Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Yoder on Christian Nonconformity

The famous saying is that power corrupts, and it would certainly be easy to list examples of this truth. But perhaps a more useful saying is that power conforms. Everyone must choose which powers they will conform themselves to. There are the powers of popular culture, of money, of success, of politics, of addiction, of an idealized self, and of spiritual forces. Christians are called to conform themselves to Christ. Through his perfect model and sacrifice of life, and His ability to overcome death, God provided Christ as the only perfect power to which we should conform. All the Biblical references to acceptance, submission, obedience, conformity, and even enslavement to Christ reinforce this most basic of Christian tenets. As temporal humans, many powers can be worthy of our time, respect and submission, but Christians are instructed to never forget that while they are "in" this world, they are not "of" this world.

Along these lines, a John Howard Yoder article from 1955 (yet timely nevertheless) explores the Christian response to the conforming power of government. The author begins with a clear warning:

The conscientious submission to government as God’s instrument and the honor we owe to "kings" should not change our refusal to identify Christianity with the nation's religion.

This identification becomes far more serious when the attempt is made to claim that American nationalism is sanctioned, not only by religion in general, but by evangelical Protestantism. Such attitudes exist, creating a strange mixture of Biblical and nationalistic ideas, as shown for instance in a ceremony dedicating the United States to the defense of "Seven Freedoms" defined in the Twenty-third Psalm. It would be hard to imagine anything more dangerous for faith than this confusion of motives, which in reality is the same thing we saw in I Kings 22; instead of seeing God's judgment on one's own nation... the sins of the enemy are magnified, and God is called on to bless one nation at the expense of the others. Even Israel, God's own people, was wrong in expecting so one-sided a blessing.


Yoder then lists out his six principles for living a life that he argues would properly prioritize a Christian's conformity to Christ as opposed to the state:

(1) In so far as a government respects its God-given function of "punishing evil and encouraging good" the Christian will commend its faithfulness and submit to its regulation and its taxation for conscience' sake. In this sense it is legitimate to honor the statesmen who have done this in the past, and to prefer America to some other countries which have or have had less conscientious governments.

(2) In so far as a government oversteps the conditions of this divine authorization, by punishing good and encouraging evil, the Christian will, as spokesman for his God, condemn this injustice and refuse to support it. This judgment applies to war in any sense except a strictly limited police action. That a Christian should support war even to the point of paying taxes and accomplishing alternative service is not as clearly stated in the New Testament as some think, for the Roman forces in Palestine, which Jesus accepted as part of the situation, were not used for international war, but for a policing function. It is regrettable that this "prophetic" witness to government has come in the past mostly from Christians without a fully Biblical orientation.

(3) This prophetic function should express the Christian conscience' criticism of specific injustices in the state's behavior or elsewhere in social life. This is the true form of the church's responsibility for the social order; the call to repentance and "works worthy of repentance." Its Biblical expression is, "Know ye not that we shall judge the angels" (I Cor. 6:3 "angels" here, as in Rom. 8:38; I Pet. 3:22, and elsewhere, refers not vaguely to heavenly beings in general, but to those spiritual forces standing behind worldly authorities, as the parallel in v. 2 indicates)? The church's mission in the world is not only the saving of souls, but also the proclamation to the' powers that be (Eph. 3:10) of God's just and merciful will. Expressing this kind of judgment would not be "getting involved in politics"; it would not require office holding and would in fact sometimes forbid it; it is the path of Christian discipleship.

(4) In so far as an unjust state attacks the Christian himself unfairly, the Christian, though condemning the injustice, should submit to it out of love, as Christ submitted to His unjust condemnation and execution at the hands of the Roman authorities. Injustice toward others should be denounced and resisted by any means consistent with love for the agents of government.

(5) In so far as the state undertakes activities unrelated to the police function and aimed at the common good, the Christian whose vocation calls him to such public service may serve the state just as be. might serve under any local agency, and with the sane limits of faithfulness where conscience draws the line. Education, roads, and public health are examples of such fields of service.

