Thoughts on Non-Violence: Part One
October 2nd, 2006 | by Scott |
I’m not a pacifist. At least in the sense that it is a definable position for me. I do, however, subscribe to what I believe is the very Christian idea of non-violence. What I mean by that is that I do not believe that my commitment to non-violence exists as a belief structure outside of my commitment to following in the steps of Jesus. In other words, to me, non-violence is non-distinguishable from being a Christ-follower.
Topics such as pacifism and non-violence are getting a lot of press these days. In the midst of war and terror, I feel that is only appropriate. There must be discourse and dialogue during any troubling and problematic time. And the interchange of ideas is crucial in a world such as this.
My understanding of non-violence is shaped by many thinkers, theologians and, yes, even bloggers. I do not kid myself into thinking that I can shed any greater light on this debate than that which is provided by far loftier minds than mine. If you need a more scholarly treatment then I can give you some quality resources. However, over the course of the next few weeks I will attempt to carve out my own territory in this debate.
As a result I hope several things occur:
1. That greater understanding is secured among those who disagree. I am committed that this discussion proceed in a civil manner.
2. That legitimate objections to non-violence can be addressed without condescension, flippancy or evasion.
3. That I can work out my own salvation in this area. My response to a violent world is something that robs me of sleep and peace far too often.
4. That the discussion can be accessible and understandable for folks like me who are a little slower on the uptake.
As I progress I hope to specifically address some problematic areas that proponents of non-violence are often confronted with. Far too often, these questions are side-stepped and avoided rather than honestly and sincerely dealt with. Concerns we will address include:
–God’s apparent saction of war in the Hebrew Scriptures.
–Whether Jesus used physical violence in the Temple
–Our allegiance to Rome as Paul encouraged in Romans 13
–The scenario: what do you do when your family is being attacked.
–The notion that non-violence represents cowardice, passivity, or naivete.
–The co-existence of non-violence and “security” forces.
–The problem of evil in today’s society
It has become readily apparent to me that non-violence can spark some pretty strong and negative reactions from people. It also must be acknowledged that those who subscribe to non-violence can also be fairly “physical” in their words and attitudes. Therefore, to keep this discussion in the realm of civility, here are some guidelines, caveats and disclaimers:
1. Many godly men and women have served their country in various ways out of the sincerity of their conviction. I do not, in any way, disparage their convictions and contributions to this world.
2. Please participate in the discussion. But limit it to the topic at hand. If we are discussing war in the OT please don’t jump ahead to “The Scenario.”
3. Play nice. Peace means nothing if it doesn’t first begin in our own hearts and words.
4. Agree to disagree. Godly men and women can draw different conclusions.
5. Please, please, please understand the distinction that is made when I talk about “we.” I am talking about the church, not the US or any other nation-state. This is not a political issue for me.
63 Responses to “Thoughts on Non-Violence: Part One”
By jasonk on Oct 2, 2006 | Reply
For the purpose of this discussion, define violence.
By Scott on Oct 2, 2006 | Reply
I refer to violence in a broad spectrum: aggression, abuse, etc. As we go along the need to differentiate and quantify will become more important.
By jasonk on Oct 2, 2006 | Reply
Thanks Scott. I ask because I have a friend who is Buddhist. She is not a vegetarian, however, she says she tried it but just likes to eat meat. So violent acts against cows, chickens, and pigs are okay, as long as there is a compelling reason, like me needing a hamburger. Back to the end of the line for her.
She considers herself non-violent. She will not kill a spider, for example. That spider is just as afraid of her as she is of it, so she prefers to scoop it up in a cup and put it outside. On one recent visit, a moth landed on my finger, and we stood there contemplating it. She was fascinated, but I wanted to squash it. I refrained.
I asked her once about her stance on anti-bacterial soap. I was not being flippant, it is a legitimate concern if you are opposed to violence against living beings.
So I assume that for this discussion, we will limit ourselves to violence (aggression, abuse, etc.) against human beings?
This is a fascinating topic Scott, and I hope I learn much from it. Thank you.
By Scott on Oct 2, 2006 | Reply
Uhh, yes. Violence against humans–those made in the image of God. I’ll leave the animal rights stuff to others.
