Thoughts on Non-Violence: Coda
December 11th, 2006 | by Scott |I am thinking about putting the nonviolence series to rest for a while. I’m not sure I want to abandon it completely. And I know that there are still issues to discuss and, yes, suss out.
But in moving toward a discussion of the nonviolence advocate and his relationship with the nation state (i.e. America) I’m not sure that a civil and productive discussion could be maintained.
On the way to church yesterday, I saw a guy riding a motorcycle, pulling a cross decorated to look like the United States flag. There are many reasons I find that offensive, but I’m not sure that these issues can be discussed in a positive manner in today’s climate.
With that said, I have a few thoughts.
1. Do we merely believe in Jesus or do we believe what Jesus believed? This question, posed by Clarence Baumer, has shaken me this past week. I’m good at professing a faith in Christ. But have I moved enough in my discipleship where I hold the same beliefs that Jesus did: that the meek will inherit the earth, that loving your enemies is the right way to treat them, that turning the other cheek is more effective than retaliation? I think if we are honest then we will find that there are truths that Jesus held dear that we don’t necessarily share. It’s a sobering thought, but Jesus didn’t operate according to logic, reason or earthly practicality. For us to adopt that belief system means more than merely imitation. It necessitates transformation.
2. “Just War” advocates and nonviolence proponents are not that far apart. Therefore we must work together to find ways to alleviate the amount of violence in this fallen world. David Augsburger, in his tremendous Anabaptist primer and Mere Discipleship companion piece, writes:
Those who teach just war ethics are not on the opposing side from those who teach nonviolence because both seek to limit the use of violence–the just war believers through a limited participation in war; the nonviolence disciples through constructive practices of peacemaking that, if followed, point toward the elimination of war. As friends we press one another to be more faithful to our goals, more consistent in our practices.
Although, I completely reject the notion of just war and militarism, that does not mean that I am unable to work with those who disagree with me toward the cessation of violence. I do not believe that the use of violence can be reconciled with the teachings of Jesus. I do not believe it is the way of Christ. However, I am in full fellowship with wonderful brothers and sisters who disagree sharply with me. Yet we are still children of God, saved by grace and grace alone. May we work together.
3. We must continually make sure that we do not conflate the missions of the Kingdom and America. The “America as Christian Nation” notion does not baptize all that we do regardless of the consequences. Clay Jenkinson, Theodore Roosevelt scholar-in-residence at Dickinson State University recently had a tremendous article in the Bismarck Tribune. Here is an excerpt:
Most Americans, then and now, do not share Jefferson’s and Paine’s distaste for the Bible or their antagonism to institutional religion. A solid majority of the Founding Fathers were Christians in some sense of the term. Some of them, like Patrick Henry, wanted an official established religion in each state. Most believed that religion was an important restraining mechanism in human affairs. Many of them, if we could lift them out of their context and into ours, would probably be distressed by the degree to which we have chosen to prohibit religious activity in the public square.
It is easy for religious conservatives to compile anthologies of pro-Christian sentiment from the founders’ writings, including - with a bit of disingenuous manipulation - from the works of Jefferson. There is room for an honest debate about what the founders intended, but any honest participant acknowledges that there is plenty of “evidence” on both sides of the argument. In other words, there is no definitive “intent of the Founding Fathers” on religious questions.
It is certain that the United States is a more religious country in 2006 than it was in 1806. For Jefferson, who declared in 1822 that “there is not a young man now living in the U.S. who will not die an Unitarian,” this would come as a surprise and something of a disappointment. Jefferson, like Paine, believed that science and reason would emancipate mankind from faith systems, and that at some future, but near, date, all people would admire, though not worship, the one universal deity.
If there were an unambiguous intent of the founders, there would be no special reason for us to follow their lead 219 years later. Their intent was to perpetuate slavery. Their intent was to count every five slaves as three for the purposes of apportionment and representation. Their intent was that senators would be elected by state legislatures. Their intent was that the Electoral College would sit in independent judgment about who was fittest to be president. Their intent was to exclude all women, almost all African-Americans, all Indians and white males without property from voting or holding public office.
We have discarded all these 18th century notions because they do not serve us well in the 21st century. Nor, in a nation with as much religious diversity as the United States, does it make any sense to force the 5.8 million Muslims, the 5.2 million Jews, the 1.5 million Buddhists, the 1 million Hindus, and the 433,267 Wiccans, pagans and Druids under one Christian tent. About this the First Amendment is very clear.
