When is violence okay for a Christian?

[jason]

Thanks for the perspective Joan.

Jason

[Glenn P]

Ok you lost me. Do you agree with me or disagree with me ?

Jason

I agree, that's why I said "I for one do." I agree because when we say that there should be laws, we are saying that there should be force, because enforcement means using force, and there can be no real laws without enforcement.

Glenn

[Dracula Girl]

See 1 Peter 2:13-17 and Romans 13:4-5 on governments using force.

[glocksout]

governments using force is a different topic altogether. this topic is about christians using violence.

[Teallaura]

Sigh, well, not entirely. I agree 'just war' is getting outside the scope - simply because we aren't finished with the first part yet, self-defense & defense of another. Otherwise, it's fair game.
Christians, unless they hide under rocks, are a part of the government (that whole "We the People" thing) - so we can hardly claim innocence if there is something amiss with the use of force in time of war.
You guys can take a stab at it if you like - I'm in agreement with Jason and Joan on this one (Joan, sweetie, do you have a library on speed dial or something? Accckkk! I am soo jealous!) Let me know when you get back to SD & DoA - I might can help out there!
Brain pain! Brain pain!

[Amazing Rando]

Perhaps what's needed here is to take a step back and start afresh from a different perspective. I'm only able to access the Internet from school now- we canceled our home account due to cost so huge debates aren't plausible for me at this point- for the rest of the semester at least. Yet this is an important topic to me I'd like to explore more in depth. Thus, I'll just make a quick, non-argumentative summary statement of my convictions here and allow for any questions anyone might have to follow up.

I believe that the gospel is the way of peace- peace is an intrinsic outgrowth of God's good news for us, and to me at least, cannot be separated from the gospel of Jesus Christ. Thus, when wars are carried out in the name of Jesus, such as the Crusades, I'm at a loss for words.

I feel that the call of the Christian is to be God's instrument of healing in the world. From a very basic level, the problems of the world stem from humans rebelling against their creator and abusing the freedom he granted us. I think we can all agree to that. We'd also agree that our job is to be God's hands, his agents, called to live as witnesses and help restore the broken relationship between the Creator and his beloved creation. The problem, and our area of disagreement, comes in when we try to determine how we're to restore that relationship. I take Jesus as portrayed in the gospels as my normative example, and the Jesus of the gospels comes across to me as the most "unworldly" portrait of a human being I've ever read. His ethics are so counter-conventional and fly in the face of our human wisdom, that they don't make any sense to the unbeliever- you guys all know that, certainly.

I view the non-resistance practiced and taught by Jesus in this same way. It makes no sense, from a worldly perspective, to stand up to your attackers with grace rather than vengeance and retribution. I would observe that from that same perspective, neither does passing up the place of honor at the banquet table (Luke 14). Fortunately, man's values are not God's. I believe that when one stays "farsighted," that is, focused with eternity in mind beyond the temporality of the "here and now", the trivialities of this earthly life seriously lose their significance. Even death is nothing to be feared because of the victory Jesus accomplished for us and the rest of his creation by defeating death. And if death is nothing to be feared, what do I have to fear by obeying what I see as one of the most difficult teachings of Jesus- to love our enemies to the utmost and fullest extent? The path of nonviolence is, I feel, the most difficult one imaginable because it involves putting your complete trust in God that his way is best, even if his way involves the destruction of my earthly body for no reason that is discernable to me in this life. Anyway, that's why I choose that path. I've written quite enough and my time is short. I hope I can stop back to follow up tomorrow. God bless!

