Embury Methodist Church
Originally uploaded by paynehollow.
[Adapted from an earlier post of mine]
When looking at the Bible in regards to war and peace, it will be evident that there is at least an apparent leap in positions. The Old Testament seems to not blink at the use of war. Jesus, on the other hand, is consistently portrayed as peace-loving. We are commanded to love our neighbors – even the disagreeable ones! Even those who are our enemies!! We are commanded to turn the other cheek. To overcome evil with good.
The New Testament seems completely devoid of support for violence-as-solution, at least for Christians (a case can be made that waging war may be a legitimate role of gov’t). All of which points to, if not a command not to wage war, at least a teaching for Christians to not take part. To suggest that all this “love your enemy, overcome evil with good,” talk allows for sometimes killing them (and their children and neighbors) is to do damage to our language.
And so, if one is a Bible believer and wants to take the Bible seriously, then one has to consider how to reconcile this seeming chasm. Let’s begin with a look at the OT.
Early on in the OT, you have God as sole deliverer. That is, God's people were in trouble and God saved them by God’s own hand, without any military support from the people.
As in the story of the flood.
Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence. God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them...” ~Genesis 6
As in the Exodus.
[I will sing to the LORD because God has won a glorious victory; God has thrown the horse and the rider into the sea... ~Moses' song
The concept of Israel wanting to depend upon kings who will lead an army with horses and chariots (military strength) and God rebuking Israel for these desires is repeated throughout the OT.
Later in the Bible (in Joshua, Judges...), you have mixed situations of God winning the fight, but then Israel's army going in and mopping up (often killing all survivors).
As in Joshua, as in Gideon, later on, as in David and Goliath.
One might be tempted to ask, "What changed? Before God wanted to be the sole deliverer and now God is willing to let an army do some of the work? Has God changed?" And I think that is a good question to ask. More on that later.
Throughout this time (Joshua and the settling of Israel, pre-Kings), you still have God telling Israel to not have a standing army, to not have the latest in weaponry (chariots and horses). God wanted Israel to trust in God, not its military. "I gave you the victory...your swords and bows had nothing to do with it." Joshua 24
When Israel began demanding a king, like all the other nations, God was opposed to the idea, knowing rightly that it would lead to Israel's trusting in its own power and not God. Samuel warned Israel that going the King route would result in a king that drafts their sons into a chariot army, that would make their children work for the king, that would tax them to support this military and royal infrastructure, but, as we know, the people persisted and God relented.
Did God relent because it was the right thing? Clearly not.
God warns in Deuteronomy: When you do get a king..."he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, for the Lord has said to you, "You shall not return that way again." Neither ... shall he greatly multiply silver and gold for himself.”
In other words, God is telling Israel not to try to get many chariots and horses for defense, but to rely upon God.
In Deuteronomy, God goes on to say that "When you are in battle, and you see chariots and horses and are outnumbered, do not fear. I will be with you."
Despite these warnings and rules, the time of the Kings in Israel was the most war-torn period of the OT. And, it seems to me, this is exactly BECAUSE Israel was trusting in an army.
And so, for those who point to the OT as a reason for supporting our military, it seems to me that they're comparing apples and oranges.
Israel, when it was most right with God, had a small volunteer army only used for special occasions when God called for it.
We have the most massive military machine on earth.
Israel did not use the latest technology available.
We are always on the cutting edge of destruction technology.
Israel was trusting in God to deliver.
We are trusting in our military and hoping that God uses our military to deliver us.
The concept of God in the OT using an army or allowing an army to kill to further God's will (as in when Israel was overtaken by the evil Assyrian army) in no way endorses us taking part in such an army.
Or, at the most, you might stretch that to say that there are certain times when God has told some to go and kill the men, women and children of a kingdom; but if we were to consider doing so, well, we better be pretty damned sure that it's God speaking.
Myself, I don't see it happening.
43 comments:
First, as I'm sure you suspect, there is no consensus that your first premise is in evidence, that is, that the NT does not teach war as a solution, nor that it much speaks against it.
But that aside, as bad as kings were for Israel, the real problems started when they adopted a paid priesthood. The old prophets occasional crust of bread does not qualify as being paid. But when the 1/10th of all the income of the country went to supporting the priests, the real trouble began.
Fast forward to NT times and what do we find? The greatest obstacle in Jesus' way is the paid clergy.
Paid clergy is a very great evil and is ultimately responsible for most of the ills in the world. Only slightly second are those paid to be charitable or advocate for this or that.
Hey, E. Good to hear from you. I don't know that I agree with you on paid clergy, but it's good to hear from you nonetheless.
I will agree that Jesus certainly had to put up with a lot of crap from the religious folk, often led by bad leaders. I don't know that this is an indictment of all paid clergy, though.
And yes, I agree that the NT doesn't speak much to war in and of itself. It does speak to our conduct as believers and from that, I extrapolate that I can't see myself participating in one of Babylon's wars.
I don't think it's any sort of leap at all to do so as, for the life of me, I can't figure out how to love my enemy and overcome evil with good while at the same time dropping bombs on him and his family.
Dan:"I extrapolate that I can't see myself participating in one of Babylon's wars."
Nor can I. I use the spoils of war as little as is humanly possible and so I will not risk self and family to plunder them.