The government of the United States is overwhelmingly tolerant of the widest possible variety of religions and religious sensibilities. Nobody is legally punished for being a Mormon, a Christian Scientist, a British Israelist, a Mennonite, a Deuteronomist, a Scientologist or a member of a Native American peyote tradition. Members of each of these groups have held public office in the United States. We have no test oaths that prevent Catholics or Anabaptists from holding public office. A Catholic has been president. A Mormon (Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts) plans to run for the presidency. Joe Lieberman, who is Jewish, nearly became vice president of the United States in 2000.
In this our happy and tolerant republic, tax exemption is afforded to individuals and groups whose religious views would be unrecognizable to the Founding Fathers, and deeply abhorrent.
The “wall of separation” between church and state works. We have the freethinking Founding Fathers, among them Tom Paine, to thank for that great gift to human freedom and diversity.
Any thoughts?
65 Responses to “Thoughts on Non-Violence: Coda”
By greg on Dec 11, 2006 | Reply
so I guess you won’t be getting one of these for Christmas?
By Scott on Dec 11, 2006 | Reply
uhh, no.
By R-Liz on Dec 11, 2006 | Reply
I’ve thinking a lot about Jesus telling us to, “Love your enemies.” In a way it’s a phrase that doesn’t make sense. Can a person be our enemy if we truly love them? I say no. So, doesn’t this mean that, as believers in Christ, we have no enemies? And if they’re not our enemies, what are they to be considered? A friend? A brother? A nameless person on the street that we’re to be indifferent to?
And are we to love all people equally? Am I supposed to love my family more than I love anybody else? If I’m in the military, am I to love my country more than anybody else (including my family)?
I don’t claim to have answers, it’s just a series of questions that’ve been running through my mind as I’ve been reading your series.
By Scott on Dec 11, 2006 | Reply
Liz–great comments. You are right the phrase doesn’t make sense if we look at it from our perspective. The true Christian is not going to have enemies. But there might be people who have set themselves apart as enemies. I view it as a whole “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”
I think we have to view everyone as fellow children of God, ones for whom Christ died. All people fall in sphere of concern, but our sphere of influence will necessitate our greatest love.
Great questions.
By Jason Bybee on Dec 11, 2006 | Reply
Scott, first LOST goes on hiatus and now this. What next?
Seriously, I’d hate to see you pull the plug on the non-violent posts. It’s such a timely topic. And you’ve moderated these discussions in a Christ-like manner. You know I’m with you and I respect your decision either way.
By Scott on Dec 11, 2006 | Reply
Jason, I’m thinking about it. It just seems that if I raise any kind of question about military involvement or America people go nuts.
I wonder if America is too sacred a cow for us to discuss.
By Corey on Dec 12, 2006 | Reply
R-Liz, I have never thought of our enemies that way. I think you’re correct, but the second part throws it off. If your enemy is actually family or friend than why would he/she persecute you?
I wonder if Jesus prayed for Satan when he was tempting Him during the 40 days and 40 nights. I don’t believe it’s recorded but I could see Him doing that.
By len on Dec 12, 2006 | Reply
“Although, I completely reject the notion of just war and militarism…..”
Scott, I totally agree with all three thoughts you set out. The third is, imo, one of the greatest problems the church in our country faces. We have confused the Kingdom and the kingdom.
Furthermore, I think all of us agree that the practice of nonviolence on a daily, personal level is of the most importance. How I treat those around me is much more important than any hypothetical situation.
The reaction that some have when you comment on the military, etc., may stem from comments like the one at the top of my post. You reject the idea of a just war. If no war is just, then those who participate in the war are acting unjustly. In other words, they are sinning. Is it your opinion that all military action is unjust? If that is your opinion, wouldn’t you have to say that to be a part of our military is therefore wrong for a Christian? Or to support our military, if every war is unjust, is a sin as well? I don’t think this is what you are saying, but it sounds that way sometimes.
By KS on Dec 12, 2006 | Reply
Scott: Agree with the second point very much so. I, as well as others, that may not be entirely on the “non-violent/pacifist” side probably do not say enough that about 99% of what you are saying I am in full agreement with.
I also wanted to try and clear up any ideas that you or others may have of me being “pro-American 100%”. I do not think America has made the wisest choices in many areas. The examples I gave of Justified War were world type issues (Rwanda, WWII), although I suppose you could throw another one in (Civil War, if you think it was entirely to free the slaves). America has its many flaws and I am willing to discuss them.
