What if I said, “Loving your neighbor as yourself is a personal conviction, not a moral absolute as far as following Christ is concerned. Those who suggest otherwise are Pharisees.”?

Then you would be wrong, because Jesus specifically states it as a moral absolute:

One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”

“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

It is direct commandment from Scripture which determines whether something is a moral absolute, particularly when emphasized by Jesus and his Apostles, and viewed in its historical context.

There is no Scriptural prohibition which states anything close to “those who know Jesus and call themselves his Body do not make war or justify its use – period”

I disagree with the presuppositions you are assuming all are agreed upon – namely, that there are “personal convictions” that can be radically different between 2 people and yet be reconciled as “under God.”

There are some that believe that, as a Christian, they can drink alcohol in moderation, and others who believe that, as a Christian, they should completely abstain. Paul references this type of disagreement in a number of places, including:

Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

So Paul does indicate that there are personal convictions that can be radically different between two people, yet be reconciled under God. When these convictions are elevated as universal absolutes, that, by definition, is Phariseeism. When universal absolutes are lowered to the status of ‘conviction’ or ‘preference’, that is hedonism. Scripture, alone, must be the determinant of whether something is cross-culturally an absolute, or simply a conviction.

In the case of using lethal force to prevent a greater injustice, there is no universal prohibition in Scripture.

But that is just the point, Chris L. One can derive certain moral absolutes from Scripture – and non-violent resistance is one of them.

Not by any stretch of the imagination – Rick’s article is almost entirely opinion with a good deal of moralistic stretching with little Scriptural basis. While I have seen Christians who are convicted that they cannot be involved in the police or the military for reasons of conscience, I’ve never seen a definitive Scriptural case for absolute non-violence. Usually, it comes down to misapplication of passages dealing revenge, resistance of persecution, or honor defense, not self-defense from random violence.

It is also clear that Jesus had his disciples arm themselves with swords – whose only clear Scriptural purpose is defense against human violence. It cannot be argued this was to defend against wild animals, because they were a) not going to the wilderness; and b) the appropriate weapon to defend against wild animals is a staff, not a sword. The disciples were headed north, through Samaritan and Gentile territory known for robbery and random killing.

Oh, and nice touch to begin with a quote from the B.O.D. of the UMC.

Apparently the UMC doesn’t see a definitive moral absolute in a total pacifism, but that Christians can serve in armed conflict (as soldiers or as policemen/women)…

Essentially you are setting the table so as to say anyone who disagrees with you is a Pharisee and can therefore be dismissed. It’s called “begging the question” since you are already convinced your position of “personal conviction” is irrefutable.

Not at all – I actually make the case that Christians can be Conscientious Objectors – which would not be a form of Phariseeism. Rather, it is only if they take that conscientious objection beyond themselves and declare that ALL Christians MUST BE C.O.’s that they become Pharisaical.

I do not argue that ALL Christians MUST support “just war”…

…If I did argue that ALL Christians MUST support “just war”, that too, would be Pharisaical.

I believe it is the ignorance (and falleness) of humanity that argues for redemptive violence and that is unfortunate.

I’m am not arguing that violence brings about any sort of spiritual ‘redemption’ – but rather that it is sometimes a necessity to prevent much greater ills.

Just wondering – if your family was being attacked in the middle of the night, would you call 911?

We are either becoming the sort of people who refuse to see violence as a means to an end

OR

We are becoming the sort of people who are convinced that life is a “right” and to be fought for at all costs. IOW, our very lives become sort of idol.

A false choice. We are not simply talking about our own lives, nor have they been made an idol when placed in a proper Biblical context. There are specific instances where we should not defend our own person – specifically when we are defending ourselves from persecution. There are also numerous unjust uses of force – conquest/theft, honor, etc. The preservation of life, though, and particularly the lives of the innocent, is not placed on some magical spiritual hierarchy below “violence” just because we’ve declared for ourselves that all violence is evil in all cases.

It seems to me this is little more than making pacifism an idol, since it places non-violence above any other value, including life.

If someone catches you acting in an unloving manner towards someone else does that make God’s universal command to love our neighbor null and void?

So, if you were unwilling to live out your stated belief in “non-violence” by calling the police to protect your family, would that mean that you are a hypocrite, or that perhaps you have created extra-Biblical hedges – or both?

Rick, in the future you need to throw in more Hebrew words and Jewish law. In this way you can claim a more historical position while paradoxically making the Incarnation seem like overkill.

You’re right – our own opinions and whatever we want “the Incarnation” to mean certainly mean miles more that what Jesus actually believed, practiced and taught.

“Rick’s article is almost entirely opinion with a good deal of moralistic stretching with little Scriptural basis.”

A generous and magnanimus dismisal. I had determined not to engage you or your article in the threads, but if I had, I would hope I would have concealed my disdain much better than that.

I’m still trying to decide where to start, Rick. However, your tossing out the entirety of Hebrew Scripture at the outset as meaningless has thrown me a bit. That has much wider implications than simply a conversation on when/why war might be morally justified.

And I am not being hyperbolic in the least. I think it a fair assesment of the facts. One really does have to wonder what need there was for Jesus when you look at Jewish law and custom through Chris L’s lens.

It is not my lens – it is the lens of the culture to which Jesus originally spoke, and the context of his words.

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

If we don’t bother to understand why he said what he said and how it fit into his religious and cultural context, we’re just making it up from our own context.

My point is that your dependence on Jewish Law and custom, which you seem to think is spot on, makes Jesus’ life, death and resurrection seem arbitrary at best.

paraphrasing Brad Young, all too often we, as modern questions, spend so much time on belief in Jesus that we completely forget the beliefs of Jesus. Jesus’ only purpose was not to die on the cross and be resurrected, but also to help us understand how we should live. If we don’t bother to understand his beliefs and teachings, and their moral underpinnings, we miss the overall picture he has created for us in his incarnation.

Why did Christ come if things were going so well?

According to Paul, he came when the time was right. This is not to say that ‘things were going so well’, but rather that things were going “right” in that his teachings would be properly understood, and that his prophetic import would be met. Hillel had a number of things right, but was short/wrong on many. There was an increase in religious fervor for understanding and the coming of a Messiah, per Daniel. When he came, Jesus sided with Hillel on a number of religious arguments, more often than not, but also took his ruling farther than Hillel was willing to go. He also sided completely against Hillel on other issues, most notably on divorce. However, the entire context of first century Judiasm was the “right” backdrop for Jesus’ teaching to be understood and accepted – first by a few, and later by many.

just as we should eschew questioning the genuineness of faith in those who hold to just war theorym we should also refrain from crappy comments about how peacemakers are basically cowards who only exercise their convictions by virtue of the benevolence of those with the courage to fight.

I agree, Nathan…

But this does not mean that the given Jewish context of the day was God’s context in Christ.

You seem to assume that Jesus had nothing critical to say to the way Israel lived into their vocation as God’s chosen. As if “fulfilling the Law” is akin to placing his seal of approval upon it. If that were the case, than there is no need for Jesus, really.

