Can Christians Support (This) War?
I wish it were easier for churches to have a discussion about war. But it’s one of the most difficult issues to talk about.
For one thing, for many families this isn’t just a hypothetical discussion. They have sons and daughters who are in the military — some of whom are deployed overseas. And others are veterans who are proud of their military service.
There are two historic positions that are represented in almost all our churches.
A third “position” I won’t consider. It’s the one that seems dominant in places — the “I’m-proud-to-be-an-American-and-let’s-kick-some-Islamic-butt” position. It isn’t Christian, so I won’t discuss it.
One view is that Christians must never participate in or support war. This position has, among other arguments, these convictions:
(1) The teaching of Jesus encourages us, in light of the inbreaking shalom of God, to refrain from anything except love for our enemies. He insists that we not pay back “eye for eye and tooth for tooth” — the law of retaliation (Matthew 5:38-42). And he says: “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven” (Matthew 5:43-48).
(2) The death of Jesus points us to a way of nonviolence. He broke the cycle of violence through life-giving sacrifice.
(3) The Old Testament points to a time when swords will be beaten into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks (e.g., Isaiah 2:4). I remember when Hugo McCord came to our church in Missouri for a gospel meeting and taught the pacifist position. This was his text.
Pacifism has historically been an emphasis in leaders of the Restoration Movement — leaders who were convinced that others trust in horses and chariots but we trust in the name of the Lord our God. You’d perhaps be surprised to know that many of the influential Christian leaders whose books you read or sermons you’ve listened to are pacifists.
The other position is the just war position. This conviction is that in this fallen world, evil must be contained. With reluctance and with tears, we must hold back those who seek to oppress, even if force is involved — all the while longing for the peace-filled kingdom to come in its fullness.
What’s my position? That’s not significant here. (Perhaps I’ll drop a note if a discussion develops. You might be surprised.) What IS significant is that churches are going to have to have this discussion. We’re going to need to listen to each other without condemning. We’re going to have to study afresh and agree to disagree, since study alone (contrary to what I thought growing up) won’t solve this!
Someone said that this issue isn’t just black or white, but I think that’s just what it is. Either Jesus approves of me putting a bullet through the head of my brother in Christ whose country also told him to go and fight a “just” war or He doesn’t approve; it’s just that simple. Now, all of us agreeing on the right answer may be a difficult task, but this is truly a black/white issue.
Can anyone produce the NT teaching that allows a Christian to physically perpetrate violence against another human being for ANY reason? Call me crazy, but I still think the Scriptures should guide us on these matters.
“Can a Christian be a police officer?” A Christian can be anything and do any profession that doesn’t require him/her to perpetrate violence against another human being. If a profession necessarily requires violence, to perpetrate that violence would be just as wrong as perpetrating a lie in a profession (smile all you lawyers and politicians) that necessarily requires dishonesty. Le us remember . . . we belong to Christ before we belong to any other person or thing.
Also, let us not confuse the church with the state, as someone has already commented. The US is making war because that’s what nations do . . they kill. The US is not a Christian nation, for if it were, it would do what Christ did. Christ did not kill . . . period! There are no exceptions to that; and the atrocities that existed in His day equal ours, so no “things-have-changed” argument will stand.
“What if someone wants to rob and kill you and your family?” Let them do it. They can’t destroy the soul. God is in control, yea, even if I must lose my life. I don’t find that Christ allows me to become violet just because I want to live continue living. Self-preservation is not in the NT.
An earlier poster said that total pacifism is theoretically right, but practically impossible (at least for him). Then, what good is it? What good is Mat. 5-7 if we’re not going to commit our lives to living it out at all cost? What good is any of the NT if we’re not going to truly repent (change our mind)?
I believe this issue truly sheds light on how cultural comfortable and connected American Christians are. In many respects, this country truly is our home.
Someone said” To the contrary, I think any reading of scripture that sees only pacifism must ignore a large portion of the old testament and Romans as well.”
Well, we ignore a lot of the OT. Is it your stance that this is an issue that we should us OT teaching to guide us in determining the what to do with this issue? What about other issues where we ignore the OT? What/Who determines when to use the OT and when not?
Christina pacifism is truly that . . . Christian. The teaching b/w the OT and NT are clearly different for different contexts.
Concerning Romans, Paul was not telling Christians to assist the government in what it does. He was simply warning Christians not to do evil because God can use governments, even evil government, to punish evil doers. That’s not, however, the same thing as telling Christians to take up arms in aid of an un-Christian government.
Concerning
I’ve never yet met a man who accepts the parts of the OT about YHWH kicking butt and taking names and committing genocide, and asks his wife to sleep outside during that time of the month when she’s “unclean.”
Hooray for inconsistency!
To quote my favorite poster in my office:
“A Modest Proposal for Peace…Let the Christians of the world agree that they will not kill each other.”
GKB-
I (and likely others) would appreciate it if you would try and refrain from being so cynical.
Matthew 26:52-54
52″Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”
It seems to me here that Jesus isn’t condmening violence as sin, but rather pointing out that in this case it would be futile. Not only that, but in this specific case fulfilling the scripture was more important than anything. I only bring it up because although we see this case where Jesus takes the course of peace, it doesn’t seem he does so because violence is sinful, but rather because it is wise.
If you use this example to say “see, we should never take part in violence”, I would say you are guilty of the same kind of legalism that has plagued us for years. Only this time it is coming from a different side of the aisle.
Then again, I would like to see how others interpret this passage.
I wonder if those of you who purport to eschew violence in every physical way would be interested in just dialing it back a little in rhetorical ways. If I were new to this community, I would marvel at how purely binary some of you see things. As it is, I marvel anyway.
Even a William Willimon – no warmongering neocon he! – makes room for a nuanced attitude that attends a decision to go to war with deep, deep regret, sadness and grief. (Holler if you want a link that will illustrate that.)
