Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > Pacifism Again

Forum Quick Jump

40 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 6/18/2009 8:12 AM (GMT -6)

It looks like that URL you posted has a bunch of stuff.

Thanks.

T

Daniel M
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263

Posted 6/18/2009 1:59 PM (GMT -6)

Hey Tom,

I wasn't trying to suggest that you can't talk about it intelligently. I'm more of a lurker then a poster, but you're pretty bright

. Boyd has a tendency to over-simplify his categories in relation to pacifism. I think it's because he's trying not to stray too far from the "evangelical" standpoint, which is where most of his readership comes from. It's like trying to talk about the open-view without getting into the details concerning knowledge of the future. Something just seems to be missing. As such, I think he loses some consistency. While the general points he makes are the general points pacifists make, I think he reasons those points out with a little more concern for his reading base then for theological consistency.

I've never heard of any pacifist who would claim that God is a pacifist. It's applying categories to God that simply aren't applicable. Concerning the imitation of Christ being the grounding of pacifism in the New Testament, you're right. It's primarily from Christs example, and teaching, that we get the bases for our ethic. I don't see how it necessarily follows that because the Son, manifested as a human, was a pacifist we must assume the God-Head is a pacifist. Much of the NT is concerned with imitating Christ in certain ways, for example, taking up one's cross, and establishing the kingdom. And Jesus claimed some very specific things concerning the methods we are to employ in carrying out that imitation.

As far as anninas and sappirha go, I see no reason why the Spirit is in the wrong in taking their lives. I don't see the text implying that Peter somehow told the Spirit what to do and had it kill them, or that Peter used the force to kill them once they were finished speaking.

I'll try to respond to some other comments when I get some time.

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 6/18/2009 2:34 PM (GMT -6)

Thanks Daniel. I downloaded several of Yoder's articles. Read a few already.

T

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 6/18/2009 6:07 PM (GMT -6)

Greg had said about a year or more ago that he sees Christ's teachings in the Sermon as being new revelation for a new postmillenial way of bringing in the kingdom. That's probably the real ground of it all. He didn't use those words, but the gist of his successive posts was essentially that. But to say that Christ was a pacifist because he never acted violently (except for the temple event) is silly. Millions of people (including virtually every christian I've ever known) live physically peaceful lives and have no agreement with pacifism whatsoever.

Daniel M
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263

Posted 6/18/2009 6:51 PM (GMT -6)

Similtude said...
But to say that Christ was a pacifist because he never acted violently (except for the temple event) is silly.

To say that Jesus acted violently at the temple is silly. Unless herding cattle is violent, and disrupting corrupt money exchangers is violent. And that all depends to what degree physical activity is violent, and what we mean by non-violence (and subsequently violence), and what we mean by pacifism. All of which are nuances that need to be addressed. To write it off as silly, is borderline intellectual dishonesty.

In terms of the open view. It's just like saying "God knows everything. So it's silly to think that he can't know the future." Well, then we have to talk about various categories of knowledge, what it means to know everything, and understand the nuances of the argument.

To say that pacifism is solely based on Jesus's happenstance peaceful life is silly, because it ignores all the arguments, and evidence that his peaceful lifestyle was anything but happenstance. IOW, Jesus made it very clear WHY he was acting the way he did, and it wasn't just because no one was attacking him (cept, actually, people WERE attacking him).

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 6/19/2009 6:09 AM (GMT -6)

Daniel: To say that pacifism is solely based on Jesus's happenstance peaceful life is silly, ...

Jeff: But none of Greg's other arguments prove that a christian can't be a police. That's the problem.

Daniel: because it ignores all the arguments, and evidence that his peaceful lifestyle was anything but happenstance. IOW, Jesus made it very clear WHY he was acting the way he did, and it wasn't just because no one was attacking him

Jeff: OK WHY did Jesus act the way he did such that it follows that a christian can't be a police? That's what I can't get to. I get that such jobs may involve compromise to keep that job. But I don't see what that has to do with pacifism PER SE. Maybe we're defining pacifism differently.

