Monday, May 14, 2012

The Third Way

Billy's Jesus by paynehollow
Billy's Jesus, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

Christian theologian, Walter Wink, passed away last week at the age of 76. He will be missed.

Here is an excerpt of his writing for your consideration. Although I've read many of his articles and essays, I've never read any of his books, a point which I intend to correct this year. Rest in Peace, Brother Wink...


Many who have committed their lives to working for change and justice in the world simply dismiss Jesus' teachings about nonviolence as impractical idealism. And with good reason. "Turn the other cheek" suggests the passive, Christian doormat quality that has made so many Christians cowardly and complicit in the face of injustice. "Resist not evil" seems to break the back of all opposition to evil and counsel submission. "Going the second mile" has become a platitude meaning nothing more than "extend yourself." Rather than fostering structural change, such attitudes encourage collaboration with the oppressor.

Jesus never behaved in such ways. Whatever the source of the misunderstanding, it is neither Jesus nor his teaching, which, when given a fair hearing in its original social context, is arguably one of the most revolutionary political statements ever uttered.

When the court translators working in the hire of King James chose to translate antistenai as "Resist not evil," they were doing something more than rendering Greek into English. They were translating nonviolent resistance into docility. The Greek word means more than simply to "stand against" or "resist." It means to resist violently, to revolt or rebel, to engage in an insurrection. Jesus did not tell his oppressed hearers not to resist evil. His entire ministry is at odds with such a preposterous idea. He is, rather, warning against responding to evil in kind by letting the oppressor set the terms of our opposition.

A proper translation of Jesus' teaching would then be, "Do not retaliate against violence with violence." Jesus was no less committed to opposing evil than the anti-Roman resistance fighters like Barabbas. The only difference was over the means to be used.

There are three general responses to evil: (1) violent opposition, (2) passivity, and (3) the third way of militant nonviolence articulated by Jesus. Human evolution has conditioned us for only the first two of these responses: fight or flight.

Fight had been the cry of Galileans who had abortively rebelled against Rome only two decades before Jesus spoke. Jesus and many of his hearers would have seen some of the two thousand of their countrymen crucified by the Romans along the roadsides. They would have known some of the inhabitants of Sepphoris (a mere three miles north of Nazareth) who had been sold into slavery for aiding the insurrectionists' assault on the arsenal there. Some also would live to experience the horrors of the war against Rome in 66-70 C.E., one of the ghastliest in history. If the option of fighting had no appeal to them, their only alternative was flight: passivity, submission, or, at best, a passive-aggressive recalcitrance in obeying commands. For them no third way existed.

Now we are in a better position to see why King James' servants translated antistenai as "resist not." The king would not want people concluding they had any recourse against his or any other sovereign's unjust policies. Jesus commands us, according to these king's men, to resist not. Jesus appears to say say that submission to monarchial absolutism is the will of God. Most modern translations have meekly followed the King James path.

Neither of the invidious alternatives of flight or fight is what Jesus is proposing. Jesus abhors both passivity and violence as responses to evil. His is a third alternative not even touched by these options. The Scholars Version translates Antistenai brilliantly: "Don't react violently against someone who is evil."

Jesus clarifies his meaning by three brief examples. "If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Why the right cheek? How does one strike another on the right cheek anyway? Try it. A blow by the right fist in that right-handed world would land on the left cheek of the opponent. To strike the right cheek with the fist would require using the left hand, but in that society the left hand was used only for unclean tasks. As the Dead Sea Scrolls specify, even to gesture with the left hand at Qumran carried the penalty of ten days penance. The only way one could strike the right cheek with the right hand would be with the back of the hand.

What we are dealing with here is unmistakably an insult, not a fistfight. The intention is not to injure but to humiliate, to put someone in his or her place. One normally did not strike a peer in this way, and if one did the fine was exorbitant (four zuz was the fine for a blow to a peer with a fist, 400 zuz for backhanding him; but to an underling, no penalty whatever). A backhand slap was the normal way of admonishing inferiors. Masters backhanded slaves; husbands, wives; parents, children; men, women; Romans, Jews.

We have here a set of unequal relations, in each of which retaliation would be suicidal. The only normal response would be cowering submission. It is important to ask who Jesus' audience is. In every case, Jesus' listeners are not those who strike, initiate lawsuits, or impose forced labor. Rather, Jesus is speaking to their victims, people who have been subjected to these very indignities. They have been forced to stifle their inner outrage at the dehumanizing treatment meted out to them by the hierarchical system of caste and class, race and gender, age and status, and by the guardians of imperial occupation.

Why then does Jesus counsel these already humiliated people to turn the other cheek? Because this action robs the oppressor of power to humiliate them. The person who turns the other cheek is saying, in effect, "Try again. Your first blow failed to achieve its intended effect. I deny you the power to humiliate me. I am a human being just like you. Your status (gender, race, age, wealth) does not alter that. You cannot demean me." Such a response would create enormous difficulties for the striker. Purely logistically, how can he now hit the other cheek? He cannot backhand it with his right hand. If he hits with a fist, he makes himself an equal, acknowledging the other as a peer. But the whole point of the back of the hand is to reinforce the caste system and its institutionalized inequality...

Jesus' third example, the one about going the second mile, is drawn from the enlightened practice of limiting the amount of forced labor that Roman soldiers could levy on subject peoples. A soldier could impress a civilian to carry his pack one mile only; to force the civilian to go further carried with it severe penalties under military law. In this way Rome tried to limit the anger of the occupied people and still keep its armies on the move. Nevertheless, this levy was a bitter reminder to the Jews that they were a subject people even in the Promised Land.

To this proud but subjugated people Jesus does not counsel revolt. One does not "befriend" the soldier, draw him aside, and drive a knife into his ribs. Jesus was keenly aware of the futility of armed revolt against Roman imperial might. He minced no words about it, though it must have cost him support from the revolutionary factions.

But why walk the second mile? Is this not to rebound to the opposite extreme: aiding and abetting the enemy? Not at all. The question here, as in the two previous instances, is how the oppressed can recover the initiative, how they can assert their human dignity in a situation that cannot for the time being be changed. The rules are Caesar's but not how one responds to the rules. The response is God's, and Caesar has no power over that.

Imagine then the soldier's surprise when, at the next mile marker, he reluctantly reaches to assume his pack (sixty-five to eighty-five pounds in full gear). You say, "Oh no, let me carry it another mile." Normally he has to coerce your kinsmen to carry his pack; now you do it cheerfully and will not stop! Is this a provocation? Are you insulting his strength? Being kind? Trying to get him disciplined for seeming to make you go farther then you should? Are you planning to file a complaint? To create trouble?

From a situation of servile impressment, you have once more seized the initiative. You have taken back the power of choice. The soldier is thrown off-balance by being deprived of the predictability of your response. Imagine the hilarious situation of a Roman infantryman pleading with a Jew, "Aw, come on, please give me back my pack!" The humor of this scene may escape those who picture it through sanctimonious eyes. It could scarcely, however, have been lost on Jesus' hearers, who must have delighted in the prospect of thus discomfiting their oppressors.

Some readers may object to the idea of discomfiting the soldier or embarrassing the creditor. But can people engaged in oppressive acts repent unless made uncomfortable with their actions? There is, admittedly, the danger of using nonviolence as a tactic of revenge and humiliation. There is also, at the opposite extreme, an equal danger of sentimentality and softness that confuses the uncompromising love of Jesus with being nice. Loving confrontation can free both the oppressed from docility and the oppressor from sin.

Even if nonviolent action does not immediately change the heart of the oppressor, it does affect those committed to it. As Martin Luther King, Jr. attested, it gives them new self-respect and calls on strength and courage they did not know they had. To those with power, Jesus' advice to the powerless may seem paltry. But to those whose lifelong pattern has been to cringe, bow, and scrape before their masters, to those who have internalized their role as inferiors, this small step is momentous...

This is just a small excerpt from Wink's writings. You can read the entire piece here, or look up his book, Jesus and Noviolence: The Third Way, or others of his writings. He was a great thinker in the tradition of Martin Luther King, Gandhi and, of course, a follower of his Lord, Jesus.

96 comments:

Marshall Art said...

I believe you've put forth this opinion before. The man's death does not make it any more profound or worse, any more true.

If Jesus was so concerned about non-violence, and teaching us by example not to be violent, then the casting out of the money changers makes Him one Holy Hypocrite. Similarly, labeling the Pharisees "hypocrites" and "broods of vipers" is violence also, if only verbal in nature.

More importantly, these verses were not Jesus having concern with the "oppressors", especially since people of equal status DO sometimes lash out at each other.

No. Jesus was speaking to the people who were slapped, sued, or made to walk a mile in service to another. He was speaking to how they respond for THEIR sake, not the sake of the "oppressors". His concern was for OUR attitude when we are so treated.

This is true when one considers that, for one thing, there is little doubt that any Roman would be admonished if the "oppressed one" volunteered to go the extra mile. The natural reaction would be, "well, if that stupid Jew wants to bust his ass, relieving me of having to bust mine, fine" and his superior would most definitely take the same attitude.

The point here is that one who oppresses isn't likely to give a rat's ass what the oppressed one does if the result is turning the other cheek rather than returning fire, giving that tunic along with the cloak, carrying that load an extra mile.

But rather than have any thought as how to gain revenge or to "show up" the oppressor with uncommon kindness, one is to simply BE kind and act ONLY out of kindness and love.

The whole Wink commentary flies in the face of freedom from worldly suffering by living for Christ. That is, I might be your slave, but I am a free man because of Christ. What Wink believes does not reflect that in the least.

Dan Trabue said...

You are, as always, free to disagree. Myself, I find Wink, King and Gandhi (all seeing the same teachings in Christ's teachings) to have a better handle on it than you do, but feel free to disagree.

Just don't expect that I go along with you simply because you think you're right.

A couple of points, though...

If Jesus was so concerned about non-violence, and teaching us by example not to be violent, then the casting out of the money changers makes Him one Holy Hypocrite.

Chasing people out of the temple is a great example of a non-violent direct action. Who was harmed? It was a very powerful non-violent action and one that helped lead to Jesus' capitol punishment in response.

Similarly, labeling the Pharisees "hypocrites" and "broods of vipers" is violence also, if only verbal in nature.

Calling the oppressors "oppressor" is not violent, it is telling the truth. Calling hypocrites "hypocrites" is not violent, it is telling the truth.

It certainly is strong language, powerful language, but calling that violent is to undo the meaning of the word "violent."

Jesus was speaking to the people who were slapped, sued, or made to walk a mile in service to another. He was speaking to how they respond for THEIR sake, not the sake of the "oppressors". His concern was for OUR attitude when we are so treated.

And that is a fine opinion, but the text does not say that. Given that Jesus was speaking to a people who were oppressed and well acquainted with the oppressors (in the Jewish leadership and Roman authorities), I can't see how you would think this ISN'T speaking of how to deal with such behavior.

Consider Paul's addition to this line of thinking, where he said to do good to those were being oppressed...

Bless those WHO PERSECUTE YOU... Do not repay anyone evil for evil... live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge... If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good...


Do you think that Paul is not speaking to an oppressed people about specifically how to deal with oppressors? "Those who persecute you..."?

And if part of the point was not a creative Third Way response to affect change, why would Paul say "you will heap burning coals on his head..." or "OVERCOME evil with good..."?

Isn't the point there, overcoming evil? As in Jesus' teaching? Are you suggesting that Jesus' recommended response to such aggression was mere passive submission?

You know, for all the grief that peacemakers get about being passive in the face of evil, that seems to be what you're advocating here. That I don't get.

I just don't think one can look at these passages, consider the context and conclude that Jesus' response to oppression was either passive acceptance of violence or deadly violence in response, but a Third Way.

Is it your position that Jesus and Paul were not teaching about oppression at all here? But merely, how to deal with some folk who are unkind to you?

I don't think the text supports that, but you are welcome to your opinion.

Marshall Art said...

Even your arguments are strained to the max.

One needn't inflict bodily injury to be a violent person. Jesus chased them out. If they did not fear injury, how could He chase them away? It's ludicrous. Every depiction of the story states He was acting in a violent manner. Like so many times in order to make your case, you choose the most narrow definition of a word. But Jesus Himself speaks of intention, as when he equates hate and anger with murder. Thus, violence is not so narrow as to mean only bodily injury inflicted on another. If that was the case, then we have to give up these anti-bullying campaigns that speak of name calling, internet hazing and the like. They are all forms of violence.