(6) If the state thinks that by its planning and direction of society and economy it can achieve an ideal social order, the Christian's witness is a reminder of how man's sinfulness corrupts even the best of plans. He will therefore oppose the concentration of power in the hands of a few, and will prefer that form of government and social order which, without guaranteeing perfect justice, provides the most effective checks and balances against individual ambitions. He will be dubious about the values of either "free enterprise" or the "planned economy" as a matter of economic doctrine; for both are subject to the same flaw-man's sinfulness-and he will be most interested in workable ways of keeping the planner or the free entrepreneur from taking advantage of his power.


Yoder then ends by quoting John 17:14 and drawing an interesting conclusion:

"I have given them thy word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world." There is no difference between nonconformity to the world and conformity to Christ; both mean a positive obedience to God's higher love which makes the Christian out of place, stranger, and a source of irritation because he isn't "at home" in the world, and because he bears a message of judgment and mercy from Him whom the world flees.


These are challenging words, but perhaps Yoder is really on to something. It has caused me to examine more closely not only my political views, but on a more personal level it raises an awareness of how I conform to the power of our culture, the lure of money and recognition, and how that may conflict with or displace what should be the ultimate power to which I am to steadfastly conform.

20 comments:

Anonymous? said...

I really should devote more time to this comment than I am because I haven't done a real thorough reading of the post, but one thing did initially strike me to comment.

"In so far as a government oversteps the conditions of this divine authorization, by punishing good and encouraging evil, the Christian will, as spokesman for his God, condemn this injustice and refuse to support it. This judgment applies to war in any sense except a strictly limited police action."

This is based on the assumption that God condemns all "war in any sense except a strictly limited police action." I am not aware of any scripture that would support this assumption. If he is going to question the validity of paying taxes "not as clearly stated in the New Testament as some think", then I need to see something clearly stated in the New Testament (or Old, they are both God's Word) that explains his "fully Biblical orientation" and position on war.

Anonymous? said...

I read the entire article by Yoder, and there are things that I agree with, but I think he misses in some of the application, and doesn't provide Biblical support for a lot of assumptions he makes. Granted it is only a 4 page article, so you can only say much, and as he is a Mennonite, that explains where many of his assumptions originate. I still feel he leaves some holes, and I still say that I need some explanation from somewhere that explains to me how the Bible advocates unilateral pacifism. That is what Yoder is calling for through the Mennonite religion in this article.

He speaks out against crusading, and points out that much "persecution of the faithful came... from the very religious". He is spot on here, and I agree.

He calls bearing arms evil, and implies that it contradicts loyalty to God. How? Show me.

He questions the doctrine "of those Christians who want to have no creed but the Bible, and thus have wrong doctrines". I'm not sure what he means here, but I certainly don't know what creed he is suggesting we take in addition to the Bible. The Bible IS how we know what doctrines, beliefs, and actions are right and wrong. To place anything else on that level is to place it on the level of God, and that is idolatrous and blasphemous.

His stance on police work is naive and irrational at best. There are evil people in this world whose intent and goal is to hurt, maim, steal, or kill others for their own benefit. Ask any policeman if you can deal with them through pacifism, nonresistance, by simply denouncing them, or "limited police action" whatever that means. There are times when force is absolutely necessary. It takes a humble officer to know when to use it and how to limit it, but there are times when it is needed.

If bearing arms is evil then why would God ask us to put on his armor (Ephesians 6). It hardly seems to make sense that to illustrate spiritual truth he would use a metaphor of evil, or would ask us to understand the Christian life through worldly instruments of evil He calls us to avoid. If physical confrontation is never the answer, why did Christ turn over the tables of the moneychangers in the temple.

