Honestly, I Always Sin During These What-Ifs
August 24th, 2006 | by Scott |For the record:
- If a scantily clad super-model plops herself down on my desk, I’m probably going to lust.
- If I accidently cut my leg off with a power tool, I’m probably going to mutter some choice words.
- If someone impersonates me and begins to earn money speaking at NRA rallies, I’m probably going to get angry.
- If someone tells me an off-color joke that is the funniest thing ever told featuring midgets, tambourines and hot air balloons, I’m probably going to laugh.
I’m human. I sin. I know that to do any of those things would be wrong. But I’d probably do it anyway. If we sit here long enough you could probably propose an absurd enough scenario where I would succumb to temptation.
The fact that I would fall under the right circumstances does not negate the fact that these are still sins.
So, if:
- Osama bin Laden was able to mask his identity, smuggle across the US border, elude all of our federal agents and crime-fighters and find himself holed up in our house when we come home to find him unexpectedly wielding a knife at my wife and children I would probably fight to the death.
It amazes me how some people will immediately dismiss the idea of non-violence when we see first-hand that it is the way of Christ. For some, in the church, non-violence is a heresy. (And that’s not hyperbole).
Yet those of us who subscribe to a non-violent view, who believe unswervingly that that is the way of Christ in this world, who denounce all war as unjust have just as much a say in the kingdom.
You may believe that there are times when violence is justified but I encourage you not to turn a deaf ear to our voices.
Invariably when talk turns to non-violence, people trot out that same old tired extreme scenario, as if the extreme situation would somehow invalidate the entire belief.
It as if the burglar in our house somehow trumps the words of Christ to love our enemies, to pray for those who persecute us, to turn the other cheek. The New Testament and the words of Christ are OVERWHELMINGLY slanted toward living a peacable life.
Extreme and/or absurd analogies will not alter that.
To answer the scenario, I would probably kick, scream, bite, wedgie, choke, pummel and good ole fashion jack-slap if pushed in this regard.
But I hope to grow past that. You see, that is my gut fleshly reaction. As I grow in the way of Christ I pray that my reactions to situations will grow to reflect more and more the person of Jesus.
That it will become natural for me to love first.
That it will become natural for me to always consider the peaceful, Christ-like option.
That it will become natural for me to turn the other cheek and embrace and advocate peace.
That is the way of Christ. He responded non-violently, not passively.
To love so completely, so sacrificially is not wimpy or weak-kneed.
It is bold, daring and invites rejection.
The way so many in the church marginalize this view is proof enough of that.
But the way of Christ is counter-cultural, life-changing. Soul-tranforming.
It is the only way to rid this world of violence.
The war to end terror will never end terror. Only the love of Christ can.
Foolish, you say? That’s Jesus, for you.
Now, excuse me. I have a super-model to get off my desk.
40 Responses to “Honestly, I Always Sin During These What-Ifs”
By Pat on Aug 22, 2006 | Reply
I agree with you. A year ago, I probably wouldn’t but now I do. I just know how incredibly hard it is to do this. I just read a funny little book that I never expected to find theology in, but surprise, there it was. It is written by Fannie Flagg (Fried Green Tomatoes lady) and is titled, Can’t Wait to Get to Heaven. It’s one of those funny, light, Southern lady novels. But, in the course of the story, the main character meets her “maker” and the gist of the conversation with him is “You know, life is really not as complicated as all you people make it” and “You can’t go wrong with love and forgiveness.”
I totally agree.
By Jim MacKenzie on Aug 22, 2006 | Reply
As a Canadian and a Christian (yes they can go together), I subscribed to this worldview long ago. You can imagine the lively discussions that followed in Abilene around 1985. Let’s just say that I was so in the minority the Dems wouldn’t even have anything to do with me. I was a foreigner, talking pacifism, non-violence, Meekness not weakness, peacemaking, in a land of gun-toting republicans. I was alone (or felt like it anyway) until Yancey’s book, The Jesus I Never Knew, at least gave me one ally. Now, thanks to Yoder and others this is getting a hearing. I can crawl out of my hole now and join the discussion…
By Scott on Aug 22, 2006 | Reply
Pat, I was a loud and vociferous champion of going to war in Iraq. It’s funny how God can grow even the most hard-headed folks.
