"All who take the sword will perish by the sword" (Matt 26:52). Jesus said that. He is famous for "Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matt 5:38) and "Love your enemies"(Matt 5:44). If ever there was a true pacifist, that would be Jesus ... right?
Perhaps you never heard, but there have always been those who argued that Christians and the military don't mix. I'm not talking about individual pacifists. I understand those who say, "It won't work for me; I can't do it." No, I'm talking about those who say, "No Christian should be in the military." If they were honest, I suppose, they'd need to carry that farther. Christians couldn't serve in the police either. Indeed, if taken to its logical conclusion, if a criminals broke into the home of a Christian, this view would demand that Christians allow them to do whatever they wanted -- rape, torture, murder -- without any form of self-defense except prayer. I don't quite understand this view, but I did need to examine it.
Tertullian argued that Christianity and the military didn't mix on the basis of idolatry. Why? Well, to serve in the military in his day, you had to take Caesar as your god. Now that is no longer the case. But what of the rest of the early Church? Paul commanded obedience to the government. So did other Church fathers. They opposed war and commended peace. Many, like Justin Martyr and Tatian, were pacifists themselves, refusing to be part of war. Hippolytus demanded that anyone who served in the military be rejected for baptism. Cyprian contended, "The hand must not be spotted with the sword and blood -- not after the Eucharist is carried in it." It appears, then, that the primary objection to Christians in the military were based on a few basic points. First, the military in that day required idolatry (Caesar as god). Second, the biggest objection was that Christians are commanded to love their enemies. The third concern was for taking the oaths required by the military. Instead, the pacifists argue, the early Church consistently refused to defend themselves and demanded that Christians pray for the government. They did not oppose the military or make anti-war campaigns, but they refused to be part of any military.
On the other hand, we have Scripture. Paul commanded, "Let each man remain in that condition in which he was called" (1 Cor 7:20), and many (including the Praetorian guard and the Centurion) were called while in the military. Jesus, known for His "turn the other cheek" and "love your enemies" commands, also told His disciples at one point to acquire swords for self-defense. He used a whip when He cleared the Temple. If absolute pacifism is the demand of Scripture, then Jesus demanded and committed sin. And, of course, it is indisputable that God gathered Israel for military excursions. If God demands pacifism, then God erred.
But what about those early Church leaders? Well, it is unavoidable that a few of them specifically forbade Christians from being in the military. Most, however, did not. Most simply encouraged prayer and love without addressing the military. The primary, explicit objection to involvment in the military was idolatry, an issue no longer plaguing the modern military. A popular argument (in several arenas) is that Constantine brought about the fall of the Church. They argue that Constantine caused the doctrine of the Trinity (even though the truth is that Constantine was opposed to that doctrine). They also argue that he pushed the Church into the military mindset. Of course, that's just as bad, since there isn't actually any evidence ... and since the Church did oppose the emperor on the topic of the Trinity.
Look sometime at the writings of the early Church on the topic. It would be best if you did so from a source that was in favor of pacifism. I think you'll find that most of the writings used start with the assumption that all early Church writers opposed the military and then apply various things that were written to that assumption. They write, for instance, often in favor of praying for peace. "See?" they argue. "That is opposition to war." Well, I think we all agree that we should pray for peace and prefer no war ... but that isn't the same as prohibiting service in the military, is it? And even those who specifically condemned Christians in the military actually spoke in support of the military. Origen, for instance, prayed "For those fighting in a righteous cause." Tertullian offered prayer for governments and "for brave armies."
On the other side of the question, there is evidence that brings into question the argument that the early Church opposed Christians in the military. For instance, there are early Christian graves marked with names and ranks of those buried there. Eusebius recorded the history of many Christian soldiers who died for the faith. Clement of Alexandria wrote to Christians in the military, "Listen to the commander who orders what is right." Tertullian indicated that Christians were in every walk of life. "We sail with you and fight with you and till the ground with you."
It is possible, if one decides, to find pacifism in the Bible and in Church history. I suspect, however, that one must first decide it and then find it. If taken as a whole, it becomes hard to defend, especially when Scripture seems to contradict it. You may decide that you cannot be involved in the military or in the police or in self-defense, and I would say, "Whatever is not of faith is sin." On the other hand, determining that position for everyone is a questionable proposition.
So what about Jesus, the pacifist? We know that He preached against resisting those who are evil, but did He hold to non-violence entirely? Well, we read in Rev 19:15 "From His mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations." That's not so non-violent. He warned His disciples, "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword" (Matt 10:34). In John 2, Jesus drove out the moneychangers from the Temple. John notes Jesus's motivation: "His disciples remembered that it was written, 'Zeal for Your house will consume me.'" (John 2:17). In His parables, Jesus represented in a positive light a master who uses lethal force (Matt 21:33-44). Further, Jesus was God Incarnate, and we know that God used violence when needed. If Jesus was a pacifist, He was opposed to His Father who was not. He didn't suggest any change to the approach God took. He didn't tell any of the military folk He encountered to leave the military. And He is returning with a sword to rule. Does this fit "Jesus the pacifist"?
Here's what I think. I think that we get things easily muddled. We think, as an example, that it is impossible to spank a child without being angry. This simply isn't true. Now, Jesus was plainly in favor of forgiveness and opposed to vengeance, but is it necessarily true that forgiveness and non-vengeance preclude self-defense? We are clearly commanded to love, but does that preclude taking a life to save a life? I think it is abundantly clear that Christians should oppose war in general, but is it ever possible that war is necessary to restore peace?
Given that God demands justice and given that there is sin in the world, I don't think it's possible to maintain a position of absolute pacifism as good. Someone who has the capacity to help someone in danger and refuses to do so isn't guilty of great virtue. King Solomon wrote, "For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven: ... a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up" (Eccl 3:1, 3). I think, rather than succumbing to absolutes that don't fit all the parameters, it's wiser to allow for the possibility that a narrow "Jesus was an absolute pacifist" perception is a mistake. Scripture, it seems, demands it. And if that is true, neither should we demand it of His followers.
Update: Now I know that Doug Wilson doesn't follow my blog at all, but I thought it was interesting that soon after I did this piece on Christianity versus pacifism he did a similar bit. It's good, though, so I highly recommend it.
38 comments:
Good analysis. I've seen many pure pacifists who take scripture out of context to support their views. They also forget that the early church didn't always get it right, hence a few letters from Paul and others to correct things. The distinction about worshiping Caesar is key.
What is sadly ironic is that the pure pacifists I know are pro-legalized abortion. Talk about violence!
Where in the New Testament does one find anything resembling such ideas?
I know common sense and normal nationalistic sentiments teach us such things. Universal “common sense” tells us that people ought to kill, if necessary, to protect themselves, their families, and their country (and note, people generally assume this regardless of what country they’re born into). But are followers of Jesus called to be just another version of practical, nationalistically motivated, common sense? Didn’t Jesus command us to love, bless, and do good to our enemies? Didn’t he command us to turn the other cheek and never return evil with evil but rather to always return evil with good? Aren’t we supposed to give water to our enemies when they’re thirsty and feed them when they’re hungry? (cf. Rom.12:17-21). In this light, how can we justifying killing our enemies “if we have to“? We never find this “exception clause” hinted at in the New Testament.
Now, you might be thinking: “Neither Jesus nor his disciples were thinking of enemies like Al-Qaeda.” Surely he didn’t mean we’re supposed to love and do good to these sorts of enemies. As a matter fact, these were exactly the kind of enemies Jesus and his disciples would have had in mind. Jesus was talking to people who were not only threatened by vicious nationalistic enemies; they were already conquered by them. Most first century Jews despised their Roman oppressors at least as much as most Americans despise Al-Qaeda – and they were under their oppressive rule. The Romans would sometimes put dozens – in a few cases we know of, thousands – of Jews to death (usually by crucifixion) just to flex their muscle. Imagine America being conquered and ruled by Al-Qaeda, and you get some idea of what Jesus was asking of his disciples when he told them to love “their enemies” and never retaliate against them.
As it turned out, within a few decades, many of his disciples would have to watch their families be fed to lions or burned alive under Nero. Yet, rather than retaliate or "protect" themselves with violent force, these early Christians considered it an honor to follow Jesus’ example by letting themselves get crucified. In fact, the gracious way they died was one of the main catalysts for the rapid growth of the Church throughout the first three centuries. How far have we come if we think that, in the name of this savior, we could ever be justified in killing another human being?