As to the paid clergy, it's what I've come to call the Tobacco Farmer's dilema. Here abouts folk used to derive a great part of their cash income from growing tobacco. Many of them were very good folk, the very best. Does it follow that I must say that tobacco use is a good thing since very good folk were engaged in growing it?
By the same token just because some paid clergy are good folk doesn't mean that a professional priesthood is anything but a horror. When someone spends all their time ministering (or advocating, or coordinating, or facilitating, etc), someone else somewhere in the world is raising the minister's food for him, sewing his clothes, building his house, providing his fuel, etc. without anything in compensation but his sermons - which the laborer is unlikely to hear or sympathize with.
Concant all such useless drones and what it takes to support them and you have the real root cause of needing to plunder the rest of the world for its resources and labor by military means (or threat thereof).
While the NT doesn't say much directly about war, a case could be made that the gist of the message would be against it. Could be made.
Likewise what about the Christian message and living by means of the labor and deprivations of others?
Dan, I think you are largely on the right track, but I would footnote some of these claims--with specific texts and with references to scholars who study these things in detail.
Also, if we see the Scripture in narrative terms as having a plot and direction, then the gap between Testaments isn't that large: There is the Peace of Creation; then falleness and increasing violence; then God's actions of deliverance and election--with Israel/Judah slowly understanding what God is about. Then there is the corruption of the monarchy and standing armies (and the prophets rise in response--the priesthood was there from Moses on, contra Eleutheros). This is followed by prophets' warnings against idolatry, economic injustice, violence, dependence on militaries and on military alliances with other nations; the warnings are ignored and God turns against Israel and FIGHTS them using other armies--and the prophets tell Israel that to resist is to fight against God. Then, beginning with the Exile and continuing to Return, the prophets continue to critique militarism and to claim that peace will be a sign of the Messiah. If we Christians claim that Jesus IS that Messiah, we should hardly be surprised if he takes that critique further and promotes only nonviolent means in struggles for justice.
Michael:"the priesthood was there from Moses on, contra Eleutheros)."
Not contra Eleutheros at all. Even if we accept the mythos en toto rather than the more likely case where it is a sixth century BCE compilation, the priesthood began with Moses (Aaron, actually) and militarism began then as well. The 40 years of nomadism served to raise and equip and army which immedieately began brutal military conquest .... all this long before there was a king.
Many generations before there was a king, an inhabitant of Jericho said of the Isrealites:
"And she said unto the men, I know that the Lord hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint because of you.
For we have heard how the Lord dried up the water of the Red sea for you, when ye came out of Egypt; and what ye did unto the two kings of the Amorites, that were on the other side Jordan, Sihon and Og, whom ye utterly destroyed.
And as soon as we had heard these things, our hearts did melt, neither did there remain any more courage in any man, because of you" .
Eh? "your terror has fallen upon us"
"our hearts did melt, neither did there remain any more courage in any man".
Michael, if the Iraqis said these very same things about the US forces, what would you call that?
TERRORISM!
It follows like night the day, paid clergy and then terrorism to exort the goods to support them.
Interesting commentary all. Little short on time. Allow me to address one comment for now. Bubba said:
"God Incarnate is clear that He will judge the world and that some of us will be condemned to Hell."
1. God is God and as such it is God's place to judge and punish if God sees fit. WE, on the other hand, are NOT God and vengeance is not our domain.
2. I'm not of the camp that believes God condemns to hell, but rather, as the Bible tells us, "God is patient with you, not wishing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."
Universalism? No, not really. I fully believe that some can and do choose to not accept Jesus' teachings or Jesus' gift. It therefore seems to me more of an issue that they are choosing hell, whether that be hell on earth or some otherwordly hell.
Dan:
1) You write about Hell, "whether that be hell on earth or some otherwordly hell"? Was Jesus not clear enough in talking about the rich man and Lazarus?
2) You're right that God can judge and punish as He sees fit, but you've argued (repeatedly) that human war is incompatible with love for one's enemy -- that an attempt to reconcile the two is an abuse of language. Is it not also the case, then, that God's judgment is incompatible with God's love? If not, why not?
If God can judge a man and can condemn him to Hell (or allow him to condemn himself) and can still love that man, why is it utterly impossible to fight an enemy and still love him?
3) You write, "vengeance is not our domain."
True enough that vengeance is the Lord's, but it's also true that He has authorized worldly governments to execute His vengeance to a limited degree, in worldly affairs.
According to Paul, the ruler is "is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer."
"Israel, when it was most right with God, had a small volunteer army only used for special occasions when God called for it."
And America, because of the MULTITUDE of threats it faces, has an army assembled.
Sounds pretty reasonable to me, Dan. AND...we follow God's rules of war.
Look around, dude. Just because you want to hide from a threat and refuse to acknowledge a threat does not by any means NEGATE the threat.
Your philosophy is skewed.
As usual.
Bubba, I have written on violence & nonviolence in Revelation several places--including for publication. But here is a 2 part post from my blog: http://anabaptist418.blogspot.com/2006/08/violence-nonviolence-in-revelation-pt.html
and
http://anabaptist418.blogspot.com/2006/08/violence-nonviolence-in-revelation-pt_15.html
Daddio, by now you know that I mostly ignore your comments, but you've intrigued me. What, pray tell, are "God's rules of war"?
