Thoughts on Non-Violence, Part V: Cheeks and Miles
October 16th, 2006 | by Scott |It seems that there are many misconceptions about non-violence. Opponents and those who dismiss it outright tend to gravitate toward scenarios where it would seem to be impossible to not retaliate in a physical manner.
Often the questions focus on how it can’t be done rather than on how to truly be non-violents.
Misconceptions are thus:
1. That non-violence is passive. Non-violence does not mean that you will be chanting and burning incense in a corner while your family is being attacked.
2. That non-violence is unrealistic. However, it has been successful hundreds of times in effecting revolution and peace.
3. That non-violence is anti-american. The success and legacy of those involved in the civil rights movement should effectively lay to rest that claim.
What is established is this:
1. It is Biblical. We see the prophets lay forth the vision of peace, of the lion and the lamb and the sword being beaten into plowshares.
2. It is the way of Christ. He could have deployed an army at Calvary exacting military retribution for the oppression of His people. Yet He did not. Instead, He humbled Himself, even to the point of the cross.
3. It is largely untried. Part of the reason this conversation is so difficult for us is that true meekness is not something that is instilled in us. We are taught the virtue of pride. We gossip. We use our tongues as weapons against other.
For the sake of this individual post, I’d like to take aim at the first misconception. Hear this, clearly. Non-violence is not doing nothing.
It requires more creativity and action than violence does.
This is one of the reasons that I shy away from use of the word pacifism. It sounds to close to passive.
However, Jesus shows us the creative ramifications of non-violence (HT: Walter Wink; I’m relying heavily on his scholarship)
There are a lot of things that Jesus does not address in His teachings: abortion, homosexuality, instrumental music, the role of women, etc.
But He does talk quit a bit about non-violence. To wit:
In Matthew 5: 39, He tells us “Do not resist the one who is evil.” This is a progression of the laws of retaliation that were prominent in the Torah that proclaimed an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. It’s important to note that laws of retaliation were prescribed through the courts, not individual vengeance.
It’s important that we understand what Jesus means by “resist.” The Greek word is anthistemi and doesn’t really mean resist. Anti–against. Histemi has a noun form that means violent rebellion. As a matter of fact, that is how it is rendered most times in the Greek OT. It refers to armed revolt.
So, what Jesus is saying is not to resist evil. Of course, we are supposed to. What He is saying is not to resist evil by lashing back with your own violent acts. It has also been translated “be hostile towards” or “rebel.”
Anthistemi was a military term. It’s used in Ephesians 6 in regards to taking up the full armor of God. It’s also used to mean insurrection and rioting in the NT.
Josephus used this term for military conflict.
So, what Jesus is truly saying is, “Don’t strike back against evil.” Violence is not the answer to violence. The scholars version says “Don’t react violently against the one who is evil.”
The Good News Bible says “Do not take revenge on someone who wrongs you.”
But what are we to do:
Jesus says to turn the other cheek. Jesus says if someone strikes you on the right cheek, offer the left. Why the right cheek?
Again, Wink gives us tremendous insight. The left hand was used in the first century for unclean tasks. The only way that you could hit someone on their right cheek with your right hand would be to backhand them.
It was the greatest insult that could be given in that culture. You could be prosecuted in both Jewish and Roman courts for such an offense. According to the Mishnah the fine for backhanding someone was 100 times greater than hitting them with your fist.
This is a personal affront mean to bring about embarrasment and humiliation. A backhand would by employed to establish domination over another.
Jesus says, “give them the other cheek as well.” In other words, rob them of their power over you. Take away the indignity by embarrasing them.
It’s an emphatic statement that “you cannot diminish my worth. I am just as valuable a person as you are.”
It’s not fighting back. It’s turning the tables completely.
Without violence.
Then Jesus says “Hey, you are being sued for your tunic, go ahead and give them your cloak as well.”
Wink says,
Only the poorest of the poor would have nothing but an outer garment to give as collateral for a loan. Jewish law strictly required its return every evening at sunset, for that was all the poor had in which to sleep.
To do what Jesus said would be to strip off all of their clothes and leave the court without a stitch of clothing. This is civil protest at its finest.
Take what you want, but you won’t rob me of dignity.
Then Jesus says that if you are compelled to go one mile, go ahead and go the second. If a Roman soldier try to require a Jew to go more than a mile, he would face severe penalties.
If you go the second mile what are the implications?
–That you are stronger than the Roman soldier?
–That you are possibly being forced, inviting investigation of the Roman official?
Again, the tables are turned.
What we see in each of these scenarios is that the non-violent approach is not a do-nothing way of living. It is an active, creative way of turning the tables back upon your attacker.
If someone backhands you, the human impulse is to strike back. But instead, expose them for the aggressor that they are, maintaining your own dignity.