By Jim MacKenzie on Oct 2, 2006 | Reply
I printed this out to “chew on it” for a while. I may comment later today. Btw, Reading Atwood? Talking non-violence? We’ll make you a hockey-loving, Canadian Christian yet!
Good post. It’ll get people thinking about Jesus - possibly as Yancey put it: The Jesus I Never Knew.
By Scott on Oct 2, 2006 | Reply
Jim, I value and covet your insight as we walk through this discussion. It’ll be great to have a non-American voice.
By jasonk on Oct 2, 2006 | Reply
Okay, then suffice it to say that bacteria are fair game.
I really appreciate you tackling this issue, because it is one that most people refuse to deal with. Good for you.
As follower of Jesus, I abhor violence. When one human being takes the life of another human being, no body wins. I believe that is a quote from Steve Earle. It does not matter why a person’s life is taken, whether the cause was noble or not, it scars a person for life. If it doesn’t, then something is wrong.
However, the question has to be addressed: Is it ever necessary for one human being to take the life of another? In my mind, the answer is yes. When the answer is yes, it does not mean that there will not be scars, or consequences. But there are times when violence is necessary.
Scott, you have already mentioned some of those reasons. To protect my family or my life, I will use violence if necessary. To protect my country or my country’s way of life from people who would seek to take it away, I would use violence. To punish the wicked, and to deter others from committing acts of wickedness, I would advocate the use of violence.
I also respect the rights of others to see things differently, and to act accordingly.
Does this make me right wing?
By Scott on Oct 2, 2006 | Reply
Jason, I don’t think it defines you as being right-wing. The points you bring up are things that we will address and that most people would probably agree with.
I’ll be arguing from the minority position.
By jasonk on Oct 2, 2006 | Reply
Thank you Scott. I don’t much care for labels, so I’m glad that you don’t see me as right wing. Or any wing, for that matter.
It seems like many of the people I know who would classify themselves as non-violent, or pacifist, would not advocate violence in any situation, or so they say. There would never be a war that is justified. Never an act of violence against another person that is justified. So to them, because I believe that there are times when war or the death penalty is necessary, they label me right wing.
So thank you again. I am looking forward to your arguments.
By George Freeman on Oct 2, 2006 | Reply
Scott,
I am going to weigh in here and promise not to allow my warped sense of humor or my cynicism cause you and Tracy to implode. See? There I go!
My reaction to your post is mixed at best. I really wish to respond to your points and if you wish to label me just call me a post-modernist liberterian. I am not sure what that means but it sounds impressive….oops…there goes the humor and cynicism again!
Now, you do not call youself a pacifist. At first glance I thought, “hmmm….what happened?” Then I read on and found that you approach this as being Christian…ergo non-violence. Does this mean you feel those that take an opposite stance are non-Christian? I know this is an offensive question but if your answer is yes, and I know it isn’t, then the discussion is closed.
I accept the conditions of the debate and apologize for writing things that make you think that I think you are a coward. I don’t think you are but I do believe that your life has been absent from the need for violence. I am glad for that.
Now…from me…
I believe there are times when it is necessary to embrace violence:
1. should my family be endangered
2. Should someone innocent is at danger or oppressed
3. when my country is being attacked
and so on…you get the drift…
I also believe that there is evil in the world and that it should be attacked. I believe that militant Muslims should be eliminated. I believe that they declared war a long time ago against our country.
I am pro-Israel. I believe that Israel was recognized in 1948 as legitimate. Why would anyone side with the Muslims whose only wish is to destroy them?
Finally, I apologize for any of my comments that you view as flippant and/or condescending. They were not meant to offend but obviously they did. Again I am a very cynical person.
Anyhow, I will be surprised if this post ever makes it to the board. I don’t know if this was supposed to be a public forum or should I send it to you via e-mail…cynical I am!
By Scott on Oct 2, 2006 | Reply
George, welcome to the discussion. If you tell me that the comments you made on other blogs were just humor and cynicism I’ll take your word for it.
When I say that I am not a pacifist what I mean by that is that I don’t see my views as being some alternative position but one that flows out of my understanding of who Jesus calls us to be.
Does that mean that I believe that those who take a different view than me are any less Christian. Absolutely not. I think I’m pretty clear at the end of the post that that is not the case. I can’t sit on the seat of judgment for anybody.
