Thursday, June 28, 2007
Would Jesus Go to War?
The Metro Spirit ran this article about one man's decision to leave the Army based on his belief that being a Christian means rejecting violence as an option for conflict resolution. Michael Thames wrote the article himself and did a great job. He is a hero in my book!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Hi Mike;
I think you bring an interesting perspective to the table. I would love to have you visit my blog and comment upon the current article “Politics and Religion” http://lifeontheblade.blogspot.com/
What do you do with these Bible verses in regards to your current article?
13When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15So he 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. 16To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!"
- - John 2:11-16 (NIV)
11I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. 12His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 14The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. 15Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. "He will rule them with an iron scepter." He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. 16On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:
KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.
- - Revelation 19:11-16 (NIV)
Livingsword,
I'm not sure what the episode in John has to do with war other than Jesus was shutting down the temple's business for the day. It doesn't say he harmed anyone. It just implied that he made enough of a disruption to stop business. If he had been using violence then I'm sure there were enough of them to take one man so I doubt he could have been "fighting" them unless you figure he had super human strength.
As far as the passages in Revelation, they make me sick if taken literally. I think they would make Jesus sick too if they had been written during his life and shown to him. That is clearly a dream (or dramitization) written by people that were rightfully angry with Rome and its violence but show a lack of Christ-like self desipline and love. Jesus would not condone that response to Rome in a literal sense. I agree with Martin Luther and would prefer that book (revelation) never have been in the bible. It has a good message in context, but it is too easily taken literally and out of context by people like you.
The early Christians were pacifists. I believe it wasn't until Christianity was aligned with Rome that the concept of a 'just war' was created. But before that point, Christians would not go to war. They felt it was un-Christian like.
So those Christians today that are very gung-ho about war ... are going against the earliest concepts.
Mike;
I take the parts of the Bible that are literal literally, the poetic parts poetically, the parts with hyperbole in that manner and so on. I simply asked you for your take on those texts because as I said earlier you bring an interesting perspective to the table.
Do you take the passages that say God is love literally? Are those passages I can disregard?
Wikipedia says of Martin Luther’s opinion of Revelation:
Protestant founder Martin Luther at first considered Revelation to be "neither apostolic nor prophetic" and stated that "Christ is neither taught nor known in it". However, he later changed his mind, believing the book to be divinely inspired.
- - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation
Luther’s opinion of Revelation aside are you denying that the book of Revelation is from God? How about 1 John the book of love also written by John?
I guess a good question would be do you believe in a literal Heaven and literal Hell?
By the way I have NO animosity towards you at all. I am a guest at your blog and want to interact with you thru your articles. I sincerely find you interesting.
Heather;
When Jesus made a whip out of cords and drove all from the temple area, and overturned the tables was He acting like a pacifist?
When God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah was that an act of a pacifist, when God commanded Noah to build the ark and then poured out His wrath on the planet was that the act of a pacifist?
I am thankful that there are police on the street that will use force to protect me if they see somebody attacking me. How about you? Would it be evil of them to not help you if they could, would that be a sin of commission?
Should the Allies have defended your freedoms by defending your nation from the Axis powers?
By the way, just in case you are referring to me I am not gung-ho about war. It is a last resort and not something to be taken lightly. I am talking about this from a Biblical perspective; I am not American and will leave you to dialogue about those parts of the issue. Unless you ask directly ask my opinion.
My peace I give you my peace I leave you
I'll be glad to take a stab at those questions...
Do you take the passages that say God is love literally? Are those passages I can disregard?
I don't take the statement "God is love" literally. Nobody does. Not even fundamentalists. What would it mean to take the statement "God is love" literally? Does it mean that God is an emotion or that God is a being which is capable of loving or that when we feel love we experience God.
You still have the notion that viewing a passage non-literal somehow means you can "disregard it". That is missing the point. Taking it non-literally means you can now begin to take it seriously. If you had to take a statement like that "literally" then we all would have to disregard it because it makes no sense in the "literal sense".
Luther’s opinion of Revelation aside are you denying that the book of Revelation is from God? How about 1 John the book of love also written by John?
In my opinion, no book is "from God" if "from God" means that a God wrote it. No image of God that I've ever heard is an image of a being that writes. Neither God as an emotion (love) or God as a theistic being could/would write a book in a human language. Men wrote that book and all bibical books in awe of what they imagine is God. The wonder and mystery of the universe (God) inspired them to write it, but God had no part in it because God is not a being that writes any human literature.
