>
The conversation has been wild this week – both on the Blog and on Facebook (which I could not be in on this week). I wanted to thank all of those who contributed so much. I appreciate the full table when everybody brings something to share!
I wanted to tell a story and go back over some basic stuff. First the story:
When I was first a pastor we only had Saturday night services. We didn’t have a building and so we rented a space on Saturday night. Sundays I would meet with people or ‘sabbath’. One Sunday my beloved Chicago Bears football team was playing a big game and I did not have a TV. So I went down to the sports bar to watch the game which had a 4pm kick EST. I got down there to get a good seat only to find the bar full as many of the NFL games start at 1pm.
I found a seat in view of the TV that the waitress said the Bears would be on when it was time. As I sat there, I noticed that there was a group of guys a couple of tables away who were quite rowdy. I think that they had been drinking quite a bit for quite a while and … it showed. One of these guys, a big muscular guy with a crew cut had his team’s jersey on (a team that was losing pretty bad at the time) and he was starring at me pretty good. Now, I have been around long enough to know that stare – he wasn’t attracted to me, he wasn’t thinking about being my friend – he was figuring out how to start something with me.
This went on for a little bit and I thought to myself “ how am I going to explain to my congregation that their new Sr. Pastor was in a bar fight on a Sunday !” I also had recently come into a conviction of non-violent resistance. SO I had to think of something. You only get so much time with these things. When a guy is building up courage… you either play chicken, you leave, or you fight.
I knew that violence was not an option , it was off the table, so I prayed a little internal prayer and an idea come to me. I thought to myself, it is too bad that men do this puffed up- tough guy – peacock- poser thing , because under different circumstances this guy and me would be good friends.
I went up to the bar and ordered a beer. Walked over to his table, put the beer down in front of him and said “If a fight breaks out in here today – you are I are tag team partners- I think that we could clear this whole place.” He huffed at me , half in disgust (I think) and half in surprise. He told me where to go and what to do to myself. I put my hands in the air as if to surrender, turned my head to the side, and said “It’s a standing offer”. I went back to my table.
He drank the beer. Their game ended. They left. I enjoyed watching the Bears win in peace.
I think that when we hold violence as an option – even a last resort – we may not have enough energy to overcome the inertia that is required to put all of our energy into creative non-violent solutions.
____
I once heard a young man who went to a famous church, quote his famous pastor as saying “The only way to bring peace is to prepare for war”. I do not believe that is true.
That seems very Roman to me. The saying in Jesus’ day was “The Romans make a desert and call it peace.” Welcome to Pax Romana. What we have in Jesus is a different kind of peace. The Prince of Peace brings in a Kingdom of Peace.
Caesar had his legions, minions, and battalions. Jesus has you and me.
____
Here is one of the responses I had this week that I wanted to adapted for the Friday Follow up (because I know that many people do not follow all of the comments but only read the main post – so I wanted to bring them up to speed on something).
Four things 🙂
1) There is much agreement on 80% of this violence issue. Most, I would guess, agree that Jesus was not violent, that we are lead by the Spirit who is at work in the world, that we would should have a gracious posture to others and many other things. We simply part ways on that final 20%. For instance: I don’t want endorse religious leaders (of any stripe) that say that “god told them” to be aggressive/violent. I think that pastors (like the one in Seattle) aren’t just getting a detail wrong (like Revelations 19) they get Jesus wrong, are preaching a false gospel, which makes the world a worse place by enforcing that violent status quo. I know that not everyone will agree on that final 20%.
2) By saying that I don’t want to support religious leaders who say that “god told them” to be aggressive/violent. I don’t think that I am being UN-gracious. I think that I am being very gracious in saying that I want to make a sharp break with the violence of Church History since 300. I think that it is all-too-ordinary-human violence just baptized in Jesus name and that we need to STEP AWAY from that as an act of repentance and take it OFF the table in order to see what God’s Holy Spirit can do that we can not do in our own power.
3) I just want to make sure that when we talk about ‘receiving things in personal prayer” that we are not speaking as an Enlightenment Individual. This is not YOU doing what “God” is laying on YOUR heart. I am convinced that what we need is a community discernment where there is both accountability and faithfulness to what God has already revealed in the 10 commandments and the Sermon on the Mount. That would be my suggestion. Not just you being you (Rambo style) and calling it “being undignified” or a ‘jesus freak” or “on fire”.