Christianity was not invented out of whole cloth. In fact, the underlying principles of Christianity are identical to those of Judaism – the Torah. Jesus’ purpose was not to abolish Torah, but to interpret it correctly, so that all men could live as God desired them to.

There are a number of Jewish doctrines that Jesus affirmed, others he opposed, and still others that he gave a “yes, and…”. Every one of Jesus (and Paul’s) instructions is based in Torah. If we do not bother to figure out where they came from, and what nuances they were affirming or condemning, we are just making it up as we go – injecting our own culture and opinions into the Text, instead of deriving them from the Test. In reality, much of the early church understood this until the anti-Semitism of the 200’s and 300’s drove a wedge between the Jews and Christians, and many Christians began to pretend that Christianity was a complete and utter rejection of the Jews, and that its precepts and doctrines were invented ex nihilo by Jesus.

In the case of Picuach Nefesh, the basis of the doctrine is solidly throughout the Hebrew Scripture, and is affirmed consistently throughout Jesus’ ministry, and in the words and actions of his apostles. Rather than create an idol out of life, it puts “life” in its proper perspective – by not devaluing it (like the Priest and the Levite did to the injured man) and by not idolizing it above other commands (like blasphemy and sexual impurity).

Again, examining the Jewish context is to see how Jesus treated the subject and its cultural & religious teachings, and to apply those principles to today. It is not to transplant first century Judiasm to today – which this does not do, since Jesus was actually choosing sides in this debate (with Hillel and against the Sadducees), as he did in others.

Violence/war etc. is sin, Jerry.

Not universally, it is not.

Just wondering when Chad will confront the local Police station to ask them not to use violence in carrying out their duties, since it is a sin to do so…

Chris L – do you wish to respond to #24?

Sorry – I missed it while I was out… ran to Kokomo (Ok, drove…) to get my daughter…

Let’s see…

1) If I was a prostitute, and you were following the golden rule (to do unto me, as I would have you do unto me), would you A) give me money for services; B) give me money sans services; or C) look for a way to get me out of my current profession?

2) If you were in the process of beating an innocent person to death, and you were not responding to requests to stop, which would be my most loving response: A) To allow it to happen, since all violence is wrong; or B) to use whatever force is necessary to get you to stop?

But I still do not get why violence is right to bring democracy to Iraq but not right to defend the unborn.

IF Iraq were a just war (and I’m not arguing that it IS or IS NOT), then it would be justified based on clear international criteria, including that”damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations would be lasting, grave, and certain”. In this case, it is the governmental authority determining that such criteria have been met, not individuals involved in the conflict.

In the case of defending the unborn, it is in the bailiwick of the justice system and not a case for vigilantism (which is never justified)…

And if the United Nations passed an international law that no country could go to war unless approved by the security council, would that preclude the US from going to war when they deemed it necessary?

And if the moon were made of green cheese… The chances of the US Senate ratifying such a treaty obligation (which would require 67 votes) is less than nil. So, I guess we’ll just wait and cross that bridge if we ever get there.

Still no response to #24 then?

I did respond – with two additional questions which get to the point I was making.

Violence/war etc. is sin, Jerry.

Not universally, it is not.

Says who?

It is not up to me to prove it. You must prove via positive revelation, not negative inference, that all violence is sin. In logic and science, one does not prove a negative – the onus is on the one making the positive assertion.

Will there be war and violence in God’s eternal kingdom? Was there war and violence in Eden?

This does not infer sin – it only infers that war is a product of the fall. So is pain in childbirth, but this is not a sin. So it toil in work, but this is not a sin.

God specifically commanded wars and that specific death sentences be carried out via violent means. So, unless you want to argue that God made a mistake, you cannot argue that violence is ontologically evil.

78 – how is that a response? That is utter nonsense.

If it is utter nonsense, then you will have no problem answering it.

While I’ll let Jerry answer #58 himself, as well, I’ll make a couple of observations:

But if the government has that right and obligation, then it is not the church’s place to speak against it

What sort of logic is this?

That is like saying: Since abortion clinics have the “right” and “obligation” of aborting babies the Church has no place to speak against it.

Not at all – abortion clinics have no God-granted purpose, unlike governments (for whom, both Judges and Kings are given biblical authority and restrictions). Abortion clinics are not governing authorities.

Violence/war etc. is sin, Jerry.

B+. Fail. Nowhere in Scripture is violence ontologically categorized as sin.

The Church has every right to speak against it. In fact, it MUST speak against the powers of evil in this world or else we might as well cease to exist.

So let’s see. Health care? No right to speak – lay back and enjoy being raped. War? The church MUST speak out against it, regardless of its justification.

Bizarreness.

In our system of government, members of the church have the right and responsibility to hold the government accountable for its actions. If it prosecutes a war that we feel is unjust, we should speak against it. If it seeks to enslave its people and make them dependent on it for every need – either directly or gradually, we should speak out against it. Either way, if our concerns are not heard, so long as we are not ordered to commit sin, then we should submit to its laws. That does not argue for silence or insurrection.

OK, so you will not engage a hypothetical. Would it have been acceptable for Germans to kill SS men who were actively killing Jews at Treblinka?

Would this hypothetical meet all four criteria for just war?

1) The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain? Yes.
2) All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective? We know of a number of SS guards who refused orders to commit atrocities and who were either killed or put in camps, themselves.
3) There must be serious prospects of success? It sounds like what you are suggesting is suicide (self-murder) in its planning, in which case it would not meet this criteria. If there was a plan that had a serious prospect of success (liberating Treblinka, for instance), then yes (for example, the Sobibor uprising, which was discovered too soon to be completely successful, but likely saved the lives of 70+ Jews).
4) The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated? I would assume this would be met.

What if you do not like your system of government (i.e.colonies), is violent insurrection a Biblical option?

I don’t know that I could have supported a violent insurrection in this case. It does not appear to meet the criteria for ‘just war’.

#86 – Earlier you suggested my post was nothing more than opinion and not based upon Scripture. What Scriptures do you base those “criteria” upon?

I did not delve into the basis of the criteria (or do a whole lot of in-depth study on them. One of the references I was working from (based on St. Thomas Aquinas’ work) had a number of Scriptural references for each of these criteria. I know that one of the references for the #3 criteria was the biblical prohibition against self-murder (suicide).

The primary purpose of my article was to show that one could reasonably support being a Christian as a policeman or a soldier, and that wars could be determined to have a “just cause” – though most causes of wars would fall into the “unjust” category. Also, most of my OT references were not based on narrative comparison, but on application of instruction from Torah (Genesis – Deuteronomy). Jesus’ teaching integrated observations from all three portions of OT Scripture, but he and Paul’s legal rulings were most obviously/logically related to their linkages to Torah.

You are unsure about the Revolutionary War while millions of believers have absolutely no doubt it was just.