"There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven--
A time to give birth and a time to die;
A time to plant and a time to uproot what is planted.
A time to kill and a time to heal;
A time to tear down and a time to build up.
A time to weep and a time to laugh;
A time to mourn and a time to dance.
A time to throw stones and a time to gather stones;
A time to embrace and a time to shun embracing.
A time to search and a time to give up as lost;
A time to keep and a time to throw away.
A time to tear apart and a time to sew together;
A time to be silent and a time to speak.
A time to love and a time to hate;
A time for war and a time for peace." Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

Dr. RosenRosen said...

Justus, great find. Yoder's influence has incredible depth and breath and crosses denomenational lines. Theologians from Bruggeman to Hauerwas to Wink have all cited heavily to his early work as influential in helping them contend with the issue of living as a "resident alien" (a term that, as I understand it, was intentionally selected from Yoder's work as the title of the books by Hauerwas and Willamon). In fact, much of Yoder's own position was greatly influenced by his corresponsdence with Thomas Merton. These guys weren't just talking about grand ideas, they had actually (and figuratively) set themselves apart from the secular world and were doing their best to imitate Christ. One could do a lot worse than to read Yoder's works, and I appreciate you posting the links - I never paid much attention to his work, but instead focused on the works of those around him/influenced by him. So thanks.

Like all theologians worth reading, Yoder forces his readers to actually consider the radical nature of Christ's gospel and decide for themselves whether they are ready and willing to pay the price of discipleship. When I seriously consider the demands Christ makes and the way it would fundamentally change my life and my attitude even my basic image of myself - I'm not always sure I'm up to the task...

Justus Hommes said...

Anonymous?, You sound like you are not a fan! ;-)

I won't defend Yoder, but to address your questioning of #2 in Yoder's list, I interpreted that as a reference to Christ's and early Christians acceptance and inclusion of Roman Centurions that came to faith. The historical/Biblical case he seems to making is that they functioned more as a police force than as warring soldiers. Again, that is how I read it, and it would be something I would have to look into further. I interpreted the taxes bit as a reference to "Render unto Caeser what is Caeser's."

Yoder has an entire series or articles where he defines "what is Caeser's" and I am a few pages into his most acclaimed book, "The Politics of Jesus," so I can link and lend if you want to read more.

I am not going to stop paying taxes anytime soon, but Yoder challenges me to at least think about what I am both explicitly and implicitly supporting by the way I live my life.

As for the creeds, I think you are right to see this as a Mennonite marker. From what I understand of Mennonites, there are a couple of basics: 1) They view Jesus as model (the new Adam) and personal Lord (master) to believers, and see these roles as equal to his role as Savior. To a Mennonite, the two functions of Christ are inextricably linked. 2) In addition to the Bible, they view the early Church as the continuing witness to Christ. They hold that the organization, beliefs, and practices of the early Church are important to understanding Christ. They see the tradition of creeds as starting in the Bible and as a continuing tradition that serves as worthwhile witness. I am not a Mennonite, and I have not made a personal decision on this second point, but in any event, I don't think Yoder, or Mennonites in general, are saying that the Bible is any less important as a result of a creedal tradition. It is certainly every believer's responsibility to weigh any creed against scripture.

For the Mennonite statement of faith, including supporting Bible verses, see this link.

As to the rest of your comments, I think you took one shot of Buffalo Trace too many before getting behind the computer, because you usually don't come across so testy. :-) In short, Eph 6:12 makes it clear that we are not called to fight a war of flesh and blood, but a spiritual one. And righteous anger, as displayed by Jesus, is the funneling of raw human emotion in pursuit of righteousness. There is a huge chasm between flipping over tables of money and inflicting death or physical injury to an enemy, which Jesus clearly outlines elsewhere. And finally, do we presume to know God's timing for anything? If so, then we would be right to do all the evils outlined by Ecclesiastes - give up on the lost, hate others, tear down those that oppose us, etc.

Justus Hommes said...