Daniel M
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263

Posted 6/21/2009 11:01 AM (GMT -6)

Jeff said...
But none of Greg's other arguments prove that a christian can't be a police. That's the problem.

Let me ask a question before I respond. Does it matter what nation the christian is in?

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 7/3/2009 6:04 PM (GMT -6)

Sorry, Daniel. I've been out of town for a several days. To answer your question, as I understand it, the function of the state is the same no matter what country it functions in. There is no radical relativity for police. They are to serve a very specific function as I understand it. That allows for the normal diversity of judgment for tough calls. But every man is to be fully persuaded in their own mind. I suspect most police are not particularly given to moral judgment about their job descriptions. Just like most soldiers probably aren't the least concerned about just war criteria. But that doesn't mean that being a soldier or a police is wrong PER SE. It just means that it may be very difficult to be a police or a soldier for fallen governments and STILL be consistent with the scripturally-described role of the state. I agree with Greg on this much. But that has no bearing on whether I can use force to defend my neighbor from molesters, rapists, etc in a NON-retaliatory way.

Sahid
Megistered Rember

Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013

Posted 7/4/2009 11:44 AM (GMT -6)

From what I've read from Daniel, I think I am in basic agreement (though I don't know if he'd agree with my stuff). Boyd doesn't do justice to theological pacifism. It seems like he still is very concerned about being able to "participate." The short-term utilitarianism of such participation is fundamentally at odds with the starting place of many Christian pacifists. I doubt I'll be able to post much any time soon. But I'd like to chime in whenever I get a chance. The contradiction that Tom finds in Boyd's treatment of Colson and Romans 12 is one I also see. How about this:

We are called to imitate Christ who only does what he sees the Father doing (Tom's observation that pacifists often appeal to imitation of Christ and the Christlikeness of the Father). So how do we read Romans 12-13? I'll start out using Boyd's characterization. We are to leave vengeance to God. Romans 13 shows us how God takes vengeance. He uses the sword of the authorities. Did God literally put the authorities in power? Did he divinely inspire Octavius' propaganda; did the Spirit influence those in power to lend their support? Doubtful. At least Paul makes no reference to such a miracle. The authorities got into power the same way they always get into power: by "getting their hands dirty." So what does it mean to say God establishes them? What does it mean to say God establishes you or me? This is sustenance and providence. He actively keeps us going, and where we go is largely up to us.

The best biblical example of God "using" the sword is the exile. Habakkuk deals with our same problem in his own way. How could God use an evil people doing an evil act and call it justice? The answer is basically this: The punishment your people receive is deserved and the punishment the Babylonians will receive (punishment expressly FOR executing THIS punishment) will also be fitting. Putting aside for a moment the literary question of how metaphorical or not the author is being in his language of God's direct action, has God actually executed vengeance? No! The Babylonians were imperialists just like other imperialist doing what imperialists always do. He has observed others harming his people and he has appropriated it. How is that different from what Paul describes? God establishes all of us, the entire world. He appropriates ("uses" ) even what we intend for evil. That's how God takes "vengeance". By allowing the weeds to grow with the wheat.

Direct discipline within a freely accepted bilateral covenant is something else...

Post Edited (Sahid) : 7/4/2009 11:50:51 AM (GMT-5)

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 7/4/2009 12:22 PM (GMT -6)

Z: The best biblical example of God "using" the sword is the exile.

J: Why is that the best? Is it because we know somehow that the Torah was never divinely given? For if the Torah WAS divinely given, then the Torah seems to be the absolute BEST example of God "using" the sword. But how do we rule out the divine origin of the Torah without circular reasoning on the subject at hand?

Sahid
Megistered Rember

Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013

Posted 7/5/2009 4:19 AM (GMT -6)

Jeff, I'm done with it. You consistently misrepresent what I write. I don't know why. I explain myself over and over and you keep putting words in my mouth, maybe not explicitly this time but I get the point. It's only frustrating. No good comes from it. So this is my last contact with you. You've been ignoring what I've said for quite a while, now I've chosen to do the same.

