30 Cachinnations

1. Anonymous Said,

   Turning the other cheek and being a peacemaker is not pacifism, but is rather in contradiction with the pacifism of which you speak.
   
   The church member with a smoking gun in his hand who just ended the bloodshed of a madman on a rampage is a peacemaker. And even after doing what was necessary to stop the violence, that same churchmember and others can still "turn the other cheek" and forgive this madman for his actions. Forgiveness and peace does not have to equate to acquiescence.
   
   Luke 22:36
   Then said He unto them, "...he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

   Posted on 12/11/2007

    
2. Anonymous Said,

   I don't think turning the other cheek means being a doormat and letting someone take your life. When the Pharisees took up stones to kill Jesus, He disappeared in the crowd. In other words, He got out of there...He didn't just sit there and take it.
   
   Ultimately, He did take the worst imaginable suffering in His death on the cross. I don't want to overlook that one. But I don't think being a peacemaker and turning the other cheek means taking crap from people or allowing them to kill you.
   
   On the contrary, I think protecting yourself from harm is an act of love.
   
   I agree that this news story is an awful, awful tragedy.

   Posted on 12/11/2007

    
3. Anonymous Said,

   Well, actually, I do think that turning the other cheek means taking crap from people and allowing them to kill you. No, I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't flee if someone is threatening you, but I am saying that violence is not an acceptable response.
   
   Look at the example of Christ's life. When he was arrested, he offered no resistance. Neither did he cooperate with those doing him harm, but he did not fight back. Nor would he allow his disciples to fight back.
   
   Moreover, look at the legacy of his life. After his death, had his teaching to the disciples been one that clearly gave them permission to resist with violence, don't you think that even one of them would have? Yet all save John were martyred. The Christian understanding until the religion was co-opted by the government of Constantine was that Christianity meant ultimate pacifism. It was only after Christianity became a governmental tool that ideas such as "just war" and "justifiable killing" came about.
   
   Pacifism isn't expedient to government. But it is essential to Christianity. It is radical, it is difficult, and it is probably even un-American, but violence is incompatible with the gospel.

   Posted on 12/11/2007

    
4. Papa Steve Said,

   Well, I am not sure, but I think once the Wacoan of the Year people hear about this, you can pretty much kiss that award good-bye.

   Posted on 12/11/2007

    
5. Anonymous Said,

   Too much rabble rousing for them, do you think?

   Posted on 12/11/2007

    
6. Chaotic Hammer Said,

   ...Is that hard? Is it harsh? I don't mean it to be. Quite the opposite really; I intend it to be gentle....
   
   First of all, I appreciate the tone here, and hope to approach the subject with the same attitude you're bringing to it.
   
   I've grappled with this subject a lot personally, and have not been able to reach any firm conclusions. I'm a whole lot closer to your position on this than I was a few years ago, but still far from settled. I think the attitude and principle behind what you're advocating is indeed Christ-like, and generally the ideal for which we should strive. But in my mind, it breaks down in too many real-world scenarios to be fully workable.
   
   I know that pragmatism should never drive our principles in matters of how we handle our morals, ethics, and standards. But if what you're saying is a rock-solid truth and unshakable principle, in my mind it seems that it should carry through any possible scenario and be able to give an accounting of how it responds, and how that is consistent with the guiding principle.
   
   I think that the approach Jesus had in regards to His own torture and death are taken a little out of context if we're trying to say that we should always take violent attacks without resistance at all times, since He knew that these events had to be allowed to happen ultimately for the redemption of man.
   
   When Jesus rebuked Peter for trying to defend Him with a sword in the Garden, His rebuke was based primarily on the necessity of the events about to take place. He had been there all night with Peter and didn't say "Where in the world did you get that sword, Peter? Didn't I tell you never to carry a sword or practice violence?"
   
   His followers were killed for the sake of the Gospel, because they refused to compromise or recant, even under threat of death. I don't take that as an indication that every single time any human being has evil or violent intentions, in any situation or for any reason, that the only possible response is non-violence and non-resistance. If so, then followers of Christ can never be in the military or civil police force -- or depending on how far you want to take it, even be able to physically intervene or restrain somebody who is senselessly harming somebody else right in front of us.
   
   I read the information on your link about the Amish reaction to what happened to them, and I don't see how that supports your case. I greatly admire their approach to forgiveness, and pouring out love on the family of the man who perpetrated violence against their children. But while the event was going on, the Amish there contacted the police for help, and didn't restrict the police from having access to the property.
   
