Christian Goodreaders discussion

Aggressive violence by humans against each other has been part of the fabric of human life since Cain killed Abel. We recognize this as sin that results from the Fall of humanity. But what about defensive violence? Obviously, this too wouldn't exist apart from the Fall; but is it also a sin? Christians have debated this question since the earliest centuries of the Church's existence, and continue to do so today.

A book that provides a useful starting point for the study of Christian thinking on this topic is War: 4 Christian Views, edited by Robert G. Clouse. If anyone's interested, my review is here: www.goodreads.com/review/show/42722055 .

My own perception of this issue is shaped by having been on both sides of it. As a young Christian, back in the early 70s, under the influence of having read various writings by or about the early Anabaptists and modern-day Amish, I embraced the Christian pacifist position. Seriously studying that view in a Mennonite seminary context in 1979-81, however, made me aware of contradictions and tensions inherent in it, and by the early 80s, I came to embrace a "just war" view instead.

Probably the best-known and most influential modern statement of the Christian pacifist position is The Politics of Jesus: Vicit Agnus Noster, by Mennonite theologian John Howard Yoder (d. 1997). I've read this book, and find it ultimately unconvincing, but I've never reviewed it. A balanced review can be found here: www.goodreads.com/review/show/530801876 .

Sojouners has an interesting article on Christian nonviolence https://sojo.net/magazine/january-201...

I believe as Christians we should stand up for our beliefs I am not suggesting violence, but the more passive we are the more we loose there is always some one wanting a cross taken down, or a nativity set removed We allowed prayers taken from our schools, and sports. Standing up for Christ is important. I do it a lot. I may not change anything, but I feel like I at least have tried Political Correctness has given recognition to all but Christians. God did not ask us to turn the other cheek forever. We are also to be warriors.

Pamela wrote: "God did not ask us to turn the other cheek forever." That phrase reminded me of an incident from the ministry of John Wesley, which he described later in his own writings. His preaching sometimes aroused opposition, sometimes aggressively violent opposition. On one occasion, a fellow offended by his message hauled off and hit him across the face. Mindful of the Biblical injunction, Wesley turned the other cheek, whereupon the guy slugged him again. At that point, Wesley wrote, "lacking further instructions, I proceeded to thrash him soundly."

Pamela, can you provide me with a reference to indicate where he felt we were to stop turning the other cheek?

Although we're called to be warriors, it's clear our battle in that respect is with the spiritual forces. The armour we're to wear and our weaponry is to do with truth, righteousness and faith.

Lynne, I know your question was addressed to Pamela; but (if Pamela doesn't mind, since the discussion as a whole is open to anyone), I'll toss out a thought or two for consideration.

Arguments from silence are notoriously tenuous, and sometimes prove to be double-edged. That's the case here, since we could just as well ask, where is the reference to indicate that he expected the cheek-turning policy to continue beyond the first blow? Obviously, the answer to both questions would be, "There isn't one." The lack of explicit amplification reflects the fact that, as 20th-century Lutheran commentator R. C. H. Lenski wrote of the Sermon on the Mount as a whole, "Jesus does not legislate."

In Jesus' teaching, examples abound of extreme statements made in deliberately exaggerated language for forceful effect, to make a spiritual point for not-always-spiritual listeners. "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters... he cannot be my disciple," Luke 14:26. "For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have made themselves eunuchs because of the kingdom of heaven," Matthew 19:12. "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you," John 6:53. (That isn't an exhaustive list, merely a smattering of examples.) Not many people would argue that these statements are to be taken literally.