But I can share how I arrive at these conclusions. I do believe that they come closer to the heart of Christ: that the ideas of turning the other cheek, loving your enemies and being meek are more than just suggestions.
I believe that the discussion is an important one. What does it mean to live like Christ? If the lives of my family were threatened there probably isn’t anything I wouldn’t do to protect them. But what are we to do when we realize that violence only begets more violence.
By R-Liz on Oct 2, 2006 | Reply
Scott, I am really looking forward to this. And I also appreciate the ground rules.
Your comment of: “It also must be acknowledged that those who subscribe to non-violence can also be fairly “physical” in their words and attitudes” is an excellent observation. There are times when I feel like someone, who says they are a pacifist, is screaming their comments out to the public, slobber and all. It just doesn’t jive.
Thank you for creating this forum.
By Jeff on Oct 2, 2006 | Reply
Scott -
See my post from a while ago…
http://runtowin.blogspot.com/2006/09/lesson-from-moriori.html
…regarding the idea of a peacable human society.
Can I push back a bit on your presuppositions and starting point? You say, “This is not a political issue for me”. And I understand you’re trying to distinguish between normative Christian behavior and human civilization at large.
But isn’t that exactly the point? If the believer’s prayer and vector in life is to “Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven”, can we distinguish between how things are to be done in the church verses how we recommend or tolerate things be done in the world? Can we speak in two voices?
It seems to me we have demand the truth be consistently shot through reality. Is lying only evidence of brokenness for those who are redeemed?
Further, I don’t see how to develop a philosophy of war or violence that is only applicable to the church.
With all that said, the underlying question, then, it seems to me, is not a question of violence from one human being to another, but a question of the rightful dominion of one human over another. Once dominion is established, the disposition of treatment - whether it be emotional, psychological or physical largely seems to be irrelevant from a biblical perspective.
At its root then, for the State, the question is what establishes rightful dominion? Most thinkers in history have sided with George’s opinions on this. And most still do today. Many of the folks opposed to America’s most recent endeavors are opposed precisely because of the belief that we did not have rightful dominion and, therefore, our actions were/are immoral, unethical and ill-founded.
On the topic of personal conduct - do I hit a person who has hit me? Do I kill an intruder in my home? Etc. The same logic applies. Have I been given that dominion? Further, within that dominion, what are the ultimate purposes of my response? Self-defense? Vengeance? Mercy? Grace?
I believe once the dominion question is answered, the question of sin is answered. The specific choice is a free one, then. But “while all things are permissible, not all things are profitable”.
This latter category is probably best sussed out by thinking in terms of our personal convictions regarding human existence, personal action and the approximation to Christ-like love. If I truly believe this life is a vapor, then I might be more willing to cling to a non-violent viewpoint even when I also believe I have dominion and right to use violence. This is certainly the model Jesus used. The entirety of the gospel is that message: that Jesus is Lord of all - all these kingdoms, all these empires, all these nations, all these people, yet his response to violence is love. Inasmuch as we appropriate that idea of being, we may embrace that response.
But what happens when that ethic is applied on a national scale? First, note that it already is applied to a national scale. America, along with most other first-world countries, exhibits a great deal of restraint and tolerance where our power and might would otherwise, in the hands of a less-morally-concerned oligarchy step beyond even the bounds of dominion we have defined for ourselves.
But we, along with most other countries recognize that there is a point on that scale and within proper dominion where self-preservation trumps altruistism and pyrrhic victory.
Thus the Moriari story I reference earlier.
By George Freeman on Oct 2, 2006 | Reply
So why is it important to be “Christ Like” and how do you determine the defining traits?
Looks to me like Yahweh was a pretty warring God against folks he/she did not like from the get go. You read the Pentateuch and the folks that follow and all you get is killing and war.
Jesus sort of took a lower road and all it got him was killed. Make your point here!
My point is this…
Jesus was heading up a minority party
He had no hope of a military victory
So he does the Martin Luther King strategy of “having a dream.”
It took hold and all of a sudden the Yahweh of the OT became a different being…Help me understand that. Where does this fit in with all of the factions leading up to 01 BC?
