Does “Biblical” Manhood Put Undue Pressure On Families?
Apr 28
I put “biblical” in quotations for a reason. That reason is that I believe even the writers of the New Testament could have been conditioned by their environment. I know that says a lot about inspiration and all, but I have to believe that.
Cultural Conditions and Their Biblical Influence
I have to first say, I believe Paul to be a victim of his circumstances much like every other human in the world. This does not mean that I have to question everything Paul says, but I do have to question some things, especially in light of the environment and culture we find Paul in and the environment and culture we find ourselves in. Culture is fluid as I wrote before in the past, I believe the Gospel to be objective truth so any questions along the line of “well how do you know the Gospel is true” will be ignored 
Here is why I believe the biblical authors to be influenced by their culture. Lets take Roman Slavery. Most Roman slaves were slave due to one of three reasons. 1. They were war captives. 2. They sold themselves due to financial hardship and poverty or 3. They were sold by their parents into slavery.
Now I don’t like it, but number 2 isn’t that bad. However, numbers 1 and 3 are totally unacceptable. Yet, we don’t see Paul ever telling Christians to release their slaves (I think it was estimated that the majority of people were slaves). He actually encourages slaves to be obedient and masters to be fair. I don’t know about you; however, that doesn’t seem to be a good answer, not even acceptable. No human being should ever “own” another human being. It is wicked, regardless of the circumstances. Now if you owe money and you must work it off, then fine; however, slavery/possession never seems right to me and Paul never addresses the issue directly, well in Philemon he does, but outside of that he doesn’t.
Another example would be Peter’s response to an oppressive government. No one has to submit themselves to an oppressive government. I am 100% for rebellion/revolt, even violent revolt for those being oppressed. Peter tells us to accept such persecution, I disagree (and so do most Christians in America). Anyone who beats you because they disagree with you, enslaves you because the color of your skin, or attempts to take your land or posession is to be rebelled against. I think the Zealots had this right. So again these authors may have blind spots.
Manhood vs Womanhood
Not always, but usually, women were regarded as property under Roman rule. I think this is why Paul writes about husbands loving their wives as their own bodies and Peter talks about handling wives with care. Abuse was not abnormal for Roman husbands, including their children. Women had to accept their lot. Especially if they had no families. A woman with no family (which was not abnormal) in Rome often times became prostitutes just to eat on a daily basis, many were treated very harshly. Thus being a wife brought a double edged sword. You may not have to prostitute but you were subservient in that culture.
Being a man gave you special privileges and being a woman, well.. child bearing (and hopefully a male) brought you some type of security. But lets take it a step further. From the fall forward, women have been regarded as second class citizens. A woman was to take what was given to her and that was that. We see that from Genesis through the rest of the New Testament. Even in Hebrew culture the wife was considered the husbands property.
I would say that Western culture has made huge leaps on the development and equality of women. The women suffrage act was a huge leap but as of late, we now have women running for president. Women leading Fortune 500 companies, Women in positions of influence in our government, our first billionaire woman and women making breakthroughs in everywhere from Academics to Sports. To be straight-forward, we are realizing that women can do just about anything a man can do (I am doing P90X and it is a female who is kicking my butt).
Anyone who tells you that women are somehow different than man in an inferior tone is only perpetuating a 5000 year old lie. Those thoughts are rooted in the oppression of women and fallacy of “gender roles”. Now I am not against gender roles, because a man can’t breast feed nor have children. But this has nothing to do with roles, but basic biology, much like a woman uses the bathroom sitting down and a man standing up. Or women have ovaries and a man testicles.
The Bible and Gender Roles
Based off of the first two bullets, I believe that the bible may be wrong on gender roles and may be guilty of perpetuating some aspects of the curse. We have to remember that a woman being off work due to child bearing is part of the curse. We have to understand that most of the biological things we see as deficiencies is part of the curse. They were not part of God’s original design, they are sin-laden mutations that we have used to perpetuate things such as submission and headship.
Because of that we have undue pressures on families, especially Chritian families. We have been taught that a woman working outside of the home is going against God’s plan. The problem with that is that the work the husband does, which takes him away from his family and leaves a wife to raise children is part of the curse. We were never created to do such things, we were to live off the land in the cool of the Garden, not work overtime for a promotion.
Men have been taught, especially in certain traditions, that he is the priest, prophet and provider of his home. Yet we all were to be priest, prophet and providers of our home. There are men today whose wife is much more gifted at generating income for their family but because of their religious tradition are crippling their family. They believe that they are being disobedient to God (many preachers teach this foolishness) if they are the ones who stay home while their wives work. Others feel it is their responsibility to “wash their wives in the word” as Christ washes the Church. They believe they are the ones who are supposed to have the final say and make tough decisions, when they have a wife that is more wise and more gifted in these areas.
The pressure of such things are not doing a service to the stenghtening of the human family. Especially today where women actually have more opportunities. Wives feel smothered, many men feel undue pressure and the Christian family is divorcing at alarming rates. We really need to reevaluate our perspective on this, especially in an ever changing world and even more importantly in light of the fact that the biblical authors may have had some blind spots in certain areas.
I think guys who are always bringing up issues of so called Biblical manhood have some serious Manhood issues!
Hutch,
I have a problem when people say we are somehow circumventing the Gospel and destroying God’s design. I believe those to be scare tactics or empty threats to not deal with the bigger issue. As if God is going to curse us for being egalitarian.
Lionel,
Both you and Hutch are spot on.
Lionel,
While I agree that Paul, like every human, was a product of his culture and time, I have to object to the “zealots having it right.” The Zealots did eventually get their way, and it didn’t turn out so well for them or for Jerusalem as a whole.
When Jesus warned Peter of the futility of violence (Matt 26:52), he warned us all. Paul insists that we never return evil for evil, and that we bless those who persecute us (Romans 12:14, 17), because our enemies our demonic powers, not flesh and blood (Eph. 6:12). Jesus’ call to nonviolence isn’t easy to swallow—I’m not sure I could live it out if someone threatened my wife or daughter—but I do know that the Lord we serve is much more impressed with our willingness to lay down our own life, than our willingness to take the lives of others (John 15:13).
Though I understand that the posting on “the Zealots” was not addressed to me, if I may say..
By no means do I think that the spirit of Militarism is always a solution. Nonetheless, I must say that EVERYONE of us would be a bit inconsistent to say that we’d not be for it at some point in our lives—especially as it relates to SELF-Defense of ourselves/our families in regards to issues of justice and protecting those who cannot protect themselves. The same goes for convictions regarding the internationally understood right of all countries & individuals to defend themselves against fatal, lethal & terminal violence perpetrated by Assassins, Bullies & Invaders. The OT was full of the very same principles—both in the legal system set up in Israel and the EXTENSIVE violence that went down throughout the Promise Land, from Abraham when rescuing His nephew Lot in Genesis 14:1-17 to David with his wives/children were stolen from him in 1 Samuel 30:1-19 and many others stories/people…..many who conqured kingdoms in Hebrews by faith (Hebrews 11:32-34 )
With the Zealots, I used to have many issues with them based on what I was taught…much of it ignorance, as I used to think they were just a bunch of terrorists…..but in researching further, I had a bit of a switch…for the group itself is a very FASCINATING group—especially seeing how it was that they developed. ..much of it similar to the idea of “warrior priests” —like 2 Chronicles 23:1-3 / 2 Chronicles 23 ,when there was a revolt to usurp the throne back from the false queen/daughter of Jezebel.
One of Jesus’s own disciples was Simon the Zealot, Luke 6:14-16 , Matthew 10:3-5 , Mark 3:17-19 ..who was the “terrorist” of the group. Simon was called a “Zealot” in his lifestyle before ministry with Jesus, probably a member of the Zealot party..and Interestingly enough, the “Zealot” term is still used for the man AFTER Christ rose from the Grave in Grave Acts 1:13 and Acts 1:12-14..which whereas others say that he was involved in a Jewish revolt against the Romans, , which was brutally suppressed in A.D 70.