   However, I do want to end by affirming that I do appreciate the heart behind non-violence, and when I say I have not settled these things in my heart, I'm serious. I have been, and continue to be, willing to hear the Lord's conviction in my heart if my thoughts and attitudes about this stuff are wrong.

   Posted on 12/11/2007

    
7. Anonymous Said,

   Thanks C-Ham, and I'll be honest, I struggle with the same things. Maybe something that would help is to understand what violence is. For example, I don't think restraining someone to keep them from harming someone else is violence. But killing that person to keep them from harming someone else? Yes, that's violence.
   
   As for Christians serving in the military, all I can say is that I wouldn't be able to because I might be called on to harm or kill another human being.
   
   But there is a big difference between non-violence and non-resistance. I think we absolutely must resist evil and resist violence, but not with violence. Violence does not equal physicality. One may be physically involved in something without being violent or intending to do harm.
   
   Now about Peter, I'd have to disagree a bit. I think Jesus definitely rebuked Peter for using violence. And I don't think it had to do with the inevitability of what was to come. Peter couldn't have possibly resisted the soldiers if he tried. He was simply lashing out. And Jesus didn't have to heal the ear of the soldier to accomplish his purposes; he did it as an act of love to one who was treating him with violence.
   
   As for the Amish situation, obviously it's an imperfect example since they didn't have the opportunity to react either with or without violence given that it was a hostage situation. I was most struck by their refusal to "think evil of this man." See, part of the problem here is that Christians say that God loves us all and that all sin is equal in his eyes, but we act differently. If God loves us all equally, then we have no right to respond with violence towards each other since no matter what sin a person commits, we are equals in his love and in our guilt.
   
   What I can say for myself is that I'm trying to be a pacifist. I can hope that I would never use violence towards another person, but I know better than to put myself in situations where I might since I am only human.

   Posted on 12/11/2007

    
8. CXLink Said,

   Cach,
   This conversation honestly makes me uncomfortable. Honestly, I'm not well versed enough in the Bible to pull a verse out that displays my point. But you have obviously put a lot of thought into this so I will tread lightly. This is a first impression response.
   
   If we are talking about violence as in “the exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse” then the intentions are what is the problem. My desire is not to hurt the person who broke into my house, only to keep them from inflicting violence on others and myself. If I believed that I could restrain them and stop them with my hands then I would do that. If I believed that something greater was required to stop them then I would move onto that.
   
   I see myself as a protector. I just don't see myself as someone who would willingly allow someone else to get hurt or killed by something or someone else if I have the means to protect them, be it with my body, a bat, or a gun.
   
   Maybe I should think on this a little more on this, but that is my initial response. Let me know if I am not making sense. I am a little flustered.lol

   Posted on 12/12/2007

    
9. Rebecca Said,

   Turning the other cheek refers to a slap on the cheek --- an insult in that culture and time --- rather than a physical attack. As Luke 22:36 shows, Christ actually instructed his followers to buy swords. They were used only as weapons against humans; Christ was not talking about gardening implements or something used to hunt down dinner. The modern equivalent would be Christ telling his followers to sell whatever they needed to in order to buy a handgun.
   
   Many of us are very uncomfortable with the Old Testament, and we are even more uncomfortable with the warrior imagery in the New Testament. We like to pretend that Jesus is only meek and mild, that God has somehow changed from the days when He had His people engage in warfare; that David does not speak for us when he thanks God for giving him hands for war.
   
   I say this as someone who, a couple decades ago, was very much a follower and advocate of passive nonresistance.
   
   What changed me? Having a 2 year old daughter when a violent child rapist was released into my neighborhood, having already stated that he couldn't wait to start raping baby girls again. He had been caught because a mother fought him off of her little girl.
   
   Passive nonresistance, I decided, is a luxury for those who are not responsible for the lives and well-being of others.
   
   I'll admit --- I'm still uncomfortable with some of the things God required His people in the Old Testament to do. I sometimes gulp a bit when repeating, "God is the same yesterday, today, and forever." Is He really a God of wrath? Will Jesus really return in judgment?
   
   Yes. I know it's unpopular to mention such things today. It's a lot easier to pick and choose those passages from Scripture that are comfortable for us.
   
   I hope that I will never have to stop someone from harming my family. I also recognize that harm to me would also mean harm to my family.
   
   In many ways, it's a mom thing, I also realize. I think it's easier for men to be pacifists.