While I feel we are blessed to live in this country, I do not put it anywhere near my belief and love of my savior.
By Scott on Dec 12, 2006 | Reply
Len, I understand what you are saying. And because there is that sort of knee-jerk reaction every time I move toward talk of the nation-state, I’m a bit reluctant. The rest of the paragraph you quote is about my full fellowship with those who might disagree with me. I can’t impose my conclusion on anyone. Nor can I make them the standard for salvation. But I feel compelled to moved toward drawing those conclusions for my own sake.
I saw a good friend of mine get raked over the coals at his church just for asking some legitimate questions.
Our nation, which I love, was borne out of war and conflict. Much of our culture, holidays and identity is derived from the wars of our past. To question that, for many, is blasphemous. Which begs idolatry. But I digress.
By greg on Dec 12, 2006 | Reply
Okay, scott. I’ll send you one of these instead.
I think most would agree that, in many ways, this is a great country. My concern has become the seemingly blind acceptance of all things American and all things Republican among many Christians. Let me be clear - I’m not suggesting that anyone who comments here feels this way, as I don’t believe any do at all. And, in reality, I doubt there are many people who feel truly that way at all. But, the perception is there sometimes, and that bothers me.
By Scott on Dec 12, 2006 | Reply
Greg, I’ve already got the Bush Fish.
By Cam on Dec 12, 2006 | Reply
Scott
I’m new here and I hope you don’t mind the intrusion. You caught my attention with your reference to the Jenkinson article.
I think you are WAY of base with your non-violence views. I probably wouldn’t respond except you say you’re a preacher. To be as far off the mark as you are AND a preacher to boot is to invite some pretty justified criticism.
First of all, my contact with scripture apart from reading it myself has been with teachers, not preachers. When I assemble with other believers in a “church” environment I don’t want an emotionally charged message that powers me up for the next week, I need to know what the Bible says in order to have a measure of concrete understanding in which to place my faith. What I come away with will still be with me next week and next year.
Currently we are studying the gospel according to Mark. And while the study is very edifying, I don’t spend my days wondering what Jesus would do. Now, while he is my Savior and every glimpse of him makes me more grateful for His sacrifice on my behalf, I’m not going to try to emulate him anymore than I would try to emulate Noah or Moses.
Looking at the entire scope of scripture leads us as believers in the year 2006 not to obedience to the commands and teachings of Jesus but to the teachings after his resurrection, to the teachings of the apostles. Their writings are not only the culmination of God’s message to us at the end of his relationship with us in time. They are God’s instructions to us for Christian living in the time in which we now live.
So—————-
If you insist on taking a non-violent stance, well, OK. But I don’t think your position carries any weight if you are simply quoting the words of Jesus. I don’t think that applies directly to us any more than do the words of Moses. The entire scripture is the infallible and eternal Word of God. That doesn’t mean we should attempt to obey all the precepts found therein.
The expression that comes to mind: “All scripture is written to us, but not necessarily for us.” I think that’s close…………..
While I’m not a member of a weird cult, I do believe sound teaching and sound understanding of all of scripture is vital to believers.
Be of good cheer
By Scott on Dec 12, 2006 | Reply
Cam, thanks for stopping by. You are welcome but I must let you know that, if you think that the words of Jesus are subordinate to the teachings of Paul and the apostles, then you will find yourself continually frustrated by the tone and makeup of this blog.
Jesus is the Author and Perfecter of our faith, not Paul. Not Peter. He was, and is, the ultimate example.
Thanks again.
By Tracy on Dec 12, 2006 | Reply
Cam said: “Looking at the entire scope of scripture leads us as believers in the year 2006 not to obedience to the commands and teachings of Jesus but to the teachings after his resurrection, to the teachings of the apostles. Their writings are not only the culmination of God’s message to us at the end of his relationship with us in time. They are God’s instructions to us for Christian living in the time in which we now live.”
I don’t understand. Are you saying that scripture written after the resurrection is more important than the life of Jesus? Are you kidding?
Cam said: “I don’t think your position carries any weight if you are simply quoting the words of Jesus.”
So, if Jesus said something, than it isn’t good enough unless it is mentioned again by Paul? Whoa.
