Where I’m At, Part 2
July 17th, 2006 | by Scott |A few weeks ago, I asked a series of questions that are on my mind. The second question in that series is thus:
Will we ever break away from our proclivity to proof-text our rationales for war, propagating poverty and elevating our spheres of concern over above the needs of those who fall outside of those spheres?
To me, the answer is as simple as the anwer that my friend Jeff originally provided: No. The truth is that we can pretty much use Scripture to justify anything that we want it to.
It’s been used to justify slavery, hatred and racism.
It’s been used to justify war, acts of aggression and extreme nationalism.
It’s been used to marginalize and reject people on the fringes of society who do not look like us or act like us.
The bottom line is that Scripture has been perverted, twisted and debased repeatedly, stretching back to the oral tradition of the Torah. So, the likelihood of that ending anytime soon is nil.
I should know, I’m guilty of it as well. I’ve used Scripture as a weapon in my life. I’ve used it to draw lines of distinction between those of us who “get it” and those who don’t. I’ve used it to draw walls between the “church” and those lost in a “denominational” world.
I’ve used it to carve out political ideologies, evangelistic techniques and worldviews based upon my own personal preferences and desires rather than investing myself in understanding the spirit of the message.
So, although, I strongly resist futile thinking when it comes to advancing the Kingdom of God, I must admit that the propensity for creating empires from a misunderstanding of Scripture will persist.
Unfortunately, this creates great pain and division. I must imagine that when the Hebrew writer told us that the Word of God is sharper than any two-edged sword, he must have known that when you use a sword improperly, people die, lives are shattered and the perpetrators of that destruction will then seek to justify the behavior. What has happened is 2000+ years of justifying the practice of wielding the Sword in an improper manner.
Propagating our own interests, our own advancement, our own rights became suffused with the blessing of the text. Hence, wars, helping only those who “deserve it,” getting ahead, protecting the interests of the nation-state have become paramount and, well, blessed.
But, ultimately, where we, as Christians, must invest ourselves is in a greater attempt to understand Scripture through the person of Jesus. He is the Word and brings how we should live into the ultimate focus. How we are to live our lives becomes much more clear when understood through the person of Christ.
If we shed the myopic habit of justifying scripture to fit our needs, we will see a Savior who was the fulfillment of all that God called us to be. He is the one we are called to follow. He is the one that provides the understanding of the word and will of God.
What does Jesus say about war? Maybe not as much as we would like, but He did resist armed revolution in exchange for a humble surrender to the cross. And, regardless of whether or not there have been just wars in history we must still grapple with what His example was.
What does Jesus say about poverty? He talked about giving, about caring for the least of these. He said that to do anything less than lay our lives on the altar of compassionate care for others (ie, the poor, the forgotten, the undeserving) would be tantamount to rejecting Him.
What did He say about protecting our own self-interests? He talked a lot about dying to self, picking up crosses and following after Him. And we know where that led.
Ultimately, the word will always be distorted and manipulated to fit whatever people want it to mean. However, the servants of the Word must commit their lives to being an embodiment of the Christ that brings a more complete understanding of the Will of God into proper view.
It’s a lot harder to misinterpret the “Word become flesh” when it is lived out than it is to misinterpet the “word consigned to text” when it is relegated to a static document.
That is revolutionary, life-changing and world shaking.
I’m trying to get there. I’ve got a long way to go.
Am I making sense at all?
39 Responses to “Where I’m At, Part 2”
By Lachen on Jul 17, 2006 | Reply
You are totally making sense. Just wanted to offer encouragement.
By justin on Jul 17, 2006 | Reply
How do we make sure that we aren’t doing it as well? Its easy to look around and see where you are wrong, but where you are is never wrong. Some use scripture to justify pacifism. Would pacifism and appeasment have been the answer to WW2? Don’t know. 6 million jews would probably say no.
By Scott on Jul 17, 2006 | Reply
Justin, you ask a valid question. Obviously WW2 is a great example of “the real world” shaking the foundations of pacifism. Even non-violent proponents such as Bonhoffer conspired to assassinate Hitler.
Would pacifism have worked? I don’t know. I don’t believe that pacifism and appeasement are anywhere near the same thing.
But could Christians living as Christians made a difference? Very well could have. What if Hitler had been touched by Christians in early 20th Century Germany. What if the Christian community had adamantly renounced the rabid anti-semitism of the day and sought a common humanity with the Jewish population of Vienna?