Instead, what I find here is that I am either in the Mennonite/pacifist camp or the “Let’s Bomb Our Enemies Into Hell (Literally, because we know that’s where they’re going)” camp. Remarkable, to say the least. I would be happy to find out that that’s all just hyperbolic smart-alecking for laughs, but the binary theme just keeps cropping up…
Whatever happened to “asking the next question” and being sensitive to the profound, labyrinthine complexity of this whole thing, instead of trivializing or demonizing or outright misrepresenting someone else’s position, or assigning it to some category that is a caricature of its real content?
GKB-
I (and likely others) would appreciate it if you would try and become more cynical.
Question for preachers: what would happen in your church if next Sunday morning you spoke about the war with a peacemaking/prophetic edge–nice, but clear? Just curious.
“for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.” Kyle, I appreciate your perspective on what Jesus says after this part, but this seems like a pretty universal statement to me.
Mark,
That is just my point. He could’ve said “for all who draw the sword shall not inherit the kingdom of God” or something like that. In other words, he could’ve condemned violence as a whole. Instead, he said something more along the lines of “pulling a sword here is only going to get you killed and this isn’t the time”. Something like that.
I find cynicism is a fine tack to take in this sort of discussion. We’ll spend hours debating it, no one will likely change their minds, and thousands of people will still die because Christians either directly killed them or were indirectly involved in causing their deaths. Heck, by virtue of living in this country, I am one of those indirectly involved…
And, I’m still working on becoming a tamed cynic. Old Reiny (Niebuhr) used to be a pacifist, and then he became a tamed cynic and said maybe Christians should kill other people out of love.
Besides, how can you not be a little cynical when people want to invoke the Old Testament as a means of defending God’s people going to war, but then ignoring other significant passages (like eating cheeseburgers, or wearing poly-cotton blends). I, for one, will not stand for it. If you’re going to be all OT on me, you’d sure as heck better eschew cheeseburgers.
And, on a final note, QB, I didn’t say you had to be in one of those two camps. I just said you could find those two diverse opinions within the universal body of Christ…you could probably also find a group that would say you can kill people, but only on Thursdays and you should feel really bad about it. I’m just sayin’, there’s diversity.
This is an interesting discussion because so many confess ambiguity. We are certain we are right when we discuss abortion or worship music, but most of us are less certain about war. I think that is a good thing.
I was born during WWII. My father and all of my uncles and most of the fathers of my friends were veterans. I was taught that America had saved the free world and that men like my dad and my uncles had done a wonderful thing. I am still proud of them, and I know that my life would be much worse now if there had not been many American fathers and uncles who were willing to fight in wars.
I graduated from high school and college in the 60s and I came to believe war was evil, but my church pointed to the rebellious youth who opposed the war against godless communism.
Because the US is a so-called Christian nation then it was necessary to fight communism.
Now J. Falwell, who embarrasses many Christians I think (at least he embarasses me), says that we must vote for the candidate for president who will combat Muslims.
With this point of view, then a Christian would be justified to “water board” a Muslim in order to preserve the Christian faith.
My fear is that we have so confused our nationality with our religion that we cannot think clearly about either. On this particular issue, I can’t.
(Again, only the Catholic church seems to have a consistent pro-life stance.)
qb,
I must honestly ask, “What other options are there?” Either it’s right or wrong to take to take the life of a fellow Christian in the name of “justice” Please explain to us the complexities of a deep, regretful and sad situation that make this a difficult question to answer (and this is an honest question).
This is not a caricature situation; it is reality for those who content for the just war ideology. Let’s not evade the issue by not responding to the argument . . .Can a Christian kill an innocent person with the approval of Christ? Do you believe that the implications of one’s belief is as important as the belief itself? I, as a complete and total pacifist, am willing to accept the most severe implication of my belief: Allowing another human to take my life. Stephen, Paul, and thousands of others accepted this implication with joy and considered it a privilege to walk in the steps of Christ. I pray for such a faith!
Please pardon me if I am being rather forceful in my writing, but I see violence (for any cause) as a direct assault to the heart of what it means to walk like Jesus, hence, my passion. I know that others will not see it my way, but can we at least agree that the NT Scriptures don’t give the Christian the right to exert violence in any instance? If so, where is the teaching? Even those that would set forth Romans 13 or Jesus in the temple (and I think they misuse these texts) fail to recognize that those texts, even misused and taken out of context, don’t support the taking of innocent life, an occurrence too frequent in every war, including the just ones.
Someone stated in an earlier post, “If I see a man raping a child, then violence is permitted.” Okay, using this same reasoning, we can then bomb abortion clinics and murder abortion doctors. What’s worse? The raping of a child or sucking a child’s brains out and throwing him in the trash can before he can take his first breath? Why stop the rapist, but allow the abortionist?
I don’t see this issue as complex (pardon me for being too simple). I know that being ambiguous and refusing to be dogmatic is considered intellectual in some circles, but this issue is not complex. We make it complex with our “situations,” but the Scriptures are clear (to me) on this issue.
I had family over in Iraq and there are great things going on that the media doesn’t cover. School being built. Road’s amd bridges built. Education,English being taught, etc. Mosque’s bein built as well that were destroyed in bombings. Homes being built. Good thing going on.
Jesus says blessed are the peace makers for they will be called son’s of God.
Larry
It wouldn’t fly – that’s what would happen.
qb,
“What’s worse? The raping of a child or sucking a child’s brains out and throwing him in the trash can before he can take his first breath? Why stop the rapist, but allow the abortionist?”
Why not compare the two like you have any idea about either one? If you’ve been raped as child and no one stopped it but could I bet you would be “pissed”(mild understatement). If you were aborted then you wouldn’t be posting.
Hello Leland,
It was me, maddog, not qp that gave the post you quoted . . . just for clarification.