Jim, I would imagine that not being American-born probably gives you a more open-minded approach to this. I learned a lot about the heart of Canadians in my 3 years on the border.
By Doug Freeman on Aug 22, 2006 | Reply
Scott, how do you plan on converting Oasma to be a follower of Christ? There is an evil segment in our world that you will not convert no matter what you say. I agree with Ollie North when he was being questioned during the Iran Contra hearings. He told Al Gore that Osama Bin Laden should be assinated, to which Gore tried to make him look stupid. The Hitlers,Saddams,and Bin Ladens have to be dealth with. They don’t care how much you love them, their intent is to destroy christianity. I don’t believe God expects us to turn the other cheek when someone wants to kill us. I know the scriptures about loving your enemies but at the same time there are situations that require action in order to deal with your enemies.
By Belinda on Aug 22, 2006 | Reply
In the first place, Osama does NOT equal this war. How are people still getting this confused?? I love the sign, “who would Jesus bomb?” We, as Christians, CANNOT support the killing going on in this war. We preach against abortion, but why is it okay to kill outside the womb?
By Mike the EyeGuy on Aug 22, 2006 | Reply
Scott–
Nice strawman.
“Extreme and/or absurd analogies” are easy to ridicule and tear down. Harder to deal with are actual situations from just the past few weeks. Such as the hundreds of police officers (many of them no doubt Christians) who swarmed the campus of Virginia Tech–firearms at the ready–to catch a killer before he killed anyone else besides the two law enforcement officers whom he had already shot.
Such as the cold, hard fact that it took violence to apprehend and then restrain the alleged hijackers in London from killing thousands more.
Do you really think that you can wring from Jesus’s words and scripture a bullet-proof paradigm, so to speak, for every heart-wrenching dilemma that comes skipping down the pike?
If so, is this forcing scripture do more than it was intended to do? Is this bibliolatry?
Just thoughts.
By scott on Aug 22, 2006 | Reply
Dad–
Are you saying that Osama is beyond the hope of salvation? The Ollie North story is great, but it’s not true. Al Gore is a poor use in this story, he wasn’t on that committee and has always been a hawk. Their intent may be to destroy Christianity but they will fail. However, I think we run a major risk of confusing Christianity and America.
You don’t believe God expects us to turn the other cheek when someone wants to kill us? What about Jesus? Isn’t He our ultimate example? Isn’t that what He did?
Belinda-
Great thoughts. Welcome and keep coming back. Your voice is appreciated here. Our ethic of life must be consistent.
By matt elliott on Aug 22, 2006 | Reply
Given the Biblical prophecy that a day will come when “nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore,” I’ve always thought that the WORST thing one could say about a Christian pacifist is that they’re ahead of their time!
It’s a complicated issue, for sure, but I definitely prefer to err on the Sermon on the Mount side of it.
Scott, you’re right about the Ollie/Osama thing. Here’s the snopes.com piece on it:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/north.asp
By scott on Aug 22, 2006 | Reply
Mike, I knew you would respond and am glad you did. Part of my intent is for those of us who don’t see eye to eye on this matter in the church to be able to discuss these issues with a spirit of brotherhood and civility. For some reason, this issue sparks more ire than most among our people.
Yes, it is a strawman that is pretty easy to knock down. But isn’t that scenario the major one offered up to discount nonviolence?
Do I think that I “can wring from Jesus’s words and scripture a bullet-proof paradigm, so to speak, for every heart-wrenching dilemma that comes skipping down the pike?”
No, I don’t. But I do hope that we can all acknowledge that the words and actions of Christ are given to non-violence. That is the example He set and the path that He chose.
With that understanding I believe that we can then work out the implications.
With that I believe that we have to come to a common understanding of who the “we” is that we are talking about. I mean the church where often we believe that the we is our nation. The church has an entirely different calling than the nation.
To fully suss this out we need to revisit Romans 13 (and the larger context of the passage including Romans 12).
It’s interesting that the church consisted of staunch non-violent proponents until the 4th Century.
Regardless of the conclusions that we may individually draw in this debate, my ultimate goal is for those who are hawkish among us to realize that there is validity to the arguments and convictions of the non-violent.