In my defense:
I have been clear from day one about my conviction that we will need a VERY different theology for the next 500 years than what we have had for the past 500 years. I have never apologized for that. That should not be surprising. It could not be more clear about what I am up to.
have a great weekend! see you next Tuesday for “Breaking the Bell Curve”
Bo Sanders: Public Theology 
November 20, 2010 at 1:53 pm
>Dude, nice move! Also, thanks for summarizing the comments. I think it's interesting that you engaged the guy as a friend by bluffing a violent co-conquest fantasy! I wonder if it would have worked with the commies in the 1950's? On the other hand, it's better than buying him an appletini and asking for his number.I've got to admit that when I first read that you thought people presenting a "cage-fighter" Jesus are preaching a different Gospel, I wasn't really sure what to think. It seemed like a pretty steep climb – and I was slightly concerned that your doctoral program was making you combative. I'm over that now, and I'm still holding onto your proposal (at first I wrote "sitting on it," but it got kind of uncomfortable).I heard a sermon out of Mars Hill (Michigan) a couple of weeks ago that compliments your line of thinking.http://marshill.org/teaching/2010/11/07/returning-to-the-field/It's about the guy at the wedding feast who wasn't in wedding clothes so the (human) king kills him, even though the guy was just pulled in off the street. Shane Hipps (I think that's his name) says that the Greek intro is different from the other Kingdom parables – in the other ones Jesus says, "The Kingdom of God is like," whereas in the one with the murdered man off the street Jesus says, "The Kingdom of God has been made like…" So, the party with the first invitation where nobody wants to come, followed by the pathetic method of dragging people in off the street, ending with killing a guy who isn't wearing the right clothes is all about how we "have made" the kingdom of God.Apparently it's in the Greek – present/active ("is like") while the psychopathic killing king parable is a past/passive ("has been made").Shane then says that one of the characters in the "has been made" kingdom parable goes off to his field instead of following the invitation. He draws the parallel that Jesus has previously told parables of how the Kingdom of God is like a field – so the guy passes up the botched party for the genuine! All along, I read it as if the guy going to the field didn't love God. And the kingdom with the killing king isn't the real deal – it's just what we have contrived.So in that sense, I'm starting to appreciate your perspective. Thanks for making me worry.
November 20, 2010 at 1:58 pm
>Re-reading my comment, I wondered… What would have happened if you had hit on him?
November 20, 2010 at 2:57 pm
>So here is something I have had trouble with for a long time. My cousin is….I would say a rabid "fundamental" Christian (although I think he misses the fundamentals of Jesus's teachings) who is very very pro-gun. He believes that if more people carried concealed firearms there would be less violence (despite breeding an entire culture centered around the idea of EVERYONE being able to end a life at a moment's notice, but I digress), and uses Luke 22:35 to demonstrate that Jesus wants us to buy weapons and defend himself. I'm fine with people being pro-gun, but not OK with turning pro-gun into religious doctrine. My problem is that I don't know what to do with this passage. I don't understand what is happening. This sentence about buying swords seems totally out of place in the gospels. At first I thought it was metaphor, but then the disciples pull out a pair of swords, and Jesus's response is like, "Yeah, that ought to do it." So I don't know what is going here. I could use a little insight. This is probably the single most confusing verse in the entire Bible for me. Anyways. That's a great story about being in the bar. What would you have done if you didn't notice him there and then he started a physical confrontation?
November 20, 2010 at 3:44 pm
>just a sad thought…there are still many congregations where the idea of the senior pastor buying anyone a beer would be more problematic to deal with than explaining a bar fight…
November 20, 2010 at 4:31 pm
>Sam, Greg Boyd responds to your question here:http://www.gregboyd.org/qa/jesus/why-does-jesus-tell-his-disciples-to-buy-swords-lk-2236-37/I think that's a pretty sufficient answer, but I also think there might be something else going on. Either way, using that SINGLE verse to justify such a strong pro-gun stance and calling it Christian is way off base. The tendency is to take something that could be interpreted as violent or aggressive on Jesus' part and then use it to justify a completely different kind of violence today.