In my estimation, the aborted child is deprived of just as much (perhaps more) than someone who has been physically violated. The original point, however, still remains: Upon what principle would you stop the first perpetration and not the second? The fact that the aborted child was not yet born, thus, the murder of the same is not as worthy of exerting violence?
maddog,
“but can we at least agree that the NT Scriptures don’t give the Christian the right to exert violence in any instance?”
This is really close to the “NT scriptures don’t give us the right to use a piano” argument (I prefer acapella by the way).
An honest question, can you show me a complete prohibition for violence in all cases in the NT? I will accept that in some cases Jesus showed his disciples a better way.
I understand GKB’s point that you can’t take part of the Old Testament without taking all of it. And I agree with that if you are going to use it as law. But I tend to read the Old Testament as a tool to understand the personality of God.
I wouldn’t say we are bound by the law, but I would say that it was not evil. I can’t comprehend God making his people do evil to please him and punishing them for not obeying. However, something that I haven’t heard here is that violence is condemned in the Old Testament. The term “violent” is almost explicitly spoken against in the OT. But I get the impression that all bloodshed is not considered violence in the Bible. It seems that people following God and going to war against his enemies in the OT are merely doing his will. I think the OT definitely leaves exception for those with pure hearts who are called by God to physical battle. It seems once again to be a matter of the heart. There is no room, even in the OT, for bloodthirst, mercilessness and violence for violence’ sake. Certainly nothing contradicts that statement in the NT. But even in the NT I don’t see anywhere that the definition of violence gets expanded. It seems to me that if God suddenly changed his mind and decided to make what was previously obedience into evil, he would’ve made that clear.
I agree that violence should be a last resort. I think our focus in life should be to love. But I think sometimes love means standing up for the weak. We never saw Jesus in one of the extreme places we have described here except his own death. And even then, I think we could all agree that Jesus had a higher purpose than just taking a stand against violence.
Your attempts to paint this as a black and white issue are pretty problematic for you. If you take your position to it’s logical conclusion, those serving in the militarily by choice and killing their fellow man on behalf of their country are living in unrepented sin. If they refuse to confess and repent, they must be disfellowshipped (or however you believe you should deal with such sin). Also, any veterans who committed these sins must confess..oh and policemen. If you say nothing to the murderers in your congregation then the blood is on your hands as well. Maybe I go to far, but if so I’d be curious how far you believe you should go with this.
I’ve always seen Rom. 13 as speaking about the “king’s enforcers” as being Roman pagan soldiers. That the early Christians stayed away from military service, though, seems to have been about the idolatry involved in burning incense to the unit’s standard as well as pacifism, which then brings in the whole thing of balancing patriotism with “No man can serve two masters.” All these ramblings are just about stirring the pot a little bit, but we have to keep in mind that this just ain’t no perfect world and, whether by the “enforcers” or by a man defending his family, it seems like some folks just need killing.
I’ve always seen Rom. 13 as speaking about the “king’s enforcers” as being Roman pagan soldiers. That the early Christians stayed away from military service, though, seems to have been about the idolatry involved in burning incense to the unit’s standard as well as pacifism, which then brings in the whole thing of balancing patriotism with “No man can serve two masters.” All these ramblings are just about stirring the pot a little bit, but we have to keep in mind that this just ain’t no perfect world and, whether by the “enforcers” or by a man defending his family, don’t some folks just need killing?
I cant help but believe that Christians are supposed to be “militant pacifists.” By that I mean that we are supposed to be aggressive, confrontational, and willing to put our lives on the line for the good of others, all the while we are to be peaceful, loving, and never willing to kill another person.
I am a pacifist because I cant see anything in the teachings of Jesus that indicate that any other way of life is acceptable.
Believe me, that isnt a conclusion I came to without out putting up at fight, excuse the pun. I used to get fired up when I would hear that Toby Keith song, or when people would say things like “bomb ‘em all.” I couldnt buy into pacifism because it went against everything I understood to be true about the world.
But then I realized that the teachings of Jesus had the same sort of effect on most of the things I understood to be true about the world. I began to realize that my duty as a Christian is nothing more or nothing less than to be like Jesus. If that is true then I must lay my life down for others in the way that I live and my willingness to die and must pray “Father forgive them, for they dont know what they are doing.” I cant see how I can do that while I am firing back at those who are firing at me.
Shalom.
Snapshot-
I appreciate your comments and for jumping in the fray. I think along the same lines you do and you put it out to the masses well.
Thank you
Larry James: “Question for preachers: what would happen in your church if next Sunday morning you spoke about the war with a peacemaking/prophetic edge–nice, but clear? Just curious.”
My question would be rather, what would happen in our churches and in our hearts if next Sunday and every Sunday; in fact, every time we approach the Throne of God, we spoke about the war with a prayer for our enemies – that they know Christ and Him crucified; that through Jesus true peace would come to the earth? Would we not be following more of Jesus’ commands if we were to “pray for our enemies…” than if we were to non-prayerfully poke at our congregations? Just a thought.
Why is it so difficult to understand Jesus statement that we are not to “resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also”?
Martin, one last thought here and I’ve got to get myself ready for a surgical procedure the first of the week, too much to do.
Have we considered the difference between a personal slap on the cheek, which we can turn back with forgiveness and prayer; and a mass attack on thousands of people which does trigger a governmental response. IMHO, the governments God has formed are responsible to Him for the care and welfare of those He entrusted to that government. Kind of reminds me of what Jesus said in His prayer “…I’ve not lost any that you have entrusted to me…”
Yes, on a personal level we can and must forgive the hurt another causes us, forgiving that same repeated hurt over and over again. But is a government to do the same? Does it not have a God-given responsibility to care for the mass of people in that nation? I think so. And while the government is doing so, we Christians have an obligation to be praying for those enemies; praying that the enemies that have attacked us will know the saving grace of Jesus and Him crucified, iow we must pray for all of our enemies, be they personal, civic, national or international.
