Thoughts on Non-Violence, Part Two: Jesus as Starting Place
October 5th, 2006 | by Scott |Part of the problem with this discussion is due to our proclivity to jump ahead in the story. To proceed in a systematic order we have to determine the best place to start.
With the guidelines firmly in place (and I am thankful for the civil discourse thus far) it is imperative that we find the most appropriate place to begin.
When initially thinking of penning this series I intended to begin chronologically with the Hebrew Scriptures. However, I think that moving along a linear timeline loses the normative voice for the Christian’s conclusions on non-violence.
The normative voice is Jesus. I believe that most of us who affiliate themselves in the Christian colony can affirm that the standard is Christ.
In any debate that centers on matters of a Christian nature then Jesus must be both the author and perfector of that argument. The Alpha and Omega, so to speak.
What does Jesus say? Let’s begin there. Pardon the length but this is just a sampling of what Jesus has to say on the subject.
For the purposes of this post let us strive to look at what He SAID and not place our human conditions on that. We can suss out further implications as we go along. (Quotes from English Standard Version)
Matthew
5:5 “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
5:7 “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
5:9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
5:10 “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
5:11 “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
5:21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. 23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 25 Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison. 26 Truly, I say to you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny.
5:38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.
5:43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
6:12 and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
6:14 For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, 15 but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
7:1 “Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. 3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.
7:12 “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
26:52 Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 53 Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?”
Mark
11:25 And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.”
Luke
3:14 Soldiers also asked him, “And we, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.”
6:27 “But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. 29 To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. 30 Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. 31 And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.
6:32 “If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount. 35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. 36 Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.
6:37 “Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven; 38 give, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you.”
9:51 When the days drew near for him to be taken up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem. 52 And he sent messengers ahead of him, who went and entered a village of the Samaritans, to make preparations for him. 53 But the people did not receive him, because his face was set toward Jerusalem. 54 And when his disciples James and John saw it, they said, “Lord, do you want us to tell fire to come down from heaven and consume them?” 55 But he turned and rebuked them. and he said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of; for the Son of Man came not to destroy people’s lives but to save them” 56 And they went on to another village.
10:25 And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” 27 And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” 28 And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.”
10:29 But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” 30 Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. 32 So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. 34 He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 And the next day he took out two denarii [3] and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ 36 Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” 37 He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.”
23:32 Two others, who were criminals, were led away to be put to death with him. 33 And when they came to the place that is called The Skull, there they crucified him, and the criminals, one on his right and one on his left. 34 And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” [2] And they cast lots to divide his garments.
John
8:3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5 Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” 6 This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9 But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”]]
The evidence is staggering: Jesus chose the way of the cross. Our mind typically flies to scenarios where this kind of living does not make practical sense. Where if falls outside of human wisdom and reason. But yet, that is what Jesus did. It’s how He chose to live and His teachings to us smack of grace, mercy, love of enemy and turning the other cheek.
Here is where we must start. Are we called to live like Him? If yes, then we must look deeply at the implications of what He said. For ultimately, our allegiance must be to Him, and Him alone.
71 Responses to “Thoughts on Non-Violence, Part Two: Jesus as Starting Place”
By jettybetty on Oct 5, 2006 | Reply
I am not sure how I missed this for many years–I think I tried to make it make sense–and loving (all) enemies doesn’t make sense–unless I know Jesus.
By John on Oct 5, 2006 | Reply
Talk about direct and challenging, I’m one who can be very guilty of being quick to anger, not so much in overt displays but at least in the heart and mind. Forgivness is not something that comes quickly to my mind.
Yet this week just an hour from me there is the greatest display of forgivness and people acting truly Christ like in this aspect. The Amish who have suffered greatly only speak of forgiving and not hating the man who killed and hurt their children. If my daughter had been in the class I have serious doubts I could ever think of forgivness.
By KS on Oct 5, 2006 | Reply
Well said. Love the scripture to back up the thoughts.
By Jim MacKenzie on Oct 5, 2006 | Reply
You’ve got it, Scott. that’s where I was going to start when i was saying I was “chewing” on your other post. We have to begin and end with Jesus. If we are citizens of God’s kingdom, followers of Christ, then we walk that way. The early church did as well.
One more thing: I think we had an extreme practical example of all of that this week in the Amish response to the shootings in their school in PA. Here are some excerpts i found:
When asked if he had forgiven the gunman, the grandfather of two of the slain girls said, “In my heart, yes, through God’s help.”
Another quote from one of the men in the community, “We’re very concerned that no message of revenge gets out. We believe in forgiveness.”
The Amish certainly have skewed some things to an extreme with what they have chosen to do, but in this time of incredible evil, sorrow, inexplicable grief, those two quotes are anchored in the life and teachings of Jesus.
By jasonk on Oct 5, 2006 | Reply
Context is everything.
Yes, Jesus taught that we should turn the other cheek, love our enemies, etc.
But He also became enraged at the people cheating others in the house of God, and violence was the result.
I too, have been moved by the examples of forgiveness coming from the Amish. But it also made me think of the movie “Witness,” Harrison Ford cleaned the clocks of those who were picking on the Amish.
This is no movie. I was born in York, PA, not far from Lancaster County. And I wonder, what would we have done if we had gotten to the school house five minutes PRIOR to that animal sexually assaulting, then executing, those little girls?
By Jon on Oct 5, 2006 | Reply
Pretty convicting stuff. You kind of lose sight of all that Jesus said/did regarding a non-violent approach when you take in the Gospels as a whole.
Do the Amish really skew things to an extreme or are they just that convicted in their beliefs?
For me there is the battle in the mind of what I would ‘want’ to do but I have time and time again found that deep down inside I am a non-violent person and that seems to come out when the preverbial rubber meets the preverbial road. But I find the fault in contemplating the ‘wants’ instead of going straight to a non-violent turn the other cheek reaction.
By Scott on Oct 5, 2006 | Reply
Jettybetty, I believe most of us missed it for a long time. Even now, it’s still so hard to get this down. I want to say “Yeah Jesus said that, but….” Well, if He said it there has to be something to it.
The Amish are showing us this firsthand what it means to forgive, to be Christ.