November 20, 2010 at 4:33 pm
>Also, your cousin probably should get that rabies checked out 🙂
November 20, 2010 at 4:41 pm
>I was actually thinking through some issues of violence a few weeks back (see some of my musings here http://mathildasithemba.tumblr.com/post/1414351024/this-may-get-violent and my followup here: http://mathildasithemba.tumblr.com/post/1456143158/blessed-are-the-peacemakers ). What are your thoughts on indirect violences? As in purchasing things containing conflict minerals (cell phones and engagement rings just to name two), energy converted from strip-mined mountains, sweatshopped clothing, industrial meat, etc., Where we're not actually the ones directly doing the violence, but we are the ones supporting it?
November 20, 2010 at 5:30 pm
>John – 1) thanks for that. I will look forward to it. 2)I am always a little leery when I come out with something new that it will be attributed to some other factor than what is really driving it. So when I come out with something that someone may not have heard from me before, they may chalk it up to being at a new school (which is fair i guess). Thanks for asking though – I appreciate the clarification. 🙂 I can assure you – that this is NOT a result of any of my three schooling experiences !!Shawn – that IS sad. but unfortunately a topic for another blog :p funny thought though. Harold – I do think that indirect violence is a very serious issue. In our inter-connected, trans-national globalized world… it is of greatest importance. Here is the thing – if we can not even get Christians and christian Leaders to acknowledge the severity of personal violence… we will have to build up towards it 😦
November 20, 2010 at 5:55 pm
>Sam – I might take this one on in another blog if it continues to be an issue. but here I will just throw out four ideas in supplement to the Greg Boyd article (thanks for that Improv)A) It was a training excersise. It has to be paired with Luke 9:3 where He told them: “Take nothing for the journey—no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra shirt.” He was now saying the exact opposite. almost like “the times are changing” or “your training is complete” kind of thing.B) It was a test – a final exam. In the same way that Jesus was tested in the desert – he had the ability to do everything that satan was tempting him to do – but following God is often PASSING UP the opportunities that we have to do things in our own power. and for our own benefit.C) Moses had a similar story. He tried to do the right thing in his own power. Result: he killed one Egyptian, did not liberate his people, and fell into suspicion by those he was trying to help. He has to go away. Learn to follow God in a different way. Comes back, in the full authority of his IDENTITY and lets God wipe out the most powerful army on earth and liberate and entire nation and race. “Buy a sword” is that kind of lesson. Peter got an ear. poorly done sir :(D) What the Boyd article says in regards to fulfilling prophecy: I would also suggest that Jesus is hinting at Isaiah 2:4 – a Section called the day of the Lord“Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the temple of the God of Jacob. He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths.” The law will go out from Zion, the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. 4 He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.This is also echoed in Micah 2:4 (it reverses Joel 3).Let me add on final thought: here is the test of the truth of a person’s religion – Would your cousin hold his exact same position if that verse was not in the Bible? you would have to think Yes.Would I behave the way that I do if this stuff was not in the Bible? No. I would be pushy, driven by ego, and concerned about the size of my biceps – just like I was before I met Jesus. Some people hold their opinions – then find Bible verses to justify it. Others have their opinions radically altered by what it says in the Bible.
November 20, 2010 at 6:21 pm
>The question may be "is violence necessary"? The answer is really up to you, but for me the answer is "yeah,sometimes unfortunately".The least amount the better, of course; and for defense of yourself and the weak.Should we try and stop the in progress rape of a woman? Rwanda? If we have the power to stop Hitler's death camps, shouldn't we?Can't God call someone to be a soldier?If we're led of the same Holy Spirit as Jesus,and to see Jesus is to see the Father,then didn't same the Holy Spirit lead say, Samson?Could it be that saying Jesus is nonviolent is just another theological box and not relational at all (as in listening to the Holy Spirit)?And of course, there's the Jesus that is coming back, and a thing called the final judgment.I ask again, can God call someone into the chaos, and horror of war as a soldier to bring God there?Equally, can the same God who calls one to be a soldier call another to be a pacifist? Just some questions…Scott
November 20, 2010 at 6:51 pm
>@Sam: About the verse in Luke with the swords… The way that I've come to interpret this verse, in the light of what Boyd touches on in the link Joe laid out there for us (thank you, by the way), is that Jesus wanted the disciples to have access to swords so that He could show them how NOT to use them. If Peter hadn't had the sword, and hadn't drawn it and cut off part of the guard's ear, then we wouldn't have such a beautiful example of the healing and reconciliation that we are called to bring in Jesus's name as Kingdom people.