There. I’ve gone on and on enough about this subject and am hereby removing myself for this squirrel cage of repeating myself yet again.
Have a blessed rest of preparatory Saturday – tomorrow may your communion and worship of God in company of your individual congregations be pleasing to Him and edifying to all.
I stipulate the following:
1. Those who are vulnerable and oppressed have a moral claim on me, and the intensity of that moral claim is proportional to my reach. Thus, I ought to relieve that suffering that is within my reach and my capacity to relieve.
2. The intensity of that moral claim is also modulated, to some extent, by the nature of the suffering in question. If the suffering is salutary in some way – for example, a child suffering under the rod of appropriate discipline – then love demands that I *not* relieve suffering until and unless, in my Christ-constrained view, the suffering has reached some threshold of effect. (Where that threshold resides is a question for another thread.) However, if the suffering is gratuitously inflicted or intrinsically oppressive or arbitrary, the intensity of the moral claim increases.
3. Occasionally, Christ calls one or more of us to lay down our lives on behalf of others as the supreme act of Christlike love.
4. Sometimes, the oppressed whose suffering is within my reach are held by evil forces who will not withdraw their oppression except when forcibly removed, either by God or by me.
5. If God will not act to free them, I must consider doing so myself. Perhaps I am his agent in the matter, perhaps not; and I dare not move without seeking him at every hand. But I cannot ignore the moral claim of the suffering one within my reach.
And the notion that “if you take any of the OT, you have to take all of it” sounds very pious and orthodox, but in truth, it is eminently debatable. In any case, its relevance pales in comparison to this: is the Jehovah of the OT (if indeed there is only one portrayed there!) the same as the Jehovah of the NT, or not? And if not, which Jehovah is he?
Maddog, you may be comfortable reducing this to a binary matter even in the face of the uncountable permutations of injustice that cry out for relief: we solve one moral quandary, and Satan responds by complicating the matter further the next time around. If that is your position, though, you have simply assumed away the problems, and there is little use in conversing with you; go in peace.
qb
Martin:
It’s not that “turn the other cheek” is difficult to understand; it is, rather, that Jesus’ teaching does not spell out the breathtakingly universal scope and scale of application that you so easily assume is present in Matthew 5.
Simply put: I am not always the one threatened. In some cases (see also: Sudan, Nepal, Bosnia, Rwanda, Laredo, etc.), I must ask whether or not I am permitted, in effect, to turn someone else’s cheek for them, especially if that someone is (speaking allegorically here) a widow or an orphan. The weak have a moral claim on me that may extend to the point of laying down my life, which implies something about the lengths to which I must be willing to go to make a meaningful attempt at relieving their suffering.
qb
One final stipulation:
6. In my attempt to relieve suffering in the conditions implied by #5, I should use the minimum level of violence required to make a meaningful attempt (which is to say, having a bona fide opportunity to succeed) at relieving the suffering.
Of course, that always begs the next question.
qb
One last question, and qb will shut up and go away.
I am straining with all the resources I can muster – including prayer, lest ye assume qb is trying this on his own – to move decisively in the direction of nonviolence. I do see the Christian ethic as being one of peacemaking, heaping coals on the head of others by acts of kindness, overcoming evil with good etc. (In case it’s relevant, qb stands pretty well alone in this regard within his men’s study group, originally built around Eldredge’s _Wild at Heart_. But I digress.)
If I assume that the book of Hebrews contains canonical truth, I find some difficulty in the latter half of the 11th chapter. We easily embrace the truths of the first half of the book, but the second half poses some problems for the uncompromising pacifist. Surely we are not to understand, are we, that the heroes of faith who expressed their faith by “putting foreign armies to flight [as mighty men of war]” did so by painting the toenails of their enemies and singing kum-bah-yah?
Or was the author of Hebrews just taking note of their ancillary activities and concealing the true reasons for considering these men heroes of faith? Were these men heroes of faith because of their military exploits, or in spite of them, and if the latter, what is the reasoning that brings you to that point? (And using similar logic, was Rahab a heroine of faith because of what she did, or in spite of it?)
qb
QP,
THANKS FOR YOUR CHALLENGING COMMENTS.
I’LLWRITE IN ALL CAPS TO DISTINGUISH MY RESPONSES.
qp said
I stipulate the following:
1. Those who are vulnerable and oppressed have a moral claim on me, and the intensity of that moral claim is proportional to my reach. Thus, I ought to relieve that suffering that is within my reach and my capacity to relieve.
QP, NO ONE DISAGREES WITH YOU HERE. WE AS CHRISTIANS DO HAVE A MORAL OBLIGATION TO RELIEVE THE OPPRESSED AND DOWNTRODDEN, BUT THE ISSUE IS HOW FAR ARE WE ALLOWED TO GO IN RELIEVING THE OPPRESSED. CAN WE MURDER, LIE, CHEAT, STEAL, COMMIT FORNICATION, ETC. ALL IN NAME OF THE HELPING THE OPPRESSED? YOU MAY BELIEVE THIS, BUT I NEED YOU TO LET US KNOW.
2. The intensity of that moral claim is also modulated, to some extent, by the nature of the suffering in question. If the suffering is salutary in some way – for example, a child suffering under the rod of appropriate discipline – then love demands that I *not* relieve suffering until and unless, in my Christ-constrained view, the suffering has reached some threshold of effect. (Where that threshold resides is a question for another thread.) However, if the suffering is gratuitously inflicted or intrinsically oppressive or arbitrary, the intensity of the moral claim increases.
FINE, THEN PLEASE ANSWER WHETHER OR NOT CHRISTIANS CAN (“MUST” WOULD BE THE TERM MORE AKIN TO THE JUST WAR IDOLOGY) TAKE UP ARMS AND STOP THE ABORTION DOCTORS. YOU FAILED TO RESPOND TO THIS POINT IN YOUR RESPONSE. DO YOU FEEL THAT ABORTION IS “INTRINSICALLY OPPRESSIVE” TO THE UNBORN CHILD?