Well, it certainly would be easy if every judgment were cut-and-dried, but many of the issues we face daily as Christians have so many nuances that a simple black/white answer is usually the exception and not the norm. Why should we expect that issues of much more import (like war) are not equally difficult. Since I was not living in 1776, I cannot make a fully-informed judgment as to the “just-ness”. I have the luxury of about 230 years of 20/20 hindsight and a plethora of historical views of it, so whether or not I think it was justified here in 2009 is of no import…

And yet you live in 2009 and have the benefit of a colossal amount of information about the Iraq War but you still seem uncommitted as to its justness.

Actually, I do have an opinion on the Iraq War, but that’s not the topic of this thread, and I’d rather deal with the overall philosophical underpinnings of ‘just war’ before trying to determine whether or not a politically-charged war fits into that category or not.

The justness of a war is entirely subjective and cannot be Scripturally evaluated.

When evaluating what is the lesser of two (or many) necessary evils, it is nearly impossible to be fully objective, so some level of subjectivity always exists. It is this way in the justice system, as well, yet God clearly called out the need to judges and justice. Scripture is the primary place to go for determining the principles by which to evaluate our decisions. Not every specific situation is directly 1:1 covered by a scriptural pronouncement, but the underlying principles should guide us. Just because something is difficult to do does not make it the wrong path to be on. In fact, Jesus represented the more difficult path, in numerous cases, as the one to follow.

So if a GI dives upon a grenade to save his platoon he is wrong?

Actually, I read an Christian ethics paper on this specific topic. Where they ended up was that, if the soldier was close enough to throw himself on the grenade, his life was already in serious, if not mortal, danger. So, throwing himself on the grenade, thus saving his companions, is – in balance – saving more lives than it cost. Should he decide not to throw himself on it, and survive, he should not be condemned, either, as he was making a split-second decision, weighing the risks as he deemed possible.

“In fact, Jesus represented the more difficult path, in numerous cases, as the one to follow.”

Exactly.

Which is why the simplistic answer “violence is never the solution” is about the simplest cop-out to such situations I can think of.

that should be “most simplistic”…

Well, Chris L, I’ll assume you refuse to answer my question in 24 that I have posed numerous times now.

I didn’t refuse to answer your question – I answered it with a question (just as you answered my initial question with a question) – actually two questions – neither of which have you answered.

Pain in childbirth or toil in work are curses imposed by God as a result of transgression. Violence and war are sinful acts perpetrated by humans on one another. Violence and war is sin.

Jesus couldn’t be more clear on this.

II Opinions:Chad 3:14

apples and oranges.

No, apples and apples. You’ve conjured up a sin based on absence in Eden. There are a whole lot of things that are not “sin” that were absent in Eden.

You’ve got nothing other than what you just made up. Pure and utter opinion. There is absolutely no Scripture – OT or NT – which says a) all violence is sin; b) all war is sin; or c) there is never justification for war.

None.

God must be a sinner, because He required war, and gave death as punishment in the justice system He established.

Jesus told his disciples to sell some of their things to go buy swords. I guess Jesus was a pretty twisted guy for commanding his disciples to sin.

Get over it, you’ve made up your universal “violence = sin” “doctrine” from whole cloth. Even your left-wing denomination agrees that there is a case for just war. I guess their UMC B.O.D. believes we should sin, as well. What a crock of skubala you shovel.

You’ve yet to provide an iota of Scriptural evidence that all lethal force is sinful. None. (aside from your foray into II Opinions).

Is war and violence bringing us closer to the heart of God or further away? Obviously you feel violence and war is either morally neutral (which is a crock) or it brings us closer to the heart of God.

I would say that it is ontologically neutral (which is not a crock, since both God and Jesus give situational justification for its usage), though it is misused more often than not.

I’ll say again – it’s sin.

I could care less how often you say it, but you’re little more than a two-bit Pharisee, making it up as you go.

You cannot give any Scripture which declares that lethal force is ontologically evil. None. All you can do is engage in your typical BS sophistry that deals in generalities and “overarching narratives” but is woefully short on anything that even resembles solid detail.

The use of lethal force is not, in and of itself, sinful. You cannot prove it is, and your vague pronouncements are about as useless as your “everybody gets saved” load of crap theology.

1) Does God ever command the use of lethal force on the part of the nation of Israel, or in its system of justice?

2) Does Jesus tell his disciples to sell some of their possessions in order to buy swords?

3) If I was a prostitute, and you were following the golden rule (to do unto me, as I would have you do unto me), would you A) give me money for services; B) give me money sans services; or C) look for a way to get me out of my current profession?

4) If you were in the process of beating an innocent person to death, and you were not responding to requests to stop, which would be my most loving response: A) To allow it to happen, since all violence is sinful; or B) to use the minimum amount of force necessary to get you to stop, even if that force results in your death?

These questions are all rooted in Scripture (and I can point them out for you). Your sophistry is nothing more than Pharisaical dust in the wind.

When the Church gives justification to war or violence of any kind it becomes impotent and loses her prophetic voice in the world.

II Opinions 3:14

It is not the church, but the governing authorities who determine if war is justified. The church can agree or disagree, but it is not within her authority to declare war.

It is perhaps the height of hypocrisy to endorse a so-called “just war” and then stand from the pulpit and invite your congregation to affirm

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,”

We’re not talking about religious persecution. Additionally, it follows that you would “love your neighbor as yourself” if you would expect someone to stop you from killing an innocent person, were they in your place. “Love your neighbor as yourself” is not an invitation to aid or abet their sin through your inaction. There is no hypocrisy in defending the innocent, or protecting the people of your country from danger, or to enforce its laws and protect its people via a police force. If you’ve got any policemen in your congregation, you’d best tell them to stop sinning and find a moral line of work.

“Love your enemies” is not a blank check to allow them to perpetrate gross sins against humanity. Jesus never said, nor implied that. “Love your enemies” is a call to abstain from vengeance and conquest, not self-defense. If you bothered to understand what Jesus believed, you’d have a clue what “love your enemies” meant, rather than supply it with a meaning of your own making.

Where’s the line when it comes to force/violence? Recently an airline passenger jumped a man attempting to set off a bomb on an airplane. Did he sin?

He sure did. He should have let the guy take down the airplane if he wanted to, instead of hurting that poor fella. What a shame he sinned by using violence against the terrorist peace-loving tourist.

If I can find a way to protect and bring about justice without causing further harm, then I will. When Jesus calls us to live radically for him, I don’t think that can include passivity. Self-sacrifice is anything but passive.

I completely agree, Christian. We should strive to resolve disputes and crisis situations with the minimal harm possible. Sometimes, though, harm cannot be avoided, and causing that unavoidable harm is not sin, no matter what words some folks might put in Jesus’ mouth…

I’d don’t care WHO is doing the justifying. The point is the CHURCH should not be justifying or endorsing or writing posts that give allowance for war and violence. Period.

And you’re welcome to your personal conviction, but you’ve got no basis or right to suggest it is a universal pronouncement. Cry me a river, but you’ve been unable to answer anything I’ve asked you to this point.

Violence is still sin, no matter how pretty of a dress you want to put it in, Chris.

Sorry, Chad, but II Opinions is not in my Bible, and you’ve not given any Scriptural backing for your position, yet. So, unless God is a sinner and Jesus is an abetter of sin, you’re spouting nothing more than the Book of Chad (which still has no resemblance to anything biliary).