Giving you an opening her so run with it!
By Scott on Oct 2, 2006 | Reply
Ruthie, thanks. I’m looking forward to the discussion as well.
Jeff, maybe I would have been better off saying this is not distinctly a political issue for me? Sure, it affects every aspect of my life, including the political, but ultimately the concern is one of discipleship. But I did not mean to indicate that I believe I can have two distinct views for church and state.
I hear you with the rightful dominion idea, but I don’t think we can dismiss the idea of violence toward one another either.
Certainly food for thought.
By Scott on Oct 2, 2006 | Reply
George, I want us to address the idea that there is a different version of God in the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament. There are a few steps between here and there for me in this series, however.
I think we might approach this from completely different presuppositions. I believe Jesus had every hope of a military victory if He had so chosen.
And Jesus is the starting point…
Stay tuned.
By George Freeman on Oct 2, 2006 | Reply
Scott,
I also believe that Jesus had the military objective. In fact, his enemies seem to have taken that away with a betrayal. I choose to believe that was God’s will but really doubt that Jesus knew that was the plan. In fact, if you look at the last hours of Jesus you can only conclude that this was not the outcome he envisioned.
In fact, all evidence leads toward a military move that did not occur. Why?
Again, I leave you the opening…
By Scott on Oct 2, 2006 | Reply
I believe that it was the outcome he envisioned. The Lucan account shows in his travelogue Jesus’ commitment to go to Jerusalem to die.
Why did Jesus pray for the cup to pass? He could not have run to the hills and gone into hiding. He’s already said too much. The death warrant is assured.
He could recant everything He had said but that would have been to renounce all that He was.
The option was to take up arms and fight. Two swords would have been plenty.
But, ultimately, Jesus came to usher in a kingdom not made with flesh and blood, a Kingdom without borders.
It’s a Kingdom where the first will be last, the meek will inherit the earth and the lion will lay down with the lamb.
It’s about a peaceable kingdom.
By George Freeman on Oct 2, 2006 | Reply
Nope, the scriptures still show the Lord as the triumphant entrant. In fact, Jesus was using the meekness to win the crowd over to the Pharisees >
Place yourself in the moment with the groundswell of support.
Now is Jesus humanity or deity?
From my perspective he is very much human as he enters Jerusalem. While he has followers he knows people oppose his message.
Now…I have more to say…but at this point…what is the message?
By justin on Oct 2, 2006 | Reply
Somebody’s been reading GKBs blog…
I’m glad you’re taking this in a different direction, and at least attempting to set out some rules for the discussion. Hopefully I’ll have some comments soon.
BTW, in the interest of full disclosure, are you and george related?
And also. Studio 60 just keeps getting better and better. And after tonight, I know why Sorkin cast Amanda Peet. After the pilot, I had some doubts as to whether or not she would stay. But that’s off topic, so you can responsd at my place if you’d like.
By Scott on Oct 3, 2006 | Reply
Justin, I’ll look forward to your comments. I know that you and I are not far apart.
I’m hoping to set out in this discussion room for disagreement. I know that my view is firmly in the minority (although it has not always been so, the Churches of Christ have a strong pacifist tradition) but I hope that we can stay on task and have a reasonable discussion.
Have not seen last night’s Studio 60 yet. Will do this evening.
And yes, George is my (much)older brother.
By Jeff_R on Oct 3, 2006 | Reply
I don’t see any way Jesus was planning on a military victory or a military plan. There’s just no evidence for such a conclusion - all the conjecture is pop psychology “reading back into” the historic accounts. Obviously a lot of other folks, wrapped up in Jewish history and prophecy, were hoping, expecting and even prodding for a militaristic uprising. This just wasn’t Jesus’ way.
The OT version of God is heavily influenced by the tribal people and culture of that time. My perspective is that God never intended or willed the violent deaths of innocent people - that’s the militaristic culture working that into their history - “baptizing” their actions and culture by crediting God with the direction to justify their means.
George: “Nope, the scriptures still show the Lord as the triumphant entrant.”
Of course they do. And he was and is. Just not the way you/they/we would have expected.
Scott: “I hear you with the rightful dominion idea, but I don’t think we can dismiss the idea of violence toward one another either.”