As for John 1 and Revelation, there is much debate about exactly who wrote those books. I'm not really tied to one particular answer since I wasn't there. In any case, it wasn't a divine supernatural being.
I don't believe in supernatural heaven and hell if "heaven and hell" mean a physical life after death.
As for your continued reference to Jesus making a whip.... What makes you think he did anything violent or harmed another human?
As for sodom and gommorah and the idea of a flood, those were embelished natural disasters and ancient people always give God (or some god) credit/blame for natural disasters and even for losing a battle.
God was used to explain holocaust, slavery, genocide, war, and flying planes into the world trade center. That doesn't mean God really did any of those things. It just means people almost always use God as an excuse for doing what they want to do.
Hi Mike;
I just have a moment, but will write you a comment on Friday. You made my day! You did write:
“I'll be glad to take a stab at those questions”
Please do not be so violent with my questions! They are just little, simple, defenceless questions. I like your humour, well done.
By the way you do know Livingsword is not a comment on violence don’t you?
Hi, livingsword.
The comment wasn't directed to you, and I apologize for the vagueness. It was more along the lines of those who really anticipate conflict in the Middle East, so that the second coming can start.
As for Jesus making the whip and driving the priests out -- yes, he did that, if the story of John is historically accurate. But for about three centuries after that occured, Christians did not go to war, and refused to participate in the Roman Army. They felt that to contribute to war was to go against God. War was never an option.
I tend to see Jesus using the whip (again, if accurate) as Jesus having the last straw -- we all have our off days.
**When God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah was that an act of a pacifist, when God commanded Noah to build the ark and then poured out His wrath on the planet was that the act of a pacifist?** I view those actions in the way that Mike views them. Otherwise, we have no way to determine how God is good. The goodness becomes what God does, and thus entirely subjective. We don't have a way to determine if we are following a good or just God. The Old Testament shows more of how an understanding of God evolved.
** How about you? Would it be evil of them to not help you if they could, would that be a sin of commission?
Should the Allies have defended your freedoms by defending your nation from the Axis powers?**
It is not easy reconciling a pacifist view with the world we live in. And the Axis powers needed to be stopped, as do criminals. That is for moral reasons. But too often, we can find people in any religion eager to go to war for God, to defend God's 'honor,' or act as though God takes great delight in people killing other people -- and the Bible is used to justify this. But many Christians act as though Christians have always gone to war in God's name, and that is not the case. Rather, the use of God and war has not been consistent throughout Christian history. Very little of anything Christian has actually been consistent. Understanding of the Bible and God is not a constant, but changes in response to cultural changes.
Hi Mike;
You said:
I don't take the statement "God is love" literally. Nobody does. Not even fundamentalists.
In 1 john 4:8 and 1 John 4:16 we are told that “God is love”. There are many verses that say He is loving, but these verses do not say that, they must be translated the way they are “God is love”.
In His very nature and character He is love. Every major protestant denomination, Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, and even many liberal denominations believe that indeed love is part of God’s very nature and character, in a literal sense.
I brought up the topic of “God is love” because almost always people believe this. Even most atheists I know believe that if there was a God He would have this attribute. So if God is love yet He at times uses force then force can be justified at certain times. Say if I was walking down the street and saw a man attacking a child and I had to decide if I was ever allowed to use force to protect her, or if in fact force would be justified.
You said:
In my opinion, no book is "from God" if "from God" means that a God wrote it.
I was using “short hand” for the Bible being inspired by God, in that it is His revelation that He passed thru humans, those who penned the
Bible (I will keep this simple, we can get more complex if you like).
You said:
Men wrote that book and all bibical books in awe of what they imagine is God.
Does this mean that you believe that the writers of the Bible just wrote about God form their imaginations and that God Himself had no part whatsoever in the process? I anticipate that your answer is yes since you said:
In any case, it wasn't a divine supernatural being.
That was in regards to 1 John and Revelation. I guess this begs the question, do you believe there is one “supreme deity”?
You said:
I don't believe in supernatural heaven and hell if "heaven and hell" mean a physical life after death.
What do you believe happens upon death, non-existence, etc?