[glocksout]

Was this all the cost of the protesters defense?

i'm not sure what you're asking. are you asking if their pacifistic stance leaving them with death was worth it?

i can basically answer that with a hypothetical question in turn. if i can lie to save my life, do i disobey God's command to be honest, or do i lie to save my temporary shell?

when a pacifist is killed promoting peace, he has not failed, but has shamed his aggressors. what's the right thing to do, even if your life is at stake for doing the right thing?

what's better, the pacifistic stance of martin luther king that lead to beatings, inprisonment and murder, or the bloody Bay of Pigs? the pacifism of ghandi, or the bloody french revolution?

even with the just war doctrine, peace has got to be exhausted to the very end before any force is reckoned in return with force.

i say this because, again, i think when Christians support a pro-war stance, they ignore the teachings of peace layed out in the OT and NT. because we can't reconcile our lives to scripture, it is ignored for our own "better way." we end up just as any pagan, only we go to a place of worship sometimes.

i don't desire to create more pacifists, only that we all face scripture with the reality that it effects our lives. afterall, we must count the cost.

i shall start a new thread in where we can discuss the pro-war stance.

[Dracula Girl]

governments using force is a different topic altogether. this topic is about christians using violence.

I don’t want a Godless money worshipper making the decisions about how my country is run. I want someone who knows that one day he will be accountable to God for what he does and what he chooses as a leader. Still, I will continue on this topic later on the other related thread that you made.

Sigh, well, not entirely. I agree 'just war' is getting outside the scope - simply because we aren't finished with the first part yet, self-defense & defense of another. Otherwise, it's fair game.

I moved away from anything like that simply because I wanted to bast this heinous misuse of God’s word to say that in no way and under absolutely no conceivable situation should a Christian ever use any kind of force.

Christians, unless they hide under rocks, are a part of the government (that whole "We the People" thing) - so we can hardly claim innocence if there is something amiss with the use of force in time of war.

Interesting point.

(Joan, sweetie, do you have a library on speed dial or something? Accckkk! I am soo jealous!)

We have wireless DSL and I’m a mild internet addict.

i can basically answer that with a hypothetical question in turn. if i can lie to save my life, do i disobey God's command to be honest, or do i lie to save my temporary shell?

even with the just war doctrine, peace has got to be exhausted to the very end before any force is reckoned in return with force.

All I can say is that it would seem that you don’t disregard that there might be something to that idea under some conditions. Then again, you might consider “the very end” to be the slaughter of thousands (many of whom might not have the comfort of Christ to look forward to, nor the chance then to come to know Him) for the sake of one hardened and hateful violent man. But then taking deadly force out of defensive (of the many) force, then what that must do to that man’s soul, where with each one he hardens himself a little more against what is good and right… And a little compassion for the temporary physical well-being of the one hateful and violent man is worth so much more than the souls of hundreds of children perishing in hell for all eternity… I hope that you would agree that that is not showing good to all and that before such a thing happens, there must be a point at which a line s drawn and force reckoned with force.

And to go back to your first question, my points since my third or so post here have been aimed at addressing self-defense later. We are apparently still working on defense of others. So first of all, it’s not all about your life or your temporary shell. To some people neither of those even matter. Forget about your shell for a moment and think of those that would be harmed with so much greater harm that might even be needed to prevent such a thing. I suppose I would conclude from the logic that I have presented in recent pages that if you had said the live of others, then it would depend on which is most loving and saving many lives would be the greater good.


If you ask, if you can lie to save the lives of others, do you disobey God's command to be honest (as all laws are summed up in the command to love(Romans 13:9)), or do you lie to save many others temporary shells, and possibly their chance to hear about Christ, from unjust bloodshed, then I would say:

Exodus 1:15-21

15Then the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, of whom the name of one was Shiphrah and the name of the other Puah; 16and he said, "When you do the duties of a midwife for the Hebrew women, and see them on the birthstools, if it is a son, then you shall kill him; but if it is a daughter, then she shall live." 17But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the male children alive. 18So the king of Egypt called for the midwives and said to them, "Why have you done this thing, and saved the male children alive?"

19And the midwives said to Pharaoh, "Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are lively and give birth before the midwives come to them."

