The Church Millitant

There’s been a lot of flak in the news lately about Pat Robertson’s comments regarding Hugo Chavez. As conservative as I am, I find Robertson to be much like the Weekly World News; good for an occasional amusing diversion, but not to be taken seriously.

Still, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. There are some foreign policy problems that are best handled by the diplomats, some that are best handled by the 1st Armored, and some that are best handled by a busboy with a silencer. Still, what I find troubling is the kerflufle over the fact that a MINISTER said such a thing. The reaction forgets the tradition of the Church Militant, which seems to be something that our modern religious organizations have forgotten about or suppressed.

One of my favorite scenes in Firefly is when the crew is going to rescue the Captain in War Stories. All of the crew is arming for battle, and surprise is expressed when Book (The character I am most identified with by those I know,) picks up a weapon. He is asked by Zoe:

“Preacher, don't the Bible got some pretty specific things to say about killing?”
The response is, “Quite specific. It is, however, somewhat fuzzier on the subject of kneecaps.”

In that moment, Book reminded me of Michael, taking up his flaming sword and going forth to battle evil.

Ignoring the fact that the quotation in question is actually best translated as, “Thou shalt not murder.” The idea that church should always be against war ignores the entire doctrine of the Just War. Look back at the build-up to the latest Iraq war. JP II decried the necessity of the war, hoped that the situation could be peacefully resolved, and prayed that thing would be so. However, it is important to note that at no time was a condemnation of the coming action issued. JP (rightly, IMHO) saw this as a matter best resolved by the actions of a properly recognized government, and not something that the church should really have a say in. By not issuing a condemnation, JP was giving tacit approval to the coming storm.

In the past, the Church Militant was used to justify some of the worst excesses of the religious wars that nearly tore Europe apart. Smiting your neighbors because they were heathen infidels who didn’t worship God in the proper manner became a popular past time. Then, of course, we got the fun and games of the Inquisition. In the end, the entire doctrine was rejected as being too hazardous. Still, by totally rejecting the entire doctrine, we are ignoring several important points.

Firstly, there is evil in the world, and it is the duty of all good men to oppose it by all means possible. Sometimes, this is nothing more that not cooperating with the evil, sometimes it involves actively standing against it. That is, in many ways, why I believe the Just War doctrine was developed: as a means to test a coming action to determine how right, how Just, it was. Even the excesses of the Inquisition were rooted in a desire to oppose Evil. The Malfectus Mallfectorum (The Hammer of Witches), the governing document of the Inquisition, was the first attempt in human history to codify how to question suspects in such a manner to find the truth rather than the biases of the questioner. The fact that it only served to reinforce those biases was more a failing of the people enforcing it that a failing of the document itself. Not that the document itself was perfect, it confused the accusation and guilt, ignoring the idea that sometimes people act out of their own, selfish, interests rather than a desire to see good done.

While there were excesses in the Church Militant, again brought on by the selfish interests and biases of those charged with enforcing those dictates, there was also a right and true core behind the basic idea. The modern Church has very much focused on God the Healer, and has tended to play down the many examples we have of the Just and Terrible God. From the Old Testament God ordering his followers to smite this or that group, to Moses destroying the Golden Calf, to Jesus in the Temple with the Moneychangers, to Michael taking up his sword to lead the armies of God in the Book of Revelations, the Bible is Rife with examples of God allowing Justice to be done and removing the tempering force of Mercy.

While I do not follow Robertson’s flavor of faith, and have seen many examples of his own ego and biases entering his various pronouncements, I can’t help but agree with him on this one. Chavez is a destabilizing force in that area of the world. If allowed to continue unchecked, he has the capacity to intensify the misery not just of his own people, but also of the people of the entire region. Add in the petrochemical dollars that his regime has access to, and he is truly a dangerous, (to borrow a word that has gone out of vogue of late,) an evil force that must be addressed. Failure to do so now will only make the job that much harder later. He has proven himself unreceptive to a peaceful, diplomatic solution, so that leaves only the 1st Armored or the busboy.

In the words of one of my favorite philosopher, Stormin’ Norman, “Forgiveness belongs to God. Let us arrange the meeting.”

[Climbs down off Soapbox and kicks it into the corner.]