The point is that He wasn't speaking against violence at all. It's idiotic. Violence is morally neutral. The reason it is implemented is not. Hammering a nail is a violent action but it is not the least bit wicked.

You tell me nothing in the verses say what I'm saying. Nonsense. They say less what Wink believes it says. It is ONLY speaking to the attitudes of the oppressed. Even Paul, when speaking of "those who persecute you" is concerned with the persecuted. He is speaking to how we act when people mess with us, but never even hints at the point being the effect of our reaction on the persecutor. Both he and Jesus are speaking about where OUR heads are at when we encounter such oppression. To even consider acting kindly to "show up" or humiliate or oppressor is still retaliation and they both are speaking against retaliation.

Yours is just more exegesis.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

"Yours is just more exegesis."

Art - that's classic. I'm using that from now on.

Alan said...

ROFL. Awesome.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Alan - I'm so glad you saw this. Knew you'd appreciate it.

"Oh, no! Dan's doing exegesis!"

I do believe my funk from the past week has officially ended thanks to that single sentence.

Marshall Art said...

I'm glad I could bring joy into your day, Geoffrey and Alan. Of course I meant "eisegesis". My typo must mean that I'm just so much less than the towering intellects that you two like to believe you are. That gives me a big laugh.

So now we all have gotten a big chuckle. What remains is Dan's excitement over Wink's corruption of Scripture. That's not funny at all.

Dan Trabue said...

Again, Marshall, you are welcome to your opinion (and if you think I'm engaging in exegesis, I won't dispute your opinion, nor make fun of it...). But why can you not let it go at, "Well, I don't find that to be a plausible or helpful interpretation, for these reasons..."

Instead, you have to go all graceless and call it a "corruption of Scripture..."

It's enough to disagree. And believe it or not, disagreeing with you is not the same as being a "corruption of Scripture." No one has died and made you Chief Interpreter of the Holy Word..."

Just disagree, man, and let it go at that.

Alan said...

Oh, MA, don't worry about your "typo". I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say we'd never think any less of you because of a typo. ;)

But I there is always something admirable when you comment: regardless of your inability to comprehend the ideas being discussed, your refusal to read the works being referenced, your inability to understand the difference between words like "agree" and "disagree" or "exegesis" and "eisegesis", your fruit-fly-like memory, your penchant for contradicting yourself twice in the same sentence, or your ignorance of the rules of basic English, you never miss an opportunity to put down the bottle of Wild Turkey long enough to pick up a keyboard in pursuit of your obsessive one-man crusade to leave a giant Daffy Duck-shaped hole in the wall anywhere you comment.

For myself, I can only say thank you. Thank you for for making us laugh. The world, as the song says, needs a clown.

And thank you too for the reminder that, as coarse as discourse gets in this country, as inept and insipid and insufferable the stupidity and rancor gets, it could always be worse: you could be on our side.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Alan - I'm copying and pasting that because it sums up, pretty clearly, the only proper response. Dan should read it to understand why Art can't just "disagree". Whether because he actually holds an opinion contrary, or whether he is just a goober-lobbing prankster, there are so many other matters that are plain over years and years of interaction that make it quite impossible to imagine a scenario where he would come around, read and understand what was written, then type, "You know, I disagree with this. I understand how it is possible some might find this a fruitful way of thinking and living, but it isn't mine." Other people, myself included, do it all the time. We don't harass our adult relatives for using foul language on FB; we don't claim a scholar of whom we know nothing is interpreting Scripture incorrectly; and we don't show up during a stranger's reminiscences about his ancestors and call one of those ancestors a derogatory name and wonder why others might take a bit offense at that. We don't do these things because we are polite, thoughtful, and adult.

Art, however, does these things and thinks there is nothing wrong with acting in the ways I've described.

Marshall Art said...

So which is it, Geoffrey? Civility or no civility? You claim on your own hapless blog that you do not hold with notions of civility when you see something that offends you. Now, hypocritically, you insist I simply disagree. Talk about contradicting yourself!

Worse yet, I try to be a truthful, to the best of my ability, that I can. For example, I never "harassed" an adult relative on FB. I rendered my opinion on her blatant use of foul language on a public venue that can be seen by many, including potential employers. Only a horse's ass like yourself would take my actions as an excuse to demonize me.

Next, I don't need to have studied ANY "scholar" to see a blatant flaw in his explanation of a piece of Scripture and see a clear corruption. It has nothing whatever to do with anything else he might have written (though it suggests something about what I'd possibly find).

Finally, I didn't use a "derogatory" name for you ancestor. I used the proper term for a person born under her circumstances that also has a derogatory usage. In typical, worm-like GKS fashion, you purposely fixated on demonizing me for the use of that proper term, rather than to respond to my question regarding the sexual immorality that led to her birth. Because you're a fraud and a coward...a moral coward at that.

"We don't do these things because we are polite, thoughtful, and adult."

You do far worse because you are NOT polite, you are NOT thoughtful, and you are without a doubt, NOT mature adults. As I said to at your blog, if I truly am what you accuse me of being, a polite, thoughtful and mature adult would take some time to respond, to correct, to enlighten, to do more than pretend you are polite, thoughtful and adult.

So, someday, you, and maybe even little Alan, could grab some spine and tell me exactly what is wrong with acting in the way I truly do, rather than the ways you describe, considering you don't have the honesty to describe my actions honestly.

Marshall Art said...

"...ignorance of the rules of basic English,"

You mean like this:

"But I there is always something admirable..."

If I truly exhibit trouble comprehending ideas discussed, you've shown an incredible inability to express them in an intelligible manner, or re-state the ideas of others in a manner that makes any sense. The fact is, I comprehend just fine, but the ideas you defend are way too difficult for you to defend them at all. Instead, you feign astonishment at the supposedly shortcomings you wish I possessed.

My refusal to read works suggested by Geoffrey or anyone else is a lame excuse to pretend I'm not "getting it" when short pieces by these intellectual wonders are presented by any of you guys. You wish it was that simple. You wish I was, so you'll pretend that's the case rather than struggle with my counterpoints. You're a bigger coward than Geoffrey, pretending I'm not worth your time. I've comprehended that quite well and don't trouble myself over it.

And you have yet to demonstrate how or when I've ever contradicted myself, much less twice in one sentence.

The irony, something Dan relishes, is both you and your buddy presuming you possess more politeness, thoughtfulness or maturity after taking time to post comments mocking my misuse of a term.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Yes, Art, that's right. We're mean, hypocritical, and shallow.

Which is all beside the point of Dan's post, remembering a renowned New Testament scholar who passed away recently. I'm curious. Where, precisely, has Wink erred in the tiny blurb Dan shared here? In situating the interpretation within a context of first century Palestine? Within a context of Jewish oppression by an imperial power that subverted local rulers and religion to maintain absolute authority, a situation Jesus opposed, yet in a way far different from the zealots, with whom he was, apparently, confused? I'm curious as to whether Wink's argument that non-violent resistance is rooted in the Biblical witness of Jesus - something that was understood by Christians throughout history, from the first century apologists and martyrs through the Franciscans to the English Levellers to Tolstoy, King, and so many others. Were they all wrong? Were the martyrs who embraced death at the hands of the Romans, the Muslims, the Indians, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Nazis, and the Americans in El Salvador misusing Scripture when they refused to return violence for violence?

I'm just wondering, out of the depth of your understanding and study, your knowledge of history and Biblical interpretation (which is known, by the way, as exegesis), how, precisely Wink screwed up. Don't yell at Dan. Or Alan. Or me. You feeling picked on? Ignore it. Just make clear how all that history, that great cloud of witnesses is wrong and you are right.

Marshall Art said...

And now Dan, who surely is ready to delete or edit my comments...

"Instead, you have to go all graceless and call it a "corruption of Scripture...""

That's because it is, Dan. It's not just a disagreement on the order of how communion is distributed or how to baptize. It's taking the words of Jesus and making them mean something they don't mean, thereby instructing the readers in an improper manner. If words mean things, and I think we've seen in this comment section that they do, then how much more important is it to understand the meaning of Jesus' words?

There is a big difference in taking these verses and describing them as how we treat our oppressors versus how we are to react to treatment by them, that is, our attitudes and intentions. YOUR "understanding", that Wink's, is the former and still is a retaliatory action because it puts stock in what we do to the oppressor. This is plainly opposed to what the verses are trying to get across. And the explanations are equally strained.

A Roman soldier would be ashamed for a Jew to go the extra mile? Really? Does this make sense considering the opinion of the average Roman citizen toward those conquered by the Roman legions? Especially given that going the extra mile is a voluntary act? Would that soldier's superior really give any more concern for the Jew with the knowledge that he volunteered to go the extra mile? Not likely at all! He would more likely feel that finally one Jew realizes who is superior!

And the slapping of the cheek bit. Does one of the same status restrain himself in a moment of rage to consider which hand to use, which cheek to strike and whether or not the victim has legal avenues? Not the least bit likely. But the slapped person is to consider that Jesus does NOT want him to retaliate. Jesus does NOT want him to get slapped a second time. What Jesus wants is for the slapped person to understand is that vengeance is not his. This is the evil that you like to say one should not return: not merely a return volley, but no retaliation at all, no sense that the slapper must be addressed in any way. We should not even have any hint of retaliatory intention. THAT is the message, not a political response to oppressive powers on earth.

This is a true distinction between what is being taught in these passages and what Wink prefers to preach. It aligns with liberal "fight the power" attitudes regardless of the fact that it is less violent. But again, Jesus does not teach "non-violence" since violence is morally neutral. An earthquake or volcanic eruption is violent. Is it evil? Of course not. A cop wrestling a crook into submission is acting violently. Is he evil? Of course not. And once again, Jesus driving out the money changers was acting in a violent manner by overturning their tables and such. Was He acting in an evil manner, this Jesus Who is without sin?

To then say that these verses are suggest anything about Jesus preaching against violence is to suggest what clearly CAN'T be true (in light of His own violent behavior) and is therefor a corruption of Scripture. If that FACT seems an affront to you and the memory of this guy toward whom you have such reverence, then truth and fact is simply graceless and you'll have to find a way to deal with that.

Calling me graceless for speaking the truth as I see it is graceless itself given your love of tolerance. It clearly shows that you do not much care about agreeable disagreement, but, like Geoffrey, would prefer no alternative perspective dare rear its head and all just live in wonder at your brilliance.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

"[Y]ou do not much care about agreeable disagreement, but, like Geoffrey, would prefer no alternative perspective dare rear its head and all just live in wonder at your brilliance."

At what point will you just admit you don't actually read things that any of us have written? I have made it quite clear not only do I read things with which I disagree, but I do so quite regularly? Many times, even when I disagree, I appreciate the insight I get from these people? I've said it many times, about many different people. I cannot speak for Dan, but I spent two weeks being very clear that (a) I do not think I'm brilliant, have never claimed to be, and certainly would never stand and stare at how wonderful I am, considering I just wrote an entire post the other say saying the exact opposite; (b) the matter at hand is, as I said, Wink's interpretation situated as it is within a very long and venerable line of interpreting the Biblical witness of Jesus as preaching non-violent resistance. This latter point has been lived out and died across thousands of years and in many places. Were these men and women who let themselves be put to death rather than surrender their faith, like Polycarp of Smyrna in the second century, was distorting what you see as the clear teaching of Scripture? Were the Anabaptists in France, Switzerland, and Germany, drowned for their faith (thus the violently ironic name they were given), misguided for believing it was better to refuse to strike back at those who would kill them? Were the nuns raped and killed in Central America in the 1980's for their work with the poor delusional to think that the call of God to serve the poor might entail their deaths at the hands of imperialist powers? Was Leo Tolstoy a crackpot for creating a peaceful, agrarian community rooted in the teachings of Jesus? Were martyrs slain by Muslims and Indians and Chinese and Japanese and Nazis all misinterpreting Scripture, missing the clear point when they refused to strike back at those who would kill them for their faith?

Wink's ideas were neither new nor outside any mainstream interpretive scheme. Furthermore, Wink's politics, whatever they might have been, are irrelevant here because the question is whether or not how he read Scripture at least intelligible within the broad spectrum of faithful Christian hermeneutics.

I'm waiting for an answer here. All I read is, "I'm right, you're wrong, and you're all too smug to admit it." You should know, by the by, that I do not agree with Wink in large measure. I admire his work, have found it thought-provoking to be sure, but in the end I am not a pacifist. So, um, there goes your whole, "You only read people who agree with you," theory.

Alan said...