Turn the other cheek.

In context, “turn the other cheek” is a response to dishonor, not a threat upon one’s life, or that of an innocent person. You’re grasping at straws now.

How about answering these questions before piling on any more sophistry from the Book of Chad?

1) Does God ever command the use of lethal force on the part of the nation of Israel, or in its system of justice?

2) Does Jesus tell his disciples to sell some of their possessions in order to buy swords?

3) If I was a prostitute, and you were following the golden rule (to do unto me, as I would have you do unto me), would you A) give me money for services; B) give me money sans services; or C) look for a way to get me out of my current profession?

4) If you were in the process of beating an innocent person to death, and you were not responding to requests to stop, which would be my most loving response: A) To allow it to happen, since all violence is sinful; or B) to use the minimum amount of force necessary to get you to stop, even if that force results in your death?

The easy (or lazy) thing to do is to resort to what our human nature so easily and readily avails us – violence. Even if we say we use violence as a “last resort” we are setting ourselves up for trouble.

*Yawn* Perhaps you’d best call your local sheriff’s office and tell them to disable your address from their 911 system…

#24: What does it mean when you act unlovin towards a neighbor? That you are a hypocrite or a Pharisee? Or both?

If I were truly being unloving and in opposition to what I teach, I’d likely be both.

Of course, in this case, it depends on how you define “unlovin”. If it is “loving” to allow him to carry out crimes against others when you are capable of stopping him, then let me be “unloving” every time, as “loving your neighbor” is subservient to “love the Lord your God”, and it would not be displaying love for God to allow the innocent to be unjustly harmed by my inaction. In this case, I would not be a hypocrite or a Pharisee.

There you go. How about answering my questions now:

1) Does God ever command the use of lethal force on the part of the nation of Israel, or in its system of justice?

2) Does Jesus tell his disciples to sell some of their possessions in order to buy swords?

3) If I was a prostitute, and you were following the golden rule (to do unto me, as I would have you do unto me), would you A) give me money for services; B) give me money sans services; or C) look for a way to get me out of my current profession?

4) If you were in the process of beating an innocent person to death, and you were not responding to requests to stop, which would be my most loving response: A) To allow it to happen, since all violence is sinful; or B) to use the minimum amount of force necessary to get you to stop, even if that force results in your death?

And, while you’re at it, you can answer the original question that prompted #24:

if your family was being attacked in the middle of the night, would you call 911?

Chris, what is so hard for you to understand here? I don’t expect the police force to operate under the Lordship of Jesus. I don’t expect them , or the government, to have the same ethics as the Church.

Then you’d best go out and preach against Christians being policemen, or soldiers, or holding public office.

I’m sure there’s something in the Book of Chad to back that up, since the Bible doesn’t.

You are correct, Rick – I’ve jumped in to vehemently and unrespectfully.

My apologies to you and to Chad.

My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.

This is, again, a reference to armed rebellion against authority, not self-defense. There is no Scriptural justification for Jesus’ followers to fight against the Jewish governmental authorities, because 1) Jesus is not in immediate physical danger; 2) Jesus is not a weaker party that needs their protection – he has protected them up to this point; and 3) armed insurrection against government officials is not something Jesus supported (since he spoke several times against the philosophy of the zealots.

Here, Jesus puts in stark contrast the ways of the world and the way of the Kingdom. One way resorts to violence to achieve their ends, the other a cross.

Apples and oranges. Jesus’ point was that he was not establishing a physical kingdom by overthrowing the Romans. He is not making a universal statement on the use/non-use of violence by earthly authorities (to whom we are to submit).

The question for Christians is, which kingdom are you living in? Are you citizens of (insert country here) or of heaven?

We are in the world, but not of it. Therefore, we are both citizens of (insert country here) and citizens of heaven. It is not an either-or choice. We are to submit to our earthly authorities, which means that we must function as a citizen under their protection and authority.

What is astonishing to me and took me completely by surprise, is that the other side cannot even admit that their seems to be a Scriptural basis for my post, even if they vehemently disagree with it.

Rick – I was actually disappointed in your post because I couldn’t find some Scriptural reason to agree with its core premise. It began by tossing out the OT. Then, the one citation from the OT (”You shall not commit murder”) was dismissed via a bit of logic which says “God made a mistake, because He really meant all killing, and not just murder”. The rest was a treatise on anti-nationalism (which I can agree with, to a point), which then assumes that one must be nationalistic in order to justify a nation’s use of violence in war time – a false assumption. So, the only agreement I have, Scripturally, is that we should not put our allegiance to our nation above that of the church. That has nothing to do with justification of lethal force.

Anyone who claims that the Bible does not seem to project certain paradoxes and even some seemingly incongruous teachings within itself is being disingenuous and probably is exhibiting a form of spiritual fear.

I believe that there are paradoxes (for instance, the support of both free will and (at least, limited) predestination), but I think that it is somewhat lazy to take what you don’t like in Scripture and call it a “paradox”, rather than do the hard work of digging in to trace its thread through Scripture – even if it leads to a conclusion you don’t like. In this case, it seems to me like you’ve chosen the easy way out by calling God’s obvious use of violence and declaration of capital punishment a “paradox”, and moved on.

BRIEF SIDEBAR: I do not want to derail the thread by dealing with specific wars, but (with the request that we NOT start debating individual wars to death) I think my answers might likely surprise you. You asked earlier about Iraq. I believe that, of the wars fought in the past century, the only war which was clearly, almost undebatably viable under “just war” doctrine is WWII. I believe this was clear years before America entered it, and that (on the part of the UK) Chamberlain’s dithering actually lead to 2-4 million more innocent lives lost and an extension of the war by 2+ years, and likely Japan’s entry into the war. I believe that the limited conflict we are in with Al Quaida is likely justifiable, though I am doubtful about our justification in entering Iraq (recognizing the 20/20 hindsight available around WMD’s, etc.), in the first place (though I would say we are bound to ‘fix’ what we ‘broke’, and that we are responsible to leave Iraq in better shape than when we entered it). Afghanistan? Only for the purpose of helping them fight off the Taliban and al-Quaida. Vietnam? Doubtful. Korea? I don’t know enough detail (I’ve never been curious enough to study it), but from what I do know, I’d probably say “no”.

Phil: I guess I have a hard time seeing the practical application of Just War doctrine. Has there ever been throughout a history a nation that quit fighting a war because it came to the realization that conflict it was engaged in wasn’t just?

If we, as a church, are doing our part, we should be using “just war” doctrine to question/demand a higher standard of evidence/proof from our government when it is considering war as an option. I do believe that this forestalled/prevented conflicts during the “Cold War” – particularly an invasion of Cuba. I don’t recall where I read it (though if I do, I will post it), but I recall reading that the Catholic church and other churches exerted pressure on the Johnson administration to not invade Cuba, and it ended up siding against it (though there was some question as to where this was a pragmatic decision, rather than the administration listening to the voice of the church on an issue).