   Posted on 12/12/2007

    
10. Anonymous Said,

    But that's the way the argument typically goes for people who have already decided that using violence is acceptable and seek to make Scripture fit with their viewpoint. In one obscure passage in Luke Jesus tells his disciples to buy swords. This in contrast to the entire rest of the New Testament, ministry of Christ, and the lives of the Early Church leaders. What this should signal to us is that we can't base our theology around a verse.
    
    What did Jesus mean in Luke 22? Does it make sense that he would instruct his disciples to use violence and to cause harm to protect themselves after saying in Matthew 5, "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which spitefully use you, and persecute you?" Or after telling them in Luke 9, "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them?" And if he really intended them to use those swords in self-defense, why rebuke Peter just a handful of verses later for doing just that?
    
    It's not enough to say that a slap on the cheek is an insult and that one time Jesus obscurely instructs his disciples to get swords. I don't really want or need to get into a nitpicky exegesis of these passages since the larger principle is clear in Scripture, but since it's been brought up twice, I'll offer this: in Luke 22, Jesus is telling the disciples to get ready for a tough road ahead. Don't just quote the part that suits you now, look at the whole thing:
    
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 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. The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied.
    
    For twelve of them? Two swords is enough? Really? For self-defense against attackers? And again, if that's what he meant, why rebuke Peter just a few verses later for doing exactly that? It makes more sense that Jesus is preparing the disciples for hardship where they will be outside of society for his sake. The Greek word for sword in that verse, machairon, refers to the Greco-Roman short sword that would be relatively useless in battle, but was used for personal protection from wild animals and robbers. Now since Jesus rebuked Peter for using his against a person, doesn't it make sense that he didn't intend them to be used for that purpose? Isn't it more likely that Jesus was telling the disciples to get ready for rough times in which they would be on the run, in the wilderness, subject to attack by wild animals, and in need of the tools to survive such hardship?
    
    Further, the instructions in Luke 22 cannot in any way be said to be equivalent to Jesus instructing us to get a gun. There is no modern equivalent since it was not an instruction given to modern people and not to us at all. It was given to the disciples to prepare them for their tasks. We can't take every verse of Scripture as speaking to us directly in our time. It simply doesn't serve that function.
    
    But again, that's the nitpicking I didn't want to do. It is not turning Jesus into a wimpy "meek and mild" messiah to acknowledge plainly that he advocated radical non-violence. He clearly did. You have to actively twist words around to interpret a Jesus who condoned violence, war, killing, or strife. It's not there in Scripture, and it's not there in the lives of the disciples or early Church leaders.
    
    History changed with Christ and our relationship with God forever altered with his ministry. It's not a denial of the violence of the Old Testament to say that Jesus changed things. He did.
    
    Jesus didn't promise us lives free from suffering. Quite the contrary, he ensured suffering, and suffering for his sake. Does non-violent pacifism bring suffering? Of course it does, but the alternative is anything but suffering-free. Jesus never promised that being his follower would protect us or be an easy path. We are called to follow him anyway.

    Posted on 12/12/2007

     
11. Anonymous Said,

    The security guard?
    
    Hell, if it would have been at our church in Texas, a few of the deacons would have taken him out waaaaaay before the ner'do'well security guard would have reached him.
    
    All kidding aside, this is a good discussion and I'm enjoying hearing everyone's point of veiw.

    Posted on 12/12/2007

     
12. Anonymous Said,

    Cachinnator:
    
    You're right. You are absolutley right. I'll never be convinced that Jesus would have held a gun on that demented young man and shot him. Jesus said if we want to save our lives we must lose them. Think of the Cross. As Christ was being crucified, His garments were me gambled for, He was offered vinegar to quench His thirst, He was being mocked by soldiers and city leaders and He prayed that the Father would forgive them all. He told us not to be afraid of those who can kill the body (Matt 10:28). He told us to love our enemies, pray for those who despitefully use us, give to those who take advantage of us and that if we want to lead we must lay down our lives for others. Everything He taught is counter intuitive to us, nevertheless, He has called us to live by His hard truths. I cringed when I read that the lovely, dear security guard aked the Holy Spirit to help her kill that man. I couldn't believe my ears when I heard the Sunday school teacher, almost bragging, "I told her to blow his head off." Oh my goodness, where is that coming from? Paul writes in II Corinthians, "The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but are mighty to the pulling down of strongholds." We are not of this world; we are called by God to be His light and His life here and therefore we must follow Christ and what He said even if it costs us our lives.
    Let me close with this. I lived in Moscow in the days during the fall of communism. Ugly times, really dangerous as people were hungry, fearful and not certain of what their futures held. I was a single missionary. Twice I was accosted on the subway. Two separate occassions where scary, creepy, violent men grabbed me for who knows what reasons...rape, robbery, my passport...I don't know. But both times I called out loud on the Name of Jesus, "Jesus, help me! Jesus I need you!" And both times those men dropped me like I was on fire. One stood there stunned shaking his head as if he had been hit. Both times the men ran off. There is power in the Name of Jesus and perhpas we, especially in the U.S. who are following Christ are in such a habit of relying on the strong arm of the flesh that we forget to call on the Name of Jesus. These were Pentecostal, or charismatic congregations (YWAM is super charismatic). They believe in spiritual warfare, they preach the power of the Gospel, but perhaps we are just too quick to fix these things ourselves. I can't find anywhere in the New Testament where Christ condones the taking of a human life, regardless of the situation. Christ's truths are oftentimes inconvenient, but we are called to follow them regardless.

