Firesparks
Originally uploaded by paynehollow.
I think of Isaiah, whom God had run around naked for three years. Does that mean you and I ought to be running aroung naked? No. That was a specific occasion called for by God. But our norm should be not running around nude.
As in nudity, so in war. As Christians, our norm must be Jesus, who taught us to love our enemies, to stand up to evil but turn the other cheek.
And you know, Jesus did reinterpret the law ("You have heard it said, 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,' but I tell you to turn the other cheek...You have heard it said, 'Hate your enemies,' but I tell you: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you.")
Does that mean that Jesus thought God had changed? No, but it could mean that people were wrong in their interpretation of what God had done. Or simply that Jesus had an even better teaching from God. Regardless, this is a definite change from Old to New Testament.
Maybe there would come a time where God would call us to do something (like kill) that is so completely far outside the norm of Jesus, but that would be the exception rather than the rule and even then, we must trust in God to do the delivering and not a military.
In short, I might concede the concept of an army based on the OT, but only if said military is done in an OT manner:
1. volunteer army amassed in time of crisis
2. only when God has told us to
3. without all the latest military weaponry and
4. without the HUGE drain on the budget that accompanies disobeying the first three rules
Actually, upon thinking about it, I probably would concede the concept of such an army.
Regardless, if we’re trying to reconcile the Jesus who commands us to love our enemies and overcome evil with good of the NT and the God who apparently sometimes allowed for armed forces – but always with limits and with the emphasis on relying upon God and not the military, we must consider the whole.
We can’t reject the clear meaning of Jesus’ teachings to accept the example given in the OT (where it is never commanded for us to behave in that manner).
Am I possibly incorrect in my assumptions about what the Bible says about God and Peacemaking? Sure. As are those who support war-as-solution. We’re fallible humanity and prone to get it wrong.
All the more reason to be prudent in our support of war. If we start off with the assumption that war will always be a great evil, then we will be less likely to rely upon war and truly treat it as a last resort.
Ultimately, the Bible tells us, vengeance belongs to God. If some want to view the “warrior Jesus” some people see in the book of Revelation as a significant portrayal of Jesus, I’d respond by saying that Jesus is God and God can seek vengeance wherever God pleases.
These are the steps we're to follow in.
14 comments:
Dan:"1. volunteer army amassed in time of crisis
2. only when God has told us to
3. without all the latest military weaponry and
4. without the HUGE drain on the budget that accompanies disobeying the first three rules"
Hmmmm. Sounds familiar. Where have I heard that before ..... oh yes, the Islamic Jihadists!
You see, Dan, the problem is with number 2 .... Just as soon as you set that as a criteria for war, God begins to whisper into the ears of all and sundry and tells them that now is the time to go to war and kill all the bastards.
In the USA to this very day the majority of the poeple who support the war are Bible thumping believers and say it is God's will that we defend the world against the Moslems.
Isn't what you really mean this:
2. Only when I decide that God has told us to.
Welcome to the club, that's what just about everyone thinks and is the very epitome of the problem we are facing now.
Dan, if you don't mind, I'm going to comment primarily (hopefully exclusively) in the comments thread for Part I, even if I reference things written here.
It's tough enough having a conversation online without trying to juggle two threads with the same person.
That's fine, bubba.
E, this would be one reason that I feel confident in saying I'm okay with those criteria: God doesn't speak to us to tell us to wage war.
But I recognize your concern: Those who'd "hear" god telling them to wage war where there is no voice.
It's a legitimate concern.
I think you are on stronger ground in claiming Jesus as interpretive key than in returning to 4 points that seem rather to characterize Israel in the time of the Judges than biblical morality as a whole--otherwise we get Eleutheros' concerns.
"I think of Isaiah, whom God had run around naked for three years. Does that mean you and I ought to be running aroung naked? No. That was a specific occasion called for by God. But our norm should be not running around nude."
I say, better safe than sorry.
Dan, one could say that clothing and the use of force are consequences of the fall -- things that weren't part of man's existence before the fall but are present now in order to retard the awful consequences of sin.
Nudity wasn't a problem in the garden; it wouldn't be a problem now if we were all fully mature Christians who, while no longer being naive, were able to maintain the innocence that God's grace restores.