Other thoughts? Help me out here.
By scott on Aug 22, 2006 | Reply
Matt, great thought. What would happen if all of the church erred on the side of the sermon on the mount? History would look a lot different if we had.
By Len on Aug 22, 2006 | Reply
When Jesus took opportunity to cleanse the temple of those who were defiling it I believe that He came across as being something more than a pacifist. True, however, is that the overwhelming majority of His teaching is to non-violence.
I am a gun-owning pastor who is torn as to his beliefs on so many things. I live in Clarksville, TN, where we have more than 20,000 people living in Iraq. Do I think they should be there? Not really. But if you are implying that it is sinful to rescue your own family from an invader, I disagree with that. Didn’t Bonhoeffer embrace non-violence yet still endorse the assassination of Hitler? Definitely a hard to answer subject. Glad you brought it up.
By scott on Aug 22, 2006 | Reply
Len, I don’t believe that Jesus caused physical harm in cleansing the temple. I don’t believe the text supports a physical violence.
Your thoughts about Bonhoeffer and Hitler are great ones. That is why I have come short of embracing a full-on pacifist position.
I’m not saying it is wrong to defend your family. I am wondering if my reaction could be transformed to seek the nonviolent reaction first and foremost.
I wrestle with this, like you. That’s why I’m glad to have this forum to discuss it.
By Jason Bybee on Aug 22, 2006 | Reply
Great thoughts, Scott. I’m continuing to flesh out these implications, too (just finished Camp, just started Yoder), but you can count me among those who firmly believe the non-violent call of Christ is the better way.
It’s amazing how even the slightest hint of pacifistic dialogue causes the sparks to fly. Kinda shows how latently violent we really are when we can’t even tolerate dialogue re: non-violence. I think for the generations that are older than me, it has a lot to do with WWII or something. I suppose my generation will always deal with these implications in light of 9/11.
I find it comcial the lengths some will go to in order to prove the Bible endorses a violent worldview. I love the David argument. “David was a man after God’s own heart and he killed tens of thousands. That wasn’t sinful.” It’s as if David — not Jesus — is the standard we should be held to. Who cares what David did?!? If I remember correctly, he was also a prideful adulterer and a terrible father. I think I’ll stick with the unqualified non-violent ethic Jesus preached.
Parenthetically, Belinda makes a great point about our inconsistent ethic of human life.
By Mike the EyeGuy on Aug 22, 2006 | Reply
Scott, to borrow some of your phrasing:
Regardless of the conclusions that we may individually draw in this debate, my ultimate goal is for those who are dovish among us to realize that there is validity to the arguments and convictions of those who very reluctantly allow for the use of force in dire circumstances.
Perhaps many do use contrived scenarios to defend the use of force, but that doesn’t give anyone the excuse to ignore reality. I did notice that neither you, nor others, commented on the two real-life scenarios that I mentioned. Perhaps when you show me how unbridled pacifism can “work out the implications” and result in similar outcomes (i.e. the saving of lives), then maybe you will finally win me over.
Jason, does the simple fact that I spoke up and disagreed represent “sparks flying?” Even if it does, is that necessarily a bad thing? And do you really think that someone who disagrees with you on this is “latently violent?” Please.
Proverbs 27:17
By Jason Bybee on Aug 22, 2006 | Reply
Mike,
No, I wouldn’t equate your comments with “sparks flying”. Don’t interpret my comments as an attack on you personally. I’m referring to several conversations I’ve had with individuals about this, people who can’t believe a Christian wouldn’t want to bomb the crud out of Osama and Sadaam. And yes, I’d say some of their comments and positions are latently violent. But I’m thankful we have a forum to dialogue. Keep sharpening the iron, man.
By T.H. on Aug 22, 2006 | Reply
Scott,
I’m new to your blog (well, at least the posting part), but I wanted to offer a quick comment of appreciation for your willingness to facilitate necessary, yet difficult conversations. Like others on here, I believe the church benefits from such dialogue.
I also join with those who lean toward a non-violent approach, but struggle with all the implications of such a belief. Mike has aptly noted the “real life” scenarios that are difficult to answer, and I am not sure I have anything of worth to add to this discussion, but I’ll give it a shot.