    Posted on 12/12/2007

     
13. Anonymous Said,

    The Dada Drummer says Amen to the Cach.
    
    And thanks to Teri for a thought provoking post,too.

    Posted on 12/12/2007

     
14. Seth Ward Said,

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    Posted on 12/13/2007

     
15. Seth Ward Said,

    I suppose my question would be, if non-violence be the preferred Christian choice, what would be the alternative? "I don't know is a cop-out." __How violent is too violent? Tackle the guy? Clobber him with a hymnal? What if she would have just winged him? Should they have gathered around him and prayed for him? I believe that Paul was right when he said the we battle not against flesh and blood but what if it is flesh and blood that is picking off the youth group? __My only problem with the uber-pacifist way is that there is never a good alternative offered. I'm not sure about killing the man, but I might have winged him or tackled his ass down. I'm not too ashamed to say it. Killing... another area I'm not sure about. Knocking his lights out? I'm pretty sure I'd do that. __After all, Peter wasn't really trying to cut the guys ear off. I think we can all agree that he was going for the decap move and missed. And last time I checked, Jesus wasn't too happy with the money-changers in the temple. I wonder what he would have thought about a gunman?

    Posted on 12/13/2007

     
16. Anonymous Said,

    I guess that's a matter for the individual Christian conscience. But if we start with the premise that violence is unacceptable, hopefully we'll be right more than wrong.
    
    My opinion? In this case? I wouldn't see anything wrong with "tackling" him. But shooting him? Never.
    
    Here's the thing though, I've got to know how we arrive at the conclusion that loss of innocent life is unacceptable. It happens all the time. That's abortion. That's victims of drunk drivers. That's horrible accidents. God never tells us that we'll be protected from harm by following him. Like I said, he actually promised quite the opposite.
    
    So in this particular situation, when Christians attempt to mitigate the evil of taking life by taking life I can't help but point out that simply "preventing further loss of life" is not Christian grounds for deadly violence and harm. It's harsh, it grates, it's unbearable difficult to say, but it's consistent with the Christian message whereas killing is not.

    Posted on 12/13/2007

     
17. Seth Ward Said,

    Well said.
    
    This discussion made me think this Shelley quote again: "Man has no right to kill his brother. It is no excuse that he does so in uniform: he only adds the infamy of servitude to the crime of murder."

    Posted on 12/14/2007

     
18. CXLink Said,

    Cach,
    You keep mentioning that tackling the guy would be cool with you but now shooting. What if someone tackled the guy and while falling the guy hits his head on the pew and dies? Or what if the gun shot didnt kill him it only injured him enough to stop him from killing more people? Would that change anything?

    Posted on 12/14/2007

     
19. Anonymous Said,

    Well, see, that's why tackling him isn't "cool." I suppose it's acceptable, and that may be because I lack the fortitude to carry my convictions to their utmost. But the difference between an accident while restraining him and while shooting him is vast.
    
    A gun by design is violence. There's no non-violent way to shoot someone. It is going to inflict pain and damage, and there is a significant chance that someone shot will die. Look at Sean Taylor the football player from a few weeks ago. He was shot in the leg and died because the bullet nicked the femoral artery. A shot in the leg shouldn't have been considered a killing shot, but there you go.
    
    Again, what I'm saying is that gun use and ownership by Christians is incompatible with the gospel if it would ever be used to even threaten another human being. Even a threat of violence is violence.