November 20, 2010 at 8:15 pm
>Scott – I appreciate this question so much! For me, this is the moment when we jump from being two-dimensional drawings in the pages of a novel and we become the real-life Heros of the Kingdom who live and move and have our being in the Prince of Peace!! This is where we walk in the land of the living and move out of the land of the dreaming (sin) and move beyond the realm of talking (doctrine). Now we act!The jump happens because of a simple realization: we are not the world. We are in the world but our power is not from the world. IN FACT – we are the world’s only chance to realize that it is the world!The people of God being the Church is not the kingdom but is suppose to be a “coming attractions” or what it will be like when God is in charge of all of our lives. The people of God being the Church is the only chance that the world has to see that it is the world… and repent. The problem is that we are JUST like the world. We make the mistake of saying that we are “Not of this world” meaning ‘meant for another world‘ (which is not the Biblical words) and this mistake then leads to us living exactly like the world.This is why our credit cards are at the same levels of debt, our divorce rates are the same, we shop for Christmas presents the same, we vote in roughly the same proportions, we own the same number of cars, our teenagers get pregnant at the same rate, … you name it. Those inside and outside the church are nearly indistinguishable by almost any measure – amounts spent on makeup, clothes, or movies. (not that I want to judge anyone of any of those in particular) You get my point. But when it comes to violence… we are the same too. And this is a travesty! Because Jesus did not participate in ordinary human violence of his day during the Pax Romana. We have an opportunity to stand up for the right thing in the right way and to show the world that it is the world ! SO THAT it may see it’s reflection in our mirror (as we reflect Christ) and recognize what it is NOT and come to terms with what it IS. Our truth is the world's only chance to escape it's lie -the world is deceived and it lives in a lie. But as long as the church is so much like the world then the world does not see and the church has nothing to say. It’s time to move from the two-dimensional characters on a page and walk into our 3-D destiny 🙂 p.s. I just saw your picture when I posted (but after I had written) – good to see your face friend! Much love to your family please!
November 20, 2010 at 9:01 pm
>Brand New Day:I am sorry your experience of the church is so negative. My experience is quite different. The followers of Christ I know are incredibly generous, in eleven years no one in my church family has gotten divorced, the children (and they are many) who have grown up in my home have not gotten pregnant or gotten someone else pregnant, and I am not sure where the car thing is relevant. I am incredibly grateful to the Father for his grace and involvement in our lives that makes it possible for this to be my testimony. I am not suggesting that you don't know people like this as well. But, you get my point. Abuses of power and poorly discipled church leaders are not the sum total of the church. This conversation concerning non-violence in the church starts from a faulty premise when our presupposition is "the church is so much like the world then the world does not see the church and has nothing to say."On the contrary, churches who have a track record of grace, generosity, humility, inclusiveness and gentleness should be sought out in this discussion on non-violence.
November 20, 2010 at 9:58 pm
>Whereas I agree with most of what you have to say,the spirit of it is accusatory in tone. Mind you, it's a nice accusatory tone, but it's still there.It's hard to love when we think of the other party as sooo wrong.The fruit of my life is largely good. The grace I have from God is shared with all. That leads back to the stopping violence with a controlled violence. Should I risk my life to stop the beating of a gay person?In my paradigm, the answer is "yes" unless I'm led otherwise.Are we to be salt in the world, or not enter certain "areas" because they're too evil? I think He wants us in the most wretched of places,and that may include places where men are in places of authority, where violence is part of the deal. Police of course come to mind. Officers routinely make the choice to use violence to do harm or good. The best would believe the Gospel of peace and choose accordingly.ScottGood to participate with you, I've wanted to for a long time!