Once again, I'm always open to seeing MA provide evidence for his assertions, so I have a question, MA. You claim that we're wrong, that you do carefully read and understand what we write.

So, here's your chance, as Wink has been discussed here at Dan's blog several times.

What's my opinion of his work? Where do I agree and disagree with him and why?

This is now the third time that I've issued a similar challenge to see if you are even able to simply repeat something I've written, because, of course, if you cannot do so after the hundreds of comments I've written here, at Geoffrey's at ER's back in the day, then there's no reason for us to believe you'll ever understand anything we write.

So far you've chickened out of answering these questions i put to you, but ever the optimist that you actually might mean what you write, I'll give you yet another chance.

Marshall Art said...

Sorry boys. I was under the impression that you both did not care much for my opinions. Thus, I have not read your last comments and have no intention of doing so. If either one of you have any real desire to engage with me, I will offer an opportunity to say whatever you wish. Here, I'm dealing only with Dan, his post and his responses to my comments.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Shocked!

Alan said...

Shorter MA: Bwock. Bwock. Bwock.

I was pretty clear that I was not asking for your opinion. I was responding to your contention that we don't engage with you. As I have stated many times, engagement is a two way street. So, if you cannot provide any evidence that, after hundreds of comments over many years, you actually know where we stand on the topic of the post, additional attempts to engage with you are a waste of time.

This is now the THIRD time you've run away from such a simple question.

Now we see who the real coward is. As always, the guilty dog barks loudest.

But don't worry MA, yellow is clearly your color.

Marshall Art said...

Perhaps that would be true if I had not posted a place just for you and Mopsey to blather on. But despite my poor memory, I seem to recall Dan fretting when we start up this dance which is off topic. I am simply deferring to his likely preference that we do it elsewhere.

In the meantime, I have read your previous droolings. I have responded to your questions, granted I misread one of them, but then responded according to what was actually asked. As to your opinion of Wink's work, I could not care less. Why would you think I would? I am here to address Dan's position on what he presented in this post. You know...on topic and all. That will have to satisfy you on this most recent "challenge". Should you decide to post something here on Wink and his interpretations, I will be happy to let you know how far your head is up your ass, if indeed it is. Until then, I am not going to guess. You might want to keep in mind that your opinion is of no value whatsoever, especially when you don't express it. Your opinion of me is less than no value as it is based on your fantasies rather than on who I really am and what I believe.

Marshall Art said...

Geoffrey,

I will admit this much: I don't have as keen a man-crush on you as you would like to believe. As I still have your blog listed on my blogroll, it should not be a wonder that I still check in once in awhile. But I do indeed read some of your stuff and it is only on that which I comment.

You continue to say you read things with which you don't agree, but what I've seen is hardly representative of the types of things contrary to what YOU think I should be reading. Obviously, I'm only concerned with the topics on which I have posted comments and questions. That bit about music doesn't qualify as truly studying contrary positions akin to what you demand of me.

"I do not think I'm brilliant, have never claimed to be, and certainly would never stand and stare at how wonderful I am, considering I just wrote an entire post the other say saying the exact opposite"

False modesty as your condescension toward me clearly attests.

As to Polycarp, he did not give himself up voluntarily. According to The Martyrdom of Polycarp, he sought to elude capture and only gave himself up after the confession by torture of another. Indeed, Chapter 4 informs the readers that the Gospel does not teach volunteering for trial. But his death was assured by his refusal to deny Christ. Plus, nowhere in the epistle is there any suggestion that his actions were in any way a challenge to his captors. What it does show greatly reflects the what I'm saying Jesus' teachings were regarding no retaliatory intention of any kind.

And that's what you are missing. Wink is putting forth the teachings of Jesus as a means of dealing with one's oppressors. It is clearly not. It is how we respond within ourselves, for our own sakes and His, not for how it impacts the oppressor, regardless of whether or not it does impact the oppressor.

In this, Jesus expects us to maintain a sense of love for our enemies. But that does not mandate that we allow ourselves to be killed or tortured (as that Chapter 4 accurately relates). It is difficult for some, like Dan, to believe that one can "kick ass" without hate, without desire to kick ass in the first place, but in order to protect and preserve life. Jesus plainly did not preach "non-violence", but love, which are not necessarily unable to co-exist. IF you wish to say that violence as an intention, an attitude of hate or malice, is the "non-violence" of which you speak, that could work.

Another way to say it is that one can go to war not because one wants to kill the enemy, but because the enemy needs to be killed in order to protect and preserve lives. It's a "don't make me kill you" kinda thing that isn't prohibited by anything that Jesus taught about turning the other cheek. Wink seems to think (if this excerpt is any representation), and Dan definitely believes, that it is.

So, strangely, in an incredibly untypical manner, you have missed the point of both what Wink is saying in the excerpt, what Dan is insisting he's saying, and what I am saying is NOT the case with those passages from which he draws his conclusions.

Alan said...

MA writes, "especially when you don't express it."

Ah, but I have in other discussions about Wink's work (you know...THE TOPIC, which you suddenly seem so concerned with.). I'm simply asking you to summarize my view which I have already expressed.

You se MA, you can keep lying that we don't express our opinions, or you can man up and admit you're wrong, that we do indeed, you just don't bother to read them when we do.

So again, you do not actually respond to the question and for the third time, you prove my point: you don't read what we write when we write it, so why bother engaging you with anything serious?

You can't at the same time say you don't care about my opinion, then call me a coward for not providing it (especially when I have.). Remember that thing about contradicting yourself. Yeah, there's the evidence you asked for. Notice that unlike you, I provide it. You just don't read anything you disagree with.

No guessing invoked. Again, if you want to demonstrate that you actually bother to read anything, you're welcome to summarize my thoughts about Wink (the topic) that I have discussed here in the past.

Or just admit you're a coward and a buffoon and a blowhard.

Dan Trabue said...

You three, if you want to comment about each other, do so on your own blogs. Keep the comments to the topic.

Marshall, the question that I asked of you:

IF there is not obviously a sense where Jesus (and by extension, Paul) are not talking about this as a matter of justice, why did Paul speak of "pouring burning coals..." on the oppressors' heads?

Do you think that Jesus did not care about oppressive behavior and that he advocated passive responses to oppression?

You are the one that's sounding like an advocate of do-nothing passivism (as opposed to justice-seeking pacifism). Is that your point?

Alan said...

I'm trying to Dan, but MA apparently wants to discuss other things, instead of answer my questions on the topic.

Typical.

Marshall Art said...

"You three, if you want to comment about each other, do so on your own blogs."

Exactly why I dedicated a post to Flopsey and Mopsey at my blog. Crickets chirp there as we speak.

"IF there is not obviously a sense where Jesus...etc

There, Paul is speaking about a possible consequence of "turning the other cheek", not the purpose. It would be great to know that turning the other cheek would bring the slapper to repentance. But it is just as likely, if not incredibly more so, that it will bring him to believe more slaps are without consequence. The teaching concerns the attitude of the slapped.

"Do you think that Jesus did not care about oppressive behavior..."

Indeed, there is already plenty of teaching for those that would oppress or do harm to others. "Thou shalt not murder" is one. This teaching is for the victims of such behavior.

"...and that he advocated passive responses to oppression?"

I think it's pretty obvious, or at least a good assumption, that Jesus would prefer that we always act peacefully where doing so is appropriate. But unfortunately, as hard as it is for some to understand, violence is often the best way to peace. It has proven true for centuries. And sometimes it is true on the individual level.

"You are the one that's sounding like an advocate of do-nothing passivism (as opposed to justice-seeking pacifism). Is that your point?"

My point is about where our heads are at when we suffer abuse. It is the point of the passages Wink so poorly understands. The passages are more closely related to "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us". The passages refer to the latter half of that equation. If we think in terms of retaliation on any level, are we truly being forgiving? If we concern ourselves with teaching a lesson, even if that lesson is our example of turning the other cheek humiliating our abuser, our heads are NOT in the place Jesus would prefer it be in these situations.

I just cannot think of an instance where turning the other cheek results in better behavior on the part of the slapper. Not that it can't provide that result, but only that it is so incredibly rare that this cannot logically be part of the message, nor is it. Bullies don't change at the sign of weakness. Despots aren't touched by those who willingly accept their abuses.

In fact, the only people who would be changed by such responses are those who aren't bullies by nature. A good example would be our very own Geoffie, who has stated he acted in such a manner when bullied himself. Not being a bully by nature (though he does act poorly towards me), he feels ashamed of himself (and rightfully so). But even these aren't the concern of the teachings of these passages.

The worst part of Wink's assertions are that they are in total conflict with Jesus' own insistence that He was not concerned with earthly things, but only the spiritual. I agree that a total conversion to His ways by all the world would result in a better, more peaceful and loving world. But He did not express any indication that He thought that was going to happen. He was not a political person or one concerned with "social justice". He was concerned with bringing us to God and sparing us His Wrath.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

I just cannot think of an instance where turning the other cheek results in better behavior on the part of the slapper.

Then that just demonstrates your ignorance (no offense intended - just that you are ignorant of the evidence) on this point.

I can tell you from personal experience that I've seen it work.

Marshall..

Not that it can't provide that result, but only that it is so incredibly rare that this cannot logically be part of the message, nor is it.

And that is a fine personal opinion for you to hold. What is ridiculous, though, is for you to insist that everyone must agree with you. In the real world, Christians have disagreed with the man named Marshall on this point. Many of us find Wink's reasoning exceptionally lucid and yours (Jesus taught that sometimes the best way to create peace is through violence...!) is much less so.

The point is, simply disagree. There is no corruption of the text here. Christians throughout the ages have disagreed on this point, there's no need to demonize the Others who disagree with you.

Embrace grace.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

The worst part of Wink's assertions are that they are in total conflict with Jesus' own insistence that He was not concerned with earthly things, but only the spiritual.

????

I'm sorry, Marshall, but I find such a position to be laughably uninformed. I'm trying to be as polite as possible, but Jesus "was not concerned with earthly things..."???

Get serious.

And you want us to take your hunches with a straight face....

(And I recognize the hypocrisy of my asking you all to disagree without engaging in personal digs, but gee whiz! My apologies. I'm not perfect...)

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

I think the issue here is Art's assertion, which you quote, is offered without any supporting evidence whatsoever. It isn't that I disagree with the position he takes just because he is the one taking it. Rather, it sums up Art's approach. He believes a simple assertion is not in need of any justification. A contrary position is wrong, yet how do we understand how it can be wrong?

I base a very different reading on a variety of sources. First, the life-world of first century Galilean and Judean Jews was completely different from our own. The kind of distinction Art makes here is just not one the authors of the Gospels, or St. Paul, or Jesus would have made because there is no evidence that anyone contemporary with them made such a distinction. Is it possible that Jesus did indeed lay such a claim upon human existence? Sure; yet there is no evidence within the text, or in our understanding of concurrent writers, that such a distinction would, let alone could, be made.

Second, considering the insistence, over and over again, that the Christian faith is one lived in this world and for the sake of this world would, it seems to me, breakdown any attempt to erect some kind of barrier between "the world" and whatever Art means by "spiritual" here. Throughout the Gospel narratives, in St. Paul and the other epistle-writers, with overt and oblique references to specific narrative and theological strains in the Hebrew Scriptures, there is abundant evidence that, as it was lived, the Christian faith was committed to saving this world - this world that God created, this world that God loves, this world that God called, at the end of creation "Very good" - and I wonder how that is possible if we do not take our faith in to all aspects of that world.

cont'd . . .

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Cont'd . . .

There is also the fact that the Christian faith is not some general set of ideas or universal principles, but the specific living out of specific acts, which in turn are embodied and lived recollections of specific moral claims embedded throughout the Hebrew Scriptures: justice for the poor; a preference for righteous living-together in loving community over a preference for the rich and powerful who are repeatedly condemned for the violence they commit against the marginalized.

Jesus lived this out in his ministry, being known among his detractors as a friend of prostitutes and tax-collectors, eating with the ritually unclean, and laying his hands on lepers and others like the woman with the issue of blood who would not only have marked him as outside the bounds of the religious cultus, but of society as well.

These are the roots of my own understanding that the ministry of the church, if it is to be the ministry of the church of Jesus Christ must bear in mind the pursuit of justice and mercy, always for others, never with a care for one's own well-being (happy are those who are persecuted for my sake and all that). It is the overwhelming bulk of the Scriptural testimony, along with an understanding of the difference that exists between ourselves and the faith's originators that make me hesitate in making any kind of ahistorical claim about the ministry of Jesus and his followers.