Either way, its something to consider
With the Zealots, One of the ministries I frequent has more information on the issue that may help —as one can go online/look up a ministry known as “Follow The Rabbi: Zealots” “ ..as they’re dedicated for showing the scriptures through how 1st century Judaism would have understood it. Another place to investigate would be the Book of I, II, III, and IV Maccabees ….. For it is from there that one can see how the Zealots were apart of the movement known as Hasidim (called “The Pious Ones”)—of which the Pharisees were a SISTER branch of TOO—when it came to total resisting of Outsiders. And in many respects, the Zealots were very PRIESTLY/Devout as the Pharisee. As said there:
More went down besides that—–as the Zealots were very much for maintaining a Jewish Identity and Nationalism of their views…..feeling as if assimilation into the dominant culture at their own expense was wrong…and taking piety to the point of defending themselves/their people by ANY means necessary. But to realize that many of their actions were based in their desire for JUSTICE, it makes them far more sympathetic. Many people who blast them—including blacks—seem to forget that many of the FREEDOM movements they benefit from had many of the same tatics that Zealots were willing to utilize as well.
Some things to consider..
I just finished reading a book on the issue not too long ago0—concerning the history of Martin Luther King and Malcom X, entitled “Martin, Malcom and America: Dream or a Nightmare?”... –and it was highly interesting to see the documented history of many “Seperatist/Black Nationalist” movements that kept the black community grounded. Martin Luther King believed in the goodness of whites, due to his upbringing in seeing them in action when working with them/having a Biblical foundation in how God says we’re to view others and love them. Malcom X, however, saw nothing but corruption in the white community—and had ZERO faith at all in the goodness of whites, believing that things could never change based on playing by rules of the oppressors. He was a Black Nationalist, who believed that seperation was the main means of change needing to be done…and he also believed in active self-defense/arms, protecting his people by ANY MEANS necessary. Some would condemn him—yet in many ways, he was in the right.
The same goes for much before him…for If studying African-American History…one will quiclly recall many of the Slave Revolts that often happened—-ones like the Nat Turner slave rebellon, who was trying to get freedom at all costs…and led a revolt in Virginia on August 21, 1831 that resulted in 56 deaths among their victims, the largest number of white fatalities to occur in one uprising in the antebellum southern United States. Some would say that he was a “terrorist”—and yet,
one can understand how he arrived at that point after seeing attrocities like the raping of their families, kidnapping, ruthless whippings and many other evils. We can condemn the man in hindsight—but if in the times, whose side would you be on?
Though the slave masters were angry at the loss of life on their side, was it not something they already had a hand in because they already oppressed one group—-and ironically, felt they were the “freedom fighters” because of how they as “Americans” (whites) fought for their independence from Britain?
Take it further..Were the Boston Tea Party and the American Revolution “acts of terrorism”? Who is the terrorists and who is the fighter for liberty? As it stands, its interesting to see what happens when one groups fights an invading party after being terrorized….and then are labeled as “terrorists” by those invading.
The same dynamic I think applies to those who were Zealots….and even if they lost, did that mean what they were fighting for is to be condemned?
Interesting thoughts, Brother Lionel…
Something to consider on the point about Peter’s discussion on Church Government—-as I think one can see it as both being true while also not being for the mindset of supporting oppression of others. For if the TORAH itself already discussed how INJUSTICES—-opressing the poor, ignoring the plight of the fatherless/widows, practicing sexual immorality, bribery, etc—-were all EVILS that God condemned in government and commanded his people to speak on, it would be silly to think that any Jew would take what Peter was saying to mean that all actions of a government should be submitted to. I Peter 2:13-25 may have a different context in mind that many may be missing when its discussing submitting to every institution.
Perhaps it was in the sense of when accused of wrong-doing—as that’s what Peter mentioned later on with the example of Christ and Him speaking out against evils, yet trusting in the Lord when He was put on trial for it/crucified by Divine Order…and likewise, as many believers were being blamed for the wrongs in their day, they were to trust the Lord when they were put on trial…knowimg that God would vindicate them against slander. For there’s something about reacting to accusation with defense that often makes one look more “guilty”..and acting with dignity seems to go far many times since people will trip on you. Peter did seem to make clear that God would give justice upon those who did wrong====and I do wonder if perhaps he had the mindset that many slaves had when they felt as if remaining as “slaves with good attitutes” was their only real option to make it to tommorrow……….instead of fighting back all the time, knowing that it would not be forever (just as it wasn’t forever for Christ when he was mistreated).
The audience he was speaking is in no way seen to be the one for ALL ages/situations—-as Paul already said in I Corinthians 7 that if one is a slave, they should SEEK their freedom..and in II Peter 3, Peter told the audience that they needed to listen to Paul in the scriptures he had written….so there is a degree of progression of thought.
Rod,
The Zealots may have been a little over the top, but Roman rule was not an option for them. Rome was an oppresive government.
Let me ask you and Gabriel a question. If God does not want us to be militant, yet uses militant means to overthrow wicked governments how do we say God does not want us to be militant?
Joel and Gabriel,
I’ll lump these responses together.
Certainly the OT legal system was centered around the notion of self-defense, retaliation, quid pro quo, but Jesus not only denies us the right to retaliate, he says we shouldn’t resist the evil doer (Matt 5:38-39). (As a note, the scholarship of Walter Wink makes the convincing argument that the Greek for “resist” here specifically applies to violent resistance, not non-violent.) Jesus also tells us that it only through our willingness to lose our life that we will truly gain it (Matt 16:25). Make no mistake, when Jesus says we have to be willing to take up our cross (Mark 8:34) he isn’t talking about graciously handling the annoyances, troubles, or temptations in our lives, as important as that may be. The cross meant one and one thing only in the first-century: death.
You’re right Gabriel, Jesus did have a Zealot as a disciple. He also had a tax collector (Matthew). Tax collectors were hated not just because they profited by exploiting people, but because they collaborated with the Roman government. They were traitors. The fact that Jesus could have two people on polar opposite ends of the political spectrum ought to tell us just how much Jesus cared about political opinions.
There’s no denying the violence of the OT, but, for whatever reason, we’re under different orders now. “For although we are walking in the flesh, we do not wage war in a fleshly way, since the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly… “(2 Cor. 10:3-4, HCSB). If the Kingdom we sign our allegiance to—remember that our citizenship is in heaven now (Philippians 3:20)—were of this world we would behave as this world behaves. But the Kingdom we belong to is not of this world (John 18:36). There’s a reason the early champions of the faith were called martyrs and not heroes.
Joel, God has used violence to both set up and topple governments, I can’t deny that. But just because God allows something to happen doesn’t mean He approves of it. He allowed certificates of divorce, not because He desired it, but because of humanity’s failings (Mark 10:5). He didn’t even want to give Israel a centralized government, but rather granted the request in His anger (1 Samuel 8:6-19; Hosea 13:10-11). The fact that Sermon on the Mount was given to the disciples, and not to the unbelieving or on-the-fence masses, tells us that our ethical goals are to be much higher than the rest of the worlds (Matt 5:1-2). We’re a holy priesthood (1 Peter 2:9), set apart. Furthermore, though God toppled governments, He also anointed oppressive governments to rule as a punishment for His people’s failings. Unless God specifically commanded you to resist, you wouldn’t know if you were working or opposing His will.
I think we sometimes mistake our perception of victory for God’s. If we want to see what victory looks like from God’s perspective, we need only look at Calvary.
Finally, Gabriel, while it is true that there are moments when I would most likely resort to violence, and no doubt any one would be tempted to use violence in extreme situations, there have been plenty of Christians who refused to use violence to protect themselves and lived out enemy love. A famous example is Dirk Willems, who was jailed and sentenced to die for being an Anabaptist. He escaped from jail, but when the jailer who was pursuing fell through the ice of a frozen pond he turned back, pulled the man out, dragging him to safety. He did all that knowing full well he’d be captured, which he was, and that his captors would still kill him, which they did.
