacity. She and I agree that experience speaks much more loudly and credibly toward any argument; how much more engaging is a discussion when one of the participants can reflect on their own struggle, to be able to relay to others the difficulty in sorting through divisive (Matthew 10:34-36), though critical, issues? I am sure mere belief can speak credibly in some instances, but it is almost like having a class about brain surgery without any experienced surgeons in the classroom. I would hate to be that patient! Sure you could come up with some great ideas, but Christ calls us to more than ideas; He calls us to pick up our crosses and follow Him (Matthew 10:37, 16:24, & 19:21, Mark 8:34 & 10:21, Luke 14:27 & 18:22, John 10:27, 12:26 & 13:36).
Perhaps you are right, it would not be wise to include someone who cannot speak with the proper credentials; after all, I am only a substitute teacher in a slum community with nothing to offer the academic world but my High School Diploma. However, wasn’t the argument leveled against Jesus; that surely nothing good had ever come out of Nazareth? That a mere carpenter could not possibly be the Anointed Messiah? Again, what would twelve nobodies offer in his absence, weren’t His closest associates lowly fishermen? The religious and scholarly hierarchy seems to collapse in His Kingdom; where did this Nazarene find the authority that the common people find in Him, He who was ‘not like the teachers of the law?’
Should you decide to discontinue our discourse, Dr. Beam, I will greatly miss your correspondences, as well as the responses to many arguments that have remained yet unanswered. It grieves me to consider that such a pregnant opportunity to be given new perspectives might end without those possibilities having produced fruit. I am afraid that any effort to sever this albeit abstract relationship will be yours to put forth. As I have told others; in agape, I cannot see the purpose in disengaging from an audience I do not agree with. I am of the mind that one learns enormous amounts from those whom he/she does not share a point of view with. I remain ready to receive your thoughts and arguments on the matter, though I recognize and respect ‘your position’ should you choose to focus your attention on more pressing matter. If you would like to continue this discussion in a more personal setting, I think it would be appropriate to ask that you respond singularly to me, instead of continue to fill the inboxes of so many professors who have surely tired of our discourse long ago. Please let me know, my cell phone number is (xxx) xxx-xxxx, or look me up in Facebook (the whole school seems to be on there…), or I am sure there is a way to reply only to the sender of an email, if not, my email is courageouscoward@gmail.com. I would truly enjoy a lunch or coffee together to discuss some of the topics we have brought forth to one another; unfortunately, however, the current event we have planned will not afford any more than those who have already been invited.
It may be a character flaw of mine, but I cannot simply ‘slip away,’ as we used to say in the 82nd Airborne Division. Love is not self-seeking, nor does it retreat once it discovers that it is not shared. Had that been the case, Christ indeed would have heeded Peter’s assertion that surely He would not have to proceed to Jerusalem to be tortured and put to death. However, your savior and mine showed us how love operates; it is long suffering and seeks out others, and is not dismissive or unconcerned. Peter was sharply reminded that he had in mind only the things of men, wasn’t he?
In your service,
-Logan Laituri