Sounds like he only reads the parts of the Bible that seem to promote pacifism. Better steer clear of the Old Testament or really any book besides 2nd Timothy.
mark - I just read your comment again, and I was a little confused. There are quite a few scriptures that address pacifism and nonviolence outside of 2nd Timothy. I'd be interested to hear your actual viewpoint.
My point is that there is a definite context in which the Bible talks about pacifism. The problem is that people in our modern world associate peace and pacifism with the absence of war. This is inaccurate from a Biblical standpoint.
The Bible has complete continuity and never contradicts itself, so a pacifist (by today's definition) is in utter contradiction with the Bible.
If this soldier thinks it's evil to fight then he's obviously only reading (and taking out of context) the parts of the Bible that promote pacifism but he doesn't realize that his definition of "pacifism" is different from that in the Bible.
If taken out of context then one could gather that the Bible promotes the killing of all who oppose you as a believer.
The Bible talks of seasons. We fight when we need to fight. We lay down our weapons when we need to lay down our weapons.
But don't you think some of those instances of war in the bible have something to do with the old/new covenenant? I am not saying the bible contraidicts itself, just possibly that Jesus showed us a new way to live when he fulfilled the law, ya know?
and also, where in the Bible do you see that Christ gave us the okay to "fight when we need to fight"? And what is the criterion for "needing to fight"?
(sorry for the multiple comments, I;m just trying to make my blog seem more popular...lol)
Christ was not quite the pacifist as people try to paint him as. He was quite angry and simply violent with the money changers. He didn't go in and just ask them nicely to leave. In fact he didn't even try to reason with them. He just went in and tore their sh*t up.
The old/new covenant really has no relevance in the pacifism argument. If you are against all war no matter what, then you could argue against punishing anyone for anything. If someone attacks a country (think Pearl Harbor) should we really just sit back and let it happen? Do you think that someone like Bin Laden can really be reasoned with?
The pacifist lives in a world where there is no true right and wrong. Terrorists who kill innocent people aren't evil, they just have different views of the world than we do. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter right?
How is it logical that evil regimes and people would be left untouched and un-vetted to do whatever they wish and kill whoever they want without consequences?
If someone broke into your house one night and was about to kill your wife or kids, and you have a gun in your hand, would you shoot the man or would you just let him kill you and your family because violence is wrong?
Pacifism would just let it happen and it's a slippery slope right into the global spectrum and war.
And believe me, I've actually talked to pacifists who are against the war and stated they would not shoot the intruder even if their family was in danger. It's scary that there are people out there like this but at least they're consistent in their pacifism.
1. Christ was not quite the pacifist as people try to paint him as. He was quite angry and simply violent with the money changers. He didn't go in and just ask them nicely to leave. In fact he didn't even try to reason with them. He just went in and tore their sh*t up.
- There is a big difference between violence and passion. Jesus didn't harm life by overturning tables and letting animals out of their cages.
2. The old/new covenant really has no relevance in the pacifism argument. If you are against all war no matter what, then you could argue against punishing anyone for anything. If someone attacks a country (think Pearl Harbor) should we really just sit back and let it happen? Do you think that someone like Bin Laden can really be reasoned with?
- It is relevant because you are using something that occurs in the old testament, but never once occurs in the new.
The pacifist lives in a world where there is no true right and wrong. Terrorists who kill innocent people aren't evil, they just have different views of the world than we do. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter right?
3. I think a pacifist lives in a world where they don't think it's their choice to choose who lives and who dies. A pacifist doesn't justify said actions, they simply choose to follow Jesus example in peaceful resolution.
How is it logical that evil regimes and people would be left untouched and un-vetted to do whatever they wish and kill whoever they want without consequences?
- It isn't logical, but I also think it's not our place to decide that.
4. If someone broke into your house one night and was about to kill your wife or kids, and you have a gun in your hand, would you shoot the man or would you just let him kill you and your family because violence is wrong?
- I would react out of passion and kill the guy, but if given time to think I would use every means possible to seek other resolution (ie pragmatic pacifism)
5. Pacifism would just let it happen and it's a slippery slope right into the global spectrum and war.
- That's the thing, lately I have felt that War is quite the slippery slope. We just keep justifying and justifying, while the government manipulates us into engaging into things that Jesus would have never been a part of. Is it worth killing 10,000 people to save 100,000? It is not our place to make that call. It seems totally logical by our minds, but that's when Faith comes into play. We have to trust in God and His provision.
Here are some scriptures to take into account; I would be interested to hear scriptures that support war.
