The violent Christian
So for those of you who don’t know I started this blog after an interesting little conversation on Cach’s blog about Christians and violence (if you need to catch up its here).
Well initially I was semi apposed to the whole idea (being the gun lover I am), but after poking at it with a stick for the last couple of months my mind is slowly starting to agree with Cach. After Tigers Sermon on loving your enemy (from Luke 6:27-36 located here), I am not sure there is any call for us to act in an unloving way towards anyone. After he pulled verses like Romans 12:19 and Deuteronomy 32:35 I almost fell like God doesn’t give us much room to strike out against our fellow man. I almost feel like he is saying you leave all the shit to me you just love them like I love you.
It’s still a little unclear to me about protection though. If someone comes in my house with the intentions of harming me in my family do I just give them a free pass? To some degree I feel like my gun is almost me taking my faith away from God and giving it to my gun or my abilities to protect me’s and mine’s (like I was talking about here) with Satan instilling a fear and me trusting more in myself and my abilities to take care of the problem then trusting in God. On the other hand this is something I can control so does it fall into my court (as discussed here).
Now I am not saying I am going to get rid of my guns. They are all kinds of fun. I am just saying I am really rethinking their purpose in my home and how much I should love my enemies. Maybe in turn this will help me understand better how much God loves me.
I’ll let other people start the riot. I will say though, with regard to defense/protection, the best I can really say for myself is that I’m trying to be a pacifist. I’m not sure how successful I’d be if my family were being harmed. It’s not a perfect world, but I’m pretty sure Jesus meant what he said.
Dick Ness: First, the Luke 6 verse is no more to be taken literally than “If your eye offends you, pluck it out”
Dick Ness: and the Romans 12 is talking about vengeance, not defense
Dick Ness: and Deuteronomy, again vengeance
Dick Ness: And if we’re going to pull the OT into this, then there are examples of God’s condoned wars/violence
CXLink: feel free to type this on the blog
Dick Ness: Yeah, no doubt I will
CXLink: i agree with you on the OT thing the armies that God backed didn’t go into battle empty handed they went armed and knew how to use their weapons
CXLink: but i do think that the Luke thing is to be taken pretty literally
Dick Ness: no
Dick Ness: Jane you ignorant…
CXLink: there is nothing there to lead you to think that there is any exaggeration going on
Dick Ness: Hang on, pulling the segment I think makes my point most succinctly
CXLink: and forgiving debts is straight up literal whether that debt be something stolen or some harm dealt
Dick Ness: But I don’t think he literally means to turn the other cheek if someone is trying to kill you
Dick Ness: Matthew 26: 51-52 51And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his(F) sword and struck the servant[b] of the high priest and cut off his ear. 52Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For(G) all who take the sword will perish by the sword.
CXLink: and as far as Romans and Deuteronomy go I think that 99% of the aggression that Christian act out towards people is out of vengeance and not protection
Dick Ness: Yes, I agree with your aggression via vengeance is a correct assumption
Dick Ness: but it doesn’t say, in all cases to turn the other cheek. and my verse from
Matthew makes it clear that someone WITH Jesus was packing heat, and he didn’t stop him from doing so… interesting
CXLink: well i can already tell you what Cach will say, he will say that since the disciples traveled all over the place they needed protection on the road from animals and too hunt
CXLink: but i have to say even though someone was packing it doesn’t sound like Jesus is condoning using it, i think that verse Jesus actually condemns the use of the sword
Dick Ness: I agree, he warns about perishing by the sword, but I think his point is that violence begets violence, and that, especially in that situation, it would have gone badly for his folks
Dick Ness: hunt with swords… come on
Dick Ness: protection, maybe
I’m sorry, I’m just not willing to argue about this. Honestly, it’s not about being right or wrong. Think about what we’re saying here. Does it sound consistent with your understanding of being a Christian – i.e. someone who is known by their love and follows Jesus to the point of imitation in all things – to get all worked up and argue in favor of the use of violence? Shouldn’t we at least be approaching this discussion from a position that abhors all violence but reluctantly makes minimal and heavily footnoted exceptions with regard to bodily defense or the defense of one’s family? It seems too often that we approach the discussion from a militant and violent position that begrudgingly tolerates pacifism.
I think Jesus would much rather us be wronged than do harm.
And don’t bother with OT warfare. Unless you’re arguing that God spoke to you and told you to do battle and you’re headed into the fight at a numerical disadvantage, then you have no argument. Our understanding of the nature and character of God clearly evolved over the course of Scripture. So much so that when Jesus tells Peter to put away his sword, it’s not because it would have “gone badly for his folks.” Following the desire to use OT warfare as a justification for violence, an undermanned force on the Lord’s side would have the clear advantage. Jesus said what he did because he meant it. He wasn’t out to keep them from harm or pain. Remember, they all died witnessing to him later.
Look, this discussion goes nowhere if we’ve already decided that it’s an issue on which we must take a stance and draw a line in the sand over. Things just aren’t that black and white. It’s completely unacceptable to decide going into a situation of conflict that Jesus blesses my use of violence. I’m also uncomfortable with the notion that I would go into such a situation not prepared to do my utmost, including laying down my life, to protect another person. What I am comfortable saying is that my life, safety, victory, and freedom from harm are not as important as my witness for Christ.