By Scott on Dec 12, 2006 | Reply
Tracy, there is an extremist wing of the COC that believes just those things. I’m not sure if Cam is a member of such a group but there are those who view that everything from the life of Christ as being part of the OT times, and everything after as being relevant for us.
By jasonk on Dec 12, 2006 | Reply
Thus, the belief in baptismal regeneration, and using the example of the thief on the cross as being “pre” resurrection, right?
Of course, that is completely off topic, and I don’t want to steer us away from the discussion at hand.
But let’s say for a second that Cam is right. Did Peter or Paul or John or the writer of Hebrews or Jude, ever advocate a philosophy of violence?
By Scott on Dec 12, 2006 | Reply
Jason, the vast, vast, vast majority of COCers do not believe in baptismal regeneration. Thankfully, we have left that idea behind.
And, to answer your second question, I can’t see being able to construct a theology of violence based upon any of the epistles.
Maybe Cam will come back around and give us more detail of his views.
By GKB on Dec 12, 2006 | Reply
“I wonder if America is too sacred a cow for us to discuss.”
Many moons ago, when I penned (in a manner of speaking) my first post against patriotism and nationalism, my preacher informed me that in many churches you can question the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus and get less flak than you’d get for questioning the flag or the nation.
I didn’t know whether to pee in my pants or throw up…
By Scott on Dec 12, 2006 | Reply
When we think about the propensity that the Israelites had toward idolatry we often fail to look at the post-exilic makeup of that idolatry. By the time of Christ they no longer gravitated toward graven images. That was a deeply regretted part of their past.
However, they still had idols and they were equally insidious. Those idols were Sabbath, Torah, Temple and nation.
There must be lesson for us there.
By Jon on Dec 12, 2006 | Reply
If we don’t learn from the past we are doomed to repeat it.
Or does that saying not carry any water anymore.
By jasonk on Dec 12, 2006 | Reply
I had no idea that the idea of baptismal regeneration had been abandoned. How long ago did people leave it behind? Twenty five years ago, I got into some pretty heated discussions on the topic with my friends who were primarily in the Christian church, but also in the CofC. When I would bring up the thief on the cross, they said that he didn’t count, because he was pre-resurrection.
It is true that the cross waves higher than the flag. But it is not idolatry to be patriotic. It is basic stewardship. God gave the promised land to the Hebrews, and they regard that land as a gift. I consider my citizenship in the USA as a gift from God, which I am called to be a good steward of. He may someday choose to take it away, and if He did, I would still do my best to be faithful to Him. But until that day, I will be grateful for and loyal to my country.
By Scott on Dec 12, 2006 | Reply
I did not say that it was idolatrous to love your country.
By Corey on Dec 12, 2006 | Reply
Welcome Cam. I can’t believe what I read from your post. Of course you’re entitled to your opinion or believe, but I can’t tell if you’re a Christian or what. The apostles teachings are founded in the teachings of Christ. Christ is the foundation of the Christian faith. I don’t know if you know it, but Christian means Christ like. That means you should strive to be exactly like Christ and not any other person i.e. Paul. You said Christ is your Savior but is He your Lord?
Cam, Jesus was the ultimate example of non-violence. He could have used His power to destroy the Romans and the Pharisees, but he didn’t. He taught us to love people and not to be violent.
Thank you for your incite.
By GKB on Dec 12, 2006 | Reply
Scott:
I did.
I don’t think people can be patriotic without being idolatrous. Perhaps in theory, but not in practice.
By GKB on Dec 12, 2006 | Reply
Or, additionally:
Perhaps patriotism is some sort of benign force that is not idolatrous in and of itself. Let’s call it “A.”
“A,” however, nearly always demands “B,” and “B” is most certainly idolatrous. “B” in this case is nationalism, militarism, willingness to do violence to protect, etc. I guess the problem arises when we say “A” is actually “A+B” or, patriotism = A+B, and not just A.
But other than that, I’m really not Calvinist enough to blame God (or praise him) for an accident of birth…
By KS on Dec 12, 2006 | Reply
Scott: I think you’ll find, sadly, that many still do believe in baptismal regeneration, but I know that is not on topic.
GKB and Scott: I think that you can stand for non-violence and not be anti-american. I think you can be a Christian and not anti-american, and I believe both of you are not anti-american. But in times in your writing it comes across that way. I can see where you have probably run into some people that, unfortunately do relate Christianity to America (republican goals), but I woud say most on this blog are not that way.