If someone sues you needlessly, don’t sue them back. Instead look for creative ways to establish your independence for usurious laws.
If someone forces you to work against your will, turn it to your will.
Non-violence IS harder than violence. It involves more creativity, more action, more diligence.
It involves standing your ground by rising above your attacker.
53 Responses to “Thoughts on Non-Violence, Part V: Cheeks and Miles”
By Len on Oct 16, 2006 | Reply
Scott,
As I did my first read through I keep thinking to myself, “this is his best blog yet”. THere are points I disagree with on some of the others, but I feel you hit it on the head with this one. The Sermon on the Mount is such a powerful body of teaching. If we only would take it serious.
Wasn’t it Chesterton who said that Christianity has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found difficult and left untried? I’ll be honest, most of the time I don’t want to try non-violence.
Agree that the word pacifism is not good. It implies doing nothing and being weak, neither of which is true of Christ.
We have seen a great “living-out” of the life of Christ in the Amish community after the schoolhouse slayings. The family of the shooter spoke recently about how overwhelmed they have been by the mercy, grace, and forgiveness shown by the victim families. Too bad many Christians still want to act like the Westboro nuts.
By Scott on Oct 16, 2006 | Reply
Len, thanks for the kind words.
Much of our objections to the way of non-violence is because we fail to truly understand all that it entails.
Ultimately, it is about being Christ to others. I don’t want to try non-violence, either.
I like violent movies, I think Halo is the greatest video game ever made, and I really want to slap Dr. Phil.
It’s learning to go against my natural instincts that count.
By Jon on Oct 16, 2006 | Reply
Good points, I think the real trouble that we have is that we can sit and think up hypotheticals all day long but the real discussion is what happens in our everyday encounters. Not so much a physical attack per se but rather the mental/psycological attacks.
How far down does the non-violent life style really boil? Jesus upped the ante on adultery to the point that even lusting was the same, so how far do we take the non-violent view? I think most stop at actions and leave the thoughts out of it.
By Scott on Oct 16, 2006 | Reply
Jon, that’s a great point. I believe that if we start with the inner person, going down to the thought level then we will better be able to navigate the extreme hypotheticals.
By Jim MacKenzie on Oct 16, 2006 | Reply
Your stuff today reminds me of McLaren in The Secret Message of Jesus when he said in his chapter on The Peaceable Kingdom,
“… The kingdom Jesus portrays exercises its power not in redemptive violence but in courageous, self-giving love, and its goal is not victory on its own terms but rather peace on God’s terms. That peace - that shalom - means far more than an end to conflict; it evokes a balanced and integrated ‘life to the full’. Jesus speaks on many occasions about his radically different approach to power - an approach that deconstructs dominance patterns in religion, family, education, and government (Matthew 23:1-12; Luke 22:24-27; John 13:1-15) and sees greatness in service instead of in domination. With this radically and fresh approach to power in mind, we can’t help but ask what the secret message of Jesus has to say about violence and war.” (he goes on to explain that some in that chapter)
I like where you’re going with the importance of the Sermon on the Mount. That’s where I’ve been hanging out lately. McLaren calls it the Kingdom Manifesto (if we were to have one).
By Scott on Oct 16, 2006 | Reply
Jim, it’s long past time for us to acknowledge the Sermon on the Mount as the most important sermon ever preached. I picture Jesus teaching these things more than once as he traveled Galilee and Judea.
I read McLaren’s book. I appreciate much of what he had to say. I think he has become a populist voice that distills down to everyday readers what some weightier thinkers are putting out there: Wright, Hauerwas, Camp, etc.
By Jason Bybee on Oct 16, 2006 | Reply
Great post, Scott. Thanks for pointing out the fallacy that non-violence is passive. I don’t want to be non-violent as much as I want to be Christ-like. It just so happens that He calls me to respond to violence with non-violence. Discipleship is my only stake in this.
What would our lives look like if we took the Sermon on the Mount seriously? I’d love to discuss that.
And Halo can’t hold a candle to Madden, dude.
By Jim MacKenzie on Oct 16, 2006 | Reply
McLaren certainly is easier to read than those others… sometimes I need that. I can only do Hauerwas in small bits. I like the way Mclaren is unafraid to put those ideas out there, though.
re: Jesus Sermon. I agree that this may have been his “pocket” sermon, for lack of a better term. Stott said about the Sermon:
“To put them (the standards of the sermon) beyond anybody’s reach is to ignore the purpose of Chrsit’s sermon; to put them within everybody’s is to ignore the reality of man’s sin. they are attainable all right, but only by those who have experienced the new birth which Jesus told Nicodemus was the indispensable condition of seeing and entering God’s Kingdom.”