For starters, violence does not justify violence, it only perpetuates more violence. The war to “end all wars” has not ended worldwide conflict, nor do I believe any war can succeed in doing so. I side with those who believe that wars, violence, and injustice in general will only end when we stop using such to justify our “own” wars, acts of violence and injustices. We may not convert Bin Laden by loving him, but we will have been Christ to him. Although Christ loved the world, the world has not loved him back. This does not cheapen the cross simply because humanity has not responded in kind.
To Sparky, I mean Mike :), is the Kingdom better off because violence was used to apprehend a violent man in Virginia or deter would be assassins from high jacking planes bound for the US? Yes, I realize that lives were spared, and that children aren’t fatherless or motherless because of such heroic efforts, but how has the way of Christ been lifted up? Are we equating the “saving of physical lives” by “any means necessary” with the mission of the Kingdom? Please don’t misunderstand me, I rejoice with others that the lives of innocent people were spared from the hateful actions of others, but when did defending people “at all costs” become one with the mission of the church?
As an American, am I glad that I live in a country that affords me the greatest freedoms in the world? You bet cha! But as a Christian, the freedoms I enjoy are trumped by my allegiance to the path of Christ that seemingly is calling me to stand up for the injustices of this world in non-violent ways.
By Mike the EyeGuy on Aug 23, 2006 | Reply
TH asked: “is the Kingdom better off because violence was used to apprehend a violent man in Virginia or deter would be assassins from high jacking planes bound for the US?…when did defending people “at all costs” become one with the mission of the church?”
Perhaps some on the Christian Left should ask themselves that same question before advocating U.S. military intervention in Darfur. I mean, either the Kingdom is about defending the fatherless, the widow and the defenseless or it isn’t, right?
Actually my answer to your question is a very non-Platonic one: I don’t know. Are you so confident in your hermeneutic and your life experience to date that you can confidently discern the difference between wheat and chaff? I look around and I don’t see a lot of black and white, but instead a million shades of gray. I do know that “in my gut” that the outcomes of the two scenarios that I mentioned seem right and true. If there was ever a product of upper-storey, capital “R” Reason, that would seem to me to be one.
I do hope that if after all the hashing out and “working out the implications” that you decide that “radical nonviolence” is your cup o’ tea in every situation in life, then please have the intellectual integrity to follow through and “play the man” as Tolstoy did and accept anarchy as the inevitable result.
The irony there is, that despite the periodic persecution of Christians by the Romans prior to Constantine, The Way did take root and flourish under the relative stability of the Roman Empire. So, even prior to the Great Amalgamation, there it was, wheat and tares existing side-by-side.
If you’ll excuse me now, my hands are trembling. I’ve got a life to live and some salvation that needs working out. Blessings and peace to all.
By Scott on Aug 23, 2006 | Reply
Great thoughts and discussion all around.
First of all, Mike, I do believe that there is validity to what you say. I agree that there are many shades of gray and that believing Christians hold differing views.
The genesis for much of my thoughts comes from the fact that some in our brotherhood will not even listen to the viewpoints of the non-violent movement without resorting to anger. Look at the email campaign waged against a mutual friend of ours. There is room for the hawkish and there has been for centuries. Now, let’s listen to the voices who espouse a different way as well. There is room at the table for all.
I’m not ignoring reality. I’m thankful that the two scenarios you named were resolved. The role of the nation-state is to protect and defend. I understand that and reconcile it with my understanding of Romans 13. But we still have to answer who the “we” is that we are talking about.
We must not confuse the way of the kingdom with the way of the nation-state. Our pursuits, goals and methods should stand in stark contrast to the “real world.” Yes, it might even look foolish.
By Scott on Aug 23, 2006 | Reply
T.H.–
Great thoughts. Violence is an endless cycle. At the end of the day, regardless of my beliefs, I must reflect Christ.
Mike–
I don’t advocate military intervention in Darfur. I believe there are peacable options that must be exhausted first. Again, I’m non-violent, but I can’t say I’m a full-blown pacifist either.
I’m not completely confident in my hermeneutic, however I do believe I’m getting closer to the heart of Christ.