Personally, I do not think it is God’s will for humans to be killing each other period. Yes, in a fallen world, there are times when it is probably inevitable, but I do not think it’s the ideal.

I agree. Rather, though, than assuming inevitability, is it not a better course to at least prepare for when it is truly an option of last resort and when it is an option of convenience? It is not God’s will for humans to be killing humans – which is why the only justification for the use of lethal force is to prevent a wider, unjust killing of innocents by parties who are (literally) hell-bent on killing them.

If you look at the history of the church – even starting at the Reformation – the church’s problem has not been that it’s been too slow to enter conflicts. In fact, the Church at many times has been just as bloodthirsty as any secular government.

I agree, as well. Just because the track record is poor doesn’t mean that the objective (limiting the use of lethal force to the bare minimum of what is required for the purpose of justice, locally and globally) is wrong. Even St. Thomas Aquinas, the author of much of what is in “just war doctrine” stated that the purpose of the doctrine was not to justify war, but to prevent it from being used for unjust purposes. It should still be so.

As far as police forces, of course they are necessary, and I think that in many ways the way they typically use lethal force is something that can be lined up with Scripture more easily.

A police force, though, is philosophically little different than an army. In fact, separating the civilian police force from a national army is a fairly new invention which had little to do with the morality/immorality of war, and more to do with expediency and efficiency.

Also, there are many advances being made in non-lethal weapons as well.

Which are not only being implemented in civilian situations. We’ve used a number of sound/light-based non-lethal weapons in current conflicts to limit injuries to both combatants and civilians.

I don’t think using non-violence as a principle of resistance means inaction. It simply means that are responses are measured against the standard that says the goal is getting rid of violence completely, instead of the standard that says responding with more force is always better.

I fully agree – the use of force should be the least common and last (and regrettable) resort. That’s not what Rick and Chad (particularly Chad) are arguing. Instead, it is a ontological declaration of “all violence is sin” – something not found in Scripture.

Perhaps you can answer the questions Chad will not:

1) Does God ever command the use of lethal force on the part of the nation of Israel, or in its system of justice?

2) Does Jesus tell his disciples to sell some of their possessions in order to buy swords?

3) If I was a prostitute, and you were following the golden rule (to do unto me, as I would have you do unto me), would you A) give me money for services; B) give me money sans services; or C) look for a way to get me out of my current profession?

4) If you were in the process of beating an innocent person to death, and you were not responding to requests to stop, which would be my most loving response: A) To allow it to happen, since all violence is sinful; or B) to use the minimum amount of force necessary to get you to stop, even if that force results in your death?

None of these questions suggest that lethal force is a first, or most desirable option, but they do show that a) it is not ontologically “sinful” when all viable non-violent options have been exhausted; and b) that “loving your neighbor” can very well mean using lethal force to prevent him from causing a greater harm.

Phil – even Hauerwas agrees, though, that there are times (at least in police actions) that violent confrontation is the only option, even if he could not be the one to ‘pull the trigger’. The standard isn’t “lethal force is never justified”, but rather “we do not pursue nonviolent options far enough before opting for the easy-out of violent means”. The latter view recognizes that, in the end, violence isn’t “never the option”, but that it truly should be the last resort, though a viable resort, nonetheless.

Phil, with Boyd, I’d agree with his distinction between the government wielding the sword for justice purposes rather than individuals, but I would not agree that Christians should not be in the government.

That is very little from the Jewish position (in the first century and today) that Jesus criticized (via his comments to and treatment of Zaccheus), in which a class of people were allowed to do the “dirty work”, but they were automatically determined to be “sinners” by the very nature of the work they are required to do. Therefore, if a Christian should not be in government, then nobody should be in government. If a Christian should not be a policeman, nobody should be a policeman. If a Christian should not be a soldier, then nobody should be a soldier.

FYI – so that it does not get lost in the comments above – I overreacted and used combative and dismissive language in some of my earlier responses on this thread. I am sorry, and apologize to both Rick and Chad for this use of language on my part.

you do believe there will be no more war in God’s redeemed creation, right? Why should it be so crazy for the Church to assume that posture in the present?

There will be no giving and taking of marriage in God’s redeemed creation, as well. Why should it be so crazy for the Church to assume that posture in the present?

The root cause of Phariseeism was creating new rules and regulations not contained in Scripture in order to please God. They did it out of the best of motives, as I’m sure you’re doing right now, as you invent new “sins” and rules that Christians must follow. The thing is – they are not contained in Scripture, and not explicitly stated by Jesus or his Apostles. YES, by all means we should do what is possible to avoid the necessity of using deadly force in the resolution of conflict – in civil and international matters. The problem is, there will be those times when no number of embargoes, sanctions and “strongly written letters” will be sufficient to maintain peace, at which point the use of force is the last resort – and not a “sin”.

The problem in this debate, and others, is that we’re not content with the basic direction and examples that we’ve been given in Scripture, and we’re willing to toss out what we have been given in exchange for the fruits of our own extrabiblical logic. Case in point – #123.

Your response to the OT?

I don’t have them with me now, but several of them deal with a sense of progressive revelation and a look forward to a time when things will be very different.

So rather than rehashing that, I will simply quote Jesus: You have heard it said…..but I say unto you….

The thing with progressive revelation is that, when used, it does not make God a sinner at any point in time. In the case of declaring war, ontologically, a “sin” is that it does just that.

Jesus’ formula of “You have heard it said …, but I say unto you …” is never a nullification of the Torah, but an interpretation of it. It was a common rabbinical formula from about 200 BC to 300 AD for authoritative (s’mikah) rabbis to challenge a previous scriptural interpretation. It is never a nullification of Scripture, but a change to previous interpretations of Scripture. What you’ve proposed is a nullification of God ever have used violence, in exchange for a paradigm (”all violence is “sin”") that is contained nowhere in Scripture.

Does Jesus tell his disciples to sell some of their possessions in order to buy swords?

Yep. So what? We could both assume what the purpose behind that purchase really was. (emphasis mine)

So what? If we’re going to ex nihilio declare that all lethal force is sinful (which, by the way, would include any and all capital punishment), then Jesus telling his disciples to purchase swords deserves far more than a “so what?”. There is absolutely no “non-violent” reason for the purchase of swords, unless you want to argue that Jesus was looking for them to create a cool mantle-piece. However, from the context (that he told them that two were enough, and that they were paired with traveling gear), we can determine that the purpose of the swords was not to foment insurrection (which would have required one sword per person), but for the purpose of protection on the roads – which were incredibly unsafe between Jerusalem and Galilee.

I am making no argument that Jesus was trying to start a war, but, simply that it is quite evident that he did not condemn self-defense against random violence. There is no problem with this anywhere in Scripture, but it doesn’t jibe with the new law you’re creating (”all violence is sin”), so it has to be explained away with a “so what”. I’m sorry, but I don’t toss any Scripture away as “so what”, whether it is this single verse, or the first 39 books of the Bible.

No early Christians, either in the NT or after, were concluding that since they disciples went and bought a few swords that all Christians should be armed.