I know I'll regret asking...
Bubba said:
"You write about Hell... Was Jesus not clear enough in talking about the rich man and Lazarus?"
The rich man and Lazarus is a parable.
It is my interpretation of all the Bible does and doesn't say on the topic that Hell is a self-imposed separation from God. The idea of being separated from the God who is Love - isolated in bitterness and hatred - THAT would be a far worse hell than any lake of fire.
Bubba also asked:
"If God can judge a man and can condemn him to Hell (or allow him to condemn himself) and can still love that man, why is it utterly impossible to fight an enemy and still love him?"
God loves us, made us in God's own image with the freedom of choice. As I love my children and wouldn't force them to live every step of their life by my dictate, so God loves us.
But I wouldn't slay my own child.
Finally, bubba stated:
"True enough that vengeance is the Lord's, but it's also true that He has authorized worldly governments to execute His vengeance..."
And I've not denied the Bible acknowledges the gov't's role of bearing the sword. What I've said is that believers have other duties and instructions. Another role.
Now, in a republic where we have a voice, we can't divorce our Christian role from any part we may play in the gov't. We can't say, "I'm a Christian on Sunday, and I'll follow Jesus' command to love our enemies at church, but on Monday when I'm at work for the gov't, I must wage war on our enemies."
I'd suggest we need to stay true to our Christian identity rather than taking on a governmental role, if that role demands us abdicating our Christian role.
[As a side note: Some pacifists say that, indeed, gov't has a legitimate role in bearing the sword AND THEREFORE Christians can have no part of said gov't. Other pacifists don't believe that gov't has to be limited to ONLY the definition of sword-bearers and Christians can be part of gov't, but they must retain their Christian identity in the process.]
Be sure to check out Michael's answer to your Revelation Christ-warrior imagery. He answers in a much better way than I can.
Michael, thanks for pointing out those blog entries.
Translations differ on Revelation 13:10. The English Standard Version has, "if anyone is to be slain with the sword, with the sword must he be slain."
Likewise the NIV, "If anyone is to be killed with the sword, with the sword he will be killed."
If these translations are more accurate, the verse may be more of an echo of Rev 22:11; at least, it may not be saying quite the same thing as Matt 26.
It's a translation issue for which I am not equipped.
While it's probably true that, after the letters to the churches, Revelation most frequently refers to Christ as the Lamb, I think it might be going too far to say, "almost without exception the only title for Christ is the Lamb."
In Revelation 5:5, the Lamb is introduced as "the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David."
In 15:3, the song of the Lamb includes the titles, "Lord God Almighty" and "King of the Nations"
In 17:14, the Lamb is called Lord of lords and King of kings.
The same names are written on the robe and thigh of the rider on the white horse, who is also called Faithful and True (19:11) and The Word of God (19:13).
And if you include the coda of Revelation 22, He is called the Alpha and the Omega and the bright morning star.
At any rate, let's not forget what it is the Lamb does: He's the source of fearful wrath in 6:16, and He conquers in 17:14.
In the second link, you write, "when the Rider on the White Horse (Christ) goes into battle with the 'kings of the earth,' he slays them with the 'sword of his mouth' which is specifically called the Word of God. (Rev. 19) That is, the only sword with which the risen Christ is armed is the prophetic word of the Good News and he 'conquers' by means of evangelism!"
There are two things wrong with this:
1) It's neither His mouth nor His sword that is called "The Word of God." It's the Rider Himself:
"He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God." - Rev 22:13, two full verses before the sword's mentioned at all.
2) You ignore what the Rider does with the sword.
"From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty." - Rev 19:15
It's unclear (to say the least) that this is a reference to evangelism, just as it's unclear that the kings of the earth mentioned in Rev 21 are the same kings in Rev 19, even though it appears that they were slain and their flesh were eaten by birds.
It's not obvious that the two witnesses in Rev 11:5 are Moses and Elijah; I don't believe they're mentioned as such.
And, the verses that Caird reference (2:27, 12:5, 19:15) mention the rod of iron, but it's not clear from these verses that "the only weapon the Lamb wields is his own cross and the martyrdom of his followers."
None of this diminishes our personal duty to practice the non-retaliation commanded in Matthew 5, but I think a pacifist can go too far in trying to scrub away the militaristic imagery of Revelation.
Your works strike me as an attempt to make Revelation fit pacifism rather than an attempt to allow Scripture say what it says and transform your beliefs to conform to it.
Dan, are you quite sure that the story about the rich man and Lazarus is a parable?
So many of the parables begin a clear use of simile: "The kingdom of God is like..." (See Luke 13.) The story here, in Luke ? Simply, "There was a rich man..."
The story is unique in that we have a name for one of the characters: Lazarus.
And, there's no analogy to an earthly situation with which the audience would have been familiar.
I'm not at all convinced the story's fictional.
Separation from God is punishment enough, surely, but I'm not sure what you mean with "It is my interpretation of all the Bible does and doesn't say on the topic that Hell is a self-imposed separation from God."
All it "doesn't" say?
I'm not sure that damnation is merely our choosing to be separated from God. In the imagery of Jesus judging the world in Matthew 7, there's an active ruling: "depart from me." And in the imagery of the weeds and the bad tree, there's an active cutting down and being thrown into the fire.