    Posted on 12/14/2007

     
20. Sarah Jo Said,

    Does it really matter what weapon it is? I'm sure you have Texas cousins that go deer hunting in rifle season, black powder season, bow season...3 different kinds of weapons. So if a housewife is attacked in her own home and grabs a kitchen knife or her son's baseball bat for self-defense and ends up killing the perpetrator before he kills her, is that wrong in the eyes of God?
    
    How about spiritual warfare? Good and evil are constantly fighting beyond what we can see with our own eyes. The angels Gabriel and Michael are said to wield very powerful swords. Christ is supposed to return a 2nd time as a warrior. Does God not use weapons of justice? I personally believe justice was served when one man was put to death for killing others. You reap what you sow.
    
    There are too many variables in the equation to solicit a definite answer to the question.

    Posted on 12/15/2007

     
21. Anonymous Said,

    No, it really doesn't matter what weapon you use. But in most cases, weapons by one use are tools by another. I singled out guns because by and large there is less of a utilitarian use for them than ever. This isn't the frontier where we use them for protection from wild animals or to kill for dinner. Whereas knives, bats, etc., all have legitimate utilitarian uses.
    
    Spiritual warfare or struggle is no justification at all for us to engage in the same activity. We are not angels and demons. It is not our activity. We are told that it happens around us, but we are not told how it happens, and we are certainly not participants. Further, the apocalyptic imagery of Jesus returning as a warrior is not something that should be interpreted literally. We can't have any expectation of Jesus coming with a literal sword to mete out justice among humans. That's simply not scriptural.
    
    And I hope you don't actually believe that "you reap what you sow" in the sense that you use it. I sure hope I don't reap what I've sown. And you had better not either. If we were to reap what we've sown, there's not one of us who would be able to call ourselves Christian. That's what grace is: it means we don't have to reap what we've sown. And it is available to us all; that's the Christian message.

    Posted on 12/15/2007

     
22. Sarah Jo Said,

    I agree that within the spiritual realm that it is not our fight, but there are situations in which God places people with certain tools to fight evil within our own 3-dimensional world. If it wasn't for David slinging a stone at Goliath, the Israeli army and possibly the entire population could have been annihilated, thus eliminating the lineage of Christ. There was a time and a place for David and perhaps there was a time and a place for that security guard.

    Posted on 12/15/2007

     
23. Anonymous Said,

    Except that the world changed with the advent of Christ. Fundamentally, the nature of our relationship with God altered at that moment. The rules changed. And Jesus made it plain that violence had no place in the Kingdom of God.
    
    It is inconsistent with the character of God and the words of Christ to suggest that he puts us up to shooting each other. That goes for the gunman and the guard. Both did wrong. To say that fewer people died does not make the action right. A relationship with God does not guarantee us earthly protection; rather it assures us of the opposite. And what is our ultimate priority? Self-preservation? God forbid! Our priority is bringing honor and glory to the name of God and living as citizens of the Kingdom of God. What is death to us? This life is not the end for us, but if we fail in our witness it could be the end for those around us. Self-preservation is not a Christian virtue.

    Posted on 12/15/2007

     
24. CXLink Said,

    I guess my problem with saying that Christians shouldn't have guns is I see the progression.
    
    Two thousand years ago you could probably tackle someone to subdue them, then came the sword. So to defend yourself against robbers and the like a sword was needed. I just see the trend through time that as the technology to do wrong has improved, so should the technology of protection. You use the word violence to describe guns, and I say its a matter of purpose. Do I buy a gun with the intention of harming someone? No actually I buy them cause their hella fun to shoot, but that aside I buy a gun with the hope that I will never have to use it against another living being. But also with the knowledge to know that if I have only the technology of 2000 years ago, that I will have no ability to defend those who cannot defend for themselves against someone with the technology of today bent on destruction.
    
    This is still something I am grappling with though. I mean I grew up around guns and I am immersed in a culture that promotes violence and guns. By the way have you heard of Johnny To, great action guy from Hong Kong. So I am still working through trying to separate what I actually believe from what the culture tells me about this.
    
    Oh yeah, whats a pirates favorite type of sweater?

    Posted on 12/15/2007

     
25. Anonymous Said,

    Cxlink, that's precisely why violence is entirely prohibited. It doesn't matter what weapon is used, it is the act of violence that is a violation of Christian ethic. When I use words like "tackling" and "restraining," I do not see either of them as acts of violence. Violence is not to be tolerated by a Christian. I think one can be physical without being violent. And that kind of restraint would be permissible, but not anything that would cause harm or that intended malice. Those are incompatible with the gospel.
    