What if, through a kind act, through the sharing of the love of Christ, we deter someone from committing unspeakable acts.
If the church truly lives out the call of Christ, how will that alter history? To me, that’s the question.
By Doug Freeman on Jul 17, 2006 | Reply
Scott, How do you address the current problem in the middle east? How should we react to the fact that militant muslims want to get rid of the jewish people? Should we step in as a nation and help Israel stop what is happening? I am very concerned about what is happening and wonder if we are on the verge of ww111. Iran is behind a lot of this and that disturbs me. There may be a time when we are at war with someone else and that does not go contrary to what the bible teaches. We have to do things in this life time that are not necessiarly good but i believe in protecting ourselves. I am concerned for those three precious girls of yours as well as my other grand children and all that are struggling in a situation that is far from being free from terroist. We cannot bury our head in the sand and not stand up for our freedom. I have said this before, Freedom is not free, it comes with a price and that most times involves the lives of our men who are fighting so that we can be free.
By Dave Turner on Jul 17, 2006 | Reply
I believe it was in Jean Laserre’s “War and the Gospel” where I read one of the most profound statements I’ve ever heard regarding faith and violence.
He made the point that effectiveness should never be the primary criterion for moral judgements.
There is a huge difference, between peacekeeping (see U.N.) and peaceMAKING (see Matthew 5). I don’t believe that peaceMAKING and pacifism have much in common at all.
By scott on Jul 17, 2006 | Reply
Dad, those are great questions. And you must understand that I am not making a unilateral condemnation of all wars. I do lean in that direction but, as I mentioned to Justin above, that sometimes it might seem like the best way to go.
With my questioning of our often blind allegiance to the nation of Israel aside, I guess that my position on the middle east is, first and foremost, to wonder how the church should act. The “we” in question is, primarily, a church issue. By perpetuating the love of Christ then lives will be changed. I believe that is a viral concept that worked with a handful of oft-confused disciples and spread in such a manner as transforming the world. That can happen again.
One problem that we have in the church is that somewhere along the line we adopted the mentality that if we take the road of the suffering servant, of the peace-maker, then we are “burying our head” in the sand. But being a peacemaker is not a passive role, it seeks to actively make a difference where you can. I also think we have to be careful of buying in to the idea that sometimes the “good” is not a viable option. For the righteous, it is the only option. What “the good” is, is up to debate.
Our nation will make their decisions. My hope is that they will, at the least, follow the Just War criteria and seek all avenues of reconciliation without the loss of innocent life.
The Middle East situation brings an added strain to questions such as these. But they are ones that we must wrestle with none the less. In the end, my main concern is that the decisions I make align solely with those of Christ.
By scott on Jul 17, 2006 | Reply
Dave, we were commenting at the same time. Great points.
By Lachen on Jul 17, 2006 | Reply
Dave’s point is one of the best I have heard concerning PEACE and pacifism in a long time. Not to slight yours, Scott - Dave’s just resonates hugely with me right now. Not all war is a phenomena Christ would abhor. Not all peace is obtained in ways Christ advocates. It is not as simple as a bumper sticker slogan or a political party or a inter/national approach.
I believe that scriptural peacemaking is never a byproduct of pacifsm.
By len on Jul 18, 2006 | Reply
One statement you made jumped out at me more than any others: “I’ve used Scripture as a weapon in my life. I’ve used it to draw lines of distinction between those of us who “get it” and those who don’t.” When God is shaking up our discipleship it is so easy to sink into our own version of Pharisee-ism. You may find that being charitible to those who “don’t get it” is the most difficult of all Christian tasks.
Great thoughts. You are on the right path.
By John on Jul 18, 2006 | Reply
Dave has a great point on the difference of peacekeeping and peacemaking. As someone who spent time in the peacekeeping role, the Sinai in 89-90, that is the use of force or threat of force to establish peace. It does nothing to promote peace in fact it through the threat of force is the opposite of peace.
But once there is this artifical peace then the true work towards real peace can start. That is the longer and harder work of finding common ground and love. That is the time for the peacemakers to step up and take control. Unfortunately the political system all too often relgates the peacemakers to the fringe and this step never occurs.