My Link to the Mennonite statement of faith did not work:

http://www.mbconf.ca/home/products_and_services/resources/theology/confession_of_faith/detailed_version/#11

Anonymous said...

I suppose I was a bit testy, but dadgummit I like me some Buffalo Trace.

I want to take some time to respond in more detail, but probably won't be able to do so for a couple days. I can sum up my questioning of Yoder on two points.

He claims that any war is wrong, and he claims it is evil to bear arms. As he is claiming this should dictate true discipleship, I assume he reaches these two points through his "fully Biblical orientation". I don't see it, and don't understand how he arrives at that conclusion.

Dr. RosenRosen said...

Exam question: take any war from any era and provide the biblical justification for that war. Illustrations from the Israelites will not be accepted because they have been specifically and set apart as God's chosen people. But you are free to choose any other nation/clan/people. Good luck.

Lumbee said...

Rosen, Rosen,

Your asking us this "exam" question is unfair.
To say you cannot use the Israelites as an example is short sighted at best. Has God changed His standard of righteousness? Has He changed His mind on the issue of sin?
His justice, righteousness, and judgment is the same for all mankind. To say that he allowed for war for Israel, but not for other countries is ignorant.
If God allows for a nation to go to war...it applies to all nations.
Rosen, sin is sin...whether you are a Christian Gentile, Christian Jew, or a non-Christian.
God's standard is the same...therefore your exam question is without validity.

Anonymous said...

Rosen, apparently you have never seen Red Dawn!

Just kidding. I will send a serious response later, but still want someone to answer my question. Turning the question back on me does not justify your position. I will still answer it though.

Justus Hommes said...

Lumbee,

Based on your comment, I have a fundamental (no pun intended) concern. If you do not think God did not change the sin/judgement paradigm by sending his Son to Earth, and His requirements for justice, righteousness, and judgment have not changed, then you are right to use Old Testament Israel-related passages in support of war. However, you must also advocate putting to DEATH (by burning alive in some instances) EVERY person who is guilty of ANY of the following:

Following another religion: Exodus 22:20, Numbers 25:1-15.
Proselytizing to Jews: Deuteronomy 13:1-10
Speaking to the dead: Leviticus 20:27
Adultery: Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22
Incest: Leviticus 20:11
Having sex with a homosexual prostitute: Leviticus 20:13, Deuteronomy 22:24
Bestiality: Leviticus 20:15, Exodus 22:19.
Sexual activity before marriage: Deuteronomy 22:13-21
Having sex with both a woman and her mother: Deuteronomy 20:14
Being seduced while engaged: Deuteronomy 22:23-24
Raping an engaged woman: Deuteronomy 22:25
Prostitution: Leviticus 21:9
Murder: Levitucus 24:17, Leviticus 24:21, Numbers 35:16 , Deuteronomy 17:6
Kidnapping: Exodus 21:16, Deuteronomy 24:7.
Cursing or shaming their parents: Exodus 21:17, Leviticus 20:9
Hitting a parent: Exodus 21:15
Negligently handling an animal: Exodus 21:29
Stubbornness and rebellion: Deuteronomy 21:18-21
Blasphemy: Leviticus 24:16
Working on Saturday: Exodus 35:2, Numbers 15:32-36
Ignoring the decision of a priest or judge: Deuteronomy 17:12
Perjury: Deuteronomy 19:15-21
Accidentally killing a pregnant woman: Exodus 21:22-23
Being an uncircumcised male: Genesis 17:14
Eating leavened bread during the Feast of Unleavened Bread: Exodus 12:15
Manufacturing anointing oil: Exodus 30:33
Engaging in ritual animal sacrifices: Leviticus 17:1-9
Consuming blood: Leviticus 17:10
Eating a peace offering while ritually unclean: Leviticus 7:20
Having sex with a woman who is menstruating: Leviticus 20:18
Going to the temple in an unclean state: Numbers 19:13
Teaching another religion: Deuteronomy 13:1-11
Making an untrue prediction: Deuteronomy 18:22
Gluttony and excessive drinking: Deuteronomy 21:20

Please confirm.