Now, I am fully aware that many find this teaching offensive if not insane. Honestly, at times, so do I. At the same time, this insanity in an odd way “makes sense.” Think about it. How “sane” was it for the Creator of the universe to become a human, experience the guilt and condemnation of sin, and die a God-forsaken, hellish death on a cross for the very rebels who crucified him (ultimately, all of us)? We are explicitly and repeatedly called to follow this insane example! “Be imitators of God,” Paul says. “Live in love as Christ loved us, and gave himself for us” (Eph. 5:1-2). In essence, Jesus is saying: “Do unto your enemies what I did unto mine.” At the very least, this has to mean: “Be willing to die for your enemies rather than make them die for you.”
And on Matthew 10:34:
From Pastor Greg Boyd
Given Jesus’ uniform teaching about loving enemies and abstaining from violence, and given that his followers were known for their refusal to engage in violence for the first three hundred years of church history, it’s obvious that Jesus wasn’t saying he came so that his disciples would use swords. The context of Jesus’ comment makes his intent clear. He’s speaking hyperbolically about how following him will (sadly) bring division, even among families. Yet it’s vital disciples not disown Christ, even when their families turn against them.
Here’s the whole passage (Mt 10:33- 38)
“But whoever publicly disowns me I will disown before my Father in heaven. Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
“For I have come to turn
‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter–in–law against her mother–in–law— your enemies will be the members of your own household.’
“Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves a son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me.”
The context makes it clear that “the sword” is a hyperbolic way of referring to divisions — especially among people who are normally closely bonded (family members). Because Jesus demands total allegiance, including allegiance over family, he will bring division. Yet, it’s crucial his followers never deny him because of the pain it causes, for this is simply the cost of discipleship.
He’s come to bring a sword. Prepare to sacrifice for your commitment to follow him.
But part of this commitment includes honoring his teachings and example of never using a literal sword.
Naum: "Where in the New Testament does one find anything resembling such ideas?"
I guess I'm a little confused about the question. I drew most of what I wrote from the New Testament. That's where one finds that which resembles such ideas.
But I would suggest that your position starts with some underlying positions with which I would strongly disagree. First, if Jesus set the standard as "non-violence" and God in the Old Testament set the standard that violence was required at times, then we are stuck with a problem -- Jesus (God Incarnate) disagreed with God. The underlying position here is that there is no actual continuity between the Old and New Testaments, that things changed when Jesus came on the scene. Instead, Jesus specifically states that the Old Testament doesn't pass away (Matt 5:13-14). And, as I pointed out, we find that Jesus used force in the Temple, affirms the right of the owner of the vineyard to use force when necessary, and will Himself return and use force.
Another underlying position is this: "It is not possible to love your enemy and go to war with them." I know ... you'd see that as a given. I would disagree. I believe that a parent that loves his children has to, at times, discipline them. However that occurs, it causes the child pain to some degree. That doesn't negate "love." I believe that God Himself ordained the death penalty for murder. Does that doesn't negate "love" (which would negate "God is love")? I would say it does not. On the other hand, I have to wonder if failing to stop someone from killing your wife or child when you had the ability to do so would be classified as "love".
I see only one of two possible conclusions here. If Jesus actually meant to preach absolute pacifism as God's way, then we have to conclude that the Bible is not consistent with itself, that God Himself fails to meet or even agree with that standard, that Jesus stood in opposition to His Father, and that Jesus failed and will again fail to meet that requirement. In other words, if Jesus was actually preaching absolute pacifism, then Christianity is a false religion. A nice one, I suppose, but still false. Christianity requires a sinless Savior, God Incarnate, who lived up to God's standard, allowing Him to die in our place.
The only other possible conclusion I can come to is that a simplistic "Thou shalt not do anything violent" from these passages fails to properly comprehend what was being said. That is, it's not a failure on Jesus's part, but a failure on our part to properly understand His intent. My suggestion in this post was that He indeed intended something other than that simplified version that argues "turn the other cheek" means "never protect your family" or "love your enemy" requires "never defend the weak" or the like.
Naum: (quoting Boyd) "He’s speaking hyperbolically ..."
Yes, He was speaking hyperbolically. He didn't, however, say, "Swords are always bad." He didn't demand that the centurion whose faith impressed Him so much step down from his post in the military. Peter didn't tell the centurion he talked to that he had to quit his post either. Paul sat between military guards and shared the Gospel and seemed to think that the fact that they were still around in the Praetorian Guard was a great thing for the Gospel. God commanded, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in His own image" (Gen 9:6). I would argue that taking Jesus's words regarding "turn the other cheek" and that sort as simply literal would be to miss the hyperbole there as well.
Besides, I'd never advocate using a sword. (Hey, I don't actually know where to get a sword. And why would I when guns are so much more efficient?) (This last paragraph was intended as humor.)
You're missing the point.
Nonviolent resistance is NOT passive/passivism.
Jesus abhors both passivity and violence. He displays a model by which evil is opposed WITHOUT being MIRRORED. Enemies neutralized, not destroyed. It is neither flight nor fight, but a third way.
And you are cherry picking your NT interpretation while completely disregarding the model of Jesus, which is so plain and clear to anyone that separates of the taint of culture in molding Jesus into what they wish him to be.
Jesus teaching carries us past just war and pacifism, to non-violence that breaks the spiral of violence.
It is the only way of not becoming what we hate.
Naum,
you seem to be blurring two authorities: God and government. God is the first authority, of course, and, because sin is rampant in this world, we have governments, the second authority. In fact, in politics, the sovereignty rule has mainly been God-King-People whereas the United States changed it to God-People-Republic. Is it still there? That's another question.
Jesus did not de-authorize the government. Recall how He stated, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." Now ultimately, it is all God's, but on earth, God has a role for government despite it's obvious imperfections.
I'm cherry-picking??? Jesus cleared the Temple ... twice. That wasn't non-violent. And there is no way to read Revelation 19 with a non-violent Jesus. And you have yet to offer any way to reconcile your view of Jesus as opposing violence with God's unavoidable wars. It's not some obscure notion. It's mainstream. (What do you think is meant by "the hosts of heaven"? It's a reference to the armies ... of which Jesus is referred to as the "Lord of hosts". So I'm still at the position that your premises are different than mine.
Tim LaHayes and Hal Lindseys aside, the key to understanding Revelation 19 is found in Rev. 5:1-14, where "the death by which he conquers is his own, the once-for-all offering of his life on the cross." The conqueror, he says, destroys not by the literal sword, but by the Word. In other words, things are turned upside down. The "triumphant military king" is the one who is crucified, and the blood that is spilt is that of the martyrs not the "enemies. Jesus of Nazareth is "crucified not as preliminary to his victory, but as his victory.
That, to you, explains the killing that occurs in Revelation 19? So, where do the birds come in? In fact, that whole passage doesn't seem to fit at all (LaHaye aside) with conquering by the Word.
And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords. Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly directly overhead, "Come, gather for the great supper of God, to eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all men, both free and slave, both small and great." And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against him who was sitting on the horse and against his army. And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of th beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur. And the rest were slain by the sword that came from the mouth of him who was sitting on the horse, and all the birds were gorged with their flesh (Rev 19:14-21).
Now, perhaps you'd like to turn that whole thing into an allegory or a metaphor or symbolism. This isn't the place for such a dialog (not the point here). (And I'm not your standard pre-millenialist/LaHaye/Lindsey fan -- indeed, not a fan at all.) You've still got a single, fundamental problem. You have God Incarnate arguing that God has sinned because the only right thing to do is to oppose violence ... which God clearly commanded.
I will answer with a cite from an evangelical NT scholar (Ben Witherington)...
What I would say is that Rev. 19 is about God in Christ doing the judging, and the Bible including Revelation repeatedly says such actions should be left in God's hands, since vengeance is God's prerogative, not ours.
Witherington would dispute your assertions here:
…I am a pacifist because I believe that is exactly what Christ demands of me in the Sermon on the Mount and what Paul says as well in Rom. 12–14. Of course I do not think that Christ was trying to make public policy when he taught his disciples to turn the other cheek and love one’s enemies, but I do think he was offering an ethic that he expected his own followers to embrace. Jesus believed in suffering for, and even at the hands of his enemies. He did not believe in killing them.
Jesus it will be remembered even stopped to heal the ear of the high priest’s slave as he was being carted off to trial, and told his disciple to stop the violence. Jesus it will be remembered even forgave his executioners who had wrongly nailed him to the cross saying with his dying breath “Father forgive them . . . ”...