Nevertheless, if God can even allow His beloved men and women to choose eternal separation and still be called a God of love, I'm not sure that love for an enemy precludes killing him.
I won't suggest that one wages war out of love for the enemy, but it's possible that other duties -- such as our love for others -- may require waging war.
An analogy: if a live grenade was thrown into my foxhole, the brave soldier throws himself onto it not because he loves himself, but because he loves his platoon. But that doesn't mean he doesn't love himself, that every man who allows himself to be killed for his friends engages in self-loathing.
I have a different take on duty than you; let me see if I can explain it by moving away from the macro-level view of global politics.
I'm going to be a father eventually, and I believe it's inevitable that a child will disobey his parents even in some small way. It may even be that he wrongs me, not simply by disobedience but by slandering me: say, lying about me to look cool in front of his friends.
Superficially, the Christian duty to turn the other cheek is in conflict with the duty to punish bad behavior. The former has plenty of Biblical support, primarily OT passages like Proverbs 29:17, but the case could also be made for NT passages like Ephesians 6:4.
What do we do then? To paraphrase what you've written, we can't divorce our Christian role from any part we may play in our lives.
So do we not punish our children?
I don't think so. In fact, I think it would be a sin to spoil a child by never punishing him. As a Christian father I ought to "turn the other cheek" in terms of any personal sleight against me, but I still may have a duty to punish. As per Proverbs 15:18 and James 1:19, I should not be quick-tempered, but I still may have a duty to punish.
Do you disagree with the idea that -- despite the obvious language of "turn the other cheek" -- Christian parents occasionally have the duty to punish their children?
Or do you believe that punishment is forbidden by Matthew 5:39?
Or do you believe about parenting what you say some pacifists believe about the government: parents have a legitimate role in punishing their kids AND THEREFORE Christians can have no part of said parenthood?
What I believe about parenting, I believe about serving in government: sometimes the roles we serve dictate our duties. If a Christian cannot in good conscience serve as a soldier or judge or parent for this reason, fine, but surely not all mature Christians are forbidden from having children, just as surely not all of us are forbidden from bearing the sword on the government's behalf.
Dan:
I'd like to try to address your original post if its not too late.
Your explanation of the OT story is thoughtful and compelling. It is worth thinking about.
But here's where I think I might differ. The OT narrative deals with the nation of Israel - a very clear theocracy. You even said, "Israel, when it was most right with God, had a small volunteer army only used for special occasions when God called for it…Israel was trusting in God to deliver."
The problem is that we aren't Israel and the United States is not a theocracy. Many Christians live in the United States, but so do atheists, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, etc. While I believe our nation was founded upon a Judeo/Chrisian value system taken from the Bible, this is not a Christian country or a theocracy.
I completely agree with you that Israel messed up when they failed to have God alone as their King. They messed up when they failed to let God be their national defense. They messed up when they failed to trust God. But I am not sure you can make a case against the use of our United States military based on God's dealings with Israel.
Isn't this what the religious right does in so many ways? They take OT passages that applied to Israel and have fulfillment in Christ and apply them to America today to accomplish their agenda. Aren't you doing the same thing with simply a different goal?
Thanks, Scott for the comments and be sure: I agree with you. We are NOT a theocracy. For that reason, I do not demand or even advocate that the nation accept my interpretation of what the Bible says as what the nation ought to do.
I think it's entirely reasonable for anyone to make logical cases for a position that they come by via their religious background, but in a pluralistic society, they should be able to argue based upon something besides just "because God says so."
So, while I feel I can make a decent logical case for pacifism, because there is an element of faith involved I don't ask that we make that US policy.
So in my discussion here, I'm arguing specifically for Christian discussion, not for national policy.
Thanks for the comments, Scott.
Bubba, I'd like to thank you for the reasonable and polite dialog we've been sharing. In this seemingly divided country, discussion amongst those who differ should be, I think, a top priority. Thanks.
Bubba said,
"I think it would be a sin to spoil a child by never punishing him. As a Christian father I ought to "turn the other cheek" in terms of any personal sleight against me, but I still may have a duty to punish."
As I've indicated elsewhere, I think that many folk have a poor idea of what being a pacifist means. It's not being a doormat.
Peacemakers can be and are fiery. Think Dr. King. Think Jesus. Think Dorothy Day.
Peacemakers are opposed to injustice and support holding people accountable. Indeed, that's what we're trying to do with this administration currently in power.
It would be a mistake, then, to assume that "turning the other cheek" means to us to do nothing when misbehavior happens. THAT is exactly the wrong lesson to take from Jesus' teachings.
It is, in fact, one of the practical reasons that I'm opposed to war-as-solution and in support of peacemaking actions. War-as-solution - EVEN IF it worked - is incredibly expensive to implement. Prohibitively so.
We are stretching ourselves then to wage war in Iraq, which was an already-defeated country with probably 1/1000th of our resources.
If we're stretched thin in this one battle, how then shall we address Darfur? China? Cuba? Colombia? The Philipines? etc, etc, etc?
The answer? We can't!
We NEED other answers, even if you believe in war-as-solution as sometimes viable, it is clearly not all the time viable and to put all our eggs in that basket is to say that we plan to do nothing about genocide and oppression in many places.
Indeed, that is exactly what we're saying right now.