By Doug Freeman on Dec 12, 2006 | Reply
Wow, there is some deep stuff here. I was going to respond but I don’t know where to start. I suppose I will just read what others write and see if there is any thing there to help me thru my struggles of just trying to live a life that is pleasing to the Lord. I am so thankful that at SH we have spent the past two Sundays dealing with our Prayer Life. Hopefully, we will soon have our Spiritual Formation Minister hired who can be strength to those of us who strive to be more Christ Like.
By R-Liz on Dec 12, 2006 | Reply
To add to the off-topic discussion: Are you serious, Scott, when you say that the vast majority of COCers do not believe in baptismal regeneration? Maybe my exposure has been to that slim, slim minority, of which I always thought was representative of the majority.
By Scott on Dec 12, 2006 | Reply
GKB, I agree. But for me to even state that runs the risk of me being labelled “anti-American.” Which I am not. I have greatly benefitted from living here. I know that I take full advantage of the “creature comforts” of Americanism.
But, ultimately, here is what I believe.
1. America, as is all man-made power structures, if fallen. It is not the source of our hope or salvation. Any security we feel by virtue of being America is tenuous and, ultimately, false.
2. God can and does use fallen structures for good. Has America done good? Yes, America has done and is capable of great good. It has given aid and provided comfort and resources for millions.
3. But, as with all fallen powers, it is ultimately “self-focused.” If we are honest we see that America exists first and foremost for its own self-interests, not the greater good. If those two come into conflict, then the tendency will turn toward our interests first.
4. As a result, those who align themselves with the Kingdom of God will often find themselves at odds with the power structures. For opting for what they deem to be faithfulness, they may be deemed as unpatriotic, anti-american or even traitors.
5. This does not mean that complete detachment is the answer. On the contrary, I believe there is biblical precedent for being involved in fallen power structures: Daniel, Nehemiah, and Esther are but a few examples that come to mind. Good can be done by faithful Christians who follow their conscience and biblical understanding. Just as I do good by being involved in the fallen public school system I can achieve good by voting and being a good citizen.
6. Christians must always continue to discern what is of God and what is not as they strive to live in a fallen world and under a fallen power. That means we question, we dissent, we make our voices heard. That is not anti-American, just as bringing forth problems in the church does not necessarily make one anti-church.
7. I can love this country and support its good, just as I can support my child’s school. Just as I can support the church that is comprised of fallen people.
8. However, elevating any power structure as my primary source of hope, identity, ultimate allegiance or basis for security is idolatrous. And we must not be afraid to call it such.
9. My blessings, in Christ, are not geographical. I am blessed to live here, sure. But I would still be blessed by God no matter where I am.
This is a makeshift argument off the top of my head. I don’t know, maybe I should move it to a main post and let people comment that way. But understand, I am not anti-American. I love living here and I am fully aware that I take full advantage of the freedome of living here.
By Scott on Dec 12, 2006 | Reply
Liz, mainstream coc’ers for the most part have rejected this notion.
Are there people who still hold to the view? Of course. But it is the minority held in the most conservative of our congregations and members.
By KS on Dec 12, 2006 | Reply
Scott: What congregation do you work at? I am surpised you think most C of C’ers do not believe in baptismal regeneration. I have been to several churches and while I do think the idea is fading (especially in the more progressive churches) I would say it is not a very small minority that believe that, especially in churches in the south (Texas included).
By jasonk on Dec 12, 2006 | Reply
Scott,
Sorry buddy ;>)
By Scott on Dec 12, 2006 | Reply
Kenny, my perspective comes from 17+ years in ministry in Arkansas, Tennessee, New Mexico, Texas and Michigan.
I’ve preached against it everywhere I have been and never received any disagreement save one individual.
Sure there are the more conservative churches that have not moved away from the doctrine (and those congregations are plenteous in the south) but my circle and the minister and congregations I am in contact with have rejected it.
Obviously you and Liz have encountered it and that is most tragic. Hopefully we will continue to move away from it.
I heard Rubel talk about it some years back and he, too, maintained that it was losing its credibility among mainstream churches.
Conservative churches, which I don’t have as much experience with, may be another story.
By Cam on Dec 13, 2006 | Reply
Scott,
Yes, I’ll come back around–at least once more–though on tip toes and peeking around every corner…………..
No, I’m not frustrated by the tone of the blog. Not at all. I’m not frustrated by disagreement, heck I’m a a married man!
