Thanks,
Bryan

I don’t think that “turn the other cheek” and protecting family (and just war too, but that debate is up there and I have nothing to add here) are not mutually exclusive. God ordains Government to exact His wrath — a burglar is doing evil and by statute — put in place by the legilsature ordained by God I can — and will — and should protect my family. The OT is replete with examples. And Paul and Peter also…

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. Romans 13:1-7

He who bears the sword is a minister of God.

“Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.” First Peter 2:13-14

Yours also in Christ — and as St. Francis of Assisi said… “In essentials unity, in non-essentials diversity, in all things charity.” Hopefully this debate stays at the abstract level.

Troy

Troy, below is a passage that came to mind when I thought of Hauerwas’ comment about how following Jesus’ ethic might make the world a more violent place. And just to be clear I do not want to hide behind the name Hauerwas or even the label “pacifist.” And I don’t usually think of myself as a coward, but I am pushing for hiding completely in the name Jesus Christ.
He said:
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. -Jesus (Mat 10:34-37)

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Christ sacrificing Himself is light years different than protecting your little toddler from a child molester or burglar. Don’t be obtuse. My toddler has no choice in the matter — it is my earthly duty (and my spiritual duty ) to protect them. What do you suggest — pray to God for help and when Gabriel and his hordes don’t show let the burglar do whatever he wants? I would be God’s instrument for protection — that’s what shepherds do — they protect the sheep from wolves. And some wolves won’t be talked down — they have to be killed when they attack. (rarely and all the obvious qualifiers)

no violence.

At least it’s simple.

Personally, I take it to mean that if we’re pro-life, we’re pro everyone’s life. Even Iraqis. Even poor people. Even unborn babies.

And, if someone were to mess with me, I’d more than likely let them while uttering something like “wow, you’re really bringing pride to the family name!”

However, if someone messed with my wife or daughter, I will be ruthless. After all, I can be forgiven.

I disagree that someone who take pacifism to its extreme even refusing to protect his own or his family’s life means they are a coward personally and spiritually. Even though I personally would not lay down and take it if someone were trying to hurt me or my family I know it takes quite a bit of courage, resolve and strength to turn the other cheek when everything in you wants to fight back. It hurts.

Jesus refusing to fight back and use his power when he was being tortured and killed did not make him a coward especially when he had all the power in the universe to do otherwise and I don’t think it makes Christians any more cowardly. You should read some stories of martyrs (ancient and modern) and you would find that a lot of them have done just what you denigrated.

If you don’t like pacifism then fine but don’t insult and tear down its adherents especially when they just believe they are trying to follow in his example and teachings and be more like him even when it costs them greatly more than you or I would ever know.

Bryan

Just to be clear — “On a different note, Stanley Hauerwas has mentioned that as disciples take a non-violent stance toward their enemies they actually may be making the world a more violent place and that’s ok.”

That’s OK? In what way? If a burglar breaks into one’s home and he does nothing to protect his family that is in no way Christ-like and he is a coward personally and spiritually. “Turn the other cheek…” doesn’t mean lay down as bullies and criminals rob, rape, and kill.

I doubt you meant that.

Are you still there? Quixote (in #22) you tried to summarize what you thought might be Brett’s take as this:

Israel warred and committed violent acts (that would completely violate the Geneva Convention) as directed by God, but under CHRIST we have a new directive and that directive never includes declaring war or participating in violence against another human being.

I personally think there is something to be said for this synopsis…it could be filled out and explained a bit more but I wonder what you think of it yourself.

Wesley (#30),
Thanks for explaining your present understanding of this topic through your 6 points and mentioning Luke 22 as an important passage to wrestle with in relation to this topic. I have wrestled with it myself and have come down in different ways over the years but here is what I would say now: Notice at what point you have to begin making an educated guess…what might the meaning and purpose be of the swords???

You said, “…but what else do swords do except kill something? TYPICALLY they were used to fight off bandits and beasts on the roads. So there are APPARENTLY certain circumstances where it is appropriate, although when Peter used his against the authority it was apparently not one of THOSE times. But he was still allowed to carry it for something.” I have wondered if this text might be for the purpose of seeing Jesus’ ongoing struggle with the temptation to bow to Satan so that all the Kingdoms of this world would be given to Him by a short cut…then this passage would be displaying the struggle of Jesus in his humanity in a way similar to the passage where Jesus in the garden asks the Father to let this (the cross) cup pass. But perhaps the text itself goes further to answer the question than what we have recognized when it says: “For I tell you, that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH THE TRANSGRESSORS’.” Peter’s having a sword and attempting to trust in it rather than in the way of the Lord is actually an opportunity for Jesus to be numbered among the people who have consistently fallen short of faith and fidelity. This then is part of Jesus identifying with Israel in all their shortcomings. Now even as at His first baptism, he fully identifies with the people.. Anyway, Jesus told the disciples to get a sword so that he might be “NUMBERED WITH THE TRANSGRESSORS”.

On a different note, Stanley Hauerwas has mentioned that as disciples take a non-violent stance toward their enemies they actually may be making the world a more violent place and that’s ok.
Here is a different thought, something that we maybe unconscious of as we read and comment on this blog is how much we might be infected with the idea that God, in order to be JUST, has to be on a mission to do the greatest “good” to the greatest number of people. This idea may have an unnoticed influence on everything from “just-war” to “the abortion issue.” I mean did the O.T. prophets ever tell Israel it was their job to discern what would do the greatest number of earthlings the greatest “good”? No. Has Jesus ever told his disciples that they are to discern and disentangle all contingencies and ramifications from the spectrum of possible actions they might take to determine what will actually bring about the “greatest good for the greatest number of humans”? No, Thank God, No. He has, on the other hand, told us what to do: love, even our enemies… even to the point of a cross. And as far as the greatest number of humans is concened…”shall not the judge of the whole earth do what is right?”…

So what must God do to be Just? If we desire to align our thinking with the prophetic scriptures, we may be helped by noticing that our English words “just”, “justice“, and “righteous” all have a common root word in the language of the New Testament which could be translated “legitimate.” So, what must God do to be legitimate? Well, not the greatest “good” (what ever that might mean) for the greatest number of creatures, but God has communicated that to show Himself legitimate he will demonstrate the richness of his generosity (grace) upon Abraham’s descendents according to His promise, AND He will overcome all his enemies, destroying every man made god in a final judgment. These are the things that God can and will do to demonstrate that He is just, righteous, and legitimate.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

“There is a big difference between disagreeing and being slanderous and bashing people…this is what the Left in both political and theological circles dont understand..when conservatives debate, its not personal…its a point/counterpoint conversation that how ever heated it gets, there are no hard feelings…
with Libs, if one debates a position other than the one they believe, its a personal attack and it turns into an emotional, self righteous, prideful, arrogant argument as opposed to a debate. ”

Feel free to correct me, but I read that paragraph as implying at least: “Conservatives as a whole debate important issues but Liberals as a whole are incapable of doing so.”

There are some on the Left who can’t hold a civil discussion, some who are excellent conversationalists, and there a lot of people in the middle.
Same exact thing goes for those on the Right.