Rod,
Is that choice or Law?
Brother Lionel,
I’m glad that we’re having this discussion….for in all honesty, it really does deal well with the concept of manhood/what it means to be one…..and when it comes to self defense, that is a big deal..perhaps the greatest test of such.
On your question, I’d probably say that its not so much a matter of God not wanting us to not be militant as much as it is a matter of when and how….as well as WHY. Some things are the entire dynamic of Seasons (IMHO).
The way it seems people seek to pit God’s word against itself seems no different than trying to make a significant issue over which season of the year people should rejoice in more—Fall, Spring, Summer or Winter. Trying to discuss which one is more beneficial would be silly since ALL ARE NECESSARY and apart of the Seasons of Life God has set up
Depending in whatever season one is in—as well as what is necessary for the moment–will determine what becomes the focus.
One can ask “Is it WRONG to go South—Seeing how good it feels here up North?!!!”, that’d be an unfair question since it was Double-Barraled/Not Open Ended…..as whether or not it was “right or wrong” would be a matter of SITUATION/SEASON. If it got cold/unhabitable, of course the ducks flying SOUTH would not see it as “wrong!!!”—But when it came to mating season/breeding, it’d be best to go back up North…as the season changed.
If trying to grow your crops, then perhaps winter will be something you dislike and may say is not beneficial—but on the same token, when it comes to killing off something such as a disease spread by heat (or bringing in herds to hunt for food), it couldn’t be better. Same with all other seasons in the things they bring—with many of their benefits not often noticeable at first until in the moment.
And the same it is with the Word, especially as it relates to issues of being militant/self-defense.
There’s no escaping the fact that God had others admonished for their faith expressed through militant acts on the behalf of JUSTICE—-as Hebrews 11:32-34 makes clear. The Book of Judges is full of examples where the Spirit of God came upon others and they went to war…as in Judges 3:9-11 or Judges 6:33-35 , 1 Samuel 11:1-7 and many other examples. One manifestation of the Spirit of God is healthy anger toward injustice…and it included times of raising up others for a call to arms. that, the OT is FULL of examples of where self defense was not a problem, that’s already something one must deal with.
There’s also the issue of how one would go into Jewish Culture and deal with the Celebration of Purim—-as originating in the Book of Esther in a time where a death threat was issued on the Jewish People and they were saved by the Grace of the Lord, while being given permission as in many other instances to have law to take out their enemies ( Esther 7:4 )…and of course, David or Solomon (when he was going to be assasinated in I Kings 1-/1 Kings 1:5 and had to secure the throne from his brother), as with King Joash in 2 Kings 11:2 and many others….from Judges 20:34-36 Judges 20 (all of it the LORDS’s doing)
And for that matter, the issue of Nehemiah–as seen Nehemiah 4:13 when he says clearly, “Therefore I stationed some of the people behind the lowest points of the wall at the exposed places, posting them by families, with their swords, spears and bows.” (Nehemiah 4:12-14 / Nehemiah 4 ).
There are, of course, multitudes of scriptures on the principles. Beyond the instances in the OT where there were numerous examples of times of both PEACE and WAR called for—which Ecclessiastes/Ecclesiastes 3:7-9 / Ecclesiastes 3 makes clear. With that said, I must bear in mind the example of Peter/Jesus with militancy…
For many interpreters take this to be a metaphorical statement commanding the disciples to be armed spiritually to fight spiritual foes…as seen in Ephesians 6:10-17. In favor of this view: (1) In Luke 22:38, the disciples misunderstand Jesus’ command and produce literal swords….and on this view, Jesus’ response that “it is enough” is a rebuke, saying essentially, “Enough of this talk about swords.”….and of course, just a few minutes later Jesus will again prohibit the use of a literal sword in Luke 22:49-51, Matthew 26:51-52, John 18:10-11, etc).
Others, however, take this command to have a literal sword for self-defense and protection from robbers. In support of this view: (a) The moneybag and knapsack and cloak in this same verse are literal, and so the sword must be taken literally as well…and Jesus disciples that “it is enough” actually approves the swords the disciples have as being enough…and Jesus’s later rebuke in verses 49-51 only prohibits them from blocking his arrest and suffering in John 18:11, that is, from seeking to advance the Kingdom of God by force. The very fact that the disciples possess swords suggests that Jesus has not prohibited them from carrying swords up till to this point….and Jesus never prohibited self defense.
Some may go to what Jesus says in Matthew 26:52…to Peter when saying, ”Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”But of course, Jesus was specifically stilling Peter and the others from preventing his necessary trip to the cross.
Just prior to his betrayal and this incident, Jesus had said to the disciples (Luke 22:35-36),
So, clearly Pacificism is not what Jesus had in mind–especially when considering as many scholars have said that the journey of the disciples would indeed be a dangerous one to make. As it stands, its interesting to see the interpretation of Peter’s thoughts in I Peter 2-4 as submitting to oppressive governments on all things since Peter Himself was not known for being a punk—–as said best in Lionel’s article entitled Was Peter A Coward?
For him to do a 180 degree turn around seems a bit odd..
Most will, from there, go to Matthew 5:38 on “Do not resist the one who is evil”….but for the sake of context, people forget that “eye for an eye” was the “law of retaliation”…which was Gods means of maintaining justice and purging evil from among his people—as seen in Deuteronomy 19:20-21 Deuteronomy 19 and Exodus 21:23-25 Exodus 21. It was intended to prevent inappropriate punishment (the punishment should fit the crime) and was imposed by civil authorities rather than individuals.
When it came to what Jesus said, Jesus was not prohibiting the use of force by government, police, or soldiers when it comes to combating evil. More can be found in Luke 3:13-15 / , ,Romans 13:3-5 Romans 13 (on government), and 1 Peter 2:13-15 –where people discusses submitting to civil authorities given power to protect others.
Interestingly enough, anyone reading the NT can see where God was more than for Retribution of his saints, as seen in the lives of those who are murdered–as seen in Revelation 6:9-11 /
With Matthew 5 on not resiting the evil one, Jesus’ focus here is on individual conduct, as indicated by the the contrast with Matthew 5:38, which shows that he is prohibiting the universal human tendency to seek personal revenge.
On the issue of turning the other cheek, one should not return an insulting slap, which would lead to escalating violence…and in the case of a more serious assault., Jesus’s words should not be taken to prohibit self-defense or fleeing from evil ( 1 Samuel 19:9-11 1 Samuel 19 , John 8:58-59 John 8 , John 10:38-40 2 Corinthians 11:32-33 / 2 Corinthians 11 )…for often, a failure to resist a violent attack leads to even more serious abuse…and acting in love toward an attacker will include taking steps to prevent him from attempting further attacks.
Acts 21-26:32 , which happened much later on. But in regards to using the law for one’s benefit/self-defense
If one reads the full story of Acts 16, Paul and Silas were unfairly beaten due to delivering a woman from a demon possession that cost her masters a good bit of money. ANd though they suffered for the name/God did a MIGHTY Work in the jail cell, Paul refused to take a freedom and run. He wanted to teach the rulers in Philippi a leason and to protect the other believers from the treatment he and Silas had recieved. The word would spread that Paul and Silas had been found innocent and freed by the leaders—especially if they were Roman Citizens. For Roman Citizenship carried with it certain priveleges….and it was illegal to whip a Roman Citizen…and every citizen had the right to a fair trial–which Paul and Silas were denied.
Shalom, Rod..