3. Occasionally, Christ calls one or more of us to lay down our lives on behalf of others as the supreme act of Christlike love.
I AGREE WITH YOU.
4. Sometimes, the oppressed whose suffering is within my reach are held by evil forces who will not withdraw their oppression except when forcibly removed, either by God or by me.
AGAIN, ARE NOT THE ABORTED CHILDREN THROWN INTO A TRASH CAN AT YOUR LOCAL ABORTION CLINIC MUCH MORE WITHIN YOUR REACH THAN SOMEONE IN ANOTHER CONTINENT AND COUNTRY ALTOGETHER? SINCE, AS YOU CLAIMED EARLIER, THE INTENSITY OF MORAL CALL ON YOUR LIFE IS PROPORTIONAL TO YOUR REACH, I WOULD EXPECT YOU, IN ACCORDANCE WITH YOUR OWN COMMENTS, TO VEHEMENTLY AND VIOLENTLY OPPOSE ABORTION, SINCE IT’S QUITE CLOSE TO ALL OF US.
5. If God will not act to free them, I must consider doing so myself. Perhaps I am his agent in the matter, perhaps not; and I dare not move without seeking him at every hand. But I cannot ignore the moral claim of the suffering one within my reach.
AGAIN, I AM NOT ADVOCATING THAT WE IGNORE THE SUFFERING OF THE HELPLESS. I AM SAYING THAT A CHRISTIAN SHOULD NOT USE VIOLENCE IN STOPPING THAT SUFFERING.
And the notion that “if you take any of the OT, you have to take all of it” sounds very pious and orthodox, but in truth, it is eminently debatable. In any case, its relevance pales in comparison to this: is the Jehovah of the OT (if indeed there is only one portrayed there!) the same as the Jehovah of the NT, or not? And if not, which Jehovah is he?
FIRST, THE “ALL-OR-NOTHING” PRINCIPLE IS NOT DEBATABLE, BUT BIBLICAL (GAL. 5:3). SO, YOU MUST EXPLAIN TO US WHY IT’S BIBLICALLY SOUND TO EXTRACT THE VIOLENT SECTIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT TO BUTTRESS YOUR CASE AND NOT TAKE THE ENTIRE OLD TESTAMENT. SECOND, I DO BELIEVE THAT GOD IS THE SAME. DOES THAT, HOWEVER, GIVE CHRISTIANS A LICENSE TO DO ANY AND EVERYTHING THAT GOD HAS ALLOWED IN THE PAST? GOD IS COMPLEX ABOVE ALL OF OUR ABILITY TO GRASP HIM FULLY, BUT I DON’T SEE HOW MY RECOGNITION OF THE SAMENESS OF JEHOVAH ALLOWS ME TO, THEREFORE, DO EVERY THING THAT GOD HAS EVER ALLOWED IN THE HISTORY OF HUMANITY. IF THE SAMENESS OF GOD IS NOT A LICENSE TO DO ANYTHING THAT GOD HAS EVER PERMITTED, WHY IS IT A LICENSE FOR VIOLENCE?
Maddog, you may be comfortable reducing this to a binary matter even in the face of the uncountable permutations of injustice that cry out for relief: we solve one moral quandary, and Satan responds by complicating the matter further the next time around. If that is your position, though, you have simply assumed away the problems, and there is little use in conversing with you; go in peace.
YOU KNOW, QP, I REGRET THAT YOU PUT IT THAT WAY. I FEEL LIKE YOU’RE GETTING SHORT WITH ME. SO, I’M TOO SIMPLE TO EVEN INTELLIGENTLY DISCUSS THIS ISSUE WITH YOU? I MEAN, I REALLY FEEL LIKE THAT’S WHAT YOU’RE SAYING TO ME (I DON’T KNOW YOUR MOTIVES; I’M JUST SAYING HOW YOUR COMMENT MAKES ME FEEL).
QP, I HOPE I’M NOT COMING ACROSS AS HAVING NO COMPASSION FOR THOSE WHO ARE SUFFERING. I BELIEVE, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT INSTEAD OF EXERTING VIOLENCE, CHRISTIANS ARE CALLED TO RELIEVE SUFFERING IN OTHER WAYS. HISTORY TELLS US THAT FIRST-CENTURY FOLLOWERS OF JESUS DID NOT TAKE UP ARMS AGAINST THOSE THAT KILLED THEIR OWN CHILDREN IN THAT DAY, BUT THEY WENT AND PICKED UP ABANDONED CHILDREN AND TOOK CARE OF THEM AS THEIR OWN (YES, THIS IS A PLUG FOR MODERN-DAY ADOPTION). WHAT BETTER WAY TO FIGHT ABORTION THAN TO CARE FOR ABANDONED CHILDREN. I COULD GO ON AND ON ABOUT WAYS WE CAN COMBAT EVIL IN OUR WORLD. I DON’T BELIEVE, HOWEVER, BASED UPON MY STUDY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, THAT JESUS WANTS TO EXERT VIOLENCE EVER. THERE IS NO SITUATION YOU CAN SET BEFORE US FOR WHICH I CAN’T FIND YOU A SIMILAR ATROCITY IN BIBLICAL TIMES, AND THOSE SAINTS NEVER WAGED WAR . . .NEVER.
I HOPE THAT YOU WILL RESPOND TO MY QUESTIONS, ESPECIALLY ABOUT THE ATROCITY OF MODERN-DAY ABORTION. IF NOT, THANK YOU FOR A FRUITFUL AND CHALLENGING DISCUSSION.
Many that read this blog will not be satisfied until the governments of this world, especially this nation, gather together all the financial resources known to man and then use their power to distribute those resources as they deem fit. And while the governments are busy doing the work God called the church to do, those same readers of this blog believe that protecting this nation through national defense is “unGodly”.