So, to answer your question, yes one can discipline a child. I'm a father and I do that exactly. In love. We are not in disagreement there.
I just think you have a poor idea of what Just Peacemakers/pacifists are all about. Have you read up on Just Peacemaking?
A link to Just Peacemaking.
Knowing full well I've come to this discussion late, allow me to take issue with one theme that kept popping its head up from middle-ways to end.
Christians are not to take part in War because they have other duties? Bubba taking it a step further, albeit as an illustration of faulty logic, by saying Christians shouldn't be warriors, judges, or parents...
This argument seems to suggest that only the wicked are fit to serve in the military, on the bench, or as parents. That last one creates a huge dilemma for Christian parents who are, by the very fact of their status as a follower of Christ, unfit to raise their own children. Taking it a step further, the best thing a Christian parent could do would be to foster them to ungodly parents to be raised.
By allowing the military to be populated solely by the unsaved, the unregenerated... the wicked... is to create many many many more Lynndie Englands and Abu Ghraibs. How could we then object to such atrocities when we say it is inappropriate for Christians to serve in the military?
Christians in the military would provide a restraining element. Compassion toward the captives. Christian leaders in the military, especially if the Commander in Chief is Christian, would be more likely to avoid leveling the entire countryside just to get at a few insurgents.
We are supposed to be the salt of the earth. We are supposed to take what is bland, and tasteless, and bring life, and awakening... spiritually speaking. And if Christians shouldn't be soldiers, why on earth do we have chaplains in our military? Why on earth do we give our soldiers New Testaments? For the moment a soldier comes to believe that Christ is the answer for his life's woes, by your standard, he must immediately lay down his rifle. By your standard... Not, I believe, God's.
Acts chapter 10 tells the story of a devout and just centurion named Cornelius. No where is there mention that Conelius ceased his soldierly duties, nor was he told to do so by Peter. Instead, the Holy Ghost fell on him and his entire household and they spoke with tongues and magnified God. God was no respecter of persons... All were welcome. Including a Roman gentile centurion.
I respectfully disagree with this premise of yours, that Christians should not take up the sword in service to their country. If nothing else, close proximity to you-- and the Holy Ghost inside you --puts in play a restraining force against those who would do evil in the name of one's nation.
"That last one creates a huge dilemma for Christian parents who are, by the very fact of their status as a follower of Christ, unfit to raise their own children."
!!?
Of course, you realize, that the parent thing was Bubba's suggestion, not mine. It's a ridiculous idea that we can't be parents because we have other duties. It's not like there are inherent wrong acts that parents are required to take as there are with soldiers.
As to your later argument - that Christians should be in the military so they can be a witness? Then, I suppose you'd also support Christians in the porn industry? In the gay s/m prostitute industry?
No?
Dude! You've just lost any moral high-ground you might have had with this post! Comparing military service to the porn industry? Gay, S/M, Prostitution industry?
I'm saying that I believe the Bible teaches us that it is wrong to kill innocent people, even accidentally. That Christians are to not engage in killing our enemies. That to do so is against Jesus' command to us.
Just as it is wrong to engage in prostitution or pornography.
So, I'll assume by your reaction that you DON'T think it's a good thing for Christians to engage in that which they've been commanded not to do? If that is the case, then why would you support Christians being in the military?
I'm saying your reasoning (Christians ought to be places where they don't belong in order to be a witness and make things better) is faulty.
If you want to argue that Christians DO belong in a business where they're acting contrary to Jesus' teachings, then make that argument. But don't argue that they should be in wrong places to serve as a witnesses.
Dan, I too am glad that we're able to have a civil discussion, though I'll probably wrap up on my end sometime next week: I'm approaching the point where I've said all that I've wanted to say, and -- in light of your response to EL Ashley -- I'm not sure that much of it's getting through.
Let me admit that war is an expensive thing, but the cost-prohibitive nature of war means that it must necessarily be rare, not that it's absolutely forbidden. That we couldn't afford a war on 20 or 30 fronts doesn't mean that we ought to abstain in all circumstances from a war on 2 or 3 fronts.
I can't afford a fleet of cars or a million shoes; that doesn't mean I must therefore walk everywhere and do so bare-footed.
You write:
It would be a mistake, then, to assume that "turning the other cheek" means to us to do nothing when misbehavior happens. THAT is exactly the wrong lesson to take from Jesus' teachings.
I agree it would be the wrong lesson, but it is the sort of lesson one would draw if he took the same view on "turn the other cheek" as you do on "love your enemies."
You seem to think that "love your enemies" trumps all, that we can never (for instance) demonstrate love for our neighbors by killing the aggressive enemy who threatens them -- all because of "love your enemies."
Applied just as strictly, "turn the other cheek" absolutely forbids a Christian parent from punishing his child. Why are you an absolutist on one and not the other?
You write this, in your last reply to Ashley:
I'm saying that I believe the Bible teaches us that it is wrong to kill innocent people, even accidentally.
As I argued before, that sort of belief renders soup kitchens immoral: have a soup kitchen open long enough, serve enough people, and eventually some innocent person's gonna die of food poisoning or a food allergy.
That Christians are to not engage in killing our enemies. That to do so is against Jesus' command to us.