That’s what I was trying to say: once dominion is established, you have the right. The question is how to establish dominion. The secondary question is once dominion is established, how do you behave and what guides that behavior? Keep in mind that violence at the level of state or nation is only violence at the level of the individual writ large and carried out by intermediaries. There is fundamentally no difference.
By Scott Freeman on Oct 3, 2006 | Reply
Let me clarify my earlier point. I do not believe in any way that Jesus’ objective was that of a militant nature. What I said was that if He had chosen that He would have emerged victorious.
I do believe that His purpose was political, however. But not the way we envision politics. He came to establish a kingdom, not built by human hands.
Jeff, I’m beginning to agree more and more with your stance on the revisionist aspect of Hebrew Scripture. That’s hard because it involves deconstructing a lifetime of beliefs.
I’m with you on the other. Thanks for clarifying and stretching me.
By Jeff_R on Oct 3, 2006 | Reply
Scott -
I’m not entirely happy with where I am on OT and NT scripture, but I am less happy with all the contortions required to make sense of God’s character absent a deconstruction of many of the texts.
I agree with you, Scott, that Jesus was here to challenge Empire in all its forms and manifestations. He fully intended and intends to uproot and overthrow Empire and to fully establish the Kingdom in its place. His tools and process and timeline, however, are so radically new and different and contrary to human intuition that it is confusing - to the point that many folks among evangelicals (CoC not least among them) have given up the idea of any earthly establishment of the Kingdom. Though Jesus taught us to pray that God’s “will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven”.
By Scott on Oct 3, 2006 | Reply
And hence why people get their dander up so much over concepts such as non-violence although there is much in the life and sayings of Christ that point to that.
I had one guy tell me that Jesus lived two thousand years ago, we can’t know what He would do in our shoes so we really shouldn’t even bother trying.
By Jeff_R on Oct 3, 2006 | Reply
While you have disagree with the conclusion the guy was making, I do have some thoughts on the idea of perpetual revelation that might possibly mean that we do have to “re-incarnate” the eternal truths for our particular cultural epochs - and in light of the progressive march of human development under providential guidance (e.g., the advent of democracy, gender justice and racial equality will mean that “rendering unto Caesar” today might look markedly different from “rendering unto Caesar” in the time of Christ).
By KS on Oct 3, 2006 | Reply
Somebody had been reading the GKB blog. I like this discussion much better. I think I would agree with most on here that violence should only be used as a last resort.
To protect family, country, ect…
I would like to here if anyone considers spanking their child to be abuse…
By Scott on Oct 3, 2006 | Reply
KS, I think we will get there in time. But to me it all starts with Jesus. He is the author and perfecter in this debate. I’ll pick up with Him in a couple of days.
Jeff, I think you are on to something. It smacks of Webb’s book. The idea of a progressive hermeneutic appeals to me. I draw a different conclusion on homosexuality than he does but his analysis is dead on.
By George Freeman on Oct 3, 2006 | Reply
People keep mentioning GKB’s Blog…care to share the address?
By scott on Oct 3, 2006 | Reply
kendallball.com
By George Freeman on Oct 3, 2006 | Reply
Went there…weak at best
By Scott on Oct 4, 2006 | Reply
Actually, it’s one of the best CoC blogs out there.
By matt elliott on Oct 4, 2006 | Reply
Speaking of non-violence, is PBS re-running “Eyes on the Prize” in your area, too? I had taped the whole thing in the 80’s but am loving watching it with fresh eyes. People like Mamie Till and Rosa Parks are great examples of the power of non-violence to change the world. If it’s on in your area, be sure to watch/tape/TIVO it.
By Scott Freeman on Oct 4, 2006 | Reply
Are you serious? I’m looking for it now. After I read Taylor Branch’s work I looked everywhere for “Eyes on the Prize.” I found it online for over a hundred bucks. My library had scattered copies of it. But it was so hung up in music clearances that I just gave up.
Thanks for the tip.
By Scott Freeman on Oct 4, 2006 | Reply
Aarrgh. I missed the first showing. It’s not being rerun in my area either.
If anybody has a PBS in their area that is still showing the first episode of “Eyes on the Prize” I will pay you to record it and ship it to me.
