Here’s another attempt at reasoning with my brothers and sisters in Churches and in faith traditions and who think the Bible an important source of Truth (or, THE Source of Truth, if you prefer). This is especially directed towards those who insist they take the Bible literally (no one does, of course, but many insist they do).
The topic is peacemaking and violence-as-solution. I’m borrowing on some comments I have made in conversations with Larry Who.
Some thoughts on engaging in violence in order to stop violence:
I'm okay with police trying to stop prostitution.
I'm not okay with police engaging in prostitution in order to stop it.
I'm sure we agree on that point. Clearly, engaging in the behavior we want to stop to try to stop it is a horrible notion.
But just because we don't want police engaging in prostitution in order to stop it, doesn't mean that we want to ignore the problem.
Similarly, just because peacemakers say they refuse to engage in killing innocent people doesn't mean that we want to ignore the problem. Heaven forbid!
But I think that's what a lot of people think. They hear "pacifist" and think "passivists - do nothings! Just ignore the problem - why, that's obscene!"
My contention is that we, at least we Christians, ought to try to overcome evil with good. Find ways to stand up to oppression and those who'd kill innocents without engaging in killing of innocents ourselves.
For Christians, this seems like a no-brainer to me.
I think the problem lies in that we have bought into the notion of violence-as-solution. Many people honestly think that if we're not willing to kill some of the Enemy's innocent bystanders, then we can do nothing. Either/or.
It seems that they don't believe in God's ability to do a transforming work. They don't believe in the option of overcoming evil with good.
Or at least that's how it appears from where I stand.
I think that we can indeed overcome evil with good, that we don’t need to resort to killing innocents in order to overcome evil AND even if not – if killing babies is the only way to overcome evil, then I still would be opposed to killing babies.
I use the “killing babies” as a reference and a starting point. The reason being, generally, we can all acknowledge that “killing babies” is a wrong thing to do (and it feels ridiculous to even have to make that sort of statement). So, if we can come to a consensus on the righteousness or not of killing babies, then it’s a starting point to understanding what we’re implying when we endorse wars.
17 comments:
Roger made a comment here that I deleted and am printing below, minus a link. Roger quoted me:
It seems that they don't believe in God's ability to do a transforming work. They don't believe in the option of overcoming evil with good.
And then said:
That's a profound statement. When people grasp that - it changes their lives. Whether it's the testimony of folks like Rev. Carla Thomas Royster or missionaries in Baghdad who are taking advantage of open doors to deliver supplies and hope to folks who live in fear and poverty. God is transforming people from the inside-out and He gets all the glory.
And in that comment where he seemed to be agreeing with me, he provided a link to a site that talks about "curing" gays. Not on topic at all and I found it a bit off-putting that he'd do that, so I have removed the link.
Dan, I went to that site and read that. It is a hallelujah, Praise the Lord story! You don't want that to be known?
If someone wrote a book saying God delivered from a "spirit of blackness," or a "spirit of whiteness," or a "spirit of male-pattern baldness" or a spirit of "red hair" or something similar, and that were considered a hallalujah story, I'd dismiss that as well, just starting with the fact that it's off topic.
I was hoping my post would be illuminating. I just wanted to post a real-life example of the scripture principle you brought up of God transforming us from the inside-out. Only God can do that.
Erudite Redneck,
Click on my name to read the article that Dan deleted. The blog post is titled "Only God." Read the testimony and see if it lines up with scripture.
I read it before Dan deleted. Saying something lines up with Scripture is only the beginning to finding the truth, not the end.
For God's sake -- and I mean that not in vain -- taking unruly children to the city limits and beating them to death lines up with Scripture, but Scripture is wrong about that, too.
You want homosexuality to be wrong, so you see evidence for it in Scripture., I want God's Grace to be right -- and I see more than evidence for it, sin or not, in Scripture.
Erudite Redneck,
Only God can transform us from the inside out. Who is transforming these people?