Peace and blessings… …as I may have this all wrong…
I would, of course, disagree with Ben Witherington for the reasons I've cited.
I have yet to see, however, the correlation of "God went to war" with "Jesus was a pacifist".
I'm also still wondering if you, Witherington, or any other pacifist would consider it "love" or "good" to fail to save your family -- I'm not talking about self here -- by terminating the life of a would-be attacker when they could have done so. That really is the question, isn't it? I don't think I've argued here at all about "stand up for yourself!"
Hello, I happened upon your discussion here via Brother Neil's site and I have a thought or two, if you're interested.
Stan said:
I have yet to see, however, the correlation of "God went to war" with "Jesus was a pacifist".
By way of background, I come from the Peace Church tradition (mennonites, hutterites, etc) and have been a Christian for 35 of my 45 years. I love the Bible and God and strive to follow in Jesus' steps.
On that front, Jesus in the Bible led a peaceable, peace-making life. His instructions are specifically endorsing of peace.
"Blessed are the peacemakers."
"Turn the other cheek."
Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave itto the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.”
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
That last one being from Paul, of course. And of course, I could go on, but we are all familiar with the many verses of this nature.
Jesus left his followers 1. some pretty specific commands and 2. a pretty specific example and the command to follow that example.
So, whether or not "God goes to war," or the actions in the book of Revelation might rightly be described as violent or warring, WE have been given specific instructions to the contrary. We are to love our enemies. We are to overcome evil with good. We are to put away the sword.
Now, as Naum has noted, that is not specific instructions for the gov't. One might make the case that gov't might take actions that Christians have been instructed against. Certainly that is the take of some in the Peace Church tradition.
But then, what of Christians - can we not, then, take part in gov't? Do some here think that Christians who are in gov't can take actions that Christians normally can't? I don't find that to be a sound line of reasoning.
For instance, gov't spies might engage in seductions, drug abuse, sexual adventurism, even murder and torture. Does that mean that all of those are okay for the Christians in gov't? I, for one, don't think so. We have our instructions. IF that precludes us from taking part in gov't, then so be it, but we are to follow God, not man, right?
As to Stan's second question about defending one's loved ones, most pacifists that I know are okay with defending loved ones or even strangers against an attack. That is, if a thug were attacking a child on the street, I would certainly intervene. I would place myself between the thug and the child. I would restrain the thug, even engaging in rough behavior.
But there is a world of difference between intervening forcibly in a personal attack and dropping bombs in hopes of ending violence.
Most pacifists I know think that the problem with war-as-solution - or at least one of the problems - is that it is not entirely effective. We believe, along with Thomas Jefferson, that "War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and
multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses."
As has been noted, pacifists are not passivists, at least not generally. There are ways of intervening that don't require that we take part in that which we have been commanded against.
Thank you for your consideration of these points.
Thanks for the input to the dialog, Dan. A couple of notes on your comments.
First, it cannot be avoided. Jesus Himself engaged in violent behavior in the Temple. It forces me to reconsider the position of absolute non-violence. Perhaps, just perhaps, Jesus didn't actually intend to be making rules, but principles. "As a principle, prefer non-violence." He did so, although it wasn't a rule ... or He violated it. Or perhaps He was engaging in hyperbole to make a point. (Most of the non-violence comes from the Sermon on the Mount, and the point of the Sermon on the Mount was not "This is how you must live", but "You can't live a perfect life.")
I'm curious about your answer to your question. Can a Christian be part of the military? Can a Christian be part of the government? Or is this all precluded by an absolute?
There were two items I noted in your second comment. First, if you agree that you might have to resort to some sort of violence in the defense of loved ones, then it can't be an absolute, can it? Second, you mention Thomas Jefferson's comments on war. This is a perfect illustration of "principle" versus "rule". Jefferson said war was "inefficient" ... but engaged in it himself. It was his watch as President, in fact, from which the reference in the Marine Hymn "the shores of Tripoli" came. He sent naval forces to fight the Barbary pirates in the Mediterranean. (It was the reason that he had a copy of the Quran -- he wanted to know what Moslems believed so he could more readily fight them.) So if it was a rule he held, he violated it. If it was a principle, then there could be exceptions.
I suspect that for both Christ and Jefferson and most pacifists, it is the latter, not the former.
Thanks for the thoughtful responses, Stan. A couple of thoughts...
Jesus Himself engaged in violent behavior in the Temple.
If you look at the actual stories as described in the Bible, this is what you'll find.
Matthew and Luke's version mostly agrees with Mark's, here:
They came to Jerusalem, and on entering the temple area he began to drive out those selling and buying there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves. He did not permit anyone to carry anything through the temple area.
And John's version goes like this:
The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple he found those who were selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables. Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. He told those who were selling the doves, "Take these things out of here! Stop making my Father's house a marketplace!"
A few notes, now.
1. As an aside, each Gospel mentions specifically the selling of the doves. The doves were the poor folks' offering. I'm told that the folk would bring their sacrifice to the temple from home, but if it wasn't "pure" enough, they would have to purchase a Temple-Approved (TM) sacrifice. This indicates that Jesus' anger was especially stoked because of the injustice to the poor, who were hard-pressed to come up with the necessary money to pay to be right with God. This would be the reason that Jesus was charging them with corruption, thievery.
2. Jesus is depicted overturning tables, tossing out the money and making a whip to drive the animals out of the temple.
3. These are extremely harsh actions, offensive actions, physically strong actions, confronting actions, but the violence was directed towards the stuff, not towards people.
4. I think this is a legitimate point to take away from these stories. Sometimes, our righteous anger at injustice - especially injustice towards the least of these - may cause us to take strong, decisive, confrontational actions. But there's nothing in that story that suggests it's okay to employ deadly violence towards people.
Fair enough?
Stan asked:
Can a Christian be part of the military? Can a Christian be part of the government? Or is this all precluded by an absolute?
I'm not an absolute absolutist. I think Jesus clearly taught non-violence. Jesus' followers ought to follow his commands and in his steps. But I'm not God. I'm not going to say that every instance of ANY sort of violence is wrong.
Neither the Bible nor Jesus says specifically that Christians ought not participate in war. I'm okay with Christians coming to terms with the answer for that themselves.
Nonetheless, the case is so strong against it, I'm thinking it important to debate the matter "in house." I'm willing to argue strongly against it.
At our church, we have a peace statement that says bluntly that War is not in God's will for God's people and encourages members to not take part in any war-making activity. But we're liberal enough to let people make up their own minds and follow God's will the best they can on the matter. We don't cast people out ("shun them") if they join the army, but rather, we continue to pray for them, for their safety and that they continue to seek God's Will.
My personal take on war is that it is always always always a wrong. It is a failure of our call to be peacemakers. BUT, I'll allow that it may be the case that sometimes, possibly, some folk may think it the lesser of two evils. But we should not mistake the lesser of two evils as a good. It is still an evil.
I can't see any circumstances in which I'd engage in waging war and IF I were to take part in war, I would do so by extremely strict Just War Theory guidelines. Citizens are off limits. Children are off limits. Hiroshima-type attacks are off the table. Pre-emptive strikes are off limits, etc.
And yes, I do think that Christians can be part of gov't. But I think Christians ought to follow their Christian values and that should be clear to their constituents. If I were running for Congress, it would be made clear that I am not likely ever to vote for war-as-solution ("policing" type solutions, yes, but not war) and if the people of my district were okay with that, they'd vote for me.
As a Christian spy, I would not engage in prostitution, theft or assassination in order to do my job, as those go against my Christian values. Do you agree on this point?
Just to clarify an earlier point:
it cannot be avoided. Jesus Himself engaged in violent behavior in the Temple. It forces me to reconsider the position of absolute non-violence.
I think oftentimes people have a mistaken notion of peacemaking/pacifism. As noted already, it is not the same as passivity, at least not generally.
(There ARE pacifists who believe in passivity no matter the circumstances, who say they would do nothing even if a child were being attacked - but in practice, I know of no such pacifists. I'm sure they exist, but they are an extreme minority in the pacifist community, I'd wager.)
Jesus' actions make clear that there is a time for strong direct action. But his example is one of not employing deadly, life-threatening violence. If you're not familiar with Just Peacemaking Theory (JPT) or Non-Violent Direct Action (NVDA), it makes for some interesting reading/research.