By Bobby Valentine on Aug 23, 2006 | Reply
Scott you are right. We ARE all fallen sinful human beings. You are also quite right about the vision of peace in the Scriptures. That it is tough to live does not make it any less true … I mean the entire Sermon on the Mount is pretty heavy duty stuff. But that is perhaps why we tend to undercut it.
Though I am a pacifist, I do not believe that all must have that point of view. I do beleive that non-violence is the biblical position. But if a person disagrees with my point of view I think the only alternative is to be a THOUGHTFUL Just War advocate. The only problem with this is I do not know anyone (personally) who fits that category.
What I find is religious nationalism. This is idolatry and therefore sinful. According the JW theory the US did have a right to respond to 9-11. But the JW theory will never sanction the invasion of Iraq, the bombing of civilian targets or a pre-emptive strike.
The matter truly boils down to where our citzenship lies: the Kingdom of God or the kingdoms of men.
Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
By matt elliott on Aug 23, 2006 | Reply
One of things I really appreciate about this blog is that you, Scott, don’t allow discussions to degenerate into talk-radio, which is one of my blogging pet peeves. I think people actually listen to each other here, so there’s plenty of room for all sides and everything in-between (which is where most people fall on most issues, anyway). Mike’s point about “a million shades of gray” is a good one, indeed.
I think for me, when I say that I prefer to err on the side of the Sermon on the Mount, is that I’d like to become a person whose first tendency is non-violence. Not a doormat, mind you, but a person who assertively chooses non-violence and changes the agenda and the battlefield whenever possible. You know — much like offering another cheek, walking the second mile, or handing over a shirt as well as coat changes dramatically changes any encounter. I pray that God transforms me into a person for whom that is the default setting. I’m no full-blown pacifist either, but I convinced that we need to take Jesus’ teachings as seriously as possible.
Thanks to ALL of you for a stimulating, thoughtful discussion. Would love to get together sometime for a big group hug.
By Scott on Aug 23, 2006 | Reply
Bobby, great points about being a thoughtful just war advocate. Now, if we could only find a just war.
Thanks, Matt. If we can get to the point where, in the extreme chance we are confronted with such an ethical dilemma as our family’s life being in danger, that our first thoughts are toward peaceful resolutions then maybe we are getting somewhere.
By Belinda on Aug 23, 2006 | Reply
I’m not a fan of the term “Christian Left.” I am delighted to find folks that don’t want to stone me for being opposed to this unjust war. Where I live in Alabama, if you’re against the war, you’re un-christian and un-american.
By Mike the Eyeguy on Aug 23, 2006 | Reply
Just to show that all “hawks” don’t think alike, you might be surprised to learn that I had serious misgivings about the morality of an invasion of Iraq (but none about US action in Afghanistan) from the first moment that I heard the rumblings of war on TV while working out on the elliptical trainer at the gym in 2002.
You might be even more surprised to learn that I was about the only person I knew personally at the time who advocated U.S. military intervention in Rwanda in 1994 (like President Clinton was going to call me up or something). I do remember being perplexed, then angry, that the first “black” US president turned his back on the genocide and that the Black Congressional Caucus gave him a free pass to boot.
Maybe those two little facts will lend a little more gravitas to my previous comments.
Scott, Matt is right–yours is a spirited, but congenial blog. A rare combination, indeed. Keep it up.
By Scott on Aug 23, 2006 | Reply
Belinda, you are not alone. I live in Texas, 30 minutes from the Crawford ranch. We may be outnumbered but we aren’t alone.
Mike, I appreciate your comments. I do try to provide a forum for brotherly debate. I’m a former “hawk” who is still trying to make sense of all of this faith stuff.
Interesting thought about Rwanda. How much of the Clinton administrations refusal to call those atrocities “genocide” where influenced by the Somalia debacle?
By Jon on Aug 23, 2006 | Reply
Just a thought to add about ‘real’ world examples. What about the man who killed the judge, court deputy, and sheriff then held up in the a young woman’s apartment. Did she not share her story of faith with him and convince him violence was not the way and lead him to turn himself in?