Jon, your points hit at the importance of this discussion in a civil manner: most of us are non-violent. And it goes back to a deeper understanding of Jesus.
By Scott on Oct 5, 2006 | Reply
Jason, I’m not convinced that what Jesus did in the temple was violent against people. That is one of the “scenarios” that we will discuss. I plan to take it up in the next “chapter.”
We have to resist the trap of saying that Jesus meant this except in certain situations. No, He lived it out–even to the point of His own death.
By justin on Oct 5, 2006 | Reply
Exactly Scott.
When Jesus “became obedient to death, even death on a cross” and when we are called to “take up our cross” its not just a metaphor. Following Jesus will bring persecution, and very likely could bring death. The thing is, because of the resurrection, we no longer fear death. The principalities and powers no longer can hold the threat of harm over our heads. We are freed from sin and we are freed from the evil of this world because death has been overcome through Christ Jesus. Why do we continue to tread back down the path towards death? If we trust Christ, we would follow him. If we really believe in the resurrection, why do we spend so much time fighting to defend our own lives?
By jasonk on Oct 6, 2006 | Reply
Justin,
Your post makes it sound like we should be reckless with our lives. I see that as irresponsible. Your life is a gift from God, and to treat it recklessly is irresponsible. I suppose that when I was in my early 20s I may have felt the same way, because I had so much less to live for. Like John Gorka said, “More to love, and more to lose.” I would spend so much time defending my life because there are a few people who are depending on me. My kids, my clients, my friends. Not to mention the people I might have the privilege to encourage toward a relationship with Christ.
When the time comes for me to die, I’ll go gladly, but until I am convinced it is God’s time for me to die, I will not go quietly.
By KS on Oct 6, 2006 | Reply
Agree Jason. I do not fear death, but think God has called me to do some things on this earth for now: Protect family (spiritually and physically), be an example of his, etc…
Scott: Not sure how Jesus making a whip and “driving the people and animals” out of the temple would be peaceful…
By Jeff_R on Oct 6, 2006 | Reply
A couple of other thoughts, since folks always obsess over the temple incident:
(1) maybe Jesus lost his temper and was human - not setting an example for us,
(2) perhaps there are things Jesus can do, given his deity that we are not capable of sufficient power or judgement to attempt to do (e.g., die on a cross for the sins others; walk on water; raise the dead…) - and perhaps having the right and the wisdom to drive people from the temple is not an example of how to handle anger (remember, this was _not_ self-defense on Jesus’ part), but an example of God’s affront at sin…
(3) could it be that our focus should be on _all_ the things Jesus said and did and taught and instructed as well as _all_ of those disciples who wrote in His name afterwards - not on a single incident that, based on the comments above, we have little contextual understanding of.
Again, I refer you to the Moriari. Or the Amish.
By Scott on Oct 6, 2006 | Reply
I don’t think Justin is talking about recklessness. However, in our society we have lost sight of what it means to suffer the cross. In America we don’t suffer persecution for our faith. We just don’t. But the more we try to live like Christ, the more we stand to.
Part of our problem with the words of Christ is that they are not natural. Our minds drift to these scenarios that might cause us to go against what He said. That’s also why we gravitate toward the temple incident and make much more out of it than we should. (Jeff’s comments are dead on, there)
But Jesus calls us to something supernatural, outside of the bounds of this finite life.
As we progress along I really believe that this will become more apparent.
By greg on Oct 6, 2006 | Reply
I would agree with Jason that we shouldn’t live recklessly, not in a foolish way, at least. But I didn’t read Justin’s comments that way, either. We can’t follow God and be all about self-preservation. If we’re called to action by God in such a way that we will face persecution, and perhaps our lives will be at risk, would we not be disobedient if we chose to not act? Some people consider it a blessing that we are able to live out our faith in relative safety in this country. I’m not convinced that’s always a blessing. But I’m also aware that there’s a part of me - perhaps a large part - that doesn’t really want that to change. Jesus’ words, in many areas of life, are at odds with the way we want to live. It’s not easy to follow Him, but I wonder if we’ve not tried to make it so.
By KS on Oct 6, 2006 | Reply
I am not saying that we are not called to be different, just pointing out that Jesus (our greatest example) was able to use force (not violence), but force if he felt the situation needed it. Am I Christ? No, so I am not saying I can know when force is needed. But I am saying that their are times when it would seem in line with Christ to use force (protect family, etc…).
Also, and this may be going farther ahead in the conversation than we want to at this point, but what about Hell? Is that not a violent place? If there were no threat of punishment, we would not need saving.
By Scott on Oct 6, 2006 | Reply
Great points Greg. I’m pretty comfortable with the way things are. But still, there is an aspect of discipleship that we cannot experience here. If Jesus is the standard then we have to wrestle with the harder sayings.
KS, I don’t want to move too far ahead here but I truly believe that you can be non-violent and protect your family.
My next blog post will be about two passages were Jesus talks about the sword and the temple incident.
In the meantime, what are your thoughts on what He said above? How is this possible?
By Jeff_R on Oct 6, 2006 | Reply
Ultimately, violence is always about two (2) things that operate in a vicious, deteriorating cycle:
(1) Fear - we are afraid; the greater the violence, the greater the fear that drives it; and we are afraid of our fear - afraid to admit it; or to accept it - which is the only way to eliminate it, by the way. So instead we seek…
(2) Control - we long to suffer under the delusion that we have the slightest control over what happens to us - see comments above about protecting our families - we really want to believe that we can protect ourselves and those we love from sin, evil and pain. Of course, we cannot. And the only protection of ultimate value is love and surrender. But as Greg notes, we do not believe - or, at least, we don’t believe enough.
It all comes down to these two things: we are afraid and we long for control. Jesus’ answer to humanity was to trust God, to love God; to surrender the lust for control and the self-deception that we can obtain it by our own power, wisdom and might. Because such self-deception will lead to idolatry, self-obsession, injustice, lack of mercy, and, of course, more violence.
All the Dukakising is pointless, too. If I had a gun in my hand and my daughters were attacked, I think I would not hesitate to fire. Of course, this is irrelevent on both moral and political grounds. The question is not what would I do, but what would God have me do.
Then let’s think about what God has done.