Mt 5:44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
Lu 6:27 But I say to you that listen, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. 29 If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also;
Lu 6:35 But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked.
Mt 26:52 Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.
1 Peter 3.8 Finally, all of you, have unity of spirit, sympathy, love of the brethren, a tender heart and a humble mind. :9 Do not return evil for evil or reviling for reviling; but on the contrary bless, for to this you have been called, that you may obtain a blessing.
Ro 12.17-21 Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. 18 If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. 19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." 20 No, "if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads." 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good .
1 Peter 2.21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. 22 He committed no sin; no guile was found on his lips. 23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he trusted to him who judges justly.
Eph 6.12 For our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.
"- I would react out of passion and kill the guy, but if given time to think I would use every means possible to seek other resolution (ie pragmatic pacifism)"
Dude, that's scary. Rethink.
Here's New Testament passages:
Mark 13:7-8 7 When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed; this must take place, but the end is still to come. 8 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be earthquakes in various places; there will be famines. This is but the beginning of the birth pangs.
These scriptures deal with military figures and show that Jesus had no reservation from them. He accepted that they had an important job and was more concerned that they lived according to the scripture.
Matthew 8:5-10 5When he entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, appealing to him 6and saying, "Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, in terrible distress." 7And he said to him, "I will come and cure him." 8The centurion answered, "Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only speak the word, and my servant will be healed. 9For I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes, and to another, 'Come,' and he comes, and to my slave, 'Do this,' and the slave does it." 10When Jesus heard him, he was amazed and said to those who followed him, "Truly I tell you, in no one in Israel have I found such faith.
Luke 3:14 14Soldiers also asked him, "And we, what should we do?" He said to them, "Do not extort money from anyone by threats or false accusation, and be satisfied with your wages."
Acts 10:1-6 1In Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion of the Italian Cohort, as it was called. 2He was a devout man who feared God with all his household; he gave alms generously to the people and prayed constantly to God. 3One afternoon at about three o'clock he had a vision in which he clearly saw an angel of God coming in and saying to him, "Cornelius." 4He stared at him in terror and said, "What is it, Lord?" He answered, "Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God. 5Now send men to Joppa for a certain Simon who is called Peter; 6he is lodging with Simon, a tanner, whose house is by the seaside."
We should always strive for peace and peaceful solutions but it's not always an option. Ideally, as Christians, we should never have to go to war, but we don't live in a perfect world and these things have been pre-ordained. It is impossible to avoid war in the world we live in.
Romans 13:1-2 1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted...
"- I would react out of passion and kill the guy, but if given time to think I would use every means possible to seek other resolution (ie pragmatic pacifism)"
Dude, that's scary. Rethink.
how is that scary?
None of those scriptures you cited talk about Christians engaging in war. They speak about us accepting everyone, but none instruct us to go out and grab a gun. Whereas, I cited scriptures that specifically say not to combat evil with evil, or to love your enemies, etc. etc.
I am still not convinced.
and also, the "submit yourself to the government" doesn't really apply here. This is an issue I feel interferes with my Christianity, which holds a higher law than man's. It's kind of like abortion. It is completely legal by man's laws, but I still do not subscribe to it.
It's scary that someone would think twice about doing everything possible to protect his family.
There are no pragmatic solutions with nutjobs who just want to kill your family. Thinking that you have any chance of talking him "down off the ledge" is foolish and would get you and your family killed.
Like I said, in a perfect world we would not have to ever fight and everything would be solved with a nice conversation and a handshake. You have to live in reality.
I'm not sure there is anyone who is truly "for war" except the people we are fighting. No sane person actually wants to go to war, but logic and scripture makes it clear that sometimes war is necessary.
The scriptures do talk about Christian soldiers. Jesus tells one soldier that he has great faith. In those times they didn't call themselves "Christian" because Christ was alive in flesh. They were simply followers of Christ and he had no problem with the soldiers who followed him.
Do you really think that fighting is evil? Any why is it evil? Because of the killing? In that case it must be evil to kill anything, human or otherwise. The Bible clearly does not say this. In the original translation the Bible condemns murder, not killing. There is a huge difference between the two.
I said that I would kill the person, but if given the opportunity, I would work towards another resolution like detaining him, or something else. I do not wish death upon my worst of enemies. I never said I would think twice, and just let him pillage my family, you are twisting my words a bit there.
“Like I said, in a perfect world we would not have to ever fight and everything would be solved with a nice conversation and a handshake. You have to live in reality.”