Stott was reacting to Luther’s declaration that the standards of the Sermon were unattainable and difficult, and one of Tolstoys characters that said he was using it as a benchmark and that he was attaining it.
Jesus sermon is essential. Hard; but essential for a follower of Christ.
By scott on Oct 16, 2006 | Reply
Jason, thanks. I believe that we have to start talking about really taking the sermon on the mount seriously.
Let’s head in that direction.
By scott on Oct 16, 2006 | Reply
Jim, I love Hauerwas, but only in limited doses. I have to read and re-read everything he says.
I think you are right, that’s the good part about mclaren.
Great stott quote.
By KS on Oct 17, 2006 | Reply
Good post Scott. I agree non-violence is the way the bible (specifically Jesus) has called us to be. I would bet most that read this blog would agree that non-violence is the way all Christians should be.
But I do agree with Jon that it is much easier to talk and discuss this without getting into real life situations. What about police? Military men?
By Jeff on Oct 17, 2006 | Reply
KS -
I think this is a question that we have to “unpack” a bit.
If you are a police officer or someone in the armed services in today’s United States, you are already “sitting on” an entire system that endorses the use of force and violence as part of our way of life and believes that force and violence are legitimate, moral and proper ways to address certain issues.
If you believe that non-violence is moral, and violence immoral, it will be very difficult to perform the tasks of a uniformed police officer or soldier in the US Armed Forces without, at least in theory, violating that belief.
This issue is obviously real for a lot of Christians who are in these situations.
Perhaps, however, for the purposes of this discussion, the more salient question is can there exist a modern culture and effective government - including the duties and responsibilites of civil and international governance - that is based on non-violence?
If the answer to that question is “no”, then, truly, this discussion is irrelevant unless we also conclude that Christians must not participate in society at all. If the answer is “yes”, then, perhaps, we have to try to understand how such a government would work, then, as participants in a democratic society, work toward what we believe to be a proper and moral end - creating a non-violent state.
Obviously a lot of are “caught in the middle” - police officers, prison guards, soldiers. Probably, though, not radically differently than the restaurant owner or grocery store manager who believes drunkeness and illicit sex are immoral, yet sells alcohol and condoms. Or the doctor who works in a medical practice that endorses abortion - or is certified by an agency that supports and trains for the practice of it.
By Jeff on Oct 17, 2006 | Reply
If it wasn’t clear, the point of that last paragraph was to say that fleshing out moral issues in “real life” - and finding ourselves facing difficult decisions often requiring either real sacrifice to maintain our beliefs on the one hand or real compromise in our beliefs on the other - is not new to Christianity. It is the norm.
By Jeff on Oct 17, 2006 | Reply
Len asks,
“How far down does the non-violent life style really boil?”
Len, didn’t you know? It’s turtles all the way down!
By Jon on Oct 17, 2006 | Reply
Scott-
It will be interesting to flesh out some ideas and thoughts on military and police involvment by Christians but the agruement can go all the way to what kind of movies we see, what kind of products we by, who we vote for… all these things profit companies or enable politicians who may not have/support the best morals/movements. Just because you are in the military or on a police force doesn’t have to mean that you are right there in the mix killing people or beating someone into submission with a night stick - there are numerous ‘desk’ jobs that allow you to avoid situations where your morals/beliefs could be comprimised but I think you tried to make that point by talking about doctors working for a clinic that supports abortion. However, I have to believe that the police/military are necessary to deal with a fallen world. Just because police use force doens’t mean that it has to be violent or are we now equating any sort of force with completely violating the non-violent lifestyle?
Jeff- where do you come up with that stuff
By scott on Oct 17, 2006 | Reply
Jon asks, “Just because police use force doens’t mean that it has to be violent or are we now equating any sort of force with completely violating the non-violent lifestyle?”
I’ve said nothing of the sort. So far, I’ve taken great pains to just deal with the scripture. To take Jesus at what He says. I’ve made no statements on police forces, military or other venues that rely on force.
To me, the foundation of a non-violent example must be laid. I think that has been done in the person of Jesus.
And I think that we are all pretty much on the same page now that non-violence is what scripture teaches us.
Now, we can begin to move to practicals. But still before we move into the issues of police forces and the like, I believe we need to look at the heart. How do I change the world in me, so to speak?
By the way, I am a proponent on non-violence, but my ultimate conclusions on these series of posts might look a little different than you are anticipating.
By KS on Oct 17, 2006 | Reply
Scott: To emphasize your point, David in the Psalms talks about his enemies and how violent they are and how peaceful he is. From a military man if there ever was one. He obviously is not equating force with violence.
By Jeff on Oct 17, 2006 | Reply
I think there’s a lot to be said about “force” as it related to “non-violence”.