By Pat on Aug 23, 2006 | Reply
Are the choices just pacifism or violence? Isn’t there something else? Can we not think outside the box some more and come up with other alternatives? Didn’t my daughter quote Dr. Who as saying something like, you humans resort to violence because of a lack of imagination.
This discussion disturbs me because I can’t figure it out and have an answer that suits everyone. But more than satisfying everyone is my desire to please God and do what he would want…and I’m not sure what that is.
By Lachen on Aug 24, 2006 | Reply
For the record, it was NOT me who told you that midget/tambourine/hot air balloon joke, Scott.
Onto the meat of the matter: I do not believe for one second that Jesus was a pacifist. I don’t believe His example is one of pacifism - there is no scriptural evidence that He abhors all war, all endeavors of fighting evil, even unto death. So while I do not enjoy the process of war and wrestle within my own self about the lives involved, if I believe the cause is to rise up against evil and protect the innocent, I am *generally* aboard. But it is not as though I am jumping up and down and yelling “Ra Ra Ra!” as we march into a situation where people will die, no matter how “perfect” the mechanism works.
My faith in and love of Jesus Christ lead me to subscribe to a version of the Just War Theory. Right now, anyway. Farbeit for me to limit the power of God to move or change me. Let us not delude ourselves to believe we have discovered the “right way” or the “answer” or the monopoly on truth on this one beyond pointing to the Jesus of the Bible, prayer, and committing ourselves to radicalism in our pursuit of HIS will in our lives.
Right?
I do not believe that all war is unBiblical, or all peace is Biblical. I think that is dangerous and simplistic thinking and that is does a disservice to the Lord I know. I do not believe for one moment that Jesus teaches us to not engage in self protection or to protect our family from murder. It is just not that simple for me.(hear me on this: I do not believe you are squarely in one box or the other or advocating the simplistic). I believe that the Lord equips us with the minds and hearts to decide for ourselves what causes we take up in His name. Ultimately, we have to answer to Him for our actions, and the byproduct of those actions.
If, through combat/war, millions of opressed and otherwise muted people are freed to hear the Word of God and learn of His love and be transformed by accepting His gift, on which scales are we weighing the price and purpose of war? I imagine I’d have different answers based on which side of the sword I am facing.
That thought alone frustrates me.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-faith/fc-warperspectives.html
By John on Aug 24, 2006 | Reply
I’m one of those who in the past have been angry at the thought of pacifism. Just a couple of blocks from my work is the headquaters of the American Friends Service Committe and they have banners outside stating “War in not the Answer”. Seeing those a couple of years ago did make me mad and just wonder how anyone could be so misguided. Now I wonder if it was I who was misguided.
I was never a strong supporter of the whole war with Iraq but never also really questioned the rational behind it. I justified my stance in the thought well they (the Pres, VP, etc) must have more intelligence (classified in nature) that we don’t know about and are doing the right thing. Now I wonder what would have happened if more people like me had asked the question at the time, would we still be involved in a seemingly unending fight.
We need the military not to prove how strong we are but to protect ourselves. There is evil in this world and just showing love won’t stop that. But using brute force just opens us up to the influence of that evil too. But the first option must always be the open hand not the closed fist.
By scott on Aug 24, 2006 | Reply
Lachen, you are right–Jesus was not a pacifist. We run into great problems whenever we try to force Jesus into our 21st Century western ideologies: Jesus is not a capitalist, republican, democrat, socialist or communist.
His Kingdom is not of this world. But His way of dealing with the powers of this age indicate that His manner was one of peace, of turning the other cheek. That is the example that we have. It must be considered first and foremost. From a Kingdom standpoint the number of wars that we can classify as truly Just. All sides in any way think that they are just in their actions. Even the Germans in WWII bore belts that proclaimed God is with us. America’s ways are not always just. They can be self-serving and unswervingly utilitarian.
Pat, you asked if there was another option between violence and pacifism. I believe that there is: non-violence. Always seeking the peaceful alternative. Learning to love (which I believe in its perfect form) can cast out all evil, that’s scripture. Allowing God to transform us to the point that the non-violent options are what we consider first, that they become a natural part of our demeanor. The best way to start is for those of us who wear the mantle “Christian” to lay down our weapons that we wield against each other and truly learn to love.