This sentence is kind of where the rubber meets the road for me, and deep down, is what I toss and turn about. Are there times when war is necessary? Probably. How do we know when those times are? Who decides who lives and who dies? Seems like a tough call for a follower of Christ to make.
I don’t think that “logic and scripture” have really made this issue clear at all. And of course I realize people aren’t “for war”, but never-the-less, you have to decide to make a stand one way or the other. If you feel it’s immoral, then you can’t really just go along with the flow because it’s the state our current world is in.
“Do you really think that fighting is evil? Any why is it evil? Because of the killing? In that case it must be evil to kill anything, human or otherwise.”
I am interested to see how you came to this conclusion. Are you saying killing a cow for meat is the same as killing an enemy by a man-made conquest? I agree there is a difference between murder and killing. My whole underlying question in this argument is who decides that? Who decides what causes are worth shedding blood over? Do you see this slippery slope and how easy that is to be manipulated?
Side note: I am really enjoying this conversation. I hope you are as well. <3
The ethical implications of fatal violence don't just stem from the New Testament; there is a very healthy stream of debate going on within the Old Testament as well. For example:
1 Chronicles 22:6-20 Then he called for his son Solomon and charged him to build a house for the LORD, the God of Israel. David said to Solomon: "My son, I had it in my heart to build a house for the Name of the LORD my God. But this word of the LORD came to me: 'You have shed much blood and have fought many wars. You are not to build a house for my Name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in my sight. But you will have a son who will be a man of peace and rest, and I will give him rest from all his enemies on every side. His name will be Solomon, and I will grant Israel peace and quiet during his reign. He is the one who will build a house for my Name. He will be my son, and I will be his father. And I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever.'
In this passage, the reason that David was unfit to build the Temple of God was specifically because he was a man of war, who fought battles. Solomon, on the other hand (Shalom-man, the man of peace), fought no wars and was renowned as a peaceful ruler. The contrast is deliberately set up between he and his father David.
Isaiah 2:2-4 In the last days the mountain of the LORD's temple will be established as chief among the mountains; it will be raised above the hills, and all nations will stream to it.
Many peoples will come and say, "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob. He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths." The law will go out from Zion, the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.
This passage in Isaiah draws a link between warfare and "the disputes of nations," inferring that violence is a paramount tool of governmental affairs. Isaiah's words not only speak of a time of universal peace, but also encourage those who hear his words to do what they can in the here and now to remain faithful to that vision.
There is certainly violence in the Old Testament, and we shouldn't dismiss it. However, we must also acknowledge the difference between the respective cultural settings of the OT and the NT; within the new covenant, God's people were no longer contained to one nation state, but were to encompass the entire world. God's Kingdom is now, since Christ's glorious death and resurrection, a completely borderless kingdom.
Another thing we ought to acknowledge is the mysterious power of God to remain sovereign yet also communicate and cooperate with a finite humanity. I have no doubt that God chose the Israelites as His representative people, nor is it tasteless to me to believe the words of the Bible which portray God as having worked through the violence of the Israelites. However, none of this really negates that the Christian faith is a faith of nonviolence, since Hebrews 1 informs us that Christ alone is the true representation of God, and a far clearer one before humanity than even those of the prophets who came before Him. We do not need to deny the authority of the Bible to say that we must put Christ's example first before we investigate the context of any other part of scripture. If anything, quite the opposite, since the Incarnate Word gives meaning the written word.
Now if one believes, as you might do, Brother Mark, that Jesus' discipleship makes provision for the "last resort" use of fatal violence, I would draw attention to these parts of the Gospel:
Matthew 5:43-45 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.
I realise that this passage is driven into the ground many times, but what isn't driven into the ground is that the Greek term used here for "love" is agapé, the self-sacrificial love of redemptive goodwill. It's important to note that this is a self-sacrificial love, because that is the exact kind of love in which Jesus gave Himself on the cross for the sins of humanity. And isn't it somewhere interesting also, that Christ's atonement was the submission to death rather than through conquering with violence? That makes a stark distinction between the "suffering servant" and the "military warrior king" many of the Jews were expecting. But I digress.
Agapé love isn't just self-sacrificial, but it stands distinctive from other types of familial (Greek philia) love because it does not discriminate. It doesn't depend on a relationship being one of intimacy or familiarity, because it lends itself free from condition. That is how one is able to love one's enemies, because agapé transcends familial bonds and seeks the redemptive goodwill of all humanity. Jesus also says that this allows a person to be "perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect." The implication, then, is that as God loves all humanity, then so must we.
