Further to my last post on Jesus and Peace, my friend Rick left the following comment:
Some might argue that Christians might know him better than non-Christians, and that this knowledge is gained via the context of the whole of Scripture and not that plucked out of in a way that paints Christ singularly...Some might argue that God the Father, and Jesus His Son and the Holy Spirit, though distinct, are all one... and that God the Father was certainly no pacifist... nor would he be supplanted by His Son and His Spirit but complemented in some mysterious way... and so concluding confidently that Christ is a pacifist would require ignoring the complementary relationship of the Trinity or that in fact the Scriptures teach that they are three and yet they are one.Some might argue that these non-Christians, who by their non-Christian-hood, have embraced not the Truth, the Way, and the Life, are fooled. That they have been pursuaded, either willingly or unwillingly, to believe a lie or in the least, to not embrace The Truth... so why would we give them the benefit of the doubt as to Christ's pacifism?There's more Tim but... I'll stop...
I would like to address the central issue in Rick's post - the issue of Jesus' relationship to the Father and the Holy Spirit. If I understand Rick correctly, what he is saying is that in the Old Testament, God is frequently seen as a god of battles who fights on the side of the Israelites and commands them to slaughter their enemies. And the Spirit of God frequently 'comes on' people in Old Testament times (especially in the days of the judges) and gives them strength to defeat their enemies (Samson is the obvious example ). Therefore, to interpret Jesus as a pacifist would be to either ignore the contradictory witness of the Old Testament teaching about the Father and the Spirit, or to interpret the Son as being in some way in disagreement with the Father. As Rick says, 'God the Father was certainly no pacifist - nor would he be supplanted by his Son and his Spirit but complemented in some mysterious way'.
Let me respond to Rick's position as best I can.
To begin with, let me point out that the God of the Old Testament was not simply 'God the Father', as if the Son did not come into the picture until New Testament times. Yahweh the God of Israel is identified in Christian theology with God the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, three persons in one God. Thus, to say 'God the Father was certainly no pacifist', with reference to the God of the Old Testament, is inaccurate. The God of the Old Testament is not just 'the Father'; he includes our Lord Jesus Christ. What we ought to be saying (if we are making the point Rick wants to make) is that Jesus, in the New Testament, would certainly not contradict what he himself said when he gave commands to his people, and also fought and killed on their behalf, in the Old Testament.
This is an attractive position, but the uncomfortable truth is that Jesus does sometimes contradict the Old Testament. For instance, the Old Testament people were commanded to avoid certain foods as being unclean, but in Mark 7:19 Jesus declared all foods to be clean. The Old Testament permitted people to swear oaths, but Jesus forbad it (Matthew 5:33-37). And the Old Testament permitted people to take revenge on those who injured them up to the level of the injury received, but Jesus forbad this as well (Matthew 5:37-42). And the early Christians added other discontinuities; for instance, in the Old Testament God told the Israelites that anyone who was not circumcised would be cut off from his people, but the New Testament Christians came to believe that circumcision was not necessary for them.
So it is not only with regard to war and peace that the Jesus of the gospels seems to be in contradiction to certain strands of the Old Testament witness about God; on other issues too there is an obvious discontinuity. But the war and peace issue is a particularly clear case in point. Yes, in the Old Testament God not only allows (and even commands) war; he also commands slaughter of innocent women, children, and babies, and even genocide and ethnic cleansing. Over and over again in the book of Judges the Israelites are commanded to offer a city in sacrifice to God by exterminating its entire population, including the youngest babes in arms. And yet in the New Testament we have Jesus telling us to love our enemies, do good to those who hate us, bless those who curse us, and pray for those who abuse us. We're told that when someone strikes us on one cheek we're to turn and offer the other as well. We're told that it's no credit to us if we only love our friends; even sinners do that! But we're to follow the example of our heavenly Father, who is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked; we're to be merciful as our Father is merciful (see Luke 6:27-37 and parallels).