Take the temple. Some cite Jesus’ rage as an example of his authorization of violence. But does that even make sense as an example of righteous anger or vengeance or self-defense? Wasn’t it under God’s sovereign rule that the Romans were occupying Jerusalem at that time? That the Israel of the OT was under the bootheel of the Emperor? Wasn’t it under God’s watchful eye that Israel, before and since Jesus’ outburst at the temple, suffered unbelievable torment, devastation, torture and violence practically beyond comprehension? If the temple outburst is an example of God’s rage on behalf of the righteousness of Israel, if anything, it constitutes the most anemic response in human history. More likely, this was more about political provokation for God’s ultimate purposes than anything else.
Now broaden the perpsective to all of humanity.
God didn’t protect nearly three thousand innocent people from the rabid acts of September 11th. He hasn’t violently intervened to protect over three thousand American soldiers engaged in a war ostensibly designed to stop the kind of violence unleashed on September 11th.
Nor the six million Jews exterminated in Europe only a few decades ago. Or the Japanese women and children erased by the atomic bombs thereafter.
Or the innocents in Rwanda and Darfur.
He doesn’t protect the innocent women and children in the path of raging tsunamis or hurricanes or cyclones.
He didn’t protect his own child being tortured and killed.
Nor those who would come after Him in His name…
He gives us no instruction to “keep and bear arms”.
No instruction to fight injustice with anything other than prayer and love.
No marching orders but humility and sacrifice and long-suffering.
Those wishing to construct a picture of a retributive, vigilante God - a God who responds to injustice and violence with force and calls his followers to his example - are simply lacking in any evidence for it beyond a couple of apocryphal citations in Acts or the writings of warring tribes in ancient Mesopotamia.
In fact, God seems to be totally silent (unless we count the lengthening list of despots throughout history who claim to speak for Him) on the idea of “fighting back” in either self-defense or “pre-emption”.
Do I like that? No. I want a Bruce Willis God - a God who diverts the paths of the madman’s bullets to protect those innocent Amish girls. A God who slams the would-be assassins with heart attacks or massive aneurysms or a passing bus before they board the planes. I want a God who obliterates cancer; who protects the innocence of children.
But, folks, where is that God?
And if we’re supposed to be acting in his stead in that regard, what an incredibly lousy job we’re doing - and how utterly unprepared and ill-equipped He has left us to that task! No instructions, no encouragement, no directions in that regard whatsoever. Humility, love, forgiveness, mercy, the other cheek have not proved to be effective weapons in the war on terror. At least not as we measure effectiveness.
We focus on outcomes - we live and believe the ends justify the means. God, on the other hand, seems utterly, totally and enragingly unconcerned with what we perceive as the outcomes (the course of the disease; the results of the surgery; the wake of the bullet, the usefulness of the extracted information) and entirely obsessed with our means along the way.
Where does that leave us?
As an aside, on the topic of Hell, I think we’ve also got some ancient and pagan ideas that have been syncretized/baptized into our concepts there. I’m not taking a theological position here, but read, as food for thought, C. S. Lewis’ The Great Divorce.
By greg on Oct 6, 2006 | Reply
“just pointing out that Jesus was able to use force (not violence)… times when it would seem in line with Christ to use force”
But arene’t we discussing violence/non-violence, not “force” (however that is defined)?
By greg on Oct 6, 2006 | Reply
Excellent post, Jeff.
By KS on Oct 6, 2006 | Reply
That might be my point Greg, to use force (to physically remove someone with restraints and if needed some blows) I do not consider violence. To go up to an unprevoked person and shoot them (violence).
Jeff: You make good points. Where is God in those awful situations? Does he want those who are able to protect those who are not? I would see this as an actual biblical point: to defend the undefendable. What about the God of the OT? Are we saying he “saw the light” and changed his ways?
Scott: My next question to you would involve the police force. Should they not use force? Or are we saying force is OK? What about imprisoning those who have broken laws? Should we not support this system?
By Scott on Oct 6, 2006 | Reply
Jeff, great points about fear and control. I think that is a pretty powerful political platform these days (how’s that for alliteration?).
We have to keep focusing on what Jesus said and did and construct our way of living based upon that. Our tendency, again, is to move ahead where the Jesus life will be challenged, or deemed to difficult to carry out.
Why aren’t we focusing more on what it means to do what He says? To focus more on living the life rather than moving to the scenarios where it might not be possible.
Because, ultimately, if the way of non-violence, nay, the way of Christ, becomes ingrained in me then I will not discount using peacable means in even the most violent of circumstances. Non-violence was not a position for Jesus, it was who He was. That is our call.
By Jeff_R on Oct 6, 2006 | Reply
KS: “I would see this as an actual biblical point: to defend the undefendable.”
That’s part of my point - where is that either commanded for believers or demonstrated by God’s behavior? God and Jesus seem utterly unconcerned with stopping the injustice to those around them. As individuals, we are not commanded to step in and by force defend the weak. Rather, we are commanded to love and serve them and treat them with respect. But no violence or force is commanded, mentioned, exemplified or justified.
As I mentioned in a previous post, I don’t think it’s so much that God “saw the light” as that humanity finally “grew up” and we can look back now on that war-like, bloody civilization and be thankful we’ve shaken off that sinful behavior - along with slavery, gender inequity, age inequity and race inequity - though on the latter three we still have a ways to go, I suppose.
By jasonk on Oct 6, 2006 | Reply
Jeff R,
What would God have you do if someone were threatening your daughters? Jesus said that if someone harms a child, it would be better for him if a big stone were tied to his neck, and thrown into the sea. That sounds pretty violent to me. And it would be BETTER for him if that were to happen, meaning that whatever really happens to him would be worse. That is up to God to deal with, but He also gives authority to earthly institutions to carry out punishment.
The Bible tells us that we can be angry, but not so angry that it leads to sin.
Leith Anderson told a story once about listening to a Chinese pastor who said that if you are not actively suffering for your faith, you are not truly saved. Anderson said to him, “You just wrote off most of the people I know.” The Chinese pastor said something very insightful. “In China we suffer physical persecution. In America, you suffer persecution, but it is a more internal suffering.”