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 7/5/2009 7:56 AM (GMT -6)

No problem, Zach. But I assure you that I'm not intentionally misrepresenting you. I TRULY don't see how in the world the Torah does not represent the most DIRECT (and, hence, BEST) example of God's use of the "sword." And I TRULY don't see how we could argue otherwise without assuming that pacifism is known to be true INTUITIVELY, independent of Judaism or Christianity even BEING true.

From now on, rather than engage you by questions, I'll just do my best to respond to what you say by explaining what I see problematic about it. I assure you I WON'T be intentionally trying to misrepresent you. It's not like I'm the only person in the world or on this forum who can't see how to get pacifism out of the bible, after all.

Daniel M
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263

Posted 7/5/2009 11:08 AM (GMT -6)

Hey Jeff, no problem on the delay. Thanks for getting back to me.

Jeff said...
To answer your question, as I understand it, the function of the state is the same no matter what country it functions in. There is no radical relativity for police.

But this is demonstrably false. There might not be any radical relativity for police in idealized democratic societies per se, but no idealized democratic society exists, and therefore no idealized democratic police force exists. I think it's misleading to go about discussing government power relations in abstract social theory, such terminology has a tendency to idealize the state, and its use of power (either violent, or non-violent), and doesn't do justice to the actual fallen state of society as a whole, and by extension, the government

Jeff said...
They are to serve a very specific function as I understand it. That allows for the normal diversity of judgment for tough calls. But every man is to be fully persuaded in their own mind. I suspect most police are not particularly given to moral judgment about their job descriptions.

This is, perhaps, true in the American Criminal Justice System. But we can't use the American standard as the universal norm. Not every social democracy is the same, and this doesn't even speak to the parts of the world where the government is not democratic. There are a number of nations where joining the police force would create a duty to arrest any Christians you might know. The police are an extension of the Government just as much as the military is. Their role is slightly different, of course, but the vocation entails the supposition of obedience to the political powers that be. And that could be an elected official just as easily as an authoritarian ruler. The idealized notion of police simply being the force that keeps order in a society and protects the weak, innocent, and helpless is (in my experience) a romanticized fantasy that American (and perhaps all western) society tells itself.

Jeff said...
But that has no bearing on whether I can use force to defend my neighbor from molesters, rapists, etc in a NON-retaliatory way.

I think this all boils down to what we consider violence and force. I would say that getting yourself between the assailant and victim so that the assailant must do violence to you instead of his/her intended victim is fine. I would NOT agree to attacking the assailant by means of punches, kicks, etc. But I'm all in favor of getting physically involved, we can't be detached observers. There is a fine line, and it's impractical, if not impossible to give responses to every possible encounter. The general idea of pacifism, as I understand it, is to be a willing proxy for the victims, to sacrifice my body and well-being in order for them to escape or to hinder/stop the attack. Then, if the attack was successfully stopped, begin work on restorative justice and reconciliation.

Post Edited (Daniel M) : 7/5/2009 1:02:28 PM (GMT-5)

Daniel M
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263

Posted 7/5/2009 1:09 PM (GMT -6)

Hey Sahid,

Sahid said...
How could God use an evil people doing an evil act and call it justice? The answer is basically this: The punishment your people receive is deserved and the punishment the Babylonians will receive (punishment expressly FOR executing THIS punishment) will also be fitting. Putting aside for a moment the literary question of how metaphorical or not the author is being in his language of God's direct action, has God actually executed vengeance? No! The Babylonians were imperialists just like other imperialist doing what imperialists always do. He has observed others harming his people and he has appropriated it. How is that different from what Paul describes? God establishes all of us, the entire world. He appropriates ("uses" ) even what we intend for evil. That's how God takes "vengeance". By allowing the weeds to grow with the wheat.

I think this is a good description of whats going on.

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 7/5/2009 2:46 PM (GMT -6)

Daniel: The idealized notion of police simply being the force that keeps order in a society and protects the weak, innocent, and helpless is (in my experience) a romanticized fantasy that American (and perhaps all western) society tells itself.

Jeff: I agree. But that doesn't address the idea of whether a just recompense by government is wrong simply BECAUSE it is a use of force. Is that what you're saying?

40 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 7:41 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual