No one single topic for this post. I want to throw a couple of ideas out there for the minds on my list to comment on.
First, I'm still finishing up Pinnock's A Wideness in God's Mercy, but I'm moving it into Theo's Picks because I think it is simply a must-read. His concept of an optimistic soteriology is refreshing. This is a thoughtful available light theology with a contemporary pragmatic value. It's not always comfortable, but it is a real shift in thinking. It is a hopeful theism.
Second, I want to throw out a couple of ideas I've had in recent discussions about pacifism. I've just started Myth of a Christian Nation so I haven't run across any of Boyd's ideas about pacifism, but I've heard a few of them. Also, several of my closest friends hold to some form of Christian pacifism, and I want to throw out a few questions for discussion.
Generally, the argument is something like this: The thrust of the teaching of Christ on violence is decidedly non-violent. Therefore, though governments do bear the sword for a defensive and punitive purpose, the position of the Christian should be a non-violent one.
For now, I want to avoid the topic of war. I think it is far too broad to cover in a forum like this. There are too many different types of wars and different motives to treat it fairly. Also, since our country is at war, and there are so many different feelings and thoughts on this war, I fear it is difficult for us to be objective.
However, on the topic of personal protection, I think there is some room for discussion. Our friends Scott and Anna stopped by tonight and we touched on the subject (before a hungry baby interrupted our discussion). The question I think we were approaching was, "Is it ever justified to attack an intruder (or even to kill) in defense of my family?" Or are we to "turn the other cheek?"
A few discussion points:
- It is interesting to me that Jesus, while telling us to love our enemies in Mt 5:43-48 and to not resist an evildoer and to turn the other cheek in verses 39 and 40 is the same Lord who told his disciples to buy a sword just before he died (Lk 22:35-38). Presumably, he knew about Peter's sword well before Peter struck the soldier's ear in Gethsemane! Why does he allow swords to be carried by his disciples? Perhaps the injunctions to pacifism in Matthew 5 should be understood in the context of revenge for wrongdoing, not protection from it. That is certainly the thrust of verses 37 ff. I can only turn the other cheek after the first one has been struck. Perhaps this is another exaggeration to make a point--just as the command to hate our mother and father is really a command to love Jesus more, perhaps "turning the other cheek" is merely an injunction to avoid exacting revenge.
- It seems to me that Jesus tells me to turn my cheek when someone wants to hurt me--but does he command me to turn my daughter's cheek when someone wants to hurt her? If an intruder hurts me and takes my belongings, that is one thing. But should I stand buy and allow my wife, daughter, or son to undergo rape because of this command? Whose cheek do I have the right to turn anyhow? Does the injunction apply to someone who desires to harm my family because of some sick, perverted fetish? Does Jesus command to give someone who takes my cloak my tunic also mean that if someone takes my wife I should also give him my daughter? I cannot imagine it.
- In the case of rape, if the injunction to turn the other cheek applies, what of the command to sexual purity? Isn't a person facing rape justified in fighting back from the perspective of attempting to obey the command to sexual purity?
These are just a few thoughts. Ecclesiastes 3:3 states that there is a time to kill and a time to heal. Perhaps Jesus' teachings on pacifism need to be understood in the context of the rest of scripture. Perhaps there is a time when it is appropriate to "turn the other cheek" and a time when it is appropriate to stand up to an attacker. Does my love for my family--and for my community--not warrant my desire to protect the innocent from the criminal?
4 comments:
I want to comment on this more after more thought. But my initial reaction is that I think the idea that there is only two options "do nothing" or "commit violence" is one of the biggest problems with this issue. For example can I protect my family from the intruder in your illustration without lethal force? I think there is a third option that we have. We tend to always jump to the extremes in discussions over passivism instead of thinking of non-violent solutions to problems that don't force me to sacrifice my family. For example the physical restraint of a person I would not see as violence and in some situations could be a viable option. Obviously this may not work in every case however I would like to see people analyze situations like you brought up to consider other non-violent or atleast non-lethal actions.
Perhaps, but to me it seems a little naïve to assume that there will always be a non-violent way to stop someone intent on raping another person. If someone has broken in, often a person has to act very quickly. Of course, the first step is to call the police and look for safe alternatives (fighting often gets innocent people hurt more than the attacker), but it is fairly easy to see how a situation can become violent very quickly. This is the situation I'm talking about.
So, I'll grant that there may be desireable alternatives, but in a case when there are no other alternatives, what is acceptable?
It is essential, as you say, to see what Jesus said on it in the context of the rest of Scripture for the excellent reason that he said himself that that was the context of his teaching - having come to fulfill the Law and the Prophets, he then set about to teach what they said.
A good place to start is the conquest under Joshua, which Jesus accepted down to the last stroke and dot, as he put it. The conquest began with a supernatural crossing of the Jordan, whereupon the people then were circumcised at Gilgal, thus becoming completely helpless in the midst of their enemies. Having this in mind, Jesus said to his disciples, "Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves."
Only then, knowing that their sword was not saving them, were the people qualified to undertake the conquest, as Psalm 44 also points out.
We're wrong in this debate, always, when we proceed from the premise that God is not going to protect us, so that we have to protect ourselves, or maybe so that we have to be virtuous and not protect ourselves because we read those words of Jesus. But his words make no sense from that premise. His premise is that we are far more valuable than the birds, so that our heavenly Father will feed us - which carries the implication that he will protect us too, even if we die in this world. We need to get straight about this issue - either that's true, in which case we will have the foundation to do his words, or it is not true, in which case we should be frank in our assessment that Jesus was talking nonsense and stop calling him Lord.
As Jesus said of all the nations, they're always saying, "What shall we eat, with what shall we clothe ourselves?" The answer is, "We will eat what we can rob from others, and we shall clothe ourselves with instruments of death so as to protect ourselves from their resistance as we go about murdering and robbing them." In no way can we ever square that to God's satisfaction with his agenda, which is, "Do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God" - no more than Ahaz could square obedience to God with obedience to the gods of Assyria, which like the armies of the USA and other nations, demand to burn our children in the fire.
Hi Chelsea. Well, no one's posted any comments on this one for a while.
I think you're right to point to Ghandi as an example of pacifism, but I think your application gets lost on a few points. First, I see Ghandi's use of pacifism as a means of protesting social injustices and instituting political change. Christ's nonviolence is presented as a lifestyle of counter-cultural rebellion against the norm of sin.
Second, I think it's pretty common to point at Christians who get one point wrong or misunderstand and compare them to non-Christians who do that point better. Throughout history there have been millions of Christians who firmly grasped Jesus' teaching on non-violence and lived it at the cost of their lives. And my guess is we'll find many Hindus who don't firmly grasp it.
The reason people have a problem with grasping non-violence is that it is so counter-intuitive to our minds. And I think Christianity is the only system that adequately addresses that problem as a part of the issue of sin and evil.
Post a Comment