Table of Contents
I usually manage to ignore this writer, but an article about what Christianity is and isn’t, written by a non-Christian who obviously hasn’t even read the Bible, is too much.
Nathan Smith needs to learn to distinguish between (a) what the Bible says, (b) the sober consensus of nearly 2,000 years of Christian reflection on it and (c) the writings of obscurantist philosophers who reference Jesus Christ in an attempt to hijack a bit of moral authority.
Actually, René Girard was not even that: he was an ivory tower academic whose theories, despite his conversion to Catholicism, actually attempted to explain away the most essential claims of Christianity.
But let me return to the beginning of Nathan’s article. In what sense is ours a “supposedly ‘Christian’ culture”? It’s true that historically a majority of New Zealanders claimed some kind of Christian affiliation, but that has long since ceased to be the case. Other philosophies dominate our public life and public discourse.
In what sense is Anzac Day “a Satanic ritual”? I won’t blame Nathan Smith for not having gone to Sunday school and learned about David and Goliath, but most people know that the Bible is full of war and violence and does not categorically condemn it. The New Testament does not change the morality of the Old: when John the Baptist proclaimed the coming Messiah and told the people to repent and believe the Gospel, some soldiers asked him, “What shall we do?” He replied, “Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.” (Luke 3:14, KJV) The reference to wages indicates that it was legitimate for them to continue in their occupation as soldiers, and that the violence forbidden is not the violence of war. The Bible commentator Matthew Henry paraphrases John’s instructions: “Your business is to keep the peace… the sword of war, as well as that of justice, is to be a terror only to evildoers, but a protection to those that do well… It is discontent with what they have that makes men oppressive and injurious.” Here we have a far more reasonable account of things than Girard’s: if we learn evil and violence through imitation, as Girard claimed, then who is responsible for starting it?
The majority of Christians in history have seen war as legitimate, if regrettable. A minority have insisted on strict pacifism. Nathan Smith apparently doesn’t know that members of a genuine Satanic cult, the so-called Jehovah’s Witnesses, suffered violence, harassment and internment during the world wars for refusing to take part.
I don’t believe the narrative of the world wars. I think that World War I probably represents the beginning of the modern era, in which conflict is not truly one nation or group of nations versus another, but the governments of the world and the people who pull their strings versus the citizens they claim to be serving. I don’t believe that either my great-great-uncle Gottfried or your great-great-uncle Ernest died for anything worth dying for.
Nevertheless, as a member of the Gisborne Civic Brass Band, I got up at 4am on Anzac Day, hoping that no one will notice me smirking and yawning in the relative obscurity of the E-flat horn section. Anzac commemorations, in my coerced experience, tend to focus on the tragedy of war for all concerned and the universal desire for peace. Not a bad thing, for what it’s worth.
I hope and pray that people will find the true and lasting peace with God that is available only through the one great sacrifice of Jesus Christ. His life, death and resurrection continue to bring eternal life to people around the world, despite the efforts of philosophers and academics to explain it all away.