And how did Jesus serve all humanity?
Mark 10:42-45 Jesus called them together and said, "You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
Jesus is saying here that, just as He is about to lay down His life as a ransom for the service of mankind, we also must be prepared to do the same. Now one might argue that a soldier goes into war prepared to do this, but wait! Jesus actually says here that the Kingdom of God does not operate on the same terms as the kingdoms of men, because "as the rulers of the Gentiles exercise authority over them, it shall not be so with you." Christians are called to a service of submission, not a service of violence. The service of violence makes a distinction between the oppressed and the oppressor, discerning that only the former is worthy of love. The Gospel, on the other hand, completely overturns this way of thinking with the commandment to love all humanity.
Now this isn't unrealistic idealism, unless one wishes to call Jesus an unrealistic idealist. The Bible isn't a guidebook for every single sticky circumstance, it gives us moral instruction to help us pray and discern ourselves how we must act in any given situation. That's what the Holy Spirit is for. As Josh said, he might well act in violence and kill someone threatening his family, and I would probably do the same as well. Admitting that isn't saying we agree with the action, it's simply us saying that we are sinful human beings and we really don't know how we would act given the scenario. I personally, however, am opposed to such "hypotheticals" because one cannot invent an abstract situation, place it in a cloud, and then expect us to discern the "correct" answer from the ground. Life doesn't work that way. Why is it that people of nonviolence are made to look "evil" because we confess that we would d whatever we could to love both the attacker and the attacked?
Also, the proposed scenario is not dichotomous. There are at least a few more outcomes than "either he dies, or the family dies." The whole paradigm is a strawman if these are the only theoretical options.
Given all of this, I can only see that the appropriate context for the Gospel is the call to nonviolence. And no, this doesn't mean neglecting the oppressed, before anyone mentions it. It simply means we're prepared to explore other alternatives to killing the oppressor.
The fact is that I agree and will always strive to follow the scriptures that instruct peace but it still doesn't negate the fact that the scriptures also prepare us for the end times which many people believe we are entering.
The Bible never calls killing evil. God Himself led the wars in the Old Testament. Just because we are under the New Testament now, it doesn't mean that God's wars from the Old Testament are all of a sudden evil. These scriptures can easily co-exist, and must.
Mark 13:7-8 7 When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed; this must take place, but the end is still to come. 8 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be earthquakes in various places; there will be famines. This is but the beginning of the birth pains.
Do you really think that if you killed a man who was about to murder your wife then you commited evil?
If we think the world is crazy now, what would it be like if evil was allowed to live in this world un-checked and un-challenged? You probably wouldn't be sitting in your nice home / office / Starbucks reading this. It would be utter chaos.
I don't agree completely with President Bush that Iraq should be the focus. I would rather we focus on Bin-Ladin and other known terrorist bosses who have the will and capability to strike us and other countries again.
The problem with these arguments is that we essentially agree but you come at my side of the argument like I love war and killing and think it's always Biblically justifiable. I come at your side like you think war and killing is inherently evil and you would never do anything to defend yourself on the micro or macro level.
There's no "one way or the other" solution here. War is not always evil, and war is not always good/necessary.
That's a ridiculous statement. I never said that war is a good thing. Just sometimes necessary.
Josh, please post another blog entry so we can move on from this unproductive argument. It's been fun but I'm in New Mexico, the Rockies are down 4, I have to get up at 5 am tomorrow, and I'm tired.
Just picked up some Sierra Nevada Celebration and it's very tasty. Cheers
How is it a ridiculous statement? You yourself presented Mark 13 as an argument that sometimes war is necessary (I used the term "good thing" by proxy since justifiable would seem to infer the connection), so the logical reading, since Jesus speaks of war, famines, and earthquakes happening until the time of the end, would also be that earthquakes and famines are sometimes necessary events as well.
I would say, if anything, that war being mentioned by Jesus alongside such occurrences is a denunciation of its nature than anything else.
21 comments:
Sounds like he only reads the parts of the Bible that seem to promote pacifism. Better steer clear of the Old Testament or really any book besides 2nd Timothy.
did you read anything from that other link I posted on my blog? It is an interesting conversation between different viewpoints on Christian pacifism.
mark - I just read your comment again, and I was a little confused. There are quite a few scriptures that address pacifism and nonviolence outside of 2nd Timothy. I'd be interested to hear your actual viewpoint.
I was being somewhat sarcastic.