Is it “force” to position tire shredders in rental car lots to prevent unauthorized exiting? Is it “force” to place guard rails on roads to prevent people driving into unauthorized or unsafe areas?
As a society, we function within constraints and limits. We all voluntarily submit to these constraints and limits in order to allow society to function better as a whole - though we may individually resent the particular constraint (say, a speed limit).
To me the idea of “violent” force would extend to the place where one person is forceably imposing their will on another person.
From this perspective, a police (”peace”) officer, trying to restrain a person engaged in harmful conduct may well not be “violent”. A soldier returning fire may also not be acting “violently” in their use of force in that the opposing group/person is encountering the understood, agreed upon (social contract) and expected reaction to their own decisions.
If I walk off a cliff, falling is the expected, natural and understood result. The cliff is not guilty of violence!
If I run over the tire shredder, the owner hasn’t committed violence has she?
Again, the idea goes to “rightful dominion” as I said, I believe in my initial post on Part I. In a society, we all “give up” some of our rightful dominion to the society at large in order to be a part of that society. If representatives of that society, acting with proper authority, are merely extending the “rightful dominion” of that society into the “space” I have ceded to it, this may very well not be improper or immoral at all.
By Jeff on Oct 17, 2006 | Reply
Let me try to clarify one sentence in that last post:
“To me the idea of “violent” force would extend to the place where one person is forceably imposing their will on another person.”
I would add the phrase “outside their rightful dominion” to the end.
By Scott Freeman on Oct 17, 2006 | Reply
One of my closest friends here at my congregation is a homicide detective.
I don’t think he is wrong for what he is doing–I think he does a tremendous service.
However, I think what this does is just ignore what Jesus has said and invert the process of reasoning.
Again, how do we turn the other cheek and go the second mile?
What is the rightful response to the admonitions of Jesus?
By KS on Oct 17, 2006 | Reply
How does this ignore what Jesus is saying? Do you mean getting off topic? I think your friend can turn the other cheek and go the second mile?
By Jeff on Oct 17, 2006 | Reply
Not to speak for anyone, but I think what I would say is that when a person is acting on behalf of society (as a police officer or soldier), they are carrying out actions defined by law, with the willing participation of the people they are carrying it out “on”. So, in that sense, these are not the “personal” actions of the individuals “doing” them, as long as they are within the confines of the law (i.e., the difference between justifiable force and unnecessary force as defined by law).
What I think Scott is asking is what is at the heart of Jesus’ teachings about turning the other cheek and going the second mile.
Thus, the response of a soldier who is fired upon in battle may be to respond with force because this is an agreed-upon act within the confines of law. Whereas that same soldier, when engaged in an argument at a bar a few days later, as a believer, would be on questionable ground to throw a punch after one was thrown at him.
By Jeff on Oct 17, 2006 | Reply
The distinction between the two situations described are, again, about dominion. What do I have the “god-given” right to do in each situation?
Some believers will argue that self-defense in any circumstance is a god-given right. I think that is exactly what Scott has shown in this series of posts to be false at least as far as Scripture and the example and teaching of Jesus are concerned.
In the realm of a democratic society and the various “enforcement” functions we all agree to cede (some of) our rights to, this is not a conflict for the police officer or the soldier, in my thinking.
If you don’t understand the distinction, what a few episodes of 24 or The Shield to see how our violent society is distorting our idea of rightful dominion.
By Scott on Oct 17, 2006 | Reply
Jeff, I think I agree with you. To a point. At this point in the story I would be somewhat reluctant to enlist or enroll in a police academy because of what that might possibly entail.
I think we have seen, in our own history, that the law can be wrong. That war can be unjust.
So, the fact that is acceptable within the confines of the law does not necessarily equate with discipleship.
Obviously, as this discussion progresses we will have to wrestle with the Christian’s role in such endeavors. Many godly men and women have served in armed forces (my father for one) and I do not discredit their faithful and sincere commitment.
But we still must wrestle with the broader implications. Jeff is right, we have a violent society.
But non-violence can be utilized to maintain peace.
By T.H. on Oct 17, 2006 | Reply
I think I tend to be like most others here and say, “Yeah, yeah. We know we are supposed to turn the other cheek, but what about…”
What would happen if we all just stopped at what Jesus said on this issue? How might I be a better neighbor, citizen, co-worker, and perhaps most of all, more Christ-like Christian?
Some on here (KS and Jon to name a couple) have rightly pointed out the struggle we eventually encounter as we “try Jesus’ teachings on for size” in our everyday life. However, I appreciate Scott’s insistence that we camp out on the Sermon on the Mount first and see how we might be able to more fully embrace these teachings without explaining them away through scenarios.