To be clear on what it is I was saying, I realize that Jesus was not allowing swords/living by violence predominately to spread his Kingdom….as it would have been when the people tried to make him king by Force in John 6/John 6:14-16..or when James and John wanted to call down fire on a village in Luke 9:53-55 / ..or, as the disciples often did, hindering Jesus from fufilling his mission…like with Peter in Matthew 16:22-24. If violence was ever a problem with the Lord, then the Word is inconsistent with the many times prior to Jesus where the Lord Himself used/commanded for it on many occasions…both for times of war and times of self-defense of his people. What was in view was the issue of violence/living by the Sword rather than by God…not the view that the sword is bad on all occassions.
Luke 3:13-15 comes immediately to my mind….
For John never said that working for the Roman Government or serving as a soldier is in itself morally wrong. ..or that, to be saved, they had to quit their profession. ..and again, for other examples of such, as seen in examples of Centurions noted by Jesus Himself for having faith in Him like no others in ALL of Israel b like Matthew 8:4-6 / , Luke 7:1-3 / .Luke 23:46-48 ..and the same especially with Cornelius in Acts 10:1-3, chosen by God as an instrument of himself for His glory when it came to evangelism/bridging the gap between Jew and Gentile—though he was already noted for his heart in serving the Lord via aiding the poor/seeking justice on behalf of the defenseless. On the issue, there have been many accounts of others in police forces/military that had to switch sides when seeing the ways their own government was oppressing others—using their intellect/knowledge of warfare to give the people a fighting chance.
Of course, the issue we’re discussing here has much larger implications than just self-defense. For it also relates to the very means of how we portray the Gospel itself to others…and how we view others with what they do with it. With many missionaries in Africa, they face persecution in the extreme and yet they have no problem with firearms as well as making Biblical cases for such. For more info, one can go to an article from one of the BEST MINISTRIES IN EXISTENCE since it comes from the perspective of those WORKING WITH PERSECUTED CHURCHES in Africa, deal with TERRORISM DAILY, and who know what the other side of the fence looks like when it comes to self defense
Other things that come to my mind are the extensive persecution going on in India currently—with literally thousands killed by the Hindu’s. Though I do know of groups in India that claim CHrist, they are tired of being persecuted with little protection/willing to fight back—which I can more than understand–for there’re many in India who’ve been crying out for the government to give more rights since many are being unfairly killed. One article I recall coming out was entitled Priest Brutally Killed in India; Bishops Call for Protection …/…regarding much of the sustained/increasing persecution coming against believers there…and in reading it, I could more than relate to the issue of others. It’d be no different than what occured during the Civil Rights era in which many blacks were horribly treated and often taken advantage of—with their being cries of the government ignoring the issue…and others choosing to take aggressive action on it. Of course I believe Martin Luther King went about it in a very godly manner when it came to the example of peaceful resistance and standing against oppression.
But on the same token, I can also understand the other side of where many like Malcom X came from…as he was for bearing arms for protection so long as lives were in danger. And it seems that both men were two different sides of the same coin….as they both began to have convergence on their respective views in later years.
The same goes for what happened or that matter, during the Abolitionist movement or reforms to laws in our nation’s history where others were wrongly mistreated and there was a FIGHT for freedom that took place…..people such as John Brown being one of the greatest examples
Brother Rod,
If I may offer, I think it’d be a negative thing to try discussing what Jesus meant in Matthew 5:38-39 on self-defense without understanding how the Jewish mind operated/would have understood the issue then…….as what often happens is that we come to the scriptures with a 21st century lens/view it through that rather than through the lens of 1st century Judaism. I’ve greatly enjoyed fellowshipping more so with many Jewish believers in the faith/learning of the more “Hebraic” side of things…and ne of the books I’ve been reading lately is by a Messianic Jewish scholar known as “Dr.Michael Brown”…..as he’s a brillant man of God…and one who often does apolegetics toward non-believing Jews. As he said best on the issue in his book, “Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus”
Pray this aids to the discussion…..
Of course, again, I’m not advocating a “tit for tat” mindset. For if a gang in my city came and bombed my house and set it on fire and it burnt to the ground, of course Christ forbids me to go over to the gangs house and blow theirs up. But if they come into my home DEMANDING to rape my wife—-and I’m present—someone’s going to be taken out.
With Jesus’s views on Matthew 5:38, the difficult part of applying Jesus’ teaching for me, and probably for all of us, is to determine its scope of applicability. For it is suspected that it applies to a lot more situations than we want it to, or with which we are comfortable. And Peter builds on the thought later on when saying, “Finally, all of you be of one mind, having compassion for one another; love as brothers, be tenderhearted, be courteous; 9 not returning evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary blessing, knowing that you were called to this, that you may inherit a blessing” (1 Peter 3:8-9).
However, historically, and in some church groups today, these verses are used to argue for governmental pacifism in relation to war or even capital punishment. This is where I feel we need to look at Jesus’ audience. At this is where I think people need to be cautious. For Christ is not addressing the Roman government or even the Jewish judicial authorities….for as it stands, in Matthew 5:1, when He is seated, that “His disciples” come to Him, the teaching was about what a disciple of Jesus should do when personally confronted with these types of situations. ….as in one on one rather than on behalf of another.
Bringing up a modern day example of how such would be in action, if a lady has been the victim of domestic violence she is entitled to protection and justice despite whatever else is going on in her life. For in reading I Corinthians 6:1-7 Dare any of you having a matter against another go to the Law?”, I forgot about the verse “”but rather let yourselves be defrauded.”…….which seems to show that the verse was referring to disputes over money or property–not to physical assault.
As as Social Worker, I’ve learned of how many battered Christian women seem to feel that the scripture should be interpreted to mean a Christian wife should not report assaults by her husband to the authorities at all , but rather to her local church leadership only…..& that only church discipline for members who are abusers s should be enforced. The same could be said of verses like Titus 2:5, Ephesians 5:22, 1 Peter 3:1 and 1 Corinthians 14:34 where wives are commanded to obey their husbands, be in subjection to them and to be silent in church…… for some will take this to mean that whatever the husband wants he gets regardless..& in the case of abuse, they should ALWAYS RESPECT THE HUSBANDS DESIRES, even WHEN THEY’RE LIFE-THREATINING.
Many Christian women are told that they are most likely provoking the abuse, and if they would respond to abusive behavior more submissively, he’d change….with their womanhood treated wrongly while a man’s “manhood” is used wrongly as well. Obviously, these interpretations of Scripture are VERY DANGEROUS……..For ANYONE, experiencing physical violence should, for safety’s sake, take immediate action to protect herself. Whereas some disputes simply require discussion/reasoning, Soft words/Abject apology and promises on their own rarely fix this problem, & in fact it often allows it to continue.
It is loving to challenge, confront and if all else fails bring the matter to court. ….for Violence is a CRIMINAL act, not a mere marital tif/dispute …..& THE GOVERNMENT’S been given THE RIGHT to PROTECT it’s citizens from the VIOLENT (Romans 13)—including when the government gives permission to defend ourselves from terrorism.
As Paul said in Romans 13:3, For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same
Moreover, since we’re to submit to the laws of our government (Luke 20-26, I Peter 2:13-17), Christians have NO choice but to report violent acts whenever they become AWARE of them
Lionel (Sorry. I don’t know why I typed Joel),
No, I don’t think it’s law. God knows this is a fallen world and that sometimes people are forced to make hard decisions, and things aren’t rarely black and white. However, I take the command to be perfect as God is perfect as an ideal I’m meant to take seriously and to strive toward, as is every other believer, and that requires self-sacrifice. I’m more willing to be overly vocal about non-violence, because our culture has more than enough voices singing the praises of redemptive violence.
Lionel-
You said, “I believe that the bible may be…guilty of perpetuating some aspects of the curse.”
What do you mean by this? And on what grounds are we to distinguish which curses are to remain until the Second Coming and which ones shift with the culture? For example, in looking at the Genesis 3:16 curse, on what grounds can we distinguish the two things mentioned in this curse? One of them is most crtainly still true (women give birth in pain) and the other, you seem to suggest is cultural. I hope this makes sense…what do you think?