My point is that there is a definite context in which the Bible talks about pacifism. The problem is that people in our modern world associate peace and pacifism with the absence of war. This is inaccurate from a Biblical standpoint.
The Bible has complete continuity and never contradicts itself, so a pacifist (by today's definition) is in utter contradiction with the Bible.
If this soldier thinks it's evil to fight then he's obviously only reading (and taking out of context) the parts of the Bible that promote pacifism but he doesn't realize that his definition of "pacifism" is different from that in the Bible.
If taken out of context then one could gather that the Bible promotes the killing of all who oppose you as a believer.
The Bible talks of seasons. We fight when we need to fight. We lay down our weapons when we need to lay down our weapons.
But don't you think some of those instances of war in the bible have something to do with the old/new covenenant? I am not saying the bible contraidicts itself, just possibly that Jesus showed us a new way to live when he fulfilled the law, ya know?
and also, where in the Bible do you see that Christ gave us the okay to "fight when we need to fight"? And what is the criterion for "needing to fight"?
(sorry for the multiple comments, I;m just trying to make my blog seem more popular...lol)
Christ was not quite the pacifist as people try to paint him as. He was quite angry and simply violent with the money changers. He didn't go in and just ask them nicely to leave. In fact he didn't even try to reason with them. He just went in and tore their sh*t up.
The old/new covenant really has no relevance in the pacifism argument. If you are against all war no matter what, then you could argue against punishing anyone for anything. If someone attacks a country (think Pearl Harbor) should we really just sit back and let it happen? Do you think that someone like Bin Laden can really be reasoned with?
The pacifist lives in a world where there is no true right and wrong. Terrorists who kill innocent people aren't evil, they just have different views of the world than we do. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter right?
How is it logical that evil regimes and people would be left untouched and un-vetted to do whatever they wish and kill whoever they want without consequences?
If someone broke into your house one night and was about to kill your wife or kids, and you have a gun in your hand, would you shoot the man or would you just let him kill you and your family because violence is wrong?
Pacifism would just let it happen and it's a slippery slope right into the global spectrum and war.
And believe me, I've actually talked to pacifists who are against the war and stated they would not shoot the intruder even if their family was in danger. It's scary that there are people out there like this but at least they're consistent in their pacifism.
1. Christ was not quite the pacifist as people try to paint him as. He was quite angry and simply violent with the money changers. He didn't go in and just ask them nicely to leave. In fact he didn't even try to reason with them. He just went in and tore their sh*t up.
- There is a big difference between violence and passion. Jesus didn't harm life by overturning tables and letting animals out of their cages.
2. The old/new covenant really has no relevance in the pacifism argument. If you are against all war no matter what, then you could argue against punishing anyone for anything. If someone attacks a country (think Pearl Harbor) should we really just sit back and let it happen? Do you think that someone like Bin Laden can really be reasoned with?
- It is relevant because you are using something that occurs in the old testament, but never once occurs in the new.
The pacifist lives in a world where there is no true right and wrong. Terrorists who kill innocent people aren't evil, they just have different views of the world than we do. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter right?
3. I think a pacifist lives in a world where they don't think it's their choice to choose who lives and who dies. A pacifist doesn't justify said actions, they simply choose to follow Jesus example in peaceful resolution.
How is it logical that evil regimes and people would be left untouched and un-vetted to do whatever they wish and kill whoever they want without consequences?
- It isn't logical, but I also think it's not our place to decide that.
4. If someone broke into your house one night and was about to kill your wife or kids, and you have a gun in your hand, would you shoot the man or would you just let him kill you and your family because violence is wrong?
- I would react out of passion and kill the guy, but if given time to think I would use every means possible to seek other resolution (ie pragmatic pacifism)
5. Pacifism would just let it happen and it's a slippery slope right into the global spectrum and war.
- That's the thing, lately I have felt that War is quite the slippery slope. We just keep justifying and justifying, while the government manipulates us into engaging into things that Jesus would have never been a part of. Is it worth killing 10,000 people to save 100,000? It is not our place to make that call. It seems totally logical by our minds, but that's when Faith comes into play. We have to trust in God and His provision.
Here are some scriptures to take into account; I would be interested to hear scriptures that support war.
Mt 5:44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
Lu 6:27 But I say to you that listen, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. 29 If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also;
Lu 6:35 But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked.
Mt 26:52 Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.
1 Peter 3.8 Finally, all of you, have unity of spirit, sympathy, love of the brethren, a tender heart and a humble mind. :9 Do not return evil for evil or reviling for reviling; but on the contrary bless, for to this you have been called, that you may obtain a blessing.
