|
| |||||
|
|
|
| ||
PAGE 9 DISCUSSION ON CHRISTIAN NONVIOLENCE
Response from "LD"
Sr./Bible college
Posted: Nov 10, 2002 3:38:39 am
Promiselander,
I am fully aware of the nature of this discussion and am actually rather enjoying it. I believe thus far we have maintained civility and a sense of brotherly love and can only implore that all involved continue in this vein.
You made this interesting statement in response to J:
quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------
Are you referring to the State carrying the sword or to Christians. If you are speaking in behalf of the State, I would agree with you 100% however if you are saying that "We" refers to Christians, you are wrong.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I could not help but agree with you on this and your immediately following statements, but wonder where exactly you come up with the idea that a Christian cannot act on behalf of the state (as J obviously is).
You mentioned my citation of our responsibility to obey the government and stated that it is in effect giving the government a blank check in our lives, but I carefully placed the provision in my statement that the Scripture puts in place: that we are to obey the government only when it does not directly violate what God has commanded. There are several clear directives to obey the authorities that God has set over us, and several more telling us to obey God first, thus making this part of the argument rather a mute point. The real issue then becomes whether or not God has specifically spoken regarding killing. If He has, it behooves us to obey Him rather than carry out the interests of our state in issues involving the taking of life, such as war, police action, and executions.
You repeatedly ask for a clear New Testament apology for Christians being violent or killing. There is none. The issue of simple killing never comes up as a moral issue. It is mentioned several times, but always just as a reference to it happening with no approval or condemnation, even when talking about Christians who were killed. The only prohibitions of any kind on this subject deal with murder, response to personal attack, and references as to how to build up God's kingdom. I looked up every reference on the words invovled and believe I have found every one in the New Testament, and have yet to see one that condemns or approves killing in general. The one reference to killing where a moral judgment is made is where it talks about the state bearing the sword, and here it is seen as a mandate from God for the State.
I would ask for a clear NT apology for your position that all killing and violence is wrong.
I am aware of your feelings on the subject, but please do not be condemnatory of those of us who do not see your network of out-of-context and weakly translated verses as proof of God's condemnation of all killing, especially in light of what He directly said in much of the OT. We have to accept the whole of Scripture as the authoritative Word of God.
You did make a comparison of this subject with polygamy as a study in how we relate OT to NT theology and ethics. I believe there is a clear difference here in that Jesus specifically mentions the subject of monogamy when talking about God's plan for the family (Matthew 19:4-6). There is no such clear message on killing (as there is on murder, which is condemned throughout Scripture), and God did on many occasions command it in the OT, thus leaving me with the conclusion that not all killing is wrong.
I also have somewhat of a theological problem with this statement
quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------
I am not disallowing the need for violent force from the New Testament perspective, just the active participation of Christians in the violence and killing.
-----------------------------------------------------------
God does not have one standard for Christians and one for sinners. He has one perfect standard that He expects everyone to live up to. If you are right in your position, this is the only issue in which God allows for and even commands a sin in sinners, yet prohibits it in Christians.
Oh, and I believe the references to pastors not being led into military service has more to do with their perceived priority of helping a particular congregation. I did not perceive it as an issue of differing levels of moral responsibility.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Response from promiselander
Posted: Nov 10, 2002 9:56:25 am
2 POST THIS MORNING. MY POWER WAS OUT LAST NIGHT AND COULD NOT GET ONLINE.
Let me ask y'all a question.
If an American Missionary is serving God on a foreign field and the USA is taking military action against that nation or some other aligned nation, what position should the Missionary take concerning violence and civil duty? Should they trade in their Bible for a gun? Should they abandon the work of peace for the work of violence? (By trade in, I mean do the work of the State instead of the works of mercy and love.)