Lumbee said...

Justus,
I did not say that God did not change the sin paradigm.
I said that God's standard as to righteousness, sin, judgement, etc...has not changed.
Sin was the same then as it is now!
His requirement for the punishment for sin has not changed either. The difference is, sin is no longer an issue with God as far as our standing in righteousness with God is concerned. Christ took away the sin barrier between God and man.

I am saying that you cannot say that something is sin for the Christian and not sin for Israel. Sin is sin.
Don't even try it with the pork and stuff, that had a different purpose...the issue their was to set Israel apart from other nations temporally for evangelistic reasons.

Look, the arguement that it is wrong for Christians to serve is ridiculous. It is offensive to people like myself who has a brother and brother-in-law who serve in the military and have a much better understanding of Christianity than those who would JUDGE them. Yes, to say it is sin for them to serve is JUDGING them.

I find it mighty convenient for Yoder and others who agree with them to be able to have a unlivable philosophy, in America. Where you have freedom...purchased by the blood of those who weren't so arrogant to say it is unrighteous to fight for their country.

I have an exam question for you guys. If God is against Christians serving in the military...then how do you explain the unprecedented blessing, from God, that this country so greatly enjoys? It is founded on men "fighting", yes physically, religious persecution. And if you don't think God blessed those men, then you have no understanding of blessing.

Justus Hommes said...

Oh, Anonymous?, Here are verses that deserve examination:

As for the teaching of Jesus, Christ declares "Blessed are the peacemakers," in Matthew 5:9. The Latin Bible uses the term pacifici for peacemakers, and it is from this Latin word that the term pacifism derives.

Pacifism is also referred to as non-resistance, which Christ also teaches in Matthew 5, verse 39: "Resist not him that is evil"

For the later writings in the New Testament dealing with the church and theology:

It doesn't seem to get much clearer than 2 Corinthians 10 3-4:
"For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses.

1 Peter 2 has been thrown around this blog before, but I find it interesting that after v.16 instructs us to live as servants of God, we are called to submit to unjust suffering (vv. 18-21), following the example set by Christ (vv. 21-23). The writer expands on this theme in chapter 6.

For Old Testament bonus points, Christ's nonresistance to injustice and violence was a signal that he was the true Messiah, Isaiah 53:7.


1 Thessalonians 5: 12-15 instructs us to live in peace and not repay evil with evil.

2 Timothy 2: 24-26 instructs Christians to gentleness and patience in the face of opposition.

Luke 10:3 is not instructive, but Christ reveals that he sends his disciples to witness in his name as sheep to the wolves.

I really like theology of Romans 12. There is so much there that I won't attempt to provide a 1-sentence summary.

See also Ephesians 2 vv. 10-22, with v. 17 as the central verse.

To borrow from existing theological writings, the "full" peace tradition can be summarized as God making peace with humankind through the work of Christ, making possible three further aspects of peace:

a. peace with God - (objective) reconciliation (Rom. 5; II Cor 5)

b. the peace of God - (subjective) inner wellbeing and blessing (Rom. 8; Phil. 4)

c. peacemaking - (active) overcoming enmity (Rom. 12; Col. 1; Eph. 2; I John 4)


Trust me, I know that many Christians have explained all these verses as not REALLY teaching pacifism, but the early Church took peace very seriously until a certain Roman named Constantine decided to become a Christian in 312.

Justus Hommes said...

Lumbee, I don't know what you are talking about "pork and stuff," I didn't say anything about pork. All I was saying is that if you accept everything in the Old Testament with respect to punishment and war as still applicable, then you would be consistent. Instead you quickly shifted to a defense of Old Testament Israel being uniquely set apart for God's specific purposes, and that we are now held to a different standard, which was EXACTLY Rosen Rosen's point.