If you are a pastor or staff member, you know what that is talking about. A crusty mean deacon or WMU lady can inflict violence and persecution with the tongue. When you are not included in certain “inside” conversations in your town or family because you are a Christian, it is a form of persecution. There are so many ways to be violent that do not involve a gun or a fist or a stick. Words, attitudes, insinuations can all be violent and inflict just as many wounds.
Before we talk about violent acts, we should talk about controlling our tongues, our minds, and our hearts.
By Jeff_R on Oct 6, 2006 | Reply
Just to further make the point, isn’t God the ultimate person “who [is] able to protect those who are not” able to protect themselves?
Yet He does not.
Why is that example less compelling - given that it’s immeasurably more demonstrable and substantial - than the example of Jesus’ rage at the temple?
It’s less compelling because we want to be able to express rage and anger and enact vengeance. Though Jesus was probably doing none of these.
By KS on Oct 6, 2006 | Reply
Jeff: Would you be saying that Jesus made a mistake?
By Jeff_R on Oct 6, 2006 | Reply
JasonK - I agree that violence extends beyond the physical and into all realms of existence. In fact the physical violence is always a result of inner violence.
You ask what I would do in a particular situation. I answered that in the previous post.
I’m less concerned about what various interpreters think than with what Jesus said and did and what God continues to do.
By Scott on Oct 6, 2006 | Reply
Jeff, amen. We still are moving beyond what Jesus said and did to find situations where we shouldn’t follow His example.
If we learn to follow Jesus more closely then won’t those situations become more navigable for us?
By Jeff_R on Oct 6, 2006 | Reply
KS - I’m not sure what you’re referring to.
JasonK - On Jesus’ statement about the person who harms a child, it’s easy enough to see that Jesus is referring to the state of that person’s soul - a la Epictetus: “You ask what punishment there is for those with such a spirit? There punishment is to be as they are.” Jesus is saying that anyone with a spirit that would harm a child is already in Hell - the soul of a person with such brokenness and distortion is a living torture - they would be better off to not exist than to exist with such a spirit of evil. He is decidedly not advocating violence of the summary execution by drowning of evildoers!
By KS on Oct 6, 2006 | Reply
Jeff: You mentioned the incident at the Temple and hinted that Jesus might have done something wrong.
By jasonk on Oct 6, 2006 | Reply
Jeff R,
I wasn’t asking you what you would do, I was repeating your question. Sorry I didn’t make that clear.
Scott, are you saying that if a person molests a child, and Jesus encountered that person, He would let it go at that, because the poor guy is already in hell?
That is part of the problem I have with pacifism. It is really naive to think that if we take the path of peace each and every time, that everything is going to turn out okay. Jesus lived a full life, and in that life He sometimes cut people a break. He sometimes cut loose and became angry and violent. The true example is that even when He became angry and violent, He never sinned. That is the example we should strive to live like.
By Scott on Oct 6, 2006 | Reply
Jason, I’ve said nothing of the sort.
On Monday, I’m going to address this idea that Jesus was violent at the temple. The passage just does not say that.
By Jon on Oct 6, 2006 | Reply
couldn’t we see jesus clearing the temple as a template for standing up for injustice. after all didn’t he clear it becasue they were making it burdensome for the people to come and worship. Force was used to correct an injustice. Look at the civil rights movement, peaceful but wouldn’t one think that thousands of people represented a force. As far as anger God only said don’t let the sun go down on your anger and in your anger do not sin. Never said we couldn’t get/become angry. The constant use of violent denotes a an out-of-control demeanor. It is not right to associate that term with Jesus’ actions in the temple.
When I ran a parts store and I had employees in the back jacking around and preventing the customers from getting served I would go back and in no uncertain terms and in a level of voice so that they clearly heard, explain to them how much longer they had to be employed if they failed to get up and work. The same with Jesus. Saw an injustice at the temple that prohibited people from worshipping God and took care of business. You use a dog to drive cattle, the thought of getting bit keeps them moving the same with a whip they people left probably because the whip drove out the cattle and the people didn’t want to get trampled. You don’t have to become violent to turn over a table and scare cattle into moving.
Jeff R. “God and Jesus seem utterly unconcerned with stopping the injustice to those around them”
Then why does Jesus clear the temple to stop the injustice being done to the people by inhibiting them from worship, what about Jesus stepping in and keep the woman from being stoned. To say that they are utterly concerned is a fallacy and a lie. We live in a fallen world and because of our sin things happen to good and bad people but God is still the God of the good and the bad. It is just preposterous to say that God is unconcerned with stopping injustices. One could equate that means that God has no concern for our lives.
By Scott on Oct 6, 2006 | Reply
Gotta take the girls to lunch. I’ll weigh back in in a little bit.
If Jeff doesn’t respond by the time I get back, Jon, I’ll take a stab at this.
Thanks for keeping it civil. I’m enjoying the discussion.
By Jeff on Oct 6, 2006 | Reply
Jon - I really answer your question on the temple in the previous post. But to elaborate: What was going on at the temple was minor compared to the injustices being suffered all around Jesus at the time - folks being slaughtered by the Romans; Jews under military rule by the Emperor, etc. But none of that inspired anger in Jesus? He’s worried about some poor sap marking up doves by a few denarii to make a living?
This is what inspires Him to intervene?
No, this was not about righteous indignation - we’re misappropriating Jesus’ action to rationalize our own prejudices.
Again, I’ll defer to Scott to elaborate on that passage of Scripture later.
Jon: “It is just preposterous to say that God is unconcerned with stopping injustices. ”
First, I agree. But remember that this discussion is about whether violence or forceful intervention is justified by God. So my legitimate question is that in light of the undeniable presence of overwhelming evil and injustice in the world, why isn’t God intervening in some manner to stop it - if forceful intervention is a God-like characteristic. Please note that last.
If you have evidence that God is stamping out evil and righting injustices and eliminating suffering and protecting children, I’d love to see it.
I absolutely believe God is powerful, all-knowing and loving. I also believe He is not intervening to stop evil because that is not His way. Ergo, not our way. More on this below.
KS - I think Jesus acted perfectly towards His purposes at the temple.
But I think we’re wrapping our thinking up in that one misinterpreted example of Jesus’ actions at the temple. I’ll wait for Scott’s post on that next week.