There is no clear command from Christ that we are never to kill our enemies. We are to love them, certainly, but that love must be balanced against the love of those who are threatened by our enemies. And we are to turn the other cheek, but if a parent can punish a child, then that command too has its exceptions.
I've made these points over and over again, and I don't believe you have adequately addressed the substance behind them. Instead, you act as if absolute pacifism is clearly taught in Scripture and thus tell others to explain why soldiers ought to act "contrary to Jesus' teachings."
Whether war is contrary to His teachings in the first place is what is being argued.
Your views are truly perverted. You should probably consider removing me from your links, as we'll never agree.
All the more reason to continue dialog with each other, dude.
I think Ashley's response is at least understandable: the comparison of Marines to smut peddlers and hookers is grossly offensive to anyone who esteems our armed forces.
Despite your position, I'm not sure the comparison has any Biblical basis. Proverbs is clear about avoiding houses of ill repute, and Hebrews teaches us to keep the marriage bed undefiled, but where are the passages that denouncing enlisting as a soldier?
The apolyptic imagery might well be metaphorical, but it's still true that, while the forces of evil has the whore of Babylon, both sides have their armies.
"the comparison of Marines to smut peddlers and hookers is grossly offensive to anyone who esteems our armed forces."
You're assuming I don't esteem our sons and daughters who've placed their lives and psyches on the line in an effort to undertake what they consider to be a noble act. I DO esteem them, love them and want them to be safe and not placed in a lose-lose situation (and I've listened to some of our soldiers and that's exactly how they describe it).
The placing of our soldiers in harm's way in a unjustified war is considered grossly offensive to most of the nation, I'd say - given the results of this week's election.
What is it, I wonder, about many traditional church-goers that places such vehement disgust upon the sexual sins but not so much on the sins of greed, war and violence?
By the efforts and money spent by many US churches, you'd have to conclude that the main sin that is warned about in the Bible is SEX. This, of course, is not the case.
I'm thinking of Jesus' response to two sinners: The woman who was about to be stoned for adultery and the soldier at the cross.
Jesus clearly had compassion upon the woman and upon the hypocrisy of the system that condemned her. After rebuking the "puritans" Jesus asked the woman where her accusers were. Gone, she replied. Fine, Jesus said, if they don't condemn you, then neither do I. Go and sin no more.
[John 8]
I think, too, of the soldiers at the cross, the ones who treated Jesus so horribly, who were literally killing him. Again, Jesus in love said, "father forgive them, for they know not what they do."
Pacifists have a long memory. We remember that it is often the soldiers and the police who have come to take us away (they, and the religious ones who believe in violence-as-solution). The same who crucified our Lord!
But that is not to say that we disrespect those who are in the military (or those who are prostitutes, or even those who engage in pornography), but rather we feel that they know not what they do.
We recognize that they nearly always do not intend to do evil, but rather that they mistake for good, actions that are innately evil (ie, killing innocent people). Or, at best, suppose as "necessary" actions that are evil.
Bubba:"Translations differ on Revelation 13:10. The English Standard Bible Version has, "if anyone is to be slain with the sword, with the sword must he be slain."
....
If these translations are more accurate,"
Sorry, the long dormant Textual Critic in me can't let it lie.
In this case it isn't so much a matter of translation as it is a matter of variant readings.
Some of, considered the most important, of the manuscripts read very simply:
"If anyone by [the] sword is killed
He (or 'the same') by [sword] is killed."
What the Hell does that mean??
Well, it is Semitic parallelism written in Greek, which is always a bit of a puzzle. Poetically it is supposed to reflect the couplet that goes before it:
Ei tis eis aichmalosian
eis aichmalosian hupagei
Ei tis en machaire apoktanthenai
auton en machaire apoktanthenai
Very literally:
“If any into captivity
Into captivity goes
If any by sword is killed
He by sword is killed.”
It was apparently no more enlightening to the ancients than it is for us today. If the two couplets were in perfect literary parallelism, they would read:
Ei tis eis aichmalosia
eis aichmalosian
Ei tis en machaire apoktanthenai
En machaire apoktanthenai
It appears John or a copyist added the word ‘go’ to clarify what was going with reference to captivity, and added the word “The same” to clarify who was being killed.
As this verse was copied and passed along, it seems that more words were added to the text in a further attempt to clarify what was (maybe) meant and after several additions, all of which are documented in existing texts, we get the text that was used for the KJV thus:
Ei tis aichmalotizei eis aichmalosian
Eis aichmalosian aichmalotisthesetai,
Ei tis en machaire apoktenvei
Dei auton apoktanthenai”
Which clearly reads:
“If anyone carry away into captivity
He is (will be) carried way into captivity
If anyone kills with a sword
He ought to be (dei) killed with a sword.”
The notion that the elaboration was added later is conjecture. But it makes sense that as the copyists got less and less familiar with Semitic poetic devices, they became more and more pragmatic about the wording.
Another thing to muddy the water is that in Greek there are three voices rather than the two we find in English. The ‘middle’ voice for the verb ‘kill’ is identical to the form for the passive voice. So apoktanthenai can at the same time mean be killed and kill one one’s own behalf or kill in reference to oneself which makes the textual modifications consistent.
E, you're one helluva interesting person.