Someone stated I’d strayed off topic and they were right. So let me try to put things back on track. The focal point of history, and I don’t just mean human history either, is the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. All of history before leads up to that point and all of history after looks back to it—even though it’s way beyond our minds to put it all together and understand it. We just call it the Plan of God and leave it at that.
The first portion of scripture looks forward to his crucifixion (we call it prophecy) and the last portion of scripture looks back (we call that history). The whole point of his coming was to die for the sins of the world. He was the sacrifice; the fulfillment or completion of what had been pictured by all the sheep that had been slain over the centuries. Of course he was non-violent–that was the nature of the task he chose to perform.
Though we’re commanded to be Christ-like I don’t believe that means were to be like Christ in every aspect. He is God. We are not. He is the distinct, set-apart, genuine Son of God sent to die for our sins. We are not. What the apostles have done is to say is “Be Christlike. Now here’s how.”
Keep in mind the Lord of Hosts, mentioned from time to time in scripture. This, in context, is “leader of the army or armies”. This “non-violent” Jesus is head of His army (angels, I suppose), not the chaperone for five thousand Rolling Stone fans…………….
The philosophy of non-violence indicates a misunderstanding of both human nature and scripture. In beating up on non-violence, I’m not advocating violence. This is not an either/or concept. Think through the concept of non-violence in the context of history and see where it leads……………….
I’ll give some responses to try to clarify my previously muddled thought. If there is no other benefit, at least it makes me think………………..
Tracy-
I partly explained your concerns above. The life of Jesus lead to his death lead to our salvation. What could be more important? After His resurrection and everything that led up to it from Genesis on, the apostles come along and say, “Now here’s what all this means to you”.
Yes, I do believe that Jesus was born and taught during Old Testament times, though I wouldn’t be real dogmatic on this point. After all, you’ve got a a man, the Son of God, saying he’s the fulfillment of the (legitimate) traditions the Jews had religiously held tightly to for a couple thousand years. Needless to say, most of his own people looked askance at his teachings. So maybe I’d say Old_Testament-leading-to-New_Testament-times. A transition period, like what we see in Acts.
I don’t know what COC is, but I have finally figured out LOL.
jasonk-
“Did Peter or Paul or John or the writer of Hebrews or Jude, ever advocate a philosophy of violence?”
No. Like I said above, this is not an either/or issue. And that answers Scott’s “theology of violence” question too.
Corey-
You are correct, Jesus is not a “violent” person, he is loving. But please read and get a picture in your mind of the confrontation between He and the money changers. Why would he have behaved in that way under those circumstances?
Scott—–thank you for allowing me to post on your site. As I scroll back to the top I see your intent was to leave this topic for a bit. Oops…………..
Sorry if I got off track, but one thing just seems to lead to another……….
By Jason Bybee on Dec 13, 2006 | Reply
Cam,
We discussed Jesus in the temple a few months back. Go back and read the archives.
By Scott on Dec 13, 2006 | Reply
Cam, i agree that we are not to be like Christ in every aspect of His life. Otherwise we would all have to be Male Jewish Carpenters of Middle Eastern descent.
But the example of his life and teachings are normative for us. Paul seemed pretty convinced of that.
Jason is right. We have explored many of these issues through this discussion on nonviolence. You can find the category on the lefthand sidebar.
By KS on Dec 13, 2006 | Reply
Although we discussed it, I am not sure we ever came to a consensus about it.
Cam: Like the “Chaperone for the Rolling Stones” comment.
By Jason Bybee on Dec 13, 2006 | Reply
Kenny,
I think we pretty much determined that Jesus wasn’t acting in violence during the Temple clearing. I felt like Scott exegeted the passage for us in a pretty thorough manner.
By KS on Dec 13, 2006 | Reply
He did show that Jesus did not actually hit anyone with a whip, but I am not sure that I would concede using a whip to drive people/animals out would be totally non-violent. Or overturning tables of the money changers… But that is just my opinion, everyone else may agree.
By Scott on Dec 13, 2006 | Reply
Thanks Jason. I agree, the Greek is pretty clear.
By Jason Bybee on Dec 13, 2006 | Reply
It never says he drove out people. If he’d physically beaten people with a whip, that would’ve negated His entire teaching on turning the other cheek.