Ro 12.17-21 Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. 18 If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. 19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." 20 No, "if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads."
21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good .
1 Peter 2.21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.
22 He committed no sin; no guile was found on his lips. 23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he trusted to him who judges justly.
Eph 6.12 For our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.
"- I would react out of passion and kill the guy, but if given time to think I would use every means possible to seek other resolution (ie pragmatic pacifism)"
Dude, that's scary. Rethink.
Here's New Testament passages:
Mark 13:7-8
7 When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed; this must take place, but the end is still to come. 8 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be earthquakes in various places; there will be famines. This is but the beginning of the birth pangs.
These scriptures deal with military figures and show that Jesus had no reservation from them. He accepted that they had an important job and was more concerned that they lived according to the scripture.
Matthew 8:5-10
5When he entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, appealing to him 6and saying, "Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, in terrible distress." 7And he said to him, "I will come and cure him." 8The centurion answered, "Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only speak the word, and my servant will be healed. 9For I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes, and to another, 'Come,' and he comes, and to my slave, 'Do this,' and the slave does it." 10When Jesus heard him, he was amazed and said to those who followed him, "Truly I tell you, in no one in Israel have I found such faith.
Luke 3:14
14Soldiers also asked him, "And we, what should we do?" He said to them, "Do not extort money from anyone by threats or false accusation, and be satisfied with your wages."
Acts 10:1-6
1In Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion of the Italian Cohort, as it was called. 2He was a devout man who feared God with all his household; he gave alms generously to the people and prayed constantly to God. 3One afternoon at about three o'clock he had a vision in which he clearly saw an angel of God coming in and saying to him, "Cornelius." 4He stared at him in terror and said, "What is it, Lord?" He answered, "Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God. 5Now send men to Joppa for a certain Simon who is called Peter; 6he is lodging with Simon, a tanner, whose house is by the seaside."
We should always strive for peace and peaceful solutions but it's not always an option. Ideally, as Christians, we should never have to go to war, but we don't live in a perfect world and these things have been pre-ordained. It is impossible to avoid war in the world we live in.
Romans 13:1-2
1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted...
"- I would react out of passion and kill the guy, but if given time to think I would use every means possible to seek other resolution (ie pragmatic pacifism)"
Dude, that's scary. Rethink.
how is that scary?
None of those scriptures you cited talk about Christians engaging in war. They speak about us accepting everyone, but none instruct us to go out and grab a gun. Whereas, I cited scriptures that specifically say not to combat evil with evil, or to love your enemies, etc. etc.
I am still not convinced.
and also, the "submit yourself to the government" doesn't really apply here. This is an issue I feel interferes with my Christianity, which holds a higher law than man's. It's kind of like abortion. It is completely legal by man's laws, but I still do not subscribe to it.
It's scary that someone would think twice about doing everything possible to protect his family.
There are no pragmatic solutions with nutjobs who just want to kill your family. Thinking that you have any chance of talking him "down off the ledge" is foolish and would get you and your family killed.
Like I said, in a perfect world we would not have to ever fight and everything would be solved with a nice conversation and a handshake. You have to live in reality.
I'm not sure there is anyone who is truly "for war" except the people we are fighting. No sane person actually wants to go to war, but logic and scripture makes it clear that sometimes war is necessary.
The scriptures do talk about Christian soldiers. Jesus tells one soldier that he has great faith. In those times they didn't call themselves "Christian" because Christ was alive in flesh. They were simply followers of Christ and he had no problem with the soldiers who followed him.
Do you really think that fighting is evil? Any why is it evil? Because of the killing? In that case it must be evil to kill anything, human or otherwise. The Bible clearly does not say this. In the original translation the Bible condemns murder, not killing. There is a huge difference between the two.
I said that I would kill the person, but if given the opportunity, I would work towards another resolution like detaining him, or something else. I do not wish death upon my worst of enemies. I never said I would think twice, and just let him pillage my family, you are twisting my words a bit there.
“Like I said, in a perfect world we would not have to ever fight and everything would be solved with a nice conversation and a handshake. You have to live in reality.”
This sentence is kind of where the rubber meets the road for me, and deep down, is what I toss and turn about. Are there times when war is necessary? Probably. How do we know when those times are? Who decides who lives and who dies? Seems like a tough call for a follower of Christ to make.
I don’t think that “logic and scripture” have really made this issue clear at all. And of course I realize people aren’t “for war”, but never-the-less, you have to decide to make a stand one way or the other. If you feel it’s immoral, then you can’t really just go along with the flow because it’s the state our current world is in.