First, thanks for proving the point I've tried to make to others so often: It's entirely possible to have a friendly dialog with people even if you disagree with them. Always a pleasure.
On the "Jesus in the Temple" thing, I have a couple of my own observations. First, it is my firm conviction that Jesus did it twice. John's happens early in Jesus's ministry, while the other three Gospels speak of one in the final week of His ministry. I see them as two separate events.
Second (and merely by way of explanation, not disagreement or anything), I found it fascinating to note that God gave specific instructions regarding people who had to travel to the Tabernacle (and later the Temple) and their sacrifices. If it was a long distance, He specifically commanded them to sell their sacrificial animals where they lived, bring the money with them to the place of the sacrifice, and buy them there. So it was specifically the theft ("den of thieves") of the moneychangers that was being protested. They were overcharging.
Third, given "He found those who were selling ..." followed by a list of animals, and "He drove all of them out", I'd have to say that the language refers to the sellers, not the animals. He drove the animals out as well.
On the "Christians in military/government/spy" question, I would absolutely agree that wherever you fall on the question, a Christian must remain true to His Master, not the government.
Side question ... well, sort of. How would you correlate a "no deadly, life-threatening violence" rule with God's operations in the Old Testament? We have the obvious judgment of God. But we also have things like "In the spring of the year, the time when kings go out to battle ..." (2 Sam 11:1) as if it's a given. David wasn't in trouble for going to war. If anything, it was his failure to go that caused his sin. The Old Testament is full of violence that is not addressed by God as evil. Is it addressed by Christ as evil?
Yes, thanks to you, too, Stan, for the polite discussion.
First, we agree that the thing that angered Jesus so much in the temple was that he was overselling. I further state that this was especially a crime because of how it impacted the poor. You may or may not agree with this.
Second, we agree that whatever Christians do - even if it's working within the gov't - we are first and foremost Christians and ought live by Christian standards. So, a Christian would not steal, prostitute themselves, murder, torture?, lie?? - even if they were a spy. It sounds like we probably at least mostly agree.
Then, you asked:
How would you correlate a "no deadly, life-threatening violence" rule with God's operations in the Old Testament? We have the obvious judgment of God. But we also have things like "In the spring of the year, the time when kings go out to battle ..." as if it's a given. David wasn't in trouble for going to war... The Old Testament is full of violence that is not addressed by God as evil. Is it addressed by Christ as evil?
1. David was not condemned for going to war, nor was he condemned for having multiple wives and concubines. In fact, in 2 Samuel, God says that GOD gave David his many wives.
Does this mean that polygamy and concubines are okay today?
I suspect that you and I agree that just because some actions happen in the OT does not mean that they are still valid in the NT or today.
As I'm sure you know, "Love your enemies" is an OT command. There is much great peacemaking, justice-oriented teachings in the OT.
However, there are instances of violence - horrifying instances of violence where it appears God orders all manner of atrocities - "kill all the children, but save the virgin girls for yourselves!", that kind of thing. But just because the OT says it happens does not mean that it is normative to our behavior today.
For one thing, we have the NT. We have the life and teachings of Jesus. In my Baptist upbringing, we were taught the following interpretation criteria:
1. Interpret the individual through the whole.
2. Interpret the whole through the teachings of Jesus.
3. Interpret the obscure through the more clear.
I can have all manner of thoughts and opinions (hunches) about the instances of violence in the OT. But clearly, we are NOT to kill children. We are NOT to kidnap the orphaned virgin girls and make them our wives.
Even though the Bible never directly condemns such behavior, we have God's Word written on our hearts (as the Bible teaches), we have our own God-given reasoning ability that testifies to us as to the wrongness of such actions.
So, a brief answer would be whatever the OT teaches, as a Christian, I have the later witness/teachings of Jesus to guide me.
A second answer is that while the OT records these actions, they are arguably not commanded as universal rules (and if they were, I know of no one who wants to implement the universal rule of killing all the children) for us today. Whereas, Jesus' teachings ARE for us today.
Now, I did notice that you (or someone) made a reference to the Sermon on the Mount as not being intended as rules to live by, but as to demonstrate how we are incapable of living thusly. I can appreciate a little that sentiment, but we anabaptists DO take those teachings quite literally as being rules for how to live. We may not always live up to those rules, but they are appropriate rules for us to live by, as followers of Jesus.
Do you agree?
Oh, one more thing, on this:
Third, given "He found those who were selling ..." followed by a list of animals, and "He drove all of them out", I'd have to say that the language refers to the sellers, not the animals. He drove the animals out as well.
Perhaps. Clearly he drove the animals out. Perhaps the people were driven out, as well, it's not clear from the text. But what is NOT there literally in the text is any indication that Jesus harmed a single person or animal.
His behavior may be described as relatively violent, I suppose, but I think from just the literal text, it was a fairly mild violence, if you would call it that at all. This, in my mind, would fall under the NVDA category.
Violence, according to the dictionary, has two general themes:
1. swift and intense force: the violence of a storm.
2. rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment
When pacifists are talking about violence, they generally are talking more about the second sort - injurious or deadly action or treatment. As noted several times now, we DO believe in intense force and nonviolently-applied pressure.
Dan,
I think both you and Naum have stated your position well and clearly. Of course, I still can't correlate the violence of the Old Testament, especially that commanded by God, and the violence ("swift and intense force") of Christ in the Temple, Jesus's call for "swords", the wars presented in Revelation 19 with Jesus at the fore, or the apparently positive mentions throughout Scripture of the right to bear arms (so to speak) with a pacifist rule. As I said at the outset, "I understand those who say, 'It won't work for me; I can't do it.'" It's the "No Christian should" approach that I can't seem to make fit with a total biblical view. I see the lack of vengeance. I see the command to love. I don't see these as commands against violence because I believe it is possible to be violent and loving, violent and not vengeful. And, finally, since I have yet to find a single absolutist on the topic, I suppose we'll have to shake hands and leave the topic with different perspectives. Thanks.
Fair enough, Stan. Thank you, too.
I do have an OT question for you:
It appears in OT passages that God is commanding Israel to go into the town of their enemy and kill them all - even the children. Or, in at least one instance, of telling the Israelis to kill all the boys, but save the virgin girls (I hate to guess as to how they'd know if they were virgins or not) to bring home as their wives. (I can provide the passages, if you are not familiar with them).
Given that, I wonder, do you think that it is ALWAYS a wrong to deliberately slaughter children? Do you think it always a wrong to kidnap girls to take them as wives?
Do you think it is the case that it USED to be okay, back in OT days, but now it's wrong? If so, why? Do you have a biblical reason or is it merely your own sense of moral righteousness (God's law written on our hearts) - knowing intuitively and logically that it is just WRONG to kill children?
I know what various others say, but I've never seen a very satisfying answer. My answer, for what it's worth, is that it is always wrong to do such, and always has been.
Thanks again.
I'm always glad to answer friendly questions. This whole "God commanded Israel to kill everyone, children included" is a real sticking point for a lot of people, especially non-believers. Here's what I believe. I believe that there is an underlying "right and wrong", a fundamental set of how things ought to be. They do not change. And God does not violate this set and commands us to do the same. However, as you build up from this set, it might get a little ... hazy.
Here's an example. "No other gods." This is a baseline, a bottom level, fundamental rule. We are not to violate it, and God never violates it. Now, of course, that might get a little sticky when you think it through. If God is to have "no other gods", then we cannot be His gods. He cannot love us more than He loves Himself. He has to be ... self-centered. But ... but ... it's wrong for us to be self-centered! How does that work?? Well, it's a basic principle ("no other gods") that works itself out differently for different players.
To the topic at hand, then. I would argue that the basic principle, the underlying command, is not (cannot be) non-violence. God takes life. It was commanded "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in His own image" (Gen 9:5). Killing, then, is commanded in some cases. God ordered Israel to do it in particular cases. (I think it is abundantly clear in those cases that God used Israel as a function of Justice, one of God's underlying principles.) I believe, then, that non-violence is not the underlying principle. As such, there are situations in which it can and should be violated because it is not the principle, but is built on a principle.
As to the question, is it always wrong to slaughter children? It cannot be, since God does it. Is it always wrong for me to do it? Until God Himself shows up at my door and commands it audibly, I'd have to say "Yes". But if it is always wrong and God did it, then God did ... wrong. So there is, again, an underlying principle that needs to be located.