Where does Jesus teach, encourage, authorize or use force or violence as a model of discipleship? Where does Jesus tell his disciples, after the temple incident, to “go and do likewise”? This is just our rationalization.
We want it to be true because the other way doesn’t make sense to us…
Re:Jesus and the child-molester - “[W]ould he let it go at that?”…
I ask in reply, where was God when the molestation took place? Did He lack either authority or power to intervene? Did He not care?
We’re continuing to ignore the elephant in the room.
God lets this stuff happen not once or twice, but millions of times every day. Yet no one is stricken dead. No one drops over before the act is accomplished. The police are blocked in traffic; the parent leaves the child alone too long, etc. All these opportunities for God to directly intervene or to grease the skids for someone else to. But He doesn’t. The gunman could’ve run out of gas on the way to the school house. A freak hailstorm might’ve knocked him unconscious. And so on…
If you had 1/1000th of God’s power - and the knowledge of a child molester about to molest, and the power to intervene - even non-violently, would you? Wouldn’t you believe it would be sin to not do something?
So why does God fail to do so thousands of times every day? Where is the defender of the defenseless?
The options comes down to some pretty tough choices (with thanks to David Hume): (1) God doesn’t have the power, (2) God doesn’t care (Jon’s concern above), or (3) God has a different way of seeing the world that places those events in a radically different perspective. (And free-will defenses of God’s inaction don’t work because that would apply to you and me as well. And as for us being responsible to intervene - Jesus didn’t; and last time I checked, none of us can stop hurricanes or tsunamis or see into the future or a person’s heart or be everywhere at once…)
So if you choose (3), then it gets really tough to justify violence in the name of justice since God doesn’t give us any example or direction to follow that path.
Even the example of the child-molester offered above fails to ask the right question: “Would Jesus stop a child molester from molesting?” Why don’t we ask that? Because we all know that Jesus isn’t stopping the children being molested - and the evening news reminds us of it every day.
So instead we ask about what Jesus would do in the aftermath. Why? Because that’s where we always are - standing over the wreckage and trauma and suffering - bathed in anger and doubt and fear and rage. And we want someone to pay.
But Jesus’ only recorded responses regarding the punishment of criminals - in direct affronts to the penal justice system of the day - were “go and sin no more” and “today you will be with me in Paradise”.
So much for Jesus as heavenly warden.
But we stiffen the punishment, lengthen the sentences, increase the executions - in hopes of slaking our rage and fear and controlling our future.
But we aren’t in any final sense protecting others since all human existence is fraught with pain and suffering and ultimately death. (Interestingly, Lewis (see The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses) uses this same perspective to argue in favor of non-pacifism by saying that war does not quantitatively increase pain, since human existence is filled with pain anyway and we are all going to die, so war doesn’t make that any worse).
Nor are we ultimately increasing the pain of evildoers.
And didn’t Jesus “just let sinners go” all the time? Name one sinner he struck dead or had imprisoned. Instead He forgave them. Embraced them. Just because the sins mentioned in the NT are the “more understandable” ones we don’t find totally repugnant (theft, adultery, drunkenness, etc.) doesn’t unmake the point.
Jesus’ response to sin and suffering was weeping, surrendering and dying. It was not retribution, punishment or violence. His reaction was not anger and violence.
It is really naive to think that if we take the path of peace each and every time, that everything is going to turn out okay
I think it seems naive because we’re convinced that we know what the right outcome is - even though God doesn’t seem at all concerned with the “right outcome” from our perspective.
I agree that things would look radically different if the way of peace were followed. Look at the Moriari, for example.
But the question is whether we will trust God and follow His example precisely when it means that we don’t know what’s going to happen and especially when doing what He says results in unexpected (and, likely, unwelcome) outcomes.
By Jon on Oct 6, 2006 | Reply
I would take option 3. And no I don’t know how to explain justice through force/retribution because as you said Jesus didn’t leave us a template. But the rub is just that ‘us’. In other blogs, mainly KB.com it seems like instead of the non-violent issue remaining in ‘our’ court we try to impose ‘why’s’ and ‘why nots’ on the world.
The whole purpose of these discussions seems to get lost when we try to impose the world’s view of justice on God’s view and vice versa.
The answer to all of our questions comes down to one simple fact. God is a being that can balance justice and mercy and it is beyond our comprehension.
A note about being reckless with our lives. There is still common sense that comes into play in certain situations but ultimately if we respond to God’s call for our lives it shouldn’t be perceived as reckless, at least to other christians. I had the honor of listening to Jeff Steuker, the Army Airborne Ranger featured in Black Hawk Down, and he came to a point during the firefight where he realized that he won if he lived or died. If he lived he returned to his wife and unborn child and if he died he returned to Heaven with his Father.
By Jeff on Oct 6, 2006 | Reply
Well said, Jon.
All the strange situations and scenarios we hypothesize will ultimately boil down to decisions made on the spur of the moment - and we will have to rely on God’s grace regarding how he views our actions.
When it comes to the perfect, we see the impossibly high calling and example of Jesus - that confuses and confounds us with how non-intuitive and radically different it is than what we expect.
By KS on Oct 6, 2006 | Reply
“Even the example of the child-molester offered above fails to ask the right question: “Would Jesus stop a child molester from molesting?” Why don’t we ask that? Because we all know that Jesus isn’t stopping the children being molested - and the evening news reminds us of it every day.”
I am reminded of a true CofC story about the a man being stuck on his roof during a flood.
One man comes by in a canoe and he tells him to leave because God will save him. Another comes by in a helicopter and again the man waves him away saying that God will save him. Finally a third man comes by in a boat and the man on the roof tells him he is still waiting for God.
The man dies and in Heaven asks God why he did nothing to save him. God replys I sent three men to save you.
I tell this story because when we question why God allows things to happen, too often we don’t ask what I could have done to stop it. I am not saying God is not in control, he is. He can stop bad things any way he sees fit. But we are to act as God’s hands and feet while we live.
Again, I am not saying that I know what God’s will is all the time. Or that I think all wars are centered around God’s will. But I do think that Christians in protective forces (police/military) are doing their best to defend against the evil in this world.
By Jeff on Oct 6, 2006 | Reply
KS - Not sure how this can be a true story unless you got quotes from the dead….
By jasonk on Oct 6, 2006 | Reply
Scott,
Please accept my apology for the question I directed at you. It was Jeff R I should have posed that question to. I am sorry. I would have apologized sooner, but it took me a long time to scroll down this far ;>)
We are God’s agents on the earth, that is, humans. He made the earth, and turned it over to us to take care of. Why doesn’t God intervene? He does, all the time. He uses people like MLK, or Ralph Bethea–both examples of non-violent influences on their world. But He also uses the 101st Airborne. Shoot, he even uses prison inmates–remember the end that Jeffrey Dahmer met? Yikes.
By KS on Oct 6, 2006 | Reply
Meant true CofC
Not true story
By Jeff on Oct 6, 2006 | Reply
So, JasonK, the murder of Jeffrey Dahmer, as I understand it a repentent and baptized believer at the time of his murder, is justifiable? That was God’s action and will?
By Scott on Oct 6, 2006 | Reply
Yeah, we preachers tell stories all the time that just ain’t true. If I hear about Teddy Stollard one more time. But that’s another ethical dilemma (much more so than the pervasive whining about plagiarism). But I digress…
Great discussion. I can’t add much to what Jeff has said. Yet still I think we need to be spending a whole lot more time trying to figure out how to do what Jesus said than look for reasons and situations where it would be too difficult. He told me not to lust, so I try not to. I don’t discredit it because Jessica Simpson might walk in the room in revealing clothes.
By jasonk on Oct 6, 2006 | Reply
I can’t speak for Dahmer, since I never met the guy. I suspect he’d have given his heart to the Skipper and Mary Ann if he thought it would get him out of trouble. And I’m not saying it was God’s will that he had a reverse enema with a broom handle. I just think that often, these kinds of situations have ways of taking care of themselves.
Scott, you are right. Sites like Snopes.com have made sermons a lot shorter. Thank goodness.
By justin on Oct 6, 2006 | Reply
Wow Jason. Questioning the faith of someone you’ve never met. And saying it was just for someone to murder him.
Wow.
By jasonk on Oct 6, 2006 | Reply
Justin. J U S T I N. . .
Come on now, if you go back and re read my post, you will see that I did not question Jeffrey’s faith. I said I could not speak for him. Then, admittedly, my cynical side took over. Have you ever been inside a prison, Justin? I have, and I’ve seen many confessions of faith. Some are genuine, some are not. That is all I was saying, not questioning anyone’s faith.
You gonna tell on me?
By justin on Oct 6, 2006 | Reply
How did becoming a Christian get him out of trouble?
I just think your statements, whether you meant them to be or not, were probably a little offensive.
By Jason Bybee on Oct 6, 2006 | Reply
I think it’s a bit of a leap to call the actions of Jesus in the temple “violent”. I think you have to interpret his actions there through the entire Gospel corpus which Scott has already delineated for us. If anything, I think Jesus’ actions in the temple are proof positive that non-violent doesn’t necessarily mean non-physical. Sounds like you’re planning on fleshing that out in the next “chapter” Scott. Can’t wait.
And Jeff’s point is a good one: we always jump to the temple story and build an entire ideology around it. I’m like you, Jeff: I find it a bit odd that rape, murder and oppression doesn’t goad Jesus to violence, but price gouging does.
Scott, you’re absolutely right when you say Jesus must be our starting point. It’s been noted that we evangelicals are often guilty of reading Jesus through a Pauline lens. But if he is truly the author and perfecter, everything begins with Him. He becomes the normative grid for interpreting my world, my life, etc.
By KS on Oct 6, 2006 | Reply
Jason B: Agree we ought to model on Jesus. I feel he was peaceful when he felt needed, and used force when he felt needed (temple). And I do not remember Jesus telling us that the police or other protective services are against his will.
Too often I feel we take for granted the protections provided for us, and talk about being non-violent as we live in our communities protected by police and military (who at times use force/violence). We mention that we ought to never use force and yet we are able to say these things because of violence/force that gave us this place to live.
Not jumping on anyone in particular on this blog, but we often point a finger against the same people that allow us to live in safety. I am not for violence when it is not needed, but often we assume that living non-violent lives will make the world a perfect place to be in. And the reality of that is not true. I think God has called us to do everything we can to be of his kingdom. Often we equate people that are pro-military as people that are not dedicated to the Lord’s work. When the reality of the situation is they believe they are living like Christ would have them by defending their loved ones who live in this country.
Not to go too long (probably already have), but sometimes pacifism to the extreme is about as practical as a screen door on a submarine. It is a great theory, it just will not work. Christ I believe has shown us to try all means to live in peace, but when it comes to defending those who need it, I do not see him ignoring the problems that face people in everyday situations. Hope this makes sense, it has been a long night (but at least we got a win).
By jasonk on Oct 6, 2006 | Reply
I wonder, Justin, do you remember who Jeffrey Dahmer was? Given that you were only nine when he died, its okay if you aren’t familiar with him.
Dahmer was born in 1960. When he was 18, his parents divorced, and it was that year that he picked up a 19 year old hitchiker and murdered him. He was a pedophile who fondled and molested numerous children in a variety of settings, and even spent time in prison for exposing himself in public. By the time he was 31 years old, Dahmer was murdering about one new victim a week. In May of 1991, a 14 year old boy escaped Dahmer’s clutches, and was found by police with a hole drilled into the back of his head, and blood coming from his anus. He led police to the apartment where Dahmer was slowly torturing and murdering him, and Dahmer convinced them that it was his lover, so the police turned the boy back over to him. He was killed that day.
Dahmer was eventually convicted of murdering 15 people, and during his trial facts surfaced indicating that he had practiced necrophelia and cannibalism. He kept human skulls in his freezer, and built an altar from body parts.
In 1994, two years after his conviction, he claimed to have had a born again experience.
If I offended you because I commented on the killing of this monster, I am not sorry. I just remember the story too well.
By T.H. on Oct 7, 2006 | Reply
KS-
I think I understand where you’re coming from when you say that you believe there is a time, reason, season, and scenario when you believe force is inevitable. Who knows what each of us would do if our family, close friends, and even our own lives were threatened.
But how can you say, “sometimes pacifism to the extreme is about as practical as a screen door on a submarine. It is a great theory, it just will not work.”
How do you know this? Have you ever really given it a shot? And let’s just say you tried it and it didn’t work out (or accomplish whatever outcome you desired) does that automatically mean that it’s flawed? We have tried force and violence, since the beginning of time, and the best I can tell we are all still living in a violent and unsafe world despite all the force a nation or allied group can muster.
My stake in this discussion is not to live out fantastical scenarios where we try to find ways NOT to be peaceful people and list possible exceptions to the rule, but to instead maintain that we have to at least be willing to envision a world governed by peaceful people before the possibility has any hope of becoming a reality.
When you say that,
“Christ I believe has shown us to try all means to live in peace, but when it comes to defending those who need it, I do not see him ignoring the problems that face people in everyday situations.”
Are you saying that Jesus does in fact give us a license to use violent force in certain situations?
By Jason Bybee on Oct 7, 2006 | Reply
KS,
I know this discussion is important to you — especially the military piece — because of the service of members of your family. I think that in order for a government to function in a fallen world, certain sheepdogs are necessary to maintain order and civility. But let’s also remember that all governments — no matter what we think of them — are part of the unredeemed order that is passing away. Christ came to usher in a new Kingdom and as participants in that Kingdom, we’re called to embody the principles of that Kingdom. Thus, our charge to live peaceably. Obviously, Romans 13 is critical here and I’m sure Scott will get to that eventually. But if I understand Scott correctly, the “we” he’s referring to is the church, those of us presently participating in and striving to be the in-breaking of such a Kingdom. I think your “we” question is probably in reference to our country. Right?
By scott on Oct 7, 2006 | Reply
Why are we talking about the military and police? We aren’t even there yet. Let’s deal with what Jesus said? Again, isn’t that normative?
It seems we are looking for reasons why Jesus didn’t mean what He said.
I’ve not come out with an extreme version of pacifism. Let’s be careful not to draw my conclusion for me. Let’s deal with what Jesus said and move out from there.
By Jeff on Oct 7, 2006 | Reply
KS - All I’ve argued is that Jesus didn’t give us an example of violence in response to either threat or injustice. If you have Scripture and doctrine for that, I’m all ears.
As to the practicality of pacifism, you’re right - it doesn’t worked. Got Jesus killed, after all.
But see my comments earlier on our view of what “works” - it’s always what we think the outcome should be - us speaking for God. When the ball in placed in God’s court, he always responds with love, forgiveness and peace. I don’t like the way that path often ends up (ask the Amish), but God never told me to like his plans. Just trust them.
Jason - I disagree a bit, if I read you right, with the conclusion you’re drawing. I believe God has given us a plan and a path for all of humanity - not just the elect. We have to suss out what that means in terms of policy and politics, too.
By justin on Oct 7, 2006 | Reply
jason
I know who Dahmer was. And I also know, that while the things he did are vile and disgusting, he was just as seperated from God as I was, before I accepted Christ. I also know that Dahmer said he killed people because he was lonely and when people were dead, they wouldn’t leave him.
Maybe its just me, but when the bible says that you’ll be judged the way you judge others… I believe it.
I also believe that Jesus expects us to love the unlovable, through the power of the Holy SPirit. That includes Dahmer/
By KS on Oct 7, 2006 | Reply
Jason B: The we I was talking about was the “we” of the kingdom. Although I do support the U.S. government, I do not think it represents the kingdom of God in anyway.
Scott: Was not presuming you were into an extreme version of pacifism, simply stating that it is easy to discuss how the world would be great if we could all sing Kum-ba-yah together, but unfortunately we have to have people enforce the law. I hope you, or anyone else that reads this does not think I am looking for a “reason to use violence”. On the contrary, I would look for any way not to use violence, but do realize that a line must be drawn somewhere in order to maintain order.
TH: “How do you know this? Have you ever really given it a shot? And let’s just say you tried it and it didn’t work out (or accomplish whatever outcome you desired) does that automatically mean that it’s flawed? We have tried force and violence, since the beginning of time, and the best I can tell we are all still living in a violent and unsafe world despite all the force a nation or allied group can muster.”
I would say that I am a non-violent person. And for the most part I have not had any issues.
However, if you are talking about running a government, I think force would be needed. For example: Israel in the OT comes to mind. I am not equating America with Israel or God’s kingdom, but am saying that any government that is of this world needs to have a physical force to maintain peace.
That would obviously lead to the next question. Can people in God’s Kingdom serve in the armies of this world? I would say yes, as long as their priorities were in order. The example I would give is Cornelius in Acts.
By Jeff on Oct 8, 2006 | Reply
KS makes practical points. The problem most of us have with the idea of abstinence from all forms of force/violence is that we can’t think of any way a non-violent life/government would work as far as protecting its citizenry and its rights.
I agree - I can’t think of how it would work. But see my earlier posts. God hasn’t called us to do what we believe works - or to our particular vision of “success”, “freedom”, “independence” or “liberty”. He has called us to His vision of these things. Which, we must admit, might be radically different than our vision of such things.
The problem is that while I can’t see how I can get what (I think) I need with non-violence, I have to admit that God may be calling me (and all of us) to an entirely different vision of what it means to be successful, free, and liberated.
Which means that my inability to achieve my vision of success based on God’s “way of doing things” is irrelevant as far as my discipleship is concerned.
God has called us to be faithful, not successful (from our perspective). This is what we are refusing to deal with. We have so identified the American (practical) idea of success, freedom and security, that we cannot envision a very different kind of success and freedom - one that may have none of the trappings of the American vision.
We love the American vision because it gives us a sense of control and security. And we just can’t let that go.
As long as we continue to define success in terms of the American dream, I think we’ll continue to have to explain away large portions of Jesus’ teachings, example and life.
By Scott on Oct 8, 2006 | Reply
Jeff, I think you are right on. Here is where America can be a detriment to following Christ. We oftentimes cannot distinguish between kingdom and empire. To me, the next question is not about what we do as a nation, or police forces, or war. Instead, the next questions must be about how we deal with what Jesus said. We want to dismiss the life of Christ through an isolated incident in the temple.