“Do you really think that fighting is evil? Any why is it evil? Because of the killing? In that case it must be evil to kill anything, human or otherwise.”
I am interested to see how you came to this conclusion. Are you saying killing a cow for meat is the same as killing an enemy by a man-made conquest? I agree there is a difference between murder and killing. My whole underlying question in this argument is who decides that? Who decides what causes are worth shedding blood over? Do you see this slippery slope and how easy that is to be manipulated?
Side note: I am really enjoying this conversation. I hope you are as well. <3
The ethical implications of fatal violence don't just stem from the New Testament; there is a very healthy stream of debate going on within the Old Testament as well. For example:
1 Chronicles 22:6-20
Then he called for his son Solomon and charged him to build a house for the LORD, the God of Israel.
David said to Solomon: "My son, I had it in my heart to build a house for the Name of the LORD my God.
But this word of the LORD came to me: 'You have shed much blood and have fought many wars. You are not to build a house for my Name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in my sight.
But you will have a son who will be a man of peace and rest, and I will give him rest from all his enemies on every side. His name will be Solomon, and I will grant Israel peace and quiet during his reign.
He is the one who will build a house for my Name. He will be my son, and I will be his father. And I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever.'
In this passage, the reason that David was unfit to build the Temple of God was specifically because he was a man of war, who fought battles. Solomon, on the other hand (Shalom-man, the man of peace), fought no wars and was renowned as a peaceful ruler. The contrast is deliberately set up between he and his father David.
Isaiah 2:2-4
In the last days
the mountain of the LORD's temple will be established
as chief among the mountains;
it will be raised above the hills,
and all nations will stream to it.
Many peoples will come and say,
"Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
to the house of the God of Jacob.
He will teach us his ways,
so that we may walk in his paths."
The law will go out from Zion,
the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
He will judge between the nations
and will settle disputes for many peoples.
They will beat their swords into plowshares
and their spears into pruning hooks.
Nation will not take up sword against nation,
nor will they train for war anymore.
This passage in Isaiah draws a link between warfare and "the disputes of nations," inferring that violence is a paramount tool of governmental affairs. Isaiah's words not only speak of a time of universal peace, but also encourage those who hear his words to do what they can in the here and now to remain faithful to that vision.
There is certainly violence in the Old Testament, and we shouldn't dismiss it. However, we must also acknowledge the difference between the respective cultural settings of the OT and the NT; within the new covenant, God's people were no longer contained to one nation state, but were to encompass the entire world. God's Kingdom is now, since Christ's glorious death and resurrection, a completely borderless kingdom.
Another thing we ought to acknowledge is the mysterious power of God to remain sovereign yet also communicate and cooperate with a finite humanity. I have no doubt that God chose the Israelites as His representative people, nor is it tasteless to me to believe the words of the Bible which portray God as having worked through the violence of the Israelites. However, none of this really negates that the Christian faith is a faith of nonviolence, since Hebrews 1 informs us that Christ alone is the true representation of God, and a far clearer one before humanity than even those of the prophets who came before Him. We do not need to deny the authority of the Bible to say that we must put Christ's example first before we investigate the context of any other part of scripture. If anything, quite the opposite, since the Incarnate Word gives meaning the written word.
Now if one believes, as you might do, Brother Mark, that Jesus' discipleship makes provision for the "last resort" use of fatal violence, I would draw attention to these parts of the Gospel:
Matthew 5:43-45
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.
I realise that this passage is driven into the ground many times, but what isn't driven into the ground is that the Greek term used here for "love" is agapé, the self-sacrificial love of redemptive goodwill. It's important to note that this is a self-sacrificial love, because that is the exact kind of love in which Jesus gave Himself on the cross for the sins of humanity. And isn't it somewhere interesting also, that Christ's atonement was the submission to death rather than through conquering with violence? That makes a stark distinction between the "suffering servant" and the "military warrior king" many of the Jews were expecting. But I digress.
Agapé love isn't just self-sacrificial, but it stands distinctive from other types of familial (Greek philia) love because it does not discriminate. It doesn't depend on a relationship being one of intimacy or familiarity, because it lends itself free from condition. That is how one is able to love one's enemies, because agapé transcends familial bonds and seeks the redemptive goodwill of all humanity. Jesus also says that this allows a person to be "perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect." The implication, then, is that as God loves all humanity, then so must we.
And how did Jesus serve all humanity?