On this issue the apostles clearly follow Jesus very closely. In Romans 13 Paul certainly sees the state as having a legitimate policing role (but note that what he says in this chapter applies to the state policing its own citizens, not waging war on other countries); however, he assumes that Christians will not be a part of that police force ('the authority' is referred to throughout in the second person, not the third). Paul's instructions to Christians are found in Romans 12:14-21, and they are in obvious continuity with what Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount. Peter makes the same point in 1 Peter 2:21-25.
In his comment above Rick asserts that the reason that non-Christians so often see Jesus as a pacifist is that they do not know him as well as Christians; they have not embraced him as the way, the truth, and the life, and so they have been fooled. How, then, is he going to explain the fact that for the first three hundred years of Christian history, the early church was almost universal in its pacifist interpretation of the teaching of Jesus? I have given a representative selection of the relevant texts from the Church Fathers here. It was not until Christianity began to be co-opted by the Empire that Christian theologians began to develop a rationale for a just war position.
So yes, there is a definite discontinuity between certain strands of the Old Testament witness to God on the one hand, and the teaching of Jesus, his apostles, and the first three Christian centuries on the other. What are we to do with this discontinuity? To me, it seems dishonest to pretend that it isn't there and to argue that the Bible speaks with one voice on the subject of war and peace; it manifestly does not. It seems then that the only course to follow is to decide which parts of the Bible are more authoritative for Christians.
To me, the authority of Jesus is obviously paramount; he is the best representation we have of what God is like. Paul says that Christ is 'the image of the invisible God' and that 'in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell' (Colossians 1:15, 19). Hebrews says that in many and various ways God spoke to our ancestors by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son 'whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds. He is the reflection of God's glory and the exact imprint of God's very being...' (Hebrews 1:1-3a). And in John's gospel Jesus specifically disavows any idea that he speaks in opposition to his Father: 'Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own; but the Father who dwells in me does his works" (John 14:10). We Christians read the Old Testament as a witness to God, yes, but when there is a contradiction between the Old Testament and Jesus (as, from time to time, there definitely is), then we are followers of Jesus, not Moses, because we believe that Jesus is a more accurate representation of God to us than we find in the teachings of Moses.
Furthermore, if we take the opposite view (i.e. instead of bending the words of the Old Testament to fit the teaching of Jesus, we bend the teaching of Jesus to fit the Old Testament) then what have we authorised? The just war, yes, but on the authority of the Old Testament texts why should we stop there? As we have seen, the God of the Old Testament not only authorises what today would be called 'just wars'; he also commands his followers to engage in wholesale slaughter of innocent women, children, and babies, and even ethnic cleansing and genocide. I am absolutely sure that my friend Rick (who I know to be a good and honourable man and a thoughtful Christian) would not be prepared to go so far as that. And yet, given his view of the relation between the two Testaments, there is no reason why he should not. In fact, I challenge anyone who takes the Old Testament view on war as authoritative for Christians to explain how that view is different from the perspective of those today who think that God is calling them to act out his judgement against the wicked by flying aircraft full of innocent people into tall buildings full of more innocent people. Undeniably, God is seen in the Old Testament as authorising acts every bit as heinous as these. Is this really the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the one in whose presence the angels of the innocent little children stand continually (Matthew 18:10)?
Is Jesus in conflict with his Father and with the Holy Spirit on the issue of war and peace? Unquestionably, he is not. When Jesus spoke on the subject, he spoke as one who always said the things his Father told him to say. Furthermore, the Holy Spirit led the authors of the rest of the New Testament to underline Jesus' teaching on the subject, and the writings of the first three Christian centuries continue to bear witness to this truth: Jesus chose to love his enemies, not to destroy them, and he has called on his followers to do the same.
19 comments:
Tim... thanks for the thoughtful piece... and the time I'm sure you took to write it...
There are many questions that come to mind for me as I read your words but rather than go through them all at once, I thought maybe we'd start with one and see how this proceeds...
When you write:
Is Jesus in conflict with his Father and with the Holy Spirit on the issue of war and peace? Unquestionably, he is not.
The only way I can agree with that statement is to dismiss two things.
1) The authority and/or inspiration of the Old Testament.