By matt elliott on Oct 4, 2006 | Reply
I’ll tape it for you Thursday night unless you get a better offer (a Tivo offer, for instance). Otherwise, VHS is the best I can do for you!
By Scott Freeman on Oct 4, 2006 | Reply
You are a good man, Matt. Thank you.
By nhe on Oct 4, 2006 | Reply
Guys, all this talk about Jesus being made incarnate for political reasons concerns me a little. I’ll grant that this may be explicit in places, especially OT prophecy, but it is certainly not explicit in the NT. NT references to king and kingdom are separate from politics - especially as we know them today…..
…I know we’re probably saying the same thing, and that this is just semantics, but whenever I hear Christ’s kingdom and politics in the same sentence, I envision Pat Robertsonesque theocracy - scary, weird stuff man.
Quite simply, Jesus came to live the life we should have lived and die the death we should have died……and by doing so, He saves us completely and eternally.
That being said, I wrote a paper a few years back in ethics class about “Just War Theory” which is the Christian justification for war.
I see a lot of holes in that theory - mainly the false notion that evil world leaders can’t be reasoned with - Christ’s love can melt the hardest heart - which means we should be compelled to lead with His love in any conflict and follow thru with it even if it costs us our lives.
By Scott Freeman on Oct 4, 2006 | Reply
NHE, it is a semantical distinction, but I do believe it is an important one.
Did Jesus come to set up some earthly governmental order? Absolutely not.
Is our call as Christians to permeate and bend earthly power structures to our whims and understanding of scripture? Again, that is a decided no.
But He was political in that He brought a societal framework that transcends the fallen power structures of the world.
A large part of this understanding is the fact that the church is to represent the in-breaking of His Kingdom, set apart as evidence of His ordering and His ways.
I don’t believe that can be obtained by using any earthly power struggle.
Thanks for making the clarification.
By nhe on Oct 4, 2006 | Reply
I’m still not hearing you Scott - example - pro-life movement - to me, carrying around a pro-life sign at a rally is non-violent protest - but it is (to quote you) “earthly power struggle” oriented and (I think)unproductive…..
…over and against actively seeking to channel one’s efforts and energy toward providing shelter for the unwed mother and her baby - not political, doesn’t show up on the O’Reilly factor, but changes the world.
MLKs protest was political, but not a power struggle, it was an equality struggle……..but it didn’t work because he staged protests, it worked because he rallied the troops under a banner of love……..that banner doesn’t exist (in a broad sense) in any of the major political movements I see today.
By justin on Oct 4, 2006 | Reply
I think there may be confusion on the meaning of the word “political”
By nhe on Oct 4, 2006 | Reply
yeah……..I hate the word “political”
By Scott on Oct 4, 2006 | Reply
NHE, I agree completely. The Kingdom of God doesn’t need any party. It doesn’t rely on platforms or campaigns.
Instead it utilizes everyday people who have emptied themselves of their own prides and ambitions and have taken up the way of the cross.
When I talk about the political aspect I am not talking about our modern western understanding of politics. I’m talking about something not make with flesh and blood but by the Spirit.
By nhe on Oct 4, 2006 | Reply
no party allignment for Christians?…..radical thought these days - I like it….
By Scott on Oct 4, 2006 | Reply
It’s a huge stretch to pin either political party as being synonymous with the will of God. I’m more of a leftist but ultimately all parties and earthly structures are fallen.
By justin on Oct 4, 2006 | Reply
they’re all fascists! every last one of em in washington.
By KS on Oct 5, 2006 | Reply
nhe: good thoughts. I would like to hear some of the holes you believe in the just war theory other than that earthly leaders can be reasoned with.
By nhe on Oct 5, 2006 | Reply
KS………its not that I believe that all world leaders can be reasoned with - some can’t and sometimes war is necessary, and a strong national defense is important.
However, taking an old west - cowboy approach to diplomacy (which our current administration tends to do) will repel any remote chance for resolution.
The biggest hole in the Just War Theory is that “necessary” is equated with “just”. Sometimes war is necessary, but it is never just when we engage an enemy and innocent people die….and in war, they always do.
I approach this mostly from a background in ethics - utilitarian and deontological ethics are the predomininant ethical theories across the polititical landscape - utilitarian (left) and deontological (right).