Mark 10:42-45
Jesus called them together and said, "You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them.
Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant,
and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all.
For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
Jesus is saying here that, just as He is about to lay down His life as a ransom for the service of mankind, we also must be prepared to do the same. Now one might argue that a soldier goes into war prepared to do this, but wait! Jesus actually says here that the Kingdom of God does not operate on the same terms as the kingdoms of men, because "as the rulers of the Gentiles exercise authority over them, it shall not be so with you." Christians are called to a service of submission, not a service of violence. The service of violence makes a distinction between the oppressed and the oppressor, discerning that only the former is worthy of love. The Gospel, on the other hand, completely overturns this way of thinking with the commandment to love all humanity.
Now this isn't unrealistic idealism, unless one wishes to call Jesus an unrealistic idealist. The Bible isn't a guidebook for every single sticky circumstance, it gives us moral instruction to help us pray and discern ourselves how we must act in any given situation. That's what the Holy Spirit is for. As Josh said, he might well act in violence and kill someone threatening his family, and I would probably do the same as well. Admitting that isn't saying we agree with the action, it's simply us saying that we are sinful human beings and we really don't know how we would act given the scenario. I personally, however, am opposed to such "hypotheticals" because one cannot invent an abstract situation, place it in a cloud, and then expect us to discern the "correct" answer from the ground. Life doesn't work that way. Why is it that people of nonviolence are made to look "evil" because we confess that we would d whatever we could to love both the attacker and the attacked?
Also, the proposed scenario is not dichotomous. There are at least a few more outcomes than "either he dies, or the family dies." The whole paradigm is a strawman if these are the only theoretical options.
Given all of this, I can only see that the appropriate context for the Gospel is the call to nonviolence. And no, this doesn't mean neglecting the oppressed, before anyone mentions it. It simply means we're prepared to explore other alternatives to killing the oppressor.
adam - thanks for your contribution. You have a way of putting things that is much more concise than myself hah.
The fact is that I agree and will always strive to follow the scriptures that instruct peace but it still doesn't negate the fact that the scriptures also prepare us for the end times which many people believe we are entering.
The Bible never calls killing evil. God Himself led the wars in the Old Testament. Just because we are under the New Testament now, it doesn't mean that God's wars from the Old Testament are all of a sudden evil. These scriptures can easily co-exist, and must.
Mark 13:7-8
7 When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed; this must take place, but the end is still to come. 8 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be earthquakes in various places; there will be famines. This is but the beginning of the birth pains.
Do you really think that if you killed a man who was about to murder your wife then you commited evil?
If we think the world is crazy now, what would it be like if evil was allowed to live in this world un-checked and un-challenged? You probably wouldn't be sitting in your nice home / office / Starbucks reading this. It would be utter chaos.
I don't agree completely with President Bush that Iraq should be the focus. I would rather we focus on Bin-Ladin and other known terrorist bosses who have the will and capability to strike us and other countries again.
The problem with these arguments is that we essentially agree but you come at my side of the argument like I love war and killing and think it's always Biblically justifiable. I come at your side like you think war and killing is inherently evil and you would never do anything to defend yourself on the micro or macro level.
There's no "one way or the other" solution here. War is not always evil, and war is not always good/necessary.
Mark - presumably your reading of Mark 13 also means that earthquakes and famines are sometimes a good thing?
That's a ridiculous statement. I never said that war is a good thing. Just sometimes necessary.
Josh, please post another blog entry so we can move on from this unproductive argument. It's been fun but I'm in New Mexico, the Rockies are down 4, I have to get up at 5 am tomorrow, and I'm tired.
Just picked up some Sierra Nevada Celebration and it's very tasty.
Cheers
Mark
How is it a ridiculous statement? You yourself presented Mark 13 as an argument that sometimes war is necessary (I used the term "good thing" by proxy since justifiable would seem to infer the connection), so the logical reading, since Jesus speaks of war, famines, and earthquakes happening until the time of the end, would also be that earthquakes and famines are sometimes necessary events as well.
I would say, if anything, that war being mentioned by Jesus alongside such occurrences is a denunciation of its nature than anything else.
Dude, it says that war must take place. It doesn't mean that war is a good thing. Your words, not mine.
again:
Mark 13:7
7 When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed; this must take place.
Then it speaks of earthquakes and famine.
It was a ridiculous statement. Let's try to be intellectually honest. I'm not trying to trap you into wordplay games.
Seriously, Josh, new post.
what I was looking for, thanks
Post a Comment