Whenever the time comes, I too am looking forward to our discussion on how this impacts the existence of church and state and the predicament we face as citizens of God’s Kingdom living in the midst of a fallen world.
Thanks to all of you for your thoughtful and “civil” discussions as of late.
By Jeff on Oct 17, 2006 | Reply
“So, the fact that is acceptable within the confines of the law does not necessarily equate with discipleship”
I can see two ways to interpret what you’re saying:
(1)There is never a time when use of force is appropriate for the believer, therefore believers will either have to avoid or find purely non-violent ways to serve in military or law enforcement systems. If the assumption is correct (never use force), then I agree the conclusion follows.
But I what I’m saying is that I don’t necessarily agree with that assumption.
(2) A believer cannot allow a flawed or immoral system to dictate that they behave in an immoral or sinful way.
I fully agree with (2), but don’t agree that this necessarily means use of force in either law enforcement or military service is automatically off limits or immoral for the believer.
For example, regarding (2), I’m not sure how this situation is any different from you being a preacher when other churches/preachers commit sinful acts - or how someone else (as I mentioned above) could be a doctor, when the “system” of modern medicine approves and encourages abortion.
Each individual has to decide if the system they are a part of is acting within the confines of morality as they understand it - then decide how they will act if the “system” is asking them to act immorally.
Violence is obviously only one way to behave immorally. And the fact that governments have at times used violence in an immoral way does not necessarily mean that all use of violence by all governments is immoral. Anymore than Jim Bakker’s sins mean that all preachers are by necessity sleaze bag theives and adulterers!
Regarding (1), the point I was trying to make earlier is that I can construct an argument (I believe based on God’s activity, consistent with Jesus’ teaching, etc.) that allows the use of force when proper dominion has been accounted for. And that, under such a system, individuals acting on behalf of the “righful holder of dominion” may exercise that dominion even up to the point of using force, without violating an individual’s non-violent moral position.
By KS on Oct 17, 2006 | Reply
Jeff: Very well stated. I think I could get onboard with that. Really like the analogy of a soldier getting in a fight that is not in his “line of duty”. I think that is where David is a great example. While he was a great man of war, but also a very peaceful man in his private life.
By Jeff on Oct 17, 2006 | Reply
“What would happen if we all just stopped at what Jesus said on this issue? How might I be a better neighbor, citizen, co-worker, and perhaps most of all, more Christ-like Christian?”
Despite all the discussions about governments and hypotheticals, TH brings us back to the central question.
The majority of believers will not be in law enforcement or be called on to commit acts of violence in military service. So what is our model of behavior to be?
Jesus.
Jesus always acted with the idea of proper dominion. So does God. That is our model. In a peacable kingdom, we are all acting with proper dominion - that is what it means to love our neighbor.
A believer is called to always, everywhere exercise proper dominion. This means no abusive language (manipulation; coercion). No objectifying of other people (racism; lust). No theft or envy (taking what is not ours). No violence (pressing our will upon another).
The design for the believer is total non-violence in personal conduct.
As I try to show above, if we are acting within proper dominion as the instrument of recognized, agreed upon, and consented to authority, individuals in a society can use force in legally permitted situations without violating this dictate.
If we can set that aside, then, we can discuss the implications of a truly, totally, non-violent discipleship to the church and to the world.
By Scott on Oct 17, 2006 | Reply
Jeff, #2 is my assumption. I don’t want to rule out completly #1 yet, because I don’t think we have gotten to that point.
What I was saying was that discipleship goes beyond just following the laws. We’re probably saying the same thing here.
And T.H.’s point is where I keep trying to bring us. When I talk about “we” I mean the church. Ultimately, the nations of the world are gonna do what the nations are gonna do.
But what about me? How do I do this?
Oh, and Jeff all preachers are sleaze bags. It’s all a matter of degrees.
By Jeff on Oct 17, 2006 | Reply
“all preachers are sleaze bags. It’s all a matter of degrees”
Well, except for Chris Stevens who was really the first emerging church leader - ten years before his time!
By T.H. on Oct 17, 2006 | Reply
I think Scott’s point is well taken here about discipleship over and above citizenship. If we start with the domains of the world and then move backwards to the church then we are in effect back where we started. If we no longer look through the lens of Jesus, but instead swap out whatever spectacles will best serve our interests - then what’s normative?
Please hear me on this, I’m not condemning those who have, with good conscious, served in law enforcement and the military. However, I’m not sure I can follow you on this Jeff. I don’t understand how it’s okay to serve in the military, in combat especially, IF one is convinced that non-violence is the normative action seen in Jesus for his disciples.
By Jeff on Oct 17, 2006 | Reply
TH - The difference is what is proper dominion. It’s in the previous posts. I don’t want to get side-tracked on this topic because the ultimate question is about personal behavior, which, as I explained earlier, isn’t an issue WRT to military or law enforcement service.