If a Missionary is called upon by the CIA to report political and/or military information concerning the host nation, what should the Missionary do? I would urge you to be very careful in answering. It would be easy to reel off something which we would later regret. It would be easy to speak about something we have not thought through. I would suggest that input from some missiologist or seasoned Missionary would be helpful in this answer.
Should he/she proclaim and practice the DUTY TO COUNTRY FIRST, which I understand you are saying is the Christian responsibility? Or are they subject to a higher calling and higher law than any earthly government.
Of course you know my position. I love my country, but I do not allow it to redirect my life, calling or loyalties. In this hypthetical, I will not be in any philosophical conflict because my allegiance is uncompromisingly to God and His message of peace. And you are right. I could be suffering for it in another country. And I may suffer for it in this country. But to call my position INACTION is not accurate.
If you allow the Missionary a different posture from that which you have been alleging to be the New Testament position, then I suggest there is a flaw in the slaw somewhere.
My position holds anywhere at anytime because my citizenship is in heaven. We are strangers, foreigners, aliens in this world. Our first allegiance belongs to God and the Kingdom of God, not the kingdoms of this world. I can be a good citizen of my earthly home as long as it does not conflict with my allegiance to my HOMELAND. My loyalties are not a threat to my earthly home, because all my King wants for this world is good. However, this does not mean that the governments of this world will agree or even appreciate my heavenly alignment or the tenacity with which I hold to it. As a matter of fact, my loyalty may be seen as unpatriotic or even that of a traitor. This world is no friend of grace and Jesus said we would be hated of all men and that we would be sent forth to bear witness against governors, kings and governments. I contend that though the State bears the sword, LOVE WORKS NO ILL TO HIS NEIGHBOR AND THAT LOVE IS THE FULFILLING OF THE LAW. (And we all know how Jesus explained neighbor). I cannot see how shooting, burning, bombing, destroying is not working ill to our neighbor. Love is the higher law, Love is the law of liberty, love is the royal law. My obligation is to fulfill the Law of Love.
If your response is, "Well, if you do not take violent action against the perpetrators you are working ill to your neighbor." NO! NO! NO! By my refusing to do violence I am not guilty for those who choose to do violence. I am not of the same belief as those who want to blame the ills of society on me or others who are not guilty.
My message, ministry...my life is not determined by the prevailing political winds of the day, nor the influences of the changing military tides of the nations.
Regardless of whatever government is in power or whatever political parties are in office, the Christian message of love and reconciliation is always the same. Therefore the messengers ought to always be the same. God has a higher calling for His people than killing the enemies of the State. The State, whether it is Iraq or the USA is going to fight for the dreams of it's leaders, whether good or bad. The Gospel soldier is one who is committed to conquering darkness and rescuing those who have been taken captive by satan. We are to fly the colors of God, not the colors of this world if the colors of this world are in conflict with God. I contend that there are more than enough unsaved people to deal with the problem of war. I contend that there are more than enough saved people who have no convictions against war and violence. I am saying, there is a little more room left for those who will be the peacemakers.
If God chooses to use military forces, that is His business. (No, Bro. Chris, I am not saying that God is unloving when He exercises His judgment in war. Nor am I saying that Christian men have not been involved in this kind of activity. But that is another post sometime maybe.)
If we are going to be part of a war machine, that is our choice. God has sent us into the world as sheep for the slaughter, not as lions to kill and destroy. We are to love our enemy and LOVE WORKETH NO ILL TO IT'S NEIGHBOR.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Response from promiselander
Nov 10, 2002 10:04:24 am
Bro. L, I agree, no one has shown anything less than civility in our discussion. I just did not want to appear to be beating a dead horse.
How about this,
Mat 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
Let's just say that you or a family member is in the military. Let's say that though there is tension between the US and Iraq, there is no active warfare taking place. If, for whatever reason, Saddam Hussein were to send a soldier on a mission which would result in the killing of you or your family member, would you want that soldier to obey his government? Would you believe that obedience to that government to kill you is justified before God. If you would not want that soldier to kill you, then you have no right to kill them just because your government says to kill them. To "do to others" disallows the killing of others at the behest of the State. There is no way you want someone to kill you or your loved ones.