I am truly sorry if I offend you. My very first statement is that I DON'T PRESUME TO KNOW how God will judge any man on the issue. Instead, I can only deal with my own conscience as I travel along my personal spiritual journey. And I also stated that I believe God grace is available to all. The soldiers and veterans on my father's side of the family go back at least 100 years, and not only would I not dare to judge them, I would be angry if anybody took it upon themselves to do so. On that point we agree.

I don't understand what America has to do with interpreting the Bible. The Bible came first and will remain even when America's "unprecedented" blessings are long gone.

Anonymous? said...

Justus, we are in absolute agreement. The Bible teaches peace, and we should take it very seriously. I was never arguing it didn't. We are also in full agreement that in the face of religious persecution, the Christian is commanded not to respond the way the world would - violently. That is what these verses are REALLY teaching. In my opinion they do not provide support either for bearing arms or against bearing arms, especially as relates to the role of government in protecting and serving its people.

The Bible doesn't give us much exhortation in the realm of business either, but that doesn't make economy wrong, and it is a bad assumption to associate monetary wealth with spiritual darkness. Many use Jesus' teaching on money to do this, and although God may call some to have no place to lay their head, no material possession of consequence, and undoubtedly that is a high calling, it does not follow that making money is sinful, and achieving temporal success is wrong. Likewise just because God has called us to endure religious persecution, does not mean he has called us to abstain from the military.

On a certain level I believe there is a parallel here between claiming that owning anything material above absolute necessity is sin, and claiming that bearing arms and any physical response to an affront or attack is sin. I believe Christians have to live in the world (and not living of the world is a matter of spiritual orientation, not a physical one), and I believe they should be a functioning part of the nations where they exist. I also believe that any nation needs an economy and a military to function. The application of each is certainly up for great debate.

I return to my comments on your previous post. The reaction of a Christian to a personal attack (especially one directed against his faith) is different than the governmental responsibility of a nation. I also commented that I liked your post about your view for the military (correct me if I’m wrong). You didn’t say there shouldn’t be a military, you actually said there should be a strong military, but you limited it to defensive purposes. Let’s start there for now.

What I’m getting at is the specific spiritual principles Yoder put forth, namely it is evil to bear arms, and therefore all military and most police action is wrong. Based on that, you would be sinning to physically intervene in a mugging, defend your family from physical harm, have boxing as a career, teach Karate, or serve in the military. Is this what you are saying?

To put specific examples out (and address Rosen’s question somewhat), when the Japanese were bombing Pearl Harbor, was it wrong for the sailors on the ship to fire back? When Iraq invaded Kuwait, was it wrong for Kuwait to fight back? (I’m not talking about America’s involvement). Is it wrong to defend one’s country? If the good Samaritan came down the road 30 minutes earlier, and his shouts to stop beating the man didn’t work, should he have waited until they finished before being a good neighbor? If a police officer enters a situation where deadly force is being used against a law-abiding citizen, should he stop it? If someone is robbing me and begins to stab me, can I defend myself? Worse yet, what if someone attacks my wife? I’m not sure an aggressive non-action approach is appropriate here. If it is evil to bear arms then all these prior actions are also sin and evil. The Bible tells us to accept suffering and persecution for His name’s sake (this means religious persecution for our beliefs, not criminal attacks against us), but it never tells us to allow evil to go unpunished and the innocent to go unprotected. For a government to encourage good and punish evil, sometimes force is necessary.

-No Buffalo Trace was consumed in the writing of this post

Anonymous? said...

