Now that I've cleared my throat by venting about that stupid little complaint, I thought I'd move on to something a tad bit more weighty. I'm relatively certain that God does not ordain the use of going postal about Starbucks' corporate policy and the like, but I genuinely have to confess a bit of mixed thoughts and feelings in regard to knowing when, how, where, and so on we, as followers of Christ, should use violence. I want to start by saying that ultimately there are countless situations that simply require the leading of the Holy Spirit in the moment to truly know what to do, and I realize that. This is not meant to be an exhaustive look into when to use violence, what degree of violence to use, and when to simply turn the other cheek and restrain ourselves. I just want to spark a conversation about this from some voices that I respect and who may come from differing perspectives on this question. I hope we all learn from each other, and that we all temper our hearing and our writing with a genuine desire to speak and hear from the Holy Spirit about this. His "views" are the only ones that ultimately matter.
I think it would be a good idea to limit this discussion to personal behavior and not principles guiding government policy. I am not suggesting that these two are not inextricably linked, but there are extremely important differences that I fear will be glossed over if we lump the two together into one discussion about this. I promise to make that a subject of future discussion, however.
Some examples of situations are walking into a situation where it is clear someone is about to do harm to another unless you intervene. I think that most would agree that some use of force in that situation would be, not only allowable, but we would be guilty of sin to turn away or do nothing. What about the Christian soldier who is faced with an unbelievably daunting tasking of sorting out who to shoot or not to shoot on a daily and even hourly basis? Husbands and fathers are to protect their families, but do we have any freedom to act preemptively in that capacity? I think it was Dietrich Bonhoeffer who was involved in a plot to assassinate Hitler. I believe he once said, "one would do anthing to wrest away control of a car if a madman were behind the wheel of a car," (big time paraphrase) but he supposedly also struggled with this decision after the fact in his conscience.
I have gone through some crazy extremes through the years about this. I can remember when I was young and thinking that I could not be a policeman or soldier because of the turning the other cheek thing. If anything, I may have gotten to the other extreme in the last several years, and I want to examine this more closely. There are a lot of angles and things that I could go on and continue to talk about, but this blog post even more than others in the past is really more about the dialogue that I hope will follow. So without further ado, please share your thoughts about this area.
Thanks,
Dennis.
10 comments:
Hey I found you through Paul West's blog..
That indeed is a complicated issue.
But I think we have to consider the roles of each citizen.
A policeman doesn't resort to violence UNLESS he realizes either his life or the lives of people around are in danger (or at least that's what the protocol states).
I think the Bible does show that authorities are given certain "liberties" that we're not..
Anyways, this is my thought for this matter.
Yeah, turn the other cheek when someone slaps you or insults you. Not when someone is threatening bodily "harm" to you or another person. To get slapped or struck on the cheek implies an insult to me, or at the most, something less than harm.
People who are tortured and killed because they are christians would be catagorized as being harmed, but they are being persecuted for being a christian, which we are taught biblically to um.. dont remember.. something like to be ok with it if it happens to you.
There were people who actually did not accept deliverence from God in these situations as told us in Hebrews 11 or 12. Of course some did accept deliverence, but not all. I believe that is what Phillip was doing in Acts. While he was getting stoned, or persecuted for being a christian, he saw Jesus standing. "I believe" Jesus was ready to deliver, and Phillip did not accept, for the sake of the killers maybe and maybe for a better ressurection who knows. But the fact that the bible speaks of some as not accepting deliverance implies, at least with the people being spoken of, that God was willing to deliver them but these particular people did not accept it. Not in disrespect to God's gift of deliverance, probably in respect of it. Sometimes in scripture the deliverance of Gods people meant death for others. Obviously Phillip did not want his persecutors to die, because he asked God to forgive them. In fact, not only did God forgive them but He awesomely used one of them to write a lot of the new testement.
And Dennis, since you know me you may be tempted to read into this as me saying that God will always deliver or whatever about Him always wanting us well. Maybe He does and maybe He doesn't. Either way would not change my point. This is all to make a point about violence and the believer.
My Point of View.
If it does not harm you then chill out. Be it a slap on the face insult, or a verbal insult, a christian should not get violent. It could also be argued that even a slight punch in the face would fit here.
If someone gets a bat and tries to break bones, then beat the crap out of him. Put him in the HOSPITAL so he will not try it again. But now for the delima. Same guy with bat trying to at the least break your bones. But he has a different reason this time.
The reason is you are a Christian in general, or specifically maybe you were doing something like witnessing. Fill in the blank, but the reason is, in general, that you are christian.
Now that you are being persecuted for being a christian it opens up a can of worms, not a can of wupa#@.
Do you ask God to deliver you from it? Do you ask Him to forgive them? Maybe both? Maybe neither? Let's hope that by the time we are persecuted for being a christian, we actually are a christian. Then, i propose, He will let us know what to do and give us strength to do it, when that time arrives.