Can you not see that you are willing to rely on the government to care of EVERYTHING except what the government was formed to do? PROTECT and DEFEND.
If we THE PEOPLE, especially the people who love and fear God, would insist that the government do it’s job and then we’d begin doing the work of the church by helping the needy things would be much clearer. The confusion has come because we expect the government to do the church’s job while we “Christians” debate whether or not it’s Godly to defend our people.
Put this much effort and time into serving God’s people and see if the world would change. Let governments do their job and get up off our padded pews in our high technology churches and do God’s work.
Kendall-Ball is hyphenated. I’m just sayin’…
KYLE,
THANKS FOR YOUR COMMENTS. I AM TRULY ENJOYING THIS DISCUSSION.
I’LL RESPOND IN ALL CAPS SO YOU CAN EASILY DISTINGUISH MY RESPONSE.
“but can we at least agree that the NT Scriptures don’t give the Christian the right to exert violence in any instance?”
This is really close to the “NT scriptures don’t give us the right to use a piano” argument (I prefer acapella by the way).
KYLE, IF YOU DON’T LIKE MY DESIRE FOR A NEW TESTAMENT TEACHING FOR CHRISTIANS EXERTING VIOLENCE, I ASK YOU, “WHAT GOOD ARE THE SCRIPTURES?” OKAY, SO YOU CONSIDER MY QUESTION AN OLD HERMENEUTIC QUESTION. WELL, OLD, NEW OR NO HERMENEUTIC, WHAT GOOD ARE THE SCRIPTURES IF WE CAN’T CONSULT THEM ON VITAL MATTERS LIKE THESE?
IF YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN AND BELIEVE THAT THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS SHOULD GUIDE YOU IN HOW YOU LIVE YOUR LIFE AND THE DECISIONS YOU MAKE, IS IT TOO MUCH TO SIMPLY LOOK FOR SUCH GUIDANCE IN THIS MATTER?
An honest question, can you show me a complete prohibition for violence in all cases in the NT? I will accept that in some cases Jesus showed his disciples a better way.
TWO THINGS. FIRST, I DISAGREE WITH YOUR REASONING HERE. ARE YOU CLAIMING THAT A CHRISTIAN CAN DO ANYTHING THAT’S NOT EXPLICITLY PROHIBITED IN THE SCRIPTURE? THIS IS AN OLD RESTORATION DEBATE, BUT I’LL TELL YOU THAT MY UNDERSTANDING OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION IS THAT WE ARE TO STUDY JESUS AND THE SCRIPTURES AND FOLLOW HIS LIFE (THE PATTERN) AND NOT EXPECT A LIST OF PROHIBITIONS BY WHICH TO GUIDE OURSELVES. SECOND, DESPITE MY DISAGREEMENT WITH YOUR REASONING, THERE ARE ACTUALLY EXPLICIT TEACHINGS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT AGAINST ALL CASES OF VIOLENCE.
NOTE MAT. 5:39 “Do not resist an evil person.”
NOTE ROM. 12:19-20 “Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”says the Lord. 20On the contrary:
“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
THE ROMANS PASSAGE EXPLICITLY TELLS US HOW TO TREAT THOSE THAT WOULD DO US HARM, AND VIOLENCE IS NOT AN OPTION.
NOW, SOME HAVE ALREADY COMMENTED THAT THESE VERSES REFER TO PERSONAL ETHICS AND NOT NATIONAL ETHICS, FOR EXAMPLE. WELL, CAN A CHRISTIAN LAY ASIDE THE PERSONAL ETHICS GIVEN TO US BY CHRIST WHEN NATIONAL ETHICS WOULD SUPERSEDE? IF THE CHRISTIAN ETHIC CANNOT BE LIVED OUT 24/7, WHAT ARE THE SPECIFIC SITUATIONS IN WHICH WE CAN DO UNCHRISTIAN THINGS WITH CHRIST’S APPROVAL?
THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST HAS BEEN PLACED IN CULTURE TO INFLUENCE CULTURE FOR CHRIST. I DON’T SEE HOW WE CAN DO THIS WHEN WE BEND AND BOW TO NATIONAL, RACIAL, GENDER, ETC. ETHICS THAT WOULD CHALLENGE THE ETHIC OF JESUS.
I understand GKB’s point that you can’t take part of the Old Testament without taking all of it. And I agree with that if you are going to use it as law. But I tend to read the Old Testament as a tool to understand the personality of God.
I wouldn’t say we are bound by the law, but I would say that it was not evil. I can’t comprehend God making his people do evil to please him and punishing them for not obeying. However, something that I haven’t heard here is that violence is condemned in the Old Testament. The term “violent” is almost explicitly spoken against in the OT. But I get the impression that all bloodshed is not considered violence in the Bible. It seems that people following God and going to war against his enemies in the OT are merely doing his will. I think the OT definitely leaves exception for those with pure hearts who are called by God to physical battle. It seems once again to be a matter of the heart. There is no room, even in the OT, for bloodthirst, mercilessness and violence for violence’ sake. Certainly nothing contradicts that statement in the NT. But even in the NT I don’t see anywhere that the definition of violence gets expanded. It seems to me that if God suddenly changed his mind and decided to make what was previously obedience into evil, he would’ve made that clear.
WELL, I THINK IT IS CLEAR (TO ME). HOW MUCH MORE CLEAR CAN A SPECIFIC COMMAND NOT TO RESIST BE? WHEN YOU FIGHT AND KILL AGAINST EVIL, YOU’RE RESISTING EVIL, AND, THEREFORE, IN VIOLATION OF THE COMMAND NOT TO RESIST.