As a side note, I agree that understanding early church history is important, but what they did or what Constantine did doesn’t prove an argument on either side. It only serves to evaluate whether or not they followed the teaching of Scripture, and to learn from their mistakes and successes. I don't care about Constantine, he is irrelevant to me on this matter, and although I haven't studied him, anyone who makes Christianity a state religion and legislates it, is someone who doesn't understand Christianity. I say this because Yoder implies, and you indirectly associate my position with Constantine and those who persecute in the name of Christ instead of suffering persecution in the name of Christ. Anyone who uses religion as a sword is also wrong. I'm with Yoder on this, so to say I'm not a fan isn't always true. I would definitely buy Yoder lunch - as long as he covered the tip. By the way I have eaten at a place called Yoder’s Cafe (yes, I picked up the check). It is in Illinois Amish country, and the pie is delicious.



I understand pacifism as a reaction to things like the Crusades, aggressive military action in the name of God's will, and associating national pride with the need to physically stamp out countries with different beliefs. I don't understand unilateral pacifism, and here is what I mean by that (you've probably gathered it from the last post). Based off the article by Yoder, I come back to the same two points. ALL war is wrong (therefore a sin), and it is evil to bear arms. He leaves no room for exception here, and I disagree. I also do not see any Biblical support for this extreme position. The converse is also true. There is absolutely no Biblical support for proactive military action against those who do not believe the Bible or any other ideal.

Justus Hommes said...

Anonymous,

If you are asking me if, at this moment, I completely accept and agree with Yoder, then I have stated that I don't.

Now, if you are asking me if Yoder is right, then my answer is "I don't know." I doubt that a 2-page magazine article fully encapsulates every nuance of his position, and I have to assume there is more information somewhere in the hundreds of pages Yoder has written that could help both of us understand and consider his position better.

I do think that the calling for peacemaking and non-resistance go beyond spiritual persecution alone, but I started the discussion on pacifism in my previous post by up front admitting that I don't know and haven't settled the issue personally. I just think this is one of the important questions to be asking. I will read more of the Bible, more about the pacifist tradition, and more about the non-pacifist tradition. The importance thing for me is to resist deciding in advance what I want the answer to be, or accepting either the status quo or latest fad without serious searching.

Anonymous? said...

Justus, I wasn't necessarily asking if you agreed completely with Yoder, I was just using his article you linked to pull some examples.

The discussion seems to be around pacifism, and I will agree that especially in light of what started this discussion (the current war), that we should all take a hard look at what the Bible teaches and how we should apply it as it relates to government, military, and all types of conflict. I will also agree that your posts forced me to examine my position, read more, and pray more about it. And with any topic it is wise to do this, and as you say not decide in advance what the answer should be.

I hope the real discussion here, is where do we draw the line, and how do we know what response is appropriate (and I'll admit to not having a complete answer here either). One thing I know that everyone on this blog is in agreement with is that the Crusades were evil. Clearly that is a misuse of Scripture. I also don't know one of us that wouldn't defend his wife or family, and I would hope we'd all step in if we saw a child attacked on the street. I also don't think any of us believe those acts would be sin. If that last two sentences are true, then we all agree that there is an appropriate time to respond physically even if we limit it at this time to defense only.

I also don't know that there is a set answer where one can say that "a,b, and c are appropriate cases to use physical force, and d,e, and f are not". Each case probably has to be evaluated on its own merits, but I will grant you that we likely should err on the side of aggressive non-action than the alternative.

To decide where that line is, and how far we should take non-resistance, you're right there are a lot more questions to answer, but I think it is safe to rule out either extreme and say the answer lies somewhere in between.

Anonymous? said...

Rosen, here is my answer to your "exam question", and I look forward to your "grade". Do you grade on a curve, and is there any way I can gain extra credit? It is submitted in two parts because of the character limitation.

What I'm addressing, as stated before, is the idea that bearing arms is evil, and the implication that for one to be a true disciple, this principle must be followed. If you don't agree with this idea either, then we are probably having a useless discussion and can move on to something else, like whether or not it is okay to cry after football games on national television. If you do agree with this idea, then here are the Biblical passages I would like you to consider.