I do not believe that the VAST majority of believers claiming to be "persecuted" are in fact being "persecuted". Maybe insulted or having certain rights pulled or being shunned a little, but come on. That is wuss stuff. Bible talk of persecution was in my opinion, brutal. It pretty much did not leave room for debate as to whether the person was actually being persecuted.
Look the other way 'turn the cheek' is for insults and for MOST of the things people in this country call persecution. Don't be violent, look the other way.
But if you are actually ever persecuted for being a christian, if you look the other way you probably won't make it to good. You better 'look up'. If you can ever even stand a chance of just ignoring it then you aint persecuted. Phillip could not ignore stones beating him. He could not turn the other cheek or look the other way. He had to look up and see Jesus.
So if someone tries to do you bodily harm for any reason other than 'christian', beat the ever livin' crap out of them, and send the bill to their mother. And turn the other cheek was stated by Him concerning what someone does to YOU, not someone you care about.
Danny.
P.S oh yeah,
Yes to preemptive action
Yes to soldier not having to sort.
if they fill need to sort, then they need to opt out of army.
I used to struggle deeply with this. As a Christian, I believe in treating others with compassion. As a person with a brain, I wanted to beat all liberals senseless. Then it occured to me...I could hold both views since the latter didn't require any action!
But seriously, God does not call us to be pacifists. He calls us to follow Him. The Bible is far from a non-violent book, even though love is the underlying theme throughout. While God is a loving God (1 John 4:8), he is also a jealous God (Ex. 20:5, Ex. 34:14). Evil is real and threatens all of creation and eventually will require extreme violence to destroy. But even before the final battle, God used violence when it was necessary.
On numerous occasions in the old testament God commanded the destruction of entire nations that stood in opposition to the Israelites. He also used violence from other nations to punish Israel when they sought other gods.
And what about Jesus' outrage in the temple at the money changers? He drove them out and overturned their tables. I imagine that it was a very violent moment.
Turning the other cheek does not mean that Christians are never to be violent. But I do believe we should be extremely judicial in our determination to use violence. Personally I would use violence to stop evil. If my wife was being raped you better believe that I would stop it no matter what the outcome. I do not think that God would require me to allow it to happen in order to offer my other cheek. To me, that also applies to persecution. I agree that we are commanded to welcome persecution, but I do not think that means we have to stand by and watch our family die. I would fight for my life if it came to a situation of life and death. I will also stand up against open attacks in society against Christians. I would not physically attack someone because they persecuted me verbally, but I will still defend my position. Non-believers need to hear the defense of the faith in order to overcome their own objections to salvation.
This is a tough one, Dennis. It seems everyone has a different understanding of God's view. What does the Bible say? And how does one interpret it?
Jesus told Peter to put the sword down. But Paul says in Romans that God has authorized certain men to carry the sword to punish evildoers. I believe Government agencies have the right to enforce laws - and to kill, if neccesary (but not murder)- to uphold justice.
If someone strikes me on the street (which can happen, as I am a street preacher), I will literally turn the other cheek and bless my striker. Why? Because I am representing God. Jesus told Peter not to take the sword to defend Him. Obviously, killing to defend God (i.e. blowing up abortion clinics, religious wars, etc.) is plain wrong.
On the flip side, if someone breaks into my home and threatens to harm my wife and children - I'll shoot to kill. I'm not defending God in this situation; I'm protecting my family and upholding my right to stop a potential rape and murder. I am supported by the justice system for this, a system that was instituted by God for my sake and one that gives me the authority to defend myself. In this case, I am the agent delivering justice to this malefactor in accordance with Texas state law.
This is precisely why I believe in the death penalty. Remember, God slew Ananias and Sapphira AFTER the cross.
Dennis, you're welcome to disagree with my interpretation. I'm sure my views will change as I mature more in the Lord! Something inside of me says that under no circumstances am I to defend myself, as the Lord's protection is adequate for any situation. There are just too many scriptures exhorting God's full protection as a shield, a fortress, a vindicator and that the believer is to trust Him like a babe in every situation, no matter how precarious.
Paul W
I do have a view of this subject if I am able to communicate it. I do believe that turning the other cheek means an insult and should be ignored as a personal problem the person is having and not a problem of yours.....You should pray for such people because they are sin sick and mentally and emotionally sick, usually. However, if violence is involved that is a whole different ballgame to me. I definitely would defend my family, myself, and my country if I needed to or if it fell my lot in life to do so. God would show me how to do it, too. I would ask and He would give me the wisdom to defend in any situation. His purposes are so much higher and broader that anything we could ever think about. I don't even know how to use a gun but if I needed to, God would give me the ability and the courage to do it. I believe He has a purpose and a calling for each of us. This involves obedience to the Spirit every step of the way. I believe He has called me to defend my family number one. I have never used violence because I am a lover not a fighter but if I had to, I would if I had to defend my loved ones. And I feel I would have God's blessings in doing so. If we keep our priorities more in order we Americans would know exactly what to do in any given situation. Sometimes, however, this does not happen and we are puzzeled....God first, family, ourselves....entertainment comes last! God should be forever first...constant communication. I don't claim to know all about this but the older I get, the more I have to depend on HIM! YO MA
alright, sounds like a deal.
but you gotta help me out and let me know whenever you post something new. then i'll read and tell you what I think.
i post a lot more often than you do:)
thanks for saying what you said:)
Hello Dennis, hopefully your cell won't cut off on me now.