20Therefore God dealt well with the midwives, and the people multiplied and grew very mighty. 21And so it was, because the midwives feared God, that He provided households for them.

i say this because, again, i think when Christians support a pro-war stance, they ignore the teachings of peace layed out in the OT and NT. because we can't reconcile our lives to scripture, it is ignored for our own "better way." we end up just as any pagan, only we go to a place of worship sometimes.

i don't desire to create more pacifists, only that we all face scripture with the reality that it effects our lives. afterall, we must count the cost.

I was hoping that we could look at more of the Bible because you only included Jesus/Peter/Paul/ but OK. That will have to be a little bit later reply.

I will now work on presenting my limitations of acceptance of violence.

[Teallaura]

I moved away from anything like that simply because I wanted to bast this heinous misuse of God’s word to say that in no way and under absolutely no conceivable situation should a Christian ever use any kind of force.


Interesting point.


We have wireless DSL and I’m a mild internet addict.

Hi!
I was addressing the Glock/Jason thing - not your position... hard to keep this stuff straight....
Thank you.
I'm soooo jealous.....

[Dracula Girl]

You gave good answers in your posts- would you be so kind as to ask me a few questions from your replies that you'd like me to answer?

Thank you. I'm merely curious if you found any points of disagreement. As internet access is now more challenging in that regard (was wondering where you were ) then never mind.

I think what I need here is a fresh start rather than going over the same stuff you guys have been hammering out since I checked in last.

I don't know. I feel like we could come up with something new on this thread. I would like to keep it active for a little while longer. New threads on defining points as government and war which glocksout started are fine, but lets just keep this one a little longer, k?

Hi!
I was addressing the Glock/Jason thing - not your position... hard to keep this stuff straight....
Thank you.
I'm soooo jealous.....

It is hard to keep straight, still I'm fine with calling the misuse of God’s word to say that in no way and under absolutely no conceivable situation should a Christian ever use any kind of force what I think it is.

As for interesting point, I meant that is something that I may consider that in how I create a reply to another thread.

[Glenn P]

governments using force is a different topic altogether. this topic is about christians using violence.

It is only a different topic if we first make the assumption that no Christian will ever work in enforcing law. Since I just don't think this assumption is a good one, I cannot see why it is a different topic altogether. Surely it would be hard to argue that a Christian should not use force unless it's his job.

Glenn

[glocksout]

please refer to http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44862 for discussion on government.

simply because I wanted to bast this heinous misuse of God’s word to say that in no way and under absolutely no conceivable situation should a Christian ever use any kind of force.

return to pages 2 and 3 to see the "heinous misuse" of God's word by the early church.

right now all i'm working on is trying to get everyone to understand what pacifism and nonresistance are. you can't possibly make such claims as "heinous misuse" when you don't even understand the "use."

and this what the other thread i started (pro-war) is about: if this is a misuse of scripture, then what does it actually mean?

i still feel everything i brought up early in this thread has been ignored in its entirety.

[Dracula Girl]

i still feel everything i brought up early in this thread has been ignored in its entirety.

Glocksout, may I ask a few questions?

This is the first, is it not true that Lightmanx offered several verses he felt must be considered before violence could be used as in the quote below?

from Matthew 5:38-48 "[...] don't stand up against an evil person."
from Romans 12:17-21,13:8-10 "[...] overcome evil with good."
from Galatians 6:9-10 "[...] do good to all people [...]"

We must, as Christians, satisfy the prerequisites for all three of these. You see, this non-resistance that I'm speaking of is not "doing nothing." ... These verses are in the Bible, and cannot be ignored. So, if you believe you can satisfy each of these things in your actions, then I believe you are justified in following your convictions...

[glocksout]

Glocksout, may I ask a few questions?
... is it not true that Lightmanx offered several verses he felt must be considered before violence could be used?

yes, this is true.

[Dracula Girl]

Haven’t I and others addressed these verses in some way?
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...&postcount=161
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...&postcount=155