|
| |||||
|
|
|
| ||
PAGE 3 DISCUSSION ON CHRISTIAN NONVIOLENCE
REPONSE FROM "C"
Teacher
Nov 02, 2002 11:43:58 am
When the soldiers came to John the Baptist asking him what they should do as acts of repentance, why did he not encourage them to leave the army?
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Response from PROMISELANDER
Let's look at Luke:
------------------------------------------------------
Luk 3:14 And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do?
And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.
------------------------------------------------------
There are few points to consider.
* Soldiers were also the police force, not just the military. Their job was to keep the peace. Soldiers were also known for corruption and abuse. As in our own military, and police force, there are many who wear the uniform and never do any violence to anyone. The U.S. Coast Guard is sometimes thought of as military, but they actually have a different role, more like search and rescue and policing the coastline. Until recent times the USCG was not in the violence busines at all.
Also as in our own police and military, there are many who use their position to satisfy their own selfish desires. As in all other times and climes, power corrupts. These soldiers understood the moral problems that they dealt with because of their position. They knew that they would need to make changes if they received John's message. When they were hearing about the changes that others would need to make in their own field of endeavor, the soldiers knew that they too would need to change their direction. They were asking for help. They wanted to know what repentance would mean to them in their military life. "What shall we do?"
John told them, "Do no violence." Now you and I could argue over the definition of violence. But whatever it means (though it seems to be perfectly clear to me), John was warning the soldiers not to be violent. "to shake or cause to tremble or terrify" is the way Strong defines it. I would of course say that killing and being violent fits this definition. John did not say that there was no room for the just use of force by the State. He was simply telling soldiers what would be required of them if they were going to accept his message. People do have to make changes in their lives when they choose to follow Jesus. If a person is in a position which causes them to walk contrary to the message of Christ and the way of peace and holiness, then that person must make the change if they are going to follow God fully.
One other thing to keep in mind at this point. To be a soldier in those days did not mean that you were necessarily a part of a fighting force. You may be part of the road construction team (as we also have in our own military).
* We must also remember that this was still before the death and resurrection of Jesus. John was ministering in the transition period from Old Testament to New Testament. There were truths which had not yet been revealed and which were not yet applicable to the coming Church and Church age. There were other things taking place during that period of time which would not be acceptable to the Gospel dispensation, therefore we cannot use the fact that he did not tell them to get out of the army to mean that the New Testament allows for violence in the Christian life, especially since he told them to, "Do no violence to any man."
* John did not understand everything about his own day either. There were truths which you and I understand because we are so brilliant (or could it be that we have the whole New Testament to explain these things to us) which John did not understand. We certainly would not take the standards and the practices from the days of Jesus earthly life and ministry as the standard for ourselves in the Church age.
* When someone comes to me and asks for counsel, I do not always unload everything at one time. When I had military men come to our church, I did not attack them over their commitment. I also do not attack someone when they first come concerning tobacco or men's long hair or women with their dress problems. I offer them Jesus, I teach them the word and I help them grow. I do not tell them everything when they first come to Jesus. If a person means business with God, they will see and obey the truth. Maybe John didn't feel like he needed to to tell them everything at that moment. Then again, we don't know what else John did tell them. All we have is the written record, and that seems to me to be fairly clear about violence.
Though this passage may not make it clear to some people (that nonviolence is the expected standard for Christians) it supports the idea far more than it disagrees with it. Since there is no place in the New Testament which commands or allows for violence or killing in the Christian experience, this passage is a part of the overall tapestry.
Oh, and by the way, those in the military and tax collection business were not the only ones who had to re-evaluate their direction and consider a career change. This was true for those in politics, athletics, education and medicine to name but a few.
Thank you for your question. We may not agree on my position, but I at least try to state it. Let me know what you think.
Promiselander
I really like the way this forum page works, I hope to be able to use it as well as some of you.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Response from PROMISELANDER
Brother K, I am sorry that I did not address your post. Whereas maybe everyone else would that I not address anyone's post since I seem to be so verbose (smile). I try to be succint but I just want to be as clear as I can on this issue.
Brother K, there is no room for the "secular" in the life of a Christian. Look up the definition of "secular, secularize and secularism). However, I think I understand you are saying that there is no separation between the political, governmental and economic concerns from the other spiritual aspects in the Christian's life. I agree totally. While we can be part of any situation without compromise, maybe we should.
But that is not the case when the situation requires activities and participation which is against the Word of God. Yes I am in the world (state) but I am not of the world and therefore there are things which the world will do and require, in which I cannot participate. By the way, there is no injunction in the New Testament for us to run the State. We are the salt of the earth and the light of the world. The fastest way for the salt to lose it's saltiness and the light to lose it's brightness is to follow the world down it's own path of futility. We are to stand out from, and above the world, not become one with the world in it's error or carnal activities.
Actually, this is a great topic, maybe we should pursue it sometime.
Jesus did take action against the money changers, then again, He is God, He can do whatever He wants to do. He did it before His death and resurrection and the day of Pentecost. He did it without telling us that we could do it as well. That is certainly not a passage which teaches Christians that they can be violent or kill.
As far as resisting the Hitlers of this world, there are at least two different ways to do it. One is through physical force, which God has given to the State and the other is Spiritual force, which God has given to the Church. As a matter of fact, sometimes the nonresistance of those who are not even saved accomplishes more than can sometimes be brought about through carnal weapons. I am not a Ghandi fan, however, Ghandi followed the principles of nonviolence which he had learned from the Christian Scriptures. He was able to lead India to "freedom" without a single shot. Yes there had been violence, and some continued to be violent, but it was nonviolence which won the day for India. The bloodshed only extended India's agony. In nonviolence, there is often bloodshed, but it is the blood of the nonviolent rather than the blood of the enemy. This is not a support for Ghandi, or Hinduism or even for India, it is just an observation from history. There are other countries and peoples who have defeated their violent enemies through passive resistance. I am not a Martin Luther King fan (and it is not a racial issue here), but MLK accomplished more in the realm of winning the rights for the Blacks through his steps of nonviolence than was accomplished by whatever kind of violent action used.
We are not called to reform the world. We are called to give the gospel to the world. We are called to make disciples of all nations, that is, the people of those nations. We are not called to change the world through politics, economics, education or any other channel aside from the gospel. All of our tools should always be used to the glory of God and we should not neglect our responsibilities in this world. But we need to know Biblically what our calling is. It is true that there is such a thing as "redemption and lift", but our job is in the realm of making redemption available and then let God do the lifting. Just because we do not take up arms does not mean that we are not taking a stand for truth and against wickedness. I would certainly disagree with any idea which says that because we don't take up arms we are not resisting satan.
As Christians we can accomplish more for God and country by being faithful to God and His Word. We can accomplish more through prayer than we can through military might. Of course, we wouldn't know that because we spend our energy, time, money and commitment on the carnal rather than on the spiritual.
As God said through Paul,
----------------------------------------------------------
2Co 10:4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds)
----------------------------------------------------------
We do not see the hand of God move in the affairs of men any more than we do because we do not move the heart of God with our prayers than we do. However, just because the majority looks to the carnal for deliverance, does not mean that those who know the truth should follow the crowd. When more of us believe God, we will see more of God. But until then, those who are walking the narrow way must walk-on, even if alone. I am not a "kingdom now-er", I do not believe we will bring the kingdom. I believe we are to preach the kingdom and live in the kingdom. But remember, "the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, peace and joy."
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
| Site Tools |
|
|
|
|
|
Verse of the Day |
|
|