A trivial example of what I’m talking about might be the difference between marital sex and fornication: same act; different moral outcomes; different ideas of dominion (think here “covenant”). One is acceptable to God (I would argue it’s acceptable to God because it honors dominion and personhood), the other is sinful (because it sets us up to violate dominion and personhood).
I don’t feel any internal conflict or moral ambiguity at all in engaging in marital sex. But neither does engaging in marital sex in any way obscure the idea that extramarital sex would be contrary to my (and, I believe, God’s) moral expectations.
One context: OK. Another context: sinful.
The critical thinker will ask why. I think the reason is that in one of these contexts we are acting toward mutual respect and proper dominion and in the other we are acting toward selfishness and improper dominion in using another for our purposes.
See my earlier comments on this.
By KS on Oct 17, 2006 | Reply
TH: I think you have hit the nail on the head. Those who serve in the military feel that war (like in the old testiment) is a facet of a fallen world and that Christian men can and should be an example in the military. I would go back to David. While I know Jesus is our ultimate example, David even in the NT is called a “man after God’s own heart”. He did sin, and was rebuked for his affair, but nowhere in the NT or OT is he condemned for his efforts in war.
Scott/Jeff: Agree that those of us not in the positions of force need to live in non-violent ways.
By Jeff on Oct 17, 2006 | Reply
KS - David is punished because he has “blood on his hands”, is he not? Seems like at least his murder or Uriah was judged by God as unacceptable - if not some of his military actions.
I wouldn’t hold David up as an example other than his willingness to admit how wretched he was.
Jesus is the model.
The use of force, I believe, can only be endorsed where the idea of dominion is clearly understood and established. This will mean that a lot of governmental and legal force won’t meet the criteria and believers would have to oppose it.
But there will also be cases (I’m thinking especially here of local law enforcement) where appropriate force is legimate and within the proper dominion and therefore acceptable.
By Jeff on Oct 17, 2006 | Reply
Also, KS wrote, “those who serve in the military feel that war (like in the old testiment) is a facet of a fallen world and that Christian men can and should be an example in the military”
I want to point out that our intent or our feeling about something does not change it’s moral standing. I’m sure there were sincere Nazis. And I have no doubt that Mohammed Atta was utterly convinced he was doing the morally acceptable thing in his killing of Americans. The feeling is irrelevant.
What matters is the truth - an admittedly slippery concept in these increasingly post-modern times. But an essential one nonetheless.
I think a strong argument can be made that no small number of military actions by our and other countries were improper and immoral from a biblical standpoint. Believers who support or participate in immoral activities are no less guilty (and perhaps moreso) than unbelievers - regardless of how much they feel they are doing their duty.
“When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty.” - George Bernard Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra (1901)”
By KS on Oct 17, 2006 | Reply
David is not allowed to build a temple because of his military backround if that is what you mean by punished. He is also punished for having Uriah killed (not for being involved in the military). However my point was still he is considered by many writers in the NT as a great example. If we’d like to explore this farther God also makes the Levites priests after they stood for him and slaughtered those involved with the golden calf.
Not trying to get off topic. I’d like to get back to practical and not theoretical.
Jeff: Agree with your assessment on living in a fallen world.
By T.H. on Oct 17, 2006 | Reply
Jeff - great point about the proper domain of sex. I guess the question becomes whether or not there is ever a proper domain for violence as we gaze at this fallen world through Jesus.
It also seems that the rational equation you used is inverted a bit. Your example takes something that is evil while in the world but is then made holy through a proper dominion provided us by Jesus.
Violence on the other hand, seems to lack this progression. It is wrong for the disciple in the church, but acceptable once living in the dominion of the world.
Is that a fair observation? I don’t mean to draw a false dichotomy here.
BTW, I really appreciate your thoughtfulness on each of these posts! I’m sure of your background, but it’s obvious that a well-informed, systematic progression of thought comes fairly natural for you…I could only wish that for myself!!!
By KS on Oct 17, 2006 | Reply
Jeff: Think you need to state a position clearly. Men in the military obviously feel they are doing what is right. If you disagree with that fine. I was stating a fact not an opinion. If men did not feel what they were doing was right, then I’d bet they would not be in the military.
Obviously, men in the past have died for causes that were not correct (see: WWII, 9-11).
By T.H. on Oct 17, 2006 | Reply
I’m off to class…
By Jon on Oct 17, 2006 | Reply
Jeff-
so basically you are condeming every Christian that served in the military if they went through with their orders on a particular mission because YOU deem it immoral or improper?