Vetta,
One we can’t change (well epidural)
One should be changed because we should live to serve one another
The last one (death) was also restored right? Though we still die.
Thoughts?
Vetta,
Also I was also speaking of the biblical writers. I know that raises questions aginst inerrancy and inspiration but I truly believe that there is a strong human element. Much like in the OT when some scientific things are mentioned (flat earth, the sun revolving around the earth, women being responsible for bearing male/female childen, infertility…) but have been proven wrong.
I am not aware of any OT writer who indicated that the earth was flat, nor do I know of a scripture that says the sun revolves around the earth.
It seems to me the OT writers got it exactly right:
Job 26:7
Job 26:10
Proverbs 8:27
Isaiah 40:22
I’d say since they did not have the ability at that time to verify its truth regarding the nature of the earth, that it seems like it was INSPIRED!
Gabriel,
Peace to you as well. You’ve given me a lot to consider, more than I can adequately address without chewing on it, but I’ll respond to what I can.
Romans 13 certainly bestows the responsibility of dispensing justice onto the government. I would point out, though, that the government in question was the Roman government, i.e. a government of pagans. I’ve never seen any reason to think the early church fathers imagined a world where it would be Christians bearing the sword, but I could be mistaken.
Nonetheless, my objections aren’t so much to police forces or self-defense, it’s war that I have a harder time reconciling with my faith. Police actions are narrowly defined, and are almost always aimed at small, definable numbers of individuals. The success, or failure of the action, is clear cut: Either the criminals are apprehended or they aren’t. The same goes for self-defense. If I protect my family from a murderer, for instance, the violence is limited in scope.
War on the other hand is often a different story. Unlike police action, in battle entire population centers are often put at risk, while the innocent within are written off as collateral damage. Increasingly in modern wars, the ability to discern “success,” i.e., an endpoint, has become harder and harder. The very nature of war generally leads to demonization of the other, and often lends itself to Machiavellianism. This process of demonization is more pronounced in revolutions; plenty of bloodbaths have been caused by the oppressed finding themselves in the position to suddenly be the oppressor.
Perhaps I’m being oversensitive, but I feel like we live in a culture that glorifies as well as places far too much faith in the power and efficacy of violence, and that that attitude has often spilled over into the church. I think the church, speaking generally, has often been a little too quick to jump on the war bandwagon, and not always been as faithful a witness for peace and mercy as we ought to be.
I don’t judge or question the faith of anyone who believes in just violence, nor can I honestly say I don’t believe in just violence. I do feel led, however, to work with God in rooting violence out of my life, in whatever form it make take, be it physical (which has never been much of an issue) and in my words and thoughts (which both are). I think different parts of the Bible resonate with all of us differently for good reason. We’re the body of Christ: we all have our different functions and are led to live out our witness in different ways. Perhaps where one is called to protect the weak, another is called to be the voice of caution, lest we get carried away in our pursuit of the good.
Curious. Does anyone think some of Paul’s social conservatism was perhaps an overreaction to antinomian tendencies amongst early followers?
Rod,
Define antinomianism, I actually have a post coming about that. LOL. But I think has more to do with the sharp cultural changes that occured (women, slaves…..) Thoughts?
Lionel,
Antinomianism is lawlessness. Specifically, it’s the thought among certain Christians, historic and modern, that they can behave however they want, since all has been forgiven and justification comes from faith not works. Early converts sometimes drew conclusions from the gospel that Paul either found appalling, or never realized people might entertain. One example is the man sleeping with his stepmother in 1 Cor. 5. An explanation for the believer thinking this was acceptable was that he took Paul’s words about being a new creation or new man in Christ literally. That is, he believed the woman to no longer be his stepmother, since he was essentially no longer the person he was before. Perhaps some of Paul’s conservatism was in recognition of the fact that the movement couldn’t hope to survive if Rome perceived it as an anarchic force.
For some reason, don’t know if my posts are coming through
Brother Rod,
If interested, there is an interesting discussion on the issue of what the Church Fathers felt on issues of war—as seen in
There was a good discussion on what the Church Fathers felt on the matter—-as seen in Were the Church Fathers Pacifists? » First Thoughts | A First …
Brother Rod,
Concerning your thoughts about men in government being pagan, I have to consider some things…
For one of the men that comes to my mind is Erastus in Romans 16:22-24
Some things worth noting are that Erastus is the same person mentioned in Acts 19:21-22 and 2 Timothy 4:20, a committed follower of Christ and Paul’s helpful assistent. However, politcally, he was also Corinth’s director of public works….a job that involved making policies to affect the saved/unsaved alike, very similar to one who is a “chamberlain” or “treasurer”…very similar to one in the position of being the mayor of a town. And for anyone familar with Corinth, it was ANYTHING but a theocracy. But nonetheless, there were believers there using the positions/roles God had given them for the sake of impacting others in the Kingdom of God.
Those in government/exercising authority are responsible for many of the social reforms you and I enjoy…from the ending of Jim Crow to the abolition of slavery to prison reforms and many other things.
Shalom, Broter Rod.
On a side note,
Some of the thoughts you advocate remind me of a discussion Lionel and I had once on the issue of Christians in positions of power. For if a soldier—or a guard in the ROMAN Empire–got saved, did that mean that he had to step down from his job? Lets say that he worked death row block—and had to escort criminals to their deaths, including those condemned who were either Christians before hand/wrongly accused……….or ones who got saved in prison. Should he quit working his job? Take it further….for if he was ordered to use his position to persecute other believers by going into their homes/arresting them, should he retire to join them? Or should he stay in the position to do the most help he possibly can—like remain undercover or give misleading information? It is true that many times believers in the early church learned to FLEE/RUN away….as there are already countless examples of where it was done….as it was with Paul sneaking out of a window and the saints sending him off in secret or choosing to flee to other locations to preach when he knew that plots were against him at times, as in Acts 9:22 or Acts 14:4-6/ Acts 14 or Acts 19:29-31/ Acts 19 Acts 20:2-4/ Acts 20 OR Acts 23:19-21 /Acts 23 ….and prior to him, for the Church to scatter when persecution began in Acts 8:5…and Christ Himself telling His disciples to flee when suffering persecution in Matthew 10:22-24/ Matthew 10 , as Christ Himself Hid many times at the threat of death or confrontation—as in John 8:58-59 / John 8 & John 12:35-37 /
But nonetheless, did that mean that others in government could not do their part on behalf of the Christians? When you look up many instances of persecution and what’s going down with Crypto-Christianity, you’ll see more so what I mean and why its an issue. Crypto-Christianity commonly refers to the secret practice of Christianity, usually while attempting to camouflage it as another faith or observing the rituals of another religion publicly. In places and time periods where Christians were persecuted or Christianity was outlawed, instances of crypto-Christianity have surfaced…and it included the help of others in the authorities on their side to do it.
Brother Rod,
For the sake of giving out more information, Some modern examples are things such as the Underground Church in China meeting under false pretenses as if they’re with the state religion and using “dummy corporations” in order to have church meetings for true believers.
Due to Circumstances regarding persecution, it’s a necessity–just as it was throughout various points in history, including the time when Hitler controlled much of the Church and believers claimed to belong to the organization and yet in secret they smuggled out Jews from the country/sabatouge from within. Another example would be within Hinduism where Christian missionary activity among lower-caste Hindus (i.e. Dalits/”Untouchables”) has created groups of “Crypto-Christianity”…with the term being one that has been used extensively in regards to many Christian organizations that provide services to lower communities like food/medicine and yet secretly “convert” the locals to the Christian Faith….and since the lower caste individuals make up the majority of the Indian Christian Church and yet have little benefits while Christians in the upper caste are the ones who often thrive/lead, there’s a significant power struggle occuring which many may not realize that causes much of the violence over there. As said best elsewhere in Missionaries tread warily in India / The Christian Science Monitor …
When reading the scriptures, one can see more clearly why interpretation becomes so central. For if one was to always submit to the government /enemies 100% according to the interpretation others have of Jesus or Paul, then what’s happening in other countries is false christianity.