Since none of us are fully mature Christians, clothing is probably a necessary stopgap.
Likewise, perhaps, since (until the Second Coming) there will continue to be thugs and tyrants who seek to impose their will through the aggressive use of force, since we're not a community of perfectly mature Christians much less on a global scale, it may be necessary to maintain and occasionally use violent force to protect human lives and human liberty.
You write this of your four criteria:
"Actually, upon thinking about it, I probably would concede the concept of such an army."
But when pressed about one criterion (#2), you concede that the criterion can never be met: "God doesn't speak to us to tell us to wage war."
You created what appears to be a reasonable middle ground between absolute pacifism and the modern military, only to admit that your theoretical middle ground is, in practice, utterly indistinguishable from the extreme you started with.
Is it any wonder I prefer an admission of absolute pacifism compared to this sort of rhetorical sleight of hand?
Well, I'm not one to limit God, Bubba. God could indeed speak to us and tell us to wage war.
So, I hedge what I say out of humility and knowledge that God is not a tame God.
Fair enough, though I would say that if everyone heard God's voice enough to discern such things, war would hardly be necessary. For that reason, Criterion #2 might be overly strict.
Dan,
What are we to make of Jesus statement, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
Just curious for your take.
As I stated earlier, we have some rectifying to do with the scriptures if we think they're to offer us something. The same Jesus who said, "love your enemies" and "put away your swords," also said, "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
If one supposes that to be an endorsement of raising swords against one's enemies, then one has to figure out what to do with the other passages. I'm more of a mind that the Love your enemies passages are pretty clean-cut in their meaning whereas a verse such as "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." can easily be written off as a reality statement (Christianity has brought division and caused many to raise swords) without necessarily being an endorsement.
So, my short answer is that he's speaking of what will (and has) happened, not standing in opposition to peace and in support of using the sword.
One problem I have with seeing the NT as strictly pacifistic is that there's no sign of the follow-up of urging those in military professions to get out of them. The soldiers who asked John the Baptist "What shall we do" (a perfect time to reach pacifism) were urged, not to try and get out of military service as soon as possible, but to not abuse the position. We see Jesus dealing with soldiers (e.g. the centurion with great faith), but see no sign of Him saying that their profession was sinful.
I'll agree that Jesus preached peace, but I'm not sure that means that you can cast Him in the same mold as modern pacifism.
Please pardon me if I sound foolish or presumptuous. I'm no theologian or minister, just a wife and mother. So I realize I'm out of my league here. But it seems to me that oloryn is mixing apples and oranges.
If I remember my history correctly, Roman soldiers were the keepers of order as well as warriors. At least as much policemen as soldiers. As an example, archaeologists found the body of Roman officer in the ruins of Herculaneum, a city destroyed by the 79 AD eruption of Mt. Vesuvius. Yet there was no garrison nearby. Presumably he was there on furlough, perhaps visiting his family, but when the chaos hit he "suited up" and went out to try to restore some order.
Also, in a totalitarian state such as Rome, a soldier was a very small cog. He was no wager of war; merely an instrument in the hands of the government.
So I cannot see where this really addresses the morality of war one way or the other.
Welcome Oloryn and Michaela. Thanks for your comments. About this:
"I'll agree that Jesus preached peace, but I'm not sure that means that you can cast Him in the same mold as modern pacifism."
Well, "modern pacifism" is a many headed creature. Pacifism runs a large gamut from very old-school religions such as the Amish and Mennonites to newer humanistic models. It's a spectrum from total non-resistance to more in-your-face non-violent direct action.
Perhaps we can agree that Jesus is/was a peacemaker and, hopefully, that we are to follow in His steps.
Hey Dan,
I agree with you about the Gospel of peace. It is impossible for a "Christian" to support armies, killing, and war and war and be a true disciple of Jesus. War-lovers and non-pacifists are not saved,redeemed, and they do not "get" the Gospel of Peace or the Prince of Peace.
We can't have an army based on the OT, because the people of God- the Body of Christ- do not constitute a theocracy-hence there are no Yahweh armies or Yahweh wars.
Well, must go.
Peace,
Cryptoreformer, AKA Gary
Post a Comment