SO AS NOT TO BE REDUNDANT, PLEASE SEE MY COMMENTS TO QB ABOUT USING THE OLD TESTAMENT TO SUPPORT YOUR CASE. I THINK THAT’S A PROBLEMATIC MOVE. I CAN’T EXPLAIN TO YOU WHY THERE IS SUCH A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW TEACHINGS, BUT THE DIFFERENCE CAN’T BE MISSED. ALL OF THE KILLING AND VIOLENCE THAT GOD ALLOWED (AND COMMANDED) IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AND NOT ONE PASSAGE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES. IN FACT, DIRECT COMMANDS NOT TO RESIST EVIL.
BY THE WAY, I BELIEVE THAT A LOT OF THE VIOLENCE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT WAS MERCILESS. EVEN THE HEBREW WRITER AGREES (HEB. 10:28). THIS IS NOT AN INDICTMENT AGAINST GOD FOR HE IS SOVEREIGN , BUT IT DOES SHOW HOW DISTINCT THE TWO CONTEXTS ACTUALLY ARE, AND APPEALING TO THE OLD TESTAMENT FOR TODAY’S CONTEXT (THE JUST WAR CONTROVERSY SPECIFICALLY) FAILS TO RECOGNIZE THIS.
I agree that violence should be a last resort. I think our focus in life should be to love. But I think sometimes love means standing up for the weak. We never saw Jesus in one of the extreme places we have described here except his own death. And even then, I think we could all agree that Jesus had a higher purpose than just taking a stand against violence.
I AGREE THAT WE SHOULD COME TO THE AID OF THE WEAK. THE ISSUE IS HOW ARE WE TO DO THAT.
ALSO, I AGREE THAT JESUS DID HAVE A HIGHER PURPOSE, AND IT WASN’T JUST RESISTING VIOLENCE JUST TO RESIST. I’M SAYING THAT HIS HIGHER PURPOSE SHOULD BE OURS: TO BRING THE REIGN OF GOD TO THE HEARTS OF HIS CREATION. WE DO THAT BY BEING LIKE JESUS.
Your attempts to paint this as a black and white issue are pretty problematic for you. If you take your position to it’s logical conclusion, those serving in the militarily by choice and killing their fellow man on behalf of their country are living in unrepented sin. If they refuse to confess and repent, they must be disfellowshipped (or however you believe you should deal with such sin). Also, any veterans who committed these sins must confess..oh and policemen. If you say nothing to the murderers in your congregation then the blood is on your hands as well. Maybe I go to far, but if so I’d be curious how far you believe you should go with this.
SO NOW I, AS A TOTAL PACIFIST, AM GUILTY OF TAKING INNOCENT LIFE BECAUSE I HAVEN’T DISFELLOWSHIPPED THOSE THAT HAVE? KYLE, YOU MAY TAKE ME TO BE A WATCHDOG CONSERVATIVE THAT WITHDRAWS FROM EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME, BUT I AM NOT. WHEN I MENTIONED THAT WE MUST ACCEPT THE IMPLICATION OF OUR BELIEFS, I MEANT PERSONALLY. I MUST ACCEPT THE IMPLICATION OF MY BELIEF, WHICH MAY MEAN LOSING MY LIFE. THE JUST WAR ADVOCATE MUST ACCEPT THE IMPLICATION OF HER BELIEF, WHICH MAY MEAN KILLING A FELLOW CHRISTIAN IN WAR.
BY THE WAY, IN ANOTHER POST, SOMEONE SAID THAT THAT EXAMPLE WAS A SIMPLE CARICATURE AND TOO EXTREME FOR THIS DISCUSSION, BUT I MUST TAKE ISSUE WITH THAT. CHRISTIANS HAVE KILLED OTHER CHRISTIANS IN WAR, AND THE JUST WAR IDEOLOGY SAYS THAT THIS IS PERMITTED.
We were once a primitive group who believed that our involvement in government and the affairs of governments should be rather limited. The reason for the limited involvement being – that Christians were “pilgrims and strangers in the earthly kingdoms” while we sought the Divine kingdom of heaven.
One of the influential editors of his time, David Lipscomb once said, “When we say that God cares for us, protects us and leads us in the ways of safety and peace, and yet rely on human governments, human arms, death dealing human weapons for protection, our conduct seems to contradict our confession.”*
What do we do with John 18:36 where Jesus says, “…My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but my kingdom is not of this world.”
If Jesus declared that his Kingdom was not of this world and would not let his followers fight on his behalf – by what right do Christians take up arms for any earthly kingdom or cause?
There were hundreds of Church of Christ pacifists during the second world war who along with the Quakers and others had the courage of their convictions NOT to fight. Mike Casey of Pepperdine has done a significant amount of research on these folks.
I am not denying that the government has the ability to go to war and defend the country…but what should our involvement be. The Gospel would suggest to me that it should be none at all.
* David Lipscomb, “Should Christians use carnal weapons?” Gospel Advocate, 30 July 1884, page 486.
God’s view on murder and war.
“You shall not murder.” Exodus 20: 13
This is what the LORD Almighty says: “I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [a] everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.” 1 Samuel 15:2-3
murder and war can not be the same unless God is a hypocrite
Jesus’ views on murder and war
MAT. 5:39 “Do not resist an evil person.” This saying is in the context of repaying evil for evil and does not apply in this discussion on war, but for arguments sake say it does. Unless Jesus disagrees with his Father, “Do not resist an evil person” is not the same situation as war.
A pacifist can only exist in a world where someone is willing to die fighting for the pacifist’s right.
jpierpont
You asked “What do we do with John 18:36 where Jesus says, “…My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but my kingdom is not of this world.”
If Jesus declared that his Kingdom was not of this world and would not let his followers fight on his behalf – by what right do Christians take up arms for any earthly kingdom or cause?”
I have given reasons somewhere in this thread why John 18:36 should be translated into English as “my kingdom is not of this age,” hence conveys a totally different meaning to that commonly held.