By Scott on Jul 18, 2006 | Reply
Great thoughts all around. However, I think we have to be really careful that we don’t buy into this post-Constantinian mindset that there are occasions in this life where Christ is not relevant, or that His methods are not applicable in the “real world.”
I think that gets back to the heart of what Dave said in his comment. We have the notion that it is our role to make everything right. To control the world. But, for the church, our mission is to be faithful. Earthly definitions of success must not be our overriding aim. I’m sorry, but if a way to peace is not one that Christ would advocate, I don’t see how we can either. I don’t see how Christ would ever not abhor the loss of innocent life. It is a fallen world that perpetrates violence and death that He came to right in the first place.
I’m not advocating a philosophy of pacifism. I am advocating that the church get serious about following Christ. I know that since we are at war it’s difficult to appreciate the nuance of what I’m saying.
It’s immaterial what the nation-state does. What matters is how we are the incarnation of the Suffering Servant, making peace wherever we go. As John indicated, any peace that is crafted by a nation-state is tenuous at best. The peace made through the person of Christ is everlasting.
It’s also beyond our understanding.
By Bobby Valentine on Jul 18, 2006 | Reply
Scott,
It is an honor to have you come by my Stoned-Campbell Disciple Blog. I hope you will return from time to time. It is updated between 2 and 3 times a week.
You are obviously a faster reader than I am. I have been looking at your reading list and I see KINGDOM COME, Simply Christian, the Politics of Jesus and the like. Some outstanding book (if I can include KC in that). I read your review of KC and appreciate your kind words regarding it.
I also appreciate the questions you are wrestling with and the series on the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) themes. I am convinced we need a fresh engagement with the First Testament which will help us see the Second in a new light.
I hope to get to know you better. I am not sure if we have met? Did we meet at Pepperdine? Tulsa? or . . .
Looking forward to seeing you again at SCD blog and I will be back here I can assure you.
Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
http://stoned-campbelldisciple.blogspot.com/
By Scott on Jul 18, 2006 | Reply
Bobby, thanks for stopping by. I will be back to your site.
I’m not really that fast of a reader. Your book and Yoder’s book just hit me in such a way that I devoured them.
We just finished a year long study of the OT. We went through a book a week. My sermon time was how Christ was prefigured in each of those books. This summer we are tracing both the over-arching themes of the OT and looking at the intertestamental period and Jewish life in the first century. Fascinating stuff.
I’m not sure that we have met.
By justin on Jul 18, 2006 | Reply
I think Christians living Christ could have made a difference in Hitler’s life and in stopping that war. However, failure begats consequences, and I’m not sure since there was failure before that we should sit and do nothing in response. I believe war to be a consequence of a fallen world, and its our job to turn it around, but until it happens, wars will continue, and while lamenting any that are killed, I think we must support the society which wars for peace, rather than wars for aggression. However, I don’t know that Iraq really fits into that category, but I think supporting Israel against Hezbolah and Iran do.
By Scott on Jul 18, 2006 | Reply
Justin, great point. And I’ve never advocated for doing nothing. My difference is in who the “we” is and what “we” are to do about it.
Think of Jesus in the garden praying for the cup to pass from Him. What possibly could he have meant by that? He couldn’t run and hide. He had already said too much. He could have recanted everything He had said but that would have meant renouncing everything.
Or He could have meant taking up the sword and setting up His kingdom using the means of men.
But He didn’t, He went to the cross instead. He chose a different way.
For us to be faithful, I believe we have to at least stop and consider what that means.
I’m not condemning all wars. But I believe that we must always try to resist war, to seek the peaceable kingdom in the midst of a fallen world.
I also think that we have to be careful in supporting one nation-state as all good while those who oppose them fall squarely in the evil camp. All have sinned. That includes nations.
By justin on Jul 18, 2006 | Reply
Right, I would agree. No nation is without faults. We’ve got plenty. Stealing land from indians, slavery, etc. However, I still look to our nation as one that, in most cases, has the good of people in mind. We’ve had nuclear weapons since 1945, yet we used them once, and not as an act of aggression, but as a last resort to end a war that would cost many more lives were it not used. The loss of life was horrible, but it was a lose lose situation at that point.
I think most wars are lose lose… we should attempt all means necessary to keep away from that, and I think most of the time we do. We didn’t start to do anything against the problems in the middle east until september 11th, and it wasn’t because there hadn’t been acts of aggression towards our country in the past. We may actually be worse off for waiting so long. How many more people are going to die because of the takeover of Iran by fundamentalist muslims? That’s where this islamofacist thing started, and it helped spur a christofacist movement in the republican party as well.