"The Lord is a Man of War; the Lord is His name." (Exodus 15:3)
Since the Lord does not change (Malachi 3:6) and Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever (Hebrews 13:8), He is still a Man of War.
Can we prove this? Yes.
The first war that we know about took place in heaven when Lucifer and a third of the angels rebelled against God. So, did the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit call forth a peacemaking conference and negotiate a fair settlement with Lucifer? No! War broke out in heaven and Michael and his angels kicked Lucifer and his buddies out of heaven.
The character of God is love. 100% love. But He is also a warrior.
Thanks Michael, for the great input.
What Michael said.
Larry said:
"The character of God is love. 100% love. But He is also a warrior."
That may or may not be. But Jesus lived a peacemaking life here on earth, "leaving an example that we should follow in his steps." Whatever you want to think about Jesus God, THIS peaceful example is the model we've been commanded to follow.
>This is all very interesting. The one thing it points up more than anything else is why Christianity has survived its seventeen centuries of history, that is, it can be all things to all people. Put more crasly, it can be anyting to anyone.
Or maybe it's just the truth of reality. And maybe God knows that love isn't really love if He forces His creation to love Him so He gave us free will - and because of our sin, we do all kinds of harmful things - sometimes in the name of God, and sometimes in the name of self. The thing about truth is: it's still true even if no one believes it. God is still God even if we don't care. God still gives us life each day even though we don't think about it or thank Him for it.
>So you see, we all get to see in the Bible what we are predisposed to see. Once the Bible has verified for us that we are indeed God's chosen, then no matter the harm we cause others, whether by bomb and bullet or else by our idle pontificating lives, no matter the harm we cause we can be blind to it.
That's an ugly result of the sin condition of all men, including you and me. Don't give in to the deception that the truth is not knowable. Jesus will not turn away anyone who comes to Him.
Bubba:"But prefacing your belief system with that acknowledgement doesn't give you license to pretend that Christ's call is primarily to agrarianism.
You should be ashamed of yourself."
Bubba, it's a call to stop exploiting and enslaving people, how you manage to do it is your own affair. God said it quite clearly, and it was the FIRST pronouncement he made to Man after the fall: "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread..."
And I have license to pretend whatever I damned well please. Jesus Himself told me so directly a couple of days ago whem He stopped by for a beer. He thinks it is tragic, and yet hilarious, that every one goes about thinking the pronouncement after the Garden was a curse, when it was His way of giving you an out ... which most people spit upon.
The only real difference between my beliefs and yours is that I sew a much more colorful and entertaining sock puppet.
I sincerely hope that you will one day realize the utter reality and majesty of God Almighty, the Creator of the earth you so esteem; that you will understand the sin of insolence that leads a person to mock God's existence and to twist His revealed truth to fit one's own agenda; that you will realize what a mistake it is to deny the need for salvation; and that you will come to rely, not simply on the food that you can grow with your own hands, but the Bread of Life that God provides through Christ.
I hope for all these things, but I suspect that I'm not equipped at all to help you. All I can and will do is to apologize for wrongly suggesting you don't have the freedom to believe and to say what you want -- and to warn you that beliefs have consequence in this world and the next.
There's no denying that Eleutheros' sock puppet is much more entertaining than yours and probably mine, bubba.
BY now you must understand that I think you are a deciever, Dan. It's why I expose your fallacy and dishonesty in every post.
Read Deuteronomy 20. You've obviously ignored me when I've told you to do so on numerous occasions.
"Intrigue me" Pshaw!
Bubba,
Thanks for the polite discussion. I’ll sum up thusly:
1. We agree that war ought to be truly a last resort.
2. We agree, I think, that most of the time, war has not been used as a last resort
3. We agree that Christians are called to love their neighbors and even their enemies
4. We agree that sometimes we must, in love, confront injustices done by those who’d oppress
5. We agree that whatever positions we take, we ought to be humble in our approach, realizing our own propensity to be incorrect
That being the case, let me say that I am trying to be humble in my approach. I have stated that I’m not willing to condemn every act of violence taken. The woman who kills a would-be rapist or murderer, for instance, I’m not willing to condemn. The nation that is truly engaged in a defensive war (I’m thinking of Nicaraguan villagers who might have taken arms against Contra terrorists attacking them or of the Polish people defending against a Nazi army invasion), I’m not willing to condemn.
But I’m with even some Just War Theorists in questioning the possibility of a just war anymore. I’m with my church in saying that all wars will result in evil. I’m standing by my thinking that the killing of innocent bystanders is an evil.
If we agree that we ought to love our enemies, we agree that most wars are wars of choice and that other options are preferable, then it seems like we’d also agree that other options ought to be given more thought.
We invest trillions of dollars preparing for war – with WMDs and Departments of War and Think tanks devoted to war policy, how much do we invest in Peacemaking?
Finally, we disagree on whether or not Christians ought to be part of a military. I’m sticking with the early church example and with just what is intuitively natural for an objective reader of Jesus’ words – that he would not, indeed, bomb Iraqis, Iranians, whole towns of Japanese or Germans – and that, as his followers who are called to follow in his steps, neither ought we.
I would disagree, too, with the notion that our "standing orders are to make disciples." Our standing orders are to be faithful, to follow in Jesus' steps, to love God and love people.
As such, opposition to war seems a natural outcome.
Perhaps a footnote of clarifications and observations, then you're welcome to have the last word.
