Thoughts on Non-Violence Part 9: How Long?
October 30th, 2006 | by Scott |I’ve been asked how long I am going to continue this series and why I’m doing it. It’s obvious that the amount of discussion that fueled the initial posts has died down considerably.
But that is not why I am doing this.
Suffice it to say, I may continue a while longer.
As to why, I’m not completely sure. Part of it is the desire to have an avenue to discuss in a civil manner with people who hold different views. I think we have continued to do just that.
Also, I want to share my study on these lines. Who knows, this may be a book proposal or a dissertation some day.
However, I have not shared everything I would like. In my mind it breaks down somewhat like this:
I. What is non-violence?
II. The Scriptural basis for non-violence
a. The Words of Jesus
b. The Temple Incident
c. The Life of Jesus
d. Reconciling war in the Hebrew Scriptures
e. Nonviolence in the Epistles (I realize I have not covered this, but have skipped this for now)
f. Nonviolence and the Apocalypse
III. Nonviolence and the Christian Life
a. Self-abnegation
b. Anger
c. Fear
d. The Fruits of the Spirit (I haven’t covered this either, but they all presuppose nonviolence)
IV. Problems with Nonviolence
a. Protecting Your Family
b. The War on Terror
c. Peacekeeping Forces and Military Involvement
d. Nonviolent Victories in World War II
V. Conclusions
a. Nonviolence Victories in History
b. The Lion and the Lamb: Militarists and Pacifists Living, Loving, Worshipping and serving together.
c. Where Do We Go From Here?
Next, I am going to move into Part 4. How do we be nonviolent when there are these perceived problems with nonviolence.
The objections that honest and sincere people have with nonviolence cannot be discredited or dismissed. Let’s look at those.
Before we move into that does anyone have any thoughts? Any additions to this outline you would like to see?
What would you like to see develop in this discussion?
11 Responses to “Thoughts on Non-Violence Part 9: How Long?”
By Scott on Oct 30, 2006 | Reply
Or is it best if I just let the whole thing drop?
By George Freeman on Oct 30, 2006 | Reply
Scott, you and I approach this discussion from such philosophical and theological differences that it became apparent to me that a dialogue was not possible. In fact, I regret that I ever responded as a result of the tension my response created. We just need to each go on and seek truth as best we can.
Should you post? Absolutely!
I have read with interest each posting. You make some good points in many areas. I feel you are missing some things along the way but some of that is probably age difference more than anything.
What you are writing may be a dissertation in the making. Start your reading list and consider enrolling there at Baylor.
Perhaps we will see you on Hannity and Colmes. You and Colmes do look a lot alike!
By Matt on Oct 30, 2006 | Reply
It’s too late to quit now! You’ve got us all hooked.
Though some of us don’t comment very often, we are really enjoying this series…
By Belinda on Oct 30, 2006 | Reply
Oh please don’t “convert” to Hannity!
By Jonathan on Oct 30, 2006 | Reply
I haven’t kept up (eventually will) and haven’t done any reading of the relevant reference works (eventually will), but I won’t let that stop me from adding my two cents out of context…though I doubt it’ll highlight any deficiency in the outline.
It’s clear to me from scripture and its description of Jesus and the teachings of his disciples that non-violence, submission, giving up of one’s rights for a higher purpose are the ideals. Like any other ideal, we rarely live up to it but we try.
On the other hand, there are certain legitimate roles and duties in this fallen world that require the threat of violence and sometimes the practice of violence. It is a parent’s duty to protect her children, and sometimes fulfilling that duty may require violence.
It is a governments’ duty to protect it’s citizens; policemen, military personnel, etc. frequently use violence to fulfill that role.
It is clear to me from scripture that roles like a parent protecting his children and a government protecting its citizens are legitimate and approved by God.
How then can these seemingly contradictory conclusions be reconciled?
It is commendable for a Christian individual to give up her rights, to allow herself to suffer harm, with the goal of following and exemplifying the example of Christ and influencing others to do so.
However, a parent, a soldier, a policewoman, has no right shirk her duty in pursuit of the same ideal. A Christian might avoid those roles if he feels he can’t fulfill them consistently as a Christian, but if he takes one of those legitimate roles he should perform it to the best of his ability to the glory of God.
At least that’s how I see it at this point.
By Scott on Oct 31, 2006 | Reply
Thanks for the comments. When there was such a flurry of discussion only to see it drop like it has it made me question the wisdom of continuing.
George, we may be closer than you might think. But I am geared to an evangelical audience and I’m not quite ready to throw out all I’m thinking and studying.
Matt, thanks. I’m glad you are coming by.
Belinda, no worries. This is a no-Hannity zone.
Jonathan, great points. We will address those in more detail coming up.
By KS on Oct 31, 2006 | Reply
I think Jonathon is onto what has been our entire discussion. We pretty much all agree. I think we really just had to decide what non-violence meant.
By Scott on Oct 31, 2006 | Reply
I don’t think we all agree. I sense a broad discrepancy through the discussion.
I do think we agree that the words, example and life of Christ are wholly nonviolent.
But the implications of that are far from a consensus.
We shall see.
By John on Oct 31, 2006 | Reply
Please keep it going, I’m looking forward to the next part. In part because when I was in the army I did spend a year on peacekeeping duty in the Sinai and have some views on that type of role and are interested in other’s take on it.
By KS on Oct 31, 2006 | Reply
Well I agree with Jonathon’s statements.
By Corey on Nov 6, 2006 | Reply
Scott, let it all hang out. Don’t hold anything back. I like your thoughts on this subject. I didn’t think it would be that many but that’s ok.