This Christmas we will all sing Silent Night, most likely several times. At least once, I imagine someone will reference the singing of this traditional carol in the midst of The Christmas Truce of 1914. Unfortunately, that was not the last time the peace of Christ was intoned in the fog of war. This Christmas the carol will be sung in congregations and homes, as well as in the mountains of Afghanistan and the sands of Iraq.
Many had hoped that this would not be the case with the new administration, yet twice in a week President Obama reminded the world that just as there are no atheists in fox holes, there are no pacifists in the White House. We should not be surprised. What more could we expect from a man whose theological and ethical outlook has been shaped by the pen of Reinhold Niebuhr?
Obama’s Oslo speech has been praised, oddly enough, by his staunchest critics as well as his progressive allies. It has even prompted a series of reflections by theologians and ethicists on a blog hosted by The Ekklesia Project. In the first post, Duke theologian Stanley Hauerwas summed up the fundamental problem well:
That the speech ends with appeals to love I suppose seems a good. But, again, I worry that such appeals make peace an ideal which war becomes the means to achieve.
Pacifists are often characterized as ideologues who have no sense of how the world really works. Yet, Hauerwas helpfully shifts the terms. Pacifists, or Non-Violent Activists, know the ways of conflict within the world. Its just that they also are convinced that the ends justify the means. In other words, a peace achieved by violent means is incomplete and fragile at best. Niebuhr, and his presidential heir, have overlooked this simple truth. Both are blinded by the modern poker game of balanced power and called bluffs which must be backed by military acuity.
Unfortunately, this realist approach to conflict overlooks the confession of faith within the Christmas carol- Christ the savior is born. The brief peace in the European trenches of 1914 testifies to our faith: Peace is not achieved through violent means, but through common belief and celebration of Christ the Savior. Sounds a bit pithy, but the bullets were overpowered by the melody of that simple carol.
8 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 22, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Haley
This would have to assume that you believed in Salvation and/or that Jesus the Christ was sent to be a Savior or that he was a Savior in some capacity. When was the hymn written? What was going on at the time it was written/composed? I think peace is achieved through celebration and recognition that all humans are not as different as we seem to think. Those that are not Christian would not say peace is achieved “through common belief and celebration of Christ the Savior.” There are other religious traditions that think peace comes from different means such as clearing one’s mind and being enlightened. Who is to say this way is not the way to peace? Who is to say that one interpretation of the Biblical scripture about what peace is and/or isn’t the way to peace? Peace can be brought about in many different ways and one does not always need to chose the path of pacifism or Non-Violent Activism. This does not always bring about peace, speaking from personal experience.
December 22, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Joshua Brockway
Haley,
You say: ” This would have to assume that you believed in Salvation and/or that Jesus the Christ was sent to be a Savior or that he was a Savior in some capacity. When was the hymn written?”
First, yes that is my assumption. I think that is pretty clear from my other posts, and from the fact that this is a blog rooted in the Church of the Brethren. Just because we are non-creedal does not mean that we are non-Christian. Still at the core of being the Church is the conviction that the event of Jesus of Nazareth has significant implications for life and ethics. Its just that it need not be articulated in Nicene or Chalcedonian terms.
Second, I am really not sure what the dating of the hymn has to do with my post, nor what you see it contributing to your argument. I am arguing for the carol’s significance from the 1914 truce. Its provenance need not be established or contribute to what I am arguing (see Barthes on the death of the author, or Derrida on writing and deconstruction.) Historical accuracy is not central to the claim.
Lastly, I think peace is a general desire. From that perspective I agree with you. Still, however, I think to be a pacifist or a Non-violent activist is to argue that the means matter. I am interested in your experiences when pacifist means did not result in peace (if I am understanding your last sentence right). I think the meta-narrative which may exemplify this is the case of the crucifixion. There, Jesus’ non-violent means are met with violence and death. Seems to me that is the way of the world- violence. The way of Christ is peace.
December 23, 2009 at 6:11 am
Haley
Firstly, I understand all of your positions clearly. I was simply asking a question. I knew what your assumptions were about salvation but I am not clear that all hold your assumption to be true. I am completely aware that the Church of the Brethren is non-creedal and also aware that this does not mean the COB is non-Christian. As I have heard from a wise Brazilian man “All Jesus left us, was the table and all are welcome,” and I refuse to keep a narrow mind and only think about those who are Christian in my responses.