- I believe war should be what could be called a late resort, but not a "last" resort. Since surrender -- that is being killed or conqured -- is always on the table, it's never the case that war is literally a last resort.
- People use this phrase jokingly, but in this case it would be true: if just war is now impossible, then the terrorists have won. If a true peace cannot be reached, which seems likely given the enemy's goals and would be made even more likely if we removed the disincentive to attack that is a military response, all that's left is what I've already mentioned: surrender.
- You mention, "what is intuitively natural for an objective reader of Jesus’ words – that he would not, indeed, bomb Iraqis, Iranians, whole towns of Japanese or Germans." As Christ never explicitly mentioned Dresden or Hiroshima and indeed had very little to say by way of politics, I believe this is exactly the sort of overreach that I discourage. And this framing of the issue in a biased version of WWJD is what I have been criticizing since almost the very beginning of this conversation. I really wish you had either dropped this rhetorical approach or better defended it by now.
- You also mention the early church example, but it's worth noting that the Gospels do not record Jesus' telling the faithful centurion to "go and sin no more," like He did the adulteress. And it's worth noting that Acts doesn't record Peter's requiring the Gentile Cornelius to quit his occupation as a centurion, either. On the issue of what's Biblical, the acts of the early church (post-Acts) is a good guide but not an authoritative one, and if you want to argue that even Cornelius left the service, you have to argue from silence because the Bible records no such thing.
- Finally, you write that opposition to war seems a natural outcome following what you say are our standing orders "to be faithful, to follow in Jesus' steps, to love God and love people." An reluctance to support war is one thing, absolute pacifism doesn't seem like a natural outcome, as very many people have been oppressed and terrorized because relatively benevolent nations were unwilling to use military force in their defense. And, again, if following Jesus' steps (i.e., using what I believe to be a loaded version of WWJD) leads to absolute pacifism, I cannot see how it stops there and not at de facto anarchism.
But I disagree strongly about what our standing orders are. Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:15, and Luke 24:47 are clear that among Jesus' last commands to His disciples was the Great Commision. Obedience to that command is consistent with being faithful, with following Jesus' steps since He too preached about the Kingdom of God, with loving God since God commanded it, and with loving people because they need to hear it.
Any practiced faith in Christ that minimizes the importance of evangelism is a faith that is neither mature nor perfect.
Before He ascended, Christ told His then-disciples to make more disciples, and that command applies to us as fully as it did to Peter and John. It ought not to be minimized.
It troubles me that it seems that, having read Jesus words, you see a call for absolute pacifism but not a non-negotiable command to evangelize. Let us keep our priorities straight.
On that probable final note, it has been fun.
"People use this phrase jokingly, but in this case it would be true: if just war is now impossible, then the terrorists have won."
In addition to believing Jesus' words to be our commands and that Jesus' words are clear on not killing, I also happen to believe in the practicality of opposing evil with good. I believe that non-violent direct action is a much more powerful tool for the sorts of problems we're likely to have than war.
In short, I don't believe in the efficacy of war. I believe that most of the time it does more harm than good, sets us back instead of moving us forward and, even when an outcome may seem temporarily in our favor, that it undoes more peace and justice than it can possibly accomplish.
On Bubba's question on how I "enjoy" the protection offered by an army, I'd point out that I don't enjoy it at all.
It is my belief that the way our military is used makes our nation less secure rather than more secure.
It'd be like asking a person in Chicago why they could criticize the mafia - after all, they provide some order and security to the neighborhood, as long as everyone's paying their "protection money."
Those folk would rightly not find their protection - even if it was in their defense - to be very helpful.
Understand, I'm not critizing our soldiers but our policies. Now, if we started talking about a truly defensive military on a more humane, godly scale, then I would likely be much more appreciative and less condemning of the notion of a military.
Dan,
The point that you always overlook is that Jesus does kill. His name is Man of War, Lord God of Hosts and the One who wages war. After all, He killed Ananias and Sapphira.
Be a pacifist. Be a peace keeper. There is a blessing in it for you and those who agree with you. But don't make it into a legalistic point that the whole Body of Christ has to follow.
Legalism disguised as pacifism is still legalism.
Fine, Larry. And you, go ahead and be a heterosexual. Be blessed in your heterosexuality.
But don't make it into a legalistic point that the whole Body of Christ has to follow.
Legalism disguised as sexual correctness is still legalism.
If I could post a few thoughts about these issues. The idea behind overcoming evil with good works because instead of killing evil before it has a chance to repent and sending it coursing to hell, you give evil it's full due course so that afterwards it may see the emptiness of those bad choices and then repent. We are all too caught up in this short life on the earth, isn't it better to die because you love someone that is evil and hope for their conversion? Even John the baptist spoke to soldiers to not do violence to any man. Salvation is when God identifys you as his own by giving you his holy spirit, and this spirit leads us into change, therefore, if you have his spirit you will undoubtedly become holy for it is his work to make us holy. And if you do not become holy then are you truely his child? For my sheep hear my voice and they follow me. That is why galatians in the NT said that no person living an immoral lifestyle like homosexuality will enter the kingdom of God, because the Holy Spirit has not come into that persons life and converted them to make them holy and without the holy spirit in your life then you will die without eternal life.
Post a Comment