Rather than taking Matthew 5:39 as a literal legalistic ordinance for Christians, as some do (though some who do would draw the line at taking 5:40 in the same way!), it seems plausible to see it in terms similar to the verses above, as exaggerated language that makes a point forcefully --that point being, in context, that Jesus' disciples have a different agenda than the self-centered pursuit of our own legalistic rights at another's expense; that we're called to make peace, as far as it depends on us; and that it's preferable to suffer injustice rather than to inflict it. Jesus' more likely intention here is to foster that inner attitude, rather than to provide his listeners with a specific rule to be codified as covering all situations involving a facial blow. (In those types of situations, I think, followers of Christ might legitimately adapt their response, under the guidance of the Spirit, to the specific and varying circumstances.)

All Scripture is authoritative, and all Scripture is consistent with itself. Formulating broad and binding rules of behavior that we see as incumbent on all humans, or on all Christians (and whether the two are the same or different is a question that seriously divides Christian pacifists) is ideally a process that involves the study of Scripture in its totality, to consider the bearing of all of the different parts on the whole. For that reason, citing single texts on one side or the other as incontrovertible "proof texts" that settle the question by themselves is unlikely to yield ultimately convincing results.

I agree, Werner. People often pull verses out of context without taking the bible as a whole. So many people point to the verse where Jesus tells the apostles to make sure they have a sword as evidence that Jesus is just fine with self defense, in spite of the fact that there's so little evidence in Jesus' other words (if any at all) that he's okay with that.
Any interpretation drawn from that scene needs to take into account the following scene, when Jesus rebukes Peter for using what is probably the very same sword. Jesus' own death doesn't appear to be advocating self-defense, although many would probably say that he came to die so he wouldn't have on that occasion. However, all the apostles (apart from John) also all went to their deaths with no evidence of self-defense (although admittedly, details on their deaths are sketchy) as did many, many, many Christians in the early church.
As someone who has read the bible all the way through several times I'm aware of the need for context and viewing it as a whole document, while still being aware that it is made up of numerous books by different authors written over a long period of time. All things need to be balanced when drawing conclusions from any verse of the bible.

Thank you Werner..I said in the beginning of my statement that I did not refer to violent measures. Would you recommend that we sit back Lynn with out speaking up for our Christian ideals. I have sons, and a huband, and Uncles, and a father who fought in the wars of this great nation, so that many people can enjoy the liberty that they share today.War is wrong, but even Christ mentioned there would always be war, and rumors of war. I also understand that putting on your spiritual armor is important, but faith with out works is dead. Shall we all allow our religious freedoms to be taken away, and just remain passive, and not speak up? Does God not want us to stand for our faith. We may differ on this, but Christians cannot complain when all are liberties are gone, if we have never spoken up...In all things there is a time..A time for war, a time for peace..I am not saying grab a gun...write your congressmen, your senator..stand up when people loose a company because they stood for religious principles..Prayer has gone from schools yet Muslum days of worship are noted by our president. We are even referred to being a non Christian nation by our president. I ask you when do you say my faith is as important as yours? My rights are the same..as yours, but I am not asking you to give up symbols of your faith. When the Bibles are collected, or you are arrested for prayer..Will it be time then? I am sure not all germans were evil, but Hitler was, and he turned even the children against their families..I simply say wake up America..God has blessed our nation...shall we not shout his name from the rooftops..without fear? Shall we not go to church without worry? The days are here when Christians are being put to death for their faith..all I say is be aware..as we are to be aware of his returning..Christ said not to be afraid to stand for him..Does that just mean in your thought? I do not ask anything of others, but to Listen, be aware, prayer is wonderful, and we should pray all the time..but he also warned about praying for the hungry and walking away was not a good thing..We are to also be workers...That's all I said..Think about your vote...don't stay home...each one of us can make a difference...I was not quoting specifics..I was sharing my thoughts when I read...you can be a spiritual warrior, a prayer warrior, but I believe what we say..what we stand up for is being a warrior as well..You do not have to agree with me...I am not out to hurt anyone, but neither will I not say I feel it is wrong, for me to not stand up literally for my Christian beliefs...in the end God's will shall stand..not mine, and not yours...but I feel a little better about my life, when I stand up for my Flag, and my country, our veterans, and our Lord.....
,