Even though Tertullian and some others disagreed with military service (which, in the case of Rome, would result in Christians as instruments of the government persecuting other Christians), their pacifism did not extend to suicide in the face of random, non-persecutory, violence. Trying to argue for an “overwhelming tenor” when there are no specifics to support such a broad claim is ludicrous and simply arguing from a generalist position because the specific evidence does not support one’s desired outcome.

When I say that all violence and war is sin I am not saying that those who use violence for the ends you suggest (self-defense where lethal force is not the object or some sort of force to help save someone innocent) are “sinners” or that they are in some way estranged from God.

I have to say that this is confusing, then. If all violence is sin, then those who use it for any purpose are sinners… If there are exceptions to the “all violence is sin” rule, then we ought to know what those are. As I (think I) stated above – the key purpose of “just war doctrine”, from St. Augustine to St. Thomas Aquinas to the modern day church, is not to justify war, but to prevent its use for unjust ends.

I am acknowledging that we live in a fallen world and often times our attempts to bring justice fall very short of the perfect will of God – a will that I believe envisions a world of non-violence and peace (weapons into plowshares and all that jazz).

I agree. However, you put the use of “just war” where it belongs – as part of a system of justice (i.e. in response to injustice), and not as a tool of rule, revenge or conquest. In the same way that there is a very high Scriptural bar set for capital punishment (high enough that no innocent should be falsely executed), the bar for the use of lethal force should be equally high and difficult to meet (so as to prevent “unjust” violence).

SO, the difference here is that where violence is used to bring the sorts of justice you speak of I would still lament.

As would I. Dispensing justice is not something that should bring satisfaction, but rather lamentation – whether it is sentencing someone to 30 hours of community service, or determining that war has become the only means by which to prevent a much greater injustice.

My beef is primarily with Christians trying to justify violence or war. Rather than justifying it we should be lamenting it.

These are not opposing actions (justification and lamentation). One may justify something, even if they lament its need.

We should name it for what it is – sin.

And now you’ve gone too far. Sometimes it is a just response to sin, and this is clear in Scripture. As Christians, when faced with simple persecution or a loss of honor or a national spirit of covetousness, we should resist attempts to justify the use of violence. When it is a response to an exiting evil that refuses all reasonable nonviolent means of peacemaking, though, it may become a lamentable necessity. In such cases, it is not sin. It is simply a lamentable dispensing of justice as a result of the sins of the aggressor.

An interesting and nationally (even globally) popular take on things in 162.

When it is followed and not paid lip-service to, it is not all that popular, nationally or globally (ex. see “Cold War”)…

What makes us a people worth torturing?

[blah, blah, nonviolence, blah, blah, imagination, blah, blah]

What makes us a people worth torturing?

Maybe we should go ask Ken and Igrid about that one, since they’ve been pissing and moaning up a storm with the exact same question for years about the lack of persecution in a country that the church had a hand in founding. And absence of persecution isn’t an indication of failure of the church.

Two sides of the same coin – one moaning that the church’s heart isn’t bleeding enough for temporal needs, and planning a Luddite utopia that will never arrive before Jesus does. The other one crying to the heavens that the church isn’t legalistically honed to the literal letter of the laws they’ve written as roadsigns on the razor-thin road to heaven. Both entirely miss the point, which is that we are simply to live in the situation God gives us, to be thankful for its blessings and its curses, and to seek His kingdom, which will likely disappoint every extremist from all corners of the faith who are dead-sure they’ve got it right and everybody else is a sell-out: A sell-out to the state, a sell-out to legalism, a sell-out to every new cockamamie idea that is branded “new” and “deep”.

The truth is far more likely to lie apart from the extremes, doing what we were commanded to do: to act justly (which just might involve supporting a war of necessity) and to love mercy (by doing all we can to seek the truth and patiently seek peaceful means by which to provide justice) and to walk humbly with your God (which might mean that He doesn’t need our extrabiblical commands to “help Him out”).

What sort of witness would be made to the world if the Church of Jesus Christ took an unflinching non-violent stand on all matters national or otherwise? What if Christ’s Church were opposed to violence of all kinds and refused to give it any justification….ever?

Can anyone imagine such a world and if so, how might that world look when compared to the other worlds that compete for one’s loyalty?

Who cares? It’s not the world we’re commanded to live in, and it basically thumbs its nose at God for the role He specifically gave to governing authorities: Justice.

I can imagine a world where the church gets all sorts of misguided ideas apart from Scripture and runs with them: Like that God wants us to be rich, and that if we have enough faith He will give us all the material wealth we desire. Of course, every extremist and misguided idea – like Word-Faith, Universalism, Total Societal Withdrawal, etc. – has somewhere in it a grain of truth: Yes, God blesses us so that we will bless others (but that doesn’t imply we will be blessed with material riches). Yes, God desires that all would choose him (even if they choose to reject Him via the free will He gave them). Yes, God does not want us to be completely indistinguishable from the world (but He didn’t tell us to completely withdraw). Yes, God desires that all men would get along peaceably (but sometimes there are evil men who will not stop their destruction without being stopped, so God gave allowance for that).

Every misguided idea in the church is built on a grain of truth, but taken so far to the extreme that it is a lie.

Just like the myth of “violence = sin”…

So, Chris L, should I assume that your answer to the question, “What makes us a people worth torturing?” is, “nothing”?

Were the state to demand that we worship someone/something other than God, like ancient Rome did, we’d be worth torturing. Otherwise, the church has not been worth torturing en masse in the Western world since about 325 AD. Sadly, they flipped to the other extreme for a long time (torturing unbelievers), before arriving where we are today – which is a degree of tolerance for people to worship God.

Rather than see this as a failure of the church, I see it as a victory of the church, in that it has had a significant enough affect on society that people are not being killed en masse for worshiping God. The absence of persecution is not de facto evidence that the church is in the wrong place on whatever your pet issue happens to be. We’ve written about that here before.

Acting justly = supporting a war

Yet “loving mercy” has nothing to do with a posture of non-violence.

Here is what I wrote:

to act justly (which just might involve supporting a war of necessity) and to love mercy (by doing all we can to seek the truth and patiently seek peaceful means by which to provide justice)

So not, neither characterization fits what I said. Acting justly does not equal supporting a war. Acting justly includes an entire spectrum of outcomes, only one of which might, lamentably, be a war. And in “loving mercy”, I chose the positive expression of “non-violence” – to seek peaceful means.

So no, your characterization of my answer is completely incorrect.

And Chris L’s answer to 169 is “Who cares?”

I stopped caring once I got to bullet point #1, which was asking all police officers, soldiers and government officials to either leave the church or leave their professions…

So one’s profession is of greater importance than one’s allegiance to the way of Christ?

No, but Jesus & his apostles showed with Zaccheus, Corneilus, Sergius Pallus, the Centurion, and others that excluding people from the kingdom, based on our narrow political beliefs (like nonviolence and anti-governmentalism) is not a principle supported by the kingdom. If they were willing to accept tax collectors and professional peacekeepers into the kingdom, we’ve got no business excluding them.