If its wrong for Christians to either bear the sword—or to influence those who hold it—-then what worth are we practically to other believers in dire positions? Even beyond bearing the sword, what about OUTRIGHT lying/deception alongside of it?
What about Nazi Germany/the Jews who were hidden by others and the authorities were not submitted to—–and many times, LIED/DECIEVED for the sake of another….or, for that matter, killed outright if they found out too much? Hebrews 11:31 alongside Joshua 2:1-7 comes immediately to mind, as well as many other instances of the same\
There’s an excellent movie on the issue that I think you’d be interested in———- entitled “The Mission”, as it deals wonderfully with this issue.The film is set during the Jesuit Reductions, a program by which Jesuit missionaries set up missions independent of the Spanish state to teach Christianity to the natives. It tells the story of a Spanish Jesuit priest, Father Gabriel (Jeremy Irons), who enters the South American jungle to build a mission and convert a community of Guaraní Indians to Christianity. He is later joined by a reformed Spanish mercenary, Rodrigo Mendoza (Robert De Niro), who sees the Jesuit mission as a sanctuary and a place of forgiveness for the murder of his brother. Mendoza and Gabriel try to defend the community against the cruelty of Portuguese colonials (who are trying to enslave the Guaraní under the new powers granted by the Treaty of Madrid), Gabriel by nonviolent means and Mendoza by means of his military training. The mission, which was once under Spanish protection, has been handed over to the Portuguese while the Vatican (represented by Papal emissary Altamirano) has ordered the Jesuits to withdraw from the territory above the falls.
Eventually, a combined Spanish and Portuguese force attacks the mission and, failing to see the simple life of the Guarani as anything but threatening (contrary to Father Gabriel and Mendoza’s experiences with them), kill many of them as well as all the priests
All of that said, the movie was quite phenomenal when I saw it. And it really made me consider the experiences of those in the Early Church when it came to the threat of death/persecution. Were they lacking faith in choosing to take up arms to protect life—or lie? For in the view of many, as their definition of “murder” and “lie” equates to never taking life to save others or using deception at any point, I feel sorry for these men who chose to bring the Gospel of CHRIST to places where it counted most.
Brother Rod,
I can more than feel where it is that you’re coming from on the issue of War—-as in many ways, though I’m all for Self-Defense, I’m not for the mindset that most wars fought were ever necessary ones…………….and in many ways, WAR IS A MONEY machine that most do not realize. I am a firm believer in the reality of TERROR Storms, where a government will often wage war against itself/blame it on “terrorists” or another faction for more power…..as said best by Alex Jones in “Terror Storm” ( http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5948263607579389947# ). Even with persecuted groups, I am not for the mindset that many of the actions they did in “self-defense” were anything of the sort———–as seen in the Middle EAST Crisis and many acting as if Israelis were always innocent in their actions and yet no one acknowledges what went down to establsh the nation/many persecuted in the process by the persecuted becoming persecutors—-as I’ve said in depth in a thread I made entitled “Is Christian Zionism Compatible with Messianic Judaism…or considerate of Non-Jews? ” ( http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?7194-Is-Christian-Zionism-Compatible-with-Messianic-Judaism…or-considerate-of-Non-Jews )—for in many ways, the Israeli/Palestinian crisis was engineered…by Zionists, for their own profit.
One of my favorite authors on the issue of Social Justice—named “Shane Claiborne” actually spoke on the issue in his video “The Effect of a Just War” ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e721SeUeRJM )—-just as Martin Luther King did when it came to his VEHEMENT denouncement of the U.S as being one of the greatest purveyors of violence/war ever…and most of it unecessary, as he noted with the Vietnam War/billions of dollars placed into that (and part of why he lost MUCH support in the last 6 years of his life) and others while many in the country starved in the ghettos/without any economic aid..and many other women and children killed in the process while saying its “collateral damage.” That’s always an issue for me personally….
I definately feel you on where coming from with how differing parts of the Bible resonat with us differently, some of it being a matter of seasons of life we’re each in. I think it’s the reason Christ had a myriad of differing views among his disciples—-including one who was both a Tax Collector and another who was a Zealot…………….and how they all had to keep the Kingdom in mind. Those Christ chose as his inner circle were among those who came from DIFFERENT Camps of VASTLY DIFFERENT IDEOLOGIES–some who were against GOVERNMENTS and others that were all for it, as seen when HE simultaneouly chose both ZEALOTS and TAX-Collectors to be apart of His inner circle—despite how BOTH sides had significant issue with the other, with Zealots wishing to overthrow Rome and feeling as if Tax-Collectors had “Sold out”. Even After Christ rose, Simon was still called a Zealot—giving room to indicate that even after being in the prescence of Christ, that which he may’ve been known for was probably with him to one degree or another—such as still possibly wishing for Rome to be overthrown or having sympathies for those against Roman Oppression).
As it was, it was always a wild ride—and even Jesus had to tone them down a bit. Luke 9:49-54 comes immediately to mind when some of them wanted to call down fire on a village that rebuked Christ…There’re actually a couple of other examples THROUGHOUT the WOrd where the Disciples still showed a signficant degree of areas in which they were still theologically immature—and at times, plenty of areas where he rebuked them for it.
But nonetheless, they were chosen by Christ to be his disciples….and what Jesus was doing in choosing and working with – i.e., discipling – the disciples…..Also interesting considering that theologically speaking his choice of 12 was highly significant in corresponding with the 12 tribes of Israel. Jesus was enacting a new Exodus, building around himself a new Israel, and showing a new way forward for demonstrating who the true people of God. It’s fitting that there should be such a diversity within that community Jesus created around himself.
I think it’s very much intentional that the gospel writers portray Jesus’ disciples as backstabbing, betraying, cowardly, dense, poor, uneducated, blue-collar, “terrorist” (as in, plotting against the government), criminal (as in, stealing from people in the name of the government)…and that they didn’t always agree with each other. Just another example of unity within diversity/disagreement.
The example of how Jesus was very much about RADICAL action in training others from differing camps how to work together for the sake of the kingdom—for by all human logic, things should’ve blown up as the combinations were indeed intensive/a powder keg if not handled correctly.
Jesus came into a context that was divided along lines/polarities. For Jews in the second temple period believed that God would act to rescue and restore Israel. The issue then became, “Who is True Israel?”, i.e., what do we do to demonstrate in the present that we are part of the community that God will rescue in the near future? Some of the answers came in these ways
=Zealots, who believed that God wanted them to physically rise up against the oppressive tyrant of Roman occupation
=Herodians/Sadduccees, who believed that God had sided with Rome, or that amassing political power within the Roman system was the way forward
=Essenes, who advocated complete withdrawal from society
=Pharisees, who scapegoated “the sinners” in society, believing that God would act to rescue Israel from the oppressors if they increased the morality of society by strict adherence to the Mosaic Law.
And so we arrive at Jesus. He steps in to this context, and I suggest that if we can’t make sense of Jesus within this context, we’re probably misunderstanding or limiting the meaning of his words and actions.
Some of us, in comic book terms, will always be the Charles Xavier mindset–whereas others will be Magneto—-and For a good article on the issue, would suggest going online and looking up an article entitled “Beyond Children of the Atom: Black Politics, White Minds and the X-Men” ( http://www.playahata.com/pages/morpheus/xmen.htm ). But both sides need each other as we learn to come together/serve one another in the Body the BEST we know how…..
s you said best, we’re the body of Christ…and we all have our different functions and are led to live out our witness in different ways. Whereas one is called to protect the weak, another is called to be the voice of caution, lest we get carried away in our pursuit of the good. There’s a need for peacemakers—-as well as others who realize that sometimes as a MAN one must wage war in order to establish true lasting peace..