Genesis 13 - 15. Abram (not renamed Abraham as yet) and his cousin Lot parted ways in chapter 13. As we know, Lot chose the lush land of Sodom and Gomorrah and Abram chose Hebron. At this time God had promised the land to Abram's offspring (13:15-17) and had promised other blessings to Abram (12:1-3), but at this time Abram did not have any children and there was certainly no established nation.

Lot seemed to attract trouble and was captured by Kedorlaomer along with the king of Sodom and others during an invasion. Here is how Abram responded. "when Abram heard that his relative had been taken captive, he called out the 318 trained men born in his household and went in pursuit as far as Dan. During the night Abram divided his men to attack them and he routed them, pursuing them as far as Hobah, north of Damascus." (Gen 14:14,15). What was God's response to Abram's action? In vv 18-20, Melchizadek, a high priest of God, blessed Abram saying "blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of Heaven and Earth. And blessed be God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand".

In Chapter 15 God makes a covenant with Abram, but at the time of the attack and God's blessing, Abram was only following general directions and promises from God.

Do I think this encourages all war? Of course not. Do I think this passage could be taken and abused to support wars and attacks? Yes. But if God believes bearing arms in any case is sin, then I have to believe He would have told Abram that he was wrong even if he was successful (as he did with Moses, when he struck the rock), and that he should have trusted the Lord to deliver Lot and not to rely on evil, human solutions, instead of blessing him through a high priest of God.

Anonymous? said...

Rosen, I would also reference Nehemiah 4 as support for there being a time to legitimately bear arms. It came to mind this morning in church when the pastor was reading from Nehemiah 2 although not related at all to the sermon this morning.

Nehemiah is in the midst of rebuilding the wall of Jerusalem. He has faced significant opposition from Sanballat the Horonite among others. This antagonism reached a point to where they threatened to fight against those who were repairing the wall. "But we prayed to our God and posted a guard day and night to meet this threat... Therefore I stationed some of the people behind the lowest points of the wall at exposed places, posting them by families, with their swords, spears, and bows... Don't be afraid of them. Remember the Lord, who is great and awesome, and fight for your brothers, your sons, and your daughters, your wives and your homes... From that day on, half of my men did the work, while the other half were equipped with spears, shields,bows, and armor." (excerpts from Nehemiah 4:8,9,13,14,16).

I did not pull anything from the specific laws to Israel in Leviticus and Deuteronomy for the reasons Justus already raised. I'm not aware of any specific law that would support this action by Nehemiah anyway. Again, this does not make war moral, but it does address and support the issue that there can be a time to appropriately bear arms and not be in sin.

I would like to point out what I think is a very key point in this story. Nehemiah and his men never used their weapons. Is it possible that they could have justified it by saying "both King Artaxerxes and God have honored our task, therefore we are justified in returning violence on you for your aggressive action toward us."? Maybe, but that sounds a lot like the crusades to me. Would they have used those weapons if Sanballat had actually started a fight? Probably, as Nehemiah said they would have done so to defend their families, and I believe that would have been justified. But again, I think it is noteworthy that even though they carried arms, they did not use them, and continued to focus on the task at hand.

All I’m saying with these two examples is that there is a time to bear arms (I still would use Ecclesiastes 8 for this as well), I’m not saying when that time is. Let us always exercise judgment in the physical response against anyone, and avoid such conflict at all cost, but being prepared, and bearing arms in some cases is not evil in my mind, or through my understanding of God's Word.

Although this was a direct response to Rosen's post, I would welcome comment from anyone. (Not that anyone is shy about that sort of thing).

Anonymous said...

Rosen (or anyone), did you have any thoughts? I'd be interested in continuing a discussion if anyone else is. It's an interesting post to me, and I think we've been able to talk pretty civily thus far. I wonder how much of this is each of us addressing the stereotype of an opposite position, but I was trying to address your question seriously to see where that takes us on a couple issues. However, we can table for another time if everyone prefers (which I'm assuming based on the responses).