My comment is relevant to my argument. The words and theology chosen in writing hymn lyrics is almost always impacted by what is occurring or what author is experiencing. There was a good thesis recently written on the topic at Bethany. It is not simply about a date. It is about attempting to get a better picture of why people chose the words they did in writing hymns, such as the words chosen in Christmas carols. You may think historical accuracy is not important but the context is because without it perspectives are lost.
Lastly, I agree that the means matter. I want to stay alive as do many others. I have lots of experiences and many of them very personal, but, since you asked, walking down the street and having your friend nearly beaten to death in front of you…I surely did not stand by because if I would have, that person would be dead, today. Another would involve physical abuse that would have continued if nothing were done? Those things that kept me and others alive were violent and I do not regret those actions because I am alive and my friend is a live. In those moments, peace was not my first, second, or third thought. I’m sure that somewhere out there, there is a person who would have been able to handle that differently but when it is you and the moment arrives, you pull from human instinct. Those instincts are great and good.
In your last two sentences it sounds as though you are calling the world bad (violence) and Christ good (peace). For me, there is no value judgment and if there was, the world would not be bad for, the world is where I live and survive. I believe you must be ‘in’ and ‘of’ the world not simply ‘in’ and not ‘of’ the world. Anthropologically speaking, one cannot be in the world and not be of it. Culture and socialization are part of each of us, if they didn’t, we could not be human.
In regards to Christ and peace I often wonder if we idolize them? Christ is a title…Jesus the Christ and peace seems to come with rules as to what it should and not look like. Jesus was violent…he threw tables. His death was violent and atonement was humanly manifest to try to deal with the fact that a righteous man was killed. There was nothing non-violent about any of that.
At this time, it does occur to me to sincerely thank you for this challenge because it has done two things: 1) Articulate more fully my position and 2) and help me rethink my commitment to this denomination.
December 23, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Dan Finkbiner
Stille Nacht was written in 1818 by Franz Gruber (lyrics written by Josef Mohr in 1816) and translated into English by John Freeman Young in 1863. Christ, der Retter ist da translates to Christ, the Savior is here. Perhaps Young thought born was better. Another meaning for der Retter is the retriever, or the rescuer. Shlaf in himmlischer Ruh would more closely translate to “sleep in heavenly rest.” Peace sounds better. Even in the English this carol does not talk about exclusiveness of salvation for believers in Christ only, though perhaps it was assumed. It does speak of “redeeming grace.”
Full text in German:
Here is a more literal English translation of the text courtesy of about.com and Hyde Flippo:
Silent night, holy night
All is sleeping, alone watches
Only the close, most holy couple.
Blessed boy in curly hair,
Sleep in heavenly peace!
Sleep in heavenly peace!
Silent night, holy night,
Shepherds just informed
By the angels’ hallelujah,
It rings out far and wide:
Christ the Savior is here!
Christ the Savior is here!
Silent night, holy night,
Son of God, oh how laughs
Love out of your divine mouth,
Because now the hour of salvation
strikes for us.
Christ, in Thy birth!
Christ, in Thy birth!
I find nothing offensive about the theology behind “Silent Night.” In fact I think it is a very welcoming witness to the world.
December 23, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Dan Finkbiner
The German lyrics for those curious:
Stille Nacht, heilige Nacht,
Alles schläft; einsam wacht
Nur das traute hochheilige Paar.
Holder Knabe im lockigen Haar,
Schlaf in himmlischer Ruh!
Schlaf in himmlischer Ruh!
Stille Nacht, heilige Nacht,
Hirten erst kundgemacht
Durch der Engel Halleluja,
Tönt es laut von fern und nah:
Christ, der Retter ist da!
Christ, der Retter ist da!
Stille Nacht, heilige Nacht,
Gottes Sohn, o wie lacht
Lieb’ aus deinem göttlichen Mund,
Da uns schlägt die rettende Stund’.
Christ, in deiner Geburt!
Christ, in deiner Geburt!
December 23, 2009 at 5:13 pm
danacassell
Dan, thanks for that clarification about the hymn, and Josh, thanks for the discussion starters.
I’ve read several places that Obama’s speech was actually an interesting mix of just war AND “just peace” theory, which is not only nuanced and intelligent, but a significant departure from recent American foreign policy explanations of war and the necessity thereof. There’s an article from Al Jazeera floating around that makes the larger point that I think we’re discussing here:
“The reality is that Obama is willing to admit to “mistakes” made by predecessors, but he will not question, or even mention, the larger system that has produced them. He cannot do so because that would call into question the myth of American exceptionalism that for so long has been used to justify them.”