November 22, 2010 at 12:14 am
>Because I think that we are more that 95% in agreement, let me just throw out some ideas: In this coming Tuesday’s post I will try to tackle a definition of violence/aggression. I really liked the Improv definition (mtdan did too) and I do not think restraining someone who is being violent/ aggressive is in itself violence. There are like 8 levels of response that attempt to halt an assault that are not violent. Once violence is initiated, we are dealing with a different thing. My primary concern is the preparation for, posturing for, permission for and leaving open the possibility of going on the offensive. I think we all agree on that. Defending oneself or another is not necessarily being violent (though we certainly know that it can be). Some of this is Epistemology (how you know something) and some of this is Hermeneutics (how you interpret). Mtdan – if I am right on this- starts in heaven and then reads back to earth (or starts in the future and then reads back to the present). He says that how it is in heaven is how it should be on earth. That is called a ‘hopeful’ hermeneutic- I think. I start by looking around at what is and asking ‘how did it get to be like this?’. Most of the time I have a relational hermeneutic. When it comes to 1700 years of violence done in Christ’s name… I have a hermeneutic of repentance. This may be where my ‘tone’ is coming from. Where I am nicely accusatory, mtdan’s surprising “I have had nothing but positive experiences in the church” kind of defense of ‘orthodox’ (which I find equally surprising). So my suggestion is that we a) work out a definition this week b) place our cards on the table as far as our "Progression" or sequencing (we don’t have to agree but just have transparency). My progression is 1) Bible 2) History 3) Experience 4) Hope (future direction).again – since i think that we agree on 95%, this is really about the final 5% – so any variation or difference is navigable. 🙂
November 22, 2010 at 6:46 am
>It really helps me frame this conversation to think of violence as going on the offensive (as opposed to defending someone, including myslef). It makes the conversation less threatening. I'm looking forward to the definition of violence, but I hope we can include aggression/going on the offensive.
November 22, 2010 at 5:35 pm
>Oh I forgot to say something – the whole reason that I put forward my Progression:I am not from the school of "We have it right- we just need to do it more sincerely, bigger and for longer." I am from the school of "We may not have it right – and if you are going in the wrong direction you don't want to go twice as far."
November 22, 2010 at 5:56 pm
>Brand New Day:Loved your explanation in your last post. Yes, I definitely have a hereneutic in which I try to perceive what the Father is like and then live toward that reality here on earth. I also like your label – a hopeful hermeneutic. I search the Scriptures and reflect on my experiences with the Holy Spirit – these are 1 and 1a in my epistemology. These are the places I "hope" from.For the record, "I have had nothing but positive experiences in the church" is not what I said at all (and the fact that you heard it that way is a bit disconcerting). I said that I know many in the church who are getting it right. They live simply and generously, they put grace before all else, they are intentionally non-violent, they share their lives, their homes and their resources with others. These people have a voice in this conversation because they are getting it right. And if they disagree with me I will give them a good listen because they are getting it right in so many ways.However, I have had pleny of "bad" experiences with church people who have never heard the heart of the message of Jesus – serving from below.Anyway, yes I think we agree on at least 95% of this, and I too am interested to hear everybody's thoughts on how a person who intentionally pursues the place of weakness, service, generosity, etc. would also be agressive – as an exception – to the core value and posture of a peace-maker.
November 22, 2010 at 6:00 pm
>Well played sir. Well played.
November 22, 2010 at 11:19 pm
>But what about football?Scott
November 22, 2010 at 11:46 pm
>I heard a guy do a really clever and creative explanation one time about how there is an actual point in Football (getting the ball across the line into the end zone) and the violence is incidental (or did he say secondary).where as the violence IS the point in UFC ;)That isn't where I am at on the issue, but I think that it is an interesting point. I'm just growing suspicious that the whole gladiator – spectacle and HUGE use of time that goes into being a Football fan is not the best spend of time in the kingdom. But I do see how it could be a good way to spend time with guys and gals who are into it and maybe need the kind of relationship we are talking about. I've let it be well known around here before that I do not feel that way about UFC – especially if you are just watching it alone for entertainment. I think that it is pornographic in that case. Almost no one agrees with me 😉 but I think that one could justify watching Football with a group for relationship for community. I have even heard people say that this is why the watch UFC with a group of guys. But if you are watching it alone then I think it is hard to make a case for that ;p (wink)
November 23, 2010 at 4:09 am
