Here's what's confusing to me. Greg says:

I’ve come to see the taking of human life as demonically arrogant – demonic, because it expresses hopelessness in another, which is the opposite of love (I Cor. 13:7), and arrogant, because only the giver of life can justifiably take it.

Then later, he says:

Some may in fact experience outrage at my (Jesus') suggestion that violence is never appropriate for Kingdom people.

So is he saying that anyone who kills for any reason is demonically arrogant, or is he saying that only "Kingdom people" are demonically arrogant for killing for any reason?

Post Edited (jefscott) : 6/3/2007 9:53:06 AM (GMT-5)

We hear the saying that a view is "too heavenly minded to be any earthly good." This has led me to think about consequentialism and the ways of looking at it. By one way, we could say that there is a moral "way" which produces best consequences for our neighbor only when post-mortem consequences are factored in. By another way, we could say that by loving our neighbor as ourself, we generate the best consequences for our neighbor in this life whether or not we are loved back. But this results in the best consequences even for us when we take into account post-mortem consequences.

I tend to think this second way is what the bible teaches. We are to maximize the good of our neighbor in this life, whether or not it does us any good in this life. Indeed, Christ seems to make it clear that by loving our neighbor as ourself we will suffer in this life for it. But we are to suffer it with joy knowing that the sufferings aren't worthy to be compared with what we will receive, post-mortem.

If this is correct, then the question is, did Christ ever clearly teach that we are to promote anarchy for the world because our neighbor will be better off in this world without government? Don't get me wrong, I don't think human nature will allow that to ever happen, regardless. But did Christ even say such a thing? I don't know of anything he said that even sounds like that.

There are things he said that one could take as warnings against involvement in the State. And there are plenty of things that the bible says that implicitly warn about such kinds of involvement. But that is as much as I could see in his words. Doc says, e.g.,

I’ve been taught that violence is cyclical, and that if you live by the sword you’ll die by the sword.

Post Edited (jefscott) : 6/3/2007 1:15:48 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 6/3/2007 5:08:12 PM (GMT-5)

Brandon: however I don't think this would make him feel the use of non-lethal means would be any different--it is not out of love to coerce lethally or non-lethally.  Thus any coercion would be demonically arrogant because it falls short of love.

Jeff: If I'm following you, Brandon, you're saying that Doc, taken to a logical conclusion, is saying that all coercion is unloving--that even intervening between fighting teenagers is unloving because it is coercive. But I also take you to be saying that Doc can't yet consciously consent to that degree of non-coercion. Is that right? If so, all the more reason to tone down the "demonically arrogant" language for now and think this stuff through thoroughly. Judging needs to be done with caution.

My contention is that it is certainly true that Christ is saying that yielding boasts over coercion much (or even most) of the time. But only in the sense that most of the time it works better consequences for our neighbors in this life. Because it is more conducive to peace-making. But it seems highly improbable that letting adrenalin-pumped 14-year olds poke out each others eyes (even volitionally) works better consequences in this life for anyone.

And hence, Christ may be allowing for the fact that some non-retaliatory intervention and coercive resistance is love. Just like he doesn't address every case of divorce. In which case demonic arrogance is not necessarily present even in those who actually do kill wrongly, but with benevolent motive and insufficient wisdom. Error? Yes. Demonic arrogance? Not necessarily.

Jeff: If I'm following you, Brandon, you're saying that Doc, taken to a logical conclusion, is saying that all coercion is unloving--that even intervening between fighting teenagers is unloving because it is coercive. But I also take you to be saying that Doc can't yet consciously consent to that degree of non-coercion. Is that right? If so, all the more reason to tone down the "demonically arrogant" language for now and think this stuff through thoroughly. Judging needs to be done with caution.

Brandon:  I was thinking about Greg's views on his consistent love ethic over the past few weeks.  This is how I understand him.  Greg has talked about this in the past.  He thinks that individuals in society can do and be good, but laws don't make people want to act out of charity towards God or others.  Laws more or less coerce.  Yet I agree with you that Greg is a little confusing here in that he doesn't consent to that level of non-coercion.

But I disagree to some degree with Greg about laws coercing.  Yes, they do do that.  But I also think they do substantially change people through society as a whole.  For example, we have laws for equal opportunity and against sexism.  While there are still some people who hold out and think that women shouldn't be in the work place or have the same opportunity as men?  The general consensus amongst the majority of people is almost the total opposite of that.  And most people don't feel as if they are being coerced to have to live with such a law.  We accept it in the same way we breath air.  Most don't blink an eye at equal opportunity.  To some real extent, though, this consensus and general attitude was achieved not simply by convincing others to align with this consensus, but was done so through the institution of the law.  Sure, they may not be living with equal opportunity out of love for their neighbor (and the law may not have been created out of love for women), but I don't see why this has to be the case.  Isn't it enough that it is so ingrained in the public consciousness that they simply live out of that consensus/consciousness "naturally?"

Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 6/3/2007 10:37:19 PM (GMT-5)

I hear ya, Brandon. But I'm actually to the point that I'm not about arguing what's true anymore. It's more important to me that Greg is consistent with his own views. I listened to his sermon on conflict in relationships last night, and it made a lot of excellent points--one of which was the problem of erroneous judging. So from where I sit, If Greg admits "the obvious -- that this world is the kind of world where it seems that violence (I suspect he means force) is necessary," doesn't he need a compelling exegesis to demonstrate that Jesus actually taught the demonic arrogance of all and any killing? To trump "the obvious," doesn't one need something pretty convincing? Like the idea that the Torah was demonic. Yet Jesus never seems to be explicit about such an idea.

Look at Paul's life. Wasn't his life a life of exemplary self-sacrifice? Yet right after talking about non-retaliation in Rom. 12, he immediately follows it up with the "good" ministry of the state, a ministry which we are to consentingly support via taxes for that reason. I'm just not seeing how Doc is making his case, exegetically, clearly enough to justify the kind of judging of the heart he did in that post. I'm setting my standard of criticism to the level of mere self-consistency. And I'm not seeing how he's made a sufficient case to justify that "discernment," as he calls it in the sermon.

I think I'll try to find a way to email him on the site and ask for clarification. I doubt seriously he is even meaning to convey what it sounds like. But it's hard not to hear it that way when he throws the term "demonic" out there at least twice to my memory.  And this in a post about Memorial Day! I just think it could have been worded better. I'm an opponent of American wars. But because they are violations of just war criteria, to my mind. Amazingly enough, the federalist papers explained that the war-declaring power was given to the legislature, as opposed to the executive branch, precisely to avoid that very situation. IOW, I don't think it is necessary, just to oppose war, to assume that any and every one that has killed for any reason had to have demonic arrogance. That's all I'm getting at.

Post Edited (Sahid) : 6/6/2007 11:25:48 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Sahid) : 6/6/2007 4:37:02 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Sahid) : 6/6/2007 7:58:48 PM (GMT-5)

Jeff: because it seems to imply that the OT is hogwash.

Zach: I completely disagree. It is not the case that all the OT is the literal inerrant infallible word of God or else complete hogwash. However pacifism "implies" this, it does not imply it logically.

Jeff: Right. I said "seems" to imply. I.e., some people find it more plausible to marry the NT to the OT by contextually conditioning meaning in such a way that the OT doesn't have be taken any less literal than any other literature. Like you say, "honest and intelligent people can disagree." That's all I'm saying--you don't have to have "demonic arrogance" to believe there are really rare cases where killing might be legitimate.

Zach: I believe that honest and intelligent people can disagree about this. But I have personally seen intelligent people with greater credentials than I whom I respect refuse to even consider the issues of literary criticism surrounding this issue. People who have the patience to go into incredible detail to determine how long Paul stayed in Ephesus seem to have a mental block when touching the question of what 'the sword' means in Luke's gospel.

Jeff: I agree. Personally, I don't get a warm fuzzy about either of the two interpretations you provided of the passage I quoted. I don't have an interpretation that I feel really good about either. That's the point. Language is not always really easy. But the other passage is so easily linked to Revelation, it makes it relatively easy for me to see how Christ is saying that he is not yet come to reign, and therefore, there is no point in fighting as if he was up to physically conquering his enemies at that time.

The other passage is not one I would use to argue for self defense. It may just be a figure of speech to emphasize the fact that they were about to enter into a dangerous situation that normally would be considered one that justified such preparation. Since Christ said he could call 10,000 angels, it's obvious he didn't really need them to bring swords. I would see this kind of interpretation, as lame as it is, more plausible than either of the other two. The other two seem too strained to me.

Jeff: Or the problem of living with the guilt of having done nothing to prevent great harm to people when it was easy enough to prevent it.

Zach: That is God's problem first. He is the most capable. If we are blaming people for allowing evil, we've got to blame Hitler, Stalin, and Mao on God.

Jeff: All I'm saying is that absolute pacifism is not clear in the NT. Short of that, it is simply natural for a parent to feel obligated to intervene to defend their children or others. When one of the strongest feelings of obligation is not trumped by a clear testimony about pacifism or a strong belief about the particular theodicy you hold to, it is only natural to feel guilt when you don't act off of that feeling of obligation.

I don't think many people hold to your theodicy. And you continue to use it as an argument. And it obviously is a strong argument for you. I'm just saying that lost of people can't get on board with it, and so they only have equivocal NT text vs. their most plausible understanding of "love your neighbor" and an OT that doesn't seem to portray any of it's writers as having your theodicy. Indeed, my understanding of Christ's prophecies is, itself, incompatible with your theodicy. None of this stuff is as easy as Doc is making it out to be.

If he had said "honest and intelligent people can disagree," that would of been totally different. He doesn't even have to believe that honest people can disagree. He just needs to know when his argument is weak enough to not call those who disagree demonically arrogant. To use D's words, that's not helpful. That is literally all I'm suggesting. Like I told Brandon, I'm not arguing to change people's mind. I'm arguing to promote understanding of other perspectives. We can wait on God for the rest.

Post Edited (jefscott) : 6/6/2007 9:35:32 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Sahid) : 6/7/2007 1:08:43 AM (GMT-5)