As for your continued reference to Jesus making a whip.... What makes you think he did anything violent or harmed another human?
I am using it as a text to represent the fact that Jesus Himself (Who the Bible says was sinless) used force in a righteous cause. The portion of Revelation I quoted earlier was also a representation of how He will use force in the future. Since the Bible says He is sinless and He used force, plus will use force in the future then there are times when force is justified.
While it is true that people inaccurately and horribly blame God for their own evil actions that does not mean that the Biblical text is inaccurate, or that God was/is not just in His actions.
Question (my supposition may be inaccurate but this question may save us some time in concept development): If you do not believe that the Bibles origins is from God (penned thru humans), and if you do not believe in a “supreme deity”, why bother with any of this?
By the way did you know we both have links to Make Poverty History on our blogs?
Hi Heather;
I didn’t think your comment was aimed at me but I thought I should be clear (communicating this way can seem so cold, sometimes we use short to the point words that can seem like we are heartless, yet it is wonderful to be able to interact with people on blogs such as this).
You said:
As for Jesus making the whip and driving the priests out -- yes, he did that, if the story of John is historically accurate.
Heather do you believe that the Bible is divinely inspired?
You said:
But for about three centuries after that occured, Christians did not go to war, and refused to participate in the Roman Army. They felt that to contribute to war was to go against God. War was never an option.
Although history is very important to me I am far more interested in the Biblical text in regards to how I should approach these matters. If there is a God, Who is holy and pure, perfect, and there are times when He allows for force then force in certain instances is allowable.
You said:
I tend to see Jesus using the whip (again, if accurate) as Jesus having the last straw -- we all have our off days.
Heather do you believe that Jesus was/is sinless?
You said:
I view those actions in the way that Mike views them. Otherwise, we have no way to determine how God is good.
I suggest to you that God is perfectly good. May I also suggest to you humbly and sincerely that perhaps your concept of “good” may be off base? That there are times in this fallen universe that force is justifiable, that indeed it would be evil to not use force. Please do not misunderstand me I am not a violent man, I am very peaceful, I am not a fighter I am a lover, I don’t own a gun or anything like that (by the way my nickname has nothing to do with this kind of thing, if you want to know what it is about then ask). But if I see a man attacking a child I believe it would be incumbent upon me to use force if need be to defend that child, now extrapolate this to the level of a nation state.
What do you think? I am interested in your thoughts.
Livingsword,
**(communicating this way can seem so cold, sometimes we use short to the point words that can seem like we are heartless*8 That is the downfall to a lack of tone. Especialy when one is a direct writer.
**Heather do you believe that the Bible is divinely inspired?**
I believe it is a record of people's encounter with God -- a God they didn't understand clearly, at first. But that God dictated everything word for word? No. Was it inspired? Yes, all spiritual works are inspired.
**Although history is very important to me I am far more interested in the Biblical text in regards to how I should approach these matters.** This is, however, leaving the Bible in a subjective state. It may contain an objective truth, but we'll never have that objective truth, because we only have a subjective viewpoint. What the Bible says to you in "Blessed are the peacekeepers" could mean something radically different to someone else. Both have read the Bible, both can use it to support their view. What method is used to determine the validity? Many of the fundamentalists say that they read the Bible in the same way that early Christians do -- but this isn't true, given that many fundamentalists do support the concept of war. Biblical principles are not 'set in stone,' but change as the culture changes.
**Heather do you believe that Jesus was/is sinless?** I don't believe Jesus is God, nor do I believe he was born sinless. I do believe he was perfected, and achieved that state through the crucifixion and resurrection.
**I suggest to you that God is perfectly good. May I also suggest to you humbly and sincerely that perhaps your concept of “good” may be off base?**
How do you know that God is good? What method do you use to verify that? Saying that the Bible says God is good doesn't work, because God's actions are all over the map in that one. We can tell that someone else does a good or bad thing based on an agreed upon premise. From your example, a man attacking a child is bad. A man saving that child is good. Why is this principle not then applied to the Bible, and God?
You can say that my method to determine what is good is off-base. But if I'm using "Thou shalt not kill/murder," if I'm using Jesus' sayings that say to us how God is, or the fact that Paul says what the fruits of the Spirit are, and then comparing that to God's actions in the OT, something doesn't connect.