Just think, if we in the church would stop fighting each other and learn to love each other, that would be the first step in effecting reconciliation in a lost and dying world.
I’m rambling now.
By Jason Bybee on Aug 24, 2006 | Reply
Came across a website this morning that suggested our position of self-preservation stems from a belief that we aren’t any use to God if we’re dead. This is consistent with what Camp discusses in Mere Discipleship. From p. 76 “…for fear is grounded in self-preservation. And death is the great enemy of self-preservation.” Again on p. 77: “The point of imitation of Jesus is found on the cross.”
Any thoughts on this? I’d love to hear what this group has to say about this. This is a gross oversimplification, but is a self-preserving attitue a sinful one?
By Scott on Aug 24, 2006 | Reply
Jason, I think self-preservation can be a sinful attitude if it is at the expense of holiness. I’m not going to step in front of a truck. It’s self-preservation but it’s not sinful.
However, when that is the impetus for killing others we have gone too far.
I’d love to suss out those implications. I’d also love to see some more people read Camp’s books and weigh in after that.
By Mike the Eyeguy on Aug 24, 2006 | Reply
Eventually, the bishops of the early church decided that self-preservation was not a sin when they agreed that one did not have to actively seek out martyrdom, as was fashionable at one time. They felt that one should accept martyrdom if it came one’s way, but that to seek a way out when it was available was not a sin. That doesn’t speak to the issue of self-defense, but it does to self-preservation per se. And, amazingly enough, that occurred prior to the Great Amalgamation.
Many Christian look askance at eager, Muslim martyrs and don’t realize that there is a little bit of that in their own bloodline.
Scott, I had to go look up the word “suss.” That kind of thing doesn’t happen very often.
By T.H. on Aug 24, 2006 | Reply
I’m currently trying to wade through Mere Discipleship in between home, work and grad school demands. I had Camp last semester once a week for a theology class on Atonement. The book has served as a great refresher for many of the conversations that took place in our classroom for 3 hours each week.
In my opinion, Camp is a breath of fresh air to this side of the Mississippi. Not so much for the information, which, by my account is good stuff, but for the “lens” he offers toward the same old tired conversations.
Jason, isn’t there a discussion blog for his book?
By Belinda on Aug 24, 2006 | Reply
Lachen/28 says “If, through combat/war, millions of opressed and otherwise muted people are freed to hear the Word of God and learn of His love and be transformed by accepting His gift, on which scales are we weighing the price and purpose of war? I imagine I’d have different answers based on which side of the sword I am facing.” We have to remember that there was 12% Christianity in Iraq before we invaded. One of Hussen’s top advisors was a Christian. That was an erroneous belief - another one from republicans - that we would bring Christianity to that part of the world. Sadly, I believe we’ve now done more to destroy it. How can a Christian ever be a participant in a war?
By greg on Aug 24, 2006 | Reply
the Mere Discipleship discussion blog is at discipleshipdiscussion.blogspot.com
By scott on Aug 24, 2006 | Reply
Mike–I would like to say that my use of the word “suss” is evidence of my advanced education and tremendous command of the english language. But actually I learned it from Rod Stewart’s “You’re In My Heart.”
Camp’s book is the one that I have read in the last 5 years that has had the greatest impact on me. T.H. you are right he is a breath of fresh air.
Belinda, those are great points. The idea that Christianity flourishes through war is a deeply flawed one. For the gospel to truly take hold we must live as Christ lived. Peace must be a part of that equation.
By T.H. on Aug 24, 2006 | Reply
Thanks, Greg.
By Jason Bybee on Aug 24, 2006 | Reply
TH, Greg beat me to it. It’s a good link…lots of discussion, though most of it is a couple months old.
I’d like to hear some follow-up discussion re: Belinda’s question. How can a Christian be a participant in war?
I’m glad we have this forum to help “suss” things out.
By Scott on Aug 25, 2006 | Reply
I’m game for a fresh discussion of Camp.
I’d also love to discuss the Christian in war dilemma. My question is whether or not that discussion can be done with an air of civility and honest wrangling over the biblical considerations. I’ve reached the conclusion that I can not be a participant in war. That places me in the minority, but still a large historical contingent in the history of the church in general and the restoration movement in particular.