Hello Jordan! To begin, I just want to thank you for taking the time to read my post and reply with your thoughts. It is definitely important for us, as believers, to help build each other up and be in consistent awareness of our own theology. Sorry it took so long for me to reply, its busy time in school as I’m sure you are aware of.
So, to begin: your first statement is in regards to the use of violence. One of the most important aspects of discussion that I have found is to clarify what we both understand a word to mean. You say: “violence is the intention to hurt, damage or kill” and I apologize if that is how it was understood in my post. As I pointed out in the surgical example and through the life and teachings of Jesus, it is inevitably our intentions in our actions which matter to God. Therefore, I would completely agree that no Christian could rightfully have any intention to hurt, damage, or kill without there being an intention of a greater good taking place (much like a parent disciplining their child). I guess just to add to this point (so that you are clear on my view point) I do not see scripture as giving Christian’s the right to pursue violence for the sake of destroying evil and I am terribly sorry if that is how the post portrayed my view point. Pacifism, in theory, is a beautiful concept and I completely understand how Christians come to that Biblical understanding. I would even consider myself to be as close to Pacifism as it gets; however, I simply cannot believe in the complete pre-determination of the will of God.
Secondly, you raised a small point about submitting to Civil Authorities. I would point out that this is a very biblical concept (Romans 13), however just like in the early church there must be a higher submission to the righteousness and will of God. My point was not meant to encourage complete obedience to civil authority, as we see in Paul’s writing Christians are to submit to their civil authorities until it comes into contention with the will of God (much like a wife’s submission to her husband).
Next, you ask the question of whether Justice and truth are in conflict with mercy. I am not entirely sure where that came from but as you will notice at the bottom of the “Pacifism & Just War” section; my intention in this exegesis of biblical text was to illuminate the cohesion and togetherness of mercy and justice, not in any way separate the two. However, I enjoy the next question that is raised, “who decides when justice is required now?” As a Christian, I would say that my understanding of Justice comes from God and therefore it can only be delivered through His obedient servants. This is the same in any context: why do I have a heart to help the poor? Because I believe it is what God has called his followers to do. It is an act of justice, Gods Justice.
As I begin reflecting and contemplating your next point I just want to say that I am sorry if it feels like all I am doing is simply trying to answer your questions. My theology is far from perfected and I try my best to approach each inquiry with a searching mind and openness to biblical truth. This has been an area of intense theological study and inward reflection for me for quite some time---my entire family is Mennonite=pacifists, so I have had plenty of people to answer to. Moving on, warfare on an industrial scale cannot be justified anymore than a personal scale if it is not a just cause. In teaching about Jesus sheathing the sword of peter I was not condoning industrial violence and condemning acts on a personal scale. Injustice is injustice on any scale. The industrial and personal scale cannot be separated; the intention in using the words “personal act of violence” was to say that the intentions were personal and not seeking the greater good in the will of God. If our intentions in a situation become a “personal act of violence” (personal vendetta or out of anger) rather than the seeking of Gods holy justice, it becomes sinful.
The fact that the Ananias and Sapphira portion is the only part that caused you to actually think has me a bit worried, however I would note that in no way is this story figurative at all. If it is then we would have to take the entire book of Acts as “figurative,” including the beginning of the early church. I can only suggest a reading of Acts 5, but you will notice that a great fear came over the Church from this incident which resulted in the apostles gaining more recognition from the people in their signs and miracles. As a result “men and women believed in the Lord and were added to their number.” (Acts 5:14) More people were brought to Christ through the act of destroying human life? I guess it is possible.
God changing his mind is much different than him changing his character. It can be a terrible mistake to confuse the two, which has led to the formation of various cults and sects. His justice and mercy are most definitely inherent in his character. To add to that, pointing out that God changes his mind is a tough discussion point for a pacifist. Pacifism is the direct claim that God cannot and will not ever change his mind on this very issue under any circumstances. To believe that God changes his mind on lots of things is in direct opposition to the Pacifism claim. To say that Jesus was a pacifist seems to be quite a large statement to make without a single biblical reference, especially for a man who says "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to this earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34) However it is more your next statement that I find as a great misunderstanding, “non –pacifists don’t love war, but they aren’t against it.” I hope you moved on to read the second paragraph in that section of “The False Division and Jesus’ Ministry” where I speak about this exact conviction through the comparison of war and divorce. Note that war constitutes a failure. No if ands or buts about it, God hates war, just as he hates divorce. No Christian could possibly be “for war” anymore than they would be “for” the sending of millions of souls to hell. As for your creative solution theory, I am all for it! As I pointed out, I am as close to a pacifist as it gets. The circumstances under which God ordains pain to bring about justice are extremely rare and take extreme caution and self-reflection; however the difference may lie in that I do not discount the possibility of Gods creative action being in a painful solution.
To say that the exaltation of the Centurion is invalid because all men were considered sinful, I believe, is a mistake. The difference between a tax collector and a soldier is that soldiers are required to commit what pacifists claim to be a directly sinful action under any circumstance. Is that really the same as doctors and tax-collectors? I believe Jesus encourages paying taxes and submitting to our civil authorities what is theirs. Not to mention Cornelius in Acts 10. Was it the custom of New Testament Apostles to let the sin of others go unnoticed? I believe it was quite the opposite, I see them confront sinful actions regularly in Paul’s letters. In fact, quite a large portion of the apostolic ministry in the early church was to confront sinful practices that would not be accepted in this new covenant under Christ. Surely if pacifism was what God had intended in New Testament theology, Cornelius would have at least been notified of his life of sin just as the other lifestyles of sin are confronted.
I understand your worry that I was attempting to prove that simply a war waged by Christians is just in the eyes of God and I am terribly sorry if you understood my view to be a justification for a violent Christian revolution. The immediate reaction is to think of the Crusades and a Christian front of mass-murdering in order to rid the world of evil and at no point do I think that is Gods intention. I guess to put it plainly- I am not trying to argue for a Just War as much as I was pointing out that pacifism takes these biblical principles just one step too far. I cannot put the will of God into numbers but a good representation is to see myself as a 9.9 out of 10 pacifist, but to even claim that God could possibly ordain the use of force .1% of the time, is to deny pacifism in its entirety. It is hand-cuffing God; it is turning the dial down to 0 and ripping off the knob.
Finally, love. This entire conversation could pass away and there could be nothing learned and I would not worry one bit, except for your understanding of love. In fact, most issues that are of extensive debate are usually those which are not worth spending our time conversing over. But love, love is the one thing that I feel is worth discussing until the end of time. I am afraid that there is little I have to teach in this area, except what I have learned from its very author: that there is something to be taught. To believe that love is inherent and known by every human being is to fall for the great euphoric trap of our society’s definition. It is the most real and satisfying aspect of scripture. Humans are starved for it, and yet no one thinks there is anything to be learned about it. It is simply something that is “fallen into.” I was not always a Christian, I was not raised Christian and I only decided to follow Christ in the middle of high school. That being said, if I could only take one lesson from my years spent in relationship with God, it would be the lesson of love. I will not waste anymore of your time except to point out scripture as our ultimate guide in the area of any discussion. My words will only be words when it comes to the language of love, for the understanding does not come in being taught, but it comes in the searching.
“Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God.” (1 John 4:7 NIV)
0 comments:
Post a Comment