Would you want a soldier from Iraq to come to our homeland and kill your civilian family? If you would not want them to come and kill you or your family, then you cannot go over there and kill them. Before you say, "But I would be killing soldiers", realize this; the act of war includes "collateral" killing. The fact is, innocent Christians might be getting killed by American bombs today. There are evangelical believers in Iraq who live near the no fly zone. These believers enjoy much more freedom of religion than do those of our dear friend and ally, Saudi Arabia. I realize that Bro. Larry said he would not kill civilians, I don't think that Bro. cadet Jeffrey can say the same thing. But even if you say that you would not kill civilians, how can you be so certain. War is not a neat, clean and orderly business. Also, if you are going to draw the line at killing civilians, then you are going to be a danger to the rest of your outfit. If you are given a "lawful order", you are expected to carry it out. If you don't carry it out, you are putting you comrads in danger. Therefore you must be willing to kill anyone you are ordered to kill if you are going to obey the State and if you are going to be a good soldier.
Before you point out that the US would have a right to kill Iraqi soldiers because they are the bad guys, remember, you have not been arguing for a "just war", but for obedience to the State, regardless of the situation. Also remember, you have been saying that the State has the authority to send it's citizens to kill, regardless of which State it happens to be. If, on the other hand, I have been misunderstanding you or if you now change horses, there is still a problem with the "obey the State" position which requires Christians to kill.
The bottom line for me and all other Christians, whether we admit it or not, is;
Mat 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
And also remember,
Rom. 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
Bro. L, I know that you claim that I am stringing together a
quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------
network of out-of-context and weakly translated verses as proof of God's condemnation of all killing.
-----------------------------------------------------------
but I don't think so.
And finally on this post, I do not condemn Christians who do not have the light I have. I believe there are many Bible believers who still do things which you and I have turned from long ago, but they have not had the advantages you and I enjoy. I believe there are believers who have not come to the light and understanding of nonviolence and therefore they are not accountable for it. And no, I am not saying that just because I tell someone something, therefore they have come to the light on that subject. My job is sales, not mangement. I proclaim what I know to be true and leave the convincing to God. I do believe that what I am saying is Biblical, but if a person does not see it, they are not necessarily accountable for it. So therefore, "he that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin." As far as sin for the sinner, he has enough problem, having neglected and rejected Jesus.
Mat 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
Rom. 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Response from "R"
no info
Posted: Nov 10, 2002 5:35:07 pm
Brother Dave,
Be careful that you are proclaiming the definite truth of God and not your personal conviction. I will try to make sure of the same.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Response from "LD"
Sr./Bible College
Posted: Nov 10, 2002 6:06:35 pm
I would respond to the hypothetical situation regarding what I want others to do to me by again stating that that man is not doing anything to my family. His governemnt is. He is being used as an agent, but he is not, if he is following orders, murdering my family. Would I have a problem with him? No. I would hope that my country would see it as a problem and react against his country in some way. Many survivors of war have had to deal with the issue of seperating what a soldier did under orders and their feelings toward particular soldiers.
The missionary you hypothetically referenced (I am a missions major) would probably fall under the same idea of exception to the rule as a pastor would because he is charged especially by God to lead the church in that area, and working for the CIA or military would bring problems to his continued fulfillment of God's calling. Once again, obeying God is top priority.
I do believe you are misunderstanding the position I hold in that you call it "duty to country first." I thought I had clearly pointed to the Biblical mandate to duty to God first. I also took the liberty of pointing out the Biblical mandate to obey our government. THe only issue here is what God commands in regard to killing. I think we hold very similar positions on the order of priority of obedience.
More later.
LD
| Site Tools |
|
|
|
|
|
Verse of the Day |
|
|