Might we agree (setting aside your presumption that God sometimes slaughters children - a presumption I don't share) that God is God and above any rules? BUT, that there are rules, customs, norms, laws that DO apply to humanity?
Might we further agree that one of those rules is that we ought NEVER slaughter children?
I think one of the problems that traditional Christians get in to is that they WANT to agree to this - they want to say, "YES! God will never order us to slaughter children!" and yet, the Bible has a different witness, which causes problems for some Christians.
The problem with affirming that God might sometimes command us to slaughter children (or do even worse!, more vile things I shan't mention here) is the question - How do we know that God is telling us to do this thing we know to be inherently evil?
How do we know that if God's own Self appears to us and we plainly see and hear God say, "Do this atrocity! I command it!!", how do we know it's truly God we're seeing? How do we know we're not insane or suffering from delusions or being pranked? Will God ask us to commit atrocities?
I say, NO! Not at all. If we hear a "god" tell us to commit something we know to be an atrocity, we'd do better to assume we're insane rather than presume that God would actually tell us to do that which we know to be a horrid crime.
The problem with this, for many traditionalists, is that it requires a less-than-literal interpretation of the Bible. A problem not shared by the more progressive lovers of the Bible.
(and if you're tired of this conversation, by all means, end it. I'm just asking questions in an effort to increase understanding. Thanks!)
By the way, where you say:
I believe, then, that non-violence is not the underlying principle. As such, there are situations in which it can and should be violated because it is not the principle, but is built on a principle.
I would agree. I have not said, nor intended to infer, that non-violence is an underlying principle at all. Justice. Morality. Righteousness. Peace. THESE are the underlying principles. Nonviolence is but a tool.
We are to overcome evil with good, says Paul. Good, Righteousness, Standing against oppression... these are the principles. Nonviolence is how those principles are acted out, seems to me, because how do we overcome evil if we engage in evil to overcome it?
Dan: "Might we agree that God is God and above any rules?"
No, I'm afraid I can't agree to that. God defines good. Therefore, God doesn't ignore it. He operates on it. Now, certainly He can do things we can't, but it's still based on good. (For instance, as the Ultimate Judge and Sovereign, He has the right to condemn sinners to Hell, a right we don't have.) But I would disagree that He is "above the rules".
God hasn't ordered anyone to do what He ordered Israel to do back then since then. I would sincerely doubt anyone who offered that as an explanation today for their own actions. When I suggested God Himself would have to show up and tell me to do it, I was simply suggesting ... that it ain't gonna happen ever. Having affirmed, essentially, your argument ("How do we know that if God's own Self appears ..."), I am at a complete loss as to the premise.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that your premise is "Don't take that biblical narrative as it is written." So, if you are going to argue "That doesn't mean what it says", why would you argue "Jesus really meant what Matthew wrote about the Sermon on the Mount"? If it's myth or legend or allegory or, possibly, lies in one part, why is it not in another? How do you go about determining "This is real and this is not"? (The Jesus Seminar set out to do just that ... and eliminated all the essential elements of biblical Christianity.)
It appears to me that when the ... what was your term? ... "more progressive lovers of the Bible" get hold of a passage they don't like, they simply relegate it to fiction of some sort. "I like the peace stuff, so we'll keep that. I don't like the judgment stuff so that's out." I can't find any rationale for what's in and out. As such, I can't find any basis for the discussion. That is, if truth is what you feel like it should be, then why can't it be what I feel like it should be? I'm not sure I'm saying this right. If there is no bottom line, how can we come to an agreeable solution? If I believe the Bible is true and you think it's ... somewhat true ... how can we agree? We are operating from different bases (that is, plural for "basis").
How do you go about determining "This is real and this is not"?
...That is, if truth is what you feel like it should be, then why can't it be what I feel like it should be? If there is no bottom line, how can we come to an agreeable solution? If I believe the Bible is true and you think it's ... somewhat true ... how can we agree?
Good questions, all, and much of what gets to the heart of the differences between many more conservative and more progressive Christians. Do you want to discuss it here and now (it's somewhat off topic, I realize)? If you do...
1. Truth is not "what I feel like it should be." Truth is absolute and real.
2. As an imperfect human, I don't always know perfect Truth, unfortunately. I have to reason through to it the best I can, same as you. I'm sure we agree on this point, yes?
3. So, how DO we go about determining "this is real and this is not"?
a. I suspect that you and I reason through it in much - but not exactly - the same way.
b. We both hold the Bible to be God's revealed Word to humanity. We think this NOT because the Bible itself says "These 66 books called 'The Bible' are God's Word," but rather, because of church tradition - we, the church, have historically agreed (roughly) that these 66 books are suitable for teaching within the Church.
c. The Bible itself makes no claims that it is perfect, inerrant, or God's WHOLE word. The Bible never says, "THIS story should be taken absolutely literal, THAT story should be taken as a parable, but with absolutely literal Truths, this OTHER story was applicable at the time it was written, but NOW its Truths are no longer applicable," etc, etc. No, we have to reason that all out ourselves. Are we agreed?
That is, after all, why we have Bible study - to try to sort out the Bible's teachings and seek God's Word for us today. That is also why we have disagreements. You interpret Passage A to mean x, y and z, while I interpret it to mean 1, 2 and 3. There is no perfect way of reading the Bible, because its readers (ie, us) are not perfect.
Now, does that mean when I interpret this passage one way and you interpret it another almost opposite way, that both of us are "right"? Clearly not. There is one Truth (although it may be expressed in many ways). For instance, either it IS sometimes okay to slaughter the children of our enemies or it isn't. Both positions aren't right.
What I'm suggesting though, is that we have no objective fool-proof way of knowing on each and every little (or big) sin "What is correct?" I think it fairly obvious that it is always wrong to slaughter the children of our enemies, you are wanting to include at least a little loophole. We appeal to the same Bible, probably use similar hermeneutics, but come to different conclusions. There is no outside source to which we can appeal to verify that I am right and you are wrong or vice versa. In matters of morality, generally speaking, we are talking about our opinions. Now, those opinions may be well-founded and well-reasoned, but what objective Truth would you point to to say that you are correct? There is none.
If you think, "Well, I'll point to the Bible!," well, you're still talking about your interpretation of the Bible. I'm pointing to the Bible, too, after all.
d. Now, in addition to the Bible, we have other ways of determining right and wrong. We have prayer. We have God's Spirit. We have our God-given reasoning. We have God's Law written upon our hearts. We have God's revelation of God's Self and Nature through God's Creation. We have God's witness in our fellow humans.
e. Unfortunately, none of these are objective, 100% foolproof means of determining Truth, right and wrong.
f. So, for all of us, it comes down to us reasoning it out - even when we're talking about the Bible, we're talking about the Bible as we have interpreted it as we prayerfully seek God's Will. Right?
So tell me, where do we disagree?
About this:
God defines good. Therefore, God doesn't ignore it. He operates on it.
Perhaps you're correct, perhaps my saying "God is above any rules," is not the best way to express what I was getting at. I was trying to echo CS Lewis' (and others') contention that God is "not a tame lion." That we can't put God in a box. That God is beyond our understanding.
But I agree with you. That God - as I understand the omnipotent, omniscient God-that-is-beyond-me - does not behave in ways contrary to God's Will.
God does not, I think, want us to slaughter our enemy's children, for instance, nor does God command us to do what is beyond God's Will. Which is why I'd suggest interpreting passages like that literally does not make sense.
Dan: "The Bible itself makes no claims that it is perfect, inerrant, or God's WHOLE word."
The Bible itself claims to be "God-breathed" which goes beyond simply "inspired writing". If it is, as I believe, breathed by God through human authors, then it would be 1) affected (but not altered) by the human personalities that put pen to paper and still 2) superintended (and, therefore, without error) by God.
