Good discussion on the previous post. This is one of the reasons that I blog; (even though not as frequent as I would like) the interaction provokes deeper thinking.
As stated before, I don't know where to come down for sure. I am convinced that there is a consistent peace message in Scripture. The question that Hardin and Weaver specifically addresses is "does God use violence"? Of course Hardin and Weaver says, NO, the heart of God is non-violence.
Here are other answers that I see among writers and theologians.
1. God uses violent means to combat evil and we can as well.
2. God uses violence to combat evil, but it is a divine perogative. We are asked to be non-violent and leave God's wrath to him.
3. The heart of God is non-violent and we follow His example of non-violence.
Which option do you lean toward? Are there more options?
7 comments:
I want to take a stab at that even though my opinion is forming and reforming.
I think Jesus answered the question of whether sinful men can use violence to combat evil when he told the "cast the first stone" story. Rather than reading the old testament as a validation of our use of violence "to combat evil", I think God made abundantly clear that we were NOT to depend on military might. Why else would Moses have to outstretch his hands to God for the army to prevail? Why would they lose when his arms tired? Why would others have to join him instead of fighting the battle? The whole Jericho story makes no sense otherwise.
Also the violence that God used was not always what the people would have liked. Wicked nations were allowed to prevail over the Hebrew nation to discipline them as well. If violence is God's tool to discipline, we have no business picking it up.
I don't know whether the atonement has to be non-violent for peace messages to be heard or not. I don't think it HAS to be violent for God to be satisfied.
I now go out on a limb and say that I think god loved us all along and wanted us to turn to him and become the heirs that he intends us to be. Over time, he chose people to give us that message. Still we did not turn to him. Those who believed, perverted the message so that it was a story of impossible demands by an angry God. Then He broke into history and changed everything. I don't think we have to reconcile the violence in early history when we have Jesus himself saying that He is the fullfillment of history and it is a NEW message that He brings. He says don't try to put the new wine in the old wine skins, it won't work.
He comes to let us know the Father. He says if we know Him, we know the Father.
I think if our old testament was enough for us to know the heart of the Father, God would not have had to come in person to show us.
I also do not think that God needed or wanted Jesus to die a horrible death. I don't see Jesus saying that God could not even look at us because of our sin. I don't read His coming as a way for God to be appeased enough by his sacrifice that he could be convinced to get over his anger and let us come back. He had been blessing and forgiving believers all along. I think He came to convince US. That he would love us enough to take on human form and all that meant, to lay aside his position on the throne of heaven even knowing that the world would hate him and do its worst to him is a more powerful message of love.
That kind of fits with the parable of the land owner who sent slaves to gather what his tenants owed, but they beat them. Then he sent his own dear son thinking that they would honor him. They killed him thinking that the land would then be theirs. The owner, of course, took the land and gave it to others.
All this to say that I lean to the side that says Jesus lived and died and rose again to seek and save the lost. The saving was in the message and the message was the opposite of violence. If you love me, love your enemies.
There was nothing cowardly or passive in the way Jesus lived and died, but there was also nothing hateful or violent either. He didn't defend himself against evil men. The apostles didn't defend themselves. Jesus rose again and promised that all who would follow him would follow him there too. That means follow him through and not around the cross part.
Fighting and battle imagery is frequently transferred from spiritual to worldly and given the cover of a righteous battle against evil. Jesus never battled the evil spirit in the world he lived in by killing the people who did evil. We should fight with the only sanctioned weapons - the Word and our testimony.
I totally agree with anonymous that Jesus clearly showed violence is not the way. It was truly love that caused Him to come and live and die for us. And, yes, much violence has been done in the name of Christ over the years.
I still struggle with some of anonymous' comments however. Yes, if we were really a Christian nation we would not depend on military might, we would depend on God to protect us. However, reality shows that we are NOT a Christian nation. And I guess I have a little problem with his statement that "if violence is God's tool to discipline, we have no business picking it up." If that is true, then we should never have fought WW II - we should have seen Pearl Harbor as God's tool to discipline us and Hitler as God's tool to discipline the Jews/Polish people and all he killed in his labor camps and gas chambers.
Also I'm not sure who he means when he says, "over time, he chose people to give us that message.....Those who believed perverted the message....." Does he mean that the church over time has used the OT to preach violence or to preach an angry God. If so, I totally agree. I grew up in a church that basically protrayed God as an angry judge just waiting for us to do wrong. I often said if you wanted to know if it was sin - just ask yourself if it was fun. If the answer was yes, it was sin. However, if he is referring to the OT writers, then I have a real problem with that. If we suggest the OT perverted God's message, than we are starting to pick and choose what portion of scriputre is right and we are in dangerous water.