I don’t know, its just a bad situation with no good answers. We as Christians need to pray for peace, and pray that our leaders wield the sword well (to steal from Derek Webb) cause its going to get ugly from here I imagine.
By Scott on Jul 18, 2006 | Reply
Oh, I agree that much of our history has been governed by good intent. Or at least sincerity of intent. I don’t believe that there is any valid justification after the fact of us having dropped atomic weapons on Hiroshima or Nagasaki, however.
Again, my approach is that of how the church should respond. To me, it should be markedly different from that of any nation-state.
By Bobby Valentine on Jul 18, 2006 | Reply
Pacifism does not advocate “doing nothing.” Just wanted to clear that up. Pacifism simply suggests there are alternatives to war.
But suppose one embraces the Just War Doctrine (which in theory most American Christians do) . . . my question then becomes WHEN do we actually use the Just War Criteria to critique policy. I have not seen many Christians engaged in such critical reflection.
Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
Stoned-Campbell Disciple
By Scott on Jul 18, 2006 | Reply
Great point, Bobby. It seems to me that for the majority of American Christians, a non-violent approach is dismissed as non-sensical and liberal extremism. That is unfortunate because it squashes that critical reflection you talk about.
By justin on Jul 18, 2006 | Reply
Scott,
Do you think its ok for us to hold onto nuclear weapons as a deterent for those that wish to use them to begin wars?
Why do you think there was no justification? Conservative numbers put loss of life over 1 million people if there had been a ground invasion of Japan. In a situation like that, should a government respond with a christian ethic, or should it respond in its own self interest? Can a country survive when it abides by the christian ethic of self sacrifice?
All this stuff is hard. In my opinion, I think the ideas of christ can’t be in place in a government because Governments aren’t supposed to run that way. Jesus might have set up a government to bring the kingdom if that’s the case. Its why I disagree with government redistribution of wealth, and why I disagree with other morality laws. Government is to protect the individual rights of people. Christians should bring the kingdom on their own accord. Jesus never forced anyone to do anything.
By Scott on Jul 18, 2006 | Reply
I’m not a fan of proliferation, no. Those “conservative numbers” depends upon who you ask. The Japanese say they were already planning to surrender.
Go back to Bobby’s question. If we adhere to a “Just War” ethic there is no way that the bombing of those two Japanese cities met all the criteria. Let me ask another question. Can the church survive without an ethic of self-sacrifice.
Again, my concern is much less with what the nation-state does and much more so with how we, as the church, are the in-breaking of the kingdom of God.
By justin on Jul 18, 2006 | Reply
The church can “survive” in name, I imagine, without self sacrifice, but its nothing more than a country club. A bunch of people of similar backgrounds with similar paychecks and simliar lives sitting around feeling good about how moral they are and singing songs that are wrought with lyrics that make Jesus sound like the boyfriend you had in Junior High. (Disclaimer, I didn’t have a boyfriend in junior high. Or ever.)
I do believe that if the Kingdom breaks out in culture, great things will happen. I’m struck though by those that think they can end war, because didn’t Jesus say in the end there would be “wars and rumors of wars”? Also, didn’t Jesus say “the poor you will always have with you”? Just struck me today about how so many politically active wealth redistributionist christians say “we can end poverty in this generation”. Can we really do that?
By Scott on Jul 18, 2006 | Reply
Justin, you take that “wars and rumors” passage and read the context you will see that Jesus does not advocate a futile approach. No, the kind of life He was calling them too would require death. They would be hated and despised for living as citizens not of earth but of the kingdom.
And yes, I believe we could end poverty. The fact that you will always have the poor with you, to me, is more of an indication that the true follow of Jesus will always seek to go where the need is. Go back to that original idea in the Torah and you will see great lengths set up by God to eradicate poverty.
By Dave Turner on Jul 18, 2006 | Reply
Scott-
I was trying to remember some of the other points from “War and the Gospel” but couldn’t… you just jogged my memory, though.
“I think we have to be really careful that we don’t buy into this post-Constantinian mindset that there are occasions in this life where Christ is not relevant, or that His methods are not applicable in the ‘real world.’”