Now, if you can buttress your assertion with arguments, I would be willing to hear them.

Marshall Art said...

"I can tell you from personal experience that I've seen it work."

Anecdotes only serve to provoke in me assumptions about your truthfulness, or your ability to assess what you thought you saw work. If turning the other cheek indeed altered the behavior of the slapper you have in mind, I would wager that it was not an immediate transformation which likely was the result of more than simply the victim having turned the other cheek, in whatever form that cheek turning actually took place. I would also assume the slapper was not an oppressive person to begin with and, likely already struggling to alter possible anger issues or the like. In short, I doubt it. But again, I don't doubt that such is possible as I've already stated, so the point is moot.

"What is ridiculous, though, is for you to insist that everyone must agree with you."

Not nearly so ridiculous as anyone buying Wink's nonsensical explanation. But if you really want ridiculous, then it has to be this:

"(Jesus taught that sometimes the best way to create peace is through violence...!)"

I've read through my comments and found nothing that justifies such an inane inference. Talk about bearing false witness!

But there is a big difference between Jesus preaching kindness versus preaching non-violence. One is true and the other is political crap from people like Wink and those who are impressed by him. He would never preach against what He was willing to do Himself. He drove out the money changers and broke furniture in the process. That's violent. Is He a hypocrite?

"There is no corruption of the text here."

There is certainly corruption of the lesson. Again, that lesson concerns how we respond to abuses; do we maintain a Christian attitude of love for our "enemies", or are we thinking of "recovering the initiative"? Rather self-centered and self-worshiping that. No where in all the Gospels or Epistles is there any hint of such a thing as "recovering the initiative" or even "asserting one's human dignity". This kind of interpretation is the stuff of comedy.

"Christians throughout the ages have disagreed on this point, there's no need to demonize the Others who disagree with you."

I haven't demonized anyone yet, unless Wink is turning in his grave right now. I'm simply stating that his take is wrong, and plainly so. If that's demonizing, so be it. It seems, by your rules, that if I disagree I can't say why or else I'm demonizing. In cases such as this, there's more at stake than simply choosing to believe communion by intinction is the way to go. There's an issue with how people understand the teachings of Christ that is a bit more important than Wink being "demonized".

Marshall Art said...

"I'm sorry, Marshall, but I find such a position to be laughably uninformed."

When you're done wetting your pants, perhaps you could explain why. You seem to think that because living a Christian life (should everyone do so) might improve life for all, that somehow that was His purpose? Really? And you dare laugh? Regardless of the impact we might have by living as Christians, He came to prepare us for eternity with God. THAT was His concern. Not what happens here, except for how it might reflect our devotion to pleasing Him.

I haven't time at present to directly respond to Geoffrey's last two comments, but he seems to agree with you by claiming there exists "overt" references and "abundant evidence" that we are to save the world. I can't think of a one. Please spark my memory with a verse that includes one of these "overt" references or some of that "abundant evidence". This is a sincere request.

Dan Trabue said...

He came to prepare us for eternity with God. THAT was His concern. Not what happens here, except for how it might reflect our devotion to pleasing Him...

I can't think of a one. Please spark my memory with a verse that includes one of these "overt" references


You are truly unaware of verses that conflict with your opinion that Jesus "was not concerned with earthly things, but only the spiritual..."?

How 'bout...

Thy kingdom come ON EARTH as it is in heaven...

Or really, just about any of his teachings? He taught constantly about how we are to live, here and now, about being part of God's Kingdom as a here and now kind of thing (as well as an eternal kind of thing). I guess I'd have to ask on what basis would you think that Jesus had no concerns for the here and now?

As Geoffrey stated, you seem to be thinking that you've made an assertion, therefore it must be. But your words don't speak all of reality into being, Marshall. Why should anyone agree with you simply because you've said something?

For instance, you baldly state...

He came to prepare us for eternity with God. THAT was His concern.

And I just have to ask, "Says who?"

Again, who died and appointed you god? Who died and appointed you the One Who Defines the Bible and God for All Humanity?

Look at the Bible and you can see abundantly that in Jesus' teachings he was concerned about the here and now. Otherwise, he wouldn't have bothered teaching about how we are to behave here and now.

As to your assertion...

there is a big difference between Jesus preaching kindness versus preaching non-violence. One is true and the other is political crap from people like Wink and those who are impressed by him.

I would just point out, as others have, that this thinking is not original to Wink. Indeed, people throughout the ages have recognized in Jesus' teachings the lessons of non-violence (it's rather hard to miss unless you're really tied to an agenda that needs to not see it, it seems to me).

"The only people on earth who do not see Christ and His teachings as nonviolent are Christians."

~Gandhi

Alan and Geoffrey have added some very good, on-topic, poignant points now. I'd say the ball is in your court, Marshall, if you want to make your case. Just know that merely asserting something is not making a case, though.

I haven't demonized anyone yet, unless Wink is turning in his grave right now. I'm simply stating that his take is wrong, and plainly so. If that's demonizing...

No, that's what I said. If you merely disagree, then say that. You did not stop at disagreeing, you went BEYOND disagreement to demonizing when you called it a "corruption" of Scripture. Words mean things, Marshall. If you want to disagree, do so. "I don't find that plausible" would suffice.

Marshall Art said...

I've been thinking that maybe a clarification is in order.

I am willing to concede that Jesus, as private citizen, had concerns about day to day issues of His era. He likely had "political" leanings and felt there were better ways for the gov't to work. If He was truly man as well as God, this would have to be the case.

But what He taught was concerned only with the spiritual, what our actions said about us and our eternal destination. When He spoke, He was speaking to the individual about that individual and how that individual needs to repent and live his life for his own sake. The individual was to act and think and love and give for what it did for HIM, not those around him. Wink's assertions do not agree with this. Wink's beliefs is that we are to do what Jesus says for the result it has on others. I'm saying we're to do what Jesus says for the result it has on each of us and that is what describes the concerns of Jesus and His teachings. The impact on others of our adherence to the teachings of Christ is a byproduct of that adherence, not the point.

Alan said...

"The individual was to act and think and love and give for what it did for HIM, not those around him."

Wow.

Ah yes, I remember the quote now, "Whatever you do for the least of these, you do for your own damn selfish reasons..."

God have mercy on your soul, MA, if you have one.

Marshall Art said...

And what is the consequence for the person doing for the least of these, Alan? Nothing? Or more so, what is the consequence for NOT doing for the least of these?

Your condescending quote is not far from the truth. For if we are believers, we do for the least of these as a result, and doing for the least of these reflects the fact that we are indeed believers. Even non-believers can be charitable. Does it do them any good eternity wise? Not according to Scripture. And are not the poor always with us? According to Jesus that will unfortunately be the case.

But you, not so deep a thinker as you like to believe yourself to be, cannot grasp the simple truth here. Jesus was preaching to each of us for what is necessary for each of us to be regarded as a true follower. That the world around us might improve as a result is a natural consequence that flows from our belief, not the purpose. The purpose is our own salvation. This is so elementary that sophisticated intellectuals like you easily miss the point.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

what He taught was concerned only with the spiritual, what our actions said about us and our eternal destination.

Says who?

...When He spoke, He was speaking to the individual about that individual and how that individual needs to repent and live his life for his own sake.

Says who?

...Jesus was preaching to each of us for what is necessary for each of us to be regarded as a true follower.

Says who?

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Micah 6:8: What does the LORD require? To do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.

Amos 5:10-15: There are those who hate the one who upholds justice in court and detest the one who tells the truth. You levy a straw tax on the poor and impose a tax on their grain. Therefore, though you have built stone mansions, you will not live in them; though you have planted lush vineyards, you will not drink their wine. For I know how many are your offenses and how great your sins. There are those who oppress the innocent and take bribes and deprive the poor of justice in the courts. 13 Therefore the prudent keep quiet in such times, for the times are evil. Seek good, not evil, that you may live. Then the Lord God Almighty will be with you, just as you say he is. Hate evil, love good; maintain justice in the courts. Perhaps the Lord God Almighty will have mercy on the remnant of Joseph.

Isaiah 1:11: The multitude of your sacrifices--what are they to me?" says the LORD. "I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.

Amos 5:21: I hate, I despise your religious feasts; I cannot stand your assemblies.

Hosea 6:6: For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.

Consider Jesus encounter with the Samaritan woman in the Fourth Gospel. The Sermon on the Mount. Jesus healing the woman with the woman with the issue of blood by allowing her to touch him.

This is just a sample, Art. Your assertions need justification, which is all we're asking for. Not that you're not entitled to your view; just that you need to provide evidence so that we can understand it as more than, as Dan says, mere whim or hunch.

Alan said...

And let's not forget the MA translation of John 15:13: "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his own damn self, because who cares about anyone else?"

Apparently Ayn Rand did a translation of the Gospels I was not aware of.

Dan Trabue said...

In Marshall's defense, when he said...

"The individual was to act and think and love and give for what it did for HIM, not those around him."

...he was probably referring to "HIM" being Jesus, not the individual...

Alan said...

And let's also not forget Christ's crucifixion, which, as a model for us, he did only for himself, and not for any other loser whiner. Because, Jesus was to act and think and love and give for what it did for HIM, not those around him.

This explains SO much about your viewpoint, MA. Seriously.

Alan said...

But of course, all this is only our crazy lib interpretation, and wouldn't be the interpretation of say, someone who defines what is both traditional and orthodox like, say, Calvin, who wrote:

"Now, in seeking to benefit one's neighbor, how difficult it is to do one's duty! Unless you give up all thought of self and, so to speak, get out of yourself, you will accomplish nothing here. For how can you perform those works which Paul teaches to be the works of love, unless you renounce yourself, and give yourself wholly to others? "Love," he says, "is patient and kind, not jealous or boastful, is not envious or puffed up, does not seek its own, is not irritable," etc. If this is the one thing required-that we seek not what is our own-still we shall do no little violence to nature, which so inclines us to love of ourselves alone that it does not easily allow us to neglect ourselves and our possessions in order to look after another's good, nay, to yield willingly what is ours by right and resign it to another." Institutes Vol I, Book 3, Ch 7.

But then, Calvin was just a crazy liberal communist marxist socialist Muslim. LOL

Alan said...

Uh no, Dan. Let's not be naive.

MA even clarified, "I'm saying we're to do what Jesus says for the result it has on each of *us* [emphasis added]" Result on US, not Jesus.

Alan said...

(BTW, thinking HIM meant Jesus makes even less sense.)

I feed the hungry for what it does for Jesus? Huh? That makes no sense.

No, clearly, according to MA, I am to feed the hungry for what it will get *me*. "I'm saying we're to do what Jesus says for the result it has on each of *us* [emphasis added.]

And what is that result? He even says it right there: "The purpose is our own salvation."

MA's own words. No twisting, no paraphrasing. Just a simple quote.

Salvation by works.

Alan said...

Now he'll backtrack because he knows that salvation by works is something he's not supposed to believe in (not that he knows why, and not that he really agrees, since I've seen him say the same thing in prior conversations several times.)

He'll backtrack simply because someone somewhere told him that's something you're also supposed to "do" to get into heaven. You're supposed to *say* the right things, and for some reason (he is mystified as to why) "Salvation by grace alone" is what you're supposed to say to get into heaven. So though he doesn't believe it, he'll say it and claim he doesn't believe in works based salvation.

Even though he just said he does as clearly as MA has ever said anything.

Go ahead, press him on it. Ask what the "alone" part of grace "alone" means. I have done so in the past and when you press him long enough, you find out that it doesn't mean what you or I or most other Christians mean by "Grace alone." Marshall is willing to admit exceptions.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

To be fair to Alan here, Dan - he's right. This is the same conversation we've had over the years, and it seems to come down to this: One of us makes an assertion about the faith and Art comes along and disagrees. He never says why, he never offers justification or arguments. He doesn't appeal to Scripture or tradition or anything else. You've made that clear when you point out what he says is, in essence, his hunch.

Then he demands we provide reasons why we think the way we do. We do so. He dismisses these claims, reasserting his original statement as normative and demands something different on our part. At some point, the game gets boring, but he wanted some Scripture that supported the contention being made in this thread, so I did.

I am curious about one thing; Art is pretty clear about what salvation is salvation from. What, however, is salvation for? While perhaps tangential to the subject of this thread - the Biblical interpretation of Walter Wink - but it does seem odd, does it not, to argue that the Creator of the entire Universe would offer up the Divine Son just so you, and me, and the rest of humanity didn't burn for all eternity in hell. In all honesty, that's kind of a silly God, don't you think?