So, Roger, in the case of a cult where a person grew up in a good Baptist church and then got involved with Jim Jones, say, and that person was transformed from the good Christian they were to a nutty-behaving suicide candidate. They were transformed.
Who did the transforming from the inside out in that case?
>Who did the transforming from the inside out in that case?
I was referring to transformation as it is defined in scripture (being born from above, having the mind of Christ - only God can do those things).
>where a person grew up in a good Baptist church and then got involved with Jim Jones, say, and that person was transformed from the good Christian
Of course you know that just because someone grew up in the church doesn't equate to them being a Christian, correct? There are many in the church that are not Christians - ie not born again, following externals instead of being transformed internally by the Spirit.
This refers a comment I made on another thread:
How can we be worshiping the same God if I rejoice when I hear this testimony and you are sad - and then try to silence it? We're apparently not on the same team so to speak - and working against each other.
Note this commentary on Matt 12:22-31
A soul under Satan's power, and led captive by him, is blind in the things of God, and dumb at the throne of grace; sees nothing, and says nothing to the purpose. Satan blinds the eyes by unbelief, and seals up the lips from prayer. The more people magnified Christ, the more desirous the Pharisees were to vilify him. It was evident that if Satan aided Jesus in casting out devils, the kingdom of hell was divided against itself; how then could it stand! And if they said that Jesus cast out devils by the prince of the devils, they could not prove that their children cast them out by any other power. There are two great interests in the world; and when unclean spirits are cast out by the Holy Spirit, in the conversion of sinners to a life of faith and obedience, the kingdom of God is come unto us. All who do not aid or rejoice in such a change are against Christ. (Mt 12:31)
So, Roger, staying on topic: Will you join in rejoicing in standing opposed to evil with good and stand with us in opposing the killing of innocent bystanders?
>So, Roger, staying on topic: Will you join in rejoicing in standing opposed to evil with good and stand with us in opposing the killing of innocent bystanders?
What person is rejoicing in the killing of innocent bystanders? Well, maybe those folks that are blowing themselves up on soccer fields and in crowded markets - but outside of that. If you had the chance to stop a suicide bomber on a soccer field with kids around would you do it even if it meant a few kids might lose their lives instead of the alternate of the bomber blowing him or herself up and killing scores of kids?
Who is to blame for the deaths mentioned by Jesus in Luke 13:4?
"Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem?"
Do you see the principle in Mt 12:31 of how we're either for Christ or against Him? Do you also understand that church membership does not equate to salvation? I'm not insulting your intelligence - just making sure you understand since you were silent on those.
Using or endorsing violence is hard. It strikes at our Christian hearts. But there comes a time when it's the only thing between even greater evils. Should Axis powers, for example, been allowed to conquer the world in the 1940s? If nations had not resisted them -- if they had responded in a pacifistic manner -- the world would have been enslaved.
It's a tough decision for a Christian believer.
But it's best to work out these decisions before they have to be made. Would I kill to protect my family from violence? Yes.
But would you kill another family to protect your family? An innocent family?
THAT is the problem that many have with modern warfare.
Not intentionally. But unintentionally, yes.
Where do you draw the line, John?
Would you bomb Hiroshima - not necessarily targeting the families there but knowing that they'd be obliterated to (is that what you mean by "unintentionally"?) - to save your family? Is it okay to kill 100,000 to save your personal family?
Or 50,000 to save your neighborhood of 1,000?
Where do you draw that line of how many innocent people you're willing to kill in order to save some number around you?
Ah, good point. Well, as a proponent of Just War Theory, I would say that the harm done by war must be less than the harm done by not doing war. As in the Hiroshima example, if dropping the bomb would save American and Japanese lives, then it was the correct decision.
I would also say that an aggressor has forfeited his equal value to life. For example, let us say three men attack me. If I do nothing, they kill me. If I act, I may kill all three of them. Numerically, I should let them kill me. But as they are the aggressors, I feel no duty to preserve their lives at my own expense, or that of my family/nation. I should strive to preserve their lives, but preserving them is not my ultimate priority.
Post a Comment