An interesting side-note: non-violence does work: See the Philippines under Aquino. Or Poland during the days of Solidarity. Gandhi in India. Campo in Chile. Morales in Cuba. Ubico of Guatemala. Lescot of Haiti. Pinilla of Colombia.
In 89-90 14 nations experienced nonviolent revolutions. All of them, but China, succeeded. All of them remained nonviolent except Romania.
It does work.
By KS on Oct 8, 2006 | Reply
How does the use of force to protect one’s family constitute “the American vision”? Or mentioning Israel in the OT as an example of government? Or Cornelius as one called by God?
While I respect those who are completely non-aggressive, I do not think we are to be against any type of force.
Look at David (I know this is OT) a man after God’s own heart. I see David getting rebuked for sleeping with a woman, but not for going to war and killing men. I see God commending those who would fight for him throughout the OT.
While Christ has called us to love our neighbors as ourselves, he also told us we could not follow Him unless we hated our own families. To me this is his way of making the point to be non-violent. His “little incident” at the temple says much to how he felt about force (when needed).
By jeff on Oct 8, 2006 | Reply
KS - I’ve tried to answer those questions earlier. don’t know what else to tell you.
we can want something to be true - but wanting does not make it so.
show me the Christian command to defend ourselves or others with violence - as individuals or as a community.
I’ve repeatedly shown why the temple incident in no way demonstrates what you continue to claim that it does.
this isn’t about what works or what we want to believe. it’s about what Jesus said and commanded us to do.
By justin on Oct 9, 2006 | Reply
KS,
Maybe its my memory failing, but I believe God wouldn’t allow David to build the temple because he had so much blood on his hands.
I could be wrong. I don’t think I am though.
By jasonk on Oct 9, 2006 | Reply
But it was also God who fired Saul as king because he refused to kill all of the Amalekites, all of the men, women, children, old people, animals, etc. (1 Sam 15) And when Saul refused to obey God completely, even capturing Agog alive, it was Samuel, the prophet of God himself, who killed Agog right there in front of God and everybody.
God’s will…to kill. Now that’s good t-shirt material right there, I don’t care what school you went to.
By KS on Oct 9, 2006 | Reply
Jeff: “I’ve repeatedly shown why the temple incident in no way demonstrates what you continue to claim that it does.”
When? Explain.
Justin: I think Jason K summed it up pretty well. David “a man after God’s own heart” did not get to build a temple. But I think I’d take being called a man after God’s own heart any day.
By jeff on Oct 9, 2006 | Reply
KS: See previous posts. It’s all in there. I think Scott will say more, too, on why the temple incident isn’t modeling violence for Christians. It’s just a non-starter.
On David, the point is that David was inhibited by his violence - as was Moses.
if you believe we should model the things David did in order to be seen as “a man after God’s own heart”, then what about murder and adultery?
Abraham was “God’s friend” - so should we be liars and offer our wives to other men?
I think we have to preserve some common sense to the discussion.
By jasonk on Oct 9, 2006 | Reply
Jeff,
And should we also marry our half-sisters? I don’t have a half-sister, but if I did, yeah!
Actually, Abraham only half-lied. Sarah was his half-sister.
I think that the point is not about whether it is preferable to use violence or not, of course it is preferable to NOT use violence. In a perfect world, we would all be as Jesus was. It not preferable to lie, or commit adultery, or overturn tables in the temple. But we don’t live in a perfect world.
Sometimes violence happens, it is even necessary out of a man who is after God’s own heart. Adultery, lying, murder, all happen. And they happen out of God’s people. That’s why there is grace.
Poor Scott. Its like trying to herd cats, isn’t it?
By jeff on Oct 9, 2006 | Reply
jasonk -
Thanks for keeping the sense of humor.
I agree with you - if you’re willing to say that violence is sin - as I think you would about lying, adultery, murder and the other things that “just happen” in an imperfect world.
By jasonk on Oct 9, 2006 | Reply
Thank you Jeff. You’re a good man. Sometimes it is hard to see the tongue in one’s cheek over a blog.
I don’t know how I feel about characterizing violence as a sin. Certainly it CAN be a sin. Last night in Tulsa a man stopped to help a woman being hit by a man on the side of the road. In the process, the good samaritan was stabbed in the chest. Violence. Sin.
But when God ordered the destruction of the Amalekites, it was not sin, because God is not capable of sin. Violence. Not sin.
I would not characterize a Marine serving in Iraq who has to pull the trigger on a suicide bomber as committing sin, but I would characterize the bomber as a sinner. Wow! Major mind pretzel going on over here.
By Scott on Oct 9, 2006 | Reply
Jason, in a sense yes. We seem to be struggling with dealing with what Jesus said.
It seems that we are looking for loopholes and excuses not to deal with what Jesus said. That’s disconcerting.
Rather than grappling with how we can best love our enemies, turn the other cheek and be the presence of Christ we are talking about when we are justified in dismissing all that and being violent.
By Scott on Oct 9, 2006 | Reply
We are going to get to the OT passages that seemingly condone violence. But understand this initially: If this is what really happened, then they are acting under the explicit directions of God.
I don’t think God told GW to invade Iraq.
By jasonk on Oct 9, 2006 | Reply
I can’t speak for everyone who comments on this topic, I suspect that you are right, there are those who try to sidestep what Jesus said in order to justify violence.
That’s not what I am trying to do, I don’t think. I just think that when you see your life as a whole, rather than in terms of one compartment or another, it is important to see things from an overall biblical perspective, rather than just from the gospels. I am not a violent person. I haven’t gotten in a fist fight since I was a little kid, and even then I tried to find a peaceable solution most of the time. But I sure get pissed off in traffic sometimes, and can see the potential for violence in my own life. So its not that I’m looking for a loophole, its just that if there is a biblical paradigm for war, capital punishment, defending one’s country or family, or values, I want to be able to take it if necessary.
I’m anxious for the next chapter.
By Scott on Oct 9, 2006 | Reply
I understand what you are saying, Jason. And my quest for non-violence breaks down in my own human limitations. But Jesus is the context of Scripture. I believe that as we move forward the person of Christ will help us understand those other issues.