Marshall Art said...

Good gosh! I really hope I don't have to put in another twelve hours tonight so that I can address all this foolishness. It's so ironic that it is I who is accused of "not getting it"! Stay tuned.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

I'm breathless in anticipation

Alan said...

In the words of John Gielgud in Arthur, "It's what I live for."

Yes, I have no doubt, MA...time to walk back what you already clearly stated about what you obviously believe

Marshall Art said...

Another long night. I'll go as long as I can. So happy Geoffie and li'l Alan are waiting with baited breath. The fun for me will be seeing Alan try to prove I've "walked back" any position I've taken, as if he's ever done that before.

"You are truly unaware of verses that conflict with your opinion that Jesus "was not concerned with earthly things, but only the spiritual..."?"

There are none.

"
How 'bout...

'Thy kingdom come ON EARTH as it is in heaven...'"


First of all, as you know, that's not how the prayer goes. "Thy kingdom come" stands alone as the first of two petitions, followed by "thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven", as in, "MAY your kingdom come AND MAY your will be done on earth as your will is done in heaven. Nice try, though. (Not)

"I would just point out, as others have, that this thinking is not original to Wink."

I don't deny that Wink isn't the only one who thinks there's some "stick it to the man" nonsense in the teachings of Christ, which is what he is saying in the piece you posted, and what I am refuting.

"Indeed, people throughout the ages have recognized in Jesus' teachings the lessons of non-violence..."

They haven't "recognized" it, they've injected it into His teachings. He doesn't teach "non-violence". He teaches love, kindness, mercy, charity and the like. There's a difference that you, Wink and whoever else you think "recognizes" what isn't there, can't seem to grasp.

" (it's rather hard to miss unless you're really tied to an agenda that needs to not see it, it seems to me)."

Now you're making ME laugh, Dan, as this "lesson of 'non-violence'"is something that apparently YOU need to see.

"For instance, you baldly state...

He came to prepare us for eternity with God. THAT was His concern.

And I just have to ask, "Says who?""


First off, I'm not bald. I can, however, be bold. As to "Says who?", clearly Christ. That whole, "My Kingdom is not of this earth" thing suggests His attention is on our relationship with God

You see, here's the thing. These assertions of Wink's are based on what he believes about the times in which the lessons were taught. He makes a connection between the political situation of the day and the lesson to which the text itself never, ever even hints, much less addresses. If Wink was on point at all, one would expect to see some reference to the politics of the day, some little bit from Christ that specifically mentions something like, "if a Roman soldier makes you do anything" or "if some authority figure slaps you with the back of his hand" or ANY kind of relation between what DOES say in the text, and why Wink says He's saying it. But there is nothing. Nothing but rank speculation which appears to be nothing more than an attempt to make Jesus into some political activist of His time. He wasn't anything like that as far as Scripture shows. You guys want me to back up my assertions, but you ask for nothing from Wink but more drivel.

Just the same....

Marshall Art said...

You wanted me to back up MY assertions. My main assertion is that the teachings of Christ were to the individual for the individual's sake. That is, for the sake of the individual's soul. Christ came to save us from our sins and how we live reflects our repentance. Thus, He also clarified the Law so that the spirit of it could be lived out by all who hoped to gain eternal life as a reflection of their faith (not a work-based means of attaining salvation).

So here are some verses that back up my contention of why were were taught anything by God/Jesus:

Deut 4:40, 5:16, 6:3, 6:18, 8:16, 12:28, 22:7

Jer 7:23, 38:20, 42:6

Ephesians 6:3

The running theme in each of the above is doing God's will, obeying His commands "so that it will go well with you". What does "go well with you" mean? Doesn't matter as it shows that lessons taught, like those of turning the other cheek, going the extra mile, etc. are meant "so that it will go well with" whoever is listening to the lesson and taking heart. It is NOT to show up our abusers or retaliate in any manner.

Even Alan's lame attempt with John 15:13 is really a reference to the one who gave one's life, not the one saved. It is totally speaking of THAT person by speaking of the love he has that would result in him dying to save another. Who is He concerning Himself with by that verse? The dead guy.

Out of time. Stayed tuned, kids.

Marshall Art said...

One more thing:

Before you all trip over each other trying to pretend I'm misguided in my understandings, chill out awhile and let me finish up responding to all that has been said thus far. That would be gracious of you.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Since Jesus never addressed the politics of his day, he therefore had no interest in it?

So, the whole gay obsession you and your cronies have . . . never mind.

The verses in Deuteronomy are addressed by Moses to the people about to enter the Promised Land. The "so it will go well with you" refers to the on-going reality of the people as a separate polity, a separate community. There aren't any individuals addressed here. It's about the integrity of the entire community. Further, these are admonitions not for the sake of their souls for salvation; they are admonitions for how they are to live together so their life together will be as it was meant to be by the God who made them a people who were once no people.

And that, Art, is right there in the text. Whatever you've said is just . . . I don't even know what to call it.

Go ahead and post more, but, in all honesty, this was just way too easy. Not to mention boring. Let me know when you've learned how to read the Bible.

Dan Trabue said...

I'm glad to wait for more, Marshall, but a question or two...

You cite Ephesians 6:3 which goes (in context)...

1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.

2 “Honor your father and mother”—which is the first commandment with a promise—

3 “so that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on THE EARTH.”


You go on to cite the "it may go well with you" portion of the text and ask...

What does "go well with you" mean?

I guess what you've said your implication/interpretation here is that God's messages are for the individual and only as a concern for the spiritual, not the earthly.

But doesn't that verse undermine that whole "God is only concerned about the 'spiritual,'" idea you were suggesting, since it says quite specifically, "So that it may go well with you ON EARTH..."?

As to who the teaching is for, Paul addressess it to "children," which means "the group," in this instance, does it not? And I know oftentimes in the greek, when the command is to "you," it is to the collective "you," not the individual "you." I don't know if that is the case here, but it seems to suggest that by the passage starting out being addressed to "children," or "the group of believers..."

Some things to think about as you prepare whatever else you might offer.

Oh, one more thing: even if you pick a verse here and there that appears to be talking to individuals, do you think that somehow proves that all passages/teachings are addressed to individuals, independent of their community? And that anyone who takes passages both individually and collectively "corrupts" Scripture?

I'd have to ask again, says who?

Dan Trabue said...

Also, you reference Jeremiah 7:23, which says TO THE GROUP...

For when I brought your ancestors [plural - ie, the group of them] out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices, 23 but I gave them this command: Obey me, and I will be your God [ie, in context, "collectively, your God..."] and you will be my people. Walk in obedience to all I command you, that it may go well with you [ie, apparently, "collectively, you"].

Similarly, you will find your Jeremiah 42 passage is referencing a group, not an individual ("WE will obey the Lord our God, to whom WE are sending you, so that it will go well with US"). Same too for the Deuteronomy passages, as Geoffrey has pointed out.

In fact, the interesting thing is that of all your passages you have cited above, Jeremiah 38 is the only one where you have (within the context of a dialog between two individuals) this sort of teaching being addressed specifically to an individual. It's interesting specifically because Jeremiah takes the teaching which has generally been given to the collective group of people and here he applies it to the individual.

And, of course, all of these passages are speaking of how it will impact the people here and now in this world, not "merely" their spiritual lives (I "quote" merely because I don't see a reason to separate our daily, here-in-the-real-world lives from our spiritual lives).

Carry on, then...

Dan Trabue said...

As to this...

They haven't "recognized" it, they've injected it [non-violence] into His teachings.

So, is it your opinion that the early church for at least the first couple hundred years, the traditional peace churches (Mennonites, Amish, Hutterites, Church of the Brethren, Quakers) as well as the early Church of the Nazarene, many Methodist Churches, many Baptist groups, the "Holiness" churches early in their history, including the Assemblies of God up until WWII, the Church of Christ, etc, etc... are you suggesting that all of this "great cloud of witnesses" were actively subverting the teachings of Jesus by "injecting" teachings of Non-Violence that aren't there?

Alan said...

MA needs a bigger shovel. And we need bigger boots.

Marshall Art said...

Y'all just couldn't help yourselves, could you? No. I guess not. Grace is only something to which you give lip service, as Geoffrey recently confirmed by rejecting the notion of civility (a post I only read in a cursory manner, so don't get your panties in a twist). So, I will just set aside the recent stuff for now and try to pick up where I left off.

Anyway, Dan keeps asking "says who?" and clearly it is Jesus (or God) who is doing things as I describe. Keep in mind here what this is all about...Wink's assertions. You all are going all tangential on me and I'm trying to stay on point. My point is that Jesus is teaching each of us how to live and doing so for the sake of our souls and our salvation. He is teaching us the "Christian Way", if you like, but not as means of retaliation for abuses we suffer. If this were not true, then it becomes more difficult to explain "God's Peace", which is not a matter of "non-violence", but abdication of worry, putting all in God's hands, knowing He is in charge. This is what "turn the other cheek" is all about. It is not "non-violence" but "let God handle it". If we do anything to respond (in a spirit of retaliation, which does not require violence at all), we are assuming God's authority and privilege to deal with the abuser. We are to deal with our own selves and how WE think and act when suffering anything in this world.

As an example, when I "obsess" (that's rich) about homosexual practice, it is merely to make sure that God's clearly revealed stance on the issue is not ignored. I want to insure that seekers and the young are not corrupted by the lies. But it is up to God to determine the fate of those who indulge in that behavior and those who enable. Their fate is not my concern, except that I'd prefer they get right with God on the subject for THEIR sake and HIS Glory.

More later...gotta go. Try to contain yourselves.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

He is teaching us the "Christian Way", if you like, but not as means of retaliation for abuses we suffer.

I'm glad to wait your further opinions, Marshall, but why not go ahead and correct a few misunderstandings and ask a few questions as you go?

As to misunderstanding and your quote above: This is why I keep saying you really need to learn more about that which you criticize before you criticize. No one is speaking of "retaliation for abuses we suffer."

The point of Non-Violence/NVDA is NOT retaliation, but working for justice. Justice which, if you believe in a good God and justice itself, is good for everyone - INCLUDING THE OPPRESSOR - and thus for the good of all, NOT for retaliation.

You don't seem to have a handle on that which you criticize, Marshall. You might do better to learn about what you're addressing rather than just make crap up about it.

Strawmen arguments are just a waste of time.

Alan said...

" Grace is only something to which you give lip service, as Geoffrey recently confirmed by rejecting the notion of civility "

Whaaaa? Does anyone understand what he's trying to say here, and what you or I being civil has to do with the theology of Sola Gratia? Does he think it is by my grace that I am saved or some nonsense? As usual, not seeing the connection ... not that there ever has to be one with MA, and more often than not there isn't one.

"You all are going all tangential on me"

Yeah, damn us for ... you know ... bringing in tangents like THE BIBLE. Shame on us!

"a post I only read in a cursory manner"

LOL. Hey, MA, if you're in a hurry, there's no reason to waste your time stating what is obviously true.

"each of us how to live and doing so for the sake of our souls and our salvation"

Again, how we live is not, according to MA, a *result* of the efficaciousness of grace, but is a prerequisite to it. In other words, more works-based salvation from MA. He just CANNOT help himself from writing such anti-Biblical, anti-Christian nonsense, no matter how much he protests. You don't * accidentally* write the same works-based theology three times in a comment thread.

And I have to agree with Dan here, who could possibly not get that "retaliation" is the opposite of "non-violence". Why is anyone in this thread discussing retaliation, and then whining about being on topic? We know MA doesn't own a dictionary, but is that really that difficult to understand? Apparently MA has answered that question for us. Help yourself out MA, and stick to the topic, which, by definition, has nothing to do with retaliation.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Thank you, Alan, for pointing out the first thing I noticed - the theology of grace and my rejection of civility as a primary public virtue have . . . what, exactly, to do with one another?

Also, yeah, retribution and non-violence. Help me, here.

Dan Trabue said...

Geoffrey...

the theology of grace and my rejection of civility as a primary public virtue

In defense of Marshall, I suspect he is here alluding to my requests for grace in how we treat one another in public discourse.

To me, speaking with grace does not begin with the presumption that the Other Guy is an idiot, nor with the presumption that he is being deliberately obtuse or misleading or otherwise diabolical. Thus, I am fine with saying, "Mr X, I disagree with you. I think that suggestion is ridiculous, given what the text says..." but not with "Mr X, I disagree with you. I think the suggestion is ridiculous, given what the text says, and that you are an idiot for thinking so, or, if not an idiot, then perhaps in league with the devil..."