2) The special and particular salvific purpose of Christ and the Incarnation.
I can do neither. I struggle with the notion that you can.
Help me understand.
"'Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
your enemies will be the members of your own household.'" - Jesus Christ sending out the 12 (tNIV)
Not meaning to gang up on you or anything, Tim, but here's a link to a peice I wrote at Rick's place that sums up my thoughts.
http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutally_honest/2009/11/right-thing-wrong-time-bad-thing.html
I responded to Tim's post on "Jesus and Peace" with a chuckle. I'm familiar with that quote... I believe it was Gandhi who has been quoted asking why it is that Christians seem to be the only ones who don't believe that Jesus was nonviolent. A good and important and insightful question, it seems to me.
I responded to Rick's comment nodding my head at a few points as well... particularly the statement that "some might argue that Christians might know him better than non-Christians"... and the emphasis on "the context of the whole of Scripture"... I agree whole-heartedly with these affirmations of the importance of the whole of Scripture and of a life of discipleship for knowing Christ.
However, unlike Rick, I do not see that the implications of Trinitarian understandings necessarily lead to the logic that "God the Father was certainly no pacifist" and therefore understanding Jesus to be "pacifist" requires "ignoring the complementary relationship of the Trinity"... or, as in the comment above, the sense that Trinitarian understandings, while affirming the nonviolent stance of Jesus, requires one to "dismiss" the "authority/inspiration of the Old Testament" and "The special and particular salvific purpose of Christ and the Incarnation."
I find 2 Corinthians 5:16-6:1 to be very illuminating in this regard. "All this" (that is, the reality of new creation in Christ) "is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. So we are ambassadors for Christ..."
This strikes me as reflecting quite a different "take" on Rick's Trinitarian questions... including an understanding of our own human role in the process. This text does not portray a conflict between a peacemaking Son and "God the Father" who is "no pacifist"... but rather, it is God the Father who is (still, again, in continuity with God's purposes all along... Genesis 12:1-3) enacting the age-old ministry of reconciliation, in which the community that God forms plays a vital role. This is not a God the Father - God the Son dichotomy... nor is it an Old Testament/New Testament dichotomy... I think it is (another) helpful articulation of the ongoing mission of God...
Leslie cites Matthew 10:34-36 as part of "sending out the 12"... with the implication that those verses appear to contradict an understanding of Jesus as nonviolent. (At least that's what I understood Leslie to be implying.) It's interesting, however, that if you read that entire chapter, it can hardly be said that Jesus is advocating some sort of violence or military option. He is giving instructions for sending out the disciples "to cast them (unclean spirits) out, and to cure every disease and illness" (10:1)... interesting instructions about how to interact with hosts and communities (bringing "peace"... and seeing what happens if that "peace" is not returned... 10:12-14)... saying "See, I am sending you out like sheep into the midst of wolves"... (10:16)... hardly an instruction to take up the sword... and warning them of the kind of treatment they can expect to receive ("flogged... dragged... handed over...you will be hated by all because of my name...") and, in an interesting parallel to the verses referenced by Leslie, the statement that "Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child..." and so on and so on... (including some statements - 10:26-28 - that are very reminiscent of Romans 12:14-21... where there are instructions to "bless those who persecute you" and "do not repay anyone evil for evil" and "do not avenge yourselves," leaving vengeance to God... very interesting indeed, in light of Rick's observations... it would seem that leaving "vengeance" to God does not preclude the mandate of nonviolence for Jesus' followers... in fact, the "wrath"/"vengeance" of God is presented as part of the rationale for the nonviolence of the Christian community).
In other words, in Matthew chapter 10, Jesus is "sending out the 12" and preparing them for their mission and warning them that "a disciple is not above the teacher, nor a slave above the master"... that is, if they persecute me, you can also expect to be persecuted... there is going to be conflict, and violence...
But it seems to me fairly evident from the context that Jesus is not preparing (and providing a rationale for) his disciples to "take up the sword" and exercise violence... he is preparing them for the reality of violence that they can expect to suffer, given the ministry/presence/witness to which he is calling them.