War can be justified by both of these theories, but there is a 3rd, less popular ethical system - Augustinian virtue ethic - where love is the highest virtue, and if the highest virtue (love) is trumped by lesser virtues because of the necessity of war, there is not a justice that can be achieved this side of heaven.
By KS on Oct 5, 2006 | Reply
Thanks for clarifying. I would agree that war is sometimes necessary. Agree that war is awful. The quote I remind myself of is “It is good that war is so awful, lest we grow fond of it”.
By Scott Freeman on Oct 5, 2006 | Reply
Is war sometimes necessary? Is there another way? Are our only two options fight or flight?
By KS on Oct 5, 2006 | Reply
Key word is sometimes. I am not some western cowboy that enjoys killing people. But do think that after other means are exhausted we must protect ourselves. To say that war is not ever needed would be to invite anarchy. This line of thinking would go to say we do not need police or any other law enforcement that uses force.
By Scott Freeman on Oct 5, 2006 | Reply
I don’t think that is true. Protection and aggression are two separate things. Part of our problem is that we have bought into the idea that our only two options are fight or flight. I believe that Jesus offers another way: an active way to resist violence.
But I’m way ahead of myself here.
By KS on Oct 5, 2006 | Reply
Which part do you not feel is true? To have people enforcing the law, or to go to war to protect a country.
By Jon on Oct 5, 2006 | Reply
What is meant by the phrase ‘in-breaking’ in refernce to our role in God’s kingdom?
By Scott on Oct 5, 2006 | Reply
I don’t think that choosing non-violence is an invitation to anarchy. It does not negate the need for protection–it’s just how that is ordered that becomes the issue.
Jon, the Kingdom is not just something that will take place “up yonder.” It is in the here and now. That is evidenced when the church lives out what Jesus called us to be. His will done on earth, as it is in Heaven. The body of Christ has an obligation and a responsibility to live as citizens of that Kingdom over above all others. That is why, ultimately, our allegiance is to that nation without borders rather than any others.
By KS on Oct 5, 2006 | Reply
How would you suggest keeping order in somewhere like downtown Montgomery? Or Rwanda?
By Jon on Oct 5, 2006 | Reply
Are we trying to determine our roles in society as far as it pertains to non-violence or are we trying to impose our calling on the fallen governments? Order needs to be maintained or else you have disaters such as Rwanda. How do you feel Paul’s statement in Romans 12:18 applies to non-violence and
Pauls statement that the governing authorities are put in place by God and ‘don’t bear the sword for nothing.” in refernce to gov’t using force to maintain order?
By Scott on Oct 5, 2006 | Reply
Again, we must go back to the distinction I made of “we.” I’m much less concerned about what the US is going to do and much more concerned about what the Body of Christ is going to do.
What if the Church truly lived out the calling of Jesus? I’m going to get to this all in due time and don’t want to get too far ahead of what I’m trying to do.
But let me say this: we have to be really careful about how we apply Romans 13. We have to take the whole of Scripture. Obviously this is not a blanket endorsement of governments, especially in light of the book of Revelation.
And, if we applied it evenly across the board would there have ever been an American Revolution?
I’ll do my next blog post about this after lunch.
By Jon on Oct 5, 2006 | Reply
Don’t post so as to get ahead of yourself, just wondering if this was something that you were going to touch on during these discussions.
Have to echo KS, it is much easier to debate/discuss issues when thinking is more common than the senseless banter that occurs on KB.com
By Scott on Oct 5, 2006 | Reply
Thanks, Jon. Ultimately, in this debate I believe that most Christians are sincere in their positions/beliefs. None of us wants violence and war. The question then becomes: how do we wrestle with these issues and remain faithful.
If we can’t be peaceable with one another then there is no reason for us to discuss peace with anyone else.
By Jason Bybee on Oct 5, 2006 | Reply
I still believe non-violence to be the Christ-like response to violence.
But man, I’d love to beat the crap out of Fred Phelps.
By Scott on Oct 5, 2006 | Reply
In a strange way I’m somewhat thankful he’s acting like this. His extreme stance is doing nothing but highlighting the beauty and deep faith of the Amish and their unwavering commitment to nonviolence.