And back to my point on taxes then you would be just as guilty because your tax dollars helped fund the research to develop the weapons that were used in the war or you voted and elected a president and he initiated the order to go and embark on this supposedly immoral or improper mission, no?
By T.H. on Oct 17, 2006 | Reply
meant to say, “the proper dominion of sex.”
By Scott on Oct 17, 2006 | Reply
Just thought I’d share:
“They’re trying to kill me,” Yossarian told him calmly.
“No one’s trying to kill you,” Clevinger cried.
“Then why are they shooting at me?” Yossarian asked.
“They’re shooting at everyone,” Clevinger answered. “They’re trying to kill everyone.”
“And what difference does that make?”
“Who’s they?” he wanted to know. “Who, specifically, do you think is trying to murder you?”
“Every one of them,” Yossarian told him.
“Every one of whom?”
“Every one of whom do you think?”
“I haven’t any idea.”
“Then how do you know they aren’t?”
“Because…” Clevinger sputtered, and turned speechless with frustration.
Clevinger really thought he was right, but Yossarian had proof, because strangers he didn’t know shot at him with cannons every time he flew up into the air to drop bombs on them, and it wasn’t funny at all.
By Scott on Oct 17, 2006 | Reply
I think Jeff is being pretty consistent. His point, although not speaking for him, was that it doesn’t matter if you feel it’s ok. It goes deeper than that.
I can feel that it’s ok to gossip but feelings don’t really matter. It’s what is true that matters.
By Jeff on Oct 17, 2006 | Reply
KS - I agree that many people feel violence (in the military or otherwise) is justified. In that sense, you were stating a fact.
However, I took the entirety of your statement to mean that the fact that Christians have with a clean conscience (and with great feeling) participated in the military that this placed their action beyond criticism. If I read too much into your statement, I apologize.
TH -
Your example takes something that is evil while in the world but is then made holy through a proper dominion provided us by Jesus.
Violence on the other hand, seems to lack this progression. It is wrong for the disciple in the church, but acceptable once living in the dominion of the world.
In the first paragraph, you’re referring to the example of extra/marital sex? And saying that it’s fundamentally worldly, but then made righteous by Jesus? If so, I think that’s backward, isn’t it?
Sex was created by God and is fundamentally good. The world corrupts it by improper dominion.
Again, that last sentence is key to my understanding of what makes something moral or not.
In that second paragraph, you’re asking if I’m saying violence is equivalent to sex. The answer is yes and no. God tells us that in his perfect vision, there will be no sex (”neither male or nor female”; “not given in marriage”, etc.) and no violence - so both are somehow limited to the current existence - and I think this makes sense with respect to dominion.
I think the proper comparison is the forcing of one being’s will onto another. In marital sex, there is no forcing - no improper dominion - it is consential and mutual - no dominion is abused.
In fornication, the protection of dominion is placed at risk or sacrificed altogether and is therefore improper.
With respect to violence, on an individual/personal level, we should never force our will onto another person (this is improper dominion) by physical or other forms of violence.
However, I give some of my dominion over to my government willingly in order to live in a safer and more stable society. In that sense, a police officer, as an agent of the government to whom I have given charge of some of my personal dominion, within the bounds defined by law, can exercise dominion over me (in several forms including physical force) without exercising improper dominion.
Until, of course, he goes beyond the rights I have ceded to my government. At which point the officer is acting immorally (and criminally, by the way, in the United States).
This is comparable to children who by nature have much of their dominion ceded to their parents until they reach a level of maturity and can properly manage it themselves. In that period, it is proper for parents to control certain activities and limit certain “rights” for the child’s safety and development. And this may at times require force - pulling a child back from crossing the street, for example. Locking the door at night or locking windows so a toddler doesn’t wander off. I don’t think it necessitates striking a child, however, though some may disagree.
If we were still doing this to a teenager, I think we’d probably be violating that person’s proper dominion. But not at age 3.
If I don’t want to cede my rights to society - how fast I drive, whether I wear clothes while out and about, how I burn my rubbish - I will have to separate myself from society. But if I choose to live as part of society, the society requires that I cede certain rights (undergoing physical searches when entering airports; displaying proper identification when entering public buildings, refraining from smoking in designated areas, etc.) to the government - essentially allowing them to act in loco parentis for me as it relates to those rights.
Police officers that are, as a last resort, required to use physical force to control my behavior according to the rules of society I have agreed to live by are not, therefore, acting violently - they are acting to force my own will upon me, and therefore are not using improper dominion.
(And, obviously, none of this would be true in a corrupt, fascist or non-democratic society.)
I suppose another example would be that of mentally challenged adults that cannot act in accordance with their own best interests due to some mental or physical malady. Their rights to some degree, depending upon their capabilities, are given to others to act on their behalf. Applying restraints to a late-stage Alzheimer’s victim is not immoral violence, but is proper dominion acting to enforce what that person’s own will for themselves would be were they capable of acting themselves.