I guess we could talk all day about whether or not the atonement HAD to be violet for God to be satisfied. Bottom line is: Jesus Himself indicated the crucifixion was totally in God's plan for Him. Several times He talked about the death waiting for him and indicated that this was His father's plan for him, this was why he came into the world. Even in the garden he prayed "If it is possible" let this cup pass from me." But He then said "thy will be done" indicating clearly that the crucifixion was his father's will.
Rather to satify God's sense of righteousness or just to display God's love, I'm not sure. But we cannot take away the violence of the blood of the cross.
However, yes, it is clear that the way we overcome the spiritual battles is by the Word and our testimony.
I was just referring to the prophets coming and proclaiming God's messages to the people and the pharisees taking those things and making them into a zillion onerous rules to burden the people ... The churches of your childhood would also fit in this category, maybe.
I still am standing by my statement, it was the powers of this world that killed Jesus. The Father knew it would be the result of the kind of life he was sent to live. But just a thought, were Peter, Paul, and the others called for the purpose of dying a martyrs death or for the purpose of spreading the gospel?
It really isn't the violence of the thing that concerns me so much as the emphasis that we put on the death of Jesus as if to say that his life and teaching were not the reason he came. He said the reason he came was to preach the good news. He said he would die and rise again. He said it would be good that he go because he would send the Holy Spirit to be within each of us to continue His teaching. I may be too literal in thinking that there is an emphasis on the saving effect of the blood of Jesus in a lot of Christian teaching today that says you are saved if you believe that Jesus bled and died for you. Jesus emphasised that you believe Him and the One who sent Him. He says that the one who believes is the one who obeys. What I am trying not to say is that I'm pretty sure that the only way to be saved is to follow Jesus. His death showed us that he would be faithful to his mission no matter what and that we should not be afraid of death either because those who follow him to the end will follow him in resurrection. See, then I get in all kinds of "works" trouble.
I have always struggled with this very question: were Peter, Paul, and the others called for the purpose of dying a martyrs death or for the purpose of spreading the gospel? Did their deaths actually help spread the gospel? If so, then were they called to die?
The faith chapter in Hebrews has been a puzzle to me. We read of all the great men/women of faith and then we hear that some were sawed in half, some were martyred. Does that mean that their deaths were just a "result of the kind of life he was sent to live." Or, part of the plan of God.
I think of one of my heroes, Jim Elliott. Many think his death brought more attention to missions/more benefit than his life. I don't know, but if so, then was his death just a result of the kind of life he was sent to live, or was it a direct plan of God?
My first husband was accidentially killed at 33. After his death many of his friends that he had witnessed to came to Christ. They said it was a direct result of his death. His dying so young and so suddenly made him realize they needed to make sure they were right with God. I realize this is not the same as "violence" and it could be said it was not God's doing, just an accident. Still, I wonder: does God permit/allow violence to further the gospel?
I grew up in a church where it was all about works and how good you were rather than the grace of Jesus. Where people took such pride in their "works" and so I struggle with taking away from the blood and grace and mercy of Jesus.
However, I do agree with you that we may have gone to the other extreme where "all you have to do is believe" and you are saved. Yet, we know belief is not enough. Even the devil believes. And I am so tired of hearing people say, "I believe in God" or "I pray every day" when their life is so opposed to what is righteous.
Tough line to walk - Paul vs. James - faith vs. works.
But - I'm thinking too much! I started out life so sure of what I knew of God's Word and I have taught His Word for years, but the older I get, the less I know.
Amen!, Barbara
that's some serious discussion. thanks dwayne for blogging on this...it's a topic that has been swirling around in my head but I just haven't had enough time to study it in depth. i think i packed away those articles you gave me by yoder before we moved...keep blogging...it's a good topic!
I was searching google for "root word pacifist", trying to find evidence that "pacifist" and "passive" come from two different sources. God has surely blessed me by leading me to this blog!
I thought I was the last one in this country to have this understanding of the bible - that the Lord Our God is the God of Peace, and that war and violence is abhorrent to him.
I believe that violence is purely the result of our sin - our refusal to submit humbly before God, our refusal to see God's creation as sacred, and our tendency to worship the works of our hands (money, nations, armies, etc) as if we were gods ourselves.
God does not use war to punish, war is the inevitable result of our sin. If war was a punishment from God, we could hardly consider Him a just God, as the greatest victims in any war is always the poor and the innocent. In modern times, starvation does not come from droughts or natural disasters - it comes from war. War is not God's Path.
Lastly, the Christ I believe in came at a point in history, where if God wanted war, Christ could have easily brought it about. If that had been the goal, Christ could have united the splintered people of Judea, risen up against Rome, and likely started the rest of the Roman Empire to rise up in rebellion. That wasn't God's plan, however, and instead, Christ showed us how to live (and die) as God intends us to live - actively persuing peace, helping suffering people see and belong to the Kingdom of God.
God bless!
Post a Comment