Gabriel,
“Concerning your thoughts about men in government being pagan, I have to consider some things…”
My fault for not being clear. I wasn’t saying the apostles couldn’t imagine, or didn’t experience, instances of converts being in low to perhaps even mid-level positions of political power. My point was that, in regards to Romans 13, I don’t see any reason for Paul to have anticipated Constantine. That is, a Christian Roman empire and with a Christian(s) bearing the sword in a macrocosmic sense.
“Some of the thoughts you advocate remind me of a discussion Lionel and I had once on the issue of Christians in positions of power. For if a soldier—or a guard in the ROMAN Empire–got saved, did that mean that he had to step down from his job?”
I don’t think there’s a clear right or wrong in a case like that, be it in ancient Rome or modern North Korea. If a person’s occupation puts them in a position where they are forced to persecute their brothers and sisters, but are also capable of helping them from “the inside,” the only honest thing I think that can be said is that that individual must prayerfully follow their conscience in whatever direction it leads them. See my comment #18 to perhaps clear my position up a little. I have no problem with Christians being led to take positions in government, whether that government be mostly benevolent, or, to malevolent (if, that is, the believer’s purpose is to transform/undermine it). My caution would be, whether one serves under a good or evil government, the believer should be careful not to confuse the goals of the state with the goals of the church, because the two are not often the same.
“For if one was to always submit to the government/enemies 100% according to the interpretation others have of Jesus or Paul, then what’s happening in other countries is false christianity.
“If its wrong for Christians to either bear the sword—or to influence those who hold it—-then what worth are we practically to other believers in dire positions? Even beyond bearing the sword, what about OUTRIGHT lying/deception alongside of it?”
My objection was to violent revolt, I’m absolutely in favor of non-violent resistance and non-compliance with tyrannical/abusive governments. As you rightly pointed out Matthew 5:38 distinction of a slap to the right cheek a backhanded slap, which is the way a superior slaps someone in an inferior social position. The call to not resist is not a command to be a doormat. It rather urges us to be creative in our resistance and the assertion of our humanity, WITHOUT conforming to knee-jerk reactions of revenge/retaliation. If a master slaps a slave, and the slave willingly offers up the other cheek he is not saying, “I submit to your will.” He is saying, “Go ahead. Hit me again, because though you may think you have all the power, in reality you are powerless.” Does that mean it is always best to literally turn the other cheek, like for instance in the case of a battered wife? Of course not. But Jesus was speaking to an oppressed people who had no police force or social services department to turn to. He was offering a nonviolent alternative.
Are there times when violent resistance is necessary? Probably. But I also know there are not only times when violent resistance is futile, it can often make matters worse (the second revolt in Jerusalem being a good example). Also, there are times when, even though the revolution succeeds, the method and mindset it takes to get there makes things worse (think French and Russian revolutions).
The Mission is a wonderful movie. Both Irons’ and Deniro’s portrayal hits home the reality that outsiders are rarely in the position to judge the decisions people make in tragic and largely hopeless situations.
Gabriel,
“sometimes as a MAN one must wage war in order to establish true lasting peace..”
Getting back closer to Lionel’s original topic, do you mean “MAN” in a metaphoric sense, or as in, “Only men should fight physical battles” sense?
Rod,
Are you moving towards passivism?
I had a young man ask me the other day if he could serve in the armed forces and follow Christ, I told him sure you can as long as they don’t mind you giving priority to the kingdom of God and not any of the kingdoms of this world since you are a citizen of and a servant of the Kingdom of God (Luke 17:21) as long as they allow you to love your enemies (Matt. 5:44, Luke 6:27, Luke 6:35) and if they are okay with you never seeking or takeing revenge or exacting vengeance upon another (Matt. 5:38-39, Romans 12:19, Hebrews 10:30) and as long as they let you conduct yourself in a gentle manner (Matt. 5:15, Galatians 5:23, Ephesians 4:2, Phil. 4:5, Col. 3:12, 1 Tim. 3:3, 1 Tim. 6:11, Titus 3:2) and understand that you are to be non-violent (Matt. 5:38-39, 1 Tim. 3:3).
But, they probably would not want you because if you truly desire to follow Christ you would make a pathetic soldier!
Let those who belong to this fallen world systems fight its battles as an expression of its and their fallen, unregenrate and sinful condition, let Christians shine light new creations and see to their ministry of reconciliation.
Lionel,
As a universal ethic, or requirement for all believers? No. Personally? I’m not sure. When it comes to violence and my faith, all I have is a lot of tension and uncertainty. It sometimes feels like God doesn’t want me to make up my mind one way or another.
Rod,
I agree but I have never been put in a predicament to put it to test. I am reading a few Anabatist works about nonresistance, good stuff and very literal interpretation of Jesus’ words
Lionel,
I have always felt an affinity to certain elements of Anabaptism. I enjoy Yoder’s work, and though he’s Methodist, Hauerwas is in that vein (he studied under Yoder). I attend Quaker services, though it wasn’t pacifism that initially drew me there, but style of worship.
“I have never been put in a predicament to put it to test…”
Me neither, andI’d just as soon keep it that way?
Brother Rod
Manythanks for the clarification…though on the issue, I think that’s where there is still some tension. For I see no reason as to why Paul ever considered Romans 13 to exclude Christians in high-level positions of political power for the sake of the Kingdom……….especially seeing the precedent in scripture for such happening before with many others who were celebrated for such within the Torah and its writings. As a Jew, it would seem radically inconsistent for Paul to say He believed in the Torah and yet not the possibility of servants of the Lord being in the positions that others seem to think only went down during the Constantine time.
More than agree with you…………….especially as it relates to the issue of the original post on manhood/womanhood–and how we each respond to the question of what it means for each of us to be a man… as well as how to best go about protecting the image of God in others, Genesis 9:5-7 Genesis 9 /Genesis 5:2 ….for that’s ultimately what it comes down to. When a child is raped—or, as happens in many genocides toward indigenious peoples, be it American Indians or Aborigines in Australia or what happened with tribal warfare in Africa, people are mutilated/mistreated in a myriad of ways, how are we to respond to that? Are we to sit back/say “How horrible!!!’ and yet do nothing…….or do we intervene/stop it with violence toward the violent? I remember seeing a documentary on the issue of child soldiers in something called Invisible Children —and truly, it had me wrestling on how to go about dealing with it. For soldiers kidnapping children over there will not cease due to mere pacifism/asking nicely for them to stop.
Feel where you’re coming from, Bruh. For how often has the state seen the church . THere was actually a thread Lionel made on the issue not too long ago entitled “The Church, Abortion and “Law and Order” ( http://www.lionelwoods.net/2009/10/the-church-abortion-and-law-and-order/ )—as it dealt with how often the church has been crippled by using the means of the world to accomplish the goals of the church—-and in the process of doing ministry, forgetting that the true kingdom is not of this world….nor are we bound to play by its rules. And indeed, many times the world hijacks the issues that the church seeks to deal with..using the church for its own ends while acting as if they are for it.
Brother Rod,
Likewise………………..and indeed, with that mindset you’d be more in line with the mindset of men who stood with Martin Luther King during the civil rights era. As it stands, however, even others noted that one can be for non-violence and yet still be QUITE militant. There were many during the civil rights era who were know as “militant civil rights activists”—with groups such as ACT! being one of the greatest examples.
Understood. Perhaps its just me—but this seems to remind me of the issue of what the movie “Book of Eli” was discussing……………..as the main character, Eli, was never out looking for fights—but if he had no other option, he chose to fight to defend others. It was always a remorseful thing…for Eli is a violent Christian, but he lives in a violent world…only killing when he needs to. (Deut. 17:12, Deuteronomy 19:13)
Can’t say that was how it was 100%—nor that, even if it was, that its different from today where police forces/social services are not full of corruption. As it was, again, there were godly centurions who aided the people.