>@Shawn – I might be mis-reading you, but I would say that violence in defense of self or others is precisely the violence Jesus refutes, through his teachings, in the garden, and on the cross. He could have come down from the cross (as his mockers challenged him to do) but instead he forgives his murderers. This doesn't always seem practical, but it doesn't have to be. It's not successful by world standards, but Paul tells us that by giving up his power on the cross, Jesus made a mockery of the powers of the world. @ET – Interesting stuff on the different hermeneutics, especially since I think both the hopeful and historical resonate with me. I'm not sure they're exclusive of one another. I'd love to hear more about that.@Scott – Please forgive me if I'm mistaken, but some of your questions seem to perpetuate the assumption that there are only two options, violence (even in defense of others) or nothing. For instance, you wrote: "Should I risk my life to stop the beating of a gay person?" – You seem to suggest that the only way to do that would be to use violence against the perpetrators of the beating. But couldn't you intercede and attempt to take the beating yourself? This seems more in line with what Jesus did for us. When that assumption is in play, then of course non-violent response seems ridiculous. But no pacifist/non-violent practitioner/peacemaker I know would suggest that their position means "do nothing". You also wrote: "Are we to be salt in the world, or not enter certain "areas" because they're too evil? I think He wants us in the most wretched of places,and that may include places where men are in places of authority, where violence is part of the deal." – I agree completely, except that PERPETRATING violence is NOT part of OUR deal as followers of Jesus. We are to be active peacemakers who practice non-violence. It doesn't always seem possible, but we're created in the image of a creative God, so we'll need to get creative about things :)Here are two incredible resources: http://www.themeetinghouse.ca recently did a sermon series called "Inglorious Pastors" that answers every question I can think of regarding this issue. Also, http://www.cpt.org is Christian Peacemaker Teams. They're actually doing it – going to places of violence, being peacemakers, and being non-violent. Ron Sider's speech, the full text of which is on their website, is a great read. As we enter advent, week 2 of which celebrates peace, let's reflect on what it means to celebrate the Incarnation of the Prince of Peace, while Christians around the world train for and participate in wars.
November 23, 2010 at 4:49 am
>Good and thought provoking Inprov! Of course there are options, it's really not a black and white issue is it?That said, is violence ever appropriate? I really do think that it's all on the table as you're led of the Holy Spirit.My experience comes from a varied background for sure, some in those wretched places.As a soldier, there was no option really as to what was required, as a former detention officer in a county jail, a certain type of controlled violence was appropriate. In some instances to actually prevent persons hurting themselves and/or others.That said, at one point I was a complete pacifist and once took a punch with no retaliation on my part. (I carry a 12 stitch reminder scar of that encounter).While I admire and welcome discussions like this one, I've never considered anyone of us 1D.Just at different levels of experience in different areas.That's probably why my progression doesn't start with the bible; it really starts for me when I experience God's word (and by that I mean more than the bible)in everyday life.Without the experience we lack authority, and without authority we can do little but build walls and boxes that can't contain God.As for the "church" history of doing horrible thing to others in Jesus' name, my question is "was that really THE Church? I believe there was a less visible expression of God's Body that was persecuted by the so called church of the day….. but that for another day.Thanks to all for your forbearance with me, it's great to be involved with you all.Scott
November 23, 2010 at 3:10 pm
>I think in this kind of situation, we really need to take a look at the New Testament. Is there a single example in the entire New Testament where Jesus or one of His disciples uses violence, for any reason, even the defense of others, that went well? We live in a violent culture. Aggression is innate in the human condition. We are pre-disposed to violence in so many ways, that a doctrine of non-violence seems alien to us. It's really difficult to imagine a situation where someone like Hitler could have been stopped without major violence because it has honestly never been done before. At least not that we've ever heard of. By my human understanding of justice, then it seems like there are times when violence is acceptable. As a human being, living in the world, I see violence against someone like Hitler as acceptable. But there is a problem here. I have made a commitment as a believer in Christ to become less like a typical human, and more supernatural. The quest and journey of a believer is meant to be one towards Christ, shedding away certain beliefs and behaviors that are not Christ-like. you could say that this journey is one of becoming MORE human, that is, becoming more like we were meant to be in the first place. By my limited sense of justice, violence does in fact seem acceptable some times. BUT can I trust my judgment in this issue? Does the Holy Spirit really call people to raise their hand against another? Is this really in accord with what we know about Jesus? Did Jesus ever tell someone to raise a hand against someone? Ever? Did he ever NOT rebuke someone for carrying out violence or having violent ideas (Remember John and James wanting to call down fire from heaven on a non-receptive town)? What is the precedent here? There is a theory that ever major violent conflict on earth has its roots in previous conflicts. Afghanistan and Iraq have their roots in leftover tension from the Cold War. The Cold War and its conflicts (Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan again) has its roots in WWII. WWII is rooted in WWI. WWI is rooted in colonial conflicts throughout the world, like the Boer war, the Opium wars, etc. These conflicts have their roots in European conflicts (The Napoleonic Wars, the Hussite War, the Thirty Years War). Stories of interpersonal violence invariably trace back to previous violent experiences. Violence always traces its origins to more violence. Our duty is STOP the cycle of violence, not perpetuate it and shift it to a new time and place. "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the sons of God." –Jesus, the sermon on the mount.