Forgive me for going on and on about this. But I hope I've at least made the case that the text of Matthew 10:34-36 "plucked out" of its context is a long way from providing evidence that Jesus' approach (and instructions to his disciples) was not nonviolent in nature. If anything, I think it provides evidence to the contrary. Even in these kinds of extreme circumstances, Jesus was not advocating or justifying violence, but taking a very different approach.
I am reminded of the text in Luke 22:35-38, the virtually comical/farcical scene where Jesus reminds the disciples of how he sent them out before, without a purse or sandals, but now the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one...
Is Jesus here advocating military preparedness? Is he finally giving up on a "misguided attempt at innocence" (the phrase that Ken uses to describe pacifists, in the blog post that his comment links to)...?
... and then the disciples say "Look, here are 2 swords," and Jesus says "It is enough"...
Enough? 2 swords? Really? Enough for what?
And then, a few verses later, when Jesus is about to be arrested and the disciples ask "Lord, should we strike with the sword?" and one of them cuts off someone's ear, Jesus says "No more of this!" and heals the ear...
Rather strange behaviour indeed, if we were to try to take Jesus' words and actions here as mandating or even justifying the use of the sword... But perhaps not as strange (or perhaps “strange” in a different way) if we understand Jesus as participating in (incarnating) God's "ministry of reconciliation" and calling/instructing/modeling/empowering his disciples to do the same. And this is precisely the kind of behaviour we are called to emulate in texts like Romans 12 and Philippians 2.
I like the way Rick said it. "There are many questions that come to mind"... and "rather than go through them all at once, I thought maybe we'd start with one and see how this proceeds"... I don't know if you feel that what I've written speaks to some of your questions or not... There are a number of other things I wanted to get to, but I think this is more than enough (likely WAY more than enough) for now. But I was inspired by the sincere and questioning conversation that I saw going on, and having interacted with Tim some over the years I thought I'd take the plunge and participate in the discussion. I will be very interested to hear further thoughts, questions, ideas as the conversation continues.
I had written this all as one comment, but (not surprisingly!) blogger wouldn't allow it... so I split it up into these three comments. My apologies if I am violating web etiquette by doing this.
Perhaps this is a good time for one of my favourite Mark Twain quotes: "I apologize for the length of this letter (or, in this case, blog "comment"), but I did not have the time to write a short one."
Thanks for jumping in, Bryan, and I appreciate the things you had to say. Rick, Leslie and Ken and I have interacted on this issue before, but it's good to have a fresh voice. Rick, Leslie and Ken might like to know that Bryan and I are friends outside of the blogosphere too, and in fact Bryan (who is a recording artist) has done me the honour of recording one of my songs on his latest CD.
I was going to reply, but Bryan has done a pretty good job and I think I'll just wait and see what the response might be.
I'm not seeing where my questions have been answered... Either Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit are one or they aren't... either they've been one ad infinitum or they haven't been... either the Old Testament is authoritative or it isn't...
If all those assertions are true, then I can't see how anyone can call Jesus a pacifist... makes no logical sense... by the way, does a pacifist act as Jesus did in the temple, upturning carts and in essence having a divine and holy hissy fit? Wouldn't they instead be rather meek... rather kumbaya-esque? Sort live and let live? And don't pacifists avoid confrontation, wouldn't they shy away from calling people snakes, liars, a brood of vipers, whitewashed tombs? Didn't Jesus commit verbal violence time and again?
One more question if I might...
Did Jesus have anything to do with Ananias' and Sapphira's deaths?
Hi Rick:
In your question of a few days ago you quoted my statement:
'Is Jesus in conflict with his Father and with the Holy Spirit on the issue of war and peace? Unquestionably, he is not' ,
and you replied:
The only way I can agree with that statement is to dismiss two things. 1) The authority and/or inspiration of the Old Testament. 2) The special and particular salvific purpose of Christ and the Incarnation. I can do neither. I struggle with the notion that you can. Help me understand.
and in your supplementary question you added:
Either Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit are one or they aren't... either they've been one ad infinitum or they haven't been... either the Old Testament is authoritative or it isn't... If all those assertions are true, then I can't see how anyone could call Jesus a pacifist.