We agree that human perceptions may be errant. You or I may not properly interpret what we are reading. Nay, I would go further to say that it is a given that you and I will at least occasionally misinterpret what we are reading. Still, I don't think that the Bible is nearly as hard to read as what you said might suggest. I think most of us can figure out what is narrative and what is parable and what is poetry and so forth. Nothing, for instance, in the first 18 books of the Bible suggests that they are anything but historical narrative. Nothing in these says, "Don't take this as an historical account; we're just writing metaphorical stuff." Now, if what appears plainly to be historical narrative is actually intended to be mythology (so to speak), then we're at an impasse. How can we possibly determine anything at all? On the other hand, what I've seen in this evaluation from folks who reject it as historical narrative is, "That can't be, so it's not." You know. "God didn't actually strike Uzzah dead (2 Sam 6). God doesn't strike people dead. Therefore, it's not an actual account, but a perception ... and a false one at that." Or, "I can't believe that God would ever command His people to kill children ... so He didn't and the account is a false one." You see, what tends to happen is the premise before the text. We shape the text with our biases rather than shaping our perceptions by the text. So my approach is "Let God be true though every man a liar." My approach is "I know that my preconceptions may be -- nay, are false at times, so I will try to allow Scripture to shape my understanding rather than modify Scripture to conform to my understanding." Sure, I still try to fit it all into a logical framework because I think that God "makes sense" while, at the same time, I understand that the finite (me) can never fully grasp the infinite (God). I have no problem with saying "I don't get it". I have a real problem saying, "God was wrong."
Still, I'm stuck with what I have. A good bulk of the Old Testament is obvious historical narrative. To change it simply because it doesn't concur with my understanding would be arbitrary. The first four books of the New Testament are historical narratives. To change them (no one -- you or I -- is suggesting that we do) simply because they don't align with my understanding would be arbitrary. And, since I am convinced that the entire set was "God-breathed" and, therefore, reliable and even rational (it must all fit together), I'm stuck with that structure of interpretation. I suspect that would be our primary difference.
Dan: "God does not, I think, want us to slaughter our enemy's children, for instance, nor does God command us to do what is beyond God's Will."
This is an interesting premise. (First, note -- "slaughter" is a term that carries emotional baggage. I don't see anywhere hinted in the Bible that God commanded "slaughter". It suggests evil intent, "butchering", brutality, savagery. The emotional baggage of the word makes it difficult to talk about. "Oh, you're in favor of slaughtering children???!!!!" No.) Since you agreed that God does not behave in ways contrary to His will, then you would have to conclude that God would never kill children. I understand how you conclude, then, that the Bible isn't saying that when it appears to say just that. But the question seems so fundamental. Children die. How? Does it happen outside God's will? Were there children in Sodom and Gomorrah? (It's funny -- odd -- as an aside that so many who argue "God would never kill children" also argue "It's perfectly acceptable to allow abortion".) It seems to me that, if God is sovereign and if children die, then God's will certainly includes the deaths of children. We don't like the "'Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey,'" (1 Sam 15:3), but it seems patently obvious that either God does will the death of children (and we're merely protesting His method) or ... God is not actually sovereign. Since I can't accept the latter, I have to take the former.
Thanks for the thoughts, Stan. Here are some responses...
The Bible itself claims to be "God-breathed" which goes beyond simply "inspired writing".
Not true. The Bible says in 2 Timothy that, "All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," but it does not tell us that the 66 books of the Bible ARE scripture. That is something humans decided after much debate, disagreement and conflict. It is a human tradition that we accept the 66 books of the Bible as scripture, not something the Bible tells us.
Beyond that, it says that scripture is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training. It does not say that all scripture must be taken literally. It does not tell us, for instance, that the "correct" way to read Genesis is to assume that each line is to be treated as a factual, scientific bit of evidence or historical narrative, as you suggested.
Could it be that the stories were told as a mythology intended to get across the Truth that God created the world, but NOT intended to be a scientific rendering of the beginnings of everything? I'd suggest (using my God-given reasoning) that this is the more logical way to approach those passages.
It does not mean that I don't trust Genesis or reject it as God's Word or that I hate the Bible. It just means that I think that is the most logical, moral, biblically apt way to interpret those wonderful passages.
Stan said:
Now, if what appears plainly to be historical narrative is actually intended to be mythology (so to speak), then we're at an impasse. How can we possibly determine anything at all?
By using our God-given reasoning. By interpreting the individual verse through the whole of the Bible. By interpreting the whole through the teachings of Jesus. By interpreting the obscure through the more clear. By research and education. By prayerfully seeking God's will.
I think this is one area where so-called liberals and conservatives diverge. I'm perfectly content to say that we interpret the best we can using all of the above. I acknowledge that I may get it wrong, being an imperfect human, but I'll strive the best I can to seek God's will.
It seems conservatives tend not to be satisfied with this answer. They want black/white answers. "Yes, beyond all doubt, this means X and it certainly does not mean Y. Period." As much as we strive to seek God's Will and want to do the Right, it comes down to our interpretation. That is, it comes down to our opinions of what the bible says.
You may think it abundantly obvious that the Genesis is a historical narrative to be taken fairly literally. But I think it abundantly obvious that it can't be taken as such, but rather as a wonderful mythology to explain to pre-literate people the beginnings of the world. Conservatives tend to balk at the use of the word "mythology," as if it were a dirty word meaning "not true." I would disagree.
And, for the record, I will point out that I was raised as a theological/social conservative in a traditional Southern Baptist community. For the first 30 years of my life (and first 20 years as a Christian) I was pretty extremely conservative/traditional. I'm not anti-conservatism at all. It was traditionalists/conservatives who taught me to love the Bible and take it seriously. I just disagree with their take on the Bible sometimes.
Continuing...
Stan said:
First, note -- "slaughter" is a term that carries emotional baggage. I don't see anywhere hinted in the Bible that God commanded "slaughter".
The Bible says:
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 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 Sam 15:2-3
If you prefer, I can use the term "totally destroy the children and infants, cattle and sheep..."
I would note that in 1 Kings 18, Elijah, acting on behalf of God, has the prophets of Baal "slaughtered" - that's the word used in the NIV. Again, in 2 Kings 3, Israel goes in and "slaughters" the Moabites. There are other places in the Bible where such terminology is used. So, I'm not sure that I'm stretching to use the term "slaughter" when God appears to command Israel to "totally destroy" the children of the enemy. Still, if you prefer, I'll use "totally destroy."
Stan said:
But the question seems so fundamental. Children die. How? Does it happen outside God's will? Were there children in Sodom and Gomorrah?
Death is a natural part of life. I have no problem with death. All things die. There is no sin in death, it is part of life. So, no, God is not committing any wrong in allowing life to happen as it has been designed.
But I DO have a problem (at least in part, thanks to the teachings of the Bible) with injustice, with oppression, with causing the innocent to suffer. I stand by my point: God does not want us to "utterly destroy" the children of our enemies because doing so is a moral wrong - an atrocity. I don't think God commands people to commit atrocities.
Sorry, I had some follow up questions: Do YOU think that God sometimes commands actions that are otherwise wrong?
Do you think God might command us to prostitute ourselves? To sleep with goats? To kill our children?
If so, how do we know that it is God speaking? How do we know when it is okay to do that which is normally wrong and when it is NOT okay to do what is normally wrong?
Dan: "The Bible says in 2 Timothy that, 'All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,' but it does not tell us that the 66 books of the Bible ARE scripture."
(Note: This is intended as illustrative, not confrontational.) Okay, I've decided that only 43 of those books are actually God-breathed, and, honestly, only parts of those. And I've also included 3 of the "Lost Books of the Bible" as "God-breathed". Oh, you don't? Well, why are you right and I'm wrong?
You see, it becomes a guessing game, a matter of pure opinion. You like this; I like that. Now, you agreed that it might be that you're wrong or I'm wrong or both are wrong (that is, it can't be that both are true), but there really is, at this point, no way of knowing. (By the way, it is a common but false perception that 1) the Church gave us the Bible or 2) it took "much debate, disagreement and conflict". The Bible as we currently have it was in use as Scripture a long time before the Church decided it should be. The debate, disagreement, and conflict only arose when one sect decided to put their own "Scripture" together in opposition to the preexisting one. As for the "mainstream" Church, they were in primary agreement with very, very few exceptions, both in what they accepted and what they rejected as Scripture.) So, if it is true that "the stories were told as a mythology intended to get across the Truth" (I'm not using "mythology" as "a lie" ... although it also wouldn't be regarded as actually true, either, would it?) there is no way for us to accurately, confidently, or usefully determine "this is true and that is myth." As an example, many like to say, "Well, that whole Genesis 1-3 thing was myth, intended to get across that God created it, but not how." Okay ... so where does myth stop and narrative begin? Noah? No, that was likely another myth. Abraham? Not likely. Actually, if you read the accounts, there is nothing in all of Genesis that suggests "here we stop with the myths and from this point on we're in history." That, in fact, carries on through Exodus and so on. So ... even though the New Testament writers seem to think that these mythological characters (Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and so on) were real, we know better today that they were simply myths intended to convey a meaning ... which, of course, is now completely obscured except in some vague terms of "God made something" and the like. I know that all sounds quite sarcastic. I don't intend it that way at all. I don't see any way to properly or accurately interpret the Bible if it can't be taken as it was written, and, if it was written so deceptively that we can't tell narrative from mythology, then what can we tell? How do you know, for instance, that that entire story about that Jesus character wasn't a myth intended to convey the point that God wants to save His people? See the problem?