By KS on Dec 14, 2006 | Reply
Even if he did not drive out people, he did “overturn the tables”, and drove out cattle. I am just assuming here but: if someone were running my cattle out of a place they had better be able to put some fear of force into me…
As to turning the other cheek…If that were the case why would he not overlook or just tell the men what they were doing was wrong and then leave. Why make such a forceful statement??
By Corey on Dec 14, 2006 | Reply
KS,
The market was degrading the Temple and taking advantage of the law of sacrifices. Jesus took that personal. He was standing up for God and the poor. Just a couple of things Jesus was here for.
By Jason Bybee on Dec 14, 2006 | Reply
Kenny,
As we discussed a few months back, the Temple act is clearly a physical one. But to equate physical action with violence (or “force”) is a mistake and reading into the text. Non-violence is not a do-nothing ideology. Non-violence need not even mean “non-physical”. The civil rights movement was physical enough for those who absorbed the blows and bruises their civil disobedience brought about. The same is true of Christ. His death on the cross, while physical, was the purest act of non-violence the world has ever seen. And I believe his entire life was consistent with that non-violent position.
By jasonk on Dec 14, 2006 | Reply
Scott,
Have you made reference yet to Matthew 11:12? “From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of Heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force.”
Just curious.
By KS on Dec 14, 2006 | Reply
So, if I walk into a store that is selling porn and turn over the tables and throw the stuff around, all while wielding a knife, that would not be violent?
Corey: Yes Jesus did stand up for things. My comment does not dispute that. It just seeks to understand the WAY he did it.
By Jason Bybee on Dec 14, 2006 | Reply
Kenny, your example isn’t analogous. Jesus cleared the Temple because of His zeal for His Father’s house, because of the oppression of the poor, etc. And as we noted earlier, the text never says He used the whip on people. I’m imagining He used it on the animals, but that’s my reading into the text based on the totality of biblical testimony regarding Jesus.
I really wasn’t trying to re-hash all this here. I was just encouraging Cam to go back and read the earlier discussion re: the Temple.
By Tracy on Dec 14, 2006 | Reply
Just giving you guys a heads up. Scott is really sick today and I know he’s thinking about this discusison and ya’ll but hopefully is is sound asleep.
By jasonk on Dec 14, 2006 | Reply
Tracy,
Give Scott my best.
By Jason Bybee on Dec 14, 2006 | Reply
Hope the big guy feels better soon.
By Scott on Dec 14, 2006 | Reply
I’m finally back on my feet. Great thoughts all the way around. Bybee, thanks for holding court.
Are we really discussing the temple again? If we are to construct a theology of violence we will have to go elsewhere to do it.
Let’s take, for a moment, the idea that Jesus WAS violent in the temple. That does not indicate an example for us to follow. It still would have been greatly anomalous to the rest of his life, and divorced from any type of “do likewise” statement we cannot make it normative.
Couple that with the understanding that the greek word exballen is translated “sent out” everywhere else in Scripture and again we see no indication that Jesus is acting violently.
By KS on Dec 14, 2006 | Reply
Scott: Sorry you didn’t feel well, hope you get to feeling better soon.
“If we are to construct a theology of violence we will have to go elsewhere to do it.”
I am not attempting to start a theology of violence here, but it is ironic that “we” have just come to a point where “we” have assumed the same point that “you” came to. I have seen a few on that part of the discussion that must not be in the “we” crowd as to the temple incident.
JasonB: Jesus did clear the temple out of his zeal for his fathers house. So my analogy should be very much on point. To clear out an obvious sin with the threat (although not technically the use of violence). I am not advocating going out and actually doing this, but making the point that since Christ did this act (at the very least showing his whip to the animals and overturning tables) logic would say many would resist. Why do we not see much of this? Perhaps because he is holding a whip.
By KS on Dec 14, 2006 | Reply
Scott: I want to make it clear that I respect the obvious study you have put into this. You have shown many great points through this series and have made me study all the incidents, for that I thank you. I agree with the part on this blog that people that would advocate just war and self defense (myself) would agree with about 95-99% of what you are saying. I know it must seem as if I question everything you say, sorry.
But, too many times have “we” all agreed and moved on with conclusions being drawn that I’d guess more than a few did not agree. I guess that is the nature of the blog, it is yours and your decision as to the points being made. I just wanted to let you know that is why many people (myself included) keep rehashing areas that you have covered. We never came to a consensus agreement, probably because it would be impossible to come to one.