    As to your question... I'm guessing Arrrr-gyle?
    
    But the important thing here is that it is incredible to me that we as Christians have fallen so out of touch with our identity and our formative theology is so foreign to us that the values of our culture carry a stronger weight than those of our faith.
    
    Protection and preservation are not Christian virtues.

    Posted on 12/16/2007

     
26. Anonymous Said,

    By the way, I hope I don't come across judgmentally here over this whole issue. You have to understand, I was raised in a military family and all my relatives are southerners. I've had to fight against my culture and upbringing with this whole thing as well. I'm astonished that it took me so long, but I've only relatively recently come to acknowledge that pacifism is one of those foundational principles of Christianity and that it shouldn't be explained away. Jesus meant what he said. It is as radical as it seems. It is as counter-cultural as it feels. It is as life-changing as you can imagine it is.
    
    Seriously, think about what people would say about Christians if we all refused to use violence for any means? If we actually valued our lives less than everyone else's? If we preferred to be wronged, even killed, before causing harm to another human being? Could anyone question our love then? I don't think so. And that's what Christ said we'd be marked with as his followers.

    Posted on 12/16/2007

     
27. CXLink Said,

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    Posted on 12/17/2007

     
28. CXLink Said,

    I don't take it as judgmental and it is obvious you have thought this threw. It is something that God has laid on your heart and in 500 years when the church looks back on its history we may be known as the violent and complacent church. I am not sure though. I do appreciate your view though its been something that has been on my mind quite often lately. In fact enough so that I started a blog of my own. lol
    
    and yes it was arrrrgile

    Posted on 12/17/2007

     
29. Unknown Said,

    I'm afraid I didn't have time to read through all the other comments so I'm hoping this isn't a redundant contribution.
    
    While I appreciate your grappling with this difficult issue, I think you've made a false dichotomy. You stated that either Jesus meant XYZ about turning the other cheek or he didn't.
    
    My problem with this statement is that no one on either side of the Pacifism/Just War debate contest it, yet you have presented it as a Pacifist point. The question is not whether not he meant what he said but what he meant when he said it.
    
    Those who advocate a Just War position do not simply ignore the words of Jesus on this point. In fact, in the Western Church the "love your neighbor" command has been the traditional root of Just War.
    
    As Martin Luther said, "[W]hen I think of a soldier fulfilling his office by punishing the wicked, killing the wicked, and creating so much misery, it seems an un-Christian work completely contrary to Christian love. But when I think how it protects the good and keeps and preserves wife and child, house and farm, property, and honor and peace, then I see how precious and godly this work is"
    
    With all due respect, for you to suggest that the issue is resolved by either believing Christ or not beliveing him is to put yourself in the position of judging the nature of the faith of all our brothers and sisters who have likewise wrestled with this issue for the past two thousand years.
    
    Please keep struggling with this vital issue. It is quite literally life and death. May the peace of Christ come soon.

    Posted on 5/30/2008

     
30. Anonymous Said,

    Well see, Timothy, that's why I explicitly avoided basing my beliefs on a verse. A verse tells us almost nothing nearly all the time. Verses are part of greater passages and larger contexts. That's why I referred to pacifist principles found in scripture rather than pacifist verses.
    
    The biggest problems that I have with Just War Theory are that A)they're not found anywhere in scripture, and B)they're just a theory. With regard to my first problem, many things that Christians and the Church hold near and dear aren't found in scripture, but what this means is that the body of Christ is a living breathing organism and our understanding of what it means to be that body is bound to change over time. Just as Just War found its way into the body, I think it needs to find its way out. The primary reason is that there have been precious few such conflicts that meet its requirements and would seem to support its theories as I noted in objection B. More often, the tendency is to stretch the definition of Just War to fit whatever situation one finds expedient.
    
    In the example cited in this original post, though, we aren't dealing with war at all. We're dealing with the responsibility of the individual believer. So that's all really quite beside the point.
    
    With respect to Martin Luther, I would rather think that my objection to his words is quite obvious: who decides who is good and who is wicked? Is it ever that simple? Should we trust governments to make that decision? God forbid! So far I think humanity is batting 1.000 for telling itself "we're the good guys" regardless of the circumstances.
    
    I don't condemn anyone. I simply suggest, as I have all along, that it should violate the Christian conscience to perpetuate violence or threat of violence simply for self-preservation. We should rather be harmed or wronged than give harm or offense to our fellow humans.

    Posted on 5/30/2008