Yes, I prefer a literal interpretation. No, I don't mean simply "pure face value". I mean "as written" -- poetry is poetic, proverbs are proverbial, and so on. Hyperbole should be taken as hyperbole. Anthropomorphisms are just that. Phenomenological language is just that. (That is, a description of "sunrise" when we know that the sun doesn't actually rise doesn't cause us to cry "Foul!" It's a description of a phenomenon as it appears, not a scientific description.) Clearly there is allegory and metaphor and symbolism in the Bible and that should be read as just that. What I cannot do is simply dismiss some as wrong, some as unreliable, some as myth, and all as however I see fit. If we have no way of actually telling, then we have no means of actually proceeding.
Dan: "I DO have a problem ... with injustice, with oppression, with causing the innocent to suffer."
And, you see, there we start from different premises. You see something called "the innocent" and I don't. I know that sounds trite, but it is no small point.
Dan: "Do YOU think that God sometimes commands actions that are otherwise wrong?"
I do not believe that God commands actions that are wrong. But this is back to the point I made earlier about underlying principles. It is wrong for humans, for instance, to commit murder. God, on the other hand, has the right to kill humans whenever He wants. Why? We aren't allowed to murder one another because "in the image of God He made man". God, the owner of this image we know of as "man" that reflects its Maker, has the right to destroy it whenever He wants. We, as image bearers and not actual owners, don't.
Now, having said that God does not command actions that are wrong, how can we know when He commands things that appear to be wrong? I wouldn't know. (I don't believe that the Bible as a whole teaches passivism or non-violence, but the truth is that I don't own a weapon, have never been in a fight, have never struck anyone out of anger. So I can't imagine what it would look like to act differently.) We do know that He does command people to do things that appear to be wrong. Paul, for instance, told us, "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves" (Rom 13:1-2). On the other hand the Apostles, when commanded by the governing authority to stop preaching the Gospel, answered, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; for we cannot stop speaking what we have seen and heard" (Acts 4:19-20). Apparently, even though we are generally commanded to obey the government, there are times that God commands us not to. The trick is in knowing the underlying principle.
I must say again, Stan, thanks for the polite discourse. I reckon I'll try tackling a few more points here. You ask:
And I've also included 3 of the "Lost Books of the Bible" as "God-breathed". Oh, you don't? Well, why are you right and I'm wrong?
You tell me: Why are the 66 books "right? Because of human tradition, right? That is how and why I accept them, too. I accept the 66 books of the Bible as part of our Christian heritage, as part of the common language we as Christians communicate in, at least partially.
God did not appear in a cloud and hand The Sixty Six to Martin Luther (who did not approve of the book of Revelation or my beloved James) or to Ambrose,Augustine or some early church leader. Rather, the people who make up the church have accepted these as our holy writ, and I'm fine with that. I'm just making sure we understand that this is a human tradition and not a Definitive Word handed down from God.
And, as with all human traditions, they are prone to error. Do you think that God somehow miraculously ensured that there was no error in the selection of the 66? You are free to think so, but that, too, is an extrabiblical hunch, not a definitive Word from God. Fair enough?
You say, "it becomes a guessing game, a matter of pure opinion," and that is what it essentially is. The difference between the Rightish and Leftish is that the Leftish are okay with acknowledging that reality. We simply have NO word from God, no sign, no pronouncement saying, "Yea, verily, these 66 shall be henceforth known as my Whole and Complete Word (tm). Not 67, nor 65, just the 66. Amen."
No, it is a matter of tradition based upon our opinion. Our collective hunch. You and I are okay with the 66. Some others may disagree. There's nothing in the Bible to say that they're wrong for disagreeing, nor that we are right for thinking 66. This is true, I'm sure you agree?
So, if it is true that "the stories were told as a mythology intended to get across the Truth"... there is no way for us to accurately, confidently, or usefully determine "this is true and that is myth."
Yes, that is what I'm saying. As I've already noted, when it comes to matters of morality, we may have very good reasons for thinking what is Right and Wrong, but it IS our hunch. Our opinion.
Now, I agree with you that it's not that difficult. Clearly, when Jesus said, "love your enemies," he meant we ought to love our enemies. Period. It's not that hard to understand. When Paul said, "Don't worry about anything..." (echoing Jesus' own, "don't worry about tomorrow...") he meant that we are not to worry about anything. I don't think there's anything complex or difficult in understanding that and acknowledging that as a Universal Truth.
Similarly, when the OT has God saying "Go in to your enemies and kill them all, even the children and the puppies," I think CLEARLY that is NOT a universal truth or command. I don't think there's anything complex about understanding that, either. It is perhaps a misunderstanding of what God wants - and the Bible never says that we have to interpret each line as an accurate representation of God's Will, that would be an extrabiblical human tradition - or some other mysterious meaning lost to time, but clearly, we ought not utterly destroy our enemy's children. I don't think there's anything difficult in understanding that.
But you do. Not you personally, but traditionalists in general, think that God DOES, in fact, sometimes command the destruction of the children of the enemy - or that at least God has done so in the past.
The thing is, we're both striving mightily to determine God's Will and wrap our mind around that scripture and coming to different opinions. And that's going to happen. And that's because God has given us no key to universally interpret each verse with 100% certainty that OUR interpretation is the One and Only interpretation. The closest thing we have to a key (and I think it's a pretty good one) is Jesus - his life and teachings.
And this is getting realllly long. Let me just add that I recognize that when traditionalists (keeping in mind I was one, still am in some ways) say they prefer a "literal translation," that you don't mean literally literal. We all recognize that there are parables, hyperbole, storytelling conventions, allegories, etc, etc, etc. No problem, I understand that.
Let me also address this, where you say:
You see something called "the innocent" and I don't.
Yes, I believe in the notion of innocents and I believe in protecting them, not oppressing them, working for justice for them. I believe this because the Bible tells me so. The book of Psalms, for instance, speaks of the wicked man who, "from ambush he murders the innocent" Or the wicked who sacrificed their children, who "shed innocent blood." The prophets repeatedly speak of the wicked who "are swift to shed innocent blood."
And it is clear from these passages that we ought NOT be part of harming the innocent. I'm sure you agree, in this regard.
I recognize you are talking about the sense in which there are none innocent, that we are all failed, flawed humanity, God's imperfect creation, yet made in God's image. And it is important to recognize that point. Nonetheless, clearly, repeatedly the Bible makes the case warning against the oppression or harming of the innocent. It is a strong biblical concept. Looking at it from that angle, I'm relatively sure you agree.
I have to go for now... Thanks again for the considerate conversation.
Since I don't believe "it's a guessing game", we'll have to part ways on that point. Nor do I believe it's mere "tradition" that we have these books. I believe that these books are "confirmable" (that's not even a word, is it?). The reason they have been so "universally" accepted among believers is because they are confirmed as Scripture by believers. To illustrate what I'm talking about here, I read a book, The Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden. In the introduction, the author (compiler, I guess) says that the purpose in publishing this compilation was not to question Scripture, but to put in front of us the so-called "Lost Books" so that we could see for ourselves that they're just not ... Scripture. And they weren't.
But, that's something like "metaphysics", so we'll just have to leave it alone.
Also, as a minor correction, the myth that Martin Luther didn't like James is just that ... a myth. You can still read his commentary on the book of James, and in the introduction he has high praise for the book. His "epistle of straw" comment was in regards to its use as gospel. James is a book of wisdom, not doctrine, so it's profitable, but not for spreading the gospel. (And a lot of people -- me included -- didn't/don't like Revelation. That doesn't mean it's not Scripture. ;))
Dan: "When the OT has God saying 'Go in to your enemies and kill them all, even the children and the puppies,' I think CLEARLY that is NOT a universal truth or command."