You depicted seeking justice as something that can possibly lead to supporting a war

Yes – which is not to say that justice equals supporting a war. It only includes it in the realm of possibility. Thus to categorize my position as “justice = supporting a war” is incorrect.

and made “loving mercy” something we do so long as everyone else plays along (i.e. don’t make me use violence on you, or I will).

No – it is seeking peaceful solutions, and granting mercy where it might be warranted. I had no implied threat as part of “mercy”.

If you truly love mercy you have no business supporting a war of any kind.

And now we’re back to opinion, rather than biblical truth. There is no biblical support for such a pronouncement.

Whenever you have a hammer in your pocket (just war theory) everything begins to look like a nail.

The purpose of just war theory is not to help justify a war, but to prevent wars that would be unjust. Once you find a universal pronouncement in the Bible which declares that “violence is sin” you’ll have a leg to stand on. Until then, it’s just pithy comments and sophistry.

FYI – 178 was the other Chris, not me…

I’m not excluding anyone. I’m naming a higher way.

If you are suggesting that the church denounce any form of lethal force, then you are excluding professions that Jesus & his apostles explicitly included within the church.

Vengeance is mine, says the Lord.

The purpose of a just war is not vengeance – it is to prevent great evils from continuing. Vengeance is acting out of revenge. Two different things.

By definition, loving mercy excludes the support of war.

Not in the Bible, it doesn’t.

Mercy is being shown in the deliverance of those who were under the oppression of the aggressor. It’s amazing that you’re all about showing “compassion” (quotes intended) to an oppressor, but giving the middle finger to the oppressed. Seems your kingdom is upside down from what Jesus taught.

There is no such thing as “just war.”

Certainly there is – to this point, you’ve given no evidence from Scripture to the contrary. Once you provide the Scripture that says that all violence is sin, I’ll accept your premise. Until then, I’ll go with Jesus, Peter, Paul, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Luther, and the Methodist Church (among a lot of others) in seeing it as a viable, but lamentable, option of last recourse.

Why is the “buy a sword” statement germaine to the just war conversation, but the turn the other cheek statement is only personal or metaphorical?

Rick – I addressed both.

1) Jesus telling the disciples to go buy swords was a mundane instruction given in the same way as me telling my son to go buy a gallon of milk at the store – it is an indicator of basic action. The phrase Jesus uses right after this instruction is an indicator that he (Jesus) will no longer be with the disciples for awhile (which is why they would need physical protection, and why two swords would suffice).

2) “Turn the other cheek” (along with “give him your cloak”, and “walk an extra mile”) is an admonition against aggressive response to an affront to one’s honor, not self-defense. When someone slaps your cheek, your life (or anyone else’s) is not in danger. If someone wants to sue you for your tunic, your life (or anyone else’s) is not in danger. When someone tells you to talk a mile, your life (or anyone else’s) is not in danger. I did not say this was only personal or metaphorical. Each of the three examples Jesus gives is an example of nonviolent resistance to degrading/dishonorable stimuli.

This is an instruction that armed resistance toward a personal affront to your honor is unacceptable. That is a completely different ballgame than self-defense from common crime – or (at a larger level) national defense from an aggressor nation. I did not dismiss this passage as metaphorical – I said it was part of pekuach nefesh – the saving of life, and a criteria for preventing war. The same goes for the root motives of revenge (which is similar to responding to dishonor) and conquest (which is taking something that does not belong to you).

Did they hunt with swords?

Swords are not a hunting implement. Spears, slings, arrows and similar thrown/launched objects were the primary hunting implements in the Ancient Near East, also noting that hunting was not a common method of gathering food, since game animals were scarce, and many non-kosher. Staffs were the primary instruments of protection from wild animals, not swords, and the road between Jerusalem and Galilee didn’t have a wild-animal problem – you had to go to the wilderness (east and south-east of Jerusalem) to encounter them (the opposite direction from which the disciples’ traveled after Jesus’ death).

Secondly, if Jesus rebukes Peter for cutting off the guards ear, which he would undoubtedly see as self-defense, I cannot see that the disciples would see it as OK to defend themselves later in time. In fact, legend tells us that most of them died martyrs.

That was rebellion against an authority, not self-defense.

Perhaps I missed the context of this question, but I don’t see how it fits in this conversation. Of course C is the best answer.

I was getting to the point that “love your neighbor” is not an instruction to submit to your neighbor’s sinful desire.

The make or break idea in all of this for me is Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:44 – “But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”.

Which is, again, a response to persecution, not common crime. And yes, the minimum force necessary should be used in preventing such crime (on a personal or national level), with lethal force only as a last resort.

Also, as far as not fighting for oppressed people groups, wouldn’t Jesus Himself be guilty of not fighting to end the actual physical oppression of His people when He was alive. I believe He certainly could have had He wanted.

The people in Israel were not being subjected to genocide, and the only thing about them that brought a violent response from Rome was an insistence that Caesar was not Lord. Thus, the violence against them was specifically religious persecution (which we are to bear under), not an ethnic or genocidal motive.

I just wonder if sometimes it gets down to our hubris as people to think that our actions have the ability to bring about real justice.

Yet, the provision of justice is a responsibility God has given to our authorities. The difference between a policeman shooting a mad gunman (like at Fort Hood) and an army confronting a genocidal nation (like with Hitler) is only a matter of scale. In each case, justice demands a swift response with the minimal force required to end the situation. It is not the governing authorities acting out of hubris, but them fulfilling their role in maintaining order until Jesus returns.

Chad – Once you delve into the Old Testament you have now entered the Twilight Zone because you MUST parse it subjectivily without any directions from the Word itself as to how to choose which comes into the NT and which stays in the OT.

To quote Col. Sherman T. Potter: “Horse-Hockey”

Actually, the OT is rather clear about which laws are for whom. The laws given at Mount Sinai are specifically given to the Hebrews. There are several within there that are either a) expanded to include both Jews and resident aliens; or b) narrowed to only include specific groups (like the priesthood) or individuals (like the High Priest). The primary difference between what was given at Mount Sinai and what was given before Moses often gets referred to as “ceremonial law”, or “sacrificial law” and/or “festival laws” – as shorthand for what is actually contained within the text.

Paul’s comments against Gentiles having to follow the laws given specifically to the Jews, and not the Gentiles, in the OT are a direct response to Jewish missionaries who preceeded him (by up to 100 years), who taught that one must convert to Judiasm to be saved by God. Paul’s teaching was that Gentiles need not become Jewish (nor did Jews have to abandon the laws directed at them) in order to be Christian.

The only reason it becomes “subjective” is that we treat the Bible as an instruction manual, where each verse is a single instruction and the section-headings are buried within earlier portions of text that we’re too lazy to go find.

If the OT offers us some norming norms, what of polygamy? If God allowed polygamy in the beginning was God wrong? Did God sin?