God's goodness is not determined by action, but by the fact that God did it. I know a common response to this is that God is also just/holy. But again -- we have no outside way to verify that, other than faith. This then reduces us to asking how do we know we're following a good God, if we can't judge God's actions?
The response could also be that God's ways are mysterious, or higher than ours. But if God's ways are mysterious, that applies all over, including God being love, or just -- if God is that mysterious, then we don't even know if God is love, since God's ways are higher than ours. If someone approaches us and asks us to follow him beause his cause is just, do we just say sure? Or do we find out what that cause is, the method the leader is using to fight that cause and base our actions on our information?
We could say that since God gave the law, God is above the law. But then we can't trust anything God says, because He can rearrange things as He sees fit. One could accept salvation, only to find that God changed His mind, because He's not bound by anything.
Livingsword,
You keep missing our points about literal interpretation so I won't continue to discuss it. I don't expect you to agree, but you seem unwilling to try to understand and take the questions seriously. All I can say is that I don't in any way think the word inspire could mean "dictate" any more than saying my wife inspired me to write a song about her could mean that she told me what to write. It would instead mean that I gazed at her beauty and was inspired. She had no active part in the creation of that song any more than God did in the creation of the Bible. That doesn't make it any less valuable.
You also keep asking questions like "do you believe there is one “supreme deity”?" and "do you believe in a literal heaven and hell?"
I'll be glad to answer those questions if you will provide a clear definition of what those things are so I'll be sure I'm agreeing or disagreeing with what you actually mean. What is God? Where is it? What does it/he/she consist of, look like, sound like, etc. I can't agree or disagree with a term like "supreme deity" if you don't clearly define it so I can accept or renounce that definition. You could mean hundreds of different things so if I just say "yes" or "no" will you even know what I mean? The same goes for heaven and hell. Where are they? What do they consist of and how do they "work"?
If I say "yes, God is love", then will that mean that I think God is a human emotion? Does that mean that I think God is a feeling I have for my mother? If I say "yes, God is a being" will that mean I think God has legs, arms, and sex organs? What is it you are asking me to agree with? If I say "yes, there is a hell" does that mean I think there is a place at the center of the Earth where people live forever and are tortured by a literal devil?
I can't agree or disagree with a vague concept. If you articulate what these things are and where they are, then I can then attempt to formulate an answer.
I that if you bother to think outside the boundaries of surface level language these issue will become more clear. It is ok to create a simplified image of God in order to explain it to 5 year olds, but at some point that image has to be addressed at an adult level. Being Christian doesn't mean holding on to a 5 year old's understanding of the universe and a 5 year old's use of language.
Mike;
Are you implying that I am communicating and/or thinking like a 5 year old?
Livingsword, Let me take another "stab" at that...
I'm suggesting that it is unproductive (and childish) to reject the "unpacking" of the language. I'm suggesting that much of the over simplified language we use to discuss God in churches has been developed to explain God to children and there has been little or no attempt to expand that language inside the Church and allow Christians to develop a more mature understanding of these concepts. Most Christians have had to find education outside the church to progress in their understanding of God.
I didn't literally assign the term "child" to YOUR views, but if you want to die on that metaphorical sword, then help yourself.
Thank you for posting this article, I'm moderating a book club this summer about issues of violence/humanity and the idea of redemptive violence. One book we have read is Tim O'Brien's "The Things They Carried," and one of the most profound lines in the book is: "I was a coward. I went to war." Now, he isn't saying that all soldiers are cowards by a long shot, but because he was morally opposed to the Vietnam war and because he was afraid of the family and social reaction of dodging the draft--he went to war a coward. To this day, that decision haunts him, I am glad that Michael's journey led him down a difficult path that took him out of the military before his choices could settle in to haunt him for the rest of his life.
--------
Not to get involved in the theological debate, I just wanted to quickly note one thing you wrote: "All I can say is that I don't in any way think the word inspire could mean "dictate" any more than saying my wife inspired me to write a song about her could mean that she told me what to write. It would instead mean that I gazed at her beauty and was inspired. She had no active part in the creation of that song any more than God did in the creation of the Bible. That doesn't make it any less valuable." This is one of the clearest analogies I've heard and your point that a clear understanding of "inspired" doesn't reduce its value.
Thames is a good, good guy. I can't tell you how much joy finding out that he won this battle gives me. Thanks for posting this, Mike.
Post a Comment