November 26, 2010 at 8:45 pm
>I guess the the site blocked out Improv temporarily – so he sent this me and asked me to post for him.But Scott, I imagine there are plenty of areas in your life where you'd say there are certain things the Holy Spirit will NOT lead you to do. You know the Holy Spirit will NOT lead you to commit adultery. You know the Holy Spirit will NOT tell you to burn down an orphanage. (At least I hope you do.)Why do you know these things? Is it because you have experienced burning down orphanages or committing adultery and it hasn't worked out well? Or because you know there are real-life consequences to those actions? Because I would say that in light of Jesus instruction to love our enemies and bless those who persecute us, then using violence against others, under any circumstance, is NOT ok, and not something the Holy Spirit leads us to do, because it contradicts the clear teaching and example of Jesus. Violence gets treated differently than these other topics because CHRISTIANS have baptized violence over and over and over again. Violence gets treated differently because we think the real-life consequences are sometimes a net positive. And maybe in the short-term they are, but Jesus points us to a different way. I'm all about God's Word beyond the Bible. I think there are plenty of things that the Bible doesn't address and I'm thankful for the Living God of the Holy Spirit which comforts and counsels us. And there are plenty of issues on which the Bible is unclear which makes me even more grateful. But the question of violence really isn't one of those issues. Since you don't know me, and you shared a little of your story, allow me to share a little of mine. Growing up, I wanted to go to the Naval Academy and be a Marine. I wanted to not only be a good guy and fight bad guys but lead others to fight and kill bad guys. I took a different path, and when I became a Christian I still felt, to a lesser extent, that there was a place for justified violence against "bad" people. Through my life as a follower of Jesus, that has slowly been eroded away, and not only have I come to the conviction of non-violent peacemaking for myself, but I've become more and more convinced that this may be the single biggest failing and misstep that the church has pursued. I'm pretty liberal theologically, I'm OK with a lot of things…but for some reason my heart has not been loosed to be more flexible with this. But it's not oppressive…in fact I feel far more creative, liberated, and loving than I could have conceived before feeling this conviction. I consider my 'conversion' to non-violence the second most significant moment of my spiritual journey, after my confession of Christ. If we think God is a vengeful God, who sent his son because we were bad and hey, somebody has to pay, right? Then of course we'll be able to justify using violence against others, no matter what Jesus said. But I think the cross is telling us something else, it's like God is saying "Look! This is what your approach ends up with! The suffering of God. And I love you too much to come down from this cross and punish you, even though that's what you think God should do. My judgment is forgiveness."- Improvfaith (Joe P)
November 28, 2010 at 4:50 am
>Not sure what is going on with the Log In problem… but here is Scott's reply … hopefully this glitch goes gets fixed :)Improvfaith,Your arguments are wonderfully persuasive! But for me some of what you say is backwards in progression. That is I view the bible as a giant love story pointing to relationship with Jesus, not so much as a template, because, as you said, it can't cover everything.That said neither can you or I. But He can. And to me that puts many things on the table that many won't or don't. Of course adultery and burning orphanages are common sense and in the case of adultery, Jesus said it's a no no.But, the new testament not being a set of rules or laws, I've departed from the New testament a bit now and again on the reason for divorce for instance – if the husband is beating the wife, I don't believe she should stay. A heart towards reconciliation is good, but every case is different and thus the needed counsel of the Holy Spirit.And again, I come back to my major difference with you… whereas I totally agree with your heart attitude, I still think that following the Spirit trumps trying to follow the Spirit from the confines of our boxes.I do agree that violence is not the first course of action USUALLY; but I know many that are willing to fight to protect you so you may practice your beliefs.I don't think of God as a vengeful God First, but He is the same God of the old testament, as well as the new. So I am in tension, completely dependent on the Holy Spirit and the body of Christ,and that includes you! I'm listening, but am processing as I hope you are.Thanks once again for your thoughts.Sincerely,Scott