By Sunny Bybee on Dec 14, 2006 | Reply
Kenny,
A porn-video rental store is not “the Father’s house”. Thus, I don’t see how your analogy fits here. If we had a Biblical example of Jesus clearing out a brothel or something, maybe then.
And Scott’s right when he points out the Greek in the passage. If Jesus had been violently whipping people out of the court. he’d have been arrested. He wouldn’t have been allowed back in the Temple. He would’ve violated His own teaching and His own non-violent example on the cross. But I know people will continue to read all kinds of things into the Temple story. I guess we’ll just have to disagree.
By Sunny Bybee on Dec 14, 2006 | Reply
Just realized I’m using Sunny’s computer, so I’m on her account. Oh well…
By Scott on Dec 14, 2006 | Reply
Yeah, if someone set up a porn booth in the foyer at church, I’d probably turn the table over too. But I wouldn’t be violent.
Kenny, thanks for the comments. I agree that we don’t have to have consensus. But the discussion is a fruitful one.
By justin on Dec 14, 2006 | Reply
On the note of setting up inappropriate things in church…
The week before the election, I was at my home church and some guy brought in a bunch of “vote for prop 1″ signs (constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage) and I walked over and grabbed all of them and took them to the dumpster.
My mom was pissed.
By Tracy on Dec 14, 2006 | Reply
Justin’s comment reminded me of this and it made me laugh.
The church we were serving in pre-Y2K was very much wanting to be ready for the horror that was to come. I remember in the foyer there being kits and lists of things to have on hand for it.
And I saw a bumper sticker on my way to work yesterday that hit a little too close to home but sent a clear message: Just because you have a yellow ribbon on your car doesn’t excuse your vote for Bush.
By Jon on Dec 15, 2006 | Reply
Why couldn’t Jesus have just walked in MADE the whip (which means it took a moment for him to collect his thoughts and make a plan of action) crack the whip to get the animals moving and while on the way out take the money changers baskets turned them over and then quote the OT scriptures as his reason for doing so.
Sorry, KS, on this one I can’t see a correlation between porn store and the temple. Jesus cleared it because it was prohibiting the worship of people, the money changers were charging to much to convert the money and the animals price was inflated to allow them to make more money. I am sure there are things in our worship today that prohibit people from worshipping but they may not be as tangible as things in the Temple story.
By KS on Dec 15, 2006 | Reply
Obviously I wasn’t clear, I just picked a place. My analogy was more for the fact that Christ was yielding a weapon and yet we say he was not violent. The place was of little importance for the point I was trying to make.
Try this one: A man carrying a knife/whip/gun walks into a church that is not carrying out the will of God (name some obvious reason here) and turns over whatever is being done wrong. No one confronts him why? Because he has a potential weapon.
By Scott on Dec 15, 2006 | Reply
Again, I think the analogy doesn’t hold up. Say a man walks around a bunch of livestock brandishing a cattle-prod.
Jesus sending out livestock with an implement for that purpose does not make him a poster boy for the NRA.
I think the place is of utmost importance.
By KS on Dec 15, 2006 | Reply
The fact that he has a weapon that he made and destroyed property I’d say is of utmost importance as well.
By justin on Dec 15, 2006 | Reply
Anything can be a weapon kenny. I remember being incensed by this in school. After school shootings started happening, we were no longer allowed to have metal forks in the cafeteria, because it could be a weapon. If I wanted to hurt someone, could i not just as easily use the tray to bash someone over the head, use a chair, or a protractor? If Jesus used a spear or a sword or an AK 47, I could understand your point. But a whip that he put together on his own probably isn’t that threatening. It was probably enough to get the animals moving, and that was the point.
Speaking of Jesus and AK 47s, has anyone seen supply side Jesus before? Jesus is a raging capitalist and he and moses shoot the romans with automatic weapons. Its a pretty funny cartoon.
By Doug Freeman on Dec 15, 2006 | Reply
I think it is very obvious that we will never come to the same conclusions. That is why so many different religious groups exist today. If we do what Christ commanded us to do we would not have all these what-ifs. If we take up His Cross and follow his commandments we will be rewarded. He is the one that taught us how to love and live a life that is pleasing to God. I know I struggle in just trying to live a life that is pleasing to Him and just being the person he would have me to be. Lets all be thankful that he left us the blueprint on how to live our lives and live each day as if it were our last.
Love is a funny thing, it is shaped like a lizard, it curls its tail around your funny bone and creeps into your gizzard.
Merry CHRISTmas to you all.