(http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2009/12/2009121613200705468.html)
Josh’s point, I think, is that even if a president of a nation attempts to work toward peace in incredibly creative ways, his position as president means that he can’t and won’t question the larger structural violence of which he is a part. Christians, on the other hand, following the lead of a very particular incarnation of God, have a specific basis and claim to questioning violence in every form – private, personal, and structural.
I’m curious, Haley, about your comment that “for me, there is no value judgment.” I think I hear you saying that particularly Christian attempts at peacemaking are not the only good or effective ways to approach the issue. I’d agree with you on that – I was disappointed in Obama’s Oslo speech because he blatantly confessed his inability to believe in a world without war, but I’m still enthusiastic and excited about his ability to be a political leader whose actions point us closer toward that eschatological reality.
But, for those of us who claim to be Christians, our idea of what violence and peace are and can be is distinct and particular, and it comes part and parcel with value judgments. Not necessarily “good” and “bad,” but at least some way to distinguish why it is we do the things we do. I’m working with a text from Colossians 3 this week, and Paul says, “whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus.” If we follow Paul’s advice, then as Christians, our peace witness will be done in the name and in the way of Jesus. And yes, that comes with rules as to what it should and should not look like. Throwing over tables was forceful but not necessarily violent – that depends on how you define violence. And Jesus’ death on the cross was the result of the violence of the world, not the violence of Jesus’ own actions.
I guess my question is, how is our peace witness particular and Christian if we don’t do it in the name and in the way of the Lord Jesus?
December 23, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Joshua Brockway
Not long ago, in another cyber discussion, a friend posed the eternal question: If someone was breaking into your house, wouldn’t you do what ever you could to protect your family, including violence. Long ago, a speaker at my undergrad was addressing the death penalty and quipped: The New Testament has a good ethic to it, but it can’t be applied to public policy. One of the things I am working on is the analogy drawn between personal actions to national and international actions. My friend’s question above is an attempt to make the analogy strong (ie a rigid, one to one connection between person and state) while the second is an effort to weaken the analogy (ie the Christian faith is merely about personal ethics). What do you all think of this analogy?
Haley, I am with you in regards to being in the world, and formed by the world as well. We can’t really get away from the cultural socialization which has shaped us all. What is more, incarnation is about God coming into the world, not to get us our of the world, but to redeem creation. At the same time, there is an element of the Gospel narrative which points to the errors of human ways, and the difference of God’s ways. So being “not of the the world” is also equally important. I don’t want to create an escapist spirituality which tries to flee the world. Rather, I want to emphasize transformation of the world.
I was drawing a distinction in my earlier comment between the World and Christ. In order avoid a kind of anti-world posture, I might change World to Human. Yet, I think there still needs to be an accounting of error, or in traditional language, sin. We, as creatures, fall short of the Creator’s intention.
To bring together Haley’s reminder that many people work for peace and justice from a humanist or other religious perspective and Dana’s question about witness from a Christian perspective, I think we can acknowledge both. First, we work for a just peace in the public square. Here we work with the common task of peace-making among a diverse community. Second, we do this from our conviction and belief as Christians. As we work for peace, we are clear about the role of Christ as the Prince of Peace in our ethics and beliefs. The key here is “Confession” not as in confessing sins, but confessing a set of beliefs.
Haley, thanks for filling in and clarifying your argument. Discernment of a spiritual home is an important, yet difficult task. My prayers and thoughts are with you.
December 23, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Dan Finkbiner
Romans 13 always comes up when talking about war/peace. If we believe that God has established worldly authorities and has given them the power of the sword to punish evil-doers, then there does seem to be a necessity for war in the world. This isn’t to say that those worldly authorities can’t missuse this power appropriated by God. As an agent of the state President Obama must at least recognize that he has this power, but as an agent of God he must use it appropriately.
I believe that we as agents of Christ, the Prince of Peace, give up the right to use the sword to punish evil-doers. If we do not carry weapons we do not have the temptation to use them. If we are forced to use violence, we will not multiply it to extroardinary ends. This interpretation of the peace position depends on a sense of separation from the world, and the way the world solves its problems. Not that we are above the world, just apart from it. We submit to the authority of the state except in matters where our conscience and faith dictate otherwise.
This, however, does not exempt us from working for peace. Anyone working against the realities of war, must become part of the solution, not just be separate from the cause. As Christians we have the example of humble service, putting aside our worldly status and providing for the basic needs of humanity. There were many Christians on both sides of the Christmas truce of 1914, but undoubtedly there were many Jews, and many atheists as well. Even if people don’t accept our Gospel of grace and salvation, we should still offer them what we can, including our peace. You don’t necessarily have to accept salvation to enjoy peace.