By Jeff on Oct 17, 2006 | Reply
“so basically you are condeming every Christian that served in the military if they went through with their orders on a particular mission because YOU deem it immoral or improper?”
As I clearly write above, a person committing an immoral act cannot offer as defense that they “felt” it was right or that they were “just following orders”.
As to which acts were or were not immoral, I never made any comment at all. There have been both moral and immoral actions by governments. Those enforcing immoral acts were acting immorally. Those enforcing moral acts were not.
Do you understand that, Jon?
By Jon on Oct 17, 2006 | Reply
yes, I undestand the point that one cannont offer a defense because ” the devil made me do it”. How would you apply the ‘proper dominion’ secnario to military involvement? Don’t you cede your rights to the military when you hold your hand up and pledge to protect the borders from all enemies foreign and domestic?
Can you give some examples of immoral military actions, not saying there aren’t any just wondering what actions, going by the Bible as the standard, are immoral as far as America goes? I think it is a fore gone conclusion that the Holocaust was immoral and the Mei Lei debacle in Vietnam but what else?
So back to questions on real life situations, or maybe this is for a latter post. How do we deal with paying taxes that fund immoral things, yet Jesus tells to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s. Could that mean that we have no control over what is done with that money so we need to really watch what we do with the money that we have discretionary spending over?
let’s get down to it, how do we learn to control rage that happens in a split second when someone cuts you off in traffic, verbally assaults your family? What steps do we need to take so that our first reaction is one of non-violence. Like was said before Jesus took the time to make the whip, he didn’t just pull some Steven Segal snag a whip off the wall and go to work? Why do we ignore the command of being slow to speak and slow to become angry?
By Jeff on Oct 17, 2006 | Reply
“Don’t you cede your rights to the military when you hold your hand up and pledge to protect the borders from all enemies foreign and domestic?”
You can certaintly claim that as a lot of war criminals have. The question is whether a psychologically and mentally healthy person can ever cede their rights to behave morally. Human courts have consistently held the answer is “no”. I don’t think God’s perspective will be less lofty.
An example of immoral military actions: Many of the actions of the Japanese against the Chinese in the early part of the 20th Century; the actions of the IRA against innocent civilians; practically any of the wars in Northern Africa involving ethnic cleansing; ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, etc. No shortage of examples.
On taxation - we have an obligation to do what we can - even to the point of peaceful protest. I think there may even be a case for withholding payment of taxes as a protest to immoral government action, but I’d have to think about it more.
Your last paragraph is back the the central topic of the post - personal action.
See my earlier post on developing the habits of holiness - following Jesus’ example not merely at the moment of crisis, but the years of prayer, solitude, worship, reflection, etc. that prepared him for those “split second” decisions.
It’s similar to any proficient athlete - we know Tiger Woods swings that club thousands of time in practice for every once in competition - and that is in large part why he is so good and why we are not (that and clearly a lot of talent). It is no less so of us. We’ve lived a lifetime developing unholy habits that are reinforced and encouraged by the culture and media and society around us.
The only way to reverse those habits is through the power of the Spirit, and the long, slow walk of spiritual disciplines.
By Jon on Oct 17, 2006 | Reply
“The only way to reverse those habits is through the power of the Spirit, and the long, slow walk of spiritual disciplines”
That is where I think we run into problems, we, as a society, want to treat the symptoms and not the problem.
Look at the last half of Nehemiah, the people all of a sudden decide to lay down everything and undo centuries of disobedience and try and hold themselves accoutable by having some people sings songs along the wall, good idea but where in this action did personal change happen. We can listen to CCM and read all the religious books we want but until we relinquish the hold we have on the deepest part of our hearts and let Jesus into the root of our problems and short comings we will continue to try and run the marathon of life with the speed of a sprinter. Just ain’t gonna happen that way.
By Jeff on Oct 17, 2006 | Reply
Jon -
I didn’t catch the question on the concept of dominion and military action. I think here the application get’s trickier. My reaction is that sovereign (”having dominion”) nations are morally inviolate with respect to other nations - i.e., other nations have “ceded rights” to us, so we can’t act violently against them without violating their dominion.
If a nation is attacked or otherwise acted against, international law would engage and nations have acknowledged reciprocal sovereignty would be subject to force to remain in compliance with those laws - i.e., it would be similar to a policing activity.
By scott on Oct 17, 2006 | Reply
I don’t have to listen to CCM, do I?
By Jon on Oct 18, 2006 | Reply
yes, haven’t you heard that it the only approved form of music for christians :p
By Scott on Oct 18, 2006 | Reply
Then I’m in trouble.