Let me begin by agreeing with you that I have no wish to dismiss either the inspiration and authority of the Old Testament, or the Incarnation of Christ. Indeed, it's because i fully believe in orthodox Chalcedonian Christology (that Christ is both fully God and fully man) that I take his words and actions as seriously as I do. If he truly is the Word of God, then all that he says and does is authoritative for us as Christians.
But let me raise a couple of questions of my own. You quoted me as saying that Jesus is not in conflict with his Father and with the Holy Spirit on the question of war and peace. You responded by saying that you could not agree with me on that point. Are you saying that you believe it is possible for Jesus to be teaching something which is at variance with what his Father has to say? I'm sure I must be misunderstanding you here, because I find it hard to believe that a Christian as orthodox as you could believe such a thing. It would be in complete contradiction to the verse I quoted from John's Gospel where Jesus says, 'Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own; but the Father who dwells in me does his works' (John 14:10).
It seems to me to be fundamental to our Christian view of Christ that he is the most perfect image that we have of what God is like. Any other image of God is relative to the image we have in him. I refer again to my quotes from Colossians 1:15, 19 and Hebrews 1:1-3. So Jesus cannot be in conflict with his Father over what is true and what is not. This would drive a wedge right into the heart of the Trinity.
Secondly, when you say 'either the Old Testament is authoritative or it isn't', I ask 'Are these the only two alternatives'? Because unquestionably there are parts of the Old Testament that are not authoritative for us as Christians today. We do not believe that we are required to be circumcised on pain of being cut off from God's people. We do not believe that we are required to keep the food laws. The OT people were commanded to keep the Law, but in Galatians Paul goes so far as to refer to the Law as a 'curse'.
Yes, there are huge parts of the teaching of Jesus and his apostles that are in clear and unbroken continuity with the Old Testament. But there are other parts in which there is a definite break - and even you do not submit to their authority. So how do you pick which bits are still authoritative and which are not?
To be continued...
...continued from above:
I know many Christians who tell me that they regard the whole Bible as equally authoritative - that there definitely is not 'a canon within the canon'. But when I ask them 'Then do you believe a son who curses his father should be stoned to death?' or 'Do you believe that you should not wear cotton-polyester shirts because the Torah forbids the mixing of two kinds of material in clothing?' they of course tell me that no, they don't believe those things. And so I wonder what they mean when they tell me that every part of the Bible is equally authoritative. Is this just a word game?
The Old Testament lays out an elaborate system of rituals and sacrifices, none of which we still practice as Christians, because we believe that Christ has brought it all to an end with his death on the Cross. The Old Testament people believed God was calling them to stay away from Gentiles and not to eat with them because they didn't keep kosher kitchens, but in Acts Peter and Paul were guided by the Holy Spirit to ignore this authoritative command of the Torah, because God was doing a new thing in Christ, bringing into being a multinational, multiethnic family in which former enemies were reconciled as friends and would sit down and eat together. These are unquestionable areas where Jesus and the apostle set aside the authority of the Old Testament as relative to their own.
Paul has an image for the Torah in Galatians, he says it is like a guardian or custodian which is appointed to take care of us and guide us until we reach the age of majority. But now that Christ has come, he says, we are no longer under the guardian (you can read his exact words in Galatians 4:4-7). What does this text do to our notion of the authority of the Old Testament?
So I would assert that the Old Testament is seen in the New as having a relative authority. Yes, in former times God spoke to our ancestors by the prophets, but now he has spoken to us by his Son, who is 'the reflection of God's glory and the exact imprint of God's very being' (Heb. 1:3).
I think it's unquestionable that in the Old Testament we have a progressive revelation of what God is like, and the closer we get to Christ, the clearer the picture gets. So we have Christ saying that little children are so precious to his Father in heaven that each of them have an angel who stands in God's presence continually (Matthew 18:10). How does this square with the stories in Joshua of God commanding his people to slaughter entire populations, including babies in arms? Is this authoritative for us as Christians today? Would God, do you think, command us to kill helpless and innocent babies?