It suffices to say, "I disagree with that interpretation" and nothing is gained by gracelessly putting down the commenter for his/her position. I am fine with strong words condemning bad ideas, but see little gained in the demonization of the Other. I think it is poor form when the Right does it (and the do it frequently at least in the blogosphere and in much of public discourse today) and I think it is equally poor form when it comes from the Left.

I do rather "get it," when one responds in kind to the Other, and if the Other is being rude and contemptuous, meeting the rude with rude. I also "get" that there is a time and place for everything.

I just think we all tend to engage in the demonization of the Other too frequently and too carelessly (I include myself, here) and, for myself, I'm trying to use such behavior sparingly and want to discourage it here.

That is what I mean by requesting that we disagree with respect and grace.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Let me be very clear. It has been five years since I first interacted with Art. Over that time, abundant evidence has led me to the firm belief that Art neither knows nor cares about whatever topic is under discussion. His sole mission is to come along - here, at my place, ER's when he was blogging - and say, "You're wrong!" over and over and over again, regardless of the topic.

By and large, I've stopped interacting with him on my own site, because, honestly, what's the point? I do so here because I find his belligerent badgering and rude presumption offensive. You are far more patient than I will ever be. I do believe, however, that he has used up any benefit of the doubt long ago.

He recently posted a comment on a post that read quite like an honest question. I answered honestly, along with the hope that, in reading something with which he might disagree he might at least discover the opportunity to understand the world in different ways. For that "gracious" act on my part, I was informed that he had no interest in reading people "who had their heads up their asses." We're talking not just Karl Marx here, but Walter Benjamin and Ernst Bloch and Theodor Adorno.

I realized my mistake. What sounded like an honest question was, in fact, nothing more than a baiting tactic.

As his attempt to offer Scriptural evidence for the position he takes demonstrates, one should remove one'd own head from one's own ass before demanding others do the same. This sounds harsh, I know, but as both you made clear, the verses he cites just don't say the things he claims they do. By any stretch of interpretive imagination. Insisting otherwise, despite abundant evidence to the contrary, what else are we who read him supposed to conclude?

Like I said, "your blog your rules" is understandable. Just understand that this is just a small part of a very long history of interaction. Each day is not fresh and new and filled with possibilities where this is concerned.

Alan said...

"To me, speaking with grace does not begin with the presumption that the Other Guy is an idiot, nor with the presumption that he is being deliberately obtuse or misleading or otherwise diabolical. "

Well, for one, that's you, not me. So his insisting that I operate according to rules I have never advocated means either 1) he doesn't actually care that you and I are not the same person, or 2) that he has never read anything I have written. Either one is not "gracious" by your own definition.

And....

As a rational person I operate in the world based on evidence. Beginning with an assumption that has no evidence to back it up is silly. But continuing to believe that someone is arguing in good faith, contrary to years and years and hundreds of comments of evidence to the contrary, is even sillier, irrational, and a waste of time.

Sorry, maybe you can, but I just can't check my brain at the door like that.

Marshall Art said...

First of all, I do not go out of my way to demonize anyone. Yes, when I visit here or other lib sites I am likely to disagree because lib points of view are so often wrong, whether the intention behind it is sincere or not. The "demonizing", if that word is truly appropriate in my case, comes when logic and facts, evidence and reason, bring about no consideration of the opposing point of view.

To that, jokers like Geoffrey and Alan simply deny those points of logic and fact that I bring to the table. Here we see their dishonesty as they pretend I don't know anything, when they spend NO time, or very little, in any honest attempt to refute that which I brought forth.

I admit readily, and with no small measure of pride, that I haven't read much of anything that Alan has written, because 1) I cannot access any of his blog stuff, if he still operates a blog, and 2) I'm not interested in what a smarmy, self-righteous and condescending ass has to say. There's a third point, that he doesn't say much now in the few comments he HAS put forth serious opinions.

As to Geoffrey, he feels better believing that I neither know nor care about whatever topic is at hand. This makes it easier to avoid dealing with the objections his positions provoke. He feels superior in that his "evidence" might be based on peer-reviewed research or people he fancies as the last word on a subject is listed in a citation index. It didn't matter to him that I have found each to be subject to politics and thus not the final word he demands I regard it.

As to the people he suggests I read, apparently, like Dan, he believes that the opinions of authors matter more than my opinion simply because they are published. What's more, I am often accused of taking a position because conservative sources demand it (not necessarily by any of you specifically---I don't want to be told I need to find the obscure comment where this might have been said by any of you), and somehow Geoffrey's or Alan's or Dan's position is more credible because some other person holds it as well? How is that proof of anything other than another person holding the same opinion?

In the case of that recent question I asked of Geoffrey, his suggestion that I spend time reading people, many of whom I know well enough, in order to understand why Geoffrey might feel manipulated by capitalism wouldn't answer my question in a million years. I want to know GEOFFREY'S reason for believing it, not Marx's or Engel's. To put it in blunt terms, Geoffrey pussied out on the question and punted the ball to a list of authors whose opinions weren't of interest to me in asking the question. Again, he avoids responding to questions and objections his own comments provoke.

So, despite Alan's supposing he even brings his brain with him (I've not seen evidence of it here) being "the funny" he expects others to bring, I will no longer address these lame distractions and return to the topic upon my return.

Parklife said...

lol... 60+ posts later and Marshall still delivers.

Alan said...

"when they spend NO time, or very little, in any honest attempt to refute that which I brought forth. "

vs.

"I'm not interested in what a smarmy, self-righteous and condescending ass has to say"

So, which is it? You can either complain that we have not brought forth opinions (a lie).

OR you can say you're not interested in what I'd have to say anyway.

***BUT YOU CANNOT SAY BOTH, YOU COMPLETE IDIOT, HOW CAN YOU NOT GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL, YOU BRAINLESS TWIT? ***

ROFL. Is that clear enough for ya, there MA? :)

Alan said...

Yeah, Dan, he's a peach, I can see how you might be dismayed that we don't take him seriously.

Here's a question for you, Dan, since you like to complain that we're so mean to poor MA, can *you* explain how anyone who isn't a complete braindead moron could possibly write those two sentences in two paragraphs and actually mean them both at the same time?

Or to put it another way, can you explain how anyone with a brain could possibly take such total horseshit seriously and still have any self-respect? :)

Alan said...

Anytime you want to actually address my points above, MA, feel free, BTW. You're an ass, but I still read your wordsalad, because what's the point of a clown if someone doesn't laugh at his performance?

(And when I write about what I've written before, I mean here, Geoffrey's or ER's place, etc., where yes you do visit, and yes you do read, because you respond to my comments. The only single redeeming quality you have is that you do not visit my blog. I'm only too happy to return the favor.)

If you didn't read my comments, MA, you wouldn't respond to them Every. Single. Time. You are physically and emotionally incapable of not responding. I say jump and you jump. You're just a meat puppet.

Keep dancing, monkey, keep dancing. ;)

Marshall Art said...

Well, Muffin. Since you asked...

You point to two comments and think they are contradictory. Notice, however, that the first one says "when they spend no time" and the other speaks of a specific asshole (meaning you). I can easily say both these in the same sentence and not be contradicting myself since one is speaking to "YOU" in a general sense, meaning not just you in particular, around whom you seem to believe the world revolves, and then more specifically to you.

Do I see any of your comments? How could I not? Do I seek them out? Why would I when there is very little there of any substance (in a very Parkie-like way--that is, void of cleverness or humor). AS such, I will respond to whatever comment anyone made whenever I feel compelled to do so.

But regarding monkies, I find it interesting that you do not often fail to respond to MY comments. Then, you struggle mightily to pretend there is something lacking in my understandings of the issues being discussed, without ever providing anything to prove it. I guess that's typical of little boys like yourself...always posturing, always pretending...sad.

Alan said...

LOL. More backtracking from MA.

But at least he now has clearly stated he will not read what I write....except when he does. So I'll be happy to see that he will no longer complain that I don't address his BS "points", because he wouldn't read them anyway.

MA: I will no longer address these lame distractions and return to the topic upon my return.

Liar. LOL.

Jump, MA, jump!

Alan said...

"without ever providing anything to prove it.''

Um....how would you know when you don't read what I write, and why would you care when you're "not interested" in what I have to say anyway? LOL

Ba-zing. Yet another point. Alan: 1 million, MA still zero. Keep swinging, MA. Even a blind squirrel can find a nut once in a while.

More contradictions. Keep it up, MA, you just keep proving our point. :)

Alan said...

Funny, BTW, MA, that you claim now that "they" didn't refer to me, when my name is listed specifically in the sentence before.

So which is it? Either the two statements are contradictory, or you are just too stupid to understand basic English rules like how pronouns work.

Or do you just think we can't scroll up a little and see that your explanation is BS and that you were indeed referring to me both times? Just because you have the attention span of a fruit fly doesn't mean the rest of us do too. ;)

Alan said...

But to get back to the topic, MA, any time you want to come back and address the points Geoffrey and I have made about the topic, feel free. They exist, we can all see them.

Ask a 2 year old how to use your mouse to scroll through a page if you missed them.

Alan said...

(Here's a question for Dan and Geoffrey... Do you suppose when we point out such an obvious contradiction and he's forced to come up with such an obviously cobbled-together piece of BS, he's thinking A) Wow, yeah, that was stupid, I'll make something up that's equally stupid, but at least I'll be typing something, or B) Do you think he actually *believes* his BS rationalizations for his obvious mistakes and misstatements?

I'm guessing B.)

I guess I don't need parentheses...MA doesn't read my comments. ;)

Marshall Art said...

Here's 1 million and one, since you're keeping score (just like Parkie).

"they" is a general term regardless of whether or not "they" refers to two or many more. Nonetheless, it is distinctly different than when I later spoke of you specifically. But hey, if you need this type of "success" to feed you insecurities, well by all means, you are wiping the floor with me, Twinkie. Have yourself a party.

Furthermore, to say I'm not interested in what you have to say does not prohibit me from reading what you have posted. To say I'm not interested means that, if you went a year without posting anywhere, I would not likely wonder just what the hell you might have to say about any topic that appears during that happy span of time. Do you understand this now, child? Let me know if you're still confused. (by the way, I'm at work in between tasks, so spending time with the distractions here is a distraction for me whilst awaiting further instructions from the home office---hope that doesn't disrupt your quest for finding fault where dealing with the topic at hand is too much trouble for you).

As to the topic here, I have addressed a silly point you tried to make regarding "laying down one's life for another", and my listing of verses addressed you other nonsensical point regarding why we are instructed by Christ or God or Scripture as we are. Try paying attention instead of engaging in your little girl games, as hard as that might be for you.

As to Geoffrey's points, I simply haven't gotten to them yet.

OK, now. JUMP little monkey-boy.

Marshall Art said...

So, picking up where I think I left off with Dan...

"In Marshall's defense, when he said...

"The individual was to act and think and love and give for what it did for HIM, not those around him."

...he was probably referring to "HIM" being Jesus, not the individual..."


Actually, Dan, I was referring to the individual because, as you can see, that's what the whole discussion is about: what was being conveyed to the individual. Little Alan makes the mistake of assuming that this means our focus in not on Jesus or God, but for Jesus to say, "Do what I ask for My sake" is really unnecessary. What's more, this post of yours is specifically about the lesson Christ is imparting with the whole "turn the other cheek" bit. Wink is saying that it is for the effect it will have on the oppressor. "Imagine then the soldier's surprise when..." and he goes on to talk about seizing initiative and such. There is nothing in the context of these passages that suggest any such motive behind Christ's teachings. I'm saying, and I can't believe this is considered debatable, that Christ teaches us how to act for OUR benefit, for what it does for US as regards our connection to the Father, mending the separation that took place when Adam sinned. Durn near everything Christ taught was a clarification of the Law, how it was supposed to be followed, Its spirit and meaning, so that we could be as one with God as He intended we should be.

Some, like your cohorts, choose to chide me as if I'm speaking of works as a means to salvation. This is stupid and just another attempt to attack my better understanding. There is also the matter of the abuser or whether or not our actions should benefit others. This is the wrong focus of Christ's teachings, but the fact that others benefit when Christians act like Christians goes without saying. How could that which is from God NOT benefit others. But OUR actions, based on Christ's teachings, are for OUR edification. And his teaching us to turn the other cheek is another way of saying "let not your hearts be troubled" for everything is in God's hands. It is NOT to "stick it to the man" on any level and THAT is what Wink has so terribly wrong.