Ah – now you have picked up on a legitimate case of progressive revelation. God did not command anyone marry a second wife, but over time the norm of one-man-one-wife was established. I know missionaries who deal with people who come to Christ in polygamous marriages, and their instruction isn’t to divorce all but one, but (wisely, and biblically) that them must provide for all of them and take on no more. God did not sin – and God did not command anyone to sin. You are mistaking passive allowance for active command. God actually commanded His people to use lethal force on certain occasions (including adding it to their system of justice, which allowed them – only when two eyewitnesses could confirm the crime – to carry out capital punishment).

As for denouncing professions, neither Jesus or Paul denounced the system of slavery yet I don’t hear you claiming slavery is “just” or not a sinful enterprise.

“Holding slaves” is not a profession. Being a tailor is a profession.

Vengeance is acting out of revenge

So God acts out of revenge?

From the dictionary:

venge·ance (ven?j?ns) noun
1. the return of an injury for an injury, in punishment or retribution; avenging of an injury or offense; revenge

So yes…

That seems to be a rather fine and arbitrary line. When Stephen was stoned, would he have been correct to fight back against those who were stoning him?

You seem to be advocating a position that says if a government official is doing the persecuting than it is wrong to fight back. If it’s a random act committed by an individual, then fight back. I don’t see where there’s a clear line. There are certainly plenty of times when governmental authority is used wrongly against its own citizens.

Persecution is specifically an act of violence enacted towards a person out of a motive to discredit their religion/God, or to show the superiority of their own god (or lack thereof). That is not arbitrary, but rather apparent in each situation. The guy holding hostages at the local 7-11 isn’t trying to persecute Christians – he’s trying to take something that isn’t his out of greed.

That is why I think there is a lot of value in non-violent resistant methods. It prevents us from dehumanizing those on the other side.

I agree. I’ve said all along that lethal force is the last line of defense, after all practical nonviolent methods have been tried. Do we need to be more creative in our nonviolent methods? Certainly – “strongly written letters” from the UN have become a punchline, not a deterrent.

Therefore, if a Christian should not be in government, then nobody should be in government. If a Christian should not be a policeman, nobody should be a policeman. If a Christian should not be a soldier, then nobody should be a soldier.

It seems to me that the issue isn’t so much whether a Christian can be those things, but rather what is our identity. To a non-Christian, simply being a soldier may be their primary identity. To a Christian, however, our identity is no longer just our profession – it’s that we follow Christ. And we cannot follow Christ and continue to follow the systems that govern the Domination System. So a Christian police officer should look very different than a non-Christian one.

I agree – it should be that way with any profession. I am an engineer, by profession, but my identity should be that I am a Christian. As such, I should likely practice engineering differently than a non-Christian. Even so, that does not negate the purpose of having police officers, judges, government officials, or soldiers. If these professions are ontologically sinful, nobody should hold them. If these professions are not ontologically sinful, then we should not tell Christians that they should not hold such professions.

I admire your patience and persistence despite having to respond the the same questions (or permutations thereof) many times over. The discussion has become very cyclical, and that can be a frustrating thing.

Thanks Eric. Sometimes, I wish I could just say “did you even read the article”, but I’ve come to realize that maybe restating something in a different way will *click* in a way it did not the first (or fifth) time…

The way I think of violence is this. It’s like radiation therapy in cancer treatment. The therapy itself is destructive and actually harms the body, but it’s a lesser evil than the cancer itself. Sometimes we are at the place where there is no other means but that in dealing with disease. So in a sense, the treatment can be seen as good, but in another sense it’s not good because of it’s destructive effects.

I can agree to that, as well. That is the purpose of pikuach nefesh – to determine the “lesser of evils” when there is no choice that is completely nondestructive.

One thing I was going to add earlier re: persecution – pikuach nefesh states that one cannot blaspheme to prevent the taking of innocent life (it is one of the three primary exceptions in saving an innocent life). Persecution is an attempt to prove domination over the god(s) of the persecuted. In the case of Roman persecution, many of the accounts we read of the martyrs and their deaths include attempts to get them to recant (sometimes with a promise of living – or sparing the lives of their loved ones – if they will only declare Caesar as lord). Refusing to fight back against such persecution is preventing yourself from blaspheming, even if it costs you your life.

Random violence against you, on the other hand, is not an effort to attack your God, but simply a matter of greed/envy/etc. on the part of the aggressor. We are not commanded to accept random violence as something we will not use force to prevent.

#241: When do we get to chuck out the command that says “Thou shall not kill”?

Because if there is clear scriptural mandate on when we can then I’m not sure why it even makes the Top 10.

I covered that in the article, as Eric and Paul note. The word used (in both Greek and Hebrew) indicates premeditated murder, not all types of taking a life. There are several words available in both Greek and Hebrew which God could have used if he wanted the Sixth Commandment to be “You shall not kill (anyone, ever)” but He did not.

#227 war reduced to police action

Up until fairly recently, in the history of man, war was usually a police action. The soldiers who enforced the local laws were the same ones who defended the cities/countries. The principle governing both is the same. Local action, though, is simply on a smaller scale.

At what line am I allowed to “protect” myself? Only when my life is threatened? When exactly is that?

When your life, or the life of an innocent is in danger of an active rodef (pursuer), and then only the minimum required to protect the life of the innocent person.

This is why I say the lines seem to be blurry and rather arbitrary. There are instances where someone is in the midst of shooting spree or something where it is very clear that the perpetrator needs to be stopped, but there are other instances that seem to be harder to discern.

I can see all sorts of commands (like “love your neighbor” and “love the Lord your God”) which, when we have to apply them to real-life situations, end up with lines that seem blurry and/or arbitrary. That doesn’t make these commands wrong – it just means that we need to pray for the right judgment when faced with such situations, and to try and think out our principles ahead of time, rather than in the heat of the moment.

My concern is that many Christians do not see violence as the last resort, but rather the first resort.

And mine, as well.

One of the guys I talk to back stage on Sunday morning is a Christian policeman (in uniform – he helps direct traffic after we let out from services, and he escorts the collected offering to the safe deposit box). He was talking a few weeks ago about all of the training and prep he is constantly going through in learning how to diffuse situations with the minimal force possible. In 10+ years on the force, he’s only had to draw his gun on a handful of occasions, and he’s never had to shoot a suspect. He said that without that training, things would likely be much different, because you don’t have enough time to think through all the available options when lives are on the line.

I think our leaders should (and some do) go to that level of preparation.

I’m off to visit Christian P., so I’ll be back l8r tonight.

FYI – Paul – do a Google search on Jus ad bellum, Jus in bellum, and Jus post bellum – Those should get to some of your answers…

Is it the soldier on a “clearing” mission, after an air raid, in a village who shoots civilians.

No – but you’re now getting into jus in bellum (right conduct within the framework of war), whereas we’ve been primarily dealing with jus ad bellum (the right to initiate war). So, in short, no the soldier’s actions are injust, and the father’s actions are just.

One other thought to chew on (that I mentioned several times in the article) – having the clear ability, and potential willingness (as a last resort) to provide an adequate defense, is often the most effective form of nonviolence available. Simply having an armed officer at the entrance of an establishment is often enough of a deterrent that he (or she) never has to unholster a weapon.