For the sake of giving more information on the issue–concerning who the Faith Was for…
Matthew 8:4-6is the place where the other version is given….and of course, in Luke’s account, others came to Jesus on his behalf while Matthew’s account does not mention them at all. The accounts may seem contradictory–but Matthew, as he often does, simply abbreviates the story. For in Matthew, he actually reports what the centurion said through the messengers, based on the idea that what the person does through an agent is what the person himself does. Regarding the text, when the Roman centurion addresses Jesus as “Lord”, he shows a remarkable sensitivity for Jewish traditions…saying he’s unworthy of receiving Jesus into his Gentile home, as a Jew who entered the home of a Gentile became ceremonially unclean ..( Acts 10:27-29 / ).
Some other interesting things from the text are that the normal relationship between Romans and Jews, as is usual between conquerors and conquered, was not one of love and trust—from either side. But this pagan Roman officer had demonstrated a love for the Jewish people which moved the Jewish leaders to plead on his behalf before Yeshua, whose primary ministry was not to Gentiles but to Jews..especially as evidenced in his interaction with the girl whose daughter was possessed/was a Gentile ( Matthew 10:4-6 / /Matthew 15:25-27/ ). Love was demonstrated to be a matter of deeds–”he built the synagogue for us!”–not mere words or feelings; and this is its primary meaning throughout Scripture. Similarly, in modern times “Righteous Gentiles” have been honored by trees planted along the road to Israel’s Yad VaShem Memorial of the Holocaust because they risked their own death to save Jewish lives.
So to say that there was no kind of police force that worked on behalf of the Jewish people/gave justice seems odd. The same can be seen in Acts 10:1-8 with the Centurion—noted for giving frequently to the poor and aiding others oppressed………
Apart from the Centurions being available, I think it should be noted that although the Romans ruled Palestine, they gave the Jewish religious rulers authority over minor and religious affairs….meaning they supervised their own temple guards/gave officers the power to arrest anyone causing a disturbance ( John 7:44-46/ John 7 ) or breaking any of their ceremonial laws, of which they were responsible for as well (i.e. directing temple affairs of worship/sacrifice, etc).
More than agree—-and why I’m not always for “The Ends Justify the Means” mindset, as what often happens is that violence is taken when there was another viable solution out that could have been investigated. Also, many times, its the case that the persecuted become the persecutors and cause more problems than they had previously. This seems to be the case with the Middle East Crisis—-where many Jewish/Zionist people wanted a homeland for the “persecuted” Jews after seeing the Holocaust—but in the process, created another genocide by going into Palestine/kicking out the natives there……many dying in the process…but saying its justified because of all the wrongs they went through….and when others tried all peaceful options of protest/petitioning and saw no results, they got tired of it/resisted but hey were labeled “terrorists”.
There’s a way to go about things..
Agreed. As one of my friends said best, “Hunger has no conscience…” and truly, when people get desperate enough, things are not as simple. Its easy to criticize other groups from the outside—especially when you’ve not been tested in an area yourself. For some people, where they live on Earth, there is no poverty, no crime, no war. They look out the window of their homes and they see paradise—and going to their churches where they have NO connection with others outside of their world, they see the same thing. It’s easy to be a saint in paradise, but many others do not live in paradise. Out there in many hot zones—be it in China, India, Africa or even in our own backyard with others living on the street/projects—-all the problems haven’t been solved yet. Out there, there are no saints, just people – angry, scared, determined people who are going to do whatever it takes to survive, whether it meets with the approval of others or not.
Brother Rod…
That I can more than see……and on the issue, its interesting to consider (if I may say) which camp you’d probably be most apart of during the days of Christ. Whereas others here may be more so on the stream of thought that a Zealot would be on—–while others may be more of a hybrid between differing camps—you seem to be more in line with the camp of the Esscenes. Being much fewer in number than the Pharisees and the Sadducees (the other two major sects at the time), it was the Esscenes from whom the Dead Sea Scrolls were written from—-as they fled the corruption they saw rampant in Jerusalem/the religious groups of their day as they fought one another—and in an effort to avoid corruption, they fled the “politics”/went into the desert of Quarman. Similar to the Pharisees, the Essenes saw themselves as God’s elect in whom He was secretly working and whom He will vindicate when He finally cleanses the Temple, fulfilling His promises & restoring true worship while also putting back the right people in power and bringing redemption to unredeemed Israel. However, they had differing views on socio-political actions.
For whereas the Sadducees believed in seizing/maintaining political power for themselves…while the Pharisees were somewhat similar, the Esscenes lived very simple/communal lifestyles………proclaiming by their actions that, though they longed for the liberation of Israel, they were simply going to wait and allow the Lord to bring it to pass in His own time. They felt God will act in His own ways and was, in fact, already acting secretly through them and their quiet devotional practices rather than as other parties acted. When the resurrection happened, the Essenes—seeing themselves as the recipients of God’s future eschatological benefits, naturally believed that having shown their faithfulness to God during the exile/not engaging in either hatred of others or violence, they would be reestablished as the true Israel.
While the Roman war appealed to men of action such as the Zealots, men of a more peaceful and visionary nature seemed to become Essenes….and many others believe the Essene camp was what Christianity was birthed out of.
I noticed that you mentioned that you fellowship with Quaker–and have an affinity for Anabaptists. In many ways, I do admire them…and in most things, they’d be most similar to the Esscene camp.
If you’d like more information on the Esscenes, one can go to One can go to Sons of Light, or they can go online/look up “The Essenes and Messianic Expectations. A Historical Study of the Sects and Ideas during the Second Jewish Commonwealth”
Brother Rod,
For me, I mean it in both senses———and the same goes for men who chose non-violence as a means of promoting what they feel is of the Lord. When I consider the Esscenes, I cannot help but see how their devotion to the Torah/God’s Heart caused them to act in the manners they did with choosing non-violence/isolation as as the main tool—-just as it was with the Zealots who believed in active fighting/resisting (as many Jews did, including the disciples) as it relates to the Kingdom of God. It all comes down to each trying their best to live out what they think the scriptures say about Biblical Womanhood and Manhood….
If a man wants to defend those who cannot defend themselves ( Proverbs 31:8-9 )..and yet cannot be allowed to protect his wife and kids…or those being oppressed (i.e. rape, widows/orphans, etc)—due to the interpreation others have of scripture that pacifism is only what God allows–thats something to wrestle with. On the same token, if a man is called a “punk” for trying to walk in self-control ( Proverbs 16:31-32 ), due to what he thinks is a matter of dignity in not fighting back to show who’s stronger, believing that violence will only create more violence…that’s also something to wrestle with
Gabriel,
Thanks for the Essenes link. They’re a group I’ve always meant to learn more about.
“Its easy to criticize other groups from the outside—especially when you’ve not been tested in an area yourself. For some people, where they live on Earth, there is no poverty, no crime, no war.”
More than agree. If for no other reason, I can’t demand pacifism from anyone when I enjoy all the luxuries of living in THE military superpower of the world.
Rod,
Glad to know the link blessed you. For another one I wanted to give out earlier, one can go to “Jewish Encylopedia: The Essenes” ( http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=478&letter=E&search=Essenes )—as its very extensive on the issue.
And on what you noted, I agree that its difficult (if not totally inappropiate) for anyone to demand pacifism from the vantage point of never having to face the gun……and speaking from comfort.
really good stuff lionel – so much of how we see supposed “manhood” or “womanhood” is culturally bound more so than biblically bound. Funny that most of Jesus’ financial supporters were women. Because of this was he less of a man? So many of us need to remember who we are is based on our position in Christ not in our vocations or familial roles necessarily. Sure is a lot more freeing to live who we are in Christ than to try to fulfill cultural expectations isn’t it?
Brian,
I couldn’t agree more my friend. I couldn’t agree more. It was actually one of the most freeing aspects of my life.