Another statement of Jesus that has been misapplied and misunderstood is Matthew 5:39 “but I say unto you, resist not him that is evil: but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”
Notice that Jesus specifies the “right” cheek? Throughout the Middle East, in the First Century as well as today, striking on the right cheek, a backhanded slap in the face, was considered a grave insult to one’s honour not a physical attack on one’s person. Jesus’ injunction was therefore not to return insult for insult, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
This idea of a slap as an insult is found in Lamentations 3:30: “Let him give his cheek to the smiter and be filled with insults.”
We understand and use “slap in the face” as a metaphor for insult even in our own modern terminology.
Maddog, I don’t think I’m superior or anything like that, and I’m not getting short. It’s just that when a person reduces an intrinsically complicated moral question to binary possibilities with only one uncontested premise to use in the final judgment, in practical effect the conversation is over. I think there are more competing considerations than that, and you don’t. So there’s nowhere else to go. qb
I’m still working on having the willingness to go wherever – and do whatever – is deemed best by the Ruler of the kingdom in which I serve, whether I can see the good in it or not; whether it is good for me or not.
I admire the servicemen and servicewomen who do that for their nation.
I just wish that the ruler of the country in which I dwell would quit sending them into places and requiring them to do things when I am pretty dadgum certain that no good can come of it.
I cannot support this war.
Most Americans do not support this war but those in power have not ended it. The Democrats that voted for the war (29 to 21 in the senate) and were given a mandate in the last elections to get us out of Iraq have not done so. The Democrat front runners said they would not get us out of Iraq immediately if they became president. Talk is cheap.
Why are we not out of Iraq unless there is something us peons don’t know. And don’t say Bush won’t let us out unless you are willing to say the Democrats are powerless against the Republicans.
Whoever said this would go to just over 100 comments was selling himself short. C’mon! Almost 200…
…yet no one has mentioned all the places Jesus’ pacifism is absent. Turning over tables…making whips…cussing at people…not very pacifistic if you ask me…I think we’ve left out Jesus’ other side…
clint said: “Why are we not out of Iraq unless there is something us peons don’t know.”
Exactly. I’ve been there and let me tell you, there is plenty that WE peons don’t know. The people in charge know that leaving would be disastrous for the people of Iraq.
I don’t believe in bombing abortion clinics because it simply won’t work. We should always avoid killing our opponents when we can. And in this instance we can. For that matter, killing our opponent won’t work. Unless you’re willing to rebel against our nation. I agree with maddog that adoption is a great ministry that we have neglected.
About war….It seems one of the dominant viewpoints I am seeing here and in my own family/church/workplace is that there is that “just war” is OK but this is not a just war. When I left the military, my job allowed me pretty good insight into the policy and strategy side of this war. Even with that insight, I find it very difficult to say whether we are doing more harm than good or if leaving now would do more harm than good. Even so, there is plenty of room for debate about what will happen if and when we leave. There is also plenty of room for debate as to what would have happened had we never gone in. The truth is, none of us know. Some really wise and good people disagree over these matters. Most of us on this board don’t have nearly enough information to make a decision on this that we can say for certain is right. This isn’t to say we shouldn’t care or make ourselves as aware as possible. But I think it is wrong for either side of the argument to go to far in assuming they “know” what is best for our country. I believe it is sinful to demonize and insult and degrade those that we disagree with.
I appreciate what Teresa said at the beginning about being willing to sit in the pew with each of us on Sunday, regardless of our position on war. I don’t know her but I believe her heart is right on this issue. And for those of us who really want to be right, we may not even find out whether we were or not until we are long since gone from this earth. But our hearts can be right today as we approach war and instruments and divorce and baptism and all things with love and a refusal to hurt our brothers and sisters with an opinion on these issues.
Mike, concerning the Edomites (post about Obadiah):
“Their central offense appears to be that they stood by when they should have stood with their relatives being attacked.
If that’s true, then could this, the shortest book in the Old Testament, be a piece of prophetic literature that has a fresh word for the church today?
It invites us to ask how we are standing by rather than standing with. Wasn’t that what offended so many religious types about Jesus? He kept stepping into the messes of the world. He refused to stand at a distance condemning.”
I just read the scriptures Mike referenced in that post. The passages he suggests are particularly relevant to this discussion. I’m interested to hear what others see in these words of scripture as they might relate to the idea of a just war.
Kyle,
I have been gone for the weekend on a youth retreat, so my reply is late.
I am not trying to question or judge who is a Christian and who it not. What I am trying to heavily critisize is the “revisionist” readings of scripture done to support war at any cost, licensure to health and wealth, and acceptance of a new sexual ethic…, to name a few. I have lived in a culture that was primarily very politically conservative and now I live in a culture that is just the exact extreme. What I have found is just two sides of the same coin. There are people who will do some very interesting gymnatics with scripture in order to justify a lifestyl/moral-ethical position that appears to be shaped more by the world than Jesus — and yet many of these people also claim to be Christian.
I am not denying anyone’s confession of Jesus and God will be their judge, just as he will be my judge as well. But I am trying to hold us all, including myself, accountable. If we are going to make the claim of being a follower of Jesus then let try to do so and stop playing the revisionist games with the gospel so that the gospel will conform to our standards. There are areas in which I still fail to live out the demanding expectations of Jesus. I confess such failure and pray for God’s grace as I strive more and more to live out the idea of “Repent-believe-follow (Mk 1.14-17). But as I tried pointing out, I would rather live trying and failing then revising Jesus so that he must conform to me.
I hope that better explains.
Rex
Ithaca Church of Christ
Ithaca, NY
Kyle & Teresa -
“Blessed are the peacemakers…”
Thank you!
Terah Ott,
It was no accident and I was not being sarcastic. Try again.
Clint, please accept my apologies for the careless misread.
Yes, I support the war.
Mike,
(Perhaps I’ll drop a note if a discussion develops. You might be surprised.)
Well