One of the points was that for the Christian, there is no situation where it is acceptable to temporarily suspend or sideline our morality–the same morality we have learned from Christ. War, he pointed out, is an entirely different world with an entirely different ethic.
Another of the points, as someone else just reminded me, was one we’ve all heard countless times… something about an end and means…?
I hope I don’t sound ungraceful here, and maybe its my north-of-the-border perspective that’s causing me to see it this way… but I really feel that if you reread over some of the comments here, you see points made about the life and teachings of Christ, and then a response that comes from pro-American thought.
It comes down to this, really. Jesus is radical. Much too radical for me. Time and time again in my life, I’ve caught myself in the act of reading the text inaccurately so that Christ does not come across as radical as he really is, and therefore does not inconvenience me. Is it possible that there are more areas where I am still covering his nakedness for him? Absolutely. I guarantee it.
I won’t chase the American rabbit any further, that’s a whole blog worth of discussion on its own, but there is one other thing mentioned that I can’t keep silent on.
Justin, re: the poor always being with us..
Jesus said the poor will always be with us. Okay, but as long as that holds true, Jesus also says to you, then, that if the poor ask you for your cloak, give them your tunic. I think that us using this verse as an excuse not to be passionate about helping the poor is a telltale sign of a Savior who is once again just too radical for us. In Isaiah 1 God told his own chosen people that he had no interest in any of there religious procedures or even their prayers, because of the injustice in the land.
Its been a pleasure, thank you all very much… some great food for thought here.
By Scott on Jul 18, 2006 | Reply
Dave, more great thoughts. And your “north of the border” perspective is a valuable one.
My wife and I were talking about this earlier tonight. The only way to be comfortable following Christ is not to get too close to Him. Follow at a distance. But that’s not really following Him, is it?
Here is a link to a sermon I preached back about a year ago. It was titled “They Will Go Away if We Go Get Them. It’s divided in 3 parts and deals with the verse we’ve been discussing.
http://scottfreeman.info/2005/10/17/they-will-go-away-if-we-go-get-them/
By Bobby Valentine on Jul 18, 2006 | Reply
The subject that is under consideration is often governed by passion rather than critical Christian thinking.
One does not have to be a pacifist to engage in critical Christian thinking on issues of utmost importance. Historically there is no Christian writer that endorses a Christian’s participation in the wars of secular government. Augustine is the first to articulate a “theology” in which a Christian could possibly engage in secular warfare. This theology has been endorsed by most American Christians in theory . . . but rarely do they engage in evaluating the state in light of that theory. Blind obedience to the state is nothing but idolatry. The Just War ethic curbs and critiques state policy.
In the Just War ethic nuclear, chemical and biological weaponry would be illegal whether employed by a “rogue” state or one that fancies itself graced by God. I frequently ask my “militaristic” friends (who are often not the same as my friends [and family!!] that are in the military) why it is unethical for Iraq, Iran, or North Korea to have nukes and germs but it is just fine for the USA to have enough of those to make the surface of the earth slime? Rather than answering this question in a reasonable way they often simply get mad at me.
Nation states come and go. Rome was around far longer than the USA. Russia has been around for a thousand years. But if the Lord tarries they will all be in the history books. But the Kingdom of God lasts forever. We are citzens of the kingdom and aliens in the present nation states . . . that is how Peter felt about it anyway.
BTW, John Mark Hicks and I discuss the issue of being aliens in the world and being a people of peace in our book “Kingdom Come” that Scott has so graciously reviewed on his blog.
Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
http://stoned-campbelldisciple.blogspot.com/
By Scott on Jul 19, 2006 | Reply
Bobby, thank you for the historical perspective. I, too, receive anger for questioning these things. And for suggestion that the end of a nation does not equate to the end of the world is too much for some. I’ve even had people tell me that God needs America. But I digress.
I highly recommend Bobby’s book for all of those interested in going deeper on this subject. They bring to the fore-front some long-held positions in the Restoration Movement that need to be heard one again. A great read.
By Jeff on Jul 19, 2006 | Reply
Scott -
I’ve been tumbling an idea over in my head for a few months now - due in part to the following oddly aggregated factors - reading State of Fear by Crichton, reading Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro, reading All The Kings Men by Robert Penn Warren, reading Night by Elie Wiesel, reading The Kite Runner Khaled Husseini and watching the first season of Deadwood on DVD.