Clearly. Have you ever heard of anyone who said it was? You and I would stand together against them if they did. Your position, however, is different. I agree it's not a universal command. You hold that it's an impossibility that God would command it. You must necessarily allegorize much of the Old Testament at that point. Even if you want to argue, "They said God commanded it, but that doesn't mean He did" (which, I would say, is a valid possibility), there are too many places where God Himself does it (Sodom and Gomorrah, the Rebellion of Korah, etc.). If it is a universal evil to kill children ever, then either we reject the Old Testament as an allegory or we reject God as evil. Since I don't do either, I don't hold that the death of a child is a universal evil. So, yes, I believe that God has commanded the death of children at times in days prior to Christ. I don't believe He did so because He was mean. I believe He did so because of sin. At least, that's what He told Abraham. "The iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete" (Gen 15:16) (until the people left Egypt).
I believe that God, being God, always has the right to judge His enemies. I believe that these enemies can and do include children. I don't believe that He does that anymore (that way), but I also don't believe that it was capricious "kill the children of your enemies". It was divine judgment using human hands, you know, like He did with Babylon and Assyria to Israel and Judah.
But ... that's just my perspective.
Thanks for the conversation, Stan. It sort of feels like it's run its course, for the time being, so I probably won't bother you much more on this post. I will return and keep up with your other posts, if I'm welcome to do so.
On your previous comments, just a few more notes...
You said:
Nor do I believe it's mere "tradition" that we have these books. I believe that these books are "confirmable" (that's not even a word, is it?). The reason they have been so "universally" accepted among believers is because they are confirmed as Scripture by believers.
I'm not sure I get the distinction. If the Bible is relatively universally accepted amongst believers as a source for teaching, how is that not tradition? Put another way, there simply is not anywhere within the 66 books that says, "These 66 books are 'God's Word,' thus saith God. They are the one and only source for information about God. They must be taken as inerrant, since they are from God."
If the Bible itself does not claim to be God's Word, if the Bible does not claim to be without error and that each passage must be taken as literally as possible... and, if God no where makes these claims; if the one and only reason that we think the Bible is God's Word is because Christians have accepted the 66 (give or take) as God's Word, then how is that NOT a human tradition? Christians are, after all, human. We are the ones who have decided the 66 (for most protestants) are "scripture." Therefore, what else could it be but a human tradition?
Which is not to dismiss tradition. Tradition can be a powerful good thing. After all, the Bible itself never says War is wrong and Christians don't belong in the military, but rather, it is a tradition that the early church had and that the anabaptists and other peace churches have held for centuries. It is a good and valid tradition, seems to me.
What it isn't - as much as I believe it - is "scripture." It is human traditon based upon our understanding of the Bible and God's Will. I/we gladly acknowledge the difference.
Tradition is (or can be) good, but still, it is human tradition. It is fallible. We can be wrong. We get into trouble, I think, when we confuse our human traditions - no matter how good they may be - with God's Infallible Word.
I'd hope we could agree upon that much.
On this:
If it is a universal evil to kill children ever, then either we reject the Old Testament as an allegory or we reject God as evil. Since I don't do either, I don't hold that the death of a child is a universal evil. So, yes, I believe that God has commanded the death of children at times in days prior to Christ.
I would suggest we would be right to say that it is a universal evil to deliberately kill the children of our enemies. I get that because there are dozens (hundreds?) of places in the Bible where God points out that it is wrong to oppress, harm, kill, cheat the innocent, the marginalized, children, the orphans, the widows, the foreigners, our enemies. On the other hand, there are a few places in the Bible (five? ten? I'm not sure...) where the passage has God commanding Israel to kill innocents.
Therefore, we have an apparent conflict. What do we do with apparent conflicts? Well, we look at the obscure through the clear, we look at the invdividual through the whole, we look at the whole through Jesus' teachings, we use our own God-given reasoning.
No where in Jesus' teachings do we find a notion that it might sometimes be okay to kill innocents. That's strike one against interpreting those passages to mean that it is sometimes okay. There are abundant verses repeatedly talking about how evil it is to cause harm to the innocent. That's strike two. Finally, our own sense of right and wrong nearly universally screams out what an injustice it is to harm innocents. Strike three, from where I sit.
That, to me, is a lot of evidence against presuming those ten-ish passages to mean what they literally mean. What reason would we have for taking it to mean literally, God sometimes commands people to kill children?
Well, there is the notion that we ought to take the Bible literally when it appears to be presenting a historical narrative. But that is a human notion, a tradition. It is not a biblical injunction. It is not a definitive Word from God. This gets back to my point about the difference between human traditions and the Word of God.
There may be some value in that notion - after all, if every passage were to be taken as literally as possible, then we'd have much less to think about and reason about. We could just take that as the final answer. It says, "God said kill children," therefore sometimes God commands people to kill children. It says, "God said kidnap virgin girls and make them your wives after killing her whole family," therefore sometimes God commands people to do so. But that value of not having to reason much is offset by the notion that we have to say that sometimes God has commanded atrocities. I think that conflicts with the bulk of the Bible, the teachings of Jesus, with God's Law written upon our hearts and with our own God-given reasoning, therefore, I do not find "human tradition" and "not having to think as much" insufficient reasons to set aside what I think are clear teachings and morality.
A further problem with your notion "God sometimes commanded the killing of children (and the kidnapping of virin girls) prior to Jesus" is that it is not biblically supported - the "prior to Jesus" part.
That is, nowhere in the Bible does it ever specifically set aside those passages as no longer valid or appropriate. IF God never changes and IF God commanded the killing of children in the past, THEN God might still do so. What logical or biblical reason would we have for thinking otherwise?
And with that, thanks again for the conversation. I'll check to see if you had any questions or comments to which I need to reply. Otherwise, I'll talk to you elsewhere, perhaps.
Blessings.
Yes, I'm pretty sure this has run its course. And it has been a pleasant conversation. Thank you. I do, of course, need to respond to a couple of points simply so that they are responded to.
Dan: "What it isn't - as much as I believe it - is 'scripture.'"
You admit that the Bible itself says that "All Scripture is inspired by God". (Thus, there is such a thing as "Scripture".) We have biblical affirmation that the Old Testament was regarded by Jesus and the Apostles as Scripture. Then there is Peter's affirmation that Paul's writings were Scripture. At this point we have a pile of stuff labeled "Scripture" by the Bible that you are saying is not Scripture. (Interestingly, we can debate the Gospels or James or the like as "maybe or maybe not Scripture", but for some reason you affirm the accounts of Jesus in the Gospels as certainly truth ... just not those pieces that the Bible itself already affirms as "Scripture".)
Dan: "I'm not sure I get the distinction."
The distinction is this (and something I plan to write an entire post about). There is an inherent assumption "The Bible doesn't say 'These 66 books are Scripture', so we can't know it; we can only assume it ... or not." This is an argument in isolation, a presupposition denied by the Bible. Jesus told His disciples, "But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness about Me" (John 15:26). He went on to say, "When the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). That's the confirmation of which I speak -- the confirmation by the Spirit to the believer -- not "tradition".
Dan: "I would suggest we would be right to say that it is a universal evil to deliberately kill the children."
You missed or, at least, failed to address my point. God did it. I'm not even talking about "God commanded it." I pointed out Sodom and Gomorrah and the rebellion at Korah as examples. In one case two entire cities were annihilated -- not by command, but by God -- and in the other entire families were wiped out -- again by God.
Since the characters of the New Testament (Jesus and His Apostles) regarded the Old Testament as Scripture, I do, too. And since the Old Testament includes events where God did what you call a universal evil, I have to conclude that the conclusion that it is a universal evil has to be mistaken. Therefore, I choose to look at it from a different direction, a direction that does not allow me to do it, but certainly allows for God to rightly and justly perform or command the act in certain cases.
But, again, that's just me.
(Oh, that "prior to Jesus" thing is simply based on observation. It appears that prior to Jesus God operated in a certain way and since Jesus He has changed how He reflects Himself. I see it in the same way that I see parenting. When children are young, you do some things in teaching them that are not appropriate when they get older. It's not that the parent changed. It's that the method that best achieves the education of the children changes with the children. So, while a young child may receive a swift spanking to teach them something, it's of little use to a teenager who would require a more measured discipline. As such, I see God doing the same thing with humans. But you, having rejected "scripture" as Scripture and admitted that it's a matter of opinion, shouldn't have a problem with me having an opinion that is not explicitly stated in the Bible, right?)
And, again, thanks for pleasant the conversation. Friendly dialog is always welcome here, even (especially) when it's not in agreement.
Post a Comment