More in just a little while.

Alan said...

Just like Christ's sacrifice, which we're supposed to emulate, was for his edification...

Oh wait...

Marshall Art said...

So now I turn to Geoffrey, beginning with his comment of 5/12 @ 5:33PM.

"I think the issue here is Art's assertion, which you quote, is offered without any supporting evidence whatsoever."

This is amusing considering my concern is the lack of supporting evidence in the Wink excerpt. There's no connection between what he says is behind Christ's lesson and text in which the lesson appears. Nor is there any suggestion of Wink's position anywhere in Scripture. The closest I can recall is "render unto Caesar" which also suggests not worrying about such things, as one is called not to worry about what to eat. This, too, is another example from Scripture showing that our concerns are not to be of earthly things. Dan's offered such verses in the past to speak against "overconsumption" and for "simple living". As such, I know of no passage anywhere in the whole of the Bible that suggests anything like what Wink is suggesting the "turn the other cheek" passages mean. So, where is evidence supporting Wink's assertions? Between Wink and the three of you, I've seen nothing so far.

"I base a very different reading on a variety of sources."

It seems you all do. Why Scripture isn't enough for you guys, I don't know, but still, none of your sources seem to make the connections I see missing, either. It doesn't matter what the world was like in those days. What matters is whether or not the teachings of Jesus were strictly focused on the situation at the time. Certainly, He spoke about the poor and the hypocritical Jewish leaders and how they oppressed the rest of their society and how they twisted and perverted the meaning of the Law. But that's not what Wink is talking about. Jesus spoke directly to the oppressors and hypocrites about their oppression and hypocrisy. He spoke to everyone else about what THEY should be doing. And in each case, the point was how the individual was failing and what was necessary to correct their direction so that they could be right with God. THEIR EDIFICATION.

"The kind of distinction Art makes here is just not one the authors of the Gospels, or St. Paul, or Jesus would have made..."

It's the whole of His teachings. It's the heart of it, and frankly, I do indeed see it being restated in the Epistles. Jesus said much that was "radical" for His time, but most was simply clarifying what was already being taught since the time of Moses. Yet, many did not understand what Jesus was saying, often even his own Apostles, which was a point of disappointment for Him. So the distinction being uncommon is not a news flash. For you, I'm not so sure.

"Second, considering the insistence, over and over again, that the Christian faith is one lived in this world and for the sake of this world would, it seems to me, breakdown any attempt to erect some kind of barrier between "the world" and whatever Art means by "spiritual" here."

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I'm thinking of the concept of "being in, but not of the world". I would also suggest that by "world" that means the people in it, much like Christ's "church" is the people who follow Him. If you are saying this, then it doesn't diminish at all what I'm saying. We can work towards helping others come to Christ, but He (God) does the saving, doesn't He? But the more each of us takes Christ's words to heart for our own sakes, again, how can the world not benefit?

Marshall Art said...

Geoffrey's next comment (the continuation of the one I was addressing) I'll respond to in a more general manner.

You're making a mistake in confusing the issue here. How we live our lives is one thing. What Jesus teaches us and why is another. Try to keep up as it is a distinction some might not grasp.

To say that we are to live lives of service is not untrue. For Jesus to teach us to live that way is for the benefit of OUR souls. Jesus does not teach us such without any consideration for what our living that way will have on ourselves. That is to say that He is not doing something like the following:

"Give to the poor, help the needy, love your enemies. It won't benefit you in any way, ever, in this life or the next, but do it anyway, because I'm not concerned with you, but only with those with whom you might come in contact."

Does that make any sense at all?

He teaches us lessons for the benefits learning and living them bring to us. The lessons are how we live our lives in this world, in service to others and such.

Turning the other cheek is to put no emphasis on the cheek that was slapped so that one loses the emphasis on Him. One doesn't turn the cheek to show up the slapper, or to "regain one's dignity" or to do anything but remain in a Godly state of love and peace, knowing He'll take care of things. That's beneficial to the slapped, regardless of any effect, good or bad, it has on the slapper or even those watching. And this lesson is strictly for the benefit of the abused.

The following is fluff and posing:

"It is the overwhelming bulk of the Scriptural testimony, along with an understanding of the difference that exists between ourselves and the faith's originators that make me hesitate in making any kind of ahistorical claim about the ministry of Jesus and his followers."

You do exactly that by supposing there is some issue with MY claims about His ministry, including that it isn't all that difficult to understand, requiring no outside sources to tell me what it means. What's more, aren't you making some claims by suggesting that "the life-world of first century Galilean and Judean Jews was completely different from our own."?

More later.

Dan Trabue said...

I don't know what to do with you fellas. I don't want to delete anything, but neither do I want this blog to be used for an insult-fest.

Just state your positions and leave off the insults.

My blog, my rules.

To help, that means just say, "I disagree with this point..." rather than, "This if fluff and posing..."

Just say, "I don't find that position to be a reasonable one given what the scripture says," rather than, "As a 2 year old..."

Please, enough with the insults. Do that on your own blogs if you wish, stick to commentary on this one. Disagree strongly, harshly if you wish, but disagree on what the other is saying, not on their intelligence or lack thereof.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall, I know you're busy, but just a reminder: I'm still wondering "Says who?" on almost all your opinions.

Citing that you think Jesus and God agree with your hunches and therefore, since you think they agree with you, THEY say so, is NOT answering the question.

Marshall Art said...

"Jesus says so" is accurate. With whom is He speaking and what makes you or Wink believe He's intending what you state He is? I'm simply going by what is said and the clear implication sans any input from my own "hunches" or "biases". As I've said, everything He was about was our salvation. His life and death was for our benefit, that is, MY benefit, YOUR benefit. Our mirroring His example is for OUR benefit, MY benefit, YOUR benefit. That doing so benefits others is a consequence that can't be helped, but won't get done if we do not mirror His example.

Why should I care about the poor, the downtrodden, the oppressed, the widow? What difference does it make to me if not for what I can gain from doing so? You guys like to believe that you do these things selflessly, without regard for its impact on yourselves, but these things are not natural behaviors for the lion's share of humanity. Ultimately, we are taught to act selflessly for our benefit. It's a paradox that apparently is lost on you guys, but nonetheless is the way it is.

But the teachings are all directed at each of us for us primarily, from Moses receiving the Law until Christ's explanation for how Israel was supposed to be understanding it. I have absolutely no problem with the notion that for my love of God and obedience to His teachings that I will benefit by doing so. I'm totally good with it. My goal is life-everlasting in His presence. If that was not a goal offered to me, then total self-gratification is the only logical course.

Even for non-believers, acting selflessly gives them joy and a feeling of having done a great good. THAT is an example of benefit to the self. I do for others because it is pleasing to Him as my primary reason. Truly, for those rare souls that are moved to do for others without ever having any contact with religion of any kind, they receive nonetheless. It's absolutely silly to pretend there is anything wrong with this, as it isn't even possible any other way. Who does anything for the purpose of putting themselves out? It doesn't happen. And it isn't taught by Christ or any part of Scripture.

So, "says who"? Who says otherwise?

Marshall Art said...

"Fluff and posing" is also accurate as I explained. If the truth comes across as insult, that's not my problem. I'm not hurling epithets for the sake of doing so. I'm calling it as I see it and then explaining what I see. I will not be limited by a vague notion of what constitutes insults as it has not proven to be a line clearly drawn. Less sensitivity is a better course to travel so as not to overburden those of us not looking to simply find fault with those in opposition.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

I'm simply going by what is said and the clear implication sans any input from my own "hunches" or "biases".

Ah, here is where you appear to be running adrift. We BOTH are going for the "clear implications" of what Jesus said. The difference is, I recognize MY understanding and interpretation of the "clear interpretation" as MINE, not God's. I think it's clear given the text and basic human God-given reasoning, but I still recognize that my reasoning is entering into the fray.

On the other hand, you read something, take it as "clear" AS IT SEEMS TO YOU, and then presume YOUR interpretation equals God's Word. In so doing, you fail to recognize your own biases and assumptions.

Consider this: IF the Bible were a point by point rule book and each line was taken as a literal command from God on how we should live, period, THEN perhaps you could get by with thinking YOUR UNDERSTANDING of a text was the One True and God-Approved Understanding (although even then, it would remain YOUR understanding).

But no one takes the Bible as a point by point literal rule book - and no one should, because it was not written to be that and makes no suggestions that it should be taken that way. Thus, by absolute necessity, we REASON our way through the Bible.

You and yours might read Jesus saying "Blessed are the poor" and then YOU REASON that to mean, NOT LITERALLY, "blessed are the poor," but something else... I read it and take it fairly literally. On the other hand, I might read, "And God commanded them to kill the children" and tend NOT to take that as a literal example of how God sometimes operates, while you might tend to take that more literally. In either case, we are all using OUR reasoning to interpret, it's not a case of "from God's lips to my ears," but rather, "to my brain, which I then use to interpret..."

The difference is - and it's critical - I recognize humbly that MY interpretations are MINE, whereas you take YOUR interpretations to be God's Word, and that's an arrogant, irrational and potentially dangerous place to be.

Where am I mistaken?

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall said...

What difference does it make to me if not for what I can gain from doing so?

Earlier, I had defended Marshall saying...

...he was probably referring to "HIM" being Jesus, not the individual...

My apologies to Alan and Geoffrey, for doubting your interpretation...

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall said...

Less sensitivity is a better course to travel so as not to overburden those of us not looking to simply find fault with those in opposition.

Thus, Alan and Geoffrey, he appears to be asking for you to continue to insult him the way he does you all and perhaps it would be deserved. Nonetheless, I ask you not to do it here, however much he asks for it.

Marshall Art said...

Continuing with Geoff's comment of 5/22 @ 2:24...

I don't understand the purpose of listing these verses. They fail to address my "assertions", much less refute them. However, one of them supports my position. Particularly Amos wherein we find "Seek good, not evil, that you may live." God, speaking through Amos, instructs Israel of the same point of which I speak, that adherence to God's ways brings life (in this case life on earth) and adherence to the self brings destruction. But the message is the same whether given to a nation or an individual.

But for the rest of your offerings, there is no relevance to the topic or my points. Thus...

"Then he demands we provide reasons why we think the way we do. We do so. He dismisses these claims, reasserting his original statement as normative and demands something different on our part. At some point, the game gets boring, but he wanted some Scripture that supported the contention being made in this thread, so I did."

...is clearly a ridiculous claim on your part. The Scripture you offer supports my contention where it supports any, but the rest is irrelevant to anything I'm suggesting. It doesn't even relate to what Wink is saying. Flipping pages with your eyes closed and randomly stopping and posting where your finger pointed won't get the job done for you. Your choice of passages suggest you don't even know what is being asserted, by either me OR Wink.

The following is most curious considering the accusations that I lack understanding:

"I am curious about one thing; Art is pretty clear about what salvation is salvation from. What, however, is salvation for?"

And the distinction of the two would be, what exactly? If I were to push your sorry self from the path of an oncoming train, it would be salvation from violent impact which is salvation FOR continuing life.

"but it does seem odd, does it not, to argue that the Creator of the entire Universe would offer up the Divine Son just so you, and me, and the rest of humanity didn't burn for all eternity in hell. In all honesty, that's kind of a silly God, don't you think?'

What's odd is your inability to grasp this basic and primary purpose of Christ's existence, even if stated in your condescending manner. Christ came to save us from sin, the wages of which is death. Exactly which seminary did you attend? I want to warn off the young. It seems simple truths are an insult to the intellectually sophisticated mind you claim not to lord over others, but you really need to find a way to deal with it.

Marshall Art said...

"Since Jesus never addressed the politics of his day, he therefore had no interest in it?"

Oh, I don't think we can say that Jesus didn't sit around with his homies talking about the inane politics of the Obamas, Reids and Pelosis of His time. He's an intelligent Son of God. I'm just saying that His teachings were of a spiritual nature, all of the Gospels and Epistles suggest as much, if not outright say so, and nothing any of you guys or Wink has offered supports any other possibility.

"So, the whole gay obsession you and your cronies have . . . never mind."

Oh, I would love to hear where you were gonna try and go with THIS! Feel free at my blog.

"The verses in Deuteronomy are addressed by Moses to the people about to enter the Promised Land. The "so it will go well with you" refers to the on-going reality of the people as a separate polity, a separate community. There aren't any individuals addressed here."