So to conclude: to me there are unquestionably contradictions between some strands of the Old Testament witness to God on the one hand, and what Jesus and his apostles had to say about God on the other. And the New Testament examples that I have quoted show how we NT Christians are to treat these contradictions: the authority of Jesus and his apostles supersedes that of the Old Testament.
I know you raised other questions, Rick, but I will follow your original intent and deal with one at a time. Except for this: you asked 'Did Jesus have anything to do with the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira?' (i.e. in Acts 5:1-11). There is a simple answer to that question: we are not told.
Ken, you referred me to a piece you wrote at BH in which you compared pacifism to nudism; since we are no longer in Eden, you say, pacifism is as inappropriate as nudism.
Of course, you cannot fail to have noticed the fatal flaw in this argument. Jesus had absolutely nothing to say on the subject of nudism, but he gave very clear directions about loving your enemies, not resisting those who struck you, and turning the other cheek. And these instructions were confirmed by Paul and Peter in the scriptures I referred to in my post.
Leslie, I think Bryan has answered your point (about which you and I have had a previous exchange on your own blog, I believe).
Hi Rick. I find myself wondering who you have in mind as you have constructed this image of how a “pacifist” behaves. I would answer your questions about how a pacifist acts this way:
“..does a pacifist act as Jesus did in the temple, upturning carts and in essence having a divine and holy hissy fit?” Yes, sometimes.
“Wouldn't they instead be rather meek... rather kumbaya-esque?” I’m really not sure what you mean here. I would say a flat “no” to this question, if by “meek... kumbaya-esque” you mean weak, passive, and inclined to sing bland platitudes rather than get involved in social action. However, if by “meek... kumbaya-esque” we mean someone who does not impose their will by force on someone else, someone who is prepared to face the consequences of civil disobedience without striking back... someone who prayerfully calls upon God (“Kumbaya... come by here...”), then I would answer with a wholehearted “yes.”
Was Gandhi “rather meek... rather kumbaya-esque”? Was Martin Luther King Junior?
“Sort (of) live and let live?” This may well be descriptive of many who would adopt a certain kind of “pacifist” stance... but it certainly is not the only possibility... nonviolent direct action (a la Gandhi, King) is definitely part of the repertoire of “pacifist” behaviour as well... the behaviour of a community that understands itself to be called to participate in God’s ongoing “ministry of reconciliation” (2 Corinthians 5:18-20)... continuing the ministry and following the example of Jesus (who described and carried out his mission in ways that were far from passive or confrontation-avoiding... Jesus “inaugural speech” and resulting conflictive episode in his home town are an interesting case in point... see Luke 4:14-30).
“...don't pacifists avoid confrontation...?” Not necessarily (see above).
“...wouldn't they (pacifists) shy away from calling people snakes, liars, a brood of vipers, whitewashed tombs?” No.
“Didn't Jesus commit verbal violence time and again?” I suppose this would depend on how you define “verbal violence.” Does speaking the truth to power constitute “verbal violence?” Do prophetic words (including angry and harsh prophetic words) constitute “verbal violence?” I don’t think so.
Regarding the statement “either the Old Testament is authoritative or it isn’t,” I would go a step farther than Tim. Not only are there tensions between texts/strands in the Old Testament and texts/strands in the New, there are also texts/strands in tension with each other WITHIN each of the Testaments as well.
When Isaiah 2:4 says “they shall beat their swords into plougshares” and Joel 3:10 says “Beat your plowshares into swords, ” what does it mean to say that “The Old Testament is authoritative”...? And on and on... we could cite many examples...
Tim has gone into this in considerable detail. I too believe (and I think it is quite “orthodox” to believe) that understanding Jesus as “Incarnation” of God means that, as Christians, our understandings of God and of all of Scripture are understood from that perspective. I would simply add that I don’t think a “New Testament superseding the Old Testament” resolves this issue either... there are tensions within the different strands of the New Testament witness as well... and appeals to the New Testament as “authoritative” do not let us off the hook of discernment of difficult issues either... as we well know...