First, concerning Hebrews 11. "did not accept diliverance.".
This is from my understanding of what i could here you say on that sorry excuse of a phone. The basic gist that i could pick up was something like this. The not accepting deliverance (=) equals the decision to follow God when the person knows it will probably lead to their death. Here is my problem with that.
If deciding to follow God even when one knows it will lead to death (=) not accepting deliverance, then deciding not to follow God when one knows it will lead to death would (=) accepting deliverance.
Deliverance comes from God. If one decides to disobey God, knowing that it will keep them out of hot water, then that is called sin. It is NOT called deliverance.
If Shadrak bowed at the sound of the music so that he would not be burned to death, then he would have sinned, it would not have been equel to accepting deliverance. Which brings me to the 2nd part of our cell conversation of which i heard maybe half of.
You say that they obeyed God and knew nothing of whether God would deliver them or not. I disagree. They said that God was able and that He WOULD deliver. Then they throw a but if not statement in there. Now read how i read this passage and look at the passage in your Bible to see whether i am just crazy.
King tells the boys that if they do not bow they are going in the furnace, and who or what god will save you. The boys tell the king, We do not even have to tell you. But listen up. Our God is able to deliver us, and He WILL deliver us from your hand. But if not, we will not bow (but even if He did not, we aint gonna bow. Because our obeying God is not based on Him saving us, it is based on Him being our God.).
The boys were not mental. They did not say He will deliver, only to turn around in the same breadth and say He will not deliver.
They told the king that God CAN and WILL deliver. Then they let the king know that deliverance is not the reason for them not bowing. The boys worshipped the true God, not a fake one made of metal. Yeah ok, God can and will save us, but don't waste your time trying to convince us He won't, cause it aint gonna change our mind about worshipping your fake god.
The king no longer tried to get them to bow because he knew it was a waste of time. He got extreemly angry and threw them in.
But this event eventually led to the king becoming a believer.
You could argue that the boys were not talking about being saved from a fire because they said hand. But their answer was a direct response to the king inquiring about who would save them. The king was not thinking about who would save them after they were dead, ie heaven. He was talking about the fire. That is what they were speaking of also, the fire and death.
Deliverance for a christian is not going to heaven after death. A christian does need to be delivered after he dies. He is already had deliverance that brings him eternal life.
If deliverance from a very painful cancer (=) dying and going to heaven, then me causing one to die who was in the middle of a very painful cancer (=) me delivering them, or them being delivered from cancer.
No, if one dies with cancer, that is not the same as being delivered. Now conclude what you want of God's will or plan, but how can you conclude they were delivered. If you do conclude that they were delivered, then maybe you should go out and start 'delivering' people from cancer. Even if you think about it like this,-- we are not God so who are we to decide who gets delivered.-- That only speaks of ones right to make the decision and or carry it out.
Oh yeah, Kirk, thanks man i really appreciate the information.
danny.
I believe all violence is wrong for a Christian. There is no report of Jesus or any of the disciples using violence at any time. As for the temple scene that is often quoted as Jesus' example of violence, the event is mentioned in all four gospels and they put the scene in the setting of Jesus' teaching in the temple. Mk 11:17 says, "As he taught them, he said, 'Is it not written . . .'" Luke is also clear that the setting was one of teaching (an unusual word to use if there was violence occuring) Lk 19:47. The scene in Mt is surrounded with healings and children crying out Hosanna - Mt 21:14-15. The closest thing to violence in the scene is described in Jn 2:15, where it says Jesus "made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables." Jesus did not chase people with a whip. He made a whip in order to drive out the animals. For the people, he overturned their tables. If it were so violent a scene as many have come to believe, would not someone have reacted against Jesus? If, however, this scene occurred in a setting of teaching, where the money changers became the object lesson, it makes more sense that great violence did not break out.
And for those who appeal to God telling the Israelites to destroy other nations - unless they feel they hear God calling them to commit genocide, I don't see how the argument is applicable to the subject of Christians and violence. I am not saying that we do not serve a violent God. I am saying that we as Christians are nowhere called to be violent. Vengance is God's, not ours. We are instead called to care for the poor, to love our neighbors and even our enemies.
Post a Comment