God in direct contact with His people, chosen to represent how the world is to behave as children of Him. Israel is symbolic of us all. With Israel, obedience results in positive benefits and disobedience the opposite. It is no different with Christ's teachings to us as individuals. What's more, you suggest that if only one Israelite took God's warnings to heart, that individual would not benefit eternally simply because the entirety of Israel failed? Sure.

Not to mention that from the time of Abraham they were "a people". They were considered a people by their Egyptian overlords from before their enslavement by them. They were always "a people".

"Whatever you've said is just . . . I don't even know what to call it."

I'm not surprised. Here's a hint: it's spelled T-R-U-T-H. That seminary again, please?

Marshall Art said...

A bit more for Dan, though I may have addressed some of this to some extent.

"No one is speaking of "retaliation for abuses we suffer.""

Wink is. He's specifically pointing to how the abuser will react to the abused abiding Christ's teachings as if that's the point of the teachings. It is not and there's nothing in the text to suggest that it is.

"The point of Non-Violence/NVDA is..." irrelevant here. It has nothing to do with "turn the other cheek" and as a policy for nations against despotism it is suicidal myth. But, that's a different topic and, as I said, irrelevant here. Some other time, perhaps.

"In defense of Marshall, I suspect he is here alluding to my requests for grace in how we treat one another in public discourse."

Exactly. Props to Dan. But then you go wrong...

"...speaking with grace does not begin with the presumption that the Other Guy is an idiot, nor with the presumption that he is being deliberately obtuse or misleading or otherwise diabolical."

You are not going back far enough in our history to the time when mentions of idiocy were suspended until proof was given. That is to say, and little Alan suggested this very thing, we cannot act as if we've never done this dance before. Certainly we should still maintain some semblance of civility. But jeez, are we so fragile that we have to pretend each prefers harm upon the other (though I make no claims about the positions of your boys)? Unlike Geoffrey's less than truthful description of me, I do not, nor have I, made claims, points, objections or accusations without something to support it. I don't simply name call to call someone names, I apply appropriate labels to those who actions have words that describe them. If, for example, I call Alan and asshole, I explain why the word is appropriate and his actions (or words used in a blog) have been what is typical of an asshole, without which I could not have justification for use of the word. I have no desire to call people names just for fun (at least not to their faces) or simply because we disagree. Thus, there are no presumptions here.

I'm good with civility. I prefer it. I simply do not suffer from overly thin skin and would rather not waste time whining over the use of a particular word is it is accompanied by an explanation that seeks to justify its use.

Marshall Art said...

Finally,

"
So, is it your opinion that the early church for at least the first couple hundred years, the traditional peace churches (Mennonites, Amish, Hutterites, Church of the Brethren, Quakers) as well as the early Church of the Nazarene, many Methodist Churches, many Baptist groups, the "Holiness" churches early in their history, including the Assemblies of God up until WWII, the Church of Christ, etc, etc... are you suggesting that all of this "great cloud of witnesses" were actively subverting the teachings of Jesus by "injecting" teachings of Non-Violence that aren't there?"


Geoffrey did the same thing here. That is, pointing to the opinions of others as if their opinions equal Biblical truth. I continue to look directly at Scripture, demanding proof from the text for the very opinions allegedly shared by all these outside sources.

First of all, not being perfectly familiar with all of them to the point that I could attest to their specific beliefs, I am left with only you understanding of what they say they believe. But I already have big problems with your understandings of so many things that offering other sources only leaves me wondering how well you know what they're trying to teach.

Secondly, their choosing to live a certain way does not mean they necessarily see Jesus teaching, say, "non-violence", but rather living "non-violence" is how they choose to live out their Christianity. Most, if not all, good Christians seek to live lives of peace and love, but that doesn't mean they believe Jesus preached "non-violence", which is distinctly different.

But mainly, I am not impressed by name dropping of any kind as a way to pretend my perspective is wrong. Just because some dude got a book published, or because some group makes claims, does not mean that I am wrong in any way. Show me in Scripture or show me that an author has found where Scripture proves me wrong (something I can't recall any of you ever doing). Just telling me so-and-so states something in a book is without value. It is not proof unless the proof itself is revealed. And no, I'm not going to go through the efforts of reading a book recommended by people who have demonstrated a good understanding of Scripture (or whatever) only to find that he didn't understand the author recommended.

I don't have anything against the author as much as I do the person recommending it. If the person offering the book can state what the proofs are that contradict my position, it at least gives me some compelling reason to take the time I don't have.

Instead, I get, "well, Ghandi said it" or "Marx agrees with me". If so, then they must have mentioned where in Scripture one could find the definitive tract that seals the deal.

OR, perhaps an author knows of a source that supports the case, such as with Wink. Does he offer any ancient manuscript that proves Jesus was the political activist he seems to suggest Christ was? Any ancient historian that speaks of Jesus leading marches against gov't policies or anything like that? If not, then where does he get off assuming the teachings of Jesus was in any way anything like that?

And this is where your (collectively) charges against me fail. I am not making assertions without substance. I am saying that YOU are doing this and nothing from Scripture that you offer contradicts my objections or supports these assertions of yours (or Wink's). In other words, your demands for proofs from me is a demand that I prove what doesn't exist, doesn't exist. If it exists as you say, it should be easier for you to shore up your assertions.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

That Art can somehow read the verses I offered a supporting his position, viz., that the salvation offered in Christ merely rescues an individual from hell; that the ethics of the Kingdom set forth by Jesus are not so much offers of possibilities of a life lived together in grace through faith for the world, but suggestions that aren't binding on us because, you know, people will take advantage of you if you act all meek and cheek-turning; that the LORD's words to Moses, "Once you were no people, now you are My people", are meaningless because the promise already was made to Abraham, so obviously they were always a people; Art believes that compassion and altruism are inhuman emotions, and that work for the poor, therefore, precisely because it is a command from God, is not something most human beings would or could do, given their own preferences.

OK, Dan. What possible reason do any of us have even to discuss things with him? Is Art ignorant? Is he being deliberately obtuse? Is he, perhaps, misguided yet willing to consider alternatives? As to this last, considering his astounding belief that the verses I offered somehow morphed either to meaninglessness or supporting his interpretive scheme, I doubt this last. I do not care about the other questions. It is obvious that we simply do not read or live out the Bible in the same way, so there is nothing more to discuss.

Marshall Art said...

"That Art can somehow read the verses I offered a supporting his position,"

Try to control yourself, Geoffie. I distinctly pointed to ONE verse supporting my position.

"...that the salvation offered in Christ merely rescues an individual from hell..."

That's no "mere" thing, as I understand hell is not a comfortable environment. Nor did I suggest that it is the only consequence of Christ's saving sacrifice.

"...that the ethics of the Kingdom...etc."

This bit is psuedo-intellectual babble of which I am unwilling to try to unravel. Try speaking more plainly.

"Art believes that compassion and altruism are inhuman emotions, and that work for the poor, therefore, precisely because it is a command from God, is not something most human beings would or could do, given their own preferences."

You're going to pull a hammy jumping to such conclusions. But there is far too much evidence in the world of selfish behavior to suggest that compassion and altruism come naturally to everybody. For most who practice it, it is a learned behavior, one you haven't learned well if your behavior toward me is any indication.

"Is Art ignorant? Is he being deliberately obtuse?"

Neither. Not so sure about you. If you aren't understanding what I'm saying, as is so obvious, why not a question once in a while to seek clarification? (Notice how I asked for the same regarding your psuedo-intellectual babble.)

"Is he, perhaps, misguided yet willing to consider alternatives?"

You haven't shown in any way that I'm misguided in the least, or have been unable to articulate it while trying to sound intellectual. But I've always been open to alternatives. Wink's offering was considered and found wanting. And fantastically so.

"...considering his astounding belief that the verses I offered somehow morphed either to meaninglessness or supporting his interpretive scheme..."

I believe I distinctly asked you to explain their relevance to this discussion and my position. Still waiting. As to the part I suggested supported my position, I explained how it did. So, as is typical, you bail. Of course we don't read or live out the Bible in the same way. Is this somehow a great newsflash to you? Were you honestly trying to figure this out and suddenly it became apparent? I guess you really AREN'T an intellectual. I'll never make that mistake again. How pathetic.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

"We BOTH are going for the "clear implications" of what Jesus said. The difference is, I recognize MY understanding and interpretation of the "clear interpretation" as MINE, not God's."

A far more important difference is that I can easily explain why MY understandings and interpretations are logical by use of Scripture. You don't. That's what makes mine clear to honest people.

"But no one takes the Bible as a point by point literal rule book - and no one should, because it was not written to be that and makes no suggestions that it should be taken that way."

Except for Jesus and Paul, and those who study their words, no one takes it as a rule book. Funny thing that the Bible contains all sorts of rules for behavior...

"You and yours might read Jesus saying "Blessed are the poor" and then YOU REASON that to mean, NOT LITERALLY, "blessed are the poor," but something else... I read it and take it fairly literally."

Not so, and you've been schooled on this mistake often. We do take it literally, but you choose to cling to one version and we consider also the other, which says "poor in spirit", and in doing so we do not pretend there is some "economics" being discussed so as to satisfy our political leanings.

"On the other hand, I might read, "And God commanded them to kill the children" and tend NOT to take that as a literal example of how God sometimes operates, while you might tend to take that more literally."

Or yet, on the other hand, you might misstate the manner in which such a thing might have been said, OVERstating it to make another unBiblical point, injecting more outside influences on top of it, to avoid coming to terms with a facet of God's character you don't like.

"In either case, we are all using OUR reasoning to interpret, it's not a case of "from God's lips to my ears," but rather, "to my brain, which I then use to interpret...""

If only you'd actually use your brain for something other than reinventing God into something more pleasing to your political sensibilities.

"My apologies to Alan and Geoffrey, for doubting your interpretation..."

There is One Who is far, far more deserving of your remorseful apologies than the likes of either Alan or Geoffrey, and that would be for YOUR interpretations.

"Thus, Alan and Geoffrey, he appears to be asking for you to continue to insult him the way he does you all and perhaps it would be deserved."

Now who's being obtuse? (Rhetorical question. The answer is obvious.) Alan and Geoffrey are going to insult me no matter what you say, because like all libs, they feel they have the moral superiority and justification to be as insulting as they want to be. NO. My comment was directed at you, who selectively determines when and who should refrain from what YOU decide is incivility in discourse. I don't care if they insult me, as I merely consider the source and expect no better from those having nothing better to offer.

Dan Trabue said...

Read up more on what non-violent direct action and the sort of pacisism/peacemaking being advocated by folk like Wink, King, Yoder, etc are actually talking about Marshall...

Does not seek to defeat or humiliate the opponent, but to win his friendship and understanding…The end is redemption and reconciliation. The aftermath of nonviolence is the creation of the beloved community, while the aftermath of violence is tragic bitterness.

~King

Marshall Art said...

Not interested, and here's why:

The very thought suggests and demands that both parties are of the same mind as regards violent behavior. When this is the case, of course non-violent techniques will work. But the types of people that cause the most suffering are, historically, not people concerned with the people who's suffering they caused. Hitler, bin Laden, Hussein, to name a few, are not concerned with "winning friendship and understanding". The same is true for violent criminals, like gang-bangers and mobsters who insist on displaying power to maintain the power they have.

Most average people prefer to deal in peaceful terms at all times. I don't believe most military people are looking forward to fighting and killing and would prefer to never have to do so. Ghandi, for example, wasn't dealing with a British gov't that was looking to wipe out or enslave the Indian people, so that his non-violent methods do not suggest such methods would work, or should even be considered, in situations where those in authority are despotic and cruel by nature.

To put it another way, most people do not need to be schooled in "NVDA" since it is the first choice of action anyway.

I would also urge you to remember how the aftermath of the violence we leveled upon Japan and Germany resulted in a peaceful partnership with both. Bitterness is to be expected, but does not last when the true intentions of an opponent like the US was in those conflicts has a chance to play out.

Anonymous said...

Just a random thought from the anonymous reaches of cyberspace: I see little humility, nor turning of the other cheek, nor going the extra mile by many commenting on this post.

The very nature of Christ is perfect humility. In our weakness, God is perfected. Humility affords the believer the strength to abide in love and grace, which guides us through stormy waters of suffering. God's punishment is just. Let us lean upon Him as the Great Equity.

However, be wise as serpents and innocent as doves by not confiding in these mortal words. Instead, be comforted that the Word has already been written for our sake:

Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you. (1 Peter 5:6)

Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. (Matt 23:12)

With all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love... (Eph 4:2)

Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall. (Prov 16:18)