So it seems to me, if we want to take seriously “the context of the whole of Scripture” (as Rick pointed out in his first comment, and as I wholeheartedly agree), we need to grapple with this reality. Declaring that we understand Scripture (not just the Old Testament) to be authoritative for us represents the beginning of the conversation, not the end... it compels us to do the hard work of discernment in the Christian community... it is not a statement that somehow circumvents or short-circuits the conversation, as if “The Old Testament” speaks with one uniform voice on these matters... That is not how Scripture functions...
Similarly, I do not understand that a statement like “Either Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit are one or they aren't” constitutes a “logical” refutation of the nonviolent stance of Jesus and the Christian community. There is a kind of logic here that can also be turned the other way around.
For instance, Rick, if I understand your argument correctly, you begin with the statement that “God is no pacifist” (supported by an appeal to the Old Testament witness as “authoritative”), and then argue that, since “Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit are one,” that “it makes no logical sense” to understand the character/mission of Jesus as “pacifist”... and hence, a pacifist character/mission for the Christian community makes no sense either... This, of course, requires us to try to figure out what to do with all those texts (particularly in the New Testament) that seem to give clear evidence that Jesus did indeed practice nonviolence and called on his followers to do the same.
Precisely the same logic, of course, could be used to make the argument the other way around. When we begin with the statement that Jesus is nonviolent (supported by an appeal to the New Testament witness as “authoritative”), and thus, since “Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit are one,” it makes no logical sense that the character and mission of God the Father would be anything but nonviolent as well... and thus the character and mission of the Christian community also ought to embody that nonviolent character and mission... This, of course, requires us to figure out what to do with all those texts (particularly in the Old Testament) that seem to give clear evidence that God is indeed “no pacifist” and that the people of God are sometimes justified in killing other people.
This is not how I would want to make the argument - I’m just pointing out that the logic, in both cases, is the same. It depends on your starting point. (And, when it is put this way, I would still think it makes more “logical sense” for the Christian community to begin with Jesus as the one who most fully and reliably reveals - “incarnates” - the character and mission of God).
What I’m saying here is that I do not understand that an appeal to the doctrine of the Trinity warrants the dismissal of a nonviolent stance for Jesus or for his followers. My understanding is that the doctrine of the Trinity is part of our human attempts to understand and articulate the mystery of God and the multiple ways in which God acts and relates to us and to all of creation. While there is a great deal that remains (and always will remain) mysterious to us, it seems to me that the revelation (incarnation) in Jesus does give us considerable clarity on many things... how we are to treat “enemies” being one of them... and I find it far more convincing for that revelation (the revelation in/of/through Jesus) to inform my understanding of the Trinity than the other way around.
I do believe those weren't my words, Tim, so I'm not sure I want to lay claim to the point. ;)
Let me see if I can get this straight.
I'm hearing you say Tim that we are not specifically told whether Jesus had anything to do with the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira and so should not, apparently, conclude that He did...
Neither are we told specifically that we should avoid war at all cost but this you're claiming is the mainstay of Christ's teaching...
I can't follow the logic.
Tim, I'm not sure it is a flaw. Certainly not fatal even if it is one. It would be a stronger argument, to be sure, if Jesus had said, "Nudists and Pacifists (and Socialists, too) are similarly misguided." But I cannot agree that if Jesus didn't make an argument, then it is fatal to make it.
Seems to me that you extend Jesus' admonitions to "If a man rapes your wife, give him your daughter as well." or "If a man cuts off your neighbor's head, let him cut off your brother's too."
I'm sure that there are as many shades of Pacifism as their are of Militarism and I'm not sure exactly where you stand. But here is a question. A few years ago a young man I know who is a state trooper shot a killed a man who had threatened his family (the man's family not the trooper's) and was on his way to find them. You and I might agree that had my friend been an angel it would have been better for him to talk the man into giving up his weapon. But is it reasonable to expect or demand that in the real world? Here's the real question: Was my friend's action appropriate or was it contrary to the teachings of Christ?
Post a Comment