People who think they know everything really irritate those of us who really do. But, seriously, have you ever met those amateur experts that will argue heatedly about things they really don't know? I had a discussion the other day with a woman who was quite sure she knew how television signals were transmitted and was absolutely sure I was wrong ... even though her notion made no sense at all and wasn't grounded in reality. Okay. Fine.
It happens all over the place, of course. You can often tell these amateur experts by the way they spout the same old arguments that have been spouted for too long and have already been debunked. As a sad, but true example, some Christians still argue that NASA has proven that Joshua's extra-long day is a scientific fact because they have computers that calculate these things and they found a missing day. This is nonsense, of course, and anyone who thinks it through for a moment would see it, but these folks are "experts" because they ... well ... read it ... you know ... somewhere. Emails with this kind of stuff (from every conceivable angle) are always around, and people who don't bother to check facts become experts by these hoaxes.
And Christians are obviously not alone in this. I'm sure we all know people who have Christianity's number. You know the kind. They are sure they are in possession of the coup de grâce, the final death stroke that proves that Christianity isn't true. Of course, it never seems to work out that way, but that doesn't stop these amateurs from being experts. The other day I was talking to a guy who was telling me about a silly man he saw in a car. One bumper sticker declared the man to be a retired marine and the other bumper sticker told what church he went to. "How can anyone be a Christian and be in the military?" he scoffed. "You can't do both."
Curious, I asked him why. He was, after all, an expert on Christian beliefs, wasn't he? I mean, he clearly knew this obvious fact. As it turned out, asking why was a problem. "I don't know. I just know that Christians aren't allowed to be in the military."
Good argument. I could see the indisputable logic. So I tried to help him out. "You mean about that 'thou shalt not kill' thing?"
"Yeah! That's it!"
"So, in your view, if someone broke into a Christian's home and threatened to kill his family, he would not be allowed to kill the intruder and save the lives of his kin, right?"
"Yeah! Of course! You know ... that whole 'turn the other cheek' thing!"
It was pitiful reasoning from someone who thought they knew it all without even pretending to know it at all. It was painful to watch. I quietly suggested that his understanding of the entire thing might be in error and, perhaps, he ought to look into what is actually said before he jumps to conclusions. That, of course, was unacceptable. He knew what he knew. Don't bother him with actually trying to understand that stuff. It was garbage anyway because ... well ... he knew it!
Christians, please don't do this. It isn't a good approach. I know ... we think that by standing firm on what we "know" (that is, what we've heard from others without actually examining ourselves), we're defending the faith. It would be wise, however, to actually digest some of this ourselves before declaring ourselves experts in things we may not actually comprehend. It just makes us look bad ... all of us. You know, it's not always bad to include a little humility with your discussion. In fact, I'd argue that humility is a good thing for Christians to have.
8 comments:
Intersting timing. I was just catching up with a friend from high school and we had a similar conversation (though he was more charitable and open minded). I pointed out to him the context of "turn the other cheek," among other things, and he seemed to take it all in. It was a good back and forth conversation.
Maybe your high school friend wasn't a self-proclaimed expert ... just a self-admitted amateur. :)
Regarding Christians & the military — actually, for the first 3+ centuries, it was forbidden for Christians to join the military or even take up the sword against another. Read the words of early Christians. Just war theory is something Jesus never taught or even hinted at.
Many Christians find it impossible to reconcile Jesus teaching to love our enemies and never return evil for evil with voluntary military service.
Yes, I'm aware that early Christianity forbade Christians from being in the military. I suspect, though, that, like the fellow in the article above, this is an incomplete story.
But the question is interesting, Naum. You would make this argument? Does the Bible demand that true Christians be absolute pacifists?
You hold, for instance, that "Jesus never taught or even hinted at" just war theory. I wouldn't doubt that there are many subjects He didn't teach or hint at. On the other hand, He did command His disciples to take swords (which goes against the "never use a weapon in self-defense at all" theory). He did use a whip in the Temple to clear it out. That would make me question the idea that Jesus only taught pacifism. And, of course, the Old Testament is full of "just war" theory ... you know, the kind where God institutes it.
So, I ask -- Do you hold that the Bible demands Christians be absolute pacifists, or were you simply pointing out a little regarded fact that is no longer held in most of Christendom?
Stan, no Jesus neither advocates returning violence with violence, nor passive nonviolence (pacifism), but a third way — nonviolent resistance.
Mat 26:52 - "Put your sword back into its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword."
Jesus cleared out oxen and the sheep with the whip in the temple. It could not have been that large a scene as there was a Roman contingent of soldiers watching over the temple.
Why did Jesus say "buy a sword"?
Whatever Jesus was up to in telling his followers to buy swords, it's clear he didn't intend them to use them! In fact, had he intended his disciples to use violence to defend themselves it would have contradicted every single teaching Jesus had previously given them about loving enemies, doing good to them, never retaliating, turning the other cheek, etc...
A close look at the passage reveals Jesus' purpose. Immediately after telling his disciples to buy swords (Lk 22:36) Jesus says, "It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”(vs. 37, emphasis added). So the reason Jesus wanted his disciples to possess swords was not to use them, but to fulfill prophecy (Isa 53:12) by appearing to be a law breaker to the Jewish authorities.
This is why, in the next verse, when the disciples say they have two swords, Jesus says "That is enough." (vs. 38). Obviously, if Jesus ever intended the disciples to actually use swords in self defense, two wouldn't be nearly enough. But it was enough to fulfill the prophecy and justify the Jewish authorities accusing him of being a rebel leader.
Naum, you believe, then, that in all circumstances Christians must never resort to violence or take a life? It is wrong, in your view, for a Christian father to defend his children from an intruder by using deadly force? A husband cannot stop someone from murdering his wife by killing the person? To be consistent with what you seem to be saying, that seems to be the only position. Is that your position?
(By the way, I'm preparing an analysis of the views from Scripture and the early Church on the topic for later publication.)
Stan, honestly, I struggle with the question myself. Honestly, if my family was threatened, I imagine I would indeed take a life to protect theirs. I am no pacifist, but the more I study scripture and the cultural context of Jesus message, the more I am convinced of non-violence. Jesus said his kingdom is not of this world, and was about "power under" not "power over" as it is with empire and worldly satanic forces.
But the myth of redemptive violence is so pervasive — that redemptive violence is the religion of the day. We believe might makes right, oblivious to the evil it unleashes.
And your example is an illustration of a police action vs. a military action (the context of which soldiers serve). Granted, this leads to a discussion of just and unjust wars, but I would argue that the majority of wars U.S. has fought have not even fit the parameters of "just war" philosophy. Humanitarian/good will may play some part in justification, but the main ingredients of the casus belli have been imperialist interests — or the propping up of vile dictators (like U.S. support for Hussien or authoritarian dictators in central/South America, long time support for racist South Africa regime, etc.…).
Way off topic, but you would argue that the majority of wars the U.S. has fought in have been imperialistic? We must be the worst imperialists ever, since we never seem to actually take ground. But, like I said, that's all off topic.
The more I examine the question, the more I am convinced that absolute non-violence is a failure to understand the context of Jesus's message. I, for instance, still can't get around the fact that God Incarnate would have to, in order to take this position, be opposed to God. That's problematic for me.
Now, I don't think I approached the topics of "just war" or "redemptive violence" (I gotta say, I don't actually understand the idea of "redemptive violence"). I don't think I suggested that the U.S. was right in its wars. I suggested that the argument that Jesus was an absolute pacifist is a failure to understand Jesus. I still hold that.
Post a Comment