Cach, you read the log of a lively banter via IM between CX and myself. So I hope you’re not taking it too much to heart as deeply reasoned and thought out positions.
I know you don’t know me, but trust me when I tell you I’ve drawn no line in the sand backed up by an unshakeable stance.
I don’t blame you for your reluctance to argue the point; I read your comments at your original blog and you have certainly put a ton of time and thought into the issue already.
Thanks for your comments – I’ll be chewing on them for a good while, I’m sure.
Personally, I don’t have a gun under my pillow, ready to ward off would-be home invaders. I do own a couple, however. They remain locked, hidden and unloaded. I pray I’ll never have to confront this question in a practical way. But I think it’s worthwhile exploring it, for the very reasons you concluded your comment with (very succinct wrap up).
An interesting thought occurs to me, though.
I have not been forced to test my response to violence, thanks to government agencies doing so as my surrogate. Without the police or military, we would be confronted with that choice.
Given your position, should we be comfortable with letting others make that choice for us? Or should we engage in protest to disband those agencies?
To be consistent, if we accept your position (and I by no means have landed squarely on one side or the other) then we should work non-violently to remove deadly force as an option for those that protect us. Are we prepared for the consequences of that, if we are successful?
CX originally spoke of the home invader scenario. Without any government protection, that would be more likely to become a reality.
Or if we disband the military (or strip them of means of deadly force), we would certainly, eventually, face violence at the hands of our enemies.
Are we prepared to lay our lives down, en mass, in following Christ?
Perhaps we should be.
I’m not sure I am.
But to abhor personal use of violence as a defense and at the same time let others do our dirty work does not seem consistent.
What do we do with our beliefs? Sit in our cozy homes and discuss it? Or work to change the government under which we live?
Tough question, no doubt.
I’ll say more in a bit, I just re-read my comment and didn’t like a few things about it. Sorry. I didn’t mean to sound like I was unwilling to discuss it because I think I’m right or anyone else is wrong. I just meant that blog comments aren’t usually the best way to have discussions like this. I think having these discussions is fantastic; we just need to be cognizant of the limitations of the forum. You’re right, Dick, I totally don’t know you. That’s why I’d never want to make assumptions about what you do or don’t believe. I hope it didn’t come across that such was my intent. You raise some good points and I’ll discuss them in a bit. For now… back to work.
You’re right, Dick, I totally don’t know you.
Are you sure you dont know him I think thats a pretty accurate description…oh no wait thats his avatar name nevermind.
Comic relief out and if your wondering why I’m not responding its because I am still working on the place of police, military, and even the judicial system and how that falls into not wanting to perpetrate violence on anyone.
Great post Tim @ The Table put up in ref to this.
Thanks Tim
“To stand for justice in the face of wickedness by taking up the sword is not contrary to loving my neighbor but its fulfillment.” <- this is a great summation.
Cach, no need to apologize, I just didn’t want to be painted as a dogmatic, either.
And I didn’t think you were unwilling to discuss it because of dogmatism on your part, I knew by your extensive discussion on your blog that you had really shaken through the question, and it’s not always fun to go through it all over again… and again.
I agree with you when you said, “blog comments aren’t usually the best way to have discussions like this. I think having these discussions is fantastic; we just need to be cognizant of the limitations of the forum.”
Couldn’t have said it better.
And I’m curious to hear your take on the questions I raised.
Thanks
I know it’s taken me forever here, and I fear there’s no big revelation in my answer to the question. Sorry. Here it is, though:
It’s not quite an ‘either be a pacifist or accept protection’ paradigm that describes reality best. It’s not like the presence of police or military prevents me from having to make personal ethical decisions about violence. Police, by and large, are responsive rather than preventative. And I know that’s not the point, but that’s just it, their purpose isn’t the point. Whether or not they were protecting or preventing violence, I still have to choose how I will act. Further, I can’t tell them not to do their job. The police force isn’t a Christian. I can’t expect it to act like I would expect a Christian to act. It’s not right or fair to do so.
Similarly, my opposition to the use of violence in my name doesn’t stop the government from taking tax money from my paycheck to fund their activities. But the government does a lot that I don’t support in many ways other than militarily. What I can’t do is turn myself inside out with rage over the matter. It does nothing. Not only that, but if I’m going to have the attitude that things of Earth are passing, like money, then my actions carry far more weight than the involuntary use of my dollar.
My comfort with the actions of the police or military has nothing to do with how I conduct myself. Nor should we necessarily engage in protest to disband those entities. Like I said, they serve the Christian and non-Christian alike and I can’t speak for those who would make a different choice. And again, the government is not a Christian; I can’t expect it to behave the way I want it to. I can ask that it do so, but it will function in accordance with the wishes of the majority.
This is no different than how the government functioned according to the wishes of Caesar in the time of Christ. Caesar’s wars and soldiers didn’t affect Jesus or his commands. As Christians, we will always be in opposition to the prevailing culture if we are faithful. We can’t keep any of that from happening around us, but we can be Christians in the midst of it.
I wish it were a simple either/or paradigm, but it’s not. It’s a mess that we have to muddle our way through with as much integrity as we can muster knowing that our every thought and action is a reflection on Christ in us.
“To stand for justice in the face of wickedness by taking up the sword is not contrary to loving my neighbor but its fulfillment.” <- this is a great summation.