The idea is this: to be true to the message of Christ, a believer is going to have to give up on being relevant. It will simply not be possible to live out a Christian ethic and remain in the center of human culture at all times.
Why?
Because human culture is critically flawed and broken and will repeatedly, inevitibly find itself scrambling after the unimportant, trivial, infantile and meaningless - and these are then the things that will appear to be relevant.
T. S. Eliot opined that, “in a world of fugitives, the man taking the opposite direction will appear to run away”.
Thus, as a believer endeavors to remain true to the ethic of Jesus, she will inevitibly be seen as out of touch, inactive, and irrelevant some (much?) of the time by the world and by the church, which, being human, is so often enamored by relevance.
How does a believer respond to war? Feed the hungry. To injustice? Cloth the poor. To hatred? Visit the sick.
I’m not “copping out” on the larger questions - we should study, think and pray for wisdom - especially in a democratic society where we have the responsibility to enact public policy through our representation. Nor am I disagreeing with C. S. Lewis in his defense of Christian intellectuals and academics who must stand toe-to-toe with anti-religious intellectuals and academics.
But I am saying that the vocation of the believer is an individual one made up of discreet individual actions and activities.
By Jeff on Jul 19, 2006 | Reply
Oh, and perhaps the most important point? Gleaned from Crichton’s writings (not just State of Fear) is the idea of unintended consequences. The idea that we can fix the world has led us to delusions of grandeur. How often have our attempts to improve our lot or the lot of others resulted only in increased suffering or trajedy?
Again, we must remain active - but active in ways that are consonant with the ethic of Jesus and within our proper sphere of influence.
Too often, our grasp exceeds our reach and we make problems worse in our inadequate attempts to make them better - because we underestimate the complexity of problems and overestimate our understanding and wisdom.
Serve the poor. Feed the hungry. Visit the sick.
By Scott on Jul 19, 2006 | Reply
Your point of unintended consequences coincides with “Mere Discipleship.” We think that we have to fix everything, that we need to be in control. I think you are right, the more I talk about following Jesus, the more extreme I feel.
By Scott on Jul 19, 2006 | Reply
By the way, you can see on my sidebar I’m about to take up those books you recommended (after a brain-dead read, which I need).
By Bobby Valentine on Jul 19, 2006 | Reply
I am just thankful that you are having a discussion of what it means to be a Christian in this fallen age.
If you folks get a chance come by http://stoned-campbelldisciple.blogspot.com/
You will be welcomed with open arms.
Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
Milwaukee, WI
By scott on Jul 19, 2006 | Reply
Bobby, thanks. I’ll be interested to hear more of your thoughts regarding this topic.
You can get a pretty good idea of where I’m coming from if you take a look at the “How Did I Get Here” series I did. You can find it under its own category. It pretty much spells out the genesis and motivation for much of this blog.
By Lachen on Jul 22, 2006 | Reply
Jeff, I like what you wrote here:
“…the idea of unintended consequences. The idea that we can fix the world has led us to delusions of grandeur. How often have our attempts to improve our lot or the lot of others resulted only in increased suffering or trajedy?”
But to your statement that we too often make things worse due to ineptitude and imperfection in our attempts to help/to solve/ to serve, I have a question. What is the solution to that inherent imperfection of humanity? What should our response be in such a crisis situation (such as the current one in Israel/Lebanon)? To NOT act lest we make it worse by our efforts? To refrain from trying to serve others by playing an attive role unless we are certain our efforts will not be imperfect or cause more harm? I don’t mean these questions to be facetious in any way - I am earnestly seeking to know your (or others) thoughts as to how we can tangibly, as Christians, respond to war and not be mired in the imperfections of our well-intentioned efforts.
We are imperfect. We are going to mess up, be clumsy, and make mistakes in our efforts to be part of a solution, a healing, a helping effort. But should our inevitable humanity hinder us from action altogether?
It’s maddeningly difficult to grapple with for me.
More and more, I see Scripture used in the way Scott describes - as a weapon, or as an excuse for action AND INaction that are way out of step with my understandings of Jesus teachings and life’s example to us of how we should, then, live.
I do not believe in the concept of a just war. In *official* theory or otherwise. I believe there are justifications for war and that those justifications have both merit and value in discussion and Biblical contemplation. But war, but its very nature, is not a just entity.